Tube drills at GP were not done by ancient Egyptians.

The main stream position of the tube dill holes at the G.P is that the technology of the ancient Egyptians did not do them, they claim that they were done with abrasive dust and a copper tube. Under analysis, the helical grooves go down at one hundredth of an inch per revolution.If the ancient Egyptians didnt do them, and modern people didn't do them, then the 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. This has to be the elephant in the room with regards to ancient high technology. Harte won't like this.Then in part two we have the same type of hole in Peru, which would be logical if their was a high technology back in the ice age, then travelling wouldn't be to much of a problem if the technology was advanced.If anyone is interested vwww.youtube.com...

a reply to: anonentity

It's interesting that the only published source referred to says this:

4. The abrasive used was either emery, corundum, or diamond in conjuction with a vehicle such as olive oil.

www.penn.museum...

a reply to: Phage

It's the only sauce because they know it doesn't explain anything. The core that was found from one of these cylindrical drill holes shows tooling marks consistent with a cutting edge that cuts all the way down in a spiral. You simply do not get these marks by using a hard edge with sand, or another medium, or crushed diamond or any other thing.

It appears to be a hollow, cylindrical drill head, with a very hard, pretty fine tip. Egyptians did not posses such tools or machinery. I've looked into this particular phenomena a bit and it's definitely interesting.

There was one guy near the turn of the century down in egypt who wrote about the core (he was the one who found it) and postulated on it... and the photo of the core is interesting in that when it is published online, they rotate the image ever so slightly, so the spiraling tool marks appear to not be spiraling, but round and each mark being separate from the next.

"High technology", yet they could only cut 1/100 of an inch at a time?

a reply to: anonentity

I heard a story, which could be entirely apocryphal, about a Japanese company who were trying to promote their technology to the jet engine production facility at Rolls Royce in the UK.

The Japanese company was producing very small diameter (sub-millimeter) drill bits and were very proud of their achievement.

The Rolls Royce people said that they would rather stick to their traditional methods, as they were superior and they were already able to produce much finer drilled holes.

The Japanese sales representative was taken aback and said he didn't think so, because their tech was unique and cutting edge.

Then the Rolls Royce presented the Japanese company with a number of their smaller drills back and said to check them out under a microscope.

When the drills were examined, they had had holes drilled right down the core of the drills, with such accuracy that the drilled holes did not divert off-center. Apparently they had also tapped a thread inside the Japanese drills and provided a threaded bit of wire to screw into the hole.

My father, who was a watchmaker, used to make his own 'wire' drills and other tiny tools, so I believe it was entirely possible that this could be done by a skilled enough worker

The Rolls Royce guys did not say how it was done, but they did say that it was done with hand tools, not some precision technology.

So, when I hear of amazing feats that seem to require amazing tech, I take it with a grain of salt.

a reply to: Phage

They also used bore bars with these they could add hundreds of pounds of weight pushing down on the core drill making it more effective. In fact one of the hieroglyphs is actually these drills. see u24 and u25 shows dril and core drill. this was there designation for atisans and stone masons.

en.wikipedia.org...

the problem with archaeology, history and to be fair alot of science disciplines (to be fair) the "accepted facts" are treated as dogma in a way that would easily be recognized by any religious fanatic.

any attempt to show the "accepted facts" may be wrong is not looked at with objectivity but outright blasphemy .
to be dealt with as such UNLESS the "proof " either comes from the "accepted experts" or is such an overwhelming amount they are forced to accept it.

i dont know if this is the case here but to even suggest a more "advanced people" (be an older civilization co existing, aliens, or just plain wrong at their tools/ability) is met mostly not with questions/investigation, but outright denial.

hell what is ironic is there was a whole series on the history channel called "life without people".

within easily (may be off a decade or so) within 100 years most (if not all) of our "advanced civilization" would have been wiped out, destroyed and all traces returned to nature.

we even see this on things and places we know within the last 50 or so years that have disintegrated (for lack of a better term) to a point be hard placed without previous knowledge to know what was there.

much less the 500 to thousand years out from ancient egypt.

why is it so hard with the same lack of hard evidence to believe they took a copper (the main metal of the time) tube , abrasive powder (of debated but unconfirmed makeup) and pure hand strength , but not with same lack of hard evidence a more advanced people / lost tech?

