Friday, January 6, 2012

The Great Pyramid of Khufu.

[Some notes by Anthony Holmes (somewhere in South Africa) written to Mike Pelletier (somewhere in Canada)]

Before entering into a dialogue with you on the origin and purpose of the Great Pyramid or any other ancient artefact for that matter it is best to define the terms esoteric, fantastic and main stream. The correct meaning of esoteric is ‘limited to a select group’. Unfortunately esoteric has become a synonym for fantastic (the product of fantasy). Esoteric is incorrectly used in a derogatory sense when referring to esoteric theories, especially in relation to ancient Egypt.

The main stream theorists are the archaeologists and historians at the opposite end of the spectrum from those of the select group. They represent the conventional wisdom of the time. It is however for each individual to decide whether the currently espoused theories are acceptable or whether they are merely based on presupposition. Naturally the majority sheepishly follow the main stream into the fold without question, so it is up to the select few to challenge currently held beliefs and to put forward alternative possibilities. Such suggestions may be received with disdain or ridicule by those whose status and income requires them to support convention, but such rejection should not prevent those with divergent theories from offering them for discussion.

In seeking explanations for the unexplained, one should be permitted to read any books/articles or watch TV ‘documysteries’; but reader beware – there is a great deal of rubbish out there. So, , when enjoying the tenuous connections put forward by these ‘factasy’ writers always check for the tell-tale signs of invention. Such phrases as ‘statistics reveal’; ‘scientists have ascertained’; ‘it is well known’; ‘by pure chance’ are sure indicators.

The linking of one mystery to support another is often a clue to a lack of solid evidence. [quote David H Lewis from ‘Mysteries of the Pyramid’ to which you refer: (my comments in italics) "This unusual venture into these secret chambers was costly, not only in a monetary aspect, but in the four lives that were lost in the few short years that followed the expedition - due to this entry and the information gained. (a conspiracy within a conspiracy) Although nothing was removed from these chambers, the microfilms have since proven to be a priceless entity to those who place money in a higher regard than human life. (What does that mean?) It is entirely doubtful now that these micro film clips will ever be displayed for the general public and will remain as guarded as the spacecraft now in captivity at our Air Force Base.” (Another conspiracy for support)]

So let’s get to that huge pile of stone called the Great Pyramid (GP) of Giza and first review what we know, what we think we know and what we don’t know.

We know:

  • Materials of construction:

The GP is built mainly from approximately 2,300,000 limestone blocks which were quarried in the immediate vicinity of the Giza plateau. Originally the GP was cased in fine Tura limestone which came from a second quarry across the Nile. The interior chambers are constructed from granite transported to site from Aswan, far to the south of Giza. The blocks of stone vary in mass with the larger granite blocks weighing up to 80 tonnes or more each (1 tonne = 1000kg). The estimated total mass is 5.9 million tonnes.

  • Accuracy of construction:

Very precise. The overall dimensions are 146.5metres high by 230.4metres side length. The ratio of the perimeter of the base to the height equals 2П (two pi) with 0.05% accuracy. The base is horizontal and flat to within 15mm. The four sides of the base have an average error of only 58mm in length. The sides of the square base are oriented to the cardinal points within 4 minutes of arc (based on true north) and the corners are squared to within 12 seconds of arc. The mean opening of the joints is estimated at 0.5mm. The coordinates of the GP are 29° 58′ 44.68″N 31° 8′ 2.58″E. [The longitude is irrelevant as the Greenwich meridian hadn’t been established and the proximity of its latitude to 30°N probably has no significance, being the position of a limestone plateau on the west bank of the Nile].

There are many other physical dimensions well measured and documented and this is where fact ends and speculation begins.

What do we think we know?

It was a tomb! Who told you that, Mike? Show me the body!

There are no inscriptions. In the so-called King’s Chamber there is an empty, damaged stone chest often called a sarcophagus, but no proof that it was used as such. (Note: sarcophagus from the Greek σαρκοφάγος which means ‘flesh eating’ and should only be used when conclusively shown to have contained a body). The term King’s Chamber itself is a modern label.

It was built by/for King Khufu. How do you know?

