Re: MIT class explores controversial pyramid theory with scale model

David wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:48�pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David wrote:
MIT news
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/pyramid-tt0402.html
"The materials and know-how needed to cast the
pyramids' giant 2-1/2 ton blocks in place, rather
than quarrying and moving blocks of solid limestone,
was definitely available to the Egyptians, Hobbs explains."
� � � � While it is not necessary to explain things to idiots it is some times
instructive to do so to gauge their ability to grasp elementary concepts.

Who cares what Matt Giwer thinks?

� � � � This has been around for a very long time in one form or another. I first
encountered as a "secret" liquid that could melt stone.

You are losing it.

� � � � What none of them address is their size if they were cast. They clearly have to
be moved after being cast so small blocks, also called bricks, are much easier
to move and place and can be formed with edges sloping to so fill stones would
be needed to support the casing stones. Further the smaller the faster they
would cure. So bricks would be faster to make, easier to position and simplify
the finishing work.

� � � � But fools do so love their mysteries.
...

You know nothing.

I know you are a fool. I know you are not a meteorologist. I know you have no idea what archaeology is about.

I also know you are a little puppy.

--
Ten tons of emitted CO2 results in over one
hundred tons of plant life.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3986
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3

.

Relevant Pages