Talk:Construction of the Egyptian pyramids/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page started

• I have started this page in order to merge the article sections in Khufu, Great Pyramid of Khufu and Egyptian Pyramids. This will allow the reduction in duplication and allow these articles to concentrate on their actual subject. Markh 11:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A reader's note:

Construction techniques here are horribly short. no pictures. It needs to be broadened. i read an article on Encarta, they have huge one.

Feel free to move sections on contruction from Great Pyramid of Giza article! Markh 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

why is this its own page?

I think that this page should be a section of the Egyptian pyramids page. At the very least, the Egyptian Pyramids page should link to this! Stagefrog2 05:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph???

Okay so this first paragraph needs work:

Two major theories surround the construction of the pyramids of Egypt. The first theory, suggested by the Greeks, posits that slaves were forced to work until the pyramid was done. Current consensus among Egyptologists also is that the head of the Great Sphinx at Giza is that of Khafre, who is believed to have built the pyramid next to Khufu's in the Pyramids of Giza.

First of all, it only mentions one theory. Second, the "Current consensus..." sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do with construction techniques. Perhaps it belongs in the Egyptian pyramids page? Stagefrog2 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "fringe" to describe Noone is POV

Use of the word "fringe" to describe Noone is POV and is not acceptable under Wiki rules. "Fringe" is not an accepted category of writer, like "sports writer" or "alternative history author/researcher", and is used in this instance as an arbitrary derogatory adjective to advance Doug Weller's POV. thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:FRINGE before making such comments. And as my edit said, this was all worked out some time ago on this page as a way of keeping in what is an unreliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, not on this page, sorry. But we either toss the paragraph out, or describe Noone accurately (he's the guy who didn't understand Newton and predicted 3 miles of ice covering Antarctica in 2000. Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read it Doug-where does it say you as an editor allowed to use it as an adjective to label an author in a manner that under any other circumstance is unacceptable? It doesn't-this is you. How is the reasoning any different that allows you to remove the word "uncanny" but ok to use the word "fringe" when it suits your purpose? You are using a double standard to advance your opinion. If a notable person referred to Noone as "fringe" you could cite that person's opinion giving credit as such, but otherwise it is not appropriate for you as an editor to make that determination. It is used by you in this context with the sole purpose of demeaning the author to discredit the idea to support your own POV. I am not defending or discrediting Noone which as an editor is not my place, but you must use the same objective set of rules for things you agree with as the things you don't. Worked out by whom? You and some other like minded individual? I disagree. That section is about alternative ideas which come from alternative researchers in which Noone is a notable figure and therefore acceptable reference in this context.thanos5150

The oops is yours. And who is we? You? And then you delete my previous comment? Wow. You are so militant about choosing the appropriate semantics of a word yet don't follow your own rules if it furthers your own POV. Alternative History is the generally accepted term for the genre, not "fringe". As much as you want to trash these ideas, you are an editor of a public forum and must be objective and respectful which you constantly are unwilling to do to the point of being offensive. To eliminate Alternative Hypothesis altogether is not your personal call, for one, but more importantly it is censorship to promote a singular POV.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down there buddy. No one deleted any comments of yours. Fringe remains an appropriate term. Check out the guidelines at WP:Fringe. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok there, "buddy". I thought it was deleted and restored. It's happened before. Regardless, no, "fringe" is not an appropriate term as this is not the term used for the genre, but is rather most commonly referred to as Alternative History. For example: [1][2][3][4]. If you go to the bookstore and look under the category of "fringe authors" there will be none. It is not a category. If you look under "alternative history authors" this is where they will be, including Noone. The use of the word "fringe" in this section is derogatory and used for the sole purpose of discrediting any name and idea in it and you know it as does Doug which is why you persist. I am certain this is not the spirit of Wiki's use of the term as it uses "fringe" as a general term for ideas not accepted by the mainstream, but does not condone it's use as a label when a more appropriate term is already accepted by the general public. For example, Christianity and Creationism is as fringe as fringe can be, but authors who support Creationism are not referred to arbitrarily as "fringe authors", despite being an apt description, they are referred to as "Creationists".thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironic, as Thonos5150 deleted my comment. Noone's book is not a reliable source - WP:RS. Noone is a little known author, known mainly for his book arguing that the alignment of the planets will cause an upset of the earth's axis on May 5, 2000, a date which he also finds as an 'end date' in a calendar in the Great Pyramid I believe (yes, I know the book is about much more than his non-existent and scientifically impossible catastrophe. Noone is insignificant - compare his Ghits to West's, Bauval's, Hancock's, etc. There is something drastically wrong with the study as we know Sneferu's Red Pyramid. 2/3 the volume of the GP took 10 years, 7 months to build. Probsbly some mistaken assumptions fed to Booker by Noone. A discussion took place here [5]. I am now leaning towards the total removal of this as Noone is such an unreliable source.

The entire 'Alternate History' section ought to go actually. Undue weight to fringy material from bad sources. Sort of a triumvirate of reasons there. This is to be an encyclopedia, not just the random thoughts of some discredited author.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Riighttt...I deleted nothing, sorry. And that's "Thanos". This has nothing to do with Noone's ideas, it's about Booker's study which Noone provides more than adequate documentation which no reasonable person would dispute is genuine. Because you don't like Booker's conclusion, you relentlessly attack Noone to discredit Booker by association going so far as to say Noone forged the document and even that Booker wasn't a real person. Both are quite desperate considering the facts and context. Please provide the link or source to the commentary on Noone your comments are taken from because you have said you have never seen the book so you must be getting your opinions from somewhere.

Regardless, Booker, not Noone, clearly says what parameters he used for the study which are a gross simplifiation of the actual construction process and really has nothing to do with building a pyramid, but rather how long would it take for the ILI to quarry and move that much stone. Booker's conclusion must stand on it's own merits despite of Noone being the source because there is no credible dispute Booker's correspondence and study document is not genuine. It is only because of Noone as the source that it gets relegated to the alternative section, which I agree it should be, but because Booker is the author of the study itself it has every right to be included in context. Arguing that Booker's study is invalid because it was published in Noone's book is pretty lame.

