Three Good Arguments For A Different Story of Ancient Egypt

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko
reply to post by jeep3r
 


I'm fairly certain limestone was what casing stones were made of. And isn't the picture on the right sandstone? Can you source your material for how you determined they were granite?


Limestone for Khafre and Khufus tomb, granite in part for Menkaure's - the first 16 courses I believe.

The wall shown has rock from either the Rumiqoiqa or Huaccoti quarries and is most probably hornblende andesite - not granite.
edit on 6/7/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


If you just cannot bring yourself to accept what evidence there is then its up to you to purpose and provide evidence of how you think it's done.

You might also want to look at the other cultures that worked hard stone.

Here's another question to consider: what happened when iron tools became available?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


nice post nice thinking Jeep


regards



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Wasnt there a Russian team of qualified engineers that studied the ''stonework anomalies'' on tne plateau for a few years and agreed that hand operated tools could not make those marks/cuts? Cant remember the name, something like LARS comes to mind but most deff isnt right.

You make good points btw, but like others you are faced with a massive wall, therefore creative arguments are unachievable and unwanted by the other side.
Althou, for those that can see, we clearly have sone good points that are quickly dismissed by Academia, or simply ''swept away'' using hard evidence agaisnt weaker, and already debunked ones.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bon3z
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Wasnt there a Russian team of qualified engineers that studied the ''stonework anomalies'' on tne plateau for a few years and agreed that hand operated tools could not make those marks/cuts? Cant remember the name, something like LARS comes to mind but most deff isnt right.

You make good points btw, but like others you are faced with a massive wall, therefore creative arguments are unachievable and unwanted by the other side.
Althou, for those that can see, we clearly have sone good points that are quickly dismissed by Academia, or simply ''swept away'' using hard evidence agaisnt weaker, and already debunked ones.


The best way to proceed is to

1. Get the agreement of thousands of stone working professionals that the work cannot be done in the way specified. This would mean a specific step by step process showing that the archaeological derived ways, and those written about are in some way flawed

2. Offer a prize of several million dollars to an artist to re-create these techniques (they have been duplicated in a small scale before ) but lets see a bigger object made or if you are correct it will be impossible to do so.

3. Find and document this 'other' way all the ancient cultures worked stone


Good luck

PS I've never heard of such a Russian team let me know if you ever find any information on that claim

Oh did you look at the PDF I put up yesterday showing images from ancient quarries? You might find it interesting





new topics
 
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join