Rock  Rapidly Rotting In Dry Sand

Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:14:21 -0700
Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> Mark Frazier wrot:e
> >August, Matthusen wrote:

> >[ lots of good stuff ]

> Gosh, how can you call all that Anti-Ancient Science envy stuff good?

> >> Did the TV show address any of these arguments? They were all brought
> >>out by Guari et al in 1995.

> Right, they were invented after the fact. They were absent from theory
> before!  That makes them highly suspect..

> >Of course not! That's why I asked for rebuttals!
> >Thanks for the good information. Also, do have any information on why
> >the head of the Sphinx doesn't seem to be as weathered as the body?
> >Is it a different layer/type of rock?

> AM> You're correct, it is different layers. The Sphinx is all the same
> type of rock: limestone. There are three distinct layers (and lots of sublayers)
> recognized. The head has a different pore size distribution which
> inhibits the salt crystal exfoliation from occurring. Thus the head
> doesn't  weather as quickly.

> That changes nothing on the fact that it was Schwaller De Lubicz, a very
> respected scientist, and not Schoch, or West, who noted that by those
> accepted standards of judging the type of weathering of mineral formations -
> the patterns on the Sphinx clearly indicated pluvial influence.

> Why should salt crystal exfoliation occur on limestone protected by
> the dry sand of Giza, it was buried in?
> Why should it (exfoliation ) occur in a definite pluvial pattern without
> forcing external forces?
> What about the 200-ton Mining Technique used on the Sphinx?

> Lastly: what about the fact that my discovery of ancient Science-Art
> goes very well with all the artifacts, which you have no explanation for?

> namon (J. M.)

> *** These are the Sacred-Star-Wars

This Page Hosted By  Get your own Free Home Page

Next     Top Menu   Nasca Monkey Report    Namon's Gallery