Atheist knowledge

[Bikky]

An atheist died and to his great surprise he awoke to find himself at the gates of heaven.

 

A friendly looking bloke smiled at him and said "Welcome to heaven, I'm god. It's nice to meet you at last."

 

The atheist was dumbstruck - lost for words.

 

God gave him a tour of the place and it was all most believers imagine and more.

 

Golf courses, hotels, restaurants - you imagine the pleasure and it was there.

 

When the atheist found his voice again he said, "Wow! This place is fantastic! I have one question though. What's that big wall over there?"

 

God replied, "Shh my son. Keep your voice down. That's the christian section. They like to think they're alone here!"

 

 

[turboplanner]

VERY HIGH CIVILIZATION

 

So far, in post #967 we have God mentioned as far back as 34,525 BC, nearly six times further back than the teachings of most of the twentieth century.

 

In post #961 I quoted John Anthony West: “Egyptian civilization was not a development; it was a legacy” He has been supported by quite a few other sources since that time.

 

The question is “Who gave that legacy to the Egyptians, who were virtually hunter gatherers”.

 

In recent years someone coined the phrase Very High Civilization and the hunt has been on for a source civilization.

 

Surprisingly there may have been several VHCs, and as each year passes now with digitisation of old records and new scientific methods of searching, new clues are coming in, some in structures, some in languages, some in measurement skills etc.

 

I’m not going to cover these in any detail unless there is a reference to God, but you’ll find plenty googling “Very High Civilization” – much of which is probably imagination.

 

 

[turboplanner]

MOST ANCIENT MAN

 

Before going on to discuss a VHC which referred to God, we can push the timeline for Man back 400,000 years following discovery the oldest human DNA sequence on December 4, 2013 in Spain

 

What is significant about timing is that it shows there were humans floating around Europe for 363,000 years before the handover form a VHC to the Egyptians of ‘special knowledge’

 

That tends to rule out the beginning of the human race being kicked off by the arrival of aliens from outer space.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2013/12/131204-human-fossil-dna-spain-denisovan-cave/

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...In post #961 I quoted John Anthony West: “Egyptian civilization was not a development; it was a legacy” ...

I'm fascinated by the concept, and would love to believe these theories, but why couldn't the Ancient Egyptians have rapidly developed their technology? 5,000 years from now it might look like Western Civilisation developed overnight.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Except that there is a very good record of the almost immediate decline of that knowledge in Egypt, along with the loss of Sumerian, Roman, Greek knowledge, and a sequence of hard evidence of the gradual, sequential development over the last few hundred years.

 

And I haven't researched it but archaeologists have a pretty good handle on the status of the Egyptian hunter gatherers before the overnight burst of advanced civilization/beliefs/tools/structure.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Except that there is a very good record of the almost immediate decline of that knowledge in Egypt, along with the loss of Sumerian, Roman, Greek knowledge, and a sequence of hard evidence of the gradual, sequential development over the last few hundred years....

...and in the future much of that evidence may be erased, as may have evidence of rapid development in Egypt.

 

If you have any links to sources I'd be interested.

 

 

[turboplanner]

...and in the future much of that evidence may be erased, as may have evidence of rapid development in Egypt.If you have any links to sources I'd be interested.

Links?

 

It would have to be books; in 1907 researcher Louis McCarty said that the volume of serious material on the Great Pyramid alone was already such that no single man could wade through it in a lifetime. Then there’s the rest of the Giza Plateau, then there’s several thousand square kilometres of physical evidence.

 

I would recommend these books:

 

‘The Travellers Key to Ancient Egypt’ by John Anthony West.

 

This is a light travel guide to the main artefacts and he talks about each one, so you get a sense of perspective about what item is in which part of the country.

 

On Page 7 he says:

 

“Every scholar who has ever studied Egypt has had to acknowledge that the corpus of knowledge was miraculously complete at the beginning. The predynastic remains show no evidence of writing, yet when the hieroglyphs appeared, they did so in complete form and coherency.

