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.

 

Mystery Solved, How to build Stonehenge!!!

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I've always wondered if there was a way we could have built Stonehenge among other massive structures like the Pyramids... My Grandfather told me of some ways, but I never took him serious... I was more close minded back then and believed we didn't make them or it took some sort of super technology to build these... Well I managed to find a video that might just be the way the old timers used to do these things... Oddly enough it works and it's very simple, requiring little to no tools... Also very similar to what my grandfather once told me when he was alive... He was also an engineer... I should have taken his word, but back then I was still investigating all these new ideas of UFO's and such... Anyway...

Enjoy!





posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 


I first came upon this man's website a few years ago. The guy didn't explain things very well and has some piss-poor diagrams so I wrote him off as a nut. Yet, for weeks afterwards something was bothering me about what I HAD understood. In my mind, what I understood made sense.

I went back to his site and he had a brand new video of his block rolling thing. He showed that he could move a quarter-of-a-ton block as easily as rolling a bowling ball.

It just clicked. Everything he said made perfect sense. It is just that most historians and archaeologists lack the kind of mental faculties required to envision the geometries that enable a block to roll. They simply aren't the kind of people who would ever think, "Why drag the blocks from the quarry when you could roll them?"

It all makes perfect sense. Why should we expect historians, anthropologists or archaeologists to understand things like building mechanics?

For example, asking that Hawass guy "How were the pyramids built?" is like asking a plumber "How is the space shuttle built?" How should he know? Hawass doesn't have the required knowledge or education to even build a house let alone something the size of pyramids! Yet we look to them to tell us, like they are going to uncover an ancient pyramid recipe somewhere.

I think it was this thread that lead to me finding out about this guy:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He is, in two words, absolutely brilliant!

Jon



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 

OK, so the guy can spin and teeter totter big rocks. Great. How does that explain how they transported those rocks from 60 miles away to the Stone Henge sight? Strictly sensationalism on his part for his true believers! The guy must have a lot of time on his hands and a lot of rocks! But bravo to him for pulling the wool over the eyes of a lot of people!



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 

OK, so the guy can spin and teeter totter big rocks. Great. How does that explain how they transported those rocks from 60 miles away to the Stone Henge sight?

At his website he pretty much shows you how to do it yourself.

Check out this video:
www.theforgottentechnology.com...

All you need to move a block across the gently rolling countryside are two of those roundroad devices. Once you scale the roundroad up to megalith size, you have a perfect way to move blocks as far as desired over a moderate grade with minimal force applied - all with no druid magic involved!

My wager is the builders used something like this alone with simple river boats to get the stones to the site.


Originally posted by plumranch
Strictly sensationalism on his part for his true believers! The guy must have a lot of time on his hands and a lot of rocks! But bravo to him for pulling the wool over the eyes of a lot of people!


What is there to believe? His techniques can be used to move some pretty big stones alone. That is not disputed.

Is this how stone henge was built?

I don't really care because SH is such a non-important site. But what he provides is a new avenue for investigators to explore that is far more plausible then the wooden sleds, helpful aliens, or powerful magics of hypothesis past.

Jon



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 

OK, so the guy can spin and teeter totter big rocks. Great. How does that explain how they transported those rocks from 60 miles away to the Stone Henge sight? Strictly sensationalism on his part for his true believers! The guy must have a lot of time on his hands and a lot of rocks! But bravo to him for pulling the wool over the eyes of a lot of people!



They had all the time in the world back then... It most likely took them a long time to transport, either that or they figured out a way to fabricate the stone... Where are all the large cuts from the quarry? The ones you say are 60 miles away? Articles, video maybe?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


I checked Wiki. Estimates vary about the origin of the stones from 160 miles to 25 miles and some were probably local glacial origin stone. The stone sizes vary from 4 ton to 50 ton. Sea level or water levels may have been higher at some point but still would not have allowed boats access to the site so overland transport would still have been necessary.

