In news:Xns9819AEBFFC54kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:R4TBg.51112$oo2.40419@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net:

In news:Xns981988D27B1D4kiwilovesomewherenz@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 :)

Onto things concrete and physical...

I was checking out the radionexus site
http://www.radionexus.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3
&Itemid=26

Mainly to listen to the 3 items listed about Lobsang Rampa,
to see that a researcher has confirmed that he was hounded by the
press, and that all sorts of false publicity was created around
him, that he never stood a chance to present his case.
Lobsang Rampa wrote about many things that are generally discussed
today such as about the pyramids and time capsules.

Anyway listed at that site is program 22
which is about the Pyramid in Bosnia that is currently
undergoing excavation, see their official website at
www.bosniapyramid.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4912040.stm

It is early days yet for the excavation, but there is also
the case for Bosnia stone balls too.

Note: Phillip Coppens makes mention in the radio interview
of a Pyramid in Italy, but there was no interest shown in it,
such that it was never heard of again. That was some years ago.
Without proper research done, it may have been a hill that
looked artificial in appearance?

Actually this site has a fairly comprehensive list of Pyramids
Worldwide http://www.crystalinks.com/pyramids.html
One thing that surprised me was the original stance toward the
Bosnian Pyramid by the UK archaeologist Anthony Harding who
basically took the view that it couldn't be a pyramid since there
are no Pyramids in Europe. Yet it has recently been discovered that
Silbury Hill in Wiltshire UK is a conical step Pyramid.
http://www.crystalinks.com/silburyhill.html

Yes, I have been aware about the Silbury Hill claim, being man made,
and have used that crystalinks site before.

I'm not sure if it's a claim. I know they excavated into it at one point
back in the 1980s because I used to drive down that way quite a lot and one
of the main A roads goes right past it so I'd get to see how the work was
progressing, they did actually have quite a large tunnel in the side at one
stage. I don't know if they found anything interesting, but I think they may
have found it was a conical stepped pyramid back then. But I suppose it's
debatable whether a conical stepped pyramid is a pyramid or a mound.

Glastonbury Tor is quite interesting to that looks pyramid shaped from
certain angles but it's sort of elongated from the air so unless it's
partially collapsed it was probably never a pyramid. However some of the
legends surrounding it are interesting it is said to be hollow and to be the
entrance to the underworld, so maybe there are cavities inside or beneath it
that hold some kind of ancient secret.

Mind Britain is full of ancient earthworks. I know there was a mound on the
hill above the town I was brought up in it was called Twmbarlam (or locally
the pimple), it's just visible in the top left of this picture
http://tinyurl.com/n8ox6 there were a number of theories as to it's origins,
some believe it to be a burial mound others believe it to be a fortress, one
certainly gets a good from the top. But the UK must be full of these ancient
sites and no one knows for certain who built them. Mind the legends sound
like something from Tolkien, what with Merlin, Excalibur, King Arthur and
the mysterious Island of Avalon.

Yeah, typical can't be a Pyramid because there are none there.
Like the Yonaguni reaction - must be natural formations and not
man made. Of course there was no advanced ancient civilisation near
Japan, otherwise the experts would have known about it.

Yes the claims that those are natural formations do seem some what
ridiculous, particularly as the article points out there's no evidence of
fallen rock at the foot of the walls as one would expect in a narural
formation, which means it must have been excavated and cut.

I wonder if any photographs have turned up on about the underwater
ruins off Cuba?

Well it certainly possible to see them in Satellite photographs, but there
doesn't seem to have been any serious investigation AFAIK.

Mind one thing is certain the worldwide distribution of ancient sites and
there marked similarities proves there was a global civilisation thousands
of years ago, which must have been more advanced than traditional
archaeology has claimed in the past.

Of course the Internet makes it possible to collate all that evidence
together an I think in some ways it's changing our view of ancient history,
and a lot of things once thought to be simply legend and myth do actually
have some basis in reality and the Internet is helping to unravel that. I
think the reason why some things often appear to be covered up is because a
revolution is occurring, and it's occurring too fast for traditional
academia to keep pace (some of those old fogies are not even computer
literate, and in their day keyboard skills were a job for menial workers),
it's like the history books are re-written on a daily basis and some of them
haven't got a clue and simply cannot keep up.
-- 
Amanda