There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

sjastro said:

I am not going to be side tracked or distracted by your multiple images and concentrate on the image I analysed presented again here for reference.

Click to expand...

But it was not just images but also linked explanations and arguements and even technical explanations are to how the signatures were produced.

This is a logical fallacy that you misrepresent what I posted as just images. This avoids dealing with the content. Whether that content is correct or not does not matter. Even if you think it conspiracy. You need to engage in the content and show how it is conspiracy.

sjastro said:

View attachment 369162​

Granite is an igneous rock formed when magma solidifies deep underground. This results in slow cooling and the formation of large crystal structures. When the Egyptians were able to split granite along a plane of weakness the surfaces are not smooth, the crystal structures are interlinked resulting in a grainy roughened surface.
If the surface visible in your image is the result of splitting the granite there must have been some polishing of the surface afterwards.

Click to expand...

This is another fallacy. Your assuming that all smoothing and polishing is because the surface is rough due to splitting. Whereas the surface may be rough for many reasons such as bashing with pounders, cutting with copper saws, or machined. Or that smoothing and polishing regardless of how the rock was cut is a artistry practice in finishing the stone.

But more importantly the video I linked at the end of the post on the slab as Abu Rawash was a technical analysis for how this slab was cut. The slab has the exact same strirations as the stone I originally linked which you are commenting on.

This shows other possible ways how those lines may have been caused. But you dismissed this out of hand as you are fixated on one possible cause. This is really my point of this thread and how both sides can get fixated on certain causes which may fit their pre concieved idea and belief.

sjastro said:

This leaves two other options the surface is the result of either cutting the granite with your unknown technology but in this case let’s assume it is a diamond tipped rock cutting saw or a copper saw using water and an abrasive such as sand.

Click to expand...

Now you are fixing my own ideas and views as to what the cause is. It may well be as I think Flinders Petrie suggested some sort of fixed diamond cutting tech. Or loose quartz used as a cutting agent. But I honestly don't know. We can suppose these but there maybe some other way so we have to be open to all.

sjastro said:

Here is a comparison image between the two cutting methods.

View attachment 369163​

Even though your image shows a fair degree of wear through weathering effects there is enough detail in the groove structure of the striations to reveal a variability in the depth and kerf (the width of the groove) which one would not expect to find in diamond tipped rock cutting saw as illustrated.
The kerf variation also indicates the abrasive size is not constant, another feature one would not expect with a diamond tipped cutter.

Even thought the block is worn in your sample there is enough detail to indicate the striations are consistent with the ancient Egyptians using copper saws, water and abrasives instead of some modern form of tooling.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The quartz or diamond abrasive is known to be rough and eneven taking out some agregates more than others.

But more important this does not explain the examples where a hand held saw cannot work such corners and in the example I linked where the cut goes into the rock that is fixed in a line of rocks with no access to the other side to move the saw back and forth.

Nor the curved cuts which seem to leave an arc bith vertically and in depth as the last example for which the video goes into as to how this could be achieved.

This particular slab has the exact same strirations as the one you are using from my first example with the same type of arc qith a very thin lip. Which would not be left is a copper saw with quartz abrasive (abrasing the rock out and not actually cutting). Which would leave a wide cut without sharp thin edges.

2PhiloVoid said:

... whatever it is (or isn't), we shouldn't expect it to line up with Genesis chapters 1 - 11.

Click to expand...

Thats the point. Each and every time the suggestion of other possible knowledge, perhaps greater knowledge or a different kind of knowledge that may not conform to the status quo. It is automatically assumed it has something to do with the bible, aliens and other conspiracies.

Though alternative ideas and ways of knowing are ripe ground for conspiracies. What is happening I think is that this is used as a weapon to dismiss alternative ways and knowledge.

My aim is not to prove Genesis or aliens but to question the standard explanation with the science of how some of the signatures we see in the works left, the narratives given as to cognitive and belief abilities as compared to the orthodox timeline and worldview of material gradualism and evolution on human behaviour.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm sticking with the "mainstream," Steve. Not because I prefer it, but because as a philosopher who studies Historiography and the Philosophy of History, I know that the past never has been written in stone. So, a few "odds and ends" discoveries that stretch our provisionally made theories for different aspects of Natural History isn't surprising nor a reason to perceive an earthquake where none took place.

Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding my position. I agree with the rational and objective as well. We should be very cautious about making hard to determine ideas over what we can ground in the sciences, logic and reasoning.

