Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Steve.
>
> I think Loveritas's scenario is spot on.
>
> To quote myself:
>
> Surely there must be at least one source that
> makes note of or pictures this "ancient
> geopolymer" slurry...?

>
> Given the effort and detail put into the
> excavation and restoration, is it really possible
> Reisner, Hassan, et al could have missed something
> so obvious and amazing as 4500+yr old "geoplymer"?
> Even if it was misidentified as mortar someone
> somewhere would have said something. At best it
> would have been an amazing discovery as it would
> have predated the Roman use of "cement" by over
> 4,000yrs, at worst-wow the DE sure used a lot of
> mortar to level the foundation. It is impossible
> this would not only have been noted but common
> knowledge as a wonder of the ancient world.
>
> On the flip side, to assume for your sake this is
> ancient, Egyptologists estimate that over
> 500,000 tons of mortar was used in the
> construction of G1. And yet to level the
> foundation, instead of mortar which for their
> purposes would have worked just as well, they
> instead used magic geoplymer that, unless you
> believe the core blocks are made of the stuff too
> (which you yourself said was taking it to far)
> otherwise no one can find the stuff anywhere?
>
> Here is a simple common sense challenge to
> believers that this is geopolymer- find one
> description of it existing (even if said to be
> mortar) prior to the modern restoration. If there
> are none, then it is not ancient.


Hi Lee

Thanks for your comment.

I guess it was my mistake to wade into the paving blocks? Indeed even to deviate from topic to the more contested and emotional Egypt. Does anyone know when they were apparently "restored", whether any originals remained in situ? What mortar was used if any? I concede it might simply be relatively modern using lime mortar?

For those who have not studied Geopolymer or more particularly reconstituted limestone it is incredibly difficult even for trained geologists to tell the difference. Note geopolymer reconstitute is all completely natural occurring substances.
eg Before the conference 2006 (Merrell posted some papers from it) Davidovit's had 6 professional geologists to examine blind samples some real and several man made reconstituted with different methods. In their preferred methods they were unable to tell the difference and declared it all to be natural stone.
The trick to distinguish (in part) is to examine the chemical composition, especially with the supposed source of the thought to be natural stone.

In regards to your repeated question:
I wonder whether Flinders Petrie would satisfy you? I am sure you have read this before , but likely from his book direct? (rather than this source requoting it)

Quote
F Petrie
In addition to achieving seamless joins between blocks, the highly polished limestone casing stones that covered the pyramid were fixed with a 'fine aluminosilicate cement'. The finished pyramid contained approximately 115,000 of these stones, (Over 13 acres), each weighing ten tons or more. These stones were dressed on all six of their sides, not just the side exposed to the visible surface, to tolerances of .01 inch. They were set together so closely that a thin razor blade could not be inserted between the stones.

Egyptologist Petrie expressed his astonishment of this feat by writing: - 'Merely to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the joint seems almost impossible; it is to be compared to the finest opticians' work on the scale of acres"
Source of quote

Or going back earlier Col H Vyse 1837

Quote
Operations -Vol 1 page 261
They were quite perfect, had been hewn into the required angle before they were built in, and had then
been polished down to one uniform surface;' the joints were scarcely perceptible, and not wider than the thickness
of silver paper; and such is the tenacity of the cement with which they are held together,' that a frag- ment of one, that has been destroyed, remained firmly fixed in its original alignment, notwithstanding the lapse of time
and the violence, to which it had been exposed.

The pavement beyond the line of the building was well laid, and beautifully finished ; but beneath the edifice it was worked with even greater exactness, and to the most perfect level, in order, probably, to obtain a lasting foundation for the magnificent structure to be built upon it.

(Note I realise this is different North side pavement I couldn't resist including that quote add on.)

Anyway the point is, both gentleman recognised the extreme nature of very unusual cement used to join the casing stones.

Davidovits , somewhere refers to an experiment with saturated kaolinic limestone sprinkled with caustic soda and the reaction after drying of two parts, hardens with the joint harder than the original stone.

Some explorers , very early on, noticed unknown to them then 'magic happening ' with stone working.

However, again the basalt paving could simply be the simple gypsum or lime mortar used by the AE (or restorers) but even so, they HAD actually developed cement or mortar, and according to you or someone else 500,000 tons of it?

It is no problem at all to me, if you and others dismiss all this as BS!
Again, I thought the vid in the OP on Peru Bolivia, was very interesting, albeit perhaps only to a few gullible fools like me?
Cheers

Edit PS

However "they" restored the basalt pavers. They used cement closely replicating limestone (from source above quoted)