The video is kaput now but the guy's largest rock wasn't anywhere near 50 T and he wasn't rolling it just spinning and teetering.

Someone said that people back then had more time on their hands. I beg to differ on that as the seasons weren't any longer then than now and their tools for food production were presumably less developed and they still had to feed themselves. People have more time on their hands now, eg. the guy in the video!




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Voxel
 


I checked Wiki. Estimates vary about the origin of the stones from 160 miles to 25 miles and some were probably local glacial origin stone. The stone sizes vary from 4 ton to 50 ton. Sea level or water levels may have been higher at some point but still would not have allowed boats access to the site so overland transport would still have been necessary.

The video is kaput now but the guy's largest rock wasn't anywhere near 50 T and he wasn't rolling it just spinning and teetering.

Someone said that people back then had more time on their hands. I beg to differ on that as the seasons weren't any longer then than now and their tools for food production were presumably less developed and they still had to feed themselves. People have more time on their hands now, eg. the guy in the video!



What? Again no backup... You only saw a couple methods he used, I'm sure with a little more development he could make something to move a 50 ton rock... Why not challenge him to do it? I'm sure he'd take you up on his challenge... Then would you be convinced? And I was not referring to them as literally having more time, just saying, that's all they did, day in and day out... If you died your were replaced by a new worker and the work continued...



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
At the moment, this is just a way the ancient could have used to build stone henge. I've seen and heard of more likely ways it could have been built than UFO's or advanced technology.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
At the moment, this is just a way the ancient could have used to build stone henge. I've seen and heard of more likely ways it could have been built than UFO's or advanced technology.


Mind expanding a bit on that? What did you hear and where did you hear it?



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I will have to make some of those roller tracks those were very cool. With sleds and ice and snow and horses or oxen they could certainly move very large stones a considerable distance. I use cables my self but at some point those people figured out how to make strong rope.

I think if they were smart the builders of stonehenge would use the rocks they were setting as fulcrums to move other rocks. Now I have to find those plans for the tracks.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
That was a fascinating video! His family must think he is awesome! Anyway I totally believe in his method now that I watched this video. How utterly simple. It makes it much more likely that Stonehenge is human made, than alien made.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
He definitely has a lot of free time, and human ingenuity never fails to astound me. I applaud his ability to apply the basic science behind moving large objects.

However, this means nothing when trying to explain Stonehenge.
I am quite sure that they never had treated wood, rivets and concrete to help them make it achievable. I am also quite sure that there is a large difference in moving something a few meters and moving them many miles.

Plumranch is correct in his observations as well.

This does not explain Stonehenge.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


Back then such calculations and contraptions could have been considered powerful magic.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Looky here! A photo of stonehenge in 1877. Did anyone get a picture of the aliens building it?





I do have personal experience moving several ton boulders with cables and rock bars (levers). I could conceive of ways to make Stonehenge using only human powered machines, cables and some very strong tripods. Large trees could do the job of the tripods. Oh, and snatch or pulley blocks. That is important. Pulleys significantly reduce work needed to move the load being lifted if done right.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 

Thanks for the post, Electric.

Actually I agree with you, generally. We could design systems to explain all the physics, no problem. Those explainations are fascinating! I just have a problem imagining that those supposedly primative people would have gone to all that trouble. What possible reason for transporting those rocks all that distance at what human cost? A 50 Ton rock? Very feasible by your standards quite improbable by mine! My vote goes for something inspired and directed by some previous superior group. Like the ones that did the lay lines and the ones that do the real crop circles.

I'm sure some guy could think up a way to move a 50 T rock though! The problem of moving it over soft soil is problematic, however!



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


This is what I had visualized...





posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
This is great stuff, but it does not explain how the stones were cut in the first place, it also does not show how to get them over very steep inclines or over very rough surfaces. There are still many questions about this...



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
last night on the History channel there was a brand new program about stonehenge.

