Enlighten us why exactly would a piece of quartz stuck
>on the end of a toothpick not cut granite? Remember, the
>fringe/UFO video clamed that granite can only be scratched with
>Other than being both a convenient strawman and a moot point,
How is it a "straw man" when numerous fringe authors are claming granite can only be scratched with diamond? This false notion in its various forms is a key aspect of spreading advanced technology claims through many fringe media of this sort. Go tell those fringe authors it’s a moot point…… do us all a useful favor.
>what you mean to say is that said claim was made by Von
>Daniken, which you have dishonestly applied to all Ancient
He was not the only one making claims about rocks and/or diamonds in that Ancient Alien video... I suggest watching it again, you're in for what I might imagine will be a really big shocker.
>in an obvious attempt to bolster the anemic
>theories of the orthodox Egyptologists which you have been
>blindly parroting for the last ten years or so.
It shows one thing.... numerous other simple tools
>within the known technological level of the ancient Egyptians
>can cut rock..... contrary to numerous fringe claims about such
>No, it doesn't. It focuses on trivial things and ignores the
>bigger picture. Not only that, it shows that the all-too-common
>tendency of orthodox Egyptologists discovering artifacts from a
>lesser era of technological development and then incorrectly
>applying them to the entire history of Egypt, ignoring the
>inevitable rises and falls in technology which have occurred
>with every other known civilization.
What technology was that.... specific examples of such (BTW that is not the stone products claimed to be made by such, but the actual technology that produced them)? I suggest finding it somewhere in Nicholson & Shaw (2000). Good luck in that because it is pretty clear it's not there. Maybe you think you can get away with claiming these lost ones were extremely tidy, but I doubt it.
Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I. (2000) Ancient Egyptian materials and techniques. Cambridge University Press, New York, 702 p.
Here is a core from a hole..... enlighten us as to why
>this is not the result of a simple hand powered tube drill?
>Remember, this is the one numerous fringe authors have asserted
>is evidence of advance technology greater than our own.... I
>assume here, at the very least, none of them have ever seen a
>modern drill core before.
>I would think that someone like you who enjoys pretending to be
>a geologist (albeit anonymously) would know that the famed core
>#7 requires at least 10 x magnification and some expertise in
>that field in order to be properly evaluated.
I belive I have asked Mr. Dunn if his spiraling scratch is visible on the image below and I also asked him to mark its location on such so we can all see what he was measuring and I am still waiting (it will be10 years on the 26th of January).
>however, I am persuaded by the arguments of Petrie
As pointed out by Mr. Dunn, and should be quite clear from the photo below, some of Petrie's observation about such are not consistent with reality.
(height. 11 cm. The Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth [www.egyptarchive.co.uk])
>and Dunn who
>determined that it could not have been made by a hand drill.
Does he also believe that granite can only be scratched with diamond? Like I say, watch that original video again……
>But feel free to give me a link to a video of you showing
>everyone how to produce a similar granite core with your
>home-made hand-drill. (Again, I won't hold my breath.)
The bow-drill experiments of Stocks (1993, 2003) cut granite into a tapered core, it rough polished the sides, and it produced striations on the surface.
Stocks, D.A. (2001) Testing ancient Egyptian granite-working methods in Aswan, Upper Egypt. Antiquity, 75, 89-94.
Stocks, D. (2003) Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt. Routledge, New York, 336 p.
QuoteYes, for most..... do you think fringeQuote
Secondly, do you actually think anyone really, honestly thinks
>>the academic community knows what the F they are talking about
>>authors promoting Old-timer Aliens and other Lost Advanced Ones
>>from Atlantis know what they are talking about?
>And yet, here we are again, the ancients recording that
>an advanced culture established their civilization, something
>which academics ignore at their own peril (once again). A
>civilization, I might add, that is littered with engineering
>masterpieces, to which academics insult with their absurd,
>*unproven* hogwash about being constructed with "simple
So all the fringe have is the megaliths and little to nothing else other than gross exaggeration about such, like clams of 100s of 200+ ton blocks and 2.5 million blocks with 0.01 tolerances?
Other then for fringe claims stating otherwise.
>More red herrings and strawmen. Surprise, surprise...
Don't tell me ..... go tell the fringe authors claiming granite can only be scratched with diamond.
They have.... that is why I suggested reading Stocks
>(2003) for a starter.
Did not Mr. Stocks do experiments using known/deduced ancient Egyptian technology?
So what....... where have fringe authors tested any of
>their advanced technology claims and demonstrated them to be
>even remotely valid?
