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.

 

How to build Puma Punka and the Pyramids in 21.7 years using only the tech of Ancient Man?

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by bearwithredhat


Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by bearwithredhat
 


Dear Bearwiththeredhat,
Very interesting theory. I only have one question though:

Why are there no records, pictorial or other, of Zeppelins and the use of acid? The Egyptians managed to convey quite a lot about the fabrication of the pyramids but I don't recall anything about gargantuan Zeppelins.

T


Dear Bearwiththeredhat,
I am sure you missed my post in all the masses of responses, but I am truly curious about your thoughts on the lack of pictorial/written evidence to back up your alternative theory. Why do you think there is nothing?

Thank you.

T


Firstly, one kindlty person has actually posted what appears to be a clear Zeppelin in heiroglyphics above.

Secondly, I am baffled why people think it is obviously UFOs and Aliens and not Zeppelins when there are also no ALiens or UFO's in heiroglyphics too?




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pauljs75
I think some people over estimate what is involved... (My opinion, but others are still free to go with their theories too.)



I suppose how one pulls on that rope is up to debate. Leverage and torque and understanding rolling resistance, math doesn't have to be fancy to figure out how they work wonders.

And if anyone asks about going up slopes, a ramp fixed to the ground with something to cog into those gaps in the wood thingies so it doesn't slide freely such that torque still can be applied doesn't seem too far fetched either.
edit on 27-6-2012 by pauljs75 because: get image to work


...Actually, this DOES sound far fetched.

Firstly, engineers have shown that a ramp up the pyramids would have likely collapsed due to its own weight. To succeed, it would have been an 8th Wonder of the World itself.

Secondly, there is no archaeological evidence for any ramp.

Thirdly, the rate of delivery would have been so slow, that it would have needed many, many ramps to build the pyramids within just 20 years.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The only possbility is if indeed the stones were mixed from sand and basically laid and then solidified as that professor pages ago video. However, there is no evidence that such mixtures have been done - materials, shafts, tools for mixing have never been found. And while the theory explains this Pyramid building, you cannot expect every single megalythic structure was built like that. If Egyptians had the engineering techniques, hardly every single tribe did on other parts of the world.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bearwithredhat

Firstly, one kindlty person has actually posted what appears to be a clear Zeppelin in heiroglyphics above.

Secondly, I am baffled why people think it is obviously UFOs and Aliens and not Zeppelins when there are also no ALiens or UFO's in heiroglyphics too?


Dear Bearwiththeredhat,

Thank you kindly for the response, although I must also point out that your second sentence seems overly defensive since I did not mention my beliefs anywhere.

With regards pictorial or written evidence of aliens, or what could be thought of as aliens, I think you'll find there are lots of those: aboriginal cave paintings, Indian religious texts, various paintings, Sumerian texts etc..).

I did state I thought your theory was interesting, and I meant it. Do try to remain objective Dear.

Edit - I had to add, after reading some more of your later responses, that your patronising and ridiculing of people does not add much weight to your persona (or entire point), which leads me to wonder why you were truly banned from those other forums. No one likes a smart arse, nor someone who has to resort to ridicule to get his point across. If you truly believe you are on to something then keep a cool head and act like an adult in the face of it all, not like a child please.

T
edit on 28-6-2012 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Ok, so here is documented what might have happened, explaining two mysteries at once.. Thank you OP for giving me this idea. At the very least I think my explanation is better than tanks, helicopters UFO's and submarines.. Sorry my English is not used to describe terms like these so it might be a bit strange expressions sometimes
. I am no scientist, this is merely an idea that is up for debate.


Fullsize picture:


To the left of the picture we have a bug with wings, illustrating that thing flies like a bug it also resembles a bug more than a bird.

On the top in the middle we have the basis of the construction for the Zeppelin (not a helicopter) , with a rodder for balance and aerodynamics. On top of that construction we have a stone (also used for extra weight) and on top of the stone we have a wooden planck.

On the picture to the right in the above corner we see the stone blocks, (observe that it must be 2 stones of roughly the similar weight to achieve balance) around the blocks we have some form of strong cloth and/or ropes construction which is surrounding the stone blocks on both side (egyptians only knew 2d art) and we see that the planck is used to hold up the cloth in the right way until the zeppelin is full of the lifting gas.The rodder and the form of the construction also keeps the cloth from gliding off if the construction.

The picture in the middle on the right side is connected to the bottom one. There we see the Zeppelin during liftoff, we see the construction in place by looking at the rodder and the same form of upwared slope in the middle. We see the stones placed on the sides of the Zeppelin held in place by the cloth around the top of the zeppelin and the construction. We also see the planck and the stone has been removed and they seem to already have released one extra weight holding the Zeppelin down until it is full enough of gas (we see the ground at in bottom right with a stone weight and a slope/construction they were using to access the top of their creation) and a second stone weight is in the process of falling to the ground.

