From: Ashley Rye 
Subject: IUFO: Ancient Egyptian Technology?
Date: 7 Mar 1999 04:45:44 -0500
To: iufo@world.std.com


->  IUFO  Mailing List


                               SIGHTINGS



                                                 
                      Stunning Evidence Of Ancient 
                      Egyptian Advanced Technology
                                      By Christopher Dunn
                                  Author: The Giza Power Plant
                                  Technologies Of Ancient Egypt
                                             3-7-99
                                                 

                            Wall Carving At Dendera Courtesy: Christopher Dunn
                                                 
                   
                   
                 Note - You can hear Chris Dunn's 1-1-99 remarkable
interview with
                 Jeff in our RealAudio Archives. 
                   
                   
                 Egypt. Land of the Pyramids and a vast collection of
evidence that,
                 like a taciturn teenager, is begging for understanding.
Contrary to
                 conventional thought, for decades there has been an
undercurrent of
                 speculation that the pyramid builders were more advanced. The
                 speculation is well placed. When attempts have been made
to build
                 pyramids using the theorized methods of the ancient
Egyptians, they
                 have fallen considerably short. The great pyramid is 483
feet high
                 and houses 70 ton pieces of granite lifted to a level of
175 feet.
                 Theorists have struggled with stones weighing up to 2 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? Executing this theory to practice has not
revealed
                 the theory to be correct. Do we need to revise the theory,
or will we
                 continue to educate our young with erroneous data? 
                   
                 In August, 1984, I had an article published in Analog
magazine
                 entitled "Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?" It was a
study of
                 "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh," the work of Sir. William
Flinders
                 Petrie. Since the 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 today. 
                   
                 While in Egypt in 1986, I visited the Cairo museum and
gave a copy
                 of my article, along with a business card, to the director
of the
                 museum. He thanked me kindly, threw it in a drawer to join
other
                 sundry material, 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, for this was
the focus
                 of my article. He explained how they cut a slot in the
granite and
                 inserted wooden wedges which they soaked with water. The wood
                 swelled creating pressure that split the rock. Splitting
rock is vastly
                 different than machining it and this did not explain how
copper
                 implements were able to cut granite, but he was so
enthusiastic with
                 his dissertation, I did not wish to interrupt. 
                   
                 To prove his argument, he walked me over to a nearby
travel agent
                 encouraging me to buy airplane tickets to Aswan, where, he
said, the
                 evidence is clear. I must, he said, see the quarry marks
there and the
                 unfinished obelisk. Dutifully, I bought the tickets and
arrived at
                 Aswan the next day. (After learning some of the Egyptian
customs, I
                 got the impression that my Egyptologist friend had made
that trip to
                 the travel agent many times.) 
                   
                 The Aswan quarries were educational. The obelisk weighs
                 approximately 3,000 tons. 
                   
                   
                 Drill hole at the Aswan Quarries 
                   
                 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 round hole drilled into the bedrock hillside, measuring
                 approximately 12 inches in diameter and 3 feet deep. The
hole was
                 drilled at an angle with the top intruding into the
channel space. The
                 ancients may 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 in the week,
I started to
                 question the quarry marks at Aswan even more. (I also
questioned
                 why the Egyptologist had deemed it necessary to buy an
airplane
                 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 was puzzling to me. Disregarding the impossibility of
                 Egyptologists' theories on the ancient pyramid builders'
quarrying
                 methods, are they really valid from a non-technical, logical
                 viewpoint? 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. 
                   
                   
                 Quarry marks at Aswan 
                   
                 Archeology is largely the study of history's toolmakers.
It is with
                 tools and artifacts created with tools, that we come to
understand a
                 society's level of advancement. The hammer is probably the
first
                 tool ever invented, and by hammer working metals, relatively
                 unsophisticated tools have forged some elegant and most
beautiful
                 artifacts. Ever since man first learned that he could
effect profound
                 changes in his environment by applying force with a
reasonable
                 degree of accuracy, the development of tools has been a
continuous
                 and fascinating aspect of human endeavor. 
                   
                   
                 Quarry marks on the Giza Plateau 
                   
                 The Great Pyramid leads a long list of artifacts that have
been
                 incredibly misunderstood and misinterpreted by
Egyptologists. They
                 have postulated theories and methods based on a collection
of tools
                 that are, at best, questionable. For the most part,
primitive tools that
                 have been uncovered would be considered contempor-aneous with
                 the artifacts of the same period. This period in Egyptian
history,
                 however, resulted in artifacts being produced in prolific
number with
                 no tools surviving to explain their creation. The ancient
Egyptians
                 left artifacts behind that are unexplainable in simple
terms. The tools
                 that have been uncovered do not fully represent the
"state-of-the-art"
                 that is physically evident in these artifacts. There are
some intriguing
                 objects surviving this civilization which, despite its
most visible and
                 impressive monuments, has left us with only a sketchy
                 understanding of its full experience on planet Earth. 
                   
                 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 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 first British 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
                 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? 
                   
