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

[stevevw]

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.

To be honest there are very few who have worked on Petries core number 7 or any cores in Egypt. There was the famous disagreement between Petrie and Lucas both egyptologists. But a paper done to try and sort out that disagreement supported Petries findings that possibly fixed points of quartz or corrundum were used like Petrie said.

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

What, how can you even say that. First its not my conclusions or findings but the experts. Second I just literally showed you Petrie, Dunn, and 2 other independent analysis all agreed with Petrie on core number 7 being cut with fixed points harder than granite.

But the big fallacy you commit is saying the experts don't agree with me on the signatures in the stones which shows machining signatures and that these were not created by the tools in the records.

You don't have to be an expert. Show me how a 2 or 3 foot saw could produce those cuts. They are super flat and super sharp sometimes a mm thin slic cut, sometimes curved in a perfect arc, sometimes just steps and router or planing cuts that sink into the granite and come back out like a planer or router.

Tell me how experts can explain this with the current tools said to have been used. Like I said you don't have to be a rocket scientists and anyone appealing to experts is creating a fallacy of authority and denying the truth.

 

[stevevw]

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?

Your creating another logical fallacy. Why havn't you. Please answer the question. Two can play that game.

Tell me how an egyptologists could explain away the signatures in the stones that clearly show the existing tools could not achieve this. If they say they could tthen they have no evidence.

What are they going to do to explain this. No amount of studying Egptian archeology can explain this. There is no magical explaination. If you can acknowledge that then your not acknowledge the obvious facts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your creating another logical fallacy. Why havn't you. Please answer the question. Two can play that game.

I'm not the one continuously citing Petrie by name as if he is the be all and end all of the Egyptology. YOU'RE the one who's claiming things that Egyptologists don't claim, so the focus is entirely on you. I'm just repeating the mainstream knowledge that I've been taught since childhood. You're the one who claims that knowledge is incorrect.
So again, I ask: 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]

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.

I watched parts of *one* video you have posted on these three threads (from "unchartedx" as I recall). I didn't pay much attention to the details presented. The impression I got from that video was that your posts were highly influenced by that video or both you and it by the same sources. For that reason your images of altered rocks was just that random rocks worked by humans.

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.

That's the problem. They *don't* speak for themselves and these "advanced tech" signature claims is just that -- a claim.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not the one continuously citing Petrie by name as if he is the be all and end all of the Egyptology.

Thats because when it comes to Core number 7 theres only been one or two (Lucas) I think the other who have studied it. All the rest have been non egyptologists. So Petrie is the number 1 person that is referred to. That's why its called Petrie's core number 7 and thats all I am citing him for.

YOU'RE the one who's claiming things that Egyptologists don't claim,

Like what, be specific.

so the focus is entirely on you. I'm just repeating the mainstream knowledge that I've been taught since childhood. You're the one who claims that knowledge is incorrect.

OK what is the mainstream stuff you have been taught since a child about Petrie's core number 7.

So again, I ask: 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?

No I have'nt contacted an Egyptologist. But if yoy want to dispute what Petrie has said which you have done you have not yourself contacted an egyptologists to know that Petrie is wrong. The same logic should apply to you.

You can't demand I speak to an egyptologists if your not willing to do the same. I just repeated Petrie's findings which were backed by several other independent findings.

If you want to dispute that the onus is on you to contact egyptologists to back your case.

 

[stevevw]

I watched parts of *one* video you have posted on these three threads (from "unchartedx" as I recall). I didn't pay much attention to the details presented. The impression I got from that video was that your posts were highly influenced by that video or both you and it by the same sources. For that reason your images of altered rocks was just that random rocks worked by humans.

What do you mean random rocks worked by humans. Thats very vague. What about the signatures that look like they are machined. Are you saying 'worked by humans' as in the ancient egyptians workers used the tools in the records to produce those signatures.

That's the problem. They *don't* speak for themselves and these "advanced tech" signature claims is just that -- a claim.

How do they not speak for themselves. Explain this. As far as I see they do speak for themselves. Just like at a crime scene and the signature shows a particular method and weapon like an old axe leaves certain marks as opposed to say a modern precision knife leaves a different signature.

