Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
yes Mr Fharte Sniffer it's called look at the evidence. I can't make you see something you refuse to see or more likely can't understand.


a reply to: Harte

So, in other words, you got nothin'.

That conclusion was the one I reached months ago.
But I was willing to try again.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

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.

"Show me a block..."

How about show me an ancient power tool?

You seem to be unaware of the metallurgical tradition in South and Central America.

Harte

Ah, the good old absence of evidence circle jerk. (Imagine my face leaning on my fist with a big grin).

He just explained his point of view as an experienced professional. Likewise, as someone who works in construction myself, I agree with what was said.

The argument laid forth to his point was "they didn't say copper saw" and he said show me a demonstration. I think we would ALL like to see that. But no, your argument is "show me ancient power tools" ....*sigh*

He never even claimed ancient power tools nor did he infer it. He said ain't no way it was done using copper chisel and saw, period. You say yes huh but that's it.

All you are really saying is you don't have a clue just as much as everyone else. Your beliefs are stronger because you studied.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
If there is a stalemate in this quagmire, let me offer my opinion having
seen the videos and the stones in question.

If no other people were able to use advanced engineering techniques but
the ancient Egyptians and their fore-fathers then the skill was theirs and
perhaps the other, megalithic societies.

The Sumerians (heck...even before that - the people from Gobekli Tepe) did stonework in the pre-bronze era.

Once the societies reaches the apex of their achievement, something went
wrong and the culture and infrastructure is almost entirely destroyed.

They'd developed writing by then and large cities. Why don't we see the collapse of those and the loss of writing?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Harte

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.

"Show me a block..."

How about show me an ancient power tool?

You seem to be unaware of the metallurgical tradition in South and Central America.

Harte

Ah, the good old absence of evidence circle jerk. (Imagine my face leaning on my fist with a big grin).

What you're actually leaning on is a manufactured "mystery."

See, there's NO explanation for the fringe side of this. Nothing could possibly explain these relics if the Egyptians didn't make them with the tools we know the Egyptians had at the time.

On the other hand, given what we DO know, there are several different ways we can conceive of these cuts being made. Such methods have even been demonstrated in the present.

Now, lean on whatever you want. When I lean, I tend to lean toward the side that not only has an explanation, but has an explanation that fits the evidence and can be presently demonstrated.

originally posted by: RosinitiateHe just explained his point of view as an experienced professional. Likewise, as someone who works in construction myself, I agree with what was said.

The argument laid forth to his point was "they didn't say copper saw" and he said show me a demonstration. I think we would ALL like to see that. But no, your argument is "show me ancient power tools" ....*sigh*

He never even claimed ancient power tools nor did he infer it. He said ain't no way it was done using copper chisel and saw, period. You say yes huh but that's it.

Are you saying that Blarneystoner is not a proponent of Ancient Egyptian power tools?

The topic at present was the assertion that the Egyptians kept to extremely close tolerances and amazing symmetry.
Do you believe this to be the case?
If so, do you have any evidence for this belief?

I mean, we can all see that Bottleslingguy is unable to support his position. Can you?

Harte

As can be seen, this was no primitive craftsman who squared up this
piece of black granite from the Aswan quarry, in the King's chamber,
as part of the rear wall.

Chris analyzed a piece of rock from Tiwanaku, and it was determine to
be a unique cut, made by an unknown method.

Gobekli tepe goes back 11,000 years apparently, and was a buried site
used for ceremonies. I think the sites in South America use bigger stones
and have finer details. Perhaps even earlier sites were buried and would
display megalithic construction and complex writings so who knows how
many civilizations grew, burned brightly, then went out.


files.abovetopsecret.com...



a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: Drawsoho
As can be seen, this was no primitive craftsman who squared up this
piece of black granite from the Aswan quarry, in the King's chamber,
as part of the rear wall.

That's true. The Egyptians were master craftsmen. That much has always been obvious.

But a laser dot on a decently polished stone doesn't hold any meaning, does it?

I mean, I'm glad you posted the link to the bigger pic. It looks like it was polished with a rubbing stone to me, just like the AE's indicated they polished stone.

originally posted by: DrawsohoChris analyzed a piece of rock from Tiwanaku, and it was determine to be a unique cut, made by an unknown method.

Unknown to Chris Dunn. Protzen cites what he saw when he examined them:

Perhaps the most remarkable stone carving feat at Tiahuanaco
is seen on what we call arrow stones. The apexes at the
base of the arrow project into the stone and under the surface
design, with four planes perfectly planar, three of them meeting
pair-wise at right angles, and eventually joining the fourth
in one point [Figure 21]. Close examination of some interior
angles of the precisely wrought stones reveals, even to the
naked eye, a fine groove in the very apex of the angles. We
suggest that these grooves result from the blade of a chisel-like
tool, and that the point in which the four planes meet was
made with a punch-like tool. No such tools have been recovered
or recorded, but other details at Tiahuanaco suggest the
use of chisels or punch-like tools. Several recessed pockets with
T-shaped cramp sockets (discussed in more detail below)
carved into them allow one to determine the tool's angle of
attack and its minimum length [Figure 22].

