Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

254350

I'm just throwing this out there. The data may be useful eventually.

[color=#FF0000]C14 LEVELS CHANGED BY ANCIENT CATACLYSMS[/color]
C-14 Dating May Be Wrong Before 2OOO B.C.
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1977/09/c-14-dating-may-be-wrong-before-2ooo-b.c
... One explanation is that sometime prior to 2,000 B.C., the atmosphere contained no measurable C-14. After that, there apparently was a major atmospheric change that resulted in a build-up of C-14 in the atmosphere over several centuries. That would mean that two organisms that died less than one thousand years apart could show a C-14 age difference as great as 40,000 years if one organism died just before C-14 began to appear and the other died after it approached present levels.
_In a critical transition period a radio carbon year could well refer to a month or less of actual time. That would ex plain why so much C-14 time passes over so little peat and sediment at deeper levels.
_This brings into new focus a few C-14 dates previously considered too freakish to warrant serious attention. A frozen musk ox found at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, had scalp muscle tissue 24,000 years old and hair 17,200 years old ac cording to C-14 dating. At least three other frozen animals, two mammoths and a mastodon, have been found with parts of their bodies with C-14 ages far different from other parts or from surrounding plant life that perished with or shortly after the animals.
_Given the data from the peat and sediment accumulations this should come as no surprise. Since hair is constantly replaced, it provides an up-to-the-minute readout of the C-14 level in the food supply at the death of the animal. But slower-growing body parts such as bone or muscle tissue might be several years out of date. That lag during a period of rapidly rising C-14 could cause a bone of a 10-year-old mastodon to appear thousands of years older than its hair.
_Rampart Cave, located at the lower end of Grand Canyon, offers another example of the possible time-inflating capacity of C-14. The cave contains almost 200 cubic yards of stratified animal dung deposits, mostly from the extinct Shasta ground sloth. 4
_From about 13,000 to 11,000 radio carbon years ago (a span of 2,000 years) the sloths deposited a layer of dung about 70 centimeters thick, by far the most dung of any comparable previous period. Given the size of the Shasta sloth, three to four hundred pounds, that's not much about one cubic foot per year, or less than one week's elimination from one healthy adult ground sloth. Could that really be? For a layer 70 centimeters thick, 200 years would seem far more reasonable than 2,000. 5
_Brown's conclusions do not purport to entirely destroy the credibility of C-14 before 2,000 B.C. Though C-14 dates as such may be wrong, he considers the C-14 sequence to be probably correct. This would mean that a specimen found to be 30,000 years old by C-14 is probably as old as all others indicating 30,000, and older than one 10,000 C-14 years old, if only by a few real years.
[color=#0000FF]_DEVELOPMENT CAN BE TRACED[/color]
The development of early civilizations, then, can still be traced with C-14. So far, C-14 sequence reveals that the earliest civilization began in the Mideast and from there spread throughout the globe. Genesis 11:8 says: "So the Lord scattered them abroad from there [Babylon, or present-day Iraq] over the face of all the earth" (R.S.V.). Rightly understood, C-14 may prove a valuable asset to creationists.
_Since pre-Flood organic material has an infinite C-14 age—50,000 years or more—Brown concludes that there was probably an undetectable concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere before the Flood. But with the Flood could have come cataclysmic changes, bringing a rapid rise in C-14 concentration and a precipitous drop in C-14 from 50,000 to 4,000 radiocarbon years in comparatively few actual years.
_In a later issue of Origins, Brown describes a triple impact that the Flood could have had on C-14 levels.6 First, the mere burying of a major portion of the earth's carbon-bearing plant life could in itself account for most of the expected change in C-14 concentration, even if C-14 were produced at the same rate before the Flood as after. An analogy might explain. With five drops of red food coloring (C-14), the smaller the cake (regular carbon), the redder it would be (the higher the proportion of C-14). In burying quantities of regular carbon, the Flood had the effect of diminishing and therefore "reddening" the cake, that is, of increasing the proportion of C-14 in the air and living matter.
_Second, the Flood may have brought with it a drier atmosphere, thus permitting a rise of atmospheric C-14. Genesis 2:5, 6, suggests that pre-Flood atmosphere had nearly 100 percent humidity. In the upper atmosphere, such humidity would restrict the production of C-14. Flood water could have come partly from this vapor shield, leaving behind a drier atmosphere more open to C-14 production.
_Third, the geomagnetic field belting the earth may have been stronger before the Flood, also reducing pre-Flood C-14 levels. Put together, these factors could place a specimen up to 66,000 radiocarbon years beyond its real age, if C-14 age could be extended that far. And 66,000 is far more than we'd ever have to subtract from the oldest C-14 date to accommodate a flood less than five thousand years ago.
_Notes:
1 R. H. Brown, "C-14 Age Profiles for Ancient Sediments and Peat Bogs," Origins (1975), 2 (1):6-18.
2 Herbert C. Sorenson, "Carbon-14 Dating and the Bristlecone Pines," THE MINISTRY, February, 1975, pp. 36, 37.
3 Ibid.
4 Austin Long and Paul S. Martin, "Death of American Ground Sloths," Science (1974), 186 (4164):638-640; Paul S. Martin, "Sloth Droppings," Natural History, August-September 1974, pp. 74-81.
5 R. H. Brown, "Can We Believe Radiocarbon Dates?" Creation Research Society Quarterly (1975), 12(l):66-68.
6 R. H. Brown, "The Interpretation of C-14 Dates," Origins (1976), 3(1