                 I am not an Egyptologist. I am a technologist. I do not
have much
                 interest in who died when and whom they may have taken with
                 them, where they went to or when they may be coming back. No
                 lack of respect for the mountain of work and the millions
of hours of
                 study conducted on this subject by highly intelligent
scholars
                 (professional and amateur), but my interest, therefore my
focus, is
                 elsewhere. When I look at an artifact with the view of how
it was
                 manufactured, I am unencumbered with a predisposition to
filter out
                 possibilities because of historical or chronological
inequity. Having
                 spent most of my career involved with the machinery that
actually
                 creates artifacts of the modern kind, such as jet-engine
components,
                 I am fairly well equipped to analyze and determine the
methods
                 necessary for recreating an artifact under study. I have been
                 fortunate, also, to have training and experience in some
                 non-conventional methods of manufacturing, such as laser
                 processing and electrical discharge machining. That said,
I should
                 state that contrary to some popular speculations, I have
not seen the
                 work of laser cutting on the Egyptian rocks. Still, there
is evidence of
                 other non-conventional machining methods, along with more
                 sophisticated, conventional type sawing, lathe and milling
practices. 
                   
                 Undoubtedly, some of the artifacts that Petrie was
studying were
                 produced using lathes. There is evidence, too, in the
Cairo Museum
                 of clearly defined lathe tool marks on some "sarcophagi"
lids. The
                 Cairo Museum contains enough evidence that, when properly
                 analyzed, will prove beyond all shadow of doubt that the
ancient
                 Egyptians used highly sophisticated manufacturing methods.
For
                 generations the focus has centered on the nature of the
cutting tools
                 that the ancient Egyptians used. While in Egypt in
February 1995, I
                 uncovered evidence that clearly moves us beyond that
question to
                 ask "what guided the cutting tool?" 
                   
                 Although the ancient Egyptians are not given credit for
having a
                 simple wheel, the evidence proves they had a more
sophisticated use
                 for the wheel. The evidence of lathe work is markedly
distinct on
                 some artifacts that are housed in the Cairo Museum and
also those
                 that were studied by Petrie. Two pieces of diorite in
Petrie's
                 collection were identified by him to be the result of true
turning on a
                 lathe. 
                   
                   
                 Creating Petrie's bowl shards. 
                   
                 It is true that intricate objects can be created without
the aid of
                 machinery, simply by rubbing the material with an
abrasive, such as
                 sand, using a piece of bone or wood to apply pressure. The
relics
                 Petrie was looking at, however, in his words "could not be
produced
                 by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the
surface." 
                   
                 To the inexperienced eye, the object Petrie was studying
would
                 hardly be considered remarkable. It was a simple bowl,
made out of
                 simple rock. Studying the bowl closely, however, Petrie
found that
                 the spherical concave radius, forming the dish, had an
unusual feel to
                 it. Closer examination revealed a sharp cusp where two radii
                 intersected. This indicates that the radii were cut on two
separate
                 axes of rotation. 
                   
                 Having worked on lathes, I have witnessed the same
condition when
                 a component has been removed from the lathe and then
worked on
                 again without being recentered properly. 
                   
                 On examining other pieces from Giza, Petrie found another
bowl
                 shard which had the marks of true lathe-turning. This
time, though,
                 instead of shifting the workpiece's axis of rotation, a
second radius
                 was cut by shifting the pivot point of the tool. With this
radius they
                 machined just short of the perimeter of the dish, leaving
a small lip.
                 Again, a sharp cusp defined the intersection of the two
radii. 
                   
                 While browsing through the Cairo Museum, I found evidence of
                 lathe turning on a large scale. A sarcophagus lid had
distinctive
                 marks of lathe turning. 
                   
                   
                 Sarcophagus Lid in the Cairo Museum 
                   
                 The radius of the lid 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 when turning an object with an
intermittent
                 cut. The tool is deflected under pressure from the cut. It
then relaxes
                 when the section of cut is finished. When the workpiece comes
                 round again to the tool, the initial pressure causes the
tool to dig in.
                 As the cut progresses, the amount of "dig in" is diminished. 
                   
                 On the sarcophagus lid in the Cairo Museum, tool marks
indicating
                 these conditions are exactly where one would expect to
find them! 
                   
                 Petrie also studied the sawing methods of the pyramid
builders. He
                 concluded that their saws must have been at least 9 feet
long. Again,
                 there are indications of modern methods of sawing on the
artifacts
                 Petrie was studying. 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 have seen on granite surface plates. 
                   
                 Today, these saw marks would reflect either the
differences in the
                 aggregate dimensions of a wire band-saw with the abrasive
the wire
                 entraps to do the cutting, or the side-to-side movement of
the wire or
                 the wheels that drive the wire. The result of either of these
                 conditions is a series of slight grooves. The distance
between the
                 grooves is determined by the feed-rate and either the
distance
                 between the variation in diameter of the saw, or the
diameter of the
                 wheels. The distance between the grooves on the coffer
inside the
                 King's Chamber is approximately .050 inch. 
                   