But at the same time we know there are other ways of knowing the world and reality. As Christians for example we truely believe in something beyond the rational and material explanations and into a spiritual and transcedent realm.

Which at least as Christians or any religious group or even spiritualist would agree as something real that influences thought and behaviour. In some ways even mainstream sciences toying with consciousness beyond brain and a form of Panpsychism and other transcedent fundemental realities.

So either this is all hogwash as some say on this thread and in mainstream and the only reality for our history is a material one contained completely within a non spiritual or transcedent reality.

Or there is something to this aspect of human thought and behaviour that needs to be acknowledged and incorporated into the understanding of human history. Its either something real and has had real influence or its imagination, superstition and a by produce of the material world. Its just a matter of being open to understanding exactly how.

The problem is for the atheist and materialist is that any suggestion is automatically hogwash. So we don't even get through the front door to entertain investigating alternative suggestions.

Thats because the fundemental metaphysical (belief) not science excludes such ideas and alternative ways of being and knowing as a priori. Especially when this is used to dimiss alternatives because they cannot be verified by the epitemic dogma of material science (empiriclism is the only tru knowledge) over all other ways of knowing.

I am not arguing what exactly that alternative/s ways of knowing is. Rather that there is an alternative way/s of being and knowing whatever that is. To the material science and orthodox way that is currently imposed on how we should see our history.

Anyway Phil everyone knows that "you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the History channel". Or was that the Discovery channel.

Hans Blaster said:

Steve,

You keep providing us more and more links, text, and pictures from questionable sites. It doesn't help

Click to expand...

The problem is who else would dare attempt to question the status que but the fringe outlets lol. I say fringe not because all are actually conspiracy. But because the nature of questioning the status que requires someone to be on the fringe of science.

Hans Blaster said:

Dunn's crank site.

Click to expand...

Another example of conflating conspiracy with science. Dismissing all of Dunns work as a Master Engineer including working with NASA with decades of experience including working in pioneering component manufacturing and with NASA as conspiracy.

Hans Blaster said:

We've talked about the crankiness of this site in the past. (Oh post #26, please don't come true.)

Click to expand...

Yes you made many ad hominems. I also showed that his findings aligned with Flinder Petrie the origional archeologists who did papers on these works and other independent testings and analysis.

The point is Dunn is automatically cast as conspiracy when there is much credible work.

Hans Blaster said:

I am unfamiliar with "academia . edu", but it would seem that they are some mixture of new publications and links to other publications. This one, which I skimmed over a bit of, was full of invective that was entirely unbecoming of any amateur who wants to claim the dignity of research work. I've seen real amateur scholars and scientists make real contributions and they always write in ways that aren't about attacking or denigrating the work of others. (And when you do attack someone in the journals, it needs to be "professional" and "contained" and not look like it, my right honorable friend.) I see no reason to consider the "work" of a "researcher" who relies on obvious invective rather than making a solid evidence based claim as this "paper" does.

Click to expand...

More ad hominems. Like I said the very nature of questioning the established view makes it hard to find evidence. All alternative views are seen as conspiracy to begin with. But in the end some are well supported.

For example Dunns idea that the Great pyramid is some sort of energy generator was seen as kooky at first. Now there are many good scientific studies and papers supprting such an idea. He based his conclusions of years of research based on his knowledge of engineering and related physics and chemical analysis.

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

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

AV1611VET said:

Interesting video.

And while I'm not an evolutionist, I especially liked the point he made that nomadism was an exception to the rule, not the norm.

Click to expand...

Yes and the logic was that humans were not so rubust that they could wander all the time. The need for good shelter from the elements but also of being social beings who naturally came together in communities without any evolutionary reason. Apart from some cultural or religious reason.

AV1611VET said:

He says humans aren't made to live nomadic lifestyles; pointing out that even children are "hardwired" to build things.

Kids build tree houses, sand castles, snow forts and the like.

Click to expand...

Yes and further studies have shown even chimps relate to space by building with blocks. At least male chimps moreso. Which makes sense as they also had the biology for building.

Humans being far more advanced could not express this with the great monoliths to the gods. Not just for shelter but a sort of divine mission that is expressed in these amazing works we see more or less at the same time or very soon after they were suppose to be wearing loin cloths and using primitive flint tools.

