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.

 

ASWAN QUARRY Was it really STONE POUNDERS Which left these marks?

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTB

I fail to see how these angles could be achieved with stone pounders.



That's probably because they can't.

I stumbled across this video yesterday, which happens to cover the site in the OP as well as other ancient sites around the world. A team of scientists, including archaeologists, geologists and experts in industrial stone cutting studied the various cut and drill marks at these sites and came up with over 1,000 examples of evidence for machine cutting. The evidence is laid out in a very straight-forward manner with no wild theories or conjectures, just expert opinions on the evidence at hand.

The most amazing thing to me, is that the way the blocks were laid and finished implies that whatever tools they were using could cut through stone like a knife through butter. (eg. they'd place the unfinished stone first then 'shave off' the tops to make a level surface)

Their conclusion: All of the ancient stone structures on this planet were created using advanced technology. Who or what was using said technology is still open for speculation though, so you can keep the tin-foil hat on, if you want.







posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Yes. Stop posting this crap. Every single time it's the same thing, and every time you refuse to listen when people who actually know what they are talking about tell you what you're seeing. History is not full of secret advanced technology that there is no evidence for, man. Deal. With. It.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: obscurepanda

Are you one of the knowledgeable people you refer to if so then please tell us all about. If not then you comment is based on second hand information you yourself cant even explain back to people, and don't get mad at me for saying this because the floor is open in this thread for you take the spotlight and explain it first hand.

If your arnt one of these knowledge people then exactly who are these knowledgeable people you are referring to? You been a member since Dec, 03 2012 and made 39 posts to date, so im presuming you mean people not on this site. If these other knowledgeable people have websites where they present their views/evidence please link the sites.

edit on 10-4-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I'd like to see someone using the supposed tools used to create at least a small scale replica of these scructures. Heck, give me the tools and I'll try it myself with some helpers(I seriously doubt I would get anywhere close in comparison). Check out the stonework in Peru. Just like Egypt, there's the rounded and molded looking stonework and the extremely precise cuts. Stone softening has yet to be proven completely but so are the primitive tools/techniques. It's either really complex or too simple for us to think of, perhaps hidden in plain sight.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 6Taco6Smell6
I'd like to see someone using the supposed tools used to create at least a small scale replica of these scructures. Heck, give me the tools and I'll try it myself with some helpers(I seriously doubt I would get anywhere close in comparison). Check out the stonework in Peru. Just like Egypt, there's the rounded and molded looking stonework and the extremely precise cuts. Stone softening has yet to be proven completely but so are the primitive tools/techniques. It's either really complex or too simple for us to think of, perhaps hidden in plain sight.



Some people with experience in cutting granite have done just this. This person below Franz Löhner explains his test experiments. What needs to be done now is repeat and document these test on Video. The procedure for the tests (to be scientific) also needs to be documented so any one with the time and interest can go repeat and verify it for themselves. This is how true science works and it should not be afraid of letting claims be tested. In the case of cutting granite I don't see any practical or cost reason why any of the Egyptologists and skeptics claims cant be put to the limitus test, in full witness "unclouded" of public scrutiny; certainly it would be a more fruitful expenditure of energy than arguing back and worth endlessly.

www.cheops-pyramide.ch...




E-mail to Franz Löhner



Question:
Do you have any practical knowledge of the techniques of stone quarrying and stone processing you describe above?

F. Löhner's answer:
As a young men I worked in a granite quarry in Germany for several years, so I have an intimate knowledge of stones and tools. First I just laughed, when I read about copper tools being used in splitting and cutting granite and copper saws to saw through them. I then thought - that theory will soon be refuted, they just have to try it out with some granite and they will know straight away. This theory has persevered though and so I decided to build the copper tools described by Goyon [1] (these tools are still suggested today by Egyptologists) and determine to what degree the stone would be worn down and to what degree the tools deform.

