The origin of mankind

[Michael Sternbach]

Again: Where are the tools?

[Nungali]

That's called circular reasoning.

 

No it is what you are doing below .    They way people made stone blocks , from cutting them in a quarry from base rock or cliffs  and shaping them and smoothing them is actually very well known and does not use copper saws at all . 

 

Copper saws (Mohs hardness 3) are all right for cutting cardboard, not for cutting lime stone (Mohs hardness 4) and granite (Mohs hardness 6-8).

 

I think you better look up how they did it .  What is this fixation on them only using copper saws, where did that come from ? 

 

 

 

Funny, I was going to tell you just that.

 

I see.     

 

Where is my reasoning faulty ?  

 

Again,  you claimed they only had and used copper saws to cut hard stone . This is wrong . How can you start with a wrong premise and end up with a right conclusion based on that premise, and then have to postulate some possible alien or unknown intervention because you have limited the tools and processes by a wrong assumption in the first place  ...  and then ...  think I need to be more clear and logical  ? ? ? 

 

I can be more clear ... I suppose and explain how they did it ....  but its better if you find out yourself  (so you know Nungers isnt making stuff up again  )   . 

 

 

 

En contraire! Your IQ seems to be decreasing by reading too many orthodox researchers trying hard to rationalize anything not in line with their preconceived assumptions. But hey... A two weeks vacation in Maiorca has been shown to have a similar effect.

 

 

Excuse me  .......   its called  evidence , and I am surprised if you think it should be ignored  !

 

There are marks left in the quarries, there are unfinished blocks in the quarries, there are some blocks  dressed and abandoned in transit, with marks. Even the final surfacing leaves tell tale marks of how it was done, there are ancient images showing how it was done, modern day sculptures can use the same tools and get the same results as was done .

 

I observe the evidence at hand and do use my rational mind , I read peer reviewed papers and follow the latest discoveries when I can .    

 

To ignore all this is overtly   rational  ? ? ?   

 

Show me the other evidence of how it was done differently if you believe so .

 

Unless  .......  

 

 

[Nungali]

Again: Where are the tools?

 

 

So you want me to do the work  do you ?  

 

Ai yi yi  !  

 

Ya lazy bum !   

 

 

 

The following extracts are taken from Chapter VIII entitled "Mechanical Methods" in Petrie's classic reference work "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh". They concern some of his findings at 'Gizeh' during the winters of 1880 and 1881.

 

"The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..."

 

BUT ... re  'saws'  drills , etc : 

 

"The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- 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, corindum 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,...interfer with this conclusion."

 

" Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been 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 alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed."

 

"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; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or 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 evidence that the cutting point must have been 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..."

 

"That the blades of the saw were of bronze, we know from the green staining on the sides of the 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.

 

The straight saws varied from .03 to .2 inch thick, according to the work; the largest were 8 feet or more in length..." "...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 cross grinding, but are still visible. The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw."

 

"These tubular drills vary in thickness from 1/4 inch to 5 inches in diameter, and from 1/30 to 1/5 inch thick. The smallest hole yet found in granite is 2 inch diameter."

 

"At El Bersheh... 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 done merely to remove the rock."

 

"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the 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 clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking the curves."

 

Thats from Petrie  http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/petrie.php

 

and took about 6 secs to find ... as well as a whole page of  various pictures 

 

 

and  for quarrying , and even finishing .... 

 

from 1:00   ... the most common ancient method .... the 'stone pounder' 

 

 

 

 

and finally for polishing  eg, for a statue ....  a hand full of slurry  (harder rock dust and liquid ) continually  rubbed on the surface 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Nungali

[Karl]

So what were they in your opinion? There are different theories about how the task was accomplished.