But tell me hopw don't the signatures in the stones speak for themselves. Especially the obvious like comparing a 2 foot saw in the records with a 10 foot by 5 feet cut such as the granite boxes.

Or the super sharp edges and even corners as though some planer created the corner cut. How does a small saw cut a precise and sharp corner. Or a super sharp router step cut in a flat surface and back out again which we all know is impossible with a hand saw. How is that not evident within the stone.

What I find telling is that of all my posts in both threads not one person has engaged with the images to reason out why they don't show what others are suggesting even though they claim to know.

You would think that any reasonable person would at least mention this and discuss it even if they are right. But not a single word as though they don't want to give it air because they know theres some truth that these signatures bring up problems for the mainstream claim that simple and primitive tools produce these works.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So are we talking about one core...

To be honest there are very few who have worked on Petries core number 7 or any cores in Egypt. There was the famous disagreement between Petrie and Lucas both egyptologists. But a paper done to try and sort out that disagreement supported Petries findings that possibly fixed points of quartz or corrundum were used like Petrie said.

What, how can you even say that. First its not my conclusions or findings but the experts. Second I just literally showed you Petrie, Dunn, and 2 other independent analysis all agreed with Petrie on core number 7 being cut with fixed points harder than granite.

Or a bunch of other stone cutting...

But the big fallacy you commit is saying the experts don't agree with me on the signatures in the stones which shows machining signatures and that these were not created by the tools in the records.

You don't have to be an expert. Show me how a 2 or 3 foot saw could produce those cuts. They are super flat and super sharp sometimes a mm thin slic cut, sometimes curved in a perfect arc, sometimes just steps and router or planing cuts that sink into the granite and come back out like a planer or router.

You want to have it both ways.

1. Just about Petrie's core 7 where Petrie's work is important, and
2. About all the cuts you can find where his work isn't important.

If it is (1) then the OP of this thread is very on point and all of those other cuts are irrelevant.

If it is (2) then you might be on the wrong thread and Petrie is irrelevant.

Tell me how experts can explain this with the current tools said to have been used. Like I said you don't have to be a rocket scientists and anyone appealing to experts is creating a fallacy of authority and denying the truth.

That's not how this works. Demonstrating one thing doesn't work, does NOT make any particular alternative true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have somehow glitched and gotten the entire message back to front. Whoops.

No I have'nt contacted an Egyptologist. But if yoy want to dispute what Petrie has said which you have done you have not yourself contacted an egyptologists to know that Petrie is wrong. The same logic should apply to you.

You can't demand I speak to an egyptologists if your not willing to do the same. I just repeated Petrie's findings which were backed by several other independent findings.

If you want to dispute that the onus is on you to contact egyptologists to back your case.

No, the onus is not on me at all to contact Egyptologists telling them that some random nobody on the internet (and I'm not using that disparagingly or as an insult. In the grand scheme of things, 99% on this website are nobodies on the internet when it comes to things related to stuff like this, including myself. It's just a fact) follows the age old conspiracy theory of "Ancient civilizations used advanced technology far beyond what we know they had, even though we've not found a single advanced tool!". I don't need to do a single thing, nor do I need them to back my case that you are just making claims, with no actual evidence to back them up.

I only ask because the only Egyptologist you cite, as has been said repeatedly, is a guy who's been dead for nearly a century and who is of no real relevance to the field except to you. So I would honestly have thought that, in your desire to actually show myself and others that you are right, you would have taken the time to find other Egyptologists who support your claims with evidence of their own and actually might have evidence of their own to back you up.

You're the one making claims counter to the norm, so the onus is on you and yourself to back them up, not on I to disprove them.

OK what is the mainstream stuff you have been taught since a child about Petrie's core number 7.

Nothing since I was never taught about Petrie's core number 7 until you first brought it up. Believe it or not, he's not really a household name.

Like what, be specific.

You mean the major claim that is the entire crux of this whole thread and others that the ancient Egyptians had technology far advanced than the mainstream science claims them to have? Buddy,

Thats because when it comes to Core number 7 theres only been one or two (Lucas) I think the other who have studied it. All the rest have been non egyptologists. So Petrie is the number 1 person that is referred to. That's why its called Petrie's core number 7 and thats all I am citing him for.

