Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

Harte takes quite a simplistic dismissive manner when replying to Purplemer , which implies a thorough knowledge of the subject of turning Granite bowls and vases, which cannot be the case, as Harte wasn’t there when the object was created. Harte can not tell us what kind of Lathe was used, Harte cannot tell us exactly what tooling was used, Harte cannot tell us how the bottom curved surface of the bowl was created on the lathe using his suggested method, yet implies to Purplemer that the answer is as simple and easy as turning a wood bowl on a wood lathe. It is not.
I notice you don’t pick up on any of my other points regarding accuracy, tool forces and the difference in behaviour between wood and stone, just simply pick up on my point of suggested ease of creation. impla reply to: Phage

a reply to: bluesfreak

I fully acknowledge the high level of craftsmanship which you point out.
Better?

LMAO. I am also not implying that turning a wooden bowl on a wood lathe is easy, either. I have friends who are wood turners, and believe me , it takes a lot of skill to do, highly practised, and to be honest, it’s pretty dangerous too if you’re doing it manually. a reply to: Phage

Here is MY suggestion for how that perfect curved bottom of the bowl was created, from someone who uses a lathe daily:
The outside shape is formed first; bowl, long neck, short neck, whichever you desire.
The inside is then drilled through, then bored out , or hollowed, using whichever method works best on this tough, pesky granite.
The piece is then removed from the ‘chuck’ ( the bit that holds the piece to the lathe) it is turned around, and is put back in the chuck using the turned over neck to hold in place in the chuck.
The piece is now back on the original centre it was turned from.
The bottom is finished using this centre so it stands accurately on its own centre point.
Easy enough for anyone who is half decent on a lathe; BUT!!! This implies an ACCURATE chuck system for holding the workpiece. That in itself throws up all sorts of questions that Harte, Hanslune etc wont like.
Just as a side note , for those that don’t work on a lathe(!) , there is always material left in the ‘chuck’ end of a lathe when work is completed, the object you are making is part of this material, so you would HAVE to turn the bowl around to finish it’s curved base accurately and correctly. If you did not, because the piece starts with the BASE end attached to the chuck end, as you came close to finish it, it would literally fly off the lathe ( you would be cutting it off!) before you could accurately turn the very last millimetres .

originally posted by: bluesfreak
As a machinist,I’ll answer for Purplemer.
On a Metalworking lathe we have various ‘Boring bars’ ( not Boring as in “this is boring” but BORING as in boring out a hole) and on woodworking lathes there are various methods and what are generally called ‘hollowing ‘ tools; hook shaped turning tools.
However Harte, being a former ME, you should know there is a huge difference between hand turning wood and Granite. A huge difference in pressure on the tool tip, and the forces involved.

There would normally be a great deal of pressure on stone if you're turning it on a lathe. But you don't actually have to use that much if you don't mind taking a month or two to hollow it out. And the AE's abraded out the hollows, they didn't turn anything on a lathe. They spun the tool, not the work.

originally posted by: bluesfreakFor these granite vases , I would surmise a VERY rigid lathe and tool holding set-up was required , and perhaps you could tell the class what kind of tip is required on the tool to perform the operation in the manner you suggest .
Back to Denys Stocks, no doubt?

Did you watch the vid of the stone bowl being made? There was no lathe there.

Finishing the hollow would take a tip on a forked holder so that the tip could rotate up even with the shaft to get through the hole, then fall open because it is top heavy. In some of these urns and vases, it would be the dickens getting it out, but it's not like they had to hurry.
But lots of hollowing could be done fairly easily with just a straight shaft and sand, as long as the shaft had a significantly smaller diameter than the hole.

I certainly believe various jigs would have been used.

Harte

I did indeed watch the video, and yes, very interesting indeed, however, the bowl manufacturers also seem to be taking their time whilst making them , and yet, the finished bowls , as impressive as they are, still do not appear to have the same symmetry as some of the AE examples. The SYMMETRY is the key here, implying a very solid lathe/jig system was used.
Interestingly, I recently visited the AE section of the Liverpool museum here in the uk, and the several bowls on display had pure concentric rings inside very evenly spaced especially near the curved inside bottom of the bowl. No grinding or abrasive there, just pure lathe work leaving its forensic fingerprint. With all the other accomplishments that the AE managed, who are we to say they couldn’t have made a primitive , but rigid, Lathe. Again, the forensics of tool marks play a major part in suggesting that they did, indeed , have lathes of some sort. a reply to: Harte

And ps, Harte, your opinion on the perfection in the bowl that self balances please -in relation to the primitive fabrication method shown a reply to: Harte

a reply to: Harte

No, it's perfectly clear that you haven't (or won't) acknowledge that exactly the same "problem" exists with the woodwork I linked. What's also clear is that you won't try and find out what kind of turning tool can make a hollow cut like that.