 

To put things in proper perspective, let's review the little calculation Graham Hancock makes in Fingerprints of the God:

 

Khufu's pyramid alone consists of about 2.3 million blocks (weight: 2-15 tons each). Assuming that the builders worked ten hours a day, 365 days a year, they would have had to place 31 blocks in position every hour, or one block every two minutes, to be done in the twenty years the Egyptologists assume it took to build the Great Pyramid - and every single one with absolutely incredible precision.

 

However, it is believed that the labour force (an estimated 100'000 men) was only available during the annual three-month agricultural lay-off season imposed by the flooding of the Nile. That implies that four blocks each minute had to be delivered and flawlessly positioned!

 

 

 

We'll have to talk about that later.

 

They were very good at construction. I've seen some of the techniques up close and they are technically impressive for a such an ancient civilisation. One day the might ask how the hell we designed and built a passenger plane that could fly twice the speed of sound with 1960s technology-but we did. The reason is mans incredible ingenuity and productive capacity all derived from the faculty of his mind.

 

However, it is not for me to prove there were no Aliens, but for you to prove there were. You are making that assertion.

 

 

[Karl]

Especially considering that, according to the Egyptologists, they only had soft copper saws to do the job, very inadequate tools.

 

I've seen them do it with the tools they had back then, they are incredible stone workers and today their art is nowhere close to their ancestors.

 

Did you know that in Britain when everyone practised archery that the bows they used were so powerful, that a modern archer is unable to pull one ? Did you know that when they managed to build a steam locomotive from scratch in my home town that it took decades even with the advanced equipment we have now. In time that steam technology will become lost, as were the designs, techniques and understanding barely 40 years after we stopped building them.

 

What you have to realise is that the division of labour and specialism for ancient production was well established.

[Karl]

So that's what you meant by "channeling". Well, I would say, Jung simply admitted his sources. I don't see anything wrong in that.

 

 

 

So, now Plotinus got the concept of the archetypes from Buddhism? I would say, Platon is sufficient as source. But actually, they have been recognized across the cultures long before.

 

The Gods are archetypes. And deification of historical personalities is also something seen in many times and places, it's not something specifically neo-Platonic.

 

 

 

See my previous posts.

 

Plotinus got the world of forms from Plato. The philosophers visited the Hindu culture-who had links with the Chinese cultures-and brought back the whole Hindu philosophy applied to Neo Platonism. From this we got organised religion. Jung derived his philosophy from Plato and more succinctly from Kant who got it from Plato. Hence, when Jung looked at Jesus and Buddah he was already looking through exactly the same philosophical lens as that which created the modern religion of Christianity.

 

I've already posted the connection between Jung and Plato in Jungs own words. There are no archetypes anymore than there are atrological character types. It's the same error repeated over in a slightly different way.

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

Jung was not a philosopher, his interest was in expressing inner experience. He was a doctor of the soul. To understand the origin of Jung's work it's necessary to read his Red Book...... 

 

"The years, of which I have spoken to you, when I pursued the inner images, were the most important time of my life. Everything else is to be derived from this. It began at that time, and the later details hardly matter anymore. My entire life consisted in elaborating what had burst forth from the unconscious and flooded me like an enigmatic stream and threatened to break me. That was the stuff and material for more than only one life. Everything later was merely the outer classification, the scientific elaboration, and the integration into life. But the numinous beginning, which contained everything, was then."

 

These are the words of the psychologist C. G. Jung in 1957, referring to the decades he worked on The Red Book from 1914 to 1930. Although its existence had been known for more than eighty years, The Red Book was never made available to Jung's students and followers until it was published to wide acclaim in 2009. 

 

He read widely and had many influences. Any educated person does. From his school years he recounts in Memories, Dreams, Reflections......

 

I began systematically pursuing questions I had consciously framed. I read a brief introduction to the history of philosophy and in this way gained a bird's-eye view of everything that had been thought in this field. I found to my gratification that many of my intuitions had historical analogues. Above all I was attracted to the thought of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Plato, despite the long-windedness of Socratic argumentation. Their ideas were beautiful and academic, like pictures in a gallery, but somewhat remote. Only in Meister Eckhart did I feel the breath of life — not that I understood him. The Schoolmen left me cold, and the Aristotelian intellectualism of St. Thomas appeared to me more lifeless than a desert.

