The Former dwellers of the Earth.

[AndrewTheSinger]

Yes, imagine someone of the future finds one of our concrete buildings and wonders how we moved them there in one piece, lol.

Concrete buildings are not natural mineral accretions.

Thanks for the link.

[Mez]

Mez, to make such an statement you need to verify the mineral composition of all the megaliths.

I must point out that Egyptologists don't agree with Davidovits when he says that the stones of the pyramids were man-made. Anyways, to produce a geopolymer in order to build megaliths you need a good supply of silica. In Egypt, on the casing stones of the Cheops and Teti pyramids they have found considerable amounts of Opal-CT, which is a by-product of amorphous silica, mixed with limestone. Now here's the problem, amorphous silica is not commonly found in good quantities on the surface of our planet, and it wasn't found on the Egyptian quarries.

Where did the Egyptians get that substance to make their cement? It's a mystery.

I must point out that Egyptoligists also dont agree with theories of giants or high technology. Did you read the entire page from that link? Its long, I know but it does explain everything in detail. I (and margeret morris agree) that you do indeed need to do a chemical analysis of the stones in question to verify 100% that they are indeed geopolymers. I am aware of the silica issue but that doesnt rule out the use of geopolymerization.

Though the natives have a beautiful culture, there's no evidence to support the idea that they were producing cement, neither thousands of years ago nor today. If this was the case one would expect to find at least workmanship made of cement, pavements and the like. It's very unlikely that the temples of Sacsayhuaman, Tiahuanaco, Baalbek,  the megaliths at Nabta and Stonehenge were made by the pouring of a geopolymer, as their quarry sites have all been identified. Also, you cannot use cement to build high structures without the use of internal rods of sustentation, and these were never found.

Theres no evidence of high technology either. Infact there is more evidence that geopolymerization was used. It was not neccessary for the geopolymers to have been poured into moulds infact it was very impractical and unlikely. However evidence such as cuts bearing traces of copper in stones harder than copper have been found in several places... how did they cut a stone harder than their instrument? It was softer than their instrument at the time they were cutting it. Indeed even if they WERE giants its still impossible for them to cut granite with copper (unless of course it was soft at the time suggesting geopolymerization. Secondly if they had high technology they would not be using copper instruments. You reckon they would have made pavements? *shrugs* maybe that just wasnt their style... Also look at how closely the pyramid stones are placed within 1/500th - 1/800th of an inch... conventionally we cant explain how they did it... suppose geopolymerization were used the stone would have been soft enough to mould to the contours of its surrounding stones giving such a tight fit. Actually machining a stone to that precision and trying to fit it into place like that would be a very difficult waste of time, this theory supposes they had high technology which none has been found. As for the quarry sites... all questions need an answer real or imagined so they HAD to find a quarry site to support their theories... who knows? Good point though but it doesnt rule out geopolymerization.

As for the megaliths... a chemical analysis must be done! I wish one was because I really want to know once and for all. However On that page I linked to I read that on a particular megalith there was something carved (dont remember the details) and close inspection revealed that surrounding particles of the rock had been pushed out of the way rather than chiseled out which would have damaged the stone... no evidence was present to suggest chiseling of hard stone. This leads to the conclusion that the stone was infact soft when the carving was made suggesting geopolymerization.

You and I arent experts on the subject... but if you look at the arguments supporting geopolymerization in full (http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/giza_power_plant_meltdown.html) they are very compelling and very logical. Seriously this is the most plausable explanation for a LOT of things! What good will it do you to discard it in favor of other theories without considering it?

I do beleive giants did exist, I wish that historians would acknowledge it! Michael Tsarion has a lot of interesting things to say on atlantis, aliens, giants and high technology. I am undecided on the actual history of the world/universe but I do take everything into consideration (except young earth creationism... LOL).

The false front fascinates me i've seen it before and it is certainly remarkable. Whats amazing is that the finds are numerous.

[AndrewTheSinger]

I must point out that Egyptoligists also dont agree with theories of giants or high technology. Did you read the entire page from that link? Its long, I know but it does explain everything in detail. I (and margeret morris agree) that you do indeed need to do a chemical analysis of the stones in question to verify 100% that they are indeed geopolymers. I am aware of the silica issue but that doesnt rule out the use of geopolymerization.

I definitely don't rule out geopolymerization, I believe Davidovits is right, but there are many implications to that. For instance, where did that knowledge come from? How did these people from ancient times decided to mix substances and build the most incredible and complex structure the world has ever seen? With styles of drawing, script, architecture and social organization of no precedent?

Yes, I read the whole thing, they are talking specifically about Egypt. It wouldn't be sensible to say that the same applies to all megaliths around the world, for they are clearly of different natures, styles, time periods, and unlike in Egypt, most of the civilizations that built the other megaliths remain unidentified.

Theres no evidence of high technology either. Infact there is more evidence that geopolymerization was used. It was not neccessary for the geopolymers to have been poured into moulds infact it was very impractical and unlikely. However evidence such as cuts bearing traces of copper in stones harder than copper have been found in several places... how did they cut a stone harder than their instrument? It was softer than their instrument at the time they were cutting it. Indeed even if they WERE giants its still impossible for them to cut granite with copper (unless of course it was soft at the time suggesting geopolymerization. Secondly if they had high technology they would not be using copper instruments. You reckon they would have made pavements? *shrugs* maybe that just wasnt their style... Also look at how closely the pyramid stones are placed within 1/500th - 1/800th of an inch... conventionally we cant explain how they did it... suppose geopolymerization were used the stone would have been soft enough to mould to the contours of its surrounding stones giving such a tight fit. Actually machining a stone to that precision and trying to fit it into place like that would be a very difficult waste of time, this theory supposes they had high technology which none has been found. As for the quarry sites... all questions need an answer real or imagined so they HAD to find a quarry site to support their theories... who knows? Good point though but it doesnt rule out geopolymerization.

Speaking exclusively about Egypt, it is possible that they used both geopolymers and high technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wzh_04peCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSoH7YANptM

They have found these depictions showing how they illuminated the pyramids from the inside using artificial light.

Ancient Egyptian Lightbulb: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chaptera/

Excerpt: If people were misled, it is their own fault for being naive enough to expect the truth from Government and Politicians that have steadily increased their ability to lie to the people since 1861.

As for the megaliths... a chemical analysis must be done! I wish one was because I really want to know once and for all. However On that page I linked to I read that on a particular megalith there was something carved (dont remember the details) and close inspection revealed that surrounding particles of the rock had been pushed out of the way rather than chiseled out which would have damaged the stone... no evidence was present to suggest chiseling of hard stone. This leads to the conclusion that the stone was infact soft when the carving was made suggesting geopolymerization.

You and I arent experts on the subject... but if you look at the arguments supporting geopolymerization in full (http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/giza_power_plant_meltdown.html) they are very compelling and very logical. Seriously this is the most plausable explanation for a LOT of things! What good will it do you to discard it in favor of other theories without considering it?

Indeed, I very much like the geopolymer idea, I don't understand why you think that I don't. If I didn't I wouldn't have quoted Davidovits on the article.

I do beleive giants did exist, I wish that historians would acknowledge it! Michael Tsarion has a lot of interesting things to say on atlantis, aliens, giants and high technology. I am undecided on the actual history of the world/universe but I do take everything into consideration (except young earth creationism... LOL).

The false front fascinates me i've seen it before and it is certainly remarkable. Whats amazing is that the finds are numerous.

Thanks for your contributions, I will look for Michael Tsarion. I'd like to recommend the The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, it's easy to find on the web, I found it so amazing and absurd that it must be true!