{"id":59694,"date":"2023-08-25T08:03:57","date_gmt":"2023-08-25T07:03:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/?p=59694"},"modified":"2024-01-11T11:12:18","modified_gmt":"2024-01-11T11:12:18","slug":"archive-7474","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/archive-7474\/","title":{"rendered":"Archive 7474 *"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li>Home<\/li>\n<li>Ceramic Materials<\/li>\n<li>Materials<\/li>\n<li>Physics<\/li>\n<li>Materials Science<\/li>\n<li>Geopolymers<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>PresentationPDF Available<\/p>\n<p>Giza Pyramids and Geopolymer Limestone: Deep Misleading analysis on the &#8220;Lauer Sample&#8221; by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal of the articles published by Dipayan Jana and others<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>May 2020<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>DOI:10.13140\/RG.2.2.18423.04004\/2<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Conference: Geopolymer Camp 2020 (virtual).<\/li>\n<li>At: Institut G\u00e9opolym\u00e8re www.geopolymer.org ,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Authors:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Joseph Davidovits<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin France<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Download file PDFRead file<\/p>\n<p>Download citation<\/p>\n<p>Copy link<\/p>\n<p>References (1)<\/p>\n<p>Figures (5)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Abstract and Figures<\/p>\n<p>Hundreds of thousands of people have read articles and seen videos on the internet dealing with the pyramids of Egypt having been constructed from geopolymer concrete. The arguments of the opponents are always based on the same papers written by American geologists, published 15 to 30 years ago. These three publications are draped in scientific impartiality when this is not the case. Here we point out their fatal flaws. The most cited study shown in the videos at YouTube is the analysis carried out on the &#8220;Lauer Sample&#8221; by the American petrologist Dipayan Jana, published in 2007 and available on Research Gate, who strongly criticized my original study. We have recently discovered that Jana&#8217;s study was performed on a fake &#8220;Lauer Sample&#8221;, not on the genuine archaeological material. This &#8220;fake Lauer-Sample&#8221; was a simple piece of limestone from Tourah sent to Dipayan Jana by one of these American geologists. Unfortunately, critics ignoring this forgery and relying on said papers persist by pointing out these three geological studies as the ones that restore the truth. Jana&#8217;s study of the rock passed off as the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d can no longer serve as a reference. I also do a rebuttal of the two other publications by J. Harrel et al. and R. Folk et al. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Lauer sample. Photo taken in 1982.<\/p>\n<p>\u2026<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The &#8220;Lauer-Harrel&#8221; blue sample received by D. Jana.<\/p>\n<p>\u2026<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The thickness of the genuine Lauer sample compared with the sample studied by D. Jana.<\/p>\n<p>\u2026<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>cross section of the Giza plateau, the Mokattam Formation and the quarries.<\/p>\n<p>\u2026<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>the natural limestone at the northeast corner of Cheops Great Pyramid.<\/p>\n<p>\u2026<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Figures &#8211; uploaded by\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/profile\/Joseph-Davidovits\">Joseph Davidovits<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Author content<\/p>\n<p>Content may be subject to copyright.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Discover the world&#8217;s research<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>25+ million members<\/li>\n<li>160+ million publication pages<\/li>\n<li>3+ billion citations<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Join for free<\/p>\n<p>50.7M<\/p>\n<p>172<\/p>\n<p>Hire top scientific talent with ResearchGate<\/p>\n<p><strong>Next<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Stay<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Public Full-text\u00a01<\/p>\n<p>Content uploaded by\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/profile\/Joseph-Davidovits\">Joseph Davidovits<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Author content<\/p>\n<p>Content may be subject to copyright.