Scientific reports from July 2006 - [Le site d'Irna]

Scientific reports from July 2006

Article published on 29 August 2006

logo imprimer

Since the first reports made before the beginning of the excavations (satellite and geological analyses), the Foundation has till now published only two new reports for the 2006 campaign, respectively on the 18th and 19th of July (the third "report", dated 31st July, is only a "re-writing" of the first two ones by Nakija Nukic, the team geologist).

Let’s begin with the Federal Institute for Agro-Pedology report (bs) [1], dated from the 19th of July. It is a fax sent by the Institute to the Foundation, and the report seems complete. It is a very classical analysis of the soils, based on 7 samples taken on Visocica and Pljesevica. For each sample are given the horizons (the different layers of the soil), the granulometry and a partial chemical analysis (pH, phosphore, potassium...). The conclusion is that these soils are of different types and geological ages (younger on Pljesevica and older on Visocica), but nowhere is a date suggested in the report. The Institute pedologists explain that they would need a lot more samples, as well as a detailed study of the ground stratigraphy, in order to have a complete typology of the different soils; and only then they may be able to give a few hypothesis about the speed of the pedogenesis, and about the age of these soils. They conclude their report by mentioning that the only way to get a precise date is to use Carbon 14 datation.

However, as soon as this report was published, the Foundation used it as proof for Mr. Osmanagic’s hypothesis about the age of the "pyramids", saying that this report would confirm the age of "8,000 to 12,000 years". When one looks for instance at this news (bs) from the Foundation dated July 30th, with the title "The analysis by the Institute, first step toward the confirmation of the age of the pyramids", one can find these words:

"The preliminary report of the Institute, Ms. Nukic explained, is based on the working hypothesis that 200 to 300 years are needed to form 1 cm of soil on a soft geological substrate. On the terrain we meet each day about 40 cm of soil and clay, so that the age of these soils is most probably between 8,000 and 12,000 years, said Ms. Nukic."

Where does this figure of 200 to 300 years for 1 cm of soil come from? If one can actually find it in the Institute of Pedology report, it is absolutely not a "working hypothesis", but only an example given by the pedologists in the introduction of the report, when they explain that the speed for soil formation can be very variable:

"So it is considered for instance that 1000 years are needed for the formation of 1 cm of soil on a very resistant substrate of calcareous type. On other, softer types of substrates, the pedogenesis process can be shorter, with an average of 200 to 300 years for 1 cm. So, it is possible to estimate the age of a soil, depending on the substrate it is lying on."

Nowhere in the report is mentioned that this average of 200 to 300 years is valid for the hills of Visocica and Pljesevica. Why has this precise average value been used by the Foundation people (while, as will be seen below, they claim that the rocks of the two hills, far from being "soft substrate", are "extraordinarily hard"!)? Because it is the one which better accorded with Mr. Osmanagic’s preliminary convictions?

The second report (bs) [1], given by the Tuzla Institute of Civil Engineering, is not really a report: it contains only series of raw results, figures without any text, of the tests made by this Institute. The report is signed, but there is no author name, not even the Institute heading or logo.

First is given the result of measurements made, in the laboratory, on two samples of rock, coming one from Visocica and the other from Pljesevica; data given for these samples are density (about 2,6) and "hardness" expressed in MPa (MegaPascal); it is in fact the compressive strength of the two samples: 42 MPa for Visocica conglomerate, and 64 MPa for Pljesevica sandstone. These laboratory measurements are completed by tests of the compressive strength in situ, using a kind of pression sclerometer: these tests give slightly lower results, with an average of 26 MPa for the conglomerates, and of 10 to 44 MPa for the sandstones.

The report also gives the chemical composition of two samples of a material taken between blocks, that the Foundation people systematically call "cement" or "connective material"; handwritten mentions add for these two samples (as well as for a third for which there is no other analysis) the percentage of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) obtained by titration.

Things begin to be very interesting when one reads the comments and conclusions of the Foundation geologist, given in a document (bs) [1] that summarizes the two reports. About the compressive strength of the tested rocks, Ms. Nukic mentions the average values given by the Institute of Civil Engineering, but concludes that these results place the tested rocks "in the category of the exceptionnally hard rock material". A look at this table (en) will show you that the figures given by the Institute indicate, at the best, resistant (or strong) rocks, and not "exceptionnally hard" ones; for instance, sandstone can have a compressive strength of 50 to more than 200 MPa, so that the Pljesevica sandstone, with its few tens of MPa (40, the maximum being 60 in the laboratory), absolutely cannot be said exceptionnally hard... But that will not prevent all the later statements from the Foundation to stress again and again this "exceptionnal" resistance of the rocks, and even, according to this statement (en), an "unnatural" hardness ("unnaturally hard")...

Another quite surprising conclusion of Ms. Nukic is about the composition of the "cement" or "connective material" supposed to have been used to seal the blocks: Ms. Nukic concludes, from the figures given by the Institute, that this material is "identical" on the two "pyramids", even if the blocks are of different composition. But, for the three samples analyzed by the Institute, the figures given for the CaCO3 are 40%, 76% and 97%... and the chemical composition (for the two samples where the chemical analysis has been made) is different. I must admit that I cannot even imagine how Ms. Nukic came by this conclusion!

I will end by stressing that the presence of carbonated cement between the blocks - be they made of conglomerate or of sandstone - can be totally natural. Carbonates are very abundant in the substrate in all this region (in marls, in the calcareous matrix of the conglomerate and sandstone), percolating waters are loaded with carbonate due to the dissolution, and then (because of changes of pressure or temperature) discharge this carbonate (in form of calcite for instance) inside the joints and fissures between the blocs (that way are also formed the stalactites observed in the tunnel in Ravne). This "connective material" is probably a natural cement or carbonated deposit, and not an artificial cement used by the "builders" of the "pyramids".


Rapport de l’Institut fédéral d’Agro-Pédologie
Federal Institute for Agro-Pedology report - Téléchargé le 19 juillet 2006
Résultats préliminaires de l’Institut de Génie Civil de Tuzla
Preliminary results of the Tuzla Institute of Civil Engineering - Téléchargé le 19 juillet 2006
Conclusions de Nadija Nukic
Nadija Nukic’s conclusions - Téléchargé le 31 juillet 2006
Notes :

[1Most of the reports have disappeared from the Foundation site - whether deliberately, or simply by accident, it is not known; so that I join a copy below the article for the interested reader.

P.S. :

It could be useful, seeing the lies from the Foundation and its "supporters" on the forums, particularly the fact that this "report" from the Tuzla GIT is often used to claim an artificial origin of the blocks which are said to be "cast concrete", to give a precision: the document published on the Foundation website that I have commented here does not mention, in any place, this hypothesis. Nowhere it is said that the analysed material could be an artificial concrete, and none of the results given could allow to conclude this. I don’t know what the GIT engineers said, orally, to Mr. Osmanagic, but the fact is that, contrary to what he claims, for instance in the "excavation report for 2006", they nowhere wrote that the Visocica conglomerate, nor the Pljesevica sandstone, could be "construction material" nor "concrete that doesn’t exist in nature", as one can ascertain by downloading this GIT report.


Forum
Comment on this article


bullet pointSite map bullet pointContact bullet pointEditors area bullet point

RSS Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

2006-2017 © Le site d’Irna - All rights reserved
Site created with SPIP
with the template ESCAL-V3
Version: 3.87.47
amélioré par Pigédius
Host: L'Autre Net