Colette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Hello,
>Well, sorry to hear that. I am sure that in ways
>it must be agonizing at times to have such a keen
>desire for understanding what is going on and
>only have photographs and text to read.
_snip>
>That was really very
>impressive. That must have taken a lot of staring
>and thinking I suspect.
Not really... as I said "just a little reading, asking questions of knowledgeable people, and looking at good photos of the areas in question" I am not the first one to point it out. The argument has been around a long time in the egyptological messageboards.... and still left, for all relevant intents and purposes, unaddressed.
_snip>
>I
>guess you know you can figure approximately how
>tall or large something is by imagining your body
>next to it if you know how tall you are. Right?
The thickness of Member II strata is illustrated and discussed in Gauri (1984) and Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999). Mr. West gives reasonable dimensions for the structure in the provided link above.
>I wondered if you had seen what I saw, and if you
>had, then we could talk more about what I was
>going to talk about in the chambers.
_snip>
>Oh, touch is a
>great sense to have too and to use it to analyze
>surfaces. The finger tips are highly sensitive -
>somewhat like cat's whiskers on their nose.Too,
>something might look polished shiny, but when you
>touch it, it is just wet.
Well that's where common sense comes into play... since many rock surfaces need a rough lapidary finish (or a naturally flat bedding plane, cleavage, etc. etc.) to allow that to happen otherwise they just look darker when wet. In the manmade examples there is still a polish present on the surface even when dry it appears frosted. As always I would love to have a discussion about the building of the GP with someone who has been there is person, remember my "asking questions of knowledgeable people" quote above?
>You write with so many questions for Robert I have
>a great idea for you. How about going to his
>website at robertschoch.com and look for his
>contact email and then get in touch with him and
>ask him all of those questions you are wondering
>about (as he should know - you said). "They" do
>say that is how you get it straight from the
>horses mouth!
Actually some of those question about Dr. Schoch were directed at you since you give a link to www.robertschoch.net about 12 times in this thread. I would have expected you to have asked him first in your investigation for exactly what his role was in this geopolymer situation since he was involved in it as clearly indicated by the letter published in the Journal of Geological Education (Schoch 1992). Your inability to answer the question directed at you suggests you have not already done so... but there is still time for that so I can wait. When you started this thread with a discussion of how something was probably mucked up in a TV program and this was followed by a "snowball of demeaning stands against the scientists for their thoughts and theories" I would have thought that pointing out something that appeared to be left out might interest you into further investigation if you were not already aware of it. It's important to gain a better understanding of this "snowball of demeaning stands".... there appears to be more to it then you seem to be aware of at the moment. As well, your previous post was full of question marks... it's only fair I get to a chance to ask some of you even if they are completely rhetorical in nature.
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)
Gauri, L. (1984) Geological Study of the Sphinx, Newsletter American Research Center in Egypt, 127, 24-43.
Gauri, K.L. & Bandyopadhyay, J.K. (1999) Carbonate stone: chemical behavior, durability, and conservation. Wiley, New York, 284 p.
Schoch, R.M. (1992) Comment on the Folk and Campbell Article. Journal of Geological Education, 40, p 34.
_snip>
