Did the ANCIENT BUILDERS Know How to SOFTEN SOLID STONE?

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

The gigantic one.

I've put a black square on it so you can see it -

Okay what's it name and where is it (I need to find a close up shot or find a site report)

Aswan.

Sorry James you're going to have to tell me exactly what site it is and what that image is of at that site. Aswan is a very large place with multiple sites around the city.


You're saying the equivalent of: his name is in the phone book but I don't know the name....

a reply to: JamesTB

Brilliant thread and hypothesis, I have heard of this before, one story I vaguely remember (I think from Charles Berlitze Atlantis but I read quite a few similar book's so it may be another) claimed that a native tribe in the amazon told an explorer how the ancient builders of a tunnel there that has smooth perfect wall's and goes through solid rock, used a liguid to soften the stone which then set again when they left it, another that a type of hummingbird supposedly used a type of plant that it would carry to the rock and then rubbing it against the rock the sap softened the stone allowing it to build it burrows in solid rock, however no such bird has ever been recorded and tales are ten a penny as they say.

Whatever the truth may be a cross section and analysis of the grain dispersal in the stone if taken would be enlightening to either prove or disprove the theory, this was used to prove that one of the footprints from the infamous paloxy river site was as it was when formed and not weathered into that human foot shape, the paloxy site is one of many where human like footprint's and dinosaur tracks are laid down side by side at the same period, they took a human footprint type about size 11 untouched and unweathered by lifting the overlaying sandstone so it was a virgin impression and then they cross sectioned it in a laboratory studying it under a microscope showing the pressure corresponed to a human type of motion for a person of about 11 stone in weight and the downward pressure was in the right possitions to match a Human Gait, Of course such controversial evidence is denied or overlooked but such footprints are surprisingly common with a text book carpet denial of "oh it's just a duck billed dinosaur track that has weathered into that shape".

Now obviously they are a lot older than these shaped stone's, maybe they carved them as the orthodox theory is that they were first cut then polished into shape with fine sand but that sound's totally implausible given the size of some of the stone's you have displayed, softened or they had some other form of technology of which we know nothing.

As good an answer as any and who know's, imagine how long our skyscrapers would last if we could master that science/alchemy/technology, our city's will be long gone but unless humans destroy these sites then these ancient remains will still exist though a bit more weathered long after our modern city's had turned to dust if we simply vanished today, and who know's maybe that is what happened to the rest of the possible culture who may have carved and cut some of these enigmatic stone's with only these left and later more primitive cultures claimed to have built them.

These pit marks are interesting too-

This is from Easter Island -





And Peru -

a reply to: JamesTB

Did ancient people's have advanced technology as to allow the shaping of solid stone or did the Earth go through a period of increased heat from the core causing rock to become vastly more pliable?

I believe the contrary may have sufficient evidence some of which can be found in the research of the Inca Stones.

topex.ucsd.edu...

a reply to: JamesTB

It seems to me too.. I refuse to belief that these structures were made with pounding boulders and copper tools. And I can not fathom that the mainstream scientist in that field do not concur. On second thought I do fathom............. they are $*#@!♫♪.

Some rocks in such a 'puzzle' wall give the impression that it was easy to 'cut'. They look almost playfully made and not because it was hard labor.

Anyways.. Because there are many articles with people telling about this little bird and what it does with rock.. and these plants... I do would like to know if anybody ever tried to establish this as a fact.

An ATS member before me had pointed out THIS site which would certainly interest you..

originally posted by: JamesTB

Every time I see that bottom example [and a few others] they remind me of a 'Laser or energy beam of some sort' melting away the groove with the melted edge curling over and dripping down....

originally posted by: LadyTrick
Maybe the ancients had fields of this plant?
If scientists analysed the soil at these quarries would they potentially find evidence for the use of acid? Or would there be no trace?

Interesting thought. As others here have pointed out, this has been discussed extensively on ATS and I reckon it was 50/50, carving and smoothing.

Some people theorise that the stones were dissolved into a concrete but I disagree. I think they cut the stones to a rough shape and then smoothed them off to fit. If they had an abundance of the needed plant as you suggest, then smoothing these rocks to the perfect shape would be relatively easy.

I had never even thought about them actually growing it as a crop so thank you so much for making me think.

I have been reading this thread with extreme interest, and i am honestly thinking that giants carved out these structures.



There is just too much evidence not to add this idea to the equation.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

The long bands may have been caused by their use of scaffolding. reset at different levels, look at the metal railing to get an idea of size.

The site at Aswan has excellent examples of how the 'pounders' art was done to include lots of diorite hammer stones abandoned in situ.

Or one of these maybe

Salt Mine Tool -



Salt Cave -



Longyou Caves -

a reply to: JamesTB

Trouble is that there is nothing in the way of evidence for these.

Personally i'd be thrilled and amazed in equal measure if they were found, or some reasonable evidence - it would after all turn so many things on their head.

But there is nowt, personal opinions on tool marks aside.

