Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

Well, I've read the whole thread and haven't heard anyone address how those massive stones were quarried. Or where? Or how they were transported to the sites.
I've seen some video "proving" ancient man could have transported huge stones using log rollers but the stone they used wasn't nearly as heavy as the pyramid stones and even then they only managed to roll it a few feet. Plus, if you have a massively heavy stone and lowered it gently onto logs (assuming the ropes/chains didn't break), wouldn't the enormous weight of the stones just crush the logs? Where did they get all the needed logs in a desert? I understand Lebanon was known for its cedars but just how many cedars were in Lebanon to devote to 4 generations of pyramid building?
I don't pretend to know anything about ancient Egypt, its archeology or architecture, etc. but I would like to have at least a few questions answered. TIA.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
The precision internal 90* cuts (Puma Punku), core drill rates (Egyptian sites), precise joints ( Machu Picchu and others) cut stones with hardness ratings of MOHs 8 or better and absolutely flat surfaces are all things that archaeologists can't explain satisfactorily.... and I think it makes them lose their minds a little bit...

Actually, all these things have been demonstrated by Archaeologists.
But you should know that, if you'd done any research outside fringe sources

No... they haven't been demonstrated. Please show me an example of a Puma Punku block with compound internal angles created using primitive copper tools and abrasives... I'll wait.

Either you haven't followed the links in this thread or you are being wilfully ignorant
which is it ?

originally posted by: whitewave
I don't pretend to know anything about ancient Egypt, its archeology or architecture, etc. but I would like to have at least a few questions answered. TIA.

The average weight of a pyramid block is 2 tons

This is a painting showing the movement of the thunder stone, which weighed 1500 tonnes. Moved without any modern machinery in 1782


You still don't think the Egyptians could manage it ?

a reply to: Marduk

You bring excellent information to these threads and I look forward to your posts so please don't take it wrong when I say that the way someone moved stones in the 18th century in no way proves anything about how stones were moved 6k years ago. Likewise anything the Romans managed, isn't proof of something that happened 4k years prior to that.

I mean, we're expected to believe the human hand is capable of creating perfectly symmetrical faces outta stone with a bronze chisel and a stone hammer. Correct me if I'm wrong. I've searched for other examples and couldn't find any, though my search skills are quite possibly inadequate.

I'm not here to antagonize. I'm here to learn and you are an excellent source.

a reply to: CheckPointCharlie

www.sci-lib.net...

jump to 3:30

originally posted by: CheckPointCharlie
a reply to: Marduk

You bring excellent information to these threads and I look forward to your posts so please don't take it wrong when I say that the way someone moved stones in the 18th century in no way proves anything about how stones were moved 6k years ago. Likewise anything the Romans managed, isn't proof of something that happened 4k years prior to that.

I mean, we're expected to believe the human hand is capable of creating perfectly symmetrical faces outta stone with a bronze chisel and a stone hammer. Correct me if I'm wrong. I've searched for other examples and couldn't find any, though my search skills are quite possibly inadequate.

I'm not here to antagonize. I'm here to learn and you are an excellent source.

The thing is, while technology has improved the basic principles haven't changed much.
In the case of moving heavy thing, well I work in a factory and putting down rollers made moving a thread ton machine easy enough for three guys and a lift truck with a tricky transmission to move aND place.
Back in the early 2000s the remains of a mud road were found leading to one one of Sneferu's pyramids, with rollers still left in the mud.
In the case of the pyramids at Giza the stones for them were quarried on site.
In terms of carving, keep in mind this was not a skill that appeared over night. The Egyptians developed this skill over hundreds of years, the pieces that get presented are not something that appeared out of no where, but the end result of the skilled practice of generations.
There has been a standing point of incredulity that skilled stone working such as has been presented is impossible without modern technology.
The point in referencing other cultures is that many, many other cultures achieved great feats of engineering and architecture long before modern machinery was invented.
And frankly are more impressive than the Ancient examples presented.
And are not accredited to any sort of aliens or gods or mystical technology.
People don't learn context, when these things are presented they aren't shown as part of a culture that began centuries or millenia before they were produced, but as isolated curiosities to gawk at.

a reply to: Marduk


I don't know man. None of those tools shown at any point in the video looked like they were made of copper and I don't know how long humans have used sponges or not. Still, forgive my ignorance but I didn't see where symmetry was explained. Also, that link above the video is a language I don't understand, Russian maybe? I don't know. Could you link something more familiar?

On a lighter note, 'appreciate you overlooking the years I referenced.

a reply to: RuneSpider

Yeah but you used metal rollers nearly perfectly round. And not all of the stones were quarried on sight. The stones used in the Kings chamber weren't. I'll look into the uncovered road.

In other cultures, such as the Mayan builders, the theories are more reasonable as far as I know, in that they are given several decades, if not a century or more, to build their pyramid(s). In Egypt, not so much.

