[geocentrism] A pyramid of problems
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <pyramidenfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <nun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:49:05 -0500
Dear Frank,
Your Web site section that supports the mainstream theory of pyramid
construction seems out of date in light of the new polymer microanalysis and
limecrete reconstruction of some of the stones at Giza in the last few
months : see Casting Stones at the Pyramids
<http://www.webproclaim.com/emailmarketing/lt/t_go.php?i=1295&e=MzQ1NDEz&l=h
ttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0129casting-stones.asp> and
footnotes
When your Web site has been updated, please notify me and the cc: address
above, which is a forum interested in your response.
Meanwhile here are a few of the issues that should be covered:
With chemical analysis it is now possible to trace each building block right
back to its original quarry, as did the Geologists H.D. und R. Klemm during
the last 20 years.
How did the Klemms? analysis manage to miss the air bubbles, the vertical
variation in density and traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not
allow natural crystalization?
ALL big pyramids were built with this method, according to Davodovits. The
knowledge got lost durig the 5th dynasty (why???)
The polymer chemists claim only the top stones used this process.
Haven?t you ever lost anything, Frank? Maybe the answer is the same, or a
consequence of our decline since the first transgression.
He[Davodovits] can produce very little evidence to support his idea,
Well, now he certainly can provide hard evidence ? it?s called analysis and
experimentation
Several of his claims can be disproven just by looking at the pyramids with
the naked eye:
The uniformity of the pyramid blocks
The uniformity of their layering
The 1/10th millimeter precision of the core blocks
Why is visual inspection superior to X-rays, a plasma torch and electron
microscopes?
The blocks have weathered a bit in 5,000 years??.and settled ? just like
concrete. Some pyramids were partially demolished by grave-robbers, which
also could explain the chisel marks shown in the pictures.
Where did .1 mm precision come from? If Davidovits said this, where is
his proof?
The reason for unequal blocks is stated in the references? seismic
stability.
New and old blocks at Khufu's pyramid
How could such irregular blocks have been formed? How casted blocks would
look can be seen on the south side of the great pyramid. There Vyse blasted
a gap into the face of the pyramid to look for a secret entrance. To
stabilize this, concrete blocks were casted. It is very easy to see the
difference between the natural and later casted blocks. The regular form of
the newer block on the right is clearly visible and in contrast to the
original blocks on the left (with ancient mortar between them)
The analysis and conclusion of the limestone concrete theory relates only to
the pyramid studies at the great pyramid at Giza and concludes the pyramids
are a mixture of both, with concrete types at the top; yet the photos are
selected from pyramids of other places and times, about which no claim is
made w/o separate and independent study. The pictures were taken of the
core, when the top stones were of concrete type. The core stones were
natural , as the Times coverage below states.
Using photos that don?t apply is called a logical strawman ? attacking a
position not taken as if it were.
Another problem: If the Egyptians had used bottomless moulds, the material
should have run between the gaps of the stones. A phenomenon nowhere to be
seen on the pyramids, therefore the Egyptians must have had used casts with
a bottom plate. But how and why were these removed?
So the MS theory of cutting, transporting and lifting huge quarry stones is
no problem, but removing the wood bottom from a mold is a problem?
Wasn?t the simple lever covered in your physics class?
The references say ? and the videos show - the limecrete is allowed to set
to a soft solid in a mixing pit and then put in final position to be tamped
down by compactors. A bottom wood form may not have been needed at all.
Another plausible option: A flat bottom slab may have been quarried, or
formed from another mold. The mold frame would then be wood on the sides,
but stone on the bottom. If you think the builders weren?t smart enough to
think of this, then why didn?t you think of it?
Mainstream thinking is a one-track mind which crushes creative and logical
imagination and praises illogical speculation.
So where are the moulds??? Another problem: the material of the mould (wood,
brickwall, mortar/stone) forms prints on the surface of the casted objects.
But where are they?
You think the wood would still be there, laying around near the pyramid
after 5000 years? Sure, that?s logical !!
The limestone shrinks slightly while setting, separating from the mold and
leaving no mold marks - ?. As seen in the video.
?prepared but not yet loosened blocks can be found in the quarry areas of
Giza, like these in the southern Khafere-quarry
How does this show that quarry blocks were used at the Pyramid top, when
micro-analysis shows otherwise? How does the use of the quarry for the base
construction disprove the use of concrete construction at the top? In fact,
why can?t it be said that the incomplete cuttings in the quarry shows the
Egyptians tried to use the quarry stones for the pyramid, but abandoned it
as too difficult when they got near the top?
For each stone about 3 tons of stone had to have been pulverized. Thin layer
photos of the pyramid blocks showed no trace of compound stone, so it had to
have been pulverized right down to the basic compounds - calcite cristals
and micro fossils
Answered in the video ? limestone from the Nile flood flats was different
from the quarry stone in its consistency ? it crumbled to the touch, easily
pounded into powder.
Another strawman ? assuming the limestone powder source was the quarry
stones.
There are materials needed which are rare in Egypt.
Now, maybe. The resources were used up in construction, forcing later
pyramids to be of lower quality stone. Is oil as plentiful now as 50 years
ago, Frank?
Davidovits also has no explanation for the use of small blocks.
The concept of seismic stability has been overlooked here ? not
surprisingly. In your Web site bio you say your science background consists
of a few physics classes after high school and you now work in IT on
computer games. This is sufficient credentials for some forum members but
others ? like me ? think you may be parroting what you surf superficially
from the Net, disregarding whether it applies to the issue.
If you accept the seismic explanation, will you give a technical explanation
of the wave theory support for stability in your update? If you disagree,
then you would have to, of course.
If not even a SINGLE stone could have been produced with Davidovits' methods
in one day, how long should the pyramid have been built on?
How and where is this premise supported ? many stones could be produced in a
production line process. Or are ludicrous assumptions being made, such as
the builders having only one wood form?
Production seemed easy enough on the video?. Ten days to produce a large
block, the setting time increased by the climate difference between France
and Egypt.
We look forward to your update, Frank. Let us know.
Dr. Robert Bennett
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] A pyramid of problems
