The Incredible Technological Precision of the Ancients

Originally posted by Hanslune
Question: How and why would the ancient Egyptians misrepresented how they carved stone?

They seem to think they used stones to bash out granite and bronze chisels to work limestone --------

Why would they show people using crude tools when old Dunn seems to think they are so unskilled that they needed advanced machining?

The last pictures are of the working level for the unfinished obelisk, note the dished out stone - how was that done? Bashed out using diorite - a number of them showin' up in the foto at the lower right - again if they had 'advanced machining' why were they bashing out granite obelisks using stones?

Link to study on ancient Egyptian quarries from which the picture above came


One has to wonder

edit on 26/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Your wooden guide though plausible is only a theory. Your above pictures don't show that wooden guide. I had never heard of it till you mentioned it - do you have sources for this theory that were born in ancient Egypt itself?

We don't know if these depictions came from the same time period as the monuments themselves. People are still arguing over the age of these ancient sites. One theory is they are all much older and the Egyptians in more modern times took the credit for the work of a much older civilization. This has yet to be discredited - we simply don't know. Dunn is only trying to guess at ways these things could have been done. If you don't think he has studied everything he could get his hands on from ancient Egypt to try to explain these things rationally then think again. His background in this requires that he not only studied the ancient manufacturing techniques, but he has the know how and experience to fully understand them. You don't seem to think any of Dunn's theories are plausible but other than conjecture we really cant prove otherwise.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Your wooden guide though plausible is only a theory.

I can agree with you. However I don't agree that advanced CAD/CAM at the disposal of Egyptians is or ever will be plausible. Or any sort of modern-style tools and instruments.

Your above pictures don't show that wooden guide. I had never heard of it till you mentioned it - do you have sources for this theory that were born in ancient Egypt itself?

Dunn is only trying to guess at ways these things could have been done. If you don't think he has studied everything he could get his hands on from ancient Egypt to try to explain these things rationally then think again.

Actually the onus is on him to prove that there was no way that these architectural pieces etc could not have been manufactured in any other way than using advanced machinery. He didn't deliver. At all.

I've visited and inspected more than one site in Egypt (at least all of the more important ones). I can tell you that not every piece of stone that was chiseled was even finished. What Dunn and some others are presenting is a highly biased sample of evidence. I've seen tombs barely chiseled in rock, they didn't have time to finish that to geometrical perfection and smoothness. In some other cases they did. And that's the rational view of things.

As I mentioned in my other post, there are other examples of exceptional masonry and mastery of sculpture, such as Angkor Wat. It was also done with hand tools. There is more record surviving of that construction project, and there is no evidence of modern tools used. It's no less stunning than what I saw in Egypt. And that's rational, right?

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks for the link, by the way, it's a really good source on quarries and quarrying techniques and artifacts in Egypt.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Funny that no one insists there was some kind of extra-terrestrial or other such advanced technology used in the construction of Angkor Wat. All they had was lots of manpower and hand tools. They just knew how to work it. I'll quote it again,

The greatest classical carvers were the Greeks and I too don't see anyone saying they had advanced machinery! The same could be said for any number of civilizations with skilled artisans

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix


Your wooden guide though plausible is only a theory. Your above pictures don't show that wooden guide. I had never heard of it till you mentioned it - do you have sources for this theory that were born in ancient Egypt itself?

We don't know if these depictions came from the same time period as the monuments themselves. People are still arguing over the age of these ancient sites. One theory is they are all much older and the Egyptians in more modern times took the credit for the work of a much older civilization. This has yet to be discredited - we simply don't know. Dunn is only trying to guess at ways these things could have been done. If you don't think he has studied everything he could get his hands on from ancient Egypt to try to explain these things rationally then think again. His background in this requires that he not only studied the ancient manufacturing techniques, but he has the know how and experience to fully understand them. You don't seem to think any of Dunn's theories are plausible but other than conjecture we really cant prove otherwise.

Howdy Phoenix

Absolutely a theory, but if you take the idea of a theory being possible, plausible and probably it wins hands down over 'advanced machinery'.

The only people we can find in the archaeological record are the AE and the neolithic cultures that proceded them. If there was a mysterious 'other' group they don't exist in the archaeological record.