There are a couple of red painted quarryman’s hieroglyphic daubs in the relieving chamber above the King’s Chamber that may refer to the name of Khufu. The hieroglyphs may have been faked by Richard Howard Vyse in 1837, (Vyse was infamous for his use of gunpowder as an archaeological tool!), but the position of the hieroglyphs makes forgery unlikely. However the presence of the daubs does not prove the GP was built at the time of Khufu. The tomb of Hetepheres, the mother of Khufu was discovered close to the GP. Hetepheres tomb was undisturbed since antiquity, but it appears to be a reburial performed in ancient times. The sarcophagus was sealed but empty. Having your coffin buried next to an edifice doesn’t mean your son built it! Shards and remains were found in the vicinity dated to the 4th Dynasty, the time of Khufu. So what – I say!

It was built by Egyptians. Most researchers think so, especially Egyptian archaeologists. There is no proof that anyone else was involved, but the absence of proof is not proof of absence! The buildings in Dubai were designed and project-managed by European and North American architects and engineers. The physical work was done by Taiwanese, Indian and Korean and other labourers. Ask a local in Dubai and you will be told they were built by the Emeratis and in a century no-one will dispute that.

In summary the GP may have been used during the reign of King Khufu but there is no conclusive evidence it was designed and built at that time, or that it was built by Egyptians and no proof it was designed to be used as a tomb.

What don’t we know about the GP?

Almost everything!

As is the case with any mystery, by not knowing very much we are open to even the most fantastic suggestions. An entire industry of creative fiction has been established on the diverse theories of ‘How? Who? Why? and When?’ of the GP. The least proven concept, but in my opinion the most intriguing aspect is the link between the mystery of the GP and the idea that an ancient body of advanced knowledge pre-existed the ‘Egyptian’ culture. It is variously described a repository of (essentially scientific) information that has been lost or remains hidden to this day.

Let’s try the How? question first:

Look at the facts concerning the GP. The volume of the GP including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic meters. Building this in 20 years (the supposed length of Khufu’s reign) would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night.

Over the years, pencils, slide rules, calculators and computers have been used to do the sums. Possibly between 10,000 and 20,000 labourers were involved. The only technology around was the lever, the ramp and the roller. Have you seen the GP? It really is awe-inspiring! The internal chambers are a wonderful work of precision. This was not built by a bunch of part-time farmers waiting for the flood to subside so they could sow their crops! But I get ahead of myself.

I have posed the following question to Egyptologists and never have I received a satisfactory reply. The question is: “With the limits to the technology that we assume prevailed, why did they choose to build with such huge stone blocks? Would it not have been easier and quicker to build with small blocks? [The same question applies to many other monolithic and megalithic structures around the world.] A 100 tonne stone block is a bitch to carve out, transport from the quarry, off-load, chisel to perfect dimensions, lift up 60 meters or more and place precisely in a predetermined space using only levers, ramps and rollers. As an engineer I would prefer 1000 blocks of 100kg each, especially if I had plenty of man power. It’s no sweat to carry and place a cube of 10x100kg blocks per side. So what is the only feasible answer?

They did it because they could!

It must have been easy for them, easier that my 1000x100kg block cube – and yet… we don’t know of any technology, even today, that would make it easy. Theories have been proposed as to how the GP was constructed. Outside ramps, spiral ramps, inside ramps and combinations of these. Some suggest pulleys, but there is no other indication that pulleys were invented by 2,500 BC in Egypt. We are left with an undisclosed technology, some method of making the blocks lighter to make them easy to handle. We therefore have to consider reducing the effect of gravity. I will not go into all the possibilities that have been put forward to achieve that. You may already know about sonic power, the negative mass of white gold powder, telekinesis and similar concepts. (By the way, I love the one-liner a physics lecturer put to his class: “Will anyone who believes in telekinesis please raise my hand!”) The actual technology is less important than the probability of its existence, because it suggests the likelihood of the body of ancient wisdom we touched on previously.

{I would like to mention at this point the cast-in-situ theory. [This bit was added after the note had been sent to Mike. The possibility was raised by Ishtar in relation to the Bosnian pyramids.] It was proposed by Dr Joseph Davidovits in the 1980's and refined by Prof. Michel Barsoum in 2006. The theory proposes that each block was cast from limestone slurry that was caused to set like concrete. I have certain misgivings. When one looks at the lime stone blocks very closely there is no suggestion of any formwork or shuttering that might have been used as a mould to make a casting. There is an ancient quarry nearby that produced stone blocks and the quarrying technique is still evident. One can see that chisels and wooden wedges were used to separate the big blocks. The geological signature identifies the main blocks as having come from that quarry, although there is some argument about the lack of stratification of micro fossils in the pyramid blocks. The exterior cladding was a very fine-grained, white lime-stone (called Tura) which has been traced to a quarry across the Nile. That leaves the huge granite blocks in the interior of the pyramid. A visit to the granite quarries at Aswan not only provides a match to the type and colour of the granite (which as you know varies considerably), but abandoned quarry works at Aswan show exactly how the granite blocks were quarried. There is a dock that was used to load the blocks onto rafts and with the north flowing current of the Nile, transport to the site at Giza could be easily achieved. So I don't see the evidence or even the necessity for postulating a cast-in-situ theory. I believe the builders used huge blocks of stone and placed them in position making use of, in my opinion, a technology that we have lost or fail to understand.}

Let’s consider the question of ‘Who?’

It was the Egyptians, but only on the basis that the definition of ‘Egyptians’ includes anyone who was in Egypt at the time. The supposition of an ancient wisdom does however require the presence of someone capable of controlling it and directing operations. The locals (all 20,000 of them) probably provided the muscle and a couple of them daubed Khufu’s name on a few blocks. The technically talented individual or individuals in charge may also have had the capability to travel the globe (anti-gravity does that for you!) and could have used their knowledge in other lands and on other sites. So (I hear you cry), where did they come from and where did they go?

My instinct rejects little green men from other worlds. If they exist and are so advanced why would they bother with us? There are other possibilities that exercise the mind. At this point I can only advise you to read up on Multiverse theory and on Multidimensional concepts. A bit heavy if you don’t have much high math. Instinctively I reach for an explanation that suggests that a plane of higher knowledge exists and that we poor folk called homo sapiens or ‘saps’ for short, occasionally experience a ‘leakage’ from that higher plane to ours, possibly deliberately directed from the higher plane and channelled by those who have the talent to do so. The likely answer is therefore that ‘they’ were never here in the physical sense, but were the inspiration in the minds of the locals that enabled them to do remarkable (to us) things. Such inspiration could be the source of genius for the outstanding scientists and artists recorded in history.

The third question in our conundrum is ‘Why’?

At this stage I’m going to disappoint you, Mike. I have absolutely no idea! The GP is an incredibly complex building. The other pyramids on the Giza plateau are externally physically similar, but the internal structure is fundamentally a cheap copy of the GP and not even close.

The orientation suggests a relationship to the sun and to the stars. Whenever historians don’t know what’s going on, they say, “It had religious significance!” Well maybe it did have, but as with Stone Henge we can only speculate the form that the religious or stellar observance took until we are made privy to more data.

It is suggested by those who study these things that the king’s body was laid to rest for a limited period while his spirit built up the energy it needed to travel to stars. We have all sorts of explanations as to why the GP was used for this purpose, the current thinking being that the narrow shafts leading from the chambers were pointed at certain stars to ‘project’ the king’s soul towards Sirius or Orion or wherever! This very year 2012AD we might see where these shafts lead us. But as Egyptologists well know, ancient Egyptian belief suggested that souls were able to pass through solid stone in the form of false doors in tombs, so why build shafts.

I could put forward the theories of many others, weird, fascinating and strange as they might be. Could it be a dimensional map of the future (ie from 2,500 BC forwards) left by star people? Perhaps it is a power generator. It sharpens razor blades and preserves meat (not proven). Its dimensions create certain energy levels (this is possible, but not proven). The fact is that it may be generating a form of energy that we are unable to measure.

I believe there is a reason for the GP and it may not be a reason we would recognise - a reason emanating from a different plane of consciousness. Perhaps one day…

Just to mention David H Lewis’ book about immense chambers deep beneath the pyramid. In my opinion it is as far-fetched and as unbelievable as HG Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’. The sketches in the Lewis book are kind of Egyptian in style, but the whole thing is too ridiculous. A chamber built to house microfilms to contain all the solutions to what ails the world! (Why microfilm? Why not silicon chips or even more advanced tech? Maybe microfilm was the leading edge of technology when Lewis wrote.) His remarkable descriptions may have more to do with his references to sipping Bourbon to wet his dry throat than to reality.

There are natural voids under the GP and under the Sphinx. Ground penetrating radar has shown this to be so, but limestone is prone to this phenomenon. Water from the annual inundation of the Nile would seep through the limestone and the acidic water caused by rotting organic material would dissolve the limestone deep beneath the surface. Are there artificially enhanced voids? Probably! Adrian Gilbert (British author) certainly has made claims in that respect.

But consider the lack of logic in the following claim:

‘An advanced civilization, talented and wise, donated its store of ancient wisdom to an aggressive and possessive race of humans who got to the top of the food chain by dominating every other species by force; a human race that has used virtually every invention and discovery since the Stone Age for the purpose of war.’ (There were bronze swords while ploughs were still made of wood, and atoms bombs preceded power generators.) An advanced civilization would understand that conflict and domination, greed and violence are part and parcel of the human genome. Any additional technology would only serve to increase conflict on earth.

While you are looking for ancient wisdom beneath the GP check out the Emerald Tablet, Thoth’s gift to mankind. It’s worth reading, though not for serious study.

So let’s get to ‘When?’

One theory proposes that the GP was built before Khufu’s reign and he usurped it as a monument to himself. The support for this theory is tenuous to say the least, but it suggests that all three pyramids on the Giza plateau existed before Khufu. To judge by other pharaoh’s actions, each king tried to outdo the previous one in construction achievements. There is a reason for this apart from ego. Each king wanted his name to spoken by the living after he died in order to protect his spirit in the after-life, so the bigger the monument the greater the probability of this happening. It is difficult to imagine why Menkaure’s pyramid is smaller than his father Khafre and Khafre’s pyramid in turn is smaller than his father Khufu (the GP). If however the pyramids pre-existed the 4th Dynasty, then Khufu would have grabbed the biggest first, Khafre the next and Menkaure would be stuck with the smallest.

Conventional wisdom is that the order of pyramid construction was:

1: Djozer’s stepped pyramid at Saqqara

2: Sekhemhet’s stepped pyramid at Saqqara (not built – only the surrounds)

3: Sneferu’s Meidum pyramid

4: Sneferu’s Bent pyramid at Dashur

5: Sneferu’s North (Red) pyramid at Dashur

6: Khufu’s Great Pyramid at Giza. The pinnacle of pyramid construction!

7: Djedefre’s pyramid at Abu Rawash

8: Khafre’s Pyramid at Giza.

9: Menkaure’s pyramid at Giza

10: and so on…….There are about 35 major and a hundred or so minor pyramids in Egypt and many more in Sudan.

The time between the death of Djozer and the start of Khufu’s reign is only 60 years. The technological jump from Djozer’s stepped pyramid to Khufu’s GP is astonishing. The GP is about 2½times the height and nearly 8times the mass. It is far advanced in complexity and accuracy, all in 60 years; and then, just as surprisingly the technology began to fade away again. It’s like going from a bicycle to a jet fighter and back to a bicycle. It is this kind of anomaly that breeds alternative suggestions as to the origin of the technology, whence it came and to where it went. But it would all be possible if talented and skilled design-architects gave of their knowledge and time, and then left the locals to their own devices. The half-life of construction knowledge would be about one or two generations and the knowledge would gradually be corrupted and lost.

To me, the most logical answer to ‘when’ is the time of Khufu (c.2550BC), but the achievement would require superior construction techniques and oversight by advanced technicians.

So Mike, I hope you enjoyed this little dissertation. Let me have your reaction and maybe further questions.

Kind regards

Tony Holmes

January 2012

6 comments:

  1. Simple, they put the blocks in wooden quarter-circles and rolled them up via peripheral rope.
    See my site: http://the-arc.wikispaces.com/Rolling+Stones
    (They had wheeled scaling ladders, see at my site)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello,

    I received a copy of your blog about this subject.

    Maybe I should avoid getting involved in this kind
    of exchanges which are usually a complete waste
    of time, but some of your remarks and style demand
    an answer.

    Like so many others who enjoy spreading doubts
    and riddles where there are none, perhaps to please
    members of the public dazzled by false ´mysteries´,
    you put down many of the absurd theories about the
    past that abound in books and the internet, perhaps
    to cover with a mantle of respectability the other absurd
    ideas and questions you are going to mention or push
    later on.

    You offend serious scholars when you write

    ´Such suggestions may be received with disdain or
    ridicule by those whose status and income requires
    them to support convention, but such rejection should
    not prevent those with divergent theories from offering
    them for discussion.´

    ignoring the fact that we stick to accepted, mainstream
    knowledge, NOT out of any fear to lose our jobs or status
    but because such mainstream knowledge, always open
    to review, correction and improvement, is the result of
    intense and widespread peer review and verification
    over the years.

