<HTML>Let's pretend you can demonstrate a machine made out of short planks of wood that will lift and set 70 foot long granite beams way up over the King's Chamber and the many 30 foot long blocks Herodotus and el-Latif reported seeing. My first question would be, if you can really do this why would you spend your time posting on message boards when you could be acquiring wealth and recognition with such a machine and also vigorously using it for very positive humanitarian and other purposes?
Let's continue to pretend that you've actually demonstrated such a machine -- (which I doubt because you spend time on message boards whereas most people would be totally away from them and in the field and in negotiations) -- now you've got a different set of problems to contend with.
Egyptology will say that just because you lift that way doesn't mean the Aes did. There's no record in Egyptology AE proper of such a machine - not even in writings and tomb pics. They'll say no machines existed during Khufu's period. Some scholar will find or make a study of the Greek word Herodotus used for machine. Herototus experts will say he reported unfounded legends, as they always say anyway when it comes to things he heard rather than saw for himself.
Then you have to contend with geopolymerization, which has been shown to date back 8,000 years in Syria for ion exchange pots needed for travel to distant places. Geopolymerization explains how GP and other blocks were positioned without machines. It explains insufficient ramp remains -- which should be more voluminous than the GP -- at Giza and the lack of broken blocks cutting produces. Geopolymerization explains the conforming fit of so many blocks and the level tiers and flat surfaces of casing and other examples. Geopolymerization explains so many masonry conundrums, like how diorite statues and quartizite statues were so finely made, that no lifting machine begins to approach. Geopolymerization can explain statues of Ramesses 1000 tons and more. Can your machine erect 1000 ton statues? If yes, why are you on message boards arguing a competing theory instead of using your system and providing the boards with progress reports and photos of demonstrations?
Then there's rapid construction. Can you demonstrate that you can keep pace with the 1 block set ever 2 or 3 minutes for 24 years? Can your method build the GP so fast (in 24 years) that its volume equals about as much stone as it took later Egyptians 1,500 years to construct into sandstone monuments after bronze was in use? Only working with concrete is that efficient. Can your theory address the mystery of size of the Giza quarries relative to the GP? No. Only geopolymerization can.
Then there are the scientific tests showing the pyramid stone is geopolymeric concrete (see Margaret Morris v Chris Dunn on this board) which you can try to rain on but aren't qualified to explain away no matter what you say. Fact: Only geopolymerization can deal with all of these issues in one sweep.
And you know that geopolymerization eliminates the need for your Herodotus machine. You're trying to squash the competing theory and no matter what you say on this board or on others it's not going to help your cause. Geopolymerization is too well entrenched and too logical and too well argued and too well supported by independent studies and solves too many problems in one sweep and too well understood by a growing number of people.
I have told you I'm glad to answer all of your questions when you've shown you're willing to behave in a civil manner. I'm not going to be bullied by you or your ticking clock tactic.
If I behaved the way you do, I'd demand answers on your Herotodus Machine.
[
www.voy.com]
But I'm not demanding and know people shouldn't behave in such a way.
Anyway, concerning the answers you demand I'm waiting for Katherine's decision on setting standards. If you continue with your ugly behavior, I may send Katherine the answers to your questions privately because she says she wants to know too. Then she can verify that geopolymerists have answers for your questions.
I'll say this too and I'll apologize right now if it hurts your feelings but I'm going to say what I really think here: now that I see what you're up to -- dumping on a competing theory -- I don't believe you are worth my time. If you've got a workable system you should use it for what it's worth in the practical world and don't worry about ancient history or being wrong on that.
Sandy</HTML>
