Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

a reply to: Harte

if poured in place, there wouldn't be any mortar-filled gaps between them

actually if they did that they would probably need an expansion gap, interestingly

a reply to: Harte

Is this supposed to be a question?

contentions
copy and paste, told you i was rushed

""theres some initial contentions as well as questions so i ll chuck those in too and revise it later "

a reply to: Harte

Scalloped stone surfaces comparable to marks that would be left using the very same pounding stones found in the same quarry is what led to the pounding hypothesis. In what way does this not make sense to you?

it does. i was just suggesting that it may have been done for different purposes.
but this is my fault for the structure of my replies

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

Back to Moh's?

(sounds like the simpsons [mo's, name of the local bar])
no, again you make a valid point but i would rather leave that for the moh (see what i did there)
and come back to that in more detail cos it ties into some other stuff (structure cleavage etc)
and as you correctly point out different standards apply to different things i e compression , scratch

And not a peep about Curly.

I need to work on that one I guess.

Harte

a reply to: username74


I don't know. Maybe they are found in other places too.
I've never looked for them, I've simply found them associated with Tiahuanaco when I was looking into Tiahuanaco.

hmmm. you see thats what led me to the question. i only even found photographic evidence of some antiquity itself, to indicate south america and the source was described only as the andes

wooaaahh

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

Back to Moh's?

(sounds like the simpsons [mo's, name of the local bar])
no, again you make a valid point but i would rather leave that for the moh (see what i did there)
and come back to that in more detail cos it ties into some other stuff (structure cleavage etc)
and as you correctly point out different standards apply to different things i e compression , scratch

And not a peep about Curly.

I need to work on that one I guess.

Harte

ha ha i never even saw it. who says this place isnt fun?

a reply to: username74

i wondered why i hadnt seen the curly scale up there with rockwell and the other 7 or 8

a reply to: Harte

oh and this is some of the material i was referencing for fire
www.michaelsheiser.com...

a reply to: jeep3r

Interestingly, Sklyarov first introduces the hardness scale of different stone types, explaining that tools need to be harder than the materials they are applied to.

I always found this the most interesting. It is the most painfully obvious conclusion that so far has always been officially ignored which is quit staggering really. We all remember that even when we were something like 5 years old we needed something harder and more massive to break something else with it ,instinctively. Yet since a hundred years or so we officially claim that the Egyptians (and other cultures) created pyramids and statues that we cannot reproduce as well today with current technology like lasers have done so with copper chisels and stones.


We are unable to manipulate stone today with the precision displayed on these statues.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Aliensun

It may be a bit premature to jump to the ET conclusion because he did say we have tools that can ALMOST do what they did back when the stones were cut . Wouldn't it be great to stumble upon some of the machinery or technology instead of the evidence that it did exist at some point in the past .

We already did.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Antikythera mechanism (/ˌæntᵻkᵻˈθɪərə/ ANT-i-ki-THEER-ə or /ˌæntᵻˈkɪθərə/ ANT-i-KITH-ə-rə) is an ancient analog computer[1][2][3][4] and orrery used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendrical and astrological purposes,[5][6][7] as well as the Olympiads, the cycles of the ancient Olympic Games.[8]

Found housed in a 340 millimetres (13 in) × 180 millimetres (7.1 in) × 90 millimetres (3.5 in) wooden box, the device is a complex clockwork mechanism composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gears. Its remains were found as one lump, later separated in three main fragments, which are now divided into 82 separate fragments after conservation works. Four of these fragments contain gears, while inscriptions are found on many others.[9][10] The largest gear (clearly visible in Fragment A at right) is approximately 140 millimetres (5.5 in) in diameter and originally had 223 teeth.

The artifact was recovered probably in July 1901[11] from the Antikythera shipwreck off the Greek island of Antikythera.[12] Believed to have been designed and constructed by Greek scientists, the instrument has been dated either between 150 and 100 BC,[5] or, according to a more recent view, in 205 BC.[13][14]

After the knowledge of this technology was lost at some point in antiquity, technological artifacts approaching its complexity and workmanship did not appear again until the development of mechanical astronomical clocks in Europe in the fourteenth century.[15]

All known fragments of the Antikythera mechanism are kept at the National Archaeological Museum, Athens.[16]

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

oh and this is some of the material i was referencing for fire
www.michaelsheiser.com...