1. Sawing granite with copper saws:
First I experimented with copper saws made from copper sheets of different thickness. I used soft, half soft and hardened copper sheets and made saw blades with different teeth (wavy, small teeth, large teeth). Then I tried to saw granite, it didn't work, the copper deformed. As an abrading medium I added quartz sand, then Corundum (a gem with a hardness on Mohs scale of 9) and even steel sand (made from steel grit and used to cut through concrete). But even after hours of work barley a scratch was visible on the surface of the granite block. In the same time and with the same effort I surely would have managed to split two or three blocks of granite if using the appropriate tools, ergo iron tools!

2. Drilling with a bow drill and copper bits:
Of course I also experimented with drilling. I built a simple Egyptian bow drill, as shown on several illustrations. After some experimenting I managed to find the right material for the sinew and determined the right tension to use. I used different wooden rods and even copper rods and also used different types of sand and mud. I added water, water and oil, milk and whey to emulsify the sands and prevent the drill bits from heating up too much. But as much as I tried, I didn't accomplish more than a slightly colored spot on the surface of the granite. Only when I changed to a chisel made from steel I managed to drill a couple holes into the granite.

3. Splitting granite with wedges:
I decided to try out an other technique attributed to the Egyptians - using wooden wedges soaked with water to cause the wood to swell and split the rock. I drilled holes and then put in dry wooden wedges and poured water on them so they would swell. But the wooden wedges didn't expand enough and didn't generate enough force to split the stone apart.


edit on 10-4-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Even so, you have to lift them, transport them, and erect them into place... Absurd. And that's my second line. Absurd.... That's a solid piece of granite. How much mass??? Guestimating around 1,500,000 kg (1650 tons lb.). Sure, bring out the slaves... Get real.
edit on 11-4-2015 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2015 by Flux8 because: typo and addendum

edit on 11-4-2015 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2015 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: skalla

When I see images like those in the OP, I like to try and imagine what the locations would look and sound like as working projects. Gotta say that engines, laser cannons and choirs of mystics humming blocks out of the quarries don't figure too much : )

When this obelisk was commissioned, Egypt was on top of her game (again) and extremely wealthy. They could afford to maintain and create national projects and wanted to bling out places like the temples of Karnak. A lot of it would be about status and bragging rights; Egypt would be foremost in trade, wealth, infrastructure etc.

The Aswan quarry would have been well-organised, very loud and crowded with workers and managers. Around the unfinished obelisk, I picture men and children with different roles. Men would have been crouched or cross-legged, shoulder to shoulder, and pounding the obelisk out of bedrock all day long. They would have had kids moving in and out to clear out debris or get into the smaller alcoves.

The workers would only need to lift granite pounders a few inches and individuals would have had a rhythm to their pounding. Like any workforce, they'd be gossiping and talking and needing to shout over the sound of percussive strikes and other people. They probably worked shifts to keep the workforce strong and ensure that daylight wasn't wasted.

These guys would have been grafters from early childhood with stamina and wiry muscle. If the remains at Giza are any indication, the workers were treated well and fed on young cattle and lots of fish and bread. Yeah, Giza was centuries earlier, but Hatsheput's time was probably close in terms of wealth and resources.

I think people sometimes underestimate the fabric of life back then and how crucial the labour economy was to the population. These people possibly worked all year round and, as quarrymen, would have swarmed through Aswan like caterpillars on a fat leaf.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Another thing about the Unfinished Obelisk which puzzles me no end is how were they going to transport it? How would they even be able to get it out of the trench it sits in?

We are told they would put tree trunks underneath it and roll it along to a boat and then sail it away. Well to me that is utter nonsense and totally impracticable. I doubt that they could even get it out of the trench with these methods never mind transporting it hundreds of miles away.










posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

Hello JT, I already know you won't believe this and I'm throwing it out there anyway.

Within a few centuries, Egypt became a part of the Roman Empire and the Romans really liked the obelisks. They ended up removing a lot of them and took them away to Rome.