[color=#FF0000]C14 IN FOSSILS[/color]
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/
_The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
_So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
... _Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
_So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
... _This chart shows the percentage of radiocarbon that remains in 40 samples from various layers throughout the geologic column. (This percentage, technically known as percent modern carbon [pMC], shows the ratio of radiocarbon in the rocks and fossils compared to the amount we find in living things).
_This finding is consistent with the belief that rocks are only thousands of years old, but the specialists who obtained these results have definitely not accepted this conclusion. It does not fit their presuppositions. To keep from concluding that the rocks are only thousands of years old, they claim that the radiocarbon must be due to contamination, either from the field or from the laboratory or from both. However, when the technician meticulously cleans the rocks with hot strong acids and other pre-treatments to remove any possible contamination, these “ancient” organic (once-living) materials still contain measurable radiocarbon.
_Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.14 15 These results have been confirmed by other investigators.16 So even though these diamonds are conventionally regarded by evolutionary geologists as up to billions of years old, this radiocarbon has to be intrinsic to them.
... _It should be noted that radiocarbon “ages” of up to 50,000 years don’t match the biblical time frame, either. The Flood cataclysm was only about 4,350 years ago. However, these young radiocarbon “ages” are far more in accord with the Bible’s account than the uniformitarian timescale. The discovery that diamonds have 55,000-year radiocarbon “ages” may help us unravel this mystery.

[color=#FF0000]OLDEST TREE[/color]
Oldest Living Tree Located In Sweden
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/oldest-living-tree-in-sweden/
_National Geographic News reports on the 13-foot (4m) conifer found in Sweden back in 2004. The tree itself (a Norway spruce) isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.
_The tree itself isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.
_A team at Umeå University led by Leif Kullman says the tree’s old age is due to its ability to clone itself. Each time a trunk dies off—around every 600 years, according to Kullman—the roots sprout a new trunk to replace the dead one. The oldest continuously standing trees are thought to be bristlecone pines from the western United States, the oldest of which is thought to be 5,000 years old—just over half the age of Kullman’s tree.

254272

[color=#FF0000]ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY DISCUSSION[/color]

[color=#0000FF]COPPER SAWING GRANITE[/color]
Hi Nick. The data on the sawing experiment was listed under the video as follows.
[quote]Ancient Egyptian Granite Sawing Technology: reconstruction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ZHYWle0DE
Scientists Against Myths Jul 7, 2020
The experimentalist Nikolay Vasiutin attempts to cut a piece of granite using ancient Egyptian methods: utilizing a copper saw with an abrasive agent (corundum). The stone cutting experiment was conducted for antropogenez.ru portal.
Specifications:
- Copper strip length: 22 cm
- Granite piece thickness: 17 mm
- Cut Length: 48 cm
- Cut Width (max): ~6mm
- Total time taken: 3.5 hours
- Extracted granite weight: 46g (3012-2966=46)
- Granite volume: 17.03 cm3
- Copper material wear: 23 gr. (229-206=23)
- Copper volume: 2.58 cm3
This was referenced: "Granite, a Copper Saw, and Abrasive Material, Principles of Loose Abrasive Sawing. Excellent article by Oleg Kruglyakov: https://antropogenez.ru/sawing/ "[/quote]