One of the pieces of art he is talking about is from Ramses age, not the dim periods of the predynastic and old kingdom

From his analysis he shows he knows little or nothing about science or the ancient culture he is commenting on

If he was interested in a truly scientific study he would have studied other cultures art and compared it to the AE, did he do so? Nope not to my knowledge, but then he wrote the book for people with little if no knowledge of the AE.

Again why are the AE lying about their technology in their art? Puzzling

Seeing superb artistry and saying 'advance technology' is a kin to saying, I don't understand the culture or art so I'll make something up that makes me feel comfortable'

It simply doesn't work, so his theories fall apart due to the simple fact that he has no evidence other than his personal incredulity - which is nice and all - to prove his point he would need to do what I suggest above AND find the machinery - I wish him a great of luck in that.....

Have him analyize the Laocoon - certainly a trio of Greeks using iron chisels couldn't have made that could they? lol

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes I forgot to mention that yes Dunn is doing a classic job of cherry picking data. He gives a nicely one sided bias report

Yeah I went to a number of those quarry sites, we were looking for the quarry where the stone for some Egyptian made items that had found their way to Cyprus might have come from.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Seeing superb artistry and saying 'advance technology' is a kin to saying, I don't understand the culture or art so I'll make something up that makes me feel comfortable'

Well this in fact is the hallmark of a large part of pseudoscience so richly presented both here on ATS and beyond. People don't feel comfortable with an idea, and they are willing to go to ANY length, and believe me ANY length to insist on some explanation which is, in words of Richard Feynman, "easier, and more philosophically pleasing". This, however, does not make it plausible or true. If you re-trace this thread, this is quite apparent in the posts of the OP. "Egyptians possessing skills? That's an insult to my intelligence!"

Well I better stop right here.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Hanslune
Seeing superb artistry and saying 'advance technology' is a kin to saying, I don't understand the culture or art so I'll make something up that makes me feel comfortable'

Well this in fact is the hallmark of a large part of pseudoscience so richly presented both here on ATS and beyond. People don't feel comfortable with an idea, and they are willing to go to ANY length, and believe me ANY length to insist on some explanation which is, in words of Richard Feynman, "easier, and more philosophically pleasing". This, however, does not make it plausible or true. If you re-trace this thread, this is quite apparent in the posts of the OP. "Egyptians possessing skills? That's an insult to my intelligence!"

Well I better stop right here.

Yeah this fits into a course I did on the Sociology of Archaeology, it tracked how people both delight at new finds but also some decide that archaeologists are hidding stuff; westerners, some deep evil secrets, locals think we are hiding gold, etc, very nolens volen

Yes where you stopped, would that be the idea that the AE couldn't have done x and y because they were, cough, er ah, 'AE''s?

Originally posted by Hanslune
Yes where you stopped, would that be the idea that the AE couldn't have done x and y because they were, cough, er ah, 'AE''s?

I stopped there to refrain from judging a person.

Wow...the precision of the ancient egyptians...and not to forget other ancient cultures is a real hard nut to crack.

After watching a docu about giants in north america and how there is strong suspicion that the Smithsonian, world's largest museum and research complex is collecting evidence of these facts for decades and hidding this knowledge from "we the people" I think something simular has been happening with the ancient egyptian question. (wow..what a sentence).

With other words...something plausible which is considered by mainstream science ridicule, ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous or laughable can have sincere and serious truth in it.

Bit off topic but hey...we are talking conspiracy here..!!

I was watching this earlier posted YT docu and found this by accident. Stop the vid at 09:11 (!!!), watch Full Screen and look at the old mans eyes. Well, I am not really into this stuff but just had to inform you folks on ATS about it.

Originally posted by zatara
After watching a docu about giants in north america and how there is strong suspicion that the Smithsonian, world's largest museum and research complex is collecting evidence of these facts for decades and hidding this knowledge

There is strong suspicion that "they use frequencies to control us", among some people.

Among other people, there are suspicions that a secret authority who is dusting the planet with mysterious and highly toxic "chemtrails" is using chemistry to same ends.

Still others think that the Montauk Experiment was all real, that inter-dimensional portals were opened by abusing young kids and harvesting their spiritual energy, and that the aliens who emerged from these portals were fed small animals and babies. Further, human personnel was dispatched to distant galaxies in the capacity of Ambassadors.

That note about the "SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM HIDING TRUTH" is on that same page, buddy. Wake up.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yeah...I know. And understand what you are trying to do. No thanks ... I am not buying.

sec.line

reply to post by zatara

Oh my God.

