It doesn't look like a machine cut to me.
OK so what does it look like. Does it look like a straight edged copper saw did this. How did the orthodox method cut this.
Or very well polished stone.
Ok so your saying someone came along in 1934 and polished all the stones. This is what I mean in how every other explanation that will conform with the orthodoxy is believed except the most likely one. In fact I gave you the tests which showed it was a thin glassy type covering that contain unnatural chemistry.
You admit that it looks vitrified. But your explanation is polished. Where is the evidence. Where is the peer review lol.
Why not, how did they exclude that possibility?
Because there is no record or evidence of someone going around in the 1930s or any modern time and it would have to be post industrial age. Thats if massive machines could have been secretly brought in to Giza. Or some polishing at an industrial level missed being recorded in modern times.
Archeologist acknowledge this is ancient and not a forgery. But I can understand how the provenance cop out is used as you cannot account for the fact that it is genuine. So forgery is the next best counter.
Everyone needs to be checked.
And its been checked and its genuine. See this is where the rubber hits the road and we begin to pin down exactly what evidence skeptics have. It looks like all these have is exactly what they accuse myself and others of doing. Making claims without any evidence. Avoiding the obvious facts so that the orthodoxy is maintained.
The only vitrified stone supported by an article that you have presented have been made without any appeals to ancient technology or lost knowledge.
You don't have to make an appeal. The works and signatures are the witness marks that are making that appeal. It then comes down to whether they are from the ancients. You claim it could be a forgery and the expert archeologists say its not. That its as old as the works. There is absolutely no evidence of modern forgeries so don't use that as an excuse to avoid the facts.
My limited experience (just hobby cutting of small figurines) is that you cut quite well with abrasive means in stone.
This is just another way of dismissing the obvious evidence right before your eyes. First your admitting that you don't know and are appealing to a subjective experience according to you. That could mean anything. You may not have the experience of an expert. So its meaningless. Especially considering the demands place on me to provide such a high level of evidence.
But none of this explains how a straight edged copper saw and abrasion can cut an arc. Or how the thin edge left at the ebnd of the cut against the uncut rock is thinner than the copper blade let alone the extra stone ground out from abrasion. Nor how a hand held straight edged copper saw could cut a 20 foot long and narrow cut across the stone wall while also cutting curves in the stone at the same time.
These are the signatures that tell us that a hand held copper saw was impossible. Unless you can create some unreal explanation of how straight saws cut arcsand can cut around bends and along curved surfaces.
If it is not in peer-reviewed journals, but something without context it is of little value.
Yet you can make all these claims without peer review. Therefore everything that you or anyone says that disputes what I am saying is also of little value and the claims that there is no advanced and lost knowledge is of little value and a conspiracy just as much as those they accuse.
Can it? I think so. Also there is no sense of scale in these pictures.
The scale is there. The cut or what looks like a thin layer was shaved off the surface (don't you think so). As it runs along the top of what looks like a rock wall. Its around 12 inches wide and 20 foot long. How on earth could a hand saw cut that. Remembering that the surface is not flat but moves up and down and has no evidence of restarting. Rather a long continious cut.
Explain how this can happen. This is where the rubber hits the road and we don't need peer review as its right there before our eyes.
Then they keep building their case with good methods and keep trying to get it published, are their rejection rate actually high?
I am saying this does not even get into the traditional journals lol. Imagine trying to present the idea that there was advanced knowledge with some sort of machining.
We don't need peer review. People already acknowledge that they looked machined or softened. Even skeptics accidently admit this when they then try to explain this away as forgeries. They are admitting they look too modern lol.
So we already have the evidence right before our eyes. Experts I presented with knowledge of machining explain how this is like machining and could not be the traditional methods. As far as I and many others are concern the case is closed. We have clear evidence of an alternative and advanced knowledge that contradicts the orthodoxy.
Or at the very least enough evidence to suggest this is the case and warrants further investigation. Rather than being fobbed off as conspiracy or psuedoscience.
This is just some convoluted thinking, either the data supports the hypothesis or not.
I disagree. There was complete resistence at first that this was all conspiract like Hancock has been made out to be. Now we can say at least some of the evidence supports that there was alternative and even advanced methods if the findings and clear observations hold up. So its not conoluted but a reality.
You mistakenly think that I agree with you on what the images show.
Yup claimed that someone may have come along in 1934 and created the vitrified stones. To me thats more or less admitting that the stones look like they must have had some sort of modern intervention.
Its strange how you have completely ignored explaining how exactly in your opinion that this was created by a hand saw and abrasion. But just appeal to experience which to me says nothing. Especially if people are demanding peer review or scientific support. Its a double standard I think.
If you disagree then why don't you explain why. Explain how this does not look like machining and was created by the traditional method. Even the fact there is an obvious arc cut in the stone is just ignored.
Anyone would immediately recognise this initially as something a planer or router or circular saw would leave and not a straight edged saw. So I fail to see that you have even looked at this proerly or just skipped over parts to really have a clear position to disgree with me in the first place.
This have to be a misunderstanding, if you claim that it is a machine cut then it is you that have to prove it. I am not an experimental archaeologist, I am perfectly clear that my personal view is nothing else than my personal view.
Like I said the first step is to admit what is before your eyes. What it looks like and not what you think may have caused it to make it look like that. For example the arc cut. You may assume it was created by hand. Making a precise arc in the stone for some reason.