 

I thought, "They all want to force something to come out by tricks of logic, something they have not been granted and do not really know about. They want to prove a belief to themselves, whereas actually it is a matter of experience." They seemed to me like people who knew by hearsay that elephants existed, but had never seen one, and were now trying to prove by arguments that on logical grounds such animals must exist and must be constituted as in fact they are. For obvious reasons, the critical philosophy of the eighteenth century at first did not appeal to me at all. Of the nineteenth-century philosophers, Hegel put me off by his language, as arrogant as it was laborious; I regarded him with downright mistrust. He seemed to me like a man who was caged in the edifice of his own words and was pompously gesticulating in his prison.

 

But the great find resulting from my researches was Schopenhauer. He was the first to speak of the suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds us, and of confusion, passion, evil — all those things which the others hardly seemed to notice and always tried to resolve into all embracing harmony and comprehensibility. Here at last was a philosopher who had the courage to see all was not for the best in the fundamentals of the universe.

[Nungali]

They were very good at construction. I've seen some of the techniques up close and they are technically impressive for a such an ancient civilisation. One day the might ask how the hell we designed and built a passenger plane that could fly twice the speed of sound with 1960s technology-but we did. The reason is mans incredible ingenuity and productive capacity all derived from the faculty of his mind. However, it is not for me to prove there were no Aliens, but for you to prove there were. You are making that assertion.

 

 

Yes,   I dont know how true this is but I heard the modern NASA techs cant comprehend how on earth people got to the Moon and back with that 'ancient '60s ' technology ! 

 

One thing the Pyramids do indicate is the amazing ability of human ingenuity and early social organisation .   Many cant seem to realise that even 'primitive' man had this ability, in some areas, greater than we have today . 

 

Another great 'mystery' is the great and wide spread Sth American Empires ... based on foot travel .... it can seem incomprehensible to today's mind set  ( so we postulate levitation or some sort of 'alien assistance' ... which, when one thinks about it , seems   far stretched and little evidenced compared to the obvious answer a little research throws up .

Edited March 27, 2016 by Nungali

[thelerner]

 

However, it is believed that the labour force (an estimated 100'000 men) was only available during the annual three-month agricultural lay-off season imposed by the flooding of the Nile. That implies that four blocks each minute had to be delivered and flawlessly positioned!

 

100,000 men working for years could accomplish amazing things.  Egyptians had been making pyramids for generations (100 or so years, I think) before Khufu's, so they had a system and expertise.  Being a pyramid shape means there's a certain mathematical progression to the stones.  Gifted/crazy individuals over a lifetime have damn near carved out mountains, a 100,000 well motivated men could build a pyramid in 20 years.

 

The pyramids of Giza are true wonders of the world, but we/mankind could have produced them.  No aliens needed imo.  They did use astronomy in there placement and some tunnels, but those I believe are due to religious values. 

 

 

Ponderings..

If I was living back then and a pharaoh,  and had the good will of alien/gods, I wouldn't ask for a large impressive tomb, I'd ask for a powerful weapon.  I'm sure there was always a fight or threat going on, I'd ask my benefactor for that.  Such a weapon might have made it into the history books.   

Edited March 27, 2016 by thelerner

[Nungali]

I've seen them do it with the tools they had back then, they are incredible stone workers and today their art is nowhere close to their ancestors. Did you know that in Britain when everyone practised archery that the bows they used were so powerful, that a modern archer is unable to pull one ? Did you know that when they managed to build a steam locomotive from scratch in my home town that it took decades even with the advanced equipment we have now. In time that steam technology will become lost, as were the designs, techniques and understanding barely 40 years after we stopped building them. What you have to realise is that the division of labour and specialism for ancient production was well established.

