Dunn is an Egyptology crank and has been for decades. He inspired all of the nonsense.
Dunn is an Egyptology expert and has been for decades. He inspired all of the commonsense.
See how easy it is. Anyone can play this game. Just say the words and let them fall onto the page. You say he's a crank and I say he isn't and we can keep going back and forth forever if you want. Its easy when you don't have to back up your claim.
He was, but then he died, and now 100 years later we know a whole lot more. Get up to date.
So does that make his findings false. Show me how his findings were false. The reality is 100 years later we have confirmed his original findings. And have a guess what Dunn helped confirm Petries findings. Now we have two cranks with repeated scientific testing 100 years apart. Thats good science.
You guys seem so willing to ignore Egyptology that it is disturbing.
Your creating a logical fallacy by equating the idea of questioning which expert is best for a specific skill in testing ancient artifacts as questioning Egyptology itself.
I will ask you again. Which expert is best at determining the tech in tooling methods of how the vases or other works are made. A precision tooling expert of an Egyptologist.
The paper was about how you could design EM wave focusing devices in a pyramidal shape and they thought it would be fun (and eye catching) idea to analyze the pyramids. That someone (in this case Khufu and his employees) built something that has an effect that they could not anticipate does not mean they intended that effect. It is silly to think that Khufu's architect was trying to focus radio waves because no one knew that radio waves existed until the 19th century. Shesh.
No one knew stone softening or weakening either. As I said earlier I don't think ancients had computers and modern machines or had academic knowledge how we understand. They did not know about the maths behind chemistry and physics.
But I think they did have conscious experiences of nature which gave them insights into how it works. This was direct knowledge from the inside of nature and not like science which looks from the outside and takes millenia of gradually understand.
The positioning of works at a high electromagnetic locations, the orientation to true north, situated over a high active subterrainian ancient water way where theres a rich deposits of minerals. This is devaluing their ability to know. All this was not just coincident or luck. We are just beginning with modern tech to understand.
I wrote a whole post about that student paper less than 2 days ago. I'm not repeating it because you missed the post.
See how you frame it. They are students so they are wrong because they are not yet knowledgable enough based on the assumption that more time equals more credible knowledge. You slip in ad hominems without knowing. Their work has been cited by other scientists so it must have some value.
These nobodies need to learn some Egyptology, unfortunately, most of them are going into this to prove that the objects are from a prior civilization just like they believe about the pyramids.
Ok so your confirming your bias and making more ad hominems as your arguement. At least these so called nobodies have done the work and published the findings.
We have. Egyptians could sew. They had needles of bone and copper. [Also: "sow" is planting seeds, "sew" is stitching cloth.]
Man it was only an example of how finding a modern day small and insignifiant object could be a significant find. I used a modern needle, not an ancient one. You could have asked what my point was instead of diverting into a story on ancient needles lol.
I am saying if we found something insignificant but clearly was not something the ancients could do. It would still be a big deal. The point being your opinion on what is a big deal about vases is exactly that, your opinion. Others may see it as significant because that is their specialised field.
Firstly, then say that. Be more precise. Second, modern needles look just like ancient metal needles, but in steel.
Did you even understand the point I was making.
Your failure to be precise is well demonstrated through these interactions. You are talking to people used to the use of precision in language, particularly on technical things.
Ok but I get there in the end. I don't think you make it easy though with all these conflations. I think you knew what I meant as that was the principle we were talking about. Finding something modern looking in an ancient time and whether it was significant and to whom..
One of the key aspects of all of this pseudo-Egyptology is a lack of actual knowledge about Egypt from the junk peddlers.
So what about knowing Egypt through Egyptology will help in understanding how they made vases or other works technically.
I think your making Egyptology pseudo by attributing technical abilities they have not got. Or at least are not as expert as the actual specialists in the fields that are dealing with specific aspects of the Egyptians works.
An Egyptologist will not know about chemistry or metallury or electromagnetism ect. So call in the experts to do that. The same with tooling, an expert ion tooling knows best.
(Well, hey, at least you didn't claim Einstein was an amateur outsider as he wasn't.) Knowledge advances with time and that applies to relativity and Egyptology.
This is the problem. Your equating Egyptology as the sole discipline in understand the Egyptians. It was not Petries Egyptology that caused him to recognise the tooling marks and what this implied.
It was his technical knowledge as a machinist. He was also a machinist. Egyptology was going to match his specialist knowledge of being a machinist in recognising the witness marks of the tools and method.
I know people who understand relativity better than Einstein ever did. There are also things Einstein worked on that he just got wrong. Petrie is no different. The field has learned so much more that many of his claims are necessarily out of date and even wrong.
Yes of course. But Einsteins theory is still correct 100 years later and its built upon or adjusted. The same with Petrie. Petrie actually pioneered the methology of rigorious testing, measures and analysis of artifacts. His methods and measures are the basis for Archology and Egyptology.
But that came from his machining knowledge. Like I said his findings were confirned 100 years later and over and over again.
