There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

You keep being asked for solid evidence and you routinely fail to provide it.

But I have provided evidence. You just disagree with it. Don't mistake disagreeing and providing alternative possibilities with your take on what the evidence represents as not providing evidence.

You have engaged in that evidence when you give explanations for how the signatures are caused by the traditional tools. All arguements and evidence sought is to support this view of the signatures.

Alternative views then provide counter possibilities for what the signatures represent that don't match the traditional tools. Thats how it works. Both sides are providing evidence and arguements and we have to work out which is the truth. If both sides are providing evidence and arguements then there is no clear truth until we properly investigate this.

You seem to be relegating the alternative evidence and arguements as not even evidence and arguements because they don't meet your preconcieved ideas of what that evidence is.

Now you provide, lengthy, repetitive attempts to justify it, all the while demonstrating that you have close to zero idea of how science works.

I think I am exactly following the science. Science is made through observations and then investigating how this is applied to the methods we know of. If the observations show that say current tools on record don't match the signatures observed then this is supports that the tools claimed are not the cause.

This is done by a scientific analysis for the signatures. What marks tools leave or should leave. Petrie was the best at this in his time and even back then his rigorious measures and testing questioned the tools available in the records.

In fact none of his contemporaries disagreed with his scientific findings. They just did not know how the signatures could have been made.

Is the scientific method perfect? Of course it isn't and no one on this side of the argument is saying it is. It is implemented by humans and humans are unreliable, narcissitic, forgetful, careless, biased, argumentative, emotional, etc. That is precisely why the checks and balances of the method are essential to increase the quality of the end product. You are complaining about the time constraint this places on the development of new ideas.

I agree 100%. As mentioned part of science is observation of the data. Taking measurements, checking what best explains the signatures. Even you applied this when you said that the three fine cuts in the example look like they were made by a circular saw. This was applying the science.

That is all I am doing. I am taking well know 'out of place' examples that are not just an individuals personal opinion but are concluded in the same way you think those cuts were produced by a circular saw. These other signatures look and measure like they were produced by something other than the traditional toold on record. Thats all. No other reason.

And that is where you should have started, with a discussion of the contents of those links, with a critical review of them - not a lovey dovey "isn't this great" in eight verses and oft repeated chorus. That could have got you some credibility, but your approach comes across as that of a gullible fool (which, as I have previously noted, you are not) and gullible fools are justifiably ignored.

The original video had enough discussion of the contents and provided scientific articles for supporting the particular claim that there is a gap between the evidence claimed and what we actually see on the ground. That was the starting point.

Yest we should go into detail and nut out exactly what is the case for these specific examples. We could make an entire thread on just one example and break it down. I have done this many times. But I know what ends up happening. There still remains a disagreement on how the evidence is seen.

We just had one. You say that the cuts in the rocks in my example were caused later than the Egyptians. Because you cannot possibly entertain the idea that it was made by the early Egyptians. It does not align with the traditional tools. So you have to come up with a possible explanation as to why it is so.

Whereas myself and many others will believe this is a prime example of early tech that is hard to explain. You finmd reasons that will explain everything in line with gradualism (they gradually smoothed rocks. Rather than any knowledge that allowed them some way to produce the result like we do today with modern tech. Because that cannot be possible that ancients had such knowledge.

But if you were open then you may see that example as evidence for ancient tech on par with today. You followed the observations and it told you it was a modern signature. Therefore this could not be possible so it was a modern forgery. You could not contemplate that this could actually be early.

I don't think I have claimed any conspiracy in relation this thread.

For the reasons noted above. Poorly made arguments, associated with crackpot ideas would take away from the tedious, meticulous, careful, endlessly tested "real" science. How do I know the arguments are poorly made? Because their authors do not apply self-criticism. . . . Just like your posts.

And likewise poorly made arguements relgating content thats worthy of discussion as crackpoy when its not also does not help. I think nothing in what I have linked can be said to be crackpot. It is others doing that and injecting such conflation. Both sides are guilty.

But its the fact that one side is made out to be pure and never guilty of conflation because they stand on the side of science or a metaphysical truth they claim superior is the problem that denies alternative views even getting through the front door.

As above

No. I am saying to change the course of an ocean liner takes time and patience, a gargantuan effort and understanding of how the ship operates.

APPARENTLY I NEED TO SHOUT THIS. UNTIL YOU DISPLAY EVIDENCE OF SELF CRITICISM I HAVE NO INTENTION AT LOOKING AT ANY VIDEOS YOU POST. MAKE A LENGTHY POST DETAILING WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT VIDEO AND I SHALL HAVE A LOOK AT IT.

I have already done this and it seems its the other way around. I have acknowledge that presenting alternative ideas borders on conspiracy. That is its very nature. I am aware of the epistemics but I don't know if others are.

I have acknowledge that worldviews taint how we see the evidence but I am not sure you agree. It seems that only certain kinds of evidence are allowed according to what others say. Yet this is not applied even handedly to those who disagree.

That is really the point of the thread. Not going into specific examples which we have already seen is not so clear and can be biased. Rather its about the different metaphysical and epistemic truth claims behind how each side see the evidence.

One side insists everything is tightly contained within the empirical. Only that which conforms to science. Then when dogmatically applied to deny alternative views it becomes a belief imposed on others in how we should know and measure the evidence. What evidence counts.

Sure the science allows us to ground things. We can measure the signatures in the rocks and tell what may have caused this. But when it produces results that contradict scientific naturalism then these are fobbed off as conspriacy. So the science cannot detach itself from the scientist who carries their metaphysical beliefs about how reality works.

 

[stevevw]

For the last couple days this is all you have done -- added more and more "examples" of "ancient machining" that you claim could not be done with copper tools and grit. This is a complete side track from your own thread topic. Even if you showed that ancient Egyptians had technologies that were greater than we thought 4500 years ago, it would not impact the principle claim of the thread.

