The ‘BASALT FLOOR’ Giza Plateau Smoking Gun Evidence of LOST ANCIENT TECHNOLOGY

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: JamesTB
No traces? What do you think the megaliths all over the world are?

Exactly which sites do you think were built by this advanced civilization that somehow managed not to leave a single trace of ever existing?

Doubtful they would find fossils.

Why is that doubtful? We have fossils going back 10s of millions of years, if not longer, and artifacts left by hominids hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years before modern humans even evolved. So how is it that just this one "civilization" has managed to elude us?

Give it up, James. You're only making yourself look foolish.

The very very earliest fossils are approx 10 thousand years old. The civilization I am talking about was wiped out approx 12 thousand years ago. So it is very very doubtful that we'd find any fossils pertaining to them. So you see that it's you who once again is being foolish. But judging by your contribution to this thread that's to be expected.

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: JamesTB
No traces? What do you think the megaliths all over the world are?

Exactly which sites do you think were built by this advanced civilization that somehow managed not to leave a single trace of ever existing?

Doubtful they would find fossils.

Why is that doubtful? We have fossils going back 10s of millions of years, if not longer, and artifacts left by hominids hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years before modern humans even evolved. So how is it that just this one "civilization" has managed to elude us?

Give it up, James. You're only making yourself look foolish.

The very very earliest fossils are approx 10 thousand years old. The civilization I am talking about was wiped out approx 12 thousand years ago. So it is very very doubtful that we'd find any fossils pertaining to them. So you see that it's you who once again is being foolish. But judging by your contribution to this thread that's to be expected.

The earliest fossils are 10,000 years old? Please tell me you're joking, or that English isn't your first language and you don't quite grasp the meaning of the word 'fossil'.

And how is it that you know details such as when this civilization was supposedly wiped out, when real scientists and experts can't even find a single piece of evidence that it ever even existed?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: JamesTB
No traces? What do you think the megaliths all over the world are?

Exactly which sites do you think were built by this advanced civilization that somehow managed not to leave a single trace of ever existing?

Doubtful they would find fossils.

Why is that doubtful? We have fossils going back 10s of millions of years, if not longer, and artifacts left by hominids hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years before modern humans even evolved. So how is it that just this one "civilization" has managed to elude us?

Give it up, James. You're only making yourself look foolish.

The very very earliest fossils are approx 10 thousand years old. The civilization I am talking about was wiped out approx 12 thousand years ago. So it is very very doubtful that we'd find any fossils pertaining to them. So you see that it's you who once again is being foolish. But judging by your contribution to this thread that's to be expected.

The earliest fossils are 10,000 years old? Please tell me you're joking, or that English isn't your first language and you don't quite grasp the meaning of the word 'fossil'.

And how is it that you know details such as when this civilization was supposedly wiped out, when real scientists and experts can't even find a single piece of evidence that it ever even existed?

By earliest I obviously meant youngest but you probably knew that anyway. And all of your bluster still doesn't explain how the photos in the OP were made by copper chisels and imaginary copper saws. Your theories don't fit the practical work that has been done. Now if you can't demonstrate how those marks/cuts were made without resorting to copper fantasies ... jog on.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
that's b.s. those holes were cut with a cylindrical hole saw that left cutting marks and striations showing without a doubt the tool was moving through the stone at a speed that would be pushing the limits today. stop making things up with the vague claims.





a reply to: Harte

The claim about the speed is bogus, but otherwise you have it correct.

Cylindrical hole saws made of copper or bronze.

Harte

you can't (well you can but you'd be wrong) get around the fact that such a copper hole saw would have to have an amount of pressure between the stone and the copper that it would soften the copper. the heat would weaken it and it could not move through that stone leaving those marks. sorry it can't happen. it is beyond will and determination of primitive people. the stone is the stone and copper is what copper is and no matter what you think is possible with bamboo technology, there has to be a certain amount of friction to do what we see has been done and the marks are the proof. you can not get the marks with slow speed hand tools. not gonna happen.

