Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[stevevw]

Right, we get that. What you are promoting is a very large flood of some kind as a singular event behind the Noah story.

Not just Noahs but most cultures. Most cultures that were around at the time of that flood which would then redate later floods.

You're not doing a very good job of it--many of your arguments are fanciful or taken from sensational journalists like Graham Hancock.

No they are not. I have not referred to Hancock at all. Thats your doing, your stereotyping the argument. It comes from the science. Fact there were cultures around at the time of the Younger Dryas that would have experienced the big floods it caused and they were capable of creating a story about their experiences. Or the experiences of some culture who did go through the floods.

You are putting a lot of effort into the task, it's obviously important to you, but you haven't said why. Where are you going with this? Suppose you could demonstrate that the Noah story was based on a singular flood event. So what?

The only thing I am proposing is that there was a giant flood which cultures must have written about around 10 to 12,000 years ago. My actual arguement has nothing to do with the bible and Noah.

My arguement is that there was a time that humankind developed to a certain level of advancement and religion and then most got wiped out by the floods of the Younger Dryas. At the same time Megafauna was also wiped out which lends to the myth that the flood wiped out all humankind and animals.

Its the only time in the last 12,000 years where entire species and probably many cultures have been wiped out. It seems to match so well the stories and I cannot see any other local flood matching as well.

If there was any point I was making it was more about Anthroplogy and not the bible of Noah. That it seems weilded into the memory and psyche of humans is this archetype belief about God or gods sending a flood because humans became out of control. Had developed a high level of knowledge and belief and were then more or less wiped out. Then a small group came and began civilisation again.

This seems to be the main story of most flood myths and its the locals not the scientists who tell the stories and believe this truely happened to their ancestors. In otherwords the myths are not entirely myths but based on a real event.

Thats not to say it happened exactly like in Noahs or any specific flood. But that more broadly there was a flood that wiped out a lot of stuff and caused many cultures to either be completely lost, be damaged in a big way that they had to restart and that there were some people who were involved that may have come from far away to help and were then made into legends.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The proof that modern day tech finds it hard is that they use state of the art tech to cut and shape it and not hand tools. It would take I think something like 25 heavy dut granes to life one block off the ground. Let alone move it anywhere from 10 to 100 miles over land and up hillds, up mountains from the quarries.

Entire walls of blue stone one of the hardest stones perfectly sheered flat like they were machined, even showing what look like machine marks. Blocks with perfect flat surfaces butted together where even a razor blade cannot fit in the gap.

All this precision and ability to move multi ton blocks are found at the bottom level below later smaller and less precise works. What is going on here. I will link this video as it good to also see the work. Theyalso refer to peer reviewed papers on the work.

Goblekli Tepe is mentioned at the 11 minute mark. The difficulty with cutting hard stone is addressed at the 25 minute mark which includes cuts at the Amazaonian sites.


The most intriguing thing about Puma punku is the stonework. Puma punku was a terraced earthen mound originally faced with megalithic blocks, each weighing several tens of tons. The red sandstone and andesite stones were cut in such a precise way that they fit perfectly into and lock with each other without using mortar.

The technical finesse and precision displayed in these stone blocks is astounding. Not even a razor blade can slide between the rocks. Some of these blocks are finished to 'machine' quality and the holes drilled to perfection. This is supposed to have been achieved by a civilization that had no writing system and was ignorant of the existence of the wheel. Something doesn’t add up.

Again, saying that it is isn't SHOWING that it is.

We use modern machines because it's easier for us to use those, but we can still do it with historical techniques. There's a castle in France, Guedelon Castle, which is being built with purely historical techniques. And guess what? It's being built!

Saying that the ancients had to use some sort of magic or mysterious techniques that somehow modern man don't know about is laughable at best, and just outright plain ignorance at worst.

Every other primitive culture at that time could not have done it because of the tools recorded with them in the archeological record are inadequate. Those tools like a stone hammer and copper or iron chisel could not have made such smooth and razor flat surfaces. Tests have been shown how simple hammer and chisel actually blows the granit out leaving pit marks.

To say that these primitive people made these megaliths from a hammer and chisel is appealing to magic. It is impossible and if they had some secret method that could achieve this its still super advanced tech as its precision is on par with modern work.

No, what's appealing to magic is your claims, and your own claims show that you've never once actually studied or done anything with rocks and rock cutting.

 

[mindlight]

I think the best way to show that the lack of evidence for large ripples being all over the place during a flood is the fact that the same flood that caused the ripples left large areas that did not have ripples. It seems ripples may need certain conditions.

All of this is speculation, it is not proper science. There can be no evidence that we could read clearly. Overlapping catastrophes and unknown variables guarantee that.

 

[stevevw]

Again, saying that it is isn't SHOWING that it is.

We use modern machines because it's easier for us to use those, but we can still do it with historical techniques. There's a castle in France, Guedelon Castle, which is being built with purely historical techniques. And guess what? It's being built!

Building an old castle is nothing like these megaliths. For starters the blocks are a fraction of the size. We are talking up to 800 tons. The cuts in the in the blocks are nowhere near as precise. You cannot get such a precise cut with a copper saw and it leaves different marks on the rack.

Saying that the ancients had to use some sort of magic or mysterious techniques that somehow modern man don't know about is laughable at best, and just outright plain ignorance at worst.

I'm not saying its magic. I said its like magic. Tech that produces results like modern day back then is like magic.

No, what's appealing to magic is your claims, and your own claims show that you've never once actually studied or done anything with rocks and rock cutting.

Maybe not but we have experts who have and they all say the same thing that its impossible to produce such precision with the tools they had. As simple as that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Building an old castle is nothing like these megaliths. For starters the blocks are a fraction of the size. We are talking up to 800 tons. The cuts in the in the blocks are nowhere near as precise. You cannot get such a precise cut with a copper saw and it leaves different marks on the rack.

You haven't shown that at all.

I'm not saying its magic. I said its like magic. Tech that produces results like modern day back then is like magic.

You haven't shown that at all.

Maybe not but we have experts who have and they all say the same thing that its impossible to produce such precision with the tools they had. As simple as that.

And you DEFINITELY haven't shown that at all.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't shown that at all

Yes I did which shows you don't look at the evidence I post. In the video at the 25 minute mark it goes through the evidence and even demostrates it. Using a copper saw not only takes forever just on sandstone let along granite it leaves different marks because its a grinding motion rather than a cutting motion. Its using friction to grind away the sandstone not in a cut but eroding the stone away.

You can look at the cuts and see the difference. The megalith cuts have thin clean sharp edges and stop uniformerly in a perfect straight line like the machine does when cutting and pulled away. Notice the lip on the flat block which is millimeters thin. There is no way a hand held saw could produce such results as it would be thicker and more ragged and not as flat and smooth.

The video includes a study done on this granite block in particular but others as well by engineer Christopher Dunn.

Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs by Christopher Dunn : Christopher Dunn : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

To purchase the book http://gizapower.com/PurchaseLoTeAn.htm (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powells.com, Innertraditions.com)Dunn's website:...

archive.org

You haven't shown that at all.

How can you say that. Look at the cuts. Do they look like modern day cuts. You don't think that is amazing tech for that period to be able to get even look alike modern cuts considering they only had copper and bronze chisels and stone hammers.

Even experts from the same culture such as Yousef Awyan (who should know their own heritage) say that this is amazing tech for that period and impossible to do with the tools they had.

And you DEFINITELY haven't shown that at all.

Once again this shows you don't look at the evidence. Using a word like "DEFINITELY" in capital letters doesn't make your claim more true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes I did which shows you don't look at the evidence I post. In the video at the 25 minute mark it goes through the evidence and even demostrates it. Using a copper saw not only takes forever just on sandstone let along granite leaves different marks because its a grinding motion rather than a cutting motion. Its using friction to grind away the sandstone not in a cut but eroding the stone away.

You can look at the cuts and see the difference. The megalith cuts have thin clean sharp edges and stop uniformerly in a perfect straight line like the machine does when cutting and pulled away. Notice the lip on the flat block which is millimeter thin. There is no way a hand held saw could produce such results as it would be thicker and more ragged and not as flat and smooth.

View attachment 357002
View attachment 357001

The video includes a study done on this granite block in particular but others as well by engineer Christopher Dunn.
View attachment 357005

Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs by Christopher Dunn : Christopher Dunn : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

To purchase the book http://gizapower.com/PurchaseLoTeAn.htm (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powells.com, Innertraditions.com)Dunn's website:...

archive.org

How can you say that. Look at the cuts. Do they look like modern day cuts. You don't think that is amazing tech for that period considering they only had copper and bronse chisels and hammers. Even experts from the same culture such as Yousef Awyan say that this is amazing tech for that period and impossible to do with the tools they had.

Once again this shows you don't look at the evidence. Using a word like "DEFINITELY" in capital letters doesn't make your claim more true.

You can imagine what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway:

All you're doing is saying that they couldn't have done and you're not doing a thing to show that they couldn't have done it.

The history of stone masonry is as old as humanity itself and it's been well documented how older civilizations would have cut stone without modern day tools. It's the easiest thing to look up and study, but your flat out refusal to do so only shows that you don't want to learn. It's simple as. To say that the ancient civilizations in the Middle East, Near Middle East and South America couldn't have done their stonework by hand is flat out conspiracy theories at best and just out right racism at the worst.

 

[stevevw]

Floods leave distinctive geological evidence behind. Among other things, current ripples provide some of that physical evidence. The supposed size and violence of the Noah's flood would have left behind humongous size current ripples all over the Earth surface. But they simply don't exist.
There's a lot of different kinds of geological features one sees in floods that simply are not there when looking for evidence of a Noah type global flood. Current ripples are one of those missing features.

The video below provides a good but short teaching tool on current ripples created by the Ice Age Floods that ran through the Pacific Northwest. In my time studying the Ice Floods I've seen these ripples. Nick Zentner teaches geology at Central Washington University. I've learned a lot of Pacific Northwest geology from him. Enjoy the learning lesson.

I am not sure about this now thinking about it. Lets take one area that has giant ripples like the Channeled Scablands with the Missoula floods. We have giant ripples in one area but not universal. Yet we know the floods were wide spread and there is other evidence such as coulees and cataracts eroded into Palouse loess and the typically flat-lying basalt flows that remain after cataclysmic floods.

So despite there being a massive widespread flood giant ripples only happened in a few places.

The same with larger floods. There could have been a massive flood that covered most of the northern hemisphere after the last iceage and it left scattered ripples in certain places where the conditions were right.

But when we add to the giant ripples and all the other evidence of giant floods in the northern hemisphere that happened at the same time such as the Black sea flooding around the Middle east, Turkey, and into the Mediteranian sea and Europe. We can see widespread evidence despite lack of ripples for a giant flood that wiped out large areas.

Now this is not like Noahs flood which is said to be global and happened at a different time to Noahs flood. But this event and the evidence I think points to the massive floods that happened around 10,000 years ago as being at least similar to Noah's and other flood stories that are around.

 

[stevevw]

You can imagine what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway:

All you're doing is saying that they couldn't have done and you're not doing a thing to show that they couldn't have done it.

The history of stone masonry is as old as humanity itself and it's been well documented how older civilizations would have cut stone without modern day tools. It's the easiest thing to look up and study, but your flat out refusal to do so only shows that you don't want to learn. It's simple as. To say that the ancient civilizations in the Middle East, Near Middle East and South America couldn't have done their stonework by hand is flat out conspiracy theories at best and just out right racism at the worst.

Wait a minute. This is about the 3rd time you have made this claim on how primitive cultures with hand tools could produce such precision on granite and blue stone. But you never link evidence.

It seems to me if you claim I don't want to learn then the obvious and reasonable thing to do would be to link the evidence for me so I can learn. Your claiming to be the teacher, the expert so isn't that what they do. They teach us mere mortals the truth based on the evidence.

So I would like to see the evidence because as opposed to your experts, the experts I am referring to are qualified to make these conclusions. I have linked the evidence and they are not Hancock or any other conspiracy promotor but experts laying out the evidence from on the ground, observation evidence and then testing this in a lab. Its all scientific.

So I could say the same to you that the evidence is there to be found in my links and online but you are not learning from it.

But we don't even need lab evidence because common sense tells us a lot. We can just look at the precision and enormity of the work and see the tools scientifically don't match the work. The tests have been done. You only have to look at the tools and the finished product to see this. It doesn't add up.

No amount of time or effort can produce these results. The rocks have machine marks in them and not chisel marks. What more evidence do you need. Just look at the video and see with your own eyes.

