There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

What is the algorithm based on. Is there any assumptions that exclude certain knowledge as being pseudoscience grift...Before its established that its pseudoscience grift. Or that we must use a particular algorithm that you decide is truth. That only tells us a certain kind of reality and not complete reality.

It is a simple "how to" list for running a pseudoscience grift based on the various such grifts I have seen in my half-century on this pseudoscience infested planet.

Overall as far as the epistemics for knowledge itsefl as to what counts is a belief and not science. My point is alternative knowledge can be anything from the knowledge God gives throughout history, consciousness beyond brain, the many transcedent beliefs. All the way down the spectrum to whacko ideas.

Either they have evidential bases or they don't. Alternative knowledge, like "alternative facts", isn't.

So within that spectrum where say Christians testify to a knowledge beyond the material to whackery there is no way for science to tell.

I'm not interested in their unsupported supernatural claims either. But there were definitely no Christians in ancient Egypt, so they are irrelevant.

Your forcing empiricle sciences as the epistemics due to an assumed ontoilogy of the material. But what if as many transcedent beliefs and now even some theories in science are saying. That the fundemental ontology is the alternative knowledge that is being expressed in many ways for millenai.

What then. You are almost forcing a material epistemics and ontology.

How do you know that along the way to producing the physical result there was no some knowledge beyond the material paradigm that was not included. I gave the example of the color red experience. This is an objective reality to humans. Yet it is derived from a transcedent experience. How do you know that other physical outcomes are not at least partly the result of that alternative knowledge.

To then force the material epistemics and ontology over all else because its methods of measuring only look at one aspect is a belief in itself and not science.

All of these comments are you complaining about "materialist epistemics" or what ever. We are talking about the physical remnants of cultures and how they got there. Your complaint boils down to "I don't like that science uses the methods of science." I don't care what your beliefs are, only what the evidence about ancient civilizations say.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Intentional Use of Sound Design in the Egyptian Temples and the Great Pyramid
https://www.scienceopen.com/documen...-e6f916b4c59a/ScienceOpen/247_Smith_EVA23.pdf

This is a *PROPOSAL* of some sort. The method section and *results* section are written in the future tense. PLEASE READ BEFORE LINKING.

Historical development of cymatics and kinematics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384884836_Historical_development_of_cymatics_and_kinematics

LOL.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you see what your doing.

I do. Am am pointing out how minor these vases are to the undertsanding of ancient Egypt.

Your creating a strawman or at least a false representation. First you qualify the testers as grifters and gropers. So already you have a prior negative view that must influence how you see things.

We have been on this topic in this thread for months. There were two other threads a year ago. I am more than familiar enough to the vase-phrenologists with the respect they are due -- NONE. What has changed in the last week is that I have decided to not tip-toe around their pseudoscience grift.

Then you qualify the example as a "minor anomaly". Surely this is a matter of subjective opinion.

I don't know of a measure, but I can't think of any anomalous aspect of early Egypt (pre-dynastic to old kingdom) that is less important than these seemingly "out of place" stone vessels of high production quality with out directly evidenced production method. But that is *exactly* why these vases make such good material for a pseudoscience grift. They are not important for the Egyptologists to focus lots of time on and are a bit "mysterious". If I spent a couple hours I could come up with dozens of minor anomalies that have been overblown by the grifters, pseudoscientists and opponents of science.

Throughout history there has been a clear recognition that these vases stood out, were the peak of all Egyptian vase making including all dynasties that came after. Even some alluded to their high quality and precision that they required a different tech.

Exactly they stick out, but aren't ultimately that important. Excellent fodder for wild speculations.

So already you have set the parameters that these out of place vases are minor anomalies when many people as a matter of course and not because of some whackery see they do stand out as being out of place for that time.
Ok so lets see how the "like modern cnc" and "test algorithm" says about that 'stone softerning or weakening'. According to you thios is a completely concoted idea out of nowhere.

Implying technologies with no precedents in the ancient world that didn't show up for 4000 years, we should treat it as wackery.

Based on no science and just made up as part of the conspiriacy.

No conspiracies have been claimed. Just a bunch of kooks trying to take your mind and money.

Lets see if this is the case. You now have to deal with the science and evidence. Just like the vases. Except this ones so out of the box you cannot quibble about microns of difference equating to precise or imprecise. This is obvious and clear.

We look at a vase and we can see the precision as compared to a different imprecise method. But yes there is a point where to the naked eye it is harder to tell precise lathed from handmade and micro measures are needed. But the stone softening and weakening is obvious. Now tests are backing up this.

There have been some disputes on this thread on the measurement and statistical analysis, but even if we accept it, the only mystery is how hard it was to be that "precise". That too has been discussed, and we certainly don't need anything like "modern technology".

 

[sjastro]

But its a justified one. Unlike the testers I am linking the peer review or they provide detailed tests and analysis with sections laying out methodology, testing and results with calculations in a formal format and not on an informal social media thread.

You may have qualifications and so do most of the researchers. You challenge on precision tooling and engineering and I give you two experts with over 50 years experience. I give you Petrie one of the worlds greatest archeologists.

If we are playing teh game of ad hominems then I win lol. I don't think you have better qualifications. At the very least they are as good that their opinion should be taken with as much credibility as you.

This is silly. I know some random individuals have on sites like these devalued experts according to their less knowledgable claims. Are we going to have a qualification of everyone who speaks. Or is it that if anyone says something that aligns with the skeptics is an expert and those who don't are not.

Let me ask you do you think there is bias and some without the knowledge or expertise are making claims beyond what they can know. That is motivated by personal beliefs and assumptions rather than fact or truth. Can you assure than none of that is happening. I already know your answer.

Here it is again. You have qualified the suggestion that stones were molded or softened as idiotic obsession before we have properly investigated it. I know there are at least scientific articles that support stone softening or molding. So already you have shown the bias and taring everything said as stupid and idiotic.

By the way regardless of who is right or wrong on the facts when people use such emotive and moral language over what is just a factual matter shows they are the ones injecting personal feelings and beliefs into the equation. That in itself is usually an immediate disqualifer as its a signifier that the person is more supceptible to being influenced by their feelings.

Individuals who have responded in this thread do not operate at your limited intellectual and educational levels, so stop projecting.
Since you are incapable of understanding the problems in your so called experts ‘theories’ don’t assume everyone else cannot either.

Your arguments are based on confirmation bias while your take on images shows pareidolia which is the psychological condition of seeing things that are not there. Only you can see the softening of stone while everyone else sees irregular surfaces.

Ok I must have missed that one as well.

Then how do you explain this. Do these scientists also have an idiotic obsession with moulded limestone.

After extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, they found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

The stones also had a high water content--unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau--and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."

More startlingly, the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

"This is not my day job." So begins National Science Foundation-supported researcher Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. As a well respected…

www.nsf.gov

Were the casing stones of Senefru's Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved?: Multinuclear NMR evidence

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X10008979

Ancient organo-mineral geopolymer in South-American Monuments: Organic matter in andesite stone. SEM and petrographic evidenc
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272884219300288

Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt
https://ceramics.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x

Well let me put my forensic scientist cap on, I have had to analyse SEM results and have sometimes been led astray as SEMs are very good at detecting contamination.

