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

originally posted by: cachibatches
We know how the ancients cut stone- they sprinkle sand over the area that they were sawing. It is a remarkably effective technique.

This is all hogwash.

Well yes it is when someone comes on with no research and no clue on cutting stone and decides to make a blanket decree. Tell you what try something new explain why you think it's hogwash have you ever used sand paper to say score metal. Odd this magical paper can actually remove steel isn't it. Yet somehow you don't think sand can cut through a stone which is softer. And just for clarification please show us the post where someone said you sprinkle sand and magically the stone is cut. Or were you just trying to be flippant and nit really argue the point?? Either way if you would like to argue sand can't be used to cut through hard materials I suggest you look into China at the same time period. They have very detailed wrighting on cutting stones. And guess what they used sand but in your world that can't happen right.

a reply to: dragonridr

I think that poster was saying the premise of this thread was hogwash, and was more or less agreeing with you (and me, and others). I may be wrong though lol.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah, i believe that Catchibatches is very much agreeing with the abrasives thing. I know these threads can be bloody frustrating .....

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: Harte

I was indeed responding to tanka... not that it matters, but if anyone cares, i bookmarked that link to Per at the time, i even gave dragonridr a sparkly star as thanks for a good link to someone i already respect and have linked here myself in the past. I didn't feel that i needed to verbally acknowledge him providing a link to someone else...??

There is some good info there as i would expect - some of the links are just abstracts or dead...and in one that i looked at i was pretty sad to see it ended at page 51 while the chapter i was really interested in was about page 80

We can of course only guess at what tanka is referring to as his data, but i've had my say on that!

I've seen everyone arguing only small points of a big picture. The quarrying process was developed over a long period of time. And involved not just chipping or cutting. For example at the quarries we discovered that fires were set to heat the stones. Funny process to use if they had power tools what would be the point.

Here take a look at this thus discusses the use of fire in quarries.
per-storemyr.net...!/

I've been mentioning this fire use for years.

I think it may have been used on the finished surfaces of the obelisks as well, facilitating the engraving of such detailed hieroglyphs that continue to dumbfound the chronically astonished.

Harte

rough and fine chiseling..
GP

originally posted by: anti72
rough and fine chiseling..
GP

Thanks man...really good article.

Gives the kind of evidence that is sorely needed here...

here some fotos of cores from basalt and granite tubular drills..

basalt core

granit core


"Two fragments from the Basalt pavement from Giza showing evidence of saw cuts."

saw cuts


The Petrie Museum in London.

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.

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.

Have you considered that maybe another reason (I do agree with you) is that the race of the people who did all of this. We know that the Egyptians or people who did these wonders where black in color. So would it be a hit on Europe or white supremacy that the high tech world of old was a black one and that is why they don't want to talk about it.

I hate to be the one to solve ancient mysteries after 30 seconds of reading a post and skipping all the comments, but yes, the pictures are fascinating. I am surprised so many cultures, apparently across so many regions, were able to grind smooth flat surfaces, as well as curiously notched but smooth, deeply engraved lines since obviously a well known technology was at work.

I don't mind breaking down the obvious. the main way a rock would have uniform striations would be from grinding, not "cutting" [and not angle-grinding btw].

the markings are obvious. much like a modern small sawmill, either the grinder or the stone-being-cut was moved along a straightened platform line. the grinding wheel was not wide [as the striations show], and it was able as well to cut deep single-line cuts [again showing it was not a wide wheel]. the platform wand the method of moving the saw [or stone-being-cut] was based on a straight line function, much like a sawmill.

my guess is that the cutting wheels [stone?] were somehow diamond coated or based on a hardened metal. the cutting platform provides repetitive straight-line cuts for a flat surface, and the unknown technology was simply how the spin the grinding wheel quickly and repetitively. this was probably not-difficult if you imagine a yo-yo string or any mechanized [even human powered] method of spinning a wheel.

of course, like cut wood, a little sanding down after cutting will provide an extremely flat and smooth surface.

I guess I will take credit for solving this ancient mystery in 10 minutes of critical thinking and analysis based upon these superb photos in the post.

a reply to: bangster

I should edit some misspellings or whatever, but I don't want to. the meaning was clear.

originally posted by: hoghead cheese

. We know that the Egyptians or people who did these wonders where black in color.

Fail
From Pharaoh Seti I's tomb.

The top right group, with the palest skin are Libyans (Berbers), the next one over to the left are Nubians, followed by "Asiatics" (Mesopotamians). The bottom central group are Egyptians. By their own perception Egyptians were neither particularly dark nor particularly pale

and it wouldn't be a hit on white supremacy, white people didn't build ancient Egypt, that's not a claim that anyone but Hollywood ever made.

The striations look like possible form marks. I don't know enough about basalt, is it possible to make concrete out of it?

originally posted by: onthedownlow
The striations look like possible form marks. I don't know enough about basalt, is it possible to make concrete out of it?

Basalt flakes are used to reinforce modern concrete, but the main ingredient is limestone. But the claim you'd have to be making there was that the Egyptians cut out rock from quarrys and then used it to make concrete, which is actually a lot more time consuming than just using rock. The striations are from copper saws...
There's a whole website that explains how the Egyptians used them here
www.oocities.org...

a reply to: Marduk
The last words in the article posted on that website:
" In the case of hardrocks like granite, the expense incurred by the loss of copper during the cutting process (less with bronze and iron) would restricted it to royal monuments, for usage where other tools would not suffice (Arnold 1991)."

LOL! Who is this guy trying to dupe? Only a fool would try to get away with that absurd explanation, which restricts copper saws to "royal monuments," whereas, as the OP demonstrates, the basalt rock foundation extended over hundreds of square metres of the Giza plateau. Anyone who thinks that all that basalt was cut, too, with flimsy copper saws is just fooling people and denying the REAL problem here.
Trouble is, a lot of people here are so concerned with preserving the current (but inadequate) archaeological paradigm that they become oblivious of the glaring way they have lost contact with reality.

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: Marduk

Trouble is, a lot of people here are so concerned with preserving the current (but inadequate) archaeological paradigm that they become oblivious of the glaring way they have lost contact with reality.

No one here gives a crap about any paradigms, what we care about is evidence, your credulity for instance isn't evidence, its unqualified opinion and that doesn't cut it (pun intended)

Denys A. Stocks, who is responsible for that explanation is a stonemason who proved his hypothesis by actually doing it. All the cut marks you are claiming are impossible he actually reproduced using basic copper and bronze tools

the basalt rock foundation extended over hundreds of square metres of the Giza plateau.

LOL, I have no idea where you got that from, but the foundation stones are limestone, the pyramid is also made from limestone, taken from a quarry about 1/4 of a mile from the construction site, Basalt was only really used for the floor in mortuary temples. I think its clear that you know very little about Giza or you have simply been lied to.
Perfectly adequate explanation for basalt use at Giza here, with pictures
www.ancient-egypt.org...
and here
egyptopia.com...
and here
www.touregypt.net...
and here
www.guardians.net...
and here
en.wikipedia.org...

Don't buy that, that's cool, so please provide a credible link to a website that states

the basalt rock foundation extended over hundreds of square metres of the Giza plateau

Do you believe that Aliens did it, or are you claiming an advanced lost civilisation. Is it Sitchin or Hancock.

Please feel free to offer a rebuttal based on your opinion. But try to bear in mind, that without any credible support, your opinion isn't relevant