Origyptian wrote:

>First of all, that particular box is clearly "unfinished"
>compared to the other boxes that you deliberately chose not to
>show here. So much for your objectivity.

Sure about that......... because Jon Bodsworth told us that the box is polished and the bumps are only visible to the camera because of the dust and flash...... they can however be felt as one slips their hand across the polished surface. So why not go ask go ask those claiming great tolerances why this example was apparently avoided or not mentioned anywheres?

>Second, Even in its rough condition I'd like to hear anyone
>explain how the dynastics were able to make such a box out of
>solid stone with such sharp angles and transport/position it in
>its current resting place.

Well, if one believes the ancient Egyptians can't even carve soapstone...... what is the point of explaining it for metagreywacke and granodiorite.

>Are you suggesting that unless such an artifact is able to
>achieve 10 thou precision, it must have been made during the
>dynastic period?

"10 thou precision"? For the last 2 decades I have been trying to figure out (including directly asking) how the box was cleaned to cleanroom level cleanliness and how the flashlight, the surface measuring bar, and his eye were all lined up perfectly on the surfaces (since the surface is polished and light reflects off and 99.9% of the minerals are either transparent or translucent as a result of polishing).

Come back and tell us what the "tolerances" are when it's actually done properly.........

For the sake of "objectivity" how did the lOst onE do it again? ViBo-lathe....... SoNiC drill......... Sponge Granite PlAsTicene........ LavA Squirter........ or skillfully directed Fairy flatulence........

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)