He clearly stated that the lathe was in use and that the Egyptians has some form of advanced tech in being able to cut into granite with such tremendous pressure while maintaining a very fixed cutter and object. This has been coinfirmed.
The point is Petrie was saying the same things as the cranks you claim. So he must be a crank as well because theya ll came to the same conclusions based on their expert findings.
I've got my own science to do. I am not your dogs boy.
Ok so you have just acknowledge that you have not done any work to back up your claims and that you can't be bothered. Which is not a very good basis for me to have faith in your claims.
We wish you had actual standards on this.
Like I said that went out the window from page one and it was not me who derailed it into fallacies that everything that I will ever say and anyone who I will present will all be relegated to whacko and theres nothing I can do but persist despite the derailment.
Its fun. But it takes two to tango. Don't pretend your not a contributer to the derailment.
You attacked religion as conceptually bad in your last post.
Which shows I am willing to even put religion in the firing range and therefore not favoring anything. Whereas you have religion, and other immaterial ideas in the firing range because you belieeve its all Woo and unreal and material science is the truth. Similar to promoting a religious belief. They are all beliefs.
I believe there is a real thing that is material science and also another aspect of knowledge that is more transcendent like spirituality and consciousness beyond brain. You believe there is only material science and nothing else. Who is likely to be more biased towards one aspect at the exclusion of the other.
You created a thread in a science discussion and debate forum using a video from a Graham Hancock from ancient civ fan. Where did you think this was going to go?
Actually if you listened to the video its was an academic who cited his credentials who was presenting the video. He was taking an academic appraoch. Thats is what I have been doing. I stated that the views on how this might have come about such as knowledge from immersions in nature was spectualtion.
So I have used science when science is required and then branched into spectualtion of how as people kept demanding I show the tech and how ancients gained deeper knowledge.
Are you incapable of understanding written words? Your reading comprehension is just awful. If you write less and read more carefully, this might be more manageable.
What are you talking about. Do you understand the point that we were discussing. It was about out of place works. I mentioned the pyramids. You said so what we see a progression building up to the great pyramids.
I said that it was the tallest building in the world 4,500 years before it was beaten by the Eifel Tower in the 19th century. That was the feat that stood out and amazed people. So what if they progressed to the great pyramid.
They did it nearly 5,000 years before we could beat it. Thats the feature that stands 'out of place' for an early culture. This has been well recognised for millenia. Not just the pyramids but the Labyrith and other great works.
Herodotus in the 5th century BC, who wrote about them in his Histories. He described the labyrinth as a grand structure that, in his opinion, surpassed even the pyramids in greatness. So the pyramids have been recognised as great because they stand out as great among that around it at the time. Even the works of the Greeks and later Romans.
The reality is that we have a clear, documented sequence of pyramid development and decline. The pyramids can be absolutely dated as well as any event in Egypt in that period (to within about 50 years, and that level of uncertainty is from the general issues with the chronology). We know who built each pyramid and in what order.
Your missing the whole idea of how knowledge comes and goes and can repeat again and again in some places and not others. Its the peak of that time thats important.
As they grew and became populated and peaked they could then express the full extent of their knowledge. Then from that point the knowledge was gradually lost or lost suddenly for some reason. Then it may have peaked again somewhere. Its not a gradual climb from simple to complex as we understand.
A huge problem with the credibility of your sources is that they are almost all (and in every case where we know, they are) rejecters of the established time line and believe in fantasies about pyramids built by civilizations ancient to the Egpytians that simply put their stamps on them. They are cranks who believe in some mystical unidentified technology who latch on to these "anomalous vases" to "prove" what they already think.
This is a false assumption that is influenced from your overall cynicism of all things alternative belief and knowledge and reality can only be material or naturalistic in nature.
Its not a crime to think that something about the pyramids happened before the pyramids or that they were added to along the way. This is not conspiracy. Plus your falsely claiming that anyone who does question is then proposing that this is definitely the case. An either/or fallacy.
They don't and they merely suggest its a possibility. Theres more than two options rather than extremes of either/or.
It has nothing to do with what an awesome accomplishment the Giza pyramids are.
Really are you now the gatekeeper of peoples feelings and opinions who think its awesome for that time.
Did you notice that I'm not discussing specifics in these last few posts linked backward? Well you should. Filling your reply with pictures is not going to change anything.
I understand the difference. I actually don't mind not talking specific and talking epistemics as this is really what the OP was about. How there are different worldviews depending on your metaphsyical beliefs and assumptions about knowledge in the past. How people can be influenced by those beliefs.
Despite the levels of frustration I have felt in this thread, I have worked hard to avoid insulting you. I even spent months largely not putting in digs about your idiotic sources, but on the latter I gave up this week. In this post I have not avoided illustrating your flaws.
Thats fair enough and I am not saying you can't. But don't be offended when people disagree and persist with a different point of view.
Really this is about a metaphysical battle and not about the specific examples. About how open someone is to alternative ways of knowiing. That can get heated because its about a persons belief which is personal.
