Featured Title:
Stone Circle Greetings Cards |
 |
| Ley Lines |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 110 guests and 0 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , Klingon , sem , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , coldrum , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
General Forum >> Settling an old controversy by Will Hart.
|
 |
| Page 1 of 4 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ) |
| Author |
Settling an old controversy by Will Hart. |
STARMAN
Joined:
23-05-2006
Messages: 59
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 13-02-2005 at 08:52
A long-standing debate some refer to as a mystery confronts us. How were the Great Pyramid, Tiahaunaco and other monolithic and megalithic monuments in Egypt, Peru and elsewhere constructed, moved and lifted into place? Some people believe that matter has been settled because several teams were able to build and move inexact replicas or demonstrated that it is possible to move a block of stone weighing several tons using primitive methods.
However, those simulations did not prove that the methods modern scholars ascribe to the construction of ancient artifacts could work. In fact, it appears that they actually proved the opposite, as we will see. At any rate, this article will definitively show they could not have been manipulated using primitive methods.
How? A man may be able to lift 350 pounds off the ground, but that doesn't mean he can lift 3,500 pounds. The problem quickly goes from difficult to impossible as you add weight to an object that has to be moved. We could frame it another way. If I claimed that I was the strongest man in the world and I could lift 3,500 lbs. and Ripley's took me up on that boast. Do you think they would include me in the record book for lifting 350 pounds? Of course not and I would be foolish for even trying that kind of trick.
But that is exactly what the academic promoters of the "primitive method" theory have done. Oddly enough, the public seems to have bought into the hoax. In 1994 NOVA sponsored a team of experts that wanted to prove the old theory, dispose of "alternative theories" and lay the debate to rest. As NOVA writers framed it: "In 1995, the NOVA team dared to demonstrate firsthand what has mystified historians for millennia: how to raise an obelisk using only materials and techniques the ancient Egyptians might have used."
The team included an archeologist, a master stonemason and one of Egypt's foremost specialists in moving heavy statues, Aly el Gasab. They chose to quarry, dress and lift a 35-ton obelisk. That was a cheat right away. The largest Egyptian obelisks weigh 400 tons.
The problem is even more complex than people generally suppose. Setting the finished stone in place is only one part of the building process. The first step involves cutting the stones away from the matrix rock at the quarry. Then it has to be dressed into a transportable shape. Next it has to be transported, sometimes great distances, from the quarry to the construction site and then lifted.
With what tools did the ancient Egyptians free the stone from the matrix rock? According to the archeologist they used dolorite hammers. How were the stones transported? Gasab said they would use ropes and wooden sledges. The first problem, and it proved insurmountable, came when they soon realized the dolorite hammers could not do the job. That "ancient method" was quickly abandoned.
The ancients executed considerable engineering feats. We gain a useful perspective by examining a modern day moving attempt. In 1996 The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology found that it needed to renovate an Egyptian burial tomb that was part of its collection. An article from the department's newsletter contains the following sub-heading.
Massive moving effort "…the treated section of the tomb chapel was disassembled, including one block which alone weighs five tons, and moved to the Conserv- ation Technical Associates Connecticut Lab. Due to the massive size and weight of the chapel blocks, special handling equipment was employed for removal from the chapel."
Why is a five-ton lid considered a "massive" size and weight with the modern equipment the movers had? Much larger monolithic stones were "easily" manipulated by the primitive methods used by the ancients according to historians and archeologists. A special block and tackle system and rollers had to be set up to lift the slab and move it out of the chapel. What would they say if they had to move and lift the 2.5 million stones that went into the construction of the Great Pyramid some weighing 50 tons?
Examining how several modern day monuments were built is a fascinating juxtaposition. The Statue of Liberty is a beacon to the world. The actual statue, less the pedestal, stands 151' high from the base to the torch and 305' from the foundation of the pedestal to the top. It was made in Paris. Construction began in 1875 and was completed in 1884. The statue was made of copper. Steel was added to the structure to increase its strength.
Following its completion in France it was shipped to the U.S; broken down into 350 pieces that were packed into 214 crates. Lady Liberty's head is 17'3" from chin to cranium. Her right arm is 42' long. Her sandal is 25 feet, a ladies size 879! It is a stunning piece of work and a profound symbol; it is also massive.