The point of this whole thread here that is lost is that "fringe" is not an appropriate word. You are saying if you can't use the words you want to support your POV then you'll just get rid of the whole thing. Good for you. Sounds like the scientific method to me. thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you denying deleting my comment? See [6]. This has been rehashed before, and you left fringe in at that time. Now for some reason you want to start all over again. Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought it was my edit that was deleted. Whatever. No, I did not leave fringe in that time I just left the site for several months because I was sick of this same crap. My position hasn't changed. All I am asking is that you do the right thing and hold the same standards for the things you agree with as the things you don't. There is no such thing as a "fringe author" and to label an author as such when the genre is referred to as something else is POV. It is. As far as leaving the Booker stuff in there-just admit it;the only reason you don't want it there is because you don't like what it says. You can claim some higher ground because of the source, but it is as simple as that. The Booker inclusion is in context.

Is this your inclusion?: " Despite precautions such as covering the entrance hole with casing and the portcullises, thieves had bypassed all the barriers even before the Old Kingdom had ended, digging through the soft limestone and breaking a corner of Khufu's sarcophagus. By the time it was next seen in the 9th century AD all that was there was an empty sarcophagus without a lid.

This statement is being passed off as fact when even the obscure author, REVEREND James Backie who lived from 1866-1931, doesn't even make these specific claims. Who ever put this in there basically picked an obscure out of date source, made something up loosely based on what this author said and passed it off as fact to support their POV. Tunneled though the soft limestone and broke off the end of the sarcophagus? Really? I've been there, there is no other tunnel or evidence of forced entry other than the Arabs. Regardless, where does he say this (it's not on p.79) and if he does say it why isn't he given credit for his theory as there is no evidence to support it? Pure bunk. BUT, apparently this is a-ok if it supports your POV. You do back flips to suppress an alternative point of view even down to the semantics of a word though it is 100% factual without OR in it's context, yet do nothing about something like this? And by the same token, Doug, you have argued and removed direct quotes from Petrie no less and other prominent turn of the century Egytologists only because they suggest something beyond the mundane or other than what is currently accepted by the mainstream arguing their comments are "dated" (though comments they make which support the mainstream are ok) when nothing could be further from the truth. The double standard is shameful. I'm sure if I cared to check other references I would find the same.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Well, let's see what p. 79 says:

No doubt Khufu and his successors imagined that the vast mountains of stone which they had piled above the chambers where they hoped to sleep for ever undisturbed rendered their resting-places absolutely secure ; and the complicated machinery of plug-blocks of granite and pivoting doors of solid stone, which was devised to render access to the inner passages and chambers absolutely impracticable, save to the priests of the pyramids, must have increased their sense of security. The probability is, however, that the very scale of their precautions defeated the end for which they had been devised. If such care was taken to protect the treasure, there must be a correspondingly precious treasure to protect. Such, no doubt, was the reasoning of the ancient tomb-robbers who disturbed the rest of the great Pharaohs at a very early date. It is probable that the tomb-chamber in the Great Pyramid was rifled, and the dust of the greatest builder of the world scattered to the four winds of heaven, before Khufu had lain for more than a century or two in his granite sarcophagus in the heart of the pyramid, " Yakhet-Khufu " (" The Horizon (Burial-place) of Khufu "), as it was called. It was probably somewhere in the closing days of the Old Kingdom, between the decline of the Vlth Dynasty and the rise of the Middle Kingdom, that the pyramid was first penetrated and rilled ; and thereafter, through the classical period, the secret of the entrance passages was well known. By the time of the Arab conquest, however, it had been lost... I don't think we throw it out because the author was a reverend, or wrote in 1927. This 'obscure author', Dr. Baikie, is still having his books reprinted and they were well received when first published (eg this review[7]. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Noone and NPOV

This is very simple. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." and "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute". Noone's book and the Booker material are utterly without prominence. When you search the web, virtually everything (including an article from Philip Coppens) appears to stem from our Wikipedia article. Unlike West, Bauval, Schoch and Hancock, no on pays attention to Noone. If anyone can show differently, we can discuss it here. Meanwhile, to insist on its inclusion is against WP:NPOV Doug Weller (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Doug, you will say and do anything to remove this quote-why do you fear it so much? The last reason you had for removing it was because you said the research was wrong but in fact this was your own OR that was not only misquoting Booker but wholly incorrect. Now this. Again.

It is not NPOV. The section is About Alternative Theories. This Booker reference has nothing to do with Noone's "theories" and only goes to support the "widely held and significant viewpoint" of alternative researchers and the general public that the GP either took longer to build than suggested by Egyptologists or employed methods currently unknown that would have allowed for its completion within the time suggested by the mainstream. The Booker quote makes neither of these claims with its only purpose to show how long it would take for modern equipment quarry and move that amount of stone. It is not a "theory" but an assessment. Hard to argue with it really which is probably why you take such an exception to it.

Phillip Coppens copy and pasted this, but regardless, you again are wrong about Noone's book. A Google search of 5/5/2000, the book which the quote is taken, will produce reams of hits for one, the book was an international best seller of the time and is still in print sold in mainstream booksellers. It's prominence is relative. Noone was featured on CNN, Oprah, Donahue and several other popular media outlets. This book was published in 1978 and 5/5/2000 has come and gone, this does not change the facts or negate Booker's comments.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why this material should be included. Is Noone a recognized expert? Is his opinion noted in reliable, secondary sources? If not, then it doesn't deserve mention per NPOV and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, the Booker stuff simply doesn't get discussed except on a few forums, etc., and virtually everyone seems to have picked it up frm here. Noone's temporary media wave was about his catastrophe prediction, and is irrelevant here as it's Booker that was in this article. A search on "Merle Booker" and pyramids gives 32 Ghits, take away Wikipedia and you get 18 (2 of them YouTube), discussion forums, etc. How insignificant can you get? And despite what Thanos writes about, when I removed it on the 18th I clearly said no prominence, I admit to a mistake on the numbers. I shouldn't have wasted my time on them. Doug Weller (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not Noone's opinion but the opinion of Booker who is a qualified expert. The irony of all this is that not one person who argues against this has even read Noone's book but apparently if you can't find the quote on Google then it doesn't exist.