Yes and I have pointed this out several times. I did not introduce the conspiracy idea that this thread was about the usual back and forth arguements on specific examples. As you said I have been there and done that.

Unfortunately it became about specific examples again and I bought into it again. I was hoping to avoid this as I know now where this always ends up with endless disagreements about how we see the evidence.

I thought perhaps allowing this to play out I could perhaps show one specific example to then open the door to the arguement that knowldge is not necessarily an evolution from simple to complex and that there could have been knowledge just as advanced in different ways.

So if anything after several attempts I know better now. In some way this supports exactly what I am saying. That there is never a resolyion to how each side sees things.

That this is really about different metaphysical worldviews in how we see the observations and data. One side wants to contain this within a material worldview where only certyain kinds of evidence count. The other takes a more expansive view that goes beyiond the orthodox view.

So really though side tracked it is still beneficial in that it is supporting the OP in practical reality of how once again these kinds of threads get bogged down in semantics, methodology, epistemics and metaphsyics. Rather than the pure science.

"more sophisticated" or "more advanced" compared to what? Your grammar is failing you.

Compared to what we would consider what is sophisticated and advanced. Is not these qualifications a subjective thing in itself as to what worldview you think qualifies as sophisticated and advanced.

For example we could say that Indigenous knowledge of nature abd medicines, plants and seasons and astronomy was advanced. Though they may not have approached this as we do today.

In fact we might say it more advanced and we have lost some of that knowledge and in some ways only rediscovering it through science which has taken centuries to replicate.

But this was seen up until recent times as primitive and still is in some ways because it also introduces a mystical element to the knowledge that connects this with the gods and spirits. A more holistic view of the world.

 

[stevevw]

Incorrect both Abu Rawash and the Great Pyramid have undergone stone looting and damage from antiquity until into the 20th century.
By the 18th century with the introduction of hardened tool steel by incorporating vanadium and tungsten into iron as an alloy, steel had become hard enough to readily cut granite.
On reflection the grooves in your image could have been done by chisels made of hardened tool steel instead of a diamond tipped circular saw but the point is they were not done in the 4th dynasty involving copper saws and abrasives.

Ok fair enough. At least this is acknowledging that there is a difference in the signatures and that copper saws could not have produced this. Some if not many don't even propose that these signatures may be modern marks. They blindly adhere that no matter how the signatures look they were made by primitive tools and manpower.

But still generally this arguement is fallacious in that it applies a braod cover that because there has been some damage that therefore the specific examples are the result of that modern damage. I and many others are not convinced.

You are agreeing with others that the signatures look modern. Its now a case of seeing whether these specific examples are actually caused by modern damage or tech.

One logical arguement though not specifically applied is that if we look at all these cuts including the finished works in the clear and straight lines of blocks laid and boxes made we begin to see these modern signatures everywhere. Which sort of lends support that this is not just later modern tech but was built into the works themselves.

For example the first exampple showing the flat and sharp cut at the top of the basalt block seems to match the sharp and flat cuts in the examples I gave into the rocks. If you times this by all the sharp, flat and straight lines sometimes to machine tech levels within 1,000th of an inch. You begin to build a case that this kind of signature is found in many places.

The precision cuts on the huge granite boxes at the Serapeum in Saqqara. Up to 100 tons of black granite with 10 foot long finely cut edges that are paralelle and 90 degree to all points within 1,000s of an inch. This reeks of modern levels of tech in cutting.

Which then puts into perspective any open cut we see like the original example of the basalt as being common feature of works from this time. This would be a natural and logical conclusion if seeing so many examples that look like the signatures of modern tech. Just as you concluded the example I gave was from modern tech.

As an exercise in AI, I asked GPT-5 to analyse the image and give a general time frame for when the grooves were produced.

Good this is the kind of investigation that can determine what caused the signatures and I am not disagreeing. In fact its because this approach has been taken that I think its worth persuing a little longer as it may help make my point about how we assume ancient knowledge to be primitive and that signatures that are modern looking are assumed to be just that and made later.

If we can show that these same signatures are found in many places in the earliest dynasties that appear like modern signatures then the idea of these precision machine like signatures being a later copy is proven wrong. Or at least brought into question.

As I mentioned many of these works themselves contain modern signatures. The same logic should apply. If we find the same sharp, straight, clean, and geometrically aligned signatures that would usually be achieved by modern tech then this is more evidence.

If it walks like a duck then chances are its a duck and not manpower and primitive tools mimicking modern tech. Like they just happened to end up with the exact signatures of what we would normally call modern tech but blindly pounding, cutting and rubbing. If it mimicks modern tech then its caused by something equivelant to modern tech.

Why are you assuming the groove was produced in situ? Clearly the block had some other purpose but the work was incomplete and the block ended up being used in the structure.

Ok so see how even such a small miscommunication can lead to misunderstandings. I did not know you thought the examples I gave could have been modern forgeries. Now we know and can deal with that and perhaps move on.

This I think is part of nutting out what is what. You seem to think I am not willing when I think its more about misunderstanding each other. Once we can establish a common ground then we can go from there as we have done and are doing.

The tell tale sign the groove was produced by a copper saw is its width caused by the abrasive slurry ending up on both sides of the copper saw.

How did the saw pass through the rock when its in a fixed position surrounded by rocks. If you noptice the rock with 3 cuts they are very straight and deep and stop suddenly. They don't pass all the way through. Yet the top of the cut is not deep which would be expected if a saw cut at an accute angle to go that far down the rock face.

In other words the cut is long and more or less the same depth from start to finish as though cut from above and into the rock. The other cut that goes across the rock but stops a mere inch from going right through and is very thin and has sharp unbroken or abrased edges. This looks like a classic machine cut.

