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

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I don't get why they'd carve images of stonemasons using stonemasons' tools but not carve images of alien visitors helping them?! Major failure in logic there

Good question, but in that case we'd also have to ask: isn't it strange that ancient egyptians described almost every aspect of their daily life on almost every free space they could find using a plethora of glyhps and artwork standing in such a stark contrast to the fine cut megaliths?

And then they don't dedicate a single glyph to the construction of the pyramids, a truly genuine feat that's still marvelled at by modern humans without us having figured out how it was done? I think this ought to be taken into account when trying to solve the equation ...

You do realize they have lots of information on the pyramid. We have carvings that tell you what workers did. All the way from pay masters to stone masons suggest you look into the workers tombs at Giza.
www.guardians.net...

Abu Roash Stone: Evidence of circular saw

Other remarkable features of machining on granite are also examined, but probably the most stunning example of ancient machining lies on a wind-swept hill 5 miles from the Giza Plateau. Abu Roash has recently been advertised as the “Lost Pyramid” by Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, even though it has been well known and written about for many years. I wasn’t expecting much when I first visited the site in February 2006, but what I found was a piece of granite so remarkable that I returned to that site 3 more times to show witnesses in order to explain its unique features. Those who accompanied me on different occasions were David Childress, Judd Peck, Edward Malkowski, Dr. Arlan Andrews and Dr. Randall Ashton. Edward Malkowski immediately dubbed the stone the new rose-red Rosetta Stone. Mechanical engineer Arlan Andrews independently came to the same conclusion.

I tried to imagine a process in which the piece would be cut in one single sawing operation, but I could not come up with a method that did not demand more out of the tool than was possible due to an increase in surface area being cut. In other words, assuming a larger block was being cut along the striated surface with the saw on an angle, depending on the thickness of the entire block, the thin block, which is the one we are studying, would break apart from the thicker one. But passing the stone across the saw on an angle would result in an increase in the surface area being cut. In pursuing an answer to the puzzle, while providing an answer to Petrie’s question about the size of the saw, it was necessary to calculate the radius of the saw—the granite block at Abu Roash, provided the attributes to calculate that the stone was cut with a circular saw that was over 37 feet in diameter. This seems almost impossible to believe, but the evidence is cut into the stone for anyone to measure and illustrated in figure 7 and 8 for verification.

www.gizapower.com...

It's quite nice and uniform, but you can see it bows significantly in the middle.The smoothness of the cut can only have been made by sawing rather than hacking. The curvature of the rock suggests a particular type of saw, an impossibly modern saw. The most controversial theory for how this granite slab could have been formed this way, to have a concave surface, is by cutting it with a giant circular saw.

It seems amazing of course because no circular saws have ever been found in ancient Egypt. This would be astonishing.
According to the history books, the circular saw was invented at the end of the 18th century. If these curves can be reproduced, perhaps it would be possible to deduce how they were made. At this stone cutting factory near yeovil, England, they've been trying to find the answer. They have to have been using a technology that is more advanced than we've given credit for, and I'd love to find out what that is.

Producing the curved profile is achieved with a modern circular saw by moving the saw across the stone.
Could an ancient circular saw have cut like this? But with the saw vertical to the rock, a straight lip is made at the end.
The Abu Roash slab has a curved lip, as if the saw came in horizontally.
You can see here that if we do a cut straight on to the surface, you will actually get a surface curve like that, that you see at Abu Roash. But the Abu Roash slab has this most unusual thing inasmuch as a compound curve, and that can only be done by bringing the blade in at 45 degrees to the surface and drawing the slab along.That reproduces exactly the pattern that we see on the slab.
At an angle of 45 degrees, a circular saw gives a curved profile to match the curvature of the saw. It also leaves a curved lip whether it's the blade moving over the block or, more likely, the block being moved against the blade. If you have the saw in a vertical plane, you are effectively moving the block like that. That's a perfectly easy motion to do if you have some rollers and some people to move it.