The reason I mention this is because the Romans of ~30AD had roughly the same technology as the earlier Egyptians - ropes, manpower, livestock, windlasses etc. With that technology they were able to move obelisks up to 1200 miles away over land and sea. Unless I'm mistaken, nobody really suggests that the Romans had secret technology. If so, if they could move them, why wouldn't the Egyptians? You see where I'm going here?

When it came to hauling big fellows like the unfinished obelisk, I imagine a few circumstances played a part. The first is the bedrock fractured so it couldn't be used. Second is that whoever commissioned it for Hatsheput may well have been a little too ambitious. Just because they had a go, doesn't mean they ultimately could have moved the bloody thing.

Like the Romans, the Egyptians used windlasses to move large objects and we've got contemporary images of Romans using multiple windlasses to move a large obelisk. This suggests the Egyptians could also have used the windlass system to raise and drag out the obelisk in your OP.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Wiki indicates its finished weight would be about 1200 tons
1 metre ton = 1000kg per ton

1200,000 kilogrms

Pragamatically it is reasonable to believe a slave can consistently and efficiently pull the equaivalent of his own weight over FLAT ground in 1 metre stokes, without risking injury ( so hes good for the next day and next) .
Lets say slave average weight is 80 KG. Need 1200,000/80 = 15000 slaves to move it.
Lets assume each cohesive pull the 15000 move it 1 metre. Lets assume they had method of getting it onto a sled that improves drag efficiency over FLAT sand, to allow a 50% reduction in friction. Then they need 7500 slaves.
The slave sled theory doesnt looking convincing either.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage



Lets assume they had method of getting it onto a sled that improves drag efficiency over FLAT sand, to allow a 50% reduction in friction. Then they need 7500 slaves. The slave sled theory doesnt looking convincing either.


Don't forget they used livestock too. Centuries of experience, livestock teams and organisation would make a big difference.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTB
These marks were not made with stone pounders

Really? Because those are precisely the types of marks you would expect, were pounding/hammer stones used, and they are nearly identical to marks in other quarries where the same methods were employed, such as Kachiqhata, an Incan quarry site.

Regardless of your incredulity and utter ignorance of the use of hammer stones and of ancient stone working techniques, that is how it was done. Rather than sitting behind a computer making bold (and wholly incorrect) assertations about such things, maybe you ought to go spend a bit of time working stone using the ancient methods. You certainly won't be singing the same tune afterwards.


originally posted by: obscurepanda
Yes. Stop posting this crap. Every single time it's the same thing, and every time you refuse to listen when people who actually know what they are talking about tell you what you're seeing. History is not full of secret advanced technology that there is no evidence for, man. Deal. With. It.


You know this. I know this. Every single professional who has spent their lives studying and working in such fields knows this. Some people, however, choose to remain ignorant, and believe that just because they themselves couldn't accomplish something, that no others through human history could have either. And rather than admitting that others at some point in the past may have been more clever or had a better work ethic than they do, they invent outrageous stories to explain things, and talk down to those who don't nod their heads in agreement with their fantasies....You can beat them over the head with facts and actual archaeological evidence all day long, but you'd just be wasting your time...
edit on 4/11/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/11/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Then another thing to consider with the slaves pulling the obelisk theory is considering the weight strength ratio of the rope they had back then. This will determine how many lengths of rope they need to pull its 1200 ton weight. The more rope required it means the weight of the rope becomes also a factor of significance because the slaves are not only pulling the oblisk they are supporting the weight of the rope. Then theres the problems of securing the ropes over stone etc. All these things boil down to technical problems which could be solved with pen and paper.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky




Don't forget they used livestock too. Centuries of experience, livestock teams and organisation would make a big difference


How did they maintain such a large work force of Livestock. Say each animal can do the work of three men that's still at least 2000 animals. Is there any evidence from the historical record there were large live stock farm to keep, maintain and feed them?, How did they feed them wheres the grazing land its a desert?