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Yeah...I know. And understand what you are trying to do.

/dirty Harry/
Well, do you?

From Chapter 2 "The Shadow of Ramses":

reply to post by Mary Rose


I think if I had absolutely nothing to do, I could use a photograph of Leo Tolstoy (or Michael Jackson), or maybe Vladimir Putin, and superimpose all sorts of geometrical figures (circles, meshes, spirals, whatever) on them, and claim these are the genetic progeny of the Reptilians. Oh, and if you prefer statues, there are plenty of those as well.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by PrplHrt
Side note, it's strange we never find evidence of the tools/"machines" used to accomplish these feats.

I have in my notes that I took when I watched this YouTube video interview of Dunn that he thinks there have been earth changes and the tools that built the pyramids are buried somewhere.

Here's the description for the video:

Uploaded by TheNewEraTimes on May 23, 2011

Ancient site expert Christopher Dunn, author of Giza Power, speaks with Peggy Sue Skipper about his work and latest book: Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt.

I really enjoyed that video with Christopher Dunn and went to you tube to obtain the 2nd video as well, I really think he is on to something so important when he mentions the nostrils of the pharos face - sculpture. I find that statement he made to Peggy Sue quite interesting. In that the nostrils are too perfect to be done with the tools of the day of what mainstream educators teach to students. He is delving into a monumental theory that is in the process of revolutionizing education of that time period as we know it. Especially when he states that he conversed with professional sculpture - artisans and they mention to him that the nostrils are too perfect for the use of crude chisels etc. Such an important statement by them. Such a valued theory to me!

He has so much to say and I find his ideas, theories quite interesting, he is a hero of mind in a scholarly sense. Such an important person in an understanding of the true roots of pyramid building - sculptures etc . or at least the best theories that I've ever come across. I've seen many of his videos and quite intrigued

Originally posted by thetiler

I really enjoyed that video with Christopher Dunn and went to you tube to obtain the 2nd video as well, I really think he is on to something so important when he mentions the nostrils of the pharos face - sculpture. I find that statement he made to Peggy Sue quite interesting. In that the nostrils are too perfect to be done with the tools of the day of what mainstream educators teach to students. He is delving into a monumental theory that is in the process of revolutionizing education of that time period as we know it. Especially when he states that he conversed with professional sculpture - artisans and they mention to him that the nostrils are too perfect for the use of crude chisels etc. Such an important statement by them. Such a valued theory to me!

Did he note who these professionals were? What no? Gosh ------he is saying that in 12th century BC the ancient Egyptian had advanced machinery....okay he needs to find said machinery, because real artists know that type of work can be done - check with classical artists. Dunn needs to do two things, learn about the culture he making stuff up about and conduct a real scientific study, then someone might find his ideas of interest - as of now he's just making stuff up that has no evidence to back it up - his opinion doesn't cut it

From Chapter 10, "In the Shadow of Egyptian Megamachines":

. . . In my discussions with fellow engineers over the years, there has been no disagreement that what was created in ancient Egypt is sophisticated in a way that would severely stretch even modern capabilities. In fact, when they visit Egypt, modern engineers, with modern tools and technology at their disposal, gape in awe at what the ancient Egyptians accomplished. Where are the answers to our questions about how such stonework was created?

The ancient Egyptians (or whoever it was who built the pyramids) were not primitive.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From Chapter 10, "In the Shadow of Egyptian Megamachines":

. . . In my discussions with fellow engineers over the years, there has been no disagreement that what was created in ancient Egypt is sophisticated in a way that would severely stretch even modern capabilities. In fact, when they visit Egypt, modern engineers, with modern tools and technology at their disposal, gape in awe at what the ancient Egyptians accomplished. Where are the answers to our questions about how such stonework was created?

The ancient Egyptians were not primitive.

Only those making a tired strawman argument say that please point to a modern archaeologist or egyptologist who said the Egyptians were primitive? They weren't so why make a false statement?

Your quote above about Dunn is hearsay, it not evidence of anything, if he really had all these guys supporting him why doesn't he list them? Why not get engineering societies to back him up? Artists - I'm sure there are enough new age people in that line of work to get some support for him even if they know nothing abou tthe subject........

Dunn has his incredulity and his opinions, he doesn't have much else