It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chris Dunn Writes Again About Gantenbrink's Door & Power Plant Theory

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
gizapower.com...


 
 

Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First


AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites;
*please post one or two paragraphs,
*a link to the entire story,
*AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

edit on Sun Oct 23 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
From the link:


The shame is that the true heritage of the Egyptian people is being ignored; for if the level of technology evident in the stones of Egypt are evaluated, completely understood and explained by appropriate experts, Egypt will give itself and the world, the greatest gift possible. An understanding of a glorious past with innumerable lessons for future generations.

Dunn's theory invovles the generation of microwaves by agitating the hydrogen produced in the reaction he supposes happened inside the pyramid.

His method of agitation of the hydrogen is "earth movements."

That is impossible.

So, in fact, it is Dunn himself who is ignoring the "true heritage of the Egyptian people " in order to make money from books sold to the ignorant.

Harte



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

His method of agitation of the hydrogen is "earth movements."

That is impossible.



You forgot the (I admit - missing) resonators. His theory has gaps, but given the stripped condition of the pyramid, and the passage of time, gaps in evidence are inevitable. Other theories about the pyramid have problems too. I've got his book, am not ignorant (I can recite the strengths and weaknesses of the Power Plant theory), and I think that the chapter on ancient machining of stone are worth the price of the whole book.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


I've read the book and I completely agree with you Lazarus. It's absolutely mind blowing how the ancient Egyptians did all that.
As for people like harte they wouldn't except the truth even if it slapped them in the face.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonSpeedN
As for people like harte they wouldn't except the truth even if it slapped them in the face.

Earth movements are completely unpredictable with frequencies and wavelengths at random. Energy too.

A pyramid full of hydrogen would produce about as much microwave radiation as the plain old atmosphere would due to any "Earth movement."

Slap yourself in the face with that truth.

Harte



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
... and I think that the chapter on ancient machining of stone are worth the price of the whole book.

Do they include that fact that finishing tools have been excavated beside partially hewn stones? Mind you, I only heard about it from the fellow who was excavating. Maybe I should buy the book?



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
... and I think that the chapter on ancient machining of stone are worth the price of the whole book.

Do they include that fact that finishing tools have been excavated beside partially hewn stones? Mind you, I only heard about it from the fellow who was excavating. Maybe I should buy the book?


I hadn't heard about finishing tools - what metal were they made of?



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I hadn't heard about finishing tools - what metal were they made of?

Ancient Egyptian finishing tools consist primarily of diorite pounding stones and sandstone (mostly) rubbing stones.

There exist several reliefs showing the use of both in Ancient Egypt.

Harte



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I hadn't heard about finishing tools - what metal were they made of?

Ancient Egyptian finishing tools consist primarily of diorite pounding stones and sandstone (mostly) rubbing stones.

There exist several reliefs showing the use of both in Ancient Egypt.

Harte


I don't personally believe it possible to achieve a flat, planar surface in very hard stone by pounding and rubbing. Dunn demonstrates that the Egyptians achieved planar surfaces usually only done today by stone planes (a machine tool), consistent radiusing, also implying machine tool use, and of course, that core drilling. No, the machine tools are not there, but the worked stones left behind imply the machine tools. There is more to this issue than reliefs, which may well date from a post-machine tool period in Egyptian history anyway.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I don't personally believe it possible to achieve a flat, planar surface in very hard stone by pounding and rubbing.

Argument from incredulity.

You can, obviously, feel any way you want about it.

An argument from incredulity is, however, not a valid argument.

The fact is, Egyptians used diorite pounders and (usually) sandstone rubbing stones to achieve the finishes they wanted on all kinds of stone. It is, as I said, attested to by ancient Egyptian artwork and writings.

Harte



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I don't personally believe it possible to achieve a flat, planar surface in very hard stone by pounding and rubbing.

Argument from incredulity.

You can, obviously, feel any way you want about it.

An argument from incredulity is, however, not a valid argument.

The fact is, Egyptians used diorite pounders and (usually) sandstone rubbing stones to achieve the finishes they wanted on all kinds of stone. It is, as I said, attested to by ancient Egyptian artwork and writings.

Harte



Funny, that. I have taken a college-level course in Logic, and have never heard of the "Argument from Incredulity." Anyway, one man's incredulity is another man's airtight proof. BTW, I did not use the word "feel."

How do you really propose to prove that pounding and rubbing produced planar surfaces? Dunn demonstrated their close tolerances by laying a machinist's rule on such an ancient surface and showing how light would not shine from under the rule. Either he was being dishonest, or the surface was machined.

Looks like this is going to be one of those threads:

"I won't budge one iota in my position on the issue!"

"Me, neither!"

Yada, yada, yada...



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Funny, that. I have taken a college-level course in Logic, and have never heard of the "Argument from Incredulity."

Glad to add to your education then. Google it.


Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Anyway, one man's incredulity is another man's airtight proof. BTW, I did not use the word "feel."

Yes. I did use the word "feel" to characterize what you said.


Originally posted by Lazarus Short
How do you really propose to prove that pounding and rubbing produced planar surfaces?

I don't. As a math teacher, I don't accept the word "prove" in this context.

However, there are the reliefs I mentioned. There are none showing stones being machined. Sort of a strike against Dunn, IMO.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Dunn demonstrated their close tolerances by laying a machinist's rule on such an ancient surface and showing how light would not shine from under the rule. Either he was being dishonest, or the surface was machined.