No representations in art, no power source, no blades or bits. Plus there are evidenced explanations that counter the power tool argument.

ETA: also, if many stone sites from the BA and before were made with power tools, i cant help but think that the world would have been mined out a millennia ago and we would have much grander ancient sites in far greater numbers - seeing as it would have taken weeks and not decades to produce them.

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: JamesTB

It seems to me too.. I refuse to belief that these structures were made with pounding boulders and copper tools. And I can not fathom that the mainstream scientist in that field do not concur. On second thought I do fathom............. they are $*#@!♫♪.

I'm assuming that you have done your own objective analysis on these structures that goes beyond simply looking at pictures on the internet. You must have if you are insulting the intelligence of scientists that actually have done those type of tests. I'm not saying it's wrong or impossible, but looks can be deceiving. You need more than online pictures of something if you wish to insult scientists who have studied the physical sculptures and rocks for decades along with the associated cultures.

a reply to: jeep3r

They did it by observing birds that ate a certain plant and regurgitated said plants on to a solid stone face allowing them to build hollows and nests.

a reply to: jeep3r

I have a theory. This is a very "I'm an idiot but this is what i think" theory.

What if each block in this wall was hand crafted by 1 person over a lifetime? People might have been bored after farming or hunting and not doing anything in their spare time, so the elder or a rules declared that each tribesman had to express his devotion to his people by providing a "Brick". They could keep working on one brick for a year or more (or less). Once finished, they would put it into the wall as a part of a ceremony or the right of passage. Those tribesmen who are next to pass this ceremony would refine a piece of stone to fit in the cavities left by previous stones.

I am no scientist but i assume if you got this kind of task that means proving yourself, you would grab any tool (or a piece of rock) and start grinding away at a stone. Might take you a week, month year(s), but you get it finished and with help of others, place it in its spot.

If i was a simple man, trying to carry a big rock somewhere, even nearby. A stone like on the left picture would be too heavy. Those protrusions look to me like handles, for extra grip or for an extra person to grip on.

a reply to: JamesTB

Might be if those caves were mined in historic times or another method was used.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: JamesTB

It seems to me too.. I refuse to belief that these structures were made with pounding boulders and copper tools. And I can not fathom that the mainstream scientist in that field do not concur. On second thought I do fathom............. they are $*#@!♫♪.

I'm assuming that you have done your own objective analysis on these structures that goes beyond simply looking at pictures on the internet. You must have if you are insulting the intelligence of scientists that actually have done those type of tests. I'm not saying it's wrong or impossible, but looks can be deceiving. You need more than online pictures of something if you wish to insult scientists who have studied the physical sculptures and rocks for decades along with the associated cultures.

Well you cannot blame the believers. They need evidence for a lost civilization;

They don't have;

Cities with thousands of years of debris
Villages showing hundreds of years of habitation
Burials
Tools
Pottery
Resource use
Writing
Brick or other clearly detectable building tech
Metal use
Glass use
Non support from sediments
Non support from ice cores

So what do they have to point to and say, 'see that that's evidence of a lost civilization'.

Rocks, they can do as you say, they can point to pictures, throw their hands up, shake their heads and cry to the heavens it cannot be done, and let their personal incredulity be their ultimate truth......of course it doesn't work.

....but it is kinda fun to watch.

originally posted by: arrakis624
a reply to: jeep3r

They did it by observing birds that ate a certain plant and regurgitated said plants on to a solid stone face allowing them to build hollows and nests.

Yep that's the theory and to prove it some brave soul needs to find that bird and show how it works - simples.

originally posted by: skalla

ETA: also, if many stone sites from the BA and before were made with power tools, i cant help but think that the world would have been mined out a millennia ago and we would have much grander ancient sites in far greater numbers - seeing as it would have taken weeks and not decades to produce them.

You also have to wonder - if they had power tools this means they had ALL the technology that would have required and that tech would / or should have been reflected in their culture especially in their farming tools and weapons - but it doesn't Mr. Misr was out fighting barbarians with a leather corset and copper helmet armed with a bronze mace while his brother was back home cutting rocks with powered stone cutting blade with diamond inserts, in a steel housing.............lol

a reply to: JamesTB

S & F James for excellent photographs that blew me away when looking at them , i never bought the official line of how stones were moved or shaped in the past

It seems like I remember reading about a special plant that the south American people
could rub on stone and it would soften it enough to shape. They learned it by watching
birds rubbing it on rock cliffs to be able to make a hole in the rock to nest in.

a reply to: JamesTB

I remember watching a documentary where the scientists claimed that the Egyptian pyramids were made from a "slury" mixture of limestone and some other things. They then would pump up or carry the liquid up to where forms with wood were made. They poured it in and it hardened into stone after a few days.
The scientists even made their own version of a mini pyramid with the liquid process right on the show.
They even pointed out that in the blocks on the pyramid, you can see all mini sea life shells and such. From ancient river beds. this is all well and good for the Egyptian pyramids, but i cant see how that would work for other types of stone structures.