Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[stevevw]

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.

No its not. You have not responded to the actual tests done which refute your claims. How can you make such claims when you have not even addressed the evidence I linked. That is just plain denial. '

You did not even respond to my comment saying to notice the marks on the core which showed deep spiral cuts unlike a copper pipe and abrasion. You completely ignored it like the testers in your video did and that was the point of Petrie and Dunn that they did not address this evidence. You have done the same by completely ignoring it. The results from the copper pipe test don't match the actual core.

In fact one of the so called tests claiming that the marks were horizontal and thus matched the copper pipe method was found to be fraudulent. They actyally tilted the core in the photo to make it appear they were horizontal. But when straightened by Dunn supported Petries conclusion that these were spiral marks like an actual drill biting into the stone in a continuious corkscew pattern. Totally unlike a copper pipe and abrasion.

I made the compromise so we did not have to go through this back and forth arguing which may never be resolved one way or another.

In the end the method doesn't matter because its the level of the end result that shows us these people were advanced in the results they produced for that time.

So we can say regardless of the method they were advanced in what they produced for that time because its on par if not better than modern results or even later results that came soon after them which you would think the later culture would also have and improve. But they didn't. They reverted to an even more ancient work. Why is that.

If you cannot acknowledge this which nearly 100% of people agree on when they look at these amazing results then I don;t know what else I can say.

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.

Amazing tech. Do you agree the results are amazing for their time. Beyond what we would consider for that time considering the tech you claim they had. Even if we say they achieved this high level of what looks technically advanced its technically advanced for what tools they did have.

You seem to think that somehow time and effort are the tech. They are not. The tech is in the finished product. People were immitating modern levels of tech no matter how they did it for that time for which we would not thing was capable for that time.

Heres is simple logic. Do you think these works from megalithic cultures in Peru are better and more advanced than the latter workls of the Inca found on top.

If the Megalithic cultures used simple tools to create such precise work then why didn't the later cultures continue the same level with the same tools. It was simple remember and anyone can do it. They still had the tools and knowhow didn;t they as it was passed down.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No its not. You have not responded to the actual tests done which refute your claims. How can you make such claims when you have not even addressed the evidence I linked. That is just plain denial. '

I made the compromise so we did not have to go through this back and forth arguing which may never be resolved one way or another.

In the end the method doesn't matter because its the level of the end result that shows us these people were advanced in the results they produced for that time.

So we can say regardless of the method they were advanced in what they produced for that time. If you cannot acknowledge this which nearly 100% of people agree on when they look at these amazing results then I don;t know what else I can say.

Amazing tech. Do you agree the results are amazing for their time. Beyond what we would consider for that time considering the tech you claim they had. Even if we say they achieved this high level of what looks technically advanced its technically advanced for what tools they did have.

You seem to think that somehow time and effort are the tech. They are not. The tech is in the finished product. People were immitating modern levels of tech no matter how they did it for that time for which we would not thing was capable for that time.

Buddy, you're just waffling. Time and effort PLUS the contemporary technology is how the ancient civilizations got the results they did. If you want to claim that they used something else, you need to actually put the effort in and show it instead of showing these pictures and going "See how smooth they are! They couldn't have done that!" Which also contradicts your previous statement of "In the end the method doesn't matter" since all you're arguing is just about the methods because for some reason you can't accept that ancient peoples couldn't have created what they created with the tools they did. Your own incredulity is showing, and it's showing badly.

You don't understand how evidence works and that's plain for anyone to see.

 

[stevevw]

Buddy, you're just waffling. Time and effort PLUS the contemporary technology is how the ancient civilizations got the results they did. If you want to claim that they used something else, you need to actually put the effort in and show it instead of showing these pictures and going "See how smooth they are! They couldn't have done that!"

The pictures I linked are from the video which contains references to the original testing. You obviously did not bother to even look at it otherwise you would not have said they were just pictures from anywhere. Each picture is accompanied by scientific tests.

So your saying contemporary tech could produce results on par with modern tech. Isn't that being advanced.

Like I said isn't that work more advanced then what came immediated after these cultures like the Inca tech which is less advanced. If the Incas had the same tech or better tech because they came later when you would think tech would improve then why don't we see that in the Incas results. The incas tech is less advanced than the pre Megalith cultures who came earlier. That is a fact.

You also have not addressed this contradiction.

Which also contradicts your previous statement of "In the end the method doesn't matter" since all you're arguing is just about the methods because for some reason you can't accept that ancient peoples couldn't have created what they created with the tools they did. Your own incredulity is showing, and it's showing badly.

You don't understand how evidence works and that's plain for anyone to see.

Of course only you have the special knowledge to make these determinations even though you have absolutely no evidence apart from some discredited tests done 30 years ago.