You're missing the whole point about the physics. sure you could fashion a big copper bowl with saw teeth on it but you still have to insert that saw into a big machine that can create the pressures and temperatures that we know it takes to cut stones like these so consistently symmetrical. It takes more than art to do that. It takes much more than you guys can explain and why we don't see the technology. I mean where did it all go and don't show me pictures of ancient sewing kits and copper wood saws.


a reply to: dragonridr

a reply to: bottleslingguy

well physics just so happens I know something about that might say part of my job. And your wrong pressure isn't needed to cut stone on fact the last thing you want. You want your cutting edge to freely move what would be doing the cutting on our case sand. Just like sand blasting we need to get our particles in motion not restrict them.Oh and your arguing against things the Chinese did as well. They have detailed explorations on how to build one and it requires two people to operate.

So my suggestion to you is simple instead of thinking you know the answers try something knew do some research. Oh and one more thing fossil records go back millions of years not 10000. Apparently your imaginary culture didnt live or die. They apparently would stop off build a pyramid clean up the mess and leave. Oh wait we forgot plant evidence that a later culture built it and even go so far as to bury this later culture in tombs around it. So we have very neat aliens with time travel capabilities.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
that's b.s. those holes were cut with a cylindrical hole saw that left cutting marks and striations showing without a doubt the tool was moving through the stone at a speed that would be pushing the limits today. stop making things up with the vague claims.





a reply to: Harte

The claim about the speed is bogus, but otherwise you have it correct.

Cylindrical hole saws made of copper or bronze.

Harte

you can't (well you can but you'd be wrong) get around the fact that such a copper hole saw would have to have an amount of pressure between the stone and the copper that it would soften the copper. the heat would weaken it and it could not move through that stone leaving those marks. sorry it can't happen. it is beyond will and determination of primitive people. the stone is the stone and copper is what copper is and no matter what you think is possible with bamboo technology, there has to be a certain amount of friction to do what we see has been done and the marks are the proof. you can not get the marks with slow speed hand tools. not gonna happen.

No pressure is needed, as it isn't really even the copper doing the cutting, it's the sand used as an abrasive. The copper is primarily a means to guide and control the sand. And if one were actually interested in learning how it's done, there are videos of people demonstrating the same techniques and achieving the same results, and they're not difficult to find.

Jade is harder than steel. The ancient Chinese made very intricate carvings in it using the soft tool technique. They cut it with string saws and made large hollow cylinders from it by drilling with tubular hole saws. They did it with use of abrasives, a method that has been referenced repeatedly in this thread.
What is so hard to believe about this?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
that's b.s. those holes were cut with a cylindrical hole saw that left cutting marks and striations showing without a doubt the tool was moving through the stone at a speed that would be pushing the limits today. stop making things up with the vague claims.

a reply to: Harte

The claim about the speed is bogus, but otherwise you have it correct.

Cylindrical hole saws made of copper or bronze.

Harte

you can't (well you can but you'd be wrong) get around the fact that such a copper hole saw would have to have an amount of pressure between the stone and the copper that it would soften the copper. the heat would weaken it and it could not move through that stone leaving those marks. sorry it can't happen. it is beyond will and determination of primitive people. the stone is the stone and copper is what copper is and no matter what you think is possible with bamboo technology, there has to be a certain amount of friction to do what we see has been done and the marks are the proof. you can not get the marks with slow speed hand tools. not gonna happen.

No pressure is needed, as it isn't really even the copper doing the cutting, it's the sand used as an abrasive. The copper is primarily a means to guide and control the sand. And if one were actually interested in learning how it's done, there are videos of people demonstrating the same techniques and achieving the same results, and they're not difficult to find.

Here is what I think is the real point here.

You say "no pressure needed", and that isn't quite true. If it were the we, to this day, would only have to show whatever we wanted to "drill" the actual drill, and the hole would appear. But, it doesn't work that way, we HAVE to insert the "drill" in the "location" we want drilled, apply some nominal pressure and of course rotation.

This does not necessarily generate any additional heat, nor does it "need" to weaken the copper.

