Using AI to further debunk ancient Egyptians used technologies to drill granite far beyond the current level.

[sjastro]

I know when people start their posts with personal attacks and ad hominems they going to be full of logical fallacies and I don't take the rest of the post serious. Its not a good way to start a discussion by insultiung your opponent.

This seems to be a common tactic whenpeople have to no answer or evidence. To discredit the person rather than deal with content. I doesn't matter what excuse you gove 'Oh but the person really is a quack'. Just stating with this tactic reveals a lot oabout the mindset of a debater.

Variable pitch does not destroy arguments that some tech was used that is beyond what we know for these Egyptians. Like I said Petrie and Dunn suggest a fixed point (or points) did the cutting. This would explain the variations in pitch. But the copper tube with abrasion cannot explain the fixed point spiral cuts, thats the problem.

I don't know. The search goes on. But its certainly not resolved as your side claims that it was 100% done by the existing tools in the records. Heck we did not even find a copper tube or flywheel for that time period.

Show me exactly where iuts nonsensical. I bet you can't.

Lol Dunn has more than basic knowledge in engineering. He is one of the top engineers around having worked in Aerospace engineering for over 50 years. I think he knows more than you. Yet you claim to know more by calling him an idiot when it comes to engineering. Just like others called Petrie and old blocke who doesn't know what he talking about.

Humm I wonder who is ignorant.

I was referring to your lack of basic science and engineering knowledge in failing to see Dunn’s inconsistencies.

It is laughable I need to provide you with an example of your nonsensical concept of evidence which is based on personal opinion when you concluded your post that Dunn’s resume somehow makes him an authority on ancient Egyptian work practices and this constitutes evidence; I rest my case.

Since you bring up the subject again of Petrie’s sample which was addressed in my previous response and I want you to explain the copper oxidation found in the drill hole of the granite block.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you say so. You didn't know who Flinders Petrie was so I am not sure about that considering he is was the one that found core number 7 and first examined it. I think you more or less brushed him off as nothing.

Now you may think you know more but all I know is anyone who just dismisses someone who at least should be given fair say on the matter is not a good way to conduct research.

Um what can I say. Not sure what you mean by contacted the Egyptologists. Are you saying contact each expert or experimenter personally before we can present a case.

I have done a lot of reading on this. I may not be an expert but anyone who can think critically can read the experts or look at the data to see whats going on. Facts don't lie. If a rock has the signature that you can see which does not match the tool you don't need to be an expert. At least for the obvious such as the cuts I linked which when we put the small saw in the records against we can tell the tool was inadequate to produce that signature. Its as simple as that in some cases.

Sure you can do all the further tests. Like the vases. You just have to look at them to know they are finely made. The analysis showing precision and geometry just backs up what you seen with your own eyes. Like the mega blocks against a tiny 20 foot sled. It doesn't add up. We should at least acknowledge this should not we.

I find it interesting that you wont even admit the obvious. I am not saying anything about why there are anomelies. I am just saying there are anomelies that need to be acknowledged first and foremost. If we cannot admit the obvious then how can we do anything to find the truth.

You need to learn to stop rambling.

My question was in simple black and white, plain to read English: have you ever actually contacted any actual Egyptologists about this subject, or are you content on riding on what you think to be the coattails of one dead for a century?

But if you struggle with it, allow me to parse it down simply for you: have you contacted any modern and professional Egyptologists about your claims and ideas to get their thoughts on the matter, or is the work of a man who's been dead for 80 years and has no current bearing on the field since new findings and evidence have been found since he died the only thing that matters to you? Have you actually engaged with anyone professional Egyptologist, aka anyone who's actual job is to study the history of ancient Egypt in its myriad facets, or are you simply content to ramble around on forums with people who aren't experts?

 

[SelfSim]

I know when people start their posts with personal attacks and ad hominems they going to be full of logical fallacies and I don't take the rest of the post serious. Its not a good way to start a discussion by insultiung your opponent.

This seems to be a common tactic whenpeople have to no answer or evidence. To discredit the person rather than deal with content. I doesn't matter what excuse you gove 'Oh but the person really is a quack'. Just stating with this tactic reveals a lot oabout the mindset of a debater.

Variable pitch does not destroy arguments that some tech was used that is beyond what we know for these Egyptians. Like I said Petrie and Dunn suggest a fixed point (or points) did the cutting. This would explain the variations in pitch. But the copper tube with abrasion cannot explain the fixed point spiral cuts, thats the problem.

You have misattributed the first three quotes resulting in your above responses directed at me.

I never made the comments to which to have responded.

Please make corrections.

I believe it was @sjastro who made them .. not me.

 

[sjastro]

Considering this, I've done a hell of a lot more research on this than you have, that much is clear.

By the by: have you ever actually contacted any actual Egyptologists about this subject, or are you content on riding on what you think to be the coattails of one dead for a century?

Occasionally I communicate with the Egyptologist Chris Naunton who has been extremely helpful in the past but I would never waste his time in addressing the nonsense presented in this and in other threads.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Occasionally I communicate with the Egyptologist Chris Naunton who has been extremely helpful in the past but I would never waste his time in addressing the nonsense presented in this and in other threads.

