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: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 


Ok look at stone henge and you will see that the stones are NOT square like the one he is rolling.

They are rectangular...

I want to see him roll a rectangular one weighing 50 tons 20 miles and over a big hill. Then I will be convinced.

By the way they found the quarry for the big stones its at Marlborough Downs approx 25 miles to the north. Stonehenge

This guy is bologna. Many engineers and archaeologists have worked many many years trying to figure this out and they have a far more convincing theory than this guy.


"30 enormous Oligocene-Miocene sarsen stones (shown grey on the plan) brought from a quarry around 40 kilometres (25 mi) north of Stonehenge, on the Marlborough Downs"

Wikipedia

I want to see this guy bring a 50 ton identical shaped block up a hill of this magnitude.

Redhorn Hill

Also you can look it up on Google maps or Google earth. here..
N51:17:42 W01:54:59

Lat: 51.295020000 Long: -1.916600000



How it was really done

Looks like the previously believed theory still stands.


-Alien




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
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?



I agree with your first statement and second statement about he logging pictures... Obviously the ground has to be solid otherwise things of this nature could not happen, but please also consider, the larger the logs are the more surface space they will cover and the less they will sink if at all, use enough logs and large enough logs and you could run over any type of terrain, of course you would also clear a path and use a path with the least resitance, but it could be done... Please also don't think i'm saying, this IS the way it was done, I'm just using this to show we could have done this...

Also with the cuts of the stone, if someone took enough time they could carve them smooth like a lot of them are on some of the pyramids etc... I don't know, maybe they had lasers back then and they used those... If they were anywhere near our advancement they could have tools of this nature, maybe even ones better than what we have, but I don't think that is the way it was back then... It seems like they lived in a simpler time... But ya, this is just showing we could have used very simple methods to cut, lift, transfer and place these stones...



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
i was in the area in pembrokeshire where the blue stones were taken from and I can confirm that the land around the stones is marshy and quite wet land so the answer is not solid land at the base of blue stone peak. hope that helps



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by serin sister
 

Hi serin sister,

Does it ever freeze deeply to say 2-3 ft. in the bluestone quary region?



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The video link isn't working, and neither are any of the ones I've googled... does anyone have a googlevideo link or something else ?? I'd really like to see this.

Edit: NVM .. started working! Cool stuff!



[edit on 8-11-2008 by MurrayTORONTO]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
How the hell would they put the Rocks on top of the pillars and make it all circular? Easier said (Somewhat applied) than actually done full scale. Considering the fact that these people were'nt using cement blocks but had to carve the giant stones and had to quarry the stones miles from the site. It would have been an immense effort and could have easily thwarted the planes of people if they hadn't the technology that we have today.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Salvatore_Rubberface]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by serin sister
 

Hi serin sister,

Does it ever freeze deeply to say 2-3 ft. in the bluestone quary region?



not sure and actually not really sure were the water levels higher back then either will ask some locals let you know



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
this came into my awareness a few days ago a possilbe theory

uk.youtube.com...uk.youtube.com...

Text


and a web page
www.coralcastlecode.com



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by serin sister
 


Some suspect that the water levels were higher so the blocks could have been floated to within miles of the site. I've never heard anyone say that deep freezing like Canada, Alaska or Russia may have assisted transport.

Tks for the Coral Castle reference. That was a good one that I'd never seen!



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
If they had the skill to quarry the stone why cut blocks to move.

Cut cylinders and roll them to the site you want to use them.
then cut then to blocks,

This is one theory for the stone spheres found in Costa Rica
The theory is that the spheres could be easily rolled to a building site and then cut into blocks.
www.mysteryspheres.com...

With the Costa Rican spheres some made it to the building site and were used and others were lost to the terrain and were abandoned and those are the ones found in the jungle

[edit on 11-11-2008 by ANNED]



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   


Cut cylinders and roll them to the site you want to use them.
reply to post by ANNED
 


Large round stones cannot be rolled across swampland (unless it is frozen to a depth of several feet). The area around the bluestone quarry is swamp. Here in Alaska if you tried to drive a heavy piece of equipment like a dozer or tracked vehicle on unfrozen bog or swamp it would probably sink very deep!



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   








some images of the area of stones



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch



Large round stones cannot be rolled across swampland (unless it is frozen to a depth of several feet). The area around the bluestone quarry is swamp. Here in Alaska if you tried to drive a heavy piece of equipment like a dozer or tracked vehicle on unfrozen bog or swamp it would probably sink very deep!



So is the jungle in Costa Rica a swamp but the primitive people moved stone Spheres there.
www.mysteryspheres.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 



So is the jungle in Costa Rica a swamp but the primitive people moved stone Spheres there.


Sorry, but I have no explaination for the Costa Rica spheres although they are immensely interesting.

The bluestones could well have been made into spheres or cylinders and rolled hundreds of miles. But as I mentioned the area around the bluestone quary is swamp and the rolling would have stopped right there unless the swamp was solidly frozen. Other possibilities exist but rolling across the swamp doesn't work.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
He's moving them on flat concrete pads - wouldn't work on Salisbury Plain. Check out the image on the page below, it looks though there are lateral grooves on one stone, perhaps evidence of some kind of wear from moving it?

www.solvingstonehenge.co.uk...

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Tall_weasel]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam
 


c'mon, that logging picture looks like a joke. seriously the horses are just standing still. i think they were just having some fun.

-----

the video is interesting but i agree that it doesn't explain stonehenge. how many boats did it take to move those stones and why weren't they used for fishing? were they a large enough society to just have extra boats laying around for strange constructions? if they didn't use boats then you'd have to drag those stones up grades for lengthy periods of time for sure. if you had the man/horsepower to do that then you wouldn't need extra technology to lift them wehn you get to the site i'd imagine.

in the video the man did already have concrete poured to spin the stones on. maybe they could've used smaller shaped stones that were smushed into the ground to do that but maybe not he doesn't show it.

lastly, is there any evidence to lead us to believe that stonehenge was ever actually completed? how do we know they didn't jsut give up halfway through because it wasn't working right?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


60 MILES??, ohh yeah, just takes about 2 months of hard work to rol it that far, idiot, dont be stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join