When I have actually linked test results from two of the top experts in the world in Flinders Petrie and Chris Dunn who backs up Petries conclusions that the work was not done with the primnitive tools claimed like copper pipes and abrasions.

You need to look at the video, the actual evidence before you make unsupported claims.

I mean so far you have shown me a debunked video. The rate we are going we will never resolve this as you are not bac king things up and just making assertions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The pictures I linked are from the video which contains references to the original testing. You obviously did not bother to even look at it otherwise you would not have said they were just pictures from anywhere. Each picture is accompanied by scientific tests.

So your saying contemporary tech could produce results on par with modern tech. Isn't that being advanced.

Like I said isn't that work more advanced then what came immediated after these cultures like the Inca tech which is less advanced. If the Incas had the same tech or better tech because they came later when you would think tech would improve then why don't we see that in the Incas results. The incas tech is less advanced than the pre Megalith cultures who came earlier. That is a fact.

You also have not addressed this contradiction.

Posting pictures and videos only proves that you can post pictures and videos.

There is no reason to even imagine that contemporary technology from the time period couldn't produce the results we see, and if you want to say it did then the onus is on you to show it. You haven't shown that the Incas were less advanced than the civilization that came before them, you've just said that were.

You've not brought up a contradiction, you made a claim with no base and no evidence for it.

Of course only you have the special knowledge to make these determinations even though you have absolutely no evidence apart from some discredited tests done 30 years ago.

When I have actually linked test results from two of the top experts in the world in Flinders Petrie and Chris Dunn who backs up Petries conclusions that the work was not done with the primnitive tools claimed like copper pipes and abrasions.

You need to look at the video, the actual evidence before you make unsupported claims.

I mean so far you have shown me a debunked video. The rate we are going we will never resolve this as you are not bac king things up and just making assertions.

Flinders Petrie is a dead expert from the early 20th century and Chris Dunn is a man who wrote three books on Amazon about pyramids and claims that Giza Pyramid is a freaking power plant! Not exactly stunning endorsements for either person.

We have no reason to accept anything you say because all you've done is repeat the same claim after claim after claim with no evidence to back it up. At this point, you're basically quoting conspiracy theorists right now, not science of any stripe.

 

[stevevw]

Posting pictures and videos only proves that you can post pictures and videos.

Are you saying there is no evidence in that video. I want to pin you down on this as you have repeated this false claim. You would not have said this if you had watched the video. You would have at the very least disputed what they said. But you did not. You are just completely ignoring it which makes me suspect you don;t want to go there as you know it proves you wrong.

There is no reason to even imagine that contemporary technology from the time period couldn't produce the results we see, and if you want to say it did then the onus is on you to show it. You haven't shown that the Incas were less advanced than the civilization that came before them, you've just said that were.

Did you see the pics. They show a rudimentary and rough work from the Incas on top of the more precise and megalithic structures.

The Inca, Aztecs and Mayan all speak of giants who were advanced who created the megaliths and not themselves. They speak of a much longer history and attribute at great megalith tech to a greater people that came before them. They also speak of cataclysms and of remaking the world as in the Aztec Ages of the Sun for example. In fact this same theme is within all cultures of the world. Are they all just making it up.

Jesus Gamarra who with his father have been studying the Puruvian architecture for 70 years devised a system of identifying and categorizing the 3 different styles of masonary that are seen in the sites. Once you understand this system you can't unsee how different they are and how rudimentary the later work of the Incas is.

The first style is Hanan Pacha which is the oldest, usually looks very old and weathered and usually one big piece and cut out of sides of mountains or the bedrock itself which forms the bottom layer. It has become vitrified meaning it is shiny, has a film on it like it has been fired. It also looks like its been melted, was runny at one stage.

This work also seems to be revered and respected by later work which is built on top or around it. Another sign is that this bottom layer shows signs of massive destruction like the pieces have been trhrown around and broken up in some big catastrophy.

The next style is Uran Pacha which is the Megalith style. It usually sits on top of the Hanan Pacha layer. Its usually cellular style or multiple blocks rather than one big block. This style shows high precision. The blocks are mostly not uniform and made to fit different shapes and the gaps are razor thin between them. It also matches other megalithic work around the world such as in Egypt.

This level also shows signs of massive destruction in places where its crack, broken and tossed all over the place.

The last layer or 3rd style is called Ukun Pacha which is the Inca work. Its usually rough using small stones thrown together and in many cases use a mud morta. Its the last layer or the top layer over other older works. Its usually made from any old stone laying around and sometimes will use broken bits of megalith work.