>So let me see if I got this straight: You are asking for the
>Ancient Alien proponents to demonstrate their claims of
>advanced technology with futuristic machines that obviously
>don't exist yet? Are you (_snip>) me? Seriously, is this
>the best argument you can come up with here?
Ya, that's right, fringe authors insinuate that granite is equal to the hardest substance known, state the known ancients of orthodox archeology didn’t have access to diamond, invoke some unkown advanced technology to fill the imaginary void produced by such, and then hide behind the inability to test the claim.... You’re the wordsmith here, care to enlighten us as to what that type of contrivance is suppose to be called?
Since when did Dr. Schoch come up with his "water
>erosion" notion all on his own...... did he not originally get
>it from Mr. West, who read about it in Lubicz (1982) or
>whatever? Was not Mr. West one of those claiming 100s of 200+
>ton blocks in Khafre's valley temple that modern cranes would
>find extremely difficult if not impossible to move? Do i need
>to remind you that they don't actually exist.
>"Or whatever"? Are you sure about that?
Lubicz role is mentioned in a number of Dr. Schoch’s publications as well Mr. West’s.
>And why are you trying
>to change the subject to something no one was talking about?
How about to correct your original construction, which was wrong..... if you don’t like it get it right first the next time.
You don't need a magnifing glass to see the gaps in the
>joints all over the exposed core masonry in those 2 photos.
>Were are all these 2.5 million blocks worth of the 0.01"
>tolerances you were going all on about?
>Here is a(nother) perfect example of your dishonest and
>misleading strategies designed to take something completely out
>of context and make it seem like it's something that it's not.
>For starters, those are *exposed* core blocks. And do you know
>how they got exposed? By earthquakes. The same earthquakes
>which dislodged the white limestone facing stones. Hence, those
>visible gaps were NOT there originally. Not to mention, as any
>engineer will tell you, if those gaps actually were there at
>that level, those tolerance errors would have multiplied as
>blocks were placed further up the pyramid. Hence, it wouldn't
>have been able to be constructed with that kind of sloppy
>engineering. Something which is obviously not the case.
It's pretty clear from the actual penetrations into the core masonry of the GP that it is masonry fill and not finely carved blocks... Care to enlighten us as to where your now clearly imaginary claim about "millions of 2.5 ton blocks with tolerances of .010 inch" popped into existence from?
>But nice try.
Good work inadvertently implying everyone who claims
>exaggerated block sizes are liars including all fringe authors
>who claimed such to a more than just an extraordinary
>Can you try and reword the above so that it makes some
>semblance of sense, apparently whenever you sober up. Thanks in
I was under the impression you thought exaggeration of block weights were lies and anyone who grossly exaggerated those weights were liars....
>But seriously, I repeat: Why should anyone take an anonymous
>person, who is hiding behind a fake name and whose
>age/expertise is completely unknown, seriously about any of
>these topics? Someone who professes certainty that it was done
>with "simple technology", despite the obvious fact such
>certainty is clearly lacking? Someone who can barely manage to
>make a credible case for their position STRICTLY arguing
>against the most far-out claims of the Ancient Alien
>proponents? Please, enlighten me...
Do you really think that only "far-out" ancient Alien proponents are making these types of claims? Apparently you missed the section on stone enigmas in Fingerprints of the Gods.
BTW, care to enlighten us all about what the Russians
>were lying about in this case?
>As anyone can tell from the pictures I posted in that other
>thread, the cute, little Thunderstone is not remotely close to
>being the same size as the Stone of the Pregnant Mother, as
>granite and limestone have basically the same average
It's clear to me you didn't bother to actually look at the image I just posted..... care to guess what it weighed as a larger block in the quarry before in was moved so it could be carved into a 600+ ton column of granite and perched so precariously on it's large base? You were the one going on about the Russians lying about a block weight they moved, so can you tell us what they were also lying about here?
Nope..... I have never actually seen the video you're
>going on about or known about it's existence until it was
>Then why are we having this (so-called) "debate"? Looking to
>redeem yourself after our exchange in that other thread
Because you were asking for one.......
"Anyway, if any of those involved with this program are on these boards, I'd be more than happy to debate you on this subject (even though I'm not an ancient alien proponent, I am convinced of a technologically-advanced culture in our remote past). And if they aren't on here, I'll gladly extend that offer to anyone who thinks this program is remotely accurate and/or honest. Cheers."
Because it's simple, it works, and ancient Egyptians
>were sticklers for useful old technology, which is why flint
>knapping and stone maul percussion was still used during the
>Thanks for the laughs. (Again.)
Enlighten us as to why it's funny...... remember it's not because granite can only be scratched with diamond (that is not funny either).
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)