Regardless, Booker is a qualified expert and his study is genuine. There is no doubt about this. Booker's findings are not Noone's opinion, but is Booker's conclusion based on accurate data. The only leg you have to stand on to deny this quote, which you only want to remove because let's be honest, you just don't like what it says, is the source, Noone, which is not lost on me is not as iron-clad as it should be, but I have argued that this should in no way discredit Booker's findings as it is in the context of the Alternative section and regardless of the perception of Noone is no doubt genuine.

I have seen other Wiki articles where subject matter like this is put in the footnotes and removed from the main body. This would be an acceptable compromise. I don't know how to do this so be my guest.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Booker, deceased, was a leading authority in the modern field of quarrying and transporting limestone and no one has challenged his findings or credentials." Can you verify this? Is Booker's opinion noted in reliable, secondary sources? If not, then it doesn't deserve mention per NPOV and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact he was the technical director of the ILI obviously speaks to his credentials; if the ILI is one of the leading quarries in the world and you are the technical director, does that not make you one of the leading authorities in the field otherwise how would you have the job? I cannot find anywhere his findings have been challenged. If you can please show me where. Noone is the original source so whatever secondary sources, like Christopher Dunn, all reference Noone's book. thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide verification. Dunn? --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get side-tracked. Booker's opinion is not discussed or mentioned by any credible sources, as I've said, the web findings virtually all come from the article. Noone in a sense doesn't matter, what matters is that even 'insignificant' is overstating the case. It isn't a question of whether Booker's study is genuine or not, or Booker's credentials. It's the fact that it has zero prominence as shown by its lack of Ghits for a start. Doug Weller (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Dunn:[8]. This is his general website. He references Booker (Noone) in several articles and the books he has written. Do a Google search of Christopher Dunn and Booker and you will find them. On a side note, Dunn's book the "Giza Power Plant" is quite interesting. I believe he is on to something concerning the correlation of Ed Leedskalin methods to those of ancient builders.

Booker's study is valid and in it's context accurate and goes to the general belief of alternative researchers that the GP either took longer to build than is believed by the mainstream or was done using as yet unknown methods. Booker's study supports this and has nothing to do with Egyptians or the Great Pyramid which to me makes it even more credible. It has to do with how long would it take for a modern quarry to cut and move that much stone. Merle Booker former technical director of the Indiana Limestone Institute says it would take them 27 years. I cannot defend against the relative obscurity of the quote by means of searching Google, but what I have defended against is that it is genuine and valid regardless of the source. Removing it from this article doesn't make it less so and if anything I take solace in the fact that it has been distributed throughout the world wide web for generations to come. Maybe supporting sources do not appear now, but I suspect in time they will. True, do a Google search of Merle Booker and you will find many, many pages that originated from Wiki....

The whole point of this originally was the POV use of the adjective "fringe" to describe Noone. Whether off the cuff it is true or not, it is POV and just plain wrong to arbitrarily use it as an adjective. Strange how it was ok to leave the Booker quote in as long as it could be adequately demeaned regardless of Wiki rules, yet without it it can't be included at all. I have also pointed out how some editors will also falsify quotes from sources to promote their mainstream POV yet this is ok as well. So, its ok to basically make stuff up or misquote sources that promote the mainstream POV or passing opinion off as fact and none of these editors takes exception to it (the one who wrote it not withstanding), yet it's just so wrong to include Booker though it is genuine and accurately referenced with no OR. I thought the point wasn't to be right or wrong but to find the truth.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm don't see anything here that demonstrates the information is accurate or important enough to deserve mention. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanos has a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. It is not about finding the truth. The Booker stuff should never have been in, the fact that it was left in is irrelevant.

So, I am right, you are not interested in the truth, all you want is to promote your own POV. You are a self proclaimed skeptic and take it upon your self to remove anything you don't like for any reason. Instead of talking about it first you just chop it out as if your opinion is the only one that matters. And yet by the same token you include edits, or don't remove others, that support your POV when they are clearly OR and at times just plain made up quotes attributed to people that never said it. You hold opposing views to the highest standards yet hold your own to none. It is clear you are not motivated by objective reasoning but more so to promote your own POV yet accuse others of the same.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to stick to the content rather than the editors. Thanos, what sourced information can you provide to suggest that Noone is neither dated nor Fringe? NJGW (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I cannot argue that Noone is not "fringe" based on Wiki rules because anything that is not supported by the mainstream or given from a mainstream source falls under this classification. This is however is in the context of the alternative history section which by Wiki rules is "fringe" unto itself, yet because of the nature of the subject material is warranted fair treatment here. I also cannot argue that Noone is on the same level as a Schoch, West, or Hancock, yet this is like saying unless you are Lehner or Zawass no other Egytologist matters either. Noone's book was originally published in 1978 and was international best seller as little as 10 years ago and is still in book stores today. It must retain some prominence if Barnes and Noble or Borders would continue to put it on their shelves. Another point to be taken into consideration is, and the only reason I have fought for it, is that the quote given is not of Noone or is it Noone's personal opinion, which I would wholly agree would not be warranted for inclusion in this article, but is that of Merle Booker former technical director of the Indiana Limestone Institute. Noone provides ample documentation of his correspondence with Booker and the quote is not taken from Noon's text but from a photo of Booker's own study. I would make not that the title of the book "5/5/2000" is generally misleading and the idea of "Disaster striking when the planets align" is a strangely insignificant part of the book in which it is almost entirely about the Great Pyramid.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that the reason for this whole argument here is not the Booker statements, as this was thrashed about several months ago in which the Booker comments have been there since, but more so because of my removal of DougWeller's POV use of the word "fringe" to label Noone. So, apparently what this means is that for several months it was ok to leave it in, but without DougWeller being able to discredit an author to his personal liking (though he has never seen or read the book) by using the POV word "fringe" inappropriately as a label, the whole thing must now be removed. He makes one different argument after another with his latest removal being because he used his own OR to erroneously come to the conclusion that Booker's calculations were wrong.thanos5150