Were they non-Egyptologists, or is it more of a case that they disagreed with Petrie and so you claim that they aren't Egyptologists?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you mean random rocks worked by humans. Thats very vague.

General, not vague. Without labels no one has any idea where these pictures come from. As far as anyone knows they are pictures you took at a local construction site.

What about the signatures that look like they are machined. Are you saying 'worked by humans' as in the ancient egyptians workers used the tools in the records to produce those signatures.

Worked by humans as in not natural. The surfaces in those photographs do not come from natural geological processes. The rocks were modified by humans. (Evidence of design if you like.)

How do they not speak for themselves. Explain this. As far as I see they do speak for themselves. Just like at a crime scene and the signature shows a particular method and weapon like an old axe leaves certain marks as opposed to say a modern precision knife leaves a different signature.

Because you have presented pictures of rocks with worked edges. The specific technique can not be determined from those pictures.

But tell me hopw don't the signatures in the stones speak for themselves. Especially the obvious like comparing a 2 foot saw in the records with a 10 foot by 5 feet cut such as the granite boxes.

Or the super sharp edges and even corners as though some planer created the corner cut. How does a small saw cut a precise and sharp corner. Or a super sharp router step cut in a flat surface and back out again which we all know is impossible with a hand saw. How is that not evident within the stone.

What I find telling is that of all my posts in both threads not one person has engaged with the images to reason out why they don't show what others are suggesting even though they claim to know.

You would think that any reasonable person would at least mention this and discuss it even if they are right. But not a single word as though they don't want to give it air because they know theres some truth that these signatures bring up problems for the mainstream claim that simple and primitive tools produce these works.F

For starters, you have posted all sorts of rock images on a thread specifically about a single drilled core that are not that core. Quit flooding the zone with side topics, objects, ideas, or artifacts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

200 years is not a very short period of time for humans. It is a small portion of the very long history of Egypt, but not a short period of time. We have writings that tell us who and why they were built. They were memorials and monuments to the king.

 

[sjastro]

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.

This is a blatant lie show me where I linked to anything pertaining to Stokes.

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.

No I said you were inept and I will cease making such comments when you no longer provide the ammunition.

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.

View attachment 358267

View attachment 358265

View attachment 358268

View attachment 358266


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.

Here we go yet again.
First of all, a comparison between the 2010 and 2016 tests.

Both experiments used a split tube design and yes, the 2010 used a low speed drill as the drive, so why did I use 2010 image?
The answer is very simple the 2010 image is much more detailed because it is a close up image allowing analysis.

So while you babble on about the use of a low speed drill instead of a flywheel invalidates the analysis, it is the copper and abrasive that largely determines the striation pattern.
The main point however is the average pitch/turn is 0.075’’ which using Dunn's logic is way beyond the performance of any modern granite cutting drill of around 0.004”/turn which is complete nonsense.

As mentioned previously you cannot use pitch as an indicator for feed rate when the SD is high as it is for the Petrie sample.
Hence Dunn’s conclusion is emphatically wrong.

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.

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.

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

I’ve heard it all before, and confirms you don’t know what you are talking about.

Firstly since Dunn assumes the pitch is fairly constant, the equation Feed rate = Pitch x RPM applies hence the feed rate is very much dependent on the pitch.
Secondly your description as vague as it is, is describing pitch and the larger the pitch the more it will deviate from the horizontal which should be self explanatory and not require your use of word salad involving spiralling pitches and horizontal pitches.

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.

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.

In case you didn’t understand the first time around, simply showing one method where the pitch/turn which greatly exceeds the limits of modern granite drilling tools is enough to show Dunn’s conclusion is nonsense.

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.

Your 'logic' is based on willful ignorance copper has a Mohs hardness 2.5-3.0 and granite 6-7.
I'm sure even a primary school kid would understand copper will not nick granite.

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.

Repeating myself again it only requires one method to debunk Dunn's hypothesis.

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.

View attachment 358270
Expedition Magazine | Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling

Now we have gone back to quote mining refer to post #11 for the response.

View attachment 358272
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.

Where did you get this image from it looks nothing like 2016 sample.

