The ‘BASALT FLOOR’ Giza Plateau Smoking Gun Evidence of LOST ANCIENT TECHNOLOGY

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: skalla

Well I'm glad we agree on that because it makes this next bit easier. Because they're test cuts, and abrasive cutting is just slightly faster than natural erosion, wouldn't it make more sense to train your apprentices or do your painfully slow arduous testing on the actual project? ?...? That's why theses are quick and that's why abrasive theory doesn't work. Hand saw doesn't work, hundreds of men doesn't work. All of those theories, none of them work. A high powered circular saw does.

"When you eliminate the probable, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Love it.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Wolfenz


Remember to as you look at the rugged exterior of the great pyramid that at one time it had a smooth white limestone case covering the whole of it. Several courses of this casing were found in place at the bottom and were covered with sand.

This case reflected the sun and certainly could be seen from the air, from space as a bright shining light.

Ohh Yeah those Casings the Remaining of a Few Blocks on Top of one of the Giza Pyramids ...

Another mystery Where in the Hell Are They ??? and Who moved them ? and to where ...

As some Claim they were brought to Rome , and other places other Country's is there evidence to where they are , and How was that feet accomplished ! let alone taking them Down... yeah they did exist as One of Pyramids to has some Stone remaining near the top ! ... Some do not even mention that!!


Yep a Shining Beacon to the Gods... , a Power Plant ,

The White Lime Stone casing



The Size of just one of those Stone Blocks

There are copper remnants in the abrasion granules.
This whole thread is for nothing really, if the OP had done a search on cutting tool remnants found near the unfinished Basalt in Giza, this would have come up.

There are abrasive mineral and copper remnants on this site which suggest the abrasive "cutting teeth" were what made it work, either loose, or added in to the metal.

Naughty DP

a reply to: obscurepanda

Yes, it did. The Egyptians mentioned Abraham a dozen times, including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
While they made no direct mention of the Hebrews, they did note of a people called "Apiru." In addition, they also
have records of a man called Imhotep, whose description is remarkably similar to Joseph

answers.yahoo.com...

thetruth-blog.blogspot.com...

Anyway, acoording to Flavius Josephus, the Flood actually occurred 100 years earlier than believed. This would put the date of the Flood at around 2663 B.C. This would coincide with the first Egyptian Pharaoh and Gilgamesh.

a reply to: Wolfenz

Check local buildings and mosques that'd where 5 he stones are.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: obscurepanda

Yes, it did. The Egyptians mentioned Abraham a dozen times,

No, they didn't.

including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

And again, they did not mention any such thing. Please cite contemporary sources.

While they made no direct mention of the Hebrews, they did note of a people called "Apiru."

The Apiru or as they were called by everyone from Mesopotamia to Canaan, the Habiru, were not the Hebrew people. Not unless the Hebrews were all over the Fertile Crescent from Canaan to Mesopotamia to the Hittite Empire and up North to the Hurrians from ~ 1800 BPE to ~ 1100 BPE long before and well after the establishment of the Israeli's as a separate identifiable entity.

In addition, they also
have records of a man called Imhotep, whose description is remarkably similar to Joseph

And I have seen records of the Pillsbury Doughboy who is remarkably similar to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. The main difference here is that there are actual historical records contemporary with the life of Imhotep.

answers.yahoo.com...

Really? Yahoo Answers as a legitimate source? Wow... OK... the first part is a Jewish historian from the 1st century CE, writing stories about the history of the Jewish people, based on Jewish religious texts regarding alleged events from millennia prior. Not even remotely a reliable source with an actual basis in history.

The 2nd section regarding the Apiru... the thing tying them to the Hebrews is a similar phonetic sound between Apiru and Hebrew and that phonetic similarity exists only in English. It also completely ignores all of the other historical documentation of the Habiru who are recorded all across the Fertile Crescent as itinerant farmers, laborers and mercenaries originally from Western Sumeria and North East Canaan. The Egyptians have many other records of the Apiru, mostly in lists of captured soldiers from battles in Canaan and Egypt. Apiru is not a name for an actual culture or civilization of people, it is a generic term for a semi-itinerant Semitic people who had a presence across many differing areas.

The 3rd section giving dates of the Exodus and lives of varying Patriarchs is completely arbitrary and not at all based on any historical or archaeological evidence whatsoever and is again nothing more than stories written by a Jewish historian and the dates are based on the ages of patriarchs when they birthed specific children and then adding these ages(from between early 200's to over 900 years old when having these children). There is no more historical context or basis for this than there is for the stories of the gods of Olympus.

thetruth-blog.blogspot.com...

Imhotep lived long before the time period these folks are attempting to ascribe to Joseph. Imhotep has contemporary records from the 27th century BPE.

Anyway, acoording to Flavius Josephus, the Flood actually occurred 100 years earlier than believed

According to whom was the flood at a differing time from when Josephus claims, again based on arbitrary dating? There is absolutely no legitimacy to a worldwide flood as described in the Hebrew texts and it certainly didn't occur in 2663 BPE

This would put the date of the Flood at around 2663 B.C. This would coincide with the first Egyptian Pharaoh and Gilgamesh.

