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.

 

For those who continue to believe nobody knows why the pyramids were built

page: 16
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
that's like taking a suspect's fingerprints and claiming he's guilty without comparison. You can claim that you can cut stone with copper but you can not claim that's how the ones at Giza were done. Simple as that and you harping on everything else is nonsense. You guys are the ones claiming to know how and it might past the muster for some people but for those of us who like the truth, yer not even close.

a reply to: Marduk




posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
what I have to say is that unless you forensically compare the cut marks and consistency of symmetry and tolerances you are blowing out a lot of hot air. All your evidence means nothing unless you can show down to the tiniest details that they are the same. What do you need to know that yer not getting?


a reply to: Marduk



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
proof of concept is one thing and it's circumstantial because it only goes so far and never connects the two subjects tangibly. it's like say you have a shell casing with a firing pin mark and because it has a firing pin mark it is from the same gun as the killer. But you never show the comparison of the two to prove your claim. Simple as that, you guys back the guy who never compared the fingerprints. There's no proof that that was how it was done in Giza. I don't have to go there, I don't have to show you anything, all I have to ask is for the comparison evidence which you can not provide. I don't have to prove anything to anybody. I am pointing out that nothing has been proven so far. So what you prove a concept fine now link it to Giza.


a reply to: Harte



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
what I have to say is that unless you forensically compare the cut marks and consistency of symmetry and tolerances you are blowing out a lot of hot air. All your evidence means nothing unless you can show down to the tiniest details that they are the same. What do you need to know that yer not getting?

a reply to: Marduk


The granite-sawing end of this discussion arose in response to the following post:

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Byrd
I find it amazing that people still actually think these workings were made by primitive man using stone or even copper tools. How many artisan stonemasons some with 40 years in the industry have visited the site and said even with the hand tools available today they could not recreate some of these stone cuts. Sophisticated high speed machine cutting equipment would be needed along with highly trained operatives. You can see on the video cuts obviously made by a disc yet you still won't accept it. Circular holes drilled through granite with the exact measurements right through the cut. If this can be done using stone or copper tools why has no one ever proved it. Il give you a challenge that in 5 years time you could not put a 2 inch hole through a piece of 2 inch granite using stone or copper tools. It can't be done.
I would imagine you also think the earth is flat!


I believe it is crystal clear that redchad is stating that is is completely impossible for the AE's to have cut stone (note he doesn't even mention what kind) using copper.

As I said earlier, this is the claim originally being addressed.

So, if you agree that the AE's certainly could have cut stone using copper, then (again, as I said earlier,) the point is made.

Now, if you want to discuss the fine details of the cuts (and you seem to want to,) then I suggest you might find some of these fine details for us to discuss.

Otherwise, you're just exercising your hands.

Harte



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: peter vlar

www.nytimes.com...
New York Times - Errors are feared in carbon dating



This is from your source material-


But scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon. Therefore they have sought ways to calibrate and correct the carbon dating method. The best gauge they have found is dendrochronology: the measurement of age by tree rings. Accurate tree ring records of age are available for a period extending 9,000 years into the past. But the tree ring record goes no further, so scientists have sought other indicators of age against which carbon dates can be compared. One such indicator is the uranium-thorium dating method used by the Lamont-Doherty group.


Errors are feared, except by whoever they interviewed for this article because the article says the same thing I've been telling you...that correlation with other methods is critical to obtaining an accurate date. You can't seem to grasp that 14C is never the sole source for an ascribed date. As I mentioned earlier and corroborated by the article you cited, dendrochronology is a fail proof method of calibrating 14C. Dendrochronology goes back to ~11.5 KA. The GP is dated to, within the margin of error, a very tight range which supports other sources depicting the age of the GP. You can go on and on all you like about the issues you perceive with 14C dating but the fact of the matter is that there are no issues AT ALL with any dates less than 11.5KA because you can correlate the date with an appropriate control. And dates older than that can be corroborated with Uranium-Thorium dating. It's all in your citation and it's all the same thing I've already stated to be true. But since we're talking bat the age of the GP, Uranium-Thorium is irrelevant and I don't know many professionals who agree with your assessments.



www.allaboutarchaeology.org...
Carbon Dating - What Is It And How Does It Work?
This is how carbon dating works:


Lovely, but my degree is in Anthropology. I'm quite familiar with how various dating techniques work.


Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).


