Top Menu    Namon's Gallery    Next  Previous    Articles 

Matt Silberstein wrote:
 
> In sci.archaeology Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
 
> >Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> >> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
 
> [snip]
 

> Non-linear is not a principle, it is a category. In particular, it is
> the category that the events you described fall into. It means you
> cannot blindly scale up a project.  As Vincent pointed out, this is
> known to us and probably know to the Eqyptians.
 
Aw, c'mon thwen why does the professor say things like :
" To work a harder stone, one simply has to work harder."
Eh?

> [snip]

> >> The sandstone blocks of the C&O canal are finely cut, moved by hand and
> >> laid in very precise systems, by irish laborers.

> >The Irish workers had modern tools. Steel, and a range of other
> >thoroughly modern gizmos, even if none of these were power-driven.
> >Even so, I am sure, they couldn't have equalled the acuracy of
> >fitting planes in the mantle without resorting to special tools.
> >That's the point - We can do what's been done on the Great Pyramid,
> >but we can only do it Our Way, i.e., with modern tools.
> >I pick my gauntlet out of the wastebasket, and I recast it to your
> >attention. Could you provide the C&O specs?
 
> Jim, I find this disingenuous at best.

Ok, you wouldn't be trying to talk to me, by any chance?
To tired eyes Jim can look like Jiri. But, no, you are talking
to someone else, because the below charges do not apply to me.

> You have repeated claimed that
> we could not duplicate this feat today. People have repeated responded
> that we could, but that our current ability was not at issue.

Just to make  my case easily, in comparison, I always specify
this challenge to say that we could not duplicate these ancient
feats without resorting to our technology, i.e., do it by the
primitive methods, which we allow to the ancients.
I have healthy respect for our modern ability to duplicate
the achievements of ancients by our own best methods.

> You then
> ask for current example anyway. And what do you do when you get it?
> You point out that modern methods were used. Of course they were. We
> are not using the tools and techniques of the ancient Egyptians,
> everyone knows that. Either stop asking for modern examples or accept
> that moderns use modern techniques.

I must second you in this admonishment to Jim.

(snip)

> >> > I can name you an example, no one will equal today by bare
> >> > hands. No one can do precision drafting by free-hand.

> >> nonsense.  I have seen Kenyan workers set up a stick and follow
> >> the line of the shadow of the sun to create a fine freehand straight
> >> line. nothing magical

> >I beg your pardon? The Kenyan workers planted, and replanted
> >a stick and used the shadow to draw several miles long straight
> >line following the moving sun?
 
> I have seen simple and obvious techniques for making very long ground
> based straight lines. Funny thing was, some people were making the
> claim that it is impossible for us to make those lines today.

Under the Nascan conditions, you would be likely to accumulate
some errors after so many miles. The Nasca Lines don't do that.

> >> > But, the engravers of La Marche could do it on limestone tablets,
> >> > and the Nascans could engrave it on their desert on a huge scale.
> >> > Lest they were drafting the designs.. What do you think?

> >> Roman surveyors could lay out an aquaduct to have a constand drop of
> >> one foot per mile for 25 miles.  NOthing magical.

> >I said, no one can do precision drafting by free-hand, and
> >you retorted "Nonsense" then you gave invalid examples of
> >precision drafting by free-hand.
> >What I meant by precision drafting is precision drafting
> >of complex designs, proportioning objects to the Golden Section
> >(PHI ratio), and so on.
 
> Why is the Golden Section so important? It is easy to construct and
> common in nature.

The Golden Section is also commonplace in the Nasca Monkey's design.
It provides for a level of mathematics, which our science is unwilling
to recognize. Our science disawows, a priori, any possibility of such
math level in the natives.
Eventually, this level will be accepted. The draftsmanlike quality of
the design is the most reassuring factor, here. Once the tests will
be performed, there will be no room for denial.

Jiri

Date:
               Sun, 30 Mar 1997 02:42:46 -0800
        From:
               Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
 Organization:
               Ancient Science-Art
  Newsgroups:
               soc.culture.usa, sci.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors
   References:
               1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10
 
 
 

Don Judy wrote:

> Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
> > Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> > > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
 
> > > > If your champions win, they get to keep a brand new, beautiful
> > > > paperthin diorite vase hollowed out with a toothbrush and abrasive
> > > > paste, a vase which can balance on its narrow neck, and have its
> > > > bottom up in a perfectly horizontal plane.
> > > > If your side fails, our reward will be one of the predynastic
> > > > vases of the same precious quality.
> > > > Boasting, and not delivering - amounts to a false ad campaign,
> > > > and a worldwide embarassment!

