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.

 

Evidence of an advanced human past

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I am open minded to any suggestion on how did they move those rocks. From my own experience with large object, even if you have enough people to move large objects, many times it is impossible surroundings don’t allow all of the people to come even close to object to help.
And for use of 4x4 to move blocks. This surrounding shows that there is not really good quality tree miles and miles around it. Where do you think they got all wood and supply from?
Now, to ask our selves even more interesting question. Even if they managed to move those stones in some unknown way, how did they ménage to make surface of those stones to feet so perfect? Trials and Errors (with so big stones)?
In my mother’s birth place there was a large fortification built in 16-17th centaury. Stones are not so big, and they used many different sizes. But they don’t all feet perfectly as those big stones on the picture above.




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by vietifulJoe
In my mother’s birth place there was a large fortification built in 16-17th centaury. Stones are not so big, and they used many different sizes. But they don’t all feet perfectly as those big stones on the picture above.


Part of my research has shown the same thing. The simple fact that there is nothing even close to this done in our 'known' history. There is nothing so amazing done from 100 years to 3000 ago. However, they were able to a better job with less tech? That is why I think there was more. What that 'more' is, we can only speculate - for now, but it does show that something more was there at the time than we know about.

And yes, this subject has always captured my imagination. My guess, is outside help. Especially with the texts left behind by the Sumerians.

...but who knows for sure. You can't carbon date rock.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Sorry for the late reply i was not online again until just now, but moving the truck wouldnt tak 10 guys most likely it could be done with 5 and one of them would be steering. Given you said the guys could rock the truck im assuming you where going from the side of the truck which would not be the way to go about it the guy steering simply needs to cut the wheels to the right or the left depending on the way your going.

Since emergency brakes are on the back wheels only ( on any vehicle im familiar with but there may be some that are all wheel i just havent seen them ) So this means we have two free rolling wheels , now depending on the distribution of weight on the truck would depend on if you where pushing upwards or pushing downwards on the lever ( 4x4 ) Both ways could be tried to find the easiest method but lets go with the pushing downwards on the lever since with a fulcrum you would be able to lift quite a bit more. Each one of the four guys would need to find a smooth surface on the underside most likely the bumper would work. The reason for a slick surface is so that the truck can slide when the rear is picked upwards. When the 4 guys push downwards the rear of the truck will slightly be lifted , given the front wheels are free spinning the truck will naturally move forwards it will take several bites on the lever into the ground and you would have to move the fulcrum as well but it wouldnt be to hard.

However after reading my response i noticed i was using a fulcrum and you actully hadnt given me that just rope and 4 x 4's. Moving the truck can still be done in the same manner but in this case the guys in the back of the truck would lift upwards. The base of the 4x4's would be placed as close to the back of the truck as possible that still allowed the men to lift upwards and still hit the rear of the truck when the 4 x 4 is lifted upwards. But again the truck would move forwards every time the weight is shifted from the rear wheels. And again this would take several bites with the 4 x 4's. Just for a test get yourself a 2 x 4 and put your vehicle in neutral with the emergency brake on. Then get behind it with the 2 x 4 and place one end on the ground just slightly up under neath the vehicle then lift the other end of the 2 x 4 as high as you can and you might be very surprised as to how easily you move your vehicle.

Has anyone here ever gone to a truck garage and seen truck wheel dollies? They are not much more then 4 wheels and a cradle for the wheel, you put one underneath each tire of the vehicle and you can push it anywhere in the shop you need. Ive seen it done with tractor trailer trucks with as few as 3 men. The wheels on the dollies are doing nothing more then the job wooden logs would do.




Same principles apply no matter what the weight read up on it here

science.howstuffworks.com...


Go to the links below they both show one man moving things using the same principle but in this case rather then rolling the items on a round log the items have wheels which are essentially nothing more then round thin logs that are held in the same place.

24 tons with an ear ( 1 man )

xo.typepad.com...

