There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

I don't understand what part of this request was incomprehensible: "For once, how about producing some solid, published research that justifies that assertion; not empty empty assertions, YouTube videos, or conspiracy theory books, but real scientific research. It seems generally absent from your rambles."

Yet you were quite happy to give your opinion without any support of how the example I linked was caused by rubbing and hand sawing.

What evidence do you require. The problem is for the images I linked there is little evidence and investigation on them. Try and find a paper on the specific stone I linked. Its hard to find.

Thats because for the most part people assume that all the examples were created by the existing tools in the records. So little investigation is made.

Going back to the block with the so called hand saw strirations. Did you see the arc in the cut with the thin and sharp edge. As though some massive fixed circular cutting blade sliced into the granite. What would have caused this.

This is the best I can find. The video is quite informative and though I know you will find it hard to watch it is worth a watch even if you disagree as the logue and arguements made are pretty powerful I think.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Saw Marks

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Saw Marks - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...

www.ancient-origins.net

Origin of the saw marks on the Great Pyramid's basalt pavement
The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw. The main examples of sawing at Gizeh are the blocks of the great basalt pavement, and the coffers of the Great, Second, and Third Pyramids, - the latter, unhappily, now lost'.

Origin of the saw marks on the Great Pyramid's basalt pavement

If you approach the high black platform from the eastern side of the Great Pyramid, which is also the surviving pavement of basalt blocks, you can see numerous marks left by saws on their side walls. The presence of too many marks and their

www.academia.edu

Implicit in this, as it would be for any request of this kind, would be for a citation to the paper carrying the authoritative research, probably a relevant quotation from the paper, and a pointer to the particular page, graphic, or paragraphs that best represented the argument/idea. Your inability to understand this, or your reluctance to comply, speaks volumes as to your profound ignorance of how discussions on science are properly conducted. I await, not with much hope, that you will now respond accordingly.

I understand this and I think its a bit ironic that whenever anyone disagrees or calls into question these simple alternative views there is also never any evidence given. or the continued denial that the signatures in the rocks are from the traditional tools in the records.

The problem with this whole area is the lack of good science and investigation. Because the assumption that the primitive tools on record must have been the tech there is little investigation.

I have linked some evidence above. I don't think it will meet your standard. I can hear 'conspiracy' now lol. But lets see what happens. Remember I am not claiming any particular position on this. Only that we properly assess the signatures in the rocks and be open to where ever that leads. Which means actually looking at all views even if people think they are conspiracy.

But what I don't get is that even laypeople or reasonably informed can see for ourselves obvious anomelies between the tools on record and the signatures. You seem to think only certain people can tell and comment even when its blantantly obvious.

I can tell that the examples I linked have signatures that a copper saw would not cause. You don't have to be an expert to know this. Now I might not be able to give the technical explanation for how the signatures are caused.

For example the thin cut edges which are almost as thin if not thinner than the thickness of the saws themselves. It would be impossible for a hand saw to leave such a thing edge. Or the cut corners. A hand saw cannot cut corners. Or the cuts into the stone from the side where there is no room to move a hand saw back and forth to cut.

You don't need to be a rocket scientists to know that this is impossible for a hand saw. I have used hand saws and you need air before and after the piece to be able to make the passes. Onlt a machined blade could cut into rock without actually sawing ie

You don't need an engineering degree to know that a hand held saw could NOT produce a continuious cut that curves with the surface and seems to slice a thin layer off the top. How about explaining with technical detail and peer reviewed science how a handsaw could produce such a signature.

The following video offers some possible explanations on the slabs of granite I linked earlier from Abu Rawash and Abu Sir.

The Abu Rawash Artifact: Evidence for the Existence — or Absence of Circular Saws in Ancient Egypt?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible. If so what are the implications for the mainstream view of human evolution and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4gFfjzKck&ab_channel=MichaelButton

... whatever it is (or isn't), we shouldn't expect it to line up with Genesis chapters 1 - 11.

I think the point was that mainstream have humans becoming organised communities and not nomads is said to be around 5 to 6,000 years ago. But the evidence is pushing that back. In fact the idea of what was considered civilised is being pushed back. The idea that humans were dumb brutes before this is also being proven wrong.

Mainstream created this narrative to support the idea of gradualism in evolution. That humans evolved from dumb brute cavemen to more sophisticated living and thinking. That influenced how the evidence was seen.

So large megaliths and other works that were deemed too advanced for neolithic primitive nomads and was said to have somehow been created with primitive tools and knowhow. There could not have been sophisticated thinking and belief before at this stage in evolution.

