How is it a "straw man" when numerous fringe authors are claming granite can only be scratched with diamond?
Because I'm not claiming it, nor is anyone in the video which I specifically wanted to debate about. On the other hand, you incessantly bring it up, on five different occasions already in this brief exchange, six including the above, and then you proceed to refute it. This behavior being the very definition of a strawman, a false argument created to misrepresent an opponent's position. FYI, I guess...
This false notion in its various forms is a key aspect of spreading advanced technology claims through many fringe media of this sort.
Hilarious! I mean, seriously, if you think that's one of the "key aspects" to the ancient advanced-technology theory, well, then I feel embarrassed for you because after ten years, I would think you had a better grasp on your opponent's position than THAT...
What technology was that.... specific examples of such
Did you forget what we were talking about? I was generally referring to your useless examples of "simple technology". More specifically, I was referring to your wonderful home-made drill made from a popsicle stick, rubber band, and kitty litter.
(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.
That's wonderful. Unfortunately, I don't care. But anyway, nice try suggesting what my argument should be and where I should go to find out your suggested argument is wrong.
Maybe you think you can get away with claiming these lost ones were extremely tidy, but I doubt it.
So then, you are unaware of the fact that the only materials that don't corrode, degrade, and/or decompose within about 500 years are solid stone and solid gold? Not to mention, the older a civilization is, the less there is artifact-wise, mainly because the archaeological record preserves only a very small fraction of objects that somehow manage to get buried in the first place. Just to name a few of the more obvious reasons...
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).
Did he have to file a restraining order against you then?
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.
To an expert, much less a layman, nothing is "clear" from that photo. Sorry.
Does he also believe that granite can only be scratched with diamond?
Seven times now.
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.
Let's see a video then. Like I specifically requested.
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?
I think you are forgetting about the team of Japanese engineers who scientifically proved that they could not build a 1/10 scale replica of the Great Pyramid (a measly 48 feet tall) neither with ancient technology nor modern technology. Among other things...
Don't tell me ..... go tell the fringe authors claiming granite can only be scratched with diamond.
Eight times now.
Did not Mr. Stocks do experiments using known/deduced ancient Egyptian technology?
Did you provide a video of these experiments, as requested? Because what is claimed to be possible on paper with most Egyptologists ignorant of basic engineering is usually harder to prove in reality.
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.
How old are you? The reason I ask is because I have a strict policy against arguing with teenage boys and I'm starting to think your anonymous internet career as "Archae" might have began around the age of nine with some Egyptologist-Cub-Scout kind of organization, especially in light of your nom de plume...
Lubicz role is mentioned in a number of Dr. Schoch’s publications as well Mr. West’s.
So then, about that citation you forgot to provide (again)...
How about to correct your original construction, which was wrong..... if you don’t like it get it right first the next time.
I asked for a citation to a scholarly article about water erosion on the Sphinx prior to Schoch. Which has nothing to do with your (so-called) "correction". Sorry.
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?
So then, do you want to try again? Perhaps with a picture of your new-and-improved position. Since that picture you linked to is completely unrelated the above claim. The claim you've now suddenly changed your tune about.
I was under the impression you thought exaggeration of block weights were lies and anyone who grossly exaggerated those weights were liars....
Somehow you managed to be just as incoherent as before. Perhaps you should try saying the whole thing completely differently. Preferably with a point, too, this time. Thanks in advance!
>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.
So then, what you mean to say is that there is no good reason to take some anonymous random person seriously, one who constantly misrepresents his opponents arguments, incessantly brings up the same strawmen every chance he gets, and also suggest arguments for his opponents and then proves them wrong in the same sentence... Glad to know I can finally wash my hands of this sad excuse for a "debate"...
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?
You mean the Alexander column erected in 1830? Quarried with nineteenth century equipment, transported by barge, then placed upright by 3000 men AFTER it had been delivered to St. Petersburg? Kind of a bad example, given its meager weight and the amount of modern technology involved, don't you think?
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."
Notice the debate request was specifically about the 'Ancient Aliens Debunked' program and/or those involved with it, the video you said you haven't watched yet? Not to mention, based on the amount of strawmen you bring up and then refute, I don't really think my involvement is necessary in your debate with yourself here. (Although this is still kind of fun. But just barely...)
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).
Is that nine times, or ten? I've lost count... But seriously, I have to say that continuing this pitiful excuse for a "debate" is highly unlikely. Of course, feel free to continue it with yourself, but from here forward it will be a little bit different for you, as I probably won't be replying to much of what you have to say. (Not much different, I imagine.) But anyway, I'm confident you can defeat yourself, with the proper strategy and some dumb luck, of course... Cheers.
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 06:37)