Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Easter Island statues 'walked' out of quarry

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Its a cool video and gives a needed perspective, but in my opinion it doesnt answer the real enigmas of the movement and placement of the Easter Island Heads.




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by crawdad1914
Or "Debunking Ancient Aliens", showing an Egyptian relief, of workers moving a stone half the size of the stones at Baalbek in Lebanon, on flat and level ground as a way to explain away the movement and placement of the Far larger stones. Stones that were moved from the quarry uphill, a mile over rocky ground with no evidence for a road ever being built there in order to slide the stones on.

The Romans placed those stones at Baalbek, and at around the same time that other Romans were placing other, similar-sized stones in Jerusalem.

The Roman method is quite well known. Perhaps you should look into it, as you seem to think that, simply because you are unaware of a thing, then everyone must also be unaware of that thing.

I assure you, this is not the case.

Harte



The Roman Settlers in the area came across the foundation stones. The people in the area said "the Gods had place them there" in the distant past.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by crawdad1914
Or "Debunking Ancient Aliens", showing an Egyptian relief, of workers moving a stone half the size of the stones at Baalbek in Lebanon, on flat and level ground as a way to explain away the movement and placement of the Far larger stones. Stones that were moved from the quarry uphill, a mile over rocky ground with no evidence for a road ever being built there in order to slide the stones on.

The Romans placed those stones at Baalbek, and at around the same time that other Romans were placing other, similar-sized stones in Jerusalem.

The Roman method is quite well known. Perhaps you should look into it, as you seem to think that, simply because you are unaware of a thing, then everyone must also be unaware of that thing.

I assure you, this is not the case.

Harte



The Roman Settlers in the area came across the foundation stones. The people in the area said "the Gods had place them there" in the distant past.



Simply not true.

There's a thread here about this. Links to archaeology that was recently completed there.

Harte



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Reading the debunkers of this method from OP and seeing the Alien inspired cute animation it is abundantly clear that as always little men and women decide that they know all about physics - so much so that they can claim that ordinary physics which has worked for thousands of years is a lie.

Modern builders look at the monoliths and say - "I couldn't do that with my sophisticated machinery".
Well mayby not - but with applied physics and ingenuity you could.

My wife and I put up a 10 meter mast (triangular mesh type mast) by using a 6 meter pole, some rope and a pivot point. It just slid into upright position and that was it. It took us less than half an hour.
They guy who wanted money for putting it up claimed that I would need a crane.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


From what I have read its not clear that the Romans placed the foundation stones, only that they built atop the foundation. My understanding and yours could be argued either way rationally based on different writings. What is not clear is the method the blocks were quarried and moved, based on the specific terrain leading from the quarry to the site.

My opinion on this matter and specifically the video posted on Easter Island in this thread is that the subject deserves to be explored fully and in the complete context. The video does not do that in my opinion. It helps us to understand some facets of the enigma, but not the real challenging ones.

My apologies if I came off in my initial post in a rude manner, that was not my intent. Its an important subject and a fun discussion.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I wouldn't suggest this was the only means for moving the statues, but shows it is feasible to walk them, and it would be much easier (and more conservative of building materials) to do so. As far as trees go, between building boats, shelter, and firewood, trees would have been consumed with or without moving statues, given it's a small island with limited resources. It could simply be a case of walking the statues where it was possible, and using wooden rollers/frames when needed to traverse difficult spots. Let's face it, when it comes to rough terrain, rollers would be the first method to go, 'walking' up/down slopes might not work, leaving you with dragging as the infallible (if not most strenuous) last resort.

 


Many of the taller ones have a significant portion buried - it may have been done as a simple necessity to keep the statues upright.










Since none of the shorter ones have a buried half, then it would seem to rule out a religious/ceremonial reason for burying any portion of the statues, and instead imply it was done out of necessity for either moving them or standing them erect. I still think the idea of digging a trench so that the tallest statue could thus be walked makes sense, and it might account for why the tallest statues are still buried. The ones that have fallen may be due to soil erosion around their base.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Romans placed the trilithon and most of the larger blocks at Baalbek, this was argued to great length here at ATS in another thread. The "pre-Roman" portion of Baalbek consists of a t-shaped podium built by Herod, about 70 years prior to the site being taken over by Romans who reinforced it with much larger blocks to carry the peristyle for their Temple of Jupiter. Trust me, I went from a "can't be Romans" to an avowed Roman believer after discussing it with the author of several papers on Baalbek and the Herodian phase of it's construction. (Hans and Harte's arguments also convinced me otherwise).