Not only is there absolutely no evidence of this occurring at the time you claim in the historical, archaeological or Geological record, the 1st Pharaoh was over 500 years before this and Gilgamesh, if he was real(and I think he likely was) could have lived any time between 2500 and 2800 BPE so to definitively state that this all fits together perfectly and is an accurate portrayal of reality is a drastic stretch of the imagination at very best. Especially when making such definitive claims and your citations are Yahoo Answers and someones blog with a hypothesis that can't be proven or even substantiated with the most minute or tenuous evidence and nothing from the Egyptian historical record to support your initial claims at all...

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Mianeye
No copper alone will not cut basalt, but it is still possible.

Ancient Egyptian copper slabbing saws

Except that they have never found one and a copper saw would not last very long. Probably not long enough to cut through one block. It would deteriorate way faster than the basalt. Not buying it. And neither are the people who wrote the article you brought in. That saw, made in modern times only produced v shaped grooves and would not be a practical means of mass production of the millions of stone blocks that are there.

Right.. so they have never found a crude cutting instrument, but it makes less sense than powered power tools.. of which there is also no proof of. And it would be much more likely they would find evidence of that. No blades, engines, gears, motors.. you name it. But for some reason.. this makes more sense.

a reply to: JamesTB

They don't ever want to say machining because that would change history and open the door to the past that our leaders and many in science and religion want's closed. An easy one is the three striations, if it was done by copper tools why would he make three and not think O this was a mistake I will do it again. No it looks like someone had a saw and was attempting to use it and had issues with it. And then the blocks with perfect edges and yet that was done by copper tools and a hammer. Don't worry brother and sisters, keep it up. Eventually we will find out what the history of this planet truly is.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Xtrozero

The real problem with the idea of hand saws be they copper of iron is that the cuts don't suggest a relatively sloppy tool was used.

When we say saw that is somewhat of a misnomer... What they would of had is a flat blade 1/4 inch thick with no saw teeth. The teeth would be the sand that is higher on the Mohs scale as the teeth. All they need to do is apply the pressure and scrap the sand back and forth against the stone. You can see it in a previous post of mine just a few above as to the effectiveness of this process. It would be very straight and clean cutting.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz


There are copper remnants in the abrasion granules.
This whole thread is for nothing really, if the OP had done a search on cutting tool remnants found near the unfinished Basalt in Giza, this would have come up.

There are abrasive mineral and copper remnants on this site which suggest the abrasive "cutting teeth" were what made it work, either loose, or added in to the metal.

Zazz, it would be a great help if you could link to this

a reply to: poncho1982

This presupposes that a copper wheel or saw using abrasives works only slightly faster than natural erosion.

That is sadly patently false.

Rank amateurs removed material at 12 cubic centimetres and hour using copper copper saws and abrasives.

Does wind and rain remove material at just under 12 cubic centimetres an hour? Obviously not, so the whole point falls down on this.

For me this just brings us back to copper tools and abrasives.

Peeps seem scared to admit that a copper tool with abrasives can cut stone, inspite of the supporting data already posted to this.

If anyone can speculate as to what their "lost ancient tech" circular saw could possibly have been made from, and suggest means as to how it would be powered then we can examine how possible it would have been.

Anyone got the nuts to handle that one?

I saw a documentary on Egypt's ancient chariots and how they were designed. While I thought they were cool, I imagined how they used to fight during a war, being pulled by horses and shooting with bows and arrows.

If the ancient Egyptians were so advanced, what were they doing being pulled by horses and shooting arrows to fight a war?

Were they trying primitive methods (horses, chariots, and bow and arrows) to conceal their advanced alien technology and laser weapons? Or maybe they were just primitive..

Much more amazing than ideas that they were some really technologically advanced race, was the idea that they accomplished all these things while still being primitive.

a reply to: JamesTB

Seems to me the remains of these OOPTOOLS, used to cut these basalt stones for the floor, and presumably, the stones for the outer casings, and probably the entire Pyramids, are the long, narrow pits, euphemistically called 'boat pits' by archaeologists.

I don't think these are or originally were pits for boats at all...they were used for housing massive circular saws, with one half of the saw above ground, the other half below the surface, into the narrow pit.

Roughly hewn blocks could then be offered up to the saw blade, which would cut the rough stone to the precise size and shape required and leave the surfaces smooth and easy to mate to the next block.

These cuts, found on all faces of the blocks, including the undersides of many of these in-situ blocks pictured, shows the cuts were made at the time of construction, and not made by some 20th century vandal with a battery operated angle grinder! (that's an even weirder, way out theory than ET building the pyramids!)

The reason the mainstream will not publicly acknowledge the presence of advanced machinery in an age purported to be primitive, with no access or concept of such advanced tooling?

Simple...it shows us something only whispered of in closed sessions...uttered quietly in secretive corridors. It shows us that Humanity has been great, perhaps greater than we are now, but in extreme antiquity...and suffered a calamity, or series of calamities that reduced us and reduced us in a relatively short period of time to barbarians and savages who had to endure unimaginable hardships while clawing our way back to organised civilisation and technological supremacy.

