The ‘BASALT FLOOR’ Giza Plateau Smoking Gun Evidence of LOST ANCIENT TECHNOLOGY

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If such a landmark test was carried out they would of taped it.

I just told you what episode it was. It was taped. Feel free to watch it. You obviously care nothing for truth as you avoided any search whatsoever that would have shown you the truth. I found the episode in 5 minutes.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your making the great claim. You download and link the video, and once downloaded your tell me exactly where in the video it is and ill watch their test. Your obligation is to get the video linked here my obligation is to watch it once you've done that!

Once you have the video linked you can pm me with the link. Im open minded on this and nothing says more than see it first hand, and all the members in this thread should see it as well so this vid you refer to which shows the coppersaw sand combo needs to be linked in here for all to scutinize.

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It was 16 years ago, if you care nothing for the truth and wish to remain ignorant do so. I linked you the NOVA website. Copper and sand will work, proven 16 years ago. Feel free to buy Denys Stocks book if you want. Or stay ignorant, your choice.

Your rude and your replies show ignorance and hypocrisy but that's you mate, ive seen enough of your replies on ATS to expect a reply like the above.

I sourced it. It's a reputable source. You can't debunk it and know you are down for the count. Sand and copper work, it's been done experimentally and it worked.

You do realise that some of the blocks are 15ft by 10ft and above don't you?

Are you suggesting they used 15ft + saws?

The claim was it's impossible without iron.

I sourced it happening with only bronze.

Your goalpost change is even if possible here's another reason why they didn't do it.

I realize I completely invalidated the claim it could not be done without iron.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

I sourced NOVA. I feel no further obligation. If you want to ignore the facts you are welcome to it. Feel free to think NOVA is lying saying they witnessed it firsthand and is part of the conspiracy.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: skalla

yea I am sorry. I meant to say topic of cancer.

Although Piazzi Smyth may not have been the first European to suggest that the Giza complex had been built for a particular reason, he was the first person to bring the idea to the scientific forum. He concluded that Giza was deliberately placed both on the 30th parallel and at the centre of the old-world continents as a geodetic marker for the ancient world-meridian.

The separation of other sacred sites from this location by exact units of degrees and geometry, supports this claim.

Copy

Petrie probably couldn't pick up Smyth's compass.

Interesting and thanks for the link, but..

If you are going to use the appeal to authority in favour of Smyth, you would be advised not to use it against the eminent Petrie. But this is all just a logical fallacy, so meh.

As to the claim that the tropic of cancer passes right through the great pyramid:

Tropic of Cancer is 23.26 degrees north.



Great Pyramid is 29.98 degrees north

Unless you have other coordinates for consideration, it seems your statements don't hold up to examination. (ETA: Can you show it was directly over the GP when it was built?)

Also, how does one determine the exact geographical centre of continents, when their shape is so irregular.

In an entirely arbitrary manner is how.

Does no one fact check any more?

Why are people in this thread not actually saying what they mean and making the most basic of errors, like not even knowing the names of things they claim knowledge of?

Denying ignorance begins at home, people.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Don't know if already posted here, but this link seem to confirm your theory of a long Cu saw using abrasive material:

Ancient Egyptian Stoneworking Tools and Methods

Early ancient Egyptian lapidary slabbing saws would have been made of copper, either cast or cold-worked until the Middle Kingdom, when bronze tools became more available. At this point in their history either copper or bronze would likely have been used until iron began to appear in quantity during the New Kingdom period (late 18th Dynasty), which gradually increased in availability until it became as common as bronze in the 26 Dynasty (Arnold 1991). Petrie (1883) has suggested that the rectangular bronze or copper slabbing saws were up to 2.7 m in length and about 0.75 to 5 mm in thickness. These were used for the cutting of a variety of rock objects, including granite sarcophagi. Laurer (1962) suggested that a thin copper sheet in the form of a hand saw was used to make the front edge of closely jointed, limestone casing blocks as early as the 3rd Dynasty. Stocks (1988) demonstrated that a flat-edged copper saw blades 5 mm in thickness could be made by poring molten copper into a shallow open mold. Copper, bronze, and iron are insufficiently in terms of indentation hardness to cut by abrasion hard stones such as basalt, diorite, granite, greywacke (schist), and siliceous sandstone (quartzite). A harder material than the metal itself is required as an abrasive in order to cut these rocks. This abrasive material could have been used either as shards of mineral aggregates or crystals used as cutting teeth, charged copper or bronze (small abrasive grains impregnated into the metal), or as a loose abrasive.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And when the goal posts can't be moved any more, posts will be ignored.

