<HTML>Sandy:
Welcome, and I'm glad you've brought this here.
I'm going to repeat my answer, as well. But I also want to add something:
let's be careful we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Using SOME blocks as evidence against is as bad as using SOME blocks (with jumbled shells) as evidence FOR.
Geopolymers won't go away until we explain the jumbled shell.
I would also like to bring up a problem with the "carving" of hardstone statues, as opposed to the "forming" of hardstone statues.
Remember when they found the "footprints" in Mexico... 250,000 years old, in sedimentary rock? The footprints extended right under a rock ledge, so they were genuine. However it wasn't until the crosssection of the bottom of the print was either x-rayed or extremely magnified that they could tell the difference between a compression mold, and an incission carving.
The footprints were, as suspected, impressions...not carving.
Could this same test be used to determine whether the actual surfaces of the hard objects, and even the core stones of the pyramid itself, were the result of carving or compression?
Anthony</HTML>
