Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Congratulations, "Archae"! You just won a debate with yourself, as that was the same strawman you set up from the previous post. No input required from anyone else whatsoever. So then, the I guess the score's currently: "Archae"=1 and "Solenhofen"=0.
Guess what that proves? Exactly nothing. For starters, you can drill a hole in granite with a pop-sickle stick, a rubber band, and some kitty litter, because does that mean that's how the engineers of the Great Pyramid bored holes their stones? No. Secondly, do you actually think anyone really, honestly thinks the academic community knows [Moderator Edit] they are talking about these days? I mean, seriously, this is the same Western academic community who says that, much to their surprise, the (alleged) expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, to which they attribute to a magical, fairy-tale substance called "dark energy", which along with another magical form of pixie-dust known as "dark matter", are alleged by them to represent 96% of the known universe, despite the fact not one single scientist has directly observed, tested, and/or studied either of these substances!?!
So no, please don't delude yourself here any further than you already have, because I really couldn't care less if this same academic community, whom you incessantly parrot (albeit anonymously), blatantly insult the incredible technological prowess of the engineers of the Great Pyramids with these absurd theories. Because it's not worth wasting my time listening to and/or arguing with a group who determine their consensus on various issues with what amounts to scholarly politics and a dogmatic adherence to tradition, as opposed to the intellectual ideals of reason and common sense. Sorry.
Not to mention, isn't this the same scholarly community who can barely make a decent argument against strictly the most far-out claims of the Ancient Aliens proponents?!? Seriously, I'll take the guys who might have watched a little too much Star Wars over the guys who insult the name 'Egyptologist' with their half-baked poppy-cock any day.
Ditto the above. None of that conclusively proves anything, nor disproves anything. Sorry you can't seem to figure this out by now. I mean, if you want to actually back-up the above hot-air, then tell some of these guys to get out in the field and actually *PROVE* their pie-in-the-sky theories. (That is, unless they are afraid they will fail more miserably than the Japanese engineers who quite literally scientifically proved that they could not build a tiny scale replica of the pyramid, neither with primitive technology nor modern technology. Google it.)
Show me a single link to a single paper which proposed this theory before Schoch came on the scene. Pretty please. With sugar on top? (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath...)
Give me another chance to get it right? Are you kidding? Did you even look at that picture in that link? (Hopefully you are going to reply that you copy/pasted the wrong address, but I doubt it...)
You really like to hear yourself speak, don't you? I mean, seriously, don't you get tired setting up the same kind of strawman only to knock it down one post later, time and time again? Anyway, since nothing above proves anything whatsoever, just like every other long-winded (so-called) "rebuttal" so far, perhaps you can tell me why you feel compelled to hide your identity behind that "Archae Solenhofen" make-believe name? Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take some random anonymous person seriously about any of these topics? Or even better, why should I take you seriously after our last exchange (in case you forgot):
[www.grahamhancock.com]
Regardless, so are you credited somewhere on the 'Ancient Aliens Debunked' video then? Or is "Archae" by chance Chris White or that other Michael Weasel guy?
Why is an eighteenth dynasty piece of technology being applied to the fourth dynasty? Even better, why do you illogically assume that the Egyptians technological level remained the same for thousands of years? Doesn't that strike you as being completely absurd?
Post Edited (15-Jan-13 09:38)
[Language Edited/Dr. Troglodyte]
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 03:05)
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Quote
A piece of quartz stuck on the end of a toothpick will cut granite.... that's a fact.
Congratulations, "Archae"! You just won a debate with yourself, as that was the same strawman you set up from the previous post. No input required from anyone else whatsoever. So then, the I guess the score's currently: "Archae"=1 and "Solenhofen"=0.
Quote
As for working granite with simple hand-powered tools I might suggest Stocks (2003) rather than an entwined UFO/fringe archeology aberration.
Stocks, D.A. (2003) Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt. Routledge, Ney York, 336 p.
Guess what that proves? Exactly nothing. For starters, you can drill a hole in granite with a pop-sickle stick, a rubber band, and some kitty litter, because does that mean that's how the engineers of the Great Pyramid bored holes their stones? No. Secondly, do you actually think anyone really, honestly thinks the academic community knows [Moderator Edit] they are talking about these days? I mean, seriously, this is the same Western academic community who says that, much to their surprise, the (alleged) expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, to which they attribute to a magical, fairy-tale substance called "dark energy", which along with another magical form of pixie-dust known as "dark matter", are alleged by them to represent 96% of the known universe, despite the fact not one single scientist has directly observed, tested, and/or studied either of these substances!?!