 

 

here is the thing about 'copper only tools'    (aside from the quote I made from Petrie , where he says bronze. )

 

 

Ummm ..... when was the Copper Age  ?    

 

It goes ; Stone Age, Bronze Age, iron Age.    Of course this a general division , iron was known and used in the Stone and Bronze Age ... even the Eskimo and Inuit had iron and made knives and tools  out of it .  

 

Let's leave that one for some to guess how they got and used iron   

 

A lot of the time, stone and bronze tools were used together.   It  seems iron became more popular  during the beginning of the Iron Age  due to a few factors  ( they already knew how to mine and extract it but inefficiently )  changed things, one being the 'collapse' of many Bronze Age societies around the same time and the disruption of tin supplies  (needed to make bronze) . 

 

Iron was known in ancient Egypt, and used, but it was rare and valuable .  

 

Another interesting point is , if you use a tungsten steel chisel  to work dirote, it is so hard it will eventually blunt the chisel.  Have you ever tried to resharpen tungsten steel ?   It isnt easy and it is time consuming.  Soft steel is easier to sharpen, but blunts quicker. 

 

regardless of all this .... I still do not claim to know their actual full techniques .... and I still stand in awe    ;

 

 

Solid diorite;

 

[Nungali]

Hope we dont mind a little diversion into archery ......   Karl is right here .    The good thing is, when we research properly   we can get things back !   

 

Instead of playing with light sabers ... some of us can do this ! 

 

 

Go Lars !  

 

[Michael Sternbach]

100,000 men working for years could accomplish amazing things. Egyptians had been making pyramids for generations (100 or so years, I think) before Khufu's, so they had a system and expertise.

 

Here is the problem with this: The Gizah pyramids are among the earliest, and all that were built before (with the exception of the Red Pyramid right before them) were structurally unsound, like this one built by Khufu's father Snefru:

 

 

After having performed the miracles of the fourth dynasty, the Egyptian inexplicably lost their incredible expertise again and returned to creating shaky constructions like the Userkaf Pyramid. This is what is left of it:

 

[silent thunder]

Humans arose from the conditions of the universe and as such, are as much a part of the origin of the universe as the universe is the origin of humans.  We are the origin and we are the product.

 

Humans, planets, stars, all of it, are a fluid, unfolding process... not things.

[Marblehead]

Hope we dont mind a little diversion into archery ......   Karl is right here .    The good thing is, when we research properly   we can get things back !   

 

Instead of playing with light sabers ... some of us can do this ! 

 

 

Go Lars !  

Speaking of archery, I watched a Korean/Chinese movie the other night that had one of the old Chinese repeating crossbows as the weapon of choice of one of the characters in the movie.

[Michael Sternbach]

No it is what you are doing below .    They way people made stone blocks , from cutting them in a quarry from base rock or cliffs  and shaping them and smoothing them is actually very well known and does not use copper saws at all . 

 

 

I think you better look up how they did it .  What is this fixation on them only using copper saws, where did that come from ? 

 

It is generally known that the Ancient Egyptians were limited to using copper, and later bronze and wood. For instance, see Stocks, Denys: Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology - Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, pp. 58-63.

[Michael Sternbach]

So you want me to do the work  do you ?  

 

Ai yi yi  !  

 

Ya lazy bum !   

 

 

 

The following extracts are taken from Chapter VIII entitled "Mechanical Methods" in Petrie's classic reference work "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh". They concern some of his findings at 'Gizeh' during the winters of 1880 and 1881.

 

"The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..."

 

BUT ... re  'saws'  drills , etc : 

 

"The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- 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, corindum 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,...interfer with this conclusion."

 

" Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been 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 alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed."

 

"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; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or 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 evidence that the cutting point must have been 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..."

 

"That the blades of the saw were of bronze, we know from the green staining on the sides of the 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.

