BUILDING THE PYRAMIDS -- More Crap from the Pseudos.

It's amazing how incredibly gullible and stupid members
of the Pseudoscientific Establishment think we are.

Case in point (among many), the building of the Pryamids.

They could NOT POSSIBLY have been constructed by moving
multi-tons blocks into place by using an inclined plane,
certainly not at the higher elevations..

It can only be done in theory -- the pseudos' theory -- and
anyone with even half a brain knows its impossible.

Same for the pseudoscientists' farfetched theories of the
evolution of man, or the Being Strait, or the denial of the existence
of extraterrestrials, or the Big Bang as being responsible
for the origin of the universe.

There is ONLY one way the Pyramids could've possibly
been built -- by pouring concrete, or a close cousin, right
where the blocks are presently in place ON the Pyramids.

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.

Sadly -- and so unfortunately -- the Pseudoscientific
Establishment's powerplay of deceit, deception, collusion
and conspiracy raised its ugly, dishonest head, and
the integrity of a group of honest scientists was mashed
into pulp.

/////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Similiar to the deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy
that is obviously apparent with the discovery of petrified bones,
teeth and even soft organs (some human) between anthracite
veins...

==========================================

"YOU'RE NOT ONLY FIGHTING THE MAN
IN THE RING, ED. YOU'RE FIGHTING
THE REFEREE AND THE THREE JUDGES"
-- Clayton Lennon (1900-1996)

=========================================

(Petrified Coal-Age Bones, Teeth and Soft Organs)

Petrified human finger (with fingernail
AND Petrified human toe (with toenail):
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
Petrified human skull
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
Petrified human femur (embedded in slate)_
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
Petrified human gall bladder (containing gall stone)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
Petrified human skull (embedded in boulder)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
Petrified human jaw
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-012F.JPG

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SCORPIONS/MVC-039S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-008S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-011S.JPG

Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com

Reply to article by: Ed Conrad
Date written: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 15:46:54 GMT


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.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
================================================== ===========

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!

Reply to article by:
Date written: 2 Nov 2003 20:37:45 GMT


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.

In other words, it wasn't "research", it was a New Age study and it didn't prove
anything other than Ed is an incredible liar.

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!

Anti-gravity cannot be used to explain how the stones were cut, only how they
were transported.

Watch some National Geographic Special and you'll
hear some pseudo-science spokesperson going on and on about the
"precision" of ancient stone cutters.

What's so difficult about making precise stone cuts in soft limestone?

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!

All the "odd angles" had to be calculated and then a rough cut made to extract
the stone. The finishing could be done in place at the installation site as all
hand-made craftsmen used to do years ago before mass production became popular.
There is nothing magical or mystical about that.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
================================================== ===========

In sci.astro The_Sage wrote:

In other words, it wasn't "research", it was a New Age study and
it didn't prove anything other than Ed is an incredible liar.

No, it wasn't "new age" but work by reputable researchers. which
only makes you the incredible liar ('nother word for "debunker")

Anti-gravity cannot be used to explain how the stones were cut,
only how they were transported.

Please clean the stone dust from your ears. Transported and
then fitted. Fitted is not the same as "cut". "Cut" is the
pseudo-science presumtion! One cuts them out of the quarry,
you transport them, then fit them in place.

What's so difficult about making precise stone cuts in soft limestone?

I take this as proof that you've never actually seen a Cyclopean
wall? What other things are you a "sage" on that you've never
actually seen?

All the "odd angles" had to be calculated and then a rough cut made to extract
the stone. The finishing could be done in place at the installation site as all
hand-made craftsmen used to do years ago before mass production became popular.
There is nothing magical or mystical about that.

See above paragraph. And did I mention the words "magical" or "mystical"?
Those are YOUR words which you are attempting to place in my mouth.
I'm resisting because of the part of your anatomy from which you
pull your words!

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

Reply to article by:
Date written: 3 Nov 2003 05:52:55 GMT


In other words, it wasn't "research", it was a New Age study and
it didn't prove anything other than Ed is an incredible liar.

