> Audrey Wrote:
> "Not total" being the operate phrase. Sand found
> in one chamber(s) was hardly the point of
> Cladking's comment when he said:
> "Surely you aren't proposing they imported sand
> at great expense to build on."
I think you misunderstood the comment.
> When the person offering the claims is a witless
> kook making it otherwise impossible to ever trust
> a word they say? In particular, yeah, I do.
It is apparent to me that ck was going from memory, without having sources at hand. We all do that sometimes.
> No doubt, which if he had, it would not have been
> from the study you provided which the majority of
> what he says is not in the study and offered from
> alternative writers repeating one another, but
> regardless, "It is suggested that this sand is
> different from the sand around Kufu [sic] pyramid"
> isn't exactly a glowing endorsement the sand was
> not from the Delta area let alone having come from
> the "Sinai".
If the sand is singing sand, one would have to find a source for singing sand. I believe the closest source would be El Tor. But I'm just going from memory so don't get your lynch mob together because have never claimed to have photographic memory. According to you, that may qualify me as a "kook".
> From this GHMB thread from
> [quote]"The sand found inside of Great Pyramid by
> French mission is composed mostly with quartz and
> poorly plagioclase. It composed quartz more than
> 99% and is generally called quartz sand. The size
> of the grains is large which is from 100 to 400
The report I posted has detailed content of the sand
> Sound familiar? Unfortunately it is unclear where
> this extract is from, though apparently an
> alternative source, and many of these "details",
> like the sand coming from the Sinai, are not in
> the Japanese report you cite in which they make no
> claims where its from other than it is "suggested"
> its not from the Giza plateau.
I guess the only way to determine if it's singing sand is by chemical composition. As far as I know, no one has come forth with chemical evidence of it being singing sand.
> According to Frank D from this thread, however:
> [quote]The sand has been identified and is from
> Abu Roasch, some kilometers to the north. Since
> Giza was no desert at the time of the pyramid
> building but a savanna it is possible that there
> was no sand around the pyramids at that
Savanna? Has that changed now? I thought savanna went back to 8,000 b.c. or more.
> In an earlier thread from
> 711,27774]2001[/url] Frank D gives the source of
> these comments, Rainier Stadelmann:
> [quote][b]According to Stadelmann, former head of
> the DAI, the sand is from Abo Roasch, some 8 km
> north of Giza. Chemical and mineralogig analysis
> he mentiones in his "Die ägyptischen Pyramiden"
> seem to be clear....[/b]
> Abu Roasch is a high, wind swept cliff north of
> Giza, and according to Stadelman the same wind
> patterns on the sand is found there. Because Abu
> Roasch is due north, and often heavy wind comes
> from the north Stadelmann states, that the sand
> used for fillign these gaps is fine flight sand
> from Abu Roasch, which did not originate around
> ....(it's in Stadelmanns "Die ägyptischen
> Pyramiden" around p. 270 in the 3rd
Several problems with Stadelmann's statements.
1. Abu Roasch is not "due north". It is N.W. being approx. 3 miles west and 3-3/4 miles north of Giza.
2. What "wind patterns"? Patterns in sand dunes? Vague statement that means nothing really
3. What does being on a "high cliff" have to do with wind speeds (how far sand is carried) and where it is deposited. I think sand will collect more so in a valley than on a high cliff. And the cliff really isn't that high compared to Giza. Maybe 300' higher which might be significant to a desert dweller but not to a mountain dweller.
Is he saying the sand flew in from Roasch because Roasch sits higher than Giza? So this "flight" sand flew in and somehow landed in a cavity at the HP. The way I read it the man doesn't know what the hell he's saying and is just grasping at straws. Brilliant, who needs chemical analysis. Geesh, and you guys wonder why alts question everything an Egyptologist says.
Without a reference Stadelmann's statements are worthless. Judging the sand to be the same based on "wind patterns" is ridiculous. It requires chemical analysis. Something Egyptologists really have not much use for.
I could find nothing that scientifically identifies the pyramid sand as being the same as Abu Roasch. It is another egyptolian guess that belongs in the round file and qualifies Stadelmann as a kook.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Dec-16 03:32 by Audrey.