There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

You 100% know what I'm talking about. It's the same claim you made on the Egyptian technology thread.

No I honestly don't know. You will have to tell me. I don't think you know lol. I think you have created this conspiracy as a strawman to argue against.

No, what's questionable is that you think that your claims are simply the be-all-end-all of anything regarding ancient tech and that you think that we shouldn't question you when we point out that you have no evidence except claims and incredulity from you.

No I resist the fallacies that try to misrepresent what I have said. I have simply highlighted the factual evidence in the signatures on the ground that show the orthodox or traditional methods did not create them. This is science as its about reverse engineering the marks in stone as to what could have made them.

We have done the experiences and shown that the traditional tools and methods not only cannot achieve this but leave completely different signatures.

This is science and not conspiracy.

The only aspect of spectulation and I have qualified it as spectulation is possible explanations for how these signatures could be achieved. I have never said that they had the same modern tech as today.

The only idea I have suggested is stone softening as this would then explain how even conventional tools could achieve such signatures as the material is no longer hard and is pliable. There is some evidence for this. But its spectualtion at this point.

I have mentioned the evidence on electromagnetism as this is part of the examples of possible ancient advanced knowledge. These are all factual in that the scientific evidence supports their existence. Its all spectualtion as to how it was done or used.

I don't need to spectulate how or why as just their existence at a time when this should not be is the evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I honestly don't know. You will have to tell me. I don't think you know lol. I think you have created this conspiracy as a strawman to argue against.

No I resist the fallacies that try to misrepresent what I have said. I have simply highlighted the factual evidence in the signatures on the ground that show the orthodox or traditional methods did not create them. This is science as its about reverse engineering the marks in stone as to what could have made them.

We have done the experiences and shown that the traditional tools and methods not only cannot achieve this but leave completely different signatures.

This is science and not conspiracy.

The only aspect of spectulation and I have qualified it as spectulation is possible explanations for how these signatures could be achieved. I have never said that they had the same modern tech as today.

The only idea I have suggested is stone softening as this would then explain how even conventional tools could achieve such signatures as the material is no longer hard and is pliable. There is some evidence for this. But its spectualtion at this point.

I have mentioned the evidence on electromagnetism as this is part of the examples of possible ancient advanced knowledge. These are all factual in that the scientific evidence supports their existence. Its all spectualtion as to how it was done or used.

I don't need to spectulate how or why as just their existence at a time when this should not be is the evidence.

You claim that the ancient Egyptians and Incas could not have used simple the stone masonry tools they had. That is your claim, and you cherry pick and ignore evidence that shows that they easily could have because you own incredulity does not allow you to even imagine it being possible. You made the claim on your Egyptian technology thread and you're still doing it now, and you've ignored all the evidence that shows you're wrong.

All you have is poor speculation, cherry-picked evidence and claims a plenty... but ZERO evidence to support anything you've said. Just saying "Oh, it looks exactly like modern tooling, ergo they couldn't have used ancient tools!" is not evidence nor even a good basis for evidence. It's just a claim from you and nothing more.

 

[stevevw]

Oh you didn't say anything about electronic tools, but when you use the word 'modern', then I and others have no other reason to not assume that you're talking about electronic tools.

But I don't just say 'modern' on its own. I will usually qualify this as "like modern machining or CNC". You take that to mean that I am actually equating it to be the modern machines and computers we have today.

I have even specifically stated this. That it would be silly to say there was actually modern machinary like today as it would be everywhere by the amount of out of place signatures. I have clarided this adequate enough for you to know that is not what I meant.

So look up traditional stone masonry then. Look up how they do things without modern tools. It can be done, easily and handily, especially when a person's entire job is simply to cut stone into shapes for a living.

Stone masons themselves say its impossible. We are not talking about the ability of the craftmanship of the stone mason within the limits of the tools he is using. Obviously they cannot do it by bear hands as with say clay pottery. So tools make the difference.

So its not all just stone masons hands but tools. Modern stone masons use grinders and produce beautiful vases. Though not precise. Lathing takes it to another level that stone masonary cannot achieve with just copper chisels, pounders and rubbing.

