Best Conspiracy!!! Ancient Diorite sic cut

It doesn't set up like concrete. The Geopolymer inst. did test runs and determined it required 4 days to cure a mass the size of a typical pyramid block to the point you could place weight on it. Further, analysis of the pyramid stones suspected of being cast have shown indicators not found in nature or even in the same quarries the limestone originated from (Geopolymer - The scientific proofs)

The AE's would have been working from the center of each level outward to the edge, and could have had designated spots on each level to create their agglomerated blocks. The whole point of using such a method would have been to avoid the hauling of large blocks up a long ramp (the conventional ramp theory falls short the length needed to reach the top of the pyramid). This site has several ramp theories and explains the pros and cons of each.

What's interesting is that AE shows a process of developing the use of shells in mixtures as a crude form of concrete, as posted earlier on ATS - Seashells helped protect ancient Egypt, and additional references by the AE to the use of plant extracts in forming ancient cements (hieroglyphs on pyramids construction and Making Cements with Plant Extracts)

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

The evidence, as presented by the supporters of Davidovits, is persuasive and their use of chemical sampling appears conclusive. Furthermore, they support the contention with indications that shell content in the blocks isn't stratified. As a natural outcome of geological and sedimentary processes, the shells should be layered. If not why not?

Where some of this evidence lacks definition is in the interpretation. Supporters of the theory repeatedly refer to the same chemical analyses and draw the same interpretations. This evidence remains crucial as the theory is an ambitious idea without it.

The evidence has been interpreted differently by geochemist Dipayan Jana. Jana represents a heavily cited authority on the structures and processes of cement. He disputes the findings almost point for point in the following link...Dipayan Jana There's a more detailed paper by Jana that, bizarrely, has vanished from my PC...was only reading it last week.

A big criticism of the claims are the limited samples used with no corroberation from independent studies. There's a question of cherry picking the findings to support the hypothesis. Davidovit's ideas are demonstrably mistaken (claims that all blocks were artificial). Barsoum's tidied up extension of his ideas are more reasonable, yet they still lack the weight of evidence. Most of the claims are attributed to conventional processes.

I still feel that the amount of work and drying time involved in the creation, transport and laying of these artificial blocks would be pointless. Both Barsoum and Davidovit suggest that 80% of the GP was carved block...why fuss about with agglomerate?

One more point worth making...the lower courses of the pyramids would use far greater numbers of workers than the latter courses. The 20-30 000 workforce at the base would decrease to just hundreds towards the apex. This would free up labor for quarrying and transporting blocks...

With the exception of the 'internal ramp' theory...it seems that explanations for the GP construction add more elaboration than already exists.

Does anyone know if the copper tools found were normal or hardened in some way?

Originally posted by tigpoppa
thing is Diorite on a hardness scale can only be cut with a diamond.

That statement is just not true. Diorite is a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 on Mohs Scale of Hardness.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are a number of minerals that would cut through, grind down and polish diorite in a manner that is consistent with "seamless joints/groves"...including Diorite itself

Just saying...check your facts first

This should clear some of the mystery behind Egyptian stone quarrying
Egyptian stonework

Or you could just accept the fact that there was a true stone age in our very distant past and they were so extremely advanced in working with stone that they were able to do these things.

Maybe they mastered geology/stone working in ways we have forgot and may never know again.

The history of our planet and the history of the species that have lived on it, will only be known to the earth itself in its entirety.

In time, we too will be erased because time erases everything.
Maybe 4 or 5k years from now, a species will find an artifact tucked away somewhere and wonder about us.
All he will be able to do is guess what we might have been like because the great process of the planet will have washed away all of who we really were.

What I'm trying to say is, we don't know jack about the history of earth. Anything and everything could have happened to make those stones the way they are.

reply to post by Sargoth


Yeah, matter of fact you can. Amazingly,people have been doing it for thousands of years before the silly term "space age" even came up. From Europe to the middle east to the Andes, people have been working granite and other igneous rocks such as dorite, and have been doing it amazingly well.