<\/p>\n<p>Deep Misleading analysis on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1<\/p>\n<p>Geopolymer Institute Library<\/p>\n<p>Archaeological\u00a0 Paper #L-Rebuttal-D.Jana<\/p>\n<p>May, 2020<\/p>\n<p>https:\/\/www.geopolymer.org\/category\/library\/archaeological-papers\/<\/p>\n<p>How to cite this paper:<\/p>\n<p>Joseph Davidovits, (2020), Giza Pyramids and Geopolymer Limestone: Deep Misleading analysis<\/p>\n<p>on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal of the articles published by<\/p>\n<p>Dipayan Jana and others. Archaeological\u00a0 Paper #L-Rebuttal-D.Jana, Geopolymer Institute<\/p>\n<p>Library, www.geopolymer.org.\u00a0 DOI: 10.13140\/RG.2.2.18423.04004<\/p>\n<p>Giza Pyramids and Geopolymer Limestone: Deep Misleading<\/p>\n<p>analysis on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists.<\/p>\n<p>A rebuttal of the articles published by Dipayan Jana and others. &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Joseph Davidovits<\/p>\n<p>Geopolymer Institute, 02100 Saint-Quentin, France.<\/p>\n<p>*corresponding author: joseph@geopolymer.org (Joseph Davidovits)<\/p>\n<p>ABSTRACT<\/p>\n<p>Hundreds of thousands of people have read articles and seen videos on the internet dealing with the pyramids of Egypt<\/p>\n<p>having been constructed from geopolymer \u00a0concrete. The arguments of the \u00a0opponents are always based on \u00a0the \u00a0same<\/p>\n<p>papers written by American \u00a0geologists, published 15 to 30 years ago. These \u00a0three publications \u00a0are draped \u00a0in scienti?c<\/p>\n<p>impartiality when \u00a0this is not the \u00a0case. Here we point \u00a0out \u00a0their fatal ?aws. The \u00a0most cited study shown \u00a0in \u00a0the videos at<\/p>\n<p>YouTube \u00a0is \u00a0the \u00a0analysis \u00a0carried \u00a0out on \u00a0the \u00a0\u201cLauer \u00a0Sample\u201d \u00a0by \u00a0the \u00a0American \u00a0petrologist#Dipayan \u00a0Jana,<\/p>\n<p>published \u00a0in 2007 \u00a0and \u00a0available \u00a0on \u00a0Research \u00a0Gate. \u00a0Unfortunately, \u00a0critics relying \u00a0on \u00a0said \u00a0papers persist \u00a0by \u00a0pointing<\/p>\n<p>out these three geological studies as the ones that restore the truth. I also do a rebuttal of the two other publications by<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Harrel et al. and R. Folk et al. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Keywords: rebuttal, pyramid casing stones, Lauer Sample, geopolymer limestone,\u00a0 \u00a9 2020 Institut G\u00e9opolym\u00e8re. All<\/p>\n<p>rights reserved.<\/p>\n<p>Hundreds of thousands of people have read articles and seen videos on the internet dealing with<\/p>\n<p>the pyramids of Egypt having been constructed from geopolymer concrete. The arguments of the<\/p>\n<p>opponents are always based on the same papers written by American geologists, published 15 to<\/p>\n<p>30 years ago. These publications are draped in scienti?c impartiality when this is not the case.<\/p>\n<p>Here we point out their fatal ?aws. The most cited study shown in the videos at YouTube is the<\/p>\n<p>analysis carried out on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by the American petrologist#Dipayan Jana, published<\/p>\n<p>in 2007 and available on Research Gate under the title: Evidence from detailed petrographic<\/p>\n<p>examinations of casing stones from the great pyramid of khufu, a natural limestone from tura, and<\/p>\n<p>a man-made (Geopolymeric) limestone. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science.&#8221;<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Dipayan Jana never actually examined the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>Another major misleading paper by James Harrell and Bret Penrod.<\/li>\n<li>The fatal ?aw failure of geologist Robert Folk and petrographer Donald Campbel.<\/li>\n<li>Davidovits \/ Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Deep Misleading analysis on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2<\/p>\n<p>What is the Lauer sample?<\/p>\n<p>The controversy concerns the analysis performed on a sample of the Great Pyramid of Cheops<\/p>\n<p>entrusted to me by the eminent French Egyptologist Jean-Philippe Lauer in 1981, and on which I<\/p>\n<p>have made analyses, publications and conferences. &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>See my article in Research Gate,<\/p>\n<p>June 1984: X-Ray Analysis and X-Ray<\/p>\n<p>Di?raction of Casing Stones from the<\/p>\n<p>Pyramids of Egypt, and the<\/p>\n<p>Limestone of the Associated<\/p>\n<p>Quarries. &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It is de?ned in the literature under the<\/p>\n<p>name of the \u201cLauer sample\u201d. It is a<\/p>\n<p>piece of the interior casing of the<\/p>\n<p>pyramid, made of limestone material,<\/p>\n<p>covered with a white man-made<\/p>\n<p>coating of calcium phosphate<\/p>\n<p>(hydroxyapatite) 1 mm thick and a<\/p>\n<p>red-brown iron oxide paint. See<\/p>\n<p>photo of the original Lauer sample<\/p>\n<p>from 1982 in Figure 1.