In the vein of ancient apocalypse.

[surpip]

I'll bring up extraterrestrials..... There is some interesting stuff that cannot be ignored. Though I'm going to move away from Egypt again.

I love that shit, have since I was a kid.
This is one of my favorite books.

 

[Tech Tim]

Why the fuck were you wearing a dress?

You must be new around here...

 

[Splib]

I daresay the videos you've watched are all biased towards the 'unbelievable!' side of the scale. How did man make tools more accurate that what they started with? How did man vreate perfecty smooth granite surface blocks?

Not impossible if someone puts in the time and effort. Has anyone ever bankrolled a credible attempt to duplicate. Of course not - would require millions of dollars and many, many years. Not to mention the inevitability of a few dead ends along the way.

So, I suppose its fair to say 'we can't reproduce that without resorting to modern tools and techniques because no one can afford to do the research and experimentation needed to attempt it'. That's a lot different than concluding that it just can't be done.

BTW, my son also has a degree in Geology. Also a master's in Biomechanics and Physiology and a doctorate in Comparative Biology. :)

Fair enough. The author of the Uncharted X videos starts out a narrative by saying " keep an open mind" and that's what I did. As I said, you have to watch for yourself. I am not willing to summarize all of the ideas there. It's too extensive but it is compelling and worth a watch. Honestly I wouldn't say " the unbelievable scale" because the author never states this. He simply gathers and combines work done by others. He does have anecdotal entries such as the quote by the Egyptian Historical site employees saying that they commonly hear many engineers who view the artifacts and question the official narrative of bronze points chipping, or abrasive sand boring. The quotations in the videos of the early engineering works by Flinders Petrie and later by Chris Dunn are final. They de bunk the narrative, it's over.

I will make you a friendly wager that you cant watch these, say to yourself I will have an open mind, and not change your opinion on the position that the specific artifacts examined were not made by the dynastic periods Egyptians as espoused by the mainstream academia. 6 pack Pabst Blue Ribbon.

After my hours long Youtube journey into Limeyspeak at Uncharted X, I was left feeling that the reaction to these new ideas is eerily similar to what happened as geologists started questioning the Church and academics over geologic time. But that was brutally simple when you unearth layers of sediment, stacked neatly top to to bottom and snag a fossil of a T-Rex or some Reptile eggs as big as a cantaloupe.

Try to resist the temptation to open the entire can of worms, ie the climate cycles, the Pyramids, and an endless view of the emperor's clothes. There is too much there for the entry foray. Look at these focused examinations. The OP with a 3 hour Joe Rogaine was a non open for me for that reason. Try these as they are shorter watch than the Rogaine . ..





Sounds like your son went down hill after his first degree in Geology

 

[Tech Tim]

The quotations in the videos of the early engineering works by Flinders Petrie and later by Chris Dunn are final. They de bunk the narrative, it's over.

Petrie's and Dunn's books are an essential reads if anyone is looking into this stuff.

Sounds like your son went down hill after his first degree in Geology

You are taught early on in geology that you don't question anything the narrative says. Luckily I had a geology professor that was young and would have quiet conversations about what the established thought is and what others outside the norm would discuss. He also pushed me to not to go for a geology degree if I was going to question established rhetoric.

 

[Icono]

If you want a good, fun read from way back, read William Bramley's Gods of Eden.

Not really solid info, but fun.

Link might not work.

http://whale.to/c/Gods_of_Eden_Bramley.pdf

 

[Icono]

Fair enough. The author of the Uncharted X videos starts out a narrative by saying " keep an open mind" and that's what I did. As I said, you have to watch for yourself. I am not willing to summarize all of the ideas there. It's too extensive but it is compelling and worth a watch. Honestly I wouldn't say " the unbelievable scale" because the author never states this. He simply gathers and combines work done by others. He does have anecdotal entries such as the quote by the Egyptian Historical site employees saying that they commonly hear many engineers who view the artifacts and question the official narrative of bronze points chipping, or abrasive sand boring. The quotations in the videos of the early engineering works by Flinders Petrie and later by Chris Dunn are final. They de bunk the narrative, it's over.