                 Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are the
most clearly
                 astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to
identify the
                 knowledge and technology existing 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, they reached a desired depth and
then
                 broke the core out of the hole. It was not only evident in
the holes
                 that Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by
the masons
                 who had done the 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 6
                 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz
and feldspar
                 which is astonishing." 
                   
                 After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was
an incredible
                 feed-rate for drilling into any material, let alone
granite. I was
                 completely confounded as to how a drill could achieve this
feedrate.
                 Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he
attempted to
                 explain them at three different points in one chapter. To
an engineer
                 in the 1880's, what Petrie was looking at was an anomaly. The
                 characteristics of the holes, the cores that came out of
them, and the
                 tool marks indicated an impossibility. Three distinct
characteristics of
                 the hole and core make the artifacts extremely remarkable.
They
                 are... 
                   
                 1. A taper on both the hole and the core. 
                   
                 2. A symmetrical helical groove following these tapers
which showed
                 that the drill advanced into the granite at a feed rate of
.100 inch per
                 revolution of the drill. 
                   
                 3. The confounding fact that the spiral groove cut deeper
through the
                 quartz than through the softer feldspar. In conventional
machining
                 the reverse would be the case. 
                   
                 Mr. Donald Rahn of Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co., Dayton,
Ohio,
                 told me, in 1983, that in drilling granite, diamond
drills, rotating at
                 900 revolutions per minute, penetrate at the rate of 1
inch in 5
                 minutes. This works out to be .0002 inch per revolution,
meaning
                 that the ancient Egyptians were able to cut their granite
with a feed
                 rate that was 500 times greater. 
                   
                 The other characteristics create a problem. They cut a
tapered hole
                 with a spiral groove that was cut deeper through the harder
                 constituent of the granite. If conventional machining
methods cannot
                 answer just one of these problems, where do we look to
answer all
                 three? I was just as puzzled as Petrie was when faced with
this
                 evidence. When I finally found a solution to the problem,
I could not
                 wait to share it. So I challenged some toolmakers I was
working with
                 who had used machine tools and drills day in and day out for
                 decades. All of them but one gave up on the problem saying
it could
                 not be done. Each day I would ask this one toolmaker if he
had
                 come up with a solution. Each day he said he was still
working on it.
                 I offered, but he would not even take a hint! It was a
couple of
                 weeks later before he came back to me and said, "You know
I think
                 I have the answer to this problem. But it creates another
problem....
                 They didn't have machinery like that back then!" 
                   
                 He had independently analyzed the characteristics of what
Petrie
                 was puzzling over and had come up with the same conclusion
as I
                 had. We had both set out to find a method of manufacturing
that
                 would explain all the characteristics found on these
artifacts. 
                   
                 I have discussed descriptions of several artifacts having
tool marks
                 and characteristics that identified conventional methods of
                 machining. A sophisticated use of the lathe is clearly
evident on
                 artifacts described by William Flinder Petrie in 1883,
where radii
                 were being cut in diorite. A large sarcophagi lid in the
Cairo Museum
                 has distinct tool marks which are common when turning
objects with
                 intermittent cuts on a lathe. The question in my mind is
out of what
                 kind of materials were their tools made?' In conventional
machining
                 the tool would need to be hard enough to cut one of the
hardest
                 materials there is, yet tough enough not to break under
pressure.
                 Their ability to make these cuts without the rock
splintering is
                 astounding! (Note: For those who are locked into the
"official"
                 chronology of the development of metals - copper doesn't
cut it. It is
                 like saying that aluminum could be cut with butter.) 
                   
                 What follows is a more feasible and logical method and
provides an
                 answer to the question of techniques used by the ancient
Egyptians
                 in all aspects of their work. 
                   
                 The fact that the spiral is symmetrical is quite remarkable
                 considering the proposed method of cutting. The taper
indicates an
                 increase in the cutting surface area of the drill as it
cut deeper, hence
                 an increase in the resistance. A uniform feed under these
conditions,
                 using manpower, would be impossible. 
                   
                 Petrie theorized that a ton or two of pressure was applied
to a
                 tubular drill consisting of bronze inset with jewels. I
disagree. This
                 doesn't take into consideration that under several
thousand pounds
                 pressure the jewels would undoubtedly work their way into the
                 softer substance, leaving the granite relatively unscathed
after the
                 attack. Nor does this method explain the groove being deeper
                 through the quartz. 
                   
                 The method I am about to propose, and hope some of the
readers
                 have already figured out, explains how the holes and cores
found at
                 Giza could have been cut. It is capable of creating all
the details that
                 Petrie, myself and my colleague puzzled over.
Unfortunately for
                 Petrie, the method was not known at the time he made his
studies,
                 so it is not surprising that he could not find any
satisfactory answers. 
                   