Its usually used to enhance or repair the Uran Pacha work. Its usually very low tech and anyone can do it. It also pays respect to the earlier style of the megaliths and as I mentioned with the Door to knowwhere in the mountains the INca tried to respect and copy this but their style was mu7ch more rough and imprecise.

So the Inca style is not like the previous precision of the Megalith style and there is no evidence they could do what the earlier Megalithic culture could do and in fact their attempts to copy them fail miserably.

Its like there was this precise advanced work which disappeared and then replaced by much more rough ans less precise work. The INcas themselves say the Megaliths are from an advanced people. But their attemps to replicate the megalith work fails.

Flinders Petrie is a dead expert from the early 20th century and Chris Dunn is a man who wrote three books on Amazon about pyramids and claims that Giza Pyramid is a freaking power plant! Not exactly stunning endorsements for either person.

Ah Your creating another logical fallacy. This time a massive ad hominem which is attacking the credibility of the scientists and not addressing the evidence.

Darwin is also dead and yet we still respect his work. Flinders Petrie was one of the worlds greatest archeologists and a pioneer of systematic methodology in archaeology and the preservation of artefacts. Chris Dunn is a mater craftman and engineer. His work on the drill cores is avilable to dispute if you want. But don't make personal attacks on stiuff you are not qualified to do.

We have no reason to accept anything you say because all you've done is repeat the same claim after claim after claim with no evidence to back it up. At this point, you're basically quoting conspiracy theorists right now, not science of any stripe.

I linked the evidence and you have not responded.

But isn't that funny. I must have linked what 6 different sources for what I said. What have you linked. Only an outdated videa from 30 years ago that has been proven false. If you disagree then show me how I am wrong rather than continually making unsupported assertions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you saying there is no evidence in that video. I want to pin you down on this as you have repeated this false claim. You would not have said this if you had watched the video. You would have at the very least disputed what they said. But you did not. You are just completely ignoring it which makes me suspect you don;t want to go there as you know it proves you wrong.

Did you see the pics. They show a rudimentary and rough work from the Incas on top of the more precise and megalithic structures.

The Inca, Aztecs and Mayan all speak of giants who were advanced who created the megaliths and not themselves. They speak of a much longer history and attribute at great megalith tech to a greater people that came before them. They also speak of cataclysms and of remaking the world as in the Aztec Ages of the Sun for example. In fact this same theme is within all cultures of the world. Are they all just making it up.

Jesus Gamarra who with his father have been studying the Puruvian architecture for 70 years devised a system of identifying and categorizing the 3 different styles of masonary that are seen in the sites. Once you understand this system you can't unsee how different they are and how rudimentary the later work of the Incas is.

The first style is Hanan Pacha which is the oldest, usually looks very old and weathered and usually one big piece and cut out of sides of mountains or the bedrock itself which forms the bottom layer. It has become vitrified meaning it is shiny, has a film on it like it has been fired. It also looks like its been melted, was runny and pressed into shape.

This work also seems to be revered and respected by later work which is built on top or around it. Another sign is that this bottom layer shows signs of massive destruction like the pieces have been trhrown around and broken up in some big catastrophy.
View attachment 357055

The next stle is Uran Pacha which is the Megalith style. It usually sits on top of the Hanan Pacha layer. Its usually cellular style or multiple blocks rather than one big block. This style shows high precision. The blocks are not uniform there some are and made to fit different shapes and the gaps are razor thin between them. It also matches other megalithic work around the world such as in Egypt.

This level also shows signs of massive destruction in places where its crack open and all over the place.

View attachment 357056


The last layer or 3rd style is called Ukun Pacha which is the Inca work. Its usually rough using small stones thrown together and in many cases use a mud morta. Its the last layer or the top layer over other older works. Its usually made from any old stone laying around and sometimes will use broken bits of megalith work.
View attachment 357060

Its usually used to enhance or repair the Uran Pacha work. Its usually very low tech and anyone can do it. It also pays respect to the earlier style of the megaliths and as I mentioned with the Door to knowwhere in the mountains the INca tried to respect and copy this but their style was mu7ch more rough and imprecise.

View attachment 357061
View attachment 357062

So the Inca style is not like the previous precision of the Megalith style and there is no evidence they could do what the earlier Megalithic culture could do and in fact their attempts to copy them fail miserably.

Ah Your creating another logical fallacy. This time a massive ad hominem which is attacking the credibility of the scientists and not addressing the evidence.

Darwin is also dead and yet we still respect his work. Flinders Petrie was one of the worlds greatest archeologists and a pioneer of systematic methodology in archaeology and the preservation of artefacts. Chris Dunn is a mater craftman and engineer. His work on the drill cores is avilable to dispute if you want. But don't make personal attacks on stiuff you are not qualified to do.