When we look at the total weight of the copper and steel that went into the statue it really puts an edge on the 'ancient construction' problem: 200,000 pounds, or 100 tons, of copper were used then add 250,000 pounds, 150 tons, of steel. That is a combined weight of 250-tons. Two and half million stones went into the Great Pyramid and the estimated weight is 6 million tons! The largest stone blocks in the pyramid weigh about 70 tons. However, there are numerous 40, 100, 200 and a few 400-ton blocks of precisely cut stones in Peru that had to be hauled a considerable distance and then fit into place at various sites.
The Statue of Liberty was assembled in New York using cranes. What did the Maya use to raise Setele E the Quiroga site, which is 35' high and weighs 65-tons? They did not have the benefit of block and tackle let alone cranes and as far as we know they didn't have cables or high strength rope.
After throwing in the towel on the first basic challenge, the NOVA team brought in bulldozers and other modern equipment to quarry and move the 35-ton obelisk. This is a rather stunning fact. The team was comprised of top professionals who had the benefit of 5,000 years of engineering history to draw upon. What did the ancient Egyptians have?
Mount Rushmore yields a different kind of perspective. This amazing monument sits where it was sculpted out of solid rock in the mountains of South Dakota. It is a massive work of art and a wonderful testimony to key figures in American history. The epic sculpture features 60-foot high faces, 500 feet off the ground. How and why was it made?
In 1923 state historian Doane Robinson wanted to memorialize the history of the West by carving some giant statues in the Black Hills. Backers thought it was a great idea that also might attract tourists to the state. A sculptor by the name of Gutzon Borghum was brought in to do the work. In an era when many artists scorned traditional patriotism, Borghum made his name through celebration of things American. He had already achieved a degree of fame by remodeling the torch for the Statue of Liberty.
A crucial change was made when Borghum entered the picture. The master sculptor refused to work on anything that was not of national importance. The committee agreed to his selection of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln.
A huge amount of rock had to be removed as the sculptor and his assistants worked. Dynamite was used to remove 90 percent of the unneeded rock, about 450,000 tons of it. It took 14 years from start to finish. The actual carving used up about half of that time. The rest was spent on blasting. He had a crew of 400 skilled men under his supervision working with high-powered drills. Most of the men were experienced hard- rock miners. They were accustomed to strenuous work, harsh conditions and long hours.
Could all the slaves in Egypt really lift and drag millions of tons of stones with rope and wooden sleds? According to the Nova team's experiment, they could not have used the dolorite hammers to quarry the stone that historians claimed were the only tools they had at the time. The Nova team did not even try to move the obelisk. Once the bulldozer had quarried it the piece was hauled to the site by truck. The second cheat; strike two.
The Washington Monument is an elegant testimony to America's first president. It is reminiscent of Egyptian and Roman obelisks. The monument is 555' high, the tallest freestanding stone structure in the world. The cap at the top weighs 300 tons and the weight of the entire structure is 90,859 tons. But the monument is not a single solid piece of stone, it is hollow inside and was built in stages.
The Lincoln Memorial statue is 19' high and weighs 175 tons. It is a fitting testimony to the man who had the misfortune to be president during the civil war. The statue is large and imposing. The weight of it is similar to mid-sized statuary and obelisks in Egypt and there are many comparable artifacts in Peru.
These are examples of modern large-scale stone work and large monuments. But nearly all have been constructed using modern equipment and machinery. This in no way detracts from the artistry, craftsmanship or the spirit embodied in them. Who wouldn't utilize state-of-art tools to accomplish such Herculean tasks? The NOVA team sure did. They reluctantly admitted their failures but they pressed on to at least try to prove they could lift it using the one primitive method they had left.
That brings us back to the main issue. How did the ancient builders cut, dress and move 20 to 200-ton blocks of stone? We've all seen a diesel tractor-trailer with a load of 10 new full-size American automobiles driving down the freeway headed for the new car lot. The combined weight of the vehicles is about 15 tons. If you are getting the idea that the magnitude of the problem is severe, you're right!
We are not saying it is impossible to move the 1 and 2-ton stones using the primitive methods ascribed to the builders of the Great Pyramid. We are saying that it is impossible to move a 200-ton stone using those methods!
