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 1568 Corpuscles 21-Dec-19 17:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 213 Open mind 22-Dec-19 02:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 177 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 05:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 152 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 106 thinkitover 23-Dec-19 10:05
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 186 ocka 22-Dec-19 09:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 144 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 18:01
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 141 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiahuanaco architect named 105 molder 23-Dec-19 22:16
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 106 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:44
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 107 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:47
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 87 Hanslune 25-Dec-19 01:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 137 Thanos5150 25-Dec-19 02:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 100 Hanslune 27-Dec-19 23:09
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 94 Thanos5150 28-Dec-19 17:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 104 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 06:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 91 Merrell 29-Dec-19 14:38
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 87 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 20:31
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 90 Merrell 29-Dec-19 23:54
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:03
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 73 Merrell 01-Jan-20 10:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 69 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 83 Open mind 31-Dec-19 19:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 67 Merrell 31-Dec-19 23:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 79 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 69 Open mind 01-Jan-20 03:02
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 112 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 04:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 77 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 05:51
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 95 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 06:59
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 19:40
Basalt Pavers 79 Barbelo 01-Jan-20 21:33
Re: Basalt Pavers 76 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 23:01
Re: Basalt Pavers 70 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 03:36
Re: Basalt Pavers 85 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:42
Re: Basalt Pavers 72 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 06:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 87 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 02:17
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 96 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:03
Basalt Pillar 95 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 07:15
Re: Basalt Pillar 75 Open mind 02-Jan-20 15:43
Re: Basalt Pillar 90 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 19:06
Re: Basalt Pillar 80 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 102 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 18:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 99 Merrell 02-Jan-20 18:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 135 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 11:15
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 86 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 20:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 77 Merrell 03-Jan-20 21:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 83 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 23:23
Sacsayhuaman 89 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 02:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 86 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 03:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 85 Thanos5150 04-Jan-20 03:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 79 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 05:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 127 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 11:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 78 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 81 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 20:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 69 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:55
Re: Sacsayhuaman 71 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 21:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 74 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 23:40
Re: Sacsayhuaman 75 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:59
Re: Sacsayhuaman 68 Open mind 06-Jan-20 01:08
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 02:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 73 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 03:50
Re: Sacsayhuaman 70 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 04:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 80 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 05:10
Re: Sacsayhuaman 83 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:47
Re: Sacsayhuaman 86 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 16:53
Re: Sacsayhuaman 67 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 19:06
The Limestone Puddle 65 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:27
Re: Sacsayhuaman 72 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 21:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 70 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 22:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 85 Thanos5150 07-Jan-20 17:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:48
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Open mind 06-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 72 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 21:30
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Open mind 07-Jan-20 20:43
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Open mind 06-Jan-20 13:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 69 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 11:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 65 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 67 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 10:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 71 seasmith 06-Jan-20 14:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 67 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 20:46
Re: Sacsayhuaman 62 Open mind 06-Jan-20 16:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Open mind 07-Jan-20 15:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 78 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:25
Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 63 Barbelo 07-Jan-20 23:51
Re: Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 78 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 01:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Open mind 08-Jan-20 00:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 00:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 65 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 01:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 58 Open mind 08-Jan-20 02:06
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 03:20
Re: Sacsayhuaman 86 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 07:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 60 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 12:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 62 Open mind 08-Jan-20 16:42
Re: Sacsayhuaman 65 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 18:24
Re: Sacsayhuaman 53 Open mind 08-Jan-20 20:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 21:44
LImestone vs Limestone 59 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 22:40
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 74 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 23:47
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 67 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 01:57
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 72 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 03:09
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 74 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 04:07
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 61 Open mind 09-Jan-20 16:06
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 61 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 20:49
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 61 Open mind 09-Jan-20 20:58
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 77 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 21:20
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 60 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:12
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 71 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 17:15
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 63 Open mind 09-Jan-20 15:25
Re:Sacsayhuaman 56 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 07:00
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 54 Open mind 10-Jan-20 13:15
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 80 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 14:34
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 53 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:47
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 63 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 61 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 55 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:00
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 80 Thanos5150 09-Jan-20 01:44
Tombomachay 73 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 06:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 68 Barbelo 10-Jan-20 07:30
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 121 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 11:41
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 76 Barbelo 11-Jan-20 05:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 71 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 01:24
Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 72 Barbelo 12-Jan-20 12:11
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 80 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 20:56
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 86 Open mind 13-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Open mind 08-Jan-20 23:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Open mind 08-Jan-20 14:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 56 Merrell 08-Jan-20 17:57
On the fence... 68 Racho 08-Jan-20 04:51
Re: On the fence... 61 Open mind 08-Jan-20 15:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 80 Merrell 04-Jan-20 09:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 78 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 09:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 82 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 73 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 00:34
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 60 Open mind 05-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 72 Open mind 02-Jan-20 03:37
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 78 Merrell 01-Jan-20 14:10
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 71 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 112 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 101 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:30
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 93 Open mind 22-Dec-19 22:12
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 96 WVK 23-Dec-19 15:21
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 78 Open mind 23-Dec-19 23:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 104 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 22:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 102 seasmith 23-Dec-19 03:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 92 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 07:20
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 95 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 09:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 84 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 108 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 98 Hanslune 24-Dec-19 22:35
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 158 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 19:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 162 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 142 Enigcom 02-Jan-20 17:29


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.