So no, please don't delude yourself here any further than you already have, because I really couldn't care less if this same academic community, whom you incessantly parrot (albeit anonymously), blatantly insult the incredible technological prowess of the engineers of the Great Pyramids with these absurd theories. Because it's not worth wasting my time listening to and/or arguing with a group who determine their consensus on various issues with what amounts to scholarly politics and a dogmatic adherence to tradition, as opposed to the intellectual ideals of reason and common sense. Sorry.
Not to mention, isn't this the same scholarly community who can barely make a decent argument against strictly the most far-out claims of the Ancient Aliens proponents?!? Seriously, I'll take the guys who might have watched a little too much Star Wars over the guys who insult the name 'Egyptologist' with their half-baked poppy-cock any day.
Quote
A lapidary saw in a rigid jig is quite capable of making a very tight, smooth cut..... limestone is not that resistant to mineral abrasion. Calcite, the main mineral constituent of limestone, is only slightly harder than your fingernail, and is nowhere even remotely close to the hardness of diamond.
In the 1800s lithographic plate makers needed to produce flat surfaces on slabs of limestone so that they could get perfect registers and the slab didn't break under the repeated pressure exerted by the printing press. They became very skilled at doing this by hand with a levigator (i.e. a 10-12" cast iron disk with a handle sticking up from one side of its top surface), abrasive slurries, and a number of other simple lapidary tools. It's not really that complex and there doesn't appear to be any reason why the ancient Egyptian could not do this as well. A number of representations of rock polishing are presented in ancient Egyptian art. These appear to show stones used for smoothing, polishing, and shaping. They can be rectangular or round shaped blocks of rock with a flat smooth surface on one or more sides.
Ditto the above. None of that conclusively proves anything, nor disproves anything. Sorry you can't seem to figure this out by now. I mean, if you want to actually back-up the above hot-air, then tell some of these guys to get out in the field and actually *PROVE* their pie-in-the-sky theories. (That is, unless they are afraid they will fail more miserably than the Japanese engineers who quite literally scientifically proved that they could not build a tiny scale replica of the pyramid, neither with primitive technology nor modern technology. Google it.)
Quote
No one from the orthodoxy who actually know what they are talking about states the Sphinx is not water eroded...... after all, it erodes today every time it rains on exposed surfaces.
Show me a single link to a single paper which proposed this theory before Schoch came on the scene. Pretty please. With sugar on top? (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath...)
Quote
is that before or after ignoring the wide joints clearly visible all over the pyramid's core masonry? I will give you another chance to actually get it right......
[www.grahamhancock.com]
Give me another chance to get it right? Are you kidding? Did you even look at that picture in that link? (Hopefully you are going to reply that you copy/pasted the wrong address, but I doubt it...)
Quote
A lapidary saw in a rigid jig is quite capable of making a very tight, smooth cut..... limestone is not that resistant to mineral abrasion. Calcite, the main mineral constituent of limestone, is only slightly harder than your fingernail, and is nowhere even remotely close to the hardness of diamond.
In the 1800s lithographic plate makers [Yada-yada-yada. Insert more pointless factoids here. Lather. Rinse. Repeat if necessary.]
You really like to hear yourself speak, don't you? I mean, seriously, don't you get tired setting up the same kind of strawman only to knock it down one post later, time and time again? Anyway, since nothing above proves anything whatsoever, just like every other long-winded (so-called) "rebuttal" so far, perhaps you can tell me why you feel compelled to hide your identity behind that "Archae Solenhofen" make-believe name? Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take some random anonymous person seriously about any of these topics? Or even better, why should I take you seriously after our last exchange (in case you forgot):
[www.grahamhancock.com]
Regardless, so are you credited somewhere on the 'Ancient Aliens Debunked' video then? Or is "Archae" by chance Chris White or that other Michael Weasel guy?
Quote
For a dynasty 18 example of a sandstone rubber for polishing type "UC395" into the search here
Why is an eighteenth dynasty piece of technology being applied to the fourth dynasty? Even better, why do you illogically assume that the Egyptians technological level remained the same for thousands of years? Doesn't that strike you as being completely absurd?
Post Edited (15-Jan-13 09:38)
[Language Edited/Dr. Troglodyte]
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 03:05)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.