There are a considerable number of theories that attempt to explain how the Great Pyramid was constructed, yet only few are contemplated. The arguments put forth by von Daniken to explain the development of the Great Pyramid, are not as credible in comparison to the arguments expressed by Wilson and Davidovits. This is demonstrated through the use of factual, supported evidence.
Both Wilson and Davidovits’ theories regarding the Great Pyramids construction are supported with factual evidence hence are more convincing. Wilson argues that wooden rollers are undoubtedly applied to assist in transporting the massive stone blocks to the construction site, “he refers to Professor J. Pritchard’s text, that describes the importation of coniferous timber from Phoenicia at the time of Senefru.” (Building the Great Pyramid) Through referencing and providing factual evidence, Wilson advances and justifies his own
…show more content…
Davidovits utilizes his knowledge of simple chemistry to explain how the stone blocks were precisely fitted together and moulds for the latter blocks were produced. It says, “
“ (Pouring a Pyramid) Davidovits provides a scientifically- sound explanation. It is highly likely that this tactic was used since natron was so readily available (due to the practice of mummification). Further laboratory experiments, comparing such artificial stone to the stone casing of the pyramids, validate his theories. On the contrary, Daniken reverts to conspiracy theories based on supreme beings intervening. He mentions the sun god, Ra’s involvement and the impossibility of the the “classical” dimensions and location of the Pyramid. (Chariots of the Gods). Daniken's conspiracies have no substance; they are empty attempts to deny the facts and possibilities that the other theories present. Hence, Daniken’s conspiracies do not validate his