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: 6
50
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
The thunder stone! A very interesting read and it supports my argument you are aware this stone was moved and cut in 1776 not before the birth of Christ. They moved it across the ice using metallic sledges and bronze spheres none of which were available to ancient stone masons. Then two full size battleships were used to balance it during its sea journey!!!!!! I doubt if ancient builders had access to two full size battleships. Having looked at what is available there are no precision cuts or edges on this stone.
Actually the largest stone at Giza is 468 ton at temple east of Khafres pyramid but this isn't just about The pyramids there's a 120 foot 1168 ton obelisk part finished at Aswan. It's about the builders and the technology used at the time. There are megalithic sites around the world that have people scratching there heads saying how did they do that?
And il ask you the same question why didn't the Romans, Greeks medieval castle builders or the builders of Angkor Wat not use stones of these sizes or precision cuts or drill holes through granite simple it couldn't be done.




posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
And il ask you the same question why didn't the Romans, Greeks medieval castle builders or the builders of Angkor Wat not use stones of these sizes or precision cuts or drill holes through granite simple it couldn't be done.


It was cut and moved without modern machinery
This was your claim



originally posted by: redchad Because as you know what you couldn't get a slab that size into the workshop


your claim like you just got shown to be wrong, deal with it,

As for your claim that there is a "468 ton at temple east of Khafres pyramid "
No one said anything about that at all, so that's not even relevant
I said


"Whereas the largest stone in the great pyramid weighed 60 tons"

Besides which, I just showed you how it was possible to move a 1500 ton block, why does 468 tons set off your credulity ?

So looks like we have another clueless pseudo who doesn't answer the questions set to him and tries to side step having to answer by bringing up irrelevance. Why am I not surprised.




posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

To be fair, I'd consider a difference in timeframe of almost two thousand years to be relevant.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Marduk

To be fair, I'd consider a difference in timeframe of almost two thousand years to be relevant.


oh me too, but the claim that you can't move large stones without advanced technology is looking a little empty



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I'm not sure if it's implicated somewhere, but all he talks about is the "Modern Tools" supposedly being necessary to precisely drill and cut Granite, not modern machinery for movement. Though it's anyone's guess as to what "Modern" stands for in this context.
edit on 22/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Marduk

I'm not sure if it's implicated somewhere, but all he talks about is the "Modern Tools" supposedly being necessary to precisely drill and cut Granite, not modern machinery for movement. Though it's anyone's guess as to what "Modern" stands for in this context.


Harte has already posted links to credible experimental archaeology that shows how that was done with the tools of the day. Anyone positing anything else has to ignore that. Despite the fact of it showing exactly what they were claiming was impossible...

Byrd even posted this video






This led to the next claim that it was impossible to move anything weighing more than 100 tons without modern machinery,
That argument is also now proven fallacious
The Egyptians even left pictures showing themselves doing it


Modern machinery, a sled, manpower, ropes and a liquid


edit on 22-11-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
Mr or Mrs Marduk I'm not really sure what your going on about! I'm not only trying to answer your posts but some previous posts but by the look of what your posting anyone reading will be getting the impression your sat in an asylum or similar. Please calm down and give a coherent comment, please read the entire thread I'm trying my best to answer questions with a well thought out sensible point of view, your knee jerk comments are a bit ott and not very well thought out. Calm down, calm down. I will answer any questions I'm being asked in time but give us a chance and put a credible point of view forward, thanks

edit on 22-11-2015 by redchad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Marduk
Mr or Mrs Marduk I'm not really sure what your going on about!

Not surprising. It seems there are many things you're 'unsure' of.

...but by the look of what your posting anyone reading will be getting the impression your sat in an asylum or similar.

I was beginning to think that of you, but not Marduk.

Please calm down and give a coherent comment...

I haven't seen any posts that would indicate that Marduk is anything but calm, and every poat of theirs has been coherent and informative.

I'm not even going to waste my time addressing the rest of your post; You clearly have no interest in learning anything here.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
Ok mr or Mrs Marduk 1st question why didn't stone builders in the past use 500+ ton stones in their building I'm talking about Romans Greeks ancient castle builders and the builders at Angkor Wat



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

OK mr condescending please answer the above


edit on 22-11-2015 by redchad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Marduk
Ok mr or Mrs Marduk 1st question why didn't stone builders in the past use 500+ ton stones in their building I'm talking about Romans Greeks ancient castle builders and the builders at Angkor Wat


Greek monolithic construction:


Roman monolith example:


That second one is Pompey's Pillar, carved from a single piece of granite - about 285 tons.