I star you because at least your thinking outside of the box.
edit on 11-4-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Man, I'm going back off memory here. It's been a long time since I took an interest. Outside the Giza complex are the remains the town that arose to house the pyramid and temple builders. The spoil pits included lots of bones of cattle that were used to feed the workers. The link I added earlier also shows that they used livestock for food and pulling ploughs etc. Now Giza predates the unfinished obelisk by centuries, but it also demonstrates that cattle and oxen were a feature of Egyptian life.

So yes, AE's raised plenty of livestock because we have their remains and recordings of the AEs themselves. Don't forget they lived near the Nile delta because it's a fertile plain as well as a source of water and the wider world.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I definitely can imagine a group of say 10 elephants coordinated through years of training to pull a semi trailer along a road. The use of thousands cattle to pull the 1200 ton block is orders of magnitude above that and is harder to imagine. It be nice to see a scale experiment say a 100 cattle pulling a 50 tonne block and see how they go with that. I think the coordination problem is the thing im trying to get my head around.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Like I suggested, the ambition of commissioning such a large object might have been unrealistic. We still do it today with low quality Olympic villages and football stadia - somebody is always overreaching and bragging too hard.

They moved previous obelisks of several hundred tons and maybe thought it was as simple as scaling up. They were wrong. The unfinished obelisk stayed there and wasn't attempted again so it;s possible they scaled down and learned the limits.

With regards to the cattle. They could have used oxen which are much more powerful and would require smaller teams. Also don't imagine a livestock like a great bunch of balloons connected at one point of these objects. Instead, try and imagine smaller teams at acute angles pulling forward from several points.

For the first time, I wonder if that unfinished obelisk has deliberately been carved out at an angle? Take a look. The pinnacle end is higher than the other. It;s also the only direction from where anyone could pull the bugger out. At that angle, it would be be possible to have dragged it up and possibly onto a ramp. Just speculating here...

As for elephants? I've never thought of that and you might have something there : )

The main thing is we have a lot of plausible methods for how Egyptians and Romans transported behemoths and we haven't had to invoke advanced machines or magic.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Just as an interesting thought exercise by what method do you see a block that weight and size moved from the quarry to its location without fracturing the block, using the modern technology we have?


edit on 11-4-2015 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: JamesTB
These marks were not made with stone pounders

Really? Because those are precisely the types of marks you would expect, were pounding/hammer stones used, and they are nearly identical to marks in other quarries where the same methods were employed, such as Kachiqhata, an Incan quarry site.

Regardless of your incredulity and utter ignorance of the use of hammer stones and of ancient stone working techniques, that is how it was done. Rather than sitting behind a computer making bold (and wholly incorrect) assertations about such things, maybe you ought to go spend a bit of time working stone using the ancient methods. You certainly won't be singing the same tune afterwards.


originally posted by: obscurepanda
Yes. Stop posting this crap. Every single time it's the same thing, and every time you refuse to listen when people who actually know what they are talking about tell you what you're seeing. History is not full of secret advanced technology that there is no evidence for, man. Deal. With. It.


You know this. I know this. Every single professional who has spent their lives studying and working in such fields knows this. Some people, however, choose to remain ignorant, and believe that just because they themselves couldn't accomplish something, that no others through human history could have either. And rather than admitting that others at some point in the past may have been more clever or had a better work ethic than they do, they invent outrageous stories to explain things, and talk down to those who don't nod their heads in agreement with their fantasies....You can beat them over the head with facts and actual archaeological evidence all day long, but you'd just be wasting your time...


Well you say that but you're not offering up any proof or indeed evidence for your claim. Show me a similar pattern which as been 'pounded' out which looks like this -




posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

I don't think we'd ever try something so high-risk and expensive. Imagine how many days and months were wasted with the obelisk? Heads probably rollled.

In the modern day, we'd have planned how to carve it and how to remove it which is why I see it as an engineering feat they weren't afraid of. Today, I suppose we'd use fixed engines and winches to drag it out - similar in spirit to the windlasses.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join