Bottleslingguy is also correct in that the "marks" left by the tooling are going to be vastly different between a primitive drilling system and a more "high tech" solution. Trying to make out like any drilling system is going to leave the same forensics is just embracing ignorance, logic kind of demands that different tools, different technologies leave different forensics. Though, actually, bottleslingguy, attempting to apply enough pressure to the drilling process will result in damaged/broken tools, and "work" as well.

a reply to: butcherguy

Because sadly, many people are caught up in the modern idea that hardness and speed are required to work tough materials and they just can't get over it.

This is further evidence that the official explanations for the observable ancient use of technology fall short. History is screwed up, but not necessarily in the way most people think. I'm becoming more and more convinced that many advanced ancient works may actually be much younger than traditionally thought. It may not be a popular explanation around here, but seems the only viable alternative to space aliens or arbitrarily thrusting everything even further into a remote past. Attempting to explain New Chronology theory would be way too much of a tangent here, but if you want to peer down this massive rabbit hole, start with Fomenko's first book (full book free online):

History: Fiction or Science 1

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: butcherguy

Because sadly, many people are caught up in the modern idea that hardness and speed are required to work tough materials and they just can't get over it.

Ahhh...I'm sort "caught up" in that idea that hardness and speed are indeed a requirement.

For something like glass, or many kinds of rock...the use of a softer material on the "drill bit", a considerably slower speed, and a good abrasive are definitely a requirement. Even today, these kinds of rock would be worked with softer tools, and appropriate abrasive...though with modern power tools. These requirements are not so much to allow the cutting of these materials, but to protect the rock being cut...after all we want it "cut", not broken.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: butcherguy

Because sadly, many people are caught up in the modern idea that hardness and speed are required to work tough materials and they just can't get over it.

Stone cutters through history were known for there patience. Cutting stone requires detail when you make a mistake alot of work is lost. Hit a diamond in th wrong place and you have nothing but fragments. Even the unfinished obelisk that was found in the quarry they made a mistake and cracked it and 2000 years later it's still sitting there unfinished.Today we use force to accomplish things and many can think of no other ways to do things. Before there were power tools there was humans. And they used there hands and the simple tools to acomplish amazing things.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
that's b.s. those holes were cut with a cylindrical hole saw that left cutting marks and striations showing without a doubt the tool was moving through the stone at a speed that would be pushing the limits today. stop making things up with the vague claims.
a reply to: Harte

The claim about the speed is bogus, but otherwise you have it correct.

Cylindrical hole saws made of copper or bronze.

Harte

you can't (well you can but you'd be wrong) get around the fact that such a copper hole saw would have to have an amount of pressure between the stone and the copper that it would soften the copper. the heat would weaken it and it could not move through that stone leaving those marks. sorry it can't happen. it is beyond will and determination of primitive people. the stone is the stone and copper is what copper is and no matter what you think is possible with bamboo technology, there has to be a certain amount of friction to do what we see has been done and the marks are the proof. you can not get the marks with slow speed hand tools. not gonna happen.

You should think about what you post first.

Tell me, is heat not generated today when someone drills a hole in a half-inch piece of stainless steel?

How in the hell can they keep their bit from overheating?

Oh, yeah. Cutting fluids.

Will you claim that a civilization living along one of the largest rivers in the world didn't know about water? Did you know water was used in exactly this way up to and through the 19th century - and still is used today sometimes?

Sawing granite with copper slabbing saws has been demonstrated to work, as has been linked in this thread (I believe it was this thread.)

This was done by Denys Stocks

So, no, heat is not a problem. The problem is wear, and these saws remove granite at a rate of up to 4 times the rate they wear down. See this site (Stock's book isn't free, but his results are given at that link.)

It's a little over 3/4 of the way down the page.

Harte

a reply to: tanka418

Forgive me, but i don't believe that i understand the point that you are making - it seems as though you are stating that abrasives do not abrade, but actually cushion the target material from the drill bit?

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: tanka418

Forgive me, but i don't believe that i understand the point that you are making - it seems as though you are stating that abrasives do not abrade, but actually cushion the target material from the drill bit?

Yep...you misunderstood...

The abrasive does do the cutting, however, it also does cushion the material being worked.

