I'd imagine they'd be long since buried as the Nile displaces a lot of sediment, but that'd be quite an interesting excavation. Do they call it an excavation if it's underwater? Or do they have a more appropriate term? Either way, equally curious

Factor in erosive forces and it may likely be difficult to distinguish a lost block from a natural formation on the river bed, especially if the blocks had already been damaged or defective.

Breaking away from conspiracy talk to just be a human for a second. Imagine how satisfying it would be to see a several ton rock fall into the water. It's fun throwing a stone into a pond, but that would be several magnitudes more interesting.

And from a height. I love tossing the largest rocks I can find/carry from a bridge or over pass. Those few seconds of it falling then the sound as it hits is one of life's simple pleasures.

The best sign that an adult has lost the spark of life, is to have forgotten such simple, objective pleasures (that all children share).

very quixotic of you

Not particularly quixotic or not, but I did enjoy the thought :)

Me too, thanks for sharing.

Hey man, I just offered it up. You're the one who shared in it! :)

I wonder if I could fashion some sort of mini reed raft, soak up the sun, and give serious thought to how amazing the Nile is. I would take my reed raft out on the water just to watch the bubbles.

Room for two?

100% agree. I really get off on those vids of bigass chunks of ice breaking off glaciers

Oh sure! Tons of stuff! We can throw stuff off the bridge....

Dredging.

Not that I have heard about. But the British did drop an obelisk in there. Back when they were looting all of the world

Back then all Englishmen possessed a cabinet of curiosities. Some were bigger than others.

Americans prefer pickled punks.

Oh man, somebody covers this in a documentary. FML I canot remember. Basically, no massive quarried stones have come outta the Nile.

The Nile jumps banks though, so maybe one did.

1) We're talking about a pyramid being build that is highly complex, I'm sure they were good about not dropping any in the Nile.
2) The Nile has moved since the pyramids were built so it wouldn't be at the current bottom of the Nile, it would be under regular looking land.
Just curious, why does this interest you? Let's say they find some blocks under the land, so what? (not being a jerk, just wanting to understand)

I took it as one would expect some stones to have been found at the bottom of the nile as a result of the construction. Lack of nile stones supports the theory that the pyramids were built another way

The lack of Nile stones in the earth or in the Nile shows they were transported a different way. Not necessarily how they were built. I think that's what you're saying? If so, I get it now.

No. The stones were cast from limestone mortar using wooden molds, not cut from limestone and moved 100s of miles on a papyrus boat.

What about the granite blocks?

Granite can be melted!

Yeah, that's the easy part... then what? You can't exactly just let it cool and it becomes granite again....

Right. It would have to be molded and polished.

Granite needs a lot of time and a lot of pressure to go from a molten state to granite.
It would be cool to check out those man made theories. I'll Google later tonight. 👍

Or even the numerous copper tools they have had to use to create those blocks. Not much has been found laying around, unless after they were done they melted it for other things.

What a great point OP.

The River Nile has migrated east since the Pyramids of Giza were reportly created so sunken blocks should be out of water.

Factor in erosive forces and it may likely be difficult to distinguish a lost block from a natural formation on the river bed, especially if the blocks had already been damaged or defective.

Dredging.