View Single Post
Old 01-09-2010, 06:33 AM   #188
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truthseeker512 View Post
No, its clay.

The formations you posted dont resemble anything like what is found on the Moon Pyramid.
These are beds of rock, clearly not manufactured blocks.

Here is another angle of the blocks..

You can see the different layers of material much easier at the corner of the block where it has started to crumble away.
Along the sides you can see the mortar like material. Sediment does not deposit laterally in this fashion.
Dunes can form lateral variation in deposits but these blocks display no evidence of cross bedding nor can it explain why all four sides of every block has this change in composition.

Moving Finger....

Thanks for posting this pic. Its a good example to compare a natural bed with the manufactured blocks

You can see here faults which cut through multiple beds in straight lines, something you dont see at sonda 20 on the Moon Pyramid.
Some interesting points, however:

I remain to be convinced that it is clay, it looks mor elike a friable shale deposit within a silty-clay matrix. However you are there and I am not, so we'll have to take your word for it.

It is not impossible for layers of clay to exist between other layers of rock. My own region is dominated by sandstone geology and there are substantial clay deposits within rock layers. It is a very strong material capable of much compression & can withstand all kinds of treatment, which is why it is used as a core for all the Victorian reservoir dams in my area. It is also often found her as fireclay within beds of carboniferous rock, which have also undergone substantial change as a result of the processes producing them. Clay and sandstone deposits are consistent with a deltaic and/or estuarine environment and their existence together would not be unexpected.

You are being a little disingenuous with your arguments about faulting. Not all joints in sandstone need be from large scale regional faulting, they can be localised joints and cracks as a result of settlement and movement within strata. Cracks in one layer need not be present in another layer.

Similarly your picture of faulted & poorly bedded sandstone is not a fair representation of my argument. The lithology described in the source:

http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Jacobi...ord%20Fm..html

Descrbies exactly the mix I believe your photgraph shows: interbedded shales & sandstones.

You would have had a more representative selection of bedded sandstone deposits from the same people here:

http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Jacobi/Machias%20Fm.html

http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Jacobi/Caneadea%20Fm.html

Your statement about sedimentation is again a little misleading. 'Mortar-like' is not the same as 'mortar'. Sediment can deposit in cracks. It is the nature of gravitational deposition for things to fill in holes and gaps. It is perfectly within the bounds of reason for a crack between two pieces of rock to be filled with sediment and/or soil material. Anyone who has a pavement in their garden will know that the gaps between slabs will fill with material quite quickly.

As for your manufactured blocks, I'd be intrigued to see a photograph of a long line of those blocks where the joins are clearly visible. The one you posted above has a distinctive round feature that identifies them as contiguous blocks, not individual carved slabs.

Last edited by moving finger; 01-09-2010 at 06:34 AM.
moving finger is offline   Reply With Quote