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways Thanos, either Wikipedia policies lable Noone as Fringe or not. If that's the main problem right now, then you have to discuss this at the talk page at wp:FRINGE. Otherwise the policy is clear (and well intentioned to provide full disclosure to the casual reader) that Noone (if mentioned) should be labled as fringe. NJGW (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, it is inappropriate for an author to be labeled as "fringe author" especially in the context of appropriate subject material There is no "fringe author" section at a bookstore as it is not an actual category of writer. Fringe is a Wiki general term to describe certain subject material as whole and is not intended to be used as an adjective to describe a person at the discretion of an editor. I think this is a bad precedent for any article. If the source or material is in the proper context, as it is here in the alternative section, it is redundant to attach a label to a specific person as it is understood by the simple fact that is where it appears. For example; in the Ancient Astronauts article the views of Sitchin and Von Daniken are outlined, but the label "fringe author Zecharia Sitchin" is not attached which is appropriate as it is understood this is not mainstream opinion. And neither are the lessor authors who are listed as proponents despite they are not as well known. I fail to see how it is warranted to label Noone in this case either especially when the study is from Booker who is not fringe by any means.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanos, I think we both know how important it is to put personal opinions aside (except when debating at the the discussion sections of wp:Policy/Guideline articles). You've already admitted that this author is "fringe" (wp term there), and not mainstream enough to be given a lot of weight. It really seems that, haven conceded that much, your next step should be Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Arguing here is just barking up the wrong tree, don't you think?

By the way, as for other articles, you should have a look at wp:WAX. NJGW (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I have no doubt I am barking up the wrong tree here. Am I wrong to say though that it is inappropriate to label an author "fringe author" when it is in context? In an article about evolution vs creationism, though no matter how tempting, is it still not inappropriate to label every proponent of creationism as "fringe" no matter how much one would want to? You would say "Creationist Bob Smith..." Or in an article about Biblical Religion in general, Mormonism and Jehovah Witness would not be refereed to as "fringe". This is my only point here.

The fact of the matter is, which seems to be lost here, is that I am not defending Noone, I am defending Booker. It is extreeemly unfortunate Noone is the original source which this study appears as obviously I am of the opinion it is very significant. Think about it-here you have a guy who's job it is is to coordinate the quarrying and moving of massive quantities of limestone, the technical director of one of the largest limestone quarries in the world, and he says it would take 27 years for his company to move that much limestone even if they tripled production. And yet his expert opinion means nothing because it was asked for by the wrong guy? I'm sure Booker does not support Noon'es theories about 5/5/2000, but his study has absolutely nothing to do with that. If you wanted to build a building and needed 2.5 million stone blocks to complete it, who would be better qualified to give you an time estimate of how long it would take to cut and transport the stone-Merle Booker, technical director of the ILI, or cultural Egyptologist Mark Lehner? For the record, again, I am defending Booker here, not Noone.

I recently read this: "Like I said, quoting Noone in order to give your own ideas authenticity is none too smart a move." This is from one of DougWellers websites which I assume is directed at me. And he says he doesn't care. I definitely agree though, quoting Noone would be a bad idea which is why I quoted Merle Booker's study, which unfortunately appears in Noone's book.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just read the WikiTalk Fringe page and it is a very interesting debate. Apparently exactly what I have been saying here about the use of the word "fringe" as a pejorative is an issue there as well. I am confused however. A fringe idea according to these people is one where the minority is so insignificant as to represent a figure of roughly 90% vs 10%. Which is obvious. By this yardstick however, the idea that the Great Pyramid took longer to build than is currently accepted by the mainstream or employed methods currently unknown as to be physically able to complete the project within that time is the crux of any alternative argument and widely accepted by the public at large. Though obviously Egyptologists do not agree, it would be hard to argue that a significant minority if not majority of the public at large is of the belief or general opinion that this is either true or are at least open to the possibility. Hancock, West, Bavaul, Schoch, among others, all in one form or another support this general premise. Though Noone's opinion's about 5/5/2000 might be a fringe idea, Booker's study, however, only goes to support a widely held opinion that does not qualify as fringe. I guess what I am saying is that is Booker's study has nothing to do with a fringe idea why is it discounted because of the unrelated opinions of Noone about a different subject. Please explain how this disqualifies Booker's study in the context of alternative theories.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, apparently, though I do not agree, it is acceptable for editors to use the word "fringe" to label an author. This is mind boggling to me, but if this is to be done it should be the word "fringe" as a link as to explain what this means so that it is not misconstrued as a malicious pejorative (despite that is how it is being used regardless). So, as I understand it here now, Noone is a "fringe" author who provides a study about the Great Pyramid from a neutral 3rd party expert supporting a non-fringe opinion unrelated to Noone's "fringeness". So, by this logic the article should be restored to what it was before with the word "fringe author" before Noone's name. This is how it was for several months before this debate over the use of the word fringe started. "This Booker reference has nothing to do with Noone's "theories" and only goes to support the "widely held and significant viewpoint" of alternative researchers and the general public that the GP either took longer to build than suggested by Egyptologists or employed methods currently unknown that would have allowed for its completion within the time suggested by the mainstream. The Booker quote makes neither of these claims with its only purpose to show how long it would take for modern equipment quarry and move that amount of stone. It is not a "theory" but an assessment."Thanos5150 (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me....Thanos5150 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we need someone besides Noone who talks about Booker. Even you've said Noone is fringe, so we need a source besides him that discusses the ideas of Booker to establish those ideas as creadible. This has nothing to do with the absolute creadibility of Booker, but we here as mere editors are not allowed to make that judgment call, per Wikipedia policy (and this is a really important policy for keeping tons and tons and tons of other crap out; and to be clear I'm not calling Booker crap, but you have to admit there's a lot of crap out there that people would love to get into Wikipedia just because they read it on a blog). Without some source telling us about the reliability of Booker, then he's just some guy that this other nutter wrote about. NJGW (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Noone is "fringe" because he is wholly irrelevant, which may have confused the argument, but no one can argue that Noone's theory of 5/5/2000 catastrophe based on planetary alignment is obviously not "fringe", but this is not the idea that is being represented in the GP article. On this point, Noone is irrelevant because what is relied on is Booker. What the argument, is I guess, is does that fringe idea invalidate everything else in the book? I don't think it does, but I must concede to a majority on this issue regardless of the merits of my argument or Booker's credibility. In essence, Booker's study is "guilty" by association regardless of validity which to me is unfortunate. There is a lot of crap on both sides of an argument people would like to get into Wiki, but in the Noone/Booker case I think what we have is a piece of gold hermetically sealed within a turd which until new information comes to light will apparently stay there.Thanos5150 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the article