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

The problem seems to be that the older the artefacts the more precise the artifacts seem to be, Some of the vases and bowls with the finest work appear to be pre dyanistic when you come to bowls made of diorite, and the circular saw marks made on some stones , you have to ask does ceremonial artwork or bowls require such precision, or was the precision just a matter of fact way of doing things for this culture.Then just marveled at in the later ones.
.

a reply to: anonentity

you may have a point

i remember as a child king tut artifacts coming to the museum in chicago il

one thing that still sticks in my mind today was the head piece/ mask .

not only the sheer perfection in the work but the most striking (also spooky) detail was in the glass eyes of the mask
the craftsmanship was overshadowed in my mind by the tiny but significant detail of VEINS in the eyes.
not just lines but what one would expect to see in a real eyeball.

what society from that far in the past had the craftsmanship but also the attention to detail to put that in and you swear you looking at an expensive glass eye of today.

scrounger

Go to 12:15 on this video I made. I found those tubular holes here in NJ, near a little cave.
youtu.be...

check this out. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Trueman


That was interesting, looks like an old quarry like really old/

come on... comparish it with this:
in 1969 we landed on the moon with veryyy primitive computers and rockets..
so tell me why we are not able with oure 2020 tech to land on the moon...!!!!!!!!!
ore was it fake in 1969 ????
same with the agient egyptians... they could build pyramids and we can't in 2020 lolllll

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: scrounger

The problem seems to be that the older the artefacts the more precise the artifacts seem to be, Some of the vases and bowls with the finest work appear to be pre dyanistic when you come to bowls made of diorite, and the circular saw marks made on some stones ,

you have to ask does ceremonial artwork or bowls require such precision, or was the precision just a matter of fact way of doing things for this culture.Then just marveled at in the later ones.
.

If you went to the cairo museum you would see exactly the opposite you claim. From tools to bowls to statues they ge tmore detailed and better made in the later dynasties. In fact the gold mask found on King Tut couldnt have been made in the 1st dynasty they just didnt know how. Your making the mistake bigger is better. You see the great pyramis and go its huge it was the best. Reality is later they learn how to carve stone much better look at the Temple of Karnak each generation added to it. And you can see their skills improve through 2000 years of building.

Could certain sound waveforms weaken the atoms that made quartz strong. Perhaps that is purpose of tri-lobe disc to modify sound into waveform that allowed them to drill through quartz like butter.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
"High technology", yet they could only cut 1/100 of an inch at a time?

.001 per revaluation is an incredible cut rate. A modern core drill turns at about 1500 rpms. That’s 1 1/2 inch’s per minute in hard stone like granite that is incredible using a 2 inch diamond drill.

a reply to: Trueman

An anchor possibly? Nevertheless an amazing find.

a reply to: scrounger
There is a difference between science and scientists. The two should never be considered synonymous.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Trueman

An anchor possibly? Nevertheless an amazing find.

.
I don't think it's an anchor. You can see other holes on the same video, just monents before, on the right side.

If you are interested, here is a link about this area.

www.njskylands.com...

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: Phage

It's the only sauce because they know it doesn't explain anything. The core that was found from one of these cylindrical drill holes shows tooling marks consistent with a cutting edge that cuts all the way down in a spiral. You simply do not get these marks by using a hard edge with sand, or another medium, or crushed diamond or any other thing.

It appears to be a hollow, cylindrical drill head, with a very hard, pretty fine tip. Egyptians did not posses such tools or machinery. I've looked into this particular phenomena a bit and it's definitely interesting.

There was one guy near the turn of the century down in egypt who wrote about the core (he was the one who found it) and postulated on it... and the photo of the core is interesting in that when it is published online, they rotate the image ever so slightly, so the spiraling tool marks appear to not be spiraling, but round and each mark being separate from the next.

That turned out to be an error of photographic perspective. In their book "Giza: the Truth," Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald concluded from the photo made by Reid and Brownlee that the groves were horizontal circles, not turns of a helix. I quote from engineer Chris Dunne, who later examined the core, not just photos of it:

"What we have is a photograph that shows the frustrum of a cone (the Valley Core) with grooves cut into it. As you know, Eddie, as well as any other machinist and engineer who work in the aircraft industry, visual observations of features on a cone are dependent on your angle of view, as well as the attitude of the cone.

If the cone is lying down along the length of its diameter, the surface you are looking at is tilted at the combined angle of the cone, and, depending on your angle of observation, a concentric groove cut into the diameter could appear to be an ellipse. Then if the cone is tilted to the left or the right, any feature you may be observing on its surface will be tilted also.

The photograph in Lawton/Herold's book shows the Valley Core in black and white and it is tilted on an angle. The grooves cut into the diameter of the cone have the appearance of being horizontal, which would give a casual observer the impression that they were not spiral. I took the JPG of this photograph, kindly sent to me by Nick Annies, and brought it into my graphics program. I then constructed a frame around the core and rotated it until it was squarely positioned within the frame. The grooves observed under these conditions appear to definitely be spiral."
www.ianlawton.com...

Later, Chris Dunne meticulously traced the grooves with a cotton thread when he visited the Petrie Museum in London and proved that they were continuous and helical, not separate, horizontal circles, although he found two SEPARATE spirals, not one, as Sir Flinders Petrie noticed when he originally examined so-called "core 7". This is irrefutable evidence that the grooves were made by modern-type drills producing spiral grooves..The dynastic, ancient Egyptians DID use copper tubes and abrasives to make holes in some types of stone (their hieroglyphics depict them). However, these could not have created some of the holes in many granite blocks scattered about in megalithic sites in Egypt. That's why some people assert that a pre-dynastic culture must have used relatively higher technology to make such holes.