I linked the evidence and you have not responded.

But isn't that funny. I must have linked what 6 different sources for what I said. What have you linked. Only an outdated videa from 30 years ago that has been proven false. If you disagree then show me how I am wrong rather than continually making stuff up.

First off, it was @sjastro who linked the video, not me, so get that fact right.

Secondly: you're showing pictures with not a single link to back up anything you're saying. You could be making it all up for all I care and know. In fact, even reverse searching the titles you've used shows me that you are making it up as you go along since in the Pacha refers to cosmology concept not an architectural style.

You might be right about Petrie but using a man's research from the early 20th century to try and debunk late 20th/early 21st century scientific findings is just terrible, and Christopher Dunn ruins his own credibility by claiming that the Giza Pyramids are a giant ancient power plant. If he makes that sort of claim, why should I belief anything else he claims? It's not an ad hominen to question why we should take the words of one man who's work is not outdated by a full century and another who's commentary on things is entirely suspect and questionable.

Your desire to try and connect all of what you're said to an overarching global flood narrative is entirely laughable and honestly just very sad.

 

[sjastro]

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

I have had enough your quote mining rubbish and am now seriously considering to start reporting your posts.
As typical you don’t give the full story such as the abundant number of dolerite pounders found at the Aswan site of the obelisk.
The authors have noted this as well and are not out to disprove the use of dolerite pounders but used in combination with other at this stage unknown techniques.
One possibility is the use of heavier pounders by mechanical means as is being proposed by some researchers.

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.

No you are trying to cover your tracks by thinking dolerite was used on Chephren's statue instead of diorite and for your information diorite has a Mohs hardness of 5-6, dolerite 5-7 and quartz 7, making dolerite and quartz preferred working materials on shaping and smoothing diorite.

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.

View attachment 357045

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.

View attachment 357046
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.
View attachment 357051

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.

Since the Saqqara sarcophagus is unfinished it provides clues as to the nature of its construction as the evidence hasn’t been erased by the smoothing of surfaces to produce the final product.

Here is an image of striation marks on the sarcophagus which completely destroys your argument of machined finishes well beyond the capabilities of “primitive tools and hands”

Egyptian saws have been found up to 5 feet in length, made of copper without jagged edges and quite blunt.
This is because it is not the copper which is doing the cutting but the use of abrasives such as sand in conjunction with the saw and is evidenced by the characteristic striation mark pattern left by the abrasive.
The video in post #876 provides an account of how the ancient Egyptians cut through granite.

The sarcophagus also shows evidence of chisel marks and the use of pounders which we can assume was made of dolerite which was the Egyptian’s preferred material of choice.

Since you evidently believe that ancient civilizations are connected by portals what is your explanation of the amazingly engineering feat of building the Great Pyramid which makes construction of sarcophagi insignificant by comparison, perhaps aliens from Alpha Eridanus were behind it?

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
View attachment 357048

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.
View attachment 357050


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

I am sorry to disappoint you but using a copper tube and abrasives is able to reproduce the same striation patterns using simple mechanical methods believed to have been used by the Egyptians.

 

[sjastro]

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.

The issue is your inability to accept the ancients were far more ingenious you give them credit for given the technologies were available to them.
It has been explained to you how their accomplishments were achieved which is far more realistic than the existence of supernatural portals....

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.

A familiarization of history would be helpful.
For example Egyptian pyramid building was its peak in the 4th dynasty because pharaonic power was highly centralized at the time and the pharaohs were able to command considerable human resources.
In succeeding dynasties the centralized power diminished, the pharaoh's had less power and resources in pyramid building.
As a result pyramids became smaller and of poorer quality.

 

[stevevw]

First off, it was @sjastro who linked the video, not me, so get that fact right.

Ok I get confused with all these claims and counter claims.

Secondly: you're showing pictures with not a single link to back up anything you're saying. You could be making it all up for all I care and know. In fact, even reverse searching the titles you've used shows me that you are making it up as you go along since in the Pacha refers to cosmology concept not an architectural style.

I linked the video and have done to others so its there for all to see. The pictures are from the video and the video refers to the test paper and articles. I also linked the articles themselves. The reason I like the video format is we can see first hand the tests and observe the work ourselves. Its like we are the scientists who can determine whether something is valid or make sense.

In case you missed it here it is again.

You might be right about Petrie but using a man's research from the early 20th century to try and debunk late 20th/early 21st century scientific findings is just terrible,

No its not. Some of the greatest theories and evidence comes from 50 to 100 year old science. Evolution, Quantum physics, the standard cosomological model, the Big Band theory, much of psychology such as Attachment theory still stand today.