It is a well known fact the Giza plateau sits on a water table which rises and falls and the Sphinx which is made from limestone has been affected by groundwater penetrating the limestone via capillary action. Dissolved salts such as silicates recrystallize in the limestone creating the impression of geopolymer cement defined by a high water content, the presence of silicon dioxide, calcium and magnesium-rich silicate minerals.

This my theory and I asked GPT-5 to find evidence of the same effect on pyramid casing stones.

✅ Can the high water content and silicates in low-level pyramid casing stones be explained by groundwater and capillary rise?​

Yes — and there is direct geological, archaeological, and hydrological evidence that the lower casing stones of the pyramids interacted with groundwater and capillary moisture for long periods.

This interaction can fully account for:

• Elevated water content
• Amorphous silicate coatings
• Silica spheroids in SEM images
• Mg–Ca rich cement patches
• Chemical compositions different from “fresh” limestone
  

Below is the evidence.

---

1. Evidence that groundwater reached or influenced the pyramid bases​

1.1 Geological surveys show historical high water tables near the pyramid base​

Multiple geological studies (Egyptian Geological Survey; Hassan 1949; Gauri et al. 1988; Abdel-Mota'al 2010) show that:

• Ancient groundwater levels across the Giza Plateau varied significantly.
• During wetter periods (Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom), the water table was several metres higher than today.
• In some recorded phases, the water table approached or overlapped the lowest courses of the pyramids.

The lower portions of:

• The Great Pyramid
• Khafre’s pyramid
• Menkaure’s pyramid

all show moisture-related weathering distinct from upper courses.

---

2. Evidence of capillary rise in the Giza limestones​

2.1 Tura limestone (the casing stone material) is highly microporous​

Petrographic and porosity measurements (El‐Aref 1987; Kamel & Kamal 1990) show:

• Tura limestone has very fine micro-porosity (0.5–2 μm pores).
• Such pore sizes maximize capillary action, enabling water to rise 2–5 m above the water table.
  

This means even if the water table didn’t physically touch the casing, moisture could still wick upward into the lower courses for centuries.

2.2 Field observations confirm capillary staining on casing blocks​

Archaeologists who documented the few remaining original casing stones (especially on the northern and eastern sides of the Great Pyramid) note:

• A distinct “tide line” or discolored band on the lowest casing stones
• Crusts of evaporated salts, including halite, gypsum, and silica
• More porous and friable texture on the bottom 4–6 courses

These are classic signatures of prolonged capillary wetting and evaporation cycles.

---

3. Evidence that groundwater altered the geochemistry of these stones​

3.1 Silica precipitation and amorphous coatings on lower stones​

Geochemical studies of the Great Pyramid casing remnants (Harrell 1991; Klemm & Klemm 2001) show:

• Silica-rich amorphous films on lower edges
• Microcrystalline and colloidal silica deposits in pore spaces
• Mg-enriched carbonate alteration in lower zones
• Dolomitization features in moisture-influenced areas

These match exactly the silicate and Mg–Ca textures that the geopolymer hypothesis cites as “artificial binders”.

But they are well-known groundwater alteration products in limestones.

3.2 Identical alteration is documented in the Sphinx enclosure​

The Sphinx’s lower limestone shows:

• High water content
• Amorphous silica gels
• Clay mobilization
• Salt crystallization
• Recrystallized calcite

These effects arise from the same groundwater regime shared by the plateau.

The lower pyramid casing stones exhibit the same signatures, though less extreme.

---

4. Evidence of long-term moisture cycling affecting the casing​

4.1 Salt efflorescence recorded on lower pyramid blocks​

Salt crust analysis by Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999) shows:

• Halite, gypsum, and sodium carbonates
• Crystallized in patterns indicating evaporation from upward-moving groundwater
• Found primarily on lower courses, decreasing upward

This is diagnostic of capillary rise.

4.2 Mechanical degradation patterns align with moisture flow​

Weathering profiles on lower casing remnants show:

• Preferential subflorescence damage (salt crystallization inside pores)
• Zones of higher porosity created by dissolution
• Breakdown surfaces consistent with wet/dry cycling

These are not seen in upper courses, which stayed dry for 4,500 years.

---

5. Why this matters for the “reconstituted stone” hypothesis​

Everything that Barsoum’s team attributed to artificial reconstitution has a well-understood natural explanation:

Feature observed	Geopolymer claim	Well-established groundwater explanation
High water content	Reconstituted limestone stored water	Capillary rise + long-term groundwater wetting
Amorphous silicate binder	Artificial geopolymer	Silica gels from groundwater evaporation
Silica nano-spheres	Manufactured nanoparticles	Natural colloidal silica precipitates
Mg–Ca rich phases	Artificial binder formulation	Groundwater dolomitization & ion exchange
“Unnatural” chemistries	Human-added mix	Groundwater alteration + diagenesis

In every case, the natural geological process explains the data without requiring synthetic casting.

---

✅ Conclusion: Yes — groundwater and capillary rise completely explain the features observed in lower casing stones​

The combined evidence shows:

1. The water table rose high enough to influence the pyramid bases.
2. Tura limestone actively wicks moisture through capillary action.
3. Groundwater introduced silica, magnesium, clays, and carbonates.
4. Evaporation cycles created amorphous silica phases and silica spheres.
5. Weathering patterns on lower casing stones match known capillary processes.

Therefore, the high water content and silicate anomalies are geological in origin, not evidence that the blocks were cast.

---

To claim its beyond doubt is an absolute claim that theres no chance thats its possible. I think thats a bit unreal and flies in the face of the evidence above.

Real evidence trumps confirmation bias and pareidolia.

Who knows. Whats your point. It may have been for many reasons.

Ok well your the one making absolute claims in spite of the counter evidence. I would not be so quick to claim anything at the moment. Further tests are needed. But so far from the evidence above they were moulded.

Not just that. Do you not see with your own eyes that the signatures clearly show stone softening or moulding. Why is it so bad that these ancients were smart enough to create artificial stones. They worked with it everyday for 1,000s of years. Of course they got to know natural minierals and chemicals and how they worked.

Your not giving them enough credit.

Let me ask. Do you think the obvious signatures that look like softened stone only look like that and are actually pounded or ground into those shapes that happen to look like they were soft or melted.

Once again only someone as deluded as you, completely paralysed by pareidolia can see evidence of stone softening or moulding in the images.
Seriously it is breathtakingly stupid.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some of the grifters are well know. Is that not an appeal to consensus or authority. This does not follow that everyone I link falls into that catergory.

None of the cranks you cite were known to me before these threads started. (And none has any "authority" to appeal to.) Dunn wrote a crank book on pyramid power, so he may be better known among monitors of crank Egyptology, but I'd never heard of him.

You have never actually provided any evidence and just stated this with your own mouth and the words that feel out on the page lol.

I use my fingers to type as I can write without speaking it out loud.

Am I suppose to just agree with that. I could myself be falling for a grift lol.

Awareness is the first step.

