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.

 

One man, One 26,000lb stone, one 2 pound hammer.

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

pixelbob
Seems being an ATS fresher attracts too much sarcasm from the seasoned members.

I posted this on ats since I figured wud be able to hear other instances of this amazing phenomena. The tribe practising this seemed very keen to keep this ability a secret. So yes i'd only be able to prove it once I have the video. Since my point is to show the levitating event. Will post a video soon.


A standard for fringe claims has three stages

First stage: A claim

Second stage: A reason why evidence for the claim cannot be evidenced/shown/obtained, etc.

Third stage: Obtaining 'evidence' is stopped by second stage....go back and restate stage one

However, we hope you will succeed and become one of the most famous people on earth - to have finally demonstrated un-earthly powers......with unimpeachable evidence.

Best of luck


edit on 27/10/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Your also forgetting the laser like precision that most stones have where they have not been exposed to the weather. Never mind he can not lift them with that hammer! If you have ever seen the hole that was drilled through many feet of a massive stone in Baalbek, Lebanon that could have only been done by a Laser then you would have to agree that primitive man tools cutting these stones in question is just ridiculous. Especially since none of them have tool marks.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by benrl
 


Never mind he can not lift them with that hammer! If you have ever seen the hole that was drilled through many feet of a massive stone in Baalbek, Lebanon that could have only been done by a Laser


Ah could you link to information on and an image of said hole please?


then you would have to agree that primitive man tools cutting these stones in question is just ridiculous. Especially since none of them have tool marks.


You haven't actually looked at any of those stones have you - many show evidence of working, easy to see with the eye. Some were ground down to a near mirror surface but the technique can be examined by microscope - sand works wonders.....

Laser like precsion?

Link to modern laser cutting rock

Now here is the question what marks does this type of laser cutting leave on rock?



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


The actual cutting of stone is not the question. It is the precise shaping (to a point even we have trouble with today... even with all our... um, vast knowledge and technology), the transport and the placing.

On Google maps, just north of Yungay, Peru... if you click for Street View and select the square blue dot, you will find picture of what at first seems like a normal mountain scene. Terraces using non-worked native stone. But right there in front of you is a gate and the stone work that built it, compared to the stones stacked atop it, tell a story of how at one time, there was knowledge and ability far exceeding that of the later work.

Here's a reduced-sized version:


I tend to agree with the concept that, at least to some degree, we are a species suffering from a form of amnesia.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
The oldest pyramids are the most perfect pyramids. The failed projects came after the pyramids of Giza were already built. Odd that we would have to relearn technology that was already learned.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WonOunce
 


Which of the Egyptian Pyramids are the oldest Pyramids??

As per general consensus and accepted archaeological records

Djoser's Step Pyramid from th4e 3rd Dynasty is considered to be oldest.

As per your reasoning, the oldest pyramids should be the perfect pyramids.
Google up Djoser's Pyramid and say whether it is perfectly pyramidal in shape or what?



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
very intresting

but there has to be better ways



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 
Small problem, Coredrill. There is no carbon dating on most of the Egyptian buildings. Since, recently there has been a general agreement, that several centuries need to be shaved off Egyptian chronology. Much of the dating is related to Biblical sources, and Greco-Roman stories and records of travelers. Add to this mix, a site in southern Egypt (Upper Egypt) that may have buried pyramids and the fun really begins.
Worlds In Collision may prove to be correct in the opinion, that humanity/life on Earth suffered a catastrophe. The event being hidden by time and a kind of amnesia, using myths and purposeful ignorance.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Brandyjack
reply to post by coredrill
 


Small problem, Coredrill. There is no carbon dating on most of the Egyptian buildings. Since, recently there has been a general agreement, that several centuries need to be shaved off Egyptian chronology. Much of the dating is related to Biblical sources, and Greco-Roman stories and records of travelers. Add to this mix, a site in southern Egypt (Upper Egypt) that may have buried pyramids and the fun really begins.
Worlds In Collision may prove to be correct in the opinion, that humanity/life on Earth suffered a catastrophe. The event being hidden by time and a kind of amnesia, using myths and purposeful ignorance.