Want to tell me space aliens were the ones who filled victorian cemetaries with granite headstones, mausoleums, and pedestals? They didn't have diamond saws on mass-production either, so it must have been aliens, right?

reply to post by Sargoth


as copper is "worked" it hardens, its called work hardening.
It will get hard till the point the metal starts to fracture
then it needs to be annealed and can be reworked.

So, none of this addresses how these people were able to build these structures without writing. To my knowledge, this all predates the earliest records of phonetic writing.

Why would writing be a prerequisite for shaping stone or building in stone? By the time we were building sophisticated structures like Pyramids we had developed writing, perhaps not the alphabetic writing you're used to, but more than met the needs of the ancient Egyptians.

So the pyramid limestone has been talked about at length, but no one chimed in on the Diorite too much. Intrusive igneous rocks are pockets of magma that push up into the crust, but fail to breach the surface. They are characterized by a very slow cooling process.

When rock "freezes", the slower the cooling process takes, the more time there is for ions to bump around, chain up and form larger and larger crystals. Different elements of rock freeze at different temperatures - In actuality, certain elements complete their molecular chains before others, resulting in solids sooner. This why when you inspect a granite or dolomite you can see that some defined crystals are suspended in a larger matrix of smaller ones.

Should that rock breach the surface it would freeze very rapidly. When this occurs, you get the opposite result, very fine (sometimes onyl distinguishable under a microscope) crystal grains. Those rocks are called basalts for the most part.

Even if the Incas could melt the diorite, without the specialized conditions of very slow cooling and pressure we would not see molded diorite, we would see a molded basalt. As far as agglomeration, geologists would be able to identify the difference in diorite. One of the features of an intrusive rock is that the crystaline structures grow into one another and fuse. An agglomerize version would definitely reveal the working.

Here's another brain buster for this thread: In Puma Punku, archaeologists have created a map of the rubble, and put the puzzle together: The stones were cut into deliberate interlocking blocks to form the walls, and many interlocking features were used around the site.
Here's a link with tons of pictures and diagrams of the interlocks:
www.world-mysteries.com...

No one is claiming that diorite was ever "melted". The theory with the geopolymer site is that limestone, a much softer rock, was turned into a slurry with water, then allowed to "re-agglomerate". It would be easier to carry the constituent materials up ladders or ramps opposed to 2.5 ton blocks, at least for the upper reaches of the pyramid. It's a theory, but it has some basis in science, and wouldn't hurt the pyramids to conduct further testing.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer
The guy has further blotted his copybook by travelling over to Bosnia and is now supporting Osmanagić' claims of the pyramid there. Predictably, Davidovits has 'proven' that the 'Bosnian Pyramid' has been constructed using.......!!

Reading this thread through, it seems a while since a thread in A&LC generated such polite and informed discussion and disagreement. It was very enjoyable at the time.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
No one is claiming that diorite was ever "melted". The theory with the geopolymer site is that limestone, a much softer rock, was turned into a slurry with water, then allowed to "re-agglomerate". It would be easier to carry the constituent materials up ladders or ramps opposed to 2.5 ton blocks, at least for the upper reaches of the pyramid. It's a theory, but it has some basis in science, and wouldn't hurt the pyramids to conduct further testing.

I know the agglomeration process was in regards to the limestone, I was just adding some info to the diorite discussion. Figured I would cover the possibility, should someone have had a question about that process in regards to the South American site.
Rocks are strange beasts, and often people just don't know much about the chemistry and characteristics!

Originally posted by Sargoth
Sorry guys but I'll take Chris Dunn's opinions over your's every time. He's an engineer and knows his shi_. You can't cut diorite or granite with copper tools with space-age precision.

There is no diorite cut to "space age precision" and I saw Dunn cut a hole in a block of granite (similar to diorite) on the "Ancient Aliens" program using a copper tube and wet sand.

Hmmm. I guess it is possible, since even Dunn says it is.

For everyone else - there is a difference between hardness and toughness. Both are actual technical terms used in materials science.

Also, stone displays a property called "cleavage." No, it's not as sexy as it sounds.

Even the hardest stone can be chipped.

BTW, a diamond is both hard and tough, and is not a "stone" in the sense of the word I was using.