Oh, the irony!
"Christopher Hugh Naunton is a British Egyptologist, a writer and a broadcaster, and an expert on the life of Flinders Petrie."

 

[SelfSim]

Yes we have found the actual ships and they are small and could not carry 1000 plus ton blocks or Obelisks. The largest Egyptian ship found is the Khufu ship which measures 43.6 m (142 ft) long and 5.9 m (19.5 ft) wide. But thats 19.5 feet at its widest. Its only 12 inches at its narrowist and tappers out to 19.5 feet.

The unfinished Obelisk is around 137 feet long and 20 feet wide. Its as big as the ship and not like in those pics. It would be handing over the sides for around 15 feet in places and stability would be an issue.

But its not the side thats the problem its the weight. Like the statue on the sled those Obelisks were moved much later as the Egyptians did not start painting walls until around 1800BC. So once again we are dealing with a 60 to 80 ton weight.

The unfinished Obelisk is 12000 tons. It would crush the ship and sink it to the bottom of the river. Not just that look at the design. They are not flat barges but V shaped hulls which would capsize with such weights.

View attachment 358202

Then you have the mega blocks that weigh in excess of 1,000 ton which are around 50 feet wide which would overlap the boat over twice its width.

This is the largest modern vechile that can move only 460 tones. Its wheels along are 13 feet high.

View attachment 358203


Yes the famous pic of a statue being moved thats often used to show that the Egyptian could move thse large blocks and statues. The statue in the pic only weights 65 ton and is only 21 feet high. Seems to fit the sleds found which were around 20 feet.

This was moved much later compared to the 1,000 plus ton statues like the 800 tons the Colossi of Memnon moved over 100 miles from the quarry. Yes those are people standing next to it. As your pic shows the Egyptian was about the size of the statues shin. Here the humans onlt come up to the staues ankles.

View attachment 358195

Or the even bigger staue of the Ozymandias Colossus at the Ramesseum one of the largest statues cut from a block 1,000 tons and transported some 115 miles from the Aswan quarry.

View attachment 358197
View attachment 358198

Yeds thats a person standing in front to show the context. These mega statues would absolutely cruch any wood sled deep into the ground and the statue to ground friction would cause it to dig deep into the ground when trying to drag it. Let alone life the monster.

Here are some examples of even modern day logistical problems with weights much smaller. Steel cables snap on rocks a fraction of the size.

View attachment 358199

Equipment buckles and breaks with weights a fraction of the size.

View attachment 358200

I am not even going to comment on this apart from saying the evidence is so sparce for how the Egyptians moved thse mega tons that you have to use modern day imaginations to account for it. There are no wooden architecture found that could lift a small Obelisk let along a mega 1000 plus ton block. They had hemp rope and even steel cables snap on weighyts a fraction the size of these mega blocks.

See this recent study:

On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara​

The Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, Egypt, is considered the oldest of the seven monumental pyramids built about 4,500 years ago. From transdisciplinary analysis, it was discovered that a hydraulic lift may have been used to build the pyramid. Based on our mapping of the nearby watersheds, we show that one of the unexplained massive Saqqara structures, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure, has the features of a check dam with the intent to trap sediment and water. The topography beyond the dam suggests a possible ephemeral lake west of the Djoser complex and water flow inside the ’Dry Moat’ surrounding it. In the southern section of the moat, we show that the monumental linear rock-cut structure consisting of successive, deep compartments combines the technical requirements of a water treatment facility: a settling basin, a retention basin, and a purification system. Together, the Gisr el-Mudir and the Dry Moat’s inner south section work as a unified hydraulic system that improves water quality and regulates flow for practical purposes and human needs.

The use of hydraulics for erection of these massive objects is considered feasible (by the authors) when nearby water sources were available:

Finally, we identified that the Step Pyramid’s internal architecture is consistent with a hydraulic elevation mechanism never reported before. The ancient architects may have raised the stones from the pyramid centre in a volcano fashion using the sediment-free water from the Dry Moat’s south section. Ancient Egyptians are famous for their pioneering and mastery of hydraulics through canals for irrigation purposes and barges to transport huge stones. This work opens a new line of research: the use of hydraulic force to erect the massive structures built by Pharaohs.

Note that this is a preprint paper only. It is an hypothesis and there is no agreement yet across Egyptologists or archaeologists about the concept.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK thankyou.

Lol thats the most unreal claim so far. Do you want me to actually go back and make a list of the language that was used. A common one used was "do you have a comprehension problem". Lol thats just a nice way of saying your stupid. Especially when it comes with other language making out its all woo and crazy talk.

"stupid" and "comprehension problem" are NOT THE SAME THING. There are many reasons a reader would have difficulty understanding a written work. "Stupidity" is one of them. Unfamiliarity with the terms used in the material being read is another. Reading faster than you can comprehend is another. A learning disability that affects reading or writing could as well.

Given how much "content" you hurl at us, what ever the underlying issues are it seems clear to me that you are trying to read too much (and write it back) too quickly. Take smaller bites and slow down and this should help you a lot and make you posts easier for us to comprehend as well.

