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.
dlbott
Thanks for link will revisit later, am I right he never disclosed what his device was or it was taken after his death i am sorry my memory is fragmenting lol.
The Bot
abeverage
dlbott
abeverage
dlbott
abeverage
Ancient Architecture has always fascinated me almost as much as the mythology and cultures of the past. I have not yet reconciled the monolithic structures but a form of cement makes more sense than ALIENS or even the standard model...
Yea, such a fascinating subject. Not sure I buy liquid rocks, the shear size and weight of some of these stones is amazing. There are so many fables like merlin using a staff to move stones many believe using sonics.
There is a unique place somewhere in Florida where the guy used a mysterious device in a small black box to move and place large stones. He said he discovered how the ancients did it. Mysterious story, Google it.
Not sure I buy aliens but to seriously look at the structures built all over the world and it is difficult to believe they built these incredible structures, some with no metal tools at all, without some help.
The place where it looks like it was hit with some great force, where the stones interlock like Legos. Modern stone masons can't make these cuts, they tried, this to me is extremely puzzling and can only mean they had some sort of technology.
I hope someday we have the answers.
The Bot
Ed Leedskalnin I know his story well. The coral castle built for unrequited love. He not only built a monument, that men with machines would have trouble doing today!
He also tried to instruct in building a personal monument within others through his writing...edit on 24-9-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)
Thanks for link will revisit later, am I right he never disclosed what his device was or it was taken after his death i am sorry my memory is fragmenting lol.
Thanks again for link.
The Bot
I forget many import things but I am full of completely usless information like that. Yes he took the secrets to his grave. Some say his writing holds the key.
will2learn
dlbott
Thanks for link will revisit later, am I right he never disclosed what his device was or it was taken after his death i am sorry my memory is fragmenting lol.
The Bot
Bot
I always wondered about how Ed used to lift those stones, that little black box seems to be a fixation for the Coral Castle Cult members. I was lucky enough to actually come across some footage of Ed actually lifting his big stones. Here it is, seems the reality as usual is less exciting than the Cult has led us to believe.
Ed Leedskalin Actually lifting big stones
Hope it solves another mystery, he probably used cements or geopolymers too
Will
geobro
reply to post by will2learn
when you go to video it says private can you fix it please as i would like to see it
Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.
So, why do we see mortar between layers?
Harte
demongoat
reply to post by will2learn
the problem i have with the idea of them using mostly slag is that many of the pyramids were meant to be great monuments to the person being buried there. also where is the evidence of the tools used to create the stone blocks? i'm not expecting molds here, though i have to wonder how those who doubt the blocks were rolled, expect them to make molds from wood given there wasn't much wood.
i have no doubt they filled parts of some of the smaller tombs with slag and cast off stone, then again maybe the people building it didn't care as much about the big ones either, and skimped on the carving.
the idea of them creating cement like blocks sounds cool, especially with pop-sci headlines like "egyptians used nanotech!" but i'm not sure it really stands up given that the only real evidence is the claim of nano-particles in some of the tested material some scientists have.
the problem is, one there is no evidence of it, the effort is higher than just carving it, and it takes longer.
for anyone who believes this, why is there no evidence of it? concrete isn't a simple thing to make it's a process.
also there is plenty of evidence of fossils in the stones, trace fossils like tunnels and other things.
Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.
So, why do we see mortar between layers?
Harte
will2learn
Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.
So, why do we see mortar between layers?
Harte
The guys above did some neat experiments with molding the slag stone. It left gaps.
As for mortar, why not? either due to the use of many methods or the repairs that needed to be carried out.
Will
Harte
will2learn
Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.
So, why do we see mortar between layers?
Harte
The guys above did some neat experiments with molding the slag stone. It left gaps.
As for mortar, why not? either due to the use of many methods or the repairs that needed to be carried out.
Will
Apparently you are unaware of how much mortar we're talking about here.
In places it's 2 or 3 inches thick - all the way back under the stones.
The thought that "shrinkage" explains this is completely laughable. A shrinking stone won't float in mid-air 2 or 3 inches above a stone below it, necessitating that the gap be filled with mortar.
Harte
will2learn
Harte
will2learn
Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.
So, why do we see mortar between layers?
Harte
The guys above did some neat experiments with molding the slag stone. It left gaps.
As for mortar, why not? either due to the use of many methods or the repairs that needed to be carried out.
Will
Apparently you are unaware of how much mortar we're talking about here.
In places it's 2 or 3 inches thick - all the way back under the stones.
The thought that "shrinkage" explains this is completely laughable. A shrinking stone won't float in mid-air 2 or 3 inches above a stone below it, necessitating that the gap be filled with mortar.
Harte
Harte
as I keep repeating one method does not preclude another. I can find natural stones at the ancient sites, it does not preclude bricks, formed stones, cements, mortar etc..
Mortar can be found in some places as an original sealant, in others its a repair. At least we are both agreeing they could use mortar.
Will
Harte
If you're saying that somewhere in there there might be some artificial stone, then all you have to do is look at the mortar.
Mortar is itself a type of artificial stone.
What I'm talking about are the serious stones. The casing stones, the backing stones 9that we see today on the exteriro,) the granite slabs.
These ALL are stone, not artificial. What would be the point of grinding up limestone to make it into limestone?
Harte
Hanslune
....and adding back in intact fossils?
will2learn
Hanslune
....and adding back in intact fossils?
Hans
this is one of the simplest things to explain. From my perspective there are two ways for the fossils to remain.
1. The stone was simply carved (slag stone cements do not preclude carving)
2. A common way to use cement is to make conglomerates (I think thats the term) these are mixes of both cement powders and natural stones/gravel/pebbles which saves on cement.
What the natural stone advocates CAN NOT answer is why there are no fossils in the supposedly natural stones of the wall at Cuzco when the source quarry has fossils aplenty. See the analysis in the paper above.
Will