Re: Scientist Says Concrete Was Used in Pyramids

firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote in
news:1hpu3ap.8ohvb4j3jvcvN%firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

David Johnson <trolleyfan_spamfree@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We've HEARD of this all before. It's not new. It's an _old_ theory
that's been disproved, well, for decades.

That's true. It's quite new to me. (I'm currently googling through
past articles)

But the theory that Barsoum is pushing is a actually new (mix of
carved and cast stones).
In contrary to Davidovits and his "all cast stones" theory, this one
should make everybody happy.

Why? It just shows they couldn't prove Davidovits's theory and hoped
that, if they lower the number of blocks involved, they can always claim
the Established Archaeologists (or geologists or whatever) tested the
wrong block.

"See! It's Easy! That's how you missed it: It's only these few blocks,
ummm, over here somewhere."

Now, explain _why_ if they can build 90-95% of the pyramid with cut
blocks, they suddenly feel the urge to do a handful of concrete ones,
just for fun. Especially since they've got that nice big workforce that
by now is _expert_ at making and using cut blocks.

The theory's dumb, lacking in evidence, and just a last chance grasping
at straws to save at least a _part_ of Davidovits's theory so that his
supporters can say "see, we _were_ right after all!"

David


--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of
everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to
your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies
and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real
hope for the whole future of lifekind...

....Except of course we know it hasn't got one."

.