The striations in the hole are particularly striking and makes a mockery of your argument the 2016 experiment does not produce deep grooves.

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.

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.

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

For someone who plays the victim card with claims of being labelled stupid, you are insulting the readers and my intelligence with this blatant piece of deception.
Be very careful what you write as the search function will catch you out.

You have made it very clear there is absolutely no evidence of copper being used in drilling holes in granite and when the evidence shows otherwise suddenly there is a 180 degree turn as if it supports your position.
What a pathetic turn of events.

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.

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.

No they are not completely different, given the high quality image of the striations inside the hole from the 2016 experiment which are clearly not light scratches and I might be able to analyse.

 

[sjastro]

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.

This thread is about Dunn’s inconsistences as has been explained in detail.
I can't help it if the explanations are beyond your level of comprehension or you are blinded by your own ignorance.

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.

How about reading my post again in the attempt to understand the point I was making which might prompt a more coherent reply.

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.

As mentioned in the previous post you were caught out lying which you have now expanded to include Dunn unless you can find a link where he explicitly states the use of copper.

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.

Go look at the striations inside the hole of the 2016 experiment as tell me if these are not deep cuts.

 

[sjastro]

200 years is not a very short period of time for humans. It is a small portion of the very long history of Egypt, but not a short period of time. We have writings that tell us who and why they were built. They were memorials and monuments to the king.

Whenever @stevevw brings up "facts" treat it with caution.
One of the oldest mummies found was of the 5th dynasty pharaoh Djedkare Isesi found in his pyramid at South Saqqara.

Expanding the search reveals bits and pieces of what are assumed to be of pharaohs who were subject to the predations of tomb robbers have been found in various pyramids.

​

Construction of pyramids commenced in the 3rd dynasty and ended with the first pharaoh of the 18th dynasty spanning 2670 BCE – 1550 BCE.

 

[stevevw]

No, the onus is not on me at all to contact Egyptologists telling them that some random nobody on the internet (and I'm not using that disparagingly or as an insult.

Yes you are making an insult because there is absolutely no reason to personalise things. No one seeks to get expert opinion and tells the scientists that they want to prove something to a nobody. Its just impolite and irrelevant.

Calling someone a nobody is an insult fulllstop. In fact any scientists would recognise that you are personalising things and see your motives as suspect. That you have already dismissed and belittled your opponent before you have found out the expert opinion of the scientist your asking lol. Thus are biased.

In the grand scheme of things, 99% on this website are nobodies on the internet when it comes to things related to stuff like this, including myself. It's just a fact) follows the age old conspiracy theory of "Ancient civilizations used advanced technology far beyond what we know they had, even though we've not found a single advanced tool!". I don't need to do a single thing, nor do I need them to back my case that you are just making claims, with no actual evidence to back them up.

So your whole arguement is that because we cannot find any tech that matches the signatures in the stones there is no tech. That even though the tools don't match the signatures we must still go along with those tools. That sounds strAange logic and poor science.

Its not up to me to prove anything. All I have done is shown the signatures in the stones and that they don't match the tools in the records. You say they do. So its up to you to show how they do. So far you have failed.

I only ask because the only Egyptologist you cite, as has been said repeatedly, is a guy who's been dead for nearly a century and who is of no real relevance to the field except to you.

No Flinder Petrie is one of the most cited archeologists and egyptologists in history even today. The amount of citings for his work in other scientific papers is testament to his credibility. So I am not the only one.

Its like Einstein being cited for physics or Darwin for evolution and Freud for psychoanalysis and all are dead.

So I would honestly have thought that, in your desire to actually show myself and others that you are right, you would have taken the time to find other Egyptologists who support your claims with evidence of their own and actually might have evidence of their own to back you up.

Then why havn't you done the same. You claimed to be 100% correct. You would think you have pretty sttrong evidence for that claim. I am not going to jump through hoops whiloe you don't apply the same standards to yourself. Your creating another logical fallacy. In fact I don;t have to prove anything to someone who engages in such illogical thinking as it would make no difference to you. You will still come up with some objection.

You're the one making claims counter to the norm, so the onus is on you and yourself to back them up, not on I to disprove them.