Not so fast Buddy.
There is carbon dating indeed for Djoser's Pyramid. In fact, Archaeologists have dated pieces of acacia wood found inside the Djoser's Pyramid.
Link
Now that they have done so and have found that Djoser's pyramid did indeed date back to 2630-2611 BC
how does that stand?

No buddy. We are not talking of tall tales of Herodotus or other travelers. we are talking about tests conducted by proper archaeologists and scientists.
No amnesia.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Hanslune

So can you tell the difference between a cut made by 'circular' saw and a saw using abrasion. If the AE had an advance saw, why did they bash out stones with other stones and where did these magical saws come from?


Yes... I can tell the difference. There are tell-tale marks left on the stone when a circular saw blade is used.

Perhaps the workers at the quaries were using more primitive tools and the workers who finished the stones were using more advanced tools and techniques.

My assertions aren't new. There are plenty with more knowledge that have made similar assertions.

The article below explains some of the problems with theories that the AEs used Copper and sand abrasive cutting techniques. You should probably become familiar with it to gain an understanding of stone cutting so that you won't sound uninformed when responding to future threads.

Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt


Regarding tool marks that left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote, "the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing." After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feedrate (distance traveled per revolution of the drill) for drilling into any material, let alone granite.



Did the Sumerians also have magic circular saws too?


Too? No one has made any claims of magic. This type of remark is typical of every conversation I've ever had with you. You spend so much energy being a smart ass.. it's a wonder that anyone takes you seriously.


Think for a moment what technology you would need for a circular saw......


It's not that difficult to envision some sort of drive mechanism. It could be as simple as two pullies and a drive belt. The source of power could be man, donkeys, water wheels, etc... You seem to think I'm making the claim that AEs had some machines powered by some mystery force. I've made no such claims. Try to at least pay attention to what I'm saying and stop reading too much into it.


Carefully, skillfully and with a great deal of elbow grease!


That's a given.... but it's fairly safe to say that it wasn't done w/copper chisels and mallets. Granted, the stone at PumaPunku isn't near as hard as granite or basalt but the intricacy of the cuts are quite impressive nonetheless, even by todays standards with modern cutting tools.

I'm sure you're very good at what you do, Hanslune... but have you ever cut stone? I'm talking about hard stone, 7.0 MOH hardness or better. I would think that someone who had an opinion about something would want to know how it's done or at least experience it first hand.

There is evidence in abundance of stone cutting/working techniques that go well beyond that which is attributed by archeologists. I'm not saying I know what that technology was so don't go flying off the handle saying that I'm claiming magic. Guys like you who think you have all the answers are doing a diservice to the field of archeology, there are those who still think there are plenty of unanswered questions. We'll keep looking while you keep parroting what your books tell you.

As for the cute little video posted earlier that is supposed to be "proof" of technique. I consider it to be a joke. Yes, it's possible to cut stone in that manner. However, experiments conducted using that technique show that it's impossible to achieve any kind of precision demonstrated in megalithic sites mentioned.


In both tests a team of 2 worker, one on either end of the saw, drew the saw back and forth across the granite surface. It was noted during both tests that the workers had some trouble keeping the saw blade perpendicular to the cut surface of the granite block. This produced a rocking of the saw blade from side to side as the blade was drawn back and forth. As a result, the slot cut in the granite exhibited a V-shaped cross-section


Ancient Egyptian Stoneworking Tools and Methods

While I appreciate a good debate, I don't think you have the capacity to actually discuss these things in a manner that isn't condescending and dismissive. You're mind is closed off to the possibility that your text books are wrong, even when the evidence points to the contrary.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Blarneystoner

Regarding tool marks that left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote, "the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing." After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feedrate (distance traveled per revolution of the drill) for drilling into any material, let alone granite.


Using a tube drill requires removing the drill and the abrasive at intervals to replace with new abrasive.

The groove mentioned by Dunn above can be made by removing or inserting the bit with a twisting motion at one of these intervals and requires no "high speed drill" at all.

So, that's explained (assuming it is even real.)

What other evidence do you have?

Harte

edit on 10/28/2013 by Harte because: of the wonderful things he does



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Harte

Blarneystoner

Regarding tool marks that left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote, "the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing." After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feedrate (distance traveled per revolution of the drill) for drilling into any material, let alone granite.


Using a tube drill requires removing the drill and the abrasive at intervals to replace with new abrasive.

The groove mentioned by Dunn above can be made by removing or inserting the bit with a twisting motion at one of these intervals and requires no "high speed drill" at all.

So, that's explained (assuming it is even real.)

What other evidence do you have?

Harte


You're ignoring the feedrate calculated. I'll post more anomalous findings later when I have a chance to compile.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


The "feed rate" would be incredibly high when removing the tube from an existing hole, that is the point.
So, no, I'm ignoring nothing.

Harte



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Harte
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


The "feed rate" would be incredibly high when removing the tube from an existing hole, that is the point.
So, no, I'm ignoring nothing.

Harte


I'm not sure why you think that removing the tube has anything to do with the feedrate. Feedrate = distance travelled per revolution of the drill.

You may not be ignoring it but you don't understand why it's significant. Again... illustrating my earlier point that you guys don't have enough knowledge of the subject to comment intelligently on it....

Here.. this will give you an idea as to why the feedrate is so significant.. using modern tools the same rate cannot be accomplished.

Advanced machining...


Mr. Donald Rahn of Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co., Dayton, Ohio, told me that in drilling granite, diamond drills, rotating at 900 revolutions per minute, penetrate at the rate of 1 inch in 5 minutes. In 1996, Eric Leither of Trustone Corp, told me that these parameters haven't changed since then. The feedrate of modern drills, therefore, calculates to be .0002 inch per revolution, indicating that the ancient Egyptians were able to cut their granite with a feed rate that was 500 times greater or deeper per revolution of the drill than modern drills.

edit on 28-10-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Blarneystoner

So can you tell the difference between a cut made by 'circular' saw and a saw using abrasion. If the AE had an advance saw, why did they bash out stones with other stones and where did these magical saws come from?


Then you should, unlike all the others who have made the claim prove it.


My assertions aren't new. There are plenty with more knowledge that have made similar assertions.


Yes I know they are old and long since debunked - but its fun to act like that hasn't happened eh?


It's not that difficult to envision some sort of drive mechanism. It could be as simple as two pullies and a drive belt. The source of power could be man, donkeys, water wheels, etc... You seem to think I'm making the claim that AEs had some machines powered by some mystery force. I've made no such claims. Try to at least pay attention to what I'm saying and stop reading too much into it.


That is because you didn't say so and the default for this type of claim is Dunn, who states it was powered saws. What evidence do you have that they had such manually powered saws that you descibe? Also why do you reject Dunns powered saws? I wonder because some of the links you are using propose Dunn's ultrasonic drills- so you may wish to explain further just what you are claiming as you seem to be supporting both ideas at the same time.


but it's fairly safe to say that it wasn't done w/copper chisels and mallets. Granted, the stone at PumaPunku isn't near as hard as granite or basalt but the intricacy of the cuts are quite impressive nonetheless, even by todays standards with modern cutting tools.


Except that there is no sign of that type of technology and lots of signs of just plain old hard work, crude tools and smart people did it, even some documentation and images. Whatja you got?


but have you ever cut stone? I'm talking about hard stone, 7.0 MOH hardness or better. I would think that someone who had an opinion about something would want to know how it's done or at least experience it first hand.


Yes limestone and granite in Egypt and Cyprus and the stone on Easter Island. Limestone is fairly easy to work as is the stone on EI. Granite is much harder of course but sand will abrade it and a harder stone with crush it.


