Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

257830

[color=#FF0000]SOME CHRONOLOGY DEBATE SPECIFICS[/color]

Nick, will you tell us some of the main low chronology claims or ideas that you accept? Will you answer these questions?

1. Which of these authors' views do you favor? a. Immanuel Velikovsky, b. Lynn Rose, c. Emmett(?) Sweeney, d. Charles Ginenthal, e. Gunnar Heinsohn, f. Gary Gilligan, g. John Ackerman?
2. Isn't Heinsohn's chronology even lower than Velikovsky's? Didn't Velikovsky lower Egyptian chronology by c. 500 years? And doesn't Heinsohn lower it c. 1,000 years?
3. Do you believe Venus was a comet in c. 1450 BC and made a close encounter with Earth then during the Exodus and c. 1400 BC at the time of Joshua, as Velikovsky concluded?
4. Do you believe Mars came close to Earth and the Moon several times c. 700 BC, as Velikovsky also concluded?
5. Do you believe Venus, Mars & Earth were satellites of Saturn following Saturn in a line from the outer solar system and that Saturn flared up as a nova, causing the Great Flood on Earth, some time before the Exodus?
6. Do you believe Abraham lived before the Exodus and witnessed the cataclysm that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea?
7. Do you believe that Venus erupted from Jupiter's Great Red Spot, as John Ackerman figures?
8. Did you know that both Cardona and Talbott independently (before they got acquainted, I think) looked for evidence that Venus came close to Earth at the time of the Exodus, but didn't find any? Cardona found evidence that a great comet came close to Earth at that time, but he said it wasn't Venus. I think they also looked for and failed to find evidence of encounters with Mars c. 700 BC, but I don't recall where they may have said so. I think they both concluded that Earth's encounters with Venus and Mars occurred quite a few centuries before the Exodus. I think Cardona thought those occurred about 5,000 years ago when the Saturn Configuration broke up.
9. What are the main evidences you know of for the low chronology of Heinsohn?

257816

[color=#FF0000]SPIRAL OF CREATION[/color]
I just posted excerpts from Cardona's last 2 books about the spiral of creation that formed shortly after Saturn flared up as a nova at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substack.com/p/spiral-of-creation . Most cultures have had creation stories that turn out to discuss basically the same sky patterns of a spiral that circled Saturn 7 times. These turnings or windings were seen as a serpent or sea-serpent, rivers, seas, oceans, intestines, a labyrinth, a dragon, and even 7 heavens. In the Bible the 7 seas were later translated as 7 days of creation, since they had the same world for sea and day.

257752

[color=#FF0000]PYRAMID ELECTRICITY[/color]

Thanks for the info, Nick. I was mainly just curious about Dunn's video regarding whether any kind of electrical power generation could have been a main purpose for some of the pyramids. I agree that it seems unlikely, i.e. as an electrical power station, but I'd like to find a smoking gun that would disprove the possibility of advanced knowledge and tech in ancient times. I think your reasoning is good. The Ark of the Covenant seems to have been possibly a capacitor that was able to discharge electricity, so I imagine some of the pyramids may have been able to do that too, i.e. store and discharge electricity. It wouldn't necessarily indicate very advanced knowledge. It seems very plausible that the electrical discharge features of such ancient objects, if real, might have been designed to mimic or remind people of the atmospheric electrical activity during cataclysms. Here's a video that comments on Dunn's book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-46nSt2acRo . I've only seen part of this one so far.

You said pyramids were meant to resemble an ancient mound or something. That seems reasonable too. I think Talbott considered pyramids and maybe obelisks etc to have been designed to resemble the polar column. Cardona has stated that there was apparently also an Earthly bulge or something, which the polar column seemed to set upon. So that could have been what the pyramids were modeled on, if not the polar column. The Mexican pyramid is said to have a sometimes visible beam of light directly above its top. I think I've seen a photo of that, but I wouldn't know if it's real or fake. Here's the image: https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.aYVLSa1CGpAhX-TghT893QAAAA&pid=Api&P=0&w=300&h=300 and I guess it does look fake, but I'm not an expert. Here are a couple videos with more images: https://youtu.be/6GMK3NK3qSQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMK3NK3qSQ&pp=ygUUbWV4aWNhbiBweXJhbWlkIGJlYW0%3D . I haven't looked through these yet. They may be duplicates.