No I have made claims to common sense and reality. I look at the stones and I don't see that the tools in the records could possibly produce such signatures. Most people agree. So its your position thats not the norm. Its like saying someone who thinks a circle is a square right before our eyes. Those who are claiming the circle is a square are the ones that need to show evdience for something that is obviously a square.

Exactly the same for the ancient works. You claim they can lift a 2000 ton block with ancient tools like hemp rope and manpower. I say they can't. You say a tiny say can produce a massive precision cut in a box well beyond the saws capability. Its obvious it can't. So you have to explain how it can with evidence.

I don't need to prove it because the evdience speaks for itself. No one has demonstrated a tiny says can produce these machine like cuts. Its like claiming Mt Rusmore was created by a small butter knife and small fingernail file. Or a space rocket was build with a childs plaatic tool set. Its just obvious and common sense that it can't.

Nothing since I was never taught about Petrie's core number 7 until you first brought it up. Believe it or not, he's not really a household name.

Maybe not to you but ask any archeologist or Egyptologist. But its surpising because you have acted as though you are 100% correct on archeology and egyptology and you don't even know the father of these disciplines. Its like not knowing Darwin was the father of evolution.

If you are going to claim your 100% correct then you would think that you would have familiarized yourself with the works of the person who is the most cited person in history on this topic. Thats just good basic research and necessary if you want to claim the truth.

Flinders Petrie: the Father of Archaeology
Sir Flinders Petrie excavated over 40 sites in Egypt. His collection forms the basis of the Petrie Museum of Archaeology and other archaeologists are indebted to the methodologies he developed. No excavator has had as a huge impact on Egyptian archaeology with regards to methodology or even collecting of artifacts from a wide variety of sites as Sir Flinders

Flinders Petrie: Get to Know the Father of Archaeology | TheCollector

Sir Flinders Petrie excavated over 40 sites in Egypt. His collection forms the basis of the Petrie Museum of Archaeology

www.thecollector.com

You mean the major claim that is the entire crux of this whole thread and others that the ancient Egyptians had technology far advanced than the mainstream science claims them to have? Buddy,

Yes that is the one and I have been going through specific showing that advanced tech that mainstream dismiss. Show me an archeologist or egyptologist who can explain the pics I have linked by existing tools.

Were they non-Egyptologists, or is it more of a case that they disagreed with Petrie and so you claim that they aren't Egyptologists?

You don't have to be an egyptologist to study core number 7. But I wouls say there has only been a handful that have and Petrie is the most notable.

 

[SelfSim]

No I have made claims to common sense and reality.
..
Exactly the same for the ancient works. You claim they can lift a 2000 ton block with ancient tools like hemp rope and manpower. I say they can't.

Yet Wally Wallington can lift and move 20 ton blocks of concrete by himself. Is that consistent with 'common sense'?
Here's Wally struttin' his stuff!

What does common sense inform us about how such a technique scales when hundreds or thousands of able-bodied people are brought to bear on some heavier problem?

 

[stevevw]

So are we talking about one core...

Well OP was about core drills and Petries core in particular. But it seems to have expanded on that which I guess is natural as it relates to all tech. If we see advanced tech in other works then this bolsters the arguement that drill cores may involve tech beyond what we thought as well.

Or a bunch of other stone cutting...

No sure what you mean.

You want to have it both ways.

1. Just about Petrie's core 7 where Petrie's work is important, and
2. About all the cuts you can find where his work isn't important.

No I don't mind. But I was talking specifically about core number 7 as the poster was complaining about using Petrie all the time. The only item I have used Petrie on is drill core number 7.

If it is (1) then the OP of this thread is very on point and all of those other cuts are irrelevant.

I wasn't the the only one who went into other works besides drill cores. In fact someone else expanded the thread into other artifacts besides drill cores.

If it is (2) then you might be on the wrong thread and Petrie is irrelevant.

I am not the one responsible so I don't know why your singling me out. Your jumping into other peoples discussions again without understanding the context. I was specifically talking about drill cores and Petrie for that one conversation.

By the way if it was the wrong thread Petrie would be completely relevant because he is about the only egyptologist to have studied drill cores and has a drill core named after him.

