Prev: nutbag iamdyke Hates the US and cannot dispute that PNAC "wanted the attack" because that is the reality - inside job proven
Next: Turing 2000 was Re: The Halting Probloem
From: Cwatters on 20 Jun 2010 13:28

"Ed" <up_yours517(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e408ebf6-de8e-4544-95cf-7c958bcd8b81(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> The blocks for the pyramids were not hauled from any distance,
> whatsoever. I saw men had constructed a mold -- a pattern -- in the
> place where the next block was to go, then carry buckets of sand-like
> material to the mold and dump it inside the mold.

The quarry was discovered years ago. Some blocks still in it. The volume of
material removed roughly matches that needed...

http://www.aeraweb.org/khufu_quarry.asp


From: RichTravsky on 4 Jul 2010 15:25
Ed wrote:
> >
> This concerns one of the greatest news stories in Pennsylvania history
> -- the miraculous rescue of anthracite miners David Fellin and Hank
> Throne who had been entombed for 14 days following a cave-in at an
> anthracite coal mine near Hazleton, Pa., 47 years ago.
> <
> This is a notarized letter by Fellin based on one of many out-of-body
> experiences while waiting to die during his entombment more than 300
> feet underground.
> < HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT
> < ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> <
> May 17, 1986
> Sheppton, Pa.
> <
> To Whom It May Concern:
> <
> I, David S. Fellin, being of sound mind despite my 81 years of age,

Sounds more like Davey learned about Joseph Davidovits...

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled
"211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid
skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed
examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your
theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of
Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it
appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of
the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to
be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great
deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be
quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior
work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your
findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical
attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to
it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains
are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9
cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest
identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more
consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the
"ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the
wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one
of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your
history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh
rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail,
let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll
that a dog has chewed on.
B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your
request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due
to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and
partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of
recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie
dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely
to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny
your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's
Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen
the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking
personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of
your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the
species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound
like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this
fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a
hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example
of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so
effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a
special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens
you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire
staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your
digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We
eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you
proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the
Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing
you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating
fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes
the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently
discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears
Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
From: tadchem on 4 Jul 2010 19:21
On Jun 20, 9:14 am, Ed <up_yours...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

Egypt's pyramids were built one bucketful at a time.

(Didn't you know that the Romans adapted their 'invention' of concrete
as a variation of the Egyption invention of the reconstituted
limestone which comprises pyramind construction technology?)

The massive blocks were cast in place using wooden forms oiled with
vegetable oil as a release agent. The height of the blocks made using
the wooden forms was determined by the height a slave could lift a
basket full of powdered limestone or a bucket full of brackish water.
Taller workers could have built bigger blocks. A hundred workers could
have carried 5 tons of limestone and water, enough to cast a single
huge block, in a single trip each up the pyramid.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
From: Tom McDonald on 5 Jul 2010 00:50
On Jul 4, 6:21 pm, tadchem <tadc...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:14 am, Ed <up_yours...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Egypt's pyramids were built one bucketful at a time.
>
> (Didn't you know that the Romans adapted their 'invention' of concrete
> as a variation of the Egyption invention of the reconstituted
> limestone which comprises pyramind construction technology?)
>
> The massive blocks were cast in place using wooden forms oiled with
> vegetable oil as a release agent.  The height of the blocks made using
> the wooden forms was determined by the height a slave could lift a
> basket full of powdered limestone or a bucket full of brackish water.
> Taller workers could have built bigger blocks. A hundred workers could
> have carried 5 tons of limestone and water, enough to cast a single
> huge block, in a single trip each up the pyramid.

Except, of course, they didn't.

From: george on 6 Jul 2010 00:50
On Jul 5, 11:12 pm, Elijahovah <rschil...(a)wi.rr.com> wrote:
> Read and look at your books.
> Some pyramids were built of internal brick.

Make that mud brick and for the first time you'll be able to say you
were correct - once .

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: nutbag iamdyke Hates the US and cannot dispute that PNAC "wanted the attack" because that is the reality - inside job proven
Next: Turing 2000 was Re: The Halting Probloem