I will make you a friendly wager that you cant watch these, say to yourself I will have an open mind, and not change your opinion on the position that the specific artifacts examined were not made by the dynastic periods Egyptians as espoused by the mainstream academia. 6 pack Pabst Blue Ribbon.

After my hours long Youtube journey into Limeyspeak at Uncharted X, I was left feeling that the reaction to these new ideas is eerily similar to what happened as geologists started questioning the Church and academics over geologic time. But that was brutally simple when you unearth layers of sediment, stacked neatly top to to bottom and snag a fossil of a T-Rex or some Reptile eggs as big as a cantaloupe.

Try to resist the temptation to open the entire can of worms, ie the climate cycles, the Pyramids, and an endless view of the emperor's clothes. There is too much there for the entry foray. Look at these focused examinations. The OP with a 3 hour Joe Rogaine was a non open for me for that reason. Try these as they are shorter watch than the Rogaine . ..





Sounds like your son went down hill after his first degree in Geology

Keep in mind, that's it's on the record that there was two genetically different people there over those times: Egyptians, and "others".

 

[Splib]

My experience was quite the opposite, or more accurately, very different. Our curriculum and our instructors were focused on fundamentals, and very little theoretical or academic thought. One class, one prof out of 12 that mentioned geosynclines and that was it. At a time when plate tectonics was becoming accepted.

To one specific analysis by Petrie. He had a core from a "tube drill bore" from one of the sites. He did not have the rock that was host to the core itself, he had only the 4-inch diameter core sample, about 18 inches in length IIRC. This was his only source as this specimen was in England where he could get his hands on it. He was inquisitive but very thorough and meticulous. The core had striations on it, which were explained as the rational, they were evidence that the core was cut with a copper tube and abrasive corundum sand grit. But our Limey engineer carefully measured and observed. Thats science and it is beautiful. The cuts in the surface of the core were not horizontal, but careful analytical measurement revealed that they were spiral, helical, they had a measurable declination from the horizontal. A single consistent-width cut could be followed a full 4 wraps around the core. Later modern work validated that the single gouge or cut could be followed all the way down cores. The cuts are not horizontal as per narrative to be feasible.

Sand abrasive can not do this. It just cant. It get's way way better and the established narrative is DOA. It's over Nancy. No one has analytically refuted Petrie, so it stands. Just bullshit half assed NOVA child play shit. But here it goes.

The drop in each spiral has been measured by subsequent modern tools and instruments. Petrie's measurements are validated. This drop, this advancement by a cutting mechanism creating the resultant gouge exceeds that with which any existing modern drill of any type can advance. EG, a modern diamond drill, replete with careful rpm . optimum diamond matrix and placement on the drill edge, and cooling drill fluid, cannot advance into a granite or diorite matrix at a rate on say 1 mm per turn. My example, not necessarily correct but for example. In fact, the advancement evidenced on Petrie's core 7 is about 500 times the fastest rate possibly replicated by modern tools and machinery. There is no contradiction to this.

The cuts in the core are UNIFORM in dimension. Depth and width. Even the engineer slacked off and acknowledged geology when he noted the granite rock core was made up of an array of different minerals, of different hardness and composition. Any known cutting tool would have to exert pressure to create the gouge or groove. As such, this cutting edge would pass over different minerals in the rock. Hard to soft, soft to hard and in varying degrees across Moh's scale of hardness from biotitie and hornblende to orthoclase, plagioclase and finally quartz. In so doing the gouge would have to change, it has to, but it does not. An abrasive cut would smear these different materials like butter on toast and into dust. There are no sanded mineral grains.

There is no assertion of aliens or even an explanation to this by Petrie or Dunn. They are simply showing that in this one specific case, the narrative is false. You can't cut that shit with Dynastic tools and methodologies.

