gnidrologs ([info]gnidrologs) rakstīja,
Btw, kopsavilkumam šitā lappuse kārtējā ''random blogā'' (jo nu nez vai Hederas bosu apstiprinātā žurnālā ko tādu vispār ļaus rakstīt) tomēr satur, manuprāt labu bottom lainu un dažas zīmīgas bildītes, kuras nez vai nu ir gluži fabrikācija un nez vai nu attiecīgie objekti ir plantēti feiki:
http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/stonetech.php
Cirkulārā zāģa (vai kā tamlīdzīga - lāzerzāģis lol?) pēdas jau vismaz ir samērā obvious un galīgi nekorelē ar oficiālo versiju par tā laika instrumentārija spējām.

There is legitimate debate about the nature of the tools and their developmental history. The marks left in stone have not yet been studied in enough detail, by modern experts in machining techniques, to answer conclusively some key questions:

what material were the cutting tips, surfaces or abrasives made of?
how may they have been manufactured?
what machinery was used to orient the cutting surface to the stone?
what pressure was used and how it was applied?
what standards of exactness were they capable of?
There has been much theorizing and debate but without rigorous studies followed up with the duplication of equivalent artifacts by the proposed method - no scientific proof exists for any of the theories. (boldējums mans)

The answers to these questions are consequential because they bear directly on the chronology and developmental history of the earliest dynastic and predynastic Egyptian cultures.


And wtf is this shit i don't even...


(Lasīt komentārus)

Nopūsties:

No:
( )Anonīms- ehh.. šitajam cibiņam netīk anonīmie, nesanāks.
Lietotājvārds:
Parole:
Temats:
Tematā HTML ir aizliegts
  
Ziņa:
Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?