What do you guys think?
edit on 28-6-2012 by anno141 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
The only possbility


WHY????

WHY IS THAT THE ONLY POSSIBILITY???

Have you not read ANYTHING on this thread???



is if indeed the stones were mixed from sand and basically laid and then solidified as that professor pages ago video. However, there is no evidence that such mixtures have been done - materials, shafts, tools for mixing have never been found. And while the theory explains this Pyramid building, you cannot expect every single megalythic structure was built like that. If Egyptians had the engineering techniques, hardly every single tribe did on other parts of the world.


If a network of communications and trade was built using Zeppelins then OF COURSE the same techniques would be used.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by torqpoc

Originally posted by bearwithredhat

Firstly, one kindlty person has actually posted what appears to be a clear Zeppelin in heiroglyphics above.

Secondly, I am baffled why people think it is obviously UFOs and Aliens and not Zeppelins when there are also no ALiens or UFO's in heiroglyphics too?


Dear Bearwiththeredhat,

Thank you kindly for the response, although I must also point out that your second sentence seems overly defensive since I did not mention my beliefs anywhere.

With regards pictorial or written evidence of aliens, or what could be thought of as aliens, I think you'll find there are lots of those: aboriginal cave paintings, Indian religious texts, various paintings, Sumerian texts etc..).

I did state I thought your theory was interesting, and I meant it. Do try to remain objective Dear.

Edit - I had to add, after reading some more of your later responses, that your patronising and ridiculing of people does not add much weight to your persona (or entire point), which leads me to wonder why you were truly banned from those other forums. No one likes a smart arse, nor someone who has to resort to ridicule to get his point across. If you truly believe you are on to something then keep a cool head and act like an adult in the face of it all, not like a child please.

T
edit on 28-6-2012 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)


This is not meant to be me getting angry with people who are critical. I just get deeply frustrated with people who had something explained to them in detail and then ask exactly the same question again as if I had not posed a response, usually just one or two lines down from the reply posting..

It is like someone asknig what is 10 plus 10... you explain from basic maths that 10 plus 10 is 20, then they ask "Why won't you tell us then what is 10 plus 10?"



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bearwithredhat
 


Because using Zeppelins has as much evidence as showing how they mixed sand and other construction material. i.e none.

Furthermore, by saying they used Zeppelins you are claiming they knew how to fly? I don't see the Egyptians knowing that at all... What? Flying Egyptians?
edit on 28-6-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bearwithredhat

It has been shown that a ramp up the side of the pyramids could not have stood and would have collapsed under its own weight.

"It has been shown..."

Where? Cartoon Network?
Sorry, but remains of ramps, and even still existing ramps, have been found a several pyramids in Egypt, including the Great Pyramid.

Further more, if made of stone, that in itself would have been wonder-worthy and massively increased the time to build the pyramids as well as there being no indication of one having existed.

Remains of the materials used to construct the main ramps were used to fill some of the quarries.

No magical levitating machines were discovered among those materials.

Harte



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bearwithredhat

SIGH...gain, my post from Page Two for the Illiterate amongst us...

The only known device that can shift a 10,000 ton block of stone with ease in a single lift is… A ZEPPELIN.


SIGH. Again, my post from page 9 for the blinder-wearing among us...

Then you do not understand.

No "10,000 ton... stone" exists in any ancient construction.


No 10,000 ton stone has ever been moved by any ancient culture.

Harte



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by anno141
Ok, so here is documented what might have happened, explaining two mysteries at once.. Thank you OP for giving me this idea. At the very least I think my explanation is better than tanks, helicopters UFO's and submarines.. Sorry my English is not used to describe terms like these so it might be a bit strange expressions sometimes
. I am no scientist, this is merely an idea that is up for debate.


Fullsize picture:


To the left of the picture we have a bug with wings, illustrating that thing flies like a bug it also resembles a bug more than a bird.

On the top in the middle we have the basis of the construction for the Zeppelin (not a helicopter) , with a rodder for balance and aerodynamics. On top of that construction we have a stone (also used for extra weight) and on top of the stone we have a wooden planck.

On the picture to the right in the above corner we see the stone blocks, (observe that it must be 2 stones of roughly the similar weight to achieve balance) around the blocks we have some form of strong cloth and/or ropes construction which is surrounding the stone blocks on both side (egyptians only knew 2d art) and we see that the planck is used to hold up the cloth in the right way until the zeppelin is full of the lifting gas.The rodder and the form of the construction also keeps the cloth from gliding off if the construction.

The picture in the middle on the right side is connected to the bottom one. There we see the Zeppelin during liftoff, we see the construction in place by looking at the rodder and the same form of upwared slope in the middle. We see the stones placed on the sides of the Zeppelin held in place by the cloth around the top of the zeppelin and the construction. We also see the planck and the stone has been removed and they seem to already have released one extra weight holding the Zeppelin down until it is full enough of gas (we see the ground at in bottom right with a stone weight and a slope/construction they were using to access the top of their creation) and a second stone weight is in the process of falling to the ground.

