There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I don't want to hear about your "Panpsychism" garbage. You're already out of the Realist loop, Steve.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything in that post about "conspiracy". I talked about your list of cranks.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dunn's work as an engineer with NASA has exactly nothing to do with his opinions on Egyptology. Nothing. I have no idea if he was a good engineer or not and it isn't relevant and I didn't comment on it. His Egyptology is delusional garbage, I neither know nor care anything else about him. You are not talking about his engineering work with NASA.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, Dunn is a Egyptology crank, I neither care nor know enough about his "thoughts" to care if he is a conspiracy theorist. We went over his nonsense the last time we went around on this. It is not "ad hominem" because I am not claiming "Dunn is a bad person, therefore Dunn's Egyptology is bad". I have no idea if he is a bad person generally. (I'm not sure if he is grifting or deluded about Egypt. I mostly don't care.) His work on Egypt is bad. His conclusions are ridiculous. They are not supported by evidence and are counter to plenty of evidence.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

We went over this site last time. I have no inclination to read anything you post from it.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was his idea and it is utter nonsense. (If I had any questions that Dunn was selling pseudoscience on Egypt, this was the one that sealed it.)

stevevw said:

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

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

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

Click to expand...

Different materials interact with EM waves differently (diffraction). That a big heap of calcium carbonate (limestone) would alter the paths of radio waves is not remarkable. There is nothing about this that implies any sort of intent, nor is the energy arriving in those frequencies enough to do anything with. It would be easier to raise one donkey, or get a stream of lemons to make a battery from.

Steve,

This thread started out being about altering our views of the pre-history of settlement. You have bent it completely on your own to be about kooky claims about Egyptian technology. It has moved from legitimate questions and narratives to pseudoscience all on your steering.

sjastro said:

I've never even heard of Avi Loeb is he supposed to a giant in the field and a potential Nobel laureate?

Click to expand...

He's an astrophysics theorist. In the field of galaxy formation and evolution, yes giant is probably appropriate, but I don't think that will get anyone a Nobel prize.

I'm a little surprised you haven't heard of him. I first heard of him when he had some quick explanatory paper on a mysterious new observation. Someone (Science, Physics Today) wrote up a profile and how he wrote that paper "over the weekend". This did annoy a lot of people who work long and hard to sort out the issues while hit-and-run theorists have already moved onto six other things.

Unfortunately, Loeb took his own tendency to do "quick and speculative science" and went off the deep end.

He was the leading proponent of the ʻOumuamua is an alien craft claim. (He parlayed that into a popular "science" book.) He scraped up a pile of private funds to create some sort of "institute" to investigate his ideas. Their next folly was the "spherules from alien bolide" expedition. His group was the one claiming the "spherules" were extraterrestrial. (They were the ones collecting them from the sea floor.) Lately (and predictably) has been pushing "3I/ATLAS" as "alien".

I would say more, but others have organized similar thoughts. There some good videos on YT that cover Loeb's fall into the pit. "Professer Dave" Farina has one, but I think Angela Collier's is better. She has a recent Ph.D. in astrophysics and asks the question: "Is Avi Loeb a crackpot?" (spoiler, not yet...)

sjastro said:

I assume this image is behind the comment.

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

Click to expand...

The photo has me wondering if it's from grinding something and not intentionally curved. Something a simple as, well, the blanks used in grinding a reflector telescope mirror.

No, have never ground one. The old Edmund Scientific catalogs had a section where you could get blanks and the rather low-tech substance used to secure the bottom blank, and other odds and ends, like a means of testing curvature through light interference - but it's been nearly sixty years so that could be wrong. The take-away is that both blanks start flat. You adhere one to the work surface and use the other to grind. End up grinding both, with, IIRC, the one not mounted ending up with as the mirror. Just a type of glass and maybe rouge (did they use rouge?) as grit.

Then you do all that hard work, send it off to be "silvered," and really, really, hope nothing goes wrong.

stevevw said:

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You are one very confused individual. Try to understand I only respond to the information given to me which was a single image and nothing else. I am not a mind reader and I would not wade through your rambling posts with others to try and anticipate there was missing information.
The only reason why I looked at your response to Ophiolite was to try to find this missing information after the fact.

stevevw said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I have gone as far as I will in addressing your misconceptions about my posts which is not what this thread is about.

stevevw said:

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

This is opinion based nonsense, in the real world archaeologists have collaborated with engineers based on the archaeological record.
Mark Lehner is one such individual who has worked with civil engineers to reconstruct methods of pyramid construction and workers’ settlements at Giza.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah sure every layman who has done backyard cutting has experience cutting granite using a copper saw with sand and knows the difference when using a diamond tipped circular saw.
This discussion is becoming more ridiculous.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

It means you not comprehend the mechanism involved which makes your argument even more absurd if our modern technology cannot even be used as a point of reference.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you so thoroughly deluded you cannot even see your anomalies have been addressed and dismissed?
Now you have descended into pseudoscience, the magic elixir which softens granite.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

You fail to see the elephant in the room there are records it’s the archaeological record and you have not been able to demonstrate why this record should even exist if cannot explain any of your so called anomalies.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is totally illogical, a specific example where there are no satisfactory answers is how the pyramids were built.
A plausible idea put forward by the French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin was the pyramids were built with the aid of ramps but archaeologists have found no such evidence.

This is how science operates and making nonsense claims that it was built using unknown technologies without any evidence makes as much sense as if aliens or 30 foot tall giants were involved.

stevevw said:

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

Click to expand...

You are totally confused.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good grief I was saying the exact opposite when comparing a quartz tipped blade with the Egyptian method of a straight copper blade and loose sand in a slurry.

stevevw said:

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.

View attachment 369261

Click to expand...

How can you be so totally confused?
If I didn’t watch your video, why would I have made references to circular saws when there is no archaeological evidence the Egyptians ever used them like the pendulum saws also mentioned in the video.
The archaeological evidence indicates the Egyptians only used straight copper saws and abrasives.

The use of dolerite pounding stones with the use of abrasives can easily reproduce the blocks as the same materials with copper chisels were used on granite statues which are far more intricate and difficult to produce. This also applies to raised hieroglyphs in granite are clearly carved into lowered backgrounds, consistent with the use of dolerite pounders and copper chisels with the use of abrasives.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

The answer is very simple you either don’t understand the archaeological evidence does produce the signatures or you are so blinded to the point of rejecting the reality.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Let me give you some advice get yourself an education on the subject, there might also be the added benefit your critical thinking skills will be improved and you will understand why you won’t have to rely on unknown technologies when the existing ones discovered through archaeology work just fine.

Hans Blaster said:

Different materials interact with EM waves differently (diffraction). That a big heap of calcium carbonate (limestone) would alter the paths of radio waves is not remarkable. There is nothing about this that implies any sort of intent, nor is the energy arriving in those frequencies enough to do anything with. It would be easier to raise one donkey, or get a stream of lemons to make a battery from.

Click to expand...

Have heard that before, back during the "pyramid power" fad of the 1970s. It was looking for information on a supposed ability of pyramids to sharpen razor blades and preserve things. One was "You know, these things look like microwave feed horns," and away we'd go.

Then, after cardboard pyramids were sold in parts of Eastern Europe to keep razor blades sharp, after everyone, including Edmunds, sold plastic pyramids for experimenting, It turned out that the steel has some slight "memory," and if you just leave a razor blade alone, some of the little frazes on the cutting edge will spring back into place all on their lonesome. Stropping the blades worked better, of course.

stevevw said:

The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible. If so what are the implications for the mainstream view of human evolution and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4gFfjzKck&ab_channel=MichaelButton

Click to expand...

I’ve found that the biggest flaw in human history tends to be humans.

stevevw said:

Look at these cuts. Do you notice they suddenlt stop 3/4 of the way through. In other words they have not been cut with a passing saw. The sudden stop shows this was not because of a saw which requires an even cut across the entire surface and then cutting down. even if uneven would still need to go completely across the surface to enable the saw to go back and forth.

This sudden stop is more aligned with a modern electric circular saw that can cut into and not across a stone. The cut does not go through the top of the rock but only inches deep. Yet the other end is also deep with a sudden stop. Therefore restricting passes with a hand saw.

I have actually done this with wood and a hand say and you have to spend ages with tiny passes that go nowhere. So ofcourse you get the circular saw and and its not problem to cut deep in one position.

The clear narrow and fine cut is more like a machine cut than one from sawing and abrasion which grinds. Plus why would they bother spending long days cutting 3 times a rock that looks like a leftover or test run.

View attachment 369251

Theres no way to pass a hand saw through this cut as there is another rock in the way. Once again it looks like the signature of a machine cut that goes into the rock.

View attachment 369249

Saying that because we cannot find what possibly caused this does not negate the signatures don't match the proposed tools in the records.

Click to expand...

This is amateur hour, no background information such as whether the rocks are granite or limestone, location, or the civilization involved.
The first image looks very much like a circular diamond tipped saw was used which means it was done in modern times.
The reason why I am confident about this is the second image is a stark opposite, why is the grove is so shallow and open if they had the capabilities of producing groves as in the first image.

The groove in the second image is a clear signature of a copper saw with a water abrasive slurry most likely sand.
So the question is how was the grove cut around the corner assuming this is an Egyptian stone; the answer is very simple they drilled a hole in the corner. We know the Egyptians had the capability of drilling small holes in granite as evidenced at the Aswan granite quarries.
The purpose of the hole was to allow the copper saw to pivot and change direction of the cut and I believe this technique is also used in carpentry.

So rather than being the death knell of abrasion cutting using a copper saw, the second image reinforces it.

Hans Blaster said:

I would say more, but others have organized similar thoughts. There some good videos on YT that cover Loeb's fall into the pit. "Professer Dave" Farina has one, but I think Angela Collier's is better. She has a recent Ph.D. in astrophysics and asks the question: "Is Avi Loeb a crackpot?" (spoiler, not yet...)

Click to expand...

I like "Professor Dave's" in your face attitude against pseudoscience but unfortunately the colourful language used at times does not make it possible to post here. I have seen a couple of Angela Collier's videos which I find too slow and could have been completed in half the time.

sjastro said:

I like "Professor Dave's" in your face attitude against pseudoscience but unfortunately the colourful language used at times does not make it possible to post here.

Click to expand...

Which is why I didn't link it. He has put some serious hurt into the notion that James Tour is a serious (or credible) voice on abiogenesis.

sjastro said:

I have seen a couple of Angela Collier's videos which I find too slow and could have been completed in half the time.

Click to expand...

That's a fair description. Her video on Loeb (what she also calls, Crackpots part 2) she diverts for 20 minutes (in 1 hour video) to talk about two physicists who went down crackpot-like paths investigating things outside their expertise as contrasts, the "not a crackpot" example was Luis Alvarez [Egyptology content!]. Her delivery is also a bit, unusual.

Sigh.

The interesting thing about tool marks is that they tell us something about the tool. Whipsaws leave vertical and almost vertical marks. Circular saws leave arcs. Clean breaks, as in scoring, can leave torn edges in wood and clean division in material like glass and some stones. Grinding leaves distinctive marks as well.

This is how we know it's known that the Egyptians cut stone. Straight line cuts? Not exactly easy-peasy, but to get a nice straight line all you need is a cord and some pigment. Even smut will do. Coat the cord with it, stretch it across the surface, and snap the line. Leaves a nice, straight, mark for a guide. Run down to your favorite hardware store and pick up a chalk line, and you can do the same thing. Once you have a straight line, then it's grind away. The Egyptians had plenty of grit in the form of sand, and that will do the trick. Metal tools are better, but if you're willing to waste precious cord, coating it with grit and repeating as the cord quickly wears through will also make a groove.

It's not as though we don't have what's left of their tools, so we know what they used. If they were using diamond coating abrasive disks rotating at high speeds, where are the remains of the machines? Where are remains of machine parts? Where are the remains of the tools required to build such machines? Where are the remains of what powered them? Copper saws they left behind; diamond coated disks not so much.

It's ironic. We started out with acknowledging that humans of bygone eras were more clever than we might thing, only to wind up with the argument that the Egyptians who built the pyramids just weren't up to the task.

stevevw said:

Not sure what you mean.

Click to expand...

You keep being asked for solid evidence and you routinely fail to provide it.

Now you provide, lengthy, repetitive attempts to justify it, all the while demonstrating that you have close to zero idea of how science works.
Is the scientific method perfect? Of course it isn't and no one on this side of the argument is saying it is. It is implemented by humans and humans are unreliable, narcissitic, forgetful, careless, biased, argumentative, emotional, etc. That is precisely why the checks and balances of the method are essential to increase the quality of the end product. You are complaining about the time constraint this places on the development of new ideas.

