Why is it not. You make a claim that Dunn for example is presenting Woo. The only evidence you show is your objection. You don't present any reasoning or evidence from a scienific analysis. So where is the epistemic rigor and following the standards of proper science in backing up those words.
Its poor epistemics even failing the same science standards to accept such unsupported claims. It does a disservice to thehard work and research put in by the researchers and relegates it to personal opinion.
None of them are expert Egyptologists.
Ah here we go, dictating the epistemics on who is the expert on the works. OK Petrie was one of the worlds top Egyptologists as well as a machinist. He agrees with the whackos lol.
But I can here the objections, but he's just an old bloke whose opinion is outdated.
So do you think if we were looking at say tools and the making of works with tools and the signatures they leave in stone that perhaps a precision tool maker and engineer may be better to determine things than an Egyptologist.
If we were looking at the chemical and material makeups of stones which would be better an Egyptologist or a Chemist or minerals expert or whatever it is we are specifically looking at.
You seem to think being an Egyptologist gives them all knowing expertise in all areas more than the specialists themselves. I think this is partly why you make many assumptions based on a poor understanding of epistemics and the different paradigms that make up knowledge.
Hum then how do you explain this
Resonant response of the Great Pyramid interacting with external electromagnetic waves of the radio frequency range (the wavelength range is 200–600 m) is theoretically investigated. With the help of numerical simulations and multipole decomposition, it is found that spectra of the extinction and scattering cross sections include resonant features associated with excitation of the Pyramid's electromagnetic dipole and quadrupole moments. Electromagnetic field distributions inside the Pyramid at the resonant conditions are demonstrated and discussed for two cases, when the Pyramid is located in a homogeneous space or on a substrate. It is revealed that the Pyramid's chambers can collect and concentrate electromagnetic energy for the both surrounding conditions. In the case of the Pyramid on the substrate, at the shorter wavelengths, the electromagnetic energy accumulates in the chambers providing local spectral maxima for electric and magnetic fields.
Calculations showed that in the resonant state, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in the its internal chambers as well as under its base, where the third unfinished chamber is located.
An international research group has applied methods of theoretical physics to investigate the electromagnetic response of the Great Pyramid to radio waves. Scientists predicted that under resonance conditions, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in its internal chambers and under...
phys.org
I have read their "investigations". It is low quality writing.
See this is what I mean. Is this your version of peer review. A 5 word sentense holds more credibility than pages of tests and analysis. Its shows double standards and that you have already made your mind up and dismiss all the good work as Woo. That double standard in itself is a disqualifier.
It is fantasy knowledge "discovered" by nobodies.
OK so it looks like you have made up your mind. Everyone who proposes something different are deluded and nobodies. Why even engage then lol. Are you on some mission to save the unenlightened.
I'd have no problem doing that. Shiny stone vases aren't even close to the most important thing about early Egyptian civilization.
Yes but if your imposing your opinion even claiming to know better than stone masons or precision tool makers then you have to tell them and show how they are wrong. But how can you if you don't have the expertise. You seem to think you do regardless that you can dismiss their opinion as Woo.
Sowing needle? Jethro Tull invented the seed drill in 1701.
OK so if we found a sowing needle in predynastic egypt though such a tiny and insignificant thing would be a big thing to sewing machinists lol. Your imposing your opinion over all other experts in field you know nothing about.
Neither timeframe is even clos to that of ancient Egypt 6000 years ago.
I mean a modern needle. We can find all sorts of pots like coconuts or even a hollow in a rock dating back 100s of 1,000s of years. I mean modern versions that are out of place.
You do not cite experts in Egyptology. The other posters have.
Because this is a logical fallacy that you insist on a non expert from another field to be an expert in a field they have no specialisation. It is whoever has the closest expertise to what is specifically being looked at. If its precision tooling and engineering then Egyptology does not trump precision tooling and machinists.
For the love of sanity, read a professional Egyptologist from the last 50 years. Petrie has been dead for about 100 years.
