Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

a reply to: username74

Enjoying the polite debate. I stand more on your side as I don't have a career to protect, like stretching borders and think there are some small data points that at least raise a shade of possibility of some greater level of culture earlier than we know about... and no, Greek chorus, not Atlantis and rockets!

But going back to the meteoric speculation around 13,000 bp, I remember reading a report deep in the Anthro stacks at the UofA about someone who dug up megafauna in the permafrost along the Alaskan coastal range and postulated that the only explanation he could come up with was a tsunami (of historic proportions) that jumbled the critters together in the interlocking mess he observed in digs that stretched for hundreds of miles up the coast and pointed to a meteor strike somewhere in the North Pacific at about that time frame.

He went on to note the Black Matte and Carolina Bays and wondered if it had approached from the NW over NA to end up over the Atlantic seaboard.

Google searches brought up nada, but the paper made an impression, obviously, and from the descriptions of the jumbled mass of animal remains, I don't see much of an alternative as he eliminated other causes, like recorded EQs of enough strength. Not so helpful, but the darned paper exists.

Meh, perhaps it was Vimanas and nukes, after all.

originally posted by: Baddogma
But going back to the meteoric speculation around 13,000 bp, I remember reading a report deep in the Anthro stacks at the UofA about someone who dug up megafauna in the permafrost along the Alaskan coastal range and postulated that the only explanation he could come up with was a tsunami (of historic proportions) that jumbled the critters together in the interlocking mess he observed in digs that stretched for hundreds of miles up the coast and pointed to a meteor strike somewhere in the North Pacific at about that time frame.

:

Sounds like something that Frank C. Hibben said in The Lost Americans (1946), which was popularised by Graham Hancock in Finerpaints of the Gods.
It was nonsense and if you're hearing it again these days referenced in a paper, then its still nonsense...

a reply to: Marduk
It's possible I conflated it with some garbage, as anything is possible, but I remember it as a doctorate research paper in the bundles at the UofA library and don't think I've confused it with Hibben, though I have admittedly read him as well.

So which part is garbage... or all of it? I'm pretty sure some megafauna has been found in Alaskan permafrost, at the least.

I remember it as an academic thesis paper, read in the library, and not as a paperback on the commode... but again, anything is possible.. .even jumbled megafauna along the Alaska Coastal Range?

I don't think a tsunami hitting the coast of Alaska is out of the question.

I mean, it's the coast, after all.

Harte

a reply to: Baddogma

here, this should help. background
squashpractice.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Harte

yes. i agree. highly unstable for starters.
i dont go with the fire theory. of course they can do fire.
the problem with all this, harte, is that fires fine for decorative stuff, we use a blowtorch these days and i dont know what their equivelant was, but for strutcural work you must use quarried stone which is intact in its natural state of composition and aggregation with its structure the way it was grown so to speak. Heat or cold creates fractures and fissures and destroys the inner structure of the stone.

a reply to: username74

so thats the lightsabers out of the disscussion, at least

a reply to: username74

i would also like to point out that sawing rock in not and never was a quarrying technique. splitting is.in fact if you split granite correctly you get a surface thats very flat and only needs to be polished and burnished. what was going on in those quarries? theres lot of things you would expect to see and then there are areas that make no sense to my eye.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

yes. i agree. highly unstable for starters.
i dont go with the fire theory. of course they can do fire.
the problem with all this, harte, is that fires fine for decorative stuff, we use a blowtorch these days and i dont know what their equivelant was, but for strutcural work you must use quarried stone which is intact in its natural state of composition and aggregation with its structure the way it was grown so to speak. Heat or cold creates fractures and fissures and destroys the inner structure of the stone.

Fires directly over the area to be removed/pounded out will not harm the rest of the stone.
But you do have to control it.
It's possible that this is what cracked the unfinished obelisk.

Finer control and smaller fires for the surface to be smoothed and engraved with glyphs would also be necessary.