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Figure 1: The Lauer sample. Photo taken in 1982.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Parameters for authenticating the true Lauer sample include its 4500-thousand year-old<\/p>\n<p>white coating and red-brown paint, and its dimensions.<\/p>\n<p>A &#8211; Petrologist Dipayan Jana never actually examined the<\/p>\n<p>\u201cLauer Sample\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Petrologist Dipayan Jana, of CMC-Materials Inc., in the USA, presented a paper at the 29th ICMA<\/p>\n<p>Conference in Quebec, Canada, titled \u201cThe Great Pyramid Debate\u201d and later published his<\/p>\n<p>information in the Proceedings of the 29th Conference of Cement Microscopy, Quebec, Canada,<\/p>\n<p>May 20-24 (2007), pp. 207-266. He critiques my scienti?c ?ndings as well as those of my<\/p>\n<p>colleagues, Materials Scientist M. W. Barsoum et al., Microstructural Evidence of the<\/p>\n<p>Reconstituted Limestone Blocs in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Journal of the American Ceramic<\/p>\n<p>Society, 89 (12), 3788-3796 (2006)]. Here I will show the fatal ?aw in D. Jana&#8217;s said work.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Why did D. Jana test a fake sample instead of the Lauer sample?<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Jana receive a piece of the \u201cLauer sample\u201d from the American geologist specializing in the<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>quarries of ancient Egypt, James Harrell, now Emeritus Professor at the University of Toledo. J.<\/p>\n<p>Harrell is a geologist opposed to the theory of agglomerated stone; we sent him the Lauer sample<\/p>\n<p>and his conclusions are obviously the opposite of those of our team of scientists. He returns what<\/p>\n<p>he claims is left of it, a severely damaged sample. However, years later he provides a sample of<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Davidovits \/ Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>!Deep Misleading analysis on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3<\/p>\n<p>what is supposedly remnants of the Lauer<\/p>\n<p>sample to D. Jana. Thus, Jana calls the Lauer<\/p>\n<p>sample the \u201cLauer-Harrell\u201d sample in his study<\/p>\n<p>published in the Proceedings (Figure 2). &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Figure 2: The &#8220;Lauer-Harrel&#8221; blue sample<\/p>\n<p>received by D. Jana.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In the Proceedings, at Page 213, he writes :<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Lauer-Harrell was a solid 25 \u00d7 45 mm sized,<\/p>\n<p>blue epoxy impregnated saw-cut section of a<\/p>\n<p>piece, larger than the Lauer-Campbell sample\u2026\u201d&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The whole context of the study, described in Figures 12, 13, 14 on pages 252, 253, 254 of the<\/p>\n<p>Proceedings, shows that it is a vertical section (in thickness) and that it is not obliquely cut. The<\/p>\n<p>dimensions are: 45 mm wide and 25 mm thick.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>However, the original thickness of the Lauer sample is 15 mm (see in Figure 3). In contrast,<\/p>\n<p>the \u201cLauer-Harrell\u201d sample supplied by Harrell to Jana is 25 mm thick.<\/p>\n<p>!By deduction, the thickness of Jana&#8217;s sample proves that it could not have been the<\/p>\n<p>authentic Lauer Sample. &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Figure 3: The thickness of the genuine Lauer sample compared with the sample studied by D.<\/p>\n<p>Jana.&#8221;<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Davidovits \/ Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>!Deep Misleading analysis on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4<\/p>\n<p>In D. Jana&#8217;s study, there is no coating. So, is this a FAKE?<\/p>\n<p>Jana observes that the sample he has received from Harrell does not exhibit the distinctive<\/p>\n<p>coating of the Lauer sample. The coating is a critically important distinguishing trait that<\/p>\n<p>characterizes the authentic &#8220;Lauer sample.