<HTML>Sandy J. Perkins wrote:
>
> Chris, first of all you're mixing apples and oranges.
> All that rock going up in 24 years refers to millions of
> limestone pyramid blocks. It doesn't refer to granite dating
> from the Serapeum (19th D to Roman days).
Perhaps to you I am mixing apples and oranges, but I am not, I can assure you. I am focussed on one thing and one thing only. The manufacture of the artifacts that leaves tool marks and a high level of precision.
> If only you could find some traces of machines. Petrie
> searched the rubbish heaps and found nothing and no one has.
> MM has stressed that as you know.
If I really cared what MM stressed, I would submit to her diatribes and bow down to the great geopolymer God in the sky. When it comes to the evidence I have presented, she does not have a clue.
The rubbish pits did not reveal any forms or molds to substantiate the geopolymer theory either. But didn't I read someone say that a lack of evidence is not evidence?
> For the piece you present a geologist trained in the
> capabilities of geopolymerization would have to look at the
> surface up close with a hand lens. This is the only way to
> settle this issue.
>
> How much does this object weigh? Can you show a quartz vein
> running through this object?
See anything here?
<img src="[
www.gizapower.com];
>
> Besides, my remarks were not directed at you. They are
> directed at people who don't try to understand the geopolymer
> theory and reinvent it and then argue against their own
> assumptions and distortions of or about it and pretend to
> have shot it down.
I'm certainly glad that it was not directed at me. If you want to win your opposition over, I think it is a matter of presentation. I have found the geopolymer camp, especially MM, to be unprofessional and insulting in their approach.
> I asked you before why you don't think both technologies
> could co-exist given that we have both today. You didn't
> answer.
When did you ask me that?
I'm glad to answer. Actually the answer is in my book. I will quote the relevant passage here so you don't have to go out and buy a copy:
"...............Davidovits' theory received worldwide attention and I was challenged by several people to reconcile the theory I was proposing with that of Davidovits. I have no difficulty reconciling my analysis of the cutting methods of the ancient pyramid builders with what Davidovits proposes. And I'm sure he will see our individual efforts in the same light.
Davidovits cites the work of William Flinders Petrie Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh who devoted an entire chapter in this book to the tool marks found on various artifacts, made of both igneous and sedimentary rock. These artifacts were found both inside and outside the Great Pyramid. The tool marks on the stone tell us that they were cut, not poured. Nevertheless, this oversight should not entirely discredit his findings. Construction technology today employs many techniques - cutting, forming, and pouring to name a few. To discover one method of manufacture or construction, however, and present it as the only method used by the pyramid builders, I believe may be a little short sighted.
Davidovits makes a strong argument for his cast in place theory by pointing out the impossibility of moving the huge monolithic blocks of stone to build the pyramids. If there is an option to do so, it makes sense to prepare a mold, or form, and pour the material if the alternative is lifting and moving large masses weighing up to 200 tons. Davidovits claimed that he had solved the problems associated with moving such huge stones in building the pyramids with his cast in place theory. Evidence that argues against the casting of igneous type rock can be found in the rock tunnels at Saqqarra. These are the giant granite and basalt boxes that weigh in at around 80-tons each. The existence of a roughed out box and over 20 finished boxes underground essentially disproves the argument that they were cast. When finished, the rough box, now wedged in one of the underground passageways, would have had to be moved into place - without the benefit of hundreds of workers. If we were to cast these objects, we wouldn't choose the characteristics of the roughed out box for our mold. The product would be much closer to the finished dimensions. That doesn't mean that they didn't use geopolymers. It just means that there may have been more than one method used to build the pyramids."
<i>The Giza Power Plant p.107-108</i>
Having learned much more and receiving opinions on both sides of the issue since the publication of my book, I agree with the experts who claim that the pyramids and other artifacts in Egypt were made from natural stone.
Sandy. Have you asked MM to provide you with a sample of geopolymer mix for you to make your own stone? It seems, to me, that you have concluded that the geopolymer hypothesis is correct without considering the opposing scientific data. In my world, it is results that convince. Not talk. If the geopolymer camp would submit a mixture with the instructions "just add water" then it could be tested alongside natural stone to see if there is an exact match. You could argue until you are blue in the face. Results get attention. Not words.
Just some friendly advice.
Warm Regards,
Chris</HTML>
![www.gizapower.com](http://www.gizapower.com/images/radius.jpg">){kind=link}