Now it seems that there was more advanced humans who once ruled the earth and were destroyed and the megaliths and works they left were discovered and not created by later cultures who came along and found them.

But current mainstream narratives still wants to force fit these works into peoples who never created them. Even the cultures own stories tell us they discovered them. Still the mainstream view wants us to believe that this was all created in a very short time by primitive tools and knowhow of those who found thees abandoned works.

I'm sticking with the "mainstream," Steve. Not because I prefer it, but because as a philosopher who studies Historiography and the Philosophy of History, I know that the past never has been written in stone. So, a few "odds and ends" discoveries that stretch our provisionally made theories for different aspects of Natural History isn't surprising nor a reason to perceive an earthquake where none took place.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sa

Yet you were quite happy to give your opinion without any support of how the example I linked was caused by rubbing and hand sawing.

What evidence do you require. The problem is for the images I linked there is little evidence and investigation on them. Try and find a paper on the specific stone I linked. Its hard to find.

Thats because for the most part people assume that all the examples were created by the existing tools in the records. So little investigation is made.

Going back to the block with the so called hand saw strirations. Did you see the arc in the cut with the thin and sharp edge. As though some massive fixed circular cutting blade sliced into the granite. What would have caused this.

View attachment 369199

This is the best I can find. The video is quite informative and though I know you will find it hard to watch it is worth a watch even if you disagree as the logue and arguements made are pretty powerful I think.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Saw Marks

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Saw Marks - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...

www.ancient-origins.net

Origin of the saw marks on the Great Pyramid's basalt pavement
The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw. The main examples of sawing at Gizeh are the blocks of the great basalt pavement, and the coffers of the Great, Second, and Third Pyramids, - the latter, unhappily, now lost'.

Origin of the saw marks on the Great Pyramid's basalt pavement

If you approach the high black platform from the eastern side of the Great Pyramid, which is also the surviving pavement of basalt blocks, you can see numerous marks left by saws on their side walls. The presence of too many marks and their

www.academia.edu

I understand this and I think its a bit ironic that whenever anyone disagrees or calls into question these simple alternative views there is also never any evidence given. or the continued denial that the signatures in the rocks are from the traditional tools in the records.

The problem with this whole area is the lack of good science and investigation. Because the assumption that the primitive tools on record must have been the tech there is little investigation.

I have linked some evidence above. I don't think it will meet your standard. I can hear 'conspiracy' now lol. But lets see what happens. Remember I am not claiming any particular position on this. Only that we properly assess the signatures in the rocks and be open to where ever that leads. Which means actually looking at all views even if people think they are conspiracy.

But what I don't get is that even laypeople or reasonably informed can see for ourselves obvious anomelies between the tools on record and the signatures. You seem to think only certain people can tell and comment even when its blantantly obvious.

I can tell that the examples I linked have signatures that a copper saw would not cause. You don't have to be an expert to know this. Now I might not be able to give the technical explanation for how the signatures are caused.

For example the thin cut edges which are almost as thin if not thinner than the thickness of the saws themselves. It would be impossible for a hand saw to leave such a thing edge. Or the cut corners. A hand saw cannot cut corners. Or the cuts into the stone from the side where there is no room to move a hand saw back and forth to cut.

You don't need to be a rocket scientists to know that this is impossible for a hand saw. I have used hand saws and you need air before and after the piece to be able to make the passes. Onlt a machined blade could cut into rock without actually sawing ie

View attachment 369200

You don't need an engineering degree to know that a hand held saw could produce a continuious cut that curves with the surface and seems to slice a thin layer off the top. How about explaining with technical detail and peer reviewed science how a handsaw could produce such a signature.

View attachment 369195

The following video offers some possible explanations on the slab of granite I linked earlier from Abu Rawash and Abu Sir I linked earlier.
View attachment 369201

View attachment 369203

The Abu Rawash Artifact: Evidence for the Existence — or Absence of Circular Saws in Ancient Egypt?

Sadly, pretty much what I was expecting.

• I am not the one making unfounded, unsupported (by proper, scholarly investigation) assertions. I am simply noting the, ought to be self evident, fact that those assertions run counter to current and long standing views within the relevant community of experts.
• Despite noting that the only thing that would be relevant from you would be peer reviewed evidence by members of that community, you proceeded to try to discuss what barely misses being pure anecdotal word salad.
• I can only assume that your failure to provide reliable, authorative support for your argument is that you have none. Your general lack of scientific rigour and egrgious "logic" tells me working through your argument and your speculative YouTube videos is a waste of time.
• Let me know when you have something solid, rather than flights of imagination whose conclusions are more a form of delusional wish fulfillment than meaningful observations.

