Atlantis Online
November 29, 2022, 03:00:55 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Pyramids: Cast, Poured, or Both?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pyramids: Cast, Poured, or Both?  (Read 8527 times)
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #105 on: November 13, 2009, 06:12:11 pm »

                                         The Archaeological Evidence
1. The hieroglyphic texts:

We know the Egypt of the Pharaohs quite well, thanks to its numerous steles, frescos and
papyrus describing all kinds of religious, scientific, technical knowledge, the craft industry,
agriculture, medicine, astronomy, and so on. However, there is not a single hieroglyphic
document revealing the pyramids’ construction with carved stones, ramps, and wooden sledges.
On the contrary, we find many texts showing that the ancient Egyptians had the knowledge of
man-made stones:

The Famine Stele is engraved on a rock at Sehel island, close to Elephantine. It stages the god
Khnum, Pharaoh Zoser and his architect Imhotep, builder of the first pyramid at Saqqarah. This
inscription contains 650 hieroglyphs depicting either rocks and minerals, or their transformation
processes. In column 12, we read: "With these products (mineral) they built (...) the royal tomb (the
pyramid)". In columns 18 to 20, the god Khnum gives to Zoser a list of minerals needed in the
construction of these sacred monuments. This list does not mention the traditional hard and
compact construction stones like limestone (ainr-hedj), monumental sandstone (ainr-rwdt) or
Aswan granite (mat). By studying this text, we notice that we cannot build a pyramid or a temple
with simple minerals, except if they are used to manufacture the binder of a re-agglomerated
stone. [8]

The Irtysen stele (C14) at the Louvre Museum is an autobiography of the sculptor Irtysen
under one of the Mentouhotep Pharaohs, eleventh dynasty (2000 B.C.). It explains the method of
manufacturing synthetic stone statues (with "cast stone"). [9]

The Ti fresco, fifth dynasty (2450 front. J.-C.), illustrates the sculptors work on a wooden statue,
the manufacturing of a stone statue and mixtures in vases. This fresco perfectly shows the
difference between carving a statue (here in wood with hieroglyphic signs depicting the operation
of carving), the fashioning of a statue (made out of synthetic stone with hieroglyphic signs
representing the action "to synthesize", "man-made"), and mixing caustic chemicals in ceramic
vases to work on this statue. [10]

2. The invention of re-agglomerated stone: growth and decline of a technology
Before the first pyramid built out of stone, the ancient Egyptians constructed very imposing crude
brick monuments. We find large funerary temple enclosures of the second dynasty, like the
Khasekhemwy one (2,730 B.C.). Its massive wall is of crude clay bricks, therefore in a moulded
material. It is generally agreed, since these bricks were worked in moulds, that their dimension
must be uniform. However, this is wrong. Despite having been manufactured in moulds, the clay
bricks are of approximately 5 different sizes, implying the use of several patterns. We find these
differences in proportions in all pyramids. This heterogeneity gives the monuments the ability
to resist earthquakes by avoiding the amplification of seismic waves.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 06:12:49 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2009, 06:13:59 pm »