Let me ask you a question. Why are there so many people making a big deal about "precision vases" with all of these "projects" and dozens and dozens of YT videos. The whole thing is a rather minor aspect of a single period in Egyptian history. They pale in comparison to the development of writing and the early texts, the examinations of the lifestyle through material culture, the overall contents of grave goods, the development of pyramids. Compared to these, the brief period of precision vase manufacture is rather insignificant, so why are these amateurs so interested in it?

Thats my point that most of this is assumption and heresay and personal opinions. Its not in the realm of scientific fact.

And explaining to you that the criteria for what you regard as crifters or whackos is itself a particular epistemics based on an ontological belief about what counts as evidence. I don't think there is any science or fact in what your claiming.

Thats not to say there we can tell through a detailed assessment and analysis of what is said. But you have not done this. Its become a stop gap objection and fallacy to call on whenever somethinmg does not fit your worldview.
I doubt that. You would not equate all these people as grifters and whackos if you did. I can tell. When someone from the first couple of pages of a book of threads thats trying to establish what is knowledge. Then from the strat makes tars all alternative knowledge as whacko then they are already showing their bias before we have actually gone into the content.

When I hear a lot of language along those lines and a lot of ad hominems and little engagment into the context. Then I know and its actually obvious independently that there is at least a degree of bias because the weight of fallacies is unjustified. So yes there are ways you can tell griters. Don't think that the skeptics cannot grift and push their own conspiracies lol.
Yes that may be a small portion. But it actually is like that in reality. When a new or alternative idea that ends up being correct is first proposed its treated as conspiracy or pseudoscience at first. In some ways thats science. Look at the fights some have over the BB and other theories. Or consciousness. They even call each others scientific proposals as whackery when they actually use the same science.
Actually what I am basing the whole skeptics verses conspiracy making and everything in betyweem on the science. On behavioural sciences. On the psychology you referred to earlier which is my expertise and not yours. Like I ackowledged you know more about physics. You should now ackowledge I know more about the psychology and socialogical patterns of behaviour that go into this.

Its not as simple as one side = epistemic truth and the other false. Even science itself can be used as an epistemic beating stick to deny other forms of knowledge. Including the ploy of making out all altenative knowledge that does not conform to scientific material epistemics and ontologies is pseudoscience or grifting.

All I know is the very thing (that the pyramids are some sort of energy producer" that you claimed Dunn was a whacko for suggesting such. Has been verified by independent studies. So you automatically labelled his idea as whacko when it was actually correct.

It hasn't. We've gone over that study before, it does not say what you think it does, nor what the pyramid power people want you to think that it does.

Thus expsoing your bias, your beliefs and asumptions that creep in and distort how you see this whole issue.
So what if some of those skeptics are themselves grifters who go through social media sites looking to save the poor unaware who are being fooled. With the epistemic truth. Thus creating their own religion of saving the religious or fools who are falling for such ideas.

I have no use for religion. That I would wan't to create one is a vile falsehood.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. At the moment you tar all such ideas as pseudoscience and I just showed you how you did that wrongly to a good man in Christopher Dunn with 50 plus years of the fields he is addressing.

I don't know if Dunn is a good man or not. It really depends on if he is a true believer or just a second rate con.

You throw all that into the box of pseudoscience and grifters. That in itself is very telling of a personal belief and not facts.
No you havn't. We got ito the vases and that was the only specific item we got into deeply. At the very least this is ongoing. BUt you have already made up your mind.

I give them their due moment, but once they cross the threshold, I don't relent. I gave "Dr Max" and "Karoly" their chances, but no more for reasons given in earlier posts.

We are beginning to touch on the many signatures of saw cuts but we have yet to establish anything. Another assumption that everything must then fall into pseudoscience before its investigated.

I don't recall discussing saw cuts, or at least not recently.

The images I linked which showed obvious out of place examples was ignored for most of this thread or dismissed as pseudoscience without any investigation. I think the majority of this thread has been on fallacies and especially ad hominems and not actually on content.

Out of place examples of what?

Hum, like I said this started from the very beginning and has just got worse. That you want to discuss that the sources are all grifters and pseudoscience and not the content or label all of Dunns work as whacko is the problem.
There you go you just admitted it. You label Dunns work as equalivelant to a podcast. You cannot seperate out the facts from the podcast thats hosting it. You assume everything presented is pseudoscience.

Which is surely an unfounded assumption as I don't think you have even had the time or bothered investigating these proposals properly (Dunns pyramid energy hypothesis).

It is ridiculous on the face of it. I know I've read some about it in the past, but it isn't worth sorting out so that I can explain how wrong it is to you only to have you ignore everything I say. My dismissiveness is proportional to your resistance to learning why these things are so silly.

In fact the reality is I have not mentioned anything about (aliens/lost civ/Atlantis) or anything magical.

The sources you quote certainly believe is some of those laughable things even if they try to keep it from your view.

Rather it is you and others who are making it so over and over and over again. You have used this narrative that many times that you cannot see that you are creating the false dichotomy of aliens and Atlantis vesrse proper science lol. When its far more complex and varied than that.

I bring it up because I want to understand who these people are and how stupid their foundations actually are. Last weekend I watched this video from Karoly's podcast, a discussion with David Miano and Adam Young

Miano is respectful of the measurement work they are doing, but firm that they are no where near making conclusions. (It's worth a watch.) Karoly tries to keep it "straight", while Young tries to imply a pre-4th dynasty construction of the Great Pyramid repeatedly.

But you have created a strawman to begin with based on the above reasoning and facts actually of what actually haooens and not what ideal you are subjective determining as the case. What if people challenge your premise to begin with.

What if? It is al you have done.

Ok sorry I must have missed it. Not on purpose. Just having so many posters to respond to. I will go back and answer it specifically. I will leave this section and respond to the rest seperately.

I look forward to that.

 

[stevevw]

Petrie is just your current map of the Mississippi.

I find it ironic. You claim truth over experts and when I cite them you relegate them to fiction. Yet claim your own words are fact. Double standards.

That's a laugh, coming from you. You don't give them any.

You complain that I don't provide per review and then when I do you completely ignore it. No one can have a coherent discussion when people just dismiss evidence.

So what? Given the evidence presented here, I would have to side with the cut and pounded school, but it doesn't really matter. All you have ever shown us is that the ancient Egyptians may have possessed technology that we don't know about, and that is hardly late breaking news.

You stacked the deck. You have already dismissed the evidence and then say theres nothing to see.

 

[stevevw]

Individuals who have responded in this thread do not operate at your limited intellectual and educational levels, so stop projecting.

So you already have dismissed everyone I linked. None have expertise and an education. Why should I even engage. This is what will happen now that you have dismissed everything. I will dismiss everything you as lacking credibility. Same rule applies.

Since you are incapable of understanding the problems in your so called experts ‘theories’ don’t assume everyone else cannot either.

Your arguments are based on confirmation bias while your take on images shows pareidolia which is the psychological condition of seeing things that are not there. Only you can see the softening of stone while everyone else sees irregular surfaces.

Well let me put my forensic scientist cap on, I have had to analyse SEM results and have sometimes been led astray as SEMs are very good at detecting contamination.

