Man moves multi-ton blocks. How Stonehenge was made?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 14-10-2011 @ 02:16 PM by RuneSpider

The moving of the Thunderstone is probably a better example. 2000 tonne stone moved 3 miles before being loaded onto a boat with only chains, ramps, and rollers.

Or any of the obelisks that weighed multiple tonnes the Romans moved to Rome, for that matter.

If you're determined enough and you have enough people, you'll find a way.
And, when you hold the leader of your village or town or country to be a living Godking, they hold a lot of power.

reply posted on 14-10-2011 @ 02:42 PM by Gorman91

reply to post by Aestheteka

These are easily resolved. he demonstrates how they moved them, and cutting those stones was not that difficult, not to mention clearly precision was not the goal. His slabs are far more precise than Stonehenge.

reply posted on 14-10-2011 @ 02:50 PM by Gorman91

reply to post by Aestheteka

uh... We've been chopping down trees with tools since we crawled out of them.

i'm fairly sure the use of modern cutting tools is irrelevant for a practice that predates modern mankind.

Why is irrelevant. Mankind doesn't do things out of reason.

And they weren't exactly worked on that much. They honestly are quite bad craft. Mankind only had the precision of the stars for precision in placement, not for cutting.

edit on 14-10-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-10-2011 @ 03:28 PM by Aestheteka

reply to post by Gorman91

Cutting the stones wasn't that difficult?
Did you read the bit about the 20 million man hours?
Tell you what, this weekend, go find yourself a bit of flint and a block of granite and come back on Monday and show us a photo of how far you progressed with it.
As for the cutting trees bit, my point was that in both Wally's and the Exeter footage they used modern precision implements to create the wooden structures and not trees hewn with flint hand axes.
Again, perhaps you'd like to show us how well you do with that one.... I want to see 90 degree angles with uniformity over several yards.....

reply posted on 14-10-2011 @ 03:36 PM by Aestheteka

This thread reminds me of the various explanations for the walls at Sacsayhuaman. Yes, parts of the puzzle can be succesfully challenged but not entirely -
Sacsayhuaman

reply posted on 15-10-2011 @ 11:46 AM by British

The stones came from a different country - Pembrokeshire, Wales and I very much doubt you could spin them around on a pebble - Especially in the grass and dirt. It may have worked for the guy in Florida but not in this case, I don't think.

reply posted on 16-10-2011 @ 05:08 PM by Gorman91

reply to post by Aestheteka

What does it matter what a paper says when reality says otherwise?

Stone is not hard to cut. Man has been cutting stone since he has had a mind to do so.

How could I, a modern man without such knowledge, possibly hope to outdo ancients whom had generations of experience? Your experiment is flawed. I would come back with nothing, just as man 20,000 years ago would. Were I the 30th generation of stone cutters with 30 generations of experience working the land as my livelihood, I would come back with Stonehenge, just as this man did.

reply posted on 18-10-2011 @ 11:49 AM by Reignite

Impressive! But could he do the same thing with the sone at Baalbek?

And how would you apply this technique on a rough and bumpy surface such as the statues at easter island?

Maybe the stonehenges.. but aren't there massive stones placed on other stones? Does his method explain's that too?

reply posted on 27-10-2011 @ 08:07 PM by RCham

Originally posted by Aestheteka
reply to post by Gorman91

Cutting the stones wasn't that difficult?
Did you read the bit about the 20 million man hours?
Tell you what, this weekend, go find yourself a bit of flint and a block of granite and come back on Monday and show us a photo of how far you progressed with it.
As for the cutting trees bit, my point was that in both Wally's and the Exeter footage they used modern precision implements to create the wooden structures and not trees hewn with flint hand axes.
Again, perhaps you'd like to show us how well you do with that one.... I want to see 90 degree angles with uniformity over several yards.....

"Note that the estimate of 20 million man-hours means that 10,000 men working on the site for 20 days each year, for 8 hours per day, could have completed it in 12.5 years"- Wikipedia

If you scale up the number of days, and scale down the number of workers it makes more sense, but it is entirely plausible. Also flint was not the only material available; granite can be ground with like/harder stones- surely these were lying around somewhere.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^