In that article it says:
[quote]"... Experiment performed on the 12th of March 2017. A decorative kerf in granite."
"Fig.15. A forged blade of a copper saw for an experiment.... I suggested that to make the refined decorative kerfs {saw cuts}, the Egyptians initially sharpened the blade somehow, without waiting for it to sharpen itself. It seems logical. Forging is the most economical option and perhaps even the easier one, too. That is precisely why I manufactured such a saw, and not to create a V-shaped kerf as such. The kerf should have turned out V-shaped by itself. I wanted to learn how they did it with minimum effort. And then he tried to make a kerf with it, with the help of a corundum suspension."
"... An important note. In the process of abrasive sawing (as with abrasive drilling), grooves appear, change their position, merge, diverge, disappear and then appear again equally easily."
"Quantitative Results of Experiment #1
- Kerf depth ca. 12 mm.
- Kerf entry width ca. 3.5 mm.
- Bottom curve diameter ca. 1 mm.
- Taper angle ca. 12 degrees or less (keep in mind what the camera position does to angle perception).
- Material expenditure: copper - 6 g, granite - 11 g. Division value of the scales: 1 g.
- Specific weight: copper – 8.93 g/cm3, granite (in our case) – 2.62 g/cm3.
- Volume of materials used: copper - 6/8,93~0.67 cm3, granite - 11/2,62~4.2 cm3.
- Weight ratio copper/granite:6/11=1/1.8
- Volume ratio copper/granite: 0,67/4,2=1/6.27
***
Experiment performed on the 13th of May 2017. A decorative kerf in granite."
"The working edge, just like previous time, was sharpened by forging."
"The abrasive suspension consisting of water and corundum powder gradually mixes with abrading granite and copper and turns into a pulp, acquires a pink hue and rather quickly is thrown out of the kerf with the movements of the saw (Fig. 27, 28)."
"To supply the work zone with abrasive we simply washed it in with a jet of water, and the soft hissing sound was followed by a gritting one which stopped rather quickly as the abrasive in the pulp was being ground into powder, and the pulp became slimy to the touch."
"The mechanism of the abrasive in action is exactly the same as in the case of drilling...."
"Quantitative Results of Experiment #2.
- Copper saw blade length: 22 cm.
- Granite plate thickness: 17 mm.
- Total kerf length: 48 cm.
- Maximum kerf depth: 17 mm (a through kerf).
- Maximum kerf entry width: ca. 6 mm.
- Wall taper angle: ca. 14 degrees.
- Bottom rounding curve diameter: ca. 1 mm.
- Total work time: 3.5 hours.
- Granite extracted: 46 g (3012-2966=46), 17.03 cm3.
- Copper wear: 23 g (229-206), 2.58 cm3.
- Weight ratio copper/granite 23/46=1/2
- Volume ratio copper/granite 2,58/17,03=1/6.6
The resulting weight and volume ratios are equitable to those achieved in the first experiment in March of 2017."
[/quote]

I guess this is the main findings.
- Video: Total time taken 3.5 hours
{Video seems to be the same as experiment 2.}
- Extracted granite weight: 46g
- Granite volume: 17.03 cm3
- Copper material wear: 23g
- Copper volume: 2.58 cm3
- Weight ratio copper/granite:23/46=1/2=50%
- Volume ratio copper/granite:2.58/17.03=15.15%
- Granite weight per hour: 46g/3.5h=13.1g/h
- Granite volume per hour: 17.03cc/3.5h=4.87cc/h
Bronze saws may have performed better than plain copper ones. It seems to me that a copper saw with abrasives cutting granite is comparable to sandpaper with sand abrasive cutting wood. The above shows that copper saws with abrasive wears only half as fast as the granite. The World of Antiquity video also showed that there are ancient Egyptian carvings showing how they used such tools to shape stone.

[color=#0000FF]CARBON DATING[/color]
A.I. says "Radiocarbon dating was employed to verify the historical chronology of ancient Egypt. Researchers dated seeds found in pharaohs’ tombs, including some from the tomb of King Tutankhamun. They write in the journal Science that some of the samples are more than 4,500 years old1. This precise dating technique allowed them to constrain Egyptian history to specific dates, providing valuable insights into the past. 🌟🔍"

Wikipedia says the period from 400 to 750 BC does not produce accurate dating. Libby found that older BC dates are a few centuries too old. I'm pretty sure there's a graph in one of the issues of Pensee'.

The Younger Dryas generally dates by C14 dating to about 11,000 BC. I think that's because before the YD very little C14 was produced in the atmosphere. Gobekli Tepe dates to 9,500-8,000 BC, so there must not have been much C14 then either. My best guess on the YD is 2,600 BC.

I think David Rohl did the best job of dating ancient Egypt down to the Trojan War, which he dated to about 830 BC. He likely made some mistakes, but not too many, if seems.

[quote="Lloyd"]Sawing granite with copper or bronze saw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ZHYWle0DE[/quote]There are several points here. The video does not say how much time it took to saw, but evidently it was a long time, since it is mentioned that the Egyptians could take their time to build. There is also no mention of whether or not they had to change copper blades. I would imagine if this process was as long as it seems then carborundum slurry would wear away at the copper. It is simply a matter of the Moh's scale. Carborundum is higher than granite and both are considerably higher than copper.

And of course whether or not their technique would work is irrelevant since there is plenty of evidence (which I cited in my above post) that shows clear cut saw marks on granite and basalt in and around the Great Pyramid. That indicates that the saws had teeth that were higher on the Moh's scale than granite. Steel saws fit the evidence. Copper saws with slurry do not.

