The ancient Egyptians carved many huge temples into solid stone. This is just part of a city carved into solid stone at Petra. Carving such enormous sculptures requires more than simply using a hammer and chisel to chip it into shape. The method used to remove enormous pieces of stone, is a method that has been used in quarries for thousands of years and is still used today. It is the key to unlocking one of the worlds greatest unsolved mysteries.
The solution is so simple and obvious, you will find it impossible to believe that nobody would have thought of it by now or have uncovered evidence but that is why they say the best place to hide something is in plain sight. If YOU didn't think of it, why would anyone else?
Like so many times when something is camouflaged, when the truth is revealed, you are not thinking "I can see how easily they could have missed it", you are thinking, "how could they not see something so obvious, they must have been blind as bats". |
To remove stone from a quarry, large rectangular sections are cut into the surface and then the stone is removed as blocks. Once the block is removed, the remaining grooves create the appearance of a wall made of blocks. The grooves that are left after cutting are only shallow but if you were to see the cuts before the blocks were removed, the cuts would be quite deep and so it would look just like a wall made out of blocks. |
The same grooves can be seen in ancient Egyptian quarries and constructions that were carved into solid stone.
Similar grooves can be seen throughout the Urn Tomb at Petra. The top section has been rendered smooth but the bottom section still has the grooves that create the illusion of a wall made of blocks. In between the "blocks" are large sections of solid stone.
At the very top is what appears to be some neat smooth blocks but below it is all rough and blocks are all different shapes and sizes which helps to illustrate their construction method. At first there are deep grooves between rough blocks that are later made smooth and neat with very fine grooves that create the appearance of blocks.
In the section above the wooden platform, there are no vertical grooves. The very square blocks show little if any signs of erosion. If you were looking just at the blocks below you could think it was due to erosion but the blocks higher up show that there has been little erosion. If you were going to be build a wall out of blocks, you would build them from blocks like the ones on top. They would be all the same size and shape but below the top blocks, the blocks are all different shapes and sizes. Sections are finished block by block, they didn't just smooth out random shapes but kept with the outline of the blocks. |
Archways that look like they are made of blocks would be impossible if actually made of blocks. If you did not know that this structure was carved into the side of a cliff, at first glance, you could easily be fooled into thinking that it was made of individual blocks.
Although the archway looks like it is made out of blocks, the angle makes it impossible and the blocks not being angular in any way, there is nothing to hold them in place.
Because this is solid stone, between the "blocks" there are no grooves, just a solid slab of stone. You will see this same feature in other sites that are thought to be made of blocks but because people are so convinced that the structure is made of blocks, they conclude that the solid sections are covered in render. Because this is carved into the side of a cliff, it is easy to appreciate that this is all just solid stone and that the "blocks" are not actually blocks, it is just part of the process of removing and shaping stone. If you did not know any better, at first glance, you might think that the appearance was due to erosion and destruction when in reality, the appearance is due to being unfinished. |
Other archways are also at the wrong angle to be a real archway and the blocks are not wedged sufficiently, some are not wedged at all. Parts of the structure are very smooth and finished with very fine grooves while others are rough and protruding with thicker deeper grooves. Parts that fill the gaps between "blocks" are just rubble. The parts that are flat and finished highlight the precision displayed in the valley of the kings and other structures where the aesthetics are very important and the finish is smooth, neat and very precise, there are no bits of stone protruding or rough unfinished edges.
Below is another example of a wall that has the appearance of being made of blocks. Even though it may initially be mistaken for a wall made of blocks, it has all the same features of the walls at the Urn Tomb that give it away as a solid stone carving; "blocks" of different shapes and sizes, shallow grooves and deep grooves, finished and unfinished sections and the size and shape of the blocks is inconsistent, not all sides are parallel. A number of the blocks are only partially smooth and in gaps, the "blocks" are joined.
|
To build a wall, common sense would tell you that if you were going to cut giant blocks and drag them for kilometres, you would finish them at the quarry so that you are not carrying extra weight and so that you don't have to cart the mess away from your work site.
