There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Aaron112]

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.

Is is much more truthful, honest, and Scriptural to show that fairy tales are just that - fairy tales .

 

[stevevw]

Is is much more truthful, honest, and Scriptural to show that fairy tales are just that - fairy tales .

Can you please explain what you mean. I am not sure.

 

[stevevw]

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

What makes you believe it was done by abrasive methods. Are not abrasive methods more blunted and grounded then sharp, narrow and and fine.

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.

Which suggests what.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What makes you believe it was done by abrasive methods. Are not abrasive methods more blunted and grounded then sharp, narrow and and fine.

The zoomed in part, it looks like it have multiple striations.

Which suggests what.

That it hasn't been exposed to the elements as long as the rest of the surfaces of the stone.

 

[sjastro]

The logical fallacies keep coming lol.

If he is an expert on ancient Egyptian stonework who taught him, was the training done by seance?

 

[sjastro]

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.

What are the image scales?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

I have given my answer you fool! Post #868:

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

You keep putting up pictures of stones, with zero context of where they're from in the world, who found them and when and give zero information about them at all.

At this point, you come off less as a skeptic and more of a troll.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

It's not a false representation when that is 100% what you are saying.

You post pictures of random bits of masoned stone, with no information or context about them, and then you go on about witness marks and cuttings which you don't show by comparing them to other pieces of masoned stone.

It comes across as disingenuous and trolling.

 

[stevevw]

The zoomed in part, it looks like it have multiple striations.

Yes, so what does that mean.

That it hasn't been exposed to the elements as long as the rest of the surfaces of the stone.

Which suggests.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which suggests.

That it was freshly cut into a new piece of stone.

This is why I keep going on about context.

 

[stevevw]

It's not a false representation when that is 100% what you are saying.

Then show me where I said it.

You post pictures of random bits of masoned stone, with no information or context about them,

Actually there is information about their context throught this thread. More than ample information. Repeated again and again and again lol. I am more or less reposting the same examples over and over again and with those examples I have put where they are from either under the image. Or have linked the source where they came from. At least 5 times over if not ten.

You are just not looking. Part of the investigation to refute the links is to first look at the links. If you don't do that then you will be ignorant of the source.

and then you go on about witness marks and cuttings which you don't show by comparing them to other pieces of masoned stone.

This has also already been done. I have gone through this as well if you go back and look. For example we spent a while on comparing the predyanstic precision vases with hand made vases as well as modern CNC vases. This was already done in the tests linked. Admittedly we could do more. I remember going through the difference in strirations between a tube drills and other methods of drilling.

But for some of these signatures we don't need to compare. They directly look like machining full stop. When you get an arc in the cut and a lip thinner than the width of a copper saw. You can tell immediately that a straight edged 5mm copper saw could not ever produce this. Theres no way to rationalise it into being possible.

It comes across as disingenuous and trolling.

Or are you making it that way. How exactly is it trolling. As we have seen by the reactions this is a controversial issue with divided opinion. Both sides should be able to give their views and not be dismissed as conspiracy.

From the very get go some made this about conspiracy before we even got into detail. Who is zooming who. Nothing I have said is wrong. It has been said by many others. I am just persisting with that view and others disagree. But its not trolling. Its a serious proposal that many have put forward.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then show me where I said it.

Actually there is information about their context throught this thread. More than ample information. Repeated again and again and again lol. I am more or less reposting the same examples over and over again and with those examples I have put where they are from either under the image. Or have linked the source where they came from. At least 5 times over if not ten.

You are just not looking. Part of the investigation to refute the links is to first look at the links. If you don't do that then you will be ignorant of the source.

This has also already been done. I have gone through this as well if you go back and look. For example we spent a while on comparing the predyanstic precision vases with hand made vases as well as modern CNC vases. This was already done in the tests linked. Admittedly we could do more. I remember going through the difference in strirations between a tube drills and other methods of drilling.

But for some of these signatures we don't need to compare. They directly look like machining full stop. When you get an arc in the cut and a lip thinner than the width of a copper saw. You can tell immediately that a straight edged 5mm copper saw could not ever produce this. Theres no way to rationalise it into being possible.

Or are you making it that way. How exactly is it trolling. As we have seen by the reactions this is a controversial issue with divided opinion. Both sides should be able to give their views and not be dismissed as conspiracy.

From the very get go some made this about conspiracy before we even got into detail. Who is zooming who.

I don't need to look because your images and the absolute abysmal lack of context for them shows that you are a fool of a skeptic.

No, you say they look like machined stone but saying that they are isn't SHOWING that they are.

You are so modern-pilled it's painful! Stop thinking of everything in the 21st century context and try and think like an ancient Egyptian person would. Stop blinding yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This still falls back to the same thing from steve's other thread which is the simple question of:

If the Ancients used so much more advanced tools than what they are thought to have used, then where are the tools?

Why do we only have more basic tools that exist in archaeological finds and also in contemporary art?

Why are we forced to only rely on interpretations of sawmarks and cuts as this supposed 'evidence' of more advanced tools and yet not one single person can actually find any of these supposedly advanced tools themselves?

 

[stevevw]

I don't need to look because your images and the absolute abysmal lack of context for them shows that you are a fool of a skeptic.

No, you say they look like machined stone but saying that they are isn't SHOWING that they are.

Hense I broke this down to a simple question regardless of proving they are and just based on looking at them. The first simple step of observation. What do they look like to you. To others.

I just said that others agree they look machined. They even say what looks like circular saw cuts are modern forgeries. So they are acknowledging they look like machining.