Note how thin the slather

Edit 2 PSS

I am guessing that Barbelo is going to tell me this was modern restored and the adjoining paver, - was pinched again!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-20 05:29 by Corpuscles.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 1478 Corpuscles 21-Dec-19 17:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 193 Open mind 22-Dec-19 02:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 153 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 05:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 133 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 91 thinkitover 23-Dec-19 10:05
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 155 ocka 22-Dec-19 09:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 124 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 18:01
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 122 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiahuanaco architect named 89 molder 23-Dec-19 22:16
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 90 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:44
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 87 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:47
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 73 Hanslune 25-Dec-19 01:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 112 Thanos5150 25-Dec-19 02:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 79 Hanslune 27-Dec-19 23:09
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 Thanos5150 28-Dec-19 17:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 87 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 06:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 75 Merrell 29-Dec-19 14:38
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 20:31
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 72 Merrell 29-Dec-19 23:54
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 59 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:03
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 57 Merrell 01-Jan-20 10:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 47 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 65 Open mind 31-Dec-19 19:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 51 Merrell 31-Dec-19 23:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 62 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 54 Open mind 01-Jan-20 03:02
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 88 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 04:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 61 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 05:51
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 76 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 06:59
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 70 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 19:40
Basalt Pavers 64 Barbelo 01-Jan-20 21:33
Re: Basalt Pavers 58 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 23:01
Re: Basalt Pavers 52 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 03:36
Re: Basalt Pavers 64 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:42
Re: Basalt Pavers 56 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 06:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 69 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 02:17
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 72 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:03
Basalt Pillar 72 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 07:15
Re: Basalt Pillar 59 Open mind 02-Jan-20 15:43
Re: Basalt Pillar 63 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 19:06
Re: Basalt Pillar 60 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 18:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 77 Merrell 02-Jan-20 18:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 119 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 11:15
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 68 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 20:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 59 Merrell 03-Jan-20 21:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 64 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 23:23
Sacsayhuaman 73 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 02:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 70 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 03:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 67 Thanos5150 04-Jan-20 03:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 61 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 05:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 110 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 11:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 60 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 20:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:55
Re: Sacsayhuaman 54 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 21:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 23:40
Re: Sacsayhuaman 58 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:59
Re: Sacsayhuaman 48 Open mind 06-Jan-20 01:08
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 02:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 03:50
Re: Sacsayhuaman 54 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 04:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 61 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 05:10
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:47
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 16:53
Re: Sacsayhuaman 48 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 19:06
The Limestone Puddle 50 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:27
Re: Sacsayhuaman 55 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 21:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 53 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 22:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 62 Thanos5150 07-Jan-20 17:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 48 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:48
Re: Sacsayhuaman 46 Open mind 06-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 54 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 21:30
Re: Sacsayhuaman 42 Open mind 07-Jan-20 20:43
Re: Sacsayhuaman 46 Open mind 06-Jan-20 13:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 11:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 53 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 10:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 53 seasmith 06-Jan-20 14:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 20:46
Re: Sacsayhuaman 48 Open mind 06-Jan-20 16:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 49 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Open mind 07-Jan-20 15:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 55 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:25
Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 48 Barbelo 07-Jan-20 23:51
Re: Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 58 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 01:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 48 Open mind 08-Jan-20 00:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 49 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 00:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 01:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 45 Open mind 08-Jan-20 02:06
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 03:20
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 07:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 47 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 12:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 43 Open mind 08-Jan-20 16:42
Re: Sacsayhuaman 49 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 18:24
Re: Sacsayhuaman 40 Open mind 08-Jan-20 20:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 48 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 21:44
LImestone vs Limestone 43 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 22:40
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 56 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 23:47
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 51 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 01:57
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 58 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 03:09
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 59 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 04:07
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 44 Open mind 09-Jan-20 16:06
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 46 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 20:49
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 43 Open mind 09-Jan-20 20:58
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 60 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 21:20
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 43 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:12
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 51 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 17:15
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 45 Open mind 09-Jan-20 15:25
Re:Sacsayhuaman 40 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 07:00
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 38 Open mind 10-Jan-20 13:15
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 61 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 14:34
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 39 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:47
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 45 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 47 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 40 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:00
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 63 Thanos5150 09-Jan-20 01:44
Tombomachay 53 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 06:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 52 Barbelo 10-Jan-20 07:30
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 89 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 11:41
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 60 Barbelo 11-Jan-20 05:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 52 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 01:24
Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 54 Barbelo 12-Jan-20 12:11
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 58 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 20:56
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 64 Open mind 13-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Sacsayhuaman 43 Open mind 08-Jan-20 23:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 47 Open mind 08-Jan-20 14:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 40 Merrell 08-Jan-20 17:57
On the fence... 51 Racho 08-Jan-20 04:51
Re: On the fence... 45 Open mind 08-Jan-20 15:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 63 Merrell 04-Jan-20 09:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 62 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 09:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 62 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 56 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 00:34
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 41 Open mind 05-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 54 Open mind 02-Jan-20 03:37
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 61 Merrell 01-Jan-20 14:10
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 57 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 95 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:30
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 79 Open mind 22-Dec-19 22:12
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 73 WVK 23-Dec-19 15:21
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 70 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 64 Open mind 23-Dec-19 23:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 89 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 22:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 83 seasmith 23-Dec-19 03:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 78 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 07:20
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 79 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 09:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 69 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 89 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 84 Hanslune 24-Dec-19 22:35
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 140 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 19:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 146 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 111 Enigcom 02-Jan-20 17:29


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.