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: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTBWell 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

PDF from Protzen. Sixth page. Two pics.
Link
Any moe requests?

Harte




posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
They couldn't have been placed there in mondern times couldn't they? Maybe to strengthen the argument of stone pounders. Of course this is speculation but your question can only be answered with speculation

Literally hundreds of these stone pounders - made of diorite - have been found in the ancient Aswan granite quarry.
You think conspirators would have done that?


originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: Harte
Can you explain the vertical cuts in the temple of Luxor with widths less than 2/10th of a millimeter as mentioned in the video above with stone pounders or copper chisels?

Probably. Too bad I'm not investing an hour or a half hour of my life (depending on which video you mean)into watching a vid from the usual fringie con men.

Harte
edit on 4/11/2015 by Harte because: I said so.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

So you are refusing to look at all the evidence presented? That's your prerogative, but that just makes your input on the subject completely irrelevant. As for the stone pounders I don't know. As I said before that is all speculation. But I gave you something that can be said to be true or false: stone pounders and copper chisels either can or can not achive this. You refuse to look at the evidance presented and instead choose to move the topic back to speculation. :/

For your convenience the section of the video titled "Traces of Ancient Gods' Civilization" that I am speaking of starts ar 21:50 and ends at 24:54 can you muster 3 minutes of your time? Although I recommend the whole video. It is very interesting at the very least.
edit on 11-4-2015 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: Harte

So you are refusing to look at all the evidence presented? That's your prerogative, but that just makes your input on the subject completely irrelevant. As for the stone pounders I don't know. As I said before that is all speculation. But I gave you something that can be said to be true or false: stone pounders and copper chisels either can or can not achive this. You refuse to look at the evidance presented and instead choose to move the topic back to speculation. :/

For your convenience the section of the video titled "Traces of Ancient Gods' Civilization" that I am speaking of starts ar 21:50 and ends at 24:54 can you muster 3 minutes of your time? Although I recommend the whole video. It is very interesting at the very least.

Not wanting to waste time watching lunatics regurgitate the same nonsense that we've all heard a thousand times is hardly refusing to look at evidence.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

And how you you know if it's the same nonsense unless you looks at the evidence. I have more than likely watch way more videos and read way more articles on this subject than you ( jundging on your attitude) The specific example I mention was completely new information to me. This is why I mentioned it. If your scared of your time being wasted by hearing or reading something more than once your going to miss some very interesting and important evidance. Also name calling is just trying to disprove someone with out putting forth any of your own information. It's immature and I would think that we would all be past this childish behavior.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
perhaps the gridwork of human, Egyptian pounders were a desired sequence in the monolith production...
after 50 or so workers dropped their pounding stones the 4 or so inches in their gridworks--- Only after two layers of rock was removed by those 5 pound basalt pounder-stones would a monolith be approved for continued stoneworking as it would more-than-likely not crack and be useless (except as smaller cube shaped stones for another project)

perhaps the undercutting pics are not being realized for what they actually show ~~
instead of dropping pounding stones in those cramped spaces.... I might suggest that the smooth finishing under those 30 meter long megaliths was actually made by piped in sand blasting equipment (the locals were only there to shovel around the sand an debris do the 'sandblaster' apparatus could do it's work

in fact the whole process of blasting stone might range from golf-ball sized pounding stones blasted against the surface to the eventual polishing grit (jewelers rogue) that made the mirror surfaces of the 'kings chamber' granite interior surfaces


a very portable mechanism & power supply would be needed in lieu of industrial infrastructure
lights, pneumatic sand blasting, etc.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JamesTB
In this post I would like to make a case for Lost Ancient Technology being used in the production of the Obelisks in the Aswan Quarry.

The conventional wisdom states that the obelisks were pounded out with stone pounders but that’s not the case. I believe that the Ancient Egyptians inherited this site and tried to replicate the techniques and marks they found there by using the only tools that they possessed - stone pounders.





Who left all those pounding stones in the bottom of my high-tech hole in the ground?

Harte


Lol my answer to your question is in the OP that you've quoted here.

Did you not read it?



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JamesTBWell 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

PDF from Protzen. Sixth page. Two pics.
Link
Any moe requests?

Harte


More foolishness, why bother? Are you really convinced by that?



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Interesting reference. It amazes me that Protzen actually admits to not knowing or being able to explain something (which doesn't happen very often):


Inca Quarrying and Stonecutting (Page 17)

At Ollantaytambo, there are some good examples of polished blocks. As mentioned before, most blocks of red granite lying around show areas of almost mirror- like polish. This indicates that the marks on the stone in question result not from polishing but from some form of sawing.

But again, the cuts could not have been made with a string or wire; the curvature of the cut is contrary to what one would obtain with a string. There is more evidence throughout the territory that I explored to show that the Incas did on occasion saw into stones. What tools they used for this I do not yet know.

So J.P. Protzen is at a loss for an explanation? Again: very unusual IMO ...



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

So J.P. Protzen is at a loss for an explanation? Again: very unusual IMO ...




Just a sign of an open mind, it's a very common sight in such reports and papers. Contrary to the opinions of some at ATS, statements such as "not yet known at this point", "most likely used for", "expected to be", "evidence suggests" and "of unknown purpose" can also appear quite often too.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: skalla

originally posted by: jeep3r

So J.P. Protzen is at a loss for an explanation? Again: very unusual IMO ...