 

[plym49.2]

Fair enough. The author of the Uncharted X videos starts out a narrative by saying " keep an open mind" and that's what I did. As I said, you have to watch for yourself. I am not willing to summarize all of the ideas there. It's too extensive but it is compelling and worth a watch. Honestly I wouldn't say " the unbelievable scale" because the author never states this. He simply gathers and combines work done by others. He does have anecdotal entries such as the quote by the Egyptian Historical site employees saying that they commonly hear many engineers who view the artifacts and question the official narrative of bronze points chipping, or abrasive sand boring. The quotations in the videos of the early engineering works by Flinders Petrie and later by Chris Dunn are final. They de bunk the narrative, it's over.

I will make you a friendly wager that you cant watch these, say to yourself I will have an open mind, and not change your opinion on the position that the specific artifacts examined were not made by the dynastic periods Egyptians as espoused by the mainstream academia. 6 pack Pabst Blue Ribbon.

After my hours long Youtube journey into Limeyspeak at Uncharted X, I was left feeling that the reaction to these new ideas is eerily similar to what happened as geologists started questioning the Church and academics over geologic time. But that was brutally simple when you unearth layers of sediment, stacked neatly top to to bottom and snag a fossil of a T-Rex or some Reptile eggs as big as a cantaloupe.

Try to resist the temptation to open the entire can of worms, ie the climate cycles, the Pyramids, and an endless view of the emperor's clothes. There is too much there for the entry foray. Look at these focused examinations. The OP with a 3 hour Joe Rogaine was a non open for me for that reason. Try these as they are shorter watch than the Rogaine . ..





Sounds like your son went down hill after his first degree in Geology

I don't have a dog in the hunt as to when these things were built or how long it took to build them. That, to me, can be a bunch of archeological circle-jerking because of how the academic system works. My opinion is that all of it was built by man for men. Period.

Downhill? Kinda sorta. He's a Paleontologist. They go deep.

 

[plym49.2]

You are taught early on in geology that you don't question anything the narrative says. Luckily I had a geology professor that was young and would have quiet conversations about what the established thought is and what others outside the norm would discuss. He also pushed me to not to go for a geology degree if I was going to question established rhetoric.

There is a lot of this and it is across the board in the sciences. A lot of it has to do with how a PH.D. gets a job and keeps a job. It is dog eat dog and highly political. The scales are weighted against the candidate. Example - a doctoral candidate works 80 hours a week for a hella long time on a grant application to fund their own position - on top of their normal workload. Grant is awarded and the PI (Principal Investigator) pockets 50% of the grant because 'overhead'. Grant is not awarded and you are SOL. My wife and son see it, hate it, and do what they can against it.

 

[plym49.2]

My experience was quite the opposite, or more accurately, very different. Our curriculum and our instructors were focused on fundamentals, and very little theoretical or academic thought. One class, one prof out of 12 that mentioned geosynclines and that was it. At a time when plate tectonics was becoming accepted.

To one specific analysis by Petrie. He had a core from a "tube drill bore" from one of the sites. He did not have the rock that was host to the core itself, he had only the 4-inch diameter core sample, about 18 inches in length IIRC. This was his only source as this specimen was in England where he could get his hands on it. He was inquisitive but very thorough and meticulous. The core had striations on it, which were explained as the rational, they were evidence that the core was cut with a copper tube and abrasive corundum sand grit. But our Limey engineer carefully measured and observed. Thats science and it is beautiful. The cuts in the surface of the core were not horizontal, but careful analytical measurement revealed that they were spiral, helical, they had a measurable declination from the horizontal. A single consistent-width cut could be followed a full 4 wraps around the core. Later modern work validated that the single gouge or cut could be followed all the way down cores. The cuts are not horizontal as per narrative to be feasible.

Sand abrasive can not do this. It just cant. It get's way way better and the established narrative is DOA. It's over Nancy. No one has analytically refuted Petrie, so it stands. Just bullshit half assed NOVA child play shit. But here it goes.