I'm glad you found the most recent data to support your assertions. Don't get me wrong, I still refer to Kramer when anything Sumerian comes up but then again, he is the definitive go to authority on the subject. Unlike Lee. What legitimate scientists working in their chosen fields make similar claims? Any non creationists on your reading list?


And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)


You really have no idea how much I love this example every time some "researcher" whips it out like a drunken frat boy. See, a real researcher would have engaged in due diligence. They wouldn't just copy and paste from sources that agreed with their preconceived notions.

For the record, it was 3 mammoths. Dima and two found near Fairbanks. Dima was tested 3 times. all ages were 40KA BP. One of the Fairbanks mammoth did have to separate dates when tested. Though that was because it was realized later that one of the hides was soaked in glycerin. Subsequent testing confirmed an age of ~15,380 BP. Dates for deposits near Dima are all in the 40KA range as well.

This whole debacle was originally started by Walt Brown in his book- 'Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood'. You can view it for free on creationscience.com. Brown dropped the ball though by conflating two separate incidents and merging them into 1 fictitious story. He provides no citations for his widely varying dates either. Once that ball was on the ground, Dr. Dino, Kent Hovind himself picked it up and ran as fast as he could. In the completely wrong direction. Because he didn't bother with due diligence either. He must be a "researcher" too I guess?



Peter V - Not sure how you missed the information I posted earlier, but here it is with more detail. You will notice the Wikipedia article defines the last update to recalibrating Radiocarbon dating is 2013. So how does atmospheric pressure play a part in radio carbon dating..


THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD
"A major force altering the formation rate of C14 is the earth's magnetic field.

So is it the magnetic field that affects carbon atoms or is it atmospheric pressure? Please pick one. And nobody claims that dating anything less than 150-200 years old is possible because of increased carbon after the industrial revolution as well as Nuclear testing of the last 75 years. Nor does anyone claim you're going to get an accurate reading on anything over 50KA. The limitations are well known as is the efficacy of the process. When you count tree rings to see how old a tree is and then use 14C to test it and get the same dates consistently... You don't have much of an



No where did I state that Petrie quoted a mathematical assumption - that was my own answer from reading Flinder's works and also reading Egyptian history plus correlating my own mathematical finding at Giza that others have overlooked.


Oh, OK. Then you're totally wrong. Just like you are regarding the pyramid complex being aligned to cardinal points and being at the geodesic center of the Earth.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
you don't make the rules. and what is wrong with what I'm talking about? you're the one who is talking out yer arse: you never show that the actual marks (where your slow speed bamboo technology cut the stone) are similar to what is found in Giza. I don't have to provide anything. We agree there are granite stones in Giza and surrounding temples with cylindrical holes cut all the way through, correct? Then all your theory needs to do is provide the scanning electron microscopic comparison of the cutting marks and THEN and only then can you say that's how it was done. If the copper hole saw and bow technique is the way it was done then the cut faces should be similar. Why do you disagree with this? It's not my fault no one has done this yet, but as long as you don't make the comparison you can't claim yours is the right one.

a reply to: Harte



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I'm absolutely sure now that the Pyramids were built to confuse the hell out of people 10,000 years into the future, sitting around chat rooms asking 'what the hell were these Pyramids for'?



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
you don't make the rules. and what is wrong with what I'm talking about? you're the one who is talking out yer arse: you never show that the actual marks (where your slow speed bamboo technology cut the stone) are similar to what is found in Giza. I don't have to provide anything. We agree there are granite stones in Giza and surrounding temples with cylindrical holes cut all the way through, correct? Then all your theory needs to do is provide the scanning electron microscopic comparison of the cutting marks and THEN and only then can you say that's how it was done. If the copper hole saw and bow technique is the way it was done then the cut faces should be similar. Why do you disagree with this? It's not my fault no one has done this yet, but as long as you don't make the comparison you can't claim yours is the right one.

a reply to: Harte


You don't even read what's posted anymore, do you?

Please quote me claiming that mine is "the right one."

Harte



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
what I have to say is that unless you forensically compare the cut marks and consistency of symmetry and tolerances you are blowing out a lot of hot air. All your evidence means nothing unless you can show down to the tiniest details that they are the same. What do you need to know that yer not getting?


a reply to: Marduk



I'm asking if you done that, or if not what are you basing your claims on ?

you haven't done a comparison have you, no evidence for your "belief" at all...
lol



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: maverickORjustMAV
a reply to: bottleslingguy
Best not to engage the shills as theyll just divert the rest of us who are intrested in theorising and the wondorous possibilties. That was the true purpose of this site...