20 years later, Zoser ordered Imhotep to build him a stone monument for eternity. The scribe
Imhotep is the inventor of re-agglomerated stone (2,650 B.C.) and the architect of the first
pyramid of Egypt. Instead of using crude bricks, he simply replaced the clay with a reagglomerated
limestone and kept the same method of moulding bricks. This is why the first
pyramid is made in small bricks, which become bigger in dimension as the invention is better
mastered. The bricks are manufactured where the stones are extracted, in the Wadi (at the east of
the complex [11]) at the Nile flooding period, then carried and placed on the pyramid under
construction.
Its invention, inherited from pisé and crude brick, improves with time during the pyramids’
construction at the third and fourth dynasties. Starting from the small limestone bricks at
Saqqarah, the stone dimensions increase gradually. For the Meidoum and Bent pyramids, the
blocks are produced in the vicinity and are moved up to the pyramid. There is always a Wadi
nearby to easily disaggregate limestone with water and to prepare the mixture at the Nile flooding
time.
From Sneferu's red pyramid in Dashur, the blocks are manufactured on the spot, because the
dimensions are now too large for them to be transported.
In Giza, some stones (in particular those at the Khefren temple) weigh more than 30 tons. How
would they have simply carved them with soft copper tools, without wheels or pulleys?
According to Guy Demortier [12], re-agglomerating stones on the spot greatly simplifies the
logistic problems. Instead of 25,000 to 100,000 workmen necessary for carving [13], he deduces
that the site occupancy never exceeded 2,300 people, which confirms what the Egyptologist Mr.
Lehner discovered with his excavations of the workmen’s village at Giza.
The decline of the agglomerated stone technology appears with the pyramid of Mykerinos, which
represents only 7% in volume of Kheops. Why is this pyramid suddenly so small? This decline
would have been caused by a sudden reduction in reactive mineral resources, like the exhaustion
of the principal Sinai mines at the end of the fourth dynasty. Expeditions of B. Rothenberg [4]
showed that they had extracted enormous quantities of turquoises and chrysocollas (called mafkat in
Egyptian), quantities so large as to rule out their use in jewellery and decoration, as confirmed by
the Egyptologist Sydney Aufrère [14].
The decline would also result from an ecological and agricultural disaster radically limiting the
production of lime coming from plant ashes burned for this purpose. If we burn more than what
we can produce or renew, a famine or an ecological disaster can occur. Analyzed by D.D. Klemm
[15], lime, present in mortars of the third and fourth dynasties, disappears in mortars of the fifth
and sixth dynasties. Indeed, the succeeding pyramids, and in particular that of Userkaf, first king
of the fifth dynasty, is ridiculously small compared to Mykerinos. In the beginning, they were
covered by a limestone coating which hid the bulk of natural blocks, badly worked out. This
pyramid is only an uneven stone assembly covering a funerary room made, this time, out of reagglomerated
stone and protected by enormous beams of several dozen tons. Only the core of this
pyramid was carefully manufactured, the remainder being botched, because the reactive materials
were rare. Thus, we are in the presence of a very different system, which cannot be explained
by carving stone. If the pyramids of Giza had been hewn, how can such a drop in architectural
quality be explained, while stone is an abundant material? Carving would have resulted in a
construction quality equivalent to those of Giza, even with pyramids more reasonable in height,
but this is not the case.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #107 on: November 13, 2009, 06:15:01 pm »

With respect to a resource impoverishment, starting from the twelfth dynasty (1,990-1,780 B.C.),
Pharaoh Amenemhat I and his successors built crude brick pyramids. But here also, only the
funerary room is built, with great care, out of re-agglomerated stone. However, the Egyptians did
not choose to carve stone for the body of the pyramids, preferring crude bricks, even though they
had harder and more efficient bronze tools had they wished to use them.
We note, then, that the technology of re-agglomerated stone, after a formidable rise, a perfect
mastery of the process, an intense exploitation of its resources, went on to an extremely rapid
architectural decline. A mining exhaustion of the chemical reagent resources, and an ecological
and agricultural disaster explain this decline. [16] [17]
3. Religious context:
Why did they maintain this need to build out of agglomerated stone or to preserve the
agglomeration system, while they could carve stone?
For ancient Egyptians, stone had a sacred quality, used only for religious purposes, that prohibited
its use for secular buildings (built rather out of crude bricks, clay and wood, never out of stone).
It is only under the Ptolemys, 2,000 years after the pyramids, that stone became a trivial building
material. The reasons for this distinction come from religion.
Egyptian civilization lasted more than 3,000 years and, contrary to what the general public
thinks, it was not homogeneous. Thus, there are 2 geneses explaining the creation of the World;
two distinct gods claim the creation of the World and man: Khnum and Amon.
The god Khnum was worshipped during the Old and Middle Kingdoms (3,000 to 1,800 B.C.). He
is depicted as a man with a ram’s head and horizontal horns. He personalizes the nutritious Nile,
and at Elephantine, Thebes, Heracleopolis, Memphis, he is the god of creation. In the act of
creation, he "kneads" humanity on his potter's wheel with the Nile silt and other minerals (mafkat,
natron) as in the Biblical and Koranic genesis. This does not give an unspecified clay, but a stone
called "ka", i.e. the soul that is not spirit, but eternal stone. Khnum and all the divine incarnations
of Râ appear by the act of manufacturing stone. His hieroglyphic sign is a hard stone vase like
those of the Nagadean era (3,500 to 3,000 B.C.). Thus, under the Old Kingdom, the purpose of
the agglomeration act was to reproduce the divine intervention at the time of the creation of the
World and the human soul.
For the two main Pharaohs of the Old Kingdom, Zoser and Kheops, the relationship with Khnum
is proven by archaeological discoveries (cf. the Famine Stele). Also, the true name of Kheops is
Khnum-Khufu (may the god Khnum protect Kheops). Would Kheops have attached his name to
an inferior god? No, Khnum is a major god. It is simply the perception of the Egyptian Pantheon
which is not correct.
Amon is the second god of creation. In the beginning, he was only an average god. He became a
dynastic god in the twelfth dynasty (1,800 B.C.), but he was not yet the god of creation, this role
still being the privilege of Khnum. Then, he became the "king of the gods" and the priests gave
him the ability to create the world. In the genesis myth, Amon is identified as a sacred mountain
and he "carves" each human being in a part of himself, i.e. in this sacred mountain. Amon and all
the divine incarnations of Amon-Râ appear by the act of carving stone, and are at the origin of the
New Kingdom monuments, like those of Ramses II, 1,300 years after the pyramids.
Thus, we understand why the tombs were no longer under pyramids, symbols of agglomeration,
but under a sacred mountain, the Valley of the Kings, symbol of Amon. In the same way, the
temples are built out of stone hewn with great care and the obelisks are called "Amon's fingers".
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #108 on: November 13, 2009, 06:15:45 pm »