But heres the other problem with your arguement as far as what I am trying to point out which is that these ancient cultures were much more advanced then what we thought back then.

Even if we concede that they slowly used small tools to get these results its still amazing and advanced results for that time. In fact in some ways even more amazing. We look at it in awe and wonder how on earth they could do that back then. Its like modern day work regardless of how they did it. Certainlt more advanced than the Incas who came later which is strange.

The other point overlooks is that much of this megalithic work is found below later work which is more rudimentary and rough. Like the Inca small stone and mud brick copies of the doorway at Naupa Iglesia in the Andes where later Inca structures are built on top to mimick the great stonework of the earlier culture.

As you can see there is a destinct difference in style and precision. Notice the Inca small stone building at rear with the copycat doorways of the pre Inca cultures Doorway to Nowhere. Why is later work so rough and nowhere near as good as the earlier work.

But its not just the craftmanship. Its the religious aspect as well. This is pretty sophisticated belief about some sort of spiritual doorway. Perhaps for some transcedental state of consciousness or something. But its pretty cool I reckon.

 

[sjastro]

Wait a minute. This is about the 3rd time you have made this claim on how primitive cultures with hand tools could produce such precision on granite and blue stone. But you never link evidence.

It seems to me if you claim I don't want to learn then the obvious and reasonable thing to do would be to link the evidence for me so I can learn. Your claiming to be the teacher, the expert so isn't that what they do. They teach us mere mortals the truth based on the evidence.

So I would like to see the evidence because as opposed to your experts, the experts I am referring to are qualified to make these conclusions. I have linked the evidence and they are not Hancock or any other conspiracy promotor just laying out the evidence from on the ground, observation evidence and then testing this in a lab. Its all scientific.

But we don't even need that as common sense tells us a lot. We can just look at the precision and enormity of the work and we have found the tools they worked with which are chisels and hammers. The tools scientifically don't match the work. The tests have been done. You only have to look at the tools and the finished product to see this.

No amount of time or effort can produce these results. The rocks have machine marks in them and not chisel marks. What more evidence do you need. Just look at the video and see with your own eyes.

But heres the other problem with your arguement as far as what I am trying to point out which is that these ancient cultures were much more advanced then what we thought back then.

Even if we concede that they slowly used small tools to get these results its still amazing and advanced results for that time. We look at it in awe and wonder how on earth they could do that back then. Its like modern day work.

Since you post links about Naupa Huaca where ancient civilizations are connected by portals which is more relevant to Star Trek than archaeology why don't we assume the ancients used laser beams to cut granite and CNC (Computer Numerical Control) polishing machines using diamond tooling.

In the real world of archaeology there is an unfinished granite obelisk in Egypt which has tell tale marks which gives archaeologists a very good idea of what the ancient Egyptians used (copper, sand and the mineral dolerite) which could have been utilized by other civilizations including the hunter gatherers at Gobekli Tepe (flint tools found in massive amounts made of hard stone such as obsidian were used in place of copper as they were of a pre pottery Neolithic culture).

There is an excellent site appropriately called Scientists against Myths where they show how a copper tool, an abrasive such as sand and water can be used to cut through granite producing the sort of cut finish which you claim would require highly advanced tools.

​

In the second video they show the superior properties in using a dolerite hammer over a granite hammer in shaping granite.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wait a minute. This is about the 3rd time you have made this claim on how primitive cultures with hand tools could produce such precision on granite and blue stone. But you never link evidence.

It seems to me if you claim I don't want to learn then the obvious and reasonable thing to do would be to link the evidence for me so I can learn. Your claiming to be the teacher, the expert so isn't that what they do. They teach us mere mortals the truth based on the evidence.

So I would like to see the evidence because as opposed to your experts, the experts I am referring to are qualified to make these conclusions. I have linked the evidence and they are not Hancock or any other conspiracy promotor but experts laying out the evidence from on the ground, observation evidence and then testing this in a lab. Its all scientific.

So I could say the same to you that the evidence is there to be found in my links and online but you are not learning from it.

But we don't even need lab evidence because common sense tells us a lot. We can just look at the precision and enormity of the work and see the tools scientifically don't match the work. The tests have been done. You only have to look at the tools and the finished product to see this. It doesn't add up.

No amount of time or effort can produce these results. The rocks have machine marks in them and not chisel marks. What more evidence do you need. Just look at the video and see with your own eyes.

