It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
83
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Woodcarver

Ahem..From OP. and what is your suggestion as you don't believe in the copper saw theory ?



In this post I will present evidence of Lost Ancient High Technology on the Giza Plateau which shows beyond all REASONABLE doubt that Machine tools were used in the construction of this Basalt Floor.



Ahem....

machine tools

Not power tools like electric motors.

Machines would include anything water, beast, or human powered. That would include saws or other tools.

edit on 5-4-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)


I did see a doc that showed a ditch which had stone walls on either side. It was speculated that they may have fashioned large (maybe even copper) discs to use as a large circular stone saw. If they filled the ditch with water and used a cutting powder equal to the hardness of the basalt it would make that process more efficient. But, there was no copper or cutting agent found in the ditch.
edit on 5-4-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Here is something I don't understand that maybe someone here can explain to me...

With the cuts that are in those stones, surely, whatever materials were used to make the cuts will appear as "foreign" in a sample of the materials inside the deepest cuts. They are likely more shielded from weather and elements that would otherwise remove them. I would imagine that microscopic particles of a substance would be found in the depths of the cuts?

If copper, or some type of crystal like quartz, or diamond, was used to make those cuts, just like ANY saw, the material as it encounters high temperatures from friction, will dissipate or "wash off" into the surrounding materials. I would expect that it would be a simple test to separate the samples out and find the thing that doesn't belong. Once someone finds that, it would seem that the answer becomes clear.

If they used saws covered in some material that allowed them to make rapid cuts, we should be able to find that material. It shouldn't matter what the material is. And besides finding saws and tools that they used, there should be the same materials left in and around those saws, especially the ones I've seen that were so well-preserved.

Can anyone explain or help me understand why sampling the inner cuts and putting them under spectroscopes or high-strength microscopes wouldn't reveal what everyone is looking for?

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

This is a pretty interesting video I just started watching.. I'm going to be on Egypt all day now haha.

It's Engineers, Geologists, architects..

Now I don't know if they make any conclusions, and before I confuse any more people I'm just putting the video here because so far they are EXPLORING... I hope that's what the whole video is. I don't want an answer.

So here if anyone wants:




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesTBI also have Machining experience, among others.

The bottom of the curfs have a radius, and it appears as the ends do not. I would suggest these cuts were produced by a rounded flexible material that was embedded with a harder material, dust.

Today, a cable with diamond dust embedded in it would produce the same cut. Back then, maybe a rope with a slurry of mud containing harder dust was poured over the rope and the rope pulled through the stone. The rope could be tied in a very large loop, turned by a hand crank or some such cranking device.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: KnightLight

Well, there is nothing else, there are no iron saws or diamond saws, though they did mention Hard stone encrusted saw, but as there are no evidence of any of it, that leaves us with "power tools" of some form, or maybe sound waves, because...how else ?

I have an open mind to, but I'll take the copper saw before anything "out of the ordinary", even without evidence.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: KnightLight

Are you saying that the ancient civilizations didn't use slave labor? Cause, all of them pretty much did.

And I was just saying in general. Even with stuff like the Pyramids, yes, we could indeed have built them just fine, over 20 years using the existing tech, it wasn't that hard once we actually figured out the science.

And the only reason they stopped making pyramids is because they moved on to more complex structures like Temples.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver



Machines would include anything water, beast, or human powered. That would include saws or other tools.


Well, then we are back at copper saws, aren't we....I'm confused



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: KnightLight

Well, there is nothing else, there are no iron saws or diamond saws, though they did mention Hard stone encrusted saw, but as there are no evidence of any of it, that leaves us with "power tools" of some form, or maybe sound waves, because...how else ?

I have an open mind to, but I'll take the copper saw before anything "out of the ordinary", even without evidence.



Again never said it wasn't copper saws.. Just that experiment didn't work. The egyptians surely didn't do what was in that experiment.. It doesn't mean they didn't do something similar.. often times small changes on technology (including techniques) makes a similar idea 10x more efficient.

I'm looking around. and watching a video so little busy, not coming to anything good yet.

You are starting with assumptions like the pyramid is there in Egypt so it was built so obviously whatever tools where there had to be the ones used.. I feel like that has the possibility of skipping over a potential answer..
edit on 5-4-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




I did see a doc that showed a ditch which had stone walls on either side. It was speculated that they may have fashioned large (maybe even copper) discs to use as a large circular stone saw. If they filled the ditch with water and used a cutting powder equal to the hardness of the basalt it would make that process more efficient. But, there was no copper or cutting agent found in the ditch.


That is pretty much what they described in the link i provided, which you say is not possible, and you also said you read it all, thats why i said you "didn't read the link".

If the blade was circular it would leave circular marks in the stone, it would be clearly seen.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: KnightLight

Are you saying that the ancient civilizations didn't use slave labor? Cause, all of them pretty much did.

And I was just saying in general. Even with stuff like the Pyramids, yes, we could indeed have built them just fine, over 20 years using the existing tech, it wasn't that hard once we actually figured out the science.

And the only reason they stopped making pyramids is because they moved on to more complex structures like Temples.

~Tenth


I would pay good money to a cause to see a current, modern-day pyramid build using the same giant stones that they used back then, and built in 20 years or less. I just don't see it happening, even with PAID labor, let alone, slaves. It took 17 years to build Three Gorges Damn in China, and they have both slave labor and more advanced technology than the Egyptians had. Your suggestion that a pyramid structure, with the same dimensions, same specifications, same materials and same precision could have been done with 3 more years work? That's not a pill I can swallow.