                 The application of ultrasonic machining is the only method
that
                 completely satisfies logic from a technical viewpoint, and
it explains
                 all noted phenomena. Ultrasonic machining is the
oscillatory motion
                 of a tool that chips away material, like a jackhammer
chipping away
                 at a piece of concrete pavement, except much faster and
not as
                 measurable in its reciprocation. The ultrasonic tool-bit,
vibrating at
                 19,000 to 25,000 cycles per second (Hertz) has found unique
                 application in the precision machining of odd shaped holes
in hard,
                 brittle material such as hardened steels, carbides,
ceramics and
                 semiconductors. An abrasive slurry or paste is used to
accelerate the
                 cutting action. 
                   
                 The most significant detail of the drilled hole is the
groove that is cut
                 deeper through the quartz than the feldspar. Quartz
crystals are
                 employed in the production of ultrasonic sound and,
conversely, are
                 responsive to the influence of vibration in the ultrasonic
ranges and
                 can be induced to vibrate at high frequency. In machining
granite
                 using ultrasonics, the harder material (quartz) would not
necessarily
                 offer more resistance, as it would during conventional
machining
                 practices. An ultrasonically vibrating tool-bit would find
numerous
                 sympathetic partners while cutting through granite,
embedded in the
                 granite itself! Instead of resisting the cutting action,
the quartz would
                 be induced to respond and vibrate in sympathy with the high
                 frequency waves and amplify the abrasive action as the
tool cut
                 through it. 
                   
                 The fact that there is a groove may be explained several
ways. An
                 uneven flow of energy may have caused the tool to
oscillate more on
                 one side than the other. The tool may have been improperly
                 mounted. A buildup of abrasive on one side of the tool may
have cut
                 the groove as the tool spiraled into the granite. 
                   
                 That the hole and the core have tapered sides is perfectly
normal if
                 we consider the basic requirements for all types of
cutting tools. This
                 requirement is that clearance be provided between the tool's
                 non-machining surfaces and the workpiece. Instead of having a
                 straight tube, therefore, we would have a tube with a wall
thickness
                 that gradually became thinner along its length. The
outside diameter
                 would gradually get smaller, creating clearance between
the tool and
                 the hole, and the inside diameter would get larger,
creating clearance
                 between the tool and the central core. This would allow a
free flow
                 of abrasive slurry to reach the cutting area. It would
also explain the
                 tapering of the sides of the hole and the core. Since the
tube-drill
                 was a softer material than the abrasive, the cutting edge
would
                 gradually wear away. The dimensions of the hole would
correspond
                 to the dimensions of the tool at the cutting edge. As the
tool became
                 worn, the hole and the core would reflect this wear in the
form of a
                 taper. 
                   
                   
                 Mechanism For Ultrasonic Drilling. 
                   
                 The spiral groove can be explained if we consider one of the
                 methods that is predominantly used to uniformly advance
machine
                 components. The rotational speed of the drill is not a
major factor in
                 this cutting method. The rotation of the drill is merely a
means to
                 advance the drill into the workpiece. Using a screw and
nut method
                 the tube drill could be efficiently advanced into the
workpiece by
                 turning the handles (A) in a clockwise direction. The
screw (B)
                 would gradually thread through the nut (C), forcing the
oscillating
                 drill into the granite. It would be the ultrasonically
induced motion of
                 the drill that would do the cutting and not the rotation.
The latter
                 would only be needed to sustain a cutting action at the
workface. By
                 definition, therefore, the process is not a drilling
process, by
                 conventional standards, but a grinding process, in which
abrasives
                 are caused to impact the material in such a way that a
controlled
                 amount of material is removed. 
                   
                 The theory of ultrasonic machining resolves all the
unanswered
                 questions where other theories have fallen short. Methods
may be
                 proposed that might cover a singular aspect of the machine
marks
                 and not progress to the method described here. It is when
we search
                 for a single method that provides an answer for all the
data that we
                 move away from primitive and even conventional machining
and are
                 forced to consider methods that are somewhat anomalous for
that
                 period in history. 
                   
                 On February 22, 1995 at 9 A.M. I had my first experience
of being
                 on camera. It was interesting, and not at all what I
expected. I was
                 standing in the central "King's Chamber" of the only
remaining
                 wonder of the world, the Great Pyramid. Graham Hancock and
                 Robert Bauvall breezed patiently through the script with
me, like old
                 pros, while I fumbled with instructions barked at me by
Roel Oostra,
                 the producer from Netherlands Television. In a few sound
bites, I
                 had to convey to an audience that there was something more
to the
                 sarcophagus, a large red granite box which resides inside the
                 chamber, than is evident to the lay-person or casual
observer. 
                   
                 I was invited there by Robert Bauvall (The Orion Mystery) and
                 Graham Hancock (Fingerprints of the Gods) to participate in a
                 documentary which has been broadcast on several channels
since
                 then. While there, I came across and was able to measure some
                 artifacts produced by the ancient pyramid builders which
prove
                 beyond a shadow of a doubt that highly advanced and
sophisticated
                 tools and methods were employed by this ancient
civilization. Two
                 of the artifacts in question are well known, another is
not, but it is
                 more accessible, since it is laying out in the open partly
buried in the
                 sand of the Giza plateau. 
                   