Petrie was good because he was thorough. You don't need to live in the 21st century to be able to tell whether lines on a granite core are horizontal or a spiral. That was Petries simple but effective discovery. That the cores did not display the fingerprints of a copper pipe and abrasion.

After others had claimed Petriues work was wrong Dunn went to Cairo and tested it himself. Even winding cotton around the grooves and also rolling out the grooves in a substance to measure their orientation. It was proved beyond doubt that the cuting lines were spirit like a corkscrew and continuious. Meaning that there was a fixed point on the cutter that dug in and wound around the core in a corkscrew movement.

They worked out that the cut was around 1/10 of an inch per rotation which is way faster then a copper pipe which would take ages. You need to look at the testing. Considering the scientists who claimed Petrie was wrong were busted falsssifying the results by tilting the core to look like the grooves were horizontal.

and Christopher Dunn ruins his own credibility by claiming that the Giza Pyramids are a giant ancient power plant.

No he doesn't no more than a Christian phsyicists or archeologists claims God created the earth or Jesus rose from the dead. Dunn is one of the worlds top engineers. He has presented plenty of work. Are you saying all that work is now invalid because he mentions such an idea. That is a logical fallacy.

But you do realise that Dunns idea was not some whack job and based on science. Its got something to do with how the chambers and shafts are setup that it may produce or rather capture microwaves and electrons.

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

An international research group has applied methods of theoretical physics to investigate the electromagnetic response of the Great Pyramid to radio waves. Scientists predicted that under resonance conditions, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in its internal chambers and under...

phys.org

If he makes that sort of claim, why should I belief anything else he claims? It's not an ad hominen to question why we should take the words of one man who's work is not outdated by a full century and another who's commentary on things is entirely suspect and questionable.

Yes its an ad hominen as you just said you don't believe anything he says because of this claim which you don't even understand and have assumed its not based on science itself. You want to dismiss a qualified engineers work which is based on the science because of this one quote. Without first looking into his work and finding out exactly what he meant.

In fact Dunn avoids poor science and unsupported ideas. He uses reverse engineering which is a science.

Your desire to try and connect all of what you're said to an overarching global flood narrative is entirely laughable and honestly just very sad.

Well considering you keep misrepresenting what just about everyone I have linked including myself its understandable that you will come to this false conclusion based on misinformation.

I am not trying to connect all this to the flood. I am connecting all this to support the idea that cultures around 10,000 years ago were far more advanced and has sophisticated beliefs that when they experienced the great flood they created the flood story. Its that simple.

I am trying to gather the evidence as to when the great flood that cultures have in their history happened to understand how they seen the world and what was going on for humans back then. Its more an Anthroplogical view of trying to get inside the mindset of humans back then. Which then helps us understand why we come came up with the flood myth.

You can't understand Noahs flood unless you first understand what was going on for humans back then. Was it a real event and why did they believe the Gods sent the flood.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I linked the video and have done to others so its there for all to see. The pictures are from the video and the video refers to the test paper and articles. I also linked the articles themselves. The reason I like the video format is we can see first hand the tests and observe the work ourselves. Its like we are the scientists who can determine whether something is valid or make sense.

In case you missed it here it is again.

Watching just four minutes of that video told me all I need to know, which is that you and the person making the video suffer from a serious case of incredulity at the idea that ancient people could do what they did with the sorts of technology they had at hand. Your own source goes "Yeah, they had ways of doing it and it's been shown many times how it's been done.... but I'm going to ignore those and invent something mystical and magical to explain it."

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

That is 100% not the same thing as saying that the pyramid of Giza was a power plant, which is exactly what Dunn claims.

Yes its an ad hominen as you just said you don't believe anything he says because of this claim which you don't even understand and have assumed its not based on science itself. You want to dismiss a qualified engineers work which is based on the science because of this one quote. Without first looking into his work and finding out exactly what he meant.

In fact Dunn avoids poor science and unsupported ideas. He uses reverse engineering which is a science.

And yet he makes the insipid and outlandish claim that the pyramid of Giza, a place that has been investigated for centuries in meticulous detail, is a power plant. That is his claim, and if he claims that, then that sure as nothing else makes him suspect as an 'expert' on anything.

Well considering you keep misrepresenting what just about everyone I have linked including myself its understandable that you will come to this false conclusion based on misinformation.

I am not trying to connect all this to the flood. I am connecting all this to support the idea that cultures around 10,000 years ago were far more advanced and has sophisticated beliefs that when they experienced the great flood they created the flood story. Its that simple.

I am trying to gather the evidence as to when the great flood that cultures have in their history happened to understand how they seen the world and what was going on for humans back then. Its more an Anthroplogical view of trying to get inside the mindset of humans back then. Which then helps us understand why we come came up with the flood myth.