Maybe you should check first before basing what you think on what you don't know.

Harte



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Marduk
Ok mr or Mrs Marduk 1st question why didn't stone builders in the past use 500+ ton stones in their building I'm talking about Romans Greeks ancient castle builders and the builders at Angkor Wat


Because they were smarter than that and had the benefit of a couple thousand years of experience and advancements in tool technology.
That's not to say the AE weren't as smart, no one they were intact very clever.
The Ancient Egyptians were very smart, they chose the average size block that got the job done, with the minimum amount of labor. It's sounds counter intuitive, but it's simple manufacturing theory.
Every block , regardless of size has 6 faces to be worked, the larger blocks of the GP maximized the amount of volume that could be worked with a minimum of labor. A larger block could be worked by more than one mason at a time, smaller blocks , while filling the same volume , took more cuts and actually increase the number of masons to work the same volume.
By the time you get to the Greco/Roman era and then the medieval period, tool technology and engineering had advanced to the point that the maximized/minimized volume vs working time and ease of movement had changed.
The latter works in stone show that they could work And move stone in smaller sizes much faster than the ancient Egyptians ever could and could move them faster, they had the benefit of block and tackle and cranes.
And by the way have you ever seen any Roman or Greek or medieval stone work? They all did things in stone that the AE could only have dreamed of, the Romans built arches hudresd of feet high that supported aquaducts that brought water from dozens of miles away.
The AE could never have built anything like a medieval cathedral,



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I'm sorry but these aren't exactly examples of 500+ ton stone workings.
In respect of the Greek blocks that's exactly what they are blocks of stone of a size that the builders at the time would be able to cut, transport and man handle. I'm not exactly sure why you've used this as an example
As for Pompey's pillar! The fact that the Romans were able cut and sculpture granite is not the argument after all you just have to go to Rome. I fully accept that this 248 ton piece of stone could have been cut and erected by the builders at the time. But how on earth you can compare this with the 120 foot 1168 ton obelisk at Aswan is beyond me.
Go back to the video on page two posted by Cyruay and look at these examples, this is the type of stone cutting and precision I am talking about. my original post was in respect of the granite coffer in the GP. But it would remiss of me not to mention the other megalithic sites around the world such as Baalbeck, Israel, Ethiopia Mexico and Peru.
A fellow Mancunian Chris Dunn a machinist and toolmaker for 30+ years compared some of the cuts in granite from Giza with cuts from modern day laser and diamond cutting discs under a microscope and formed the opinion that the Giza cuts were made by some form of high powered disc.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10
"The Ancient Egyptians were very smart, they chose the average size block that got the job done, with the minimum amount of labor. It's sounds counter intuitive, but it's simple manufacturing theory"

So what about the 120 foot 1168 ton obelisk at Aswan was this an average size block? Or the colossus of Ramesses 1000 ton transported 170 mile from the quarry. Why produce something this size and weight when as you say it would have been easier to make it in pieces or even smaller. Whoever made this did so because they could. I'm not exactly sure of what you're point is?
As for castle builders your right at the time these were state of the art fortresses. I've no doubt if they could have incorporated 1000 ton blocks into the walls they would have. So why didn't they? Because they couldn't. Whoever it was that built these ancient megalithic structures had access to technology or knowledge that has since been lost.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Not going to dig to deeply at this argument... but something struck me as funny...

We believe with a high degree of certainty why the pyramids are built, but we will never really know with absolute certainty.

Everything that is studied is an interpretation of the past, without an exact understanding of how people thought back then, which should inject a small measure of doubt to the official story.

Growing up something like Gobekli Tepi was ignored because it didnt fit the narrative... as time has passed and more attempts at dating it have occurred the narrative has shifted to accommodate it.

Not saying it was aliens, the official story is most likely correct, but until we find someone from that time period we wont know for certain the why of it...

Least thats my opinion.
edit on 26-11-2015 by Irishhaf because: I spell gud



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Harte

I'm sorry but these aren't exactly examples of 500+ ton stone workings.
In respect of the Greek blocks that's exactly what they are blocks of stone of a size that the builders at the time would be able to cut, transport and man handle. I'm not exactly sure why you've used this as an example
As for Pompey's pillar! The fact that the Romans were able cut and sculpture granite is not the argument after all you just have to go to Rome. I fully accept that this 248 ton piece of stone could have been cut and erected by the builders at the time. But how on earth you can compare this with the 120 foot 1168 ton obelisk at Aswan is beyond me.

Did the Egyptians manage to erect such an obelisk? No.
So it's "beyond me" why you think this is relevant to your argument.

