Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

a reply to: Harte

I meant smelted but dont worry as I said your not worth the explanation.
i will thread it another time. Please come along and share your expertise again.

Have you gone to wikipedia and told them they are wrong yet about the hieroglyphs. No you have not because tis you that was wrong.

Expert lol. You lost yourself a lot of credence in this thread.

Take care for now!

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte

I meant smelted but dont worry as I said your not worth the explanation.
i will thread it another time. Please come along and share your expertise again.

Have you gone to wikipedia and told them they are wrong yet about the hieroglyphs. No you have not because tis you that was wrong.

Expert lol. You lost yourself a lot of credence in this thread.

Take care for now!

Yeah I had a feeling that he was nitpicking over the exact word you used. Which is always a meaningless focus, that someone will post about, when he doesn't have any actual ideas or thoughts to contribute to the conversation.

It's especially meaningless, and obvious, in such a case, when the nit-picker doesn't even provide the correct word that he is nit-picking about lol.

I've been following this thread for a couple weeks and it's becoming increasingly clear which posters just don't have contributions to make, and probably don't even have an interest in the topic that's being discussed. But yet they post several times a day in this same thread.

Such posters seem focused exclusively on sarcastic, meaningless remarks... And also, insisting on mundane explanations for all the greatest mysteries of Earth's ancient past.

Which is amazing lol. Because such folks MUST know how mysterious such topics are, in the first place, just to be able to focus so much effort on DENYING those mysteries of Earth's past.

In other words, their devotion to explaining away such mysteries... shows that they're aware of those huge mysteries. Or else they wouldn't devote so much time and energy on it.

By the way, remind me about the AE's special daggers. I believe I've heard two different explanations. One is that the AE's found meteorites... and then hammered that special metal, into their magic daggers.

The 2nd alternate explanation is that the AE's were actually masterful of melting / mixing metals & alloys, to create those magic daggers.

I've heard both explanations; which is more compelling?

Fair comments, Pete.
Byrd I find always has interesting and fair points to make, and even came up with a more valid proposal for the ‘walled plate’ than anything Harte has spouted in the Lathe section of the thread.
However, the flat denial that there could have been Lathes is troublesome to me.
They both talk about no evidence of lathes, and yet the forensic tool marking of lathes appears on these objects. I have to stress again, I see these everyday working on a lathe.
The actual pieces themselves are to me the proof they had them. If you showed these pieces to some forensic experts who looked at all the evidence, who would try to replicate one on a lathe for striations matches etc, I’m pretty sure they would conclude that the AE indeed had some form of primitive rigid lathes.
It doesn’t matter that there are no AE pics of them, there’s plenty of other things the AE didn’t explain by glyphs .

a reply to: peacefulpete

These marks that are claimed to be left by facing on a lathe are basically the same as marks left by abrading with a rotating tool, instead of a rotating piece.
The AEs were perfectly capable of abrading the troughs into the artifact in question using a succession of tube saws of different diameters. The necessary requirement that seems to me to be the most difficult is to ensure that each saw centers on the same spot.

Harte

These marks that are claimed to be left by facing on a lathe are basically the same as marks left by abrading with a rotating tool, instead of a rotating piece. The AEs were perfectly capable of abrading the troughs into the artifact in question using a succession of tube saws of different diameters. The necessary requirement that seems to me to be the most difficult is to ensure that each saw centers on the same spot.

The marks are not ‘basically’ the same at all, you are simply repeating nonsense.
Lathe striations are far more ‘pure’ and will never resemble core drills. Ever.
Perhaps I’ll treat you as you regularly treat people on this forum who know less about a subject than you:
It’s not my fault you cannot comprehend the evidence laid out before you .





reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

These marks that are claimed to be left by facing on a lathe are basically the same as marks left by abrading with a rotating tool, instead of a rotating piece. The AEs were perfectly capable of abrading the troughs into the artifact in question using a succession of tube saws of different diameters. The necessary requirement that seems to me to be the most difficult is to ensure that each saw centers on the same spot.

The marks are not ‘basically’ the same at all, you are simply repeating nonsense.
Lathe striations are far more ‘pure’ and will never resemble core drills. Ever.
Perhaps I’ll treat you as you regularly treat people on this forum who know less about a subject than you:
It’s not my fault you cannot comprehend the evidence laid out before you .

reply to: Harte

Not so "pure" when working in stone.
You realize that the cores found were at first attributed to lathes, right?
Yet we know now they were done with tube saws.