You can't understand Noahs flood unless you first understand what was going on for humans back then. Was it a real event and why did they believe the Gods sent the flood.

I don't need to misrepresent anything because you say it all yourself in black and white for people to see. You've been spouting conspiracy theories and nonsense for the last two pages for no reason other than that you don't want to accept the mainstream science behind the world.

And I'll answer your question for you: When people lived in ancient times, they only had the knowledge that was available to them which meant that they didn't have a full understanding of the world. When your world is limited to your personal horizon, that is your world. Ancient people lived near water sources because water is needed for live, so when those places flooded, their 'world' flooded too. Over time, through numerous retellings and evolution of storytelling, that world became a true global flood.

You don't understand anything and this thread show it.

 

[stevevw]

I have had enough your quote mining rubbish and am now seriously considering to start reporting your posts.

Go ahead I have done nothing wrong. I just linked relevant evidence. Thats 1 link so how is that quote mining. Did you even read the paper. The quote I linked represents the findings.

Please explain to me how this one link is a quote mine. I will not answer the rest until you explain this because you have been continually making this accusation so now you need to back it up. Otherwise please desist.

 

[BCP1928]

Go ahead I have done nothing wrong. I just linked relevant evidence. Thats 1 link so how is that quote mining. Did you even read the paper. The quote I linked represents the findings.

Please explain to me how this one link is a quote mine. I will not answer the rest until you explain this because you have been continually making this accusation so now you need to back it up. Otherwise please desist.

Your whole line of argument is fanciful. You can believe it if you want, just like people believe in Atlantis or the fantasies of Graham Hancock or Erich von Daniken. You just can't expect anybody else to take it seriously. I know you want the Noah story to somehow derive from a singular ancient event, but the rest of us don't need to and think it highly unlikely anyway.

 

[sjastro]

Go ahead I have done nothing wrong. I just linked relevant evidence. Thats 1 link so how is that quote mining. Did you even read the paper. The quote I linked represents the findings.

Please explain to me how this one link is a quote mine. I will not answer the rest until you explain this because you have been continually making this accusation so now you need to back it up. Otherwise please desist.

Are you serious, if I didn’t read the paper how would I know you were quote mining?

My statement “The image of the unfinished obelisk on its side does show scoop marks indicating the use of spherical or ellipsoid like hammers.”
To which you responded “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”

By implication you were suggesting the paper refuted the use of dolerite pounders in quarrying granite but on reading the paper it states the opposite, dolomite pounders were found in large quantities on site, the issue is in the lack of understanding in how these pounders can be utilised at high quarrying rates.
You either didn’t the read the paper or deliberately misinterpreted it which is a form of quote mining,

You are flogging a dead horse it has demonstrated to you in spades the ancients could perform their works using the existing technologies of the time without having to resort to fantasy nonsense such as portals which is found in the annals of Stargate and not archaeology.

 

[Astrid]

Are you serious, if I didn’t read the paper how would I know you were quote mining?

My statement “The image of the unfinished obelisk on its side does show scoop marks indicating the use of spherical or ellipsoid like hammers.”
To which you responded “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”

By implication you were suggesting the paper refuted the use of dolerite pounders in quarrying granite but on reading the paper it states the opposite, dolomite pounders were found in large quantities on site, the issue is in the lack of understanding in how these pounders can be utilised at high quarrying rates.
You either didn’t the read the paper or deliberately misinterpreted it which is a form of quote mining,

You are flogging a dead horse it has demonstrated to you in spades the ancients could perform their works using the existing technologies of the time without having to resort to fantasy nonsense such as portals which is found in the annals of Stargate and not archaeology.

Looks like a case of Flogger V Flogger.

 

[stevevw]

Your whole line of argument is fanciful. You can believe it if you want, just like people believe in Atlantis or the fantasies of Graham Hancock or Erich von Daniken. You just can't expect anybody else to take it seriously.

Of course not. I don't care if people believe or not because I am not trying to convince anyone. You can't make a person believe something they don't believe. Thats why I keep coming back to the evidence. Or should I say present evidence counter to what you or others are claiming.

But your making a logical fallacy by misrepresenting what I have presented as fantasy. Where is the fantasy. People like to make claims of quackery when they can't deal with the facts.

We have both made claims and I don't think there is any definite conclusions either way. I am only focusing on the facts which I have already presented.

So its up to you or whoever to reason why those facts are not correct. It may be in the end that neither is correct. But we won't be able to know that if you and others keep creating logical fallacies like saying everything I am proposing is fantacies.

I know you want the Noah story to somehow derive from a singular ancient event, but the rest of us don't need to and think it highly unlikely anyway.