&#8221; Jana mentions three times, pages 213, 229 and 255<\/p>\n<p>of the Proceedings on the non-compliance of the sample with the scienti?c literature. Despite the<\/p>\n<p>doubt, and despite the sample mysteriously and impossibly growing 10 mm in thickness, he<\/p>\n<p>continues his studies claiming that the Lauer sample is natural limestone.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>So:&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Page 213: \u201cNeither piece contained the white coating or the red paint that was originally<\/p>\n<p>mentioned by Davidovits, which was reportedly (by Harrell) accidentally removed during the<\/p>\n<p>preparation of the thin section\u201d.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Page 229: \u201cAlthough the actual \u201ccoating\u201d was not present in the Lauer sample of this study<\/p>\n<p>(reportedly accidentally removed\u2026)\u201d.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Page 255, legend of Figure 15: \u201cDespite the absence of this\u201c coating\u2026\u201d.$<\/p>\n<p>$<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Harrel published a study in 1993 on this white coating (see in the Proceedings the Figure 15 at<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Page 255), but he sent D. Jana a di?erent piece of limestone not covered with this characteristic<\/p>\n<p>coating, calling it nonetheless the &#8220;Lauer Sample&#8221;.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It is hard to imagine a competent, skilled geologist accidentally removing the coating from the<\/p>\n<p>Lauer sample when preparing a thin section of it. The coating is very ?rmly welded to the stone<\/p>\n<p>and does not ?ake o?. It is not a paint, and the impregnation of blue epoxy is used to prevent<\/p>\n<p>such accidents. J. Harrell has made too many thin sections in his professional life to destroy a<\/p>\n<p>major archaeological sample. If it does not have its characteristic coating, its origin is doubtful. In<\/p>\n<p>addition, Jana\u2019s paper provides several scienti?c details which I keep for further rebuttals, when<\/p>\n<p>necessary.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The most logical explanation is that the sample D. Jana studied was a piece of natural<\/p>\n<p>limestone from Egypt&#8217;s Tura quarry 25 mm thick (instead of 15 mm) without the white<\/p>\n<p>arti?cial coating of calcium phosphate.<\/p>\n<p>!CONCLUSION: It is therefore a forgery. Jana&#8217;s study of the rock passed o? as the<\/p>\n<p>\u201cLauer Sample\u201d can no longer serve as a reference. Jana is, therefore, obligated to retract<\/p>\n<p>his paper in good conscience, and Harrell must explain or accept responsibility for his<\/p>\n<p>actions.<\/p>\n<p>B &#8211; Another major misleading paper by James Harrell and Bret<\/p>\n<p>Penrod.<\/p>\n<p>A chapter of my book \u201cWhy the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with Fake Stones\u201d shows another<\/p>\n<p>serious misleading conduct published by Harrell and Penrod. See in Appendix B, page 265 (2017<\/p>\n<p>edition) or 263 (2009 edition). In chapter 7, I describe the Mokattam Formation at Giza comprised<\/p>\n<p>of layers of middle Eocene limestone upon which the Great Pyramids of Giza are built. &#8221;<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Davidovits \/ Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Deep Misleading analysis on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5<\/p>\n<p>The Mokattam Formation comprises two distinctly di?erent layers of fossil shells limestone: a hard<\/p>\n<p>gray upper bed on which the pyramids are built, and a friable marly yellowish bed. It was this<\/p>\n<p>friable, earthy deposit (concrete grade) limestone that was exploited to build the bulk of the Great<\/p>\n<p>Pyramids of Giza (see the diagram in Figure 4). &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Figure 4: \u00a0cross section of the Giza<\/p>\n<p>plateau, the Mokattam Formation and<\/p>\n<p>the quarries.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Despite this basic well-published geological knowledge, and clearly visible on the two outcrops<\/p>\n<p>located near the monuments, the American geologists J. Harrell and B. Penrod dispute the<\/p>\n<p>theorem of the arti?cial manufacture of limestone blocks, as follows.!