Besides this as I said there are many signatures that look like machine cuts that lend support that these are more likely done with similar methods. The slab at Abu Sire I linked has an arc cut with a sharp thin lip that could not have been made by a copper saw nor was rubbed to look like an arc. It is the signature left from whatever cut into it.

Or this cut found on one of the large pink granite reliefs at Karnak Temple which in no way could be caused by a copper saw and abrasion as its so thin and sharp and even has a slight curve as though a jigsaw slightly goes off line.

Or this one from the same site which is not a crack but shows how fine some of these cuts are. I don't think they roughly cut granite and then spend months and years sanding the joints to paper thin perfection. Something has almost precisely cut this block on block.

Like I said when you begin to look these signatures are everywhere and cannot all be the result of the traditional tools or modern forgeries.

Or this one. What do you think cause this. These cuts as though a thin layer has been shaved off are all over boxes in the pyramids. This one is from the Kings chamber in the Giza pyramid.

They also seem to match the many examples of what also looks like thin and sharpe edged cuts on other works like the curved slab at Abu Sir with the thin sharp arc cut and the first example I showed of the basalt pavers.

These signatures are everywhere once you open up to the possibility. Just like you recognised that the example I gave looked modern and out of place. So do these with the same logic and it seems theres some at least that cannot have been modern forgeries as they are built into the artifact itself as part of its creation.

All I am doing is showing the out of place signatures. I am not proposing any method.

Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt​

There is evidence, too, in the Cairo Museum of clearly defined lathe tool marks on some "sarcophagi" lids. The Cairo Museum contains enough evidence that, when properly analyzed, will prove beyond all shadow of doubt that the ancient Egyptians used highly sophisticated manufacturing methods.

Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

The later grooves whether they were caused by hardened tool steel chisels or diamond tipped saws produce thinner, deeper, and better defined grooves.

Who says they are later though. First you suggested a general possibility that there are some modern reworkings. Now your claiming this applies to the specific examples for which you have offered no evidence that they are actually modern forgeries.

Throwing up other possibilities which debunk your ideas was the objective.

That seems illogical as it would also follow that it debunks any specific truth claim because of the fact there are more than one possibility. If this is what your aim was then we agree.

Because that is what I was also doing. That this has been made into some conspiracy for the simple fact of proposing other possibilities was not my doing. BUt one injected into this thread from the start by others who quickly jumped to claims that this was all conspiracy, aliens, about God ect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes and I have pointed this out several times. I did not introduce the conspiracy idea that this thread was about the usual back and forth arguements on specific examples. As you said I have been there and done that.

"Lost ancient civilizations" is not a conspiracy. It is a myth. No conspiracies here.

Unfortunately it became about specific examples again and I bought into it again. I was hoping to avoid this as I know now where this always ends up with endless disagreements about how we see the evidence.

Don't make ridiculous claims about pyramids of Egypt and it likely won't happen.

I thought perhaps allowing this to play out I could perhaps show one specific example to then open the door to the arguement that knowldge is not necessarily an evolution from simple to complex and that there could have been knowledge just as advanced in different ways.

So if anything after several attempts I know better now. In some way this supports exactly what I am saying. That there is never a resolyion to how each side sees things.

Are you sure you know better?

That this is really about different metaphysical worldviews in how we see the observations and data. One side wants to contain this within a material worldview where only certyain kinds of evidence count. The other takes a more expansive view that goes beyiond the orthodox view.

So really though side tracked it is still beneficial in that it is supporting the OP in practical reality of how once again these kinds of threads get bogged down in semantics, methodology, epistemics and metaphsyics. Rather than the pure science.

None of this has anything to do with "metaphysics" or "worldviews". You are literally the only person who mentions this out of the blue for no apparent reason.

Compared to what we would consider what is sophisticated and advanced. Is not these qualifications a subjective thing in itself as to what worldview you think qualifies as sophisticated and advanced.

For example we could say that Indigenous knowledge of nature abd medicines, plants and seasons and astronomy was advanced. Though they may not have approached this as we do today.

In fact we might say it more advanced and we have lost some of that knowledge and in some ways only rediscovering it through science which has taken centuries to replicate.

But this was seen up until recent times as primitive and still is in some ways because it also introduces a mystical element to the knowledge that connects this with the gods and spirits. A more holistic view of the world.

Sigh.

 

[Ophiolite]

But I have provided evidence. You just disagree with it. Don't mistake disagreeing and providing alternative possibilities with your take on what the evidence represents as not providing evidence.

No. I have rejected it, something you recognise later.

You have engaged in that evidence when you give explanations for how the signatures are caused by the traditional tools. All arguements and evidence sought is to support this view of the signatures

I haven't given any explanations for tool signature. This is at least the third instance in which you have claimed I had said certain things that I had not. I appreciate that you are conducting lengthy exchanges with several members, but repeated errors of this kind are sloppy.

You seem to be relegating the alternative evidence and arguements as not even evidence and arguements because they don't meet your preconcieved ideas of what that evidence is

No. They don't meet well established ideas of what evidence is.

Excutive Summary

The problem is two distinct epistemologies.

• I support the scientifc method, in its current expression, which has a superlative track record of investigating the natural world.
• You support an ill defined method that produces almost no positive results and lacks the ability, or willingness to self-criticise.

Merci beaucoup, c'est finis.

 

[sjastro]

Ok fair enough. At least this is acknowledging that there is a difference in the signatures and that copper saws could not have produced this. Some if not many don't even propose that these signatures may be modern marks. They blindly adhere that no matter how the signatures look they were made by primitive tools and manpower.

But still generally this arguement is fallacious in that it applies a braod cover that because there has been some damage that therefore the specific examples are the result of that modern damage. I and many others are not convinced.

