What's This?

Can you identify this?:

Hello!

I’m not back, I have just the time to say hi to everyone, to post a few messages, and then I will be on my way to Egypt and to my archaeological project.

So, hello folks, hope you are all good and well

Warm regards,
Alli

Thought It Would Be Great To Say Hello…

Hey everybody!

So I went to southern Spain for holidays, just the five of us. What a beautiful place and the people are very kind. So - has anyone else been there?

I will be back in just two weeks. And then, I will go on my archaeological assignment.

So long folks, God bless your days

Allie

Goodbye All!

To anyone interested…

I will no longer be posting on this Forum. It is one thing to be posting on a Forum where some boards are focused on UFOs (=True Unknowns=PAN-D), and quite another to be posting on a Forum where paedophiles are free to roam on! It DOES seem to be the case, and so I want to be no part of it!!!

I hate to lose friends as much (and possibly even more) as you do. My true friends will understand the stand I’m taking.

Goodbye everyone. It’s been a wonderful journey in your company.

Truly sorry if I ever was an annoyance.

Go in love and fortune.

Best regards,
Allison

Mr. Zahi Hawass Rejects Davidovits' Theory

Mr. Zahi Hawass dismissed Davidovits’ theory about the construction of the pyramids. This theory was put forward in the 1980s and postulated that the blocks of the Great Pyramid are not carved stone, but a form of limestone concrete. Mr. Hawass added that there are no scientific references to support this theoretical study.

Here's this famous theory: In a new study, a Franco-American team found out that the ancient Egyptians built the great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks.
The theory that the giant stone blocks would have been made at high points on the site rather than being hauled upwards was first formulated by French chemist Joseph Davidovits but has been rejected by Egyptologists.
The theory sustains that parts of the pyramids were constructed using natural limestone while other parts were man-made by reconstituting liquefied lime.
The researchers used X-rays, plasma torch and electron microscopes to compare the composition of the stones. French Professor Gilles Hug, from the Office of National Aerospatial Studies and Research, and Egyptian-born Michel Barsoum, a professor at Philadelphia's Drexel University, analyzed the mineralogy of samples from the Giza pyramids. "Examination of the stone shows they could have been made from a kind of early concrete and poured into blocks." they said.
They might have discovered what would be the oldest known occurrence of concrete, explaining in part the mystery of how the Egyptians were able to erect such colossal structures. "The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology is simply astounding," they added.

But Egypt's antiquities minister Zahi Hawass strongly rejects the new studies.
"It was limestone, it's been studied before by hundreds of chemists," Hawass, who heads the Supreme Council of Antiquities.
"They're made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. We don't know the origin of these samples... We certainly never gave permission for anyone to take samples," he said.
Mark Lehner, a leading Egyptologist, also looks with caution at the new theory. "All studies of the stone have shown they are made mostly from limestone but also from basalt and granite mined in the region." "Where did these samples come from is the first important question," he told. "How did the French take samples for their tests without the Egyptians' permission?"


MIT supports Davidovits’ Pyramid theory

And the abstract from the Journal of the American Ceramic Society (1): How the Great Pyramids of Giza were built has remained an enduring mystery. In the mid-1980s, Davidovits proposed that the pyramids were cast in situ using granular limestone aggregate and an alkali alumino-silicate-based binder. Hard evidence for this idea, however, remained elusive. Using primarily scanning and transmission electron microscopy, we compared a number of pyramid limestone samples with six different limestone samples from their vicinity. The pyramid samples contained microconstituents (μc's) with appreciable amounts of Si in combination with elements, such as Ca and Mg, in ratios that do not exist in any of the potential limestone sources. The intimate proximity of the μc's suggests that at some time these elements had been together in a solution. Furthermore, between the natural limestone aggregates, the μc's with chemistries reminiscent of calcite and dolomite—not known to hydrate in nature—were hydrated. The ubiquity of Si and the presence of submicron silica-based spheres in some of the micrographs strongly suggest that the solution was basic. Transmission electron microscope confirmed that some of these Si-containing μc's were either amorphous or nanocrystalline, which is consistent with a relatively rapid precipitation reaction. The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology is simply astounding.


Personally, I think that Mr. Hawass is quite right. Right from the start, I was astonished that no one had the idea to cut these famous stones into strips, and then to submit these strips to a microscopic analysis. In just a few hours, by using this technique one gets a clear and precise diagnostic about the artificiality or non-artificiality of any mineral matter.

Additional information:
La Nouvelle Histoire des pyramides, Joseph Davidovits, Ed. J.C. Godefroy, Paris, (oct. 2004) ; Ils ont bâti les pyramides, Joseph Davidovits, Ed. J.C. Godefroy, Paris (sept. 2002) ; (1) Barsoum, M. W., Ganguly, A. & Hug, G. (2006), Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 89 (12), 3788- 3796.