The Egyptians were known for their incredible precision which would be necessary to get blocks to slide into place if this were a wall made of blocks. They would need to measure and cut those blocks to fit just right before they placed them, so why would they not do the same to the front of the block when they have demonstrated that they were more than capable? Another thing that they would not do is make extra work for themselves by cutting blocks in different shapes and sizes. If you are cutting giant blocks, why go to all the extra effort to make all those extra cuts? |
|
There are hundreds of examples of where stone has been removed to reveal that what appears to be a groove separating two blocks, is only superficial or else the groove stops short. When this occurs in a structure like below at the Urn Tomb that is known to be solid stone, people have no problem with seeing it for what it is but when the exact same anomaly is found in structures that are thought to be made of blocks, people often find it harder to accept the only possible explanation.
In Petra, the Urn tomb, an enormous amount of stone that had to be removed, it was not simply carved into a straight cliff face. If they were removing so much stone, why were they not building with those stones if they were such experts at carting blocks and constructing with blocks? In rough sections you can see the pattern of the rock but where the surface has been made smooth, the pattern has been erased and taken on a pinkish tinge.
These sections are similar to the front of the tomb where part of the wall seems finished while other sections seem "eroded" but this is inside and the lines are consistent with the construction, not with erosion.
The pillar on the right still has some of the rock pattern remaining but is starting to fade with the process of being made smooth. The wall behind has the same cutting that divides the patterned section from the smooth section. In the wall on the right is a hole that has no clearly defined shape but is clearly man made, further highlighting the fact that this construction was unfinished.
What looks like a wall made out of blocks, fades into the same pattern of the solid stone ceiling. This is inside the lower section near the arches beneath the Urn Tomb, carved into solid stone. Even though the entire room is carved into solid stone, only parts of it have the grooves remaining.
Some of the blocks are smooth and without any pattern but some still have the red pattern visible.The blocks that have been made smooth have taken on the same colour as the section in the yellow box.
Some of the blocks are smooth with straight edges and thin grooves while others are rough with uneven edges and large wide grooves, consistent with the process of making walls smooth and even.
In constructions that are largely unfinished, it is easy to see where sections that are solid stone are attached to sections that appear to be made out of blocks.
In the middle of the blocks is solid stone that has had the rock pattern removed, visible only at the bottom. This is the same as near the entrance where the lower sections are patterned rock that look like erosion, while the higher sections are smooth and finished. Typical of solid stone walls that look like blocks are the grooves that are incomplete and the joins between blocks.
On the right, the section that does not look like blocks has some of the rock pattern remaining. An almost square section of patterned stone within a smooth pink section, the same contrasting textures found outside that give the appearance of erosion. On the section with grooves part of the wall has no grooves.
You will see this same sort of anomaly in other structures that appear to be made out of blocks where one section is smooth.
In the process of being made smooth, the stone takes on a pink tinge. Without stopping to think, you could easily assume that between the blocks is cement but this is part of a tomb cut into a cliff face and therefore solid stone, but in a building that appears to be made of blocks, you could easily mistake this for render. If they were using render, they would put it between blocks that were square not rounded and unfinished like this one and as this is solid stone, there is no need for render. The point is that in some buildings that appear to be made out of blocks, you will see these same anomalies but come up with a different explanation that keeps the truth hidden.
|
|
The Serapeum of Saqqara is an extensive series of underground tunnels. Even though it is carved into solid stone, there are grooves that create the appearance of something made of blocks.
As the smoothing process continues, the lines begin to fade from view until they are completely gone.
What appears to be the start of a box with a lid, is still attached.
|
Other sections near the Urn Tomb show the cliff face being cut to shape using this method of cutting blocks that the create the illusion of a wall of blocks.
Petra is carved into cliffs but there are blocks of stone everywhere from where they removed stone or where blocks of stone are still attached. You will find this same scene at constructions that are thought to be made of blocks. Because removing stone like this produces actual blocks of stone, it reinforces the illusion that the construction is made of blocks. Seeing blocks of stone laying around a construction thought to be made of blocks, makes it look like some of the blocks have fallen off or were removed.