<\/p>\n<p>In their article [Harrell, JA and Penrod, BE, The Great Pyramid debate; evidence from the Lauer<\/p>\n<p>sample, Journal of Geological Education vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 358-363, 1993], they state: \u201c&#8230; Our<\/p>\n<p>objection to the geopolymeric process (agglomerated stone process) has to do with<\/p>\n<p>disaggregating limestone by soaking it in water \u2014 it does not work! We soaked the Mokattam<\/p>\n<p>limestones whose composition is given in Table 1 for seven weeks and after this time the samples<\/p>\n<p>were just as hard and solid as the day we ?rst immersed them&#8230;&#8221;!<\/p>\n<p>For their demonstration, Harrell and Penrod instead removed hard limestone from Gebel<\/p>\n<p>Mokattam, 20 km from the pyramids, on the other side of the Nile (see Table 1 cited in their said<\/p>\n<p>publication). That is, they should have sampled from the concrete-grade limestone quarries<\/p>\n<p>located in Giza, in the wadis or in the Sphinx trench at the foot of the pyramids. It is well known to<\/p>\n<p>all experts on Egyptian geology, and well-published in Egyptological literature, that these two Giza<\/p>\n<p>sites (the wadi and the trench in which the Sphinx sits), are where rock materials for the Great<\/p>\n<p>Pyramids of Giza are derived. The sample they soaked in water does not come from the Giza<\/p>\n<p>pyramid site at all. It is taken from a non-applicable location, the modern quarry of hard limestone<\/p>\n<p>behind the Citadel of Gebel Mokattam in Cairo, 20 km east of the Giza pyramids, on the other<\/p>\n<p>side of the Nile. !<\/p>\n<p>How can professionals consider that the Mokkatam geological formation of Giza is absolutely<\/p>\n<p>identical to the geographical designation Gebel Mokattam? Why not have just taken a piece of<\/p>\n<p>stone in Giza, on the site of the pyramids? Why make it so complicated? They hope to fool the<\/p>\n<p>public, collecting a rock sample of di?erent origin, but bearing the same name, to demonstrate<\/p>\n<p>that our theory is false.!<\/p>\n<p>C &#8211; The fatal ?aw of geologist Robert Folk and petrologist Donald<\/p>\n<p>Campbell.<\/p>\n<p>This is not the ?rst time that geologists have published studies containing serious failures. Thus,<\/p>\n<p>immediately after arriving on the Giza plateau in January 1990, the American geologist R. Folk and<\/p>\n<p>petrologist D. Campbell observe blocks which seem to them to be natural stone. They publish an<\/p>\n<p>article in Journal of Geological Education [R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell, Are the Pyramids built of<\/p>\n<p>poured concrete blocks, Journal of Geological Education, Vol.40, pp. 25-34 (1992)].!<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Davidovits \/ Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Deep Misleading analysis on the \u201cLauer Sample\u201d by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 6<\/p>\n<p>In my book \u201cWhy the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stone,\u201d page 268, I reproduce the<\/p>\n<p>original text: \u201cWithin the ?rst minute at Cheops pyramid, we knew that the pyramids were built of<\/p>\n<p>real limestone blocks, not of concrete (reagglomerated stone)\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>We also read: &#8220;\u2026 we feel it is the duty of professional geologist to expose this egregiously absurd<\/p>\n<p>archeological theory before it becomes part of entrenched pseudo-science\u2026 We believe that had<\/p>\n<p>Davidovits had any understanding of basic geologic principles and understood the implications of<\/p>\n<p>simple geological evidence at Giza, he would have realized that this geopolymer theory had no<\/p>\n<p>basis in fact&#8230;&#8221; &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Upon arriving at Giza, Folk and Campbell go directly to the northeast corner of the Great Pyramid<\/p>\n<p>of Cheops. In their article, they do not explain the reason for this choice. There, they ?nd natural<\/p>\n<p>limestone (see photo in Figure 5). In 1983, the American Egyptologist Mark Lehner mentions the<\/p>\n<p>existence of this natural geological layer, going up to 4 meters above the base of the pyramid, in<\/p>\n<p>this northeast corner. But R. Folk and D. Campbell ignore this essential information. I publish my<\/p>\n<p>answer in a renowned journal \u201cJ. Davidovits, The Great Pyramid debate, Concrete International,<\/p>\n<p>Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 17-18, (1992) \u201d. &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Figure 5: the natural limestone at the<\/p>\n<p>northeast corner of Cheops Great Pyramid.