But heres the other problem with your arguement as far as what I am trying to point out which is that these ancient cultures were much more advanced then what we thought back then.

Even if we concede that they slowly used small tools to get these results its still amazing and advanced results for that time. In fact in some ways even more amazing. We look at it in awe and wonder how on earth they could do that back then. Its like modern day work regardless of how they did it. Certainlt more advanced than the Incas who came later which is strange.

The other point overlooks is that much of this megalithic work is found below later work which is more rudimentary and rough. Like the Inca small stone and mud brick copies of the doorway at Naupa Iglesia in the Andes where later Inca structures are built on top to mimick the great stonework of the earlier culture.

View attachment 357011
View attachment 357010
View attachment 357012

As you can see there is a destinct difference in style and precision. Notice the Inca small stone building at rear with the copycat doorways of the pre Inca cultures Doorway to Nowhere. Why is later work so rough and nowhere near as good as the earlier work.

But its not just the craftmanship. Its the religious aspect as well. This is pretty sophisticated belief about some sort of spiritual doorway. Perhaps for some transcedental state of consciousness or something. But its pretty cool I reckon.

Buddy, I keep saying it because it's true. You have not once shown anything that even remotely backs up your claims in the slightest.

Your appeal to 'common sense' is laughable because using common sense shows us that since people have historically used hammer and chisels and saws throughout history, then there is no need to even pretend to imagine that people further back in history used anything but hammer and chisels and saw because they got the job done.

Here's a link for three theories that actually make more sense than your 'amazing unknown' idea, which are described in detail for how they work, for how the Incas carved the stones at Machu Pichu. But since you seem to have an adverse desire to learn and actually make the effort to not follow links, I'll copy and paste the relevant parts here:

"Pecking and grinding" technique:
One theory about how the stones of Machu Picchu were cut suggests that the Incas used a technique known as “pecking and grinding”. This method involved using simple tools such as hammerstones and chisels to shape stone blocks .

The pecking and grinding technique was a slow and labor-intensive process. However, it allowed the Incas to create intricate shapes and designs with great precision. The hammerstones used to peck the rough shape of the stones were made from hard rocks such as granite. These hard rocks were often found near the quarries where the stone blocks were extracted.


Once the rough shape had been created using the hammerstone, the Incas would use a metal or stone chisel to refine the shape and create the final design. This process required great skill and patience. Thus, the Incas would need to carefully chip away at the stone to achieve the desired shape and texture.


The pecking and grinding technique was a time-consuming activity. However, it could have been highly effective for shaping the stones of Machu Picchu. This method could have allowed the Incas to create the intricate and precise stonework that characterizes the ruins of Machu Picchu today.

"Stone Splitting" technique:
Another theory about how the stones of Machu Picchu were cut suggests that the Incas used a technique known as “stone splitting”. This method involved drilling a series of holes into the rock using chisels made from harder stones or bronze. Then, wooden wedges were inserted in the stone holes.


The next step of this technique involved soaking the wooden wedges with water. This would cause the wedges to expand and exert pressure on the surrounding rock. As the wooden wedges expanded, they would gradually split the rock along its natural grain. The Incas would then use hammers and chisels to refine the shape of the split stones.


The stone splitting technique allowed the Incas to cut large blocks of rock with relative ease. Also, it was highly effective for creating rectangular blocks and straight lines. The method also made it easier to extract stones from the quarry. It allowed the Incas to split the rocks into smaller, more manageable sizes.


This technique could have been used to build some of Machu Picchu’s structures. However, the stone splitting technique had some drawbacks. Despite its effectiveness, it was still a labor-intensive process that required great skill and precision. The Incas would need to carefully plan and execute each step of the process, from drilling the holes to splitting the rock and shaping the stones.

High temperature technique:
This theory proposes that the Incas used heat to soften the stones, making them easier to cut. They may have used fire or some other heat source to heat the stones. Then, they would have quickly cooled them with water to create a crack, which could then be widened using simple tools.


While there is some circumstantial evidence to support the high temperature theory, many experts remain skeptical. One major challenge to this theory is the fact that the stones of Machu Picchu were cut from a variety of different types of rock. Each rock has its own unique properties and response to heat. It seems unlikely that the Incas would have been able to develop a one-size-fits-all approach to cutting stones using heat.