No, it wasn't "new age" but work by reputable researchers.

"Reputable" to whom? Other New Agers? Haha!

which only makes you the incredible liar ('nother word for "debunker")

That's two more words in which you have no clue what they mean.

Anti-gravity cannot be used to explain how the stones were cut,
only how they were transported.

Please clean the stone dust from your ears. Transported and
then fitted. Fitted is not the same as "cut". "Cut" is the
pseudo-science presumtion! One cuts them out of the quarry,
you transport them, then fit them in place.

And you can tell the difference between a stone that was lifted in place from
one that was lifted by anti-gravity? Or is the only way you can tell that is by
imagining that is how it happened? That's some "research" you blindly believe
in.

What's so difficult about making precise stone cuts in soft limestone?

I take this as proof that you've never actually seen a Cyclopean
wall? What other things are you a "sage" on that you've never
actually seen?

You didn't answer the question, but I wouldn't expect any less from intellectual
cowards like you. So tell us again, what is so hard about making precise stone
cuts in soft limestone?

All the "odd angles" had to be calculated and then a rough cut made to extract
the stone. The finishing could be done in place at the installation site as all
hand-made craftsmen used to do years ago before mass production became popular.
There is nothing magical or mystical about that.

See above paragraph. And did I mention the words "magical" or "mystical"?

No, I did...duh!

Those are YOUR words which you are attempting to place in my mouth.

Since I never ever claimed they were your words, you are wrong again, as usual.

I'm resisting because of the part of your anatomy from which you
pull your words!

That part of my anatomy is called the brain, and yes you are resisting using
yours. Time to take your brain off the shelf and start using it. You can start
by paying careful attention to the "research" your gullibly believe in and
question the validity of your New Age sources.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
================================================== ===========

Actually, the pyramids were covered with formstone, hon.

Chillyvek wrote:
Actually, the pyramids were covered with formstone, hon.

Um, Ok. Except neither I nor my unabridged dictionary
seems to know what that is. Not that the actual kind
of stone matters (unless it was the poured kind).

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

"The_Sage" wrote in message
...
Reply to article by: Ed Conrad
Date written: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 15:46:54 GMT


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.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
================================================== ===========

The fact of the matter is that the Great Pyramids of Giza were built out of
the very limestone on which those structures rest. The limestone came from
a quarry located behind the complex, and was only discovered when a "real"
geologist decided to study the plateau on which the pyramids were built. He
found the quarry behind the pyramids, filled with the debris from the ramp.
That debris originated in the quarry operations, and was used to make the
ramp on which the stones were moved into place. Once the pyramids were
completed, the debris from the ramp was pushed back into the quarry, nearly
filling it. Incomplete stones have been found in the quarry, along with the
tools that were used to make them.

The fact that most researchers have missed this is not surprising since they
never looked for it, unitl now.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/11/egypt.pyramids/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid.../builders.html

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf094/sf094a01.htm

"Ed Conrad" bravely wrote to "All" (02 Nov 03 15:46:54)

--- on the heady topic of "BUILDING THE PYRAMIDS -- More Crap from the
Pseudos."

EC From: Ed Conrad
EC There is ONLY one way the Pyramids could've possibly
EC been built -- by pouring concrete, or a close cousin, right
EC where the blocks are presently in place ON the Pyramids.

That's stupid! If they could pour concrete then why bother making 20 ton
blocks?! Your theory doesn't hold up to common sense.

We know large blocks and obelisks were ferried down the Nile because
there are pictographs of them doing it. So if they could load a barge
with a 20 ton block then it follows reason that they could also raise it
into place in a pyramid.

They were neither a primitive people nor stupid. Their best and
brightest minds were contemporaries of the likes of Archimedes of which
it is now discovered he invented basic calculus and this was lost to us
until we had to re-invent it many centuries later. Just think how much
science, mathematics, and technology would be advanced today if their
knowledge hadn't been forgotten for all that time!

.... Oh no! The creationists are mutating!