Why would they keep this quiet, and not wish us to know about this previously high tech civilisation?

That's simple too...TPTB know that if it has happened at least once before, it will happen again, and who wants to work to create a better society / world civilisation if we're carrying the knowledge that it will be destroyed and the people reduced to savages living hand to mouth, an extra day alive being considered a small victory?

Not many.

This is why i believe out true history is concealed, why truth is intermixed with outright lies. To keep us working.

A pyramid that is preserved in casing stones, and possibly the builders removed and replaced the casing at times to preserve the interior from weather effects. If the eygptains weren't builders how old can a pyramid be, 10,000, 100,000, > 1000000 you decide.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Zazz please link a video of a copper saw, whether manual or driven with sand add into the grind wedge that shows a cut right through a piece of granite. If the eygptians used this method im sure if it really works some one has tested it and videoed it for world to see. There is no excuses for such video existing if this method really works on granite. It may work on a softer stone like limestone but im specifically referring to granite.

I have requested this from Orazor but he says the video exists but wont link it here. Now I know you are a fair person on all fronts and will be eager to find a video of this, which you can link me in PM. cheers

a reply to: nOraKat

If the ancient Egyptians were so advanced, what were they doing being pulled by horses and shooting arrows to fight a war?

The presumption is that 'the ancient Egyptians, who rode around and fought from the back of chariots, shot bows and arrows and are generally the ancient Egyptians we refer to when we talk about the people of ancient Egypt...were not the people who possessed the high technologies that built the great civilisation, but were rather those who inherited the obscure monumental remains of their once great, technological ancestors.

IOW...the 'ancient Egyptians' we think of, were the descendants of the survivors of the cataclysm (or cataclysms) that put an end to the previous high tech civilisation. The relatively crude technology we now associate with ancient Egyptians, is not the best that the previous, now long gone human civilisation had to offer, but rather the technology of a culture pulling itself back up by it's boot straps, so to speak.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: JamesTB

Seems to me the remains of these OOPTOOLS, used to cut these basalt stones for the floor, and presumably, the stones for the outer casings, and probably the entire Pyramids, are the long, narrow pits, euphemistically called 'boat pits' by archaeologists.

I don't think these are or originally were pits for boats at all...they were used for housing massive circular saws, with one half of the saw above ground, the other half below the surface, into the narrow pit.

Roughly hewn blocks could then be offered up to the saw blade, which would cut the rough stone to the precise size and shape required and leave the surfaces smooth and easy to mate to the next block.

The pyramids at Giza are 95% limestone.
They wouldn't need saws to make limestone blocks and no pyramid limestone block shows any signs of saw marks.

Limestone is easy to cleave along a horizontal plane, and almost as easy to dress along a vertical plane.

The only possible use of such circular saws would be with harder stone like granite. Unfortunately, the Egyptians left more than enough evidence for how they quarried, smoothed and shaped granite slabs and blocks, and in the large majority of cases it wasn't by sawing.

Note the smooth surface of this obelisk vs. the unsmoothed portion:



The work on the obelisk stopped when it broke.

It is plain to see that the granite was smoothed and shaped right there in the quarry - no saw required.

Harte

a reply to: AthlonSavage

There is data linked in the thread already. You seem to think that everything has to be recorded on video to be worthy of consideration for some reason.

So, can you link to a video of a reconstruction of the tools that you are suggesting please, obviously using materials and production methods demonstrably available to AE's. And no edits and cuts, it has to be one continuous shot. Or i'll just move the goal posts again.

See how unworkable that is?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: JamesTB

Seems to me the remains of these OOPTOOLS, used to cut these basalt stones for the floor, and presumably, the stones for the outer casings, and probably the entire Pyramids, are the long, narrow pits, euphemistically called 'boat pits' by archaeologists.

I don't think these are or originally were pits for boats at all...they were used for housing massive circular saws, with one half of the saw above ground, the other half below the surface, into the narrow pit.

Roughly hewn blocks could then be offered up to the saw blade, which would cut the rough stone to the precise size and shape required and leave the surfaces smooth and easy to mate to the next block.

The pyramids at Giza are 95% limestone.
They wouldn't need saws to make limestone blocks and no pyramid limestone block shows any signs of saw marks.

Limestone is easy to cleave along a horizontal plane, and almost as easy to dress along a vertical plane.

The only possible use of such circular saws would be with harder stone like granite. Unfortunately, the Egyptians left more than enough evidence for how they quarried, smoothed and shaped granite slabs and blocks, and in the large majority of cases it wasn't by sawing.

Note the smooth surface of this obelisk vs. the unsmoothed portion:

The work on the obelisk stopped when it broke.

It is plain to see that the granite was smoothed and shaped right there in the quarry - no saw required.

Harte

Is this the part where you repeat the foolish notion that they used stone pounders to pound out the unfinished obelisks in the Aswan quarry?