Local sandstone, or sarsen, was used for the uprights, which measure 5.5 by 2 m/18 by 7 ft and weigh some 26 tonnes each.

they said the outer stones came from 20 miles away in the Avon area.
the smaller inner `bluestones` came from the Prescelly Mountains, Pembrokeshire in south west wales and are believed to be moved by boat.

you may also want to look into the oldest and largest village that has just been unearthed next to SH. it was the craftsmens village,

the tv program was called my favorite place and was hosted by bill bailey.
www.thehistorychannel.co.uk...

The first monument, around 3000 BC, was a low circular henge about 98 m/322 ft in diameter with a shallow outer ditch, and a single entrance fronted by the Avenue, with parallel banks 14 m/46 ft apart and ditches. The Avenue continues in a straight line for 275 m/900 ft and then divides, one branch curving north and the other east to the Avon at West Amesbury (parts of its course have been reconstructed using aerial photography). Within the earthen circle, close to its edge, was a circle of 56 large ritual pits, the Aubrey Holes (discovered by John Aubrey 1666), which contained bone pins, a polished stone mace‐. and cremated human bones, all typical of the Neolithic cultures of Wessex early in the 2nd millennium BC. The Heelstone within its small ditch in the Avenue was also part of this first monument.

In the second phase, associated with the pottery of Beaker people, a double circle of Pembrokeshire bluestone was erected. The bluestone may have been transported on land by human labour 217 km/347 mi, or by boat. It appears that the entrance of this double circle was aligned on the present axis of the monument: the orientation on the Midsummer sunrise marked by the Avenue. This early bluestone monument with carefully finished and trimmed stones may have provided a prototype for the later work on the massive upright monolith sarsen stones. The stones of the sarsen peristyle and trilithon are carefully dressed, and the vertical stones have tenons made to fit mortice holes on the undersides of the lintels, which are curved to meet the circumference of the circle and the whole corrected for perspective. Two of the sarsen uprights bear Bronze Age carvings which appear to be contemporary with the original working of the stones. Copper or bronze flat axes are depicted, and possibly a hafted dagger. The style has parallels with early Mycenaean types and has led to suggestions of Wessex–Mycenae trade links, although chronological differences make this unlikely.

About 1800 BC the double circle of bluestones was removed and in the final building phases, approximately 1500 to 1400 BC, 60 of them were rearranged to form a circle inside the sarsen peristyle and a horseshoe within the sarsen trilithons. The Y and the Z holes, two irregular circles of square socket holes which lie between the sarsen circle and the Aubrey Circle, represent part of a construction that was never completed.

Conservation
Stonehenge Down, including the Avenue and the Cursus, was purchased by public subscription in 1927 and 1929, and vested in the National Trust in order to preserve the view from Stonehenge, which was a gift to the nation and is in the custody of English Heritage. In 1958 a trilithon that fell in 1797 was re‐erected, along with three other stones which fell in 1900.

Stonehenge is one of the best‐known archaeological sites in the world. Its conservation poses problems and the decision to close the circle to the public has caused controversy, in particular with regard to the Midsummer solstice ceremony held there. It is apparent that whatever the original intention of the builders, it has been given ritual significance in later years and is regarded as a ‘sacred site’.
`Hutchinson 2006`



thanks

snnopyuk



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Cmon guys..the answer is right in front of the pyramid itself!
How can we spend years figuring out?
Of course the eqyptians used the Sphinx!
Haha.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 

Thanks for the visuals.

I thought a little more about the problem of soil stability in transporting heavy loads. A modern runway, for instance, is built to withstand loads comperable to the 50 Ton stone. They are on the order of 16" total thickness, mainly steel reinforced concrete covered with asphalt. If you tried to land a Boing 737 empty on the flat English countryside of Stonehenge you would plow furrows with the wheels, same thing taxiing.

The photo you had of the sledge piled high with all those trees is interesting because in this case the ground is well frozen, probably to a depth of 2 or 3 feet. Frozen ground is very stable but then the question is does the ground ever freeze that deeply in that area? England has more of a meritime climate. Maybe a Brit can help us out here?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join