Like what. This is the point, you have nothing. I have not made any fanciful claims. You have conjured all this up because the topic is controversial and its common for some to conflate questioning things as Woo when its not. Believe it or not its just purely and simply questioning the obvious, the works we see before our eyes and not accepting the unreal claim that a tiny say created massive machine like cuts or a tiny sled moved a mega ton block.

This topic doesn't seem that controversial. Your interlocutors have referenced discussing the techniques that your sources claim are so mysterious. I've seen no evidence of controversy within the professional communities from anything any of you have posted on these topics.

You assume people like me have not already done this and they are blindly going along. In fact I would say the smaller % of those who genuinely question and are open to all possibilities are the true scientists.

You have demonstrated no familiarity with the primary or secondary literature on these topics. Everything you present to us comes through the frame of the outsiders, pseudoscholars, and hyper-"skeptics". That you would claim the mantle of "true scientists" for them is an insult to all of those working, publishing scientists.

You also have to consider that the very groupthink you want to place of those who question is the very mindstate of the skeptics who get triggered when anyone questions or suggest an alternative possibility.

Believe it or not even tyhe best scientists become biased and want to maintain the status quo. Why no their entire careers are entangled in it. If anyone has an axe to grind its thse with a lot invested in it. But its funny how the woo aways goes one way from the so called experts against anyone questioning as though they have the authority.

This is a very common refrain I hear from the broad "science resistant" community on a wide variety of topics.

Yes of course. But the charge is Petrie was sloppy with his observations and measurements. Petrie was the pioneer of the methods of observation and measurements which still stand today.

Who has charged Petrie with being sloppy? If they have, address them about it not me.

What. So stones and metal machining, angles, curves, geometry, load bearings or stone buildings don't apply to metal parts and buildings. Engineers learn all the tech and math that goes into drilling. In fact Dunnhas been involved no only in the creation of the parts but in the creation of the machines and tools that make the parts.

They don't learn about pre-modern tools and techniques. That is the point.

I don't think this much scutiny is placed on other scientist who make similar claims when they align with skeptics beliefs. Its readily accepted. I see a massive hypocracy going on to discredit good scientists. That we are spending the majority of another thread on this is evidence for this.

I don't know who these "good scientists" think are being discredited are. The primary scientist mentioned on this thread is Petrie, but I don't see the criticism of him

So perhaps sjasto should close the thread at only 3 pages long as its turning out like the other one. But I will not close my thread because people propose alternative views. I will listen and investigate them first and give the scientist their fair opportunity without automatic dismissal.

I think you are reading far to much into this. For one the study of the creation of modern parts includes the study and understanding of the history of non modern parts. Like any subject you look at the history to see the evolution of machining ect. Engineers specialise and Dunnhas chosen to specialise in ancient works especially Egyptian.

I thought Dunn specialized in the machining of aircraft parts.

Yes and Dunn has stone masons on his team. Perhaps one of the best in Yousef Awyan whose father Abdel Hakim Awyan
is one of Egypts moist famous stone masons.

And yet this is the first I recall hearing of him. All of you posts have been about Dunn and Petrie.

If you ask most of the Egyptian stone masons they say that these ancient works are beyond what stone masons can do.

Perhaps that is because there is little market for stones cut by hand saws, etc.

But no one has said how they were formed. This is all heresay by skeptics trying to conflat questioning the claimed tool methods and the differences in the signatures of the stones.

No one knows how this was done. Only some spectualte that some form of advanced tech was used but they cannot name this exactly. This is a reasonable and logical conclusion considering what we see. Anyone who is not bewildered is not being honest and making massive assumptions about how this was achieved.

If you claim that the work *couldn't* be done by versions of the tools the ancient Egyptians are known to have had, then you *are* saying something about how they were made.

And no one is citing Dunns opinion alone. Good science reuiresd independnt and repeatable tests and a variety of lines of evidence all converging on the same findings.

Dunn has consistently sought 2nd, 3rd and more opinions and included a number of different lines of evidence. For example the engineering incorporated in the ancient vases under the Stepped pyramid which are over 5,000 years old. Included ais Metrology and geometry analysis. All this builds the case for Dunn and others.

Vase engineering? I think you've mistook craftsmanship for engineering.

This is a bad example as its a social issue. Measuring rocks is not a social issue. The evidence is virtual rock solid and cannot be subjective. But if we look at say the moving of massive stones we can do some logistics or the ability of a tool such as a small saw producing large machine like finished well beyond its size and capability.

My example was about the nature of biased sources where opinion of the source is dominating the claim. This is quite relevant to many of the sources you reference.

. But it seems that the skeptics who want to maintain the status quo that these works were done by the tools in the records are the ones pushing some social agenda that the evidence is based on an assumption about the capability of a cultures sheer grit that allowed them to create works beyond what anyone would believe is pushing a social or ideological belief rather than facts.

Oh good grief. Some of us would prefer to stand on solid information, evidence, and scholarship and not wander out on to the soft mud of wild speculation. None of this is about insulting the capabilities of ancient cultures, far from it.

So does Einstein know anything. Does hios theory still stand.

