There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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 a big copper saw with abrasion. Or some other method that left marks that look like machining.

Because your leap of logic to advanced technology like circular saw is in not sensible or workable, nor is there any evidence for it. Because the article knows what they're talking about and you very much do not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@stevevw, the main problem I and many others have with your claim is the same problem we have with many such conspiracy theories: that your leaps of logic are too damn big!

You go from "Oh, we can't find any evidence of them using simple tools" and then absolutely shoot right to "Therefore, they must have had such super advanced tech that no-one knows about! Even though there's not a shred of physical or artistic reference of it at all, that must be the case!".

How is anyone NOT going to be skeptical of such a claim?

 

[BCP1928]

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.

According to who?

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.

The thing is, you don't know anything about any of that. You're just parroting from your favorites sources and can't even defend them. Have you ever used any abrasive cutting techniques?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

First, masons are builders, not vase makers. Artisans make carved objects. Stone masons build things like walls out of stone.

Second, I had a YT link in an old thread to a Pennsylvania stone mason's visit to Peru. He walking around all of these amazing construction methods and identifying the techniques used -- the same methods he uses, but with different tools.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First, masons are builders, not vase makers. Artisans make carved objects. Stone masons build things like walls out of stone.

Second, I had a YT link in an old thread to a Pennsylvania stone mason's visit to Peru. He walking around all of these amazing construction methods and identifying the techniques used -- the same methods he uses, but with different tools.

Would you be able to find that YT link again?

 

[Ophiolite]

According to who?

Have you ever used any abrasive cutting techniques?

Yes, but they went right over your head.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Would you be able to find that YT link again?

Here's the one from Machu Picchu including a demonstration using modern and ancient tools for fitting irregular stones.

He's got a lot of other videos so you can learn more about ancient stone working and how to fix your retaining wall.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's the one from Machu Picchu including a demonstration using modern and ancient tools for fitting irregular stones.

He's got a lot of other videos so you can learn more about ancient stone working and how to fix your retaining wall.

Awesome!

 

[sjastro]

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.

Yousef the expert on ancient Egyptian stonework techniques is the equivalent of Philomena Cunk's mate Paul on quantum physics.

 

[stevevw]

Because your leap of logic to advanced technology like circular saw is in not sensible or workable, nor is there any evidence for it. Because the article knows what they're talking about and you very much do not.

I have walked you through step by step. I asked you a simple question and you still cannot answer it. Forget about the experts. Just answer a simple question. What do the signatures in the image look like to you.

You can't answer can you.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw, the main problem I and many others have with your claim is the same problem we have with many such conspiracy theories: that your leaps of logic are too damn big!

You go from "Oh, we can't find any evidence of them using simple tools" and then absolutely shoot right to "Therefore, they must have had such super advanced tech that no-one knows about! Even though there's not a shred of physical or artistic reference of it at all, that must be the case!".

How is anyone NOT going to be skeptical of such a claim?

Well when you create false representations of what I am saying then of course your going to object lol. But what your saying is not what I am doing.

I will say it once again. Like you and like everyone else in this thread who are looking at the signatures which I like to call witness marks because they are a witness like a witness at a trial who is speaking out.

Thats all I am doing is highlighting those out of place signatures. You say everyone is saying its conspiracy and yet some have agreed with me that these witness marks look like machining and must be forgeries.

So at least for some I am not wrong as far as observations go. The first step in science is to observe the objective reality of what appears before your eyes. If you can't do that then there is no use in doing anything.

How is it a massive leap to go from using my eyes to see the witness marks and then saying they don;t look like the traditional methods but more like the witness marks of machining. I am not saying it is machining with modern machines. But looks like machining. How is this a leap.

Its a simple observation of what I see before my eyes. What do you want me to do. Pretend they are not there.

At least say they look like maching and then make your claim that they must have somehow done it traditionally. But don;t pretend they don;t look like what they look like lol.

 

[stevevw]

According to who?

Man this is going in circles. According to the witness marks in the out of place examples. We know what a big copper saw witness marks look like. We know what machining marks look like. Just look at the examples and see for yourself. You don't even need a degree. Its just plain and simple speaking out from the stones.

Once again I will ask what do those witness marks look like to you. Lets start with the naked eye. What they appear to look like when you look at them. What impression do you see. Explain why it looks like the method you claim it is. What features make it so or not.

The thing is, you don't know anything about any of that. You're just parroting from your favorites sources and can't even defend them. Have you ever used any abrasive cutting techniques?

No I am using my own eyes and brain that can tell the difference. Some of the signatures speak clearly without the need to be an expert.

Like the fine arc cut that looks like its been planed or sliced thin layers off. Or the fine lips and edges at the end of the cut where it stops . Its thinner than the width of a copper saw. Or the obvious router marks that plunge into the stone sometimes a tint step or a gouge like the cutter accidently went too deep.They are classic machining marks and are nothing like what a copper hand held saw would look like.