Another challenge to the high temperature theory is the lack of direct evidence for it. There are some examples of stones that appear to have been cracked by heat. However, there is no clear evidence that the Incas used this method on a large scale.


Despite these challenges, the high temperature theory remains an intriguing possibility for how the stones of Machu Picchu were cut. It is possible that the Incas used a combination of different techniques to cut and shape the stones. Each combination depended on the type of rock and the desired outcome.

And even though I missed it originally, I see that @sjastro has also included videos that show how ancient techniques would be done too. Now, if you want to apply those same processes to large blocks, common sense just means that you just scale up the workforce, scale up the tools and scale up the timeframe needed for them to be worked on. There is really no need for any application of magical, unknown special tools for the mix because the work can EASILY be done by hand. The only reason we don't know for sure is because the historical Incas are a dead and gone civilization, who didn't leave any written sources down nor detailed diagrams of how they did things.

To say that the builders of ancient megalithic sculptures had to have used advanced special technology that somehow vanished entirely when those civilizations went belly-up is not only a disservice to historians, but also to archaeologists, to stone masons, to architects, and to the descendants of those historical peoples and to the historical peoples themselves.

 

[stevevw]

Since you post links about Naupa Huaca where ancient civilizations are connected by portals which is more relevant to Star Trek than archaeology why don't we assume the ancients used laser beams to cut granite and CNC (Computer Numerical Control) polishing machines using diamond tooling.

In the real world of archaeology there is an unfinished granite obelisk in Egypt which has tell tale marks which gives archaeologists a very good idea of what the ancient Egyptians used (copper, sand and the mineral dolerite) which could have been utilized by other civilizations including the hunter gatherers at Gobekli Tepe (flint tools found in massive amounts made of hard stone such as obsidian were used in place of copper as they were of a pre pottery Neolithic culture).

There is an excellent site appropriately called Scientists against Myths where they show how a copper tool, an abrasive such as sand and water can be used to cut through granite producing the sort of cut finish which you claim would require highly advanced tools.

​

In the second video they show the superior properties in using a dolerite hammer over a granite hammer in shaping granite.

I disagree that the end results from the dolerite hammering looks like the scoop marks on the obelisk. Then you have the problem that some of the best works are made of dolerite themselves and require much more detail then pounding out straight lines in big rocks.

The problem with the example of the saw cutting the thin slab of granite is that many of these cuts are 10 or 12 feet long and 4 or 5 feet wide. Like the saqqara sarcophagus in Egypt. Or the slabs I showed you. The cut was enormous, perfectly flat and super thin. To maintain such precion over a large area without imperfections from a hand held saw that would have to be massive seems impossible. No saw that big has been found.

Also the drill holes are around 8 inches in diameter through granite. What sort of drill bit would be able to do that.

Notice the cut marcks going through the hole like a drill.

But even so like I said it doesn't really matter how they did it. Its the end result that counts and it looks as good if not better than modern day work. This is pretty amazing coming from what are said to be primite humans.

The strange thing is even up until around 100 years ago we were not producing such fine works.

So these cultures are still advanced for their time and certainly capable of complex religious beliefs to make a flood myth.

 

[BCP1928]

I disagree that the end results from the dolerite hammering looks like the scoop marks on the obelisk. Then you have the problem that some of the best works are made of dolerite themselves and require much more detail then pounding out straight lines in big rocks.

The problem with the example of the saw cutting the thin slab of granite is that many of these cuts are 10 or 12 feet long and 4 or 5 feet wide. Like the saqqara sarcophagus in Egypt. Or the slabs I showed you. The cut was enormous, perfectly flat and super thin. To maintain such precion over a large area without imperfections from a hand held saw that would have to be massive seems impossible. No saw that big has been found.

Also the drill holes are around 8 inches in diameter through granite. What sort of drill bit would be able to do that.

In those days, copper drill bits were used. You don't know much about hand tools or how they work, do you?

View attachment 357014
View attachment 357018

View attachment 357017

Notice the cut marcks going through the hole like a drill.

But even so like I said it doesn't really matter how they did it. Its the end result that counts and it looks as good if not better than modern day work. This is pretty amazing coming from what are said to be primite humans.

The strange thing is even up until around 100 years ago we were not producing such fine works.

