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

originally posted by: Byrd 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.

So... no change.

Harte

not particularly the GP but from the lowest strata of the sphinx..:

originally posted by: anti72
not particularly the GP but from the lowest strata of the sphinx..:

About the photo:

The lowest stratum of the statue, Member I, is the hard and brittle rock of an ancient reef limestone containing nummulite fossils easy to identify. This layer rises to a height of four meters at the Sphinx’s rump and only one meter at the paws.

"Easy to identify" for some, I guess.

Harte

a reply to: Sapphire


A good deal of talk about iron but harder stone worked on softer is a proven method.


Not to mention, as in regards to the Great Pyramid, one will note the wave of invaders on the city state era, Narmer and the "1st" dynasty, were mud brick builders. And thats a fact.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: anti72
not particularly the GP but from the lowest strata of the sphinx..:

About the photo:

The lowest stratum of the statue, Member I, is the hard and brittle rock of an ancient reef limestone containing nummulite fossils easy to identify. This layer rises to a height of four meters at the Sphinx’s rump and only one meter at the paws.

"Easy to identify" for some, I guess.

Harte

but hey, I guess some folks here would nevertheless argue this must be 100 mio years old ancient alien tech..
I mean, this must be..

a reply to: Logarock

Yes, as in article mentions iron was hard to come by during that time in history, the proven method you've mentioned is quite likely.

Thanks for your input Logarock