Transcontinental Contact Between Megalithic Cultures in Prehistory?

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80 video for poor students but agree it is not a standard solution




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: HumAnnunaki
a reply to: Harte

Totally agree with you about dragging the 'Thunderstone'..

Although they did not lift it 200 feet in the air as the 70 ton lintle in the King's chamber
of the Great Pyra-temple of Giza..an amazing feat surpassing todays standards.

I also have issues with the quarry where Giza blocks were cut from.
The 'base' squares at the quarry are much to small for the size of the blocks used in Giza,
of course unless those stones were cut standing on edge!?!

When you examine the lower course of stone work at Machu Piccu, it is farther advanced then the
upper 'repair' work..and a technology we are not familiar with.

We also have a 131 metric ton stone at Puma Punku that was raised from the other side of the
a mountain and raised 13 thousand feet where it rests today.

How do you suppose that was done sir..?


You note that it's true that a gang of people dragged the 1500 ton thunderstone several miles overland, but wonder how a stone less than a tenth of that size was moved.

Be aware that virtually every stone a PP has, on one side, drag marks on it.

Harte



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: HumAnnunaki
a reply to: Necrose
I am in agreement with your theories, just not ancient Aliens.
There are clues strewn across our planet as to what actually transpired to
reduce humanity and force amnesia.

There is a theory that our asteroid belt once held a planet that exploded.
If that theory is true and can one day be verified, it would answer that question and the giant scar on Mars.
But atlas, it is only a theory.

Remember what Einstein said:


While it might make you feel good to believe that, the fact is there is no evidence Einstein ever said that. link
Given that you yourself obviously eschew rational thought, it is understandable that you find solace in this dubious quote.

Harte



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Please post evidence of these drag marks you claim...real HARD evidence please.
It would be relative to your statement if you could verify your claim of the 131 metric
ton base stone; that is the one that TRULY interest me..as we have spoke of this before.
My question to you would be how did they move it down
a mountain, across a river and up 13000 feet to where it rests today..
You would have me believe they dragged the stone down, over and back up..?
(hmmm...I say)
The way the blocks are strewn around, it is postulated of some type of explosion.
Why would you believe the stones carry 'drag' marks and not 'skid' marks due to said explosion?

Have you read any of Einstein 's works because if you had, and remembered what he
classified - he DENOUCED education because he believed schooling is the downfall to
a young mind because (and you know this school teacher) everything you learn is from
inside a box and does not further an intelligent mind but rather stifles it.

He may not of made that exact statement but he did make many statements that
concur with the sentiment expressed in the picture.

As a school teacher, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with this..?

Off topic - in another thread, you discuss the G.P.'s blocks and there assembly of
staggered blocks and there fit and finish..
Look at it this way; the stones were cut in long blocks such as Baalbek and then 'split'
into sections so when re-assembled, they become seemsless..(cocludes why some are
straight splits and angled splits)
Does answer the seemless construction method, but of course you yourself would not believe
this as no academics or archeoligist's have presented this idea; it is my OWN idea based on the
thought process presented by Mr. Einstein.

Please forgive my lack of intelligence Mr.School teacher as I readily admit the last grade completed
for me was grade 8 but please do not let that interfere with our discussion for I quote Mr. Twain -
" I never let my schooling interfere with my education!"

As always, I do star your posts directed at me, be it confrontational or not (as I do everyone)
Be well Mr. Harte
edit on 17-5-2014 by HumAnnunaki because: education



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Logarock


But what are you going to do then when you find out that comparable cultural material not only lends itself to physical analogy but cross cultural interpretation?

I would put up a big sign over my desk saying BEWARE OF THE PAREIDOLIA.


Here is your Pareidolia.





posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumAnnunaki
I am in agreement with your theories, just not ancient Aliens.

Agreed...

If it were correct, the "History" Channel would NOT be airing it.

NOTHING airs on the MSM without there being a stealth agenda behind it.

Ancient Aliens is nothing more than MSM disinfo and blatant propaganda.


Ancient Aliens Debunked is a 3 hour refutation of the theories proposed on the History Channel series Ancient Aliens. It is essentially a point by point critique of the "ancient astronaut theory" which has been proposed by people like Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin as well as many others.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumAnnunaki
a reply to: Harte
Please post evidence of these drag marks you claim...real HARD evidence please.
It would be relative to your statement if you could verify your claim of the 131 metric
ton base stone; that is the one that TRULY interest me..as we have spoke of this before.
My question to you would be how did they move it down
a mountain, across a river and up 13000 feet to where it rests today..

The quarries were local ...not sure where or how your story got made up . The Sandstone one is 6 miles away (10 km) and the Andesite about 55 - and located on the map.



Link



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: HumAnnunaki
a reply to: Harte
Please post evidence of these drag marks you claim...real HARD evidence please.


TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING
It has always been a subject of speculation how ancient civilizations
which did not know the wheel transported stones weighing
a hundred metric tons or more over long distances. In most
instances, however, the solutions to the problem were deceptively
simple. At Ollantaytambo the Incas dragged the large
monoliths from the quarry to the construction site.36 There is
little doubt that the Tiahuanacans did the same; many blocks
have telltale drag marks on at least one of their broad faces.

Source: Protzen, page 164

Harte



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
@ Murgatroid -


@ Hanslune -
Thank you for the correction good sir/ma'am as I confused the 'river' aspect with
Tiwanaku/Puma Punku and it should be Ollantaytambo (another anomaly of megalithic blocks quarried,
moved & assembled), however - it does not negate the mystery of how those megalithic stones were moved
from said quarry up a steep mountain side resting at 13,000 feet as I stated before..and may I point out
this is 'ABOVE' the tree line which means using logs as 'rollers' would also have to be manufactured and there
is zero evidence of that.
Thank you for the link you supplied, interesting as it is - there are too may 'could be's', allowing speculation,
not fact as it also points out the transportation of stones by causeway stating possibly of smaller stones being
transported this way although they disbelieve the megalithic ones were moved is said fashion.

@Harte -
Again sir, that to me does not specify hard evidence as has it not been said much of the Puma Punku
area was buried therefore excavated.
We also know many stones have been moved and used in other areas which allows ones to question
how many blocks were moved a short distance before being left where we find them today.
Also there is the question I raised earlier of skid marks from a possible explosion?

I will also openly speculate this from my own thoughts -

The 131 metric ton base stone:
What pure evidence is there to prove it is actually a base stone and was not in fact a wall that
toppled during what ever event happened to cause the stones to be scattered?

Yes, speculation upon speculation - but as all history..until proven by fact, it is all speculation
which is why we discuss such exasperating ideas.

en.wikipedia.org...

Archaeologists argue that the transport of these stones was accomplished by the large labor force of ancient Tiwanaku. Several theories have been proposed as to how this labor force transported the stones although these theories remain speculative. Two of the more common proposals involve the use of llama skin ropes and the use of ramps and inclined planes.[9]

If my post's directed at you seem rude, my apologies as they are not meant that way and my straight-forward
personality can be misconstrued on a PC as heavily laden sarcasm therefore I will exact more effort to a more
civil approach.


I would also like to disclose that even though my 'schooling' did not surpass grade 8, I do however own a small construction business
understanding Residential as well as Industrial construction methods such as foundations, stone work and yes, the knowledge of and
building of drainage and retaining wall systems.
Agreeable, that does not make me a professional, merely a speculator.
There have been many times I have stopped my employees during a project to try something academics has referred to such
as megalithic movement on sand and although we did not try the spreading water method recently published, it was an excruciating
tedious task.
As per the water spreading idea...recently I helped my son move his 400 pound pool table so due to the science speculation released of the pouring method, once outside..on grass and while it was softly raining, we stood the table on one edge trying the method described dragging the table: every 16 to 20 inches it dug in the ground creating a divot needing to be lifted and reposition. What I am saying is do to my fascination with ancient history, I actually try what science describes finding disassociated results.
Be well all.
edit on 18-5-2014 by HumAnnunaki because: edit



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Some months ago, I actually watched the video below regarding "INCA Stone Working Theories":


This is an excerpt from a PBS NOVA series Secrets of Lost Empires, Inca, produced in 1997. On the show, Professor of Architecture, Jean-Pierre Protzen illustrates the proposed method which was used in quarrying and dressing stones used in constructions around the Cuzco region in places such as Ollantaytambo, Machu Picchu, Pisac, Tambomachay and Sacsayhuaman.

On the one hand, I think Protzen & his crew deserve merit for trying this, although on a very very small scale incl. the help of villagers. An exhausting experience, no question.

But I don't think that exhaustion was the reason for the doubtful expression on his face in the last minutes of this video. I'm not sure he himself (or his colleague) were really convinced that this is how the ancients did it ...
edit on 18-5-2014 by jeep3r because: text



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumAnnunaki

@ Hanslune -
however - it does not negate the mystery of how those megalithic stones were moved


Actually it does but you appeared to have decided based on personal bias to reject any evidence that doesn't fit your agenda which appears to be that it must be mysterious? Rejecting data is easy but soon leaves you with nothing



from said quarry up a steep mountain side resting at 13,000 feet as I stated before..and may I point out
this is 'ABOVE' the tree line which means using logs as 'rollers' would also have to be manufactured and there
is zero evidence of that.


I think you probably need to take a step back and find a source for your claim, you appear to be just mixing up element from different claims. The Andean cultures used sleds, like pretty much every other culture that also successfully moved heavy stones, in prehistoric and historic times.

May I suggest you go back figure out what you want to say and state the claim so it can be responded too? I think you are referring to a Machu Picchu claim, the answer for that one is that quarry is within the city it self, but you go and find out and bring us the full claim then we can address it.