Soon, toys will be thrown from the pram.

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It was 16 years ago, if you care nothing for the truth and wish to remain ignorant do so. I linked you the NOVA website. Copper and sand will work, proven 16 years ago. Feel free to buy Denys Stocks book if you want. Or stay ignorant, your choice.

Your rude and your replies show ignorance and hypocrisy but that's you mate, ive seen enough of your replies on ATS to expect a reply like the above.

I sourced it. It's a reputable source. You can't debunk it and know you are down for the count. Sand and copper work, it's been done experimentally and it worked.

You do realise that some of the blocks are 15ft by 10ft and above don't you?

Are you suggesting they used 15ft + saws?

Why would they need to be 15 feet? A pole lathe with a copper disk on the end of the spindle, and using sand as an abrasive would do it. You would just place it on a swinging arm to achieve the arc shown. Perhaps the blade slipped resulting in the irregularity you can see, the tech not being perfect, hence all the blocks where cuts went wrong and the poor buggers had to start again.

See these pics for examples if the term "pole-Lathe" is unfamiliar to you.





So here is some primitive tech that we already know of, which with a bit of adaptation, would be able to do the job.

And to be fair, it is a power tool of sorts and could achieve quite a few revs.

ETA: i still think copper slabbing saws did most of the cuts, seeing as the AE's illustrated their use.

All these replies and no one mentioned Petrie's core sample #7. It may have been one thing to cut a straight line but how was a hole saw made to cut a core? Chris Dunn says the striations show a speed that is impossible to replicate today.

I am a believer that the great pyramids are much older than the Egyptians. Same goes for the sphinx in my opinion. I'm a supporter of Chris Dunn's theory that the great pyramids were machines of a type that used the aquifers below for their energy process. I like Dunn's suggestion that many of the carvings in Egypt are less refined than, for example, the precision of the huge sarcophagus, suggesting the hieroglyphs may have been added at a later time. Also there are no hieroglyphs in the big three pyramids.

I just don't accept that the Egyptians built the great pyramids. Can anyone elaborate on Petrie's core sample 7? It has to be added to the machining discussion if we are going to consider the possibilities.

These threads are great fun and yet they are often made sour by people claiming they know all the answers. You don't, and anyone suggesting they do is just arrogant. There was some technology used that is lost to us for sure. The evidence isn't only at Giza, that's for sure. Writing off advanced technology for some simple explanation that doesn't support the scale of the great pyramids is shallow in my opinion.

I hate to repeat myself but...

The pyramids are right by the Nile river. It was most likely a type of water saw like we use to cut flooring tile, just on a larger scale. Also a high pressure jet of water can cut through steel (called waterjet cutting) . Leaving no residue for archaeologists to find. If you don't think that ancient people could produce a water jet, go look up what a bellows is. It doesn't have to only work with air. And it's been around for several millenia.

I'm a big believer in lost technologies, and lost civilizations.

I don't believe that the Egyptians built the Pyramids, or the Sphinx. They are the remains of a previous civilization.

The simple fact is copper tools, or a copper saw would not cut basalt. It would require more time, than is claimed that the pyramids were built in. It would require more resources than they had. Constant resupply of copper saws that wore down quickly is just not plausible. IMO.

Plus, wouldn't there still be some copper residue in the saw lines that could be tested for? Sawing like that would create a lot of heat, and some of that copper would surely be left behind as it wore away so quickly.

I think that as the climate changes, and Antarctica gets uncovered of it's ice layer, we're going to be very surprised at what we find there, and it will explain a lot about the ancient civilizations around the world. A lot of new questions too.

I just don't think it will be in any of our lifetimes.

Just out of interest, this does not seem out side of the realms of possibility to me. I'll try to find the full show, though if someone has better net-fu than i (most of you) could find it, it would be appreciated.