> Use a power tool to make a diorite flask; prove you're right.

??? Why should I do anything? The diorite flasks from the predynastic
period are an accepted fact..
        *
Don't try to mumbo-jumbo your way out of my challenge:
Reproduce the vases, etc, by the best tools, you are ready to
concede to the Egyptians!
 
> > > But once you can do one, you can do a million.  Just like eyeglasses.
> > > the building stones were not polished to optometrists standards of
> > > a centyury ago.  They are not identical either.  they fit closely, but
> > > that
> > > can be done as each stone is put in place.

> > Wow! Precariously balancing 200 feet up from the level ground?
 
> Balancing? Why?

THe Pyramid is not steep?
 
> > > directional bearings are simply a matter of endless tedious measurement.

> > True North? Etc.?
 
> Yes. Which is not the same as it was 10,000-12000 whatever number *you* like
> years ago. The pyramid is lined up for True North when?

Wrong again. I believe that the Pyramid was built in Khufu's reign,
about 4,600 years ago. It's the Sphinx, which I believe to be older.
BTW, what was true north 4,560 years ago, is still very close to
what it is today, enough so that the Pyramid was still the best
oriented building in the world of all the oriented buildings a
couple of centuries ago.
 
> > > > > I dont know why you claim we are "impoten[t] in replicating
> > > > >  such ancient achievements."   In many cases we can create methods
> using
> > > > > materials
> > > > > they had.  We simply do not know if we are replicating their efforts.
> > > > > that is
> > > > > ignorance, not impotence.
> > > > Please, give us some relevant examples. We've heard too much general
> > > > evasiveness.
 
> Of course, nothing will suffice, will it?

You won't believe it, but I am a natural skeptic..

> > The Irish workers had modern tools. Steel, and a range of other
> > thoroughly modern gizmos, even if none of these were power-driven.
> > Even so, I am sure, they couldn't have equalled the acuracy of
> > fitting planes in the mantle without resorting to special tools.
> > That's the point - We can do what's been done on the Great Pyramid,
> > but we can only do it Our Way, i.e., with modern tools.
> > I pick my gauntlet out of the wastebasket, and I recast it to your
> > attention. Could you provide the C&O specs?
 
> You're always on about power tools, now all of a sudden it's modern tools.
> These are shifty words, almost meaningless, especially if you can buzz around
> changing the words themselves.

Modern steel tools, pulleys, derricks, ropes, wheels - hey, I always
have specified those as the minimal requirements necessary to
Pyramid's construction, if we were to undertake it. Check Deja News.
 
> > > The Pont du GArd in
> > > FRance
> > > is composed of large blocks of finely cut stone hoisted high in the
> > > air.

> > > whats the big deal?

> > Done with what tools denied the Egyptians by the side you
> > stand for?
 
> The side he stands for? Maybe you think he filled out an application.

He has adopted one side in this argument. Are you blind?

> He uses
> his expertise to come to his conclusions, that's obvious. He does not sound
> like one who would compromise himself over an argument concerning ancient
> structures. Did you take note of his profession?

Nonsense. He's heavily indoctrinated.
His profession? Professor of law. Or if you like,
a capable devil's advocate. The word has spread!
The best authorities in the world in the fields of
propaganda, and disinformation are arriving on the
scene, sirens blaring, to see if they can obfuscate
the issues.
What would you want me to say after being so partisan?

> > > > I can name you an example, no one will equal today by bare
> > > > hands. No one can do precision drafting by free-hand.
 
> Results which would seem to imply precision drafting can be done freehand
> where no drafting is used at all. Ever restore a Victorian house?

No evasiveness, please. If you come to fight - fight.
Where is the example, so we can scrutinize it?
I don't shadow-box anymore.

> > > nonsense.  I have seen Kenyan workers set up a stick and follow
> > > the line of the shadow of the sun to create a fine freehand straight
> > > line. nothing magical

> > I beg your pardon? The Kenyan workers planted, and replanted
> > a stick and used the shadow to draw several miles long straight
> > line following the moving sun?

> > > > But, the engravers of La Marche could do it on limestone tablets,
> > > > and the Nascans could engrave it on their desert on a huge scale.
> > > > Lest they were drafting the designs.. What do you think?
 
> > > Roman surveyors could lay out an aquaduct to have a constand drop of
> > > one foot per mile for 25 miles.  NOthing magical.