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Heave-Ho, Heave-Ho

Heave-Ho, Heave-Ho

Heave-Ho, Heave-Ho

Its stuck inside my head now and i cant get it out!



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Romans placed the trilithon and most of the larger blocks at Baalbek, this was argued to great length here at ATS in another thread. The "pre-Roman" portion of Baalbek consists of a t-shaped podium built by Herod, about 70 years prior to the site being taken over by Romans who reinforced it with much larger blocks to carry the peristyle for their Temple of Jupiter. Trust me, I went from a "can't be Romans" to an avowed Roman believer after discussing it with the author of several papers on Baalbek and the Herodian phase of it's construction. (Hans and Harte's arguments also convinced me otherwise).


Yes, that's the thread I was referring to.

Regarding your response about the trees, I don't think boats and housing can explain it. After all, the natives had already been there for a long time when they were first seen by Europeans, and the island was still okay then from an ecological point of view.

However, the combination of "walking" and rolling is something I can certainly buy into.


Harte



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Thank you for the information. Was the movement of the blocks to the site discussed in that thread? I would be interested in the link to the specific thread that aspect was discussed in. I would imagine there are multiple Baalbek threads on this site so if you or someone else could post the link I would like to read through that.




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


You're aware that the Romans moved several Egyptian obelisks to Italy, right?

How were these moved?

The Baalbek stones were moved the same way.

Romans had cranes and winches. While a single winch wouldn't suffice, there is no reason they couldn't hook up ten or twenty at a time to do the job.

Also note that the quarry for the Baalbek stones is actually at a slightly higher elevation than the site itself. The stones would have never needed to be lifted, just dragged.

Harte



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


What a load of BS...this is such a stupid video anyone with a brain knows that this was fake




See how this "statue" is leaning forward without falling...like OMG! What anti-gravity are they using? (and I don't mean the pulling from behind section).

Some douche is in a statue costume and is helping to walk it.

That stone weighs a few tonnes, not even a crane would be able to move it.
edit on 24-10-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


You're aware that the Romans moved several Egyptian obelisks to Italy, right?

How were these moved?

The Baalbek stones were moved the same way.

Romans had cranes and winches. While a single winch wouldn't suffice, there is no reason they couldn't hook up ten or twenty at a time to do the job.

Also note that the quarry for the Baalbek stones is actually at a slightly higher elevation than the site itself. The stones would have never needed to be lifted, just dragged.

Harte


Thanks for you're response. I am relatively new to this particular forum but not the subjects discussed. I look forward to doing a Baalbek search and reading up on all the different perspectives from forum members, I can allways learn something new.

I dont want to go off topic anymore than I allready have in this particular thread.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 

I understand.

FYI. here's a link to the thread mentioned. The link leads directly to Blackmarketeer's "conversion." (LOL) You can read the rest of the thread, of course, should you wish.

Harte



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
A stone that heavy would leave deep indelible marks in the ground as it walked. It would fall in my humble opinion. The ground soil looks very soft based on the digging of the very tall statue site. But a cool find nonetheless OP. Keep us thinking.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Harte
 

Many of the taller ones have a significant portion buried - it may have been done as a simple necessity to keep the statues upright.


It just doensn't make sense they would burry them so deep. 1st all that work in crafting with details on them (on the lower parts), only to burry them deep in the ground?

Time must have burried them deep in the ground, like the sphinx once was found with only the head sticking out of the sand (although it takes way less time in that case of course).

As always; only guesswork, no certainty as how they did it with such ancient huge stonework.
edit on 24-10-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SinMaker
A stone that heavy would leave deep indelible marks in the ground as it walked. It would fall in my humble opinion. The ground soil looks very soft based on the digging of the very tall statue site. But a cool find nonetheless OP. Keep us thinking.


Thats an excellent point. How would you keep the statue from digging itself into the ground as it "walked" in the
soft rich soil of the trenches dug? It seems to me the tendency would have been for the stones to want to "screw" themselves lower into the soft soil from the rocking motion. These things were tall, heavy and of a somewhat narrow base.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
reply to post by crawdad1914
 

I understand.

FYI. here's a link to the thread mentioned. The link leads directly to Blackmarketeer's "conversion." (LOL) You can read the rest of the thread, of course, should you wish.

Harte


Thank you.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 

Earliest know painting of easter island
by William Hodges, 1775

Notice the top that held the caps? You don't see those now.


66south.com...
edit on 24-10-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Mystery solved; at least on flat land. Not sure how this method would work on the type topography that exists on Easter Island where the other statues are located.





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join