As far as iron from Sub Saharan Africa in 3000 BC, there are two quibbles.
1. How did they determine the 3000 BC date? That is certainly a questionable date and I would not put any stock in it. Is it meteoric iron? or was it smelted from ore?
2. Iron cannot cut granite. It has to be [url=https://www.steel.org/steel-technology/steel-production/]processed into steel [/url] in order to attain a position on the Moh's scale enabling it to saw granite and other hard stones.

254051

[color=#FF0000]ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY DISCUSSION[/color]

Hi Nick.

I think these 2 videos prove that copper blades could have been used to saw granite, although it's not certain that they used pure copper. They may have used bronze or some other material made from mostly copper.

[color=#0000FF]SAWING GRANITE[/color]
Sawing granite with copper or bronze saw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ZHYWle0DE
At time 1:03:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_NguZUDku4&t=10s

It's also possible that iron tools were used.

[color=#0000FF]IRON TOOLS[/color]
Africans made iron objects as early as 3,000 BC, so it's very possible that ancient Egyptians obtained iron tools by trade.
https://historum.com/t/egyptians-imported-iron-from-central-africa-to-cut-granite.75690/

254021

[color=#FF0000]WORKING ON CATACLYSMS CHRONOLOGY[/color]
Yesterday I posted Mythic Symbols of Saturn Train at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substack.com/p/mythic-symbols-of-saturn-train . I titled it "Tying Myths to Earth History" in my book at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/ancient-myths-are-planetary-history .
FROM COLLINEAR ORBITS TO TRAIN
It's highlights from Talbott's 1995 interview at https://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/talbott/talbott.html .
I'm pretty sure the Saturnists had not yet realized that the Saturn system was a train of planets entering the solar system linearly. At that time I think they were thinking that Venus, Mars and Earth were orbiting Saturn within the solar system, and they were in a line while revolving around Saturn, as if they were on a string, so Earth would have been revolving faster than Mars and Mars faster than Venus. To make better sense of the ancient myths, they had to revise their model to the simpler one with the planets moving as a train of planets entering the solar system, or possibly moving on a very long highly elliptical orbit.
VENUS CIRCULAR ORBIT
Initially Talbott thought the Saturn system was located between the orbits of Venus and Earth, but later I think concluded that Venus followed Jupiter to Venus' present orbit before Jupiter returned to its present orbit. I consider his later conclusion plausible and that Earth and Mars got off the Jupiter train after the asteroid belt. They may have been orbiting each other briefly before settling to their present orbits. There may have been enough dust in the inner solar system to help circularize their orbits. I think because Venus was closer to Jupiter it aligned to Jupiter's rotational axis, maybe after Jupiter aligned to the Sun's axis. Mars and Earth aligned to Saturn's rotational axis as the train was moving toward and into the solar system.
TRAIN INSTABILITY
This means the distances between the planets weren't constant and they weren't always in a straight line.
OVOID VENUS
The instability resulted in Venus pulling air and water off of Mars during closer approaches.
VENUS CHANGING APPEARANCE
Venus appeared as a comet at first and the instability resulted in changes, causing Venus' "hair" to become chaotic.
MARS APPLE OF EYE
Mars was initially blue, said Talbott. The changes over time turned it red. Venus and Mars together looked like an eye in the sky. The pupil of the eye was red Mars, leading to the phrase "the apple of her eye".
VENUS FROM SATURN
It's interesting to hear Talbott's speculation that Venus was ejected from Saturn. It's not part of his main model, but it's very plausible.
RAYS ETC
Venus apparently had a changing number of streamers, mainly from 3 to 5.
CORRECT PLANET SIZES
Talbott noted that the ancient images of the concentric circles depicted the planets in the correct proportions of their present diameters.

I'm thinking of doing a weekly update of catastrophism findings at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/catastrophism-notes . The first update is on C14 Dating Glitch.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="Lloyd"]Nick, can you provide evidence or sources for your claims?
[/quote]I have put my statements in quote boxes and my sources and comments follow
-----------------------------------------------------------


[quote="nick c"]The problem is that high quality steel does not appear until about 1200 BCE give or take.[/quote]

Source: Innovation and Adoption of Iron in the Ancient Near East
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-019-09129-6
[quote]Depending on the region, the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition in the Near East (Fig. 1) is usually dated to 1200–1000 BC. As we shall see, however, transformations in iron use began before and continued long after this 200-year period. It is imperative, therefore, to distinguish between the chronological period termed the Iron Age, the origins of extractive iron metallurgy (i.e., smelting), and the periods in which iron achieved widespread usage. In many areas, these events took place at radically different times.[/quote]

The conventional thinking on iron/steel tools is that they first appear in, as I wrote, "about 1200 BCE give or take". That may be an overestimate on my part as some sources cite an even later date in the early 1st M BCE for high quality steel. However, the last line in the above quote must be taken with a grain of salt because it is based upon conventional chronology, which is prone to dark ages (that is gaps in chronology) which can lead to wrong conclusions about the contemporaneity or sequence of time periods in neighoring nations.