So these cultures are still advanced for their time and certainly capable of complex religious beliefs to make a flood myth.

No particular level of technological development is required to have a complex religion or to make up stories about floods. Technological development is what it is at the time that it exists. There is no such thing as "advanced for its time."

 

[Astrid]

In those days, copper drill bits were used. You don't know much about hand tools or how they work, do you?

No particular level of technological development is required to have a complex religion or to make up stories about floods. Technological development is what it is at the time that it exists. There is no such thing as "advanced for its time."

Original intent, op wise, was to point out the 100% lack of evidence for Noah flood
-as attested to by all geologists etc as well as last thursdayists.

Illustrating the point thst there’s zero data by envouraging
woo woo posts makes sense but that poor horse is
so dead now.

 

[sjastro]

I disagree that the end results from the dolerite hammering looks like the scoop marks on the obelisk. Then you have the problem that some of the best works are made of dolerite themselves and require much more detail then pounding out straight lines in big rocks.

The problem with the example of the saw cutting the thin slab of granite is that many of these cuts are 10 or 12 feet long and 4 or 5 feet wide. Like the saqqara sarcophagus in Egypt. Or the slabs I showed you. The cut was enormous, perfectly flat and super thin. To maintain such precion over a large area without imperfections from a hand held saw that would have to be massive seems impossible. No saw that big has been found.

Also the drill holes are around 8 inches in diameter through granite. What sort of drill bit would be able to do that.

View attachment 357014
View attachment 357018

View attachment 357017

Notice the cut marcks going through the hole like a drill.

But even so like I said it doesn't really matter how they did it. Its the end result that counts and it looks as good if not better than modern day work. This is pretty amazing coming from what are said to be primite humans.

The strange thing is even up until around 100 years ago we were not producing such fine works.

So these cultures are still advanced for their time and certainly capable of complex religious beliefs to make a flood myth.

(1) The image of the unfinished obelisk on its side does show scoop marks indicating the use of spherical or ellipsoid like hammers.

(2) The image of the statue of Chephren in your post was made from diorite not dolerite. Diorite has a similar hardness to granite while dolerite was used to hammer the raw shape.

(3) Long cuts can be obtained by using a series of shorter cuts and then finishing with grinding and polishing to flatten the surface. Evidence of this is found on the Saqqara sarcophagus as well as on Khufu's in the Great Pyramid.

(4) At the end of the first video in my last post, a hole was drilled into granite using a bow like assembly and a copper tube in conjunction with an abrasive such as sand. There is nothing mysterious in drilling large diameter holes.

 

[sjastro]

Here is an example of granite cutting and drilling using copper and sand.

 

[stevevw]

(1) The image of the unfinished obelisk on its side does show scoop marks indicating the use of spherical or ellipsoid like hammers.

The problems of the obelisk revisited: Photogrammetric measurement of the speed of quarrying granite using dolerite pounders
Despite the new findings, the question of the technological process of extracting colossal granite blocks by ancient artisans is still not definitively answered, and we can only marvel at the abilities of our ancestors.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

(2) The image of the statue of Chephren in your post was made from diorite not dolerite. Diorite has a similar hardness to granite while dolerite was used to hammer the raw shape.

Both are extremely hard rocks. Diorite is similar to Quartz around 7 on the Mohs scale. Dolerite is much the same.

But my point is considering the hardness how could anyone bash such fine detail into rock. Copper and abrasions won't do as it requires hands not mechanical friction like a saw or coppoer pipe grinding awat the material.

(3) Long cuts can be obtained by using a series of shorter cuts and then finishing with grinding and polishing to flatten the surface. Evidence of this is found on the Saqqara sarcophagus as well as on Khufu's in the Great Pyramid.

As with the block I posted there is no evidence of shorter cuts or grinding and polishing the surface. The cut is millimeter thin with sharp straight edges. These are perfecting flat surfaces and sharp 90% corners with no variations.

The unfinished Saqqara sarcophagus is good evidence. Here we have an unfinished lid being cut from the base of the block which is incomplete. The cut line is one piece of around 5 feet wide and the cut surface before the cut ends is perfectly flat without smaller cuts or uneven marks. Its all one cut being around 5 feet wide and up to 12 feet long.

As you can see this is one cut. When you consider the larger sarcophagus and the large blocks I linked this would have required a massive saw which is not found in the records.

