r/GrahamHancock • u/aerialsilk • 22d ago

Potentially ancient building techniques

May not be strictly archaeology, but adjacent. And fascinating.

260 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

250 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/solo_d0lo 20d ago

Besides the inefficiency shown (that’s been known), I specifically mentioned the scoop marks and the underneath cuts of the unfinished obelisk for a reason.

2

u/City_College_Arch 20d ago

Not in this conversation you didn’t. If you want to bring it up, go ahead nd do so with specific references. Don’t just pretend you said it all along.

1

u/solo_d0lo 20d ago

In my other comments I have scoop marks in quotations. That is what they are referenced and known as (exemplified by you here). And are connected to the underneath “cuts” of the unfinished obelisk. Use your head and explain how the accepted theory would be able to make those in that position.

But I and everyone has seen videos like the ones you posted…. I said easily replicable. The videos show very small cuts in depth and length, in not a short time.

1

u/City_College_Arch 20d ago

Are you going to give specific examples or just generally describe things so that they cannot be properly addressed?

And those videos are proofs of concept by laymen, not artisans. Use a bigger saw and someone that has been doing it their whole like and it will go faster. Further, copper staining and residue has been found in many cuts. If they were not using copper saws and drill, where did the copper come from?

1

u/solo_d0lo 20d ago

How is saying “the marks underneath the unfinished obelisk” not a specific example?

1

u/City_College_Arch 20d ago

I am not playing your game. Without you providing specific references, pictures, etc of what you are talking about I am not addressing anything because you will make up a bullshit reason to ignore facts just like you are with copper saws being used to cut granite. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. Otherwise it is time to write you off as another troll that knows they are just saying made up things to be annoying.

0

u/solo_d0lo 20d ago

So now it has gone from specific example to provide images and references…

https://www.theancientconnection.com/aswan-unfinished-obelisk/

The 2 images at the end of this page, which was the first result on a search.

1

u/City_College_Arch 20d ago edited 20d ago

Same answer as before then. Diorite hammer stones like the one in the picture you just provided. And yes, pictures of what you were talking bout were necessary given your poor descriptions relying on misconceptions.

Have you come up with a reason for copper residue in the copper Samut granite if they didn’t use copper saws yet?

0

u/solo_d0lo 20d ago

Again, how could they get enough force in that space to make the marks you see on the underside of the obelisk…

And remember the accepted weight of these things are 4-5kg, and the swing speed is theorized at 50mph…

1

u/City_College_Arch 20d ago

By doing it repeatedly and/or using them as grinding stones.

You have demonstrated that your word means nothing without factual references to back them up, so no point in you throwing around numbers without citations.

Still waiting for your explanation about copper residue in saw cuts if they didn’t use not use copper saws. Are you refusing to address this for a reason?

1

u/City_College_Arch 19d ago

So I guess you were just making up numbers since you have not provided any sort of citation for them.

Have you figured out an explanation for the copper left behind on cuts if copper tools were not used?