Harte

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

i would also like to point out that sawing rock in not and never was a quarrying technique. splitting is.in fact if you split granite correctly you get a surface thats very flat and only needs to be polished and burnished. what was going on in those quarries? theres lot of things you would expect to see and then there are areas that make no sense to my eye.

Yet we see the "scalloping" left by the pounders at Aswan.

Harte

a reply to: Harte
ok harte . we are getting closer to the meat of this now. this is what i thought when i first saw the obelisk. i must say though that the crack itself appears to be a result of tectonic stress, during, after, or much later. its almost a torsion fracture up there near the relatively less massive end of the intended piece. but they didnt dig a trench with dolerite in granite. mayde they expanded an finished the trench like that, but as i pointed out in the russian engineers thread they must have iron to work granite. they dont need to make it. just buying it

a reply to: username74

you know i find it quite odd. in one sense youwant to attribute aLL THESE TRULY MASSIVE ACHEIVEMENTS IN STONE. AND YET YOU WONT GIVE THESE GUYS A BONE WHEN IT COMES DOWN DOWN TO merely faBRICATING THE TOOLS to do it . (sorry bout caps lock)

a reply to: Baddogma

and heres some mammoth stuff for your perusal
www.talkorigins.org...

a reply to: Harte

Yet we see the "scalloping" left by the pounders at Aswan.

exactly.so, why am i seeing thase marks in a quarry? did they want to leave a nice finish on the quarry wall? or had they they decided metal was for losers and the most efficient way to extract large pieces or rock was to find a nice flat section of bedrock and smack a TRENCH INTO IT WITH A DOLERITE BOULDER

a reply to: username74

whose intelligence are you trying to insult, theirs or ours?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

whose intelligence are you trying to insult, theirs or ours?

Nobody's.
The marks indicate granite was quarried with pounders, not saws or chisels, and not by splitting, which was used for limestone.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Surely, though, large blocks of granite would require more than pounders to detach them from the quarry walls?
I'm not sold on this.
Pounders may work AFTER detachment, but given the qualities of granite, to detach blocks would involve more than pounders???

Actually, to detach blocks cohesively would require so0mething other than pounders, from my observations as a humble geologist...

C'mon, I'm usually on your side, but this makes no sense. There's obviously more than pounders at play in the quarrying of these rocks.

Wedges anyone?

a reply to: Harte

welll.. i would hate to try and think of a different source for those marks, i ll give you that. what i mean is someone has smoothed down the sides with a dolly boulder.who knows why especially if it was done later, but if you try and dig into bed rock , especially granite you will break it your rock. your boulder, will work on rough surface because the little bits of rock are exposed on two to four sides and the top which means it can be crushed. because thats all these rocks do to softer rock as well. and furthermore i only see these marks in egypt and the andes. you cant be suggesting they were quarrying like this. if so why nowhere else. apart from the obvious reason its an insane thing to do. so to follow if nowhere else what were they doing in these select areas in two seperate continents.
the dolerite quarries for stonehenge. they were suprised there was no mauls.
another point, maybe its not a factor but this suggested labour would destroy a human body, very very quickly.
under examination the remains of carpenters from the first settlers to the u s showed that by the age of 30 these guys were finished. and i mean shot to peices. i cant imagine you would last three months under the repeated impact. this is one of the less considered reasons why tools have handles. to soak up the shock. disabled in three months i reckon. massive tendon damage and so much more. imagine the toothache

a reply to: username74

dolerite contains Pyroxene a hard silicate mineral with a hardness of 5 to 6.5 on the Moh scale. Slightly less hard than quartz and granite at 7 on the scale

a reply to: username74

and what do we reckon the volume of the removed rock is? about the same? 1 000 000 kg of finely powdered granite. broken out of its dense structure so maybe twice three times its original volume. and then what, the same or more of dolerite. where is all the slag.
mortar. i reckon they were making fine dust for a geopolymer like cement. bets that why the marks are on the quarry wall. and the obelisk would be a perfect site for that, collects in the bottom. must be along those lines its the only thing that fits