"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:z5QBg.132118$sz1.37468@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net: 

In news:Xns98196448E5350kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"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...

Well I imagine with extremely advanced technology if everything is
fundamentally energy one could design things in a kind of advanced
AutoCAD program and simply create it using special projectors powered
by anti-matter or something :) One could also replicate things atom
for atom. Making crystal skulls would be a doddle and one could have a
wail of a time cloning oneself but of course one could even create a
whole designer planet on which to live. :)

But I would doubt the ancient Egyptians had anything like that. :)

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.

Well I suppose there is the other possibility whoever built the
Pyramids simply left. I suppose my theory above might sound a little
far fetched. But only because we artificially limit our horizons and
what science might achieve. Probably because we fear the
responsibility of godhood. What if there are no limits? :)

What if the Pyramids were a device for projecting energy in order to
create matter, This might explain why the Moon appears exactly the
same size as the Sun, there's no reason why it should be so. and of
course it does look like it was made of Concrete with a generous mix
of Titanium Oxide :)  Need a Pyramid give me the map coordinates and
I'll press the button, you may notice the whole national grid goes
down for a few seconds ;) 

Of course if that really were the order of the Universe, IOW
technology can feasibly manipulate and create Worlds and actually it's
all a lot more simple than we are lead to believe, then there is every
possibility it has already been done. The fact that the establishment
works hard to limit our horizons to prevent us from becoming gods,
does actually make some sense, and indeed this is mentioned in the
book of Genesis when mankind was expelled from the Garden of Eden. The
Gods feared that we would have access to the tree of life and become
like them, so placed a flaming sword at the gates of Eden. Of course
Governments would have a vested interest in covering all this up,
since egomaniacal, all powerful gods don't do democracy LOL :)

Obviously I am speculating here. But if there are no limits to
evolution and what we might achieve through science and technology,
then godhood is our destiny.

I don't know the true purpose of the Great Pyramid?
Some speculate it was for energy generation purposes, and with the
other pyramids worldwide - then the matter of teleportation may come
to mind? It would sure beat air travel, for sure.

When reading anything about the Ancients - these Gods, as it were.
They were not spiritually advanced nor evolved. They did have the
technology - superweapons and what have you.
They were ruthless as rulers - as evidenced in the Old Testament
God, even going as far as the son killing the father for power
and control. How ruthless and manical is that?

I think you have to be aware of the various interpretations and
then re-interpretations that has gone on throughout history -
explaining how the hell we don't know what the text actually
means now. eg. Book Ezekiel - Christians say it was God on his
Chariot, a kid would say 'UFO'.

Religion was political, and priests wanted power and control
over the people, and they exercised their control via the
Bible and how they interpreted it.
Religion always claimed the spiritual message, but then does
things for itself, set up an establishment base, maintain
authority and control, set up a physical kingdom, keep themselves
in posh houses, etc etc.

Scientists have become the new priests of our age.

That is nothing new, as they were too, in ancient times...
very ancient ancient times.

Harvey