But the ancient Egyptians didn't have electrically powered machinery like this. And granite has to be cut with either high tensile steel or diamond blades. The Egyptians didn't have steel, and cutting rock with diamond tipped saws is impossibly advanced engineering. In fact, there's no evidence that the Egyptians had even discovered diamonds.

www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...

30+ foot diameter circular saw to produce a 1.4 inch concave in a slab of granite 1.4 meters wide. No straight saw can do this. Iron blades would have been long rusted by now so there's no evidence of those. There is however, evidence of what matches the exact dimensions of a saw that large which would be used to hold it. Right beside were the stone was discovered.

So you're looking for a pit in the ground about Lo and behold, next door to the slab, there is a slot in the ground which exactly matches the dimensions of a saw that would have to be used for that slab here.

originally posted by: dragonridr

You do realize they have lots of information on the pyramid. We have carvings that tell you what workers did. All the way from pay masters to stone masons suggest you look into the workers tombs at Giza.
www.guardians.net...

Seriously? Well, then the riddle is solved, congratulations! Long live Dr. Zahi Hawass and his personal interpretation!

So they found a settlement? With workers having lived close to the pyramids? Engaging in trade and production? OK, now where's the part where they refer to the construction of the pyramids? Please advise ...

a reply to: FlySolo

A 30+ foot diameter circular saw blade is highly unlikely and impractical (not too mention it wouldn't produce a concave surface, as opposed to a cut), however a abrasive block on a pendulum might have been used to produce such a surface.

originally posted by: Triton1128

Fun Fact : Puma Punku is located at an altitude of 12,800 feet, which means it is located above the natural tree line, this means NO trees grew in that area which means that no trees were cut down in order to use wooden rollers, the question is how did they transport the stones? The closest quarries were over 60 miles away. ...

Could they have cut down some trees at a lower elevation and transported them up to the 12,800 foot elevation to use them as rollers? That seems to be a logical solution to the lack of trees in the area.

originally posted by: Sparky63

originally posted by: Triton1128

Fun Fact : Puma Punku is located at an altitude of 12,800 feet, which means it is located above the natural tree line, this means NO trees grew in that area which means that no trees were cut down in order to use wooden rollers, the question is how did they transport the stones? The closest quarries were over 60 miles away. ...

Could they have cut down some trees at a lower elevation and transported them up to the 12,800 foot elevation to use them as rollers? That seems to be a logical solution to the lack of trees in the area.

Good guess. But the fact is, many stones at Puma Punk still show scrapes and gouges on one or several sides, indicating that the were simply dragged.

Most stone at the site is reasonably sized. There are a few large sandstone pieces, but the site is mainly smaller stones - compared to megaliths, anyway.

Harte

a reply to: peter vlar

There's no accurate information on when Imhotep lived. The first Egyptian Pharaoh with written records started from the Old Kingdom. The ones before that probably had their records destroyed by the Flood, or there's just simply not enough information.

www.metmuseum.org...

As far as whether the Egyptians mentioned the Hebrews, Habiru is actually how He(Ha)-b(bi)-rew(ru) is pronounced in Ancient Egyptian. Hieroglyphic is pretty complex, but e is pronounced as ah, for example, Rê(the sun god) is pronounced Ra. Similarly, Joseph is actually Yoseph in Hebrew, and the Y is pronounced as i(as in king, pin) in Ancient Egyptian, so if you separate Joseph as Y-o-seph, then it's "probable" Im-ho-tep is how you pronounce it in Ancient Egyptian.

www.friesian.com...

And I've given you all the sources(you can search for whether the Egyptians mentioned Abraham on Google), how about giving me a source that shows that Imhotep is a contemporary of Djoser?

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

And I've given you all the sources(you can search for whether the Egyptians mentioned Abraham on Google), how about giving me a source that shows that Imhotep is a contemporary of Djoser?

How about an original Ancient Egyptian source?



Broken off statue of Djoser, naming Imhotep as his chancellor, among Imhotep's other titles listed there.