It is a well known fact the Giza plateau sits on a water table which rises and falls and the Sphinx which is made from limestone has been affected by groundwater penetrating the limestone via capillary action. Dissolved salts such as silicates recrystallize in the limestone creating the impression of geopolymer cement defined by a high water content, the presence of silicon dioxide, calcium and magnesium-rich silicate minerals.

This my theory and I asked GPT-5 to find evidence of the same effect on pyramid casing stones.

✅ Can the high water content and silicates in low-level pyramid casing stones be explained by groundwater and capillary rise?​

Yes — and there is direct geological, archaeological, and hydrological evidence that the lower casing stones of the pyramids interacted with groundwater and capillary moisture for long periods.

This interaction can fully account for:

• Elevated water content
• Amorphous silicate coatings
• Silica spheroids in SEM images
• Mg–Ca rich cement patches
• Chemical compositions different from “fresh” limestone

Below is the evidence.

---

1. Evidence that groundwater reached or influenced the pyramid bases​

1.1 Geological surveys show historical high water tables near the pyramid base​

Multiple geological studies (Egyptian Geological Survey; Hassan 1949; Gauri et al. 1988; Abdel-Mota'al 2010) show that:

• Ancient groundwater levels across the Giza Plateau varied significantly.
• During wetter periods (Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom), the water table was several metres higher than today.
• In some recorded phases, the water table approached or overlapped the lowest courses of the pyramids.

The lower portions of:

• The Great Pyramid
• Khafre’s pyramid
• Menkaure’s pyramid

all show moisture-related weathering distinct from upper courses.

---

2. Evidence of capillary rise in the Giza limestones​

2.1 Tura limestone (the casing stone material) is highly microporous​

Petrographic and porosity measurements (El‐Aref 1987; Kamel & Kamal 1990) show:

• Tura limestone has very fine micro-porosity (0.5–2 μm pores).
• Such pore sizes maximize capillary action, enabling water to rise 2–5 m above the water table.

This means even if the water table didn’t physically touch the casing, moisture could still wick upward into the lower courses for centuries.

2.2 Field observations confirm capillary staining on casing blocks​

Archaeologists who documented the few remaining original casing stones (especially on the northern and eastern sides of the Great Pyramid) note:

• A distinct “tide line” or discolored band on the lowest casing stones
• Crusts of evaporated salts, including halite, gypsum, and silica
• More porous and friable texture on the bottom 4–6 courses

These are classic signatures of prolonged capillary wetting and evaporation cycles.

---

3. Evidence that groundwater altered the geochemistry of these stones​

3.1 Silica precipitation and amorphous coatings on lower stones​

Geochemical studies of the Great Pyramid casing remnants (Harrell 1991; Klemm & Klemm 2001) show:

• Silica-rich amorphous films on lower edges
• Microcrystalline and colloidal silica deposits in pore spaces
• Mg-enriched carbonate alteration in lower zones
• Dolomitization features in moisture-influenced areas

These match exactly the silicate and Mg–Ca textures that the geopolymer hypothesis cites as “artificial binders”.

But they are well-known groundwater alteration products in limestones.

3.2 Identical alteration is documented in the Sphinx enclosure​

The Sphinx’s lower limestone shows:

• High water content
• Amorphous silica gels
• Clay mobilization
• Salt crystallization
• Recrystallized calcite

These effects arise from the same groundwater regime shared by the plateau.

The lower pyramid casing stones exhibit the same signatures, though less extreme.

---

4. Evidence of long-term moisture cycling affecting the casing​

4.1 Salt efflorescence recorded on lower pyramid blocks​

Salt crust analysis by Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999) shows:

• Halite, gypsum, and sodium carbonates
• Crystallized in patterns indicating evaporation from upward-moving groundwater
• Found primarily on lower courses, decreasing upward

This is diagnostic of capillary rise.

4.2 Mechanical degradation patterns align with moisture flow​

Weathering profiles on lower casing remnants show:

• Preferential subflorescence damage (salt crystallization inside pores)
• Zones of higher porosity created by dissolution
• Breakdown surfaces consistent with wet/dry cycling

These are not seen in upper courses, which stayed dry for 4,500 years.

---

5. Why this matters for the “reconstituted stone” hypothesis​

Everything that Barsoum’s team attributed to artificial reconstitution has a well-understood natural explanation:

Feature observed	Geopolymer claim	Well-established groundwater explanation
High water content	Reconstituted limestone stored water	Capillary rise + long-term groundwater wetting
Amorphous silicate binder	Artificial geopolymer	Silica gels from groundwater evaporation
Silica nano-spheres	Manufactured nanoparticles	Natural colloidal silica precipitates
Mg–Ca rich phases	Artificial binder formulation	Groundwater dolomitization & ion exchange
“Unnatural” chemistries	Human-added mix	Groundwater alteration + diagenesis

In every case, the natural geological process explains the data without requiring synthetic casting.

---

✅ Conclusion: Yes — groundwater and capillary rise completely explain the features observed in lower casing stones​

The combined evidence shows:

1. The water table rose high enough to influence the pyramid bases.
2. Tura limestone actively wicks moisture through capillary action.
3. Groundwater introduced silica, magnesium, clays, and carbonates.
4. Evaporation cycles created amorphous silica phases and silica spheres.
5. Weathering patterns on lower casing stones match known capillary processes.

Therefore, the high water content and silicate anomalies are geological in origin, not evidence that the blocks were cast.

---

Real evidence trumps confirmation bias and pareidolia.


Once again only someone as deluded as you, completely paralysed by pareidolia can see evidence of stone softening or moulding in the images.
Seriously it is breathtakingly stupid.

 

[BCP1928]

I find it ironic. You claim truth over experts and when I cite them you relegate them to fiction. Yet claim your own words are fact. Double standards.

Who, Petrie? I have great respect for him and his views on the matter. He doesn't prove your point though, just as a map of the Mississippi doen't prove that Tom Sawyer is a real boy, no matter how accurate the map is.

You complain that I don't provide per review and then when I do you completely ignore it. No one can have a coherent discussion when people just dismiss evidence.

I don't complain that you don't provide peer reviewed sources. Never have.

You stacked the deck. You have already dismissed the evidence and then say theres nothing to see.

What evidence have I dismissed? Some of your references have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand--like that accoustic resonance paper. An interesting paper, but irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

None of the cranks you cite were known to me before these threads started.

Its like your declaring to be the gatekeeper and unless the experts are known to you and pass your test they don't count. This is exactly my point of imposing an epistemics onto those who present alternative evidence.

(And none has any "authority" to appeal to.)

There you go again imposing your personal authority over everyone else. So what happens when people disagree and say they do have authority. What then. Are you an expert and have 50 years experience in the very field that is required to know what they are talking about.

Dunn wrote a crank book on pyramid power, so he may be better known among monitors of crank Egyptology, but I'd never heard of him.

Yes and his idea of the pyramids being able to generate energy has been verified. Have you even wrote anything on the Egyptian works. I doubt it.

I use my fingers to type as I can write without speaking it out loud.

But its still your personal opinion thats coming onto the page without one bit of evidence. I find it ironic when at least these experts have written something and done the onvestigation.

