Hello all. This looks fun.

a reply to: EloquentPeasant

Davidovits is an accomplished scientist that was asked to look at these sites,

He documented his findings and presented them forward,

Still we have unanswered questions, like the presence of nanoscale silica spheres.

No geologist or archaeologist has provided the answer to this question..

a reply to: EloquentPeasant

Please self-quarantine for 14 days before you post again.

Thanks.

a reply to: NoConspiracy

Rain doesn't just drop down vertically...it does get blown around by the wind. Here is an image from Giza from 12th March, 2020....a couple of weeks ago. All the pyramids, and the sphinx, were drenched.

And if you agree that the ancient Egyptian language has been decoded to a high enough level, then yes, they state that people, mostly royals, were interred in pyramids. Certain texts specficially ask the worth of this, as the pyramids have fallen into ruin, and so what is the point of it all. Ancient Egyptians could be as inquisitive of the next life, and if there was one, as we are.

a reply to: solve

Where did he take his samples from?

a reply to: Liquesence

Am doing sir

a reply to: EloquentPeasant

All over the world,

Also was weird that he found organics in andesite, they are not supposed to be in volcanic rocks, a geologist might struggle with that one for a bit.

But anyways, only brought the subject up because you said you could debunk anything, people have been trying to debunk this theory for over forty years, because the establishment does not approve this.

Kinda like how one gets weird looks when you ask an anthropologist about why there are so many human teeth marks in ancient human remains

Lots of Taboos out there.

originally posted by: EloquentPeasant
a reply to: Liquesence

Am doing sir

Wash your hands before replying, too.

Thanks.

a reply to: solve

Sorry, I thought this was to do with ancient Egyptian stone being cast, not a worldwide thing. The limestone in Egypt is nummulitic, which would not be the case if the stone were concrete (it would have to be pulverised to be concrete, leaving no fissil traces). I believe Davidovits also said that natural limestone and geopolymer limestone was very difficult to tell apart, begging the question of how he could tell. And I repeat, there are several texts talking about stone being cut and hauled, and not a single mention of any casting of stone in molds. And several large scale quarries from the north to the south of Egypt. There was even the suggestion that because the evidence was so great that the stone was natural, that *only* a certain amount were cast, the rest being naturally carved....which also begs the question of why bother?

a reply to: EloquentPeasant

Cool thanks
you probably have the amount of post required to do your own threads soon. Was a pleasure to help and read your story or was it his(story)....

I'm looking forward to them...

Sincerely NC

originally posted by: EloquentPeasant
a reply to: solve

Sorry, I thought this was to do with ancient Egyptian stone being cast, not a worldwide thing. The limestone in Egypt is nummulitic, which would not be the case if the stone were concrete (it would have to be pulverised to be concrete, leaving no fissil traces). I believe Davidovits also said that natural limestone and geopolymer limestone was very difficult to tell apart, begging the question of how he could tell. And I repeat, there are several texts talking about stone being cut and hauled, and not a single mention of any casting of stone in molds. And several large scale quarries from the north to the south of Egypt. There was even the suggestion that because the evidence was so great that the stone was natural, that *only* a certain amount were cast, the rest being naturally carved....which also begs the question of why bother?

Oh. So you're gonna mess your threads up with facts, are you? No fair.

a reply to: EloquentPeasant

Hello and welcome! Interesting posting name you have there. Enjoy your stay.

a reply to: EloquentPeasant

People use stones as fillers in concrete, yes? So the fossils would remain intact if chunks were thrown in,

One obvious advantage would be, one would not need an army of highly talented stone cutters, only people with a stick to measure metric squares to hammer down stones.

Sorry i can go on and on about this..



Professor Gilles Hug of the French national aerospace research agency, and professor Michael Barsoum of drexel university of philadelphia, found out that in the stones one can see traces of a rapid chemical reaction that did not allow natural crystalisation, this again, is something that is impossible to explain.

Also the studies done by material scientist would go a lot faster if the Egyptian authorities would help and allow more studies and sample taking.

a reply to: NoConspiracy

Thank you. I didn't know what the score was with that....something like you have to post 5 times and then you get to post? I guess if I can post then it's worked

a reply to: solve
So they would break up perfectly good limestone to a fine powder, take out all the nummilites, just to chuck them back in when making the concrete, giving the impression of perfectly good limestone? And then despite it being cast in molds,they would used tools to recarve the geopolymer (you can see chisel marks on almost all stone in the various sites in Egypt).

Why bother? What question does casting the stone answer?

a reply to: EloquentPeasant

First off, welcome to the site.

Second, if you are an Egyptologist, then you should be able to answer this;

Where did the Mummy's powers come from in the sequel to, "The Mummy" staring Brendon Fraiser?

originally posted by: EloquentPeasant
a reply to: solve
So they would break up perfectly good limestone to a fine powder, take out all the nummilites, just to chuck them back in when making the concrete, giving the impression of perfectly good limestone? And then despite it being cast in molds,they would used tools to recarve the geopolymer (you can see chisel marks on almost all stone in the various sites in Egypt).

Why bother? What question does casting the stone answer?

One logical thing to do, would be to use natural stones in the lower parts of the structures and to use a geopolymer when moving up, you know, the age old question about lifting the blocks way up there.. was easier to carry them as powder and mix em up right there on the spot. lots of undeniable data is readily available, and there is a steady flow of new data always coming.

Also about the tool marks, i have to remove flash/ mold lines from my castings, and sometimes i chisel the surface a bit quickly to give the piece a nice rugged look.