If you have ever done any landscaping that involved moving boulders around you know what is involved. It takes a 300 horsepower diesel engine and hydraulic lifter to pick up a 7- ton granite slab. That is a cut and dry fact. The Great Pyramid consists largely of stones weighing 1 to 2 tons, however, there are 20-ton, 40-ton and 60-ton blocks and the largest block at Giza hoisted up several hundred feet. They could not have been moved by the methods that scientists claim they were moved. The NOVA team was just attempting a single rather smallish obelisk that was not going to be lifted upwards as the elevated tiers of the pyramid demanded of those building blocks.
We are back to the principle outlined at the beginning of the article. Because you can lift up and carry 10 sleeping children weighing 30 lbs each from the van to the house, one at a time, doesn't mean you can lift up one 300 lb man and carry him up a flight of stairs.
The ancients did not have jackhammers, dynamite, loaders, tractor-trailers, cranes, hoists, pulleys, dray animals or block and tackle devices. This is the kind of equipment it would take to handle megalithic stones. Part of the difficulty in grasping the engineering problem involved seems to stem from the fact that we don't build with monolithic stones in the modern era. If we routinely saw the kind of equipment that is needed to manage a 50-ton stone the average person might have a better appreciation of the underlying dynamics of this long-standing debate.
When the problem is broken down and compared to every day experiences and how we handle these kinds of challenges in the present, reality and pragmatism start to sink in. The typical boxcar on a train weighs about 25 tons and can handle a payload of around 60 tons. A 48' tandem tractor-trailer has a load capacity of approximately 20 tons.
To be more cogent to the problem at hand we need to examine the latest Caterpillar equipment used in quarry operations. The 973C track loader has a 229 horsepower engine. It has an operating weight of almost 30 tons, a big machine. The bucket is rated at a maximum capacity of 4 yards, which is a little over 4 tons. That means one bucket can pick up 4 tons of rock and dump it into a waiting dump truck.
The 771D off-highway Caterpillar dump truck weighs about 90 tons. It runs on a 518 horsepower diesel engine, a very large dump truck. The payload capacity is 45 tons. It would take the loader 10 trips to fill up the dump truck presumably with rocks and gravel. But the loader cannot lift a single 40-ton megalith. You need a crane for that.
There are a number of cranes on the market that are rated to the 100 and even 300-ton capacity. They could handle the 40 to 300-ton blocks. However, it takes a specially made crane to lift anything above that tonnage. NASA had to make a custom crane with a lifting capacity of 430 tons to lift the shuttle during attachment to the fuel tanks. There is a New York engineering company that also has a specialty crane with a lift capacity of 500 tons that is used to lift other cranes to the top of high-rise construction sites. These are custom pieces of equipment used for specialized operations.
But as huge as the dump truck described above is - it so big that it cannot travel on the highway - we would also need an even bigger truck. Out of luck again. The biggest earthmovers used in large-scale open pit mining operations max out at about the 350-ton carrying capacity. It is preposterous to think that a group of men could do what it takes out largest pieces of machinery to achieve.
The NOVA team tried valiantly to lift the obelisk in place but that too failed. Strike three!
They took a hiatus and came back three years later. This time at the plate they decided to skip the first two steps and concentrate on the visual pay off, lifting it into place in the second attempt. They succeeded in doing it the second time, but what did the two efforts prove? They actually demonstrated that the pyramid could not have been built using the "primitive theory" methods. The Egyptian who owns the rock quarry was asked what he thought about it. He replied that he did not think, "Any attempt below 100 tons proved anything." He is absolutely correct and his point says it all.
The bottom line is that we can barely move a 300-ton megalithic block of granite today; they surely did not do so with primitive means in the distant past. You may as well believe they used teleportation or some other magical means because that is as practical a solution as the old dolorite hammers, wooden sledges and ropes concept. So how did they build the monuments? No one knows. If any scientist or engineer still desires to debate this issue, the author would be happy to oblige in any public forum. I would be even happier to arrange a test of proposed methods.
 Profile
 Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 19-02-2005 at 10:28
>> If you have ever done any landscaping that involved
>> moving boulders around you know what is involved. It
>> takes a 300 horsepower diesel engine and hydraulic lifter
>> to pick up a 7- ton granite slab. That is a cut and dry fact.
Sorry, incorrect statement! How about 6 men doing it very easily?
http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com/
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 29-05-2006 at 01:35
Quite easy! Believe me. I can explain how we can move those 300 ton megalithic blocks.
