Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.


I agree that there's some possibility that the facxts can be explained by the existence of an earlier unknown culture but I also believe they might be explained by the culture of the 3rd and 4th dynasties being wholly unknown, misapprehended, and misunderstood.

It's painfully obvious the stinky footed bumpkins described by Egyptology could not need nor engineer the objects described by Dunn. These objects exist and were not made by the culture described by Egyptology.