* With attention to the following web pages:
--all by Christopher P. Dunn (who presents as a high functioning, aerospace machinist who's critically examined ancient Egyptian artifacts) ---
--and as heavily leaned upon by one Prof. Hassaan at:
Hopefully, you'll take the time to follow Dunn's and Hassaan's reasoning (at least until they wander far enough afield to propose the Great Pyramid as some sort of a power plant).
While this stuff is fascinating, it seems a reach that those diligent, but ancient, barefoot, authority worshipping and ritual burdened people --had precision machine tooling equipment hidden away. It's easier to think there might have been an earlier advanced civilization. (There is some contention that the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid are thousands of years older than the first Egyptian dynasty.) But --with that kind of technology, machining and tools materials, why would the builders express themselves via millions of burdensome, solid stone blocks?
Understand --that to make a big old stone box (crypt, sarcophagus, whatever --and there were 20 of them at one site), Dunn determined that they started with a block of granite weighing about 100 tons (perhaps shipped in from a great distance), then they set to work removing rock from what would become the interior. Finally, they surfaced the floor and the four inner faces to a polished tolerance of less than .001 inch.
Assuming that what Dunn offers isn't all just made up BS (I'm easily taken in), these artifacts have the potential of up-ending our understanding of history --but without a handy replacement understanding. (Such humbling might be good for --those of us following these developments.)
We need either to debunk Dunn's findings --or to find
those bodacious machine tools.
I'm looking for more web resources and opinions. While I can apply my own reasoning and skepticism ("skeptics are an uninspiring dime a dozen") to what I find, we don't have a museum in our area with Egyptian artifacts to examine. (Not that I'd be allowed to apply instruments to their surfaces anyway.) However: there are surely relevant and credible citations to be found, perhaps directly inspired by or in refutation of what's at the above links.