Have you ever tried to drill a hole in glass? If you use a normal metal or wood cutting drill bit, all you will accomplish is breaking the glass...at the hole. On the other hand, IF you use a bit of metallic tubing, and some carbide (or sand) you will produce a nice clean hole. By the way, the tubing doesn't have to be metallic, just strong enough to sport the drilling process.

a reply to: tanka418

Ok.

I've been saying the exact same thing in this thread (and others) re drilling rock with as little as a cane as a hand spindle and sand as abrasive, and that granite was worked into axes, maces etc in prehistory by grinding. As well as cutting rock with string and sand.

So i'm just a bit confused as to why you would say this to me?

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: tanka418

Ok.

I've been saying the exact same thing in this thread (and others) re drilling rock with as little as a cane as a hand spindle and sand as abrasive, and that granite was worked into axes, maces etc in prehistory by grinding. As well as cutting rock with string and sand.

So i'm just a bit confused as to why you would say this to me?

You missed what I was really commenting on...

you said; "Because sadly, many people are caught up in the modern idea that hardness and speed are required to work tough materials and they just can't get over it."

I commented that I was "caught up" in this same notion, and explained why...

It seems that there are more than one concept for this "hardness and speed", the fantasy that you tried to comment on, and the real deal. it appears to me that you are a bit "caught up" in the fantasy version of this too,

While I'm no expert on anything involving stone work, I'd be willing to bet that modern stone drilling is indeed done at high speed using very hard drill bits. Say a steel cylinder with carbide coating one end, and run at 1000's of RPM. And, that would touch on the nature of the "tool marks" left by the drill...now we done full circle, man.

You see, part of the problem is that everybody is sort of right. These holes could have been done with copper drill bits and sand, as I've tired to explain, I've done that with glass. Slabs can be cut with copper, or even rope "saws", and sand. The question isn't can it be done any given way, but rather, WAS it done that given way. Some have tried, in vain, to argue that the tool marks, the forensics, tell the story, many are trying to ignore that data.

a reply to: tanka418

Well, i'm an enthusiast of primitive technologies so i try to share some of my perspectives/experiences in that field.

However, to state that the tool marks on these ancient monuments are data (with reference to tool marks left by modern high power tools) is only relevant when you have experiments with slow, abrasive tools to show what marks they leave.

None of this matters though if someone is suggesting that there were high powered (ie motorised) tools made from modern standard materials in AE or indeed a much earlier culture.

There is not one bean of evidence for it. So i don't see that there is any data on these "advanced ancient tech" or those who supposedly made it.

Whereas we know that the AE's and others could work rock with copper and abrasives, and that they and many other cultures document that they did this.

So yeah, peeps can fantasise about ancient cultures with a local De Walt store all they like, but they will be challenged.

JamesTB I want to say this is a fantastic thread!

I just want to add my two pence, as I have no time for debating amongst non. Believers.

These stones were undoubtably cut by means of high technology.

The debunkers usually use the 'softness' of sand stones and the like,to prop up their arguments,but basalt and granite are unexplainable.So why would they cut granite and basalt with hi tech and not the sandstone?i don't think that is the case.

In my XP,I was landscape gardener cutting granite slabs (say3 inch thick) I would 'score' the slab and then use a soft mallet to finish the break which followed the score.

We used diamond encrusted blades and you would be suprised at how quickly they went blunt and remember these were puny slabs only sawed into by an inch and the patios were not enormous.

As you know James TB there are vast structures and blocks etc that are cut with perfect precision and even an experienced stone cutter/mason can make mistakes,but the many examples
Out there are faultless.

From my further XP with many many UFos and paranormal XPs,plus researching all the range of subjects like the ones on this site for 12 years-I'll say without doubt these global structures were made by the global civilization of the Annunaki,some say they could be made by the first advanced human experiment I.e created beings (Adams?) who were more advanced than us (crypto terrestrials) but I favour the Annunaki as the evidence seems more weighty there.

I just wanted to add those brief thoughts, as I get tired of the gullible/ignorant comments proclaiming it was human slaves with basic tools-who ever thinks that is "living a fantasy"

Keep up the great work James TB-boy done good!!