At 5:38 the narrator says that what convinced him was the shafts and interior chambers...but what about the chambers in the other pyramids?
There are pyramids at Giza, Dashur, Saqqara, Meidum and other locations in Egypt many of which are completely or partially destroyed. See:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_pyramids]List of Egyptian Pyramids[/url]

But the arrangement of chambers are different in each of those pyramids, for example Khafre's Pyramid, which is next to the Great Pyramid at Giza, has several chambers carved into the bedrock beneath the pyramid, and there are no chambers within the actual pyramid's structure. In fact, every pyramid is different in regard to the arrangement or lack thereof, of chambers. Many, like Khafre's do not have any chambers or shafts within the structure, but have a chamber(s) at or below ground level.

===========================================================================================
The Purpose of Pyramids

It is clear that the purpose of the pyramid was to recreate the primeval mound, which rose out of the abyss (nun). This can be shown by the hieroglyphs for pyramid (myr = high place) and for the primeval mound (benben) and other pyramid related names, which all use the same sign (O24):[attachment=0]pyramid - primeval mound.JPG[/attachment]
=========================================================================================

Did the Mayan and Aztec pyramids have an electrical purpose? How about the Babylonian ziggaruts? or the numerous mounds built around the world?

In Egypt there is an evolution from mastaba, to step pyramid, to smooth sided pyramid. All of these structures from around the world were connected with the practice of blood sacrifice to appease the planet gods. The smooth sided pyramid marks the era (in Egypt) of the end of that practice. And what was the primeval mound? I think that it was the reappearance of the land after the deluge, which was the creation of a new age.

Now there is always the possibility that the electrical state of the Earth was, during the pyramid age, very different than today. It is possible that the gold plated pyramidion cap on the pyramid may have been conducive to the formation of St. Elmo's fire, but I don't think that any electrical effect was used for anything other than religious awe.

257680

Did NASA Physicists PROVE the Great Pyramid's ACTUAL Purpose? | Christopher Dunn {Electric Power Station}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNRGJ7rFB4

257566

@OpenMind, I share much of David Rohl's ideas that Egyptian chronology is about 3 centuries too old, whereas Nick thinks they're a thousand years or so too old. So I'm open to about any dating for the Barabar Caves and I think conventional dating of ancient sites is only off by a few centuries off.

I'm interested in whatever evidence you have for any dating and for any level of technology, as well as of cataclysms. The apparent vitrification of some ancient structures is suggestive of possible cataclysmic effects. Any links you can provide, or relevant quotes, would be appreciated.

[quote="nick c" post_id=10385 time=1715444020 user_id=62]
[quote="lloyd"]I think you have the wrong impression about Nick's intent. He wants to show, IMO, that the precision tech was only possible after the Iron Age began. So he thinks that tech needs to be redated to much later than conventionally dated.[/quote]That is correct.
[/quote]

I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. So would you say then that if the vase is from the Djoser collection, that you suggest that the most likely scenario, is that those precision pieces must have been placed in the pyramid of Djoser some time after the start of the Iron age, 1200 bc? And is it also consistent with your idea's that the Barabar caves, are more likely to date earlier than 300 bc, (when they were attributed by the king of that time)?

I skimmed some of your more recent posts on this thread and see that you recognize evidence of the use of steel on work that is dated prior to the iron age. Have you looked into the curious polish on various works that appear to have been cut, including even polished sections of what appear to be non functional 'over cuts', which don't seem worthy of that detail work? Chris Dunn mentions that 'polish' is even evident on the Petrie Core #7, which he believes is a very mysterious aspect of that piece that is discussed far less than it should be worthy of, (on his recent JRE appearance). Some have even gone as far as suggesting this polished surface effect seems similar to vitrification. To me, this is the most challenging part of the idea that these particular pieces were cut by steel saws, and perhaps demonstrate some unknown approach. That is, unless we make the assumption that a polished appearance is something that can occur from long periods of weathering? What do you make of that?

Sorry if this is a digression from the purpose of this post.

[quote="lloyd"]I think you have the wrong impression about Nick's intent. He wants to show, IMO, that the precision tech was only possible after the Iron Age began. So he thinks that tech needs to be redated to much later than conventionally dated.[/quote]That is correct.