Just a sign of an open mind, it's a very common sight in such reports and papers. Contrary to the opinions of some at ATS, statements such as "not yet known at this point", "most likely used for", "expected to be", "evidence suggests" and "of unknown purpose" can also appear quite often too.


^^^ That amounts to the most irksome side of internet chitter-chatter. Pisses me off so often. People have to have everything boxed off and black or white. When someone says 'don't know' or 'not sure,' it seems to trigger people into filling in the blanks and projecting whatever certainties they have right in there.

ETA - that wasn't aimed at Jeepr at all. It was just a general whinge aimed at the internet! Grrr...
edit on 4.12.2015 by Kandinsky because: no offence intended : )



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Yeps


I mused a little on this last night, and wondered if (ats-wise at least) if people get this from not so much reading first hand reports (where the evidence based reporting is usually clearly stated as such) as from reading "second-hand" accounts by other hands in other works where the context is not made so clear.

General internet based whinging from me too, btw

edit on 12-4-2015 by skalla because: clarity



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: skalla

When I first started digging into the academic literature of archaeology and anthropology, it was eye-opening how many disciplines were involved. Literally the breadth of science and human culture is drawn upon to describe, analyse and explain the 'stuff.'

Then I'd read a thread in this section where someone who's never read a paper blithely calls archaeologists 'liars.'

Primary sources and academic research has to be the foundation before we go wandering off to the Hancock books.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: Harte

So you are refusing to look at all the evidence presented?

Fringe claims in a video are not "evidence."

Link me to the scientific summary of these so-called "findings."

Again, I don't waste my time with YouTube vids.

Since you told me which vid and where in the vid, I'll take a look. If I watch the whole vid, I guarantee you I can find at least 25 lies perpetrated in it - given the length and my personal experience with such videos.

Harte



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTB

You asked, I answered.

You got two pics of similar marks left by pounders on a different continent, in a different hemisphere, thousands of years later.

You call it "foolishness." I call it sour grapes on your part.

Harte

edit on 4/12/2015 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: Harte


For your convenience the section of the video titled "Traces of Ancient Gods' Civilization" that I am speaking of starts ar 21:50 and ends at 24:54 can you muster 3 minutes of your time? Although I recommend the whole video. It is very interesting at the very least.


I looked. I saw no claim concerning what you stated about fractions of millimeters, nor did I see any cut that would fit that description.

Nor did I see any cut that couldn't be made by the ordinary means already explained (multiple times) in this thread.
ETA: Went back and heard the claim.

It was amusing to see that while the claim was being made, (millimeters,) a tape measure over the cut showed it to be between 1/8 and 1/16 inches wide.

Also amusing was the "researchers" standing back and scratching their heads over striations in various cuts that were clearly left by Egyptian saws.

Given that the Egyptians illustrated for us exactly how they made such cuts, it is very funny to watch these people - either ignorant or purposefully misrepresenting the facts - ponder over such mundane and already explained marks.

Harte
edit on 4/12/2015 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Harte

Interesting reference. It amazes me that Protzen actually admits to not knowing or being able to explain something (which doesn't happen very often):


Inca Quarrying and Stonecutting (Page 17)

At Ollantaytambo, there are some good examples of polished blocks. As mentioned before, most blocks of red granite lying around show areas of almost mirror- like polish. This indicates that the marks on the stone in question result not from polishing but from some form of sawing.

But again, the cuts could not have been made with a string or wire; the curvature of the cut is contrary to what one would obtain with a string. There is more evidence throughout the territory that I explored to show that the Incas did on occasion saw into stones. What tools they used for this I do not yet know.

So J.P. Protzen is at a loss for an explanation? Again: very unusual IMO ...



If you think it is unusual for archaeologists to be unable to explain every single thing they find, then you spend too much time on fringe sites (where they claim that archaeologists "will tell you this or that," or archaeologists "claim to know everything.")
The fact is, copper and bronze were too valuable to be left laying around. Such tools, once too worn, would certainly have been melted down and recast into something else. This results in a dearth of tools that we can find, obviously.

The Inca and their predecessors, unlike the Egyptians, didn't leave behind relief panels or written explanations of how they worked stone. One has to examine the stone to determine such things.

For example, Protzen has found telltale pounding marks on the stones at Tiahuanaco. Along with the pounding marks shown in the PDF at a quarry, that makes it possible to explain the quarrying methods. But no saws or chisels have been found from that period, though marks left by both have been found on the stonework at Tiahuanaco.

Harte



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

If you think it is unusual for archaeologists to be unable to explain every single thing they find, then you spend too much time on fringe sites (where they claim that archaeologists "will tell you this or that," or archaeologists "claim to know everything.")


We do like spending a substantial amount of time on fringe sites, such as this one - otherwise we wouldn't be here, right? But that doesn't mean we're looking at things just from one perspective, does it?

But back on topic: you know there's evidence out there (in ancient stonework) that cannot be explained by current theories and paradigms. But ignoring it, or forcing it into the existing framework, won't help the field of Egyptology. So I think there should even be a lot more of that careful phrasing throughout academic literature on Egyptology and much less ignorance to begin with ...



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
dont. feed. ignorant. trolls.

cheers



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

The cut was clearly V shaped. As in the outside width was bigger than the inside width. So the outside or widest part of the cut is less than 3 millimeters. The fractions of a millimeter comment was clearly talking the thinnest part of the cut. Also can you please point out which method you are speaking of? I've gone back through the thread and can't find the part you are speaking of.
edit on 12-4-2015 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join