You are agreeing with others that the signatures look modern. Its now a case of seeing whether these specific examples are actually caused by modern damage or tech.

One logical arguement though not specifically applied is that if we look at all these cuts including the finished works in the clear and straight lines of blocks laid and boxes made we begin to see these modern signatures everywhere. Which sort of lends support that this is not just later modern tech but was built into the works themselves.

For example the first exampple showing the flat and sharp cut at the top of the basalt block seems to match the sharp and flat cuts in the examples I gave into the rocks. If you times this by all the sharp, flat and straight lines sometimes to machine tech levels within 1,000th of an inch. You begin to build a case that this kind of signature is found in many places.

The precision cuts on the huge granite boxes at the Serapeum in Saqqara. Up to 100 tons of black granite with 10 foot long finely cut edges that are paralelle and 90 degree to all points within 1,000s of an inch. This reeks of modern levels of tech in cutting.

Which then puts into perspective any open cut we see like the original example of the basalt as being common feature of works from this time. This would be a natural and logical conclusion if seeing so many examples that look like the signatures of modern tech. Just as you concluded the example I gave was from modern tech.

Good this is the kind of investigation that can determine what caused the signatures and I am not disagreeing. In fact its because this approach has been taken that I think its worth persuing a little longer as it may help make my point about how we assume ancient knowledge to be primitive and that signatures that are modern looking are assumed to be just that and made later.

If we can show that these same signatures are found in many places in the earliest dynasties that appear like modern signatures then the idea of these precision machine like signatures being a later copy is proven wrong. Or at least brought into question.

As I mentioned many of these works themselves contain modern signatures. The same logic should apply. If we find the same sharp, straight, clean, and geometrically aligned signatures that would usually be achieved by modern tech then this is more evidence.

If it walks like a duck then chances are its a duck and not manpower and primitive tools mimicking modern tech. Like they just happened to end up with the exact signatures of what we would normally call modern tech but blindly pounding, cutting and rubbing. If it mimicks modern tech then its caused by something equivelant to modern tech.

Ok so see how even such a small miscommunication can lead to misunderstandings. I did not know you thought the examples I gave could have been modern forgeries. Now we know and can deal with that and perhaps move on.

This I think is part of nutting out what is what. You seem to think I am not willing when I think its more about misunderstanding each other. Once we can establish a common ground then we can go from there as we have done and are doing.

How did the saw pass through the rock when its in a fixed position surrounded by rocks. If you noptice the rock with 3 cuts they are very straight and deep and stop suddenly. They don't pass all the way through. Yet the top of the cut is not deep which would be expected if a saw cut at an accute angle to go that far down the rock face.

In other words the cut is long and more or less the same depth from start to finish as though cut from above and into the rock. The other cut that goes across the rock but stops a mere inch from going right through and is very thin and has sharp unbroken or abrased edges. This looks like a classic machine cut.

View attachment 369366

Besides this as I said there are many signatures that look like machine cuts that lend support that these are more likely done with similar methods. The slab at Abu Sire I linked has an arc cut with a sharp thin lip that could not have been made by a copper saw nor was rubbed to look like an arc. It is the signature left from whatever cut into it.

Or this cut found on one of the large pink granite reliefs at Karnak Temple which in no way could be caused by a copper saw and abrasion as its so thin and sharp and even has a slight curve as though a jigsaw slightly goes off line.

View attachment 369367

Or this one from the same site which is not a crack but shows how fine some of these cuts are. I don't think they roughly cut granite and then spend months and years sanding the joints to paper thin perfection. Something has almost precisely cut this block on block.

Like I said when you begin to look these signatures are everywhere and cannot all be the result of the traditional tools or modern forgeries.

View attachment 369369

Or this one. What do you think cause this. These cuts as though a thin layer has been shaved off are all over boxes in the pyramids. This one is from the Kings chamber in the Giza pyramid.

They also seem to match the many examples of what also looks like thin and sharpe edged cuts on other works like the curved slab at Abu Sir with the thin sharp arc cut and the first example I showed of the basalt pavers.

These signatures are everywhere once you open up to the possibility. Just like you recognised that the example I gave looked modern and out of place. So do these with the same logic and it seems theres some at least that cannot have been modern forgeries as they are built into the artifact itself as part of its creation.

All I am doing is showing the out of place signatures. I am not proposing any method.

View attachment 369371 View attachment 369372

Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt​

There is evidence, too, in the Cairo Museum of clearly defined lathe tool marks on some "sarcophagi" lids. The Cairo Museum contains enough evidence that, when properly analyzed, will prove beyond all shadow of doubt that the ancient Egyptians used highly sophisticated manufacturing methods.

Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

Who says they are later though. First you suggested a general possibility that there are some modern reworkings. Now your claiming this applies to the specific examples for which you have offered no evidence that they are actually modern forgeries.

That seems illogical as it would also follow that it debunks any specific truth claim because of the fact there are more than one possibility. If this is what your aim was then we agree.

Because that is what I was also doing. That this has been made into some conspiracy for the simple fact of proposing other possibilities was not my doing. BUt one injected into this thread from the start by others who quickly jumped to claims that this was all conspiracy, aliens, about God ect.

Let me be perfectly candid, you either have an appalling lack of basic comprehension skills or disrespect posters by ignoring their comments and turning them into fabrications for you to criticize.
I am going to largely ignore your long rambling post and hopefully get through your thick skull the points I made instead of wasting my time responding to your nonsensical interpretations, irrespective of whether they are deliberate or unintentional.

Here are two images again for your reference.