                 For this trip to Egypt I had brought along some
instruments with
                 which I had planned to inspect features I had identified
on my
                 previous trip in 1986. The instruments were: 
                   
                 1. A "parallel": A flat ground piece of steel about 6
inches long and
                 1/4 inch thick. The edges are ground flat within .0002 inch. 
                   
                 2. An Interapid indicator. (Known as a clock gauge by my
British
                 compatriots.) 
                   
                 3. A wire contour gage. A device used by die sinkers to
form around
                 shapes. 
                   
                 4. Hard forming wax. 
                   
                 I had brought along the contour gage to check the inside
of the
                 mouth of the southern shaft inside the King's Chamber.
                 Unfortunately, I found out after getting there that things
had changed
                 since I was there in 1986. In 1993, a German robotics
engineer
                 named Rudolph Gantenbrink had installed a fan inside this
mouth;
                 therefore, it was inaccessible to me and I was unable to
check it. 
                   
                 I had taken along the parallel for quick checking the
surface of
                 granite artifacts to determine their precision. The
indicator was to be
                 attached to the parallel for further inspection of
suitable artifacts.
                 The indicator, didn't survive the rigors of international
travel, though,
                 but the instruments I was left with were adequate for me
to form a
                 conclusion about the precision to which the ancient
Egyptians were
                 working. 
                   
                 The first object I inspected 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
shone my
                 flashlight behind it. No light came 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 tourists
                 found it extremely interesting, too, and gathered around
me as I,
                 quite animated, exclaimed 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. The corner radii on the inside appeared
to be
                 uniform all around with no variation of precision of the
surface to
                 the tangency point. I was tempted to take a wax
impression, but the
                 hovering guides with their baksheesh expectancies
inhibited this
                 activity. (I was on a very tight budget.) 
                   
                 My mind was racing as I lowered myself 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? And why did they do
it? Why
                 did they find this piece so important that they would go
to such
                 trouble? It would be impossible to do this kind of work on
the inside
                 of an object by hand. Even with modern machinery it would
be a
                 very difficult and complicated task! 
                   
                 Petrie gave the dimensions of this coffer, in inches, as -
outside,
                 length 103.68, width 41.97, height 38.12; inside, length
84.73, width
                 26.69, depth 29.59. He stated that the mean variation of
the piece
                 was .04 inch. Not knowing where the variation he measured
was,
                 I'm not going to make any strong assertions except to say
that it's
                 possible to have an object with geometry that varies in
length, width
                 and height and still maintain perfectly flat surfaces.
Surface plates
                 are ground and lapped to within .0001-0003 inch depending
on the
                 grade of surface plate you buy. The thickness of them,
though, may
                 vary more than the .04 inch that Petrie noted on this
sarcophagus. 
                   
                 A surface plate, though, is a single surface and would
represent only
                 one outside surface of a box. Not only that, the equipment
used to
                 finish the inside of a box would be vastly different than
that used to
                 finish the outside. The task would be much more
problematic. I was
                 constructing in my mind the equipment I would need to
grind and lap
                 the inside of a box to the accuracy I had witnessed and
produce a
                 precise and flat surface to the point where the flat
surface meets the
                 corner radius. There are physical and technical problems
associated
                 with a task like this that are not easy to solve. One
could use drills to
                 rough the inside out, but when it came to finishing a box
of this size
                 with an inside depth of 29.59 inches, and maintain a
corner radius of
                 less than 1/2 inch. There are some significant challenges to
                 overcome. 
                   
                 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 Saqqarra, the site of
the step
                 pyramid and Zoser's tomb. 
                   
                 I had followed Graham and Robert on their trip to this
site for a
                 filming on Feb. 24, 1995. We were in the stifling
atmosphere of the
                 tunnels, where dust kicked up from tourists lay heavily in
the still air.
                 These tunnels contain 21 huge granite boxes. Each box
weighs an
                 estimated 65 tons, and, together with the huge lid that
sits on top of
                 them, the total weight of the assembly is around 100 tons.
Just inside
                 the entrance of the tunnels there is a lid that had not
been finished
                 and beyond this lid, barely fitting within the confines of
one of the
                 tunnels, is a granite box that had also been rough hewn. 
                   
                 The granite boxes are 13 ft. long, 7 1/2 ft. wide and 11
ft. high.
                 They are installed in "crypts" that were hewn out of the
limestone
                 bedrock at staggered intervals along the tunnels. The
floors of the
                 crypts were about 4 ft. below the tunnel floor, and the
boxes were
                 set into a recess in the center. Robert Bauvall was
addressing the
                 engineering aspects of installing such huge boxes within a
confined
                 space where the last crypt was located near the end of the
tunnel; a
                 dead end with no room for the hundreds of slaves pulling
on ropes,
                 according to theories proposed by those who believe that
the ancient
                 pyramid builders were a primitive society. 
                   