> > I said, no one can do precision drafting by free-hand, and
> > you retorted "Nonsense" then you gave invalid examples of
> > precision drafting by free-hand.
> > What I meant by precision drafting is precision drafting
> > of complex designs, proportioning objects to the Golden Section
> > (PHI ratio), and so on. One can't do it by free-hand.
> > I have great examples available, proving that the ancient Nascans,
> > and the Magdalenian cavemaen could.. Of course, the audience
> > has a right to ignore the Boy Who Cries Wolf Too Much, which to
> > people with fine ears sounds like Howling with the Wolves.
> > But, is this desirable for the audience in the long run? What is
> > this group - the wrong Rock Concert?
> > Regards,
 
> See the above regarding "precision free hand drafting". You see evidence where
> there may not be any.

I have challenged U to show an example of this mistake before.

> If you can't see otherwise, you may be the blind one.

Hmm..

> The Nascans were 13,000 years or more after the beautiful Magdalenian cave
> art, on the other side of the Atlantic, on the other side of South America.

Exactly!

> The Nasca drawings are more likely to have been done by Roman soldiers than
> for there to be a tie in to the Magdalenian, as they were contemporaries of
> the Romans. I think the odds are not the best in either case.

That's an innovative idea, I admit. But, how would the Romans
know of the s.c. Seal of Atlantis? Don't forget, the only other
place, where we can see this unique geometric design is in the
Stone-Age Cinderella Engraving from La Marche.
 

         Date:
               Wed, 02 Apr 1997 23:12:49 -0800
        From:
               Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
 Organization:
               Ancient Science-Art
  Newsgroups:
               sci.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors
   References:
               1 , 2 , 3
 
 
 

Paul J. Gans wrote:
 
> Stormdream (dreamer@exit3.com) wrote:
> : *snip*

> : > Absolutely! It is obvious that the Egyptians used Hi-Tech..
> : > On a chance you meant that their tools were typical primitive
> : > tools of the day, that is unlikely, for if true, there would be
> : > nothing to stop archaeologists and aegyptologists, and their
> : > students from getting together and replicating some of the most
> : > daunting Egyptian achievements by the sheer force of numbers,
> : > and by the virtue of patience. I would love to see someone
> : > finish that 1,000-ton obelisk, and float it several hundred
> : > miles down the Nile, and then carry it next to one of the
> : > 1,000-ton obelisks already standing in Egypt.
> : > The absence of such demonstrations is conspicuous. It is a
> : > glaring sign advertising the moderns' impotence in replicating
> : > such ancient achievements.
> : > Which is just too bad for the other side in this exchange..

> : > Regards,
> : > Jiri

> : As I recall, in the not too distant past, some enterprising folks out on
> : Easter Island did just that....  replicated carving and moving several
> : several-ton megalithic statues with "primative" tools.

Several tons is not a problem to move.

> : It was time
> : consumeing and rather difficult, but they did complete the task  and
> : managed not to squish anyone, and com[leted it within reasonable
> : time-lines.  Now, the point is, that if they could do it at
> : resource-poor (no hard wood, no metal) Easter Island, I would imagine
> : they could do it in Egypt.

No, sorry, I don't think that anybody could build the Great Pyramid
with the  knowledge from Easter Island.

> : I know that Cairo University sponsored a
> : project to duplicate building a pyramid-type of structure, obviously not
> : on the scale of the original, but the point was to see if methods
> : "thought" by scholars to be the way it was done was "actually" the way
> : it was done.  They also succeeded and found that the so-called
> : "primative methods" worked just fine.

I bet, this was another Lehner kind of a pyramid. Give us details,
please, or are they too unspectacular? Did the students move one,
or two hundred tons of blocks? Why didn't they move those in one
piece?

> : At Stonehenge it has long been an
> : accepted theory that the giant stones were floated down the coast from
> : their quarrys.  And again, this has been duplicated by students of
> : archaeology.

And again, those stones were not giant. I remember seeing a
photo of the sled team in action. Even with the sled, the stone's
thickness didn't reach past the waistline of the students.
Perhaps, the giant stone weighed less than 20 tons..

> : Why does it always have to be "little green men"?????

If you were less than a foot tall, wouldn't you be
green with envy, too?
Do you think, you would look any better by the time you
reached the center of our galaxy?