We just need to put the Giants dancing!
Engineery and technology are quite old.
JCAntunes
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 29-05-2006 at 05:44
If Mr Hart had quoted all the literature un-selectively he could have shown that the mechanical feats of the ancients have all been replicated. I've seen a small team pulling a sixteen tonner uphill, yet he says it can't be done and is pushing his awful book in pursuit of the pennies of Big Brother contestants.
Give up Mike! It wasn't lizards from the lower fourth dimension, it was humans!
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-05-2006 at 11:56
The controversy may never be settled, not while we have historians who are not engineers and engineers who are not historians. Anyone who tries to upset the neat jigsaw that hiistorians have made for themselves meets with ridicule- Immanuel Velikovsky 'Ages in Chaos' 1952, Von daniken 1970 on. Take the great pyramid for instance. historians still adhere to the word of Herodotus , that it was built in 20 years. Let's see (calculator) 2 1/2 million blocks . Place one block every 4 mins 24 hours a day for 20 years. No author that I have ever read mentions this. No author that I have read mentions the cutting and dressing of the blocks, which must have been done at the same rate. Near where I live is a limestone quarry which produces blocks 1ftx 1ftx 3 ft, the biggest . With modern tungsten carbide saws they can only cut 200 a day. Blocks the size used in Egypt are impossible to do by this method. By ancient methods the pyramids and stonehenge ought not to exist. But they do. rbatham 
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 29-05-2006 at 13:28
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-29 11:56, rbatham wrote:
By ancient methods the pyramids and stonehenge ought not to exist. But they do. |
|
Please point out a single aspect of the transport, shaping and erection of Stonehenge that hasn't been perfectly replicated using timber and rope.
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 29-05-2006 at 14:14
Generations of explorers, archaeologists, historians, engineers and tourists have puzzled over one the great mysteries of ancient prehistory. At its core this incredible anomaly is quite simple. How did ancient cultures move 100, 200 and even 400-ton blocks of stone using primitive tools and methods? Not only move them also accurately position them to tight tolerances. The question is simple; the problem is complex.
I think we need to look at the issues with a modern perspective in the context of what our heavy equipment is capable of today to really get a grip on what kind of challenge we are discussing. Too often I read descriptions of how the Great Pyramid was built or how the ancient builders managed the megalithic stones in P***** that gloss right over the magnitude of these accomplishments. Cutting right to the chase, a modern locomotive engine weighs 200 tons.
Take that steel leviathan off the track and give a large team of men some ropes and let's see how far they can pull it or if they can lift it up at all. The average 18-wheel tractor-
trailer is rated to about a 20-ton capacity. Our highways have a legal load-limit of 40 tons, anything over that has to get special permits. I have come to realize after doing years of study of the ancient megalithic sites and modern technological capabilities that most people that write on these topics have not done their homework.
Many archaeologists and historians either skip over these problems or they dance around the real issues and simply give some unsupported scenario of how these massive blocks of stone were transported and lifted. There is an unavoidable physical problem that engineers are very aware of and that is the density and relative compactness of stone versus the manpower needed to exert enough force to move or lift it. The two simply do not go together. Even if we scale things way down the problem does not go away.
Let's take the average 2.5-ton limestone building block that was used to construct the core of the Great Pyramid. The block would be about four-foot long three high and three feet deep. How many men can be positioned around it? I would say no more than eight. Unfortunately, eight men cannot lift up 4,500 lbs. Pulleys and hoists were unknown in the pyramid building era. This poses a very simple and practical construction problem. It only grows worse as we raise the tonnage and the vertical lift.
How did the Egyptians lift 100-ton blocks up forty feet in the air to position them in the Sphinx temple? In addition, how did the Incas so carefully lift up and position their massive polygonal blocks so that they fit like a jigsaw puzzle?
There is an equally serious difficulty that precedes the transport and lifting of megaliths that takes place in the quarry. The only tools the ancient Egyptians had were very small copper chisels and rounded hammer-stones. The inflexible and insurmountable problem that the Great Pyramid presents is the fact that 43 blocks of granite weighing from 30 to 70 tons were quarried, lifted out of the bedrock, transported 500 miles and raised 150 vertical feet to the King's Chamber.