But what do arcs, super thin and straight line cuts, cuts super flat and around bends or over undulating surfaces leaving a thin and smooth finish like it was shaved. What do those signatures usually represent when we see them. The obvious answer that just about everyone will admit is that they look exactly like what machining leaves. Not what hand held small tools leave.
Then you get into the rediculous idea that the ancients someone wanted to creatye signatures that look like maching by hand. In rocks that are never used like they were testing the cuts. Somehow they made router cuts by hand to make them look like planers and routers. Thats more unreal that having advanced knowledge lol. It also dumbs down the ancients.
No, I give you my personal view. If all you are saying is that they look like machine cuts to you, then I'm ok with that but you seem to imply that your view is supported by the evidence.
Only because I explain and reason why the images and signatures look like machining and how this clear and obvious evidence is not even admitted. When you just say "in my experience or opinion" and then don't give any explanation that is the same as fobbing off the images and signatures. Not not just disagree but also not engaging to explain why.
Then the normal way is to publish it in an appropriate journal and get it into the orbit of the subject matter specialists. That is the arena where the ideas will get vetted and discussed by experts.
I don't care about the journals and peer review to determine what an image with obvious witness marks looks like. If you cannot even admit this and engage in explain why you think it does not look like its machined then what is the use lol. We cannot even get past step 1 let along peer review.
I don't think you should be confident in your position because I don't think you have provided evidence for it. I'm not confident in my position on archaeological matters, because I normally do medical genetics and statistics.
I agree and thats a good approach. I am not saying I am 100% confident and as we have seen if this is partly a matter of subjective opinion then how could anyone be confident. You claim the images don't even look like machining and I and many others do. I eman thats the first step in science in acknowledging the observations.
I think there is clear and obvious evidence for some sort of advanced and alternative methods that produced these lookalike machine marks. We have done experiments with machining and hand cutting and the nand cutting looks completely different.
But not just that you don't need peer review or experients to know that for example a straight edged nad saw cannot cut an arc, around bends or along undulating surfaces taking off a super thin layer. But you cannot even see this so whats the use.
There is more than a small lack of actual statistical tests in what you have presented so far, so it is very difficult to determine how likely or unlikely something is.
Thats why I am going back to the basics. To the first step of simple observational science. First acknowledging exactly what we see. You say it does not look like machining and more like the orthodoxy.
So lets go from there. You need to explain why the signatures fit the orthodoxy. I just explained some difficult if not impossible cuts and signatures the orthodoxy could do.
How does this support your point?
Because you make a claim that its caused by the orthodoxy when I see obvious marks that are not the case and you don't give any explanation or address the obvious marks.
Until you can explain this my point stands. Until you can explain for example how the orthodoxy can make arc, planing and router marks with the crisp, sharp and fine edges like machining. Which grinding cannot do. Then I have to assume you have no answer.
Yes, but written stories are not testimony without any means to corroborate who wrote them down.
Yes they are. Can the stories of miracles, and supernatural events and knowledge by corroborated. Same thing. If the ancients knowledge exists within the realm of the spiritual or conscious experiences that transcedent material science. How can they be corroborated.
Therefore we know that knowledge does come from this realm and has changed the world and reality. So we have to at the very least be open to listening and investigating this knowledge through the experiences, beliefs and stories. You cannot say because this cannot be corroborated by a certain methology (material/naturalism science). That it must be dismissed.
In contrast to sub- or non-conscious experience? Or non-direct conscious experience?
Yes, where the subject or observer has to step back, remove themselves and their experiences from the equation. Two comeletely different ways to knowledge. But they could end up at the same place. In fact the direct experiences may be the real knowledge.
I don't believe I have ever gained any transcendent knowledge or truth.
Ok but do you think others can. Like Christians or any spiritual or conscious experience of the world and reality. Or are you saying all the belief and stories and experiences expressed for millenia from all cultures around the world has or never brings knowledge that transcends what we see in the material sense and the scientific method.
Lived reality is inherently empirical.
Well there you go, we have evidence of knowledge that transcends the material world through lived reality.
Of course it is, all experiences are real. Whether or not they correspond to something objective varies.
Its the conforming to something objective I disagree with. Yes when it comes to measuring that which falls within the material and can be objectively (outside the observer) established.
But what about all the experiences that don't have an objective basis. I mean you can do meta analysis to find common cognitions and behaviour that may show its a real phenomena. That belief in gods or spirituality is a real natural human condition.
But how do you prove subjective conscious experiences. Like I showed with the thought experiment of 'Colorblind Mary'. No amount of knowledge about the material processes could explain or bring Mary the experience of Red for the first time. She gained new transcedent knowledge .
Psychology and sociology studies how peoples thoughts and experiences influence their behaviour, these subjects are by now well established scientific fields (not strictly appropriate in this sub-forum though).
They are exactly appropriate for this thread. As you say they are well established sciences. As mentioned above they can show that religion, belief in gods, the supernatural, the transcedent aspects are as natural to humans as any material aspect.
So already we have evidence that its natural that humans exist within this realm and its real and it brings real knowledge of reality and can change the world. Its just a case of then researching what exactly it is within this domain that is the knowledge. How it fits into the bigger picture.
I'm going to need peer-reviewed articles or at least something in academic press at this point.
Have not I already linked these. I know I did on this thread. Maybe not to you. I can't remeber. Man How many times do I have to keep doing this lol.
Let me check. Actually they are within the articles I linked. The articles reference them as part of their support. I did not just link magazine or blog sites without the links to the papers.