Ah could it be that some don't want a big flood event to be real either. I have no axe to grind. It doesn't matter to me as my faith is not based on whether Noahs flood was a local or global flood. Once again I am merely going by the evidence.

Besides how could I be arguing for Noahs flood to be global when I am arguing for a non global flood that occured during the Younger Dryas. How could I be arguing for Noahs flood when this was suppose to have happened according to biblical scholars around 4300BC and yet the Younger Dryas flood happened 10 to 12,000 years ago.

Like I said it seems its people who don't want it to be Noahs flood who are injecting that into things which is causing them to misrepresent opposing arguement as all fantasy and religious motivated.

In fact like I said my arguement is based on the evidence on the ground and Anthropology which is a science and not religion and reasoning and logic.

Do you even know what my arguement is.

 

[stevevw]

Are you serious, if I didn’t read the paper how would I know you were quote mining?

My statement “The image of the unfinished obelisk on its side does show scoop marks indicating the use of spherical or ellipsoid like hammers.”
To which you responded “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”

By implication you were suggesting the paper refuted the use of dolerite pounders in quarrying granite but on reading the paper it states the opposite, dolomite pounders were found in large quantities on site, the issue is in the lack of understanding in how these pounders can be utilised at high quarrying rates.
You either didn’t the read the paper or deliberately misinterpreted it which is a form of quote mining,

No because you making another fallacies. You said it yourself. You said "By implication". Thats you and not me. You are making a claim about what you think I was doing in linking that article. Thats all you and not me. Your projecting.

I mean exactly what the article summary states that 'the question of the technological process of extracting colossal granite blocks by ancient artisans is still not definitively answered'.

The paper went over all the past tests and made more accurate measures and calulations which did not add up to the claims made by other experiments. They also reasoned the practicalities of using pounders and the difficulties and mechanics of achieving the task. All of which showed that past tests have underestimated the task and overlooked many things that would either make the task longer or impossible.

The paper never said it was out of the question that this could have been done with pounders and thats why it did not say this has been totally refuted. Only that the tests done so far have not conclusively shown that the pounding method to extract the obelisk has certainly not been proven. Unlike your claims that it has been proven.

But heres the irony. You post a small pic of marks on a sarcophagus that is suppose to "detroy my arguement of machined finishes well beyond the capabilities of “primitive tools and hands”. Isn't that out of context to determine this. Isn't using one small example misrepresenting all possible examples so we can determine the truth.

You are flogging a dead horse it has demonstrated to you in spades the ancients could perform their works using the existing technologies of the time without having to resort to fantasy nonsense such as portals which is found in the annals of Stargate and not archaeology.

See there you go again making this absolute claims like its a proven fact and any alternative evidence is whacko fantasy. You have not proven your case. You have ignored half the evidence and created logical fallcies that misrepresent things.

You have not supplied any evidence expect now refuted experiments. You have ignored and rejected opposing evidence as being whack conspiracies when they are valid scientific findings that need to be acknowledged and discussed. You don't even want to discuss them.

 

[stevevw]

Here is an image of striation marks on the sarcophagus which completely destroys your argument of machined finishes well beyond the capabilities of “primitive tools and hands”

This is the out of context image. I am not sure which sarcophagus this is from. Your making a lot of unsupported claims. If anything it looks machined and not cut with a copper saw, sand and lubricant which would be much smoother. This is granite and sand is way softer and won't cut into granite like that. It would also not have cuts going different ways but rather uniform horizontal lines.
\
Its almost the same misrepresentation that Dunn dicovered in a paper I linked where the experimenters used a photo of the drill core tilted slightly to make it look like the lines were horizontal rather than spiral thus misrepresenting the actual cut.

View attachment 357065​

I would like to to view some images and tell me what you think. How this could be the result of a copper saw, sand and lubricants.

Notice the arched stop line where it stops before the uncut surface. Its clean and sharp and the lip is only a few millimeters. Notice also a cut mark in the 2nd image where it looks like the cut went deeper and left a slight edge only a couple of millimeters.

Look how the cut goes into the corner with a 2 or 3 millimeter lip in places. No saw can cut corners like that.

Notice the straight lines cut horizontal and verticle like the cutter went too deep.

Notice the sharp straight line and millimeter thin lip up against the uncut rock and see how the flat surface bends slightly around the corner. Its almost like it was shaved off with some device.

Same again but bigger. Perfectly straight stop line and once again it looks like a layer was shaved off. A saw cannot leave such cuts and marks and go around corners and make corners. Or cut so thin. The cut from the experiments you linked were around 5 or 6 millileters as the blade is grinding and moving around.

