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

reply to post by AbleEndangered


Simply showing that it can be done...did not say they had to use the same exact tools....the principles are there.

Kind of like computers these days....it isn't like we forgot how to make them and then re-made them...we built on tech and ideas from prior years and knowledge.

reply to post by benrl


I watched a stonemason 'dressing' a massive rounded piece of granite in much the same way, (the objective was also to make it split into two) although just using a cold chisel and the small sledge. he spent most of the time studying the rock, making strategic indents where he saw fit. He completed the task no bother. On a much smaller scale I did the same thing with a big piece of granite I needed out of the ground to complete a lawn.

Vasa Croe
reply to post by AbleEndangered

 

Simply showing that it can be done...did not say they had to use the same exact tools....the principles are there.

Kind of like computers these days....it isn't like we forgot how to make them and then re-made them...we built on tech and ideas from prior years and knowledge.

Thats what people seem to be missing, IM not suggesting these where the tools, I am saying the tool used was Human Ingenuity, nothing more, nothing less.

A concept people seem to be purposefully obtuse about to cling to their notions of mysterious forces at play.

benrl

All it takes for me to dismiss every "conspiracy" regarding monolithic structures in history is to remember one thing.

The power of human ingenuity.

Watch the vid, One man splits a 26,000lb slab, using simple concepts, leverage is a hell of a thing.

Now imagine a few 100 in a society that is dedicated to building in this manner, working at it like a normal 9-5 with nothing but time on their hands.

I always feel the Monolithic structure threads that suggest "outside" help are grossly underestimating the power of the human brain.

Agreed. I always watch Ancient Aliens on History Channel for it's thought intriguing banter. However, when they get off and blame EVERYTHING on ancient alien contacts, I start to sway a bit. While I do believe in beings of supreme power who probably have visited us in the past, just like they will in the future; I still believe that humans have some sort of amnesia that blinds us from seeing what occurred to our own kind 10, 15, or 20,000 years ago.

That being said, banging away at rocks with hammers doesn't feed people. Even if there were 100 people working 9-5, it'd take them quite a long time to construct something as mathematically exact as the pyramids, or even those crazy huge an-made caves in China.

This also do not explain vitrification that's seen on many of these ancient stone structures, some dating as early as the Viking periods. Vitrification, for those who don't know, is the process by which rock is heated to the melting point, before cooling again. The byproduct of this reaction is a glassy crust that envelops the rock and lends to a certain outward smoothness.

This process of cutting rock (in the video posted by the OP) also does not explain perfect flatness seen in diorite or other granites or how they were moved. So that being said, I'll still rest with the fact that while ancient man did in fact create most of what's here on Earth, he did it with technology far superior to our own technology today. Ancient Aliens MAY have helped along the way, much as I like to think that they've helped in the explosion of technology in the 20th and 21st century, but for the most part I do agree that people who claim these sorts of foundational beliefs are not giving enough credit to man's own mind.

blackthorne
very ingenious of him. but you miss one thing in these megaliths. no residual holes left in them.

The stones will be polished and finished...

Before steel, bronze alloys were used in the same role of the wedges this guy is using...

As for moving very huge blocks with limited manpower, I think that some kind of form which forms a cylinder is placed around the block and simply rolling suffices. (Looking at it side-on, it's like drawing a circle around the square.) This would be the way to do it, and this is much smarter than dragging it or using small rollers of some sort underneath. Why?

The answer can be found here:
en.wikipedia.org...

(Coefficient of rolling resistance) = Square root ( (sinkage depth) / (diameter of wheel))

So let's plug some numbers in. Let's try some quick work with a granite cube, 2m on a side. That's pretty big, right?

So how heavy is this big ol' block?

That's 8 cubic meters. Density of granite is about... 2.75g/cubic centimeter. So 8,000,000 cubic centimeters...
2,909,090 grams... Or about 2,909 Kg.

Fairly hefty, right? I know I can't budge that.

So how does the cylindrical form with the cube cut out factor in? Since the cube is sectioned fairly cleanly out of it, the diameter is the same as the diagonal of a cube face which is a square. So that's 2.83m

Sinkage depth? Let's say the ground surface this thing is rolling on is fairly solid and compacted. No more than 2cm of deformation should seem about right. That's 0.02m

So our coefficient of rolling resistance is... Square root of (0.02/2.83) = 0.0841 in approximate terms.

So how much force is needed to budge this block weighing 2,909Kg? Multiply that by the coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.0841and you get... 244.6N

Or in imperial units, that's approximately 55 lbs-force to move a block weighing 6,413 lbs. However that's pushing it straight on the side. Pushing it in the direction where you want it to go near the top, or using a lever arm - gains mechanical advantage. So sticking a lever of reasonable length in the side and using a torque action instead of pushing it can cut the force needed to get it moving down to an easily manageable amount for a typical person.

Of course the values are approximate, but they should be in the ballpark. (The weight of the forms isn't in there, but a few hundred extra pounds isn't going to hurt too much with the mechanical advantage available.) Feel free to look at the formulas and re-do the math yourself if you think I messed up anywhere.

