It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: anonentity
... logical claim must be that they were done by people who had a higher technology than the ancient Egyptians, which must have preceded them by an unknown number of years.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767
Your use of apostrophe's is atrociou's.
originally posted by: jeep3r
originally posted by: Harte
No, it was actually quite early on in his career. Starts at 7:08:
And then I suppose you think that, once we admit we don't know, then we'll have to also admit that we don't know what those figures in their art are doing with those tube drills and borers, since we admit they didn't actually do it that way?
I think that you, not we, have something to admit.
What Dunn says is that his power plant theory is "speculative", which is not the same as saying "I make stuff up". Lehner's and Stocks' tube drill demonstrations are also just "speculative".
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: jeep3r
I suspect that is because they didnt use a bar with weights like we see used by egyptians. And I often felt one major factor may have been left out. If i wanted to cut through stone im going to want a lubricant so I would add oil much as we do when cutting steele. I think adding this instead of dry cutting would help alot
originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: LABTECH767
Why would they compare hunter-gatherers, someone who has to be ACTIVE to survive to university students? It's like comparing Tarzan to someone who goes hiking in the woods. We aren't even built like our grandparents and that's just a couple of generations ago.
Hell yea our ancestors had bone structure of a cross country trainer, how did you think they got around. And it's not because of genetics, we don't need to hunt down a pack of wild buffalo for dinner. They did, so they stayed in prime shape and didn't eat cheetos and McDonalds.
originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: Harte
third... if the concrete is crumbling how (without other things in it) could you determine if that "reinforced concrete structure" was a basement, a military base, or even a waste disposal site?
add to it many current cold war sites (like bunkers and missile silos ) are falling apart without regular maintenance. In say a hundred or even thousand years the original purpose may not be so obvious if you didnt know in advance what they were for... even if you did it will not look like it did back then.
originally posted by: bluesfreak
Here we go again with Harte and his insistence that Stocks solved it all for us. He really didn’t . He threw up more questions than answers.
Stocks’ experiments were self congratulatory horsesh*t in terms of scientific method.
Let alone the tooling side of things..
A) he bought himself a modern extruded tube , didn’t make one how the AE did (Ps- how was that done by them by the way?Brazing? Soldering the joint? Casting?Interesting in itself, rarely discussed )
B) ANYONE with a cursory knowledge of these AE cores knows the average width of the blade was 1mm at the base of the cut. Stocks is about 8mm maybe more , thus guaranteeing for him that a 1mm Tube would not bend/fold/warp during the heavy handed procedure .
C) the time taken in Stocks experiment to remove but a few cm in depth does not correspond to the feed rate and single helical cut seen as resultant tooling marks on core 7.
A close examination of Dunn’s work shows his method is correct . Indeed it does appear that a helical spiral tooling Mark is left on the granite , which proceeds at an impressive feed rate .
Petrie originally observed this spiral and mooted the possibility of “Jewelled tooling”.
Stocks ‘results’ did not produce a spiral cut nor indeed anything that resembles the clean sharp cuts and residual tooling striations of the AE.
There must be an element in the process unaccounted for when a 1mm thick copper tube can withstand the forces required for the removal of material as seen.
By the way , abrasive cutting actions don’t leave behind tooling marks ‘scored’ into the material in regular or consistent rings.(in this case)
The tooling lines you see are from a ‘point’ ,or leading edge, of a very sharp tool. The tool is literally ‘slicing’ into to granite and leaves behind its signature. Like a fingerprint.
Abrasion by its very nature creates a rougher surface and does not leave behind continuous individual tooling rotations as the cutting process does not rely on ‘sharpness’. Like Stocks results.
The tooling forensics on core 7 suggest there is more to it.