Posted on 02/19/2018 7:14:43 AM PST by SunkenCiv
A recent scientific study published in the renown "Europhysics News", The Magazine of the European Physical Society, (2012), Vol. 43, number 6, described how paleomagnetism study on several pyramid stones demonstrates the validity of Davidovits' theory on the artificial nature of Egyptian pyramid stones.
...Dr. Igor Túnyi ...and Ibrahim A. El-hemaly... made the following assumption (quote from their scientific paper):
Our paleomagnetic investigation of the two great Egyptian pyramids, Kufu and Khafre, is based on the assumption that if the blocks were made in situ by the geopolymer concrete technique described above, then their magnetic moments would all have been parallel, oriented approximately in the north-south direction. However, if the pyramids were constructed from blocks transported from the nearby quarries, having been rotated randomly during transport and construction, then the directions of their magnetic moments would be oriented randomly
Conclusion:
The aim of paleomagnetic investigation of the rock material of the great Egyptian pyramids, Khufu and Khafre, was to find out the directions of the magnetic polarization vectors of their building blocks... The analysis of a limited set of paleomagnetic samples provided the following results. The paleodirections of three sampling locations (2 from Khafre and 1 from Khufu pyramid) exhibit the common north-south orientation, suggesting that they may have been produced in situ by a concrete technique. The block from one sampling location of the Khafre pyramid is of natural limestone and evidently comes from the adjacent quarry. It is likely that the block from one sampling position of the Khufu pyramid comes also from the same quarry. Finally, we conclude that even if the geopolymer concrete technique was used, the pyramids were constructed from a mixture of natural and artificial limestone blocks.
(Excerpt) Read more at davidovits.info ...
using a “concreting” technique?
That would be a lot of buckets of water to carry up the hill....
Yes, but it is much more believable than them laying a 20 ton block every 10 minutes for 25 years.
I also don’t think the inside is all blocks too- I believe it is filled with rocks and rubble
Or, the polarity changed in situ over thousands of years to reflect the polarity of the earth
In before the big hair ancient aliens guy picture.
Aliens came down to visit, and used their matter transmitters to create the blocks. Then they moved them into place with their force beams, which also scrambled the magnetic orientation of the rocks.
They also changed the Carbon 14 proportions with their phasers, to mask the date when they did their work.
It seems to me that if the pyramid blocks were cast in spme sort of concrete like mixture, there should be evidence of a texture left by the forms, just as one can see wood patterns in today’s board formed structures. Even if the exposed outer surfaces were worked afterwards to leave a smooth finish, some inner areas should have been revealed over time to show telltale evidence.
There is a “vacuum” in the scholarly research or what you call it.
Since the mainstream archaeology can’t, or won’t, talk about certain aspects, then there is the opportunity for every nutjob on the planet to write a book about it. (probably when they are taking a break from the Kennedy assasination lecture circuit)
What the ancients did with limestone is impressive, no doubt, but the real question is how they were able to cut, shape, and move truly massive granite, basalt, and diorite blocks and statues with a precision that astounds modern engineers and stoneworkers. It doesn’t have to be “aliens” but there is no adequate explanation without revising completely the narrative of early human development. The gist of it seems to be there were pre-flood or pre-cataclysm civilizations. This is something modern academia will not accept.
All of these amazing structures - whether in Egypt or Peru - were built by illiterate savages with stone pounders and copper chisels.
Never mind that the stone cut surfaces in granite show clear evidence of circular saws with diameters in several feet - and hollow tube drills with cutting feed rates of 0.1” per revolution in granite. It is AMAZING and there is simply no adequate explanation.
HUGE stone blocks quarried and moved hundreds of miles up mountains, cut and shaped with, in some instances 8, 10, or even 12 sides - notched and fitted with a high level of precision, and with no mortar. The scientists tells us they were made 400 or 900 years ago. Everyone knows this is BS.
But you’ll lose your job or sinecure if you don’t toe the official narrative. Really strange.
it would be a hell of a lot more straightforward than transporting huge blocks of rock.
Well, you mean like this?
I agree with your assessment. ie, Induced magnetism.
Bingo. Especially in the 20th century, many motors and electric and electronic equipment as been around them. There is high probability that the magnetic pattern is of recent adjustment.
I bet those buckets had lids!
That’s what they are talking about - induced magnetism. But it only gets induced when the rock is forming, or if it was heated and then cooled again. Hence fire-ring rocks can be dated to when they were last used in a fire.
So these guys are talking about when the concrete was formed. In geology you can see the magnetic change in the seafloor rocks from when they cooled. Also can see iron-rich sediments when they were laid down - as they settled into a lake they will orient to magnetic north.
However, based on only three locations I’m not sure that is conclusive. And I’m confused, it says:
“The block from one sampling location of the Khafre pyramid is of natural limestone and evidently comes from the adjacent quarry. It is likely that the block from one sampling position of the Khufu pyramid comes also from the same quarry.”
This makes it sound to me like TWO blocks were natural limestone - yet still had the same magnetic orientation. So either luck, or perhaps the builders were lining up the limestone to fit the original cuts. Although they said they were from three different locations. One would think they wouldn’t sample two blocks right next to each other, so that shoots out the fitting the original cuts. Although to me - that would make sense to do it that way. Cut a bunch of big ones for the base, line them up. Then some smaller ones for the next level, line them up. Etc.
Dovetailing from your point, on the 2 pyramids in this article, and the sphinx, there are clearly observed watermarks.
This has been a decisive topic in itself for decades.
Obviously a lot has happened in the past which is not PC and anathema to those seeking to divert attention from reality.
What is more efficient, though? One hundred slaves pulling a 20 ton block, or one hundred slaves carrying 200 buckets of water?
“Or, the polarity changed in situ over thousands of years to reflect the polarity of the earth”
Polarity in rocks is based on the alignment of molecules before the rocks solidified. It is possible that a very powerful magnet could realign the ions, but I doubt the field from the magnetic poles would be powerful enough to do that.
If that did happen, though, then why wouldn’t ALL the blocks be realigned? Why would they find a couple of random blocks that were aligned differently?
There appears little doubt that iron or nickel steel from iron meteors made the tools necessary. What happened to them?
In the thousands of years following the tools (which were made of invaluable iron) were melted down to make other tools and so the original stone shaping and cutting tools disappeared. Now there is nothing left.
So the silly people following the dictum of Gradualism could not admit that there was not a steady progression from stone to copper, to bronze, to iron, to steel. And here we are with their nonsensical conclusions.
Sort of like the Sumerian Civilization springing mysteriously up from nothing with a complete alphabet, writing, astronomy, mathematics, navigation, bureaucracy, trading system, etc overnight.
Like Galileo inventing the telescope when there is abundant evidence that optically ground diopter lens were in use as far back as the Egyptian Old Kingdom; telescopes were likely in use during Roman times. Today these lens are just curiosities stuffed into some musty back of the museum display case labeled ‘Jewelry’. “Move along,” says the tour guide, “just pretty pieces, ancient eye candy. Now look over here at these beautifully crafted copper tools ...” and so it goes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