Exactly how many 500 ton or larger stones were actually quarried and set in place in all of the ancient world? You act like it was commonplace.

Regarding the size of the construction I showed you, the Greeks had much better methods of dressing stone so somewhat smaller megaliths were more economical than they were to the AE's. It's already been pointed out in this thread (IIRC) that large stones require less surface dressing, a step that would be the most time consuming to the Ancient Egyptians with their chisels and pounders.

originally posted by: redchadGo back to the video on page two posted by Cyruay and look at these examples, this is the type of stone cutting and precision I am talking about. my original post was in respect of the granite coffer in the GP. But it would remiss of me not to mention the other megalithic sites around the world such as Baalbeck, Israel, Ethiopia Mexico and Peru.

Baalbek (the trilithon) is Roman. As far as the sarcophagus, it is plain to see it was sawn out of granite using tube drills. The marks remain on the interior.


originally posted by: redchadA fellow Mancunian Chris Dunn a machinist and toolmaker for 30+ years compared some of the cuts in granite from Giza with cuts from modern day laser and diamond cutting discs under a microscope and formed the opinion that the Giza cuts were made by some form of high powered disc.

Chris Dunn needs to make a living.

Harte



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte


Chris Dunn also believes that Khufus Pyramud is the blueprint for a time machine. As he lacks any background in physics whatsoever, that alone calls his level o "expertise" into question.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Probably best if you read this

Advanced machining in Ancient Egypt at gizapower.com


Dunn rightly points out that archeologists are not experts in machining or engineering and can easily miss or misinterpret important evidence (in my opinion many times this is done deliberately.) If I feel unwell and want advise on getting better I listen to a doctor before I listen to a mid-wife, if I want to know how a car engine works I will listen to a mechanic before I listen to a car salesman ...... if I want to know how the pyramids where made I will listen to a machinist, builder and engineer before I listen to an archeologist.

edit on 27-11-2015 by redchad because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2015 by redchad because: Spell check



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
Probably best if you read this

Advanced machining in Ancient Egypt at gizapower.com


Dunn rightly points out that archeologists are not experts in machining or engineering and can easily miss or misinterpret important evidence (in my opinion many times this is done deliberately.) If I feel unwell and want advise on getting better I listen to a doctor before I listen to a mid-wife, if I want to know how a car engine works I will listen to a mechanic before I listen to a car salesman ...... if I want to know how the pyramids where made I will listen to a machinist, builder and engineer before I listen to an archeologist.


Yet you've chosen to ignore an expert stoneworker who has demonstrated in pictures and videos already presented that the Egyptians could easily manage all of the techniques that you ad Dunn ascribe to advanced technology
Imagine that, your approach is hypocritical and based on your belief rather than any evidence



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I take it you've not bothered to read the web page/article

Flinders Petrie was one of the worlds earliest Egyptologists yet in one of his papers he wrote "there are indications of modern methods of sawing on the artifacts"
Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he attempted to explain them at three different points in one chapter. To an engineer in the 1880’s, what Petrie was looking at was an anomaly. The characteristics of the holes, the cores that came out of them, and the tool marks indicated an impossibility.

Another professional in stone working Mr Donald Rahn of Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co., Dayton, Ohio, in 1983 stated that in drilling granite, diamond drills, rotating at 900 revolutions per minute, penetrate at the rate of 1 inch in 5 minutes. This works out to be .0002 inch per revolution, meaning that the ancient Egyptians were able to cut their granite with a feed rate that was 500 times greater.

Now the obvious reply would be "well what about Stocks example" but all he shows is how it could have been done it doesn't mean it was how it was actually done and il go back to the granite coffer, ancient man using a bow and stick could never have produced work of this precision. In fact I can't find an article by Stocks that says the coffer was created by using this method.

As for Christopher Dunn he has worked at every level of high-tech manufacturing from machinist, toolmaker, programmer and operator of high-power industrial lasers, Project Engineer and Laser Operations Manager. For the past 16 year. He won't tell you how this work was produced but he will tell you and explain with supporting evidence how it wasn't made.

Academics and Egyptologist have bought into the mainstream so much they could never think out of the box and consider alternative options, as Cremo states in his book forbidden archaeology these people have made careers/reputations out of mainstream thinking so would do anything to keep the status quo. In fact on occasions artifacts that don't support the mainstream view have been altered or hidden. Frauds have even been committed to keep the mainstream point of view i.e. piltdown man.

If tomorrow archaeologists found a piece of high tech equipment that was used to manufacture the stonework. These people still wouldn't accept it and say it had been planted.

Blinkered and naive some you up the best.




top topics



 
50
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join