That's not how this works. Demonstrating one thing doesn't work, does NOT make any particular alternative true.

We are not talking about al;ternative tech. We are just assessing the signatures in the stones as to what may have caused them. Whether the tools in the records that are claimed to have created them is valid or not.

Theres two claims here we can investigate. One is whether the tools on record created the signatures. The other is to the spectulate what may have created the signatures if not the tools in the records.

As far as the small saws in the records at least for some signatures they are inadequate.

As far as speculating on what could have created the signatures they tell us some sort of machining was involved. It may not have actually been a mac hine but the signatures are what a machine would create when compared to other machining signatures we know of from the signatures we see in the works we have created.

You do know the difference between a hand saw cut and a machine cut don't you. The first question would be 'is there a difference between a hand saw cut and a machine cut'. If so what are those differences. The you can look for the signatures.

 

[stevevw]

General, not vague. Without labels no one has any idea where these pictures come from. As far as anyone knows they are pictures you took at a local construction site.

Lol fair enough I will try and lable them. I wouldn't mind going to Egypt to take some pics myself. In fact seeeing them live would be awesome.

Worked by humans as in not natural. The surfaces in those photographs do not come from natural geological processes. The rocks were modified by humans. (Evidence of design if you like.)

Ok yes. But we can also determined from working out they were designed by humans as to how they did it. Just like the general view shows design a detailed view can determined how it was designed and created. What tools, what methods ect. The level of design.

Because you have presented pictures of rocks with worked edges. The specific technique can not be determined from those pictures.

But we can rule out certain techniques. A 2 foot hand saw cannot cut corners for example. Cannot cut a large slab of 10 x 5 feet in one go so will look different to a machined finish that has cut the slab in one go,

A hand saw cannot cut arcs or curves or routed and planed steps and edges sunkeb into a flat surface. This is impossible for a hand saw. A 20 foot wooden sled in the records can't move a 150 feet by 50 feet and 1500 ton granite slab.

So we can rule that out for these tools and methods.

For starters, you have posted all sorts of rock images on a thread specifically about a single drilled core that are not that core. Quit flooding the zone with side topics, objects, ideas, or artifacts.

OK so long as everyone else does as they have all postedstuff other than drill cores. You have happily gone along not saying a word and now you want to protest.

But then why isn't it relevant. Its about the tech to drill granite. The tech to cut granite is closely related. Both involve some form of harder than granite graving so if we can show this with cutting then it lends support for drilling.

 

[stevevw]

Yet Wally Wallington can lift and move 20 ton blocks of concrete by himself. Is that consistent with 'common sense'?
Here's Wally struttin' his stuff!

What does common sense inform us about how such a technique scales when hundreds or thousands of able-bodied people are brought to bear on some heavier problem?

Problem was the wheel was not yet invented for these megaliths. Theres a big difference between 20 ton and 2000 ton moved 100 miles over hills.

 

[stevevw]

200 years is not a very short period of time for humans.

Never said anything about within the entire human context. But I think its a great achievement in that conext as well when you consider humans were suppose to still be hunters and gatherers up to 6,000 years ago when Mesamotopia came on the scene. Most of these pyramids and megaliths were made up to 6,000 years ago maybe even earlier.

It is a small portion of the very long history of Egypt, but not a short period of time. We have writings that tell us who and why they were built. They were memorials and monuments to the king.

The point was that it was within this short period at the beginning that all these great works, precision vases, boxes and statues and megaliths such as the pyramids and temples were built. Then it more or less stopped and nothing has matched it afterwards. In fact the later Egyptians tried to emmulate these works but never could.

Usually its the other way around. We see rough and basic works gradually evolve into more complex and quality works. Like machining now compared to the later 1800's and early 1900s with the industrial revolution.

 

[mindlight]

GPT-4o's Python code.

View attachment 357698​

Cool code to examine and graph a 2D photo combined with a manually entered data set of pitch measurements. To meet modern industrial drilling standards the graph should flatline but this one does not so the drill sample was produced by more ancient and imprecise techniques. This is science at its best. Moreover, the consequence is delightful, the ancient Egyptians were clearly not the beneficiaries of Stargate goa' uld knowhow