What do you immediately notice, unless you are completely deluded comparing the grooves in each image is like comparing chalk and cheese.
If the groove formation in both images is supposed to be contemporary you would expect either abrasion cutting using copper and grit or your mysterious unknown technology.
They are clearly not the same and given the site has long history after the 4th dynasty of rock quarrying and site damage up to the 20th century, the grooves in the first image were formed long after the 4th dynasty when steel became sufficiently hard to cut through granite without abrasives which is from the 18th century. This explains why the grooves are deeper and sharper the result of a quarrying technique known as plug and feather as described in post #180.
This has absolutely nothing to do with your nonsense involving forgeries.

Then there is your disbelief of how the groove in the second image was produced given the neighbouring blocks were in the way preventing the use of a saw.
Good grief was my explanation too complicated for your understanding, the block was worked on before it was assembled in place. Clearly this work was incomplete as the groove serves no useful purpose so the block was used as part of the general construction.

Don’t bother responding if you going to serve up another nonsensical rambling post.

 

[sjastro]

One of @stevevw's many many many images in the thread is this one.

What struck me was the well defined vertical cut forming a near right angle with what looks suspiciously like the early stages of a copper and abrasive horizontal cut line (note the large cut width which is a characteristic of abrasion cutting).
This indicates the vertical and horizontal cuts were done in distinctly different time frames.

Yet another one of my AI exercises was to ask GPT-5 to analyse the image, the only information I gave it was look for discrepancies and the material was either granite or limestone.
I was pleasantly surprised with the answer, it came to the same conclusion but with more information than I had envisioned.

Yes — there are several unusual aspects worth pointing out in this image:

1. The Vertical Groove​

• The deep, straight, narrow cut running vertically looks too clean and uniform to be the result of pounding stones or early copper saws with abrasive.
• It has the sharp parallel sides and straight trajectory more consistent with an iron/steel chisel or saw used in the later periods (Roman, Medieval, or even modern interventions).
• Ancient Egyptian abrasive saw kerfs are usually wider and more U-shaped, not tight and straight like this.

2. The Horizontal Groove​

• The shallower horizontal groove below looks more like an abrasive cut (copper saw + sand): wide, shallow, and rounded inside.
• The two intersecting marks (vertical vs. horizontal) suggest they were made at different times with different tools.

3. Surface Damage Around the Mark​

• Notice how the stone’s surface surrounding the vertical groove looks splintered and fractured in a way consistent with metal wedge or chisel insertion, not with ancient smoothing or polishing.
• That’s unusual if we expect this to be an “original” Old Kingdom working mark.

4. Painted Markings​

• There seems to be a faint red painted line or symbol on the right, over the granite surface. Egyptians often used red ochre or black ink to guide stone cutting. However, the fact it’s so close to the vertical groove raises the possibility that someone later marked the stone for re-cutting or documentation.

---

Summary of Unusual Features:

• The vertical groove is too sharp and narrow → likely later iron/steel toolwork, not Old Kingdom.
• The horizontal groove is wider and shallower → consistent with ancient abrasive saw kerf.
• The combination on the same block suggests this stone has been worked in multiple historical phases, possibly:
  • Old Kingdom (horizontal saw mark),
  • Later quarrying/stone-robbing phase (vertical iron/steel tool mark).

Would you like me to annotate this image with arrows and short labels (e.g. “later iron tool cut” vs. “ancient abrasive kerf”) so you can visually separate the phases of working?

 

[stevevw]

"Lost ancient civilizations" is not a conspiracy. It is a myth. No conspiracies here.

Whatever you want to call it. As soon as I opened the thread it was relegated to that basket of conspiracy or myth.

Don't make ridiculous claims about pyramids of Egypt and it likely won't happen.

Give me a break. This was inject3ed from the first post before any of that was mentioned. The only time I mentioned pyramids as something to do with energy was a few pages back. But many including yourself had relegated this thread as conspiracy and whacko status well before that.

Even now you continue in conflating my reference to Dunn as whacko. When this was supported by the science. You still ignore this and persist with the whacko status. An obvious misrepresentation abd attempt to derail things. Only proving my point.

Are you sure you know better?

Yes I have gained good info from how once again the same derailment has happened. This has given good insight into how this issue is not about facts or the science but an ideological belief that will persist no matter what and bias how people see the evidence.

None of this has anything to do with "metaphysics" or "worldviews". You are literally the only person who mentions this out of the blue for no apparent reason.

Sigh.

Hum your first post you introduced the Creationist narrative. You bought into the metaphysics and worldviews when you made it about creationists.

But thats ok because fundementally it is about the different worldview in how we see human history which is basically about metaphysics. Whether our history is all within the material science explanations or something beyond as well.

 

[stevevw]

One of @stevevw's many many many images in the thread is this one.

View attachment 369394

What struck me was the well defined vertical cut forming a near right angle with what looks suspiciously like the early stages of a copper and abrasive horizontal cut line (note the large cut width which is a characteristic of abrasion cutting).
This indicates the vertical and horizontal cuts were done in distinctly different time frames.

lol, the horizontal impressions are not cuts or attemp at cuts. Like I said this fine cut in on a giant relief imbedded in it at Karnak.

This is the relief or rather the face of an obelisk which I pointed out when I first posted this pic with an image. Notice the giant image. The bit you refer to is the outer framing and artwork of the relief.

The thick line you think is a saw cut is actually part of the artwork, a border and the vertical line that runds with the cut is some sort of spear of fancy border as well.

There is another cut to the side of the same section as though the entire edge was to be removed to shape the obelisk.

Yet another one of my AI exercises was to ask GPT-5 to analyse the image, the only information I gave it was look for discrepancies and the material was either granite or limestone.
I was pleasantly surprised with the answer, it came to the same conclusion but with more information than I had envisioned.

Well looks like your Ai cannot destinguish the difference between a clear cut with art work.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hum your first post you introduced the Creationist narrative. You bought into the metaphysics and worldviews when you made it about creationists.

First -- Creationism is religion, not metaphysics.

