Serapeum of Saqqara. Alternative theory for the site

originally posted by: Hanslune

Harte is speaking about the Inca who used such copper tools more than the Tiwanaku who came 800 years before them. PP appears to have have been made with both but with more use of the older stone on stone technology.
[

No.
I refer to a paper "Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills" by Jean-Pierre Protzenwhich asserts that the inside corners of the H blocks evince a technique indicating they were cut by chisels.
The stones themselves were quarried with pounding stones though.
IIRC, the "staples" holding some blocks together are gone, but there are samples of metal used in the irrigation system (which was vast and quire impressive) at Tiwanaku. This is the metal I'm talking about.

Looked into it several years back - about as hard as cast iron. Probably tougher too.

It was copper though. Not intentionally alloyed.

Harte

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kborissov

Yeah, that experiment is the only one that may validate your claims...why don't you put the wheels in motion and try to get the funding to recreate the theoretical process? (Like I just noticed that Hanslune said)

I read the responses to you ancient-origins...people are brutal on there.

I see only two comments on the ancient origins (need to find time to respond) seems like very peaceful though

I see that you don't follow Egyptology news. In fact, they are quite open to working with other researchers and do so frequently to identify things.

up to the point yes, but not really. Reference to me any paper with detailed measurement of the granite boxes in the Serpaeum with flatness, dimensions in addition to what Dunn did. I bet you will not find any. If you do, I promise I take this statement back.

I still remember what happened to Ganterbrink. He was actually just a few weeks away from the greatest discovery of the time, when he got fired. No, I am not that naive!

originally posted by: kborissov

I still remember what happened to Ganterbrink. He was actually just a few weeks away from the greatest discovery of the time, when he got fired. No, I am not that naive!

'Greatest discovery of the time' ? Hyperbole much? Why was he fired? What did he do?

I mean have you even TRIED to establish any type of working relationship with Egyptology?

I think you mean - 'I have no credibility, no sponsor, no funding and no research worthy of being brought to the addition of Egyptology - so I will blame them for not wanting to work with me'.


May I take your comment to also mean that you are refusing to attempt to demonstrate your idea in a practical experiment?

a reply to: Harte

Howdy Harte

Yes you are correct I was making a general comment on working the entire stone.

Not intentionally alloyed.

Yes I remember how it was found as an alloy and certain fringe types tried to pretend it was a sign of 'high technology' that they had mixed so many different types of metal together....instead of acknowledging it was just natural.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Howdy Harte

Yes you are correct I was making a general comment on working the entire stone.

Not intentionally alloyed.

Yes I remember how it was found as an alloy and certain fringe types tried to pretend it was a sign of 'high technology' that they had mixed so many different types of metal together....instead of acknowledging it was just natural.

That claim is what got me looking at it.
It was made by Graham Hancock (when I read it.) Don't know if it originated with him.
Unlikely. I'm not aware of very many claims that originate with him - he usually piggybacks on other people's woo.

Harte

a reply to: ThatDidHappen

Cool images--I don't think that I've seen that particular feature before.

I have to agree with Hanslune, though, and say that they are probably a natural feature that was part of the stone that was polished out to match the finish of the rest of the lid. Plus, if they were formed using a geopolymer/concrete, that is a process easy enough that if this was the final result, I would assume that they would re-pour another lid as not to have one lid that looks like the pockmarked face of a 15-year-old boy.

This is not all to say that I always argue against the possibility of geopolymer use by whomever build these ancient structures (I'm unconvinced that, in some cases, they weren't found and modified by the Egyptians instead of build by them), but I can't imagine that they would leave such ugly blemishes if that's how these were formed.

Also, I don't always see eye-to-eye with Byrd on the really ancient Egyptian stuff (or, at least, concerning the finality of accepted theories in some instance), but in the case of brewing beer and the pressures created and how the light would glow faintly, I must agree.

a reply to: kborissov

Yeah, I meant the Unexplained Mysteries page.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kborissov

Yeah, I meant the Unexplained Mysteries page.

As saying goes if I would have a dollar each time Mainstream egyptologist.....

most of them would claim they see an apple looking at an orange. I am getting used to that.

originally posted by: kborissov

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kborissov

Yeah, I meant the Unexplained Mysteries page.

As saying goes if I would have a dollar each time Mainstream egyptologist.....

most of them would claim they see an apple looking at an orange. I am getting used to that.

You mean when they point out the failing of your ideas in clear concise scientific manner and you have no way to respond ?

Explain again why you are refusing to demonstrate the work-ability of your idea - I mean YOU believe it should work don't you? I mean why not prove your idea is valid - unless you realize now it isn't.

a reply to: Harte

Oh yeah, I stopped reading his books after that Antarctic one when he thought the Piri Reis map showed Antarctica. (it was that book 'fingerprints' right?)

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: kborissov

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kborissov

Yeah, I meant the Unexplained Mysteries page.

As saying goes if I would have a dollar each time Mainstream egyptologist.....

most of them would claim they see an apple looking at an orange. I am getting used to that.

You mean when they point out the failing of your ideas in clear concise scientific manner and you have no way to respond ?

Explain again why you are refusing to demonstrate the work-ability of your idea - I mean YOU believe it should work don't you? I mean why not prove your idea is valid - unless you realize now it isn't.

I never refused anything yet.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: kborissov

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kborissov

Yeah, I meant the Unexplained Mysteries page.

As saying goes if I would have a dollar each time Mainstream egyptologist.....

most of them would claim they see an apple looking at an orange. I am getting used to that.

You mean when they point out the failing of your ideas in clear concise scientific manner and you have no way to respond ?

Explain again why you are refusing to demonstrate the work-ability of your idea - I mean YOU believe it should work don't you? I mean why not prove your idea is valid - unless you realize now it isn't.

You would need to give a few examples of that conscience, “scientific” manner you talk about

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
Pictures of the bubbles, it looks like the box was in a concrete form:

Sorry the pics are so blurry. The inside surfaces of the indentations
shown are smooth. At least one box also has these 'bubbles' as well
as this and maybe other lids.

Mention the hard copper found alloyed, that is harder than pure copper, is
definitely hard enought to carve crude niches in granite. But the niches and
Andes crosses at Tiwanku are perfect, recessed, angles and beautiful. It
is impossible to accomplish this level of granite workmanship with bronze.

They are more likely to be a feature used in moving the stone lids. They're certainly not the result of a "poured stone" of any sort... if you look at the lid carefully, you will see that it's not very precise. A liquid stone would have settled with flatter surfaces.

Maneuvering such a heavy object would have been tricky and we've seen other instances (casing stones of the pyramids) where they formed knobs or other features that were used to brace surfaces so that they could shift the heavy stone into place.

My original thought was that they were part of a reference to the Sun god ,Re (and that there were hieroglyphs there), however this doesn't appear to be the case.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

Harte is speaking about the Inca who used such copper tools more than the Tiwanaku who came 800 years before them. PP appears to have have been made with both but with more use of the older stone on stone technology.
[

No.
I refer to a paper "Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills" by Jean-Pierre Protzenwhich asserts that the inside corners of the H blocks evince a technique indicating they were cut by chisels.
The stones themselves were quarried with pounding stones though.
IIRC, the "staples" holding some blocks together are gone, but there are samples of metal used in the irrigation system (which was vast and quire impressive) at Tiwanaku. This is the metal I'm talking about.

Looked into it several years back - about as hard as cast iron. Probably tougher too.

It was copper though. Not intentionally alloyed.

Harte

The Egyptian coppers were not usually very poor and they had a kind of "bronze" that resulted from the copper being mixed with arsenic. It wasn't a true bronze but was indeed harder than copper.

Reference: Eaton, E. R., and Hugh McKerrell. "Near Eastern alloying and some textual evidence for the early use of arsenical copper." World Archaeology 8.2 (1976): 169-191. JSTOR link

a reply to: kborissov

Yeah, you just never do it but you never refuse to do. Check!

originally posted by: kborissov

You would need to give a few examples of that conscience, “scientific” manner you talk about

Why? You do know that you have a continual habit of asking questions instead of answering them don't you?

Why is that?

One of the indicator's of a good Fringe theorists is to learn how to avoid never - and this is very important - never making a claim that can be checked. The evidence to refute or prove something must always be somewhere no one is going to be able to get to it or is not subject to being verified. The fringe theorist is never really out to prove anything just to create the possibility it might be true.

Claim the proof is under the ice of the Antarctic, held in secret vaults protected by x government 'x*', protected in some magical bureaucratic way by a group of people who all have the same label but aren't actually organized, like 'Archaeologists, Historian, Egyptologist', etc., etc.

What you don't want to do is propose an idea that is readily subject to scientific verification.

Just what our good colleague has done his theory is based on readily check-able ideas - pressure caused by fermentation putting pressure on granite to cause light that can light up the sky of a location is very testable - but it would seem he's never done it.






*This was once popularly the Library of the Vatican but then somebody noted that Napoleon moved the entire library to the France and his pundits read everything they had - so that one is difficult to use now.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Oh yeah, I stopped reading his books after that Antarctic one when he thought the Piri Reis map showed Antarctica. (it was that book 'fingerprints' right?)

Yeah. That was his second fringe history book, his third overall.

You didn't quit too soon.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Oh yeah, I stopped reading his books after that Antarctic one when he thought the Piri Reis map showed Antarctica. (it was that book 'fingerprints' right?)

Yeah. That was his second fringe history book, his third overall.

You didn't quit too soon.

Harte

I remember thinking what a waste he was. He's a journalist and good writer who could have put out a fairly good alt-history/sci-fi fantasy story using his imagination but no he has to pretend he's relating 'science'. Tsk tsk.