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

And that is where you should have started, with a discussion of the contents of those links, with a critical review of them - not a lovey dovey "isn't this great" in eight verses and oft repeated chorus. That could have got you some credibility, but your approach comes across as that of a gullible fool (which, as I have previously noted, you are not) and gullible fools are justifiably ignored.

stevevw said:

Even if as you claim its conspiracy there is no arguement given for exactly why.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have claimed any conspiracy in relation this thread.

stevevw said:

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

Click to expand...

For the reasons noted above. Poorly made arguments, associated with crackpot ideas would take away from the tedious, meticulous, careful, endlessly tested "real" science. How do I know the arguments are poorly made? Because their authors do not apply self-criticism. . . . Just like your posts.

stevevw said:

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

Click to expand...

As above

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

No. I am saying to change the course of an ocean liner takes time and patience, a gargantuan effort and understanding of how the ship operates.

stevevw said:

Pick out anything in the video linked for the last image of the slab they are analysing.

Click to expand...

APPARENTLY I NEED TO SHOUT THIS. UNTIL YOU DISPLAY EVIDENCE OF SELF CRITICISM I HAVE NO INTENTION AT LOOKING AT ANY VIDEOS YOU POST. MAKE A LENGTHY POST DETAILING WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT VIDEO AND I SHALL HAVE A LOOK AT IT.

stevevw said:

Sorry I assumed you knew. These are well known examples from the same site as the original example from Abu Rawash. The three cuts are once again on the black basalt I mentioned in the original piece I linked.

As you can see from the second example it shows the edge of the black basalt that the pavers were cut from still in place. These black pavers are on the west side of the Great Pyramid.

View attachment 369304



Yes I agree, it looks like its from modern tech. But its not a modern cut and there are many examples. No modern person came along and started sawing into ancient rocks on a protected site.

Click to expand...

Incorrect both Abu Rawash and the Great Pyramid have undergone stone looting and damage from antiquity until into the 20th century.
By the 18th century with the introduction of hardened tool steel by incorporating vanadium and tungsten into iron as an alloy, steel had become hard enough to readily cut granite.
On reflection the grooves in your image could have been done by chisels made of hardened tool steel instead of a diamond tipped circular saw but the point is they were not done in the 4th dynasty involving copper saws and abrasives.

As an exercise in AI, I asked GPT-5 to analyse the image and give a general time frame for when the grooves were produced.

Excellent — this photo is much clearer for identifying tool marks. Let’s break it down.

Observations on the Image​

1. Grooves are straight, parallel, and fairly uniform.
   • This is very characteristic of modern cutting tools (saw or disk blade), not hand pounding.
   • Ancient pounding/abrasion tends to leave irregular, shallow, dish-like marks, not parallel grooves.
2. Consistent depth and spacing.
   • Each groove appears to have nearly the same width and depth along its length.
   • That regularity points to machine action, because hand abrasion would taper out.
3. Sharp-edged kerfs.
   • The grooves have crisp, angular sides — again consistent with a hard steel blade or rotary tool.
   • Ancient sand abrasion leaves more rounded, diffuse cuts.
4. Surface contrast.
   • The grooved faces look fresher (cleaner, less weathered) compared to the rough, natural fracture surface.
   • This suggests relatively recent activity.

⚖️ Interpretation​

• ✅ These grooves are tell-tale modern cut marks, almost certainly made with a steel saw or disk cutter (possibly during stone robbing, restoration, or modern quarrying).
• ❌ They do not resemble the results of copper + abrasive slurry or dolerite pounding.

How to Recognize the Difference​

• Ancient → irregular craters, multi-directional striations, variable depth, smoothed by abrasive slurry.
• Modern → straight, parallel, evenly spaced grooves with crisp walls, like what you see here.

Would you like me to annotate this photo directly (overlay arrows and labels showing the “modern tool signatures” vs. “natural fracture surfaces”), so it’s crystal clear where the evidence lies?

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I assume you were talking about this cut

View attachment 369311

Yes its Egyptian and from Abu Rawash the same place the original image was. Which is the basalt pavers around the Giza Pyramid.

I am not sure what you mean is evidence of a copper saw. <y point was you cannot move a copper saw back and forth to cut it. The gap between the rocks is around 10cm so theres no room to pass a saw.

