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.

 

Pyramids, Baalbek, Stonehenge, Sacsayhuamán...How was it done ? .. Answer: Alien tech

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Except the feed rates Dunn claims are not supported by examination of the cores. He's merely giving an opinion.
These core drills were copper and then bronze. This is proven by residue left on the cores.

Try feeding a copper saw at his supposed feed rates and see where that gets you.

Harte




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christarella
Ok just read this post then walked past the television--my son is watching Modern Marvels on the History Channel- to see NASA lifting a rocket onto the launch pad using, what I am assuming, to be hydrolics?? Not sure what the average weight is of one of these monsters, though I do know that the average weight of a Space Shuttle is 250,000 pounds. Couldn't some kind of hydrolics have been used to move some of these stones?


It's a good and honest question, but the answer is "no."

If you've ever watched programs like "Junkyard Wars" you will know just how cranky hydraulics are. Seals have to fit perfectly, and they're rather inclined to leak or not function when things are the wrong temperature, and so forth. Hero's steam engine didn't produce enough "oomph" to lift one, either.

We have pictures depicting workmen levering stones onto a temple from ancient Egypt and there's a (much later) image of Romans with a device that looks like a crane. In modern times people have (as tests) erected large stones using a rope and ramp type construction and at least one college (I forget where but saw it on a tv program) has professors that make their engineering students do models of things like the Roman Coliseum (an architecturally difficult piece) in the same sort of materials and with the same sort of devices used by the ancient Romans.

Ropes and levers (as they used for drawing water from deep wells) are quite possible, though. These old fashioned devices are still in use today in many places in the world.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
mecha71647 stonehedge is a bunch of standing stones somewhere in the english country side. it is rumored that it was a ancient meeting place for magic riturals and stuff like that



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Except the feed rates Dunn claims are not supported by examination of the cores. He's merely giving an opinion.
These core drills were copper and then bronze. This is proven by residue left on the cores.

Try feeding a copper saw at his supposed feed rates and see where that gets you.

Harte


Again, I disagree. Feed rates are proven by the drill marks, so it's not a mere opinion. Copper/bronze may well have been used, but that metal could not have been the cutter, as it is too soft. They must have used something much harder set into the copper, just as carbide is used today.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The man who did the first serious archaeological excavation at Stonehenge was Prof Gowland, the date was 1901. Now before he worked at Stonehenge heworked at the imperial mint at Osaka, Japan, where he found a document showing illustrations of the workers moving the stones used in the construction of the Castle of Osaka, built in the 17th century. The illustrations show the builders carrying the stones ( yes carrying) many of which weighed over 40 tons, heavier than the stones of Stonehenge. If you want to know how it was done do your own research, but there was nothing supernatural nor was 'alien technology' involved, nor was there at Stonehenge which was very likely to have been achieved in exactly the same way.

Simply Google 'the stones of Osaka Castle' to see examples of the masonry and type 'Solving Stonehenge' to see the latest study of Stonehenge. And remember - the japanese documents show exactly how they were moved.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 29-1-2011 by Insitu because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2011 by Insitu because: video was not working



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Throughout the ages leaders, emporers, kings and pharoes alike have all resorted to consulting sages,shamans, magicians and sourcerers in times of need. They were called on for all kinds of situations from decisions of war to dream interpretations.

It is my belief that these same mediums were effective in technological advances, throughout time our greatest minds we have credited with our greatest breakthroughs all have one thing in common from Archimedes and Davinci to Sir Isaac Newton.

They all delved in the black arts, from sourcery and alchemy to other various forms of divination. In more recent times you only have to look at the Vrill, a small group of spiritualists who gained levitation technology for the Nazis or Jack Parsons and his notorious associates credited with vital rocket technology for NASA gained
through black majic.