And what do we know about Egyptian tools? How did they achieve such precise right angles?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: jovan

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
The precision internal 90* cuts (Puma Punku), core drill rates (Egyptian sites), precise joints ( Machu Picchu and others) cut stones with hardness ratings of MOHs 8 or better and absolutely flat surfaces are all things that archaeologists can't explain satisfactorily.... and I think it makes them lose their minds a little bit...

Actually, all these things have been demonstrated by Archaeologists.
But you should know that, if you'd done any research outside fringe sources

And tools and methods used were shown in Byrd's links - with references.

Harte

Actually .....


Representation of craftsman rip sawing a vertical (wooden) plank from the tomb chapel of the vizier Rekhmire' at Thebes, 18th Dynasty

Tell me, tell me, tell me lies
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies

What made you decide not to post about the stone working tools? Do you claim none were to be found at Byrd's links?

You know, like the copper saws being used in this:

(Two workmen drilling stone vessels.
Tomb of Mereruka
Source: John Albert Wilson, Thomas George Allen eds, The Mastaba of Mereruka, University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications, Volume XXXI, 1938, Part I, plate 29)

Harte

The stone working tools !????
The copper saws !????????

ahahahahaha....

ancient egyptian carpentry saw

www.oocities.org...

And this stone vassels are granite or other hard stone vassels? Or some softstone or maybe clay vassels ?

And tomb is from 6th dynasty.

Tell me, tell me, tell me lies
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies

originally posted by: Marduk


This is a painting showing the movement of the thunder stone, which weighed 1500 tonnes. Moved without any modern machinery in 1782

You still don't think the Egyptians could manage it ?

With that 'space' technology?

Easy-peasy!!



Next time try with this:

Terex AC 500-2

... much better example.

Tell me, tell me, tell me lies
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
The precision internal 90* cuts (Puma Punku), core drill rates (Egyptian sites), precise joints ( Machu Picchu and others) cut stones with hardness ratings of MOHs 8 or better and absolutely flat surfaces are all things that archaeologists can't explain satisfactorily.... and I think it makes them lose their minds a little bit...

Actually, all these things have been demonstrated by Archaeologists.
But you should know that, if you'd done any research outside fringe sources

No... they haven't been demonstrated. Please show me an example of a Puma Punku block with compound internal angles created using primitive copper tools and abrasives... I'll wait.

Either you haven't followed the links in this thread or you are being wilfully ignorant
which is it ?

no, you don't get away with that kind of b.s. Anything that's been provided so far has been a bunch of nonsense so stop using this default response of yours as if something has been proven.

originally posted by: CheckPointCharlie
a reply to: RuneSpider

Yeah but you used metal rollers nearly perfectly round. And not all of the stones were quarried on sight. The stones used in the Kings chamber weren't. I'll look into the uncovered road.

In other cultures, such as the Mayan builders, the theories are more reasonable as far as I know, in that they are given several decades, if not a century or more, to build their pyramid(s). In Egypt, not so much.

And what do we know about Egyptian tools? How did they achieve such precise right angles?

The Mayan builders also had a much more complex temple building, whereas the pyramids at Giza are much simpler in design.
Strip a log of its bark and round it down, and smooth it. Knock of the rough edges and you have a fairly round shape. It doesn't have to be perfectly round for it to work, just round enough that a team of men, much more than the few at my shop, to move it.
Craig B. Smith has a book where he works out the logistics of building the pyramids working with archaeologists and his own experience as an engineer. It's a fairly short work and can be picked up used fairly cheaply.
The stones from the kinds chamber were quaraised from a site near the Niles banks, and ferried down river.

What boggles the mind about this topic is simple when you run it to ground:

1. The Official Story is thrown down.
2. The academy says, "Science is about discovery."
3. The academy never tacitly admits it was flat out wrong.
4. No one challenges the foundation that's causing the problems.
5. The academy continues to own the narrative.
6. The academy continues indoctrinating the Sheople.
7. The Sheople remain dumbed-down.
8. Rinse and repeat.

If I could get just this one thing, I'd be happier in this life:
An admission that "Science" is not involved here ... merely an historical opinion.

Until that day happens, the process of 'Scientific discovery' is stifled. This, unfortunately, is the intent. You can see it easily if you look at the subject from an elevated point of view. Only a very limited group of individuals is EVER allowed to come forward with new 'opinion'. Anyone else who tries has their reputation destroyed by the academy. Not their work mind you, but their personal/professional reputations. How many times have we seen this?

you can be damn sure IF the empirical evidence pointed in their direction they would be waving it around like a flag, but it don't so they just keep throwing this "oh that was answered way back you just have to read the whole thread" b.s. around.

their arguments are proof they haven't got a clue


a reply to: Snarl

originally posted by: jovan

The stone working tools !????
The copper saws !????????

ahahahahaha....

Yes!

ahahahahaha....

They had copper, right? Didn't they have sand, too?
Wonder if you can cut granite with sand and copper. Hmmmm

www.pbs.org...

originally posted by: jovan
And this stone vassels are granite or other hard stone vassels? Or some softstone or maybe clay vassels ?