                 While Graham and Robert were filming, I jumped down into a
crypt
                 and placed my parallel against the outside surface of the
box. It was
                 perfectly flat. I shone the flashlight and found no
deviation from a
                 perfectly flat surface. I clambered through a broken out
edge into the
                 inside of another giant box and again, I was astonished to
find it
                 astoundedly flat. I looked for errors and couldn't find
any. I wished
                 at that time that I had the proper equipment to scan the
entire
                 surface and ascertain the full scope of the work.
Nonetheless, I was
                 perfectly happy to use my flashlight and straight edge and
stand in
                 awe of this incredibly precise and incredibly huge
artifact. Checking
                 the lid and the surface on which it sat, I found them both
to be
                 perfectly flat. It occurred to me that this gave the
manufacturers of
                 this piece a perfect seal. Two perfectly flat surfaces
pressed
                 together, with the weight of one pushing out the air
between the two
                 surfaces! The technical difficulties in finishing the
inside of this piece
                 made the sarcophagus in Khafra's pyramid seem like a walk
in the
                 park. 
                   
                 I was accompanied by Canadian researcher Robert McKenty at
this
                 time. He saw the significance of the discovery and was
filming with
                 his camera. At that moment I knew how Howard Carter must have
                 felt when he discovered Tutenkahmen's tomb. I yelled for
Graham
                 and Robert to share the discovery, but was denied their
presence by
                 Roel Oostra, who was working to a tight schedule and had to
                 complete his filming. 
                   
                 The dust filled atmosphere in the tunnels was extremely
unhealthy. I
                 could only imagine what it would be like if I was
finishing off a piece
                 of granite, regardless of what method I used, how
unhealthy it would
                 be. Surely it would have been better to finish the work in
the open
                 air? I was so astonished by this find that it didn't occur
to me until
                 later that the builders of these relics, for some esoteric
reason,
                 intended for them to be ultra precise. They had taken the
trouble to
                 bring into the tunnel the unfinished product and finish it
underground
                 for a good reason! It is the logical thing to do if you
require a high
                 degree of precision in the piece that you are working. To
finish it
                 with such precision at a site that maintained a different
atmosphere
                 and a different temperature, such as in the open under the
hot sun,
                 would mean that when it was finally installed in the cool,
cave-like
                 temperatures of the tunnel, you would lose that precision.
The
                 granite would change its shape, or creep. The solution, of
course,
                 was to prepare the precision surfaces in the location in
which they
                 were going to be housed. 
                   
                 This discovery, and the realization of its critical
importance to the
                 artisans that built it, went beyond my wildest dreams of
discoveries
                 to be made in Egypt. For a man of my inclination, this was
better
                 than King Tut's tomb. 
                   
                 The Egyptians' intentions with respect to precision is
perfectly clear.
                 But for what purpose? In America today, the cost of just the
                 quarried granite would be $115,000.00. That's without
shipping
                 costs and manufacturing costs, assuming there was equipment
                 available to machine it. I have contacted four precision
granite
                 manufacturers in the US and haven't been able to find one
who can
                 do this kind of work. 
                   
                 These artifacts need to be thoroughly mapped and inspected
with the
                 following tools. 
                   
                 1. A laser interferometer with surface flatness checking
capabilities
                 2. An ultrasonic thickness gage to check the thickness of
the walls to
                 determine their consistency to uniform thickness. 3. An
optical flat
                 with monochromatic light source. Are the surfaces really
finished to
                 optical precision? 
                   
                 With Eric Leither of Tru-Stone Corp, I discussed in a
letter the
                 technical feasibility of creating several Egyptian
artifacts, including
                 the giant granite boxes found in the bedrock tunnels the
temple of
                 Serapeum at Saqqarra. He responded as follows. 
                   
                 "Dear Christopher, 
                   
                 First I would like to thank you for providing me with all the
                 fascinating information. Most people never get the
opportunity to
                 take part in something like this. 
                   
                 You mentioned to me that the box was derived from one
solid block
                 of granite. A piece of granite of that size is estimated
to weigh
                 200,000 pounds if it was Sierra White granite which weighs
                 approximately 175 lb. per cubic foot. If a piece of that
size was
                 available, the cost would be enormous. Just the raw piece
of rock
                 would cost somewhere in the area of $115,000.00. This
price does
                 not include cutting the block to size or any freight
charges. 
                   
                 The next obvious problem would be the transportation.
There would
                 be many special permits issued by the D.O.T. and would cost
                 thousands of dollars. From the information that I gathered
from your
                 fax, the Egyptians moved this piece of granite nearly 500
miles. That
                 is an incredible achievement for a society that existed
hundreds of
                 years ago.." 
                   
                   
                 Eric went on to say that his company did not have the
equipment or
                 capabilities to produce the boxes in this manner. He said
that his
                 company would create the boxes in 5 pieces, ship them to the
                 customer, and bolt them together on site. 
                   
                 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 three-axes
machine
                 to guide the tool that created it. Outside of being
incredibly precise,
                 normal flat surfaces, being simple geometry, can
justifiably 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?" 
                   
                 In answering this question, and being comfortable with the
answer, it
                 is helpful to have a working knowledge of contour machining. 
                   
