> Origyptian wrote:
> >First of all, that particular box is clearly "unfinished"
> >compared to the other boxes that you deliberately chose not to
> >show here. So much for your objectivity.
> Sure about that......... because Jon Bodsworth told us that the
> box is polished and the bumps are only visible to the camera
> because of the dust and flash...... they can however be felt as
> one slips their hand across the polished surface. So why not go
> ask go ask those claiming great tolerances why this example was
> apparently avoided or not mentioned anywheres?
I have no great claim to make about such tolerances. There are sharp angles, straight lines, polished surfaces, sharp inside corners, 80-100 tons solid granite boxes. The tolerances are mere icing on the cake. I see no logical way to account for those boxes having provenance in the 2nd millennium BC.
> >Second, Even in its rough condition I'd like to hear anyone
> >explain how the dynastics were able to make such a box out of
> >solid stone with such sharp angles and transport/position it in
> >its current resting place.
> Well, if one believes the ancient Egyptians can't even carve
> soapstone...... what is the point of explaining it for
> metagreywacke and granodiorite.
Haven't heard anyone say AEs couldn't carve soapstone. I hope you're not comparing carving soapstone to carving granite.
> For the sake of "objectivity" how did the lOst onE do it again?
> ViBo-lathe....... SoNiC drill......... Sponge Granite
> PlAsTicene........ LavA Squirter........ or skillfully directed
> Fairy flatulence........
I have no idea, unlike your own far more arrogant position, apparently.
That's why we're discussing it in Mysteries.