257480

[color=#FF0000]BARABAR CAVES[/color]

@ OpenMind, the Barabar Caves video is very interesting, but it's not really relevant to our debate, unless it's argued to be pre-IronAge, i.e. before about 1,000 BC. I listened for several minutes and heard dates around 300 BC. It's impressive that India had tech that was able to carve large rooms out of solid rock and smooth the walls, floors and ceilings so precisely, but it was the Iron Age and iron tools may have been used.

I had already seen Uncharted X's video on the precisely carved ancient Egyptian vases. It might be more relevant, if the vases can be truly dated to before the Iron Age.

[color=#0000FF]CHRONOLOGY DEBATE[/color]

I think you have the wrong impression about Nick's intent. He wants to show, IMO, that the precision tech was only possible after the Iron Age began. So he thinks that tech needs to be redated to much later than conventionally dated.

Lloyd: “Anyway, OpenMind, can you provide links to the studies of advanced ancient tech that you mentioned?”

A general synopsis of the Egyptian vase scanning can be followed by this youtuber who is following the analysis of the stl file generated from that scanning:
https://youtu.be/QzFMDS6dkWU?si=lLG-hUR0auHHvNMV

Also there is a new documentary about the Barabar Caves that were scanned and analyzed and its very interesting:
https://youtu.be/iF6qv1CC5_4?si=Fn8O7BTxUMschGLm

Lloyd: “On the other hand, it's also possible that there are simple methods that could have accomplished what advanced tech can now accomplish (or can it?).”

Nick is focusing on establishing the existence of Iron prior to when we believed the Iron age began, and I can get behind all of that. I’m open either way to that idea. But the work examined here demonstrates some metrological advancement that requires a development stage to achieve, and an impressively high level accomplished.

The ‘muddy waters’ I refer to in my original post is referring to an idea that is a common proposition by what appears to be some without actual metrological experience, that there exists a ‘formula’ being that in the absence of actual high precision metrological technology, the work can STILL be accomplished with simple ‘will and patience’ of ancient experts in their fields. I suggest it’s a ‘formula’ because it serves the purpose of removing any complication of any degree of precision found, by merely adding to the ‘time necessary’ to accomplish it, if only armed by will and patience. That way, you could formulate a timeline for how long it would take to lap the Hubble lens. But in reality, will and patience does not scale to limitless levels of ability with the one variable of time. Ask anyone in the field, and particularly experts who have a solid foundation in the history of Metrology, and they’ll confirm exactly why this is not at all the case.

HISTORY OF METROLOGY
The history of Metrology is hypothetically a series of stories about each tiny incremental step forward in precision, instigated by one ‘grapple gromet’ that wobbled, or one ‘doohicky’ that overheated, etc.. Each of those demonstrates a need for higher precision to achieve higher performance, and how it was accomplished. In these thousands of stories are exactly every kind of challenge one can imagine including every possible limitation that held back thousands of people who tried and failed to accomplish it with ‘will and patience’. It’s a documented expose literally on the failed attempts of our most inventive, focused, and ingenious people’s attempts to bypass the need for genuine high precision tools, followed by an explanation of the solution to that problem by their invention. In the light of this knowledge, I can’t see how anyone intimately aware of this tedious slow plodding development of metrology can pretend to ignore it and replace it all with a magic people who simply had orders of magnitude better focus and a steadier hand than the absolute best people we’ve produced in the last few hundred years during this rapid progress of the field.

(Having re read that, it sounds like I'm standing with my fist in the air. Tone not intended, lol)

From a post made on April 26, 2024 earlier on this thread:
[quote="nick c"]an iron plate was found in between some stones in the Great Pyramid by Vyse, it is believed to be left behind during construction.[/quote]My reason for making this post is that the iron plate is to this day, often alleged to be a fake, planted by Vyse or a member of his team.

