It seems ironic to me that while Reid and Brownlee were insisting that these grooves were horizontal rings, they were also suggesting a theory if it was found that the groove was spiral. Why would they do that? If the grooves were as their expert testimony claimed them to be, why bother coming up with another theory in case they were not? ( Ian Lawton pointed out that Reid and Brownlee proposed this theory in case the core was mismarked.) Could it be that they came to their conclusions after examining only a photograph? Perhaps they will be forthcoming with more details of their methods and instruments for inspecting the core in subsequent posts.

With respect to Reid and Brownlee's "fall-back" argument for the creation of the "in-case-they-really-ARE-spiral" grooves, it does not survive a simple test to see if it lies in the realm of physical possibility. Certainly scratches could be made along the cores and hole as a rotating tube-drill was being removed while it was spinning, but not to the depth of .005 inch! Their theory of slap in the bearings, which allowed a spinning tool to cut the groove, is a theory that collapses under close scrutiny. Let me explain the last step in my research to date.

I walked out to the toolroom last week and talked to a toolmaker, Don Reynolds, who was working on a surface grinder. I asked him if he had a sharp diamond wheel dresser. (These are used to dress carborundum and other types of grinding wheels.) He had one that was barely used with a nice sharp point. (These industrial diamonds are set into a steel shank, which are then fixtured so as to sit on a magnetic chuck.) I asked him how deep a groove he thought he could scratch into a piece of granite with the diamond.

He said, "Let's find out!"

We walked over to a granite surface plate while I jokingly admonished him not to try it on the work surface. He pressed the diamond point into the side of the plate. Bearing down with all the weight he could throw behind it, he scoured the side of the plate with a scratch about 4 inches long.

We both felt the scratch. "How deep would you say that is?" I asked.

"Oh, between .003 - .005 inch." He said.

"Let's check it out then!" I said.

Don fixtured an indicator (clock) gauge in a surface gauge and zeroed the fine needle point on the surface. As he passed it over the groove, the point dropped into the groove and the dial read only .001 inch.

Why am I telling you this?

1. Reid and Brownlee's theory relies on centrifugal force to cut the groove, as the drill is being withdrawn and passing over a widening gap, and to achieve greater centrifugal force, the drill would need to spin faster.
2. There wouldn't be sufficient lateral force to cut a groove in granite to a depth of .001 inch, let alone .005 inch! It is a simple as that.
3. With a spinning drill shank that has the freedom to roam inside an oversized bearing, the drill will seek the path of least resistance, which is away from the granite. In other words, it would push away from the granite, and with Reid and Brownlee's theory, there is plenty of room for it to move.
4. Petrie's observations were quite valid when he claimed that this was not a viable means of creating the groove, because of a build-up of dust between the tube and the granite.

With respect to Reid and Brownlee's assertions that the grooves were not spiral. They have been proven wrong. I am happy that Petrie is vindicated, but I find it shameful that his meticulous research was contradicted to further the agenda of the orthodox church. (Perhaps shameful is too strong a word. Everyone makes mistakes and I apologize for being too critical here.) In my view, Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald have succumbed to some forceful arguments against the advanced machining theory and have accepted them uncritically because they lack the expertise and experience to formulate their own educated opinion. This is not the balanced treatment they claim to have taken.

If it were my agenda to discredit a theory such as mine, I would probably seek out my own experts and charge them with the responsibility of doing their own analysis. I would select the weakest argument where the evidence is second-hand. Of course, I would tell them why I was sending them on this errand, and I might interject my own beliefs regarding the subject. Armed with such prejudice, it is easy to be wrong on such an artifact if you are only studying a photograph or image on a computer screen - or just holding it in your hands not believing such a spiral exists in the first place. Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton most likely took Reid and Brownlee's report with satisfaction and had every reason to believe them because what they saw on their computer screens, supported their mission in writing their book.

But, as my Father used to say, "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see!"

Chris

PS. I will address Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald's treatment of the power plant theory in future posts. (As long as I don't have to travel across the world this time.)

Chris Dunn
posted 10-04-1999 20:54

Ian Lawton
posted 10-19-1999 00:06

Chris Dunn
posted 10-23-1999 17:06

Ian Lawton
posted 10-25-1999 07:21

Chris Dunn
posted 10-25-1999 20:24

Ian Lawton By email to Chris Dunn 12/6/99

Chris Dunn Response12/9/99

Chris Dunn Visit to Petrie Museum Part One - Posted 12/12/1999

Chris Dunn Visit to Petrie Museum Part Two - Posted 12/12/1999

Chris Dunn Visit to Petrie Museum Part Three - Posted 12/12/1999