Occasionally some claim re new knowledge or revision of our understanding of reality or how things were done or ... so catches me offguard. Often such are spurious and do not stand examination. Some seem plausible enough and SEEM well enough founded to be worth taking note of for future examination. This is one such. No great thing in the order of things but quite different than what has been "explained" in all I've met so far. Key claims: Pyramids were made of cast stone formed from naturally occurring stone which was deaggregated and recast into mechanically similar material of desired size and shape - larger stones were cast in situ, explaining the ability to place such large blocks and the precision of fit. 20 metre long single piece, 550 ton Quartzite stones in The Colosses of Memnon, so hard and brittle as to be uncarveable, but here carved with impossible precision, were artificially fabricated. Bonus: Joseph of the Bible is able to be shown with high probability to have been master magic stone maker Amenophis. _____________ The claims have a high degree of plausibility* and are in part backed up by practical demonstrations of the sort of technology which would have needed to be used. Needless to say, they go against all the explanations of classical geological holy writ and can easily be rejected as quackery and conspiracy theory. I haven't looked, but I have little doubt that the theories, institute, professor and his family and associates unto the nth generation are soundly denounced renounced and cursed by traditional Egyptology and geological experts. .. Not worth my time looking further into at present BUT certainly seems worth more exploration in due course. The apparently fully demonstrated and easily emulated casting of stone blocks of any desired size and shape looks liable to be worthwhile if actually true - which it seems to be. * NB plausibility may or may not correlate well with reality and may or may not withstand proper scrutiny. They just pass initial "idiot test" / "gullible fool" examination. _______________________ I'll use the term sandstone for sandstone, limestone, ... .See texts for proper terminologies. Claims. http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology http://www.geopolymer.org/category/science <-- geopolymers. Good The Egyptian Pyramids are made of cast sandstones, made by deagglomerating natural sandstone and then chemically reaggregating it ti form "Geopolymers" with resulting textures, fossil shell content etc quite unlike modern concrete and indistinguishable (by definition, in the context) to traditional geologists from natural sandstones. Several types of stone were able to be made this way - cap stones and core stones had similar but different properties. Stone so formed can be very significantly superior mechanically to natural stone from which it is made. All "chemicals" required are easily available and naturally occurring in the area. The Colosses of Memnon made by Amenophis Son of Hapu, a Amenophis is able to be "clearly shown" to be Joesph of the bible. The "Geopolymer institute" founded by Professor Joseph Davidovits in 1979 has demonstrated fabrication of equivlent materials using manual techniques and appropriate materials . Home page - good start: http://www.geopolymer.org/ http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/civilization/colosses-of-memnon-maste= rpiece-by-amenophis-son-of-hapu http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/pyramids http://www.davidovits.info/ http://www.davidovits.info/496/error-or-forgery-on-the-stele-of-merneptah-k= nown-as-israel-stele http://www.davidovits.info/34/the-pyramids-in-bosnia-europe-perhaps-in-roma= n-concrete http://www.geopolymer.org/category/science <-- geopolymers. Good http://www.geopolymer.org/category/library Russell --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .