For those who continue to believe nobody knows why the pyramids were built

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
what do you mean- again with? Again with? how about for starters and you never get past it you just jump around it and suck up everything these morons were claiming back in the 1800s. "Symmetry" means, for example when you're cutting a hole with a copper hole saw that needs to be changed every so many number of cuts the next one had better be an exact replica or else the symmetry of the hole will not be the same all the way through. The examples we see in Giza and other places are consistently symmetrical. Where is the proof you can do this with bamboo technology? Or when you are cutting a specific angle that has to match perfectly with another angle and you have to repeat this over and over and over and over and over and over... I hope you are getting the picture. Unless your tools are made perfectly identical you will not get consistent tolerances and symmetries especially for example when the tools are flopping around using a stupid bow saw with inconsistent pressures and angles of cuts. These are the real issues here, not what some guy thought up back in the 1800s while looking for fame and fortune to be the first to solve the riddle. You guys spent too much time reading the lies than you did DOING the actual work or understanding what is involved. just the fact you don't know what I'm talking about when I mention these things proves yer all focusing on the wrong things.


a reply to: Harte

Where is the evidence that these ancient holes are all exactly the same diameter throughout?

The fact that you don't know what I'm talking about (even though I've asked you about it at least four times in this thread) proves yer focusing on the wrong things.

Harte

My friend wouldn't you want to know if there is or isn't a difference? You are accusing me of exactly the same thing you are doing. why are you advocating not comparing them, isn't that welcoming ignorance?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
what do you mean- again with? Again with? how about for starters and you never get past it you just jump around it and suck up everything these morons were claiming back in the 1800s. "Symmetry" means, for example when you're cutting a hole with a copper hole saw that needs to be changed every so many number of cuts the next one had better be an exact replica or else the symmetry of the hole will not be the same all the way through. The examples we see in Giza and other places are consistently symmetrical. Where is the proof you can do this with bamboo technology? Or when you are cutting a specific angle that has to match perfectly with another angle and you have to repeat this over and over and over and over and over and over... I hope you are getting the picture. Unless your tools are made perfectly identical you will not get consistent tolerances and symmetries especially for example when the tools are flopping around using a stupid bow saw with inconsistent pressures and angles of cuts. These are the real issues here, not what some guy thought up back in the 1800s while looking for fame and fortune to be the first to solve the riddle. You guys spent too much time reading the lies than you did DOING the actual work or understanding what is involved. just the fact you don't know what I'm talking about when I mention these things proves yer all focusing on the wrong things.


a reply to: Harte

Where is the evidence that these ancient holes are all exactly the same diameter throughout?

The fact that you don't know what I'm talking about (even though I've asked you about it at least four times in this thread) proves yer focusing on the wrong things.

Harte

My friend wouldn't you want to know if there is or isn't a difference? You are accusing me of exactly the same thing you are doing. why are you advocating not comparing them, isn't that welcoming ignorance?

I haven't advocated anything but the fact that granite can be cut through the use of copper and abrasives.

In fact, I asked multiple times for any info you might have on the "symmetries and tolerances" of Ancient Egyptian holes sawn in granite.

Unfortunately, this idea appears to be a vague notion you simply hold in your head for no good reason, so I can't begin to make the comparison you asked about.

Regarding your claim that "spiral" cuts can be seen in the pics of these holes you linked to, take a look at the hole I originally posted many pages back.

Exactly the same pattern on the inside surface as the ones you referenced.

Harte

No matter what you want to believe abrasives and a back and forth motion is not going to make the sides look like that. you can think it would but it doesn't. that is from the cutting tool moving down through the material. abrasives would polish the sides not leave a groove. You can protest that you know all about Egyptology but it has no bearing on the things that are most important. you've wasted your life on some fairytale. deal with it. and stay ignorant it suits you well.


a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
No matter what you want to believe abrasives and a back and forth motion is not going to make the sides look like that. you can think it would but it doesn't. that is from the cutting tool moving down through the material. abrasives would polish the sides not leave a groove.

You don't see the concentric grooves left in the hole sawn by Stocks in this pic I posted before?