Maybe if you had a better picture your claim would hold a little water. Otherwise, there's nothing in that pic that a saw can't do. The center could be made with the same kind of grinder they used for the interiors of vessels, attached to an extension and bow and spun to wear the center down into the "cup" shape it exhibits. The circular walls could certainly have been made with saws, with the center left in place for grinding.
Again, the only difficult part I see is ensuring the series of saws were centered on the same point.

Now, rather than pretend to some knowledge you claim I (and others) don't have, why don't you explain exactly how the marks differ from similar marks on other stones that were sawn? Until you can do that, you've not "laid out" any "evidence" at all except for your own personal penchant for seeing lathe marks on everything.

Harte

You are talking absolute nonsense. I don’t see lathe marks in everything for a start. Only where lathe marks are present. I work on one daily, you do not.
It is you who clings to the idea that this can be done by tube drills.
Why don’t you do a demo like I did to prove me wrong?
Because it won’t work, and won’t produce anything like the SHARP edges , and pure vertical walls.

You admit there would be a “problem” keeping the tube drills on centre, that’s an UNDERSTATEMENT considering the roughness that tube drills produce by their very slightly random nature.
There would be NO problem keeping those rings on centre when the piece is turned and using a tool post to apply the cut.
The lathe does the centering for you , remember?
You say there’s nothing in this picture that a ‘saw’ can’t do (you mean tube drill , not saw) well, a tube drill can’t produce a ‘bowl’ centre- - a lathe can do that with its lathe eyes shut. A tube drill can’t produce a uniform perfect circle tool mark- a lathe does that without trying.
A tube drill can’t place an indentation smack bang in the centre of the workpiece. A lathe does THAT without trying, too.
Your tube drill theory doesn’t hold water for this piece.
Look at the pics of Stocks’ tube drill holes, AND AE tube drill holes ; a)not perfect circles b) VERY rough, striations, that DONT produce effective accurate circles. Lathes do.

How do you form the copper sheet for your tube drill into a PERFECT circle? Pretty damn difficult. You’ll need a length of wood in a perfect circular tube shape to ‘form’ it around. OH, and you’ll need a lathe to make that. You could avoid this point again, if you like.

Again, my ‘expertise’ in this area carries no value to you, even though I am on a Lathe and Milling machines every day.
It seems you pick and choose your ‘experts’ in the same manner as the ‘fringe’ writers you so despise...

a reply to: Harte

You should realize that with rotation a perfectly circular tube saw is not necessary.
After all, the saw isn't doing the cutting.

It's not like they had to hollow the thing out.

More important is holding the saw in place.

Harte

ETA: I note that you haven't shown why any of the marks in the pic left by tooling can't be made with a saw. I admit it's a lousy picture for a close examination, but just saying you work with a lathe very day isn't gonna explain anything. I was trained on lathes, though I never used one on stone. Did make some stuff with cast iron though, and steel of course.

I also prepared aluminum samples on a lathe for QC for a couple of years. That was just facing though.

H.

ETA: I note that you haven't shown why any of the marks in the pic left by tooling can't be made with a saw.

Did you read my last post? I explained the difference in what you refer to as a ‘saw’ is capable of, and what a lathe is capable of. READ IT AGAIN.
Mainly It’s because the striations, and the ‘walls’ on that plate are very circular indeed, looking nearly perfectly circular. I’ll say again, the AE tube drills weren’t that accurate in circle terms, and lathes produce VERY perfect circles.

You should realize that with rotation a perfectly circular tube saw is not necessary. After all, the saw isn't doing the cutting.

Utter nonsense. The rotation of a non-circular tool will produce an odd looking inconsistent hole.
If so, then why aren’t the AE tube drill holes perfectly circular as this ‘plate’ demonstrates.

