> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > > And of course this lost civilisation, for all
> > > its technical accomplishments, was
> > > preliterate and apictorial, so no distinctive
> > > inscriptions and no depictions (in carved
> > > of itself may be expected.
> > Correct why carve inscriptions into stone?
> A survey of the many civilisations (including our
> own) which actually do or have done this may
> suggest an answer or two.
> Sophisticated planning and organisation of labour
> on a large scale do tend to go with literacy and
> the use of pictures (diagrams).
Usually using less durable media. Engineering GA's carved in stone?
> > > Why, even the corrosion products of its
> > > tools have been swept away—and of course
> > > tools were (conveniently) purely ferrous, with
> > > more durable components: no composites, odd
> > > stoneworking is the function credited to
> > Even the most durable modern man made materials
> > have a very limited life. We can slow down the
> > process of degradation but we cannot halt it.
> > have no idea what tool materials were used.
> Our knowledge of the physical world (materials
> possible and materials worked on) provides no
Probably not the possibilities are almost infinite.
> > > No surviving sign of the infrastructure
> > > these tools: no remnants of its
> > > grids, no sign of its (doubtless advanced and
> > > extensive) mining of iron ore.
> > All produced using man made materials therefore
> > totally gone.. Dust.
> Sorry, which is it? Totally gone, or dust? Dust
> with determinate characteristics. Petrie nailed
> this one long since:
Totally gone or dust, makes little difference. unless you are able to identify the original source of an individual particle of dust.
Iron working is an important subject in the
> history of culture, and the appearances of this
> metal in Egypt are curiously sporadic. The
> notion, often suggested, that it might rust away
> and disappear, is absurd; nothing is more
> permanent and noticeable than iron rust. . . .
> [The Arts & Crafts of Ancient Egypt]
> > > And of course it didn’t bury its dead or
> > > them with any durable or recognisable
> > Probably not. Why should they?
> Because most human cultures do?
Do they? Most human cultures do not construct six million ton pyramids.
Dealing with a whole different paradigm here.
> You wouldn’t be saying something implausible and
> silly here, would you?
> > > No sign of its settlements, detritus, impact
> > > the environment.
> > Are you referring to the notion that the OK AE
> > constructed the great pyramid?
Then where is the OK industrial infrastructure necessary to support tens of millions of tons of construction projects. Structures that incorporate an advanced understanding of applied mathematics.
> > > Unlike, in short, any civilisation we know
> > > of—but then that’s the point, isn’t it?
> > You are claiming that the 4th AE are
> > and somehow managed to leave no archaeological
> > record of their tools techniques and
> No, I’m not claiming this. You’re claiming it
> and imputing the claim to me.
Great we are getting somewhere. You are NOT claiming that the 4th AE had the necessary industrial infrastructure ?
> > What is the difference?
> Could it be that we have ample evidence of
> dynastic Egypt and no evidence at all (and no
> possibility even in principle of evidence) of your
> posited “lost” civilisation?
> > You say the 4th AE built and left no trace
> Which, if you think about it, is
> self-contradictory (which is one reason I don’t
> say it).
Not self contradictory, an impossibility. If they left no trace from a mere 4500 years ago then they did not do it.
> > I disagree in that if these construction
> > had occurred just 4500 years ago there would be
> > ample evidence in the archaeological record.
> Perhaps you should look for it harder.
Show me the tools.
> > > The civilisation posited is an unknown and
> > > unknowable one—which may leave some
> > > wondering if there is any reason at all to
> > > believe in it.
> > Not necessarily unknowable. Not necessary to
> > believe.
> Provide us with some knowledge of it, then.
Working on it.
> > All of your arguments can equally by used to
> > against 4th dynasty provenance.
> No, they can’t. Try reading them again. We
> have ample evidence of there being a pharaonic
> civilisation and ample evidence of there being
> (what’s classified as) the 4th dynasty of that
> civilisation. We have their burials, settlements,
> inscriptions. We have some (not complete)
> knowledge of their technics, including their
> system of measurement.
Agreed we have ample evidence of a pharaonic civilization, however we have zero evidence that they had the wherewithal to complete these construction projects, hence the debate. (in case you hadn't noticed)
The only commonality being that of geographic location.
> Not so with your posited “lost” civilisation.
> > Where is the necessary 4th dynasty industrial
> > infrastructure that somehow disappeared without
> > trace while simultaneously preserving a
> > artistic and cultural artifacts??
> Whatever problem there may be with the 4th dynasty
> is turned up to infinity with your posited
> “lost” civilisation. There is no
> evidence of it.
Yes there is. Monumental multi million ton construction projects imbued with a knowledge of advanced applied mathematics and construction techniques. If you like a "language/message" carved in stone. One just needs to know how to read it.
You should be familiar with that principle
> > > As a theory, ancient astronauts has the
> > > here. At least we can say that they took
> > > technology away with them.
> > >
> > > M.
> > How long do you think that man made artifacts
> > of anything other than stone can survive
> > maintenance?
> > Stainless steel, alloys, plastics,??
> Nihil ad nihilum fit. Nothing becomes nothing.
> Nothing is annihilated. These things leave
> decomposition products, as outlined above in the
> case of iron.
Given time everything reverts to nature. If we take it that their materials technology was similar to ours, which is unlikely, there is a possibility that isolated deposits may be found. If we know what to look for.
No such AE deposits of the material required and on the scale required have been found, Which of course we would expect to do so after only 4500 years.
> And of course they (conveniently) used no stone at
> all in their vanished infrastructure, even with it
> being so very durable and their having (ex
> hypothesi) no problem at all in working it.
We are surrounded by the remains of the stone components that made up their industrial infrastructure. We have misidentified it.
> > Again, every unthinking knee jerk argument you
> > made can be equally applied to the 4th AE.
> > No tools, no technology, no engineering, no
> > adequate infrastructure.
> No knee-jerk argument and your statements are
> false. Clearly that dynasty had a stoneworking
> technology, if only the evidence of the
> inscriptions is considered—and no
> adequate infrastructure is weak. The
> correct comparison is an infrastructure
> versus no evidenced infrastructure at all.
> Agricultural surplus, the resources of a nation, a
> hierarchy, a bureaucracy, writing combined with
> use of pictures, the rudiments of mathematics, a
> system of measurement—the requirements of
> large-scale planning, large-scale organisation of
> labour and ambitious architecture.
None of which is adequate to explain the industrial age engineering anomalies we see today in plain view before us.
Again a message carved in stone. If you know how to read it.
> > With one major difference, they didn't have
> > degradation through the passage of TIME on
> > side.
> This is the nearest you have to an argument.
It's a very good argument.
> > 20 to 30 thousand years. No problem. Everything
> > gone.. Dust..
> Yeah, right, “dust” again. This a technical
> term? Dust of the right kind is evidence. Care
> to show us some?
Stop being so silly.
> > Of course with the exception of natural stone.
Natural stone is the only material we have in our current inventory that has a life of more than a few thousand years.
> Says you. I don’t buy it. Ancient astronauts
> remain the better explanation.
In that case don't.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-16 16:54 by Jon Ellison.