184 tons by one man same principle

www.guinnessworldrecords.com...

As far as these stones being so well crafted i would say that falls under the dieing if not dead art of masonry which is a quite impressive trade. In these days of rock splitters you wont find to many of the old world rock masons but some still do exist. These masons get to know thier rocks and the differnt ways each type of rock will react to cutting chipping or breaking. Utilizing a piece of rope one could easily mark a stone to show where it needs to be cut in order to get it square however the actual carving of the stone i know little to nothing about.


AS for the person who mentioned not seeing an abundancy of trees in the area then perhaps they didnt use logs to roll the stones maybe something more like this

www.galenfrysinger.com...


Personally a culture that has masons that can carve this

www.galenfrysinger.com...

or this

www.galenfrysinger.com...

impress me more on the details on the smaller items then that of a big square block.

On a last side note i was just looking at the second photo posted in this thread of these stones i noticed how its tilted just like they planed on sliding it up onto a round object just like i did my stove.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Minniescar,
Moving something on the wheel and putting something on the wheels is not the same. In the order for builders to move their stones, they had first to place it on something movable. Also, don’t to forget that they have to count that this stone will sink in to the ground due to its weight.
In my opinion, Romans have built their temple on ancient ruins, which is probably made by the same people who made ruins.
To support it, I can’t find large massive stones ever being used in this way in Roman architecture. They used smaller stones and arches to divide pressure and use less material.


As for building 1000 small stones instead of 1 large. It makes more sense to have 20 peple to build 1000 small stones, which are easily transported in comparison to large one, and you’re more likely to repair possible crack if you work with smaller stones (just replace it) then if you used large ones.

Again, this is just my opinion, based on reading and available material.

I’m willing to listen to new ideas as long as they don’t suggest that they used ears to move those monsters around.


[edit on 12/16/05 by vietifulJoe]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   


Moving something on the wheel and putting something on the wheels is not the same. In the order for builders to move their stones, they had first to place it on something movable. Also, don’t to forget that they have to count that this stone will sink in to the ground due to its weight.


Note how the stone in the second photo is positioned so that one end is lifted upawards so the stone is slanted. That slant is perfect for putting some round object under the higher end then placeing multiple people at the base of the stone with levers they need only move the stone slightly and its weight would then be positioned ontop of the round log, pillar, or whatever object. That initial movement would be the hardest and even it the stone was laying flat on the ground they need only lift the stone a slight amount with levers then place small rollers under the front and as the stone is moved the angel is increased and thus larger rollers are placed under until the whole stone is on rollers of an appropriate size . As for the stone sinking into the ground that just means longer rollers that exceed the sides of the stone so that weight can be distributed. Im not saying its an easy task by any means but im saying it could be done.



As for building 1000 small stones instead of 1 large. It makes more sense to have 20 peple to build 1000 small stones, which are easily transported in comparison to large one, and you’re more likely to repair possible crack if you work with smaller stones (just replace it) then if you used large ones.


But on the flip side one solid stone is stronger then 1000 smaller stones , addtionally these stones may have hard to find break marks therefore making the task of hacking up 1 large stone much more time consuming then just shaping one large stone.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Maybe the ancients had a different insight, not necessarily better, just different. And those insights led them into different inroads in the physics and practical applications of their sciences.


This is a great line to quote, and my opinion as well. If indeed "advanced" ancient civilizations did exist, I don't think we'll ever find the kind of evidence most people, for some reason, expect to find: skyscrapers, cars, evidence of industry - as we know it, computers, etc... There is likely so much more to science, physics, and the universe outside of the "box" we live in today. Just because we don't have that knowledge doesn't mean an ancient society didn't.