I think there is an intelligent, thoughtful person somewhere in there Steve. Ditch the nonsense and let them get out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sa

Sadly, pretty much what I was expecting.

• I am not the one making unfounded, unsupported (by proper, scholarly investigation) assertions. I am simply noting the, ought to be self evident, fact that those assertions run counter to current and long standing views within the relevant community of experts.
• Despite noting that the only thing that would be relevant from you would be peer reviewed evidence by members of that community, you proceeded to try to discuss what barely misses being pure anecdotal word salad.
• I can only assume that your failure to provide reliable, authorative support for your argument is that you have none. Your general lack of scientific rigour and egrgious "logic" tells me working through your argument and your speculative YouTube videos is a waste of time.
• Let me know when you have something solid, rather than flights of imagination whose conclusions are more a form of delusional wish fulfillment than meaningful observations.

I think there is an intelligent, thoughtful person somewhere in there Steve. Ditch the nonsense and let them get out.

I'm sure you're right that Steve could cite some better info, but with all of the sensationalism that media are pushing these days to make a buck, I'm not surprised he's latched onto this particular trope. The History Channel, for instance, hasn't helped the overall view of academic, scholarly history by repeatedly pushing out 'documentaries' like the following (which was put out on youtube yesterday).

 

[AV1611VET]

The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible.

Interesting video.

And while I'm not an evolutionist, I especially liked the point he made that nomadism was an exception to the rule, not the norm.

He says humans aren't made to live nomadic lifestyles; pointing out that even children are "hardwired" to build things.

Kids build tree houses, sand castles, snow forts and the like.

Finding evidence of settlements in places that didn't have natural protection -- (like caves) -- is another giveaway that the nomadic way of life was the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[AV1611VET]

The History Channel, for instance, hasn't helped the overall view of academic, scholarly history by repeatedly pushing out 'documentaries' like the following (which was put out on youtube yesterday).

Another interesting "myth buster" video.

They found a site twice older than their "Cradle of Civilization."

Should be interesting to see how academia explains this.

I have a feeling though that, given their penchants for moving the decimal place like a yo-yo, they'll just push the boundary back.

Look for the "New Cradle of Civilization" to come out; twice older than the old one.

I made this point some time ago, and it bears repeating:

If they found rabbits in the Precambrian, they'd just push the timeline of the Precambrian back to cover them.

Just my 2¢.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm sure you're right that Steve could cite some better info, but with all of the sensationalism that media are pushing these days to make a buck, I'm not surprised he's latched onto this particular trope. The History Channel, for instance, hasn't helped the overall view of academic, scholarly history by repeatedly pushing out 'documentaries' like the following (which was put out on youtube yesterday).

I fully agree that Joe Public are badly served by many wings of the media and, arguably, segments of the Western education systems, through failures to provide evidence based news and critical thinking skills. However, when multiple individuals provide arguments based upon their expert knowledge and these are casually dismissed, then that excuse wears thin.

 

[The Barbarian]

If they found rabbits in the Precambrian, they'd just push the timeline of the Precambrian back to cover them.

And if they found that pigs could fly, they'd revise their ideas about pigs.

Reality matters. And the reality is, no rabbits in the Cambrian (or Precambrian). But there are animals in the Precambrian, albeit very simple ones. Would you like to learn how we know?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm sure you're right that Steve could cite some better info, but with all of the sensationalism that media are pushing these days to make a buck, I'm not surprised he's latched onto this particular trope. The History Channel, for instance, hasn't helped the overall view of academic, scholarly history by repeatedly pushing out 'documentaries' like the following (which was put out on youtube yesterday).

My word. Such a load of nonsense packed into such a short "film". (And so many "Atlantis" people in it.) I don't know why there is such resistance to the clear evidence that these "ancient advanced civilization" grifters are all fruit of Donnelly's poisoned lost continent.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if they found that pigs could fly, they'd revise their ideas about pigs.

I'm sure if they want to badly enough, they'll find something.

Reality matters.

And they're still out there searching for it, aren't they?

And the reality is, no rabbits in the Cambrian (or Precambrian).

Ya ... that's my point.

But there are animals in the Precambrian, albeit very simple ones.

No kidding?

Would you like to learn how we know?

No thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My word. Such a load of nonsense packed into such a short "film". (And so many "Atlantis" people in it.) I don't know why there is such resistance to the clear evidence that these "ancient advanced civilization" grifters are all fruit of Donnelly's poisoned lost continent.

Yep.

 

[AV1611VET]

My word. Such a load of nonsense packed into such a short "film".

Sounds like someone's in denial.

So this older "cradle of civilization" is not nearly as old as they think it is?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like someone's in denial.

So this older "cradle of civilization" is not nearly as old as they think it is?

No, this is what happens when folks get too carried away by what they think the Bible insinuates but doesn't clearly say----------like for instance: That the Nephilim theory explains everything, which it doesn't.

I'm just cutting to the chase in all of this............................. its extensive overload is wearisome, especially when folks (who are Christian) are mainly just playing with loose interpolations that hardly pass for hermeneutics.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, this is what happens when folks get too carried away by what they think the Bible insinuates but doesn't clearly say----------like for instance: The Nephilim theory explains everything, which it doesn't.

What brainiacs fail to realize is this:

Genesis 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

And in so doing, they end up giving the credit for these well-cut stones and whatnot to spacemen.

And here's an excellent question:

What's the difference in academia giving credit to spacemen, and academia giving credit to nomads?

I'm just cutting to the chase in all of this............................. its extensive overload is wearisome, especially when folks (who are Christian) are mainly just playing with loose interpolations that hardly pass for hermeneutics.

That's rich, coming from someone who berated me for challenging his hermeneutics.

How do you interpret this?

Genesis 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's rich, coming from someone who berated me for challenging his hermeneutics.

How do you interpret this?

Genesis 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

What I meant by my "challenge" is that all too often your attempt at hermeneutics, or solid biblical exegesis, is anything but, and I'm waiting for you to produce.

Obviously, we don't disagree about everything in the Bible, but you leave a lot to the imagination.

 

[public hermit]

I'm sure you're right that Steve could cite some better info, but with all of the sensationalism that media are pushing these days to make a buck, I'm not surprised he's latched onto this particular trope. The History Channel, for instance, hasn't helped the overall view of academic, scholarly history by repeatedly pushing out 'documentaries' like the following (which was put out on youtube yesterday).

I didn't have TV in the 1990s when the History Channel came out, but I was pretty excited to watch it when I finally did in the 2000s. Sadly, this dude was part of my initial exposure:

I generally stick to more dependable sources of educational documentaries like PBS and BBC.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't have TV in the 1990s when the History Channel came out, but I was pretty excited to watch it when I finally did in the 2000s. Sadly, this dude was part of my initial exposure:

View attachment 369213

I generally stick to more dependable sources of educational documentaries like PBS and BBC.

Me too. I try to stay away from the History channel for references, unless I know that something they've put out generally reflects mainstream corroboration across a wide spectrum of other scholarly sources.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I meant by my "challenge" is that all too often your attempt at hermeneutics, or solid biblical exegesis, is anything but, and I'm waiting for you to produce.

Produce what?

You just showed us a video showing one of academia's titled paradigms ("Cradle of Civilization") getting pwned big time.

Now it sounds like you're backtracking.

Do you agree with that video, or not?

Obviously, we don't disagree about everything in the Bible, but you leave a lot to the imagination.

LOL

And here I thought I was constantly adding to the Bible, according to one poster here, who is one of the biggest subtractors of the Bible I've seen in ages.

But his religion demands it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Me too. I try to stay away from the History channel for references, unless I know that something they've put out generally reflects mainstream corroboration across a wide spectrum of other scholarly sources.

Then you must really keep up on those sources.

Do they put out monthly publications?

Else how do you know things haven't changed from the time you last learned something new?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Produce what?

You just showed us a video showing one of academia's titled paradigms ("Cradle of Civilization") getting pwned big time.

Now it sounds like you're backtracking.

Do you agree with that video, or not?

It should be obvious to everyone that I was posting the video from the History Channel up as an example of what NOT to do with Historical assessment, especially of an archaeological site like Göbekli Tepe (and others like it).

So, I don't want to hear much claptrap from the peanut gallery. Unless you want to get owned.

LOL

And here I thought I was constantly adding to the Bible, according to one poster here, who is one of the biggest subtractors of the Bible I've seen in ages.

You kind of do "add" to the Bible, and the fact that there are subtractors (or detractors, per say) of the Bible doesn't mean your additions are sound. Some of them might even hurt the potential for others to find faith because what you say is sometimes so outlandish.

But his religion demands it.

I'll not concerned about him at the moment. bro.