Thank you for the link you supplied, interesting as it is - there are too may 'could be's', allowing speculation,
not fact as it also points out the transportation of stones by causeway stating possibly of smaller stones being
transported this way although they disbelieve the megalithic ones were moved is said fashion.


I see you know nothing about archaeology. Tell us with all your relevant expertise, what do the two Tiwanaka quarries tell us about the method used to extract the stone?

Since you seem to like facts could you perhaps list all of the facts that leads you to the belief that the various Andean cultures who worked stone actually lacked the ability to work stone like all other stone working cultures?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
They say that the oceans were highways, not barriers. I believe ancient man (and others) traversed this planet at will. They also had flight long ago. Nothing new under the Sun I suppose. History is like a spiral with spokes. We keep repeating the same events, but in different ways.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
@Hanslune
Please follow the link and as I did yours, offer your opinion:
www.world-mysteries.com...
No sir, I do not believe I am confused with Machu Picchu.
As I stated, I do not believe the dragging nor sled method for a technology of
megalithic stone work we see at these sites are accomplishable today, not with
what archeology has supplied as what I perceive to be flimsy evidence.

It is believable as Santa Claus and his sled.





en.wikipedia.org...

Archaeologists argue that the transport of these stones was accomplished by the large labor force of ancient Tiwanaku. Several theories have been proposed as to how this labor force transported the stones although these theories remain speculative. Two of the more common proposals involve the use of llama skin ropes and the use of ramps and inclined planes.[9]


..understanding Residential as well as Industrial construction methods such as foundations, stone work and yes, the knowledge of and building of drainage and retaining wall systems.

Agreeable, that does not make me a professional, merely a speculator.

Be well



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
They say that the oceans were highways, not barriers. I believe ancient man (and others) traversed this planet at will. They also had flight long ago. Nothing new under the Sun I suppose. History is like a spiral with spokes. We keep repeating the same events, but in different ways.


Yet what you stated above doesn't show up in the archaeological or other records while a different view of world from yours does. How do you reconcile that?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumAnnunaki
@Hanslune
Please follow the link and as I did yours, offer your opinion:
www.world-mysteries.com...
No sir, I do not believe I am confused with Machu Picchu.
As I stated, I do not believe the dragging nor sled method for a technology of
megalithic stone work we see at these sites are accomplishable today, not with
what archeology has supplied as what I perceive to be flimsy evidence.

It is believable as Santa Claus and his sled.



Yes and ancient people used sledge to move heavy stones or do you deny all evidence of that too? lol.

You previously appeared to be trying to make a claim that involved 13,000 and some other elements - you were asked to clarify what you were claiming, as you have have declined to do so may we consider whatever it was you were referring to is now moot?

All you are doing is denial, please explain either by reason and evidence why they could not have done it or provided the evidence and reasoning for your explanation of how the Andean's did do it.

Your link was to a site full of denial, half-truths and ......what exactly was I suppose to gain from it? Men can move great weights, the fact that the good fellow at that site and you don't believe it is nice but has no effect on the reality of the situation.


edit on 18/5/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune
All apologies as I could not find a rendition of a Peruvian sled.
This I made for those whom speculate such as I so you may have a better visual understanding -
and the posted link describes the value of lubrication and the break down description of 'load & bare'.

www.misumi-techcentral.com...
Please take note that "B" in the picture provided is the new experiment in 'stone-sledding' and this particular
sled has a 'full' bottom and not ski's.

Please refer to the Wiki link posted above in a post I made earlier stating "Archeologists argue" regarding
exactly 'how' these megalithic stones were moved.

Please do not misunderstand my intention, I agree that our past history describes our tribulations in building
procedures for the past 7 to 8, 000 years ago..but I do not believe the monuments we are discussing were built
in this time length, but before, therefore I understand my inquiring mind does not fit present day archeological
beliefs as I also believe said monuments (Giza included) have only been 'repaired' in our timeline.

Please refer back to page three as it was I whom asked to distinguish the number 13
with ancient monuments, true I was given one answer but I did not see anyone inquire
regarding my question.
I did present a picture indicating the Pi ratio and it's relevance to the number 13 but I did
not elaborate my reason why..agreed.

Many ancient what I believe are un-answered megaliths, equate the number 13.

Giza is the most interesting:
13(0) feet above the Nile.
Located on 13.1 acres.
481 feet tall. 4+8=12 +1 = 13.
There is also the arguement Giza intentionally incorporates the Golden Ratio & Pi.

It is my belief this 'Prior-Man' I refer to calculated time using stars and their movements as
the Mayan's were taught. Pi equates to 13 which is half precession and double Pi radian completes
the 26,000 year cycle as I described in another thread regarding the 'heads of humanity' in the walls
of Tiwanaku and the megalithic statue Virococcha as a 'Astrological-Sun-Dial'.

Be well.
edit on 18-5-2014 by HumAnnunaki because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join