The Egyptians proved this with the Bore Stick which is sort of like a lathe. They did not grind and rub vases into circular shapes and the better the whel or lathe the better the end product.

Most people on this thread naturally assumed high symmetry and circularity to be the product of a lathe. So if there is no lathe and there is high symmetry and circularity then the question comes up. How did they achieve what is the product of lathing and pretty good lathing when there was no lathe. How did they achieve these arc cuts and smooth finishes that look like modern signatures and not grinding or abrasion.

You want to be a skeptic, that's fine, but actually make the attempt to learn the basics about what you're skeptical about first. Otherwise you look like a fool.

Do you think I have not researched this. Part of the investigation is the evidence for what is currently the consensus. What actual tools were found, and what methods are said to be used. You can't compare the out of place signatures unless you know what the tradional methods and narrative are.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But I don't just say 'modern' on its own. I will usually qualify this as "like modern machining or CNC". You take that to mean that I am actually equating it to be the modern machines and computers we have today.

I have even specifically stated this. That it would be silly to say there was actually modern machinary like today as it would be everywhere by the amount of out of place signatures. I have clarided this adequate enough for you to know that is not what I meant.

Then stop using the word 'modern' then.

Stone masons themselves say its impossible.

Evidence? Quote someone then.

Do you think I have not researched this?

Yes, I very much doubt that you have. You just claiming that they are out of place is not evidence for them being out of place nor evidence for anything else, except for showing your own personal incredulity on the matter.

 

[stevevw]

You claim that the ancient Egyptians and Incas could not have used simple the stone masonry tools they had. That is your claim, and you cherry pick and ignore evidence that shows that they easily could have because you own incredulity does not allow you to even imagine it being possible.

This is a braod claim and assumption. You offer no evidence. I am open to the use of simple tools but not just because someone says so because that was the orthodoxy. Thats not good science. Especially if part of the investigation brings up out of place evidence. Likewise you should not just dismiss it as conspiracy and providence an explanation and evidence for why it is not out of place.

Sometimes the evidence or witness marks are just too strong to even think that traditional methods could have made them. There is just no possible way and the marks directly show another method. Like the sharp cuts I linked in images. Its not a case that somehow they used copper hand saws. As eventually they could.

Its that the witness marks look nothing like a copper saw and abrasion that grinds out the stone. But thin sharp faces, edges and cuts that are more like modern day signatures. Yet without the modern tech. This is the mystery.

You explain to me why these witness marks are more like copper hand saws and grinding abrasion then like machine cuts. How and why would they even bother to grind and rub a slab to have a thin lip in the shape of an arc. The lip much finer than any copper saw. Let alone the fact that grinding and abrasion never leaves such a fine sharp edge.

This is not conspiracy. These are real witness marks in the stones that even some on this site acknowledge they are real when they said they must be forgeries from modern times. All I am doing is saying they may not be forgeries from modern times and therefore out of place.

You made the claim on your Egyptian technology thread and you're still doing it now, and you've ignored all the evidence that shows you're wrong.

I think its the other way around. I must have linked these out of place witness marks many times and still no one has addressed whats going on. Only that they could have done it with manpower and tools that don't match at all the witness marks. If you think they do then show how. Don't just say they did. Explain exactly how with evidence.

All you have is poor speculation, cherry-picked evidence and claims a plenty...

Ah the out of place examples are the examples taken form the archeology of each site. Its not cherry picked but included as part of the overall marks in the stones. You can't ignore them as they stand out once you are open to looking with your eyes lol. Its a case of getting rid of all preconcieved ideas about how and just look at the marks in the rocks.

but ZERO evidence to support anything you've said.

Lol and I and many others think its overwhelming evidence of being out of place. Even the skeptics at least acknowledge they look like modern signatures when they say they are forgeries. Thus agreeing with me that they are out of place lol.

I keep saying this and it keeps being ignored. Just deal with the obvious out of place signatures. Are they modern forgeries or created by the traditional methods of copper hand saws, abrasions, chisels, pounders and rubbing. If so explain how the signatures don't match by the science. Give me science that shows traditional methods will create such signatures like routers, planers, circular saws,modern lathes ect.