During the Old Kingdom, where the name of Khnum ("the one who binds") is in the complete
name of Kheops (Khnum-Khufu), the name of Amon ("the one who is hidden") is found in the
New Kingdom Pharaohs' names like Amenhotep.
Arguments against the carving theory
Here are arguments presented by the partisans of carving to show that this technique was in use
at the pyramids' time. However, these evidences are anachronous; they date from the Middle to
the New Kingdom, in times when the stone was hewn, and not from the Old Kingdom, the time
of the pyramids.
The extraction of blocks would have been possible by means of wooden dowels that, once in
place, were wetted to cleave the stone. However, D.D. Klemm shows that the Romans only used
this primitive technique very late on. Each period left distinct patterns of cut traces in quarries,
thus making it possible to date them, except at the time of the pyramids, when no trace remains.
[18]
The bas-relief of Djehutihotep illustrates the transport of a colossal statue on a sledge [19]. In the
same way, R. Stadelman discovered that Amenemhat II workmen had stolen stones on sledges
from the Sneferu pyramid, used as a vulgar quarry. These two events took place under the twelfth
dynasty (1,800 B.C.), that is 700 years after the construction of the pyramids.
The Tura stele depicts a stone block dragged on a sledge by oxen [20]. It does not constitute a
proof because once again, it goes back to approximately 1,000 years after the construction of
the pyramids.
The Rekhmire fresco presents the work of masons setting up blocks with bronze tools. But these
new tools were unknown to pyramid builders 1,300 years ago.

Any ramps would have been made out of crude clay bricks, several kilometres in length (in
straight or spiral lines, with the attendant problem of turning corners), representing a
considerable amount of material. Each team would have sprinkled the ground with water to ease
the motion of the sledge. But the action of water would have transformed the ramp into a soapy
and very slippery path. After several teams had passed by, it would have been transformed into
mud where sledges and hauler would be stuck!
There is no official theory of carving, hauling blocks on sledges and ramps. There are
approximately twenty or so that propose various solutions. These theories are not based on
hieroglyphic texts, do not match the technology found on archaeological sites, and do not take
into account the historical and religious environment. These theories are essentially focused on
the pyramid of Kheops, the most remarkable one, but not on the pyramids that precede or follow
it, and even less on those made out of crude brick.

http://www.geopolymer.org/fichiers_pdf/pyramid_chapt1.pdf
« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 06:18:21 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #109 on: December 12, 2009, 09:59:30 pm »

HOW PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT IN ANCIENT EGYPT ?

Herodotus, the Greek historian of the fifth century BC, regarded as the father of history wrote the earliest description in existence of the pyramids.  When Heroduotus visited the period in 440 B.C., it was as old to him and his period is to us.  He wrote that each of the pyramids four faces were still covered with highly polished limestone (casing stone).

Also the joints were so fine that they could hardly be seen
To manufacture just two blocks with a tolerance of .010 inch and place them together with a gap of no more than .020 inch is a remarkable feat.  The Great Pyramid had at one time over 100,000 similar casing stones.  Did the ancient Egyptians have advanced technology?

THE BROKEN VASE THEORY

IT has always puzzled me to see the amazing joints between the stones of the
pyramids, especially those used for the outer cladding.  Close inspection reveals
that you cannot insert a pin or a sharp razor blade in between the stones and I
believe that they were probably meant to be water-tight in order to prevent water
 Leakage into the building. They adhere perfectly to each other with no cement at
all.The question that nagged me was how the Ancient Egyptians managed to do that with such great precision?
I decided to try and discover their secret, with the strong conviction that it was a task that must fall to one of their descendants.
I imagined myself to be the engineer who was given the task as the project manager. How would I do it and where to start?
I started by deciding the location of the construction site and the quarries; the cutting technique; the number of stones required; how many workers needed; the building technique that would be employed; how to move the stones and how to lift them up, etc.
 