Both of these statues are carved out of solid stone. Part of the statue on the right looks like it is made out of blocks but it is a sculpture so the grooves are only superficial.
In order to make a giant sculpture, you do not get a hammer and chisel and just chisel it into shape.
That would take forever as well as make a great mess and waste valuable building material that could be used for other purposes. The first process is to remove sections by cutting blocks of stone to create the basic size and shape. The statue on the left is thinner as the block sections have been removed. |
The sphinx is carved from solid stone and is covered in such markings. While some have been incorrectly thought to be casing stones, there are larger blocks that are clearly attached to to the main body. Like the construction at Petra where stone blocks are discarded, stone blocks found at the sphinx, make people think that they were "casing stones" that were removed, rather than simply being the result of construction, same as they were at Petra.
Eventually it would end up like this, completely smooth. The "casing stones" are just part of the process of removing stone to make it smooth and consistent and the desired shape. They were not in the habit of making sculptures that looked like they are made of blocks. These sculptures are rounded to take on the shape of an animal but the Sphinx has flat straight sides and front, indicating that it is unfinished.
Sections that are supposedly eroded have parts that contain blocks and there are sections that protrude. Some sections that are blocks sit flush with the rough surfaces leaving no space for there to have been any "casing stones". This is not erosion, it is a sculpture that is far from finished.
If sand covering sections, protected them from erosion, it would mean that the sand would have to have taken a 90 degree drop which as we know is impossible. The section to the left is connected to the main body as if contours with the main body. Sections of the blocks are smooth and neat while other sections of rough with "blocks" that have uneven sides that are not parallel.
In a hole cut into the Sphinx, one of the walls has markings that look like blocks even though it is known to be solid stone. The process of making the surface smooth causes the stone to change colour. If you were to see this on a wall it could make you think that the wall was made from blocks with very thick render in between but this is solid stone. There are many examples of this in structures that are cut into cliffs or underground. It seems that there are different stages so that at times the surface will be free from any grooves. You will find this in the Urn Tomb where part of the wall has grooves but some of it does not. Near the top, the markings look like small blocks but further down, they are sparse and don't form the shapes of blocks.
Another smaller Sphinx also has grooves that create the appearance of blocks. The parts that are smooth are a slightly different colour to the rough parts
The front section looks like blocks but there are no grooves on top and not all the grooves go right to the top.
Carving temples and tombs out of solid stone is something that is common throughout the world. When a structure can be seen to be attached to solid stone, there is no mistaking it for something that is made of blocks. But if this stone was completely carved on all sides and still had the tool makings of the Urn Tomb, you could mistake it for a building made of blocks. To carve a free standing stone this size completely may seem like an impossible task but compared to some of the structure carved into solid stone, this is actually quite small.
The Ellora caves in India, cut into the side of a cliff. In the Centre is the Kailasa temple, it is thought to be carved out of a solid piece of stone, however when you look at the surrounding cliff face that is square and straight, it would appear that what they have done is cut it from the surrounding stone so that it appears to be separate. It is highly unrealistic to believe that there would be a free standing stone surrounded by a U shaped section of stone with straight parallel sides and corners at 90 degrees.
The Ajanta caves in India, cut into solid rock.
In the pillar below at the temple of the Sphinx, where some of the stone has been removed, it reveals that there is no groove where it would have been if it were made of blocks. The pillar continues higher than the base of the block on top, therefore the blocks cannot be blocks but are solid stone. There are no layers of render, the texture of the stone is consistent throughout. People have questioned how these blocks could have been raised and put in place, when the answer was staring them in the face all along; they weren't.
The pillars on the left have the same surface texture as the pillars on the right.
The pillar on the right however looks like it is made of two different types of material as if it is covered in a thin layer of render that has been partially removed. The pillar on the left however, has no such "render" markings. As it is broken, it reveals that it is solid stone with the same texture throughout. The smooth sections on the pillar on the left are the same as in other solid stone carvings where the rough surface has been made smooth, causing it to take on a different appearance. There is no groove between the pillar and the "block" on top. |
In the first image below there are grooves that separate what appears to be blocks of stone but the second image there are none. The surface texture is the same except for parts where the rough surface has been removed to create a smooth surface. As seen above, there are no layers of render covering up grooves. This is a method that is seen in cliff carvings at Petra and in particular the Urn Tomb where solid stone is cut so that it has grooves that make it look like something made of blocks but when it is made smooth the grooves are erased. In the picture on the left, on the back wall, a groove is incomplete and the block itself is not square all the way round.