 

The straight saws varied from .03 to .2 inch thick, according to the work; the largest were 8 feet or more in length..." "...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 cross grinding, but are still visible. The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw."

 

"These tubular drills vary in thickness from 1/4 inch to 5 inches in diameter, and from 1/30 to 1/5 inch thick. The smallest hole yet found in granite is 2 inch diameter."

 

"At El Bersheh... 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 done merely to remove the rock."

 

"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the 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 clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking the curves."

 

Thats from Petrie  http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/petrie.php

 

and took about 6 secs to find ... as well as a whole page of  various pictures 

 

 

and  for quarrying , and even finishing .... 

 

from 1:00   ... the most common ancient method .... the 'stone pounder' 

 

 

 

 

and finally for polishing  eg, for a statue ....  a hand full of slurry  (harder rock dust and liquid ) continually  rubbed on the surface 

 

This is full of unproven assumptions. Especially Petrie often concludes that something must have been done in a certain way because he can't think of any other. But there is no real evidence.

[Stosh]

So , umm.. which of those tools cuts multi ton rock cubes at high speed? Is it the wooden stick ,? or the round rock?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Stosh

[Michael Sternbach]

They were very good at construction. I've seen some of the techniques up close and they are technically impressive for a such an ancient civilisation. One day the might ask how the hell we designed and built a passenger plane that could fly twice the speed of sound with 1960s technology-but we did. The reason is mans incredible ingenuity and productive capacity all derived from the faculty of his mind. However, it is not for me to prove there were no Aliens, but for you to prove there were. You are making that assertion.

 

It cannot be proven or refuted at present. All we can do is present what makes the most sense to us, considering the whole of the picture that we are individually aware of. Always, we are only able to accept what we have resonance with. And what this boils down to in the case at hand is our understanding of humans (and other intelligent beings in the Universe), and their history.

[Apech]

It is generally known that the Ancient Egyptians were limited to using copper, and later bronze and wood. For instance, see Stocks, Denys: Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology - Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, pp. 58-63.

 

 

I met Denys Stocks when he was working at Manchester University Museum he had reproduced the Egyptian method of using tubular copper drills to work hard stone.  He also convincingly showed that did have the necessary skills and equipment for large scale projects and the site survey and so on.  Nothing magical or alien required.

 

Graham Hancock (while being rather hopelessly inaccurate in the Fingerprints of the Gods) reached the conclusion also that alien involvement in pyramid construction is not indicated or necessary to explain what they did.  So for once main stream Egyptology and alternative history concur.

[Stosh]

Oh! So they did find the giant diamond tipped bronze circular saw ?

[Michael Sternbach]

Plotinus got the world of forms from Plato. The philosophers visited the Hindu culture-who had links with the Chinese cultures-and brought back the whole Hindu philosophy applied to Neo Platonism. From this we got organised religion. Jung derived his philosophy from Plato and more succinctly from Kant who got it from Plato. Hence, when Jung looked at Jesus and Buddah he was already looking through exactly the same philosophical lens as that which created the modern religion of Christianity. I've already posted the connection between Jung and Plato in Jungs own words. There are no archetypes anymore than there are atrological character types. It's the same error repeated over in a slightly different way.

 

In defiance of this, an experienced astrologer can say quite a lot about a person just by looking at their natal chart. This may serve as an example; see my post further down the page. I had no idea who the chart belongs to, but I think I did pretty well. Feel free to compare this with available information about this individual and come to your own conclusions.

 

I'm under no illusion that this would convince somebody who has made up his mind that this kind of thing is bogus. As I said before, we are only really open to whatever confirms our outlook.

[Michael Sternbach]

I met Denys Stocks when he was working at Manchester University Museum he had reproduced the Egyptian method of using tubular copper drills to work hard stone.  He also convincingly showed that did have the necessary skills and equipment for large scale projects and the site survey and so on.  Nothing magical or alien required.