Second -- Perhaps you didn't read it clearly , but when you had said the mainstream narrative was 5-6000 years ago for "civilization" I corrected you that 5-6000 years old is a creationist narrative because 5-6000 years ago was NOT the main stream narrative. Not in the 20th century. When I learned world history 40 years ago in school the "dawn of civilization" was the first agriculture in the Fertile Crescent TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

To repeat (and apparently I must), 6000 years ago for civilization is NOT the mainstream narrative nor has it been, but it IS the CREATIONIST narrative which you seemed to have confused the numbers from for the mainstream one.

 

[stevevw]

No. I have rejected it, something you recognise later.

Yes you reject it and I am rejecting or rather questioning your rejection. Thats how it works. Just because you reject this does not equate that your rejection is justified according to the evidence. You have to then support that rejection with evidence.

I am presenting some 'out of place' examples and so far you have not explained how this could have been done with the primitive tools found in the records that are claimed to have created these signatures.

This is part of supporting the idea that knowledge and advanced tech is not necessarily a gradual progression from primitive to modern. That it can rise and fall, come and go and that there may have been far more advanced peoples than we giove credit for.

I haven't given any explanations for tool signature. This is at least the third instance in which you have claimed I had said certain things that I had not. I appreciate that you are conducting lengthy exchanges with several members, but repeated errors of this kind are sloppy.

OK sorry, it may have been someone else. I neglected to check. Yes I am talking to a few people lol.

After checking I can see the problem I think. Yes you have not provided any explanation for the tool signatures. But you have stipulated what kind of evidence we should be using. That is the problem I am talking about.

As I said the very nature of questioning the orthodoxy makes it a fringe endeavor and there is little to find as far as what I have linked so far. What I cannot understand is why you and I or anyone cannot in the first instance make arguements for what these signatures represent.

You don't have to be a rocket scientiosts or have peer reviewed support to know the impossibility of some of these signatures due to restrictions in using a hand saw. But I agree that going into more detail for some of the more questionable examples is probably needed to clearly tell one way or another.

But I hesitate as really this is not what the thread is about. I only thought going into a couple of examples may be enough to at least allow people to see that there is some truth to a higher degree of advanced knowleged in the past than we thought. Even on par with todays level of knowledge or surpassing it.

But it looks like now that the thread has side tracked into proving specific cases to convince people is inevitable. But even then I still don't think anyone will change their view because fundementally this is about ones worldview beliefs.

No. They don't meet well established ideas of what evidence is.

Excutive Summary

The problem is two distinct epistemologies.

• I support the scientifc method, in its current expression, which has a superlative track record of investigating the natural world.
• You support an ill defined method that produces almost no positive results and lacks the ability, or willingness to self-criticise.

Merci beaucoup, c'est finis.

And thank you. Though not finished lol.

I think its a false representation of the epistemology. That you have restricted it to either the scientific method and all else is classed as unreal or false or make believe is the issue.

I mentioned Indigenous knowledge which was relegated as the unreal and superstition. Only to be later found to be actually more knowledgable than the current science. Almost a natural and spiritual way of existence with nature.

A deeper knowledge of reality that did not just involve empircile sciences. But that the material science in insisting on a particular methodology dismissed as unreal and outdated.

The problem is the dogma of forcing a particular way to know our history through scientific naturalism. Which fundementally is a metaphysical belief in how the world is and not science itself when its forcing others to conform to such a criteria while relegating all other ways of knowing as unreal or superstition.

It may be that these ancient peoples had a high level of knowledge about nature, manipulating nature even surpassing all the decades of research science has made to only just begin to understand.

But because these ancient people are suppose to be primitive, have less knowledge than today everything is put into the conspiracy basket. These ancients could not possibly have advance knowledge and tech greater than today. We are suppose to be more advanced.

 

[AV1611VET]

First -- Creationism is religion, not metaphysics.

Either that, or it's history.

 

[sjastro]

lol, the horizontal impressions are not cuts or attemp at cuts. Like I said this fine cut in on a giant relief imbedded in it at Karnak.

This is the relief or rather the face of an obelisk which I pointed out when I first posted this pic with an image. Notice the giant image. The bit you refer to is the outer framing and artwork of the relief.

The thick line you think is a saw cut is actually part of the artwork, a border and the vertical line that runds with the cut is some sort of spear of fancy border as well.


View attachment 369395 View attachment 369399

There is another cut to the side of the same section as though the entire edge was to be removed to shape the obelisk.

View attachment 369401

Well looks like your Ai cannot destinguish the difference between a clear cut with art work.

I note your critical thinking skills have let you down again.
We have now fast forward to the 18th dynasty 1000 years after the Great Pyramid into Egypt's Bronze Age where far more bronze tools have survived than copper such as bronze axes.
While bronze is harder than copper, a bronze axe will not cut into granite and bronze saws still required the use of abrasives.
The question still stands how did the Egyptians make such fine cuts?

Even if the horizontal feature is not the result of a copper saw and abrasion cut but an artistic relief it doesn't solve your dilemma but makes it worse.
The image I presented clearly shows the vertical slit passing through the relief in the bottom left hand corner. It means the vertical slit came well after the relief when steel was hard enough to cut into granite without the aid of abrasives to produce fine slits.
Also the slit does not add to the artistic representation but a defacement of the obelisk.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think its a false representation of the epistemology. That you have restricted it to either the scientific method and all else is classed as unreal or false or make believe is the issue.

No. Read my lips. The scientific method has an outstanding record of success. The "alternative" approach does not. It is, unfortunately real, but has a woeful record of success and practitioners who are wholly unable to critique their own position. As evidence for the latter I submit your numerous posts in this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientific method has an outstanding record of success.

From amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?

Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

 

[stevevw]

I note your critical thinking skills have let you down again.
We have now fast forward to the 18th dynasty 1000 years after the Great Pyramid into Egypt's Bronze Age where far more bronze tools have survived than copper such as bronze axes.
While bronze is harder than copper, a bronze axe will not cut into granite and bronze saws still required the use of abrasives.
The question still stands how did the Egyptians make such fine cuts?

Don't get me wrong. I am not implying any specific method. Just what could have caused the signature. This is good that we are going back and forth and narrowing down what this could be.

As a counter to this theres a couple issues. First it is well known that Karnak has been used by a number of pharoahs and that Ramese II has usurped much of the works from other times. Second we actually have evidence of earlier pharoahs work from the old Kingdom in Karnak being reused by later pharoahs.

We even have Roman works added to the site in sandstone pillars which contrast with the pink granite pillars which seem to match the signatures of the old kingdom work which shows two destinct levels of works from different times on the same site.

These Alabasta bases are found under the foundations of later pillars which trace back to the old kingdom. We know this because one was reused as some sort of offering table with the 4th dynastry priest Rah Wer engraved on it.

So there is old kingdom works that were originally there and build around, added to or reused. As the obeliske is made of pink granite which matches other pink granite works from the old kingdom dynasties including the cuts on them it may be from that time period.

So a case can be made just as a case may be made that its a later work or a forgery. But I like that we are going back and forth to find out lol because I would like to know.

But just stepping back and seeing what looks like two destinct type of works where the earliest works seem to be more precise and in the hardest stone . Compared to later works which are in softer stone and less precise and quality.

For example at Luxor we see the new kingdom sandstone pillars which are made in sections next to the single piece calved pink granite pillars which are much more precise and sophisticated. As though later kings were trying to copy these early granite pillars. Rameses has stamped his name on them.

Yet their signature traces back to the earliest dynasties where solid one piece granite pillars were common and originated such as from Giza and Saqqara. Such as this one in the Cairo and British museum.

Even if the horizontal feature is not the result of a copper saw and abrasion cut but an artistic relief it doesn't solve your dilemma but makes it worse.
The image I presented clearly shows the vertical slit passing through the relief in the bottom left hand corner. It means the vertical slit came well after the relief when steel was hard enough to cut into granite without the aid of abrasives to produce fine slits.

What verticle slit do you mean. There is only a horizontal one running from about 2 inches from the ground up the relief for about 10 feet and then stops. Theres another fine cut to the side of the same face. All the other marks or lines, some quite thick are the outlines of the artwork of the relief.

The cut could have been made anytime after the relief. One explanation is that the fine cut is an overcut where the material has been removed to leave an overcut that went deeper than needed. If you notice the line continuing from the cut but has not actually cut in. So the saw has gone deeper along that line. You can see a small overcut around a meter above where it went in deep.

Also the slit does not add to the artistic representation but a defacement of the obelisk.

I don't know. I have not seen any claims for this with evidence. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. I guess further investigation is needed. But there are dozens like this. Are you saying they must all be later additions.

Like I said we see this same sharp and narrow cuts in the block work itself. In fact we see these over cuts that seem to dig in or go deeper than intended on the finely polished statues. For example those at the Cairo museum show overcuts along the side and under the arms which look similar to the overcuts on the obelisk going in and out again.

 

[stevevw]

No. Read my lips. The scientific method has an outstanding record of success. The "alternative" approach does not. It is, unfortunately real, but has a woeful record of success and practitioners who are wholly unable to critique their own position. As evidence for the latter I submit your numerous posts in this thread.

I think this is creating an either and or ie science is outstanding and any alternative is woeful. Whereas I think its not so black and white. For example science cannot tell us about conscious experiences. Sometimes a conscious belief that persists even despite the empiricle evidence is real.

It may be empiricle science is describing some superficial dimension of something deeper. For example science cannot explain belief or conscious experience. Science can be used to completely refute God and belief as unreal and a by product of the naturalistic processes.

Science can tell us all the data of what happens during conscious experiences such as brain activity and claim consciousness is just a byproduct of the physical brain, an epiphenomena. .

Yet it could well be that there is a God reality and consciousness goes beyond the brain yielding some deeper knowledge of reality that science cannot measure.

Its the use of science to extinguish these other possible ways of knowing reality that is the issue ie there is no God or consciousness beyond brain that yeilds deeper knowledge and only the empiricle evidence can determine the truth or reality.

Not that science is not good at accounting for the limited aspect of reality which are within the empiricle naturalistic realm. But that its applied dogmatically to everything over other ways of knowing reality. Thus deminishing or denying them altogether.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think this is creating an either and or ie science is outstanding and any alternative is woeful. Whereas I think its not so black and white. For example science cannot tell us about conscious experiences. Sometimes a conscious belief that persists even despite the empiricle evidence is real.

It may be empiricle science is describing some superficial dimension of something deeper. For example science cannot explain belief or conscious experience. Science can be used to completely refute God and belief as unreal and a by product of the naturalistic processes.

Is that what this is all about?

You think science has or can refute God and you don't want to give that power to science, so you challenge its applicational exclusivity here? Is that why you keep talking about worldviews and metaphysics at seeming randomness in a thread about the evidence for ancient civilizations?

The person who challenges with the most specificity your detailed claims about Egyptian stone work believes in the same god you do. The same is true of some others who have participated in threads like this one and disagreed with you. Others of us used to believe it. The only thing about our views of Egyptology that is even remotely tied to that religion is how we interpret Exodus and that has nothing to do with Egyptian stone working.

The space your sources for this thread and related others have is "advanced ancient civilizations" which isn't necessarily a supernatural claim. For all we know every last one of the sources you cite are from hard-bitten, church-hating atheists. I've seen a lot of their content and for ones like Dunn et al. it is about ancient/lost technologies. Other creators in that space talk of aliens and unknown physics, while another group of them talk about mysticism and spirituality aspects of "lost knowledge".