Yeah. Right. "Polished."

originally posted by: bottleslingguy You can protest that you know all about Egyptology but it has no bearing on the things that are most important.

At least you don't mention those mysterious, unknown and undocumented "symmetries and tolerances" that you need to establish in order to (for some reason) debunk the established fact that granite can be sawn with copper and sand.

originally posted by: bottleslingguyyou've wasted your life on some fairytale. deal with it. and stay ignorant it suits you well.

You are so self-blinded by the ignorance you cling desperately (and neurotically) to that you don't even see that Stocks experiment left the same marks we see on AE sawn holes, and you have the nerve to characterize my view?

You think I don't get where you're coming from?
You:
"NO! It can't be true that the Egyptians used mundane means! Otherwise, there's no sparkles left in my world view!!!"

Go back to page 3. You'll see I entered this thread with proof that granite can be sawn with copper and sand, and I did so entirely in response to more than one poster that said it was impossible. Even you admitted it was true.

So, what's your problem here?

Are you now saying granite can't be cut this way?

Like I said before, let me know when you have something other than your personal opinion, created to support your world view of "ancient advanced tool use" or whatever it is you have in mind.

Harte

fig. 5.5 pg 143 is not in any chance of a rational person's mind going to give you a symmetrically spiral groove. no way. I don't care what picture you show me as yer proof. it's complete nonsense.

figs. 5.8-5.11 pg. 146 show people making food or powering some kind of devise or maybe they're making ice cream in a vessel that is already made. what makes the author think they are actually making these things? and this also falls under the category of why the hell don't they make beautiful vessels like this today with that technique? that's the thing about bamboo tech if it's so friggin easy why the hell don't they still do it that way? you mean somebody can't get 30,000 workers and just build another gigantic, perfectly symmetric eight sided pyramid with stick ropes and rocks?

it's funny how you act like I'm the only one who thinks this. I don't think this way because I visited Egypt I think this way because EVERY cut, not just the holes (which begs the question why they did this type of cut and how they aligned the subsequent holes using ropes and sticks aka bamboo tech) tells a story. why on Earth would you keep sawing into granite with hand tools once you had gone far enough? and again this brings up the time problem.




a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: Harte
You know I've seen you post that.


Harte

Curious question Mr. Harte -
Until December 21st the solstice day of this year 2015
the only place to see those pics is on my website..so if you've seen them before???

The question is - have you secretly been following my quest for truth?

It's okay to come out of that sarcophagus academia has the box lid nailed shut on..history is changing.
I personally invite you to come along for the journey.

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet

originally posted by: Harte
You know I've seen you post that.


Harte

Curious question Mr. Harte -
Until December 21st the solstice day of this year 2015
the only place to see those pics is on my website..so if you've seen them before???

The question is - have you secretly been following my quest for truth?

It's okay to come out of that sarcophagus academia has the box lid nailed shut on..history is changing.
I personally invite you to come along for the journey.

If you didn't post it here, I saw it on another forum.

It wasn't you?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet

originally posted by: Harte
You know I've seen you post that.


Harte

Curious question Mr. Harte -
Until December 21st the solstice day of this year 2015
the only place to see those pics is on my website..so if you've seen them before???

The question is - have you secretly been following my quest for truth?

It's okay to come out of that sarcophagus academia has the box lid nailed shut on..history is changing.
I personally invite you to come along for the journey.

If you didn't post it here, I saw it on another forum.

It wasn't you?

Harte

It was only on my website and a small quick glimpse in 1st the video (with no explanation)
until December 21st where I posted it to my FB Community before I posted it here.
No other websites have it unless a website member is showing my work as it is free for academic purposes.

It is getting around the Inter-web

a reply to: frostie

Lmao!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: punkinworks10

I wonder if it has anything to do with what Diodorus Siculus said of Khufu (Cheops) and Khafra (Chephren)?

"The kings designed these pyramids for their sepulchre; yet it happened that their remains were not here deposited. The people were so exasperated against them by the severe labors they had been compelled to endure, and were so enraged at the oppressive cruelty of their princes, that they threatened to take their bodies from their tombs, and cast them to the dogs. Both of them therefore, when dying, ordered their attendants to bury them in some secret place."

Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus are a mixed bag though. Herodotus was what four centuries earlier and he was still more than 2000 years after the pyramids were built. Herodotus is the primary reason that until recently it was believed that slaves built the pyramids at Giza (and that it took 100,000 slaves 20 years to do build the GP).

I think you did a good job showing the evolutionary line of development but I think that would be the case as well if it predated those tombs by a substantial duration. For example we can see in some of the South American architecture that the greater stone blocks were not reconstructed in kind but rebuilt with less sophisticated blocks.

My main hang up is that we have less grand mastaba's with clarity of purpose and yet the great pyramid, even after losing it's brilliant casing stones, gives someone a sense of awe and purpose that is entirely vacant inside.

Your quote addresses my concern at it's heart but the quote is a foot note quoting Diodorus that is attached to the account of Herodotus describing the vacancy of the pyramid of Cheops. I cannot find this quote of Diodorus intact to determine context. Do you, anyone, have the original?

Also thanks for earnestly taking up the other side of the Great Pyramid discussion.

Doesn't this all presuppose there was no pre-Egyptian civilization, though?

originally posted by: CajunMetal
Doesn't this all presuppose there was no pre-Egyptian civilization, though?

There isn't any evidence of a pre-Egyptian civilization (meaning a culture that had a political organization and developed farming techniques and had domesticated animals and people who had trades and lived in cities.)

pre-Egyptian cultures, yes. There's a tons (quite literally) of evidence all over the world for hundreds of thousands of different cultures.

originally posted by: CajunMetal
Doesn't this all presuppose there was no pre-Egyptian civilization, though?

So wiki has a whole page on this subject which doesn't exist ?
en.wikipedia.org...

The prominent stellar theories relating to the Giza pyramid design are Robert Bauval's Orion theory and Andrew Collins' Cygnus theory.

The problem with these is that the pyramid apex to star mapping is not precise. They are more or less equally imprecise with the central pyramid angle error in Orion's case being more than 4 degrees.

Although I believe the ancient architects were aware of the similarity between what they designed and the position of key stars of the aforementioned constellations I think their primary focus was different. They were primarily focused on geography not astronomy, on mountains not stars.

In June I published the book "Amphion's Secret" at Amazon:

www.amazon.com... f=sr_1_fkmrnull_1

This month I published in book: "The Giza Mountains of Sinai" at Amazon:

www.amazon.com... f=sr_1_1

Te first book reveals how the design of IV dynasty pyramids following those of Sneferu were planned so as to define mountains and mountain ranges in Greece(Hellas). The structures of the first king of the V dynasty is also studied.

The second book presents a parallel encoding, one that focuses on Egypt. It thus explains how landmarks in Greece and Egypt are divinely interlinked to form a geometrically attractive grand plan.

This is a very nice way to depict what the Giza design was. Two fingers depict the two mountain series alignments(2 distinct geographic mappings). The three continent pyramid geographical correlation. You have a direction and a horizontal scaling factor. The other finger depicts the vertical scaling factor. You have a direction vertical to the previous one and a different scaling factor.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Howdy Spiros

The problem with your 'pyramids are related to mountains in Greece' idea is that it's not very believable nor interesting - like space aliens or Atlantis. I know you've spent a lot of time on it but there are reasons why people don't warm up to it.

μπράβο!

