Giza Power Plant (Paperback)

Dunn offers an incorrect description of
the rock-concrete (geopolymer) theory, which theory obviates his. Why?

Developing his theory, Dunn consulted various individuals, but no
geopolymer spokesperson, despite admitting that geopolymerization
challenged him. Why?

Dunn does not refute the chemical analyses of
pyramid stone he cites. Instead, he irrelevantly points to sarcophagi
made over 1000 years after the Great Pyramid was built, when the
stone-making technology was in decline.

Dunn assumes that
geopolymers, if used at all, were only poured into molds. Wrong!
Unhardened rock-concrete can be worked like clay on a potter's
wheel. Objects can be created by packing together individual
quantities of uncured rock-concrete, skillfully shaped and finished
with simple tools before ultimate hardening. A finish can be applied
with one or more rock-concrete coatings. These techniques are used
separately or in combination to construct an object. This flexible
system eliminated quarrying, shaping, lifting and setting natural rock
blocks and explains the heretofore unresolved features of the Great
Pyramid and associated monuments and artifacts. Why didn't Dunn
discuss this?

Revealing a rock-concrete object's construction method
may require a subsurface examination. Distinguishing between natural
rock and geopolymeric rock-concrete will normally require chemical
analysis and microscopy, the geopolymer cement requiring a scanning
electron microscope. Dunn ignores these facts.

Modern quarries
exhibit cuts made by power saws. If the pyramid blocks were machined,
the pyramid era quarries should exhibit similar marks. But they bear
only the crude marks of stone picks (Arnold, D., "Building In
Egypt"), a fact consistent with a disaggregation process for
geopolymerization. Dunn ignores this, too.

The Great Pyramid's
limestone blocks are geopolymeric rock-concrete made at ambient
temperatures with the Giza quarry's high-clay-content limestone,
initially disaggregated because its clay was released by water that
flooded the quarries. It's been demonstrated! Granite was otherwise
disaggregated.

Rejecting the pyramids as funerary monuments, Dunn
asks why robbers would steal "corpses" (mummies), failing to
acknowledge that royal mummy wrappings have contained numerous
precious amulets.

Egyptologists understand that the Great Pyramid,
containing a sarcophagus and surrounded by royal tombs in the
Necropolis ("City of the Dead"), represents the mythological
primeval mountain. This fundamental religious concept, which Egypt
shared with other nations, survived in architecture (pyramids,
ziggurats, and temples) for several thousand years. Dunn ignores this
concept. To disprove that the Great Pyramid is a primeval mountain
funerary monument, Dunn must convincingly disprove the Great Pyramid's
relationship to this concept. He does not.

Dunn speculates that a
cataclysm caused machine tools to vanish. But what cataclysm lasted
over 6000 years, during which time artifacts of the type Dunn claims
were machined, were fashioned? Diorite vessels date to Neolithic times
(c. 7000 B.C.). Diorite continued to be fashioned until at least the
25th Dynasty (712-657 B.C.). This spans over 6000 years. The 18th
(1550-1307 B.C.) and 19th (1307-1196 B.C.) Dynasties produced truly
impressive monolithic colossi of granite or quartzite weighing up to
over 1000-tons each. How could machine tools and all associated high
technology, used for over 6000 years, disappear while primitive tools
and low technology objects survived?

Dunn asserts that an iron scrap
found inside the Great Pyramid proves contemporaneous iron
production. Egyptologists don't agree, citing extensive 19th Dynasty
pyramid repairs and the absence of convincing evidence of iron
smelting. No sealed Old Kingdom (2575-2134 B.C.) tomb has yielded
wrought iron. Evidence for even one smelting facility dated to the Old
or Middle Kingdom is lacking. If original, said iron could be a
foreign gift placed in the masonry, like amulets inserted into mummy
wrappings.

For his power plant to work, Dunn claims iron and gold
lined the entire lengths of the narrow northern and southern shafts of
the King's Chamber. Dunn presents no evidence for such a lining, save
for the implication of the above-mentioned unconvincing iron
scrap. However, he partially inspected the northern shaft and mentions
no sign of metal or its removal.

