Tube drills at GP were not done by ancient Egyptians.

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.

Egyptian technology was not actually "advanced". What do people mean when they say "advanced" or "higher" anyway?

While the size of the pyramids (for example) and other monuments is impressive, their construction was more a logistical feat than a technological marvel. There is overwhelming evidence that the ancient Egyptians used bow saws to rotate copper tubes with quartz sand to make holes in granite, with similar methods used to "saw" granite blocks. Elbow gease and time is what the Egyptians had.

a reply to: paraphi

Good point, advanced can mean a whole raft of different thing's but undoubtedly they were at the pinnacle of advancement for the technological stage there society had reached several times over (being more or less static they sometimes slipped back a bit and other times rose again).

Medicine in ancient Egypt was surprisingly advanced as well perhaps even rivalling (well not really but for arguments sake better than the medieval and world by one heck of a way's and perhaps even better than most of the Victorian period) modern medicine in some areas, prosthetic's, filling's, bone's pinned to help set them when fractured etc, of course you would definitely want a modern doctor, hospital and antibiotic's but even so.

So they slumped then made there way back up while maintaining there identity as Egyptians which itself helped them to not fall apart, in part perhaps due to the geography of the region and the fact the Nile Valley was really the only place to go for most of them even if civilization had collapsed around them and perhaps inspired by the standing work's all around them of those that came before them they always strove to equal or even surpass the work's of the ancient's in that storied land if monument's.

Personally I think the Greek's were the greatest sculptors, even renaissance greats such as Michelangelo could only equal and never surpassed there greatest work's (though arguably ancient India equalled them though there representation of the human form was definitely not as realized as the Greek's achieved).

But in the context of Advanced the vein of the thread is technological science and the belief that perhaps a previous civilization did achieve a level at least equal to or even surpassing our own technological age which arguably began with the Industrial revolution - though some would argue before that with the invention of steel.

Certainly it is perhaps only chance that WE and not the ancient Greco-Roman world of two millennia ago did this, Heron of Alexandria had some pretty astounding inventions or did he, he of course had access to the library of Alexandria so was he a forerunner of Da-Vinci or rather a very astute student of ancient texts?.

The Nazi's (I hate them do not get me wrong but they do factor into such a discussion) tried and failed to recreate the Library of Alexandria for there own use, they believed that previous - technologically advanced - civilization had existed in the distant past (and wanted to plunder it and claim it as there own personal imaginary Aryan race history) and the Ahnenerb (Occult movement like the Black Sun and with many members shared between both cult's) even sent there archaeologists and researchers around the world in search of ancient science, technology and mysticism, during there invasion of Europe they also raided and stole the library's of the Freemason's and other esoteric cult's and sect's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Your use of apostrophe's is atrociou's.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

Your use of apostrophe's is atrociou's.

Hahaha, so's my spling.

But seriously sorry about that jokes are perhaps not appropriate but too late already cracked a bad one my grammar was never that good and I am also a lazy typists so - no excuse.


Hey just a side thought, what do technological civilizations with mass populations do.

Yes they pollute, ruin the ecology etc (not necessary they can switch to hydroponics and live in harmony with nature even enhance it since at heart humans are farmers but we live with an artificial mentality in a world as alien to our ancestors as there world is to ours) but they also refine and gather materials into neatly collectible locations called city's.

An alien race or even a breakaway ANCIENT civilization could swoop into deep space, return every so often purge the planet of all but a few survivors, scoop up all the resources, clean the place up in the process and allow the survivors to do all the hard work again - hoping that they would once again create a new civilization, mine, refine and extract all the precious metals and other juicy resources ready for them to take when they came by again some day after visiting there other seed colonies and doing the same thing to them, bah too much science fiction and too much caffeine but it's a thought even if only a daft one.

We don't need no ancient alien's (grey's with Zimmer frames) to do that for us, we rob out our own ruin's, nature destroys, erosion and lime eating plant's turn concrete to sand and gravel and any metal not corroded away would be a prime target for post apocalypse tribal's looking for something they no longer know how to make but do know how to reshape and use, they would even mine such ruin's to get to it hacking away the concrete around the rebar etc.

And when all that metal was finally gone they would spent (there I go again --- SPEND) perhaps eon's slowly climbing back up with only legends' of a golden age to remind them of a lost past, climbing and falling as new civilizations, empires and ages recreated all that they had forgotten only to repeat the great cycle of cause and event perhaps hoping (at some deep level below there conscious mind) that this time there rise would not result in a new dark age for there descendant's.

Best case from a total collapse they would be able to rebuild there civilization if enough folk's survived the cataclysm, failing food supply, wars and environmental problems, it would require enough able bodied people and experts to survive, organize and work together to start it all off again perhaps repairing or recreating there lost city's perhaps from a single hub somewhere in the world or several such hub's independently.