Jiri Mruzek
Date:
               Sat, 05 Apr 1997 02:12:49 -0800
        From:
               Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
 Organization:
               Ancient Science-Art
  Newsgroups:
               sci.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors, soc.culture.usa,
               sci.history.science, sci.anthropology, sci.skeptic, sci.math
   References:
               1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12
 
 
 

Matt Silberstein wrote:
 
> In sci.archaeology Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
 
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:

> >> In sci.archaeology Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:

> >> >Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> >> >> Jiri Mruzek wrote:

> >> [snip]

> >> Non-linear is not a principle, it is a category. In particular, it is
> >> the category that the events you described fall into. It means you
> >> cannot blindly scale up a project.  As Vincent pointed out, this is
> >> known to us and probably know to the Eqyptians.

> >Aw, c'mon then why does the professor say things like :
> >" To work a harder stone, one simply has to work harder."
> >Eh?
 
> Well, hardness in rocks does not display non-linear properties, so I
> don't think the question is appropriate.

That is debatable. For instance, there must be thresholds of
stone hardness past which certain tools simply don't work.
Right away, the principle of scaling up doesn't work. The task
at hand becomes non-linear. Let's not split hairs.

.> >> [snip]

> >> >> The sandstone blocks of the C&O canal are finely cut, moved by hand and
> >> >> laid in very precise systems, by irish laborers.

.> >> >The Irish workers had modern tools. Steel, and a range of other
.> >> >thoroughly modern gizmos, even if none of these were
power-driven.
.> >> >Even so, I am sure, they couldn't have equalled the acuracy of
.> >> >fitting planes in the mantle without resorting to special tools.

Mean deviation from a perfectly flat plane was the miniscule 1/100"
over a distance of 75". This spec allowed for the incredibly thin
film of superfine quality mortar (1/50").
1/100 of an inch is slightly thicker than a hair..

.> >> >That's the point - We can do what's been done on the Great
Pyramid,
.> >> >but we can only do it Our Way, i.e., with modern tools.
.> >> >I pick my gauntlet out of the wastebasket, and I recast it to
your
.> >> >attention. Could you provide the C&O specs?

> >> Jim, I find this disingenuous at best.

.> >Ok, you wouldn't be trying to talk to me, by any chance?
.> >To tired eyes Jim can look like Jiri. But, no, you are talking
.> >to someone else, because the below charges do not apply to me.
 
> You are right and I apologize for getting your name wrong. I will
> accept your "out" and say I just have tired eyes.

No problem, Matt.
 
> >> You have repeated claimed that
> >> we could not duplicate this feat today. People have repeated responded
> >> that we could, but that our current ability was not at issue.

> >Just to make  my case easily, in comparison, I always specify
> >this challenge to say that we could not duplicate these ancient
> >feats without resorting to our technology, i.e., do it by the
> >primitive methods, which we allow to the ancients.
> >I have healthy respect for our modern ability to duplicate
> >the achievements of ancients by our own best methods.
 
> If you have (always) added this qualification then I have missed it.
> Which is why there has been some kind of confusion. I am sorry for the
> misunderstanding.

No problem. It is also true that, inexplicably, some people had
me confused with someone else, who I think I recall saying, we
couldn't replicate the granite tube-drilled core #7, with the
famous 1:60 groove incline by even the most modern means. It is
my impression that everybody agreed to that, with the stipulation
that the groove comes from a reversal of the tool, when it was
being withdrawn.
But, that possibility was effectively discounted for by the
presence of a buffering layer of dust in the cut, between the
4" drill, and the grooved granite core. So, yes, there are some
problems, but I am not the protagonist.

> Regarding our ability to duplicate "ancient" achievements with
> "ancient" technologies, I am not surprised. There is much we don't
> know about "ancient" times, even if there are no mysterious hidden
> technologies. The question should be, what does the evidence we have
> tell us about their culture. IMVHO, lack of wire and lack of steel
> implies low tech.

Yes. However, other things imply otherwise. I humbly apologize
for bringing up my pet project again, the s.c. Science-Art,
but in my findings, I have a perfect confirmation that all these
later mysteries, we debate so much - the pyramids, the Sphinx,
the South American wonders, and especially the Nasca Lines -
find their original impetus in the Science-Art phenom of the
Palaeolithic Magdalenian era.
I hate repetitiousness, but I must repeat after myself that
it is true that my report has been out on the web for a while,
yet, there has been no erudite criticism of it. Some of my
"claims" (read - decoded designs) are immensely specific.
They are scientific designs illustrating geometrical theory.
Nobody can dispute their status. (Tick off that category)
The patterns of scientific geometry are fundamentally
different from arrangements, which arise from the workings
of accidental forces.
So, based on such knowledge, I rid myself of the personal
memory of having been led to these designs in a most
straightforward way, and I assume the role of Devil's Advocate.
Is there a possibility that I knowingly imposed a scientific
design upon the original design?
This Devil's Last Chance always comes up blanks. The theoretical
designs fit the original images like a key fits its lock.
Therefore, I happen to know very well, why there are no Devil's
Advocates against my findings.
Perhaps, I am wrong, but we all fail to see, how that might be..

