Stonehenge Builders Said to Use Giant Wicker Baskets to Roll Massive Stones

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Fascinating stuff about the wicker houses (and thanks for the photos! I love the interior of the wicker hall!) However, looking at it from a material standpoint and an effort standpoint I am still skeptical. Here's the points I find inadequate:

* wicker crushes easily and those are huge stones.
* it'd take a lot of effort to get them wrapped up (you'd have to rotate them several times or first haul the thing upright and then wrap it and then tip it over (and not crush the wicker or break the stone) and then haul ti, and once wrapped, if something breaks it's more time getting it wrapped again. Dragging the thing is simpler.
* rolling it means that you'd have to find the center of gravity and make sure that the axle was attached to that. The stones don't show signs of being attached to axles (and it would take a lot of muscle power to roll a stone that big.)
* Moving things by flipping them over and over is more work than dragging them. To rotate it, you need force (energy) needed to raise the thing, which is essentially moving a weight up a slope. If you tagged one edge of the stone, you'd see it move in a sinusoidal curve. So it appears that a lot more energy and work is required (unless the thing is completely and truly round and the road is smooth) to rotate it than to drag it.

...but... this is just my thought. I can be wrong about this, y'know.

Those are all very good points Byrd, as a theory I guess this one still needs a lot of work. Especially after looking at photos of the blue stones at Stonehenge, they are pretty crude and irregular, in order to roll them a wicker basket they would have to be padded out to compensate for their misshapen size, otherwise, as you pointed out, you'd never be able to roll them in a straight line. Not to mention it looks like it would take a lot of wicker (and as you also mention, how would you roll them up in it?)

As far as dragging them I suppose it helps to remember England was covered by a pretty dense forest, so it's people had a lot of wood to work with, maybe they developed a technique not too unlike that used by the Assyrians, toss a few stripped and de-barked lengths of wood under the object to be dragged allowing it to more-or-less glide across the terrain, makes it easier than trying to drag it directly on the ground.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f377013bff54.gif[/atsimg]

You know if you present a similar problem to disparate groups of people, there's a chance they'll develop similar solutions, no reason to suspect the ancient Britons were less ingenious than the others of their era (Egyptians, Sumerian, Assyrians). There's a chance some of the means of transportation depicted by one of these groups (such as the Assyrian one above) is quite similar to the means used by the Britons- taking into consideration the raw materials they had to work with of course.

reply to post by anon72


I have to admit the "Wicker" theory is a hard one to swallow for the answer of the transferring process, but it's crucial application of it's simple existence, that's what blows my mind. it was built for a purpose, not just as a Emblem of "We were ere" conceptual ideals.
Watched a program some time ago about what the possibilities are for it being an acoustical and astronomical clock but operated with sound and electromagnetic principal's.
Couldn't find the exact episode I was looking for, but found this website that is still being a work in progress, but has a lot of the same insight's as far as the Stonehenge cluster being much more than just an ancient relic for bewilderment.

STONE CIRCLES, CRYSTAL GRIDS, and PARTICLE ACCELERATORS:the PHYSICS OF PI
(ARTICLE IN PROGRESS)

STONEHENGE--ANCIENT MEGALITHIC COMPUTER or a relic of ANCIENT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY(OR BOTH)???

Is the geometric arrangement of stones at STONEHENGE only for use as an ASTRONOMICAL CLOCK or does it have some additional purpose?

Stonehenge

This is a very good thread, S&F.
Just wish we could find the ever elusive "Owners Manual" to explain it all, once and for all!! LOL

reply to post by anon72


Very strong argument but I dont buy this theory.

Giant baskets? Must have needed Giants to roll them over and into place .....

How have people built ancient cities or other 'Holy places'? The same way? No, I believe its lost history and knowledge about how to built places like Stonehenge by the power to sound, vibration and vortexes ....

but heeeee what do I know eh?

I was just reading this article so decided to look for it here.. Im not buying in to it.
The biggest issue I can see is actually the initial placement of these massive slabs of rock on top of these reeds, and the fact the still can not stand them vertically. I can picture why he would think this theory would work, but I see so many flaws with this technique - not to mention his trial run only used a 40kg slab of rock.... if it's so easy at least proove it with something of comparable scale, 40kg can be lifted by 1 person.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Beautiful, natural and livable, too! I did never like modern housing materials and its fume that are giving off: It makes me wonder if we are living VERY unnaturally compared to ancient civilization. This has got to be the "build houses light of straw and sticks." deal as prophesied by Mother Shipton.

Stongehenge was built by and Advanced Race as a tool to use by mankind. Ancient Civilizations used it effectively. Only recently; past 2000 years; has religion skewed its purpose.