The pillar on the left has incomplete grooves that show that what looks like blocks of stone is actually one solid piece of carved stone. It is so obvious that it is difficult to believe that nobody would have noticed, therefore "there must be a logical explanation" even though there can't be one. In order for these "blocks" to actually be separate blocks, there must be a groove but there isn't; it's that simple. The best place to hide something is in plain sight. |
If you are trying to think of a "logical explanation", then it might give you some idea why nobody has noticed, because the natural reaction is to try to rationalize an anomaly back to what you believe it should be and settle on whatever explanation fits, such as covered in render or obscured by debris, without attempting to verify if those explanations are actually correct. Wherever there are grooves, they are clearly visible.
The ancient Egyptians are renowned for their precision. Perfect angles, surfaces so flat and polished that they reflect like a mirror. Even when the surfaces are so perfect like those on the right, you can still see a line where the blocks meet, you can't make the grooves invisible.
The grooves on the left are wide yet the surfaces are quite flat, therefore there should not be such a wide groove, they should be more like the one on the right. That isn't caused by erosion, as seen in the image below, there are many examples of grooves of different widths. In the bottom square, if you follow the horizontal groove from the left, you can clearly see that where it meets the small triangular section, the dark line curves upwards and does not meet the groove to the right. The fact that it curves upwards at the same width indicates that it was cut that way and also cancels out erosion as a possible explanation. |
This is not due to grooves being covered by render as the rough part that does have a groove protrudes, if the groove was covered by render it would need to be the other way round. The grooves all align with where the rough sections end and there are only grooves on the rough sections.
Throughout this structure there are sections where part of the surface has been removed to reveal that there is no groove and pillars that are broken show that they are solid stone, there are no layers of render.
Below, in the first box from the right, the edge is jagged but the smooth part matches the rough part. The wall is the same, there are no grooves, just two distinct colours that match each other, even though they have jagged edges. If there was render in between blocks, the render would be straight and you would see exposed rock where there are chips in the edges.
It is the same combination we see in structures carved underground where part of the surface is smooth and some part of the surface has grooves remaining.
When carving stairways, they didn't just carve them into sloping stone but sometimes cut deep into the rock to create the necessary slope to build stairs.
In stairways that are unfinished, the sides are solid stone and you can start to see the stairs taking shape
Where it is more finished, the sides and steps take on the appearance of blocks.
The stairway above looks like it is made from blocks but in another section much of it is smooth.
Another temple that has had an enormous amount of stone removed to create the façade so that where there are blocks, was originally solid stone. At the top, work had begun on a staircase and to the right, some of the cliff face has markings that look like blocks but large sections have not yet been cut fully and only have partial grooves.
The outside of this wall looks like blocks but the edge shows that it is solid stone.
This is in Petra where they have removed an enormous amount of stone from cliff faces to build temples and stairs, so they were not going to be building walls out of stone blocks.
Above, the archway is the wrong angle to hold itself up and as seen below, it is just a single layer.
There are carvings carved into the face of cliffs where parts appear to be made out of blocks but are actually solid stone, so could some of the free standing constructions that look like they are made of blocks, actually be solid stone or partly made of solid stone? They had to do something with the enormous amount of stone they removed so could the fact that people have been exposed to buildings that actually were made from blocks, make them assume that they are all made from blocks and like a Lego house, see no reason to ask questions or simply not notice?
Below was taken from a few feet away, there is no shadow line like the block in Lebanon. This is from a structure that is thought to be made of blocks but obviously it is not.
