>Congratulations, "Archae"! You just won a debate with yourself,
>as that was the same strawman you set up from the previous
>post. No input required from anyone else whatsoever. So then,
>the I guess the score's currently: "Archae"=1 and
Enlighten us why exactly would a piece of quartz stuck on the end of a toothpick not cut granite? Remember, the fringe/UFO video clamed that granite can only be scratched with diamond..... that's not a fact.... that is completely false. Quartz, the hardest primary mineral in granite, is only about 10% the hardness of diamond, not equal to it.
>Guess what that proves? Exactly nothing. For starters, you can
>drill a hole in granite with a pop-sickle stick, a rubber band,
>and some kitty litter,
It shows one thing.... numerous other simple tools within the known technological level of the ancient Egyptians can cut rock..... contrary to numerous fringe claims about such stating otherwise.
>because does that mean that's how the
>engineers of the Great Pyramid bored holes their stones?
Here is a core from a hole..... enlighten us as to why this is not the result of a simple hand powered tube drill? Remember, this is the one numerous fringe authors have asserted is evidence of advance technology greater than our own.... I assume here, at the very least, none of them have ever seen a modern drill core before.
Granite core #7 Old Kingdom
(height. 11 cm. The Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth [www.egyptarchive.co.uk])
>Secondly, do you actually think anyone really, honestly thinks
>the academic community knows what the F they are talking about
Yes, for most..... do you think fringe authors promoting Old-timer Aliens and other Lost Advanced Ones from Atlantis know what they are talking about? Because we know for a fact most don't seem to understand much about the basic geology and engineering they are going on about...... thus all the clearly absurd errors about the actual rocks and hardness.
>I mean, seriously, this is the same Western
>academic community who says that, much to their surprise, the
>(alleged) expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, to
>which they attribute to a magical, fairy-tale substance called
>"dark energy", which along with another magical form of
>pixie-dust known as "dark matter", are alleged by them to
>represent 96% of the known universe, despite the fact not one
>single scientist has directly observed, tested, and/or studied
>either of these substances!?!
You can wave your arms and ramble on as much as you want, it's not going to change the laws of physic enough to make quartz any harder that about 10% that of diamond.
>Ditto the above. None of that conclusively proves anything, nor
Other then for fringe claims stating otherwise.
>Sorry you can't seem to figure this out by
>now. I mean, if you want to actually back-up the above hot-air,
>then tell some of these guys to get out in the field and
>actually *PROVE* their pie-in-the-sky theories.
They have.... that is why I suggested reading Stocks (2003) for a starter.
>unless they are afraid they will fail more miserably than the
>Japanese engineers who quite literally scientifically proved
>that they could not build a tiny scale replica of the pyramid,
>neither with primitive technology nor modern technology. Google
So what....... where have fringe authors tested any of their advanced technology claims and demonstrated them to be even remotely valid?
>Show me a single link to a single paper which proposed this
>theory before Schoch came on the scene. Pretty please. With
>sugar on top? (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath...)
Since when did Dr. Schoch come up with his "water erosion" notion all on his own...... did he not originally get it from Mr. West, who read about it in Lubicz (1982) or whatever? Was not Mr. West one of those claiming 100s of 200+ ton blocks in Khafre's valley temple that modern cranes would find extremely difficult if not impossible to move? Do i need to remind you that they don't actually exist........
Schwaller de Lubicz, R.A. (1982) Sacred Science: The King of Pharaonic Theocracy. Inner Traditions International, New York.
is that before or after ignoring the wide joints clearly
>visible all over the pyramid's core masonry? I will give you
>another chance to actually get it right......
>Give me another chance to get it right? Are you kidding? Did
>you even look at that picture in that link? (Hopefully you are
>going to reply that you copy/pasted the wrong address, but I
You don't need a magnifing glass to see the gaps in the joints all over the exposed core masonry in those 2 photos. Were are all these 2.5 million blocks worth of the 0.01" tolerances you were going all on about?
>You really like to hear yourself speak, don't you? I mean,
>seriously, don't you get tired setting up the same kind of
>strawman only to knock it down one post later, time and time
>again? Anyway, since nothing above proves anything whatsoever,
>just like every other long-winded (so-called) "rebuttal" so
>far, perhaps you can tell me why you feel compelled to hide
>your identity behind that "Archae Solenhofen" make-believe
>name? Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take some
>random anonymous person seriously about any of these topics? Or
>even better, why should I take you seriously after our last
>exchange (in case you forgot):
Good work inadvertently implying everyone who claims exaggerated block sizes are liars including all fringe authors who claimed such to a more than just an extraordinary extent.
BTW, care to enlighten us all about what the Russians were lying about in this case? As opposed to Mr. Von Daniken's truthful claim about fifty ton monoliths were all that could be moved until recently.
image source: [www.ruskerealie.zcu.cz]
>Regardless, so are you credited somewhere on the 'Ancient
>Aliens Debunked' video then? Or is "Archae" by chance Chris
>White or that other Michael Weasel guy?
Nope..... I have never actually seen the video you're going on about or known about it's existence until it was mentioned here.
>Why is an eighteenth dynasty piece of technology being applied
>to the fourth dynasty?
Because it's simple, it works, and ancient Egyptians were sticklers for useful old technology, which is why flint knapping and stone maul percussion was still used during the 18th dynasty.
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)