It does seem over the top to me though, as a copper wheel of much smaller size, using certain sands as the abrasive would still work. Heck, aluminium oxides, corundum, other powdered gems could be used etc



Nice speculation though.

At least it's an idea, rather than the entirely nebulous, undefined and goal-post-moving-bait that is "ancient lost technology"

a reply to: 02bmw76

Chris Dunn says a lot of stuff, a lot of which he knows nothing about.

Copper does not cut basalt. The abrasive that becomes trapped in the copper does though. There have been links provided in the thread on this already. Basalt has been cut and shaped by grinding since the stone age - man has worked this material for millennia prior to the Pyramids, whatever date you think they were built.

A copper tube around the spindle of a pump or bow drill will produce a cylindrical core too. The AE's illustrated the process.

I appreciate your interest, and yes I could, but considering the amount of ridicule I would likely recieve from those that I would not evaluate to be professional peers, it would really just be a waste of my time.

Besides, don't rely on my word or research, do your own, the facts are self-evident.

What facts?

That the issue at hand is a known unknown, that no technology exists or has existed that can adequately explain how this was done by an ancient people that had a low supply of wood, no complex metals, no electricity, and no technological linneage. Furthermore the Egyptiansaccomplished this feat and then decided not to tell anyone ever how they did it. That historians and Egyptologists avoid these questions out of political and economic motives.

Finally, I detect a hint of sarcasm in your reply. Don't assume everyone here is just playing around.

I'm a trained professional archaeologist, with hands-on experience in experimental archaeology.

Simple technologies readily available to the ancient Egyptians can explain all of this I'm afraid. The experiments have been done, they've been demonstrated to work.

It's really just a question of scale. Experimental archaeologists are teams of a half dozen or so people, the Egyptians could throw tens of thousands at their problems.

the Giza pyramid complex and the imaginary line with Cairo was the boundary between upper Egypt and lower Egypt which was a north-south demarcation
This 'dividing line' of upper & lower Egypt was intended to symbolize the dividing line between the physical/material world in Egypt (lower realm) and the ethereal/spiritual world in the heavens (upper realm)..


the 'giants' a sub group of people who were advanced in science, technology and construction built the pyramids of Giza complex as an 'Altar' as a reminder of the home of the Gods...
the indigenous laborers were smallest in stature in the surviving wall carvings, the supervisors were 2X larger, the Architects/Planners/Advanced leaders were 4X bigger, just go look at actual ancient Egyptian reliefs
These Giants who masterminded the pyramid-as-Altars complex and created the Pharoah Dynasty System left the mystery for humanity to ponder and to eventually realize the dual meanings of the upper-&-lower kingdoms
---- concerning ancient Egypt on one hand and concerning the linkage or portal between the Earth and Heaven on the other hand

I submit that the Giants of pre-dynasty Egypt were exiles from the fabled "Atlantis" (for a reason to keep their real heritage kept secret)

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: 02bmw76

Chris Dunn says a lot of stuff, a lot of which he knows nothing about.

Copper does not cut basalt. The abrasive that becomes trapped in the copper does though. There have been links provided in the thread on this already. Basalt has been cut and shaped by grinding since the stone age - man has worked this material for millennia prior to the Pyramids, whatever date you think they were built.

A copper tube around the spindle of a pump or bow drill will produce a cylindrical core too. The AE's illustrated the process.

True in fact Chinese was cutting quartz using abrasives at around the same time period. It's not a mystery other than why people would think ancient man wasn't smart enough to build tools.

This... is a TEST cut.


I'm about to put on my logic cap here and go out on a limb. Anyone who says these cuts were made by hand, saws, copper tools, slaves or anything which requires hours and hours of cutting, man power, blood sweat and tears, is not using their head.

You do not build monolithic structures by wasting time and making mistakes. This is clear evidence of machine tools and is a sample of test cuts, not a mistake from one measurement to another. No way. Be smart about this.

a reply to: FlySolo

Looks like 'Lazer' cutting or 'Diamond' and 'Quartz'.

Were these materials available in the area?

Could the materials have been bought over from a different area?? boat? of course.

Similar to the tools used to slice that Mountain in Peru.