    You mention with great respect amateurs like your
    Dr. Davidovits and his crazy ideas of synthetic stone
    to build the pyramids, which no professional egyptologist
    takes seriously for a number of reasons.

    If you had bothered to read books by authorities in the
    field like Lehner, it would be clear to you that the great
    pyramid and others were tombs, part of funerary
    complexes, and the result of centuries of evolution
    in Egypt. They were used in funerary contexts (associated
    to tombs) for many centuries later on and then in the Sudan,
    always with the same mortuary purpose.

    It is only masons, rosicrutians, theosophists, etc., who
    still tied down to pre-Champollion classical speculations
    believe and repeat nonsense about ancient Egypt and its
    ´mysteries´.

    Little by little our imperfect knowledge of the past in
    all areas slowly advances, not thanks to the efforts of
    inspired dreamers but to the hard work of archaeologists
    you offend so readily.

    You write:

    ´There are a couple of red painted quarryman’s hieroglyphic
    daubs in the relieving chamber above the King’s Chamber
    that may refer to the name of Khufu.´

    That MAY refer to Khufu? If you can´t read hieroglyphs
    please abstain to cast doubts on a perfect clear reading.

    You write:

    ´It was built by Egyptians. Most researchers think so, especially
    Egyptian archaeologists. There is no proof that anyone else was
    involved, but the absence of proof is not proof of absence! The
    buildings in Dubai were designed and project-managed by European
    and North American architects and engineers. The physical work
    was done by Taiwanese, Indian and Korean and other labourers.
    Ask a local in Dubai and you will be told they were built by the
    Emeratis and in a century no-one will dispute that.´

    What a ridiculous argument ! Of course, in 100 years all the
    newspapers and other media, documents, etc. indicating who
    really built them will have conveniently disappeared as well as
    the evidence of the lack of local knowhow and human and other
    resources (except money) required to build them.

    Nothing gives you the right to fog fairly clear issues so
    you can indulge in wisecracks about mainstream knowledge
    and its supposed inaccuracies.

    Honesty is the best policy if one wants to avoid 15 minute
    popularity inevitably followed by obscurity and disrepute.

    You are a perfect example of why only professional
    egyptologists should deal with these subjects.

    Sincerely,

    J. J. Castillos

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your input. I acknowledge that I have been provocative in the article, but it appears that you may have misinterpreted certain of my remarks.

    I do not agree with the cast in situ theory or revere Davidovits – no serious engineer would – and I make that clear in the text.

    There is still much controversy concerning the Great Pyramid. If all questions were answered satisfactorily there would be no need for further study.

    If I offended you by suggesting that individuals should be free to form their own opinions, then I am surprised that a scholar should express that opinion. You assume I haven’t read books on the subjects, but you do not enquire first. Mark Lehner’s “Complete Pyramids” is a great work and is on my bookshelf along with many others.

    You say “nothing gives me the right”. I do not intend to request the right from anyone to express an opinion, just as you did not ask for the right to contradict me. Your comment to me that I am “a perfect example of why only professional egyptologists should deal with these subjects,” defines your attitude and illustrates my point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Comment sent by email to tonyholmes@mweb.co.za

    Read article with some interest. My first reaction was that you bent over backward to avoid following the "main stream". As a simple military man, I tend to want to follow the simple, most obvious solution. It is located in Egypt therefore was built by Ancient Egyptians. It exists, therefore they DID have the technology to build it. The fact that WE do not know how they did it, is not proof that they could not have. To quote someone we both know "absence of proof is not proof of absence".



    There is fairly substantial proof, I believe, that taken as a class, the pyramids were in fact tombs. They were also located in areas surrounded by mastabas which were tombs. In other words the GP is in the middle of a cemetery. For the GP NOT to be a tomb would make it an exception to the class. This is not to say that I think we completely understand the Ancient Egyptian(AE) theory/theology behind their architecture and use.



    In dealing with the "Why?" , I think we must remember that in AE theology the King was a god and the son of a god and that after death he joined the gods. So the pyramids are not just the tombs of kings but of gods. To me that implies that much/most of the rationale for their architecture and "use" lies in religion and theology most particularly that of the process by which the deceased "transitioned" to the afterlife. I do not believe that "religious significance" is EVER an answer. Men tend to be quite logical but their basic assumptions can vary significantly particularly when dealing with the gods, death and the afterlife.. I join you in saying that I am quite sure there are very logical, practical reasons for why the GP is the way it is but I believe that those reasons probably involve the theology of the AE particularly the kings relationship with the gods after death.