Please stop making stuff up. Granite machinists say they cannot do this. Yet you are telling me it can be in granite. Show me examples or consider yourself

debunked

:-)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bluesfreak

I fully acknowledge the high level of craftsmanship which you point out.
Better?

If you fully acknowledged it you would say some of the examples shown are so advanced that even today with our bestest of machines they cannot be replicated.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
And ps, Harte, your opinion on the perfection in the bowl that self balances please -in relation to the primitive fabrication method shown a reply to: Harte

I dont think thats going to happen because we cannot do it. Its impossible. This idea has been debunked. Thank you for your replies.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Here is MY suggestion for how that perfect curved bottom of the bowl was created, from someone who uses a lathe daily:
The outside shape is formed first; bowl, long neck, short neck, whichever you desire.
The inside is then drilled through, then bored out , or hollowed, using whichever method works best on this tough, pesky granite......
(snip)
If you did not, because the piece starts with the BASE end attached to the chuck end, as you came close to finish it, it would literally fly off the lathe ( you would be cutting it off!) before you could accurately turn the very last millimetres .

Two things: 1- The bowls aren't perfectly symmetric or balanced.
2- The problems you describe (flying off the lathe, etc) only occur if you're turning the object quickly. If you're hand-cranking it, the problem is very minimal.

...and third, there's images of them working these bowls (a nice discussion with images from tombs and so forth on Reshfam) They aren't being done horizontally, but rather vertically. The lathe itself is turning, not the bowl/vase.

originally posted by: Harte

But lots of hollowing could be done fairly easily with just a straight shaft and sand, as long as the shaft had a significantly smaller diameter than the hole.

I certainly believe various jigs would have been used.
Harte

There aren't any images (as far as I know) showing them using jigs. They worked the bowls upright, while they were on a table or on the ground (according to the tomb images that I find.)

Hi Byrd,
1) The bowl that balances on its own curved base HAS to be perfectly symmetrical internally and externally or it would fall over. It’s centre point is therefore PERFECT , and was turned on a perfect centre, it’s base curve is also therefore PERFECT. From a machinists/fabricators point of view, I truly fail to see why egyptologists aren’t ASTOUNDED by this object. It is a STAGGERING piece of work, don’t you get it?!
2) Turning slowly produces a far rougher cut , as the turning tool has more opportunity to ‘dig in’ to the material, it can therefore be less accurate too. This is what you see in Harte’s video example.
The bowls I saw in Liverpool museum looked pretty accurate to my machinists eye , AND contained striations that indicate a very well centred lathe turning.
There is also a lack of AE artwork explaining MANY things regarding construction techniques, lifting techniques, quarrying techniques, and in my mind, TURNING techniques.
You know, sometimes you guys have to admit there are anomalies (the balancing bowl IS one of them) and that the AE didn’t leave behind instruction or clues on how they did everything. a reply to: Byrd

Ps- we’ve all seen pictures of horizontal primitive lathes that are powered by a bent down tree sapling that springs back up, and turns the lathe spindle, right?? a reply to: Byrd

a reply to: Byrd

Two things: 1- The bowls aren't perfectly symmetric or balanced. 2- The problems you describe (flying off the lathe, etc) only occur if you're turning the object quickly.

If you're hand-cranking it, the problem is very minimal. ...and third, there's images of them working these bowls (a nice discussion with images from tombs and so forth on Reshfam) They aren't being done horizontally, but rather vertically. The lathe itself is turning, not the bowl/vase.

You are evading the issue. Experts cannot replicate these today. Did you not read my link.

Other pieces turned out of granite, porphory or basalt are fully hollowed with narrow undercut flared openings, and some even have long necks. Since we have yet to reproduce such pieces it is safe to say that the techniques or machinery they employed to produce these bowls has yet to be replicated.

www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

This artefact was made by granite and by admission of your own link could not have been made.

While metal chisels could be used to shape soft limestone, the metals available to the ancient Egyptians, copper, bronze and during the first millennium BCE wrought iron, were far too soft to work igneous rock.

www.reshafim.org.il...