                 Many of the artifacts that modern civilization produces
would be
                 impossible to produce using simple hand work. We are
surrounded
                 by artifacts that are the result of men and women
employing their
                 minds to create tools which overcome their physical
limitations. We
                 have developed machine tools to create the dies that
produce the
                 aesthetic contours on the cars that we drive, the radios
we listen to
                 and the appliances we use. 
                   
                 To create the dies to produce these items, a cutting tool
has to
                 accurately and consistently follow a predetermined
contoured path in
                 three dimensions. In some applications it will move in three
                 dimensions, simultaneously using three or more axes of
movement.
                 The artifact that I was looking at required a minimum of
three axes
                 to machine it. When the machine tool industry was
relatively young,
                 techniques were employed where the final shape was
finished by
                 hand, using templates as a guide. Today, with the use of
precision
                 computer numerical control machines, there is little call
for hand
                 work. A little polishing to remove unwanted tool marks may
be the
                 only hand work required. To know that a piece has been
produced
                 on such a machine, therefore, one would expect to see a
precise
                 surface with indications of tool marks that show the path
of the tool.
                 This is what I found on the Giza Plateau, laying out in
the open
                 south of the Great Pyramid about 100 yards east of the second
                 pyramid. 
                   
                 There are so many rocks of all shapes and sizes lying
around this
                 area to the untrained eye, this one could easily be
overlooked. To a
                 trained eye, it may attract some cursory attention and a
brief muse. I
                 was fortunate that it both caught my attention, and that I
had the
                 tools with which to inspect it. 
                   
                 There were two pieces laying close together, one larger
than the
                 other. They had originally been one piece and had been
broken.
                 With the exception of my broken indicator gage, I found I
needed
                 every tool that I had brought with me to inspect it. In
inspecting this
                 piece, I was interested in the accuracy of the contour and
its
                 symmetry. 
                   
                   
                 Contoured Block of Granite - Giza 
                   
                 What we have is an object that, three dimensionally as one
piece,
                 could be likened to a small sofa. The seat is a contour
that blends
                 into the walls of the arms and the back. The contour was
checked
                 using the profile gage along three axes of its length,
starting at the
                 blend radius near the back, and ending near the tangency
point,
                 which blended smoothly where the contour radius meets the
front.
                 The wire radius gage is not the best way to determine the
accuracy
                 of this piece. When adjusting the wires at one position on
the block
                 and moving to another position, the gage could be
re-seated on the
                 contour, but questions could be raised as to whether the
hand that
                 positioned it compensated for some inaccuracy in the contour.
                 However, placing the parallel at several points along and
around the
                 axes of the contour, I found the surface to be extremely
precise. At
                 one point near a crack in the piece, there was light
showing through,
                 but the rest of the piece allowed very little to show. 
                   
                 During this time, I had attracted quite a crowd. It's
difficult to
                 traverse the Giza Plateau at the best of times without
getting
                 attention from the camel drivers, the donkey riders and the
                 purveyors of trinkets. It wasn't long after I had pulled
the tools out
                 of my back-pack that I had two willing helpers, Mohammed and
                 Mustapha, who weren't at all interested in compensation.
At least
                 that's what they told me. But I can honestly say that I
lost my shirt
                 on that adventure. I had cleaned sand and dirt out of the
corner of
                 the larger block and washed it out with water. I used a
white T-shirt
                 that I was carrying in my back-pack to wipe the corner out
so I
                 could get an impression of it with forming wax. Mustapha,
talked me
                 into giving him the shirt before I left. I was so inspired
by what I had
                 found I tossed it to him. 
                   
                 Mohammed held the wire gage at different points along the
contour
                 while I took photographs of it. I then took the forming
wax and
                 heated it with a match, kindly provided by the Movenpick
hotel,
                 then pressed it into the corner blend radius. I then
shaved off the
                 splayed part and positioned it at different points around.
Mohammed
                 held the wax still while I took photographs. By this time
there was an
                 old camel driver and a policeman on a horse looking on. 
                   
                   
                 Location where the wax impression was taken. 
                   
                   
                 Verifying the radius at another location 
                   
                 What I discovered with the wax was a uniform radius,
tangential
                 with the contour and the back and side walls. Returning to
the US, I
                 measured the wax and found, using a radius gage, that it
was a true
                 radius and measured 7/16 inch. 
                   
                 The side arm blend radius has a design feature that is common
                 engineering practice today. By cutting a relief at the
corner, a mating
                 part that is to match, or butt up against the surface with
the large
                 blend radius, may have a smaller radius. This feature
provides for a
                 more efficient operation because it allows a cutting tool
with a large
                 diameter, and, therefore, a large radius, to be used. With
greater
                 rigidity in the tool, more material can be removed when
taking a cut. 
                   
                 I believe there is more, much more, that can be gleaned
using these
                 methods of study. The Cairo Museum contains many artifacts
that
                 will reveal much the same conclusion that I'm presenting
in this
                 paper. In terms of a more thorough understanding of the
level of
                 technology employed by the ancient pyramid builders, the
                 implications of these discoveries are tremendous. We are
not only
                 presented with hard evidence that seems to have eluded us for
                 decades and which provides further evidence proving the
ancients to
                 be advanced, we are also provided with an opportunity to
re-analyze
                 everything with a different perspective, from a different
angle.
                 Understanding how something is made opens up a different
                 dimension when trying to determine why it was made. 
                   