There's a pdf from Heiser's site by Protzen about Inca quarrying techniques that has some pics from an Inca quarry showing the scalloping but I can't get it to download like I said.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

ok. thanks

a reply to: Harte

havent had a real good look, am i on the correct site, harte? i just deleted it down to the name. seems pretty biblical, but then i am a brit who has lived overseas for nearly 20 years and i dont want to offend, at least not initially. ?

a reply to: username74

yeah, all i keep finding on peru and such is those damn skulls from that other thead , ha ha
#s sake
i see the guy hates stichin so he cant be so bad
the site has no real search function.
i ll try to source some stuff anyway for our discute'

a reply to: Harte

google , protzen inca

and this is the link
www.michaelsheiser.com... nd%20Inca%20Cut-Stone%20Masonry.pdf

that the rascal?

a reply to: Harte

fascinating. truly thank you very much. that has given me much fodder and explained, at least partially, some things which were quite ambiguous. it has however, highlighted some of the stickier points for me, as a man with a wealth of practical experience, as to how i would approach a task such as our fore runners must have approached it. on many levels as anything important is.
and i realise that when i view something from the past i must try and empathise with what i imagine their "cultural" paradigm to be.
i see a reflection of themselves in their work and i must intuitively (if i want to see through their eyes) reverse engineer that.
when i look at a construction site, an empty one, after hours, i can see by what is or isnt lying around, or by how materials are kept, i can see which gangs like their boss and which dont.
i can tell the same from the work.
i dont ever have to see any of them but when i go to the site i can tell how the day came off.
i would still like to contend that the marks all over the obelisks trench anre oppurtunist harvesting of v.fine dust for cement. i would postulate that is why the so far discovered incidences of these marks of so incongrouos and rare and they seem to coincide with later incidences of mortar geographically.
it seems to me (i could find no real guess for age of the work on the abandoned obelisk in egypt, sorry , unfinished
) that they would need to smash in a small outline trench and maybe core drill or straight drill a silhouette , then smash with the boulders, until the hole, which is now a shallow rounded trench, reaches the rough dimension of the implement, then repeat , you see.
but i also dont know the chronology of the tools you are crediting them with.
i dont think they would waste that powder.
limestone you burn. you crush the burnt limestone and you get cement (or lime, yes)
if you mix these two powders with water you will get a brutally fine and effective mortar
this could not have escaped their attention
maybe they added charcoal maybe not.
sometimes with some rock sands you would want a plastifier. today if you mixed some mortar and you found its not spreading well, its because you are using an igneous rock, like granite and the grains are totally impermeable and very angular so it heavy blocky and water runs off it.
a dash of washing up liquid and its like putty.
the plastifier fills in all the holes on the grains and makes them all round.
mix lime with granite and dolerite dust , spot of carbon, water, sun- cement for centuries
wheres rickymouse?

a reply to: username74
Check the compositions of Egyptian mortar, especially from the time of the obelisk, if you want.
I don't think you'll find granite as a component, or do you think it would be so fine as to be unrecognizable as granite?

BTW, another example of pounding came to mind.
IIRC, the natives that mined the Michigan copper around Isle Royale pounded it out of the matrix holding it.
It wasn't any hard stone, and it has large veins of almost pure copper running through it so it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult or time consuming, but it is using pounders to excavate stone.

The problem with tracking the pounding method is that not that many cultures quarried these very hard stones. Most peoples were satisfied with limestone and variants, or basalt, tuff, etc.
People made things like bowls and such out of granite, diorite, andesite, etc. but those things would have been made from a single piece of stone like a large rock or boulder that didn't have to be quarried.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I was going to commend you on slipping that one in there.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Harte

I was going to commend you on slipping that one in there.

Thanks man. I'm here all week.
Try the veal.

harte