AV1611VET said:

Finding evidence of settlements in places that didn't have natural protection -- (like caves) -- is another giveaway that the nomadic way of life was the exception, rather than the rule.

Click to expand...

Yes caves would be a logical place and thats why we find the earliest examples in caves. But an interesting thing is that much of the early works were sort of replicating the caves. The deep tunnels and tombs.

Or even above ground tombs. The first early tombs were Dolems which was basically rock slabs made into a walkin cave like tomb. Which I would think the idea of stone shelter is very similar.





Heres something for the conspiracy theorists. These Dolems were also seen as portals lol. But this is the culture themselves claiming this and not modern conspirists.

Another example of how these ancient narratives are dismissed as superstition and there is absolutely no possibility that there was some spiritual or transcedent significance that influenced reality. Its all just make belief as an evolutionary by product.

Ophiolite said:

Sa

Sadly, pretty much what I was expecting.

• I am not the one making unfounded, unsupported (by proper, scholarly investigation) assertions. I am simply noting the, ought to be self evident, fact that those assertions run counter to current and long standing views within the relevant community of experts.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. I know that there has been an expansion of the orthodox view but certainly still within the same material reductionist worldview. There is no entertaining alternative knowledge that may actually be more advanced that the current slow gradual increase in knowledge.

For example the idea of some form of electro energy generation or experimentation with natural chemistry in rock softening elct are still seen as conspiracy. The idea that manpower over long periods waring down hard stone (not too dismiliar to gradualism in geology or evolution) is still the predominent basis.

Ophiolite said:

• Despite noting that the only thing that would be relevant from you would be peer reviewed evidence by members of that community, you proceeded to try to discuss what barely misses being pure anecdotal word salad.

Click to expand...

No these examples such as the video on the slab at Abu Rawash give technical analysis which you completely dismissed. The article had links to the science.

Like I said this was sutomatically seen as conspiracy and therefore no need to even engage in it. Even if as you claim its conspiracy there is no arguement given for exactly why.

You do realise you can argue a case without peer review. Peer reviwe is not some magical thing and has also been found to show bias against certain alternative ideas. This amounts to an appeal to authority without reasoning why the counter ideas are wrong or should not be a possibility.

Like I said the nature that alternative ideas are fringe but not necessarily wrong as history shows makes them harder to find mainstream support. Because its the mainstream that is dismissing this.

Ophiolite said:

• I can only assume that your failure to provide reliable, authorative support for your argument is that you have none. Your general lack of scientific rigour and egrgious "logic" tells me working through your argument and your speculative YouTube videos is a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Not really. If there is a general lack of alternative support then this is not necessarily because its wrong. Its because it does not fit the mainstream narrative or the material reductionist and gradualism of mainstream narratives that have dominated the past decades.

So therefore even moreso these alternative and fringe ideas need more investigation and not automatically dismissed. Using the fact that there is little mainstream support is just another way to sledge hammer the dogma that only certain ideas are allowed.

So far I have seen no engaging in the examples I have except for sjastro and I appreciate this even though we have not get into the nitty gritty fully. But at least he is willing to look closer and we can debate whether this is the case.

But as far I I can see you are dismissing this because I am not meeting your criteria, not mine or anyones but yours. Your more or less saying if the evidence does not meet what the establishment says is legitimate then it doesn;y count. Yet I am saying it is the establishment view that is denying alternative ideas in the first place.

Ophiolite said:

• Let me know when you have something solid, rather than flights of imagination whose conclusions are more a form of delusional wish fulfillment than meaningful observations.

I think there is an intelligent, thoughtful person somewhere in there Steve. Ditch the nonsense and let them get out.

Click to expand...

Well thankyou. But I have. Pick out anything in the video linked for the last image of the slab they are analysing. Give an arguement why these posibilities of explaining the signatuires left in the rocks cannot possibly apply.

Then explain how the traditional tools such as the copper saw has produced such a signature. Like I said theres little investigation on these alternative ideas because they are in the minority. So in some ways this is all we have. What I linked is just about the limit. But that doesn't mean they should be dismissed.

I gave the example to another poster of how the idea of the pyramids being some sort of energy generator was seen as conspiracy and there was little support to find. A few were proposing such an idea but had done good work to support this.

The same with Indigenous knowledge which was seen as primitive superstition or belief rather than anything scientific or substancial. Then we began to understand the value of this knowledge which turned out to be even more advanced than the current science as far as the enviorment was concerned.