The time allowed for the project was not more than 25 years (according to our knowledge about the average rule time of Khufu and Khafra (the builder of the great pyramid and his son respectively).
 

http://www.hanyra.com/index_files/The_Broken_Vase_theory.htm

« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 10:00:37 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #110 on: December 12, 2009, 10:02:19 pm »

Number of needed blocks by calculations:

The great pyramid height                             =148 m.
The base is a square                                     = 237 m each side.
Number of layers (steps) are                       =202
Average layer height = 148m/202 layers  = 0,7236 m
Average  length and width of each block    =
                                      237 m/202 meter   = 1.173 m
 Average block dimensions  according to calculations
 Width = length =1.17 m, height =.7236 m
 The base requires
          1st layer                    202*202       =   40804 stones
          2nd layer                   201*201        =   40401
          3rd                            200*200        =   40000     
                                                      …         =
Until: Layer 201                3*3                =    9
The last layer                                          =    1 stone
                                  -----------------
                              Total                          =    2,758820 stones
                            Let us say 2.75 million blocks
If they worked  10 hours a day
This means:
25 years * 365 = 9125 days *10 hours = 91250 hours * 60 minutes = 5475000minutes
2,75000 / 5475000 = 0.50 stones/minute  i.e.
 One stone every 2 minutes in case of continuous work 10 hours a day for 25years.
A very high work speed and no delay or stop of the stone flow is permitted.  How can this allow for the amazing precision of the joints between the stones?
Were stones cut and smoothened to fit each other?
  -If we try to make any two stones fit perfectly to each other (as we can notice in the cladding stones) it would take a pretty long time and the bigger the stones are the more difficult and longer it would take, it is actually impossible to reach the accuracy and perfection we can employed on the Great Pyramid, besides, we have to keep in mind that this fitting procedure would stop the work completely until the accuracy of fit is obtained between two adjacent stones before fitting could begin on the next stone – this could never work and achieve the required work speed.
Was there any cement or filling materials put in the joints?
   -                             the answer is a definite NO.
Did ancient Egyptians have special machines to do that?
                                                   No
Did other people or creatures come from space and make this?
                               Of course NO, it’s only fiction.
Did they mould the stones on site?
    Another definite NO is the answer, if you only care for a minute to look closely at any pyramid, you’ll see that its stones are not uniformly shaped, they are not cubes, rectangles, cuboids or any regular fixed shape. On the contrary every stone is different and is unique in shape and size.
 Therefore, they must have had a very simple and efficient way of doing it, it is only that no none before has tried to think in simple terms in order to find a solution for this mystery.  I discovered that a simple method of working really is the solution to this complicated problem.
How were the stones cut from the quarry?
It is generally accepted that they made small rectangular holes where wooden pieces were inserted, then soaked in water.  When the wood expands due to the moisture, it exerts pressure and cracks the stone causing irregular planes according to the stratus of the stone.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #111 on: December 12, 2009, 10:04:07 pm »

The Broken Vase theory

Let’s notice what happens if we break a vase into pieces then try to fix it by putting the pieces back and gluing them.
If we do a good job, it will be difficult to tell where the cracks of the joints are, we’ll probably see a hair-line crack where we can’t insert a pin or a sharp razor blade.
Isn’t this exactly the same case as the cladding stones used in covering the pyramids?
 If we follow the same technique to build the pyramids
We would Break the quarry into pieces, move it to the construction site and put the pieces back exactly as they were in the quarry.
This method required the stones to be marked or numbered at the quarry in such a way that enabled putting them back together in the correct order at the construction site.  The stones were arranged exactly as they were cut from the quarry but flipped (turned upside down) to hide the cutting marks under the stones.
I would ask you to consider then, is this only a clever guess, a theory, or a proven fact??!!
   Evidence:
    * Quarry Men Writings
    *  Logic , common sense and  Work order
    *  Knowledge of Ancient Egyptians
    *  Is it feasible and practical
    * Inherited tradition
    * Stratus and Geology
Quarry Men Writings:
It is a fact that quarry men used to write on the blocks
We know that the Great Pyramid belongs to Khufu because of the writings (in red colour) of the group of workers who named themselves as the Strongmen of Khufu).
    A French Egyptologist  found more than1500 stones used in building the pyramid of PEPI  the first  in Sakkara having quarry writings on them, he translated it and found that most of them are names of workgroups, numbers & marks, …etc.
What were these writings for?
· Fun at leisure time (I don’t think they had that)
· Memorial writing (Stones were to be eventually hidden inside the building)
Functional role, or constructional reasons
Of course, we will have to come to the conclusion that
They Had a functional role or constructional reasons
   
Logic, common sense and Work order
The simple principle first cut - first moved and then built must have been applied and if it was followed accurately we will end up having the stones built in the same order as they were cut with no effort needed to make them fit accurately to each other.
 