 

“Mathematics, medicine, astronomy, mythology, symbolism, the elaborate pantheon of the god and goddesses, the complex texts of the Book of the Dead……all appear suddenly."

 

· If it’s mathematics, you will find the things “discovered” much later by Pythagoras etc.

 

· If it’s medicine the surgery and treatments which suddenly appeared were not equalled for centuries after the skills were lost.

 

· If it’s astronomy, - they knew about precession, so they not only had to know that the earth was a

 

· sphere but that it wobbled on its axis in a 26,000 year cycle.

 

Another book by John Anthony West is “Serpent in the Sky – the high wisdom of Ancient Egypt” (1993)

 

Christopher Dunn

 

Since he was described as a nutter in an earlier post on this thread, I should explain a little about his background:

 

· He is English, was recruited to aerospace manufacturing in the USA in 1969

 

· Has worked as a machinist, toolmaker, programmer and operator of high powered lasers.

 

He therefore knows how to use a straightedge, and toolmaker’s tools.

 

His early work is just observations of the building and machining techniques, most of which we use today, albeit with different power supply. Importantly, he is one of the people who provides a logical earthly alternative to the thinking of some that these artefacts were built by aliens. The technologies of those ancient times are completely lost by today’s Egyptians. A friend of mind worked with a Cairo truck distribution operation for a short time, and tells me the Egyptians working there said the pyramids were built by aliens. So Christopher Dunn brings us back to earth.

 

These two articles show his early work.

 

Article by Christopher Dunn – ‘Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt”

 

http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced%20Machining.html\

 

Photos by Christopher Dunn – ‘Prehistoric Machined Artefacts

 

http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced%20Machining.html

 

If you are interested, I would recommend his book ‘Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs’.

 

Some background, to understand the techniques he is portraying; before the digital era I was trained in Industrial Design. When coming up with a new product, you can draw it free hand, but if someone else has to produce it, that shape has to be reproduced by machines.

 

One technique involves French Curves and here is an example of my French Curves (S2764)

 

They don’t look all that beautiful or stylish, but what we do is make a compound curve by marking small sections on the French Curve with a pencils, and then putting each of these sections together to make the finished curved. I frequently used two particular sections on these curves to make good looking car lines (S2765)

 

Here’s an extract from the book: http://www.gizapower.com/LoTeAnArticle.htm

 

When a sculptor chisels a human figure in stone, he may reproduce some of the lopsidedness of the human body, as well as his own inaccuracies, Christopher Dunn is able to show that these huge statues and artefacts were machined from the very hard stone, with an accuracy which, for example, could produce a perfectly symmetrical face.

 

In the link, you can see how the face is made up of circles which indicate the type of tool used to carve the face.

 

This is a skill which no hunter/gatherer would gain overnight, and which we would not have done will before CNC.

 

If you want to then go on to his hypothesis on the Great Pyramid you will be armed with a bit better understanding than the “nutter” content presented to this site earlier.

 

I've just picked out some basic information on technology, but the language and symbolism could occupy someone for years.

 

[ATTACH]47505._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]47506._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Marty_d]

Hi Turbo,

 

 

 

Interesting article. By the way, I don't think I called this bloke a nutter, I think I quoted an article that called him a "pseudo-archaeologist" (unless that was another of the sources you quoted).

 

 

 

His observations are interesting and he obviously has some in-depth knowledge of machining and engineering.

 

 

 

However I think that he leaps to conclusions a little. He hypothesizes that the builders of the pyramids and sarcophagi must have had advanced power equipment because of the hardness of the material and the precision of the cuts.

 

He then presents the shape of holes and the cuts he assumes are "overruns" as supporting evidence that the builders used power equipment.

 

 

 

There's a couple of problems with this.

 

 

 

Firstly, his methodology. Now I'm not a scientist, so anyone can feel free to correct me on this. But I would assume that, when someone builds a hypothesis based on what they observe, that they test this hypothesis for faults. Is it logical? Does it fit with existing knowledge? Are there other explanations for the data? Are there wider considerations that prove or disprove the hypothesis? Are there other studies which present supporting or conflicting evidence for the hypothesis?

