From: Nicky Molloy 
Subject: IUFO: AN ENGINEER IN EGYPT
Date: 13 Aug 2000 07:14:42 -0400
To: IUFO 

->  IUFO  Mailing List

-----Original Message-----
From: earthman 
Subject: [Poleshift] AN ENGINEER IN EGYPT


AN ENGINEER IN EGYPT
by 
CHRISTOPHER DUNN

Within the past three years, artifacts established as icons of ancient
Egyptian study have developed a new aura. There are suggestions of
controversy, cover-ups and conspiracy to squelch or ignore data that
promises to shatter conventional academic thinking regarding prehistoric
society. As of this writing, a powerful movement is intent on restoring
to
the world a heritage that has been partly destroyed and undeniably
misunderstood. This movement consists of specialists in various fields
who,
in the face of fierce opposition from Egyptologists, are cooperating
with
each other to affect changes in our beliefs of prehistory.
The opposition by Egyptologists is like the last gasp of a dying man. In
the
face of expert analysis they are striving to protect their cozy tenures
by
arguing engineering subtleties that make no sense whatever. In a recent
interview, an Egyptologist ridiculed theorists, who present different
view
of the pyramids, claiming their ideas are the product of overactive
imaginations stimulated by the consumption of beer. Hmmm.
By way of challenging such conventional theories, there has been, for
decades, an undercurrent of speculation that the pyramid builders were
highly advanced in their technology. Attempts to build pyramids using
the
orthodox methods theorized for the ancient Egyptians, have fallen
pitifully
short. The great pyramid is 483 feet high and houses seventy-ton pieces
of
granite lifted to a level of 175 feet. Theorists have struggled with
stones
weighing up to two tons to a height of a few feet. One wonders if these
were
attempts to prove that primitive methods are capable of building the
Egyptian pyramids or the opposite? Attempts to execute such conventional
theories have not revealed the theories to be correct! Do we need to
revise
the theory, or will we continue to educate our young with erroneous
data?
In August 1984 this author published an article in Analog Magazine
entitled
"Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?" based on Pyramids and Temple of
Gizeh, by Sir William Flinders Petrie, published in 1883. Since that
article's publication, I have been fortunate to visit Egypt twice. With
each
visit I leave with more respect for the industry of the ancient pyramid
builders. An industry, by the way, that does not exist anywhere in the
world
today.
In 1986, I visited the Cairo museum and gave a copy of my article, and a
business card, to the director. He thanked me kindly, then threw my
offering
into a drawer with other sundry stuff, and turned away. Another
Egyptologist
led me to the "tool room" to educate me in the methods of the ancient
masons
by showing me a few cases that housed primitive copper tools.
I asked my host about the cutting of granite, as this was the focus of
my
article. He explained how a slot was cut in the granite and wooden
wedges,
soaked with water, were inserted. The wood swelled creating pressure
that
split the rock. This still did not explain how copper implements were
able
to cut granite, but he was so enthusiastic with his dissertation, I
chose
not to interrupt.
I was musing over a statement made by Egyptologist Dr. I. E. S. Edwards
in
"Ancient Egypt" (National Geographic Society, Washington, 1978). Edwards
said that to cut the granite, "axes and chisels were made of copper
hardened
by hammering."
This is like saying "to cut this aluminum saucepan they fashioned their
knives out of butter!"
My host animatedly walked me over to a nearby travel agent encouraging
me to
buy plane tickets to Aswan, "where" he said, "the evidence is clear. I
must
see the quarry marks there and the unfinished obelisk." Dutifully, I
bought
the tickets and arrived at Aswan the next day.
The Aswan quarries were educational. The obelisk weighs approximately
3,000
tons. However, the quarry marks I saw there did not satisfy me as being
the
only means by which the pyramid builders quarried their rock. Located in
the
channel, which runs the length of the obelisk, is a large hole drilled
into
the bedrock hillside, measuring approximately 12 inches in diameter and
three feet deep. The hole was drilled at an angle with the top intruding
into the channel space. (see photo number 1, drill hole at Aswan) The
ancients must have used drills to remove material from the perimeter of
the
obelisk, knocked out the webs between the holes and then removed the
cusps.
While strolling around the Giza Plateau later, I started to question the
quarry marks at Aswan even more. (I also questioned why the Egyptologist
had
deemed it necessary to buy a plane ticket to look at them.) I was to the
South of the second pyramid when I found an abundance of quarry marks of
similar nature. The granite casing stones, which had sheathed the second
pyramid, were stripped off and lying around the base in various stages
of
destruction. Typical to all of the granite stones worked on were the
same
quarry marks that I had seen at Aswan earlier in the week.
This discovery confirmed my suspicion of the validity of Egyptologists'
theories on the ancient pyramid builders' quarrying methods. If these
quarry
marks distinctively identify the people who created the pyramids, why
would