Secondly, the AE coring with drill holes leaves a ‘stub’ at the bottom of the coring after the core had been snapped out. It also leaves a continuation of the core drill cut beyond the stub after the core has been snapped out . Where is the evidence of that in this piece? There is none.
How would the AE snap the core out without damaging those delicate walls?
You wait until this stage in the discussion to ‘reveal’ that you have worked on lathes, and yet you fail to recognise circular concentricity and perfect circles in tool marks? You fail to recognise the technique you would use on a lathe to replicate this piece.
What an absolute joker.



Im not sure why you keep referring to the tube drills as ‘saws’ either. a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ClovenSky


I think I know what this is. Will have a thread up about it very soon. Power and money are controlled by an elite few. Information about our history is no different. If you dont know your history you dont know who you are. We are being kept in the dark.

I will send u a PM when i make my thread if you like.

Could you send me a PM as well? This is an incredibly interesting topic to me, and something I have been studying independently for some time now.

originally posted by: bluesfreak

ETA: I note that you haven't shown why any of the marks in the pic left by tooling can't be made with a saw.

Did you read my last post? I explained the difference in what you refer to as a ‘saw’ is capable of, and what a lathe is capable of. READ IT AGAIN. p

No, you just stated that you know and I don't. Please show where on the object the marks are that can't be made by sawing with a tube saw.

originally posted by: bluesfreakMainly It’s because the striations, and the ‘walls’ on that plate are very circular indeed, looking nearly perfectly circular. I’ll say again, the AE tube drills weren’t that accurate in circle terms, and lathes produce VERY perfect circles.

Holes cut by the Ae's taper in much the same way the rings on this object taper. The surface of a hole cut by the AEs is as circular as you can get. I don't see why you think otherwise. You provide nothing to support that claim and all you need to do is look at them.

originally posted by: bluesfreak

You should realize that with rotation a perfectly circular tube saw is not necessary. After all, the saw isn't doing the cutting.

Utter nonsense. The rotation of a non-circular tool will produce an odd looking inconsistent hole.
If so, then why aren’t the AE tube drill holes perfectly circular as this ‘plate’ demonstrates.

THIS is nonsense. Have you never seen a hole cut with a tube saw?

originally posted by: bluesfreakSecondly, the AE coring with drill holes leaves a ‘stub’ at the bottom of the coring after the core had been snapped out. It also leaves a continuation of the core drill cut beyond the stub after the core has been snapped out . Where is the evidence of that in this piece? There is none.
How would the AE snap the core out without damaging those delicate walls?

Already said it was ground down. "READ IT AGAIN. "

originally posted by: bluesfreakYou wait until this stage in the discussion to ‘reveal’ that you have worked on lathes, and yet you fail to recognise circular concentricity and perfect circles in tool marks? You fail to recognise the technique you would use on a lathe to replicate this piece.
What an absolute joker.

I believe I stated that I had some lathe experience earlier. Besides, how does me telling you today matter?

No, I obviously recognize the concentricity of facing a piece on a lathe. However, I also recognize the utter absence of evidence for any lathe that far back.

You, on the other hand, can't even recognize that the AEs were quite capable of making circular tubes of sheet copper, apparently unaware of copper tubes that HAVE been found (though they weren't for cutting.) Example: www.gizapyramids.org...

Lastly, you want to compare holes cut by workers to hollow out a sarcophagus (or whatever) with cuts made by craftsmen in workshops intent on producing a much finer and artistic result. That's like saying a house painter can't reproduce the Mona Lisa.

Harte

Go back and read my last two or three posts . There I explain what can’t be done with a tube drill. I’m not writing again.

Of course I know the AE made core drills, i never said they didn’t, never said that none had been found etc.

The concentric centring of the piece is more accurate than can be achieved in the primitive method you propose.

The wall shape is easily created by turning tools.

The centring is the piece of the puzzle you cannot answer sufficiently.
The basic lathe answer solves it.
Not just in this piece, but in the other AE Bowls that have perfect circles aligned in the centre.