I have found an article In Thoth Vol. I #2, Feb. 5, 1997, [i]Gizeh Pyramid Iron Plate[/i] by Clark Whelton.
From the article we find that the plate was found by Vyse's team as they blasted into the Great Pyramid, which revealed the plate beneath the outer stones of the Great Pyramid. The obvious conclusion was that the plate had to have been left behind during construction, [quote]The plate was sent to the British Museum, where the feeling was the iron plate could not have been contemporary as iron was supposedly unknown in the Pyramid Age. However, two series of examinations (done in
1881 and 1989) clearly disprove that view:[/quote]In 1881 the plate was analyzed by [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flinders_Petrie]Sir Flinders Petrie[/url], probably the world's leading authority on Egyptology. Petrie concluded:[quote] "Though some doubt has been thrown on the piece, merely from its rarity, yet the vouchers for it are very precise; and it has a cast of a nummulite (fossilized marine protozoa) on the rust of it, proving it
to have been buried for ages beside a block of nummulitic limestone, and therefore to be certainly ancient. No reasonable doubt can
therefore exist about its being a realy (sic) genuine piece."[/quote]
The plate was again tested in 1989: [quote]In 1989 examination was done by Dr. Jones (Senior Tutor in the Mineral
Resources Engineering Department at Imperial College, London) and Dr.
Gayer (lecturer in the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining at Egypt's
Suez University). They, through checking on the nickel content of the
plate, were able to exclude the possibility that the plate had been
manufactured from meteoritic iron. Their tests also showed that it
was most probably gold-plated. They concluded, "It is concluded, on
the basis of the present investigation, that the iron plate is very
ancient. Furthermore, the metallurgical evidence supports the
archaeological evidence which suggests that the plate was
incorporated within the Pyramid at the time that structure was
built."[/quote]So the plate is genuine. It is not made from meteoric iron, but was smelted from ore. which indicates a level of metal technology which even today is an anachronism for the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Furthermore the plate was gold plated, but its purpose is unclear.

256858

[color=#FF0000]ADVANCED ANCIENT TECH[/color]

Nick's last post is at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=13&start=810#p10366 .
OpenMind's post is after Nick's at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=13&start=810#p10372 .

Thanks for your comments, OpenMind.

Apparently, Nick's view is that all of the advanced ancient tech was doable starting in the Iron Age, which I guess was supposed to have started about 1,000 BC, although I mentioned above that central Africans may have been in the Iron Age much earlier, maybe at the same time that the pyramids were built, or earlier.

My GF has been sick and I'm trying to get a new job, so I haven't been able to get to this thread as often as I prefer.

Anyway, OpenMind, can you provide links to the studies of advanced ancient tech that you mentioned? And I agree with your idea that the advances could have been rapid and maybe short-lived. On the other hand, it's also possible that there are simple methods that could have accomplished what advanced tech can now accomplish (or can it?). Nick mentioned marble above, but I think it may be easier to carve marble using acids, like vinegar, since marble is metamorphized limestone. Can granite or diorite be carved using acids? A.I. says no, but it says adding heat along with acid can etch them. I was wondering if electricity could have been used. The ancients knew a little about electricity, but maybe not enough.

A.I. also said this.
Ancient Egyptian craftsmen primarily used bronze tools for working hard stones. These tools had cutting points harder than quartz (which they operated on). The exact composition of these cutting points remains undetermined, but possibilities include beryl, topaz, and chrysoberyl.

It said Granite is primarily composed of quartz, feldspar, and mica crystals. Diorite is a coarse-grained rock composed mainly of plagioclase feldspar and amphibole minerals.

Also, quartz, mica & feldspar are silicates. The hardness of quartz is 7; feldspar is 6-6.5; and mica is 2.5-4; Diorite's hardness is 6-7; amphibole is 5-6. The hardness of beryl, topaz, and chrysoberyl is 8-8.5.

Earth's gravity, atmosphere, electrical environment etc may have been different enough to have had an effect too.

[color=#FF0000]CARDONA'S SATURN FINDINGS[/color]

I just wrote a post on this at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substack.com/p/cardona-books-main-findings and I added it to my book at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/ancient-myths-are-planetary-history .

... just as a suggestion, re the above ideas, this period I'm describing of a "short period of rapid advancement of technology" that presumably is followed by a quick collapse involving an aggressive gathering and repurposing of all metals, rendering this period invisible to archeology, could be called the following:

B.L.I.P – Brief Limited Industrialized Period

To Lloyd: Regarding the scans of the vases, as well now as the Barabar Caves, having actual data to answer the age old question of 'how precise' these things are, is really going to help move along these discussions. I find previous to actual scientific data, the vagueness of this topic allowed a very wide range of people into the dialogue, which has wound up muddying the waters about what is and isn't possible to do by hand and by eye. As much as many inexperienced people would like to suggest that these things are unclear, they really are not, among people who have a full comprehension of metrology and fabrication, and its just a matter of time before that recognized authority takes it natural place on this subject. We won't be able to tell you 'exactly' what those tools looked like, but we can now assemble a long list of criteria that their tools had to satisfy to accomplish this work.

