Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Arikay · 07-07-2003, 04:11 PM

One thing to mention is that there are actually around 7 - 10 different alien species that multiple people say they have met. The interesting aspect to this is that the "greys" (the common alien) seemed to have taken over the majority of abductions around the same time that they became popular. Hmm, I wonder why.

Many "abductions" include signs of a possible non permanent sleep disorder, if so, then it might explain an abduction nightmare that included the general media version of an Alien is seen.

But anyway.

Quote:

Originally posted by GunnerJ
The reason has less to do with unoriginality than consistancy of dogma: people who claim to have been abducted by aliens describe them as having pale faces, very flat noses, and big, dark, almond shaped eyes.

Roland98 · 07-07-2003, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo
I met one YEC on another board who insisted that he was a child prodigy and that the ancient Egyptians built computer modem slots into the Sphinx

Was that on CBBS? Or did he move around? There used to be one over there by the name of His_Majesty that said the same thing. That was where I first heard about this--and

Quote:

Zecharia Sitchin?

yes--that's the nutcase I was talking about earlier. I think the pyramids with modems comes from him too, originally.

Albion · 07-07-2003, 04:48 PM

How about Reverse Theory, where pebbles are made from accretions of sand (and sand isn't made from erosion of rocks) and the Pyramids were made from limestone before it hardened. Or something.

http://www.reverse-theory.com/

This character charges for access to most of his site, but he can be found pushing his - um - theory at the BBC Creation and Evolution boards for free.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2....ience.created&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2....lution&&sort=T

agnawstick · 07-07-2003, 05:51 PM

I have actually heard a not unreasonable theory that the pyramids were made of limestone cement. Basically, mortar traditionally was made by firing up limestone under a very hot fire. It would turn white, and would dissolve into a paste when water was poured over it.

Saw a documentary on either A&E, PBS, or History channel with a guy who theorized that it would have been alot easier for the egyptians to make such big "rocks" and such smooth corners, if they were actually turning the limestone into mortar with heat, moving it in wheelbarrows, and then forming it into molds on site where the pyramid was being built.

Any chemical/geologist types here? Can you tell the difference say 4,000 years later between, super heated limestone that has been turned into mortar, and formed into a shape, as opposed to a big block cut from a quarry?

hyzer · 07-07-2003, 07:08 PM

Lets check the steps

Theory 1: quarry stone, transport to pyramid site, lift into place, erect pyramid

Theory 2: quarry stone, transport to area where heated and turned into liquid, transport liquid to pyramid site, lift into place, erect formwork, pour and set, strip formwork, erect pyramid

There are several other silver bullets � have any idea how strong formwork has to be to contain wet cement? I�d venture a guess that there weren�t enough trees in all of Egypt to provide the formwork to �pour� a pyramid and burn the limestone . . . .

-hyzer, architect type (not chemical/geologist type)

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 07-07-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by agnawstick
I have actually heard a not unreasonable theory that the pyramids were made of limestone cement. Basically, mortar traditionally was made by firing up limestone under a very hot fire. It would turn white, and would dissolve into a paste when water was poured over it.

Saw a documentary on either A&E, PBS, or History channel with a guy who theorized that it would have been alot easier for the egyptians to make such big "rocks" and such smooth corners, if they were actually turning the limestone into mortar with heat, moving it in wheelbarrows, and then forming it into molds on site where the pyramid was being built.

Any chemical/geologist types here? Can you tell the difference say 4,000 years later between, super heated limestone that has been turned into mortar, and formed into a shape, as opposed to a big block cut from a quarry?

I saw a special on the making of the pyramids. They tried this, and it works pretty good. However, the pyramids show signs of being DRAGGED, so that renders this theory slightly unworkable.

Queen of Swords · 07-08-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by emotional

OK, I see the alien's eyes as the ears of a Mickey-like mouse. The alien's nostrils are the mouse's eyes. It's much cuter that way.

Roller · 07-08-2003, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roller
Hello!

I have just read, unfortunately it is not on English, a text where this YEC is claiming how pre-flood humans genetically engineered dinosaurs. Oh boy!

Now when I think of it, someone able to do this would laugh at Yahweh. No flood would pose a problem for them.

Arken · 07-08-2003, 01:29 PM

On the other hand, all of them are far saner than the Timecube guy.

