Giza pyramids an objective view

Chris
 December 08, 2018
Comments (1)
Pre-history


The Giza Pyramids
-----------------------------
I'm only a laymen and have never seen these pyramids, but that hasn't stopped me from being fascinated by them and to have given much thought into the why, how, who and when of their construction. The textbook versions that we are taught have made less and less sense to me over the years. I am going to deal only with the three Giza pyramids, since I suspect that they were built at about the same time and had related but different functions.
To begin with I would like to examine the likelyhood of the conventional theory, that they were tombs for Pharoahs, being correct. The idea that any group of people would think of building a massive artificial mountain merely to bury a dead king is totally crazy, but let's assume that it could be a possibility. Since the dead king is going to be placed inside the pyramid, the interior is at least as important as the exterior, so let us examine how the mummy (or corpse) arrives at its final resting place.


According to conventional theory the mummy is transported by boat on the Nile river to Giza to a massive and purpose built "valley temple" where it is off loaded. At this valley temple some obscure ceremony takes place and then the mummy is transported along a massive and purpose built "causeway" to another massive and also purpose built " mortuary" temple. So far the mummy has had the benefit of huge, purpose built facilities in its final journey. At the "mortuary temple" the dearly departed king then undergoes whatever final treatment needed before being transport to the pyramid entrance. Up to this point the mummy has been treated "like a king", however on arrival at the pyramid entrance it suddenly has to continue its journey along narrow, cramped passageways where it is only possible for two preists to help with this part of the journey, one in front and one behind, because there is not enough space for more. If Khufu ever made it to the "afterlife" he would have had a serious headache from being bumped along these narrow passages. After being carried along these narrow passageways for some distance the mummy arrives at the "grand gallery", which is huge and has very high ceiling. If the pyramid builders were happy to have the mummy transported along the narrow passages up to that point, why the need for the "grand gallery", maybe Khufu had to wait there for his queen to join him!


The story so far, sounds extremely unlikely and I have some difficulty understanding how any sane person could have arrived at this theory, there is more however. After being transported in relative comfort the mummy arrives at an "ante chamber", after which it again has the indignity of having to move through a cramped area past a portcullis into the "kings chamber" where it is deposited into a custom built stone sarcophagus. Of course according to tradition the king would also be accompanied by "a few of his favorite things", which would also have to make the arduous journey along the narrow passageways. After the sacophagus is sealed I assume they then close the portcullis (three heavey stone doors) to prevent the mummy from escaping. The purpose of the portcullis is puzzling in the context of securing the burial chamber since they can be opened from the antechamber side without too much difficulty. And that is whole story in a nutshell according to textbook theory. Anyone gullible enough to actually believe this nonsense should seriously consider consulting a shrink.


Considering the knowledge and technical ability needed to build the pyramids there has to be a totally different reason for the construction of the pyramid complex at Giza, the coventional theory is pure fantasy and makes no sense, it is also an insult to the builders of the complex ( I believe it is a complex designed and built as such). Firstly I would consider the "valley temple", which is located on the Nile river bank ( at the time). The so-called temple, I think, was in reality a pump house to pump large volumes of water from the Nile to the pyramid. The "causeway" was actually the bed of an enclosed canal from the pumphouse to the pyramid. The "mortuary temple" would have had more than one purpose, but the most important would be to further pump water into various areas, both within and outside the pyramid. Each of the pyramids had a wall surrounding it and I assume this would form a moat around each one. There could also have been evaporators incorporated into the "mortuary temples" for refrigeration. Whatever function these pyramids had, they obviously needed a lot of water, so for any theory to be plausible, it must also explain why such a lot of water was needed. Each of the three main pyramids also had a unique interior design, which leads me to think that each one was a different phase in a specific fuction or process. There are a number of theories which have been proposed by various people, but since I am not an engineer or physicist I am probably not the best person to judge which is the most probable. That being said, I will give my humble opinion.


The most probable explanation in my humble opinion is the nuclear processing plant as espoused on the website "nuclearpyramid.com. Not being a nuclear physicist I cannot realy comment on the likleyhood of ancients having nuclear technology, but the processes described do seem to fit the structure of the pyramids and also explain why they should need such a lot of water. In addition to that no-one seems to have adequately explained how the portcullis systems in the various pyramids fit into overall design. I have read one suggestion which has three portcullis doors acting as a sort of automatic water level control in the kings chamber, I have serious doubts that this would actually work in practice for various reasons. To me they appear to be blast control doors to contain an unexpectected explosion of some sort. The fact that the Khufu "kings chamber" shows signs of having sustained an explosion which caused the chamber to expand would seem to support this theory. The portcullis arangement seems different in the various pyramids, the Khafre pyramid has two entrance passages each with a single portcullis "door", so I assume that the risk of a large explosion was lower in this pyramid, hence the protection is a single door on each passage. The Menkaure pyramid also has a triple door which seals off a complex series of chambers, which tells me that the risk of explosion in any, or all, of these chambers was quite high. The Khufu pyramid also has a triple door which would seal off only the kings chamber, which suggests that the queens chamber had no risk of explosion.


I my view the three pyramids at Giza were part of an intrgral design and the size of the pyramids had to do with their function and was not in any way connected to different pharoahs. There are also other bits and pieces around the Egyptian landscape which are unexplained, for instance, there are round concave objects with a hole about halfway up the side of the concave area, I don't know what they are, but I would hazard a guess that they are part of a motar and pestle device for grinding some kind of ore into a fine powder. I see a mixture of ore and water being ground up in these devices with the hole in the side plugged. When the material is fine enough the mixture is left to settle and the now finely ground ore is allowed to settle in the bottom of the bowl, when the mixture has sufficiently separated the water is drawn off through the hole in the side leaving a paste which can be sun dried, of course I have no idea what ore is being ground, I can only judge the function of these items by what I can see.


I am fully aware that my ideas around these pyramids will be scoffed at by many, but people should bear in mind that most of the textbook theories were arrived at by archeologists whose main aims were to provide substance to biblical writings, this means they did not have an objective view of what they found. Even today many universities have courses in what is called "biblical archeology", I fail to understand why archeoligists should have to be taught how to squeeze their observations into biblical theory, archeology does surely not need to be defined by religious beliefs. Anything which archeologists don't understand they automatically asign to some religious theory. This I believe has caused a lot of damage to our understanding of the past. And without a proper understanding of the past, we make our future more difficult.


All of the above leaves me with the difficult task of trying to guess when the complex at Giza was built. Of course, I have absolutely no idea, but I am convinced that the conventional theory of around 2500 BCE is probably not correct. I have read a book by William Gleeson who has some interesting theories around this subject, if he is correct, then the complex at Giza would have been built somewhere around 10000 BCE to 7000 BCE. I suspect that it could be much older than that and that repairs were probably carried out around 3000 BCE to 2000 BCE. It may be possible for some clever geologists to establish a timeline by calculating how long it would take for the river Nile to migrate from Giza to its current position. Quite a number of people support the theory that extraterestials built the pyramids but I am not a great fan of this theory.

Leave a comment

Keep me updated?

Comments are moderated.

Pete
December 20, 2018
Any ideas about the "satellite" pyramids, could they have also been part of the "complex".
   Reply

Quick Navigation

Month:
Author:
Category:

Chris

Latest Blogs

South Africa in DEEP Trouble Possible Origin of Sumerians ? Slippery Slope, or: The Economic Outlook for S.A. Race Perceptions in South Africa Tidal Power Golden Ages My F*k Musi. S.A. 2019 Elections Free and Fair ? Flight in Ancient Times? Improving Solar Power Efficiency

OK / Close