Jones wrote:
> Many sites on web-ggole - pro and con: > > http://www.doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/pyramide/pyr17_e.php > I looked at the arguments presented, which are familiar to me. There are many more observations and conjectures which flow out of partial observations of features of the great pyramids. The visible features of Khufu on large and small scales can be used to support many conjectures about the construction method, but most do not accomodate the principal ones, namely: 2.3 million blocks formed and placed in 23 years. Average block weight, 2.5 tons, 24 x 24 x 50 inches. Many larger and thicker. Visible blocks, called backing stones, are placed to conform closely to pyramid form. Only copper tools were available for postulated dressing of quarried stone. Postulating a 300 workdays per year, 10 hours per day, blocks placed at two per minute. Quarrying limestone produces much waste, which is not found. The particular limestone at Giza disaggregates on soaking in water; no crushing needed. The casing stones, which covered the pyramids, fit closely, as by casting. The concrete slurry used for interior core stones could be transported by bucket brigades No traces massive ramps for hauling quarried blocks have been found Massive granite beams are at the top of the King's Chamber Two attempts to use ground penetrating radar from within the King's Chamber to locate possible hidden chambers in the mass of Khufu failed because of very weak returns. The pyrmids have high humidity inside, in an arid climate, even with no visitors. Both data point to high moisture content in the limestone, consistent with the Davidovits proposed chemistry. There are many more details in the Morris book and other books by Davidovits. Mike Carrell
