<HTML>Oh... well... this should be the highlight of the event...
<blockquote>Conference Dinner
The Grand Ballroom, Hotel Sofitel
Business attire
Master of Ceremonies:
Max Walker, media and sporting personality and best selling author.
Featuring The Great Debate:
”Were the Ancient Pyramids at Giza built with Geopolymer stones?“
Speakers:
Prof. Joseph Davidovits, President, Geopolyme
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Voltaire wrote:
>
> Bent, I would think that these jigsaw blocks were only
> used under the capstone for a few layers. From what my poor
> command of the Froggish language gave me, they seem to be
> carved of grandiorite. The bulk of the waste in carving them
> would actually be from the flat, parallel tops and bottoms.
> They could even have been fitted t
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Sorry, Anthony, but you fell in a trap. Davidovits claims, that the hard limestone never was quarried in AE imes, but only in Arabic times. Because the AEs were unable o quarry such a "hard" stone. And that the AEs only used the soft laysers ABOVE the bed rock to make some fancy stuff out of it. The "stone" he "dissolved" in the bag is nothing more than t
by
Frank D
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Anthony wrote:
>
>Reader's comment that limestone that had been "kicking
>around the plateau" for a while would be softer than that
>which was just quarried may not be entirely accurate?
No... if the rocks is say sitting on the surface there are a number of weathering mechanisms that can effect it. These include mechanical processes such as the heati
by
Archae Solenhofen
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Reader's comment that limestone that had been "kicking around the plateau" for a while would be softer than that which was just quarried may not be entirely accurate?
In other words... if the pre-quarried limestone had a decently high moisture content... it could be just as soft as the limestone Davidovits is showing with his wet baggie trick?
Anthony</HTML>
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>See if you can follow my logic here...
First, I'm not proposing anything that hasn't already been put on the table by trained geologists... I'm just re-arranging it a bit.
<blockquote>1. Schoch says it looks like precipitation induced weathering.
2. Gauri says the limestone flakes off horribly when exposed to due and then sunshine, and has shown this to
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi Anthony
>>Of course water can evaporate... but only if it is near enough to the surface to be heated and excape. You've been to Giza... you've seen how deep the enclosure is. Water at the bottom of that thing, with 10 meters of sand on top of it, doesn't stand a chance of escaping.
First we need to get it there :-) You need a lot of rain in a short tim
by
Claire
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi Anthony
>>That's because the sphinx enclosure WAS open sometimes, and covered in sand at others. That was easy...lol
But it is critical to your argument which was when, and you have no way of establishing that the Sphinx enclosure wasn't kept clear for the first 50/100 years anyway, or you haven't mentioned it if you think you do....
>>Whatev
by
Claire
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi Anthony,
Just wondering...
If one were trying to level the base of the Sphinx enclosure, so they started filling it with water, approximately what would be the greatest depth that could be reached anywhere in the enclosure before the water began to run out of the enclosure? Now at that point, where would be the shallowest point that would be directly next to the Sphinx? Vertica
by
Litz
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> Claire>>Is it your position that water is unable to evaporate
> from sand?
Of course water can evaporate... but only if it is near enough to the surface to be heated and excape. You've been to Giza... you've seen how deep the enclosure is. Water at the bottom of that thing, with 10 meters of sand on top of it, doesn't stand a
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> Anthony
>
> Are you planning to send these to Schoch and Reader for
> replies? We need a geologist. Actually I shouldn't have
> posted on this thread because I have not got a lot of time
> this evening, but I wasn't expecting you to reply like this
> :-) Anyway, since you did, here are some very brief comments
> fro
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>I've just addressed the issue of Campbell's tomb.
You see, it's not just a question of the type of stone... it's how the stone has been "treated" in the meantime. Campbell's tomb may well have been kept quite dry. Then, like any good mudbrick, it stayed perfectly healthy for 4,000 years.
Unless Campbell's tomb sits at the bottom of a san
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Thank you, Claire, for bringing these to my attention. If I may deal with them individually:
My responses are in boldface.
******************
Harrell has not explained why he believes the Sphinx enclosure would have been filled with wet sand from Old Kingdom times to New Kingdom times, especially given that Nile flood levels in the area were lower then than they are toda
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Far be it from me to diminish the useful works done by researchers of any kind at Giza... and in this case, I'm about to use Dr. Joseph Davidovits' work on his defunct geopolymer theory to show another theory... the wet sand hypothesis by Harrell... may have more validity than one often thinks.
In a nutshell, Harrell says the sand in the sphinx enclosure would have been a
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Anthony wrote:
>
> I must say.... I could only read about 5 minutes before
> nearly losing my dinner.
>
> She's done it again... another 5000 word dissertation that
> says<i> absolutely nothing</i>.
There you go again, Anthony, misrepresenting the truth. There are over 18,000 words in that tome.