What you don’t seem to understand is that I don’t care if you don’t agree with me, I don’t need to convince ‘Harte on ATS ‘ to ‘win’ this debate, don’t care about ‘winning’ as you appear to, the thing YOU need to realise is, that every argument you advance when proposing core drills as the answer for this piece , has an equal or better solution for its concentricity when a lathe is in the equation.
You just can’t deal with it.
There are SO MANY missing pieces when it comes down to AE artwork explaining away all answers to how they achieved everything.
Your word carries no more wieght in this debate than mine.
Still completely puzzled and confused as to why someone who worked on lathes cannot recognise concentric accurate tooling striations. It’s beyond me. THATS something I have no answer for .

a reply to: Harte

a reply to: bluesfreak

There are examples of AE bowls made from hard stone that can’t possibly have been turned on a lathe as the handles wouldn’t allow it. So they must have used another technique. The same goes for the huge black granite sarcophagus that it is claimed housed sacred bulls. We would struggle to make such today with our advanced engineering knowledge.

I have given this subject much thought and am now convinced they used some technique nobody has considered. Perhaps they had a way of softening the stone as it’s looking likely the Maya did. those scoop marks said to be made by dolorite pounders look more like cuts into butter than hard stone.

Maybe they had some way of using sound resonance and vibration to cut the stone, I don’t know the answer but it’s clear to me it wasn’t done in any conventional way we know of. While the grinding theory is plausible it would take far to long with the primitive hand tools and fining’s used to do the cutting, now if they had some machinery to help that might explain it, we know they had bow lathes but what if they had something more advanced? Again my personal opinion is they most likely used a method unlike anything we know today.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Ohhh boy, here you go:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Excellent thread posted by Jeep3r within the last hour. Strong evidence of geopolymer substances used.

a reply to: KKLOCO

Thanks for that I have some further evidence of a softening technique used that jeep3r it seems has forgotten to include in the op by the looks of it. I’ll go dig it up before the days out.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Go back and read my last two or three posts . There I explain what can’t be done with a tube drill. I’m not writing again.

Of course I know the AE made core drills, i never said they didn’t, never said that none had been found etc.

The concentric centring of the piece is more accurate than can be achieved in the primitive method you propose.

How have you quantified the centering in order to be able to make this statement?
See. You've actually said nothing here. Other than you know and I don't.
Like I said.
So, I went back like you suggested.

Utter nonsense. The rotation of a non-circular tool will produce an odd looking inconsistent hole.
If so, then why aren’t the AE tube drill holes perfectly circular as this ‘plate’ demonstrates.

Have you seen any data about how out of round they are, or how out of round the object you say was made on a lathe is?
If so, you've not shown it.
Again. It's just that you know and I don't. Again.

Secondly, the AE coring with drill holes leaves a ‘stub’ at the bottom of the coring after the core had been snapped out. It also leaves a continuation of the core drill cut beyond the stub after the core has been snapped out . Where is the evidence of that in this piece? There is none.

And i told you it could be ground out into a cup shape, didn't I?
Do you deny that the AEs could grind a cup shape?

The wall shape is easily created by turning tools.

Quite so. Even easier by injection molding. But how is this relevant?

The centring is the piece of the puzzle you cannot answer sufficiently.
The basic lathe answer solves it.

And the absence of a lathe in the OK and Predynastic Egypt is the puzzle you cannot answer sufficiently.
Difference is, I can put in a little time and probably come up with some kind of jig that would work
You, on the other hand, have to sit and wait while hoping someone turns up evidence of actual lathes back then.
Looking back over your last 2 or 3 posts, I don't see anything else that I haven't clearly addressed. What I do see is you learning that the AEs could make circular copper tubes. In fact, they made all kinds of vessels out of sheet copper, with a wide variety of shapes - most of them round.
All that copper, and nobody thought to try turning it on their lathes?

Not just in this piece, but in the other AE Bowls that have perfect circles aligned in the centre.

You can say that all you want, but grinders and saws can also be centered. And we know they had means of grinding and sawing stone.

What you don’t seem to understand is that I don’t care if you don’t agree with me, I don’t need to convince ‘Harte on ATS ‘ to ‘win’ this debate, don’t care about ‘winning’ as you appear to, the thing YOU need to realise is, that every argument you advance when proposing core drills as the answer for this piece , has an equal or better solution for its concentricity when a lathe is in the equation.

I'm not interested in convincing you at all. I'm just providing the argument for the facts we have in hand, and not for the facts we WISH we had.