Source

Harte

the Giza complex of pyramids & irregular cut stone walls which match with irregular cut stones at say Machu Pichu (there is a timing difference between 2,500BCE and 1,400CE on just these two places with advanced and massive stone structures)

I say Giza was constructed even before the Egyptian Dynasty era of Pharoahs as rulers, say pre 4,100BCE...btw

next lets consider the band of advanced technology sites which encircle the globe...
yes indeed, there is a 300 mile wide band of sites like; Easter Island to Giza to Nazca and a series of other sites where advanced technology was (possibly) used to sculpt or carve basalt/ granite/ and other enduring stones with such precision that our modern methods would be not within the specs or tolerances done by ancients sine about 600 years ago to way distant architects-engineers of ~5,000 years ago minimum....

this point-to-point "band" that encircles the Earth is 30 degrees off the invisible Equator
and seems to have once been associated with the wandering North magnetic pole

...Sometime shortly before the Younger Dryas, the Great Circle was an accurate map of the Earth's geomagnetic equator...

source: www.reddit.com...


the Giza pyramids are the oldest anomaly of grand design/technology/stoneworks... with each other place coming on line as history slowly advanced... the very newest secretly accomplished stoneworks were done in S America, Tiahuanacu, Machu Picchu, Nazca, etc.

so---- recurring over some 5,000 years of history... some group of advanced architects/engineers/builders/stonemasons popped up in pre-determined locations to present the world with mysterious....pyramids/maori heads/ cities in the clouds (like 13,000 feet in the Andes mountains with Mummies like Egypt had done thousands of years before)


I am getting the idea that it is not ancient technology.... but secretly kept technology that arises...
perhaps what used to be stone monuments with math codes hidden in the geometry/math the secret holders are now unleashing upon the world, nuclear arms and genetic/DN A manipulation as the new platform for their own purposes





whatever ATS member posted that link to a 1:44:03 video about the pyramids et al...... I tip my hat to you...

Aliens are ruled out anyway, as it is "unlikely" there is life in space, Earth is spinning around in a pink cloud made of marmelade, not space. there can not be civlizations that have almanacs that read "413 million and eight", because bacon tastes so damn good.

originally posted by: Sparky63

originally posted by: Triton1128

Fun Fact : Puma Punku is located at an altitude of 12,800 feet, which means it is located above the natural tree line, this means NO trees grew in that area which means that no trees were cut down in order to use wooden rollers, the question is how did they transport the stones? The closest quarries were over 60 miles away. ...

Could they have cut down some trees at a lower elevation and transported them up to the 12,800 foot elevation to use them as rollers? That seems to be a logical solution to the lack of trees in the area.

Of course they could have, if they even used rollers. And FYI, the exact quarries the stones came from are known, and neither are "over 60 miles" away. All of the large stones comprising the bulk of the construction were quarried from a site 6.2 miles away, near lake Titicaca, while the (quite significantly) smaller stones used in some of the facings came from quarries 52-56 miles away.

Claims that all the stones were transported over 60 miles are as ludicrous as the claims that the site is constructed out of diorite, when not a single piece of diorite is present (the construction is primarily of red sandstone, with some of the smaller bits being andesite).

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: JamesTB

You are really meant to discuss your OP with folk, examine evidence and so forth, rather than sticking your fingers in your ears.

Then read my threads and you will see that I do and have done many many times.

Every thread gets derailed with the old copper chisels/saws/stone pounders ect ect.

I simply don't believe that and don't see the point in getting into protracted posting wars with people who don't agree with me.

Each to their own.

Yes and anyone that knows anything knows that if one were going to use abrasive material it would be far better to use it in conjunction with a harder stone than the stone being worked and not copper.

the stones were cut using light,water and tuning folks...like a sharp knife cutting thru butter!

originally posted by: Logarock
Yes and anyone that knows anything knows that if one were going to use abrasive material it would be far better to use it in conjunction with a harder stone than the stone being worked and not copper.

That method was used to create the flat surfaces, smoothing out the "scallops" created by quarrying with diorite pounding stones - also a "harder" stone.

Note than the sand abrasive used is harder than the granite that was sawn.