There is evidence in abundance of stone cutting/working techniques that go well beyond that which is attributed by archeologists.


That's the standard claim and it goes nowhere due to a lack of evidence


We'll keep looking while you keep parroting what your books tell you.


Yeah you certainly show you don't know a thing about the subject, I suggest you read one of those books - by people who have studied the stone masonry of the ancients - there entire working lives.


As for the cute little video posted earlier that is supposed to be "proof" of technique. I consider it to be a joke. Yes, it's possible to cut stone in that manner. However, experiments conducted using that technique show that it's impossible to achieve any kind of precision demonstrated in megalithic sites mentioned.


Nice claim please prove it


While I appreciate a good debate, I don't think you have the capacity to actually discuss these things in a manner that isn't condescending and dismissive. You're mind is closed off to the possibility that your text books are wrong, even when the evidence points to the contrary.


I responding in the style that you do. Your constant stating you are right while providing nothing but your amateur opinion is sweet and all but utterly meaningless.

I would suggest you either create the manually driven saw you think the ancients had, then demonstrate how it would have worked or get tens of thousands of stone working professionals to agree with you.
edit on 28/10/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Blarneystoner

Harte
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


The "feed rate" would be incredibly high when removing the tube from an existing hole, that is the point.
So, no, I'm ignoring nothing.

Harte


I'm not sure why you think that removing the tube has anything to do with the feedrate. Feedrate = distance travelled per revolution of the drill.

One would need to twist the tube drill to get it out of the hole. It's quite possible during such a removal to gouge a spiral into the rock that could be made to appear to have been a high feed rate (by shysters selling books) when in fact there was no material being removed from the stone, just a tight tube drill being pulled out.

Can you explain how, with a high feed rate, the granite cores still all come out conical in shape?

And please. I am quite knowledgeable on Dunn's claims. It is you that must come to grips with the fact that you have only Dunn's statements to rely on. Anyone can twist a piece of thread around a stone drill core. Also, anyone with time and permission can find a few spots - enough for a couple of pics - on the granite ceiling in the GP that will show (in a photo, at least) to be flat within machine tolerances.

Dunn has never been shown using his flatness gauge the way it is supposed to be used.

Harte



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Sorry for my absence from this thread for the last few days.

After doing some catch-up on it, I do not believe I will be doing a granite cutting video for the following reasons:

1. Cost - due to proposed requirements my estimated material cost for the project is around 4500$ about 3000$ for a sufficient piece of granite (75"x12") the cost of a the copper and smelting is around 700$ about 200$ for proper sand being imported and at least 100$ in beer to support the labor.

2. Insufficient documentation equipment - I have no worth while way to show or prove the precision of the cuts beyond what you would see in any other video of some dude holding a square up to a block of stone and saying, wow look at that it's even (all while you can clearly see light under it)

3. What would it prove - I do not believe this under taking would do ANY GOOD at all to anyone who has not already had enough interest to go out and "see for them selves" it's really easy to buy into all the fantastic claims about ancient stone work, until you go out and look at the stuff yourself. It QUICKLY becomes painfully obvious how much BS these "aliens did it" claims are.

Let us not forget, that the biggest stones ever cut, quarried, and moved(not all were moved) were done in china in the 1700's

Yanhshan Quarry


Life in the past was very different than life is today, stone cutting was these people's day jobs. They had entirety different outlooks on life as you can see if you actually do some reading. I will not sit here and say that our Text books have our history all figured out. They do not, and it is very likely that mankind has been building structures like these monoliths for tens of thousands of years, not just 4 to 6 thousand. That is not really the question though. When it comes to monolithic construction, you here mainly two opinions. The first from archaeologists who may or may not know anything about cutting stone. Their ideas on how the structures were built comes from evidence at the site. they take what they see in the field and piece together what likely happened. Then you have the engineers and architects, who are generally, brought in to examine specific features of a site or give their opinion on how something may have been built, they usually only look at the one "spot" they were asked to examine.