Once again deep cut marks like a the cutter went deeper for a sec. Also notice the lip about 3 incches in along the bottom of pic.

This has deep cut marks that are perfectly straight and paraelle like. There is also cut marks on the flat surface.

This is the one I linked before. Look at the sharp straight line that stops along the uncut surface which is only a couple of millimeters thin. It seems like only a thin piece was cut off. This is a big slab and its perfectly flat.

These are not the signs that a copper saw and sand would leave.

So now we have a number of cuts to compare. You can add more if you want. But we cannot ignore these ones and the many other available. Here is the video for the pics and it has references to the testing and expert opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUDBFqn8EM&ab_channel=UnchartedX

 

[stevevw]

The issue is your inability to accept the ancients were far more ingenious you give them credit for given the technologies were available to them.

No its not. Its plain and simple that the evidence at the very least suggest something more than the simple tools that were found with created these megaliths. Thats it plain and simple.

It has been explained to you how their accomplishments were achieved which is far more realistic than the existence of supernatural portals....

You have explained but the explanations have been at the very least proven inconclusive and if anything unreal and not realistic. Your dismissing the evidence and claiming 'no matter how much it looks like they could not have done this, they still did it anyway'. Without ever explaining how they actually did. The evidence left on the stones does not match the tools they had. Its that plain and simple.

A familiarization of history would be helpful.
For example Egyptian pyramid building was its peak in the 4th dynasty because pharaonic power was highly centralized at the time and the pharaohs were able to command considerable human resources.
In succeeding dynasties the centralized power diminished, the pharaoh's had less power and resources in pyramid building.
As a result pyramids became smaller and of poorer quality.

Did you just m,ake that up. This doesn't explain why that standard of precision and the megaliths just stopped. It didn't just happen in Egypt. It also happened in the Amazon, in Peru and other places. All Megalithic cultures disappeared like the megafauna.

If anything this is a work of art and to the gods so it didn't depend of force. It was almost a duty to express their gods. We see the continuation of this expression in other ways later except it became less megalithic and precise.

It also wasn't a case of lack of resources as people still came together and they still did other works. They actually improve their resources as time went on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is the out of context image. I am not sure which sarcophagus this is from. Your making a lot of unsupported claims. If anything it looks machined and not cut with a copper saw, sand and lubricant which would be much smoother. This is granite and sand is way softer and won't cut into granite like that. It would also not have cuts going different ways but rather uniform horizontal lines.
\
Its almost the same misrepresentation that Dunn dicovered in a paper I linked where the experimenters used a photo of the drill core tilted slightly to make it look like the lines were horizontal rather than spiral thus misrepresenting the actual cut.

I would like to to view some images and tell me what you think. How this could be the result of a copper saw, sand and lubricants.

View attachment 357119

View attachment 357120
Notice the arched stop line where it stops before the uncut surface. Its clean and sharp and the lip is only a few millimeters. Notice also a cut mark in the 2nd image where it looks like the cut went deeper and left a slight edge only a couple of millimeters.

View attachment 357121
Look how the cut goes into the corner with a 2 or 3 millimeter lip in places. No saw can cut corners like that.

View attachment 357122
Notice the straight lines cut horizontal and verticle like the cutter went too deep.

View attachment 357123

Notice the sharp straight line and millimeter thin lip up against the uncut rock and see how the flat surface bends slightly around the corner. Its almost like it was shaved off with some device.

View attachment 357126

Same again but bigger. Perfectly straight stop line and once again it looks like a layer was shaved off. A saw cannot leave such cuts and marks and go around corners and make corners. Or cut so thin. The cut from the experiments you linked were around 5 or 6 millileters as the blade is grinding and moving around.
View attachment 357128
Once again deep cut marks like a the cutter went deeper for a sec. Also notice the lip about 3 incches in along the bottom of pic.
View attachment 357129
This has deep cut marks that are perfectly straight and paraelle like. There is also cut marks on the flat surface.
View attachment 357130
This is the one I linked before. Look at the sharp straight line that stops along the uncut surface which is only a couple of millimeters. It seems like only a thin piece was cut off. This is a big slab and its perfectly flat.

These are not the signs that a copper saw and sand would leave.

So now we have a number of cuts to compare. You can add more if you want. But we cannot ignore these ones and the many other available. Here is the video for the pics and it has references to the testing and expert opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUDBFqn8EM&ab_channel=UnchartedX

This is all just one long argument from incredulity from you.

 

[David Lamb]

I know you want the Noah story to somehow derive from a singular ancient event, but the rest of us don't need to and think it highly unlikely anyway.

Isn't it rather presumptuous to imagine that you speak for all the other posters here apart from Stevevw? I certainly believe the biblical account of the flood in Noah's time.