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

Stocks deliberately chose a soft stone for his proof of concept. Why not granite, or the other harder than limestone stone the AE used?
We know why.
His copper saw and sand attempt on granite the granite block took him 3 days to make a 1mm tickle on the granite, which we already discussed on another thread.
This STILL doesn’t explain away lathe tooling forensics on some of these bowls, NOR the perfection in the bowl that self balances on an egg-like curve in its base.
Stocks again getting credit for a proof of concept that doesn’t prove the concept .
Both his sawing and coring of granite produced a far rougher cut than we see on AE work, implying the AE had a far more RIGID set-up to produce a far superior and efficient cut.
There are anomalies, Harte, and they are usually in granite, we mustn’t fear the anomaly because we have no answer for it, it will lead to great answers in the end if we pursue its truths.
That self balancing bowl is truly remarkable from a fabrication point of view, and as a former M.E yourself, I’m quite surprised/shocked you don’t perceive it that way.

a reply to: Harte

And as a ps- As a lathe operator, I am CONVINCED that some of these bowls are turned, and turned in a different way to the vertical basic set up shown in AE artwork.
But why wouldn’t they have different fabrication methods for , let’s say, different materials? We do today...

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Stocks deliberately chose a soft stone for his proof of concept. Why not granite, or the other harder than limestone stone the AE used?

Because he's an Archaeologist, not a stone worker from Ancient Egypt with a family tradition of working stones for thousands of years.

originally posted by: bluesfreakWe know why.
His copper saw and sand attempt on granite the granite block took him 3 days to make a 1mm tickle on the granite, which we already discussed on another thread.

That may have been "discussed," but it's still not true.

Stocks cored a piece of rose granite from Aswan for a program shown on Nova. Your "1 mm tickle" was 5 centimeters deep. It was shown in linked photographs. The video can be found out there, but you appear afraid to look.

Harte

Stocks cored a piece of rose granite from Aswan for a program shown on Nova. Your "1 mm tickle" was 5 centimeters deep. It was shown in linked photographs. The video can be found out there, but you appear afraid to look.

No, not afraid at all, have watched it, and just watched it again. My mistake on the 1mm, and yes, maybe 4-5 cm deep. However the exact quote given on the video that you handily omit is when they point at it triumphantly and declare “ this took us only a few days” .
Minutes before in the video , stocks himself says it should cut through the granite at 4cm an HOUR. Didn’t work, did it? It took them “ a few days” , but that could mean , say, 4 days, couldn’t it? For 4-5 cm. So again, we debate, a 6 sided cube would take how long?
Then I think about extracting a 70tonne piece of granite for inside the great pyramid, think about guys with copper saws, and start to think “ this can’t be right”. And for a 70tonne piece you’d need a bloody long saw and some serious guide jigs to keep the course of the cut on track. Where is the AE artwork for extracting huge granite blocks from a quarry? There is none.
If I wanted to prove my bowl making technique worked on granite, I’d have damn well done it in granite then it’s ‘no comeback’ time, instead of opting out to use a softer stone, then declare it’s the method. Not proof, just a concept.
Me saying that I have seen with my own eyes, and seen in photographs forensic clues relating to lathe turning, is just as much of a ‘proof of concept’ and just as valid as Denys Stocks claims regarding ancient granite cutting. I know more than any archaeologist about lathework and turning, and some of the bowls discussed WERE done on lathes, I have no doubt. The circles in the centre of some bowls are too perfect for the primitive method for granite.
You’re a former M.E, take some of these bowl pictures, with perfect circular striations and perfect circles in the centre , perfectly centred; and the bowl that balances on its own (perfect) centre to some machinists you know , see what they say.
You still think they didn’t have different methods for different materials, as we do today? Oh I forgot, you didn’t answer me that question last time I asked you...




a reply to: Harte

:

Because he's an Archaeologist, not a stone worker from Ancient Egypt with a family tradition of working stones for thousands of years.

Sorry, but aren’t some of these bowls we’ve been debating from the first dynasty, or very early in AE history? Found at Saqqara? Where are the ‘thousands of years’ practice coming from? Are you referring to Hanslune’s invisible civilisation there? The one that couldn’t/didn’t exist before the AE? a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Sorry, but aren’t some of these bowls we’ve been debating from the first dynasty, or very early in AE history? Found at Saqqara? Where are the ‘thousands of years’ practice coming from? Are you referring to Hanslune’s invisible civilisation there? The one that couldn’t/didn’t exist before the AE? a reply to: Harte

That would be the preceeding 3 million years of humans (the Stone Age). As a species, would you not think we got quite proficient at working with stone over such a long time frame?

And what both Hans and Harte keep alluding to is that the AE possessed the skills of such a long development period. Something that we no longer have because we simply do not need them with modern advances. Frankly, i'm far more impressed with AE surgery skills than i am with their stone carving skills (impressive as they were).

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Harte
www.sci-lib.net...