So has Eienstein. Your making a logical fallacy that because Petrie has been gone that his Egyptology, Archeology and machinist expertise in irrelevant. Petrie actually set the standards for Egyptology that is still the standard today.
I've told you several times after examining that paper that it isn't about what you think it is about. That your "sources" feed that to you makes me think they are frauds.
Ah once again you are not providing absolutely any evidence showing how its wrong. You are almost demanding that I believe you now without any evidence. Is not that a poor basis for anyone to accept a claim. Almost like because you say you have told me before that somehow telling me again holds more credibility.
Show me. You have never shown anything. Which just like you summise I summise as suspect that you cannot actually provide any evidence. I have persisted on different claims
I did an actual review of a garbage paper on "sonics" last night.
Well show me.
Already been done here and not just by me. I am not obligated to repeatedly correct your misunderstandings if you won't listen.
No no one on this thread has provided anything formal or official. Go do the tests, make the paper with sections showing the analysis, procedures, methods and results. Showing a breakdown of how the tests done are wrong. Not picking out some word or tiny difference in microns.
No thread like this would count as anything credible. I mean how could it when there are obvious logical fallacies all through it and we can clearly see bias. I mean Petrie was called an old man who knows nothing, experts called amateurs which is obviously false because they did have some qualifications above amateurs.
I am applying the same standards as others on this thread. Show me the peer review otherwise its all bunk and conspiracy itself.
Yes, I get it, religion is bad and useless.
Which biases your views on anything that fallas outside the material worldview you hold. You have a mission to show those poor Christians they are deluded because your belief is the true one.
You can give it but not take it. Why are you still here.
You pollute this thread with so much "content" in your gallops of Gish that one must skip some of it to have time to do anything else on this site. If you posted less chaff, you might get more response.
Its my thread and what you think is polluting is your opinion. If its so pulluted then why are you here.
They are not out of place. The sequence of pyramid development is very clear and well established through the last century of archeological study. It's time for you to read real Egyptology done after WW2.
So you don't think that holding the record as the highest building in the world 4,500 years before it was broken is not an amazing feat for that time. You are hard to please. Nost people would acknowledge such a feat. In fact you hear in the language that people are amazed all the time.
Which is cool, but not an argument against the time line.
Ah first we have to recognise the greatness of the works before the timeline. If you relegate it all to nothing then theres nothing to find out of place. I think this is at least a subjective thing and therefore a case can be made.
And various posters have addressed this repeatedly. Pay attention.
I have been paying attention and no one has explained the various cuts in stone. They have offered claims but no evidence to explain how these signatures are made by traditional methods. Only fallacies like "if you can't show the actual device or tool then its false" which is a fallacy and does not negate the signatures we see with our naked eyes right before us.
Once again the signature of machining and lathing on a predynastic vase under the pyramid still on site. So no fallacies of provenance. This very example examined by Christ Smith a precision tool expert of 50 years. Who explains how it was machined.
Once again a clear saw cut in the form of an arc with fine and sharp edges a straight copper saw could not do. Why don't you be honest like others and admit it looks like a modern machine cut.
Once again a very long cut into the surface that is thin and follows the contour of the stone. This cut extends around 20 feet long. Like a planer sliced off a thin layer maintaining a super straight, thin and sharp cutting line along the rough surface of the uncut rock.. Something the orthodox method cannot do. If you think it can then explain how and show evidence.
What about the clear router marks. Are you not seein this. Just admit that they look like machine cuts. You don't have to agree that they actually are. But to keep pretending they don't look like they obviously do is what makes me think that people are wanting to deny the evidence.
I haven't read *all* of their garbage, but I have read enough to know that it is garbage.
That you call it garbage before reading it shows your bias.
Like I said you can give it but not take it.
Who is Chris King and what is his expertise in Egyptology?
Before I answer that do you think that an Egyptologists or precision tool maker would be best to tell the tooling methods on anything whether its from Egypt or the medieval times. Who is better equipped to tell this specific technical aspect.
