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.

 

Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

page: 27
145
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

yeah like i say, i accept it works, its surely how you'd crush burnt limestone just not so well on a granite bedrock floor as it were. you would want kind of be trying to scrape down a wall. and i reckon it would work a little on a roughed up surface
i read a study by some bod who had took his glasses off and banged away at some granite for 5 hours and he created whatever amount of powder.
as to recognising it in a mortar. unlikely. its only quartz mica and feldspar to begin with. how would you distinguish it from the sand around it anyway? but the product is more like talc. a thousand blows from a rounded boulder and its pretty fine. thats why it would be important to get it cleaned up if you did it en mass, it will cushion the blows if you really are removing granite in that way, but if you are after grout its pure.
i think aeolian sand in the desert is spherical, referring back to our plastifiers, so its either too dry or to sloppy in the mix. it wont take water and dries too fast in the heat
good for horse arenas and such though.




posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

yeah like i say, i accept it works, its surely how you'd crush burnt limestone just not so well on a granite bedrock floor as it were. you would want kind of be trying to scrape down a wall. and i reckon it would work a little on a roughed up surface
i read a study by some bod who had took his glasses off and banged away at some granite for 5 hours and he created whatever amount of powder.
as to recognising it in a mortar. unlikely. its only quartz mica and feldspar to begin with. how would you distinguish it from the sand around it anyway? but the product is more like talc. a thousand blows from a rounded boulder and its pretty fine. thats why it would be important to get it cleaned up if you did it en mass, it will cushion the blows if you really are removing granite in that way, but if you are after grout its pure.
i think aeolian sand in the desert is spherical, referring back to our plastifiers, so its either too dry or to sloppy in the mix. it wont take water and dries too fast in the heat
good for horse arenas and such though.

I would expect it to contain some flakes of granite and not just powdered constituents.

Harte



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

well , heres some relevant info regarding this and some other points we discussed
an interesting abstract from a pounder study, i wont paraphrase and ruin it
www.jstor.org...
i remembered that i think the bod was engelbach. but his study wildly differs from lehners(was he the chap quoted in the baalbek thread?)

and i shall have to read this.
archive.org...



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

well , heres some relevant info regarding this and some other points we discussed
an interesting abstract from a pounder study, i wont paraphrase and ruin it
www.jstor.org...
i remembered that i think the bod was engelbach. but his study wildly differs from lehners(was he the chap quoted in the baalbek thread?)

Don't know, but that's an excellent find.
Download the entire paper free here: academia.edu
This paper is legit, but that site puts up a lot of stuff that's just some individuals' musings.
And you'll have to register (also free.)


originally posted by: username74and i shall have to read this.
archive.org...


In the preview version, it seems to be formatted in a way that's unreadable.
When I get the time, I'll look for it somewhere else as well, if my son (autistic) will let me.

Harte



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

yeah. if you scroll down the text is there, the photos are expressed as random numbers and letters



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

so i see you rate that material in the abstract as musings but it seems to soothe my qualms on the potential damage to the operator and address's your expected flakes of rock. this is borne out in your source(thankyou) an angular surface on one of the faces would certainly increase the rate of work, and the same for the rock, on the point of impact, being free to resonate as it hits the bedrock, not having any other way (apart from accoustic) to dissipate the resulting energy.
this, not to go overboard, as it were, is a very important observation in terms of austere technolgy. i note one of the more interesting methods of moving heavy blocks in conjunction with other methods is a hypothesis to have teams with battering rams, held by loops of rope, hitting the back of said block, and another team pulling at the rock. on moment of impact the ram is not "earthed", the rock vibrates at its appropriate frequency having to shed the transmitted energy and surface contact is interrupted thus enabling the pulling team to affect the rocks position without the inertia.
basic accoustic "levitation", and further a doubling and doubling again to deal with appropriate in creases of mass (an object lesson in exponential function and positive feedback i.e. much less energy was used to lift a 500kg log along its length and whack it, than to have the appropriate increase in men to pull it over inertia, amplification within the system).
well there plenty of granite near me. i ll have to look for the dolerite of meta dolerite but maybe i can sort out a little test of this technique and put up some photos. merely for curiosity and background. it might take a while but if you have any suggestions..
edit on 18-6-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

so i see you rate that material in the abstract as musings

No, not at all.

