Dunn's craft background is real: senior aerospace and laser-industry machinist. The Giza Power Plant (1998) and Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt (2010) present his measurements of sarcophagi, cores, and saw marks, including the King's Chamber coffer's saw striations at about .050 inch spacing and his Core 7 re-examination. His work is the technical foundation of nearly every modern machined-stone claim.
The reception is documented too: Egyptologists and experimental archaeologists, Denys Stocks most directly, replicated hard-stone cutting with copper tools and abrasives at slow rates, and argue Dunn's comparisons ignore that hand methods can produce fine finishes given unlimited time. Dunn's counter: time does not explain feed rate, and nobody has replicated Petrie's spiral.
The deeper reading: Dunn represents a recurring figure in the archive, the craftsman who trusts surfaces over texts, reading stone the way he would read a rejected part off a production line. His premise, that tool marks are honest even when histories are not, is the same premise that built modern archaeology.
When the anomaly hunter is a credentialed precision machinist, does the anomaly get stronger?