Notice the sharp line where the cut stops and not jaggered edges as with a saw. Notice the continuious flat surface and not small saw marks. Just one perfectly flat surface done in one go.

You seem to think primitive tools and hands can repeat what is exactly like machined finishes.

(4) At the end of the first video in my last post, a hole was drilled into granite using a bow like assembly and a copper tube in conjunction with an abrasive such as sand. There is nothing mysterious in drilling large diameter holes.

Yes I have seen this example and it does not show that the holes were made with primitive copper pipe and abrasions and a bow. Extensive tests have been done. The original study on this was done by Flinders Petrie who noted that the spirial marks on the core plugs and within the holes did not match the smoother and horizontal lines of a copper pipe and abrasion.

Petrie concluded that some fixed point cutter cut through the granite cutting both the softer and harder mixture with the same ease and in one continuious line in a spirial. In otherwords like a dril cuts spirally eating into the stone like a corkscrew. He estimated the cut was done at around 1 inch per rotation which is way faster than a copper pipe with human strength.

THis was later verified by Chriss Dunn one of the world top engineers in the field. Once again this video goes into the evidence with references to the papers and tests.

Petries work

Dunns work which supports Petries findings that the cores do have spiral grooves that extend in a continious line like a corkscrew effect and not abrasion or horizontal lines that come with a copper pipe and abrasion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFuf-gBuuno&ab_channel=UnchartedX

 

[stevevw]

Here is an example of granite cutting and drilling using copper and sand.

Thats now been refuted. This video is the one they are disputing in the video I linked. Notice how old it is some 30 years ago. Surely more tests have been done since then. Chris Dunn has tested all this in recent times and it supports Flinders Petries conclusions.

Heres a compromise as I don't want to spend forever on proving the methods of the results. Lets just say no matter how they did it the end results are on par with modern tech in some cases.

Especially considering that many of these results come from a period prior to later less precise and as good results or at the very least on par with them. This is incredible for such an ancient people.

Like I said with the Puruvian megaliths and the later Inca work which is far less precise and as well crafted. Why would the Incas lose that tech if they made them. Why is it better than the later Inca work. Why is the early Egyptian work much better than the later Egyptian work.

 

[stevevw]

In those days, copper drill bits were used. You don't know much about hand tools or how they work, do you?

Hum, please refer to the evdience I linked that shows using copper pipe and abrasions has been refuted as it does not match the evidence on the cores themselves.

No particular level of technological development is required to have a complex religion or to make up stories about floods. Technological development is what it is at the time that it exists. There is no such thing as "advanced for its time."

OK then the cultures back 10,000 years ago could have easily created a flood story. Therefore why they experienced the massive floods of the Younger Dryas they made flood stories just like later cultures did of lesser floods. If any flood story was going to be made it was going to be about the greatest of floods that actually wiped out all megafauna and many cultures.

There is such a thing as advanced for its time. We use the term all the time. If you see some tech that seems on par with modern day 5,000 years ago you think its pretty advanced for the time because modern society did not come up with the tech until much later.

If we saw a computer 2,000 years ago we would think its advanced for that time. If we see cuts and holes made that look like machine cuts today or megalithic work that we know is very hard to achieve even with modern tech we say its pretty advanced for that time and wonder how on earth they did it.

Like I said to the other poster lets just compromise and say these ancient cultures were pretty amazing and were capable of making up flood stories that happened 10,000 years ago. They weren't as dumb as we thought they were.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Heres a compromise as I don't want to spend forever on proving the methods of the results. Lets just say no matter how they did it the end results are on par with modern tech in some cases.

Especially considering that many of these results come from a period prior to later less precise and as good results or at the very least on par with them. This is incredible for such an ancient people.

Like I said with the Puruvian megaliths and the later Inca work which is far less precise and as well crafted. Why would the Incas lose that tech if they made them. Why is it better than the later Inca work. Why is the early Egyptian work much better than the later Egyptian work.

None of that is a compromise! That's just you making a claim after being shown evidence that you're wrong and you just going "No. No. No. No." repeatedly in response to it.

If you want to claim that ancient civilizations had some amazing tech that somehow no-one has found, then the onus is entirely on you to bring forth actual evidence of that claim instead of the same empty claims that you've made time and again.