Dunn does not explain how energy
was transferred to power tools. He incongruously mixes low and high
technology, claiming that a wood and bronze "grapnel hook"
is part of a critical fluid control switch--as if its curved edge is a
proper contact surface. Dunn offers no proof that it floats or its
weight distribution allows the required horizontal flotation. It is
unbelievable that Dunn's advanced technology coexisted with such
"gerry-rigging." Bronze appeared in Egypt hundreds of years
after the Great Pyramid's construction. This hook, resembling nothing
known from the Pyramid Age, is probably nothing but a "grapnel
hook" placed in the Great Pyramid long after its
construction.

Dunn asserts that a crack in the Queen's Chamber
metered fluids! A crack is subject to erosion, and dimensional
instability caused by settlement, earthquakes and etc. Why would
engineers using ultrasound, high-speed motorized machinery and more
impressive technology substitute "Flintstones" technology
for a drilled orifice or truly sophisticated metering
device?

Features Dunn claims support a power plant actually support
geopolymerization best. For instance, Dunn says that the power plant's
chemicals created salt on certain limestone walls because of a
reaction with the limestone. But geopolymerized stone can release such
salt.... Salt appears on walls of other pyramids. For instance, Petrie
reported "a good deal of crystallized salt" inside Khafra's
granite (not limestone!) sarcophagus. Dunn ignores these facts that
oppose his theory. This phenomena evidences geopolymerization, not
Gizapower!

If the strange description of the granite matrix in the
King's Chamber (page 152) that Dunn presents is accurate, it suggests
artificial stone, as do Dunn's remarks about Petrie's granite core # 7
from Khafra's Valley Temple, "The confounding fact that the
spiral groove cut deeper through the quartz than through the softer
feldspar. In conventional machining the reverse would be the
case."

Dunn legitimately asserts that certain features cannot
be explained by utilizing ancient Egyptian tools. His evidence
inadvertently helps prove that geopolymerization is the answer to
otherwise puzzling monuments and artifacts.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this

Questions Mr. Dunn attempts to answer in his book are those such as "in a time before iron or steel, how were granite blocks cut with such precision?" and "what were the suspended granite monoliths above the kings chamber for, and what broke them?".

In the past, all questions about the pyramids were taken to the Egyptian curators. The problem being that these experts are students of passed down historical information -- of which many of the answers passed down were from fairly recent explorers that were guessing as to the nature and purpose of the artifacts, not scientists or engineers using empirical data.

Mr. Dunn has exposed, recorded and categorized unexplainable information and artifacts relating to the pyramids that has been ignored, dismissed, or hidden by Egyptologist. Then using a novel approach for getting answers to these questions about the pyramids, Mr. Dunn took the anomalous information and/or artifacts to technological experts (scientists, engineers, academia, and tradesmen) to find an answer to the simplest way of reproducing the artifact, or explaining the anomaly.

In many cases, Mr. Dunn found that it would take advanced technology, even by today's standards, to replicate the artifacts. He also found that conventional explanations given by Egyptologists regarding anomalous information to be frequently inaccurate and not plausible, and that there were simpler scientific explanations. In other cases, many of the technological marvels of the pyramids cannot be explained by the technological experts or reproduced with the finest and most advanced technology today.

Based on the answers given by experts in their field from around the world, Mr. Dunn is able to establish a body of evidence that substantiates his claim that the Great Pyramid could not have been built by masses wielding only copper chisels and stone hammers to produce such a magnificent engineering colossus. Precise measurements and empirical data, along with expert testimony, drove Mr. Dunn to an obvious conclusion that not even he expected.

I have read this book, many times, and being from Missouri, have tried to pick it apart -- I have been unsuccessful. The evidence presented in this work is concise and accurate. Against popular opinion and conventional wisdom, Mr. Dunn is open-minded and has the curiosity, persistence, and tenacity to search for the truth without regard to negative peer-pressure, harassment, and even putting his own reputation at stake in presenting his evidence.

Mr. Dunn's conclusion rock tridional thinking, but are scientific sound.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this