You obviously disagree. Do you think somewthing in the traditional methods can produce these machine like marks.

You are so modern-pilled it's painful! Stop thinking of everything in the 21st century context and try and think like an ancient Egyptian person would. Stop blinding yourself.

Then what have we got to compare with lol. Thats how we understand human evolution and cultural development. We go from prehistoric humans like Home Erectus and then Neandathals. They use more primitive tools. We have found them. Then we move to through to the Neolithic era and into more sophisticated living, knowledge and tech.

So we compare the progression and see that perhaps it was not necessarily a case of simple to more sophisticated in terms of how we think of knowledge and tech today. We compare other ways of knowledge with todays knowledge.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hense I broke this down to a simple question regardless of proving they are and just based on looking at them. The first simple step of observation. What do they look like to you. To others.

I just said that others agree they look machined. They even say what looks like circular saw cuts are modern forgeries. So they are acknowledging they look like machining.

You obviously disagree. Do you think somewthing in the traditional methods can produce these machine like marks.

'Hence' you show that you are a fool of a skeptic with an inflated ego.

Just looking at the cut and going "Yeah, that looks like it was done with a modern circular saw to me" is just showing a bias of thinking with modern tech in mind. Just because something looks like A does not mean that it is A, especially when you come in with an obvious bias like you have.

Then what have we got to compare with lol. Thats how we understand human evolution and cultural development. We go from prehistoric humans like Home Erectus and then Neandathals. They use more primitive tools. We have found them. Then we move to through to the Neolithic era and into more sophisticated living, knowledge and tech.

So we compare the progression and see that perhaps it was not necessarily a case of simple to more sophisticated in terms of how we think of knowledge and tech today. We compare other ways of knowledge with todays knowledge.

So where is the tech then!? I asked this repeatedly on the other thread and you gave no answer for it. If you claim that the Egyptians had more advanced tech than what people claim, then where is the tech? Why do we have no such tools except the various handsaws we know about? Why doesn't a single piece of ancient Egyptian art show anyone using any tool except for the basic ones we know them to use?

SHOW US THE ADVANCED TOOLS YOU CLAIM EXIST. OR SHUT UP.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes, so what does that mean.

That to me it looks like they are perhaps made by some abrasive method.

Which suggests.

Nothing more than that in isolation. Why don't you say what you're fishing after?

 

[stevevw]

This still falls back to the same thing from steve's other thread which is the simple question of:

If the Ancients used so much more advanced tools than what they are thought to have used, then where are the tools?

Why do we only have more basic tools that exist in archaeological finds and also in contemporary art?

I don't know. In some cases theres absolutely no tools found. Not even the traditional ones attributed. Theres absolutely no evidence in writing or on walls about how the pyramids were built or how they cut stones.

But the arguement that because we only have the basic tools and therefore they must have been the method does not follow. Under this logic all the places where we found no tools means they must have achieved the works with no tools. Or we find a few 40cm carpentry saws on the site of a granite temple and then have to conclude that the granite was cut with these small saws. Its unreal logic.

Why are we forced to only rely on interpretations of sawmarks and cuts as this supposed 'evidence' of more advanced tools and yet not one single person can actually find any of these supposedly advanced tools themselves?

This is the spectualtion part. I suggested some possibilities such as stone softening. So its not as simple as apples with apples. That the end result that looks like modern machining or tech was not necessarily done by what we call modern machining and tech. But some other method outside the box.

Your trying to force a particular method when we don't really know. You should be open to other possibilities besides trying to force one view because its the orthodoxy.

At the end of the day I don't care if we find that the works were made the traditional way. Good on them. In fact I said in some ways if this is the case its even more amazing that they could dedeicate themselves to that level of quality. To find such precision through sight and feel is amazing.

But I am not going to just agree that something that clearly does not look like the traditional way is the traditional way. When it has witness marks that align with a different method for which the traditional ways do not produce. I think you forget that this is science. Reverse engineering. Looking in detail at the marks and working out what caused them.

Its not a guess but science. The methods are tested to see what signatures they leave.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know. In some cases theres absolutely no tools found. Not even the traditional ones attributed. Theres absolutely no evidence in writing or on walls about how the pyramids were built or how they cut stones.

But the arguement that because we only have the basic tools and therefore they must have been the method does not follow. Under this logic all the places where we found no tools means they must have achieved the works with no tools. Or we find a few 40cm carpentry saws on the site of a granite temple and then have to conclude that the granite was cut with these small saws. Its unreal logic.

This is the spectualtion part. I suggested some possibilities such as stone softening. So its not as simple as apples with apples. That the end result that looks like modern machining or tech was not necessarily done by what we call modern machining and tech. But some other method outside the box.

Your trying to force a particular method when we don't really know. You should be open to other possibilities besides trying to force one view because its the orthodoxy.

Your speculation is nothing more than buncombe. Going from simple hand saws and saying "They couldn't have used those. Now, modern circular saws however..." is not speculation but an absolutely horrendous leap of logic that has no basis for it at all except for your strange desire to make the Ancients fit into a modern paradigm you feel they have to fit into.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that in those periods in human history, there were entire classes and groups of people who's entire existence was dedicated simply to cutting and shaping tools. So why is it impossible that they knew what they were doing with the tools they had at their disposal?

Or is it still just the simple case of since you can't find a way for yourself to do it, you think that no-one else would be able to do it?

I'd put money on the latter being true.

 

[Aaron112]

just all more "fake news"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

just all more "fake news"?

What are you talking about?