If we are able to do it, and we know the science so well, how come it's never happened? Nobody has tried to build a replica of a pyramid, even with modern tools. I suspect it's because we can't without knowing every answer on how they built them back then.

You say the only reason they stopped was to move on to more complexity? That sounds extremely speculative on your part, I have never read anything that makes that claim as the reason they stopped building. If you have any resources I can look at for that, I would be very appreciative of it.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: KnightLight

Well, there is nothing else, there are no iron saws or diamond saws, though they did mention Hard stone encrusted saw, but as there are no evidence of any of it, that leaves us with "power tools" of some form, or maybe sound waves, because...how else ?

I have an open mind to, but I'll take the copper saw before anything "out of the ordinary", even without evidence.

Def a saw. Prob not copper. Quartz dust would be the most likely cutting agent.

Surely they used water to keep a blade cool. Rope is out of the question. Possibly a wire encrusted with quartz or some other harder material. Quartz would be the minimum needed as basalt has lots of quartz in it. Quartz will cut quartz. But only at a 1:1 ratio.

A lot of the saw marks are slightly rounded, but not all of them. That could lead to an assumption that they had several methods. Right now i like the idea of a large cutting disk or some type of wire or bandsaw method for the larger blocks and maybe a bow saw or hand saw, but something much harder than copper. Go rub some plumbing pipe on a rock and see which one powders first.

Nobody is bringing up out of the ordinary techniques but you.
edit on 5-4-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Very interesting point....

Why haven't they done this?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

The only thing completely obvious in this mystery is that archeaology
has fudged an explanation that doesn't stand up. And that is tantamount
to it's credibility IMO.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower




Even with stuff like the Pyramids, yes, we could indeed have built them just fine, over 20 years using the existing tech, it wasn't that hard once we actually figured out the science.


wow...you sound like you were there. So how was it in ancient Egypt..? any cool stories to tell ?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Man I feel like I've told Wolverine like a million times to stop drinking in Giza. I guess he just can't help himself.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver

The only thing completely obvious in this mystery is that archeaology
has fudged an explanation that doesn't stand up. And that is tantamount
to it's credibility IMO.


It's quite interesting to me, that people know an answer is wrong and they stick with it.. It's interesting what would motivate someone interested in science to act in such a way.

Doesn't that interest you as well.




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne


You say the only reason they stopped was to move on to more complexity? That sounds extremely speculative on your part, I have never read anything that makes that claim as the reason they stopped building. If you have any resources I can look at for that, I would be very appreciative of it.


Nah there's plenty of evidence, even on ATS regarding that. There's a clear progression of pyramid building as well, starting out very shoddy and culminating in the the very large ones we see.

I can't find the thread right now, but IMO, and until I see real evidence otherwise, nobody but man built those marvels of architecture.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Signals
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Very interesting point....

Why haven't they done this?



I think that is a great idea. I would be willing to bet that someone trained in that field has already done all of the work for us and probably published as well. Surely some geologist has taken the time to sample the surrounding area to test for copper shavings. That would be enough evidence for me. They can test the copper and find the mine it originated from. Iron shavings would be easy enough to find. Although basalt is also dense with iron. So it would be something you would expect to find in the basalt dust.
edit on 5-4-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: KnightLight

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver

The only thing completely obvious in this mystery is that archeaology
has fudged an explanation that doesn't stand up. And that is tantamount
to it's credibility IMO.


It's quite interesting to me, that people know an answer is wrong and they stick with it.. It's interesting what would motivate someone interested in science to act in such a way.

Doesn't that interest you as well.

Yes. There are plenty of reasons to suppress the truth. All of them nefarious.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne


You say the only reason they stopped was to move on to more complexity? That sounds extremely speculative on your part, I have never read anything that makes that claim as the reason they stopped building. If you have any resources I can look at for that, I would be very appreciative of it.


Nah there's plenty of evidence, even on ATS regarding that. There's a clear progression of pyramid building as well, starting out very shoddy and culminating in the the very large ones we see.

I can't find the thread right now, but IMO, and until I see real evidence otherwise, nobody but man built those marvels of architecture.

~Tenth



I've seen resources that talk about the progression of pyramid building, however that is in relation to the pyramids post-Giza. The 3 pyramids in Giza have not been replicated in any form, ever, from anything I've ever read or heard about. All of the pyramids after, were varying degrees of replications attempting (usually unsuccessfully) to repeat what was seen in Giza (or taught), and there is a ton of literature that supports that.

I'm not saying it was aliens. I'm saying that there is sound science that can answer this, as I pointed out in my post above, about finding the materials mixed with the cuts on those blocks. Those cuts are so deep in some cases, that I would think they'd be undisturbed and that the very "last" cut would have left behind residue. All saws do, this is why they go dull and you buy new ones.

To put this to rest, you'd just need a spectroscope, a high-powered microscope and a sample of the very bottom of the deepest cuts in those blocks, and compare it to a sample from the tools that are suspected, and compare both of them to the uncut blocks of stone. There should be an increased amount of something that shows up on the saw that is also in the cut, but not on the uncut block. If it is on the uncut block, it will show in a much larger quantity (such as if it were quartz used), and will quickly identify whatever it is that was used.

I'm not buying it was aliens... yet... and also not buying it was slave labor and architecture alone. They either knew something that has been lost to us, had a technology that we have yet to understand or have since re-learned about it in a different way (accoustics or lasers perhaps?) or it's something unnatural and they were helped.

~Namaste
edit on 5-4-2015 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join