The drop in each spiral has been measured by subsequent modern tools and instruments. Petrie's measurements are validated. This drop, this advancement by a cutting mechanism creating the resultant gouge exceeds that with which any existing modern drill of any type can advance. EG, a modern diamond drill, replete with careful rpm . optimum diamond matrix and placement on the drill edge, and cooling drill fluid, cannot advance into a granite or diorite matrix at a rate on say 1 mm per turn. My example, not necessarily correct but for example. In fact, the advancement evidenced on Petrie's core 7 is about 500 times the fastest rate possibly replicated by modern tools and machinery. There is no contradiction to this.

The cuts in the core are UNIFORM in dimension. Depth and width. Even the engineer slacked off and acknowledged geology when he noted the granite rock core was made up of an array of different minerals, of different hardness and composition. Any known cutting tool would have to exert pressure to create the gouge or groove. As such, this cutting edge would pass over different minerals in the rock. Hard to soft, soft to hard and in varying degrees across Moh's scale of hardness from biotitie and hornblende to orthoclase, plagioclase and finally quartz. In so doing the gouge would have to change, it has to, but it does not. An abrasive cut would smear these different materials like butter on toast and into dust. There are no sanded mineral grains.

There is no assertion of aliens or even an explanation to this by Petrie or Dunn. They are simply showing that in this one specific case, the narrative is false. You can't cut that shit with Dynastic tools and methodologies.

Link to paper?

 

[Tech Tim]

There is no assertion of aliens or even an explanation to this by Petrie or Dunn. They are simply showing that in this one specific case, the narrative is false. You can't cut that shit with Dynastic tools and methodologies.

Dunn does make a few conclusions that are out there, but one can see how he got there. But he also has the rock quarrying/masonry background that helps his case.

Petrie was definitely more to the factual point. This is what I see, not this is how you should see it.

 

[Sandy Johnson]

My opinion is that all of it was built by man for men. Period.

Agree with you.

I think the one thing people have a hard time accepting is that there may have been people with more knowledge/better tech than us a really long time ago. We like to think we're the pinnacle of what humans know/can do. Might be that we are not.

Where's the evidence? Might be that people are pointing to this stuff as evidence. When everything else gets erased by time, stone seems to endure.

 

[plym49.2]

Agree with you.

I think the one thing people have a hard time accepting is that there may have been people with more knowledge/better tech than us a really long time ago. We like to think we're the pinnacle of what humans know/can do. Might be that we are not.

Where's the evidence? Might be that people are pointing to this stuff as evidence. When everything else gets erased by time, stone seems to endure.

Not necessarily 'better' tech, but 'different'. I don't mean different as in aliens or magic. I mean that they might have taken a fundamentally different approach to solving the same sorts of problems.

 

[Icono]

Not necessarily 'better' tech, but 'different'. I don't mean different as in aliens or magic. I mean that they might have taken a fundamentally different approach to solving the same sorts of problems.

Like cymatics?

 

[Icono]

For your consideration, since most IBB/PBB members have the attention span of a gnat, and don't fucking bother researching.

Present company included.

 

[blakes]

For your consideration, since most IBB/PBB members have the attention span of a gnat, and don't fucking bother researching.

Present company included.

I've been looking for this guy on YouTube to post on here for all the IBB fawks!

 

[Sandy Johnson]

Not necessarily 'better' tech, but 'different'. I don't mean different as in aliens or magic. I mean that they might have taken a fundamentally different approach to solving the same sorts of problems.

yeah, that. Just keep in mind that any sufficiently advanced technique or technology can look like magic to those who don't understand it.

 

[Splib]

Link to paper?

Prolly the third time, I say deese to U senor - . Watch the video.

