"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:J10Cg.6051$vl5.1711@newsfe4-win.ntli.net: 

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.htm

l 

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. 

On another subject altogether...
I have made available that Nick Cook book I've mentioned elsewhere, here
http://plain2.tripod.com/various.htm
You'll see the link just above the diagram (not connected with it...)

Harvey