<Snip>
>
> Well... we
by
Chris Dunn
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Dear Don Q,
Anthony wrote:
>
> Ms. Morris has 9 pages of UNanswered questions still floating
> around from her last debate... questions she never answered.
>Only 9 questions? Do you have any idea whatsoever of how many questions of hers you cannot answer? In the hundreds, I'm sure.
>
> The fact that YOU require the geopolymer theory to be TRUE
>
by
Bob (trailmarker)
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Bob,
You are entering an area that has a long, long history here at Ma'at... and before.
In other words... I'm not responding to YOUR post... you're stepping into an ongoing discussion.
Ms. Morris has 9 pages of UNanswered questions still floating around from her last debate... questions she never answered. Questions, in this researchers opinon, she COULDN
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>I must say.... I could only read about 5 minutes before nearly losing my dinner.
She's done it again... another 5000 word dissertation that says<i> absolutely nothing</i>. She states, very plainly and right up front, that Colin Reader has PARAPHRASED the geopolymer theory so that he could rebut it... she then goes on to take his PARAPHRASING, and prove that he is
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Don,
When I was there in December, there was an iron gate across the entrance to the passage that leads to the Queen's chamber... no one was allowed it. No one on site had a key, so you couldn't even bribe your way it.
Hmmm....
Was Dr. Davidovits busy repacking the Hall of Records with geopolymer limestone blocks?
<i>Can we ignore the possibility</i>?
A<
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Thanks, Robert.
My prediction:
Hawass, Lehner and Brier will spend the entire time talking about how it was a plug put in after a change in the plans.
"Alternative" historians will be called upon to give more exciting renditions... expect to see the parade of Cayce fans and treasure hunters, each with their own spin.
And in the end... when they finally get the fiber opti
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Frank D wrote:
>
> UInfortunately totally wrong, Anthony. The blocks were
> quarried by digging trenches into the lime stone and crack
> them from the ground with wedges and levers. They were
> splitted by perforating them with tiny slits to create a
> fault linr and then using a big chisel and hammer to put
> pressure on this joint. You can see these marks in bl
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>UInfortunately totally wrong, Anthony. The blocks were quarried by digging trenches into the lime stone and crack them from the ground with wedges and levers. They were splitted by perforating them with tiny slits to create a fault linr and then using a big chisel and hammer to put pressure on this joint. You can see these marks in blocks left in quarries, like the one I have on my Da
by
Frank D
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hello Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Saying that there was no nose on the sphinx is not a
> theory... it is a speculation.
> OK. it's a speculation. But you have to ask yourself why is it that "Don's mystery sphinx" (the one with the heavy hat) also reflects what one might consider a shot off nose, as well as a paired numerical "25&qu
by
Bob (trailmarker)
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Bob,
Saying that there was no nose on the sphinx is not a theory... it is a speculation.
You've been coming here for months, talking about these secret, hidden symbols that you see in statuary, stelas, carvings, and uncarved rocks... from all over the world.
I believe you claim it is a sign of a lost, secret culture that used "4B5's" and 5s and 2s and inverted
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>People who lie are liars, Bob.
I can't change the fact that you chose to lie about several topics over the last several months.
You can apologize, however, for insulting the intelligence of everyone here when you DID lie, and try to move forward. I've noticed they are a very forgiving bunch.
Now, however....
You've been coming here for months, talking about these s
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Author: Anthony
Date: June-02-02 08:32
Okay, Bob.
You've been coming here for months, talking about these secret, hidden symbols that you see in statuary, stelas, carvings, and uncarved rocks... from all over the world.
I believe you claim it is a sign of a lost, secret culture that used "4B5's" and 5s and 2s and inverted omegas and "R's" to co
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>You claim that the following post insults your "honor" ... twice.
Prove it... or better yet, just answer it.
******************
Author: Anthony
Date: June-02-02 08:32
Okay, Bob.
You've been coming here for months, talking about these secret, hidden symbols that you see in statuary, stelas, carvings, and uncarved rocks... from all over the world.
I believe you c
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Okay, Bob.
You've been coming here for months, talking about these secret, hidden symbols that you see in statuary, stelas, carvings, and uncarved rocks... from all over the world.
I believe you claim it is a sign of a lost, secret culture that used "4B5's" and 5s and 2s and inverted omegas and "R's" to communicate.
When you find symbols that have
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>First.... follow along with this sales story...
Once there was a telephone salesman. His job was to make five sales a day. In order to do so, he knew he had to talk to fifty people. In order to talk to fifty people, he had to dial 500 numbers.
Now... he gets to work nice and early... 7:30AM. He's at his desk, with his script ready to start dialing by 8:00AM.
Then, he start
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>>You must be told in advance which block is the building block, so that you can know to look for "that telltale sign"
>in the geolegomer block, and not waste time hunting for it fruitlessly in the real block.
Yeah, I forgot that thing called double blind tests, oops.
>I see TWO lawsuits on their way. One from Davidovits. The other, from Lego.
Hah!
Nevertheless,
by
lone
-
Ancient History