Did Ancient Egyptians know these techniques?
Yes, we could find assembly marks on some of the wooden pieces of KHUFU’S Boat found in 1954 next to the great pyramid and that helped in reconstructing it.
Tutankhamen’s shrines in the Egyptian Museum carry assembly writings that help when putting the pieces together.
 
Does this technique really work?
Sure it does
It is the same technique used in cutting the temple of ABU-SIMBEL and reconstructing the blocks 60 meters higher than their original location.
Every piece was given a number and carefully moved and put back exactly where it belonged.
 
The same was followed in moving the temple of Philae from its original island to another island – the project taking 4 years to complete.
 
The visitor to these two temples can never notice they were even moved from their original places and find it difficult to believe this.

http://www.hanyra.com/index_files/The_Broken_Vase_theory.htm
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #112 on: December 12, 2009, 10:04:51 pm »

Inherited tradition:
I wanted to ask the modern stone cutters and builders about the eligibility of this theory.  So I paid a visit to a quarry and asked to meet the stone cutters.  I was invited to a cup of tea and asked to wait for half an hour for them because they were building a wall nearby.
 
I thought the man whom I had met misunderstood who I wanted to meet, so I told him, “sorry, I want to meet the stone cutters not the builders”.
He answered, clarifying my misunderstanding, “Sir, in our career the stone cutters are stone builders at the same time. So every stone-cutter is a builder and every builder is a cutter, this is how it is now and how it has always been from generation to generation.”
  I was delighted to hear this and know that it strongly supported my theory.
  I eventually met them and suggested my theory and asked if they could work like this or would there be any difficulty carrying it out.
  It was one of the best moments in my life when I saw their eyes and mouths open wide with happiness to tell me “God enlighten you, it must be this is how our grandfathers built it, it’s a wonderful idea”
 We cannot reach that old precision now because we get ready cut stones that we have to build with and we have to fill the joint with cement to make them hold each other and fit.
   I knew then that I was on the proper track and that
 Our grandfathers did cut the stones, move them to the construction site and built them again and -
* They marked the stones with necessary marks for assembly;
* They wrote the names of the work groups responsible for each stone to assign the responsibility and to help the reconstruction.
* The work team did the cutting and building to give no chance for workers to blame each other for any mistakes - they had the same group cut, move and build a whole length or side or area to limit the responsibility and guarantee quality.
* Stones were flipped at the construction site to hide the cutting holes (a good observer can see that in some places where the sides of stones are visible).
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #113 on: December 12, 2009, 10:05:39 pm »

Stratus and Geology
Only a month ago I had guided an American geologist who showed great interest in my theory and he started observing and drawing my attention to the stratus that continues from a stone to the one next to it, but what was easier to notice was the same erosion pattern going horizontally from one stone to the other.  He told me that this proves that the stones were originally next to each other in the quarry; he even showed interest in carrying out his own scientific research about it.
 
My theory was published years ago in Egyptian newspapers and magazines and I gave many lectures in the Egyptian Cultural Centre and Tourism Training Centre and some cultural saloons of Dr Mohsen Lotfy & Dr Waseem el Sisy.
I had no opposition of any kind and now you can find guides explaining my theory as a known fact.
I’m publishing it now on the internet for the whole world to know and I’m happy to receive your feedback or comments.

http://www.hanyra.com/index_files/The_Broken_Vase_theory.htm
 
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 10:07:36 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #114 on: December 12, 2009, 10:13:39 pm »

In as much as this theory sounds logical, I find it's only logical if one wants to rebuild a quarry somewhere, rather than building a pyramid.  This explanation - the Broken Vase Theory - would be good if one is putting everything back exactly the way they took it apart, like numbering the pieces and then re-joining them.  However, as I just said, this would just move the whole quarry to a new location, it would not build a pyramid.  The blocks of the pyramid were fitted tightly on all four sides.  (top and bottom and sides), therefore, after the first row of blocks is taken from the quarry, the next rows will have a rough top and a rough bottom.  If the next set of blocks is going to be used for say - the corner - how do they match the block that goes around the corner?  And as they build upwards, they use smaller blocks and they have to incorporate the rooms and the galley and the shafts, so the blocks won't be put back the way they were removed. 

That's my opinion anyway Smiley
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 10:26:52 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #115 on: December 12, 2009, 10:27:21 pm »

That theory doesn't explain this either.

Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy