The Giza Power Plant (11 page)

It is difficult to ascertain what the Japanese Nippon Corporation was trying to prove when, in 1978, they attempted to erect a sixty-foot pyramid in Egypt. Under prescribed conditions, they received permission from the Egyptian government to erect a pyramid southeast of Mycerinus' Pyramid on the Giza Plateau. They were to use the same methods that the original pyramid builders supposedly used. They were not to use the stone from the plateau itself, but from the quarry that provided the original blocks. The rules were that after Nippon had finished this demonstration, they were to dismantle their pyramid and restore the site to its original condition.

Agreeing to these stipulations, the Japanese set to work quarrying, hauling,
and erecting approximately one-ton blocks of limestone. The reports and films taken of this operation reveal the difficulties they encountered during their long and difficult task. Reportedly, their first difficulty was getting the stones across the Nile River. In
Pyramid Prophecies,
Max Toth wrote:

Once cut into approximate one-ton blocks, the stones could not be barged across the River Nile. Floatation apparently was not the simple answer, as had been suggested. The blocks finally had to be ferried across by steamboat.

Then, teams of one hundred workers each tried to move these stones over the sand—and they could not move them even an inch! Modern construction equipment had to be resorted to, and once again, when the blocks of stone were finally brought to the building site, the teams could not lift their individual stones more than a foot or so. In the final construction step, a crane and helicopter were used to position the
blocks.
⁸

The reported difficulty the Japanese encountered moving the limestone seems to conflict with other reports by Egyptologists. According to I.E.S. Edwards, moving a one-ton block of limestone was not as difficult as the Japanese made it out to be:

Without wheeled vehicles, how did the Egyptians move such great weights, and how did they raise them to the heights of the pyramids at Giza? In an experiment not many years ago, a French investigator obtained a one-ton block of limestone. The block was positioned on a track of moist mud taken from the Nile, and a crew of about 50 men was assembled and instructed to pull it with ropes. When they started pulling, the block slid along as if it were almost weightless. With half as many men, the block again ran away. The experimenter soon found that one man, with no difficulty, could push the ton of stone along on the wet mud. In ancient records we see Egyptian crews dragging great weights on sledges while waterbearers wet down the surface
ahead.
⁹

Being objective about the whole debate of whether the methods of building
the pyramids were those proposed by Egyptologists or other more advanced methods, and considering the experiments undertaken to obtain conclusive proof one way or another, we would have to question the motives of the experimenters. It seems that if the Japanese team were out to prove that pyramid building should be left to those with access to modern techniques and equipment, they succeeded. But this does not mean that their conclusions were irrefutable, and it does appear that they gave up easily when trying to move
their
one-ton blocks of limestone. However, the records show that they did attempt the construction of a pyramid (one that was small compared to the originals) and failed to complete it using primitive methods. It now remains for those who are absolutely convinced that the ancient Egyptians constructed the pyramids using primitive techniques to build a pyramid themselves, using those same techniques that they propose the Egyptians used. As part of such an attempt, it would help if they cut out just one seventy-ton block of granite from the Aswan quarry, which is located five hundred miles away, using their hardened copper chisels or dolerite balls and then transported the block to the Giza Plateau with their barges, ropes, and manpower. If the proponents of traditional theories of constructing the pyramids are able to accomplish this feat, then we should give serious consideration to their proposals about pyramid construction.

A more recent attempt at building a pyramid was carried out by a team from the television program
NOVA
that included Egyptologist Mark Lehner and Massachusetts stone mason Roger Hopkins. Their pyramid reached a height of twenty feet and took three weeks to build using steel tools, and front-end loaders, and the valiant effort of laborers, who, under the direction of Hopkins and for the benefit of the cameras dragged the final stones into place. As Dr. Lehner honestly described the small scale of this undertaking, "It would have fitted neatly on to the top of the Great Pyramid, in whose shadow we built
it."
¹⁰

Considering the immense size of the Great Pyramid, the precision with which it was built, the materials that were used, and the uniqueness of its interior passages and chambers, we are faced with a structure that has no parallel in modern times. Theories of primitive methods of construction are invalidated by the proponents' own tests and demonstrations; and considering the time in which the proponents of these theories have had to
develop a watertight case, it appears they will never figure it out. The passing years have significantly weakened the traditional views, perhaps not in the eyes of Egyptologists, but certainly in the eyes of people like myself. We are beginning to learn the true significance of alternative theories that have, for the most part, been ignored. Meanwhile, credibility of the old theories has been undermined by highly questionable armchair speculations that are passed on as facts—such as the idea that the Egyptians used copper chisels to shape hard, igneous rock.

The most compelling evidence for the likelihood that the Great Pyramid was constructed by craftspeople with specialized knowledge and advanced techniques is the precision with which it was built. This precision reveals more about the true nature of its builders than any inscription or cartouche. There is no way to ignore the accuracy of this stonecutting, despite Egyptologists' interpretations of the inscriptions found in pyramids or temples in Egypt. After all, hieroglyphics, like any language, has the potential to be misunderstood.

After discussing much of the preceding information with the artisans at today's building sites, machine shops, and quarry mills, I became aware of the reason why we are still influenced by ideas that are not compatible with practical application. The artisans of today are too busy making a living to give serious thought to scholarly theories, and even when gross inequities are presented to them, they respond with a cynical shrug. When told that giant limestone casing stones, which were cut to within 1/100 of an inch, were cut with hammer and chisel, a typical response was a shake of the head.