The article concludes with the alternative history sentence, and specifically with . As one of these authors, John Anthony West writes in reference to Egypt: "How does a complex civilization spring full blown into being? Look at a 1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the process of 'development'. But in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything is right there from the start."[40]. No Egyptologist would agree that this describes in any way accurately the development of Egyptian civilization. Is this really a suitable way for the article to end? Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to violate wp:UNDUE to give those sentiments the last word, but I'm not sure what to put last (an In conclusion section seems kind of essayish). How would you end the article? NJGW (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

West's quote is a classic summary of the alternative GP history debate and is by far not undue weight and totally in context. If you were to have a "last word" on the subject there are few better or more notable. If you don't like it being the last word of the whole page then move the section. Or better yet, remove the whole section from this article and give an alternative history link to it's own page so that the topic can get fair treatment.

Egyptologists do not support West conclusions, but as a rule Egyptologists do not support anything that anyone else says (even other Egyptologists) if it differs from mainstream dogma, so to use this as an argument especially in the alternative history section is a little naive. What must be understood is that the very foundation of Egyptology is interpretation to support a pre-existing set of conclusions using someone else's money to do it with the clear expectation to provide the desired result. Not exactly the scientific method. To stray from the pack gives no reward and can pretty much guarantee you will not get that grant renewed. Otherwise how can you explain 2 extensive radio carbon tests that from any other science would conclusively prove the age range of an artifact, yet despite the overwhelming evidence that the GP is at least 200 years older they still dismiss it? If it came back as 2500 BC they would have jumped for joy, but instead they have to embarrass themselves with some inane "old wood" theory to explain away the facts.

Regarding West's comments, there is a distinct disparity of technological building scope and complexity before Saqqara and after which if we accept mainstream opinion began at Saqarra and ended at Giza. Because Egyptologists do not acknowledge this does not make it not so. If there is a pyramid in Egypt or stone temples of this scope and design found anywhere in Egypt before Saqarra please provide the link or information. This is generally what West is referring to as being there "from the start". While true, Saqqara was built on top of an existing mastaba, the leap from the original structure to its finished product which was covered in casing stones as well is by far without precedent. There is nothing that even remotely compares to it prior in Egyptian history nor are their similar temples in complexity and design. There is, I guess, but they are in Sumer, not Egypt. Regardless, the Greeks did not go from mud brick dwellings one minute to the Parthenon the next nor do we see any other culture making such a monumental leap without the influence of an outside source.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Internal ramp theory

In August 2004 two amateur French Egyptologists, Gilles Dormion and Jean-Yves Verd'hurt, claimed that they had discovered, using ground-penetrating radar and architectural analysis, a previously unknown corridor inside the pyramid. If their claim is true, the corridor is unlikely ever to have been violated and could possibly lead to a chamber containing the king's remains. But, as of yet, the pair have been refused permission by the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities to follow up their findings and, they hope, prove the room's existence.

I excised this from the page because it does not belong in an article about construction techniques; perhaps someone can find a better place for it? Bushing 09:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Archaeology Magazine has an article online about an internal ramp being used: "How to Build a Pyramid"

I feel I cannot accept the implication in '..the theory, which according to Houdin makes his theory the only one "proven" to be a viable technique.' Is anyone prepared to "prove" the technique described at http://www.farmhall.com/drupal/files/GPpaper.pdf Mehtopa (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC) is not viable? Mehtopa 10:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote does not say that I or Wikipedia considers Houdin's theory to be the only one "proven" (and note I put the word "proven" in appostrophies, implying we're stretching the usual meaning of the word), what I wrote was that Houdin says that he's claiming his theory is the only one "proven". I think what he's implying is that the CAD software they used was able to actually simulate the building of the pyramid, one stone at a time, and that such a simulation can be considered a proof that it could also be done in reality.

Anyway, you're welcome to edit my contribution and we'll see what other contributors think. --RenniePet 11:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting German Book

May be some one (who speaks German too) can check this out… Heribert Illig, Franz Löhner "Der Bau der Cheops-Pyramide: Nach der Rampenzeit" (see here http://www.amazon.de/Bau-Cheops-Pyramide-Nach-Rampenzeit/dp/3928852175) --79.194.88.69 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Probability of lifting 80 ton stones by the ancient egyptians.....