You must know basically everything there is to know about ATS after your lengthy tenure of...let's see....11 days....But I'm afraid you're incorrect on this one. The 'true purpose' of this site is, and has always been, to Deny Ignorance, not to see who can come up with the most ridiculous ideas or 'wondrous possibilites'.

Seeing how you're new here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you don't know that those 'shills' you're referring to are some of the most intelligent, erudite members around. You would do well to engage them in constructive discourse, and learn a thing or two....Or you can just stick with the infantile name-calling and willful ignorance, and see how that works out for you...



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet



The Great Pyramid doesn't align to the Cardinal points exactly but is off miniscule in comparison of it's size - however before the advent of GPS, the Great Pyramid was the closest cardinally aligned building than anything the world had yet to establish.

-You


You realize the tremendous flub that you've committed yourself to there, right?.



The Great Pyramid doesn't align to the Cardinal points exactly but is off miniscule in comparison of it's size - however before the advent of GPS,

-You


You've nit-picked yourself in to in inescapable hell-hole.

The thing is that you have found the one forum that will still accept you when you come clean.

Welcome to ATS.


edit on 16-12-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

and a nice bite back it was : )
I will do one more for the double jeopardy...you're funny haha

But I won't argue or debate this with you any further sorry. We will never get anywhere due to different sources we get our understanding from. You may claim your sources are supported by mainstream...but so are Kardashians, it means nothing and numbers means nothing here. Logic does and if one inspect megaliths and their techniques, symbols of the past, lay lines etc... it is logical to conclude that there are some things which are interpreted incorrectly by mainstream science. You should maybe read some Russian/eastern sources instead of ours / western. You can search them with google and make your own conclusions.

I am not a scientist or in any other related field for this debate, so my opinions don't hold ANY weight. I am just pointing out some inconsistencies which are there in mainstream history and seems obvious to me. I just like to read about anything wired and unusual or paranormal and sometimes I like also to write about it on ATS. So take it easy I am not trying to sway your beliefs or thinking, but I would be honored if I spurred curiosity in someone's mind like many others did for me...

Also i never mentioned any aliens and I don't see why would you even mention this in your post.

- start forts explanation on wiki is B#. There are some for which explanation on wiki is maybe true. But if you inspect them in detail one by one you notice that they were probably not there for military purpose but something entirely different which was forgotten or hidden. Some star forts are placed where there is no logic behind military reasoning. For instance some of them are by the sea or lakes or below a mountain and so on.

- nazca lines are a mystery who or why build them. But the fact is that straight lines over the hills are hard/impossible to do from the ground level. You need above prospective to do that.

- lay lines
really roads?? again there are straight lines, some of them are 100 KM and MORE long and straight like an arrow over the hills and all other different terrain. That would mean they did better roads than we did thousands of years ago...
And also there are lay lines in areas where there were no people living or at least we don't have any record of it. Who build roads there and for what reason. Ghosts? : )
Another thing which needs perspective from above. Also why is there often different vegetation. On one side there is no vegetation while on the other everything is green. Also another fact. There are no trees growing on them, even after all those years. Also another point: strange things happen along those lines, like ghost or other paranormal stuff. Many reports says so.

- swastika:
here you have a good point, I admit! But you think that symbols would stay the same even after thousands maybe millions of years? If everyone has the same starting point from Africa and so on...one would think that different cultures use different symbols. And this is evident from history. Why would only swastika be any different and they would use it in temples across india, america, asia and africa i think even in Australia there are some symbols of swastika. It is wired. Show me another sign like that from ancient history? I think there is none. Ok you may say son or moon or other natural visible stuff. True. But swastika is specific it is not visible in nature, although the real meaning I think has something to do with it. Like four basic elements maybe?

- pyramids
well you cannot date stone. And carbon dating is not authentic. It is just a BAD estimate. So you cannot be sure about the exact dates. Especially about stuff which is older than a 3-4 thousand years.
But I did say pyramids which is wrong. I should say pyramids like structures are all over. You make a good point about the nature of structure, being narrower the higher it gets. But that is even true today and we don't have any pyramids. This is not a good explanation. People and cultures are different like day and night and you say they were building with same techniques and same shape all over the planet? Especially the techniques used for cutting and merging stones are the same which points that people had the same building knowledge.

- megaliths
yes some are unknown. for instance:


You can make a conclusion that some people who lived there build it with chisels. But come on be real...many megaliths structures are like that. People were just living there after the structure was build. Some instances of that are even evidenced due to the different techniques they used for repairs or additional buildings. Or Pumapunku and the difference between old and new techniques or size of stone and many others...so this is more of a case of mistaken or stolen identity of original builders. In my opinion.