they engage in such a tremendous amount of extremely difficult work only
to
destroy their work after having completed it? It seems, to me, that
these
kinds of quarry marks were from a later period of time and were created
by
people who were interested only in obtaining granite. Without caring
from
where they got it.
You can see demonstrations of primitive stone cutting in Egypt if you go
to
Saqqara. Being alerted to the presence of tourists, workers will start
chipping away at limestone blocks. It doesn't surprise me that they
choose
limestone for their demonstration, for it is a soft sedimentary rock and
can
be easily worked. However, you won't find any workers plowing through
granite, an extremely hard, igneous rock made up of feldspar and quartz.
Any
attempt at creating granite, diorite and basalt artifacts on the same
scale
as the ancients, but using primitive methods, would meet with utter and
complete failure.
Those Egyptologists who know that work-hardened copper will not cut
granite
have dreamed up a different method. They propose that the ancients used
small round diorite balls (another extremely hard igneous rock) with
which
they "bashed" the granite.
How could anyone who has been to Egypt and seen the wonderful
intricately
detailed hieroglyphs cut with amazing precision in granite and diorite
statues, that tower 15 ft. above an average man, propose that this work
was
done by bashing the granite with a round ball? The hieroglyphs are
amazingly
precise with grooves that are square and deeper than they are wide. They
follow precise contours and some have grooves that run parallel to each
other with only .030 inch wide wall between the grooves. Sir William
Flinders Petrie remarked that the grooves could only have been cut with
a
special tool that was capable of plowing cleanly through the granite
without
splintering the rock. Bashing with small balls never entered Petrie's
mind.
But then, Petrie was a surveyor whose father was an engineer. Failing to
come up with a method that would satisfy the evidence, Petrie had to
leave
the subject open.
We would be hard pressed to produce many of these artifacts today, even
using our advanced methods of manufacturing. The tools displayed as
instruments for the creation of these incredible artifacts are
physically
incapable of even coming close to reproducing many of the artifacts in
question. Along with the enormous task of quarrying, cutting and
erecting
the Great Pyramid and its neighbors, thousands of tons of hard igneous
rock,
such as granite and diorite, were carved with extreme proficiency and
accuracy. After standing in awe before these engineering marvels and
then
being shown a paltry collection of copper implements in the tool case at
the
Cairo Museum, one comes away with a sense of frustration, futility and
wonder.
The world's first Egyptologist, Sir William Flinders Petrie recognized
that
these tools were insufficient. He admitted it in his book Pyramids and
Temples of Gizeh and expressed amazement and stupefaction regarding the
methods the ancient Egyptians were using to cut hard igneous rocks,
crediting them with methods that "...we are only now coming to
understand."
So why do modern Egyptologists identify this work with a few primitive
copper instruments and small round balls? It makes no sense whatsoever!
While browsing through the Cairo Museum, I found evidence of lathe
turning
on a large scale. A sarcophagus lid had distinctive indications. Its
radius
terminated with a blend radius at shoulders on both ends. The tool marks
near these corner radii are the same as those I have witnessed on
objects
that have an intermittent cut.
Petrie also studied the sawing methods of the pyramid builders. He
concluded
that their saws must have been at least nine feet long. Again, there are
subtle indications on the artifacts Petrie was studying of modern sawing
methods. The sarcophagus in the King's Chamber inside the Great Pyramid
has
saw marks on the north end that are identical to saw marks I've seen on
modern granite artifacts.
The artifacts representing tubular drilling, studied by Petrie, are the
most
clearly astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to identify,
with
little doubt, the knowledge and technology in existence in pre-history.
The
ancient pyramid builders used a technique for drilling holes that is
commonly known as "trepanning." This technique leaves a central core and
is
an efficient means of hole making. For holes that didn't go all the way
through the material, the craftsmen would reach a desired depth and then
break the core out of the hole. It was not just the holes, that Petrie
was
studying, but the cores cast aside by the masons who had done some
trepanning. Regarding tool marks which left a spiral groove on a core
taken
out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote: "the spiral of
the
cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of six inches, or one in sixty,
a
rate of plowing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."
For drilling these holes, there is only one method that satisfies the
evidence. Without any thought to the time in history when these
artifacts
were produced, analysis of the evidence clearly points to ultrasonic
machining. This is the method that I proposed in my article in 1984, and
so
far, no one has been able to disprove it.
In 1994 I sent a copy of the article to Robert Bauval (The Orion
Mystery)