Cardona had countered that iron was known since the beginning of history. He is referring to meteoric iron, which is true, and that the Egyptians could have made saws and drills of meteoric iron. However, the problem is that iron in itself is not able to cut hard rocks unless it is carburized and that is an advanced process, especially since it requires the smelting of iron from ore. To make steel the iron must be heated to about 1000 degrees centigrade or more, in a bed of carbonaceous material like charcoal or a carburized atmosphere which causes the carbon to migrate into the iron.

Meteoric iron is not of a quality that permits it to be produced into hardened steel. From the Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago 1982) Macropedia Vol. 8: [quote] Meteoric iron is practically carbonless and hence cannot be hardened in the manner of steel.....Much rarer than copper, meteoric iron was often used for jewelry....Small meteorites were the most convenient sources[/quote]Yes, meteoric iron was known from the beginning of civilization, but it was not suitable or even plentiful enough to produce saws and drills that could cut and drill through granite, basalt, diorite, and other hard stones.




[quote="nick c"]The sarcophagus in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, shows clearly defined saw marks. [/quote]

On page 200 of the hard copy of Ginenthal's [i]Pillars of the Past - History, Science, and Technology As These Relate to Chronology [/i][quote="Ginenthal"]Petrie has made it quite clear that the saw markings are indicative of blades that cut, not with powder, but with hard teeth.[/quote] In another part of his book (Petrie, The Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt) Petrie suggested that diamonds were used, mounted as the teeth on the saw, but this was shown to be impossible.
footnote: Babara Mertz, "Red Land, Black Land" Revised Edition (1978) p. 217 [quote="Barbara Mertz"]Saw marks have been found on the granite sarcophagus from the Great Pyramid and on basalt (another hard stone) pavement blocks from the temple of that pyramid, and drills were certainly used for stone statues and vases. [.....]
The use of diamond points in industry is well known[....]
But sad to say, the Egyptians did not have diamonds. Neither did they have topaz (8) or rubies and sapphires (9) or even beryl (8) before the Greek Period.[/quote] Note that the numbers in brackets indicate the rating on the Mohs scale. Additionally, Granite is about 7 and Diamonds are 10. Also, the "Greek Period" refers to the Ptolemaic dynasty which began in 330 BCE and ended with the death of Cleopatra. Diamond or jeweled points on a saw are not possible since the first appearance of diamonds and other gems in Egypt is more than 2000 years (by conventional chronology) after the 4th Dynasty and the building of the Giza Pyramids.



[quote="nick c"]Also, 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]

[url=]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_VyseColonel Howard Vyse[/url] sent the iron plate to the British Museum, with an accompanying letter of certifications: [quote]This is to certify that the piece of iron found by me near the (outside) mouth of the air passage, in the southern side of the Great Pyramid at Giza, on Friday, May 26th, was taken out by me from an inner joint, after having removed by blasting the outer two tiers of the stones of the present surface of the Pyramid; and that no joint or opening of any sort was connected with the above-mentioned joint, by which the iron could have been placed in it after the original building of the Pyramid. I also showed the exact spot to Mr. Perring on Saturday, June 24th-J.R.Hill.

To the above certificate of Mr. Hill, I can add that since I saw the spot at the commencement of blasting, there have been two tiers of stone removed, and that , if the piece of iron was found in the joint, pointed out to me by Mr. Hill, and which was covered by a larger stone partly remaining, it is impossible it could have been placed there since the building of the Pyramid -- J.S. Perring, C.E

We hereby certify, that we examined the place whence the iron in question was takenby Mr. Hill, and we are of the opinion, that the iron must have been left in the joint during the building of the Pyramid, and that it was not inserted afterward -- Ed. S. Andrews - James Mash, C.E. [/quote] Metallurgists analyzed the iron plate and determined that it was not of meteoric origin, but was rather smelted at between 1000 and 1100 degrees centigrade from several pieces of iron ore which were hammered and further heated to form a single plate. As Ginenthal points out, this plate was produced by a sophisticated smelting process that was well understood by those who produced the plate.