Several years ago Egyptologist Mark Lehner spent five hours in the Aswan quarry with a hammer-stone pounding against the granite bedrock (copper is too soft to cut granite). He was trying to prove that the ancient tools could do the job. He managed to excavate a one-foot square hole one-inch deep for his efforts. The granite blocks in the King's Chamber were 17' long and the trench that had to be dug around to them was about 8' deep. No one has ever shown how these megaliths were undercut and lifted out of the quarry.
These were relatively small blocks compared to the great obelisks that were quarried, transported and then raised up thousands of years ago, many of which still stand. They weigh from 100 to 350 tons. There isn't an archaeologist or engineer that has the slightest idea how this was done. Our largest modern day, heavy-duty cranes are rated from 100 to 300 tons. We have custom cranes that can lift up to 500 tons. Anyone that believes manpower alone could have moved these monstrous blocks of stone using ropes and manpower is living in a fantasy world.
In fact, Lehner set up an experiment to see if it was possible to quarry, move and lift an obelisk weighing one-tenth of what the largest Egyptian obelisks weighed. It was filmed by NOVA and was an utter failure. The team's master stonemason could not quarry the 35-ton obelisk so a bulldozer was called in. They could not move it, a truck was called in. These failures represent a turning a point in the long-standing debate. Lehner actually confirmed what a Japanese team funded by Nissan had already learned in 1979, it is not possible to duplicate what the ancients did using primitive tools and methods.
Team Nissan was trying to prove something and they were very confident. But when they could not begin to excavate the blocks of stone they planned on using for their small scale-model of the Great Pyramid with ancient tools they turned to jackhammers. When they tried to ferry the blocks they quarried across the river on a primitive barge, the stones sank. When a boat got them across the river they discovered that the sledges sank in the sand. They called trucks in to move the blocks to the site. Once at the site they could not manipulate the blocks into place and found, to their ultimate embarrassment, that they could not bring the four walls together into an apex despite the deployment of helicopters.
This debate has matured and moved along. It is time for those that believe they have the solution and can prove that the ancients used primitive tools and methods to step up to the plate. We need to dispose of this obsolete thinking and move on to more realistic solutions!
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 29-05-2006 at 16:18
"We need to dispose of this obsolete thinking and move on to more realistic solutions! "
Here we go...
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 29-05-2006 at 16:33
Are complete cut-and-pastes from looney creationists websites obsessed with Noah's flood and presented as a genuine posting considered a suitable feature of this forum.... or not? It seems like downhill is the only direction here. What a shame. Freedom of speech has led to complete anarchy and it's not worth coming here any more.
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 29-05-2006 at 19:05
so whats rong anon with cut and paste. it got me my deggree.
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 6991
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-05-2006 at 22:33
Dear me. This is the Forum. F-o-r-u-m. People express views here and are free to do so. Some of them might not agree with yours. Discussion goes on. You get the idea?
If you don't like this please stick to the rest of the site where nothing is 'going downhill', it's the same high quality of information as usual.
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2006-05-29 22:34 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 30-05-2006 at 07:24
Andy, yes I do understand the nature of a F-o-r-u-m and don't need it spelled out thanks. I guess its a question of what sort of forum you want. Are you wanting to create an interesting environment for rational discussion of megaliths or somewhere that champions free speech to the extent that every rational thread is hijacked and becomes utterly boring to most people? The latter, presumably.
You are effectively accusing me of misunderstanding the nature of a forum. Well its not me that has abused the concept of free speech and reduced your forum to a soapbox is it?
Why don't you spell out the meaning of f-or-u-m to others?
Reply
|
hamish
Joined:
20-06-2001
Messages: 156
from Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-05-2006 at 09:04
I wish you Anons would at least sign your names at the end of your posts, what's wrong with letting us know who you are.
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-29 16:33, Anonymous wrote:
Are complete cut-and-pastes from looney creationists websites obsessed with Noah's flood and presented as a genuine posting considered a suitable feature of this forum.... or not? It seems like downhill is the only direction here. What a shame. Freedom of speech has led to complete anarchy and it's not worth coming here any more.
|
|
Profile
Email
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-05-2006 at 10:51
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-29 19:05, Anonymous wrote:
so whats rong anon with cut and paste. it got me my deggree.
|
|
Degree in what? I don't have one so I don't have to confirm to academic traditions. What's wRong with anon? Why do you have to hide your identity and location.? rbatham
Profile
Email
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-05-2006 at 11:06
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-29 13:28, Anonymous wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-05-29 11:56, rbatham wrote:
By ancient methods the pyramids and stonehenge ought not to exist. But they do. |
|
Please point out a single aspect of the transport, shaping and erection of Stonehenge that hasn't been perfectly replicated using timber and rope.
