Bricks in the Egyptian Pyramid: where from?

studytruth

Well-known member
Messages
84
Reactions
361
Yes I saw the bricks too in that climbing video. I saw a few other anomalies in the parts of his climb. My personal opinion is that the bricks are modern...say like 1900 or 1920. I think they are some type of entrance or shaft going to other chambers in the pyramid. After they had been fully explored they were bricked up and made sure no one else would explore...and the brick could not be sseen from the ground.
On my next trip to Giza, my newest camera has a tremendous zoom. I think I will take time on each face to just zoom in tight to every part of every side from bottom to top to see just how many strange things such as this there are
 

wild heretic

Well-known member
Messages
156
Reactions
504
I've been thinking a bit about this. Such a good find.
That's probably why the authorities don't want people climbing up there. I know there is the damage issue, but why delete his memory card on his camera? Probably because we might find out the pyramid is just made of bricks.

Reminds me a lot of Rome, where supposedly during Augstus's reign he said he had turned Rome from a city of brick to one of Marble... marble veneer that is, aka a type of cement.

I'm just looking into the bullshit dating of the roman emperors at the moment, and it is so far looking like Augustus was really Constantine the Great, and the date was the early 14th century perhaps.

(Edit: Sry, wrong map.) I meant the Hereford map dated to around 1300 AD. Now all we do is add 1000 years to the new chronology and Augustus Caesar is now dated to around 1300 AD which fits the new Chronolgy of Constantine the Great extremely well. He goes from the official 306 AD to 1306 AD. Boom!

The Roman emperor thing is very tricky as to the dates and who is really who.

Without going too far off topic, if you want a laugh, go to the wiki page of the list of Byzantine Emperors and look at the myriad of duplicate images they have attached to the different emperors.
List of Byzantine emperors - Wikipedia

Back to the pyramids. I was thinking that the tops of the narrow pyramids in the old illustrations probably aren't the Giza pyramids of today, as the tops today aren't narrow. It could be they have destroyed and removed the old pyramids and massive statue of that busty lady. Just the Sphinx remains.

The question then is when were the Giza pyramids of today built? Some time between 1300 and 1600 AD maybe? Possibly when Babylon moved from Persia to Cairo on the old maps.
 
Last edited:

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
514
Reactions
1,318
Reminds me of
Genesis 11:3-4
3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
166
Reactions
585
It seems that the Giza complex was partially destroyed and rebuilt because of the bricks found therein. Many castles in Europe have a patchwork repair job.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
666
Reactions
3,242
Egypt: Cheops Pyramid. /Nworkers Making Bricks And Building The Great Pyramid Of Cheops (Khufu) At Giza Egypt. Line Engraving From 'Diversarum Imaginum Speculativarum ' Published By Joannes Gallaeus At Antwerp 1638

24409


Probably the reason you aren't allowed to fly a drone at Giza.

To quote Zahi Hawass, "It's highly stupid," he said via a spokesman. "The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
288
Reactions
654
It seems that the Giza complex was partially destroyed and rebuilt because of the bricks found therein. Many castles in Europe have a patchwork repair job.
As mentioned in another thread, I have witnessed the "repair" of a small medieval castle ruin myself, about twenty years ago. And my grandmother told me there was another "repair 80 years ago. Mind you, the castle are ruines, supposedly razed already in medieval times because of crimes of the blue-blooded owner.
Why should the Egyptian pyramids be different in this regard, especially if there is something to hide ?
Or perhaps Napoleon just wanted to see them, and his whole military expedition followed him for lack of alternative pastimes.

I'm pretty sure Zahi Hawass, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of contemporary Egyptology, has no idea of the real history and purpose of the pyramids.
 

wild heretic

Well-known member
Messages
156
Reactions
504
Egypt: Cheops Pyramid. /Nworkers Making Bricks And Building The Great Pyramid Of Cheops (Khufu) At Giza Egypt. Line Engraving From 'Diversarum Imaginum Speculativarum ' Published By Joannes Gallaeus At Antwerp 1638


Probably the reason you aren't allowed to fly a drone at Giza.

To quote Zahi Hawass, "It's highly stupid," he said via a spokesman. "The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."

Stankman, I've found that image and just about every illustration made of the Giza area on one web page.
A History of the Great Pyramids at Giza; and, a Chronological catalog of descriptions and drawings from the Roman realm, including the Colossus known as The Sphinx

It's a great link to get an idea of when and what.

Basically, the earliest illustration of the Giza Pyramids is 1610 AD. That's a huge red flag right there.