Is it a coincidence that TPTB the ruling elite (illuminati, pope and cirtain monarchs) are satanists?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Harte
Except the feed rates Dunn claims are not supported by examination of the cores. He's merely giving an opinion.
These core drills were copper and then bronze. This is proven by residue left on the cores.

Try feeding a copper saw at his supposed feed rates and see where that gets you.

Harte


Again, I disagree. Feed rates are proven by the drill marks, so it's not a mere opinion. Copper/bronze may well have been used, but that metal could not have been the cutter, as it is too soft. They must have used something much harder set into the copper, just as carbide is used today.


They used sand, not copper, to do the actual cutting.

But not at the claimed feed rate.
The use of a loose abrasive like sand makes the marks too random to arrive at Dunn's conclusion. If you look close enough at any small section of any of the cores found, you can select a few cut marks that will "prove" almost any assertion you want about how they did it.

It was done with a copper tube, sand crystals, and muscle. Dunn's feed rate requires a motor. You really want to get into "Earth movements" exciting hydrogen, creating microwaves that were somehow turned into electric current, even without a power station?

Harte



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Harte
Except the feed rates Dunn claims are not supported by examination of the cores. He's merely giving an opinion.
These core drills were copper and then bronze. This is proven by residue left on the cores.

Try feeding a copper saw at his supposed feed rates and see where that gets you.

Harte


Again, I disagree. Feed rates are proven by the drill marks, so it's not a mere opinion. Copper/bronze may well have been used, but that metal could not have been the cutter, as it is too soft. They must have used something much harder set into the copper, just as carbide is used today.


They used sand, not copper, to do the actual cutting.

But not at the claimed feed rate.
The use of a loose abrasive like sand makes the marks too random to arrive at Dunn's conclusion. If you look close enough at any small section of any of the cores found, you can select a few cut marks that will "prove" almost any assertion you want about how they did it.

It was done with a copper tube, sand crystals, and muscle. Dunn's feed rate requires a motor. You really want to get into "Earth movements" exciting hydrogen, creating microwaves that were somehow turned into electric current, even without a power station?

Harte

Well, I thought his tool mark evidence was solid, but you may be aware of evidence I have not seen. Sand? Maybe, but when I see the tolerances of the work, and especially the perfectly flat polished stone surfaces, I still vote for machine tools, and the lack of them is just irrelevant. They were machined - how is another matter. If you vote for copper drills + sand, you've voted for machine tools.

Dunn's power plant hypothesis is somewhat speculative, but his chapter on machining of stone is solid, and worth the price of his book, IMHO.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Here is my problem with ancient alien technology...

Where is it?

And why did they not build these ancient monuments from highly polished metals?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wellsybelieves
Here is my problem with ancient alien technology...

Where is it?

And why did they not build these ancient monuments from highly polished metals?


Maybe because they were stone age aliens...


Sorry, could not help myself.
edit on 30-1-2011 by Lazarus Short because: more to say



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Stone age aliens, i like it! For balance we need a little comic relief from time to time, been lacking on ATS a little of late.
The only recent attempts at humour seem to be that of sarcasm, and as we know it is the lowest form of witt.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
it is a proven fact that these buildings WERE created by alien technology correct me if im wrong but

we dont know what technology they used to build these monuments therefore they are alien to us case closed



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tdrowe2010
 


I think the there exists a large difference between not understanding how something was built and little green men in their flying saucers built them with futuristic technology



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Either way the construction of al those stones at egypt and precision is quite remarkable.Historically the egyptians built them as a sign of rebirth,that i find most interesting,are there hiden symbols in the construction that indicate what to look out for when rebirth will reoccur.
In reality that is everything alluded to in the pyramids,rebirth.
Rebirth of what,the pharoahs soul,the dynastic country they live in,or because of natural cosmic events that document a important time in their lives,something to warn future inhabitants about.
The other thing is with logs to move 2million 300,000 stones,where did these trees come from and where is the evidence,the place would be littered with dead bodies and carbon dateable log remains,plus the fact that when nasa did a pinpoint on the tip of the giza pyramid it was only one quarter of an inch out from dead centre,thats pretty accurate cutting ,especially after putting each block together like a jigsaw all the way to the top,only a teensy bit out?It certainly seems a feet of technical engineering and considering each stone weight and the reason for building the Ramessis 2nd musuem around the monument as they could`nt move it because it weighed 1000tons of granite,pretty weird and perplexing.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I think some of the conflicting opinions comes from the fact that just because something is not economically feasible in today's world, does not mean it's "impossible" for us to do.

