The Giza Power Plant Read online

  FIGURE 24. Contoured Block of Granite

  During this time, I had attracted quite a crowd. It is difficult to traverse the Giza Plateau at the best of times without getting attention from the camel drivers, donkey riders, and purveyors of trinkets. It was not long after I had pulled the tools out of my backpack that I had two willing helpers, Mohammed and Mustapha, who were not at all interested in compensation. At least that is what they told me, although I can say that I literally lost my shirt on that adventure. I had washed sand and dirt out of the corner of the larger block and used a white T-shirt that I was carrying in my backpack to wipe the corner out so I could get an impression of it with forming wax. Mustapha talked me into giving him the shirt before I left, and I was so inspired by what I had found I tossed it to him. My other helper, Mohammed, held the wire gauge at different points along the contour while I took photographs of it. I then took the forming wax and heated it with a match—kindly provided by the Movenpick hotel—then pressed it into the corner blend radius. I shaved off the splayed part and positioned it at different points around. Mohammed held the wax still while I took photographs. By this time there were an old camel driver and a policeman on a horse looking on.

  What I discovered with the wax was a uniform radius, tangential with the contour, the back, and the side wall. When I returned to the United States, I measured the wax using a radius gauge and found that it was a true radius measuring 7/16 inch. This, I believe, is a significant finding, but it was not the only one. The side (arm) blend radius, I found, has a design feature that is a common engineering practice today. The ancient machinists had cut a relief at the corner, a technique that modern engineers use to allow a mating part with a small radius to match or butt up against a surface with a larger blend radius. This feature provides for a more efficient machining operation because it allows the use of a cutting tool with a large diameter and, therefore, a large radius. This means that the tool has greater rigidity, and more material can be removed when making a cut.

  I believe there is more, much more, that can be gleaned from ancient artifacts using these and other methods of study. I am certain that the Cairo Museum contains many artifacts that when properly analyzed will lead to the same conclusion that I have drawn from this piece—modern craftspeople and the ancient Egyptians have much in common in their use of the same kinds of machining techniques. The evidence, from granite artifacts at Giza and other locations, that ancient craftspeople used high-speed motorized machinery, and what we might call modern techniques in nonconventional machining such as ultrasonics, warrants serious study by qualified, openminded people who can approach the subject without prejudice or preconceived notions.

  The implications of such discoveries are tremendous in terms of a more thorough understanding of the level of technology employed by the ancient pyramid builders. We are not only presented with hard evidence that seems to have eluded us for decades and that provides support for the theory that the ancients were technically advanced. We are also provided with an opportunity to reanalyze history and the evolution—and devolution—of civilizations from a different perspective. But our understanding of how something was made opens up a different dimension when we then try to determine why it was made.

  The precision in these artifacts is irrefutable. Even if we ignore the question of how they were produced, we are still faced with the question of why such precision was needed. Revelation of new data invariably raises new questions. In this case it is understandable for skeptics to ask, "Where are the machines?" But machines are tools, and the question should be applied universally and can be asked of anyone who believes other methods may have been used. The truth is that no tools have been found to explain any theory on how the pyramids were built or the granite boxes were cut. More than eighty pyramids have been discovered in Egypt, and the tools that built them have never been found. Even if we accepted the notion that copper tools are capable of producing these incredible artifacts, the few copper implements that have been uncovered do not represent the number of such tools that would have been used if every stonemason who is supposed to have worked on the pyramids at just the Giza site owned one or two. In the Great Pyramid alone there are an estimated 2,300,000 blocks of stone, both limestone and granite, weighing between two-and-one-half tons and seventy tons each. That is a mountain of evidence, and there are no tools surviving to explain even this one pyramid's creation.

  The principle of Occam's razor, where the simplest means of manufacturing holds force until proven inadequate, has guided my attempt to understand the pyramid builders' methods. In the theory proposed by Egyptologists, the basic foundation of this principle is lacking. The fact is the simplest methods do not satisfy the evidence, and Egyptologists have been reluctant to consider other, less simple methods. There is little doubt in my mind that Egyptologists have seriously underestimated the ancient builders' capabilities. But they have only to look at the precision of the artifacts and the evidence for the mastery of machining technologies, which have been recognized in recent years, to find some answers. It would also help to try and understand modern manufacturing at the shop floor level. Primitive methods, though simple to grasp intellectually, simply do not work in the field, and researchers would be well-served by gaining a better understanding of more sophisticated, ultra-precise methods.

  One reference point for judging a civilization as advanced is to compare it with our current state of manufacturing evolution. Manufacturing is the physical manifestation of a society's scientific and engineering imagination and efforts. For over a hundred years industry has progressed exponentially. Since Petrie first made his critical observations of Egyptian artifacts between 1880 and 1882, our civilization has leapt forward technologically at breakneck speed. But, the development of machine-tools has been intrinsically linked with the availability of consumer goods and manufacturers' desire to find a customer. Most of our manufacturing development has been directed at providing the consumer with goods, which are created by artisans. Over a hundred years after Petrie, some artisans are still utterly astounded by the achievements of the ancient pyramid builders. They are astounded not so much by what they perceive a society is capable of creating using primitive tools, but rather by comparing these prehistoric artifacts with their own current level of expertise and technological advancement. To be objective, I must recognize that there are some artisans and engineers who resist revising their beliefs for the same reasons many Egyptologists do—they believe only "modern" societies are capable of sophisticated machining techniques. However, I would not be as bold in my assertions if I did not believe that the majority of my peers viewed the evidence with the same objectivity as I do and reached similar conclusions. I have presented this material to many engineers and artisans, and they are astonished at the evidence that is put before them.

  To fully appreciate the value of this kind of research, we should keep in mind that the interpretation and understanding of a civilization's level of technology has predominately hinged on the preservation of written records. But for the majority of us, the nuts-and-bolts of our society do not always make interesting reading; in the same way, an ancient stone mural will more than likely have been cut to convey an ideological message rather than to preserve the information regarding the technique used to inscribe it. Moreover, the records of technology developed by our modern civilization rest in media that is vulnerable and could conceivably cease to exist in the event of a worldwide catastrophe, such as a nuclear war or another ice age. Our legacy will likely be read in the tangible remains of our society. Consequently, after several thousand years, someone looking back would most probably arrive at a more accurate interpretation of us and our society from our artisans' methods rather than an interpretation of our language. The language of science and technology does not have the same freedom as does speech. So even though the Egyptian tools and machines have not survived the thousands of years since their use, we have to assume, by objective analysis of the evidence for them
left behind in the artifacts, that these tools did indeed exist.

  There is much to be learned from our distant ancestors, if only we can open our minds and accept that another civilization from a distant epoch may have developed manufacturing techniques that are as great as or perhaps even greater than our own. As we assimilate new data and new views of old data, we are wise to heed the advice Petrie gave to an American who visited him during his research at Giza. The man expressed a feeling that he had been to a funeral after hearing Petrie's findings, which had evidently shattered some favorite pyramid theory he had at the time. Petrie said, "By all means let the old theories have a decent burial; though we should take care that in our haste none of the wounded ones are buried alive."3

  With such a convincing collection of artifacts that prove the existence of precision machinery in ancient Egypt, the idea that the Great Pyramid was built by an advanced civilization that inhabited the Earth thousands of years ago becomes more admissible. I am not proposing that this civilization was more advanced technologically than ours on all levels, but it does appear that as far as masonry work and construction are concerned they were exceeding current capabilities and specifications. Making routine work of precision machining huge pieces of extremely hard igneous rock is astonishingly impressive.

  Considered logically, the pyramid builders must have developed their knowledge in the same manner any civilization would—reaching their state of the art through technological progress over many years. As of this writing, there is considerable research being conducted by professionals throughout the world who are determined to find answers to the many unsolved mysteries indicating that our planet has supported other advanced societies in the distant past. Perhaps when this new knowledge and insight are assimilated, the history books will be rewritten and, if humankind is able to learn from historical events, then perhaps the greatest lesson we can learn is now being formulated for the benefit of future generations. New technology and advances in the sciences are enabling us to take a closer look at the foundations upon which world history has been built, and these foundations seem to be crumbling. It would be illogical, therefore, to dogmatically adhere to any theoretical point concerning ancient civilizations.

  Such a revisioning occurred in 1986 when a French chemist named Joseph Davidovits rocked the world with a startling new theory on pyramid construction. Davidovits proposed that the blocks used to construct the pyramids and temples in Egypt were actually cast in place by pouring geopolymer materials into molds. In 1982, Davidovits analyzed limestone, given to him by French Egyptologist Jean-Philippe Lauer, which was taken from the Ascending Passage of the Great Pyramid and also the outer casing stones of the pyramid of Teti. In his book The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved, coauthored with Margie Morris, he reported:

  X-ray chemical analysis detects bulk chemical composition. These tests undoubtedly show that Lauer's samples are man-made. The samples contain mineral elements highly uncommon in natural limestone, and these foreign minerals can take part in the production of geopolymeric binder.

  The sample from the Teti pyramid is lighter in density than the sample from Khufu's pyramid (the Great Pyramid). The Teti sample is weak and extremely weathered, and it lacks one of the minerals found in the sample from the Great Pyramid. The samples contain some phosphate minerals, one of which was identified as brushite, which is thought to represent an organic material occurring in bird droppings, bone, and teeth, but it would be rare to find brushite in natural limestone.4

  Davidovits' theory received worldwide attention, and I was challenged by several people to reconcile the theory that I was proposing with his. I have no difficulty reconciling my analysis of the cutting methods of the ancient pyramid builders with what Davidovits proposed. And I am sure he will see our individual efforts in the same light.