[quote="nick c"]Using copper saws with a slurry of quartz is just not practical. The slurry is going to cut into the copper saw faster than it is going to cut the granite.[/quote]
Several early Egyptologists, including I. E. S. Edwards (wiki link) stated the above method was used in cutting granite and other hard stones by the Old Kingdom Egyptians. This has been repeated so many times that it has become accepted as fact. Actually it is quite wrong. Seems like it would be a simple test for an Egyptologist to prove his case by actually cutting a granite or diorite slab with a copper saw and slurry.
[quote="Ginenthal"]The problem with this method is that copper is actually softer than quartz sand and also softer than granite, schist, basalt, and diorite. Rather than cutting into stones the quartz sand will destroy the copper blade. While this method will work with soft limestone, it is not possible to use it with these harder stones. This was shown to be simply false in the early part of the 20th century by H. Garland, a metallurgist, who actually tested this methodology with a copper saw and an abrasive harder than the rock to be cut. The method failed to work. [/quote]
see: Garland H.: "Ancient Egyptian Tools" [i]The Cairo Scientific Journal[/i],vol VIII, no.84 (Sept. 1913); Garland H. and Bannister,C.O. [i]Ancient Egyptian Metallurgy[/i] (London 1927)

On page 212 of Ginenthal's aforementioned book he cites the testimony of Roger Hopkins, a practicing stone mason, who was invited to participate in the building of a pyramid for the 1991 PBS series NOVA. [quote="Roger Hopkins"]I quickly got bored with working the soft limestone and started to ponder granite work. Here in Massachusetts my specialty is working in granite.
When I was asked by the Egyptologists how the ancients could have produced this work with mere copper tools, I told them they were crazy.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A further important resource for these and many other inconsistencies and anomalies in conventional academic chronology:
Dayton, John: [i]Minerals Metals Glazing & Man [/i](London 1978)
Dayton shows many problems with accepted chronology, and that it has been wrongly stretched back into time. For example, we have discussed steel above, however, Dayton points out that it is impossible for the ancient world to have used bronze tools and weapons much before 1000 BCE.
Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. The problem is that there is no evidence of a source for tin until 1000 BCE. The first appearance of tin is from the British Isles via the Phoenicians. See p174-175 of Ginenthal's aforementioned [i]Pillars of the Past....[/i]

The enigma is that supposedly the Sumerians in the 3rd M BCE used bronze. As we know that the revised chronology requires the Sumerians to be a 1st M civilization (a duplication of the Chaldeans). There is absolutely no evidence that there was any 3rd M BCE trade by the Sumerians with Britain, nor is there any evidence that they were capable of maintaining such a seafaring endeavor, and if so, who in the British isles was there to find and mine the tin? It wasn't until circa 1100 BCE that Phoenicians made the long and costly journey to the British Isles to obtain tin. British tin mining did not exist before 1000 BCE, and why would the Phoenicians make the costly trip to Great Britain to get tin if there were sources or a source for tin already in the Near East? Getting tin from Britain would not be an economically feasible endeavor if tin was already available from mines in the Near East. If so, where are those mines?

The Wiki page for [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_during_antiquity#:~:text=Cassiterite%20(SnO2)%2C%20oxidized,a%20more%20involved%20smelting%2]Tin sources and trade during antiquity[/url] goes into a long explanation of how bronze was used in the 3rd Millennium BCE and from where the tin was mined. But after that large dose of word salad and buried in the text, they slip in the following admission: [quote="Wiki"]The earliest sources of tin in the Early Bronze Age in the Near East are still unknown and the subject of much debate in archaeology.[/quote]

253885

[color=#0000FF]CHRONOLOGY DISCUSSION[/color]
Nick, can you provide evidence or sources for your claims? I'm sure Ginenthal et al are likely among them. If your time is too limited, do you know anyone else who agrees with you and may have more time to discuss more fully?

I think some of the videos I listed earlier show strong evidence that copper or maybe bronze saws (I'm not sure what he said about bronze) could have cut granite okay and other simple methods were likely used to produce fine diorite sculptures, precision vases etc. And one of my Substack posts has good critiques of Ginenthal etc. So those are some of the evidences I have ready access to for debate/discussion.

[quote="Lloyd"]253486

Nick, do you want to h[ave a chronology discussion as I mentioned above at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=10325#p10323 ?[/quote]I haven't had the time to view all of those videos, but for starters.....the answer to how the Old Kingdom Egyptians carved granite and the even harder diorite, is that they had high quality steel tools. The problem is that high quality steel does not appear until about 1200 BCE give or take.

The sarcophagus in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, shows clearly defined saw marks. Also, an iron plate was found in between some stones in the Great Pyramid by Vyse, it is believed to be left behind during construction.

No hidden technology or space aliens with laser tools are needed. Workers of the Greeks, Romans, and through out the Middle Ages did not have power tools, and were able to use quality steel to cut and carve hard stones like granite and marble. The pyramid builders had to have steel tools, Yet conventional chronology has the pyramids built more than a thousand years before the production of steel became practical.

Using copper saws with a slurry of quartz is just not practical. The slurry is going to cut into the copper saw faster than it is going to cut the granite.

The revised chronology requires that the Old Kingdom and their buildings, statues, mastabas and pyramids were built in the beginning of the 1st M BCE and during that time when hard stones needed to be cut and carved, it was done with quality steel tools.