He quotes Petrie and Dunn. The info is there for you. I focused on the core cuz I have drilled, classified, tested, and used the results in a shit load of hard rock structural support applications and I did have a solid education in igneous petrology and petrography. The core stuff is in my strike zone. I will watch the guy who analyzes the Sphinx and the weathering next.


watch the video

 

[Tech Tim]

For your consideration, since most IBB/PBB members have the attention span of a gnat, and don't fucking bother researching.

Present company included.

That's been around for a long time and he makes it look easy. Now let's see him do that with a couple 30 ton blocks and then put a 100 ton stone on top of those. Not saying he can't do it, but scaling does come into play.

 

[Tech Tim]

Like cymatics?

Are these basins for Acoustic Levitation at the Giza Plaza (where the pyramids are located)?

Resonance in Giant Piezoelectric Levitation Basins

Other interesting stuff on the subject:





How Acoustic Levatation works: How Acoustic Levitation Works

 

[Splib]

Found this. Will read later. Looks credible. Notice the figure illustrating Moh's scale of hardness. The authors are dentists, albeit very highly educated and trained ones.

Expedition Magazine | Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling

<p>More than most technical procedures in the ancient world, drilling of hard stone such as quartz and granite has evoked […]</p>

www.penn.museum

 

[plym49.2]

Like cymatics?

Nope, that would be magic.

'Different' doesn't mean that they did not have the same laws of physics that we do.

 

[plym49.2]

For your consideration, since most IBB/PBB members have the attention span of a gnat, and don't fucking bother researching.

Present company included.

See, that's what I mean by different. Dude is approaching it with a clean sheet of paper given all he has are rocks, wood, water, and rope.

And no one on a modern job site whatever think to do any of that stuff let alone attempt it if the heavy equipment was down. They just say it can't be done.

 

[power_by_429]

the advancement evidenced on Petrie's core 7 is about 500 times the fastest rate possibly replicated by modern tools and machinery. There is no contradiction to this.

The cuts in the core are UNIFORM in dimension. Depth and width. Even the engineer slacked off and acknowledged geology when he noted the granite rock core was made up of an array of different minerals, of different hardness and composition. Any known cutting tool would have to exert pressure to create the gouge or groove. As such, this cutting edge would pass over different minerals in the rock. Hard to soft, soft to hard and in varying degrees across Moh's scale of hardness from biotitie and hornblende to orthoclase, plagioclase and finally quartz. In so doing the gouge would have to change, it has to, but it does not. An abrasive cut would smear these different materials like butter on toast and into dust. There are no sanded mineral grains.

The inconsistent hardness is one of the most perplexing parts of the stone cutting story for me. Plowing thru steel with high speed steel, carbide or even diamond is a walk in the park. Speeds/feeds/depth of cut is fairly constant as the material is a consistent hardness. As long as the work piece and cutter remain stable and kept cool it will eat all day. Introduce one curve ball like a drilled hole or a weld in the tool path and things can change quick. Interrupted cuts or changes in hardness have a tendency to induce chatter. Ever handle a machined part that has a snake skin surface finish and you know what chatter is. Enough of that will destroy your cutter, vibrate things out of fixtures and cause some serious problems. Combine all that with a brittle material that is prone to cracking and you can see why most stone cutting is a slow abrasive process not rapidly peeled away with a sharp edge.

So when I see these cores with very aggressive feed rates, consistent tooling marks left behind that are obvious cutting processes and not abrasive grinding it makes you stop and just wonder how in the hell??

The perfectly sharp, square INSIDE corners where three planes meet in one single point seem simple enough untill you try to cut something like that. even in relatively soft material it is difficult. Requires a very small cutting tip with multi axis or live tooling capabilities to get around the larger diameter of the tool fixture/drill motor. The smaller the cutter is the more likely it will break the moment you push it too hard or hit a harder patch of rock.

These folks achieved very tight symetrical tolerances with surface finish as smooth as glass on some of the hardest and most brittle materials on earth.

Just a few reasons why the stone hammer on copper chisel explanation is completely absurd. The people who wrote that have no clue what it actually takes nor have they even glanced at the evidence right infront of them.