Just saying "Oh, it looks exactly like modern tooling, ergo they couldn't have used ancient tools!" is not evidence nor even a good basis for evidence. It's just a claim from you and nothing more.

Why. Is that how science works. We see the marks on the item and try and work out what caused them. Like forensics on crime scenes. Heck they can tell what gun and bullet was used from the witness marks left on the bullet.

If you see what looks like a circular saw cut which even skeptics saw is a modern forgery. Then its the same science. Its seeing the witness marks and looking at what could have made them.

But you don't just assume that no matter what the marks look like that somehow they were made one way by the traditional way no matter what. Thats bad science. Just go with the science on the witness marks where ever it leads to.

That is why engineering and precision tooling or machinist and forensic sciences are best for this. Today we can get down to the micron level to find marks that will tell us what made them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a braod claim and assumption. You offer no evidence. I am open to the use of simple tools but not just because someone says so because that was the orthodoxy. Thats not good science. Especially if part of the investigation brings up out of place evidence. Likewise you should not just dismiss it as conspiracy and providence an explanation and evidence for why it is not out of place.

Sometimes the evidence or witness marks are just too strong to even think that traditional methods could have made them. There is just no possible way and the marks directly show another method. Like the sharp cuts I linked in images. Its not a case that somehow they used copper hand saws. As eventually they could.

Its that the witness marks look nothing like a copper saw and abrasion that grinds out the stone. But thin sharp faces, edges and cuts that are more like modern day signatures. Yet without the modern tech. This is the mystery.

You explain to me why these witness marks are more like copper hand saws and grinding abrasion then like machine cuts. How and why would they even bother to grind and rub a slab to have a thin lip in the shape of an arc. The lip much finer than any copper saw. Let alone the fact that grinding and abrasion never leaves such a fine sharp edge.

This is not conspiracy. These are real witness marks in the stones that even some on this site acknowledge they are real when they said they must be forgeries from modern times. All I am doing is saying they may not be forgeries from modern times and therefore out of place.

I think its the other way around. I must have linked these out of place witness marks many times and still no one has addressed whats going on. Only that they could have done it with manpower and tools that don't match at all the witness marks. If you think they do then show how. Don't just say they did. Explain exactly how with evidence.

Ah the out of place examples are the examples taken form the archeology of each site. Its not cherry picked but included as part of the overall marks in the stones. You can't ignore them as they stand out once you are open to looking with your eyes lol. Its a case of getting rid of all preconcieved ideas about how and just look at the marks in the rocks.

Lol and I and many others think its overwhelming evidence of being out of place. Even the skeptics at least acknowledge they look like modern signatures when they say they are forgeries. Thus agreeing with me that they are out of place lol.

I keep saying this and it keeps being ignored. Just deal with the obvious out of place signatures. Are they modern forgeries or created by the traditional methods of copper hand saws, abrasions, chisels, pounders and rubbing. If so explain how the signatures don't match by the science. Give me science that shows traditional methods will create such signatures like routers, planers, circular saws,modern lathes ect.

Why. Is that how science works. We see the marks on the item and try and work out what caused them. Like forensics on crime scenes. Heck they can tell what gun and bullet was used from the witness marks left on the bullet.

If you see what looks like a circular saw cut which even skeptics saw is a modern forgery. Then its the same science. Its seeing the witness marks and looking at what could have made them.

But you don't just assume that no matter what the marks look like that somehow they were made one way by the traditional way no matter what. Thats bad science. Just go with the science on the witness marks where ever it leads to.

That is why engineering and precision tooling or machinist and forensic sciences are best for this. Today we can get down to the micron level to find marks that will tell us what made them.

You write so much and say so little.

 

[stevevw]

Then stop using the word 'modern' then.

So what word do you suggest that will capture that these witness marks are like some sort of machining. But not necessarily modern like machines.

Evidence? Quote someone then.

well the most well known is Yousef Awyan. Born and raised and still lived only a few hundred meters from the Sphinx. A stone mason by trade who makes pretty good vases in the traditional ways. But uses an angle grinder lol. His father Abd’El Hakim Awyan,is a well know Egyptologist and keeper of Egyptian heritage.