Awareness is the first step.

Let me ask you a question. Why are there so many people making a big deal about "precision vases" with all of these "projects" and dozens and dozens of YT videos. The whole thing is a rather minor aspect of a single period in Egyptian history.

You do realise this is a subjective opinion. People do disagree and see it as significant. You have from the start been antagonistic against anyone who suggest alternative and advanced knowledge.

The idea of advanced or alternative knowledge is a natural human interest. But of course if you have already relegated it to nothing due to your beliefs then its going to mean little to you. But don't project your beliefs onto others who hold a different one.

They pale in comparison to the development of writing and the early texts, the examinations of the lifestyle through material culture, the overall contents of grave goods, the development of pyramids. Compared to these, the brief period of precision vase manufacture is rather insignificant, so why are these amateurs so interested in it?

Tell that to a stone mason or engineer to sees the works. You have not got the awareness of these industries so you don't know. But then you dismiss everything you don't know so I guess your beliefs and feelings trump everyone elses experiences.

If we found a sowing needle in that period of time it would be a big deal. It depends on how you look at it. Its that the level of tech and knowledge stands out. How it stands out is a matter of knowledge itself.

If you don't understand the value from the perspective of the expert in that field then your imposing your unqualified belief over them. Petrie and other experts recognised the advanced knowledge immediately. I trust their opinion over yours.

It hasn't. We've gone over that study before, it does not say what you think it does, nor what the pyramid power people want you to think that it does.

Yes you keep saying this like its gospel. This is exactly the point I was making above about the words just fall out of your mouth and onto the page as though they are truth over everything else without one bit of evidence. You seem to think your words are like peer review without providing the peer review.

So this time provide the evidence. Show how its different to what I think. I provided several indpenedent articles that say otherwise. They clearly state that the pyramid can concentrate energy into the chambers and was specifically designed that way.

I have no use for religion. That I would wan't to create one is a vile falsehood.

But you believe your words are gospel just by saying them. As though they hold truth over all else without any evidence. Thats the same as unverified religious beliefs lol.

I don't know if Dunn is a good man or not. It really depends on if he is a true believer or just a second rate con.

This tells me you don't know him. That you have never read his material. Because if you did you would realise that he uses a scientific approach. He will abandon an idea if the science is not supported just as good scientists do. His language is exactly that. Even when others suggest unsupported ideas like aliens or gods he rejects it.

Which shows you made up you mind on Dunn without even knowling himand his work.

I give them their due moment,

Thats one of the biggest ironies I have heard for some time.

but once they cross the threshold, I don't relent. I gave "Dr Max" and "Karoly" their chances, but no more for reasons given in earlier posts.

Whose thresholds, you the gatekeeper. How do we know the gatekeeper is not the grifter.

I don't recall discussing saw cuts, or at least not recently.

Really, you have not seen any discussion or images on this thread about saw cuts. If not then how can you even make any claims about anything if you have not even looked at big chunks of evidence.

Out of place examples of what?

Out of place works, anything out of place as to its tech and knowledge. Where it should not have been there for that time. You could say the pyramids themselves are out of place for their time. They were the highest buildings in the world until the Eiffel tower was made in the 19th century.

But stuff like modern looking saw, planing and router cuts in hard stone. Precision vases in a time when the potters wheel was not even around. Evidence for chemical, and material tech in block moulding or changing the material nature of stones. Or the use of electromagnetism, acoustics ect in energy production or hydro tech ect.

It is ridiculous on the face of it. I know I've read some about it in the past, but it isn't worth sorting out so that I can explain how wrong it is to you only to have you ignore everything I say. My dismissiveness is proportional to your resistance to learning why these things are so silly.

The problem is because you have never done this it begins to look like you just sayiong this without any substance. You have to understand from my perspective that I have two people or sometimes many people disagreeing with you. One is published and has the work and the other has never produced anything.

The sources you quote certainly believe is some of those laughable things even if they try to keep it from your view.

Talk about grifters and conspiracy makers. They have specifically addressed this and stated in no uncertain terms that its not about anything whacko. You seem to be creating your own conspiracies without actually knowing what others are saying. Lumping them all into the stereotypes you are creating.

I bring it up because I want to understand who these people are and how stupid their foundations actually are. Last weekend I watched this video from Karoly's podcast, a discussion with David Miano and Adam Young

You seem to think I cannot sort out fact from fiction. Another projection and to be honest quite a put down. But thats what is to be expected from skeptics who relegate everyone to this category. Which only shows that bias is at play and we cannot trust your opinion.

Miano is respectful of the measurement work they are doing, but firm that they are no where near making conclusions. (It's worth a watch.) Karoly tries to keep it "straight", while Young tries to imply a pre-4th dynasty construction of the Great Pyramid repeatedly.

Yes I have watched this already. Which completely refutes you claim that these researchers are blindly claiming everything without getting alternative views. He does not refute the claims completely but offers alternative explanations.

If they were so fixated and deluded then why would they invite such alternative explanations and show everyone.

You seem to think that those who propose such alkternative and advanced knowledge must be completely unaware of the whackery out there. You have to remember that just suggesting alternative or advanced knowledge can be conflated but because it can be conflated doesn't make it all conflated.

What your doing is conflating any suggestion as automatically whacko. You cannot seem to seperate them out. Or accept that at the same time there is whacko idea there is genuine alternative and advanced tknowledge.

If you are to be fair and balanced then you should also hear from the actual experts in the specific fields as well and then make up your mind. Here is Chris King

What if? It is al you have done.

No I havn't. Thats the point. I am willing to accept the skeptics. Heck here I am with half a dozen people challenging me and the suggestion of advanced tech and knowledge. What if it was the other way around. How long would you last lol.

I am fully aware of the skeptics objections and I think so is all who propose alternative ideas. The difference is the skeptics are dismissing everything before its properly investigated which shows their position and belief was already set.

I look forward to that.

I had a look and nothing in what you said gives me evidence for the specific claims being made. Can you cite something they said that was kooky and about aliens or Atlantis or pushing any conspiracy theories.

I bet you can't because your making the whole thing up by taring them by association to skeptics themselves.

Like Dunn, you keep saying he is whacko for proposing that the Giza pyramid had some form of ability to generate energy. You relegated it all automatically as Woo. But then when I tell you that at least some of his hypothesis was verfied by independent evidence you ignore it. You double down that everything he presents is woo.

I am not stupid despite skeptics on this thread claiming. Thats the default objection that anyone who even suggests such things is whacko. Thats blantant bias and it stands out like anything.

The kind of language used for these good people would be rejected in a formal setting and equal evidence is required and not some personal unqualified opinion. I mean unqualified in both qualifications in the field and presenting no actual formal published evidence.

But I am not stupid that I don't understand the difference that your trying to appeal too for me to understand like your the enlightened one lol. Trying to save me from the bad old whackos lol.

Like I said get specific and show how Dunn's hypothesis was wrong. Not what skeptics sites tell you, not unqualified opinion. Give a scientist level analysis of his hypothesis and break down how its wrong.

