From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:22:57 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

n article <1992Nov20.085557.26808@reed.edu> odlin@reed.edu (Iain Odlin) writes:
>>In response to Zerxes M. Bhagalia (v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu):
>>"Next, a fine cement was then run into these joints
>>so expertly as to give an even coverage of areas as big as five feet by seven"
>
>  If, as you stated earlier in your article, the blocks fit "exactly" with one
>  another (some have even gone so far as to insist you couldn't put a piece
>  of paper between two blocks), how in the name of God do you pour cement be-
>  tween them?  You couldn't even pour *water* between them.  I don't care how
>  fine the cement is...

I agree. Zerxes, this requires clarification.  I have read these claims and
been impressed by them, but I've never seen a first hand detailed explanation
of the joining and cementing, which would certainly have to deal with this.


>>"And lastly, though archeologists all consider the pyramid
>>to be a tomb, not one corpse has ever been found within the structure, nor is
>>there any evidence to indicate that their ever were"
>
>  [Iain silently beats his head against a brick wall.]
>
>  There's plenty of evidence, and it's available to the public.  If you're so
>  inclined, you can go look it up as opposed to being spoon-fed misinformation
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  based on inaccurate (or no) research from hopefuls or crackpots who cannot
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  let go of their alien fetishes.  [A marvellous example is a "scientist"
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  who insisted that the blocks of the pyramids were poured in place (using
>  some cement unknown to us) because he found a butterfly trapped in one.
>  The fact that the blocks are fossil-bearing limestone never entered the pic-
>  ture, of course...]
>
>  Now, if I could figure out why I keep bothering to address this "question",
>  I'd be money ahead...

I have read the opposite, that the only evidence ever found were empty stone
coffin structures with no material evidence that they were used for burial of
a corpse.  Because the ancient mystery rites in both hemispheres often involved
taking the neophant through a process of mystic death that actually involved
placing him in a tomb, the mere presence of a stone sarcophagus type structure
leaves open the question as to what it was used for.

>> you can go look it up 

This is the lazy taunt that characterizes all of us.  We are all quoting from what
we remember reading somewhere.  The problem is that no one takes his adversary's
arguments seriously enough to provide a specific citation.  Iain, if there is
plenty of evidence available to the public, then give us a quote or two. Likewise,
Zerxes, do you know of a summary of dissenting scholarly opinion that points out
the inconsistencies in the case for the pyramids being tombs?  I'm just as guilty
as the rest.  We all have our work to do.  But any concrete evidence would be
a much bigger help than simply assertions.  I have a secondary source or two and
will see if I can come up with anything.

> Crackpots....alien fetishes

I do not believe in aliens, but I don't accept the conventional hypotheses either.
Tarring everyone who disagrees with you with the opinions of your own selected
and unnamed "crackpots" is a cheap shot.  As for those who do believe in aliens 
having fetishes, are you perhaps a qualified psychiatrist, and have you examined 
the individuals to be able to make such an evaluation.

>  Now, if I could figure out why I keep bothering to address this "question",
>  I'd be money ahead...

Indeed.

Now, can anyone here throw some specific light on the technical aspects of the
joining and cementing of the blocks?  Those who contend that the question is not
worth discussing need not reply.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)