 

Graham Hancock (while being rather hopelessly inaccurate in the Fingerprints of the Gods) reached the conclusion also that alien involvement in pyramid construction is not indicated or necessary to explain what they did.  So for once main stream Egyptology and alternative history concur.

 

Hancock assumes that knowledge from Atlantis was applied. This is a very reasonable theory in my view; I don't insist at all that the pyramids were built by aliens, even though I have no doubt that extraterrestrials have been visiting our planet since ancient times. What I suggest is that the pyramids were built using advanced technology.

[Apech]

Hancock assumes that knowledge from Atlantis was applied. This is a very reasonable theory in my view; I don't insist at all that the pyramids were built by aliens, even though I have no doubt that extraterrestrials have been visiting our planet since ancient times. What I suggest is that the pyramids were built using advanced technology.

 

 

I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that there were skills from earlier times - and the more ancient dating of the older and superior stone work.  It's well established that sacred architecture is placed on earlier sites - so no problem with the sites of sphinx and pyramids being much earlier in line with the Egyptians own timescales.  So happy with all that - or at least open to it as a possibility. 

 

Given the size and number of stars with planets in the universe it is more likely than not that life elsewhere exists and also more advanced than us.  have they visited?  what's the evidence?  if it was frequent there should be hard and fast evidence surely which there isn't.

[Karl]

In defiance of this, an experienced astrologer can say quite a lot about a person just by looking at their natal chart. This may serve as an example; see my post further down the page. I had no idea who the chart belongs to, but I think I did pretty well. Feel free to compare this with available information about this individual and come to your own conclusions.

 

I'm under no illusion that this would convince somebody who has made up his mind that this kind of thing is bogus. As I said before, we are only really open to whatever confirms our outlook.

 

It's bogus because you can provide no objective scientific evidence of a causal link. If something is true, then it is consistently true. Drop a coin and it falls towards the earth. Do this repeatedly and after a few million goes we can reasonably infer that it isn't going to fly off in some other direction. People that believe in astrology confirm their bias by wanting astrological charts-why ? Don't they know who they are ?

[ralis]

here is the thing about 'copper only tools'    (aside from the quote I made from Petrie , where he says bronze. )

 

 

Ummm ..... when was the Copper Age  ?    

 

It goes ; Stone Age, Bronze Age, iron Age.    Of course this a general division , iron was known and used in the Stone and Bronze Age ... even the Eskimo and Inuit had iron and made knives and tools  out of it .  

 

Let's leave that one for some to guess how they got and used iron  

 

A lot of the time, stone and bronze tools were used together.   It  seems iron became more popular  during the beginning of the Iron Age  due to a few factors  ( they already knew how to mine and extract it but inefficiently )  changed things, one being the 'collapse' of many Bronze Age societies around the same time and the disruption of tin supplies  (needed to make bronze) . 

 

Iron was known in ancient Egypt, and used, but it was rare and valuable .  

 

Another interesting point is , if you use a tungsten steel chisel  to work dirote, it is so hard it will eventually blunt the chisel.  Have you ever tried to resharpen tungsten steel ?   It isnt easy and it is time consuming.  Soft steel is easier to sharpen, but blunts quicker. 

 

regardless of all this .... I still do not claim to know their actual full techniques .... and I still stand in awe    ;

 

 

Solid diorite;

 

 

 

I happen to have quite a bit of experience with carbide tipped chisels. These are the finest tools for stone masonry work and are appropriate for a wide range of applications. To sharpen a carbide tipped chisel one must only use a silicone carbide grinding wheel as opposed to standard bench grinding wheels which would ruin the the tool.

 

Trow and Holden demonstrates carbide tipped chisels which they manufacture. These chisels are not cheap, but are absolutely worth the money. The stone being fabricated in the videos is granite.

 

 

 

http://www.rockandtools.com/differences-between-carbide-and-steel/

Edited March 27, 2016 by ralis