    Your discussion of the difference in technology among the pyramids is, with all due respect, a bit "overdone" in my personal opinion. I think that the problem must be broken into three parts: Design concept, architectural concept, and construction technology. I personally believe that we of the 21st Century under-rate the capacity to build things by raw human labor. I have been told by engineers that anything that can be built with machines, can be built given enough manpower. The Great wall of China was a massive project and surviving records clearly indicate tens of thousands died in the process. Could the GP have been built with the construction technology available at the time, given unlimited manpower? My own opinion is Yes. In terms of architectural concepts, my reading has led me to believe that the pyramids that preceded GP do show a processing of developing architectural skill in terms of "how to do it". In terms of internal design. I do not believe that we understand the AE theology of the process by which the King/god transitioned to and remained in the afterlife this interferes severely with our ability to understand the logic behinds the features inside the GP.



    One author I read questioned them as tombs simply because they were in plain sight. Why put a treasure house in plain sight? This ignores, I think the religious aspect. Only recently did a lot of Christian Church, historically full of valuable art treasures and offerings begin to lock their doors at night. Who would dare rob the tomb of a God? Only as evidence accumulated that it could happen, did the AE moves tombs underground.



    A short set of comments. Would be most interested in your reaction. I very much appreciate your sharing this with me.



    Mike McCarthy

    Long Beach, CA

    ReplyDelete
  5. A further comment received from Roger Werner • I suppose it's appropriate for me to say that I am a professional archaeologist who does not rule out esoteric explanations, especially regards certain specific features...the Great Pyramid being one such features. I tread cautiously because I'm not an Egyptologist and lack the background to understand total culture. I believe I've read most published material about Giza and I am familiar with Robert Schoch 's comments on Balkan pyramids. I remain intrigued....

    Most of what Holmes writes about has been presented previously. One point he seems to overlook is quarrying. 2nd Dynasty Egypt was an early Bronze age culture, meaning that its tools and weapons were made from bronze. Christopher Dunn, a mechanical engineer from the American Mid-West, precisely measured the granite blocks of the Khufu sarcophagus and found them to be so precise they could not be cut and ground with modern diamond cutting quarry tools; the notion they were chiseled from their quarry location with copper tools and wooden wedges might have occurred but it does not explain how the blocks were cut to their final dimensions, which could not have been done with t he technology reported from 2nd dynasty. As I understand it, when archaeologists first discovered the quarry site and found bronze chisels and wooden wedges they presumed they were used to quarry the rock, which is hardly a poor presumption. The problem of course is that bronze cannot chisel hard granite, which begs the question what could? Dunne sent a suite of specifications to several North American quarries and was told they standard quarrying tools cut not meet his exacting specifications. One quarry employed a sonic cutter and could meet Dunne's specifications. I refuse to draw any conclusions from this but I find his results very interesting. Some of his subsequent work interpreting the Khufu pyramid are perhaps 'out there' but his basic premise proving that bronze or even diamond-tipped steel cutters could not create the sarcophagus is worth considering and exploring further.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some comments that you may find useful.


    "To quote someone we both know "absence of proof is not proof of absence"."

    This often quoted popular dictum is quite wrong.

    It should mean that absence of proof is not ABSOLUTE proof of
    anything, such absence when you have tried all other possible
    ways to find something then it is GOOD EVIDENCE for the lack of
    whatever you are trying to find, until other evidence to the contrary
    turns up.

    If you say something is not in your room and a friend disputes
    this saying, "absence of.... etc., then keep on trying to find it here",
    and after 10 thorough searches it is still not there, and he insists it
    may be, he will probably walk away with your waste paper basket
    for a hat. The reasonable, scientific, attitude is if you searched well
    for it and is not there, it most probably is not. This dictum is misued
    by charlatans to find some space for their ridiculous theories or
    casting doubts as to the results of proper scientific research, hiding
    behind such word games.



    "The problem of course is that bronze cannot chisel hard granite, which begs the question what could?"


    Actually, a team of engineers had the same problem and after
    trying several possibilities found that even copper tools can cut
    granite as easily as butter USING SAND AS ABRASIVE, so no need
    for diamonds or sonic cutters in ancient Egypt.

    Sincerely,

    J. J. Castillos

    ReplyDelete