Or maybe they're just "educated stupid."

ps418 · 07-08-2003, 02:20 PM

Regarding the poured or moulded blocks vrs. carved block, I can think of at least one easy test to rule out a cement origin. The blocks from which the Great Pyramids are built are composed of Eocene limestones containing the large foraminifera Nummulites. You could look at the blocks and see if these fossils are truncated at the edge of the blocks. If they are, then the blocks were cut rather than poured. Preferably you'd want to look at unweathered faces. If the blocks were poured or molded, the fossils would not be truncated at by the surfaces, just as aggregate in concrete is not truncated by surfaces.

This page, this page, and this page do a pretty good job demolishing the concrete pyramid 'theory.' For instance, the jumbled fossils hardly are indicative of the blocks being poured or moulded, since in situ limestones in the same area show the same fossils in the same jumbled arrangements.

The blocks forming the interior of the pyramid are rough and irregular, inconsistent with having been molded or poured.

Quote:

There are, however, a number of major problems with the �concrete pyramids� theory. To start with, it is only the masonry blocks used to finish the exterior of the pyramids (granite and Tura limestone) that are jointed as carefully as Bertho states. The majority of blocks used to build the pyramids (the core blocks) are not so carefully worked (see Figures 2 and 4), with irregular gaps between 2cm and 30cm typically found in the core masonry of the Great Pyramid. The irregular finish of these blocks, with chisel marks, handling bosses etc., is enough to demonstrate quite clearly that these blocks have not been cast in a mould

Quote:

Lambert Dolphin, the leader of the SRI work at Giza (see below) has a particularly valuable contribution to make to the debate over whether the pyramid masonry is quarried stone or has been placed in situ by means of the geopolymer technique. The SRI team were given permission to explore the interior of the Giza pyramids through various robbers' entrances and access tunnels. Dolphin describes how the "�interior of the pyramids have lots of mortar and the stones are very rough cut, smoothed only on top and bottom. Much mortar was slopped in around the edges of the interior blocks, and a thick layer was added on top to assure the next course started out level." He further added "The pyramid stones are covered with chisel marks, and the chisel[s] have been found in tailings debris." (personal e-mail from Lambert Dolphin, 14 March 2002). Neither the use of large amounts of plaster to level each course of masonry, or the need for extensive chiselling work are consistent with the stated method of geopolymer construction, described by Davidovits and Morris, which involved 'packing' adobe-like material to form masonry blocks of the required size and shape.

Finally, some blocks have mineral veins running though them, also inconsistent with their being poured or moulded.

Patrick

07-07-2003, 07:08 PM	#15
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	does not compute Lets check the steps Theory 1: quarry stone, transport to pyramid site, lift into place, erect pyramid Theory 2: quarry stone, transport to area where heated and turned into liquid, transport liquid to pyramid site, lift into place, erect formwork, pour and set, strip formwork, erect pyramid There are several other silver bullets � have any idea how strong formwork has to be to contain wet cement? I�d venture a guess that there weren�t enough trees in all of Egypt to provide the formwork to �pour� a pyramid and burn the limestone . . . . -hyzer, architect type (not chemical/geologist type)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2003, 04:48 PM	#13
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	How about Reverse Theory, where pebbles are made from accretions of sand (and sand isn't made from erosion of rocks) and the Pyramids were made from limestone before it hardened. Or something. http://www.reverse-theory.com/ This character charges for access to most of his site, but he can be found pushing his - um - theory at the BBC Creation and Evolution boards for free. http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2....ience.created& http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2....lution&&sort=T

07-07-2003, 05:51 PM	#14
agnawstick Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: arcadia California Posts: 65	I have actually heard a not unreasonable theory that the pyramids were made of limestone cement. Basically, mortar traditionally was made by firing up limestone under a very hot fire. It would turn white, and would dissolve into a paste when water was poured over it. Saw a documentary on either A&E, PBS, or History channel with a guy who theorized that it would have been alot easier for the egyptians to make such big "rocks" and such smooth corners, if they were actually turning the limestone into mortar with heat, moving it in wheelbarrows, and then forming it into molds on site where the pyramid was being built. Any chemical/geologist types here? Can you tell the difference say 4,000 years later between, super heated limestone that has been turned into mortar, and formed into a shape, as opposed to a big block cut from a quarry?

07-08-2003, 12:14 PM	#17
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by emotional OK, I see the alien's eyes as the ears of a Mickey-like mouse. The alien's nostrils are the mouse's eyes. It's much cuter that way.

07-08-2003, 01:29 PM	#19
Arken Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: North Hollywood, CA Posts: 6,303	On the other hand, all of them are far saner than the Timecube guy. Or maybe they're just "educated stupid."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.