While your at it show me how the stone softening hypothesis and evidence is wrong. Show me how the obvious machine cuts are not machine cuts and give a detailed scientific analysis of the difference between the traditional signatures and the machined ones.

Show me how Christ King an expert in precision tooling and engineering is wrong in the above video. I bet you can't. Come on you make these claims. Back them up.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I am aware of the difference but I still support the hypothesis of alternative and advanced knowledge of the ancients and its not about Atlantis or aliens. Can you comprehend that people genuinely hold this position without being whackos.

Like how they can genuinely hold a belief in God without being Woo or deluded.

I mean in some ways we should expect alternative and advanced knowledge compared to what we think today. Considering we have at least 100,000 years of brain capacity pretty similar to today as far as cognition is concerned.

In some ways those insisting on todays worldview epistemics as being the only one are the conspiracy makers considering that the majority of people for the majority of our history have believed in alternative forms of knowledge including knowledge outside the box of scientfific naturalism that can be considered advanced.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its like your declaring to be the gatekeeper and unless the experts are known to you and pass your test they don't count. This is exactly my point of imposing an epistemics onto those who present alternative evidence.

It is not.

There you go again imposing your personal authority over everyone else. So what happens when people disagree and say they do have authority. What then. Are you an expert and have 50 years experience in the very field that is required to know what they are talking about.

None of them are expert Egyptologists.

Yes and his idea of the pyramids being able to generate energy has been verified. Have you even wrote anything on the Egyptian works. I doubt it.

It was not verified.

But its still your personal opinion thats coming onto the page without one bit of evidence. I find it ironic when at least these experts have written something and done the onvestigation.

I have read their "investigations". It is low quality writing.

You do realise this is a subjective opinion. People do disagree and see it as significant. You have from the start been antagonistic against anyone who suggest alternative and advanced knowledge.

The idea of advanced or alternative knowledge is a natural human interest. But of course if you have already relegated it to nothing due to your beliefs then its going to mean little to you. But don't project your beliefs onto others who hold a different one.

It is fantasy knowledge "discovered" by nobodies.

Tell that to a stone mason or engineer to sees the works. You have not got the awareness of these industries so you don't know. But then you dismiss everything you don't know so I guess your beliefs and feelings trump everyone elses experiences.

I'd have no problem doing that. Shiny stone vases aren't even close to the most important thing about early Egyptian civilization.

If we found a sowing needle in that period of time it would be a big deal. It depends on how you look at it. Its that the level of tech and knowledge stands out. How it stands out is a matter of knowledge itself.

Sowing needle? Jethro Tull invented the seed drill in 1701.

Or did you mean sewing needle? Those go back 40-50,000 years ago.

Neither timeframe is even clos to that of ancient Egypt 6000 years ago.

If you don't understand the value from the perspective of the expert in that field then your imposing your unqualified belief over them.

You do not cite experts in Egyptology. The other posters have.

Petrie and other experts recognised the advanced knowledge immediately. I trust their opinion over yours.

For the love of sanity, read a professional Egyptologist from the last 50 years. Petrie has been dead for about 100 years.

Yes you keep saying this like its gospel. This is exactly the point I was making above about the words just fall out of your mouth and onto the page as though they are truth over everything else without one bit of evidence.

I've told you several times after examining that paper that it isn't about what you think it is about. That your "sources" feed that to you makes me think they are frauds.

You seem to think your words are like peer review without providing the peer review.

I did an actual review of a garbage paper on "sonics" last night.

So this time provide the evidence. Show how its different to what I think. I provided several indpenedent articles that say otherwise. They clearly state that the pyramid can concentrate energy into the chambers and was specifically designed that way.

Already been done here and not just by me. I am not obligated to repeatedly correct your misunderstandings if you won't listen.

But you believe your words are gospel just by saying them. As though they hold truth over all else without any evidence. Thats the same as unverified religious beliefs lol.

Yes, I get it, religion is bad and useless.

This tells me you don't know him. That you have never read his material. Because if you did you would realise that he uses a scientific approach. He will abandon an idea if the science is not supported just as good scientists do. His language is exactly that. Even when others suggest unsupported ideas like aliens or gods he rejects it.

Which shows you made up you mind on Dunn without even knowling himand his work.

Thats one of the biggest ironies I have heard for some time.

Whose thresholds, you the gatekeeper. How do we know the gatekeeper is not the grifter.

shove off.

Really, you have not seen any discussion or images on this thread about saw cuts. If not then how can you even make any claims about anything if you have not even looked at big chunks of evidence.

You pollute this thread with so much "content" in your gallops of Gish that one must skip some of it to have time to do anything else on this site. If you posted less chaff, you might get more response.

Out of place works, anything out of place as to its tech and knowledge. Where it should not have been there for that time. You could say the pyramids themselves are out of place for their time.

They are not out of place. The sequence of pyramid development is very clear and well established through the last century of archeological study. It's time for you to read real Egyptology done after WW2.

They were the highest buildings in the world until the Eiffel tower was made in the 19th century.

Which is cool, but not an argument against the time line.

But stuff like modern looking saw, planing and router cuts in hard stone. Precision vases in a time when the potters wheel was not even around. Evidence for chemical, and material tech in block moulding or changing the material nature of stones. Or the use of electromagnetism, acoustics ect in energy production or hydro tech ect.

And various posters have addressed this repeatedly. Pay attention.

The problem is because you have never done this it begins to look like you just sayiong this without any substance. You have to understand from my perspective that I have two people or sometimes many people disagreeing with you. One is published and has the work and the other has never produced anything.

I haven't read *all* of their garbage, but I have read enough to know that it is garbage.

Talk about grifters and conspiracy makers. They have specifically addressed this and stated in no uncertain terms that its not about anything whacko. You seem to be creating your own conspiracies without actually knowing what others are saying. Lumping them all into the stereotypes you are creating.

You seem to think I cannot sort out fact from fiction. Another projection and to be honest quite a put down. But thats what is to be expected from skeptics who relegate everyone to this category. Which only shows that bias is at play and we cannot trust your opinion.

shove off again

Yes I have watched this already. Which completely refutes you claim that these researchers are blindly claiming everything without getting alternative views. He does not refute the claims completely but offers alternative explanations.

Pronouns are useless without context. I don't know which of the three male participants in the video "he" is.

If they were so fixated and deluded then why would they invite such alternative explanations and show everyone.

You seem to think that those who propose such alkternative and advanced knowledge must be completely unaware of the whackery out there. You have to remember that just suggesting alternative or advanced knowledge can be conflated but because it can be conflated doesn't make it all conflated.

What your doing is conflating any suggestion as automatically whacko. You cannot seem to seperate them out. Or accept that at the same time there is whacko idea there is genuine alternative and advanced tknowledge.

Your writing has failed your attempt to communicate.

If you are to be fair and balanced then you should also hear from the actual experts in the specific fields as well and then make up your mind. Here is Chris King

Who is Chris King and what is his expertise in Egyptology?

No I havn't. Thats the point. I am willing to accept the skeptics. Heck here I am with half a dozen people challenging me and the suggestion of advanced tech and knowledge. What if it was the other way around. How long would you last lol.