 

Because of his background, Mr Dunn is drawn to the building methods. He says, and it seems reasonable enough, that because of its hardness granite could not be worked with the copper tools known at the time. But to immediately assume that the builders not only had to use different tools, but power tools, is a leap too far.

 

Is it logical? As an explanation based purely on the difficulty of working granite, perhaps. As an explanation of something built thousands of years ago, no, not in the slightest.

 

Does it fit with existing knowledge? No.

 

Are there other explanations for the data? Perhaps. Patrick Hunt has theorized that the ancient Egyptians may have used emery, which is harder on the Mohs scale than granite. In terms of the perfection of surfaces, look at other pre-industrial stonework. Stone has been worked throughout human history, ever since man figured you could use one lump to bash another lump. Check the surface of Michelangelo's "David" - he didn't have the benefit of power tools.

 

Are there wider considerations that prove or disprove the hypothesis? There is no scientific evidence of any civilization with the ability to produce and use power tools until the industrial revolution. If there was a civilization in Egypt that had power tools, where are they? Not one has been found. Why did they use them solely to produce tombs and statues? What was the power source and why is there no evidence of it? (And FFS don't try to say that it was the Ark of the Covenant. Just in case you hadn't realised, the Indiana Jones movies were not documentaries.)

 

 

 

Some civilizations do decline; the Romans are an excellent example. But no matter how good their engineering (and it was VERY good - in another forum I mentioned the Pont du Gard aqueduct having a fall of only 25 mm over the 90m span of the bridge) no-one has ever suggested that they had laser levels and excavators.

 

Are there other studies? I don't know. My level of interest is insufficient to find out.

 

 

 

My point is, he's jumped to an impossible conclusion just because it seems to fit his observations. He should now go searching for alternatives which fit not only his observations but all the other factors as well.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

How arrogant we are to think we are the only era to know how to achieve certain results.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Interesting article. By the way, I don't think I called this bloke a nutter, I think I quoted an article that called him a "pseudo-archaeologist"

It was Horsefeathers that called him a nutter; you referred to someone calling Graham Hancock a pseudoarchaeologist, and I gave you his background in #804.

 

 

 

 

His observations are interesting and he obviously has some in-depth knowledge of machining and engineering. 

 

However I think that he leaps to conclusions a little. He hypothesizes that the builders of the pyramids and sarcophagi must have had advanced power equipment because of the hardness of the material and the precision of the cuts.

 

He then presents the shape of holes and the cuts he assumes are "overruns" as supporting evidence that the builders used power equipment.

 

Because of his background career, I trust his measurements and his measurements support those of 19th Century archaeologist Sir William Flinders Petrie, who is know for his very precise measurements over years.

 

Petrie's Core 7, cut with a tubular drill of some kind, shows a depth of spiral that is astounding, and the core waste is tapered. Dunn's hypothesis is that the only way we could do this today is with an ultrasonic drill which also leaves the tell-tale spiral groove and tapered core. He could be wrong.

 

When he has been talking about saws, and tools the witness marks on the stone provide evidence of the tools/saws/saw tooth material, but his question over and over again is "what was it that held the tools?" We don't know.

 

This is an extract from Petrie's book "Pyramids and Temple's of Gizeh", so you can see Petries description of Core 7, his measurements and conclusions, and also his opinion on what might have happened to the tools. I mentioned previously that when you move into a new house today, there are no tools, the builders have taken them with them, but that's still a burning question.

 

129.p 173. The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained in doubt. Various suggestions have been made, some very impracticable; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, has been obtained. From the examples of work which I was able to collect at Gizeh, and from various fixed objects of which I took casts, the questions so often asked seem now to be solved.