I would like to raise this point since nobody seems to give any attention to the heavy stones included in the construction. Everybody just keeps on explaining about the 2.5 ton stones. How do you lift an 80 ton stone, even today, let alone 3000 years back ?Adixit4476 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that the one and only reference to 80 ton stones is within a caption to an image where someone is asking for a citation—so your central fact may be in dispute. Given that Cleopatra's Needle is estimated at 180 tons, this is not necessarily a stretch for whatever technology was used. Captmondo (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree except Cleopatra's Needle was not raised to a height of over 135ft which represents an entirely different technology.thanos5150

In my paper 'The Great pyramid - How on Earth did they build it?' at http://www.farmhall.com/drupal/files/GPpaper.pdf, I offer an explanation for the placing of even the heaviest of the blocks in the G.P. Mehtopa (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You say "tree-trunks used as rollers under the blocks and as levers to lift them"?. I dont see how u can raise that and how u get "quirurgical" ensamblage of "well over 2 million stone blocks ". The wood probably brokes this way. Is the same problem of the moais in the pacific. There is no reference either to the almost perfect small drillings in some stones or the clear (please dont fire ) parallels to the pyramid of the sun in mexico (dimensions).--80.25.191.37 (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

---

copper or bronze for NOVA experiment?

Someone has changed the type of metal alledgedly available to the Egyptians while carving the stones from copper to bronze. I checked the source cited (Mark Lehner) it says copper not bronze. I also looked up the bronze age and it says that bronze was available at that time. This could go either way. Does anyone have a source that says they used bronze for the quarrying of the stones? I would assume that Mark Lehner had a good reason for saying they were limited to copper not bronze but I'm not sure what it is. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

With big stones they used diorite balls as hammer stones to make a narrow trench around the piece to be quarried, then broke it loose using a line of wooden wedges soaked in water so they would swell and start a horizotal crack. Then they levered it up using wedges and demending on its size hoisted it with a counterweighted beam, and placed it on a sled or a barge. In the case of the barge they then let water into the excavation and floated it out. The Egyptians had bronze and meteoric iron but they tended to use abrasives to cut the stone to size. They would take a cord, cover it with bitumen run it through some sand and then use it as modern stonecutters do a wire saw. For drilling they used abrasive bits sometimes using the dust from the cutting of semiprecious stones.

Some sources for that are Budge, "Cleopatra's Needle" Somers Clarke and R. Englebach(1990). Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture. Dover. ISBN 0486264858. Rktect (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This discription sounds similar to others that I have read including the source cited Lehner, Mark The Complete Pyramids. They all claim the dolorite balls were used to carve the granite, they may have also been used for the limestone but the issue I questioned was bronze or copper. I have rechecked Lehners book and on page 210 it specificaly says that bronze was probably not available in Egypt until the middle kingdom. Therefore I'm going to change it back at this time. If any one comes up with a reputible source claiming otherwise I won't object. Mark Lehrner is usualy reliable but his work isn't perfect. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative history relevance

The entire section on "alternative history" probably does not belong in this article. In order to keep it here, we must establish the following:

1. That mainstream academics have acknowledged these views are either common or in some other way notable.
2. That these views are weighted appropriately according to their prominence in the relevant sources. This means that if you pick up a random source or text from a library on construction techniques of the pyramids, you should see, proportionally, the same amount of text as is seen in this article.

As it is, I'm making a quick judgment that this entire section is definitely too long and may not belong here at all. Please comment below addressing these concerns.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We can start by noting that no one seems to have mentioned Booker who isn't obviously taking their information from this article. This means it has no prominence and doesn't belong here. Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Alternative History in the last 20 years especially has become a major component of public perception and opinion regarding the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx. The theories derived from it, right or wrong, have become and intergral part of popular culture. So much so that several prominent Egytologists including Zawi Hawass and Mark Lehner have engaged in several well publicized ongoing debates with these authors on these topics. The redating of the Sphinx for example garnered world wide media coverage and is a common acknowledgment of plausible theory based on the evidence by independent researchers and the public at large. These ideas deserve their due because of their widespread acceptance by popular culture. This section as it stands is not POV but an objective offering of the most credible ideas related to the topic. If anything, I think it should be expanded of receive a page all of its own with link.

Noone's book, regardless of his personal theories, is still in bookstores today, such as Barnes and Noble, which gives it relevance. Noone was the one who requested the study from Booker for publication in his book, therefore it is only natural his book would be the original source. Noone provides more than adequate documentation of his correspondence of Booker and the study itself is not quoted from Booker but is verbatim from a photo of the document itself. Booker, deceased, was a leading authority in the modern field of quarrying and transporting limestone and no one has challenged his findings or credentials. His very existence, title, and likelihood the document is genuine have been independently verified from ILI for inclusion in this article. Booker makes no claims as to how the pyramid was built or to any consideration of how it was constructed in which the only purpose of the study is to determine how long it would take for the ILI to quarry and transport the materials needed based only on calculating the volume. I believe Booker's study belongs here as it is in context and stands on it's own merit regardless of the perception of Noone.thanos5150. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That the book is in bookstores does not give it weight on Wikipedia. It isn't the book that is the only source I can find on the web, it is this article (you can try and find quotes that don't come from this article, feel free, I may have missed one, who knows?). Whether the report is authentic or not, whether Noone quotes the assumptions used, etc., is not relevant to this specific point - it has zero prominence. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this is covered by WP:FRINGE- "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." And "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is.[2] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." The only way Booker's report is getting on the web appears to be through this article. Doug Weller (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have said you have never seen Noone's book-again I ask please provide the reference that has given you your opinion. You change your argument from one thing to another. Here is a few:[9], [10]. A Google search of the actual book 5/5/2000 will produce pages of hits which is really more relevant to it's notoriety than the Booker study itself as it is part of it. As to everything else you just said, I just answered all of the criteria. Alternative History regarding the Great Pyramid, this "fringe idea", has been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Hancock, Bavaul, West/Schoch in particular have generated a huge amount of scholarly debate including, AGAIN, with the likes of Hawass, Lehner, and Krupp, just to name a few. These writers theories have appeared in not one major publication but several repeatedly worldwide. The NBC documentary "Mysteries of the Sphinx", which included Hawass, Lehner and others, was viewed by over 30,000,000 people and is one of the most successful documentaries ever made. You whisking this away as insignificant is dishonest and irresponsible. Alternative ideas regarding the Great Pyramid have been around since the western world first saw it and has been an integral part of its history. Pietre, Budge, Gaspero, and the like all supported to some degree the possibility parts of the Giza plateau were older than accepted and not built by who it was ascribed to. You know this is not true. The genre itself is significant on a global scale, and to some degree probably more so than the field of Egyptology itself.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to call editors dishonest, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. I agree there should be an alternative history section, but Noone clearly doesn't have the same status as the other authors you mention. I haven't suggested whisking them away -- can you quote an edit of mine that backs you up? I have no idea what reference you are asking for, you've given a link to an article by Chris Dunn that doesn't mention Noone and another one by someone with no notability on a theosophy site whose relevancy I don't see. Noone has no prominence. The others do. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying you are dishonest, but to remove the section as if it were irrelevant would be which is what I thought you were trying to say as it is the subject of this topic. Isn't this what you just wrote: "And "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is.[2] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." You have said several times you want to remove the section entirely, but now you say it warrants inclusion. This topic is about the inclusion of the whole section so I assumed this is what you are talking about. I am just trying to understand what you are saying. Booker's study is not Noone's theory, which I agree would not warrant inclusion if it was, so I am not sure what your point is. Booker's study is to lend further context to the general topic and notable proponents such as Hancock. The Alternative section is about the idea in general and not those 4 writers though noting them is critical.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What don't you understand? You said you didn't read the book but you know what it's about? Where is the reference your info from? Not a big deal, I would jsut like to see what it says. Also, is this your edit:"Despite precautions such as covering the entrance hole with casing and the portcullises, thieves had bypassed all the barriers even before the Old Kingdom had ended, digging through the soft limestone and breaking a corner of Khufu's sarcophagus. By the time it was next seen in the 9th century AD all that was there was an empty sarcophagus without a lid."thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

