1. The Building Blocks of the Great Pyramid:

Convinced, as so many still are, that the massive pyramids of the Old Kingdom were built by the Egyptians using primitive tools of copper, rope and logs, it seems impossible for some to imagine these structures were built any other way. No problem. All of us are on unique paths of understanding. No two people confront the same doubts; strive forward armed with the same strengths and abilities, reason from the same perspective and past experience. Whether one is ultimately right or wrong doesn’t matter so much as our consideration and respect for those who in their own way at their own pace are making every effort to discern a truth that they can accept. Many will have qualities and abilities that will outshine one’s own. And so other attitudes are bound to persist for a host of very good reasons.

Take in particular the Great Pyramid. No matter the astonishing feats of construction like the interior alignments of the massive granite stones in the Grand Gallery and King’s Chamber to within an accuracy of one hundredths of an inch, or the perfect line of the base sides off only 4 cm over a distance of 230.4 meters, its proportions perfectly reflecting the size of the earth etc. its still all too tempting to say, so what? They did it. And yes they were remarkably accurate stone masons. Of course if they didn’t do it, thousands of research papers, studies and careers rest upon entirely false assumptions. I wouldn’t presume to laugh at this or the angst it would bring to many. But this won’t change the truth whatever it is.

Then of course if they didn’t do it who did? One legend states that Gods built the Great Pyramid by floating the stone on water and air. This in my view is most probable. After all a mysterious man by the name of Edward Leedskalnin (1887-1951) built a megalithic stone house called Coral Castle in our own times using no visible machinery, ropes or pulleys, whatsoever. When he had the structure moved at one point, the lorry drivers testified to the fact that they would pull their trucks up, Ed would ask them to leave for a few minutes, when they returned 4 – 8 ton stones were on their flat beds, no machinery in sight. Yet such apparent anomalies to what most consider everyday experience are easily dismissed though the stone house exists and the story is corroborated by many.

Then there is the question of the original markings above the King’s Chamber which bear the name of the Old Kingdom pharaoh Khufu. It would seem an impossibly close fit when many of Khufu’s nobles and relatives occupy the mastaba tombs that surround the pyramid. This has been enough for many eminent history revisionists to drop any other thesis of the origins of the Great Pyramid. My personal impression of the structure are such, however, that I’m having none of it. And my strong conviction is that the pharaoh Khufu, of whom we really know so little, and the “being” designated by the cartouches in Davidson’s chamber and others, are not one and the same.  Andrew Gough has dealt with the tenuousness of this subject quite nicely in his article on Khufu http://andrewgough.co.uk/khufu.html . For when I looked intently at what was going on with the building blocks and casing stones of this unbelievable structure it seemed absolutely inconceivable to me that it was built by ordinary men using conventional means.  Ed Leedskalnin may have achieved miraculous feats in lifting and placing his stones. Nowhere did he demonstrate any of the organic complexity of the cutting and fitting exhibited on the stupendous scale of the Great Pyramid.  And it is this fact which has rarely been mentioned alongside the long list of all the other astonishing features of this sublime edifice.

Moreover there is another astounding piece of evidence yet to be properly examined, which again no one seems to be talking about. Here I am referring to the drastic erosion marks found on the few original casing stones which remain in place at the very bottom of the pyramid on the West side. Just as with the Sphinx these stones have spent most of the last 4000 years buried in sand and were therefore protected from wind and blown sand erosion. The very fact that they have survived at all is due to their being inaccessible until the debris that covered them was removed within the last century.  And yet these stones bear the heavy marks of erosion. The question then becomes is this erosion, as with the Sphinx, water erosion? If so, then like the Sphinx we may expect to date the Great Pyramid at 10 – 12,000 B.C.E.  Gone will be the Khufu thesis for no water flowed over the Giza Plateau in sufficient quantities to cause such erosion since the time of Khufu.

Most scholars are thinkers, linguists, writers, methodologists and researchers who are to be respected for their skills. Yet it would seem few have studied the techniques of stone masons or the rate and manner in which stones for building are cut and shaped using traditional tools and design. This is nothing less than the all too human frailty that comes with specialization. Having done so they would be faced with some very difficult realizations concerning the Great Pyramid if not all the very large pyramids of the old kingdom which are still holding their original structure, damaged only by the odd earthquake and those who have pillaged them for their stone.

