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.
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
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!
originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: peter vlar
www.nytimes.com...
New York Times - Errors are feared in carbon dating
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.
www.allaboutarchaeology.org...
Carbon Dating - What Is It And How Does It Work?
This is how carbon dating works:
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).
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)
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.
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
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
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...
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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...