who then passed it on to Graham Hancock (Fingerprints of the Gods).
After a
series of conversations with Hancock, I was invited to Egypt to
participate
in a documentary with him, Robert and John Anthony West. On February 22,
1995 at 9:00 A.M. I had my first experience of being 'on camera'.
This time, with the expressed intent of inspecting features I had
identified
on my previous trip in 1986, I took some tools with me: a flat ground
piece
of steel (commonly known as a "parallel" in tool shops, it is about six
inches long and a quarter-inch thick with edges ground flat within .0002
inch); an Interapid indicator; a wire contour gage; a device which forms
around shapes; and hard forming wax.
While there, I came across, and was able to measure, some artifacts
produced
by the ancient pyramid builders that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
that
highly advanced and sophisticated tools and methods were employed. The
first
object I checked for close precision was the sarcophagus inside the
second
(Khafra's) pyramid on the Giza Plateau. I climbed inside the box, and
with a
flashlight and the parallel, was astounded to find the surface on the
inside
of the box perfectly smooth and perfectly flat. Placing the edge of the
parallel against the surface I lit my flashlight behind it. There was no
light coming through the interface. No matter where I moved the
parallel,
vertically, horizontally, sliding it along as one would a gage on a
precision surface plate, I couldn't detect any deviation from a
perfectly
flat surface. A group of Spanish tourist found it extremely interesting
too,
and gathered around me as I was becoming quite animated at this point
exclaiming into my tape recorder. "Space age precision!"
The tour guides, at this point, were becoming quite animated too. I
sensed
that they probably didn't think it was appropriate for a live foreigner
to
be where they believe a dead Egyptian should go, so, I respectfully
removed
myself from the sarcophagus and continued my examination on the outside.
There were more features of this artifact that I wanted to inspect, of
course, but didn't have the freedom to do so.
My mind was racing as I lowered my frame into the narrow confines of the
entrance shaft and climbed to the outside. The inside of a huge granite
box
finished off to a precision that we reserve for precision surface
plates?
How did they do this? It would be impossible to do this by hand!
While being extremely impressed with this artifact, I was even more
impressed with other artifacts found at another site in the rock tunnels
at
the temple of Serapeum at Saqqara, the site of the step pyramid and
Zoser's
tomb. In these dark dusty tunnels are housed 21 huge basalt boxes. They
weigh an estimated 65 tons each and are finished off to the same
precision
as the sarcophagus in the second pyramid.
The final artifact I inspected was a piece of granite I quite literally
stumbled across while strolling around the Giza Plateau later that day.
I
concluded, after doing a preliminary check of this piece, that the
ancient
pyramid builders had to have used a machinery that followed precise
contours
in three axes to guide the tool that created it. Beyond the incredible
precision, normal flat surfaces, being simple geometry, may be explained
away by simple methods. This piece, though, drives us beyond the
question
normally pondered...what tools were used to cut it? To a more far
reaching
question... what guided the cutting tool? These discoveries have more
implications for understanding the technology used by the ancient
pyramid
builders than anything heretofore uncovered.
The interpretation of these artifacts depends on engineers and
technologists. When presenting this material to a local engineers club,
I
was gratified by the response of my peers. They saw the significance.
They
agreed with the conclusions. While my focus was on the methods used to
produce them, some engineers, ignoring Egyptologists proposed uses for
these
artifacts, asked, "what were they doing with them?" They were utterly
and
completely astounded by what they saw.
The interpretation and understanding of a civilizations' level of
technology
cannot and should not hinge on the preservation of a written record for
every technique that they had developed. The "nuts and bolts" of our
society
do not always make good copy, and a stone mural will more than likely be
cut
to convey an ideological message, rather than the technique used to
inscribe
it. Records of the technology developed by our modern civilization rest
in
media that is vulnerable and could conceivably cease to exist in the
event
of a world wide catastrophe, such as a nuclear war, or another ice age.
Consequently, after several thousand years, an interpretation of an
artisan's methods may be more accurate than an interpretation of his
language. The language of science and technology doesn't have the same
freedom as speech. So even though the tools and machines have not
survived
the thousands of years since their use, we have to assume, by objective
analysis of the evidence, that they did exist.
For more detailed text and illustrations you can contact Chris at P.O.
Box
412 Danville, IL 61834--0412. Email: cdunn1546@aol.com.



We are about to go on a Journey. All Aboard
http://sites.netscape.net/gsussnzl/poleshift









-> To unsubscribe send email to iufo-unsubscribe@topica.com
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics