Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
WVK

Concrete pyramids?

295 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I said lavender because once upon a time I was at a fancy restaurant and the final course was a desert that was of that flavor - disgusting!

Smells good, taste like your eating incense. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
23 minutes ago, Piney said:

Smells good, taste like your eating incense. :o

Incense nah, that is at least crunchy - that was like eating scented soap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Incense nah, that is at least crunchy - that was like eating scented soap.

You were probably drunk and mistakes the bars of soap in the bathroom as tofu. Common occurance.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Made tea with his potpourri.

Harte

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 4/5/2019 at 5:25 PM, WVK said:

Ok. Moving along then I'd apreciate  your thoughts on this:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.870.591&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Take a look at the references and citations for the paper. It doesn't seem to have garnered much interest outside of a small group.

If this had been something other than what appears to be an avenue of investigation you'd think it would have gone farther.

Also, look at the end of the conclusion.

Quote

Since both the Giza plateau and Tura quarries cover a large area,subsequent work on samples from these quarries may produce NMR spectra more similar to that of the present BP spectra, but in the absence of contrary evidence, the present conclusions are sound.

In other words, I didn't find a match up so my idea looks good - the idea that these are not natural rocks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 4/5/2019 at 6:01 PM, WVK said:

That's not I am referring to. That doesn't look like a mold mark to me.

I am referring to the flat surface that shows no signs at all of wood marks. It is a flat surface without signs of wood grain or joins between boards or connectors that held boards together or repairs where the material had air pockets or broke along edges.

And that line on the rock. Why is it in, and not out?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
On 6-4-2019 at 10:41 PM, Swede said:

Hawass is likely referring to the insult to the many decades of intensive research conducted by hundreds of qualified individuals. To suggest that the many specialists involved were not capable of correctly identifying the lithic materials, their detailed composition, and their original quarrying sites is indeed an insult. This is particularly true when the suggestion comes from unqualified parties with a vested interest in promoting a modern technology.

And yes, the proposition in question is "highly stupid". Rather like that phrasing.

.


Not meant as an offence, but science isnt about protecting anyones reputation, think / suspect it went wrong because of this very reason on numerous instances in the past, and I suspect it highly plausible it has done nothing but slow down scientific progress.

Maybe Im a hopeless romantic, but in my mind science is about trying to answer any imaginable question, not about dismissing questions or propositions (as 'highly stupid' no less), or limiting access to research locations and/or material (ie. Hawass). Having said that, I do appreciate the actual content (that is to say, facts and figures) provided against the OP proposition.. thats what it should all be about. This childish reputation BS, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


Not meant as an offence, but science isnt about protecting anyones reputation, think / suspect it went wrong because of this very reason on numerous instances in the past, and I suspect it highly plausible it has done nothing but slow down scientific progress.

Maybe Im a hopeless romantic, but in my mind science is about trying to answer any imaginable question, not about dismissing questions or propositions (as 'highly stupid' no less), or limiting access to research locations and/or material (ie. Hawass). Having said that, I do appreciate the actual content (that is to say, facts and figures) provided against the OP proposition.. thats what it should all be about. This childish reputation BS, not so much.

Your sentiments are understood, but you may be missing a few significant points:

  • Numerous studies have answered this particular question. The lithic materials utilized in the Giza constructions are well understood. In counterpoint, the various geopolymer propositions have proven to be incorrect. Thus, it is not a matter of "protecting anyone's reputation", but simply stating the established reality. Those involved in the sciences deal with new data on a regular basis. However, erroneous data is rather quickly identified and dismissed.
  • Protecting cultural resources is a continual process. Causing damage to monumental structures is not a subject that is taken lightly. Depending upon the controlling entities, obtaining sample materials is often highly regulated and only well-qualified parties need even attempt to request permission to obtain the desired samples. Practices of this nature are not at all uncommon and not unusual.

.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro
On 4/5/2019 at 5:07 PM, Swede said:

You have presented this non-peer reviewed article on more than one occasion. Without going into detail, there are a number of problems with the article:

  • The authors also do not specify the specific provenience of their samples or the manner(s) of sample acquisition. There may be legalities involved here.

The provenance of the samples has been an ongoing problem.  This paper explains:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288698728_Evidence_from_detailed_petrographic_examinations_of_casing_stones_from_the_great_pyramid_of_khufu_a_natural_limestone_from_tura_and_a_man-made_Geopolymeric_limestone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Swede said:

Your sentiments are understood, but you may be missing a few significant points:

  • Numerous studies have answered this particular question. The lithic materials utilized in the Giza constructions are well understood. In counterpoint, the various geopolymer propositions have proven to be incorrect. Thus, it is not a matter of "protecting anyone's reputation", but simply stating the established reality. Those involved in the sciences deal with new data on a regular basis. However, erroneous data is rather quickly identified and dismissed.
  • Protecting cultural resources is a continual process. Causing damage to monumental structures is not a subject that is taken lightly. Depending upon the controlling entities, obtaining sample materials is often highly regulated and only well-qualified parties need even attempt to request permission to obtain the desired samples. Practices of this nature are not at all uncommon and not unusual.

.

The bottom line at this time is (at least of this scientist)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288698728_Evidence_from_detailed_petrographic_examinations_of_casing_stones_from_the_great_pyramid_of_khufu_a_natural_limestone_from_tura_and_a_man-made_Geopolymeric_limestone 

Quote

Based on a detailed literature survey on thisdebate and evaluation of all published results in light of this present comprehensive study, it is the author’s opinion that we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility of a “man-made” origin of pyramid stones. It is indeed this absence of any geopolymeric signature i nthe pyramid stones, which should encourage re-evaluation of apparent “mysteries” in carving and hoisting large pyramid blocks, originally offered to support the “man-made” origin.

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
22 hours ago, Swede said:

Your sentiments are understood, but you may be missing a few significant points:

  • Numerous studies have answered this particular question. The lithic materials utilized in the Giza constructions are well understood. In counterpoint, the various geopolymer propositions have proven to be incorrect. Thus, it is not a matter of "protecting anyone's reputation", but simply stating the established reality. Those involved in the sciences deal with new data on a regular basis. However, erroneous data is rather quickly identified and dismissed.
  • Protecting cultural resources is a continual process. Causing damage to monumental structures is not a subject that is taken lightly. Depending upon the controlling entities, obtaining sample materials is often highly regulated and only well-qualified parties need even attempt to request permission to obtain the desired samples. Practices of this nature are not at all uncommon and not unusual.

.


Not really, I appreciate the opposing body of evidence, and accept numerous experts having dismissed the possibility. I have also noted the difficulty in obtaining such samples, but the possibility should not be excluded, also alluded to earlier in this thread:

Quote

As Harte noted Hawass isn't in charge of anything - you might want to talk to Khaled El-Anany. However asking to take portions of the Great Pyramid away to destroy them probably won't get accepted. I would suggest attempting to obtain legitimate samples from other lesser structures - unless the theory says only G1 was made with concrete (say the satellites pyramids). You might also be able to obtain samples by way of universities and NGO that donate large sums to Ministry of Antiquities.

This all notwithstanding, I was merely addressing the picture having been painted with the 'insult to' and what not. Nobody should care about anyones feelings when research is concerned. It is a dangerous, potentially highly counterproductive disposition imho. Question everything should be the M.O. Thats all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
7 hours ago, Megaro said:

Yes, Jana's research was quite nicely done. See Page 1, Swede #4.

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:


Not really, I appreciate the opposing body of evidence, and accept numerous experts having dismissed the possibility. I have also noted the difficulty in obtaining such samples, but the possibility should not be excluded, also alluded to earlier in this thread:

This all notwithstanding, I was merely addressing the picture having been painted with the 'insult to' and what not. Nobody should care about anyones feelings when research is concerned. It is a dangerous, potentially highly counterproductive disposition imho. Question everything should be the M.O. Thats all.

Would you then be advocating that unqualified individuals should be entitled to damage sites of cultural significance?

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
1 hour ago, Swede said:

Would you then be advocating that unqualified individuals should be entitled to damage sites of cultural significance?.

Well, it can't be qualified individuals.

They're all in on, and part of, the conspiracy to keep this stuff from the sheeple.

Harte

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
4 minutes ago, Harte said:

Well, it can't be qualified individuals.

They're all in on, and part of, the conspiracy to keep this stuff from the sheeple.

Harte

Why, of course. What most do not understand is the extraordinary efforts that are exerted in order to hide "the truth" from the "seekers of truth". Really quite time consuming.

Now, pardon me. Must get back to falsifying the geological record.

.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
21 minutes ago, Swede said:

Why, of course. What most do not understand is the extraordinary efforts that are exerted in order to hide "the truth" from the "seekers of truth". Really quite time consuming.

Now, pardon me. Must get back to falsifying the geological record.

.

Hah, what a slacker, in the time it took you to make breakfast this morning I destroyed a cache of Atlantean vases, burned four papyrus that spoke of the people from an underground world, melted down some two tons of high precision machinery found in Iraq and finally had time left over to crush four teeth lost by a visiting interstellar alien.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, Swede said:

Now, pardon me. Must get back to falsifying the geological record.

What do you want me to do with all these giant bones? Jack is starting to trip on them in the office. :o

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
7 minutes ago, Piney said:

What do you want me to do with all these giant bones? Jack is starting to trip on them in the office. :o

Send them to the Smithsonian - that has been the SOP for nearly two centuries - didn't you read the 1846 memo on that?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
6 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Send them to the Smithsonian - that has been the SOP for nearly two centuries - didn't you read the 1846 memo on that?

The basement has been full for years. This is the overflow. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
15 minutes ago, WVK said:

Salient points made in the video? It just seems like watching it would be an hour and seven minutes of my life I can't get back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
38 minutes ago, WVK said:

In general it is good to introduce a video and give people a reason to watch it. Frankly, I won't watch a movie that has not been properly introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
8 minutes ago, stereologist said:

In general it is good to introduce a video and give people a reason to watch it. Frankly, I won't watch a movie that has not been properly introduced.

The Santa Fe Science Café for Young Thinkers presents Michel Barsoum, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, discussing "Mysteries of the Great Pyramids Revealed" Date: January 27, 2010. The Café is sponsored by the Santa Fe Alliance for Science, the Santa Fe Public Schools, the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum and the Santa Fe Institute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 minutes ago, WVK said:

The Santa Fe Science Café for Young Thinkers presents Michel Barsoum, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, discussing "Mysteries of the Great Pyramids Revealed" Date: January 27, 2010. The Café is sponsored by the Santa Fe Alliance for Science, the Santa Fe Public Schools, the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum and the Santa Fe Institute.

Thanks. Is there information there that is different from what Barsoum has written in the articles or is this just a pictorial version of the same information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.