In Chapter 5, Stocks demonstrates his own making of a limestone vessel with the mouth half the diameter of the vase.
This book is the source mentioned in Byrd's link, where the author stated:

Denys A. Stocks who experimented with ancient Egyptian techniques,[9] produced a limestone vessel almost 11 cm tall, with a diameter of 10 cm and a neck opening of 5 cm. It took him 22½ hours to achieve his task:
1 rough shaping - 6½ hrs
2,3 core drilling - 5 hrs
6-8 boring - 10 hrs
undercutting the vase shoulder - 1 hr.
He reckons that an accomplished craftsman could have done it in half the time, and that the production of a similar hardstone vessel would have taken three to four times longer [1]. This estimate doesn't take into account mishaps. Breakages, according to the great quantity of vase fragments found were seemingly not a rarity.

This is from an old archy - he's not a stonemason and never practiced, yet made a pretty decent vessel on the first try. He did, however, have experience with sawing cores out of stone using copper and sand - including sawing granite - because he's the one that demonstrated that it can be done.

Harte

I’ve seen videos recording people in Egypt, trying to cut large stones with copper saws... It really doesn’t work, lol. It works so minimally, and destroys the copper saws so fast, that it’s just not practical.

Nor does Egypt have mountainous landfills of broken copper saws lol.

We use copper by the bazillions and we don't have landfills full of copper either, so what's your point? Is it that you can't imagine where all the copper went? Same place it goes today.

The experiments have been done, with progress through the granite vs abrasion of the saw tabled and graphed using various methods and abrasives.

The fact that you haven't bothered to discover this information is beside the point.
It actually does work, regardless of what you believe. It's been documented.
You should realize that they are experiments though, and aren't guarantees - nor claims - that this MUST be how it was done.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Stocks cored a piece of rose granite from Aswan for a program shown on Nova. Your "1 mm tickle" was 5 centimeters deep. It was shown in linked photographs. The video can be found out there, but you appear afraid to look.

No, not afraid at all, have watched it, and just watched it again. My mistake on the 1mm, and yes, maybe 4-5 cm deep. However the exact quote given on the video that you handily omit is when they point at it triumphantly and declare “ this took us only a few days” .
Minutes before in the video , stocks himself says it should cut through the granite at 4cm an HOUR. Didn’t work, did it? It took them “ a few days” , but that could mean , say, 4 days, couldn’t it? For 4-5 cm. So again, we debate, a 6 sided cube would take how long?
Then I think about extracting a 70tonne piece of granite for inside the great pyramid, think about guys with copper saws, and start to think “ this can’t be right”. And for a 70tonne piece you’d need a bloody long saw and some serious guide jigs to keep the course of the cut on track. Where is the AE artwork for extracting huge granite blocks from a quarry? There is none.
If I wanted to prove my bowl making technique worked on granite, I’d have damn well done it in granite then it’s ‘no comeback’ time, instead of opting out to use a softer stone, then declare it’s the method. Not proof, just a concept.
Me saying that I have seen with my own eyes, and seen in photographs forensic clues relating to lathe turning, is just as much of a ‘proof of concept’ and just as valid as Denys Stocks claims regarding ancient granite cutting. I know more than any archaeologist about lathework and turning, and some of the bowls discussed WERE done on lathes, I have no doubt. The circles in the centre of some bowls are too perfect for the primitive method for granite.
You’re a former M.E, take some of these bowl pictures, with perfect circular striations and perfect circles in the centre , perfectly centred; and the bowl that balances on its own (perfect) centre to some machinists you know , see what they say.
You still think they didn’t have different methods for different materials, as we do today? Oh I forgot, you didn’t answer me that question last time I asked you...




a reply to: Harte

:

Has anyone claimed that granite was quarried with copper saws?
No.
So, strawman much?

Harte

Perhaps you could therefore tell us how they quarried multi ton blocks of granite out then, seeing as only you know the answer to everything?!!
Copper chisels?! Now I’m laughing.
So you do agree with me that they could/must have had different methods for different jobs ? You just don’t actually want to say it.
Or is it because you don’t want to talk about the obvious(to a lathe operator ) tooling striations that relate to lathe work, even though you are a former Mechanical Engineer, and should recognise these forensics?
reply to: Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Harte
www.sci-lib.net...

In Chapter 5, Stocks demonstrates his own making of a limestone vessel with the mouth half the diameter of the vase.
This book is the source mentioned in Byrd's link, where the author stated:

Denys A. Stocks who experimented with ancient Egyptian techniques,[9] produced a limestone vessel almost 11 cm tall, with a diameter of 10 cm and a neck opening of 5 cm. It took him 22½ hours to achieve his task:
1 rough shaping - 6½ hrs
2,3 core drilling - 5 hrs
6-8 boring - 10 hrs
undercutting the vase shoulder - 1 hr.
He reckons that an accomplished craftsman could have done it in half the time, and that the production of a similar hardstone vessel would have taken three to four times longer [1]. This estimate doesn't take into account mishaps. Breakages, according to the great quantity of vase fragments found were seemingly not a rarity.