KEY POINTS IN UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE BUILDING BLOCKS STRUCTURE OF THE GREAT PYRAMID:

  1. It is undisputed that the Great Pyramids casing stones were cut and set into the structure to produce perfectly smooth sides which rose at a precise and consistent angle of 51 52’.
  2. It is also undisputed that these stones were fitted with phenomenal accuracy.
  3. The interior stone construction under the casing stone, however, is at complete odds with the exterior. What this means is that while the exterior casing stones formed an absolutely uniform shape of immense proportions, the structure into which they were set did no such thing. The interior softer blocks of limestone upon which the hard Tura facers were set were in no way either uniform in shape or strictly level in their courses.
  4. Despite being neither uniform in shape or level in the construction of their courses the interior blocks are very precisely cut to fit each other.

CONCLUSION:

NO TWO STONES USED IN EITHER THE BASIC STRUCTURE OR CASING OF THE GREAT PYRAMID WERE OF EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE. YET ALL WERE VERY CAREFULLY CUT AND PLACED TO FIT INTO THE UNIQUE SHAPES OF THEIR NEIGHBORS.  THUS THE GREAT PYRAMID REPRESENTS 2.5 MILLION UNIQUELY SIZED AND SHAPED STONE WHICH FORMED A PERFECTLY UNIFORM SHAPE.  BECAUSE OF THE SCALE INVOLVED THE TIME REQUIRED TO INDIVIDUALLY CUT EACH STONE IN A UNIQUE SHAPE LENDS YET AND BY FAR THE GREATEST IMPEDIMENT TO THE IDEA THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS BUILT BY ORDINARY MEANS WITHIN A 20 YEAR TIME FRAME.

The pictures which follow are intended to illustrate this thesis:

The shape of the stones are entirely irregular. While they don’t appear to have been perfectly fitted one must take into account the effects of wind and sand errosion on the exposed joints over the past 1200 years since the casing stones were removed. Despite this, most of the stones are very closely shaped to fit into each other. The light angle of the sun, low in the sky in this shot, tends to highlight the shadows in the joints giving the impression of their being wide and gaping. I suspect, however, that like the stones nearer the base, as soon as one peers into these joint openings one finds they do not extend deeply between the blocks and that there is little space if any in the joints, the stones having being fitted with extreme precision.

Please click on this next photo to see details of the markings which indicated the fitting of the casing stones:

The quarry extraction theory, as I will call it, basically states that the reason that all the stones in the Great Pyramid are of slightly different angles, heights and sizes, is because this is the way the blocks split as the stone was being extracted from the quarry. All the builders had to do  was keep perfect track of the exact order of stone extraction, yet another tremendous challenge when moving and resseting 2 million plus blocks. Aside from the points made in the photo text above, this theory would require the consistent ability to split these massive blocks to relative height and block shape with few mistakes. I wouldn’t dismiss this theory entirely as there is certainly evidence for it in cetain areas of the tiers of stone. But just look at the incredibly odd sizes of the upper tier blocks in the picture below and one must admit that it wasn’t happening there.

A careful geological survey of the stones is needed to see what proportion of the stones exhibit matching stratification. However, lets imagine that 3/4 of the stone in the pyramid was fitted in this manner. That would still leave 500,000 blocks which had to be shaped and fitted individually. In addition, the fact remains that each individual casing stone was cut to fit an entirely different and uneven shape of the blocks into which it was set. The casing stones being of an entirely different limestone, there is no chance of working the quarry extraction theory into their placement.

Please click on the next image to see details showing how the courses of blocks are hardly straight or level:

What is witnessed in the construction of the Great Pyramid is indeed similar to what one finds in many ancient sites of construction around the world where immense stones of differing size and shape are found to be fitted perfectly into each other. What is unique about the pyramid in this genre of construction is a) the quanity of entirely unique yet perfectly fitted stones, and b) their forming of such a massive and perfectly uniform structure.