253486

Nick, do you want to have a chronology discussion as I mentioned above at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=10325#p10323 ?

[quote="Lloyd"]The King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid is known for a mysterious salt encrustation on its walls. This salt buildup was up to half an inch thick in places. The salt was also found along the Horizontal Passage and in the lower portion of the Grand Gallery. The origin of this salt buildup remains one of the greatest mysteries of the King’s Chamber1.[/quote]It sounds like it might be [url=https://granitegold.com/blogs/featured/how-to-remove-efflorescence-from-stone] efflorescence [/url]. This can happen to any type of stone, but seems to be more common with more porous stone, such as limestone.

Here is a detailed and comprehensive architectural study of the present state of the 3 Giza pyramids:
[url=https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-020-0356-9]Sustainability problems of the Giza pyramids[/url]

Back to efflorescence. Salts efflorescing from the stones of the Great Pyramid is cited as one of the problems faced by those who work to maintain the structural integrity of the pyramids. That would be salt encrustations on the surface of stones.
From the above linked study, specifically concerning the fossiliferous Giza limestone of the Great Pyramid (underlining is my own):[quote]These limestones are of a grey-beige to yellow–brown colour, mostly compact but also porous in places, and they feel chalky due to marly components. Many of small-sized fossil remains are detectable but hard to identify. Occasionally, small nummulites up to 5 mm in length could be recognized at polished surfaces. During storage over a longer period, [u][b]various salts effloresce at the surface,[/b][/u] which can be washed off easily with the finger. [b][/b]With a hand lens, the fossils appear mostly as small nummulites, shells and other fossil remains, all irregularly imbedded and mostly secondarily calcified within the limestone matrix.

The present study confirms that the building stones of the pyramids are natural rocks and were not formed by using artificial concrete.[/quote]

[quote="lloyd"]So, do you know if anyone has determined if the pyramid blocks contain fossils and other impurities? Shattered History seems to say they don't. I don't know what her sources are.[/quote]Yes, fossils of shells and bones of marine creatures are a constituent of all types of limestone.
see:
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/ology-cards/245-limestone#:~:text=Limestone%20is%20made%20up%20of,now%20fossils%2C%20are%20still%20visible.
[quote="American Museum of Natural History"]Limestone is made of fossils. After small marine animals die, Their shells and skeletons build up on the ocean floor....
...Sometimes the original shells which are now fossils are still visible.[/quote]

253037

[color=#FF0000]CHRONOLOGY DISCUSSION/DEBATE[/color]

Nick & I have been discussing chronologies a little at these recent posts.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=13&start=795#p10057
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=13&start=795#p10237

Nick, here are some videos below, plus my Substack post, that support the chronology of David Rohl mostly, which shortens Egyptian history by about 300 years, instead of the many more centuries that your authors favor. My Substack post includes some of the basic reasoning, as does the last video, which is by Rohl. The first 6 videos here show that most or all of the technology of the ancients was doable without Iron Age tools or other advanced tech.

Scientific method seems to require for "debates" that the proponent/s state their main argument and the main evidence in support of it, followed by opponents' main counter-arguments with the main evidence, as well as evidence against the proponent's evidence. If you agree, then you're welcome to state your main argument and the main evidence for it. Or if you prefer, I could state mine first.

Relatively How Fast was the Hordjedef Sarcophagus Cut?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm7Ow6V3SaE

Who Made the Stone Boxes in the Serapeum of Saqqara?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bop_AMJno64

The World's Oldest Intact Granite Sarcophagus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8J-Yph8TSg&t=3s

Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcl82hQr8xc

ANCIENT STONE CRAFT TECHNOLOGY: What Tools Did They Use?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3A_kItgymQ

Historian Reacts to Evidence for Ancient High Technology in Egypt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_NguZUDku4&t=10s

REVISED ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY
https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substack.com/p/revised-ancient-chronology

The Trojan War, Fact or Fiction? David Rohl
https://viking.tv/tv/this-week-on-viking-tv/tuesdays/unravel-the-mysteries-of-the-trojan-war-with-author-david-rohl

252431

Hi Nick. I discussed some of your arguments earlier on this page at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=10237#p10057 . Do you want to respond to that?

[quote]The Ancient Architects video channel had some videos showing that Schoch was likely wrong in dating the Sphinx much older than the Pyramids. By the way, the Pyramids had casing stones on the exterior, which may have lessened erosion. [/quote]While most of the limestone casing has been removed, there is still a considerable amount of limestone casing remaining on both the Great Pyramid and the Pyramid of Khafre, and they absolutely do not display any water erosion. The fact is that the Sphinx and associated temples suffered from water erosion and the Pyramids, and all of their associated structures...walls, roads, buildings, memorials, etc. do not show any water erosion.