"Einstein" is a brain in a vat these days. I doubt he knows anything anymore.

Petries findings are all about observations and measuremnt in great detail. He was almost OCD about it and thats why he was renowned as one of the best pioneers of methodology because he went into such rigorous details. His observations and measurements were not disputed in his day. It was the implications that this meant that were objected to.

But Petrie did not even speculate what the findings mean. Only that he tried to speculate what sort of method fits the signature in the stone. He suggested a fixed point harder than the stone being cut which is a logical conclusion.

OK, then it isn't that relevant to our "dispute".

Yes as he has been doing this from the time he was young in the 60's when the methods were more antiquated unil modern times with aerospace engineering. I recall him talking about the old style lathes he worked with. This gives a good basis as you are already in the mindset of varying ways to achieve tooling and parts. His work often involved create parts from stratch and creating the tools to create the parts.

I was referring to using non-powered tools, not earlier powered tools

I think he would have mopre knowledge than most. Add to this he has actually been working on Egyptian works for decades more than most becaus ehe specialised in this and I think he is one of the best when it comes to this type of stuff.

How I see it is we see an example of say precision cutting that looks machined and then someone saying the ancience still produced it by small inadequate saws, basing it with rocks and then rubbing it for a long time to make it look like it was machined.

The problem is many of the works are not on the finished pieced by the rocks they blocks came from. So are we to assume that they also made these look like precise machinging when they were never going to be used for anything. I think thats too much to ask someone to believe.

Yes and we have some works with this method much later than the precise works in pre dynastic times. And they look like they were bashed into shape as they are raough and not precise. It seems there were two different methods and that the most precise and best quality were way early and the less quality comes later. Opposite to what we would think is the progression of knowledge and skill for everything else we see.

I already replied to the technique issues in the other reply in this thread. I leave it there.

Hum, I think its ealy days to be saying electodes are a fantasy considering they have found alectrodes in the Queens chamber. Experiments have shown some interesting anomelies betwee stones and the reactions being caused. It seems some stones like limestone a conduits but granite is not. Is it a coincident thta many of these megaliths have limestone incoporated often as outer layers insulating the granot and basalt.

Oh my. I searched for electrodes in the Queen's Chamber and other than actual science papers describing the electrode the researchers used in the measurements, all I get are pseudoarcheology pages. Nothing credible.

The sacred ratio is Sacred geometry associated with what religious beliefs call the geometry of the gods where certain shapes and geometry are incoprorated in nature and therefore reflected in the works created. A bit like the Goldren ratio but more inclusive of all geometry in nature especially with shapes and patterns.

Still means nothing to me. Never heard of "sacred geometry".

Ah so anything out of the oridinary is Hancocks fault. Isn't that a stereotypical fallacy and massive assumption. Plus I think its a fallacy that Hancock is being cast in this light and has nothing worth saying.

I didn't say it was Hancock's fault, only that "UnchartedX" seems to be a bit of a Hancock fan. (Hancock is the Oprah of pseudohistory. )

I agree.

He's not a hobbiest as I have shown. He has decades of experience and tech knowhow on Egyptology. His findings have scientific support from varying scientific disciplines. To call him such is a gross fallacy.

Amateur, hobbyist, either way, not a professional.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well I'm pretty good and renovated my homes and learnt a lot along the way. I had worked a lot in maintenance under a great mentor who taught me the basics and I developed them.

But measure twice cut once is a basic child level rule in carpentry or any job that involved measuring. I cannot see how anyone unless they had eyesight problems or could not tell a crooked line from a straight one.

Having your cut diverge with a tool is not about failing to measure. I didn't say anything about cutting the wrong length.

Maybe it was dark, hard to see. But then they got the rest on line so they must have been able to see with fire torches. I think many of the precision boxes are in Saqqara. The one where the big box has been left in one of the hallways and not in its alcove. The interesting thing is that theres no evidence of fire torches. Its a strange situation to have such precision cuts in such a dark place.

Just about every image I link is taken from videos which have reference to what they are or represent. But that should not stop someone from commenting if they can be verified ie if they can be verified that is interesting evidence to look at and investigate further. I mean they are not faked and the benefit of them is they allow anyone to see for themselves. You don't need to be an expert to see the obvious problems or anomelies.

That's not what source is. You posted a bunch of images with out labeling them as where you got them. Other than they look like human altered stone, I have *ZERO* information to go on about where they are from or why they are important because you failed to provide it. That's what providing a source is all about.

Yeah but thats just one factor which should not be automatically assumed as the case. You have to consider all factors and then you still may not be sure whats going on. Part of that for example would be that the precision work is of very high quality and shows a system of work rather than individuals going off somewhere and bucking the system. They seemed to be very trained even skeptics acknowledged that.

You're basing this "precision machine tools" claim for the cutting on *one* bad cut which absolutely could be some sort of incompetence or mismanagement. Examples of non-bad, but abandoned cuts likely only represent a change in plan (or some other issue not related to the cutting itself.) No need to assume a power tool was used because the cut was incomplete.