Not the best, a priesthood like order would try to save the knowledge if any of them survived, there descendants may then one day try to disseminate it among the primitive peoples of the world in the hope that perhaps they could re-seed the ideas of the past - a stone age with some more advanced if small group's holding onto knowledge of that which they had lost, perhaps survivors in bunkers or other forms of shelter would form the back bone of this type of group.

Worst if anyone survives at all they may then enter a true dark age, having to relearn the most basic way of surviving in a world were game is scarce or even extinct for the most part, if they survive they may then carve out territory were game is found, perhaps even fight against others whom have also descended into savagery and setting humanity back to the stone age.

Personally I see this as science fiction but very possible however are modern humans whom are weaker than our ancestors strong enough to pull through, if bush people (haha not the ex US presidents family) and primitive amazon tribes survived the collapse perhaps it would be they not us that would become the ancestors of the future?.
(they still know how to live like the stone age peoples of the past and to do so very well indeed, how to use the resources around them, how to make and find shelter, how to gather food and how to survive the worst times - so far they have even survived meeting us which is no easy task).

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.

a reply to: scrounger
Sorry the editor screwed up your post, but I read it and it's a total pile of crap. "Crushed concrete?" What difference could that possibly make as to identification? You think you've poked holes, but in fact you've been led by the nose - and by a television show at that.
Most of that show was marveling at how vegetation (and exposure) covers and destroys evidence. Why do you think I brought up the foundations in the first place? Yeah, I've watched it a few times, back when it was on.

Real scientists came on it. Guess what - real scientists also come on "Ancient Aliens," or did until the show began to blatantly censor the statements they made.

Seems like you have some truly ancient remains of huts to explain as well.
It's not like huts were everywhere tens of thousands of years ago - you know, like steel reinforced concrete is everywhere today. Yet we have found such remains. How can you explain this with your television show?

Did you know we have found the remains of shelters built by humans during the last Ice Age?

What about Gobekli Tepe? What will it look like 20-30k years from now? What would it look like then if it had remained buried (like foundations mostly are)? What if there were Gobekli Tepe-type monuments all over the place, like there is concrete today? I mean, we've found stuff from way back that is basically rudimentary and no doubt about it rare even in their day (not nearly as many people.) How come that stuff survived so long? So, think back, did this show ever address that question? No, it didn't.

Regarding tube drills, you'll have to explain what those drillers and borers are doing in the Egyptian Artwork. Why did they draw pictures of themselves drilling and boring (and pecking, rubbing and polishing) stone?

Harte

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".

Hardly. Stocks has carried out numerous scientific experiments but, of course, everyone only wants to watch a 5 min youtube vid and that was just a demonstration for a BBC documentary.

Regarding the word "speculative," it actually means not based on knowledge, in other words just an unevidenced guess.
It's a proposal, not based on knowledge, that Dunn has put forward in books he sells for a living (along with the speaking fees his books garner - or used to.)
Sounds like "I made it up" to me. Who else made it up?

Harte

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

You would think that.
But Stocks showed he got the best results using dry abrasive. Go figure.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

There's of course always a risk of falling prey to snakeoil salesmen. But I believe Dunn isn't in it for the money, at least not primarily. He likes the topic, loves traveling and speaking, and on top of that he's engineer and machining expert.

I remember we had a discussion about Stocks' NOVA experiment in a different thread where I asked you whether there's a more detailed image of the hole they drilled (including the core). I think all we had for discussion was a low-res screenshot from the show where not much could be seen.

But the details are significant. Normally, with a bow drill and abrasive you shouldn't be getting any real grooves, certainly not helical ones. If the distance of the grooves is related to the feedrate, then this is an important detail.

That's why I think, if Stocks' result didn't match that, then it must have been a different tool and method that was used by the ancient workers.

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.

Valid point's but the Scientist researchers whom found this out favoured the genetic defects we have accrued over time as there favoured answer as to why.
The bone's of the Farmers whom probably lived very hard lives indeed were not compared to you or me but present day athletes.

As for Cheetos I prefer Quavers or an own brand version from a chain of supermarkets over here called Morrisons, we also despite Nestle utterly wrecking it still have better chocolate though it is also starting to turn into something horrible since Nestle like to put crap into everything they make, Cadburys is not Cadburys anymore it plastic chocolate cheese stuff probably packed full of crap including palm oil in the form of homogenised vegetable oil, God I hate Nestle it and it's chief executive need to rot in hell but that is my rant because they ruined MY Chocolate (something we only have because it was nicked from the south Americans and sadly is today grown and harvested by child slave labour in Africa despite some brand's trying to source ethically).