I'm no genius, but I wonder why engineers researching the topic overlooked this KISS approach to doing things? (That one guy in Ohio was on the right track, and this is an extension of that approach.) Isn't rolling resistance a topic covered in an introductory 101 type course?

Or it could be some fancy acoustic levitation requiring just the right harmonics at high decibels that hasn't been proven on a large scale, if not... ahem... Aliens!

benrl
I always feel the Monolithic structure threads that suggest "outside" help are grossly underestimating the power of the human brain.

I disagree.

I think those threads precisely estimate the power of the human brain... of the individual posters.

While the early pyramid builders may have had access to that new fangled bronze, they were still largely a stone age people. Civilisations at that time based their entire technology on stone working - a skill that was honed over a thousand generations. Yet there are those that believe it's somehow inconceivable that these ancient people could actually make anything of use out of... stone!

Makes you despair sometimes..!

Well done - great answers to all the usual fringe question and personal incredulity

A few additional comments:

The 1,200 ton stone at Baalbek was never moved the three moved are between 640 and 820 tons

Wood doesn't shatter if a weight is put on it slowly, look up the limits of compressibility in wood

One name of Khufu? No many paintings/graffiti, no carvings of his name on the stones of the relieving chambers - just lots of doodling.

Grafiti in the chambers

This only shows one image there are other hit the scrollen or vollensicht icon to get all of them to show up. Oddly..... these same type of ochre drawing were found on the outside of the pyramid, at the workers village and recently in that uncovered area behind the 'door'.

Goyon and Grinsell's builder mark found on a backing stone in 1947

Age of pyramids - trying to move the age of pyramid back runs in to a problem - no organized culture to do the work and if you go back that far you run into the 'first time' problem too and of course all the dates showing it was built at the time the ancients said so and the evidence confirms

reply to post by benrl


Now if he only had 20k Hebrews and a nice piece of land to build a pyramid...

Joking aside pretty cool op.

S & F

reply to post by benrl


How were the holes made?

Where are the holes on the built temples and monuments?

I could answer my own question by saying that the holes are inside and the finished side is showing.

reply to post by benrl


This idea for splitting stone is very old and does not require iron tools. The Egyptians used this to cut all types of stone. They used tempered cooper cold chisels to make the holes then filled the holes with wood or papyrus fibers and soaked them in water the fibers expanded and broke the rock.

Quarry Marks: (Construction Techniques)

In order to accurately split hard stone such as granite, a series of small holes are chiselled out, then filled with wood fibres which expand when soaked in water, thereby splitting the stone.

No iron wedges required. Just wood and water.

reply to post by d8track

d8track
reply to post by benrl

 

This idea for splitting stone is very old and does not require iron tools. The Egyptians used this to cut all types of stone. They used tempered cooper cold chisels to make the holes then filled the holes with wood or papyrus fibers and soaked them in water the fibers expanded and broke the rock.

Quarry Marks: (Construction Techniques)

In order to accurately split hard stone such as granite, a series of small holes are chiselled out, then filled with wood fibres which expand when soaked in water, thereby splitting the stone.

No iron wedges required. Just wood and water.

Ahh I see ,water swelled wood would definitely do the trick. Probably slower and cleaner splits.

Nice link and pics.



They also found drill marks and drill stones around the World.

Here are examples of tiny drill and router tool marks at Puma Punku.
along with other amazing cuts in stone.

www.ufo-contact.com/pumapunku
www.ufo-contact.com...



Copper is so soft, becomes dull very fast.

Maybe if they knew about a copper alloy or other alloys.



There seems to be 2 levels of Technology at play around the World.

This ATS thread showcases what appear to be saw marks, routing and molding in Granite!!

Egyptian Granite
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread580928/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and another thread popped up with an interesting link containing more Granite work:

Egyptian Machine Work
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread978363/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Vasa Croe

RedShirt73

benrl

RedShirt73
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Please explain Baalbek? Yes, I would agree that these were stoneaged peoples using only the materials they had from nature plus their brains, but a 1500 ton stone?

Yea no clue how man could move blocks with... oh wait.


The human mind is the most powerful tool ever devised, I think its so sad people refuse to recognize the power we all hold in our minds.

So far he's managed to move a barn weighing, I would guess (more then likely I'm wrong about the barns weight as it maybe more) about 10 to 15 tonnes but how about a 1500 ton block? That's a far cry from 10 tonnes, but then again the same principles apply all you need is more leverage, lol. I'd like to see this guy try that, lol.

Ummm...that is ONE guy moving it. Now imagine a crew of thousands.....I am pretty sure using even this one possible technique it would be done without much effort. All you are talking about is 9-14 more people, if that is even needed....could be less seeing that this guy is not exactly at his peak for age and fitness.....

Why would you need thousands of people?

Animals are MUCH more suited to heavy labor than humans.