> >> You then
> >> ask for current example anyway. And what do you do when you get it?
> >> You point out that modern methods were used. Of course they were. We
> >> are not using the tools and techniques of the ancient Egyptians,
> >> everyone knows that. Either stop asking for modern examples or accept
> >> that moderns use modern techniques.

> >I must second you in this admonishment to Jim.
 
> >(snip)

> >> >> > I can name you an example, no one will equal today by bare
> >> >> > hands. No one can do precision drafting by free-hand.

> >> >> nonsense.  I have seen Kenyan workers set up a stick and follow
> >> >> the line of the shadow of the sun to create a fine freehand straight
> >> >> line. nothing magical

> >> >I beg your pardon? The Kenyan workers planted, and replanted
> >> >a stick and used the shadow to draw several miles long straight
> >> >line following the moving sun?

> >> I have seen simple and obvious techniques for making very long ground
> >> based straight lines. Funny thing was, some people were making the
> >> claim that it is impossible for us to make those lines today.

> >Under the Nascan conditions, you would be likely to accumulate
> >some errors after so many miles. The Nasca Lines don't do that.

> If the end points are in line of sight from the middle, the technique
> would make a straight line.

All measurements are approximations. Measuring by eye, without
precise instruments always results in, at best, a tiny error.
I'm sure, you won't dispute that. Two-hundredths of a degree,
or even more is an error one just cannot perceive by eye. But,
measure by eye a few times under unfavorable conditions of uneven
terrain, and the errors will start adding up, despite some errors
cancelling out others. Before you know it, you'll be out a whole
degree, but to know it, you would have to see and measure the
entire miles long line from high above the Andean foothills..
 
> >> >> > But, the engravers of La Marche could do it on limestone tablets,
> >> >> > and the Nascans could engrave it on their desert on a huge scale.
> >> >> > Lest they were drafting the designs.. What do you think?

> >> >> Roman surveyors could lay out an aquaduct to have a constand drop of
> >> >> one foot per mile for 25 miles.  NOthing magical.

> >> >I said, no one can do precision drafting by free-hand, and
> >> >you retorted "Nonsense" then you gave invalid examples of
> >> >precision drafting by free-hand.
> >> >What I meant by precision drafting is precision drafting
> >> >of complex designs, proportioning objects to the Golden Section
> >> >(PHI ratio), and so on.

> >> Why is the Golden Section so important? It is easy to construct and
> >> common in nature.

Life relies on the secret Golden Section techniques, it
is true. But Science of Life is not easy. Applications
of the Golden Section are incredibly intricate.
Likewise, the Golden Section is the sole key to the exact
construction of a five-pointed regular star, or a pentagon.
True, it is not complicated, but it is complicated enough
to be denied the precolumbian Indians. From this point of
view, it is vitally relevant, when one can convincingly
do a presentation on the geometric knowledge emphasised
at Nasca, in precolumbian designs.

> >The Golden Section is also commonplace in the Nasca Monkey's design.
> >It provides for a level of mathematics, which our science is unwilling
> >to recognize. Our science disawows, a priori, any possibility of such
> >math level in the natives.
 
> What level of math is required? Like I said, the ratio is common in
> nature an very easy to construct. I am familiar with the classical
> Greek techniques, but I would not be surprised if there were simpler
> methods, or even methods where the ratio was the natural outcome,
> rather than a designed in property.

Not only is a high level of math required, but art is incorporated
into this math, as well.
This leads to a quantum leap in the difficulty of the overall
concept. We have to see this concept as primarily a method
of communication. I hope, you understand me.
 
> >Eventually, this level will be accepted. The draftsmanlike quality of
> >the design is the most reassuring factor, here. Once the tests will
> >be performed, there will be no room for denial.
 
> Regardless of whether you are right or not, regardless of whether the
> evidence supports your view or another, there will always be room for
> denial.

Chickens always cross the road in denial of the semi's existence..

Top Menu    Namon's Gallery    Next  Previous    Articles