Yousef shakes his head in amazement at how the ancients could have achieved these works. But he also defends that the Egyptians did have advanced knowledge we don't understand. All Egyptians do. All ancient cultures believe their ancestors held great knowledge that was lost. Why deny them.

https://www.everand.com/podcast/418261755/Yousef-Awyan-Megalithic-Lords-of-Ancient-Egypt-Yousef-Abd-el-Hakim-Awyan-Khemit-School-Co-Director-Researcher-Speaker-Stone-Mason-Artist-and-M

Excuse the host of the video but he doesn't get involved. This is a good intro to Yousef and his family business at the foot of the pyramids working as stone masons for generations now. He shows his workshop and touches on stone methods. If anyone knows stone masonary and Egyptian hertiage its Yousef and his family.

Meeting Yousef Awyan & Family in the Khemit Shop at Giza ...

Yes, I very much doubt that you have. You just claiming that they are out of place is not evidence for them being out of place nor evidence for anything else, except for showing your own personal incredulity on the matter.

You very much doubt I have. And what evidenece do you have for this. Just more opinion lol.

What do you mean just claiming they are out of place without evidence. The out of place examples are the evidence lol.

Lets break this down. First do you disagree or disagree that at least there are some out of place signatures. Or at least they look more like machine cuts than by hand saw. The images I linked. For example

Does this look more like a modern cut or one with a copper saw and abrasion. How would they create the arc and fine lip of the cut. The arc lip is thinner than a copper saw blade let alone the abrasion and grinding which would not create a fine and sharp lip.

Did Ancient Egyptians Actually Use Giant Saws??​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So what word do you suggest that will capture that these witness marks are like some sort of machining. But not necessarily modern like machines.

You've got me there, but saying 'modern' is an INCREDIBLY loaded phrase to use with engineering, especially when it comes to stone masonry.

well the most well known is Yousef Awyan. Born and raised and still lived only a few hundred meters from the Sphinx. A stone mason by trade who makes pretty good vases in the traditional ways. But uses an angle grinder lol. His father Abd’El Hakim Awyan,is a well know Egyptologist and keeper of Egyptian heritage.

Yousef shakes his head in amazement at how the ancients could have achieved these works. But he also defends that the Egyptians did have advanced knowledge we don't understand. All Egyptians do. All ancient cultures believe their ancestors held great knowledge that was lost. Why deny them.

https://www.everand.com/podcast/418261755/Yousef-Awyan-Megalithic-Lords-of-Ancient-Egypt-Yousef-Abd-el-Hakim-Awyan-Khemit-School-Co-Director-Researcher-Speaker-Stone-Mason-Artist-and-M
Excuse the host of the video but he doesn't get involved. This is a good intro to Yousef and his family business at the foot of the pyramids working as stone masons for generations now. He shows his workshop and touches on stone methods. If anyone knows stone masonary and Egyptian hertiage its Yousef and his family.

Meeting Yousef Awyan & Family in the Khemit Shop at Giza ...

The same guy you used in your last thread and again with no reason at all to accept what he says apart from him being an Egyptian. Yawn...

You very much doubt I have. And what evidenece do you have for this. Just more opinion lol.

Well, considering that fact that you ignore basic history and also ignore any evidence presented to you, along with going off half-baked claims from others... yes, I doubt very much.

Funny how the skeptic gets upset when someone's skeptical about them...

What do you mean just claiming they are out of place without evidence. The out of place examples are the evidence lol.

You do that: you just claim that they're out of place. No evidence to back up what you say, no reason why they're out of place apart from your incredulity.

Lets break this down. First do you disagree or disagree that at least there are some out of place signatures. Or at least they look more like machine cuts than by hand saw. The images I linked. For example

Does this look more like a modern cut or one with a copper saw and abrasion.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. All you're showing is a cut piece of stone, that's it.

Context matters. But since I've seen ancient stone cutting myself (ancient Greek not ancient Egyptian, but contemporary and thus no reason to assume they would be any different), and since I know how stone masonry works and developed (I like castles), I have no reason at all to accept anything you've claimed as factual or even evidence for your claim.

 

[stevevw]

You write so much and say so little.

I remeber your approach to posts from the last time lol. It just dawned on me. I don't think we will resolve anything. Like last time lol.

 

[stevevw]

You've got me there, but saying 'modern' is an INCREDIBLY loaded phrase to use with engineering, especially when it comes to stone masonry.

But if it looks like modern signatures how else can we describe it lol. Your denying the very word that helps describe exactly what it looks like. Even skeptics admitted this but said they were forgeries.

The same guy you used in your last thread and again with no reason at all to accept what he says apart from him being an Egyptian. Yawn...

And that hes a stone mason and has done this all his life and so did his father and they have an actual stone mason shop at the foot of the very place where these works are. So that he gew up among these works.

How is it you can reduce the clear evidence that this man knows what he is talking about. You asked for a stone mason and I gave you one. Now you just dismiss it as YAWN. Thats why I can't debate you as you just deny and ignore things.

Well, considering that fact that you ignore basic history and also ignore any evidence presented to you, along with going off half-baked claims from others... yes, I doubt very much.

Still waiting for the evidence from you. Still waiting for you to even acknowledge the evidence lol. Others have why not you. Just say they are modern forgeries. But don't pretend they don't exist.

Funny how the skeptic gets upset when someone's skeptical about them...



You do that: you just claim that they're out of place. No evidence to back up what you say, no reason why they're out of place apart from your incredulity.

How many times do I have to say this. The out of place works are the evidence. Just deal with the signatures. Do they look like modern signatures or not.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. All you're showing is a cut piece of stone, that's it.

Context matters. But since I've seen ancient stone cutting myself (ancient Greek not ancient Egyptian, but contemporary and thus no reason to assume they would be any different), and since I know how stone masonry works and developed (I like castles), I have no reason at all to accept anything you've claimed as factual or even evidence for your claim.

As usual you avoid the evidence. Just explain the signature. How was it made by the Egyptians. Not what you think is possible or not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As usual you avoid the evidence. Just explain the signature. How was it made by the Egyptians. Not what you think is possible or not.

Pointing out that you have only claims and no evidence is not 'avoiding the evidence'. But the stone can easily be cut with a copper saw, sand, water, time and man power. Especially with the last two, anything is possible.

 

[stevevw]

Pointing out that you have only claims and no evidence is not 'avoiding the evidence'. But the stone can easily be cut with a copper saw, sand, water, time and man power. Especially with the last two, anything is possible.

You do undertand this is not just about effort but what sort of marks each method leaves in the stone. That copper saws, sand, water and time leave a completely different mark to what we are seeing in the marks of the out of place examples.

Or do you think they look the same. If we cut a stone with the traditional method and say a circular saw would there be any difference in the marks left on the stones.

I also disagree with your obvious unsupported claim that the hardest stones can be easily cut by a copper saw, sand and water. The destinguishing aspect is 'time'. It takes a long time because its not easy. So your claim is self refuting.

Time itself does not magically create circular saw cuts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You do undertand this is not just about effort but what sort of marks each method leaves in the stone. That copper saws, sand, water and time leave a completely different mark to what we are seeing in the marks of the out of place examples.

Or do you think they look the same. If we cut a stone with the traditional method and say a circular saw would there be any difference in the marks left on the stones.

Show me the cross-section that shows that the stone was cut with a circular saw, instead of a piece of stone that could just be claimed to have been cut with a circular saw.

 

[stevevw]

Show me the cross-section that shows that the stone was cut with a circular saw, instead of a piece of stone that could just be claimed to have been cut with a circular saw.

I thought I did. What was wrong with the examples I just linked in the last few posts. Including to others if you missed it. Go and check the rest and then tell men they are not good examples. While your at it explain this mark. Just one mark. What does it look like to you. Be honest.

These are destinct saw cuts clearly defined in basalt found East of the Great Pyramid.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought I did. What was wrong with the examples I just linked in the last few posts. Including to others if you missed it. Go and check the rest and then tell men they are not good examples. While your at it explain this mark. Just one mark. What does it look like to you. Be honest.