But prior still mainstream would not ever engage in the details of these alternative ideas. But gradually these alternative idea became well supported by mainstream.

You can if you wish dispute what I linked and offer arguements and science as to why they don't apply. But don't place limitations because they don't meet your idea of what is credible or not as peer reviwe. Because this is not always the case.

Then you need to explain why these particular supports don't count. NOt because they don't meet peer review. But why their assessments don't count.

sjastro said:

First of all I suggest you learn what a logical fallacy actually means.

Click to expand...

I think it the other way around. When you misrepresent what I posted as just images and then use that to dismiss the non image components thats a misrepresentation pure and simple.

sjastro said:

Secondly you seem to have confused yourself as I was responding to your post #83 which was of a single image without any accompanying video or further information.
You supplied that further information in a response to @Ophiolite by which stage I had already responded to you.

Get your facts straight before making any comments or accusations.

Click to expand...

Once again I think its the other way around. There were ample additional posts before you just replied claiming that I was only posting images. My reply to Ophiolite with the evidence he wanted was only on the next page well before your claim.

If you are buying into Ophiolite post then you should be looking at my other posts for which I linked additional info including the video on the slab at Abu Rawash that the video covered giving analysis of what the possible causes were for the particular signatures found.

sjastro said:

Once again making accusations of a logical fallacy this time based on ignorance.
I’m not assuming the surface is rough due to splitting, I explained to you why this is always case for granite based on the science of petrology.

Click to expand...

Actually first sjastro did exactly what I did and concentrated on an image as the evidence. Which I don't mind but please be consistent as those disagreeing are doing exactly the same and it seems ok for them ie the next post after I had provided further support for that original image the other poster said

I am not going to be side tracked or distracted by your multiple images and concentrate on the image I analysed presented again here for reference.

So it seems for some presenting an image is perfectly ok for evidence.

From what I understand you were using the idea of rock splitting to explain the image I linked to imply that it was split and not cut. I pointed out that first this assumes the rocks were split and second that the rocks were manually rubbed and polished to take the roughness out.

I said that the rock may not have been split in the first place to leave such roughness and that whether it was split of or not the Egyptians rubbed and polished the surface regardless as this was part of their artistry to have such finishes.

sjastro said:

If the upper surface in your image in post #83 was the result of breaking along a plane of weakness it would have to have been abraded to be consistent with its appearance.

Click to expand...

You did not use the word 'if" originally. But thats ok now I get you. Its a proposal and not a definite claim. Rather exploring the possibilities which I agree is important.

sjastro said:

You just don’t understand, it is about being led by the archaeological evidence and how it can be used to explain the outcomes.

Click to expand...

Not really archeological evidence and this is the problem. That archeologists then step into what is actuallt engineering and Stone masonary which is not a specialist area of archeologists. Yet they claim to know these signatures and what created them without such knowledge.

sjastro said:

You on the other hand think archaeologists don’t what their talking about,

Click to expand...

Yes the archeologists who then claim engineering expertise. Often they don't refer to engineering experts. They believe they can tell from archeological alone as they can tell.

sjastro said:

neither do the engineers who technically advise them,

Click to expand...

No if there are engineers then this is to be acknowledged and lets see what they say. The problem is when the expert engineers do comment and may disagree suddenly they are less qualified and its pseudoscience.

sjastro said:

the ancients lacked the ability with the existing technology found by archaeologists and you have no idea what these alternate technologies are.

Click to expand...

You don't have to know what these alternative technologies are to know that the existing tech in the records does not match the signatures. This is when the expert engineering and tool making comes into play.

They can tell what sort of tool would be needed to create the specific signature. Like we can tell the difference between say a cut in rock made by a copper saw and abrasion which actually grinds and breaks up rather than cuts cleaning like a diamond topped cutting saw. Even a layman who has done backyard cutting and finishing knows this.

Its been twice now I have linked images with possible explanations where there are actual evidence of the cut half finished in rocks that could not possible involve a saw or any sort even a diamond tipped one as they leave no room for passing the saw. They look like a machine cut into the rock face not through it.

This alone contradicts any use of a hand saw for practical reasons before we even get into whether it was split of cut or polished or whatever.

sjastro said:

I’d say it’s pretty conclusive who has the preconceived ideas and belief.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I keep bringing up these anomelies and they are continually being ignored. I have not even claimed any particular reason or how they could have done this. Just that the signatures don't match the orthodox tools and actually have the signature of modern tools.