Were an ancient society--unless they were all knowing--presented with stories of our society today, with only circumstantial evidence at best, it's certainly plausible that they would immediately dismiss it as impossible because it was outside of their realm of thinking and knowledge - when in reality it's just a different way of doing things.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
I have read that the South Americans also used a plant mixture that, when applied, made stone malleable and moldable, and so, the very tight seams between large stones in their many archeological sites. We as a civilization tend to view stone work as something to be done with force... Hammers, chisels, Jack-Hammers, explosives, and the like. We are, for all of our, supposed advancement, a base sort of culture. Not necessarily behind any advanced cultures of the past, but more tucked into the way we do things, which is normal.
Just thoughts.


I read that also.

As for the large blocks in Baalbek, the easyest way is to cut the stone where it is, not moving it.

I wonder why, if the place still exists, we allways see ancient photographs.

Also, the place is part of the UNESCO's World Heritage, and in the site they say that the temple was


Accessible by a staircase carved out of enormous monolithic blocks...


They also say


Work on this shrine lasted over a century and a half, and was never completed.


So, they had enough time to do it.

And I will say something I allways say when talking about arts and crafts we do not master:
Never underestimate the capabilities of anyone.

The fact that they lived many years ago does not mean that they could do things we can not.

Can someone of us make a javelin thrower with bone and use it with a rock pointed javelin? They did it thousands of years ago and I sure can not do it today.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
In all fairness, you only moved a 1000 lb. stove. These massive stones are on the order of 100-250 tons, which makes it pretty near to impossible to move by any kind of fulcrum/levee system, prehistoric or modern.
And when it comes to moving objects of increasing weight, it's not directly proportional, it's actually exponential.


That's simply not a fair assessment. There is this odd human preoccupation with size, but it's simply not logical. 10 times as much weight will require 10 times as much force. 100 times as much weight will require 100 times as much force, etc etc etc. Give me a large enough lever and a place to rest it and I shall move the world.

The place to rest it is of course the problem. There isn't much of anywhere to rest a lever for moving the world. This is manifested in the increased preparation required for the movement of excessively large objects. If you set out to move an object that weight 1000 times as much as the afforementioned stove, you will need to generate exactly 1000 times the force, but you will need to array your equipment in such a way that conditions are the same as they were in the smaller case- you must only have so much weight per square inch on each lever or it will of simply snap of course.



To illustrate, lemme use a thought experiment. You have a 10,000 lb truck that you need moved off the road, and for some reason or other the parking brake is stuck in the on position, and you can't get it out. Plus the truck won't start, so you can't move it. You have 6 2x4's and 40 ft of rope. How do you move the truck?


You attatch ropes to the frame at each end and begin to "walk the truck by 180 degree pivots. This is accomplished by levering up one end and while several indiviudals pull the rope. My estimate would be 10-20 lift/pulls per 180 degree pivot, with each pivot equating to about 20 feet of forward progress (depending on the length of the truck).

The truck makes this substanially more difficult than it has to be, because it cannot be tumbled end over end as a stone block can be. A 10,000 pound stone block could be rolled end over end for several feet of forward progress per lift/pull.
This can be made even easier in sand with the help of beasts of burden, which could be used in one or both of two ways- one: pull a wooden scraper that would create a divot under one edge of the stone block, creating an enormous potential energy from the blocks own gravity, and two: to pull ropes secured around the block (easily accomplished after the first roll of the block which will get the ropes under it) in order to help the stone be pulled over the divot, in addition to any leverage which is used.

Your conceptual fixation on dragging is the problem. Dragging maximizes friction and stationary inertia. The use of controlled falls by pivoting a levered object or the cutting of ruts for tumbling reduces friction and creates momentum.

Edit to add: Carpenters and Operating engineers are good people to ask about this kind of stuff. In many cases I've had to manipulate loads with insufficent mechanized assistance. I remember doing a road clearing job on a bobcat loader when what I really needed was a skip-loader- my bucket and lifting power was half or less of what I needed. I ended up having to manually load some of the larger debris because with the use of leverage and controlled falls I could put things into the bucket that the machine couldn't pick up on its own.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by The Vagabond]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join