Well, except for its humour value, this was hardly worth the researcher's time to do the testing.

You see, when you have to blatantly lie to set up your audience, you really don't deserve to be heard out. Blaauw, who did the work, is clearly trying to present the Davidovits theory in its best light to justify his testing of the stone. Make no mistake... the geopolymer theory has been dead for years because of the kinds of misinformation that must be accepted before it can be seriously considered.

Let's start with this whopper:

Quote

“In 2500 bc there were no chisels harder than stone. You simply cannot use copper to cut or break away limestone. So how did they manage to cut those blocks so accurately to size?

Utter crap. The clear evidence of pounding stones, core drills and slabbing saws is beyond refute. These people are directly misinforming people to try and sell something... even if its just an idea.

Let's continue.

Quote

Limestone is a relatively brittle type of stone, and it contains faults that can develop into cracks. Producing a large, solid block of limestone will inevitably leave you with an identical volume of rubble. No such mountains of rubble have ever been found.”

False dichotomy. Slabbing saws leave very little waste. Now, they would only USE the slabbing saws on the finely finished blocks, which were probably less than 4% of the total project volume.

For the more voluminous task of quarrying the 4 million core blocks of ROUGH limestone that are NOT cut "accurately to size", they used harder pounding stones or harder stones mounted on wooden handles. A harder stone WILL break a softer stone... no metal required. There's the setup and the bogus false dichotomy.

And yes, these stone tools have been found and are on display in any number of museums around the world. Any honest researcher would state this.

Then we get into the actual testing part.

When they super magnify the pores, here's what they find:

Quote

The only thing was that the distribution of the pore size in the fragment from the pyramid was nothing like that of the two modern cement types.

Not a surprise, since it's not poured.



I'm no geochemist, but the origin of limestone is not a volcano or a biodeposit... but ocean bed. Finding "water" crystal trapped inside accreted ocean bed is hardly a surprise... but they want to use it as evidence for the geopolymer method, which uses water (I guess anyway, since Davidovits won't release anything useful about his theoretical chemical composition so anybody ELSE can test the pyramid stones).

Quote

Blaauw found that the sample contained mostly calcium carbonate (CaCO3) with traces of other elements. This makes it no different from natural limestone.

“It did contain 1% common salt (NaCl), but this is pretty normal for sedimentary rock.

I have to give it to Blaauw for being honest about these tests. Davidovits is sinking by the second.


Remember the part of the argument where Margaret Morris (Davidovits's publicist and all around name-faker) told us that ammonia was present in the stones and therefore must have been a chemical in the secret recipe? We have this now:

Quote

..."the crack in the alcove was used for exactly the purpose that secluded corners in tourist attractions tend to be used for when nature calls.”

Anybody with a cat will know how ammonia can be created in this exact manner...

Although I'm sure people will use this quote to bolster the "my aliens built the pyramid" schlock, we can see that Davidovits' idea that the stone was "reformed" has hit another massive speedbump:

Quote

The strength of the radiation source (uranium, thorium, potassium) being known, and thus the speed at which ‘the damage is done’, by measuring the damage, the time at which the Cheops stone last saw daylight can be calculated. Unfortunately the experiment showed this to be 400,000 years ago.
“This is a minimum value by the way. The material could be older...

That's the very latest time at which the crystals in the rock were separated, or as Davidovits calls it, "disaggregated". Never happened. Sorry Joe.

And now, the conclusion (emphasis added)

Quote

“Additional research will of course be necessary if we are to have unambiguous results for the stone used in Cheops’ pyramid, for example comparative tests with other materials such as the artificial stones created by Davidovits. However, our particular stone is a normal, natural limestone, not a manufactured cast. To my mind the luminescence dating has provided conclusive evidence.”

Well, that certainly explain why Davidovits will never let his stone out of his sight, eh?

Thanks to Baauw for putting another nail in the geopolymer coffin. It really isn't needed, as serious researchers know that Geopolymers are no more a useful pyramid construction theory than Geolegomers... which have exactly the same amount of evidence in their favor and exactly the same methodology to prove they were used.

Here: Geolegomers at [www.megaliths.info]

That's all, folks.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.