107 Wonders of the Ancient World

Is this evidence of an advanced intelligence of some sort that has become known as "God"??

There are dozens of ancient civilizations that created wonders of the Ancient world that can't be replicated today with ancient technology and in some cases even with modern technology.

The easiest one to prove is the moving of colossal stones. dozens of sites aroung the world moved thousands of stones well over 50 tons including at over 100 stones over 100 tons each in 4 continents.

The biggest stone moved with ancient technology in recent times that has been documented isn't much if any more than 10 tons. there have been some claims of experiments that moved larger stones but they haven't been well supported. In one case Thor Heyerdahl failed to move one and somehow interpretted it as a sucess.

I have listed many of these on the following page:

107 Wonders of the Ancient World
www.geocities.com...

This doesn't prove the religious version of God that can easily and conclusively be disproven. If God existed and he was honest he would earn trust by comunicating since he refuses to do this the trustworthy God is out of the question.

If this is a real unknown advanced intelligence that has come to be known as "God" then it is a God who inspired religion and arranged for religious leaders to use indoctrination tactics to glorify him. these indoctrination tactics were used to obtain trust in deceptive ways.

So If there is a real "God" then he is a cult leader and a con artist.

Any explanation as to how these rocks upto at least 700 tons if not 1,000 tons were moved?

How the large volume of stone statues were carved?

The tight joints of Inca walls and Egyptian Pyramids were made?

How they moved over 700 tons each day to build the great pyramid?
If they took longer than the 23 years of Khufu's rule how they kept the project going through several Pharaohs?

The cause of this is based on speculation since there isn't enough evidence to come to final conclusions but the colossal stones themselves and the fact that modern scholors can't explain them is based on fact.

The following web site has been offered as an explanation as to how they did it but it relys on modern technology and only involves moving stones upto 10 tons. www.youtube.com...

More credible efforts haven't been nearly as sucessful including efforts to move colossal stones by Heyerdahl, Bernstein, Balzoni, Layard, Botta etc.

These are described on my website in the moving a stone section or in the Ninevah section.

They needed at least 6 to 8 men to tow each ton and when the weights went up over 7 tons it required at least 15 to 30 men to tow each ton.

I think it's pretty insulting to say our ancestors weren't intellectually capable of building monuments and spectacular structures.


Also, it's just like asking how they developed such advanced medicine methods and mathematics. The Mayans were aware of black holes, how is that possible?

I like to think of them as the creators and we are the one that progress and utilize their creations for better things.

Originally posted by QuetzalcoatlAlien
I think it's pretty insulting to say our ancestors weren't intellectually capable of building monuments and spectacular structures.


Also, it's just like asking how they developed such advanced medicine methods and mathematics. The Mayans were aware of black holes, how is that possible?

I like to think of them as the creators and we are the one that progress and utilize their creations for better things.

It is insulting to Christians to talk about crusades and inquisitions, Germans about the holocaust, Muslims about suicide bombers.

Yet these things are all true.

Simply being insulting isn't evidence of fact.

If you find the truth insulting get used to being insulted.

Besides having advanced knowledge then using it for something that brings little if any practicle benifit isn't something to brag about. These monuments may look spectacular but they serve no rational purpose. If they were so intelligent and they knew how to use there intelligence they would have set up a better education system and preserved their own culture.

If you have a fact based argument I'd like to hear it.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
Is this evidence of an advanced intelligence of some sort that has become known as "God"??

No.

It is evidence of the ingenuity of the human brain, which you do insult when you invoke some "mysterious" power like God or some unknown ancient advanced technology.

Originally posted by zacherystaylorThere are dozens of ancient civilizations that created wonders of the Ancient world that can't be replicated today with ancient technology and in some cases even with modern technology.

The easiest one to prove is the moving of colossal stones. dozens of sites aroung the world moved thousands of stones well over 50 tons including at over 100 stones over 100 tons each in 4 continents.

The biggest stone moved with ancient technology in recent times that has been documented isn't much if any more than 10 tons. there have been some claims of experiments that moved larger stones but they haven't been well supported. In one case Thor Heyerdahl failed to move one and somehow interpretted it as a sucess.

I have listed many of these on the following page:

107 Wonders of the Ancient World
www.geocities.com...

This linked saite says the following:

For example the largest trilithon stone is aproximately 3.4 meters by 4.5 meters by 19 meters. (source: sacred sites) That comes to 290 cubic meters. If the stone weighs 3.5 tons per meter then the 1,000 ton estimate would be acurate. If the stone weighs 2.9 tons per cubic meter then estimates below 850 tons would be accurate.

Baalbek
3- 750 ton rocks
24- 300 to 400 ton rocks

Baalbek was a purely Roman construction. It was excavated all the way to the bedrock over fifty years ago.

What was under it? Roman artifacts.