 

The typical method of working hard stones, such as granite, diorite, basalt, &c.,was by means of bronze tools ; these were set with cutting points, far harder than the quartz which was operated on. The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined ; but only five substances are possible: beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corundum or sapphire, and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general, and its absence from Egypt, interfere with this conclusion, and render the tough uncrystallized corundum the more likely material.

 

Many nations, both savage and civilized, are in the habit of cutting hard materials by means of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn, &c.), with a hard powder supplied to it ; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. It is therefore very readily assumed by many persons (as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been also used by the Egyptians; and that it would suffice to produce all the examples now collected. Such, however, is far from being the case; though no doubt in alabaster, and other soft stones, this method was used.

 

That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp-pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh. These hieroglyphs are incised, with a very free-cutting point; they are not scraped nor ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evident that the cutting point must have been p 174 much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre.

 

We therefore need have no hesitation in allowing that the graving out of lines in hard stones by jewel points, was a well-known art. And when we find on the surfaces of the saw-cuts in diorite, grooves as deep as 1/100 inch, it appears far more likely that such were produced by fixed jewel points in the saw, than by any fortuitous rubbing about of a loose powder. And when, further, it is seen that these deep grooves are almost always regular and uniform in depth, and equidistant, their production by the successive cuts of the jewel-teeth of a saw appears to be beyond question. The best examples of equidistance are the specimens of basalt No.4(Pl. xiv.), and of diorite No.12; in these the fluctuations are no more than such as always occur in the use of a saw by hand-power, whether worked in wood or in soft stone.

 

On the granite core, broken from a drill-hole (No.7), other features appear, which also can only be explained by the use of fixed jewel points. Firstly, the grooves which run around it form a regular spiral, with no more interruption or waviness than is necessarily produced by the variations in the component crystals ; this spiral is truly symmetrical with the axis of the core. In one part a groove can be traced, with scarcely an interruption, for a length of four turns. Secondly, the grooves are as deep in the quartz as in the adjacent felspar, and even rather deeper. If these were in any way produced by loose powder, they would be shallower in the harder substancequartz ; whereas a fixed jewel point would be compelled to plough to the same depth in all the components; and further, inasmuch as the quartz stands out slightly beyond the felspar (owing to the latter being worn by general rubbing), the groove was thus left even less in depth on the felspar than on the quartz. Thus, even if specimens with similarly deep grooves could be produced by a loose powder, the special features of this core would still show that fixed cutting points were the means here employed.

 

That the blades of the saws were of bronze, we know from the green staining on the sides of saw cuts, and on grains of sand left in a saw cut.

 

The forms of the tools were straight saws, circular saws, tubular drills, and lathes.

 

130.The straight saws varied from .03 to .2 inch thick, according to the work; the largest were 8 feet or more in length, as the cuts run lengthways on the Great Pyramid coffer, which is 7 feet 6 in. long. The examples of saw cuts figured in(Pl. xiv.). are as follow. No. 1, from the end of the Great Pyramid coffer of granite, showing where the saw cut was run too deep into the stuff twice over, and backed out again. No.2, a piece of syenite, picked up at Memphis; showing cuts on four faces of it, and the breadth of the saw by a cut across the top of it. This probably was a waste piece from cutting out a statue in the rough. No.3, a p 175 piece of basalt, showing a saw cut run askew, and abandoned, with the sawing dust and sand left in it; a fragment from the sawing of the great basalt pavement on the East of the Great Pyramid. No.4, another piece from the same pavement, showing regular and well-defined lines. No.5, a slice of basalt from the same place, sawn on both sides, and nearly sawn in two. No.6, a slice of diorite bearing equidistant and regular grooves of circular arcs, parallel to one another; these grooves have been nearly polished out by crossed grinding, but still are visible. The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw. The main examples of sawing at Gizeh are the blocks of the great basalt pavement, and the coffers of the Great, Second, and Third Pyramids, the latter, unhappily, now lost.