This is from an old archy - he's not a stonemason and never practiced, yet made a pretty decent vessel on the first try. He did, however, have experience with sawing cores out of stone using copper and sand - including sawing granite - because he's the one that demonstrated that it can be done.

Harte

I’ve seen videos recording people in Egypt, trying to cut large stones with copper saws... It really doesn’t work, lol. It works so minimally, and destroys the copper saws so fast, that it’s just not practical.

Nor does Egypt have mountainous landfills of broken copper saws lol.

We use copper by the bazillions and we don't have landfills full of copper either, so what's your point? Is it that you can't imagine where all the copper went? Same place it goes today.

The experiments have been done, with progress through the granite vs abrasion of the saw tabled and graphed using various methods and abrasives.

The fact that you haven't bothered to discover this information is beside the point.
It actually does work, regardless of what you believe. It's been documented.
You should realize that they are experiments though, and aren't guarantees - nor claims - that this MUST be how it was done.

Harte

Well again, the point is that video efforts at cutting Egyptian stones with copper saws, have failed, in any practical aspect.

I'm not sure why you're saying that copper disappears or something. We don't have piles of copper saws now because we don't use a few hundred copper saws to cut one piece of building material. If we did, then yeah, I'd expect us to have landfills full of broken copper saws.

The fact that the Egyptians did not leave millions of broken copper saws, is pretty compelling proof that it didn't happen that way.

Dude, they would have melted them down to make new copper saws after they were blunted into oblivion by the nightmare of trying to cut granite with them, then melted them down again to re-use for something else. It may have worked ok on limestone though . But granite? Different story regardless of what Harte professes to the class.
But I agree with you that it’s pretty useless and preventatively time consuming to cut granite with. a reply to: peacefulpete

Well that is a good point, they could melt and re-use them.

So then it just comes down to the insane scale of such a project. A single block might result in a few thousand broken copper saws, I wouldn't even know where to start estimating such a number.

So yeah, they could re-use copper, but the scale is just ridiculous, it would almost be more work than actually cutting the stone (collecting thousands of broken saws and melting them down, re-casting them continuously).

So of the millions or billions of broken saws, I'd still expect some remnants...

Also there's no drawings or hieroglyphics of such copper saws, at all. It's completely a made-up idea, in the 1st place.

In contrast, there's that one spot that supposedly describes the Egyptians using a solvent to melt and mold stone... I read about that a few yrs ago...

a reply to: Harte

Most scrap metals including copper get recycled and shipped to China now days, i live by the docks and there are heaps of scrap copper just waiting to get shipped over every day.



I doubt AE shipped all their scrap copper, the whole place should be full of broken copper tools.

a reply to: bluesfreak

Harte thinks they bashed them out with stones like a group of dumb apes.

a reply to: Harte

Ther's no evidence that the Sothic Cycle held any major significance to the AEs.

I think you need to do some reading or listening there. Go listen to what the Dogon have to say about it.
They will tell you something very different. Theres plenty of evidence. You are simply not acquainted with it.

a reply to: Harte

Don't stamp your foot at me - I gave you a video of stone being made into a bowl - by hand!

Dont try and side step me and evade. I never denied that a machinists can make a bowl. I am saying they they cannot make the a granite swan neck vessle like the one I pictured. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

Am I to surmise that that you have no evidence and that your opinion is based on nothing but imagination. Thats how it seems from where I am standing.

Here's a diorite bowl from Moundville Alabama made by natives that had no more advanced tools (less advanced, in fact) than the AE's.

www.alabamaheritage.com...

Looks like everyone on Earth must have had advanced tools and knowledge that somehow evaporated into thin air, leaving not a trace of evidence.

Harte

Not really, it looks much less advanced. The lines are visibly imperfect and the Egyptian examples had a small mouth of a larger vessel, with the inside carved out, through the small opening. Which makes it much more awkward to carve something like that...

originally posted by: Harte
Here's a diorite bowl from Moundville Alabama made by natives that had no more advanced tools (less advanced, in fact) than the AE's.

www.alabamaheritage.com...

Looks like everyone on Earth must have had advanced tools and knowledge that somehow evaporated into thin air, leaving not a trace of evidence.

Harte

Dont bother your not going to convince people. I've noticed as a general rule that us humans think of our ancestors as being stupid. We often dont realize they were just as smart as we are but had one advantage. Today we look at what stone masons could do with considerable practice and teaching and think wow we couldn't possibly do that.

There was several things throughout history that even our stupid ancestors figured out that we still cant reproduce today. For example our attempts to reproduce Damascus steele has been less than successful. But we know they figured it out. I find it sad that as a species we diminish our ancestors instead of praise their accomplishments. I blame the internet as people are taught us poor little humans needed help.

a reply to: dragonridr

I agree completely.

But it is not the internet that caused it.

This idea that we are so far in front of our ancestors in all things can be traced back at least to the Victorian Era.

That was the time they were flinging Mummies down the steps to unroll them.

We have lost much due to war and book burning to name just two.

WW2 saw so many libraries across Europe destroyed. Same thing for the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China.

So much lost.

P