Yes, I've seen Dunn doing that. The rule he used was short compared to the stone he was checking. It made me wonder what a longer flatness guage would have shown. Didn't you wonder this as well?

If machines are to be postulated, then isn't it true that the presence of machines in an ancient society must also be explained?

Then please, commence doing so.

Harte



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Does anyone have an account to RedIceradio? They have the first hour of a interview Dunn did on here a couple days ago.. but you need an account to listen to the second hour. If anyone has it let me know what they talked about in depth please.

I am blown away by Christopher Dunn's observations.. I don't understand why this isn't being talked about more. Whether he was right or not about the way the Giza Powerplant worked it's clear it was far far far more complex than what we believed it to be.
edit on 20-6-2011 by 8311-XHT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Laz: How do you really propose to prove that pounding and rubbing produced planar surfaces?
Harte: I don't. As a math teacher, I don't accept the word "prove" in this context.
Laz: That's a clever sidestep, but I don't buy it. I say again, pounding and rubbing can not produce planar surfaces, that is to say, planar within a high level of measurable tolerance.


Harte: However, there are the reliefs I mentioned. There are none showing stones being machined. Sort of a strike against Dunn, IMO.
Laz: Lack of stones being shown machined is not proof. It is simply lack of proof of anything, for or against. Even you admit that it is only a "sort of."


Laz: Dunn demonstrated their close tolerances by laying a machinist's rule on such an ancient surface and showing how light would not shine from under the rule. Either he was being dishonest, or the surface was machined.
Harte: Yes, I've seen Dunn doing that. The rule he used was short compared to the stone he was checking. It made me wonder what a longer flatness guage would have shown. Didn't you wonder this as well?
Laz: No, I didn't. The part represents the whole.

Harte: If machines are to be postulated, then isn't it true that the presence of machines in an ancient society must also be explained?
Laz: I have studied ancient technology for years, especially the evidence of advanced ancient technology. There are lots of gaps, but what we have is, at least, very interesting. Consider that 250 years ago, western civilization was about on the level of ancient Rome. Did something similar happen in the remote past? Not sure, but it is exciting to see the evidence unfold...



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
harte is classed as one of the most well known skeptics to grace these type of forums, so i wouldn't bother trying to argue your point across. Your chances are close to zip...

Regarding the OP's topic, it's certainly possible, those who say otherwise are ignorant...
edit on 22-6-2011 by aRogue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I don't personally believe it possible to achieve a flat, planar surface in very hard stone by pounding and rubbing. Dunn demonstrates that the Egyptians achieved planar surfaces usually only done today by stone planes (a machine tool), consistent radiusing, also implying machine tool use, and of course, that core drilling. No, the machine tools are not there, but the worked stones left behind imply the machine tools. There is more to this issue than reliefs, which may well date from a post-machine tool period in Egyptian history anyway.


Then you have to show these tools for every single large stone structure in Egypt and explain why they didn't have titles for the specialized workmen that did this work (they had titles for everything) and why we don't have any of the tools themselves since workmen were buried with their tools. And why they would quit using these tools instead of making more or improving on them. And why the Greeks, Romans, Nubians, and so forth didn't end up with these tehnologies.

There are many temples with smooth and relatively flat surfaces (which, if you measured short sections would be perfectly flat.)

The explanation I've seen is that they used water to check the smoothness and flatness of it. You pour water on something and then look at it from the edge. It actually works fairly well.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Laz: Dunn demonstrated their close tolerances by laying a machinist's rule on such an ancient surface and showing how light would not shine from under the rule. Either he was being dishonest, or the surface was machined.
Harte: Yes, I've seen Dunn doing that. The rule he used was short compared to the stone he was checking. It made me wonder what a longer flatness guage would have shown. Didn't you wonder this as well?
Laz: No, I didn't. The part represents the whole.


And therein lies the rub.

Dunn used a flatness guage about a meter long to show that about one-one hundredth of the stone he was checking was flat.

It takes a real bias to not wonder at all if the rest of the same stone conformed to the same flatness.

As a mechanical engineer, I checked flatness routinely on saw tables. You can't check flatness the way Dunn did in the video.

Not saying he didn't do it right. I'm saying the vid never showed him doing it right.

And no, sorry, the part certainly doesn't represent the whole. That's a real lack of critical thinking you got there.

Harte
edit on 6/22/2011 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
It's like looking at it from your own modern perspective and seeing the impossible.
One could say, how did the ancients make level surfaces and right angles when they had no lasers...never realizing that water levels itself and the simple plumb bob to that surface gives you a right angle. Or how did they accurately measure large distances without gps (oh no, someone will say they must have had satellite technology), without realizing a simple notch on a wheel can get the job done.
I wouldn't want to hand pound a surface then polish it flat by hand but that doesn't mean everybody wouldn't mind, especially workers who had no work unless they labored for their godhead ruler, doing what they were born to do and died doing for generations.

He never explains where all the infrastructure is that would have been using this fantasy pyramid power.
It's like giving the ancients oil wells and refineries but nothing to use it for. It don't fit and there is no evidence for it but I bet if someone could concoct a theory to sell books, they'd have the great pyramid pumping out unleaded.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Pics or it didn't happen!



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join