In sci.astro The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: Ed Conrad
Date written: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 15:46:54 GMT
m

Some years ago, a research team tested a block from
one of the Pyramids and ws able to provide the physical evidence
that it indeed had been poured, same as all the others.

Name that research team so we can verify your source or prove you are an
incredibly liar.

I've seen that research though I don't remember the reference
myself. So he's not exactly an "incredibly liar". But he has
overstated it slightly! It didn't "provide the physical evidence
that it indeed had been poured" but was more like provided
some evidence that it "might" have been poured since the limestone
composition and distribution of small aggregates etc. suggested
that the stone might not have been natural and quarried. It was
an interesting theory, but the data was far from conclusive.

The other theory of Pyramids and Cyclopean walls is the anti-gravity
one. It goes that the priests of the time had some technological
means for causing stone to float (supposedly a remnant of sunken
Atlantean technology) and used that to construct large items
(temples, pyramids, walls etc.) out of enormously huge and heavy
blocks. One fact that favors the anti-gravity theory is that
this constuction method creates walls and other structures where
the stones fit together so precisely that even today a knife blade
can't fit between them. And furthermore the cuts are all at odd
gemetric angles! Watch some National Geographic Special and you'll
hear some pseudo-science spokesperson going on and on about the
"precision" of ancient stone cutters. But the best theory I've
heard is that these blocks weren't "cut" at all. Given the
ability to float them, it's a small matter to simply sand them
back and forth in place to create a perfectly fitting Cyclopean
wall with all the odd angles!

Hope this helps.

Bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!