- ancient statues - watch this for more info:


- symbols of different religions joint together:
it is important. Churches, pictures even soldiers on their shields and armor have the symbol of Christianity and Islam joined. Which points to one world religion. which points to one world civilization.
more info:


- stuff underwater
what about Dwaraka or Rama's Bridge and others similar controversial structures underwater, which are not so famous, but they are there none the less. Even these two are just for example there are a lot more. At some places there are even maybe pyramids (...like structures : ) ) if one believes stories of people who inspected the seafloor with radars. Another example of good controversy not recognized by mainstream. But yes, some people lie, but some are honest and have in my opinion really found something under the floor by radar or diving. Even if it goes against popular dogma.

- Tataria:
this one is a new one. But isn't it interesting that it is drown on old maps as an large empire or country and there were different emblems and kings. But in mainstream history it is rarely mentioned and one could say even not recognized as an empire. Very weird for me. Who wants to hide that and for what reason? Maybe there was BIG war in the past and the winner is making history. Just like with us and WW1 and 2. Many destroyed old buildings or castles points to some big fight...

and the list goes one and one. It is a long list of inconsistencies. These here were just the first in my mind when I started writing.
And also many of these things are explained but when you research the explanations with clear head you start to realize that they don't hold water when ones start to use logic. But logic also is just a subjective thing and it differs from person to person, here than different experiences plays a large role. Like in our case I imagine you are in some science field or in archaeology, I am a web developer and spiritualist. See very different background and logic too.
Also I would like to say that videos are from the survivors series and she is sourcing majoraty of her claims from other people who are in the field like you probably are...




edit on 14502536461214December1412143115 by UniFinity because: spelling stuff

edit on 14502541611222December2212223115 by UniFinity because: added smaily to counter your devil smiley at the end hahah



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet there are many more calculations at Giza unexplainable for the era given including it's precise cardinal alignment these facts are often conveniently over looked by the Egyptologist's supporters
for they are simply without explanation.



originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
The Great Pyramid doesn't align to the Cardinal points exactly


See there are only two options to explain this
Option 1 - You didn't know it wasn't aligned to the Cardinal points
Option 2 - You did know it wasn't aligned to the Cardinal points, but pretended it was to set up a straw man argument, so that you could then claim that Egyptologists were stupid because they didn't know why

If its the former, well done, you learned something, but you have to admit, you don't know the first thing about Egyptology
But if its the latter, then its a bit obvious that you are deliberately lying to the people who read your posts.

So which is it ?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity You should maybe read some Russian/eastern sources instead of ours / western. You can search them with google and make your own conclusions.

See this is where your argument falls apart, I am fully aware of the data coming from Russia, I'm also aware of what's going on in China, Eastern Europe, America, Japan, Southeast Asia and pretty much every other country that is producing any information, further, I have friends in Russia, Japan and America who I converse with frequently, so your claim that I am ignorant is a bit flat. Your information on the other hand is generally drawn from unconfirmed fringe sources, which you haven't checked.


originally posted by: UniFinity
start forts explanation on wiki is B#. There are some for which explanation on wiki is maybe true. But if you inspect them in detail one by one you notice that they were probably not there for military purpose but something entirely different which was forgotten or hidden. Some star forts are placed where there is no logic behind military reasoning. For instance some of them are by the sea or lakes or below a mountain and so on.


The first star fort dates to the mid-15th century in Italy, please link me to one of your mystery forts, I'm seeing military planning at work, why are they a mystery for you ?



originally posted by: UniFinity - nazca lines are a mystery who or why build them. But the fact is that straight lines over the hills are hard/impossible to do from the ground level. You need above prospective to do that.

Ahhhh, so you're unaware that the mountain surround the Nazca plain on three sides from which all the geoglyphs can be observed and that the local Indians built them and say that they built them, or that their pottery depicts the same figures seen on the plain.