View attachment 372041

View attachment 372039

It looks like a saw mark. From what type of saw... impossible to tell without the right and proper context.

 

[stevevw]

It looks like a saw mark. From what type of saw... impossible to tell without the right and proper context.

Ok so we at least agree its a saw mark. Thats the question. From what type of saw. Its not about context. Lets say we will never know the context like a cold case murder. We are just looking at the forensics and witness marks at the scene.

We have to work out for ourselves what most like made the marks. We can reverse engineer what could have made the marks. We do experiments to see what marks different methods leave.

But what do the marks look like at face value. Whats the first impression you get in looking at the sharp straight fine lips and lines. Especially that they curve and bend and remain the same.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok so we at least agree its a saw mark. Thats the question. From what type of saw. Its not about context. Lets say we will never know the context like a cold case murder. We are just looking at the forensics and witness marks at the scene.

We have to work out for ourselves what most like made the marks. We can reverse engineer what could have made the marks. We do experiments to see what marks different methods leave.

But what do the marks look like at face value. Whats the first impression you get in looking at the sharp straight fine lips and lines. Especially that they curve and bend and remain the same.

Oh it 100% is about context! You can't just show off any rock that's been cut and go "SEE! SEE! ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY!" It's insincere on your end and makes everyone else skeptical about your own claims.

And ancient people had saw, it's a fact, especially the Egyptian, such as this copper alloy one from the College of London.

This website even actually goes into depth on how the ancient Egyptians could have cut stones easily with the technology they had. Believe it or not, it was possible, because they did experiments that showed that it could be done.

 

[BCP1928]

Oh it 100% is about context! You can't just show off any rock that's been cut and go "SEE! SEE! ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY!" It's insincere on your end and makes everyone else skeptical about your own claims.

And ancient people had saw, it's a fact, especially the Egyptian, such as this copper alloy one from the College of London.
View attachment 372042

This website even actually goes into depth on how the ancient Egyptians could have cut stones easily with the technology they had. Believe it or not, it was possible, because they did experiments that showed that it could be done.

You are wasting you time. He will not believe you no matter how much you know about it. He has never worked with any kind of hand tools in his life, yet he will be the first to tell you that he knows more about it than any skilled craftsman. Good luck.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are wasting you time. He will not believe you no matter how much you know about it. He has never worked with any kind of hand tools in his life, yet he will be the first to tell you that he knows more about it than any skilled craftsman. Good luck.

I know. No the first time I've played this game. He's made the exact claims before, shown they're wrong and still doubled down on them. Why? Because.

 

[stevevw]

Oh it 100% is about context! You can't just show off any rock that's been cut and go "SEE! SEE! ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY!" It's insincere on your end and makes everyone else skeptical about your own claims.

And ancient people had saw, it's a fact, especially the Egyptian, such as this copper alloy one from the College of London.
View attachment 372042

This website even actually goes into depth on how the ancient Egyptians could have cut stones easily with the technology they had. Believe it or not, it was possible, because they did experiments that showed that it could be done.

This article in no way is evidence that the Egyptians used copper saws, sand and water. In fact it begins by telling us that absolutely no evidence has been found for any stone cutting saws.

In ancient Egyptian art no representations have been found of the sawing of stone by means of a copper blade and an abrasive (Lucas & Harris 1962, Stocks 1999), nor has any lapidary slabbing saw been found in the archaeological record (Arnold 1991).

It talks about the small hand saws (40cm) for carpentry which are depicted on the walls and we have found examples like above.

But when it comes to evidence for stone cutting there is no evidence of saws but and the article states that any suggestion of cutting with massive copper saws is inferred by the marks on the stones ie

The use of saws as a method of cutting rock is inferred from marks observed on ancient Egyptian stonework,

That's exactly what I am doing. So why is it ok for the article to infer without any evidence that these marks are made by giant copper saws that have never been found by what the marks on the stones look like.

But not ok for anyone to infer that whatever cut the stones was not a massive copper saw thats never been found. Because the same marks don't look like a big copper saw cut them.

Both are inferred. Its just a case of which is closest to matching the marks. A big copper saw with abrasion. Or some other method that left marks that look like machining.