Source

Nobody has provided any evidence for remarkably close tolerances or symmetry. There's nothing in the Protzen paper about it other than statements about the use of patterns leading to very similar carvings on different stones.

originally posted by: DrawsohoGobekli tepe goes back 11,000 years apparently, and was a buried site
used for ceremonies. I think the sites in South America use bigger stones
and have finer details. Perhaps even earlier sites were buried and would
display megalithic construction and complex writings so who knows how
many civilizations grew, burned brightly, then went out.

There was no civilization at Gobekli Tepe. At least, there's no evidence for one.

And no, we don't know if there were any earlier civilizations than Sumer. That's kind of the point when people claim the Egyptians couldn't do this or that with stone.
That is, we know they could have. The assertion is that they couldn't have, and therefore it must be some older civilization that was more advanced than the Egyptians.

But there's nothing there the Egyptians couldn't have done with their own tool kit. People just don't want to believe that anyone would do that much work.

Harte

originally posted by: Drawsoho
As can be seen, this was no primitive craftsman who squared up this
piece of black granite from the Aswan quarry, in the King's chamber,
as part of the rear wall.

People go on and on (and on) about the Great Pyramid...but nobody mentions that Sneferu did the same thing inside his pyramids (here's the interior of the Red Pyramid, some 40 years before Khufu) www.konyagi.org...

...not my photo but I was there recently and can confirm this is it. It's the same black granite. And there are other, earlier structures with this same skill... lots of them.

But nobody mentions that. Or the temples and rock cut tombs of hundreds of years earlier that show this skill was well developed.

a reply to: Byrd

heeloo Byrd,

what about the fact, which is circling around in some circles. : )

that three pyramids in Giza pyramid complex are also the oldest?

This is not natural progression of building if this is so...and it goes against it and for some it points, that these pyramids were there before (same with sphinx) and other pyramids are only imitation of these three made by civilization we know as today to be in Egypt at that time...?

thank you for explanation, if you don't mind, I am interesting in your own opinion about dating and their validity.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Byrd

heeloo Byrd,

what about the fact, which is circling around in some circles. : )

that three pyramids in Giza pyramid complex are also the oldest?

They aren't. Sneferu's Bent Pyramid, Red Pyramid, and Medium Pyramid are older and so is the step pyramid of Djoser. Khufu came from a 200 year old lineage of kings who built pyramids (look under "building projectss" on Sneferu's Wikipedia page)

His predecessor, Huni, built a step pyramid at Elephantine, and Khaba (before him) built the Layer Pyramid. All of these heave beautifully finished interiors (which pale in comparison to the marvelous underground labyrinth (some material on his step pyramid and the maze here) of Djoser.

I've seen it in person. It's beautiful and should not be overshadowed by the large Great Pyramid.

originally posted by: UniFinity
...that these pyramids were there before (same with sphinx) and other pyramids are only imitation of these three made by civilization we know as today to be in Egypt at that time...?

Also, the sphinx is something that first occurs in Egypt about the third dynasty. I was interested and amused to note that the rest of the world became somewhat sphinx during the Middle Kingdom, when Egypt began trading with other countries and had small enclaves of people living in foreign cities as well as foreign diplomats living in royal cities in Egypt.

a reply to: Byrd

great and i am very impressed with your knowledge about this subjects and your manners which is sometimes lacking unfortunately on ats!

Even if I don't share same views on some areas, but it is a joy for me to read your posts.
you seem easy to talk to and i feel I could talk and learn from you a lot ... and I already did from reading your replies.

thank you very much.

: )

Your explanation relies on the genius craftsmen of yore. These special
ones were honored with lavish burial quarters for themselves. The tombs
are most likely the ones found in Giza, and curious water channels criss-
cross underneath the plateau.

Chris Dunne cut that sample piece of Tiwanku Andesite using a laser cut,
and a saw cut. Then the cuts were compared with the cut in the sample
stone. The smooth - almost ironed appearance of the surface differed
so much form the other cut surfaces there was no doubt it was made
using an unknown method. What was it and if very advanced technology
was utilized what was it? Your link explains away how finer and finer
chisels and punches were used to create the Puma Punku stones. That
isn't even feasible since a punch will shatter the stone at the corner
where there are only perfect cuts in the stone corners there.