Anyway that's all for another thread but still I HATE Nestle (you know it's boss once said loudly that water should not be a human right because his company makes a fortune out of bottling and selling it real scumbag filthy evil dirty sort of human excrement in a suit).

a reply to: Harte

ok first you clearly either didnt see the show or didnt view it outside of a bias mind.

they showed from start to finish how they came to their "theory " (and that is what they called it), which experts help craft it (with qualifications) and to repeat myself stated this was A THEORY.

so if you had any question with their method (which I did have a few) you could see where they came from

hardly "let by the nose".

second... yes they have found structures as you said.. but even the scientists are not sure/confirm WHAT they were used for.

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.

hell we have bunkers that are filled in and damaged by nature we find from WWII from the germans (very good bunker buildings) we question what they were doing there.

what blows my mind is you are unable or unwilling to accept that maybe some things from "advance culture" will not exist thousands of years later and that mother nature always wins..

scrounger

a reply to: anonentity

Perhaps it was before the deluge, and done by men of renown. Part fallen angel part human. IQ's far beyond average human.

It isn't far fetched to me, especially with what I know and have seen.

Never mind the blue prints Egyptians left on building them .
Never mind people using tools that could be made then NOW to do the same thing and succeed .
Never mind ONE dude in Florida who Built a entire castle out of rock ALONE moving stones huge stones .
NEVER mind the you-tube videos of ONE dude Moving stones Just as big Along with nothing more then ropes and Long boards .
and of corse never Mind a Bunch of collage kids with motivation Using Nothing but rocks and rope to MOVE and place a Easter island statue .


NOPe no way humans can do any of it Must be advance lost teck and of coarse ALIENS because humans are Just to dumb to make a hole in a rock . Or move a rock or cut a rock no way no how dumb little monkeys humans are .

One day I expect scientist to find a 10,000 year old quantum computer so advanced it will take us a 1000 years to copy .
Yep 5000 year old spark plugs Tut had a Lear jet and crashed that what killed him and it was the alien factory's in orbit there the aliens showed Humans how to run that made all the stuff that is why we never find even ONE plastic wire they also clean the planet up every so off-ton just to foul us .


O and god put fake dinosaur bones as well and yep seen a trex just last week hanging with the FOOT So,e call him MR big .

I miss this stuff really i do but all the post do is insultingly the Human race making us either dumb as the rock with a hole or having got that dumb .

Tomb raiders. They tried everything.

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.

How is that relevant?
An excavation in the far future showing a concrete structure with a footprint of an acre would be evidence of our civilization, whatever its original use.

Harte

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.

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.

The AE's made a bed frame out of copper tubing, so we can't pretend they couldn't make copper tubes.
Somehow you seem to think I haven't really investigated this sawing procedure and the tools required.
You shouldn't make such an assumption.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Its not like 20 times a year someone creates a thread because they saw a youtube video telling us how incompetent our ancestors were. Amazes me because they arent smart enough to figure out how to do somethng they wantto assume no one can. I hear all the fake stuff about the pyramid all the time. you can just run through the checklist. No the joints are not so tight you cant put a razor blade between them. No the shafts dont point at any star system. No the salt on the walls had nothing to do with pumping water through them. Lets see mumies still have their hearts, Oh and another favorite most people do not know. Hieroglyphics were not invented by Sumerians its was the Egyptians both seems to have developed independently. And one of my favorites the great pyramid had a swivel door incrediby easy to open from the inside difficult from the outside. So no way anyone could have gotten trapped in the pyramid.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Harte

Its not like 20 times a year someone creates a thread because they saw a youtube video telling us how incompetent our ancestors were. Amazes me because they arent smart enough to figure out how to do somethng they wantto assume no one can. I hear all the fake stuff about the pyramid all the time. you can just run through the checklist. No the joints are not so tight you cant put a razor blade between them. No the shafts dont point at any star system. No the salt on the walls had nothing to do with pumping water through them. Lets see mumies still have their hearts, Oh and another favorite most people do not know. Hieroglyphics were not invented by Sumerians its was the Egyptians both seems to have developed independently. And one of my favorites the great pyramid had a swivel door incrediby easy to open from the inside difficult from the outside. So no way anyone could have gotten trapped in the pyramid.

Ipsedixitisms

or

'old biased paraphrased hearsay'. OBPH,

Yes the endless flow of the same misinformation over and over again. One simply gets bored with the one hundredth time that some one announces that copper chisels cannot work limestone, the pyramids are inhumanly precise, Atlantis is located at x and not sunk, Giants were real, the Pyramid texts were technology books, why is this?

Harte I would blame Harte, his presence anywhere tends to call up giddiness in some and loss of memory in most, and mild cases of death occasionally while engendering the love of made up stuff, woo he calls it and he does call it and it comes, and just keeps bubbling up...etc., etc., etc.