- Information from "The Nose, Lips, Gender & Ethnicity of THE SPHINX OF GIZA, AD 639 - 21st Century: A Truthcentric Perspective" (original retrieved 2016-12-27, freemaninstitute.com) [archive.is/AVR34]: In 1610 George Sandys etched this image of the Giza Plaza, with a view of the Sphinx of Giza. The illustrator of George Sandys' Relations of a Journey began in 1610 made a much better job of depicting the Sphinx. Sandy must have made a pretty detailed sketch of it in the field, for the woodcut in his book is really remarkably apt in showing the erosion of the neck, with knobbly protuberances, and the damage to the head-dress, with grooves and notches. What is more, this illustration of Sandys' book largely avoids the cultural contamination with the classical style that spoils many of the contemporary renditions of Egyptian art.

Notice how the pyramids are in no way damaged in 1610. They are in perfect condition.

The same in 1620, although this time we can see some bricks in its construction at an "entrance".



1621 to show a close up of the bricks.



1643 and still no damage.



Same for 1646.


The most interesting image is the one made in 1608 depicting its construction!

* "The pyramids of Egypt under construction, workmen rest in the foreground" illustration credited to Antonia Tempesta; Plate 7 from "Septem orbis admiranda (The Seven Wonders of the World)", 1608 [archive.is/Xn8LW], :

Notice the kilns smoking away in the background. Kilns bake bricks. Of course they'll say this is the author's imagination on how he thought the pyramids had been built in x thousand years BC. But what if they were under construction in 1608!

Any illustration of the area before 1608 shows what Stankman has just shown, which are narrow much smaller pyramids and all sorts of stuff around them which aren't there today.

Another very important illustration to demonstrate this is the one from 1665 which not only shows a load of pyramids that aren't there today but also a "busty bald lady". You may think this was a bad rendition of the Sphinx, but if you look closely you can see the actual sphinx in the bottom right side of the illustration near the Nile.



Here is that statue again in 1679, but this time looking like a man. Those entrances at the bottom sides aren't there today. Or are they, and they are just buried under the sand?



When were the pyramids damaged? Between 1724 and 1759. How do we know? The illustrations.

1724 - no damage



1757 - that typical damage we see today

What caused the damage? My bet is on the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 which supposedly devastated north Africa. It also looks to have expanded the Atlantic Ocean and pushed and compressed California to the west.

Who built the pyramids and why? My bet is on the masons and the Catholic church. They are obssessed with pyramids and probably have some very practical knowledge about them and what they are for. The stone masons may be survivors and builders of a very old Egypt of the middle ages and before.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,417
The most interesting image is the one made in 1608 depicting its construction!

* "The pyramids of Egypt under construction, workmen rest in the foreground" illustration credited to Antonia Tempesta; Plate 7 from "Septem orbis admiranda (The Seven Wonders of the World)", 1608 [archive.is/Xn8LW], :
This is an amazing find, wild heretic! The 1569 Mercator map depicting Egypt does not show any pyramids that I can see.
 

wild heretic

Well-known member
Messages
156
Reactions
504
View attachment 24824

Perhaps it is evidence of forced entry that was covered up by the first looters. The last looters were not so discreet.

What's really interesting about that photo is that most of that entrance has been covered up with blocks both below and above the v-shaped arch since 1621.

pyramid.jpg

This proves that those "limestone" blocks were and can be made after 1621 and not by some ancient super duper tech civilization or "Aliens".
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
514
Reactions
1,318
Reading The Natural History of the Human Race, by Jeffries (1869), he says on pg 49
His works of art, such as burned brick, underlie even the foundations on the Pyramids.
(His= mankind in this sentence)

In fact, almost no googled references bring up the base beyond measurements.
I did find Flinders Petrie’s description, which is not burned brick. The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh by Sir Flinders Petrie 1883
This guy deserves a thread of his own- somewhat bizarre bio even in Wikipedia.

The pavement levels in brackets are on decidedly worn parts, and hence below the normal level, as shown in the fourth column. The average variation of the casing from a level plane of + 58.85 is but .02; and the difference to the core level, at the farthest part accessible in that excavation, does not exceed this. The difference of pavement level out to the rock at the N.E. corner is but .17 on a distance of 4,200 inches, or 8" of angle.

