Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
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).
cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dunn's most salient point is that the shapes of
> these objects, their accuracy, and their precision
> are more characteristic of machine parts than of
> artefacts of superstititious bumpkins.
>
> He is obviously correct and this point is being
> ignored most of the time.
>
> Even if we could explain these objects as mere
> "fluff" we still need to explain how they achieved
> such precision and why. Since we can't show they
> are fluff and tomb debris it makes sense to
> withhold judgement as to their function and
> nature.
It never ceases to amaze me that the orthodoxy skips over the obvious and persists in claiming Dunn has no "evidence" to support his notions about the tools and methods required to achieve that stonework. What those individuals repeatedly fail to realize is that the evidence is right before their eyes: the stonework itself! There is no plausible way to attribute that stonework to primitive AE circa 3rd millennium B.C. The tool marks and precision we see on that stonework totally supports Dunn's hypothesis while severely contradicting the 3rd millennium provenance. This doesn't mean I necessarily agree with Dunn; it merely means Dunn's hypothesis is fully supported and not contradicted by the physical evidence and, as such, his hypotheses about saws and drills are credible and viable wherease the 3rc millennium provenance is neither. Again, based on the physical evidence.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 30-Nov-15 04:49 by Origyptian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dunn's most salient point is that the shapes of
> these objects, their accuracy, and their precision
> are more characteristic of machine parts than of
> artefacts of superstititious bumpkins.
>
> He is obviously correct and this point is being
> ignored most of the time.
>
> Even if we could explain these objects as mere
> "fluff" we still need to explain how they achieved
> such precision and why. Since we can't show they
> are fluff and tomb debris it makes sense to
> withhold judgement as to their function and
> nature.
It never ceases to amaze me that the orthodoxy skips over the obvious and persists in claiming Dunn has no "evidence" to support his notions about the tools and methods required to achieve that stonework. What those individuals repeatedly fail to realize is that the evidence is right before their eyes: the stonework itself! There is no plausible way to attribute that stonework to primitive AE circa 3rd millennium B.C. The tool marks and precision we see on that stonework totally supports Dunn's hypothesis while severely contradicting the 3rd millennium provenance. This doesn't mean I necessarily agree with Dunn; it merely means Dunn's hypothesis is fully supported and not contradicted by the physical evidence and, as such, his hypotheses about saws and drills are credible and viable wherease the 3rc millennium provenance is neither. Again, based on the physical evidence.
______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 30-Nov-15 04:49 by Origyptian.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.