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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Naptown317
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Pics or it didn't happen!

(shrugs)
Suit yourself. Do I chose to believe my prof...who was there...or 'some guy on the net'?




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

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)


A flatness gauge a meter long? That seems plenty long to me, but I'll get back to that shortly [no pun intended].

It takes another real bias to assume the rest of the stone was not as flat as those areas Dunn checked.

OK, you say you check flatness routinely on saw tables. Explain, please, and also why Dunn can not check flatness the way he did. Looked flat to me! What would he need to do differently to do it "right"?

Yes, the part certainly does represent the whole, and that is the premise on which all statistical and quality control science rests - is that not true? Sampling is the key, and a flatness gauge a meter long seems generous. Should he measure with one as long as the whole stone, and check every square foot, square inch, square millimeter, every square micron? At some point you have to trust your measurements. That's a real lack of critical thinking on your part.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Harte

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)


A flatness gauge a meter long? That seems plenty long to me, but I'll get back to that shortly [no pun intended].

It takes another real bias to assume the rest of the stone was not as flat as those areas Dunn checked.

OK, you say you check flatness routinely on saw tables. Explain, please, and also why Dunn can not check flatness the way he did. Looked flat to me! What would he need to do differently to do it "right"?

Yes, the part certainly does represent the whole, and that is the premise on which all statistical and quality control science rests - is that not true? Sampling is the key, and a flatness gauge a meter long seems generous. Should he measure with one as long as the whole stone, and check every square foot, square inch, square millimeter, every square micron? At some point you have to trust your measurements. That's a real lack of critical thinking on your part.





That kind of thinking led to people believing the world was flat.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

That kind of thinking led to people believing the world was flat.


His, mine, or both?? Flat? The "world" appears flat on a nearby scale, and again, measurement is the key. Do the right measuring, and you realise the world is undoubtedly round.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
It's ironic people are using the myth of a flat world as an argument considering the flat landers ignored the evidence right in front of them just like the people ignoring what Dunn measured at the site and they didn't.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

That kind of thinking led to people believing the world was flat.


His, mine, or both?? Flat? The "world" appears flat on a nearby scale, and again, measurement is the key. Do the right measuring, and you realise the world is undoubtedly round.


Confusion won't save you, the part does not always represent the whole.
The argument is this guy did not do the right measurement, he cherry picked flat spots on a small scale compared to the whole.

A real world example is, you can wet sand a piece of metal on a solid glass surface using finer and finer aggregate compounds to within very small tolerances of flatness. No machines required except good old elbow grease. Then some idiot who wants to sell books will come along and claim it was done using alien technology.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Alright, so the Egyptians used machine tools to machine their rocks and achieve flat faces. So where are the machine tools? Can you point to even one? Egypt has to be one of if not the most well-studied archaeological site in the world. We can point to examples of ancient egyptian combs, earthware, games, tools they used to harvest crops, tools they used to build boats, we can point to the boats themselves, we can look at their drinking cups, their clothes, their tombs, jewlery, furniture.... but not a single example of a machine tool? And yet they were common enough to be used to smooth all their surfaces?

So they used these machine tools to smooth their surfaces.... and yet never depicted this in a single one of their frescoes or wrote about it in their texts? They have murals depicting their harvest methods, their boat building methods, their rituals, history.... But not a single one depicting machine tools being used? When in fact, they have other murals depicting exactly how they claimed to smooth the stones, in which they completely forgot to include the part about machine tools?
edit on 1-7-2011 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Harte

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)


A flatness gauge a meter long? That seems plenty long to me, but I'll get back to that shortly [no pun intended].

It takes another real bias to assume the rest of the stone was not as flat as those areas Dunn checked.

You illustrate my point here about your bias.

Did you not read this?:


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



Originally posted by Lazarus Short
OK, you say you check flatness routinely on saw tables. Explain, please, and also why Dunn can not check flatness the way he did. Looked flat to me! What would he need to do differently to do it "right"?

The vid only showed one single spot he had the gauge against. In order to determine flatness with such a gauge on a broad surface like that, he would have to first do what we saw, then swing the gauge 360 degrees, holding one end stationary, then move halfway out of the circle he just established and repeat.

Repeat the above until the entire surface had been referenced.

Of course, nobody today would do it that way. We would use a laser and do it in about four sweeps (one from each corner.)

Lasers are cheap. He could have done this in the time allotted in the vid. Again, critical thinkers would wonder why he didn't.


Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Yes, the part certainly does represent the whole, and that is the premise on which all statistical and quality control science rests - is that not true? Sampling is the key, and a flatness gauge a meter long seems generous. Should he measure with one as long as the whole stone, and check every square foot, square inch, square millimeter, every square micron? At some point you have to trust your measurements. That's a real lack of critical thinking on your part.

While it is true that sampling is a part of measurement, it is not a part of determining flatness. Otherwise, every surface would be considered flat.

In order to trust your measurements, you have to make your measurements. The way you're saying it, my house is on the same level as my street because my street is flat.


Originally posted by wirehead
So they used these machine tools to smooth their surfaces.... and yet never depicted this in a single one of their frescoes or wrote about it in their texts? They have murals depicting their harvest methods, their boat building methods, their rituals, history.... But not a single one depicting machine tools being used? When in fact, they have other murals depicting exactly how they claimed to smooth the stones, in which they completely forgot to include the part about machine tools?


But they did remember to include several reliefs showing the stone-rubbing method, at least on artwork:
A PDF image of this

Harte



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
How do people know that all the artefacts were made by the same people? I think the "Egyptians" came later. Which is why the tools not being depicted means nothing.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by 8311-XHT
 


Ah, so they had machine tools, which we do not find, because they weren't actually the egyptians we are studying, but something older, which we also do not see anywhere. Argumentum Ignotum per ignotius.

I could just as easily claim that the pyramid builders had laptop computers, which they used to plan and build the pyramids, but we don't find the laptop computers or any evidence of them because the people who built the pyramids are actually very ancient and not related to the egyptian civilization which came later. Why? Because that's "what I believe to be true."



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join