Harte

The coral castle is the best example of modern use of an unknown method to move large objects and build with them in modern times . I don't know who built Puma Punku ,but it wasn't illiterate farmers with copper tools

who ever built it was a damned good engineer /architect ,and had training probably some kind of higher education, and plans that would need to be carried out without deviation by seasoned workmen

I'm a fan of the aggregate rock but it is apparently known that at least most Puma Punku rocks are Diorite
clearly to whoever built it the kind of rock to be used is not an issue.

Now that I have said all that ,I'm going to say we are thinking about these things all wrong so I'm going to say this out loud, However they were built by whomever they were built ,It was easy . That's right
what's his name built the Coral Castle easily and alone, so however places like this were built think it was easy it was cheap and it didn't take to many people

find out how it was built and I predict you can find out who built it I would also love to know why it was built,The Acropolis was a combination temple /bank/ shopping mall, The pyramids were I dunno not tombs, Stonehenge was a festival place for leading the dead to the after life , and a calendar(so new research would suggest) so what was PumaPunku?

I get sick of arguments that suggest such precision could be gotten by ordinary conscripts wielding copper tools, we use diamond chip saws made with special aloys to cut large stones we have massive reinforced trucks to haul the stones on carefully graded roads

were is all this at PumaPunku ? What else in the world is like it architecturally ? but feel free to argue endlessly about the ingenuity of the ancients and how they made everything with copper tools and llama fat

I conclude ,it was done the easy way by someone smart ,who liked an insane amount of precision in his or her architecture. I can't find anything worthwhile about the site but it does raise a lot of questions just seeing pictures of what is left

reply to post by blamethegreys


that was a great post blamethegreys, that bit about the reconstruction is really interesting!!!

I think i read somewhere that the copper tools were hardened in some way we can't figure out. Also read in C. Dunn's book I think that there was a worked piece of iron found in the Great Pyramid. Gordon Micheal Scailion says in his book "Notes From the Cosmos" that dirigibles were used to transport large blocks.

Originally posted by Sargoth
I think i read somewhere that the copper tools were hardened in some way we can't figure out. Also read in C. Dunn's book I think that there was a worked piece of iron found in the Great Pyramid. Gordon Micheal Scailion says in his book "Notes From the Cosmos" that dirigibles were used to transport large blocks.

The Egyptians had copper that was tempered and had impurities which made it stronger, the 4th dynasty also had bronze tools, both of which will cut limestone.

An iron plate was found that was thought to have come from the time when the outer shell was stipped away. it was found between the core stones

On Friday, 26 May 1837, after a few days of blasting and clearing, Hill discovered a flat iron plate about 26 cm (10.2") long, 8.6 cm (3.4") wide, with a thickness ranging from .4 cm (.2") to nearly zero. The plate weighs about 750g. Vyse proclaimed it to be "the oldest piece of wrought iron known." Hill affirmed that his find was legitimate:

Also iron from meteorites has also been found in association with Egyptian tombs

Dirigibles? I think not, or more correctly there is no evidence to support that at all.

Originally posted by Sargoth
I think i read somewhere that the copper tools were hardened in some way we can't figure out.

Undoubtedly. The website was probably an "ancient mysteries" site that didn't do its homework. Hardening copper chisels isn't that difficult -- you just whack it a bunch of times with a rock (no, I'm not kidding. That's really how it's done. Has to do with the properties of metal. See this site for a quick explanation: www.ehow.com... ).

Also read in C. Dunn's book I think that there was a worked piece of iron found in the Great Pyramid.

True, and actually more than one.

Gordon Micheal Scailion says in his book "Notes From the Cosmos" that dirigibles were used to transport large blocks.

I don't think Mr. Scailion ever actually tried to make a dirigible with the materials the Egyptians had or ever tried to figure out how big the thing would have to be to lift a block. And he probably has no explanation why carvings and drawings for other projects show large statues and blocks being carried by ships or pulled by sledge. If they used dirigibles once, they'd have used them for a long time -- there are temples with heavier and larger stones and really huge statues that they'd have hoisted with dirigibles... if they'd had them.

We'd also find dirigible parts around and drawings -- AND work group titles indicating someone was in charge of crews and constructions. But we don't find any of those.

He's making a "mystery" of something we know about. That's like trying to make a mystery out of how they stacked stone blocks to make castles.