                 The precision in these artifacts is irrefutable. Even if
we ignore the
                 question of how they were produced, we are still faced
with the
                 question of why such precision was needed. The
implications of this
                 question are just as profound. 
                   
                 Revelation of new data, invariably spawns new questions.
In this
                 case it's understandable to hear, "where are the machines?" 
                   
                 Machines are tools. The question should be applied
universally and
                 can be asked of anyone who believes other methods may have
been
                 used. The fact of the matter is that tools have not been
found to
                 explain any theory! More than eighty pyramids have been
discovered
                 in Egypt, and the tools that built them have never been
found. Even
                 if we mis-guidedly accept the notion that copper tools are
capable of
                 producing these incredible artifacts, the few copper
implements that
                 have been uncovered do not represent the number of such
tools that
                 would have been used if every stonemason who worked on the
                 pyramids at just the Giza site owned one. In the Great
Pyramid
                 alone, there are an estimated 2,300,000 blocks of stone, both
                 limestone and granite, weighing between 2* tons and 70
tons each.
                 That is a mountain of evidence with no tools surviving to
explain its
                 creation. 
                   
                 The principle of "Occam's Razor", where the simplest means of
                 manufacturing hold force until proven inadequate, has held
force
                 over the pyramid builders methods, except there is one
component
                 of this principle that has been lacking. If the simplest
methods do not
                 satisfy the evidence, other less simple methods are
considered, and
                 so on and so forth. There is little doubt that the
capabilities of the
                 ancient pyramid builders have been seriously
underestimated. The
                 most distinct evidence that I can relate is the precision
and mastery
                 of machining technologies that are only now beginning to be
                 re-invented. Some technologies the Egyptians possessed
still astound
                 modern artisans and engineers primarily for this reason. 
                   
                 The development of machine tools has been intrinsically
linked with
                 the availability of consumer goods and the desire to find
a customer.
                 One reference point for judging a civilization to be
advanced has
                 been our current state of manufacturing evolution.
Manufacturing is
                 the manifestation of all scientific and engineering
effort. For over a
                 hundred years this epoch has progressed exponentially.
Since Petrie
                 first made his critical observations between 1880 and
1882, our
                 civilization has leapt forward at breathtaking speed to
provide the
                 consumer with goods, all created by artisans, and still,
over a
                 hundred years after Petrie, these artisans are utterly
astounded by
                 the achievements of the ancient pyramid builders. They are
                 astounded not so much by comparing their own accomplishments
                 with what they perceive a primitive society is capable of,
but by
                 comparing these prehistoric artifacts with their own
current level of
                 expertise and technological advancement. 
                   
                 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. 
                   
                   
                 Crooke's Tube. 
                   
                 Notwithstanding the previous argument, the ancient
Egyptians did
                 cut a mural that, while it could be interpreted as
presenting a
                 symbolic message, also describes a technology that was
being used
                 by the contemporaries of the masons that carved it.
Inscribed into
                 the wall in the lower crypt at the temple of Hathor at
Dendera is the
                 representation of a machine. 
                   
                                                 

                            Wall Carving At Dendera Courtesy: Christopher Dunn
                   
                   
                 Go to Dendera to view a representation of a Crooke's Tube!
                 (Cathode Ray Tube.) It's not something you would use to cut
                 granite, but viewed within the context of modern
scientific discovery,
                 the Crooke's tube is known as the device that triggered
the discovery
                 of x-rays. The sketch seems to symbolize the medical
profession.
                 Put the two snakes together and Caduceus comes to life, with
                 representations of medicine and the proffering of the
scalpel.
                 (Symbolizing the subjugation of exploratory surgery to the
power of
                 new technology, the x-ray?) Machines did exist. Of the
kind that are
                 in existence today, and even those we have yet to develop. 
                   
                 There is much to be learned from our distant ancestors,
but before
                 that lesson will come to us, we need to open our minds and
accept
                 that there have existed on the earth, civilizations with
technology
                 that, while different from our own, and in some areas
possibly not as
                 advanced, had developed some manufacturing techniques that
are as
                 great or even greater. As we assimilate new data and new
views of
                 old data, it is wise to heed the advice Petrie gave to an
American
                 who had visited him during his research at Giza. The American
                 expressed a feeling that he had been to a funeral after
hearing
                 Petrie's findings, which had evidently shattered some
favorite
                 pyramid theory at that time. Petrie says, "By all means
let the old
                 theories have a decent burial; though we should take care
that in our
                 haste none of the wounded ones are buried alive." 
                   
                 Chris Dunn can be contacted by email at: cdunn1546@aol.com 





       


                               SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE



Ash's mural gallery:

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/3517/Ash/index.html

-> Send "subscribe   iufo " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: Ashley Rye