On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:50:01 GMT, David Johnson
>firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote in
>> David Johnson <trolleyfan_spamfree@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> We've HEARD of this all before. It's not new. It's an _old_ theory
>>> that's been disproved, well, for decades.
>> That's true. It's quite new to me. (I'm currently googling through
>> past articles)
>> But the theory that Barsoum is pushing is a actually new (mix of
>> carved and cast stones).
>> In contrary to Davidovits and his "all cast stones" theory, this one
>> should make everybody happy.
>Why? It just shows they couldn't prove Davidovits's theory and hoped
>that, if they lower the number of blocks involved, they can always claim
>the Established Archaeologists (or geologists or whatever) tested the
>"See! It's Easy! That's how you missed it: It's only these few blocks,
>ummm, over here somewhere."
This is reminiscent of Schoch's "weak form of the geopolymer
hypothesis" from Schoch (1992; i.e. instead of all blocks, it's
possible that some blocks could be geopolymer).
Schoch, R. M. (1992) Comment. Journal of Geological Education, 40, 34.
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@xxxxxxxxxxx)