If your going to link. Link evidence that does not debunk you.



Happy Sunday.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte

Where in Sacred Geometry does one find information about the speed of light?

If you are intrested please go and have a read for yourself. Its good stuff. Could you answer my question for me please. Can you you show me how modern machines could replicate this ancient Egyptain granite jug. To me it seems like an impossible thing to do.

I wouldn't put it past the ancients to have found a better way than a lathe.

Perhaps they put wood under it and floated it on water when they were cutting it? Or floated the cutting mechanism on water. Or something like that which employs physics to guarantee symmetry.

But the fact we use lathes today doesn't mean they had to have used lathes.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: peacefulpete

These are not fringe ideas. This is our history and it is being kept hidden from us. Once upon a time acnient peeps all around the world decided to build massive pyramids and monoliths out of huge stone. Some of which weighing thousands of tonnes. The aligned these structures to very specific alignments. They then all just stopped.

it is evident there are links in culture. Thank you for your replies in this thread.

Extrtemely fringy unfortunately or if you wish alternative. Oh so whose hiding all this history from you?

Now lets get our facts straight one - exactly one statue weigh 1,000 tons everything else was less than that and very few very heavy stones were moved because it was really hard to do.

No they kept building but they found easier ways to build stuff - the amount of material in the Roman roads drafts the work on the great pyramid.

Once upon a time it was easier to cut a few large stones and move them but later they found it easier to cut and move smaller stones as technology improved.

Can you design a structure on earth that aligns to nothing? Given the sky above has thousands of moving dots you can line it up with something at some time. However they did line stuff up especially to sunset and sunrise on key days important to farmers.

I find it hard to believe that moving a few heavy stones could ever be easier than moving many small stones, at any level of technology.

But it's important to remember that monuments are not built because they are easy. They're built to show off.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Harte takes quite a simplistic dismissive manner when replying to Purplemer , which implies a thorough knowledge of the subject of turning Granite bowls and vases, which cannot be the case, as Harte wasn’t there when the object was created. Harte can not tell us what kind of Lathe was used, Harte cannot tell us exactly what tooling was used, Harte cannot tell us how the bottom curved surface of the bowl was created on the lathe using his suggested method, yet implies to Purplemer that the answer is as simple and easy as turning a wood bowl on a wood lathe. It is not.
I notice you don’t pick up on any of my other points regarding accuracy, tool forces and the difference in behaviour between wood and stone, just simply pick up on my point of suggested ease of creation. impla reply to: Phage

The fact a theory can't give you all the answers is NEVER a good reason to dismiss it.

The Goddidit theory of creation has all the answers you could ever want, about any question you could possibly pose. But that doesn't mean it is founded on sensible evidence.

If they are pumping water out from under the Sphinx every day,you are going to need a dive team. I’m in, if anyone can get permission for the expedition.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Hanslune

You are denying a body of knowledge you don't know.

This is a supressed subject. You want to understand this learn from the Dogon.

Sorry but lamely claiming something is 'suppressed' doesn't mean it is. Look I understand you have no real counter to the problem - you have denied a body of knowledge you know nothing about and you've been challenged on it. You have no basis for you claim.

Your made up excuse is rejected.

However if you have some special secret information why not take it here:

www.arce.org...

2019 ANNUAL MEETING OF
THE AMERICAN RESEARCH CENTER IN EGYPT

You can tell them that you have dismissed their research....should be a good chuckle

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte

The picture of the vase I posted cannot be replicated today.

How do you know that?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Hanslune

Since Pharaohs in accordance to their religion have to be buried underground you have muted your own point. There is no exception to this rule. They where not burial chambers.

You do realize the religion was being made up at that point and the Pharaoh was a God? Ever heard of a Pharaoh Akhanaten I believe he radically changed the religion - how did he do that? How did the next guy change it back?

Poor example

Damn right i can prove they are the burial chamber for Osirus. Historical legends stated that the well at the bottom lead to the burial chamber of Osisris and that he was buried on an island surrounded by water. Hey presto!

So when are you going to prove it then?


And why does this support your contention - can you point to something in writing (by the ancient Egyptian that says this?

Lets see your evidence that this is Khufus pyramid.

Really you're so badly educated on the subject that I have to inform you of the basic evidence?

Why?

We both know what it is and you're going to deny it and then I will deny your denial .......the point of this is what exactly?

No matter how many times you deny the evidence - it still exists.