Imhotep was the architect under Djsor who made the Pyramid of Djoser and the step pyramid at Saqqara built during the 3rd Dynasty. He was made into a Pharoah because of his great craftmanship.

And it is because we know the history of the building of the pyramids and can see how the techiniques developed, who built them, and *WHY*. They were tombs.

Yes I think anyone can learn and understand a topic if they want. It just takes time and lots of reasearch and reading. Thats all I do. I don't watch much tele. I look at researching a topic of interest as like watching a movie. You get your head into that world for a couple of hours and then come back out again. Especially when its interesting and real history.

And yet with all of this reading what you present here is by fringe amateurs who's claims don't just fill gaps, but challenge well established research. You seem to be reading bad sources and coming out with bad understandings.

I agree though that we should treat it like we are all learning. Listen to all points of view. But I don't think its good to just assume someone claiming truth due to authority. You want the reasoned arguement as to why the evidence supports their case and why alternative opinions don't fit the evidence. I think quite often even when this happens its an ongoing development of information to help determine the facts and truth.

The important thing is that all opinions are reasoned and not just dismissed as woo but explained why they are woo. Often its a miscommunication between parties and it takes a few clarifications to get to the point of determining the facts better.

 

[sjastro]

See this recent study:

On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara​

The use of hydraulics for erection of these massive objects is considered feasible (by the authors) when nearby water sources were available:

Note that this is a preprint paper only. It is an hypothesis and there is no agreement yet across Egyptologists or archaeologists about the concept.

Very interesting this is consistent with the Egyptian pyramids being built along a lost branch of the Nile that eventually dried up.

​

The powerful 4th dynasty pharaohs built a harbour at Giza for the construction of the pyramids there.
Long-lost branch of the Nile was 'indispensable for building the pyramids,' research shows

Its remarkable what these dumb Egyptians could achieve but couldn't drill a hole in granite without super advanced technology.

 

[SelfSim]

Very interesting this is consistent with the Egyptian pyramids being built along a lost branch of the Nile that eventually dried up.

View attachment 358253
​

The powerful 4th dynasty pharaohs built a harbour at Giza for the construction of the pyramids there.
Long-lost branch of the Nile was 'indispensable for building the pyramids,' research shows

Its remarkable what these dumb Egyptians could achieve but couldn't drill a hole in granite without super advanced technology.

The paper reads quite well, is well referenced and contains quite a lot of details for the proposed mechanism.
The idea of using hydraulic pressure to lift the massive stones would also surely call for precision joints between the shaft components having to withstand the tremendous pressures involved, (otherwise the whole lifting structure would burst).
In other words, the motivation for undertaking precision joints/engineering/surface finishing of the stone, would have been a more practical one, with very clear objectives. (Certainly not religious beliefs).
.. That is, if one prefers this hypothesis as a way of progressing understanding of the engineering thinking of the period(?) ...

 

[sjastro]

The paper reads quite well, is well referenced and contains quite a lot of details for the proposed mechanism.
The idea of using hydraulic pressure to lift the massive stones would also surely call for precision joints between the shaft components having to withstand the tremendous pressures involved, (otherwise the whole lifting structure would burst).
In other words, the motivation for undertaking precision joints/engineering/surface finishing of the stone, would have been a more practical one, with very clear objectives. (Certainly not religious beliefs).
.. That is, if one prefers this hypothesis as a way of progressing understanding of the engineering thinking of the period(?) ...

While the hypothesis does come across as far fetched, it did remind me of a program I saw on TV of a hypothesis which was eventually supported by discovery, the pyramid builders at Giza relied on water transport for building the pyramids.

Today the Nile is a fair distance from Giza but when the dried up Ahramat branch of the Nile was found leading to the discovery of a major harbour complex near the pyramids which served as a hub in transporting limestone and granite needed for the construction of the pyramids as well as trade and logistics to support the large workforce involved.

Sneferu who was the founder of the 4th dynasty used the population as beta testers who were required to build the first true pyramid as an evolution from the step pyramid until they got it right.

It took three attempts.

The first attempt was an engineering disaster as the pyramid collapsed, the second they got the math wrong and ended up with a weird bent shape and finally got it right with the Red pyramid which became the blueprint for the Giza pyramids.

 

[Hans Blaster]

See this recent study:

On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara​

The use of hydraulics for erection of these massive objects is considered feasible (by the authors) when nearby water sources were available:

An interesting hypothesis.

Note that this is a preprint paper only. It is an hypothesis and there is no agreement yet across Egyptologists or archaeologists about the concept.

a link to the final PDF from PLOS One was on that Researchgate site. (That site is a mess. I'm so glad we have better tools.)


[I don't see the need to "preprint shame". None of my stuff had changed significantly after posting a preprint to the arXiv.]

 

[SelfSim]

An interesting hypothesis.

a link to the final PDF from PLOS One was on that Researchgate site. (That site is a mess. I'm so glad we have better tools.)


[I don't see the need to "preprint shame". None of my stuff had changed significantly after posting a preprint to the arXiv.]

Yes .. I'm re-reading it and (FWIW), I'm quite impressed.
It certainly demonstrates how to support a 'far fetched' hypothesis, (my using @sjastro's term there).
I'd be interested to see how its treated by the Egyptology and Archaeology communities.