Harte

- Copper saw made of copper metal
- Sand in between the Copper and the Granite block being cut is in the form of is silica quartz
- And the granite block made of quartz

The saw teeth are moving and pushing/grinding the abrasive quartz in the sand against the saw teeth and there is a equal and opposite force which pushes back and grinds on the saw teeth. This means there is a boundary where the quartz material in the sand is grinding against the quartz material in the stone under force, and is also a boundary where the quartz material in the sand is under force pushing equal force against the saw teeth.

The quartz in the sand and rock having very similar material properties ( crystalline structure) have the same hardness hardness. In comparison the copper material is relatively much weaker, and Therefore it will wear out at a significantly much faster rate than a mark will develop on the granite rock surface, as the saw goes back and forth. The effects of equal and force effect in this situation has the oposite force focused on the thin surface area of the saw teeth. There will be no cushioning effect provide by the sand because the force is concentrated over a minute surface area the saw teeth. The teeth being a weaker materials will be blunted very quick. If it had been a harder material than the quartz having a concentrated force focused via a thin layer would be an effective cutting action. The quartz in sand and quartz in block will abrase against each other but this will not be effective as a cutting action because you need a harder material to cut a softer material.

I have asked the advocates of the copper saw sand theory to provide a video of it cutting a granite rock. They never will provide one because its physically impossible for the reason I just explained. If they want to live in their fantasy world of ignorance that's their prerogative of course its a free country.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Logarock
Yes and anyone that knows anything knows that if one were going to use abrasive material it would be far better to use it in conjunction with a harder stone than the stone being worked and not copper.

That method was used to create the flat surfaces, smoothing out the "scallops" created by quarrying with diorite pounding stones - also a "harder" stone.

Note than the sand abrasive used is harder than the granite that was sawn.

Harte

I doubt very much that anything was 'pounded' out by the AEs. They may have used stone pounders to try and replicate the techniques they came across in the Aswan Quarry but with very little success.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

I have asked the advocates of the copper saw sand theory to provide a video of it cutting a granite rock. They never will provide one because its physically impossible for the reason I just explained. If they want to live in their fantasy world of ignorance that's their prerogative of course its a free country.

NOVA aired a program showing just this. That you choose to ignore the program shows who is living in their fantasy world. The following link gives a description of the program, you'll have to scroll through the link.

Cutting Granite with Sand

originally posted by: JamesTB
Every thread gets derailed with the old copper chisels/saws/stone pounders ect ect.

I simply don't believe that and don't see the point in getting into protracted posting wars with people who don't agree with me.

You are literally doing exactly what you claim not to do. You're ignoring the available evidence and the alternative explanations in favor of your theory, when that theory is not sound, in any way.

You really are saying here that you would rather not discuss any rational explanations and the scientific evidence supporting them because you want to stick to your belief about how these things happened.

I genuinely just facepalmed.

Any of y'all ever work with glass? You know like cutting old glass bottles to make stuff out of them.

The cutting, since it is modern times is rather simple. But, there are times when you might want to cut a hold in the bottle.

A friend and I did some of this back in the day (70's)...we "drilled" holes using copper tubing and a modern VARIABLE SPEED drill motor. This was necessary so as not to break the glass...slow and easy does it. We would add our bits of water, and of course sad, lots of sand. A hole in a 197's era "Coke" bottle would only take 15 - 20 minutes...and a noticeable length of copper tube.

This worked just fine for a couple of hippy engineers wasting time after work, it wouldn't have worked at all for even a very small commercial operation.

The idea that the Egyptians used copper saws to cut Granite, while plausible, still isn't practical, at least NOT by hand. And, the "thickness" of some of those cuts, would seem to rule out large cutting wheels since the cuts are far too narrow for anything that could be built from wood ad copper.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I don't get why they'd carve images of stonemasons using stonemasons' tools but not carve images of alien visitors helping them?!

Major failure in logic there

Well one reason would be stumbling onto the pyramids already created from centuries or thousands of years before and wanting to take credit for it to bolster their rule and place in history???

Just thinking out loud.

Jaden