Good examples are:

1.) Yaks/bovines: Large animals, herbivorous. Very stupid.

2.) Elephants: VERY LARGE animals. Not stupid.

3.) Wolverines: Large ferrets, evil, intelligent, very stinky. Not recommended.

all of which are bio-degradable and don't require fossil fuels to run.

Were they depicted in art? Hell yes. 'Cept the wolverine.

Bollocks, I forgot horses.

pauljs75
Before steel, bronze alloys were used in the same role of the wedges this guy is using...

As for moving very huge blocks with limited manpower, I think that some kind of form which forms a cylinder is placed around the block and simply rolling suffices. (Looking at it side-on, it's like drawing a circle around the square.) This would be the way to do it, and this is much smarter than dragging it or using small rollers of some sort underneath. Why?

The answer can be found here:
en.wikipedia.org...

(Coefficient of rolling resistance) = Square root ( (sinkage depth) / (diameter of wheel))

So let's plug some numbers in. Let's try some quick work with a granite cube, 2m on a side. That's pretty big, right?

So how heavy is this big ol' block?

That's 8 cubic meters. Density of granite is about... 2.75g/cubic centimeter. So 8,000,000 cubic centimeters...
2,909,090 grams... Or about 2,909 Kg.

Fairly hefty, right? I know I can't budge that.

So how does the cylindrical form with the cube cut out factor in? Since the cube is sectioned fairly cleanly out of it, the diameter is the same as the diagonal of a cube face which is a square. So that's 2.83m

Sinkage depth? Let's say the ground surface this thing is rolling on is fairly solid and compacted. No more than 2cm of deformation should seem about right. That's 0.02m

So our coefficient of rolling resistance is... Square root of (0.02/2.83) = 0.0841 in approximate terms.

So how much force is needed to budge this block weighing 2,909Kg? Multiply that by the coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.0841and you get... 244.6N

Or in imperial units, that's approximately 55 lbs-force to move a block weighing 6,413 lbs. However that's pushing it straight on the side. Pushing it in the direction where you want it to go near the top, or using a lever arm - gains mechanical advantage. So sticking a lever of reasonable length in the side and using a torque action instead of pushing it can cut the force needed to get it moving down to an easily manageable amount for a typical person.

Of course the values are approximate, but they should be in the ballpark. (The weight of the forms isn't in there, but a few hundred extra pounds isn't going to hurt too much with the mechanical advantage available.) Feel free to look at the formulas and re-do the math yourself if you think I messed up anywhere.

I'm no genius, but I wonder why engineers researching the topic overlooked this KISS approach to doing things? (That one guy in Ohio was on the right track, and this is an extension of that approach.) Isn't rolling resistance a topic covered in an introductory 101 type course?

Or it could be some fancy acoustic levitation requiring just the right harmonics at high decibels that hasn't been proven on a large scale, if not... ahem... Aliens!

AHA! Others do exist!

teachtaire
The statues are grossly cylindrical.

The easiest way to move a cylinder is to roll it.

I'm guess that rather than aliens or jean grey, they were rolled on their side into position and then raised up.

If that is the case, it'd be logical to assume that a small pit would have been dug at the base of the statue in order to make the process of vertical orientation easier.

Assuming the soil wasn't very firm, and the original pit wasn't reinforced, then the sinking process could have been accelerated.

This is further effected by the small footprint of the base which increases the pounds per square inch excreted by the statue on the ground.

That is what I think, not that it really matters much.

*note* that by rolling a supine moai, the principals of leverage are very easy to use.

edit on 1111112222 by teachtaire because: (no reason given)

Yup!



Oh. My bad, lulz.

After watching all that he doesnt even show the rock splitting? Just goes from a scene where hes hitting it in to a scene of it already split. Lame =\

This is probably the heaviest Musical instrument on the planet.

You can see in these ancient quarries signs of how they did their quarrying and a few of their 'oops'.

PDF showing images from ancient Middle-east quarries - excellent photos

That technique was used all over the world, they simple pace wood on the holes and fill it with water, and wile the wood expand by absorbing the water, the stone will crack.

But if the ancients did in fact use this technique, what they do all over the world, can someone explain me, how they carve an obelisk from the bedrock without breaking the stone, just excavating around it?

This video shows clearly they they excavate the stone, you can see the marks.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by GEmersonBiggins


i am retired now but i have worked in the construction industry all my working life .
and i must say that when i had finished working on a task all my tools where packed up and i took them with me .
any tradesman will tell you the same thing , he takes care of his tools because they are his life and means of earning money to sustain his family.

reply to post by pauljs75


Very well said. And yes...the Vitruvius 10 Books on Architecture show just what had been passed down over the years and what you have stated is in the 10th book, chapter 3.

Blows my mind that we have to come up with Aliens did it or someone figured out how to levitate them or they had super advanced tech.

blackthorne
very ingenious of him. but you miss one thing in these megaliths. no residual holes left in them.

I think it's the "lifting" part that's the mystery, not the "cutting" part