Amanda Angelika wrote:

not for you perhaps,engineers find it very likely..

Not even by basic common sense

'Common sense' is rarely common and often not sense.  Engineers, who
know of such things, have no problem working out how they could build
such huge projects even with limited technology. Many 19th and early
20th century projects were as large and done primarily by hand.  For
example the workforce on the Hoover Dam was 21,000. In building the
Panama Canal some 27,000 workers died.

This was based on something suggested on a Website by someone describing
himself as a mathematician. He had a theory it was a bit like a Maypole.
This might have been possible with small Pyramids but a 481ft crane with a
boom made entirely of wood capable of lifting 20 ton limestone blocks using
nothing more than slaves, oxen or even teams of elephants as a power source
using primitive ropes does stretch the imagination somewhat. These days we
build cranes of steel, have powerful motors and thick steel ropes. But even
this http://www.towercrane.com/ which is said to be the largest and most
powerful tower crane in the World would be too small to built the great
Pyramid.

So you come up with a crackpot idea that won't work and claim that this
shows what, exactly ? That crackpts have silly ideas ?

Of couse it could be the opposite way around, the best pyramids came first
because they were already there, the smaller ones and the failed attempts
are the work of the Ancient Egyptians.

No. It could not be that.  There are records and much other evidence
both in and around the constructions that show exactly the order they
were built.  The quarries that were used still exist. It is possible to
use techniques to date when stone was cut, when its face was first
exposed to the air because there are changes that happen.  Take a
sample from the surface and from inside and the dating can be done.
The datings from the stones and from the quarries abandoned after the
building show the same date.

Actually no you would need more people to haul 20 ton stones to the top,
that you would at the bottom.

No. just more time.  In any case the vast majority of the pyramid is
built from stones that are 2 to 3 tonnes which is an easy size for a
work gang to manage. There are a small number that are much larger at
80 tonnes or so and a few intermediate sized one.

The 'stones at the top' are only 2 or 3 tonnes.

As a comparison Cleopatra's Needle weighs 180 tonnes and while it was
taken to england by sea it was transported and raised by horses and men
using hemp ropes and some timbers.

In which case you would not have had room for the workers, or animals used
to haul the stones 481ft in the air.

Some people think of solutions, others get confused by problems.  There
is no problem at all in having a platform of stone blocks around the
top giving all safe working room. These would then be removed for the
surfacing layer to be added.

That is you only think of the top being a point, but this is only
required in the final stage, it could have been blocked out to give
adequate working room, just as scafolding is used today.  The
underlying strure of the pyramid is stepped blocks perfectly usable to
rest other blocks on making a vertical sided platform.

Which apparantly given there are over a million 20 ton blocks would mean
laying a block somewhere in the region of one every 3.5 minutes. LOL

No. Wrong. You may have read that the blocks were 'up to 20 tons' and
this may have been phrased that way to make you more impressed but 99%
of the blocks are between 2 and 3 tonnes which is quite easily moved by
a gang of 20 or so, even up a ramp.

While you think that 'one every 3.5 minutes' may seem fast you need to
know that there were many places this could be done so each 'workface'
need only have been one every hour or so if there were 20 workfaces.

Of course at the top there would have been fewer workfaces, but look at
how building are actually done today and see there are many places
where work is done.

People wearing bird masks and with animal heads were fairly normal if their
art is to be believed, those people don't look very human, maybe the masks
are some form of breathing apparatus :)

No, they are representations of their gods, not of your gods.

i know...but hollywood is making films wich are
not very real or don't you agree?
i guess you think stargate is real?

Who knows?

It's fiction.  You should strive to tell the difference.

There art shows they had no understanding of persepctive, which means they
didn't understand trigonometry. :)

That is fiction, too. They understood perspective and geometry (they
don't actually need trigonometry).