 

131.Next the Egyptians adapted their sawing principle into. a circular, instead of a rectilinear form, curving the blade round into a tube, which drilled out a circular groove by its rotation ; thus, by breaking away the cores left in the middle of such grooves, they were able to hollow out large holes with a minimum of labour. These tubular drills vary from 1/4 inch to 5 inches diameter, and from 1/30 to 1/5 inch thick. The smallest hole yet found in granite is 2 inches diameter, all the lesser holes being in limestone or alabaster, which was probably worked merely with tube and sand. A peculiar feature of these cores is that they are always tapered, and the holes are always enlarged towards the top. In the soft stones cut merely with loose powder, such a result would naturally be produced simply by the dead weight on the drill head, which forced it into the stone, not being truly balanced, and so always pulling the drill over to one side ; as it rotated this would grind off material from both the core and the hole. But in the granite core, No.7, such an explanation is insufficient, since the deep cutting grooves are scored out quite as strongly in the tapered end as elsewhere; and if the taper was merely produced by rubbing of powder, they would have been polished away, and certainly could not be equally deep in quartz as in felspar. Hence we are driven to the conclusion that auxiliary cutting points were inserted along the side, as well as around the edge of the tube drill ; as no granite or diorite cores are known under two inches diameter, there would be no impossibility in setting such stones, working either through a hole in the opposite side of the drill, or by setting a stone in a hole cut through the drill, and leaving it to project both inside and outside the tube. Then a preponderance of the top weight to any side would tilt the drill so as to wear down the groove wider and wider, and thus enable the drill and the dust to be the more easily withdrawn from the groove. The examples of tube drilling onP1.xiv. are as follow :

 

No. 7, core in granite, found at Gizeh. No.8, section of cast of a pivot hole in a lintel of the granite temple at Gizeh; here the core, being of tough homblende, could not be entirely broken out, and remains to a length of .8 inch. No.9, alabaster mortar, broken in course of manufacture, showing p 176 the core in place; found at Kom Ahmar (lat. 28 5'), by Prof. Sayce, who kindly gave it to me to illustrate this subject. No. 10, the smallest core yet known, in alabaster; found with others at Memphis, by Dr. Grant Bey, who kindly gave me this. No. 11, marble eye for inlaying, with two tube drill-holes, one within the other; showing the thickness of the small drills. No.12, part of the side of a drill-hole in diorite, from Gizeh, remarkable for the depth and regularity of the grooves in it No.13, piece of limestone from Gizeh, showing how closely holes were placed together in removing material by drilling; the angle of junction shows that the groove of one hole just overlapped the groove of another, without probably touching the core of the adjacent hole thus the minimum of labour was required. The examples of tube drilling on a large scale are the great granite coffers, which were hollowed out by cutting rows of tube drill-holes just meeting, and then breaking out the cores and intermediate pieces; the traces of this work may be seen in the inside of the Great Pyramid coffer, where two drill-holes have been run too deeply into the sides ; and on a fragment of a granite coffer with a similar error of work on it, which I picked up at Gizeh. At El Bersheh (lat. 27 42') there is a still larger example, where a platform of limestone rock has been dressed down, by cutting it away with tube drills about 18 inches diameter; the circular grooves occasionally intersecting, prove that it was merely done to remove the rock.

 

 

 

132.The principle of rotating the tool was, for sma!ler objects, abandoned in favour of rotating the work; and the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in modern workshops. The diorite bowls and vases of the Old Kingdom are frequently met with, and show great technical skill. One piece found at Gizeh, No.14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centring, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centrings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface. Another detail is shown by fragment No.15; here the curves of the bowl are spherical, and must have therefore been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed centre while the bowl rotated. This centre or hinging of the tool was in the axis of the lathe for the general surface of the bowl, right up to the edge of it; but as a lip was wanted, the centring of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc; and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl. That this was certainly not a chance result of hand-work is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off as would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is a clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking the curves.

 

p 177. Hand graving tools were also used for working on the irregular surfaces of statuary; as may be well seen on the diorite statue of Khafra found at Gizeh, and now at Bulak.