References

This is interesting. Evidently Booker says "twenty-seven years before there would need to contract 39,440,385 cubic meters from a stone. As compared to the figure of 2,590,000 from the Giza Plateau Mapping Project.[11]. Looks like Noone was using 15.776154 times the actual volume if that's right. I don't think the Baikie quote was mine, but I can find similar quotes from contemporary Egyptologists, eg Joyce Tyldesley. Doug Weller (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Doug....Booker does not say 39,440,385 cubic meters-nowhere does he use meters- he uses feet and inches. What he says as stated in quote is "131,467,940 cubic feet". I assume this is your OR in trying to convert cubic feet to meters or you have falsely misinterpreted a quote again, but regardless 1 cubic meter = 35.3146667 cubic feet. If you take Booker's figure of 131,467,940 cubic feet and divide that by 35.3146667 you get 3,722,757.49 cubic meters, BUT Booker is also including he estimates 12,723 casing stones which the AERA estimate doesn't state that it is included in their figure which would account for the discrepancy. They are relating the volume of the GP vs a quarry in which the casing stones would have come from a different quarry so it is probably not factored in.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Backie quote is total bunk as I detailed in the above section. It's not even a quote-it's someone's OR passed off as fact being loosely based on Backie's assumptions and attributed to him as the source though he didn't actually say any of it. If it's not yours, then why find other quotes to defend something that is not true or at best pure conjecture?thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Joyce Tydelsey says the same thing. Doug Weller (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that what you wrote and attributed to Backie is a lie. You wrote it, which is why you defend it, but falsely attribute it to Backie and yet all you can think about is finding someone else to support your claims? What do you have to say for yourself? When is it ok to make stuff up and say someone else said it to give it credibility? This is lying. Just like you just tried to do with Booker to say he was off on his calculations quoting him as using cubic meters when he only used cubic feet, which is pretty lame because the quote in Wiki is in cubic feet. Not only did you lie to quote Booker this way, you got the math wrong on your OR. And still you do not take responsibility for yourself and say nothing. I have caught edits like Backie of yours in the past where the author you cite doesn't actually say what you write in Wikipedia. You have shown a pattern of dishonesty for the clear purpose of promoting your POV and denigrating what is not. I believe you have lost any credibility here Doug. I am done arguing with you. Do not remove the Booker quote again. thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, please don't argue with me anymore. I don't know where I got the figure from but you're right, it was wrong. I found it on the web somewhere but can't find it again. I use Google to make calculations and I can't see Google being wrong. Meanwhile, you are in gross breach of WP:CIVIL, called editors liars is a really bad idea.

I did not call you a liar, but to say something that isn't true is lying is it not? The Bakie quote and your recently mangling of Booker is you purposefully saying something that is not true.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong about Booker, that wasn't deliberate. What I was really wrong about was paying any attention to the content of something as unsignicant as Noone and Booker. As for Backie, as I said, Tyldesley says the same thing. And why discuss something from another article here?

If it were so insignificant I doubt you would give it so much attention. You know the study is real and you want to suppress it by way of semantics and technicalities. If it were something that supported your POV you would defend it equally as hard I'm sure.