As for the general public's lack of interest in the technological mysteries surrounding the Great Pyramid, the fact is that the majority enjoy the use of technology without regard to its creation. We buy tools, utensils, and appliances with little thought about the skill and ingenuity that played a part in the production of just one little component. We appreciate the final product but have little knowledge of how it was made.

Because I have had technical experience in the procedures that created some modern conveniences, I have examined the evidence in a new way and I sum up my thoughts regarding the construction of the Great Pyramid as follows: It has been said many times that the Great Pyramid was built with tolerances that modern opticians would be hard-pressed to match. In analyzing
the reason for this high degree of perfection, I consider two possible alternative answers. First, the building was for some reason
required
to conform to precise specifications regarding its dimensions, geometric proportions, and its mass. As with a modern optician's product, any variation from these specifications would severely diminish its primary function. In order to comply with these specifications, therefore, greater care than usual was taken in manufacturing and constructing this edifice. Second, the builders of the Great Pyramid were highly evolved in their building skills and possessed greatly advanced instruments and tools. The accuracy of the pyramid was normal to them, and perhaps their tools were not capable of producing anything less than this superb accuracy, which has astounded many over the years. Consider, for example, that the modern machines that produce many of the components that support our civilization are so finely engineered that the most inferior piece they could turn out is more accurate than what was the norm for those produced one hundred years ago. In engineering, the state of the art inevitably moves forward.

Of course, there might be a third alternative. It could always be said that those who built the Great Pyramid did not really know what they were doing, and that the end result of their labors was achieved purely through trial and error—the Great Pyramid's precision was just a stroke of luck. Yes, I know that reasoning sounds ridiculous, but it has been suggested by Egyptologists and other researchers, actually more than a few times. If we pass the achievement of the builders of the Great Pyramid off as pure coincidence, we need say little more. However, if curiosity gets the better of us, we can look a little more closely and consider the notion that perhaps there is some significance behind the Great Pyramid's mathematical sophistication.

Today we do not invest the time and effort to finish modern artifacts to a precision of .0002 inch, unless we must. As a general rule, when estimating the cost of manufacturing an object, if the tolerance box has an extra zero in it—that is, not .001 but .0001—the price of the object increases significantly. The more precise the object, the more it costs, because the labor is more expensive. Tool and instrument makers earn more money per hour than machine operators. Therefore, it follows that for cost purposes, an engineer will design a machine or tool with the greatest amount of tolerance allowable while at the same time still providing for the machine's or tool's proper function.
The measurements of any given object are simply a means to an end, and, while being related to the object, they are not the object itself. It is not unreasonable for us to assume, then, that the dimensions and precision embodied in the Great Pyramid are means by which the builders created a product that had to function in a way that a product of lesser precision could not.

If the builders were intelligent enough to figure out the engineering aspects of quarrying, hauling, and erecting millions of tons of masonry with such precision, then is it logical to assume that this feat was achieved with primitive methods? Would the degree of practicality evident in the structure have been limited to just the comprehension of its final form, or would it have been applied to solving all constructional aspects? Wouldn't any group of individuals who could build such an advanced and unique product have the capacity to develop advanced and unique tools to produce it? With the Great Pyramid, the achievement of its final form was undoubtedly a group effort; and since the evidence available suggests the builders used sophisticated methods of machining, they would have developed the necessary advanced and unique tools to do the job. With this in mind, perhaps we should speculate that they also had an advanced and unique purpose for building the Great Pyramid.

As I have suggested, if we look at the history of manufacturing, we will find that the evolution of machine tools has resulted in a quality of product that was not possible one hundred years ago. The accuracy and repeatability of these machine tools is such that the accuracy and replicability of some of the work they produce may not be necessary for the product to function properly. The machines are built to produce highly accurate and consistent products without regard to the level of importance each feature may have in the final product. One viewpoint may be, therefore, that the pyramid builders had created machinery with a "state of the art" in cutting and dressing stone that was incapable of producing low-quality work. This may seem a far-fetched idea on the surface, but as I will show in the next chapter, advanced methods of machining stone are clearly evident in artifacts from that period.

With the Great Pyramid, we are faced with an artifact that exhibits a state of the art in manufacturing and construction that we do not find necessary for specification of modern buildings. In fact, artisans who provide
materials and erect modern buildings do not even relate to the tolerances that must have been imposed on the creators of the Great Pyramid. It was with this realization that I continued my study and tried to imagine what recreating it would take. The Great Pyramid speaks of a highly skilled and intelligent body of people who conceived and executed a design with an attention to detail that is utterly astounding. A tremendous amount of resources must have been made available for it. Graham Hancock said it very nicely in a documentary I had taken part in. "The builders of the pyramids speak to us across the centuries and say 'We are not fools. . . . Take
us seriously!'"
¹¹
His comment sums up exactly the conclusions I had reached in 1977: The pyramid builders were as intelligent as we are. How they applied their knowledge may have been different, but it is obvious that they possessed sufficient knowledge to create an artifact having a distinct feature that, so far, we have not been able to repeat. The bald fact is that the Great Pyramid—by any standard old or new
—is the largest and most accurately constructed building in the world.

The discoveries at the Great Pyramid that have most interested me are those that involve the methods the ancient builders used to cut the material used to construct it—primarily the granite. Because I am involved in manufacturing, I have noticed many inconsistencies between what Egyptologists have taught regarding the tools that were supposedly used and the evidence that can be drawn from the masonry itself. In other words, the stones of the Great Pyramid tell me a different story than they have other observers. The stones tell me that they were cut using
machine-power,
not manpower as orthodox Egyptologists theorize.