 

133.The great pressure needed to force the drills and saws so rapidly through the hard stones is very surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed on the 4 inch drills cutting in granite. On the granite core, No.7, the spiral of the cut sinks .1 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and felspar which is astonishing. Yet these grooves cannot be due to the mere scratching produced in withdrawing the drill as has been suggested, since there would be about 1/10 inch thick of dust between the drill and the core at that part; thus there could be scarcely any pressure applied sideways, and the point of contact of the drill and granite could not travel around the granite however the drill might be turned about. Hence these rapid spiral grooves cannot be ascribed to anything but the descent of the drill into the granite under enormous pressure ; unless, indeed, we suppose a separate rymering tool to have been employed alternately with the drill for enlarging the groove, for which there is no adequate evidence.

 

134.That no remains of these saws or tubular drills have yet been found is to be expected, since we have not yet found even waste specimens of work to a tenth of the amount that a single tool would produce ; and the tools, instead of being thrown away like the waste, would be most carefully guarded. Again, even of common masons' chisels, there are probably not a dozen known; and yet they would be far commoner than jewelled tools, and also more likely to be lost, or to be buried with the workman. The great saws and drills of the Pyramid workers would be royal property, and it would, perhaps, cost a man his life if he lost one ; while the bronze would be remelted, and the jewels reset, when the tools became worn, so that no worn out tools would be thrown away.

 

135.Of the various other details of mechanical work mention is made in different sections of this volume. The red marking of the mason's lines is described insection 63. The use of testing-planes in working surfaces, insection 170. The use of drafted diagonals, insection 55. The character of the fine joints, insection 26. The accuracy of levelling, insection 26. The fitting of the courses one on the other, insection 41. The arrangement of the courses on the ground before building, insection 168. The lugs left for lifting the stones, insections 50,55, and63. The method of raising the stones, insection 169. The labour system employed on the Egyptian monuments insection 166. And the use of plaster, insection 128. A general statement of all these mechanical questions, with fuller details of some of the specimens and examples of work, will be found in a paper on the " Mechanical Methods of the Egyptians," in the Anthropological Journal. for 1883.

 

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/hrdfact1.php

 

Looking at the Mohs scale is critical when deciding who did what with which material in Egypt I agree, so there's nothing wrong with Hunt's suggestion. We also need to look at production speed. Petrie described the machining and polishing of the limestone casing which once covered the pyramids as "having an optician's precision, but on a scale of acres."

 

The hunt for the tools/methods has been going on since the 1980's when the Egyptologists' explanations of simple tools started to come under question.

 

I've mentioned the accurate symmetry of carving - for example the left eye being identical in reverse to the right eye - something we would expect from CNC in the 21st century, but not from chiseling, so there are still mysteries.

 

No need to throw in the red herring of the Ark of the Covenant, or Indiana Jones - it just degrades the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

The hunt for the tools/methods has been going on since the 1980's when the Egyptologists' explanations of simple tools started to come under question.

 

I've mentioned the accurate symmetry of carving - for example the left eye being identical in reverse to the right eye - something we would expect from CNC in the 21st century, but not from chiseling, so there are still mysteries.

 

No need to throw in the red herring of the Ark of the Covenant, or Indiana Jones - it just degrades the discussion.

 

Sorry about the ark reference - I included that because Dunn also came to some pretty weird conclusions about the purpose of the pyramids being a kind of power generator.

 

In regards to the symmetry of faces, as Bex says - we're arrogant to assume that just because WE could only do this work with power tools, that ancient civilizations could not do it with just hand tools, craftsmanship, and lots and lots of time. The Egyptians would have had bronze mirrors and would no doubt have noticed that reflections reverse the image. It's not a great leap to theorise that perhaps they assumed that perfect symmetry in faces was more desirable than reality, so deliberately made them that way (much like airbrushing or photoshopping today!)