The point about Backie, again, is that you attributed something to him he never said. Attributing it to someone else won't solve the problem or make a tunnel prior to the Arabs magically appear.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add, I agree with Science Apologist!!! This is a systemic problem throughout wikipedia...you guys need to quit including nonsense like "The Pyramids Were Built by Aliens", and "Some People Think the Statues on Easter Island were Made in 10,000 BC." But you know, like I said in other places, I use Wikipedia mainly for esoteric subjects like Star Wars etc. It is pretty reliable and credible for that, lol...but ScienceApologist is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that as long as such silly nonsense as aliens building the pyramids is included in Wikipedia, it will never be a real encyclopedia. Columbia Encyclopedia, an encyclopedia edited by professionals from the world renowned Columbia University in the City of New York, is free at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ and is a far more credible source than wikipedia can ever be.71.116.98.136 (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is not known how the pyramids where built, so this article is only a collection of hypothesis, really. And silly or not, there are people who really believe in these theories, hence they have to be considered. It is when we stop taking consideration of all theories and opinions, we stop to be a real encyclopedia, and a free encyclopedia. --Ediug (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of iron tools

This article says in several places that the ancient Egyptians (at the time of the construction of the pyramids) didn't have iron tools, yet at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GugkliLHDMoC&pg=PA269 it gives the impression that this is disputed by a not insignificant body of people. Is this something we want to mention here, or is it too much of a fringe theory? 86.161.40.162 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

If its true its not fringe and it is important, but this is the first I heard of it. Mark Lehner and others have cited Vyse and Riesner without mentioning iron except to say it wasan't there. If it was there it would also raise the question why the leading experts don't mention it. I would be skeptical of this source without backup. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm seeing in that book "Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries" (Lucas) doesn't suggest iron tools were in use on the pyramids. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No one's claiming he supports that theory himself, just that he mentions that others do. I've seen this idea mentioned in various other places too. For example, at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cPMPUUK17dgC&pg=PA93 it says "... steel (and not just iron) was well known to the Egyptians of the Pyramid Age." This could be a fringe view so comprehensively rubbished by experts as to be not worth mentioning, but on the other hand it could be that we should mention that not everyone seems to agree with the mainstream theory. 86.133.247.122 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

Peter C. Sundt

As far as I've been able to determine, Sundt is not a recognized authority on pyramid construction techniques, so his self-published essay should not be referenced in the article per WP:EL and WP:RS. Further, the editor that has been adding the link appears to be Sundt himself, in violation of WP:COI. --Ronz 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Sundt is an unrecognised authority on pyramid construction techniques? In which case, his self-published essay should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.216.84 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A joke, I presume. We rarely use self-published stuff, and never use unrecognised 'authorities', that's an oxymoron. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove section "use of windpower"

Would anyone object if I took out this section? While interesting and potentially viable, it's extreme WP:FRINGE. If it belongs anywhere, it could go in a sub-article with another dozen ideas not yet adopted by any Egyptologist. It has also been suggested that Egyptians might have moved the stones with wind power, relying on kites and pulleys rather than huge numbers of workers. On June 23, 2001, Caltech aeronautics professor Mory Gharib and a small team of undergraduates working in the California desert raised a 6900 lb (3.1 tonne), 3 meter tall obelisk into a vertical position in 22 mph (35 km/h) winds in under 25 seconds. They used only a kite, a pulley system, and a support frame to demonstrate that wind power can be harnessed to create large lifting forces. Maureen Clemmons first thought of this idea after seeing an image in Smithsonian of some men raising an obelisk. Clemmons also found a frieze that showed an unidentifiable wing pattern directly above some men and possible ropes.[12] July 6, 2001 National Geographic. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, it's insignificant. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the "concrete limestone" theory? It's not completely mad-cap, but I don't think it has any Egyptologists defending it. Both theories probably do belong, but in a sub-article. There's an interesting toothed pulley system also being floated, mention of it belongs somewhere though probably not here. Where's the sub-article for all the "pyramid-measuring" literature there was 50 years ago? It may have been completely discredited, but it once had a significant following and deserves a mention somewhere. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Niether one of these seems to be credible to me. I would think a geologist could easily tell the difference between concrete and natural limestone. If it was possible to create this limestone concrete I would think they would have recreated it with an experiment. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to check the citations and can't see anything going for this theory - I'll take it out as well. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if there are fringe theories that get touted around quite a bit, they should be mentioned very briefly and then it should be stated (with necessary citations) that the mainstream community rejects them. This is better than having no information, which leaves the reader unsure about whether the omission is deliberate or it's just that nobody's got round to writing that bit. Someone may have read about these theories and come here to get an objective discussion; finding nothing won't help them become better informed. However, I agree that fringe theories advocated by just one or two people, and which have no great exposure, should be omitted. Not sure which category these fall into. 86.133.247.122 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

On 2nd thoughts, yes. See WP:Fringe. Noone doesn't belong, but some of this other stuff does. I put back the limestone, it's far too well known not to be here. Let's think about the wind thing a bit more also. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a second page for far fetched theories would be worth considering. If so this should include a disclaimer saying there are doubts about them. I don't consider many of these theories credible but I do believe there is a major unsolved mystery here. especialy since the experts are claiming it was done in only 20-23 years. The experiments to replicate this clearly don't support that time frame. Consideration of a longer time frame should be mentioned as well. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That sort of fork is frowned upon, ditto such a disclaimer. Again, read WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV to see what should be included here and what should not. And read Romer on the GP. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind and now agree with anon above. We should include a very brief mention to every half-serious alternative theory - because it saves new editors coming along and thinking there's something missing. Then, I'm pretty sure, we should have a proper resume of these theories on a sub-page. It's not a fork that I can tell. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actualy it appears that some disclaimers are common. The statement "Davidovits' method is not accepted by the academic mainstream." is esentually a disclaimer there is also a similar one for the interior ramp theory. A disclaimer would be better than allowing inclonclusive information to be presented as fact. I also agree that since there isn't a consensus that more can be done to present alternative theories and the counter arguments without sounding like a message board. the Ancient Aliens theory has recieved a large amount of attention and in some cases people believe it. Recently when history channel did a show on it this was followed by several wikipedia pages being vadalized. This is full of hype and propaganda and the counter arguments are also hype and propaganda. This type of argument shouldn't be on wikipedia of course but scientific methods could be added it clarify things. Some thing about the distance of stars and exteme difficuly if of traveling long distances assuming it is even possible could be put in. Some ideas that should be considered fringe seem to be allowed but not others. This gives the appearence of bias or Intellectual dishonesty to anyone who is paying attention. I notice someone has removed the statement on the main page indicating that Manetho gives him a reign of 65 years. I'll put that back. A longer time period for construction seems more credible. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)