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Soon after, I receive a letter from R. Folk<\/p>\n<p>dated February 18, 1992, which reads:&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>\u201c\u2026I was impressed by your reasonable and<\/p>\n<p>interesting letter in Concrete International,<\/p>\n<p>Feb. 1992. . . Your argument that the lower<\/p>\n<p>two courses of Khufu (Cheops), on the east<\/p>\n<p>face, are in place bedrock is intriguing and I<\/p>\n<p>must admit was a new thought to me. This<\/p>\n<p>morning, thanks to your citation, I went over<\/p>\n<p>and read Lehner (1983) on Khufu (Cheops)<\/p>\n<p>and he does indeed show the NE corner of Khufu to be bedrock in his sketch. Our photo was of<\/p>\n<p>that corner. So I concede that, on the North-East corner, you are correct as the bedrock idea had<\/p>\n<p>not entered my head at the time we were there&#8230;&#8221;.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Robert L. Folk, renowned for writing the standard limestone geologists refer to, admitted that he<\/p>\n<p>has no basic knowledge of the geology of the Giza plateau when he makes his survey and<\/p>\n<p>triumphantly proclaims: \u201c\u2026 Within the ?rst minute at Cheops pyramid, we knew that the pyramids<\/p>\n<p>were built of real limestone blocks, not of concrete (reagglomerated stone)&#8230;&#8221;\u00a0 Ironically, the<\/p>\n<p>geologists do not di?erentiate between a natural outcrop of the plateau and blocks of pyramids!!!<\/p>\n<p>How to take this study seriously when all tourists can readily see this distinction?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The article by Folk and Campbell, published 30 years ago, is still cited today by<\/p>\n<p>those whose purpose it is to discredit my research. They do not know that Folk<\/p>\n<p>confessed his error.<\/p>\n<p>References (books):<\/p>\n<p>in French: &#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 2017,#J. Davidovits, B\u00e2tir les Pyramides sans pierres ni esclaves, \u00e9dition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy,<\/p>\n<p>Paris, ISBN 9782865532889.<\/p>\n<p>In English:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 2009-2017 (2\u00e8 edition), Joseph Davidovits, Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake<\/p>\n<p>stones#(in soft cover and eBook), ed. Geopolymer Institute (Institut G\u00e9opolym\u00e8re), Saint-Quentin,<\/p>\n<p>France, ISBN: 9782951482043, available at geopolymer.org\/shop and amazon.com and others.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 2010, Margaret Morris The Great Pyramid Secret: Egypt&#8217;s Amazing Lost Mystery Science<\/p>\n<p>Returns, Scribal Arts, Detroit, USA, ISBN: 978-0972043465, available at amazon.com<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Davidovits \/ Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Citations (0)<\/p>\n<p>References (1)<\/p>\n<p><strong>ISBN: 9782951482043, available at geopolymer.org\/shop and amazon.com and others. -2010, Margaret Morris The Great Pyramid Secret: Egypt&#8217;s Amazing Lost Mystery Science Returns<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Jan 2009<\/li>\n<li>978-0972043465<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>References (books): in French: -2017, J. Davidovits, B\u00e2tir les Pyramides sans pierres ni esclaves, \u00e9dition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris, ISBN 9782865532889. In English: -2009-2017 (2\u00e8 edition), Joseph Davidovits, Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones (in soft cover and eBook), ed. Geopolymer Institute (Institut G\u00e9opolym\u00e8re), Saint-Quentin, France, ISBN: 9782951482043, available at geopolymer.org\/shop and amazon.com and others. -2010, Margaret Morris The Great Pyramid Secret: Egypt&#8217;s Amazing Lost Mystery Science Returns, Scribal Arts, Detroit, USA, ISBN: 978-0972043465, available at amazon.com<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Home Ceramic Materials Materials Physics Materials Science Geopolymers PresentationPDF Available Giza Pyramids and Geopolymer Limestone: Deep Misleading analysis on the &#8220;Lauer Sample&#8221; by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal of the articles published by Dipayan Jana and others May 2020 DOI:10.13140\/RG.2.2.18423.04004\/2 Conference: Geopolymer Camp 2020 (virtual). At: Institut G\u00e9opolym\u00e8re www.geopolymer.org , Authors: Joseph Davidovits Geopolymer Institute, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5322],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archive"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59694"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59694\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60524,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59694\/revisions\/60524"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}