 

We really take power tools for granted. I'm not a craftsman at all - but using my drop saw with 80-tooth blade I can make perfect 45 degree angle cuts; my drill press makes perfectly vertical holes; my router with the guide attached can put all sorts of pretty edges on a piece of timber. We tend to forget that pre-industrial revolution, craftsmen did things with all sorts of materials that we could only dream of today - because they were apprenticed to a master when they were boys, probably did 20-30 years before they became a master themselves, and all in the one trade.

 

If for some reason humanity suffered a catastrophic event which drove the survivors back to the stone age for a couple of thousand years, then made their way back to today's level of technology, imagine what they'd find. Remains of power stations, electricity grids, sewage systems, engines (by the millions), electronics, factories, ships, submarines, etc etc. Even the remains of the Large Hadron Collider would give an advanced civilization a fair idea of where humanity was at.

 

I don't know what tools the ancient Egyptians used to make those holes and cuts. I don't think anyone else does either. But unless someone finds a 5,000 year old ultrasonic drill buried in the sands, I would call that hypothesis extremely implausible.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well that was why I posted Petrie's comments.

 

Dunn has put forward a method of drilling which we use today which leaves helical grooves and a taper as the too wears.

 

We're free to observe the witness marks and come up with new ideas.

 

The important thing about Dunn's work is that it's moving away from the "aliens did it" beliefs of the 1960's

 

 

[facthunter]

Slaves are cheaper and more reliable than "aliens'. everything about them is alien. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well at least we know from recent discoveries by archaeologists that the people who built the pyramids were not slaves but local farmers who worked while waiting for their crops to ripen.

 

 

[facthunter]

I heard they weren't paid award wages. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Given that everything in Egypt was owned by the Pharaoh (no such thing as private property) I don't know that there would have been wages at all, probably just a dole of bread and beer or something.

 

Apparently the pharaohs liked marrying their sisters as well, which would have done wonders for the royal gene pool. And no Tasmanian comments about that!

 

 

[facthunter]

They didn't have long lives. ( Well the first ones anyhow) They were obsessed with the afterlife. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

They believed in God, and they believed they knew the secret to the afterlife FH; you atheists would have been on Desert Duty, keeping the Hyksos out and eating foxes.

 

 

[facthunter]

They believed in the Sun as God and relied on embalming the important ones who could afford a pyramid on Mayfair containing much of their considerable worldly riches. The "YOU atheists" comment continues the misconception that they behave as a religion or all fit into the one category at least. A convenient oversimplification? Time to show a bit of respect for atheists or is it becoming compulsory to be other than one. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

They believed in God, and they believed they knew the secret to the afterlife FH; you atheists would have been on Desert Duty, keeping the Hyksos out and eating foxes.

Apparently 2% of Anglican priests don't believe in god (which makes their career choice fairly strange) - I'm willing to bet there were heaps of Egyptians which didn't believe in any god, probably including some of their priest caste.

 

By the way, I'd rather be on Dessert duty. But first a nice leg of fox, perhaps slow roasted in goose fat with a cardamom and coriander...

 

 

[bexrbetter]

By the way, I'd rather be on Dessert duty.

Well make me a vanilla slice while you're at it.

 

But first a nice leg of fox, perhaps slow roasted in goose fat with a cardamom and coriander...

Think about it Marty, you're in the desert, leg of fox boiled in camel's piss more likely.

 

The important thing about Dunn's work is that it's moving away from the "aliens did it" beliefs of the 1960's

Not any easier for me to believe it was the work of a God.

 

 

[facthunter]

How long do you have to be in the Desert before you consider yourself deserted?. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

How long do you have to be in the Desert before you consider yourself deserted?. Nev

About the same time buzzards look at you as dessert.

 

 

[facthunter]

Lots of biblical characters went into the desert to find themselves. Were they schitzoid.? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not any easier for me to believe it was the work of a God.

The relevance of Egypt is that, with the exception of one single Pharaoh late in the sequence who was a bit odd and believed in Sun worship, they believed in God, so the belief evidence takes us back about ten times further than Jesus Christ.

 

It goes back even further with a VHC, but I need to find some more accurate information before I lay that one on you.