The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

a reply to: Brotherman

You make an excellent point. Perhaps not original to the extremely serious Egyptologists, strangely, they don't seem to want to follow those "pot shards" as intensely as they do everywhere else. Evidently, an unspoken conspiracy that dare not be uttered as careers, university chairs and fund are at the root of most scientific investigations and the status quo is sacred in those areas.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Brotherman

You make an excellent point. Perhaps not original to the extremely serious Egyptologists, strangely, they don't seem to want to follow those "pot shards" as intensely as they do everywhere else. Evidently, an unspoken conspiracy that dare not be uttered as careers, university chairs and fund are at the root of most scientific investigations and the status quo is sacred in those areas.

I beg to differ.

Pot shards and ostrika are extremely important in Egyptology. Petrie made the first clear division in culture based on pottery and pot shards and countless bits of evidence have been acquired from ostrika, including the payroll of workers at Dier el Bahra.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
How about this for a theory :

Any culture that depends on stone for it's buildings will develop very sophisticated tools over the centuries. Once buildings are no longer made of carved stone but moulded kiln fired bricks that stone tool cutting technology is lost.

We no longer need that technology so we have no idea what it was like. Good god there are tools manufactured only a hundred years ago that museums have no idea what they are for!

Modern arrogance coupled with ignorance is no excuse to invent the fanciful.

That's exactly the case. The techniques persisted in rural Egypt for quite some time, however. They also discarded broken tools in the rubbish heaps at worksites.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: Sapphire

Sure makes you think,what is the real truth,for years suppressed evidence to the contrary of MSM,the story's we have been told are far from the truth,like trying to sell you an orange and try to convince you it's an apple,and these supposed decifered texts,best they can do is guess,the numbers don't jive with the words,men and women lie,but numbers don't,these were made with laser or high speed cutting method,made by people about twice our size,and twice the brain capacity

It does make you think, about a lot of things. Just when we think we know, we really don't. There's always new advancements in technology and information to guide us further along the path of knowledge. Thank you for your input.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Sapphire

They've got a great exhibition at Manchester Museum that's full of AE artefacts. One of the objects is a playing card-sized tin with miniature tools inside it. It was a burial good they imagined would transmogrify into the real thing once they'd crossed over.

Another impressive exhibit is twin sarcophagi with a brother in each one. They had the same father and different mothers with one being Nubian black and the other lighter caramel like most of the AE aristocrats. DNA analysis had confirmed the different parentage, but what I really liked was the way they painted the masks - one brown, one ebony black. I was surprised to see so much amateur decorative artwork on a few sarcophagi. One in particular looked very rushed and scribbly which probably means there was a story behind it. Perhaps they died unexpectedly and the local artists had an emergency job to rush through?

Sorry for rambling off topic. I'll add a couple of good images later on

ETA - Here's a photo I took of the bros.

en.wikipedia.org...

I love this, and you got photos! I would be beside myself seeing those in person again, just brilliant! Thank you for sharing your photograph, the precision is amazing.

The last time i was that close to a mummy sarcophagus was during Expo 86. No one was permitted to take photos inside which was highly disappointing to me, i was young but more than happy just seeing everything close up and it was more than worth it.

I especially liked that you added that about the miniature tools. When i was a child, i would sit on the settee imagining what it would be like if i had the power to make things doll sized, it would have made cleaning my room so much easier.
It seems they were ahead of me by than 3000 yrs.

Please post more photos if you can, i would love to see them.

a reply to: Byrd

I was hoping you'd step into the thread, your knowledge in this area is invaluable. Thank you for your input on it Byrd Excellent link too, i'll have to take a moment and review that.

Couldn't you polish the edges of two rocks by placing two of them on top of wooden logs and grinding them against each other? Maybe even adding some acidic catalyst?

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
I love this stuff. I too believe they had a more advanced way of cutting stone than we give credit for to be honest. I'll look for it online, but there is evidence of large circular saw marks with a hug radius being used on some stone granite. It's there for all to see yet we still dismiss this claim and evidence?

We still cling to the weak claim that these people would carve and sculpt these beautiful buildings and statues by bashing with primitive tools. No so, and I can't believe this at all. Even down to some of the examples of sanded surfaces with an almost mirror like surface?? Can't be done....end of.

After a long search, they found this lost technology.


Harte

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Raggedyman

They probably carved into the rock when it was wet, or a mold would also be logical

Except that there's no sense in making a billion molds of different sizes. Block sizes really don't get uniform on monuments until much later. Why would you build individual molds for each stone when you could make one size and mass-produce them?

As to "carving when wet"... try carving jello sometime.

(and no, there's no such thing as 'a plant that makes stone soft.')

If you watched the video, they made the mould up as required on the stones, as formwork. Directly on and next to the other stones, that's why they fit so neat

Cements don't dry like jelly, that's silly

originally posted by: stormcell
Couldn't you polish the edges of two rocks by placing two of them on top of wooden logs and grinding them against each other? Maybe even adding some acidic catalyst?

Yes. Easily. And no, you don't need anything but water. Nor do you need a log. You can polish gemstones simply by rubbing them on the right kind of surface. Opals, for instance, are so soft that you can shape and polish them with the same nail buffers you use to shape and polish your fingernails.

I've done it. Go to any rock shop, get an opal (cheap) and see for yourself. Also, rock grinders and polishers that jewelers use are coated with microscopic gemstone fragments.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

If you watched the video, they made the mould up as required on the stones, as formwork. Directly on and next to the other stones, that's why they fit so neat

Cements don't dry like jelly, that's silly

My point stands... if you've ever poured concrete or cements, you know that you can't build up form molds that quickly. And then it has to set. Your average slab of concrete takes a full month to dry. The blocks of stone at Giza are many times the size of a concrete patio (and much thicker); drying time would take upwards of three months.

In addition, wood is scarce in the desert so you'd only be able to do a few at a time.

Limestone's very soft. You can cut it with a metal file (go out and find some and try for yourself. Many sculptors who work in small limestone pieces use metal files to shape them.) Workers in Egypt have demonstrated (millions of times) how quickly a trained laborer can hammer a block out of a limestone quarry.

Plus, a close look at the blocks (I saw them up close and personal when we went to Egypt) clearly shows the lines of deposition there that show the limestone was laid down in an ocean. These lines are not all parallel to the ground (as they would be if someone rather ineptly poured concrete in very thin layers while inserting fossil seashells in there. Some of the layers are perpendicular to the ground. You get that if someone drags a block out of the quarry and isn't highly picky about orientation.

If they'd used poured concrete (which they didn't have and those blocks are NOT concrete/cement), the project would have taken far longer than 20 years because they could only place and set a few dozen to a few hundred blocks in any multi-week period.

Using ramps and multiple side access, it'd be easy to build the pyramid up by hundreds of stones each day.

a reply to: Byrd

They are not limestone blocks, what are you talking about
Seriously, do you know what you are talking about

Did you watch the video, i suggest you start there

The blocks are not limestone, the pyramids are NOT MADE FROM limestone, stop it

The fact is you have no idea, neither do I
I just posted a video I thought was interesting and now, here you are telling me, demanding I agree with you

Whats wrong in your head, limestone, what??? You went to egypt and still think the pyramids are limestone, WHAT?

coppersaw
quartzsand
water

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Byrd

They are not limestone blocks, what are you talking about
Seriously, do you know what you are talking about

I do. I've been to Egypt. I walked around the quarry. I got up close to the Sphinx and the pyramids.

I do some fossil hunting (which means you need to know rock layers and composition) and hang out with the local paleo society (fossil hunters.)

Did you watch the video, i suggest you start there

Oh, that thing's been all over the Internets and debunked.

The blocks are not limestone, the pyramids are NOT MADE FROM limestone, stop it

The fact is you have no idea, neither do I
I just posted a video I thought was interesting and now, here you are telling me, demanding I agree with you

Whats wrong in your head, limestone, what??? You went to egypt and still think the pyramids are limestone, WHAT?

Yes, indeed.

And I know what limestone looks like. Texas (Dallas, included) is full of limestone and if you're going out fossil hunting you need to know about the different geologic layers and different types of limestone (there's a lot of different ones) and so forth.

If you click this link you can clearly see layers on the blocks next to the man's head And if you explore pictures of the pyramid and really look at the stones, you will see others that have layers in them (including the big inverted V of the entrance where the layers run perpendicular to the ground.

a reply to: Byrd

I got up close to the Sphinx and the pyramids.

I got up close to the sphinx at the Met and was told I'd have to leave if I did it again.

a reply to: Raggedyman

They are not limestone blocks, what are you talking about
Seriously, do you know what you are talking about

You do know that's like telling Phage he doesn't know anything about physics.

a reply to: angeldoll

What materials were used in the construction of the pyramids?
There were four basic materials that the Egyptians used to build the pyramids: limestone, pink granite, basalt, and alabaster. Each type of material had a diverse use. Limestone had, for the most part, two uses.


www.google.com.au... 496j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

...

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Byrd

They are not limestone blocks, what are you talking about
Seriously, do you know what you are talking about

I do. I've been to Egypt. I walked around the quarry. I got up close to the Sphinx and the pyramids.

I do some fossil hunting (which means you need to know rock layers and composition) and hang out with the local paleo society (fossil hunters.)

Did you watch the video, i suggest you start there

Oh, that thing's been all over the Internets and debunked.

The blocks are not limestone, the pyramids are NOT MADE FROM limestone, stop it

The fact is you have no idea, neither do I
I just posted a video I thought was interesting and now, here you are telling me, demanding I agree with you

Whats wrong in your head, limestone, what??? You went to egypt and still think the pyramids are limestone, WHAT?

Yes, indeed.

And I know what limestone looks like. Texas (Dallas, included) is full of limestone and if you're going out fossil hunting you need to know about the different geologic layers and different types of limestone (there's a lot of different ones) and so forth.

If you click this link you can clearly see layers on the blocks next to the man's head And if you explore pictures of the pyramid and really look at the stones, you will see others that have layers in them (including the big inverted V of the entrance where the layers run perpendicular to the ground.

What materials were used in the construction of the pyramids?
There were four basic materials that the Egyptians used to build the pyramids: limestone, pink granite, basalt, and alabaster. Each type of material had a diverse use. Limestone had, for the most part, two uses.


www.google.com.au... 496j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: CaptainBeno

I agree. People back then had sophisticated technology. Tools that could cut through stone like the pyramids for example. Each stone was finely cast to fit with less than a quarter inch between each block.

Clearly you've never seen the pyramids up close.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Byrd

I got up close to the Sphinx and the pyramids.

I got up close to the sphinx at the Met and was told I'd have to leave if I did it again.

You naughty thing, you! He said to tell you that he doesn't really have a heart of stone -- only you never write... never call... never visit.

He's decided to Drama-Sulk for the next 300 years.