I had the thought that the whole pyramid and hydrologic system concept could also look (from my probably, cynical and definitely untrained archeo-eyes), like a big gold panning/refining operation facility(?) (Just kidding ..).

 

[stevevw]

This doesn’t even make any sense, I have never linked anything to Stocks, (I assume you mean Stokes)

Yes Stokes, the experiment you linked where you said this proves that Petries findings were wrong. The same experiment thats completely different to your Russian video results. So which one is the true and correct result because they are all different.

and are you so inept

There it is again the personal jibe. You can't discuss anything without resorting to personal jibes trying to make out that anyone who disagrees is stupid.

you can’t even recognize a close up image of the Russian experiment sample which I posted previously.

​

I did recognize the core and I showed you that it wasn't produce by a flywheel drill as you claim but a machine with a split copper pipe.

That core was produced by Nikolay Vasyutin the same ones that actually do use a flywheel and the results are completely different to your pic and Petries core. I mean you are calling me inept and stupid for not recognising things and yet you cannot recognise that your own core undermines your whole arguement

Once again here is the core from the same Russian scientist using the flywheel.

They look completely different. The core you linked was made by a machine drill and a split copper pipe which caused the light uniform and horizontal (not spiral) lines. Its a completely different method and result which is bad science.

What a nonsensical hand wave,

There it is again, this extreme mocking of different views like they are stupid. You now begin all you posts with such language and many times I end up showing you were mistaken.

you don’t get to make up stories that Dunn’s super technological drilling equipment doesn’t need to achieve the same precision of a modern day drill machine which is patently ridiculous and a complete copout.

Ah Petrie also said the same and Dunn was just confirming this. So we have two people coming to the same conclusion. What do you mean by Dunns drilling equipment. Dunn did not do any drilling. He was confirming Petrie's findings that due to the spirals it could be estimated that the drilling of core 7 had a fast feed rate.

The spiral shows the drill cut into the granite 1 inch for every 60 inches of spiral thread. Thats how they estimated the feed rate.

The inconvenient facts are pitch variations in Petrie’s sample are nowhere near the standards of modern drilling equipment but easily explained with tools we know the Egyptians used.

Like I said 10 times now its not the pitch that is determining the feed rate but that the grooves spiral down. Each spiral lands lower on the core than a horizontal striration. So each rotation is cutting in deeper than a horizontal line. The pitch may vary slightly between the two but its the spiralling of the pitch that is what is measured as to the feed rate because the spiral shows a deeper cut into the granite than a horizontal pitch.

So 10 horizontal pitches will not go down the core as low as 10 spiral pitches regardless of the variations in the pitch because the spiral cuts and landing lower down the core each turn. I have explained this several times now.

The most startling feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inches per revolution of the drill.

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...

www.ancient-origins.net

And you wonder why I question your comprehension skills when this post rubbish like this.

Your doing it again calling me stupid and what I point is rubbish before you even prove your point and most of the time your wrong.

The split in the copper tube which the Egyptians could have utilized was designed to provide a more even distribution of the pulp inside and outside the tube to facilitate easier cutting by the abrasive while the nick in the copper tube cannot contribute to the striation pattern since copper is a very soft metal.

So your having a go at me for pointing out bad science. You cannot provide results to prove your case from tests that may use completely different methods or equipement to the Egyptians. Thats bad science.

Your also not acknowledging that a machine did this and not a flywheel which is another inconsistency with method. So far you have posted the Russian experiments and Stokes experiments all using different methods and equipment ie machine, bow drill and flywheel drill and split and unsplit copper pipes. Thats not good science.

You claim the split copper pipe doesn't cause the nicks and yet logic tells us that an open cut has edges on both sides which will nick the sides when it wobbles. Otherwise please provide evidence that the split will not cause the nicks. You make unsubstanciated claims.

You are also very quite about the machine that was used and not a flywheel and that the results from the actual flywheel show a completely different result to your pic.

The Egyptians took advantage of this property as during the drilling process corundom particles embedded into the copper to form a temporary fixed abrasive.

Ah so now your appealing to fixed point cutting just like Petrie and Dunn said. Yet you were attacking them as whackos. The abrasion of Corrundum will not stay fixed for continious spiral cuts and will quickly be ground into pulp.

If corrundum did cause the deep cuts then why do other tests with corrundum not produce the same horizontal lines as your pic.

Here are cores using corrundum as the abrasive that have not left lines like your core.

Expedition Magazine | Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling

Click to magnify and you will see not lines like your example and this is from the same scientists using the flywheel method and corrundum abrasive. If you look at the corrundum abrasive its like a paste and the grains are tiny and cannot cut deep grooves up to 1/100th to 1/500th of an inch.

Anyway regardless of what rationalisation you want to use the proof in the results which show its completely different to your example and there are very few lines on the core and its mostly abrased away as would be expected.

I have lost count the number of times it has been explained to you it is not the copper that does the cutting or produce striations but the abrasive.

And I have explained to you that the corrundum does not cut deep into the granite as it is grit it quickly is ground into pulp. The fact all the other results using corrundum do not produce the lines or deep cuts but rather light stratches is evidence for this above.