This has become one of the most interesting thread discussions about stone work. I work on a lathe and a milling machine every day , and the point that Harte is failing to understand is that ANY tool, no matter what it is, or what material it is working on, will leave a trace that you could use to determine said tool, tool diameter, and feed rate across the surface.
Petrie himself stated
“"The spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."
To rotate a tool through granite is also dependent on the force required to aid pushing the tool through the said granite. The strength of your cutting tool (and it’s sharpness)will determine the time it takes to complete your work.
I have seen the vid of the guys cutting stone using sand and saws, but I nearly spat out my drink when they show a half mm depression and say something like “ it only took us two days to do this”
Now if Petrie gives us a depth per revolution or a fractional representation of the core sample material rate removal, then it implies a lot of pressure to maintain such a cut. Unfortunately for me, the proof of concept of cutting granite with sand , let alone coring to the same specs as the core Petrie examined does not “cut it” (joke) here. Harte talks about proof of concept that sand can cut granite , that we don’t know what ‘jigs’ they used; well to exert perhaps a couple of tonnes of pressure on a copper tube of 1or 2 mm thick will require certainly a fixed point cutting system or frame that is capable of withstanding said forces....and yes abrasive cutting does work, however it’s up to the likes of Harte and Egyptology as a whole to prove to us that the sand abrasive method produces the same tooling marks and that it can rotate said tool to the same depths at the same ratio as was shown in the core sample.
I have seen many images of stone in AE blatantly cut with circular saws, (circular tools leave circular marks behind) the stone doesn’t lie, and neither does the tool used to cut it, but still Egyptology will tell us that these stones were ‘sawn’ with a straight saw or pounded with a dolorite pounder that is softer than the stone it is bashing. As a machinist, I don’t expect Egyptologists to recognise things they don’t understand or know what they are looking at, that’s why the subject needs a multi discipline approach , but when the other disciplines try to pitch in , it seems Egyptology is not so keen to look at the evidence.
I would like to see someone ‘pound’ a piece of granite with a dolorite pounder and replicate consistent feed-rate rotational based cutting marks that we see on many stones in AE.

I don’t have all the answers, the stones do.

Ps- it’s the sand that does the cutting in Hartes example, not the copper.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
This has become one of the most interesting thread discussions about stone work. I work on a lathe and a milling machine every day , and the point that Harte is failing to understand is that ANY tool, no matter what it is, or what material it is working on, will leave a trace that you could use to determine said tool, tool diameter, and feed rate across the surface.
Petrie himself stated
“"The spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."
To rotate a tool through granite is also dependent on the force required to aid pushing the tool through the said granite. The strength of your cutting tool (and it’s sharpness)will determine the time it takes to complete your work.
I have seen the vid of the guys cutting stone using sand and saws, but I nearly spat out my drink when they show a half mm depression and say something like “ it only took us two days to do this”
Now if Petrie gives us a depth per revolution or a fractional representation of the core sample material rate removal, then it implies a lot of pressure to maintain such a cut. Unfortunately for me, the proof of concept of cutting granite with sand , let alone coring to the same specs as the core Petrie examined does not “cut it” (joke) here. Harte talks about proof of concept that sand can cut granite , that we don’t know what ‘jigs’ they used; well to exert perhaps a couple of tonnes of pressure on a copper tube of 1or 2 mm thick will require certainly a fixed point cutting system or frame that is capable of withstanding said forces....and yes abrasive cutting does work, however it’s up to the likes of Harte and Egyptology as a whole to prove to us that the sand abrasive method produces the same tooling marks and that it can rotate said tool to the same depths at the same ratio as was shown in the core sample.
I have seen many images of stone in AE blatantly cut with circular saws, (circular tools leave circular marks behind) the stone doesn’t lie, and neither does the tool used to cut it, but still Egyptology will tell us that these stones were ‘sawn’ with a straight saw or pounded with a dolorite pounder that is softer than the stone it is bashing. As a machinist, I don’t expect Egyptologists to recognise things they don’t understand or know what they are looking at, that’s why the subject needs a multi discipline approach , but when the other disciplines try to pitch in , it seems Egyptology is not so keen to look at the evidence.
I would like to see someone ‘pound’ a piece of granite with a dolorite pounder and replicate consistent feed-rate rotational based cutting marks that we see on many stones in AE.

I don’t have all the answers, the stones do.

Ps- it’s the sand that does the cutting in Hartes example, not the copper.

Once Petrie showed some cores to engineers, he changed his mind.

Take a closer look at the grooves left in Stock's hole. I'd estimate they are close to 0.100 apart.

Harte

a reply to: theantediluvian

The pictures you show all look like poor copies.
Why they were built? They are not tombs. The great pyramid was covered in mica. Its more convincing to argue it was a great electrical capacitor than a tomb.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The pictures you show all look like poor copies.
Why they were built? They are not tombs. The great pyramid was covered in mica. Its more convincing to argue it was a great electrical capacitor than a tomb.