<HTML>To anyone who will answer this:
As of late, I've been a little bit snide regarding the geopolymer theory. I certainly haven't meant to offend anyone. I am now going to go back, and in all sincerity and earnest, ask some serious questions of the proponents. I would ask that these questions be answered, without referring to OTHER aspects of the geopolymer theory. Just these questions. Nothing else.
Deal?
Now, to begin...
Let me recap what I know about the pertinent details of the geopolymer theory...
1. The stone was crushed in the quarries... then watered down in the quarries... and THEN transported to the pyramid construction site. This explains why there is a chemical match between the quarries and the blocks.
2. Once the glop arrives at the construction site, it is handpacked into block shapes, in situ. This explains how they were able to "lift" 2.3 million blocks into place.
3. The blocks do not have the marks of "molds" because traditional wooden molds (or any other material, for that matter) were not used. This explains why there are no marks, and why the blocks are of varying sizes and shapes.
But now, here's my FIRST question...
In researching my own theory, I have examined hundreds of photographs of the Great Pyramid and its core limestone blocks. If indeed this geopolymer process were employed, why have I never been able to find a case where the wet block on top "oozed" into the cracks between the blocks below?
A good theory will give you predictable results... it will allow you to predict evidence before you find it. It has worked for me at the Coral Castle, and in examining these photos of the Great Pyramid, I have also found preliminary evidence that the same technology was used there as well. It would seem that with 2.3 million blocks, there would be some sign of this "bulging" into lower openings... somewhere. I have seen none whatsoever.
EXPECTED ANSWER: At the time of construction, the blocks were perfectly fitted together... there was no way for the geopolymer to leak between them.
REBUTTAL: Literally tens of thousands of blocks are visible... and not one mistake... anywhere... on any level. TOO perfect, actually.
And the second question is this:
IF indeed these blocks were formed in situ, and made of a limestone geopolymer, how come there is an ample volume of mortar... good old gypsum mortar... packed between the blocks? This would be like pouring a concrete foundation, and using plaster of paris to fill the joints. If the geopolymer was of a moldable consistency, why was there any need for a different type of mortar at all? Why not just fill in with the limestone geopolymer? Apparently it was MUCH easier to make than the gypsum mortar, which requires heat and ash and all sorts of fun stuff.
EXPECTED ANSWER: The mortar was added AFTER the construction, as a repair for damage from earthquakes and such.
REBUTTAL: Well, the mortar has been carbon dated to AT LEAST 2500 BCE, and therefore is contemporaneous with the construction... unless you are suggesting a MUCH older construction date.
Also, the mortar would have to have been added AFTER the 14th century, when the casing stones were removed... otherwise there was no access to the blocks. Period.
Also, the EXPECTED ANSWER to the first question required the blocks to be perfectly fitted in order to NOT "bulge" down into openings, yet the mortar clearly suggests they were NOT perfectly fitted. How can you make these two answers FIT to each other?
I'll be awaiting this with great anticipation. I hope somebody with good, reasonable, logical answers can take this one on. It's not until questions like these can be answered convincingly that the geopolymer theory can be considered even remotely feasible.
Sincerely,
Anthony Sakovich</HTML>