This has gone on far enough, the Egyptians drilled holes in granite blocks which were used as hubs for hinge pins.

Not all of them. You make out you absolutely know the way you dictate to me what is and is not. So far your evidence does not support your claims.

​

These have been found at Saqqara and the green colour in right hand image is due to oxidised copper.
Where do you think this copper came from, it illustrates that copper doesn’t cause striations but leaves a residue on granite.

The copper tubes had fixed cutting points so of course there will be copper. The copper tube was the tool as there was no other metal to use as the drill. But as the evidence shows there must have been fixed cutting points embedded in the copper that could penetrate deep and cut through quartz as easily as feldspar.

Loose corrundum aabrasive will not produce the same results as shown in the many tests using corrundum.

As Petrie stated.
This essential principle- that the cutting action was not by grinding with a powder, as in a lapidary's wheel, but by graving with a fixed point, as in a planing machine-must be clearly settled before any sound ideas of the methods or materials can be arrived at.

Reading Tool Marks on Egyptian Stone Sculpture
Maybe points made from hard minerals like corundum, microcrystalline varieties of quartz or other gemstones could be embedded in another material like copper or wood and used as a graver. All of these hypotheses require further investigation, including the consideration of contemporary gemstone carving technologies around the region.82
Reading Tool Marks on Egyptian Stone Sculpture - Rivista del Museo Egizio

Wrong it your delusion

There you go again. You keep belittling me and I keep showing your name calling is unjustified. Even if I was wrong you don't call people who truely believe what they do as deluded because it disagrees with your view. I have shown that you are wrong several times but I don't say your deluded. This debate has been going on for over 100 years and there is no resolution so how can you be calling people deluded when there is no absolute answer.

in refusing to accept the high pitch measurement standard deviations of both samples stems from the same source that they were produced in similar ways using the tools we know the Egyptians used.

Except as I jhave said many times now that the pitch was spiral and deep cutting through quartz deeply up to 1/100th to 5/100 of an inch deep in Petries core number 7.

Your examples and others I have linked are light strirations and horizontal surface lines. Completely different.

 

[stevevw]

I was referring to your lack of basic science and engineering knowledge in failing to see Dunn’s inconsistencies.

Ok where is Dunns inconsistencies. He supported Petriues findings and Dunns findings have been supported by other independent tests. I have linked the evidence.

But you want to call me stupid for not recognising Dunns inconsistencies and yet you can't even recognise the glaring inconsistencies in the results of experiments, even your own links.

It is laughable I need to provide you with an example of your nonsensical concept of evidence which is based on personal opinion when you concluded your post that Dunn’s resume somehow makes him an authority on ancient Egyptian work practices and this constitutes evidence; I rest my case.

But wait a minute you have provided absolutely no evidence for this and are claiming to know more than Dunn. You are yourself making the same claim logically that your resume makes you more an authoprity to kinow Dunn is inncorrect.

Since you bring up the subject again of Petrie’s sample which was addressed in my previous response and I want you to explain the copper oxidation found in the drill hole of the granite block.

I just did. The only tube or rod that could have been used to drill holes is copper. That was the only metal available. So as Petrie, Dunn and two other independent analysis stated fixed points of something harder than granite like quartz, diamond or corrundum were embedded in the copper tube or rod.

The fact your missing regardless of copper found in the hole is that these independent findings state a fixed cutting point was used to be able to produce the spiral deep cuts in the granite. Your making red herrings to avoid this important fact.

It is this fact alone forgetting everything else that needs to be resolved as the paper I linked above and Petrie stated.

This is the smoking gun as it makes all the difference between abrasion alone which cannot make the deep cuts and only leaves light horizontal lines and Petries core which has a deep spiral cut into the granite cutting through quartz as easily as feldspar. Abrasions alone cannot achieve this.

 

[stevevw]

Having your cut diverge with a tool is not about failing to measure. I didn't say anything about cutting the wrong length.

I think it is. You measure the line and then you cut along the line. If you measure the line crooked then the cut will be crooked. Otherwise what are you saying they did not have a line to cut to and just guessed if the line was straight.

That's not what source is. You posted a bunch of images with out labeling them as where you got them. Other than they look like human altered stone, I have *ZERO* information to go on about where they are from or why they are important because you failed to provide it. That's what providing a source is all about.

Ah I see. I originally linked the video they came from and then just linked the images without the reference thinking everyone would have already seen the original links. The problem is because they come from seperate video's the page would be full of video links which would then expand the post making it too big.

You were checking my posts and seem to know what I was posting so you can find all those reference links in the other thread. I must have linked the same pics about 5 times now having to repeat the facts because people were dismissing things.

The images speak for themselves and you don't need a description as to what they are referring to. WE are talking about ancient advanced tech and the signatures in the rocks show this.

You're basing this "precision machine tools" claim for the cutting on *one* bad cut which absolutely could be some sort of incompetence or mismanagement. Examples of non-bad, but abandoned cuts likely only represent a change in plan (or some other issue not related to the cutting itself.) No need to assume a power tool was used because the cut was incomplete.

