Anthony;
>defender of the Orthodoxy
I have a great deal of respect for many individuals whom I might call this. It seems to be on the same order as calling a mathematician a "euclidean" or a physicist a "user of the calculus". In my opinion taking this as an insult is simply unnecessary, but to each his own. I will avoid using such ideas in the future and doubly so for you.
>The problem comes when people ask us to rewrite the history books based on things that >can be easily disproven... like "geopolymer" theory. It's never once stood up to close >scrutiny by any independent geologist. Why should we keep the idea alive?
It would be extremely interesting to see this disproven. All that has to be done is find a stone from the pyramid with an identical match in the quarry. Just attempting such a thing (even though it's supremely easy to do), might yield a great deal of information. The bottom of the pyramid should primarily be stuff from the top of the quarry so there's even little climbing involved. The quarry should be in near mint condition after the top few yards if it was filled with rubble and ramp waste as is apparent.
____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.