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).
Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > What I wish someone would do is to chisel with
> > both copper and bronze and compare the
> > differences. Mesopotamia had been using bronze
> > for a thousand years before the OK which by that
> > time the bronze age was well on its way. Its
> > impossible the OK AE were not aware of bronze and
> > given the fact "99.9%" of the copper they are
> > claimed to have used to build these structures is
> > missing from the archaeological record who is to
> > say bronze was not utilized as well?
>
> Or even iron.
>
> The arguments re lack of evidence cut both ways in that regard.
>
> Warwick
Respectfully, the lack of evidence of tools used to build those structures in the 3rd mill. BC does indeed allow the arguments to cut both ways, but if you're going to invoke the pure speculation of "iron" simply on the basis that the corresponding copper tools don't exist in the evidence either, then why not also invoke a non-terrestrial origin as well?
In any case, in the spirit of showing how the arguments cut both ways, let's also include what some of us consider to be a more plausible alternative argument: The reason the copper that allegedly built those structures is nowhere to be found (as are many key tools and methods required to achieve such construction) could simply be that those structures were not built by 3rd mill. BC Egyptians.
But when you jump to the conclusion the 4th Dynasty must have built those structures even though we don't see the evidence of the copper tools that they (allegedly) used, and then use that lack of evidence to also allow the possibility of other non-existent tools, you are simply attempting to secure the self-consistency of the traditional narrative, but it's all pure speculation with little basis in fact other than the conspicuous contradiction that there's no direct evidence that they had anything but soft copper-based tools and no indication in the documented record that they had the methods to achieve such a massive construction project.
It's a circular argument to first speculate that they built all that stuff with non-existent copper-based tools and methods in the 3rd mill. BC, and then use that speculation as a logical foundation to propose other non-existent tools and methods.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10-Apr-17 14:46 by Origyptian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > What I wish someone would do is to chisel with
> > both copper and bronze and compare the
> > differences. Mesopotamia had been using bronze
> > for a thousand years before the OK which by that
> > time the bronze age was well on its way. Its
> > impossible the OK AE were not aware of bronze and
> > given the fact "99.9%" of the copper they are
> > claimed to have used to build these structures is
> > missing from the archaeological record who is to
> > say bronze was not utilized as well?
>
> Or even iron.
>
> The arguments re lack of evidence cut both ways in that regard.
>
> Warwick
Respectfully, the lack of evidence of tools used to build those structures in the 3rd mill. BC does indeed allow the arguments to cut both ways, but if you're going to invoke the pure speculation of "iron" simply on the basis that the corresponding copper tools don't exist in the evidence either, then why not also invoke a non-terrestrial origin as well?
In any case, in the spirit of showing how the arguments cut both ways, let's also include what some of us consider to be a more plausible alternative argument: The reason the copper that allegedly built those structures is nowhere to be found (as are many key tools and methods required to achieve such construction) could simply be that those structures were not built by 3rd mill. BC Egyptians.
But when you jump to the conclusion the 4th Dynasty must have built those structures even though we don't see the evidence of the copper tools that they (allegedly) used, and then use that lack of evidence to also allow the possibility of other non-existent tools, you are simply attempting to secure the self-consistency of the traditional narrative, but it's all pure speculation with little basis in fact other than the conspicuous contradiction that there's no direct evidence that they had anything but soft copper-based tools and no indication in the documented record that they had the methods to achieve such a massive construction project.
It's a circular argument to first speculate that they built all that stuff with non-existent copper-based tools and methods in the 3rd mill. BC, and then use that speculation as a logical foundation to propose other non-existent tools and methods.
______________________________________________________________
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 1 time(s). Last edit at 10-Apr-17 14:46 by Origyptian.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.