There are three main articles on s8int.com dealng with the mysteries of the Great Pyramid.
We recently recieved some interesting comments re the articles and the Great Pyramid itself that we are not neccessarily going to answer any time soon. Perhaps other interested readers might have some input…
Iâ€™ve read a few pages at your site. Very interesting! I have corrections, and suggestionsâ€¦
Re: http://www.s8int.com/greatpyramid.html. The markings â€śdiscoveredâ€ť by Vyse are not chalk, they are red ochra. Itâ€™s not scribbled, and itâ€™s not a â€śslight resemblanceâ€ťâ€¦ I too suspect that Vyse did not make them, but the exaggeration makes you look doubtful. (no offense) If you want, I can find a picture of the markingsâ€¦
You didnâ€™t mention the astounding flat/straightness of the descending passageâ€¦ something like ÂĽâ€ť runout over 350 feet, most of it through solid bedrockâ€¦ (itâ€™s been a few years since I studied this stuff. I think it was Petrie that measured. He did some good work.)
I think you misquote petrie â€śâ€¦to do so withOUT cement in the joint seems almost impossibleâ€ť. As I recall, thereâ€™s no cement, except holding the plugs in ascending passage.
The pointing of shafts to stars can only be speculation, based on when you think it was built. (earth wobbles). The shafts also bend, so itâ€™s not observation point.
The robot encountered a block in each shaft, but no indication that itâ€™s a door.
I very much enjoyed your excellent article on the great pyramids, and I was particularly captivated by your writing on the dilemma of how the large limestone blocks were so finely cut…
Given that the extant copper or bronze tools only have MOHS hardness of 3.5 to 4.5, on their upper limits, it appears you correctly surmise they would be unable to cut through limestone which has a greater hardness; that is more than 4.5…
However, it appears a simple solution has been overlooked by the Egyptologists who identify the copper or bronze cutting or sawing tools when they are asked with what were the pyramid stones cut:
Here it is: it is undisputed that early civilizations utilized an extremely hard stone, easily “knapped” to both sharp and extremely sharp edges. This common stone, with a MOHS hardness of 7.0, is of course chert. Given that chert (otherwise known as flint) freely occurs in limestone, shales, and other soft stones, the quarry site itself–that producing the limestone–would have furnished plentiful amounts of cutting rock, namely, the chert.
As you may know, chert retains its hardness and sharp edge when cutting through softer stone; moreover, it can be easily sharpened if dulled by use…
Under the circumstances, I was hoping you would amend your fine article to incorporate the above concerning a stone with an undisputed MOHS hardness of 7.0, called “chert” commonly found with and around limestone and shales…after you research same to your satisfaction, of course!
Aside from the above, keep in mind that chert (flint) was the main component of the early “flintlock rifles.” The (very hard) flint piece struck the metal plate which produced a spark. The spark in turn ignited the gunpowder…by all accounts, the flint lasted quite a long time before it had to be replaced…
If you believe this brief email merits a response, I would like to hear from you !
R R Lenard