Ancient rock machining techniques is a naturalistic claim and the proper methodology for examining naturalistic claims is-- science.

Science can tell us all the data of what happens during conscious experiences such as brain activity and claim consciousness is just a byproduct of the physical brain, an epiphenomena. .

Yet it could well be that there is a God reality and consciousness goes beyond the brain yielding some deeper knowledge of reality that science cannot measure.

Its the use of science to extinguish these other possible ways of knowing reality that is the issue ie there is no God or consciousness beyond brain that yeilds deeper knowledge and only the empiricle evidence can determine the truth or reality.

Not that science is not good at accounting for the limited aspect of reality which are within the empiricle naturalistic realm. But that its applied dogmatically to everything over other ways of knowing reality. Thus deminishing or denying them altogether.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not that science is not good at accounting for the limited aspect of reality which are within the empiricle naturalistic realm. But that its applied dogmatically to everything over other ways of knowing reality. Thus deminishing or denying them altogether.

Because it works.

I think this is creating an either and or ie science is outstanding and any alternative is woeful.

That is what the evidence shows. Until the evidence shows something different that is the logical and objective position to take.

For example science cannot tell us about conscious experiences. Sometimes a conscious belief that persists even despite the empiricle evidence is real.

Nonsense. We know that humans delude themselves to protect themselves from unpleasant truths. I would argue it does not even need science to recognise that, though science can quantify and detail the process.

It may be empiricle science is describing some superficial dimension of something deeper.

Word salad. New Age mumbo-jumbo. That kind of sentence is exactly why your approach is rejected. It is vacuous.

For example science cannot explain belief or conscious experience.

See above for belief. I do not deny (and the hundreds of researchers into consciousness would not deny) that we do not yet have a firm grip on consciousness. If we did, we wouldn't need the research. Science only continues because there are unknowns. It is funded to shine a light on those unknowns because it works. If word salad, and New Age nonsense, and conspiracy theories, and "alternative thinking" worked, they would get funded too.

 

[sjastro]

Don't get me wrong. I am not implying any specific method. Just what could have caused the signature. This is good that we are going back and forth and narrowing down what this could be.

As a counter to this theres a couple issues. First it is well known that Karnak has been used by a number of pharoahs and that Ramese II has usurped much of the works from other times. Second we actually have evidence of earlier pharoahs work from the old Kingdom in Karnak being reused by later pharoahs.

We even have Roman works added to the site in sandstone pillars which contrast with the pink granite pillars which seem to match the signatures of the old kingdom work which shows two destinct levels of works from different times on the same site.

These Alabasta bases are found under the foundations of later pillars which trace back to the old kingdom. We know this because one was reused as some sort of offering table with the 4th dynastry priest Rah Wer engraved on it.

View attachment 369412
View attachment 369414

So there is old kingdom works that were originally there and build around, added to or reused. As the obeliske is made of pink granite which matches other pink granite works from the old kingdom dynasties including the cuts on them it may be from that time period.

So a case can be made just as a case may be made that its a later work or a forgery. But I like that we are going back and forth to find out lol because I would like to know.

But just stepping back and seeing what looks like two destinct type of works where the earliest works seem to be more precise and in the hardest stone . Compared to later works which are in softer stone and less precise and quality.

For example at Luxor we see the new kingdom sandstone pillars which are made in sections next to the single piece calved pink granite pillars which are much more precise and sophisticated. As though later kings were trying to copy these early granite pillars. Rameses has stamped his name on them.

View attachment 369415

Yet their signature traces back to the earliest dynasties where solid one piece granite pillars were common and originated such as from Giza and Saqqara. Such as this one in the Cairo and British museum.

View attachment 369416 View attachment 369417

The ruins of the Karnak religious complex is from the New Kingdom and beyond into Roman times. There are no Old Kingdom ruins standing today.
The architectural style and more importantly the religion of the New Kingdom has shaped what is found at Karnak today.

In the Old Kingdom, Amun was a local god of southern Egypt and the religious centres were in the north such as Heliopolis and Memphis where the major gods were Ra, Osiris and Ptah.
Amun became the principal god of Egypt by the time of the New Kingdom and the Karnak religious complex was a dedication to him.
Using your example of the obelisk highlights the architectural differences between the Old and New Kingdoms. Obelisks from the Old Kingdom were smaller, less decorated and made from limestone instead of granite. These obelisks are not found at Karnak.
So if the pharaohs from the 19th dynasty and beyond were forging their name on monuments it was on New Kingdom constructions.

Needless to say none of this addresses nor supports the idea of the Egyptians using some superior technology.

What verticle slit do you mean. There is only a horizontal one running from about 2 inches from the ground up the relief for about 10 feet and then stops. Theres another fine cut to the side of the same face. All the other marks or lines, some quite thick are the outlines of the artwork of the relief.


The cut could have been made anytime after the relief. One explanation is that the fine cut is an overcut where the material has been removed to leave an overcut that went deeper than needed. If you notice the line continuing from the cut but has not actually cut in. So the saw has gone deeper along that line. You can see a small overcut around a meter above where it went in deep.


View attachment 369422

I don't know. I have not seen any claims for this with evidence. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. I guess further investigation is needed. But there are dozens like this. Are you saying they must all be later additions.

Like I said we see this same sharp and narrow cuts in the block work itself. In fact we see these over cuts that seem to dig in or go deeper than intended on the finely polished statues. For example those at the Cairo museum show overcuts along the side and under the arms which look similar to the overcuts on the obelisk going in and out again.

View attachment 369423

Here is the area of interest as circled.

The slit was created after the relief, if you want to believe this is an overcut and part of the artistic rendition dream on, in the real world it is an act of vandalism performed at a much later date when it was possible to make sharp cuts.