Here is a list of the nonsense spewed by
@stevevw in his responses to me in this thread which is probably not complete.
Then he wonders why I say his posts are rubbish.
Is this an appeal to autrhority or consensus. Is it a vote lol.
- Ancient Egyptians used diamond tipped drills with feed rate technologies well beyond our current levels for granite
Yes and evidence has been supplied which you have not addressed adequately.
2. but revert to ancient technologies of copper tubes and manually operated bow drives for softer stone.
Not sure what you mean by revert. But yes there is evidence of two types of industries going on. One with megaliths and precision work and the other with less precise and more common works. This is evident in the records. I have explained this.
The precise works including the pyramids, boxes, drill holes, machine cuts, megaliths such as giant 1,000 ton blocks and statues, the statues themselves and sarcophagus all come within a small window of around 300 years within a 5,000 + history. They more or less stop and then we get the softer stones and methods. Methods for which I have shown are totally inadequate for the earlier works.
3. Copper is made from tin and bronze.
I told you I am dyslexic. I got it back the front. ; Bronze is a combination of copper and tin. Sorry but why so not picking. That doesn't change the point I was making. See how you create logical fallacies to divert away from the crucial; evidence and point I was making.
This is that 'tin' was found embedded in the granite and not copper which we would expect if copper tools were used. And the arguement that the copper was polished out doesn't hold either because the tin, and suprisingly titanium are not natural to granite and were embedded and not polished away. So neither would the copper at the micron level.
Though this is only a preliminary test rest and more analysis is needed if the findings hold up then we can say that copper tools were not used. Along with the fine precision of the vases and signatures pointing to complex CAD level maths and evidence of turning the jury is still out on anyone making claims that these works were done with the tools found in the records.
4. Archaeologists do not use advanced analytical techniques such a scanning electron microscopes.
Yes and thats why I linked the specialist tests done by Metrologists, Petrologists Engineers and Geologists.
5. High quality vases from a dimensional viewpoint should be tested as low quality vases will skew the results in determining if vases have been produced by mechanization or manually.
Why would you makje this a public statement when I replied to this and you have not responded to even determine if the logic is wrong. That is strange logic in itself lol.
I explained. You can have different categories for categorizing all the vases throughout ancient times. But to do that you first have to sort them. So one category is the precision pieces. So we target those. We know theres a heep under the Stepped Pyramid. We can also tell by looks e see they are not precise. We can count them out and save money as it costs a lot just to scane one vase.
What your proposing that we scan every vase before we can derive any insights or knowledge from these ancient precise vases is unreal.
6. Quartz is softer than granite.
If I said that then my bad. By why are you pointing this out. Is it relevant to the content we are discussing.
7. Scientists (i.e. archaeologists) are engaging in fraudulent activities.
No thats a misrepresentation of what I actually said. Another fallacy. I said one of the tests presented as evidence to show that experiments related to core 7 having a spiral cut misrepresented the findings by tilting the image of core 7 so that it appeared to have horizontal lines rather than a spiral line. This was pointed out by Dunn in his investigations here.
Figure 11. Tilted orientation of Core 7 . I linke
8. Pitch and spiral are mutually exclusive.
Another fallacy of misrepresentation. When the fallacies get to this level you know its time to opt out lol. I said that the pitch on a spiral will be lower on the core than a hozontal pitch. I never said they are different. I said that the position they occupt on the shaft will be different.
Obviously because ones horizontal and one is spiral and slanted down lower opn the core. When you times this by several then the difference increases the further down the core meaning that for every roation there is more depth for a spiral cut than a horizontal grinding.
9. Petrie's analysis, and his number 7 granite core sample supports the case for ancient Egyptians using diamond tipped drills with feed rate technologies well beyond our current levels.
Slight misrepresentation. Petrie did not say his findings supports that the Egyptians use a diamind tipped drill. He said the evidence on the core looked like some sort of fixed cutter that could easily cut through the hardest conglomerate as the softer. He summised that something like diamond would be needed obviously as that is harder than the granite to easily cut through it. I know sand certainly would not.
This was then supported by Duns findings and at least another two independent analysis such as this.
Maybe points made from hard minerals like corundum, microcrystalline varieties of quartz or other gemstones could be embedded in another material like copper
Reading Tool Marks on Egyptian Stone Sculpture - Rivista del Museo Egizio
10. Circumference and diameter are the same.
Really are you serious. Why be so nit picking. How about discuss the actual content instead of all these logical fallacies trying to discredit me and the sources.
