"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ycHBg.3914$Cz6.1796@newsfe5-win.ntli.net: 

In news:Xns9818754CA5A12kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:DwpBg.1933$Cz6.1559@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

In news:44d5fd77$0$12841$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl,
dre <v> typed:

and read this before you go berserk...



http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/giza_power_plant_meltdown.html

The main flaw that strikes me in that whole highly ambitious
argument is in order to make any form of concrete you need powdered
rock. Admittedly rock can be powdered by crushing and grinding, so
not impossible with primitive means, just bang the rocks together.
But you'd need an awful lot of concrete to build the great pyramid.

The other aspect is where is the information that shows how this
rock was hardened and set. If the mixture didn't have the right
properties it would not harden properly. The other thing is the
author talks about Diorite pots, this substance is said to be as
hard as quartz. Obviously it would be very difficult to grind such a
material into a powder, and even if you could make a kind of diorite
concrete. I imagine one would need to fire the pots in a kiln so
that the particles could re-fuse together to the same hardness. But
what about granite? How does one make granite concrete? Processes
that involve firing usually require the inside of the object be
hollowed out otherwise it will crack and fall apart, anyone who has
ever done ceramics knows this. The only other method that might work
is some form of internal heating process involving microwaves or
ultrasound carefully controlled using computers and technology very
likely beyond even what we have today and certainly not available to
the Ancient Egyptians.

It's an interesting idea but apart from an attempt to debunk the
idea that the Egyptians had power tools the author provides no
supporting evidence to show geopolymerization actually works or is a
viable explanation. She merely uses long words with no evidence to
support her argument.

In fact I'm pretty certain if one studied geopolymerization fully
one would discover the heat and pressure necessary to fuse some
types of rock together in that way would only be available to a
highly technologically advanced people. Actually similar theories
have been postulated about those Crystal skulls, but moulding and
fusing quartz in that way is AFAIK beyond current technology so if
that is how it was done, it would suggest they were made by a people
with technology far beyond our understanding.

It would have been nice if Margaret Morris actually had some
technical background in the field of which she goes on about,
and simply had more than 'researcher' to her credit.
Her confrontational debate attitude, I think is more offputting
than of help to her.

At least Christopher Dunn has more than that, to his credit - he
is more creditable with his theories because it is within his
area of expertise and knowledge that he talks about.

Well basically Margaret Morris is trying to debunk Christopher Dunn's
ideas. Like a lot of debunking articles though her article attempts to
support an established view so is lacking in supporting evidence since
debunkers practically always assume the established view is self
evident and gives their argument a weight simply because certain ideas
are accepted in certain established intellectual circles.

But if one is going to come up with an idea like geopolymerization.
IOW the Ancient Egyptians used to buy Instant stone in a box (just add
water, build your own pyramid with these simple instructions) from
their local Wall-Mart, like some sort of cake mix, I think there needs
to be some actual evidence (apart from modern concrete) that one can
make proper stone in that way. I guess it might be possible to make
something that looks like limestone. But granite is a different matter
and I dare say diorite would require heat and enormous amounts of
pressure to form into pots, and of course one would need to have it in
a powdered form to make a kind of clay or concrete which could be
worked or moulded, that would require the ability to grind up the 
materiel in the first place. 

It's an interesting alternative theory but I don't think it works in
support of accepted theories in regard to technological time lines. In
fact if one were able to manipulate materials to the extent the
article claims the technology available to the Ancient Egyptians would
be far beyond anything we have today, because we are just using
"primitive" steel reinforced concrete and certainly couldn't make
giant monumental statues out of concrete without using steel
reinforcement. So in some ways the article's claims are so "off the
planet" that it would suggest the Ancient Egyptians must have had
alien friends :) 

I don't think the poured concrete mix idea for building a pyramid
has any kind of logic to it. There is no sense to it, does not add up.
If the stone blocks have the tell tale signs they were quarried and
cut (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore is a duck) only
the method of cutting is in contention?
How does the poured technique work? Are the stones mashed up into
dust? then mixed, heated, etc? then poured into moulds - doesn't make
any sense to go that route - any type of builders wouldn't go the hard
route to end up with a product that looks like something else, ie. cut.
Geologists/scientists ought to be able to tell the difference when
scientific scrutiny is brought to bear on this.
And if she does have that evidence, the next thing to do is to
replicate their technique, which is the only way to prove 100% that it
works...

The whole thing about the Great Pyramid - is to realise that first
you have the original design and intention, of what it was used for.
Then you have it abandoned due to a cataclysm, then you have it reused
for a secondary purpose, in which the Egyptians used it for, and then
it probably further decorated/redecorated.
And looking at the Giza Plateau, you have to look at it this way.
Which were the original oldest buildings on the site? And then to add,
which came next and next?
It is said the Great Pyramid is 73,000 years old and there are
similiar ones in Mexico and China, covered up - which will be uncovered
soon? With knowing their general positions, I wonder if someone can
pinpoint exactly where they could be? Discovery of these other 
identical pyramids would put to rest, that the Ancient Egyptians
built the Great Pyramid.

Harvey