Today we use lasers to engrave stone, not to cut them. Industrial Laser Solutions, is the only company I know of that truly cuts stone with lasers, they do these for extremely high end yachts and other projects that require ultra thin pieces of stone for weight reasons. If you want to know what stone looks like when it's cut by a laser ask them.

Sadly for most, I doubt our ancient ancestors had anything along the lines of argon gas lasers, plasma torches, or other "advanced" tools. Personally I feel that anyone who can quarry, cut, shape, and bevel stone like granite with nothing but some hand tools and time is pretty advanced.


All in all I would much rather believe that it was our own human ancestors that had mastery of this technology and methodology, that it was not, given to them by the gods or aliens, and I think most of the evidence agrees with this point of view.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


Yeah... I don't think anyone really expected you to do it.

I agree with you that AAs had nothing to do with the sites in question. I think that in modern man's 140-some-odd thousand years that advanced civilizations have achieved great heights and then receeded with most of the evidence lost to oxidation. Such is the way of all things, ebb and flow... Rota Fortunae.

It's not easy to say, "I don't think it was done with copper tools and sand" when that's the accepted theory. But it's interesting that those who claim to know haven't proven their case either. Cutting a "V" shaped groove in a granite stone and claiming "this is how it was done" is like folding a piece of paper into glider and then claiming "that's how airplanes are made".

I don't know how it was done, never made that claim. But I think it's safe to say it wasn't done with copper tools and sand... lol...



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I hope it wasn't, but when you remove "aliens" what is left? Unless you're going to agree with those who say the pyramids, sphinx, and other similar structures around the world are more on the order of 40,000 years old, I would think that there would be evidence of high technology (technology that involves electrical power).

We have alot of cool finds from the last 5000 years that show man kinds ability to work with advanced mechanics such as the ankatheryia device, now proven to be a working clock, we have ancient glass vases that are believed to be similar to those used in the 1600's to demonstrate static electricity.

We have Baghdad batteries......



But the thing I always ask, when people start talking about ancient peoples and high technology, WHERE WAS THE AIR CONDITIONING? I know it may sound silly but, copper doesn't degrade like iron, you would think that large compressors and other devices that are made from copper and silver would still be around.

Right now I think alot f my personal hopes for some actual answers rest in Bosnia, with the so called valley of the pyramids, withstanding it not being a hoax or a big publicity stun or at least a misrepresentation of what is actually there, that place should hold some answers.


edit on 31-10-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


I do think that some of the megalithic sites around the globe are older than previously thought. I think there was an advanced global civilization that was wiped out by some catastrophe, either man made or natural. I also think ancient tech has been discovered recently and then covered up.

Artifacts like the Antikythera mechanism seem to indicate knowledge and skills well beyond that which is attributed to the ancient Greeks, yet there it is. I think it's important to remember that those skills and knowledge don't just develop over night. They are built upon previous knowledge and skills dating back decades or centuries.

I think that ancient tech was based upon some other power source rather than the flow of electrons.

I don't have an answer to the question, "if not crude tools of copper and sand, then how?" I wish I did. I just think the current explanations fall short.... way short.

I've searched and searched the internet for anyone who has reproduced the intricate stone work at PumaPunku, or Gobekli Tepe, or Machu Picchu, etc... If it's out there, I truly want to see it.

In all honesty, I would like to know the truth. It has nothing to do with thinking it's "fun" or "cute". I think archeologists have been lulled into a false sense of "knowing". They're perfectly happy to accept explanations that simply fall short and are inadequate. If there was a civilization that existed 10,000 + yrs ago, most of the remains would be underwater now.... assuming that most of the populations at that time resided in coastal communities.

The stone cutting quandary is just one aspect of a bigger picture. That picture has been obscured by outdated theories and those who stubbornly hold on to them.... and they get snippy and pissy with anyone who questions the status quo. lol...

I'll keep looking... Hoping that someday I'll be able to explore some of these sites being discussed.

edit on 31-10-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join