What do you guys think?
edit on 28-6-2012 by anno141 because: (no reason given)


Many thanks again for your kind support. This is very impessive work by you. Thanks for all your effort!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bearwithredhat
This is not meant to be me getting angry with people who are critical. I just get deeply frustrated with people who had something explained to them in detail and then ask exactly the same question again as if I had not posed a response, usually just one or two lines down from the reply posting..

It is like someone asknig what is 10 plus 10... you explain from basic maths that 10 plus 10 is 20, then they ask "Why won't you tell us then what is 10 plus 10?"


Dear BWTRH,
Thank you for the response, and for what it's worth I totally understand where you are coming from. Deep breaths and a cup of tea Dear. =)

Have a nice weekend.

T



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Happy Canada Day, Torqpt and to everyone else who has helped put this thread together!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by anno141


Fullsize picture:


a chopper, seems like a blackhawk to me, did they went back in time, or something?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bearwithredhat
 


Ok then. Let's take a cube shaped stone about 3 meters to a side. Thus 3 cubed is 27 cubic meters. Density of limestone? For the purpose of this exercise let's say about 2600kg/m3. Thus it's 27 x 2600, so about 70200kg per stone. You're definitely not going to move that by yourself. Heck, like they said, most cranes can't lift that.

Aliens? Please... Let's not go there yet. Time for more rough calculations. (I am leaving out the weight of the wooden forms this time around. Too variable and I don't feel like reworking the numbers at the moment, yet compared to the stone blocks being moved it's fairly negligable.)

Instead, revisit that preposterous idea I suggested. We move the blocks from the quarry to location using forms placed around the stones as I've suggested. Consider it this way, I know I can't lift a car weighing a ton and a half, but I do know I can easily overcome that rolling resistance which is what it takes to push a car geared into neutral across level ground. Not easy, but definitely not impossible. Keeping that idea in mind, lets treat our stones as rolling stock.

So, let's look at this formula... Rolling resistance coefficient as cited from en.wikipedia.org...

Force of rolling reistance = Coefficient of rolling resistance X Normal force.
Coefficient of rolling reistance = square root ( sinkage depth / diameter of rigid wheel)

Now lets figure out the diagonal of our block, as that's roughly the diameter of our rolling stock. It's a pretty much a square on each side, so side times sqrt of 2. So 3m x square rt of 2 is roughly 4.2426m

Let's say our sinkage depth is about 2cm... or .02m. Ground isn't rock-hard, but say after first couple of stones rolled over it - it's pressed down enough to limit further deformation.

So square root of (0.02 / 4.2426 ) is approximately 0.0047. That's our coefficient of rolling resistance.

Normal force is the weight of our stone. 70200kg. So multiply 70200kg by 0.0047 and... 329.94kg... That's the amount by which you have to push by to get the thing moving and overcome friction. Seems like a dozen people pushing could do that. Once it gets moving, less people could tend to it if it's kept moving.

There's still torque. Apply ropes, and a lever chinked into the side of the jig, and... Considering when the lever is at the optimal angle (sticking out of the top), divide the rolling resistance force by the radius of the rolling stock plus an extra meter for the lever... 105.7kg... Or in unit's I'm more used to, that's 233 lbs-force. One person might be able to get it rolling that way by pulling on a rope attached to that lever.

Since it still seems a bit unwieldy, each block may need about a half dozen people running around pushing/pulling and prying at the casing with their levers to keep it rolling. That's still a significant improvement in what can be done in terms of manpower, compared to alternate theories.

Uphill ramp would be a bit trickier as it would involve angles vs. the normal force, and leverage to apply torque. Build an temporary earthen ramp with pilings around it, put the toothed ramp on top of that, and the rolling jig cogs into the toothed ramp such that mechanical advantage via leverage can be applied. We're not dragging the blocks but rolling them, the load is still significantly less (like in my level ground example), and a steeper grade and much shorter ramp could be used. (Until it approaches the limit of materials used to make the move and people-power.) You're not working the lever into the stone, but rather the jig placed around it. So such system would also have a near abscence of levering marks on the stones themselves. If you're using wood and rope, artifacts from such a job would be scarce. Those things would end up quickly repurposed after you're done, as they're useful for other things.

I'm not even an engineer (I know I didn't do sig-digits or units exactly right, but they give an idea), but I actually bothered to do the math for moving a stone on level ground since it seemed simple enough. Plug and chug... Anyhow... Ancients would have used more trial and error, but common sense would also lead to easier methods of doing things. People aren't stupid, so why do things the hard way?

Some engineer could crack the numbers for such a project even better than I could and in more correct terms and detail, but I think they'd be favorably surprised.




top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join