I am fully aware of the skeptics objections and I think so is all who propose alternative ideas. The difference is the skeptics are dismissing everything before its properly investigated which shows their position and belief was already set.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So was the calculations leading up to the reference to microwatts wrong. They explain how using a microwatt as a unit measure to capture the energy from acoustic sounds. Was that explanation and calculation wrong. If so how.

Watts are energy over time aka power, I'm only saying that they use the wrong units, and that they talk about the unit when they should have talked about the physical quantity. It is at least a language problem. In the results section they use the density of granite as the reference pressure, I can't say that it is wrong but it seems contraintuitive to me.

I am not the one complaining or objecting to certain words. I read the whole thing and never fixated on specific words that I had to remember them.

The point is I read the whole article and then read the section before the results again to get the context. You did not seem to even mention the context which at least gave a rational for why they used "watts' as a unit measure. You seemed to think it came from nowhere.

Because watts are not energy flow per area.

Ok I havn't got that far. Thats just recent. I haven't been keeping up lol. I will go back and look. I was speaking of earlier posts and not just you.

Ok so for example the stone softening or moulding. There is at least peer review and formal tests and analysis laid out in a proper way where the explanation or rational is explained with tests supporting the claim.

The only peer-reviewed stone softening/weakening I remember is the one were they used the piezoelectric effect to crack stone. I then asked you if that pattern of cracks had been found in Egyptian quarries, did I miss you response?

So if you claim that the stones are not moulded. Then you need tests on the stone and anaysis that will contradict the claims of the paper. Not picking out a small piece without context or analysis.

This seems to be from a dialogue with someone else.

I do and I explained this. I am saying you should have known it if your going to criticise it.

I did.

Thats ok and we can do that. But we then have to also acknowledge that what we are doing is not proper science. I mean if people are calling formal articles published online with tests and analysis as psuedoscience.

If they are not peer-reviewed they are at the same level as our discussions here.

Then certainly personal unqualified opinion on social media should be regard at least the same or even less credible. I find it ironic that some are claiming their personal opinion holds more weight than a formerly published article. At least they lay out their tests and analysis.

Ok I thought I had. There was the one I linked a few posts back. There was at least another one earlier. Anyway here are some

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy
Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-abstract/124/3/034903/156109/Electromagnetic-properties-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext

These two are the same, they are simulation exercises. Nothing have been experimentally verified. Electromagnetic waves are not sound waves.

The Intentional Use of Sound Design in the Egyptian Temples and the Great Pyramid
https://www.scienceopen.com/documen...-e6f916b4c59a/ScienceOpen/247_Smith_EVA23.pdf

I get a 503 on this one.

Historical development of cymatics and kinematics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384884836_Historical_development_of_cymatics_and_kinematics

This have nothing to do with energy extraction.

I read them enough and I will read them again and again if I have to.

 

[stevevw]

It is not.

Why is it not. You make a claim that Dunn for example is presenting Woo. The only evidence you show is your objection. You don't present any reasoning or evidence from a scienific analysis. So where is the epistemic rigor and following the standards of proper science in backing up those words.

Its poor epistemics even failing the same science standards to accept such unsupported claims. It does a disservice to thehard work and research put in by the researchers and relegates it to personal opinion.

None of them are expert Egyptologists.

Ah here we go, dictating the epistemics on who is the expert on the works. OK Petrie was one of the worlds top Egyptologists as well as a machinist. He agrees with the whackos lol.

But I can here the objections, but he's just an old bloke whose opinion is outdated.

So do you think if we were looking at say tools and the making of works with tools and the signatures they leave in stone that perhaps a precision tool maker and engineer may be better to determine things than an Egyptologist.

If we were looking at the chemical and material makeups of stones which would be better an Egyptologist or a Chemist or minerals expert or whatever it is we are specifically looking at.

You seem to think being an Egyptologist gives them all knowing expertise in all areas more than the specialists themselves. I think this is partly why you make many assumptions based on a poor understanding of epistemics and the different paradigms that make up knowledge.

It was not verified.

Hum then how do you explain this

Resonant response of the Great Pyramid interacting with external electromagnetic waves of the radio frequency range (the wavelength range is 200–600 m) is theoretically investigated. With the help of numerical simulations and multipole decomposition, it is found that spectra of the extinction and scattering cross sections include resonant features associated with excitation of the Pyramid's electromagnetic dipole and quadrupole moments. Electromagnetic field distributions inside the Pyramid at the resonant conditions are demonstrated and discussed for two cases, when the Pyramid is located in a homogeneous space or on a substrate. It is revealed that the Pyramid's chambers can collect and concentrate electromagnetic energy for the both surrounding conditions. In the case of the Pyramid on the substrate, at the shorter wavelengths, the electromagnetic energy accumulates in the chambers providing local spectral maxima for electric and magnetic fields.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-abstract/124/3/034903/156109/Electromagnetic-properties-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Calculations showed that in the resonant state, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in the its internal chambers as well as under its base, where the third unfinished chamber is located.

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

An international research group has applied methods of theoretical physics to investigate the electromagnetic response of the Great Pyramid to radio waves. Scientists predicted that under resonance conditions, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in its internal chambers and under...

phys.org

I have read their "investigations". It is low quality writing.

See this is what I mean. Is this your version of peer review. A 5 word sentense holds more credibility than pages of tests and analysis. Its shows double standards and that you have already made your mind up and dismiss all the good work as Woo. That double standard in itself is a disqualifier.

It is fantasy knowledge "discovered" by nobodies.

OK so it looks like you have made up your mind. Everyone who proposes something different are deluded and nobodies. Why even engage then lol. Are you on some mission to save the unenlightened.

I'd have no problem doing that. Shiny stone vases aren't even close to the most important thing about early Egyptian civilization.

Yes but if your imposing your opinion even claiming to know better than stone masons or precision tool makers then you have to tell them and show how they are wrong. But how can you if you don't have the expertise. You seem to think you do regardless that you can dismiss their opinion as Woo.

Sowing needle? Jethro Tull invented the seed drill in 1701.

OK so if we found a sowing needle in predynastic egypt though such a tiny and insignificant thing would be a big thing to sewing machinists lol. Your imposing your opinion over all other experts in field you know nothing about.

Neither timeframe is even clos to that of ancient Egypt 6000 years ago.

I mean a modern needle. We can find all sorts of pots like coconuts or even a hollow in a rock dating back 100s of 1,000s of years. I mean modern versions that are out of place.

You do not cite experts in Egyptology. The other posters have.

Because this is a logical fallacy that you insist on a non expert from another field to be an expert in a field they have no specialisation. It is whoever has the closest expertise to what is specifically being looked at. If its precision tooling and engineering then Egyptology does not trump precision tooling and machinists.

For the love of sanity, read a professional Egyptologist from the last 50 years. Petrie has been dead for about 100 years.

So has Eienstein. Your making a logical fallacy that because Petrie has been gone that his Egyptology, Archeology and machinist expertise in irrelevant. Petrie actually set the standards for Egyptology that is still the standard today.

I've told you several times after examining that paper that it isn't about what you think it is about. That your "sources" feed that to you makes me think they are frauds.