Monastery at Petra. So if the ancient Egyptians used this method of construction, why would they change to cutting blocks from quarries rather than just carve the quarry into a temple? Or if they were building other temples out of blocks and were so adept at carting huge blocks, sometimes for hundreds of kilometres, why would they carve into cliff faces rather than just cut blocks from the cliff face to build a free standing temple? They had to cut blocks of stone and cart it away to carve all of this, so if building out of stone blocks really was easier and superior, why would they waste their time on these carvings? Could it be that carving into solid stone is much easier and quicker than cutting up individual blocks and carting them?
Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut Egypt, carved into the face of a cliff. Some of it looks like a free standing building made of blocks but the back section is cut into the cliff. When a temple like the one above has no grooves and is obviously cut out of a cliff, you have no option but to see that it is solid stone but when something seems to be free standing and has grooves that create the appearance that it is made of blocks, you also have the option to consider that it is made of blocks. We live in a world where our construction method is building using bricks so it is natural to assume that something that looks like blocks is made from blocks but they lived in a world where they made huge carvings into solid stone.
In walls made by ancient Egyptians that are thought to be made from blocks, there are hundreds of examples of grooves between blocks of stone that are incomplete. Some of them are when the groove has not been completed through to the end of the stone and others are where the surface rock has been removed to reveal that the groove was only superficial.
You could probably manufacture "logical explanations" such as dust particles or that they are so perfectly joined etc but these are high definition images taken close up that show the texture of the rock surface continuing from one surface to the next and when one part of the groove is visible and the other not then it isn't dust or debris. It would be natural to think that with all the people examining Egyptian structures that "surely someone would have noticed something so obvious" but you really have to be aware of what you are looking for, like camouflage, it isn't obvious until someone points it out. You could possibly make up a "logical explanation" for this image but if you are now attempting to do just that, then doesn't that suggest the reason why such anomalies are ignored? Dust particles, maybe it's a trick of the light, a photographic error, camera angle or the ever popular "there must be a logical explanation"? |
You don't always see what you are looking at the way it really is, your brain can deceive you into seeing things that are not there. Even when it is pointed out, people refuse to believe, so they are not going to think of it themselves. Would the thought ever occur to you that they may have used fairies and flying unicorns to lift giant blocks? Would you ever question a house made out of Lego, if you couldn't see a groove?
The blue and green backgrounds above are actually the same colour.
|
"Probably one of the most unbelievable illusions out there, this one was the first optical illusions picture published by Edward Adelson, a professor at MIT. Although the square labeled “A” appears to be darker than the square labeled “B”, they are actually exactly the same shade of grey".
People seem to struggle with comprehending how such anomalies would go unnoticed or undocumented but typically, people tend to find a reason that fits their preconceived idea of incredibly precise fitting blocks and just assume that the groove is obscured or simply don't notice.
When you look at the blocks of stone, they all appear to be different colours, making it look like clearly defined blocks, so it reinforces the belief that they are separate blocks so strongly that it would never occur to anyone to question how they could possibly be anything other than separate blocks but as seen in the close-up in the far right image above, some of those blocks are joined. Looks can be deceiving. |
A passage cut into solid rock, still has blocks of stone attached to the floor and sides.
This structure is an example of that same technique where stone is being removed to make flat surfaces and in doing so some of the grooves are erased. The bottom section is rough with curved edges, the top is flat and smooth and in between some of the "blocks" are unfinished.In the corner the unfinshed part of the stone wraps around the corner without any groove but just above it there is a groove in the stone it is attached to.
In the same structure as above; in the green boxes, the groove is on the face running vertically and continues on top the same width. In the yellow boxes the groove runs vertically but there is no groove on top
As most of the blocks are square or rectangular, are we really expected to believe that they cut some of the "blocks" these odd shapes?
The grooves create the appearance that this is made of blocks but parts have no groove where there should be one if it really were made from blocks.
Inside the temple. If you were going to make a window or entrance, you would leave a gap between blocks so you would see a line running horizontally between blocks at the side. You would not place a block and then carve through the middle of it making extra work for no reason, you would just take a small amount off the top to create the desired slope. There is no groove where the side meets the base and the join is curved.
When blocks are split open to reveal that there are no grooves then there really is only one explanation, anything else, is just a fairytale.