Date: January 15, 2017 05:34PM
Jon Ellison Wrote:
> Origyptian Wrote:
> > It would be very interesting to attempt to level a
> > bedrock plane on a test area using this method.
> > I've never seen it used.
> TBH I suspect they used the same surveying method
> that they used to geo locate the entire structure
> and ensure incredible passage straightness. Which
> of course we are totally clueless of.
> Yet another Lost Technology.
That's likely where this discussion was heading. And many of these recent discussions about ancient technology keep invoking your discussions over 2 years ago about Inexplicable Engineering.
And I think that addressing the hard stuff is how we're going to move forward with important answers, but the hard stuff becomes more foggy and difficult to discuss, at least calmly, presumably because the hard stuff tends to challenge the traditional tenets. For example,
If G1's RCs don't relieve pressure from above, then that's a big challenge to OK provenance and the tomb hypothesis.
If G1's Granite Plugs, the (allegedly originally hidden) Main Entrance, and portcullis of the Antechamber weren't really security mechanisms, then that's a big challenge to OK provenance and the tomb hypothesis.
If Stocks is wrong, and using tree branches, rope, copper tubes, and sand were not how those precision drill bores into granite were done, then that's a big challenge to OK provenance and the tomb hypothesis.
Challenging the notion that such pyramids could have been built with nothing stronger than hard stone pounding balls and with no evidence of the wheel or pulleys, and with no artifacts of any industrial-scale tools or plans, not even a model, painting, or inscription left behind that depicts any of those ancient structures, is a big challenge to OK provenance and the tomb hypothesis.
If we question why not a single eyewitness account has been found from arguably over a million people who allegedly oberserved firsthand the construction of any of those pyramids during those few centuries in the 3rd millennium BC, including architects, project managers, builders, quarrymen, masons, tool makers, viziers, educators, military, royalty, merchants, any of their family members, etc., in any tomb, grave, house, public square, grafitti, etc., then that's a big challenge to OK provenance and the tomb hypothesis.
I didn't raise the notion of a "lost civilization" and don't necessarily subscribe to that paradigm except for the fact that we still do not know with certainty which culture built those things. I only proposed that the Dynastic timeline was way off, that those monuments seem to represent their own clear evidence of a much older provenance, and that what we call the "Dynastic period" today may actually represent a Frankensteinian composite of several cultural layers mistakenly blurred by early investigators into a single linear cultural development over an artifactually compressed period of time. Whether others here want to force the issue of "Lost Civilization", e.g, solely so they can make fun of it, is their choice, but it doesn't make all the enigmas go away.
When early luminary surveyors like Petrie and Smyth couldn't suggest a plausible means to explain how that work could have been achieved in their own time, and modern stoneworkers, engineers, etc., haven't been able to render a plausible explanation to account for such stonework and construction, even if it was done today, let alone 4 millennia earlier, then additional scrutiny that applies modern standards of proof from the quantitative sciences is warranted.
We need to focus on the hard stuff like how those megaliths were quarried and transported, as well as the igneous stonework, accuracy, precision, geometry, etc. and stop focusing on the "majority" of the work which is far easier. If there was even just a single 100 ton block of Aswan granite or just one 18" precision bore hole into Aswan granite that's sitting hundreds of miles to the north of Aswan, it still needs to be reconciled within the culture to which it has been attributed. It can't be ignored by focusing only on the far smaller and softer limestone blocks that are also found there.
You raised the issue about why some of those girdle stones so darn complex. No one has yet to come close to rendering any explanation to account for such blocks of stones. We need to understand why those particular angles were chosen for those shafts and passages and how the builders managed to maintain such precise oblique angles.
The list goes on and on. The hard stuff no longer can be ignored, because the hard stuff is where the answers lie.
I commend you on a very well thought out and presented case.
Those girdle blocks are found in several ancient societies. Either several cultures mixed/traded at some point, or after working with the stone for an extended amount of time, the answer would manifest itself.
I thought the AE had saws and drills. They are shown in drawings. Some of that work may have been the accumulation of those art-forms, ie. the best made drill and the best made saw. One consideration, may be the Pharaoh did not want his successor or others to understand how to build a bigger and better Pyramid. We don't provide our technology even today, to other cultures.
You paint and tell, and off comes your head. Seems to be a pretty good persuasion.