If you read what I wrote, you'll see I was talking about the website itself, not this particular paper.

There is material on that site that has never been peer-reviewed. Some of it simply written then posted by users, not legitimate scholars/academics. I only use that site to try and find full copy versions of papers I know were already published in some academic or trade type journal. Sometimes I find it, sometimes I don't
This time I did.


originally posted by: username74
well there plenty of granite near me. i ll have to look for the dolerite of meta dolerite but maybe i can sort out a little test of this technique and put up some photos. merely for curiosity and background. it might take a while but if you have any suggestions..

Yeah: watch your fingers and toes.

Harte



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

Yeah: watch your fingers and toes.



...and eyes. Safety goggles would be a great idea



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Granite

Nope, just an ATS glitch. Stars counts for members are no longer valid.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's easy. First, the material in question shows evidence in that what was achieved could not happen without power tools.

Second, logic would dictate all tools involved was simply taken away after the completion.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dagann
First, no it doesn't

Second, did the tools appear out of nowhere? The only thing "advanced" about the civilization was their construction equipment?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

hi phage, i m pretty new to submitting stuff here, tho i ve been lurking for years.
in just a few weeks ive put myself in a position where i have accumulated a hell of a reading list, and due to this (and the requirements of reality[time etc.]) its probably going to be christmas before i can put forward any kind of coherent thread on a very broad subject of our recent evolutionary inheritance. ive done a little splashing around on a few threads and had some enlightening and grounded responses and also some quite frankly depressingly blinkered responses within various related subjects.
mainly broaching the stuctural remains and artifacts that confront us. most of these are in no real way a challenge to the existing and accepted paradigms but too many outliers remain for me to easily persuaded on timescale, population and our cultural definition of their cultural definition.
theres problems re:
geographical distribution
architechtural style (linear evolution)
technical and scale (size/progression)
purpose and location

any speculative comments as regards current ideas ?(bearing in mind its merely a discussion forum)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

nil carborundum bastardo

nice!



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: LightAssassin
a reply to: Granite

Nope, just an ATS glitch. Stars counts for members are no longer valid.


You would say that, you hardly have any,

but if you note, you have a star awarded to you for your post by me and when I did that, your star count went up by one from 5,957 to 5,958...

Fact check dude, fact check

edit on 26-6-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I've read through this entire post and from the discussions can only say that we (that's the global we, y'all) did it. How? That's the mystery. Aliens? I strongly doubt it, since we've never seen one...well I haven't anyway. Previously advanced technological civilization? Once again, I strongly doubt it, since we have NO evidence that such ever existed.

But the mystery is enough. That is what keeps us looking and digging and, dare I say it, thinking. One must keep one's mind open enough to consider the opposing view, but the truth is in the evidence.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

LOL....and you cant do math.

3405 posts
57,801,551 stars

=

16975 stars per post.

Nope.

edit on 26-6-2016 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LightAssassin
a reply to: Marduk

LOL....and you cant do math.

3405 posts
57,801,551 stars

=

16975 stars per post.

Nope.


I was banned and then my ban was revoked, my earlier 10,000 + posts were deleted when that happened, if you check my threads you'll see that my threads go back to 2006, but my posts only go back to Sep, 28 2015, so those 3405 posts have all been since September last year
I can do math fine
You are working without the facts
If the star system is no longer in use, why did your star count go up by one when I gave your last post one...



edit on 27-6-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   
well you could say the lack of evidence, is the evidence. the forensic evidence such as high speed tool marks and consistent symmetry are all you need though. these morons are talking about the shape of individual flakes in abrasives that could have been used and they ignore the physical proof this was not done with abrasives.



a reply to: LetsGoViking



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Never said it wasnt in use, I said it was flawed (ATS glitch) and is no longer relevant (valid).

You can wax lyrical all you like but the fact is when they switched their system over to the new style ATS it fudged the star counts for a lot of peeps. Do I really need to get a mod to 'splain it to ya?

So now who's not working with the facts? I think someone's a little insecure about their false star count.
edit on 27-6-2016 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
145
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join