But not necessarily modern type tools tools are used. I just don;t know. It could be anything. For example as mentioned one idea that is gaining credence is that the rock may have been softened or weakened somehow to allow for even copper saws to cut cleaning.

sjastro said:

Which highlights the absurdity of your argument you don’t know what technology was used therefore the technology discovered by archaeologists must be wrong.

Click to expand...

I disagree and I think this is still a logical fallacy. That because I cannot tell you exactly what caused the signatures therefore any suggestion of alternative tech is false. Because there is lack of evidence.

Like I said we could apply this same logic to the current records. Because there are signatures in the rocks that the records cannot account for there must be missing tech in the records. Therefore the records are false.

sjastro said:

To compound this dilemma you can't even answer what this discovered technology was used for if can't reproduce the claims you make.

Click to expand...

I can'y remember such a question. But it would logically follow that the signatures in question, the ones I am linking are the ones produced by this unknown tech.

If someone found a simple sword in a time where there was no swords. The people would know that there was some sort of tech involved beyond what they knew or could account for. But not knowing what that was does not change that the sword could not have been created by the known tech for that time.

In fact when Petrie discovered some of these works he could not account for how this was done being the later 19th century early 20th before tech developed that we could understand it. But tyhis did not change that Petrie recognised the tech involved did not match the tools he found.

sjastro said:

You don’t know what you are talking about. Synthetic diamonds used for rock cutting produce vastly superior surfaces to rock cutters using quartz as they are up to 50X smaller in size and much harder making them less likely to break than quartz resulting in a much smoother surface.

Click to expand...

So did the early Egyptians have access to this. Or is this another modern invention.

sjastro said:

When comparing to a copper saw using sand the disparity between finished surfaces is far greater.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the copper saw with diamonds could mimick a machine cut like we see in some of these images. Maybe if they were fixed to the blade somehow as they would remain steady and be actually cutting into the rock and not abrasing it.

Theres a difference between cutting and abrasing. Or are you saying the abrasing can become like a fixed blade and produce an unabbrased clean thin cut in granite.

sjastro said:

I assume this image is behind the comment.

View attachment 369244​

Did it ever occur to you the ancient Egyptians cut out the rectangular block and then used a dolerite pounder followed by hand abrasion with a water sand slurry to refine the curvature and the sharp edges using a finer emery abrasive?

Click to expand...

So they decided to leave a perfect arc millimeter thin as part of the pounding and rubbing for decoratiove purposes. Or maybe to make it look like it was machined somehow.

If you would have viewed the video with it then you would not even be posing the idea of hand pounding and rubbing as the signatures are nothing like this. You go on about how I don't listen and look at things. Well I suggest you view the evidence first.

Look at the fine cuts into the flat surface with a sharp step going with the strirations as though the shaving or fine cutting accidently went too deep for a second or two. This is not from rubbing the surface smooth but a sudden indent into the surface sharp and clean.

sjastro said:

No exotic equipment is required, unlike your circular saw for abrading where there is zero archaeological evidence.

Click to expand...

Why do you say zero archeological evidence. How does archeological evidence negate the engineering tech of the signatures. Like I said lets pretend that one solution was the softening of stone. Which would then make it easier to work the stone using traditional tools like scrapers or blades.

Now how on earth could we find that tech when it was more than likely a secret chemistry that was passed down and could then be lost.

sjastro said:

Up to the early 20th century the figuring of mirror blanks for observatory telescopes was done purely by hand using pitch and an abrasive slurry with a grinding tool.
The largest was a 60” mirror still in use at Mt Wilson which was so well figured that only in recent times could computer controlled robots be able to produce curvatures which exceed the performance of these optical craftsmen.

By comparison the curvature of the block judging by the top edge is not at all impressive if it was supposedly done by a rotating saw as a grinding tool. If art was the objective Egyptian craftmanship which you have problems accepting would have done a better job.

Click to expand...

I have given several examples which show that pounding or saws impossible due to angles and lack of room or other reasons which deserve some attention.

But every single explanation no matter what is the stock standard answer of the mainstream view that everything was pounded and rubbed into existence.

If theres any fixed worldview that just goes with the standard narative its this one I think. It never wavers or even acknowledges there are anomelies. Just forces the same idea over and over again. Heck pounding and rubbing can even mimick machine cutting signatures. I think its almost as magical thinking as the claimed conspiracy theories.