They made all kinds. Basalt, Diorite, Granite, Limestone, Sandstone, "Schist," etc.

originally posted by: jovanAnd tomb is from 6th dynasty.

Is that a problem? It's still Old Kingdom. Is 300 years too much time passed?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: jovan

The stone working tools !????
The copper saws !????????

ahahahahaha....

Yes!

ahahahahaha....

They had copper, right? Didn't they have sand, too?
Wonder if you can cut granite with sand and copper. Hmmmm

www.pbs.org...

originally posted by: jovan
And this stone vassels are granite or other hard stone vassels? Or some softstone or maybe clay vassels ?

They made all kinds. Basalt, Diorite, Granite, Limestone, Sandstone, "Schist," etc.

hihihi

Cooper tools? Maybe for wood or soft stones, but .... from same page:

www.pbs.org...

Stonemason Roger Hopkins takes up a copper chisel, which works well when carving sandstone and limestone rock, to see if it might carve granite.

"We're losing a lot of metal and very little stone is falling off," observes Hopkins, which is hardly the desired result. Hopkins' simple experiment makes this much clear: The Egyptians needed better tools than soft bronze and copper chisels to carve granite.

Epic

originally posted by: jovanAnd tomb is from 6th dynasty.

Is that a problem? It's still Old Kingdom. Is 300 years too much time passed?

Harte

Naqada period vassels ? .....much older then 300yrs

Tell me, tell me, tell me lies
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies

originally posted by: jovan

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: jovan

The stone working tools !????
The copper saws !????????

ahahahahaha....

Yes!

ahahahahaha....

They had copper, right? Didn't they have sand, too?
Wonder if you can cut granite with sand and copper. Hmmmm

www.pbs.org...

originally posted by: jovan
And this stone vassels are granite or other hard stone vassels? Or some softstone or maybe clay vassels ?

They made all kinds. Basalt, Diorite, Granite, Limestone, Sandstone, "Schist," etc.

hihihi

Cooper tools? Maybe for wood or soft stones, but .... from same page:

www.pbs.org...

Stonemason Roger Hopkins takes up a copper chisel, which works well when carving sandstone and limestone rock, to see if it might carve granite.

"We're losing a lot of metal and very little stone is falling off," observes Hopkins, which is hardly the desired result. Hopkins' simple experiment makes this much clear: The Egyptians needed better tools than soft bronze and copper chisels to carve granite.

Epic

Stocks results:

Ratios of granite removal to copper wear
Epic

Maybe you should either read more carefully, or stop trying to misinform in your posts. The quote you gave was about chisels, not saws. Where was the claim of chiseling made?

originally posted by: jovanAnd tomb is from 6th dynasty.

Is that a problem? It's still Old Kingdom. Is 300 years too much time passed?

Harte

Naqada period vassels ? .....much older then 300yrs

Plenty of stone vessels were made during the OK. Do you dispute that?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: jovan

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: jovan

The stone working tools !????
The copper saws !????????

ahahahahaha....

Yes!

ahahahahaha....

They had copper, right? Didn't they have sand, too?
Wonder if you can cut granite with sand and copper. Hmmmm

www.pbs.org...

originally posted by: jovan
And this stone vassels are granite or other hard stone vassels? Or some softstone or maybe clay vassels ?

They made all kinds. Basalt, Diorite, Granite, Limestone, Sandstone, "Schist," etc.

hihihi

Cooper tools? Maybe for wood or soft stones, but .... from same page:

www.pbs.org...

Stonemason Roger Hopkins takes up a copper chisel, which works well when carving sandstone and limestone rock, to see if it might carve granite.

"We're losing a lot of metal and very little stone is falling off," observes Hopkins, which is hardly the desired result. Hopkins' simple experiment makes this much clear: The Egyptians needed better tools than soft bronze and copper chisels to carve granite.

Epic

Stocks results:

...

Mr.Stock? LOL

Video of his experiments with some details? Or maybe peer review paper ?

Plenty of stone vessels were made during the OK. Do you dispute that?

Harte

Nope. I dispute 'tools'.

All conclusions in the video is totally correct. There is absolutely no other explanation for this. I know as a result of working on heavy stone in the custom counter top business. I worked with types of of rock from sandstone to granite. We had a warehouse of slabs of differing stone from quarries around the world. The slabs was approx. 2 in. thickness in all types of natural designs and colors. Some have bits of precious metals such as gold and silver. We cut out sink and hardware holes and polished all edges to mirror specs by hand. I have done much they explain in the video. It is hard and heavy work and difficult even with the tools we have today. Anyone who has worked with heavy stone knows how impossible it is to get such results today let alone back a few thousand years. To reach that level of results is absolutely impossible with the tools of that time period. Period.

a reply to: dagann

Well it's nice to hear the voice of a professional.

But, like other professional voices, yours too will eventually be drowned out by the acolytes of the Official Story.

Unless, of course, you figure out a big piece of the puzzle and turn your work over to a shiny golden Egyptologist with a PhD. Did I leave out 'taking no credit' for your efforts at all? They are the Gods of history and demand fealty.