27. The works around the Pyramid, that are connected with it, are :

(1) The limestone pavement surrounding it;
(2) the basalt pavement on the E. side and
(3) the rock trenches and cuttings on the E. side, and at the N.E. corner.

p 45 The limestone pavement was found on the N. side first by Howard Vyse, having a maximum remaining width of 402 inches; but the edge of this part is broken and irregular, and there is mortar on the rock beyond it, showing that it has extended further. On examination I found the edge of the rock-cut bed in which it was laid, and was able to trace it in many parts. At no part has the paving been found complete up to the edge of its bed or socket, and it is not certain, therefore, how closely it fitted into it ; perhaps there was a margin, as around the casing stones in the corner sockets. The distances of the edge of this rock-cut bed, from the edge of the finished casing on the pavement (square of 9068.8) were fixed by triangulation as follows :

N.N.W.


N.side
N.N.E.

E.N.E.



S.S.W.

W.S.W.
616.9 near the corner; corner itself not found, nor any W.N.W. side.
615.9 at 570 E. of probable N.W. corner of pavement.
618.7 at 670 E.
616.2 at 890 E.
564 to 568 very rough and irregular, opposite entrance.
529.0 at N.E. corner, N. side of it.

538.8 at N.E. corner, E. side of it.
533.9 at 586 from N.E. corner.

No cutting found at S.E. corner.
536.5 at 846 from S.W. corner.
533.0 at 520 from S.W. corner.
534.6 at 206 from S.W. corner.
529.6 at S.W. corner, S. side of it.

536.0 at S.W. corner, W. side of it.
627.9 at 751 from S.W. corner.

From these measures it appears that there is no regularity in the width of the cutting; the distance from the casing varying 99 inches, and altering rapidly even on a single side. The fine paving may possibly have been regular, with a filling of rougher stone beyond it in parts; but if so, it cannot have exceeded 529 in width.

The levels of the various works around the Pyramid are as follow, taken from the pavement as zero :

Flat rock-bed of pavement W. of N.W. socket
Flat rock-bed of pavement beside N.W. socket
Flat rock-bed of pavement N. of N.W. socket
Flat rock-bed of pavement N.E. of N.W. socket
Flat rock-bed of pavement before entrance
Flat rock-bed of pavement inner end of E.N.E. trench
Basalt pavement, E. side of it
Basalt pavement, W. side, in excavation
23.7
21.6
17.0
15.9
27.1
26.9
+ 2.0
+ 2.0

p 46 The Pyramid pavement must then have varied from 17 to 27 inches in thickness; it was measured as 21 inches where found by Vyse.

28. The basalt pavement is a magnificent work, which covered more than a third of an acre. The blocks of basalt are all sawn and fitted together; they are laid upon a bed of limestone, which is of such a fine quality that the Arabs lately destroyed a large part of the work to extract the limestone for burning. I was assured that the limestone invariably occurs under every block, even though in only a thin layer. Only about a quarter of this pavement remains in situ, and none of it around the edges the position of it can therefore only be settled by the edge of the rock-cut bed of it. This bed was traced by excavating around its N., E., and S. sides; but on the inner side, next to the Pyramid, no edge could be found ; and considering how near it approached to the normal edge of the limestone pavement, and that it is within two inches of the same level as that, it seems most probable that it joined it, and hence the lack of any termination of its bed.

Referring, then, to the E. side of the Pyramid, and a central line at right angles to that (see Pl. ii.), the dimensions of the rock bed of the basalt paving are thus :
 

Samson4prez

Active member
Messages
67
Reactions
148
@KorbenDallas

As you state in the original thread

'Could concrete be used t build the Great Pyramids?

MIT professor says it could'

It def looks like concrete over bricks as the kid is climbing up!!
Concrete or some kind of plaster finish.
View attachment 24824

Perhaps it is evidence of forced entry that was covered up by the first looters. The last looters were not so discreet.
I watched a video trying to explain this which makes sense... Because of how the shafts are angled and the size of the sarcophagus in the kings chamber relative to the shafts.. In order to extract whatever was in the sarcophagus if it is relative to the size of the saracophagus, a tunnel would be needed since the angle of the shafts wouldn't allow you take it out of the pyramid otherwise... Also the tunnel was accurately dug to meet with the shaft as well as massive debris at the bottom of the shaft suggesting they dug it from the inside out.
 
Last edited:

studytruth

Well-known member
Messages
84
Reactions
361
Actually 2 researchers I think did a great job to explain the "forced entrance" the one we all use to enter the pyramid now, as dug not into the pyramid, but dug out of it- in order to take an object (they speculate the top of the coffer box) out as it would have been too big to walk up the shaft to the main entrance.
Article is here, it is on the 2nd part of it...you have to click along, to get to the complete part of their theory. I think they are very close to correct...maybe no the time frame or who, but they likely have the what correct.

Tunnel Vision – The Mysterious Forced Entry of the Caliph into the Great Pyramid of Giza
 
Top