But its not surprising though, that an old school contingent of archeology, historian,and Egyptology have resisted these findings. The problem has been that this idea of advanced ancient technology has always been linked to the idea of a far older ancient advanced civilization, and the very idea of that flies in the face of hundreds of years of very good work by these disciplines, so that seems to have defined the battleground of this debate. But I wonder if it doesn't have to be that way.

Considering we are presently experiencing such incredible advances from only a couple hundred years of work that started with horse back and manual plow, and wound up with cell phones and striped toothpaste, can't we consider the acceptance of all archeologically accepted timelines, AND incorporate a mysterious short period of rapid advancement of technology, much like we're witnessing today, and that way, allow more people to view this scan data without such consequential implications from their perceived tacit professional endorsements? To me, this simple invocation should clear up a very messy implication, that has seemingly motivated many to take a strong opposition to what is essentially irrefutable data now, and its not a good look. We'd all like to maintain a respect for these disciplines, and this miscommunication is not going unnoticed and will not help the necessary trust for cooperative productive collaboration moving forward on these subjects.

Just my 2 cents on a hope of a productive dialogue moving forward on this new information. I don't have impossible expectations of an immediate change agility of academia, but I am hoping to focus on the real reasons why we get held up along the way to new ideas.

Lloyd,
Here is a video of how a vase was carved out of marble breccia using primitive materials including copper saws and drills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3Z_DBnCp8&t=0s

Did they succeed? Yes they did. But how long did it take?[quote]- Material: breccia marble from the Narvsky open pit in the Krasnoyarsk Territory
- Ingoing size: 200x200x200mm
- Finished size: 80x135mm
- Tool materials: wood, sandstone, corundum (grindstone + grinding agent), hemp string, alabaster, quartz.
- Self-made tools: a grinding and drilling machine, a bow drill, a chambering tool (a grindstone on a wooden handle), a copper saw, copper drills of various diameters.
- Total work time: about 6 months, 6 to 8 hours a day, excepting 2 days off a week. At least 2 months of this time period were spent on making and testing the tools.[/quote]Six months of working 6 to 8 hours/day, 5 days per week! to make a single vase. Let's figure 6 months equals 26 weeks x 5 work days/week = 130 total work days x 6 hours work/day = 780 hours of work. And 130 total work days at 8 hours work/day = 1040 hours of work.
Now tool creation and maintenance took two months, which should be included in the whole work load since the ancient worker would have to do the same. Anyway, for the sake of argument, let us subtract one third of the hours: (780 - 260) and (1040 - 346.7) and we get a range between 520 and 693.3 man hours in order to build a tiny marble vase with copper tools!

So is it possible? Yes it is possible. But if the Egyptians tried to build Pyramids (remember there are 7 major large pyramids and numerous smaller ones) temples, walls, statues, and associated structures at this rate...they might still be working on them today.
Think, if you are potter...how do you earn a living selling marble pottery when you can only make 2 tiny (the finished size 3 inches by 5.3 inches) vases per year? How could the pharaohs afford to pay for constructions at this rate of production? Workers are subject to the same general productivity requirements as today.

With all respect to the people who conducted the experiment they make it clear that they are not saying that this is how the Egyptians worked hard stone, but that they were only demonstrated that it could be done given enough time. [quote]The experiment was not intended to copy the ancient method of stone carving in detail. The idea was to show the possibility of doing such work using simple tools.[/quote]

And let us not forget Petrie's findings that granite (which is considerably harder than marble) in the unfinished King's Chamber and on basalt blocks outside of the Great Pyramid displayed clear signs of the teeth marks from a saw. That makes all the arguments presented in these videos irrelevant. The choice is simple, either the Egyptians used diamonds or other gems as saw teeth or they had hardened steel saws. The Egyptians did not have diamonds or any gems available until the Ptolemaic period, which leaves the simplest explanation....they had steel saws and drills.

Attached is a photo of a diorite statue of 4th Dynasty Pharaoh Khafre. Diorite is much harder than granite. A close look reveals subtle curves, delicate carving of the eyelids, lips, and other facial features. What kind of tools were used in its making?

[attachment=0]Diorite Statue of Khafre.JPG[/attachment]