Dressing the stone surfaces to a high degree of polish probably could be
done over time with sand and paddles. However, there are statues that
have such a polished surface it would be impossible with sand but using
emory it might be possible. I doubt it was efficient though, on large surfaces.

a reply to: Harte

Your references should try to duplicate some of that great work and come
back to us with pictures of them doing it.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Your people should try to duplicate some of that great work and come
back to us with pictures of them doing it.

The video showing modern archaeologist replicating the work exactly has been posted here so many times I am surprised you are unaware of it

And clearly you don't believe that they used stone hammers, despite loads of them being found in the quarries..
and your claims for the stone H blocks are unsupportable, they were made from red sandstone, its quite malleable


and can you link me to your source for your claims about Chris Dunn, he's never been there that I'd heard

I don't know if Chris Dunne has been there or not. Here's some mysterious
photos from there. I doubt stone hammers and chisels made these, unlike
the H blocks, are made from granite:


Chris Dunne's sample (left surface original)

block found buried at Puma Punku

Many other amazing examples of stones work exist. I doubt
the video proves they can do as good a work even though
I will watch it. Just replicate one of these stupendous blocks
and I'll be a disbeliever, maybe, unless they use modern
technology to do it.


a reply to: Marduk

"If things like this can be chiseled by hand with such fine detail and precision...

Then I think it's pretty safe to say that, so too, can precision be accomplished
with straight lines and inside right angles. "

Sure, carving on soft marble - i.e. limestone metamorphosed, not hard to do
intricate work like the master sculptors do.

a reply to: CranialSponge

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Your explanation relies on the genius craftsmen of yore. These special
ones were honored with lavish burial quarters for themselves.

Actually, no. The lavish tombs there are of the nobles who lived during the reign of Sneferu, Khufu, etc. Some of the supervisors had rather nice tombs but the craftsmen had more humble burials (with their tools.)

The smooth - almost ironed appearance of the surface differed
so much form the other cut surfaces there was no doubt it was made
using an unknown method.

He probably doesn't know how to cut with sand and polish with sand...and seems to be fairly unaware of other work done by these same people.

That isn't even feasible since a punch will shatter the stone at the corner
where there are only perfect cuts in the stone corners there.

The stone isn't crystal and won't shatter. It will break, but it's possible to pound and chip perfect corners and cuts.

However, there are statues that have such a polished surface it would be impossible with sand but using
emory it might be possible.

It's time-consuming but not that hard. You need time and manpower and training on how to do the technique.

It is impossible to gain a flat smooth surface such as shown in the 2nd
picture using sand:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

It is impossible to carve a flat smooth surface with sand techniques.
Andesite is crystalline - with dolomite, quartz embedded in it.
Punches would destroy fine detail.

It was done another way. The sample piece shows the original surface,
perfectly flat and smooth - not done with sand, it's laughable to think
is was. Especially how were the drill holes and perfect fitting of 100
ton blocks of granite?

It is easy to laud the skill of the ancients, and attribute their skill
as common human undertakings, but in the final analysis it is
impossible to accomplish the stonework without advanced technology
and tools. None of these tools have been found - which is expected,
as precious as they must have been. That isn't to say there aren't
some hidden away in egyptologist's basements (Petrie's) or still
buried and unfound.

Considering megalithic sites outside of Egypt, in Bolivia and Peru,
it is clear that primitive Indians did NOT construct these sites, and
the builders predated the Inca by 1000's of years. It is fantasy to
believe otherwise. Especially in the face of the Tiwanaku artifacts.


a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: Drawsoho
It is impossible to gain a flat smooth surface such as shown in the 2nd
picture using sand:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

It is impossible to carve a flat smooth surface with sand techniques.

BS.

If you can do it with sandpaper, you can do it with sand.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Andesite is crystalline - with dolomite, quartz embedded in it.
Punches would destroy fine detail.

It was done another way. The sample piece shows the original surface,
perfectly flat and smooth - not done with sand, it's laughable to think
is was. Especially how were the drill holes and perfect fitting of 100
ton blocks of granite?

Drill holes have been explained to you many times. The fact that you personally refuse to even consider the explanation is your own problem.

The smooth cuts you see are just that - cuts. They are sawn and smoothed.

Harte

originally posted by: Drawsoho
However, there are statues that
have such a polished surface it would be impossible with sand but using
emory it might be possible.

Sand is a size-related term, not a compositional term.

USGS Wentworth size chart

Nice - a complex cut granite in granite done with chisels and sand.
Prove it - replicate the half block shown in picture #2 with those
techniques. Impossible.

Yes sand particle size can be small, but the finest size is in Corundum.
Or Emory, it was not available during the time of the pharohs but it
has be supposed they could get it. This would make the finest polished
surfaces, but I doubt delicate features could be sanded out of the
granite.

Proof is in the pudding and no one has yet been able to duplicate the
fine stonework used as examples of advanced ancient technology using
the laughable sand/chisel/punch techniques.



a reply to: Harte