I keep hoping panzer fuhrer will chime in here as he deals with hard stone all day long

 

[Splib]

The foundation investigations I completed for bridge support design required drilling wherever the support locations were. Frequently, they were spanning rivers, creeks, washes and canyons. These water made landforms always have the hardest residual materials in them. The watercourse bottoms are the most resistant rock and whats left after all the other shite is sand downstream and clay out in the Pacific Ocean. Other sites were over bedrock, both deeply weathered and fresh and unfractured. I experienced many rock characteristics during my two decades of Highway geotechnical design work. The drilling staff became very proficient at selecting the correct drill bits to match the rock types. Suffice it to say that these core bits were very refined and expensive, in addition to the time and resources it took to plan, mobilize and complete the work. So fucking up with a drill bit was a huge no no. Only thing worse is drilling up Fiber or 10kv lines. We exclusively used mud rotary core drilling when in in hard rock or river/alluvial cobbles. Modern rock bits by Christensen and Boart Longyear are highly refined specialized technological marvels, the result of decades of refinement and investment. They carry industrial diamonds in a matrix which wears away and exposes fresh diamond as the cored material is abraded away, kind of like a shark. This is water cooled abrasive drilling. A solid rock core yields an distinct audible " Snap" upon extreaction as the contiguous core breaks off at the end of the core barrel.

The cores we are addressing in this thread are truly WTH ??? The machined precision dimension boxes and statues are kind left from a far distant past and loudly say " Fuck you" to anyone left trying to understand this.

 

[Splib]

I had a thought about the bore holes and their drilling. There is a rapid drilling method for hard rock, but it would be a fabulous stretch to suggest the pre-ancients had the technology. Modern hard rock boring that doesn't require a recovered core for analysis is actually quite rapid, but it uses compressed high volume air and an oscillating chattering type bit. More of a hammer actually. Some types are called percussion hammer rigs for this reason. These bits are tipped with tungsten carbide alloy cutter buttons. The academia seems obsessed with a core, theer is no need to core the rock. Only to bore it and remove material.

 

[Sandy Johnson]

I had a thought about the bore holes and their drilling. There is a rapid drilling method for hard rock, but it would be a fabulous stretch to suggest the pre-ancients had the technology. Modern hard rock boring that doesn't require a recovered core for analysis is actually quite rapid, but it uses compressed high volume air and an oscillating chattering type bit. More of a hammer actually. Some types are called percussion hammer rigs for this reason. These bits are tipped with tungsten carbide alloy cutter buttons. The academia seems obsessed with a core, theer is no need to core the rock. Only to bore it and remove material.

I thought one of the main pieces of evidence proving that it was a rapid process were the spiral groves on a recovered core? I was thinking maybe they figured out how to get whatever they were going to drill really, really hot.

 

[surpip]

Unless they need the cores for something.

 

[Splib]

Unless they need the cores for something.

Yeah maybe. But the holes seem to be always associated with the created artifact associated with that hole. It seems that If they needed stone rods or similar from cores there would be lots of core holes in the rock blocks or in-situ field exposures where they were drilled from. Also, I dont think we have found any many cores, but they may just not be the focus of the analysis right now. Its fascinating stuff in any event.

The Younger Dryas is a relatively new theory to me, and I have tried to stay abreast of some pre history. It shows me that new information is always out there waiting to be understood. Soooooooooooooo much new info is clouded and corrupted by bias and bullshit about global warming it really fucks with trying to study anything new. It is really annoying to be exposed to this bullshit when we have real evidence of virtual instant huge temp swings in the various sources of information we recover.

 

[Pocahontas]

New video from the guy that was on jre. Pretty amazing how tight the tolerances are.



My understanding was the cores where waste but showed tool marks and that’s why they were of interest. The tool marks show that whatever was cutting actually cut through the granite, I think the quote is 500 times faster/more aggressive per revolution of the tool than modern processes. Think it was crazy like 1/32 depth of cut per rotation.