The obvious question is as they got deeper how could they even move the saw back and forth at all. There are rocks behind it. Have you ever tried to cut a section out of wood. Like taking a cube from the center of a slab on wood with a hand saw lol. You would have to do 100 more tiny back and forth saws because the blade will keep hitting the rocks behind.

Seems more far fetched then softening rocks which at least would allow more a cutting into rather than passing a saw through. Or as you mentioned for the other cut. IT looks more like a machine cut into the rock which would not require passing through the rock cut cutting into it from the front.

Click to expand...

Why are you assuming the groove was produced in situ? Clearly the block had some other purpose but the work was incomplete and the block ended up being used in the structure.
The tell tale sign the groove was produced by a copper saw is its width caused by the abrasive slurry ending up on both sides of the copper saw.
The later grooves whether they were caused by hardened tool steel chisels or diamond tipped saws produce thinner, deeper, and better defined grooves.

stevevw said:

I don't know but its good you are throwing up other possibilities.

Click to expand...

Throwing up other possibilities which debunk your ideas was the objective.

What's wrong with this picture?

1. Giza Pyramid: built 2580-2560 BC
2. Noah's Flood: 2348 BC

stevevw said:

Yes and its no sense going down side tracks on specific examples which can be a thread in itself. There will always be disagreement and people will view the evidence differently.

Click to expand...

For the last couple days this is all you have done -- added more and more "examples" of "ancient machining" that you claim could not be done with copper tools and grit. This is a complete side track from your own thread topic. Even if you showed that ancient Egyptians had technologies that were greater than we thought 4500 years ago, it would not impact the principle claim of the thread.

stevevw said:

But you are right this is meant to be about a overview of human knowledge and belief. About whether humans were more sophisticated in cognition and belief. Or had a different kind of knowledge that we have underestimated and relegated as primitive or superstition. When in some ways it was more advanced.

Click to expand...

"more sophisticated" or "more advanced" compared to what? Your grammar is failing you.

Here is a table of the damage done to Abu Rawash and the Great Pyramid over time.
The evidence for grooves in stone with relatively modern tools is a product of vandalism and not a 4th dynasty construction project.

Era / Period	Damage to Abu Rawash (Djedefre)	Damage to the Great Pyramid (Khufu)
Old Kingdom (~2570 BCE)	Pyramid of Djedefre completed with limestone casing; smaller scale than Khufu’s.	Pyramid of Khufu completed, fully intact with fine Tura casing and granite chambers (~146.6 m).
First Intermediate & Middle Kingdom (~2100–1800 BCE)	Little direct evidence; pyramid already obscure; possible minor stone robbing.	Limited stone robbing; pyramid still mostly intact.
New Kingdom (~1500–1000 BCE)	Quarrying begins; Abu Rawash already shows heavy ruin compared to Giza. Blocks reused for temples.	Some casing stones removed; pyramid visited and inscribed by tourists (graffiti).
Late Period & Persian/Greek (~600–300 BCE)	Major dismantling for stone; structure largely ruined.	Extensive quarrying for Memphis and Heliopolis; significant casing loss.
Roman Period (~30 BCE–300 CE)	Romans quarry Abu Rawash heavily; reduced almost to foundations.	Additional quarrying; most casing gone, but core remains monumental.
Early Islamic Period (~640–1000 CE)	Cairo expansion → systematic quarrying; stones hauled away.	Casing systematically stripped for mosques and fortifications.
Medieval Islamic Period (11th–15th c. CE)	Further quarrying continues; plug and feather wedge marks appear, showing organized dismantling with iron tools.	Large-scale removal of casing and core blocks; plug and feather wedge marks visible on some blocks.
Ottoman Period (16th–18th c. CE)	Site mostly dismantled; traces of plug and feather wedge extractions.	Limited robbing continues; plug and feather wedge marks remain as evidence of post-medieval work.
Modern Period (19th–20th c. CE)	Archaeological excavations reveal only foundations and rubble; wedge marks confirm later quarrying.	Pyramid stabilized as ruin; modern plug and feather wedge marks and occasional drill holes visible on blocks from failed extractions.

Click to expand...

Plug and feather wedge marks in the form of grooves found on pyramid stones and in quarries around Giza were caused by iron or steel chisels and wedges, not by ancient copper or bronze tools.