Its a proven fact that stones the size of any ancient monoliths can in fact be moved with pure man-power, in the case of the Thunder Stone.

It's a proven fact that you can cut Diorite and Granite with copper saws and drills using sand as an abrasive.

It's suggested that the "machine marks" on a very few objects wouldn't be possible with the cut rate of non-automated cutting technique, but it's far from proven that they are machine marks. If I remember correctly one piece of evidence was the core taken out of a block, that had a very long spiral around it, suggesting that whatever was used to cut it was cutting very very deep per rotation of the drill, something like cutting the entire core with only 4-5 actual rotations of the bit. That does not add up. Even using a modern masonry hole saw you are going to get a very fine mark left on the core, as it has to rotate thousands of times before cutting that deep.

So what were they using? A masonry hole saw relies more on crushing/grinding its way through stone, not cutting it like you would do with a bit for wood or metal. The downward pressure required to "cut" as quickly through the stone would just as soon smash a hole through the block. I can't think of anyway possible to get the cut rate that the spiral on the core would suggest, assuming it is a machine mark.

To me, it seems more likely it's not a machine mark at all.

Another piece of evidence was an accidental undercut on a large Egyptian statue. The assumption here is that high tech tools must have been used, because the builder would have figured out his mistake before taking long enough to carve the undercut with simple tools, and that it was absolutely a slip of a high powered saw that caused the mistake. Why does this have to be so? It doesn't sound reasonable, at all, that the person cutting this statue just made a mistake on a measurement or something, and it took him a little while to realize it? Again, I can think of a very plausible reason why the supposed machine mark, is not a machine mark at all.

There are a lot of odd connections in regards to ancient monolithic buildings around the word, I'm still leaning more towards advanced ancient civilizations that I am aliens, but you never know. But why would, for instance, Baalbek use huge rectangular stones, where the puzzle wall would use all manner of oddly smaller shaped stones? if there was some great knowledge or influence, surely one style of building would be known to be superior to the other, and used in its place, no?

I wonder if an ancient Egyptian were to walk around Abu-dhabi or NYC if he would instantly think the "Gods" (or Aliens if you like) just HAD to have played a hand, simply because there is no possible way he could imagine the outrageous skylines he was witnessing.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 


I couldn't agree with you anymore krom, All your points are extremely valid. From what I understand Engineering breaks down to a certain type of mathmatics. In order to construct these megalithic structures what type of mathmatical prowness would be required?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
If lasers were used, you think scorch marks would be left on the rocks?

And if lasers were used, you think there would be little evidence of it. Why not turn it into a weapon and dominate the world.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
If lasers were used, you think scorch marks would be left on the rocks?

Melted rock would be left behind on any surface cut with a laser.


And if lasers were used, you think there would be little evidence of it. Why not turn it into a weapon and dominate the world.

Great point.

Harte



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


While there may be no physical proof that aliens have intervened in human development, this doesn't rationalise putting them in the 'do not exist' basket. The universe is a big big place. Has anyone thought that instead of aliens the information 'catalogued in stone' was left by our own ancestors in a form that would survive possible future apocalyptic events, whether human induced (war,pestilence), natural (flood,fire) or extra terrestrial (Meteor impact,near miss pole shift)?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 


Sydney hammerhead crane built to lift up to 250 tons. quite a bit more then 18 or even thirty methinks.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join