We have evidence from the marks copper saws leave and we can compare mand they are completely different.

I keep saying even some who are skeptical thought they looked like machining cuts when they said this was the result of a modern machine that someone later did and not from the ancients. So I am not imagining this lol.

You don't need to be an expert. Its just truthful observations that people can see in the stones. At least admit that they look pretty similar and unlike what a hand saw could do. You don't think any look like machining.

 

[stevevw]

First, masons are builders, not vase makers. Artisans make carved objects. Stone masons build things like walls out of stone.

Getting perdantic again. Yousef is a stone mason and artisan then. He is an expert in both. How about that. If stone masons are not relevant then why are the skeptics asking for stone masons expertise. Is this a sign that they are misinformed as well. Why did not you point that out to them rather than me.

Second, I had a YT link in an old thread to a Pennsylvania stone mason's visit to Peru. He walking around all of these amazing construction methods and identifying the techniques used -- the same methods he uses, but with different tools.

But wait you just said stone masons cannot tell how the vases are made. Why are you citing a stone mason. What if I say there are stone masons who have visited the same sites and have said it impossible to be done by traditional stone masons. What then.

What about an engineer or machinist. All can have an opinion of how these works were Dunn. Pardon the Pun lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Getting perdantic again.

You know it. Not going to let you get away with slop.

Yousef is a stone mason and artisan then. He is an expert in both. How about that. If stone masons are not relevant then why are the skeptics asking for stone masons expertise. Is this a sign that they are misinformed as well. Why did not you point that out to them rather than me.

As noted above "Yousef" is not particularly credible.

But wait you just said stone masons cannot tell how the vases are made. Why are you citing a stone mason. What if I say there are stone masons who have visited the same sites and have said it impossible to be done by traditional stone masons. What then.

I thought we were talking about megalithic walls now. Vases were getting a bit played out.

What about an engineer or machinist. All can have an opinion of how these works were Dunn. Pardon the Pun lol.

What kind of engineer or machinist? Do they work with stone?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

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

View attachment 372041

View attachment 372039

These look like they could have been cut with an abrasive to me. But more importantly when was these particular cuts made? There seems to be a difference in the weathering of the stones.

 

[BCP1928]

How is it a massive leap to go from using my eyes to see the witness marks and then saying they don;t look like the traditional methods but more like the witness marks of machining. I am not saying it is machining with modern machines. But looks like machining. How is this a leap.

That's not the leap. The leap we are talking about is the leap to some vanished antediluvian culture which scientists conceal or try to deny because it undermines their materialistic worldview.

 

[stevevw]

Yousef the expert on ancient Egyptian stonework techniques is the equivalent of Philomena Cunk's mate Paul on quantum physics.

The logical fallacies keep coming lol.

 

[stevevw]

These look like they could have been cut with an abrasive to me. But more importantly when was these particular cuts made? There seems to be a difference in the weathering of the stones.

Ah ha, the reality is coming through. Yes they look very crisp and fine detailed and sharp. Rather than the weathers, granulated and rough finishes of grinding and abrasing stone. Like they have been cleanly sliced with defined edges and cut in one pass. Rather than 1,000s of tiny back and forth grounding out.

So now your questioning their age because they look different to whats expected. Your working your way towards they must be modern forgeries I think. They may be. But at least admit they look different to what we would expect.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Ah ha, the reality is coming through. Yes they look very crisp and fine detailed and sharp. Rather than the weathers, granulated and rough finishes of grinding and abrasing stone. Like they have been cleanly sliced with defined edges and cut in one pass. Rather than 1,000s of tiny back and forth grounding out.

That's not what I wrote. I specifically said I think they look possibly cut by abrasive methods.

So now your questioning their age because they look different to whats expected. Your working your way towards they must be modern forgeries I think. They may be. But at least admit they look different to what we would expect.

Only so far that the stone near the cuts haven't been exposed to the same conditions as the rest of the surfaces on the stone.

 

[stevevw]

That's not the leap. The leap we are talking about is the leap to some vanished antediluvian culture which scientists conceal or try to deny because it undermines their materialistic worldview.

Woo I mean Woh lol. Who said anything about that. Thats a seperate issue and comes with its own philosophical and metaphysical arguements. But its not the science. I stated several times that this was in the spectulation realm.

I mean according to skeptics we have not even verified that there is advanced knowledge in specific examples let alone speculate about a cultural or worldwide advanced knowledge and tech.

Thats why the thread quickly went to specific examples like the vases and saw cuts. Because people wanted the science to prove first if there are signs of advanced knowledge and tech. Thats all I have been doing mainly. Going through specific examples. Occassionally speculating how. But its qualified as spectulation. You are turning it into the spectulation and nothing else.