I am not basing it on one cut but many and its the overall evidence this builds for why it wasn't a mistake while cutting with a saw. The flat cut on the basalt block that looks like the cut was machines is another and I linked other pics where there was a mistake or a test run of some sort which shows machine like signatures.

This cut basalt comes from a number of places in Egypt including the pavement around the Giza pyramid, the old Kingdom site at Abusir and Saqqara.

The cut seems to curve more at the far end like it changed direction. It looks as though sheered off in the direction of the pointing finger. Closer inspection reveals machine marks in the same direction. A hand saw could not cut such sharp and curved lines while leaving a super flat surface well beyond the size of any saw found.

GizaPower:::Abu Rawash

Granite slab at Abu Roash with a machined step. The slab surface is flat except for this deeper step shaved into it. The step doesn't run the full length but rather like a gouge in the middle as though whatever was cutting or more likely planing a layer off accidently went deeper for a few seconds. Also look at the curved sharpe edge once again like the one above. A small straight saw cannot produce these signatures.

Another gouge in a basalt paver at the great pyramid. Looks like whatever was cutting the surface dug in and went off line and left machine marks.

If there is any mistakes its this and like the box cut that suddenly goes crooked the same with this example where the machining suddenly went deeper.

And it is because we know the history of the building of the pyramids and can see how the techiniques developed, who built them, and *WHY*. They were tombs.

Actually these pyramids were built in a very short time spand vert early around 200 years of a 5,000 plus year history and then more or less stopped with the other precision works. The pyramids are not necessarily tombs as no mummies were found in them.

My point was that Imhotep was a great craftsman and overseen much of the works we see and I don't think he would have just let anyone with little skill work on the boxes.

And yet with all of this reading what you present here is by fringe amateurs who's claims don't just fill gaps, but challenge well established research. You seem to be reading bad sources and coming out with bad understandings.

No the science behind the works is not by amateurs. Flinders Petrie and Dunn are not amateurs and the analysts who did the other works such as stone masons, metrologists, Egyptologists and geometrists and not amateurs.

But you don't have to be an expert to see the signatures in the stone to know they don't match the tools in the records.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No the science behind the works is not by amateurs. Flinders Petrie and Dunn are not amateurs and the analysts who did the other works such as stone masons, metrologists, Egyptologists and geometrists and not amateurs.

Have you actually contacted any modern Egyptologists to talk to them about your ideas? Why are you focused on Flinders Petries and Flinders Petrie ALONE as the sole representative of your knowledge about Egypt?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No the science behind the works is not by amateurs. Flinders Petrie and Dunn are not amateurs and the analysts who did the other works such as stone masons, metrologists, Egyptologists and geometrists and not amateurs.

Again with Petrie. Sigh. No one is disputing Petrie's measurements from 100 or so years ago. I believe someone (perhaps you) noted that Petrie didn't offer any interpretations of the grooves and the "spirals".

Without Petrie, you have no Egyptologists. All you have is an aerospace engineer with a fantastical claim about a pyramid power.

But you don't have to be an expert to see the signatures in the stone to know they don't match the tools in the records.

The actual experts don't seem to agree with you.

 

[stevevw]

Have you actually contacted any modern Egyptologists to talk to them about your ideas? Why are you focused on Flinders Petries and Flinders Petrie ALONE as the sole representative of your knowledge about Egypt?

Have you done the same because your making absolute claims I am 100% wrong in everything I say. That in itself can easily be proven wrong as no one is ever 100% correct and anyone making absolute claims should be seen as making claims they cannot support.

So is this the new criteria that only those who have contacted Egyptologists can comment lol.

I refer to Petrie because when it comes to core number 7 which is what this thread is about or other cores Flinders Petrie is the formost expert. He found the core, he studied it many times and he studied many similar cores as he lived in Giza for 7 years. I think he has earnt the right to be cited when it comes to granite cores in Egypt.

I've also used two of the top stone masons in Egypt Yousef Awyan and his father Abd'El Hakim Awyan. So do they count. I don't think I have seen one Egyptologists linked by your side. Only Russian scientists and Stokes on some TV doco.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have you done the same because your making absolute claims I am 100% wrong in everything I say. That in itself can easily be proven wrong as no one is ever 100% correct and anyone making absolute claims should be seen as making claims they cannot support.

So is this the new criteria that only those who have contacted Egyptologists can comment lol.

I refer to Petrie because when it comes to core number 7 which is what this thread is about or other cores Flinders Petrie is the formost expert. He found the core, he studied it many times and he studied many similar cores as he lived in Giza for 7 years. I think he has earnt the right to be cited when it comes to granite cores in Egypt.

I've also used two of the top stone masons in Egypt Yousef Awyan and his father Abd'El Hakim Awyan. So do they count. I don't think I have seen one Egyptologists linked by your side. Only Russian scientists and Stokes on some TV doco.

Please answer the questions put to you as they stand:
Have you actually contacted any modern Egyptologists to talk to them about your ideas? Why are you focused on Flinders Petries and Flinders Petrie ALONE as the sole representative of your knowledge about Egypt?