  Davidovits cited Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, in which Petrie devoted an entire chapter to the tool marks found on various artifacts made of both igneous and sedimentary rock. These artifacts were found both inside and outside the Great Pyramid. The tool marks on the stone tell us that they were cut, not poured. Nevertheless, this oversight should not entirely discredit Davidovits' findings. Construction technology today employs many techniques—cutting, forming, and pouring to name a few. Thus I believe it is shortsighted for me, or for anyone else, to discover one method of manufacture or construction and present it as the only method used by the pyramid builders.

  Davidovits made a strong argument for his cast-in-place theory by pointing out the impossibility of the Egyptians having moved the huge monolithic blocks of stone that were used to build the pyramids. In most construction projects, if there is an option to do so, it does make sense to prepare a mold, or form, and pour the material, if the alternative is lifting and moving large masses weighing up to two hundred tons. Davidovits claimed that he had solved the problems associated with moving such huge stones with his cast-in-place theory. However, evidence that argues against the casting of igneous-type rock can be found in the rock tunnels at Saqqara. These are the giant granite and basalt boxes that weigh in at around eighty tons each. The existence of a roughed-out box and more than twenty finished boxes situated underground essentially disproves the argument that they were cast. We can speculate that when the craftspeople finished working the rough box, which is now wedged in one of the underground passageways, they would have had to move it into place without the benefit of hundreds of workers. That in and of itself is an impossibility. Furthermore, the very fact that this one box is rough cut belies the use of a casting method. If the Egyptians had cast these objects, they would not have chosen the characteristics of the roughed-out box for their mold. The product would be much closer to the finished dimensions of the other boxes, and more than likely the surfaces would be flatter than they actually are. These speculations do not mean that the ancient Egyptians did not use geopolymers. They simply mean that there may have been more than one method used to build the pyramids. To bring this whole issue into clearer perspective, perhaps we should now pause from evaluating the artifacts themselves and consider the work of an eccentric visionary who came before Davidovits, a man who also claimed he knew the secret of how the pyramids of Egypt were built—and succeeded in proving it.

  Chapter Six

  THE CORAL CASTLE MYSTERY

  While the cutting techniques of the ancient pyramid builders have been an ongoing topic for debate, they have not received the same attention and controversy as the methods that were used to lift and transport cyclopean blocks of stone. Egyptologists and orthodox believers of primitive methods argue that the huge blocks were moved and positioned using only manpower, but experts in moving heavy weights using modern cranes throw doubt on their theory.

  My company recently installed a hydraulic press that weighs sixty-five tons. In order to lift it and lower it through the roof, they had to bring in a special crane. The crane was brought to the site in pieces transported from eighty miles away over a period of five days. After fifteen semitrailer loads, the crane was finally assembled and ready for use. As the press was lowered into its specially prepared pit, I asked one of the riggers about the heaviest weight he had lifted. He claimed that it was a 110-ton nuclear power plant vessel. When I related to him the seventy-and two hundred-ton weights of the blocks of stone used inside the Great Pyramid and the Valley Temple, he expressed amazement and disbelief at the primitive methods Egyptologists claim were used.

  For many of us to whom the Egyptologists' orthodox theory seems implausible, it is enough just to argue the issue from a logical standpoint. For others, the debate becomes more meaningful when a proposed alternate method is demonstrated and proven to be successful. For that proof we must turn to the one man in the world who, by demonstration, has supported the claim, "I know the secret of how the pyramids of Egypt were built!" That man was Edward Leedskalnin, an eccentric Latvian who immigrated to the United States and who is now deceased. But he left many intriguing clues that persuade us he may indeed
have known such secrets.

  FIGURE 25. Assorted Photographs of Coral Castle

  Leedskalnin devised a means to single-handedly lift and maneuver blocks of coral weighing up to thirty tons. In Homestead, Florida, using his closely guarded secret, he was able to quarry and construct an entire complex of monolithic coral blocks in an arrangement that reflected his own unique character. On average, the weight of a single block used in the Coral Castle was greater than those used to build the Great Pyramid. He labored for twenty-eight years to complete the work, which consisted of a total of 1,100 tons of rock. What was Leedskalnin's secret? Is it possible for a 5-foot tall, 110-pound man to accomplish such a feat without knowing techniques that are undiscovered to our mainstream contemporary understanding of physics and mechanics?

  Leedskalnin was a student of the universe. Within his castle walls, he had a 22-ton obelisk, a 22-ton moon block, a 23-ton Jupiter block, a Saturn block, a 9-ton gate, a coral rocking chair that weighed 3 tons, and numerous other items. A huge 30-ton block, which he considered to be his major achievement, was crowned with a gable-shaped rock. Leedskalnin somehow single-handedly created and moved these massive objects without the benefit of cranes and other heavy machinery, a feat that astounds many engineers and technologists, who compare these achievements with those employed by workers handling similar weights in industry today.