[/quote] I have seen many BBC TV documentaries about replications. Most were failures. Those that did show a certain amount of success were scaled down. Show me a Complete replica of SH with stones transported from Wales. Moving one stone does not build the monument. rbatham 
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 30-05-2006 at 11:44
Moving one stone does not build the monument.
True, but every aspect of transporting and erecting the largest Stonehenge sarsens has been replicated. 800 people haven't been financed to spend a year or two on the whole job, but it has all been demonstrated, often many times. The "stonehenge was made by ancients with secret lost powers" is an oft-repeated myth, popular amongst those who are flogging books on how "stonehenge was made by ancients with secret lost powers" and not by those within experimental archaeology circles (who are part of a grand conspiracy allegedly, as outlined by those with books to sell on The Grand Conspiracy...!)
Two minutes on a CropCircle website tends to show the whole process at work in technicolour.
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1331
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-05-2006 at 16:19
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-30 11:44, Anonymous wrote:
Moving one stone does not build the monument.
True, but every aspect of transporting and erecting the largest Stonehenge sarsens has been replicated. 800 people haven't been financed to spend a year or two on the whole job, but it has all been demonstrated, often many times.
|
|
I agree which this point. The Nova demonstrations (and others) were performed on shoe string budgets by a variety of "experts" in their spare time - often very limited. It was not their "job" to get these building projects done. And the moderns are not experts in the sense that the ancient people were.
The modern expert in moving heavy objects is not the expert at moving heavy objects with timber and rope. The evidence of methods of quarrying, measuring, and moving are available.
If you are looking for an illustrated manual stamped "4000 BC" you won't find it. But then there is also no illustrated manual on how the Wright Brother's built their first Flyer. Replicating that with period materials was also exceeding difficult - with many false turns - and ended up with a plane that the pilot (not an "expert") immediately crashed. Yet I don't think the Wright Brothers possessed mystic secrets.
Profile
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 30-05-2006 at 16:38
The other aspect is that whichever method they used in, say, moving stones, their skill in doing so was honed over months and maybe years. Having taken part in some big stonemoving experiments we improved our efficiency about fourfold in the space of a couple of hours, just by trial and error adjustments. If we'd has a few weeks at it we'd have done even better I'm sure.
If there's a "lost knowledge" it's simply that, I suppose, the skill to do the job efficiently. People don't talk of knapped tools as being the result of a lost mysterious power - it's a small enough matter that people have been able to develop the skill and show exactly how it was done. If a big sarsen and some ropes and rollers were deposited in Hyde Park the "mystery of megalithic transport" would soon be dispelled and it could become an Olympic sport....
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5525
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-05-2006 at 20:18
Why is there so much anger ?
The starman makes a reasoned argument for there been a different method for the movement , position, joining of enormous ancient stones.
The result is a splurge of BILE, why?
What if there is something different ?
Because I have travelled through the air, at a stone circle, with no apparent force involved, I have a tendancy to believe that gravity can be overcome.
http://www.gravitycontrol.org
David Barclay who writes frequent articles on this subject, impresses me, he is positive and responds to all ideas, he doesn't start calling anyone a NUTTER, why do many on megalithic sites resort to such contemptuous gutter level bile ?
Do they feel protective of their little stone kingdoms?
Where they percieve themselves as the big I am ?
It baffles me ?
If as the starman eludes to, there is a simple way of moving , cutting and positioning great big stones, what is wrong with investigating the possibilities ?
I would dearly love to investigate this possibility with those that have an in depth knowledge of pre-historic sites, and instead constantly find any such attempt blocked with heaps of bile.
Is it any wonder that many feel there is an organised conspiracy to deter any such discussion ?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-05-2006 at 05:07
Near where I live is a Gravity Research Centre which cost millions of dollars. It is run by Dr David Blair of uni WA. It is for the serious investigation of gravity waves. You may like to visit the site http://www.gdc.asn.au/ rbatham 
Profile
Email
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News