The Nazca gods live on the mountains, which is why all the geoglyphs face that direction. The lines are ritual pathways, which are still used as ritual pathways, what you thought it was just some abandoned site up in the mountains,
Dude, the Indians still live there, the region is named after them
en.wikipedia.org...
Its like you're having a conversation with a local and you are telling him, that he's a liar, that his people couldn't have removed the topsoil (how the lines are formed) because it was beyond his capability to do so. Can you hear yourself.





originally posted by: UniFinity
- lay lines
really roads?? again there are straight lines, some of them are 100 KM and MORE long and straight like an arrow over the hills and all other different terrain. That would mean they did better roads than we did thousands of years ago...
Another thing which needs perspective from above. Also why is there often different vegetation. On one side there is no vegetation while on the other everything is green. Also another fact. There are no trees growing on them, even after all those years. Also another point: strange things happen along those lines, like ghost or other paranormal stuff. Many reports says so.


The only fact here, is that they were accepted by academia as roads long before any of the mysticism was invented. Its like you don't even realise that when they were built, the entire country was a forest, there are no trees on them because trees had to be felled to create them.

You haven't researched any of this from credible sources have you..Many reports say so, do they, that's not even slightly credible, none of your claims are credible, you need to go and do some actual research, I was going to go through all your points, but its pointless,
Its off topic
If you want to start a new thread that's cool
Call it something like "I haven't bothered to research anything, please tell me where I've gone wrong"




edit on 16-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity

- stuff underwater
what about Dwaraka or Rama's Bridge and others similar controversial structures underwater, which are not so famous, but they are there none the less. Even these two are just for example there are a lot more. At some places there are even maybe pyramids (...like structures : ) ) if one believes stories of people who inspected the seafloor with radars. Another example of good controversy not recognized by mainstream. But yes, some people lie, but some are honest and have in my opinion really found something under the floor by radar or diving. Even if it goes against popular dogma.

Dwarka sank into the sea during the European Medieval period. "Rama's" Bridge is a natural accumulation of sediments deposited by currents in the area. The Brits dug through it once, so it's structure is actually known. It's like a sand bar - keeps coming back.


originally posted by: UniFinity- Tataria:
this one is a new one. But isn't it interesting that it is drown on old maps as an large empire or country and there were different emblems and kings. But in mainstream history it is rarely mentioned and one could say even not recognized as an empire. Very weird for me. Who wants to hide that and for what reason? Maybe there was BIG war in the past and the winner is making history. Just like with us and WW1 and 2. Many destroyed old buildings or castles points to some big fight...

Yeah, it was a big war alright. But let's not pretend that nobody ever mentions Genghis Khan, who established the empire. These days, the Tartars are more often referred to as the Mongols.

Harte



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

-
Yeah, it was a big war alright. But let's not pretend that nobody ever mentions Genghis Khan, who established the empire. These days, the Tartars are more often referred to as the Mongols.

Harte


Yeah, that was my favourite piece of nonsense, he hasn't heard of the Mongols. And thinks they have been hidden from history


(post by maverickORjustMAV removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk



The only fact here, is that they were accepted by academia as roads long before any of the mysticism was invented. Its like you don't even realise that when they were built, the entire country was a forest, there are no trees on them because trees had to be felled to create them.


yes ... road which are leading to no where and no where close lived at least by the records from your precious credible sources. Logic fails here...

Also trees grow back you know. I life in the forest and new trees are growing every year. Some of the lines are deep in the forest but still no trees growing there..

star fortress are all over the planet, not just italy...there is a big list on wiki and many more are not listed.

You are doing it again like with aliens. Where did I say you are ignorant. You said in your own post what books did you read and I just make a suggestion to change your preferences a bit, maybe they would help you from where all this is coming from.

I did read a lot of "credible" sources but they lack in logic. Just like they want us to bielefe 1000 tons rock can be pulled by rope and water or some kind of sledges...

I want make a thread it would only bring folks like you and they would dissect it with mainstream knowledge and others who think differently would stay silent or show little participation because it is of no use due to strong bias on ats for mainstream or credible sources.

But I respect and thank you for your posts, even if we disagree at large. They are very educational a lot of times. But some times I have my own explanations.




posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
I did read a lot of "credible" sources but they lack in logic. Just like they want us to bielefe 1000 tons rock can be pulled by rope and water or some kind of sledges...


The average weight of a pyramid block was about 2.5 tons, not 1000
This link contains images derived from ancient art, it shows how they transported blocks with sledges
Now are you going to say that the artists made them up ?
www.cheops-pyramide.ch...
This link contains more ancient images of blocks being moved on sledges by the Egyptians
www.catchpenny.org...
This is actually one of the sledges they used

Whereas this is the website of Wally Wallington, who shows you how its possible to move large blocks all on his own
www.theforgottentechnology.com...

Which of these would you like to tell me doesn't exist first ?

edit on 16-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join