Ah once again you are not providing absolutely any evidence showing how its wrong. You are almost demanding that I believe you now without any evidence. Is not that a poor basis for anyone to accept a claim. Almost like because you say you have told me before that somehow telling me again holds more credibility.

Show me. You have never shown anything. Which just like you summise I summise as suspect that you cannot actually provide any evidence. I have persisted on different claims

I did an actual review of a garbage paper on "sonics" last night.

Well show me.

Already been done here and not just by me. I am not obligated to repeatedly correct your misunderstandings if you won't listen.

No no one on this thread has provided anything formal or official. Go do the tests, make the paper with sections showing the analysis, procedures, methods and results. Showing a breakdown of how the tests done are wrong. Not picking out some word or tiny difference in microns.

No thread like this would count as anything credible. I mean how could it when there are obvious logical fallacies all through it and we can clearly see bias. I mean Petrie was called an old man who knows nothing, experts called amateurs which is obviously false because they did have some qualifications above amateurs.

I am applying the same standards as others on this thread. Show me the peer review otherwise its all bunk and conspiracy itself.

Yes, I get it, religion is bad and useless.

Which biases your views on anything that fallas outside the material worldview you hold. You have a mission to show those poor Christians they are deluded because your belief is the true one.

shove off.

You can give it but not take it. Why are you still here.

You pollute this thread with so much "content" in your gallops of Gish that one must skip some of it to have time to do anything else on this site. If you posted less chaff, you might get more response.

Its my thread and what you think is polluting is your opinion. If its so pulluted then why are you here.

They are not out of place. The sequence of pyramid development is very clear and well established through the last century of archeological study. It's time for you to read real Egyptology done after WW2.

So you don't think that holding the record as the highest building in the world 4,500 years before it was broken is not an amazing feat for that time. You are hard to please. Nost people would acknowledge such a feat. In fact you hear in the language that people are amazed all the time.

Which is cool, but not an argument against the time line.

Ah first we have to recognise the greatness of the works before the timeline. If you relegate it all to nothing then theres nothing to find out of place. I think this is at least a subjective thing and therefore a case can be made.

And various posters have addressed this repeatedly. Pay attention.

I have been paying attention and no one has explained the various cuts in stone. They have offered claims but no evidence to explain how these signatures are made by traditional methods. Only fallacies like "if you can't show the actual device or tool then its false" which is a fallacy and does not negate the signatures we see with our naked eyes right before us.

Once again the signature of machining and lathing on a predynastic vase under the pyramid still on site. So no fallacies of provenance. This very example examined by Christ Smith a precision tool expert of 50 years. Who explains how it was machined.

Once again a clear saw cut in the form of an arc with fine and sharp edges a straight copper saw could not do. Why don't you be honest like others and admit it looks like a modern machine cut.

Once again a very long cut into the surface that is thin and follows the contour of the stone. This cut extends around 20 feet long. Like a planer sliced off a thin layer maintaining a super straight, thin and sharp cutting line along the rough surface of the uncut rock.. Something the orthodox method cannot do. If you think it can then explain how and show evidence.

What about the clear router marks. Are you not seein this. Just admit that they look like machine cuts. You don't have to agree that they actually are. But to keep pretending they don't look like they obviously do is what makes me think that people are wanting to deny the evidence.

I haven't read *all* of their garbage, but I have read enough to know that it is garbage.

That you call it garbage before reading it shows your bias.

shove off again

Like I said you can give it but not take it.

Who is Chris King and what is his expertise in Egyptology?

Before I answer that do you think that an Egyptologists or precision tool maker would be best to tell the tooling methods on anything whether its from Egypt or the medieval times. Who is better equipped to tell this specific technical aspect.

 

[sjastro]

So you already have dismissed everyone I linked. None have expertise and an education. Why should I even engage. This is what will happen now that you have dismissed everything. I will dismiss everything you as lacking credibility. Same rule applies.

Your response once again indicates the intellectual level you operate at, a cult like devotion for individuals who are not experts in the fields relevant to this thread.
I make no apologies for dismissing their pseudoscience as I have been very clear in my reasons using science and evidence.
You on the other hand from practically the first post have attacked my credibility and everyone else’s for questioning your so called experts as a substitute for your inability of providing any counterarguments.

Ignoring the science and evidence while flooding this thread with images and links clearly beyond your understanding would make Duane Gish proud but is no substitute for counterarguments.

 

[sjastro]

@Hans Blaster have you noticed the similarities in behavior shown here with EU cultists when certain individuals are elevated to idol status making them immune to criticism as their 'expertise' is second to none.
At least the EU cultists had Hannes Alfven (to those unfamiliar with a Nobel Prize winner in Physics) but a proven crank when it came to cosmology.

 

[stevevw]

Your response once again indicates the intellectual level you operate at, a cult like devotion for individuals who are not experts in the fields relevant to this thread.

Is Chris King an expert in precision tooling, machining and engineering to have an opinion of the tooling and methods used to create the works.

I make no apologies for dismissing their pseudoscience as I have been very clear in my reasons using science and evidence.

Then explain to me how Christ Kings experts assessments is wrong in how he explains how the signatures were created. In fact show me how the signature he is explaining is not the result of machining.

The image is above in my previous post. You have seen it and ignored it. Tell me how Christ King is wrong.

You on the other hand from practically the first post have attacked my credibility and everyone else’s for questioning your so called experts as a substitute for your inability of providing any counterarguments.

Because you have offered nothing to the same level of formality or level of testing and analysis that has been shown in the articles linked. It would be poor epistemics to take your word even if you claim you know what your talking about over another who at least has as much expertise or more. Without the saame level of work and formality that shows the layout of the process in which the tests and analysis contradicts the articles I have listed.

For example you linked a plaster cast of the strirations that you claim were made by hand grinding let alone even a copper saw or some cutting device. You made the fundemental mistake of assuming your example represented all examples. I showed you counter evidence that it was not made by hand grinding.

If this is your expert opinion then I have to treat it suspiciously as its already shown that you ignore basic counter evidence.

Ignoring the science and evidence while flooding this thread with images and links clearly beyond your understanding would make Duane Gish proud but is no substitute for counterarguments.

Yes images you obviously cannot admit to or acknowledge and skip[ over them with a fallacy that its gish gallop. Its not. I listed 4 different examples of cuts in stone. Not the same but different to show the wide variety of different cuts showing possible different tech.

But I have linked these images on their own and still its ignored. Yet you do exactly the same and its not gish gallop. See how this is double standard.

Just deal with the plain images in front of you and stop ignoring them. You already admitted one looked like a modern cut and must have been a forgery. So why don't you just acknowledge the others. Just admit they look like modern machining. Or at least not like the traditional method could produce.

It doesn't mean you agree they are actually caused by modern methods or machines. Just the first basic step in observation science which is to acknowledge what is being observed in front of you. What do these examples look like to you.

I have asked this ten times now and still you can't bring yourself to comment. Go back and carefully look at the images. What do you think they look like. What do you think caused them.

I don't want all the rationalisations about needing proper tests or experts. Just you and your eyes and what you think they look like initially. As the first step. It may prove wrong. But just explain what they look like caused them.