You just can’t deal with it.
There are SO MANY missing pieces when it comes down to AE artwork explaining away all answers to how they achieved everything.
Your word carries no more wieght in this debate than mine.
Still completely puzzled and confused as to why someone who worked on lathes cannot recognise concentric accurate tooling striations. It’s beyond me. THATS something I have no answer for .

a reply to: Harte

I can't deal with it?
You're the one throwing around straw men ( I "can't recognize concentricity"? I'm a freaking mechanical engineer) and mischaracterizing me (I "can't deal with it.")

I AM dealing with it. You're the one flying of the handle here - all because nobody has found your predynastic lathes, and the objects can be accounted for in other ways.

Harte

What I do see is you learning that the AEs could make circular copper tubes.

Seriously, don’t try and credit yourself that you ‘taught ‘ me that the AE could form copper tubes. I’ve seen the cores from the drill holes, a long time ago too. I know it makes you appear that you have somehow ‘educated’ me in this post, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

I’m really not going to go over AGAIN as to why effective concentricity appears on Lathework as opposed to grinding from above with a pole, a rough copper tube and some stone wieghts tied to it .
And I WILL berate you for observing effective accurate concentricity and not thinking of other ways these tooling forensics could be created.

I’ve also stated that it’s my OPINION that some objects were lathe turned.
I have also stated that you won’t find one, they are LONG GONE like a great deal of AE construction methods and tooling.
There is a list as long as your arm of things we won’t find that relate to AE construction methods, yet propositions for their existence are taken as given by academics.

The objects in question could be made many ways, however you are the only one here saying “Method b could NOT be possible” and you have no authority in any way over that.
I know it fools some people into thinking you carry some authority here, but it doesn’t . And you CERTAINLY have no authority over me when it comes to talking about lathes and the tooling forensics they produce.

Even one perfectly circular tooling striation should have , as an M.E, pricked up your ears to alternative methods other than the rough method you say was the ONLY METHOD available. You not even considering that the workpiece was turning when you see these marks is an absolute bloody JOKE for someone of your training, so don’t try and preach to me ( a freakin’ machinist who sees these striations daily ) about the methodology involved when we both know that only the workpiece spinning produces effective and accurate circle striations.
I’ve never said the AE could/didn’t grind stone either, so the class can check that point off. Oh, maybe they ground the piece more accurately whilst it was turning , but that again would imply lathe type devices that didn’t exist according to you.

I do not accept that the method you propose is an accurate way to create some the objects we’ve been discussing . I even made you a demo of a lathe made piece that shows to the layman the micro striations evident in turning, yet it is still not good enough for you in any shape or form.
Please demonstrate to your class how you can accurately centre your copper sheet tube drill(s)to produce the plainly obviously concentric ‘plate’ we have been discussing. Please also demonstrate how the centre point is achieved in the final product , as well as the ‘classic’ Lathe ‘bowl ‘ centre section is achieved whilst mimicking turning ( including pure circular tooling marks) as found on the original piece.
Seeing as you only refer to heiroglyphs as the pure and truthful pictographical representations of how the AE achieved what they did, please provide evidence of a vertical grinding set up that could produce accurate and repeatable centring for the (many) tube drills required to create this walled ‘plate’.

Your argument of “where are they then?” relating to lathe type devices is a ploy, a decoy, as this argument can be applied in so many scenarios related to AE construction, stonework methods.

The evidence that there is a possibility that the AE had lathe type turning devices is in the objects THEMSELVES and the forensics some of them show.
If you don’t /won’t understand that part, then we need no further discussion.
]a reply to: Harte

Harte must think that every tool that has ever existed has already been found or something.

If lathes existed back then they would have been an expensive bit of kit, not something you would just leave lying around on the job after you finished like the cheap copper tools they used to work wood.

Harte, can you post some images of the tool that has been found in Egypt that you claim made the vase that you are talking about?

originally posted by: Xabi87
Harte, can you post some images of the tool that has been found in Egypt that you claim made the vase that you are talking about?

Take a look at this unfinished vessel then tell my why you need to know that.
link
Does this piece of calcite stock appear to have been turned on a lathe?

The Petrie museum is a hard site to search. I can give you some drawn representations of tomb art that show the use of a bow working a tube saw for hollowing if you want. Here's one that shows boring by hand:
link

If more advanced machinery existed, how can the appearance of the unfinished vase (and the depiction of the use of simple and basic hand tools) be explained?
Egyptian Amish?

Harte