Note: I do not agree with Dr. Schoch that the Sphinx was built by Atlanteans or some other unknown civilization predating Egypt. The Sphinx was probably built in early dynastic Egypt between the 1st and 3rd Dynasties and during that time the weather in North Africa was very different than that of today. After a global catastrophe the Sahara and Arabian deserts were formed and the climate changed dramatically.

The problem is that Egyptian chronology has been unjustifiably lengthened. Many dynasties were contemporaneous. Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt circa 666 BCE and wrote that Egypt was ruled by over 20 Kings. High priests and rulers of nomes/districts in Egypt enclosed their names in a cartouche, which today is interpreted as signifying that the person was a Pharaoh. This has resulted in distorted chronologies of the entire Mediterranean and Near East and the artificial creation of Dark Ages in Greece and other areas by virtue of their possession of Egyptian artefacts. Five hundred years of Greek history between 1200 to 700 BCE has no existence; no buildings, no books or writings, no wars, no art, no people, no history.
The reason is that Mycenaean civilization has certain contacts with Egypt...scarabs, pottery, etc. which are dated to Egyptian history and Classical Greece which begins in the 8th C BCE also has contacts with Egypt. But those contacts require a 500 year hiatus in Greek history. This Dark Age is not found in the stratigraphy. There is no aeolian gap (wind blown layer) in the ground, which should be there if the Dark Age were real. The stratigraphy tells the story that the Mycenaean era ends and the Greek era begins within a generation or two. Archaeology is subservient to history as it is understood by Egyptologists. Yet Egyptian chronology requires a 500 year gap of abandonment and desolation.

251588

I just posted [color=#FF0000]THE JUPITER TRAIN[/color] at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substack.com/p/the-jupiter-train
I went through this thread, the one you're reading that started 50-some pages ago, and found all the relevant info on Jupiter and collected it altogether and commented on it a little, and I posted some images that may be helpful. Possibly, this will help me get a more holistic picture of what's known about Jupiter in ancient mythology, so I can get a clearer idea of when the Saturn Train ended and the Jupiter Train started. I added the following comment on Ken Moss's criticism of having Jupiter in front of the Saturn Train instead of at the End.

MAYBE IT’S NOT A PROBLEM
{Present Comment: This planetary arrangement below {{in an image not shown here}} seems to work fine, where Jupiter was in front of Saturn and NOT visible from Earth, due to Saturn blocking the view of Jupiter, then Saturn was expelled, so the train went from consisting of JSVME to JVME. The planets likely had the same electrical charges, so they repelled each other electrically, but attracted gravitationally and maybe magnetically. When the Saturn Train encountered the heliospheric current sheet, the sheet may have caused Jupiter to put on the brakes (slow down), which would have caused Saturn to be pushed out of alignment and then to move onto a separate orbit.

In the {{same missing}} diagram below, the Saturn Train was moving leftward, spiraling toward the Sun. The yellow-green planet is Saturn, not the Sun. The number line indicates millions of miles from Earth, so Mars was about .9, Venus 1.5, Saturn 3 & Jupiter over 4 million miles. By comparison, Saturn’s present outer moon is 8 million miles from Saturn. There was a disturbance before the arrangement shown on the first panel, which caused Venus & Mars to move slightly out of alignment, but they returned to the alignment in the 1st panel. Then the 2nd panel shows Saturn being pushed out of the Train toward a separate orbit. The 3rd panel shows the arrangement after Saturn’s departure. The 1st panel shows the time of the Golden Age, possibly from the time the Train reached Saturn’s orbit till it reached the Asteroid Belt. The 2nd panel shows the End of the Golden Age. And the 3rd panel shows the Jupiter Age, as the Train moved from the Asteroid Belt inward. Jupiter likely led the Train at least to the orbit of Mars, but possibly as far as the orbit of Venus, before it returned out past the Asteroid Belt again.}

Now I'll make a simpler image to try to show the transition from the Saturn Train to the Jupiter Train.

______________________________________________________________________________

----- (Saturn Train moving left toward the Sun)
1st Panel: JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ - SSSSSSSSSSSSSS ----- V,V ----- M ----- EE

______________________________________________________________________________

----- (Saturn being pushed out of the Train)
----------------------------------- SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
2nd Panel: JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ --^--------------^-- ----- V,V ----- M ----- EE

______________________________________________________________________________

----- (Jupiter Train begins)
3rd Panel: JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ----- V,V ----- M ----- EE

______________________________________________________________________________

Next time, I think I'll combine many of the spiraling orbit, distance and timeline images together.

One of the interesting excerpts involves the possible locations of the Saturn Train and then the Jupiter Train in the solar system and the timeline, especially regarding the Asteroid Belt being the likely location of where Saturn left the Train.

I also updated my book at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/ancient-myths-are-planetary-history