11. Temple reliefs and tomb paintings of ancient Egyptians of using manual labour in moving obelisks and drilling holes with bow drives is not evidence.
You were doing well at first by actually bringing up the issues relating to the evidence. Now your decending into logical fallacies.
I did not say that the wall reliefs and paintings of sleds moving a statue or others is not evidence. It is evidence for exactly what is shown. But evidence cannot them be assumed the method for the mega blocks and statues as its completely inadequate.
A sled carrying a 65 ton statue made of lighter stone is not the same as a granite block at 1,000 up to 1800 ton. It would crush that sled and the friction would dig the block into the ground.
12. The discovery of copper chisels and saws and dolerite stone hammers is not evidence for their use.
Another logical fallacy. I never said that there is no evidence for copper tools and stone hammers. I said that they are inadequate to explain the megaliths and precision works.
Like I said we have plenty of evidence for bow drills and saw cutting and stone tools but they come later. Its like there is a signature evidence for two industries happening producing different results.
13. Personal incredulity is evidence for the Egyptians using advanced technologies while the lack of physical evidence of these technologies is not relevant.
No I have been open to whatever the evidence shows. I linked evidence that at the very least brings into question the claim that the tools found in the records produce these megaliths and precision works with scan and metrology analysis and evidence in the signatures of the rocks themselves for which any person with eyes and honesty will conclude they could not have been achieved by primitive tools found and elbow grease.
I refer to the inadequate evidence for sleds, saws, bow drills (no large copper drills) I linked and the evidence so far that at the very least points to the possibility for tools not found such as evidence of vases being turned, not having a trace of copper, having some computerised template and yet no templates or tools for this are found.
14. Quote mining is acceptable.
Hum. It all depends what your definition of that is. Its easy to make the assertion. But you have not once given a specific example and argued the case.
15. South American structures are portals which links civilizations around the planet and explains why there is commonality.
What. Now your really engaing in fantasy yourself. If I had referred to such an idea I would have qualified it as something the ancient people themselves believed and not me personally. And that is exactly what they believed. What every one of these cultures believed.
So should we take into consideration the experiential evidence. Is this valid evidence that may help us understand the mindset of people around the time of the flood.
16. Archaeological evidence and myths are the same.
Are I was just talking about this. No I said these are seperate lines of evidence but just as important as each other and they often relate to each other. Myths are based on a truth though it may be embellished. But the flood myth is based on a real flood event.
So the myth is important evidence because at least fundementally its telling us about real events in the past for which we can match the archeological evidence to. Both lines of evidence put together make a stronger case.
17. South American hunter gatherers 8,000 - 20,000 years were as technologically advanced as the setters 3,000 years ago.
Show me exactly where I said this. I will let you prove the case rather me always having to defend myself. Which I really should not have to be doing if this is just a discussion on a non personal topic.
18. Archaeological evidence from Byblos which is located in modern Lebanon on the Mediterranean coast supports the evidence of civilization in the Amazon region.
Once again show me where I said this. If I said anything about this it would have been that we see similar type works and megaliths in each culture in different parts of the world at the same time. Thus supporting a common level of tech at that period and shared knowledge at that time.
19. The construction of temples is a measurement of the sophistication of a religion and therefore the religious beliefs of hunter gatherers such as the Australian aborigines is inferior.
This logical fallacy takes the cake. Its not only a logical fallacy but its a blantant misrepresentation despite having explained the reasoning behind what I said to you once already. So your persisting with a misrepresentation despite being told that your misrepresentation was a fallacy already.
I explained in fact probably 2 or 3 times already that the measure of religious sophistication can come in many forms be it material expressions like temples or Indigenous knowledge such as Aboriginals Dreamtime which is spiritual rather than material.
I said it doesn't matter how the religion is expressed we can determine its sophistication. I assume it was you who tried to create an either/or logical fallacy by pinning me down to the only determinations being a temple. But it was a fallacy none the less. So your actually creating a fallacy on another fallacy now.
The only thing this entire exercise has established is that you are engaging in logical fallacies. How about we get back to the actual content and evidence. Oh thats right I realised there was no sense in doing that because all I would get is more fallacies.