I would suggest you not use "sacred sites" as a source since they have apparently bought into the ravings of a money-grubbing conman "Alternate Historian" (Zecharia Sitchin) who continues to promote the idea of Baalbek as some "mysterious construction of Ancient Man" when the archaeological world has known for over three generations now that the Romans built it using their enormous cranes.

Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
There are dozens of ancient civilizations that created wonders of the Ancient world that can't be replicated today with ancient technology and in some cases even with modern technology.

The easiest one to prove is the moving of colossal stones. dozens of sites aroung the world moved thousands of stones well over 50 tons including at over 100 stones over 100 tons each in 4 continents.

Funny that you bring modern technology into the argument... We have cranes that can lift like 15,000 tonnes. I always fail to see why people miss that fact. Yes its an extreme figure and its not like we do that every day, but it really brings into light the reason why we can do it. And why is that you ask? Well because we needed a heavy duty lifter. And that is why the ancients managed to lift what they needed too. They didnt build 200 ton capable lifting devices and then thought "hey I got an idea: we can lift 200 ton stones with this!!!". They started at the other end just like we did, obviously.

Actually, the world's largest crane can only lift 1600 Tonnes.

World's Largest Crane

www.shippingtimes.co.uk...

Apparently it can lift 20,000 metric tonnes.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
Is this evidence of an advanced intelligence of some sort that has become known as "God"??

No.

It is evidence of the ingenuity of the human brain, which you do insult when you invoke some "mysterious" power like God or some unknown ancient advanced technology.

Originally posted by zacherystaylorThere are dozens of ancient civilizations that created wonders of the Ancient world that can't be replicated today with ancient technology and in some cases even with modern technology.

The easiest one to prove is the moving of colossal stones. dozens of sites aroung the world moved thousands of stones well over 50 tons including at over 100 stones over 100 tons each in 4 continents.

The biggest stone moved with ancient technology in recent times that has been documented isn't much if any more than 10 tons. there have been some claims of experiments that moved larger stones but they haven't been well supported. In one case Thor Heyerdahl failed to move one and somehow interpretted it as a sucess.

I have listed many of these on the following page:

107 Wonders of the Ancient World
www.geocities.com...

This linked saite says the following:

For example the largest trilithon stone is aproximately 3.4 meters by 4.5 meters by 19 meters. (source: sacred sites) That comes to 290 cubic meters. If the stone weighs 3.5 tons per meter then the 1,000 ton estimate would be acurate. If the stone weighs 2.9 tons per cubic meter then estimates below 850 tons would be accurate.

Baalbek
3- 750 ton rocks
24- 300 to 400 ton rocks

Baalbek was a purely Roman construction. It was excavated all the way to the bedrock over fifty years ago.

What was under it? Roman artifacts.

I would suggest you not use "sacred sites" as a source since they have apparently bought into the ravings of a money-grubbing conman "Alternate Historian" (Zecharia Sitchin) who continues to promote the idea of Baalbek as some "mysterious construction of Ancient Man" when the archaeological world has known for over three generations now that the Romans built it using their enormous cranes.

Harte

I only speculated about the possibility of influence of an advanced intelligence I didn't declare it a fact. I won't censor myself just because some people are easily offended by new ideas.

It would have been better if these people used there ingenuity of the human brain for more practical reasons including ways to prevent ther culture from collapsing for one reason or another. If they were as wise as some choose to believe they would have prevented their own colapse. If modern people pretend they didn't make mistakes when they did they run the risk of repeating those mistakes.

The site of Baalbek is inconclusive as far as I can tell as to who moved the trilithon stones. Not just because of claims by sacred sites but other sources. In fact I'm inclined to believe that it is probably older than the Roman ocupation although I don't know for certain.

I'm not trying to limit it to one point of view so I don't intend to delete every site that I disagree with. I have advised people to use there own judgement. Some of what sacred sites says is worth considering although I don't consider it completely reliable as I implied when I pointed out that he had the density wrong. As for Zecharia Sitchin any one who reads what he claims will quickly realize how foolish he is if they know anything about science. The bigger concern is people who partialy quote him that seem rational. This may make Zecharia Sitchin seem retional since the reader may not be aware of his foolish theories.

In some cases I have partialy debunked my own sources in addition to putting a disclaimer on it. I will consider debunking Zecharia Sitchin since he is mention indirectly.

Thanks.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Actually, the world's largest crane can only lift 1600 Tonnes.

World's Largest Crane

Thanks for pointing this out to me I will consider it if it is accurate as it seems then I will retract my claim that these stones can't be moved by modern technology.

this still doesn't explain how these stones were moved without modern technology.

The 20,000MT site is also apreciated although I'm not sure the MT stands for metric tonnes. the fact that these 2 sites seem to contridict each other means one of them is mistaken although it may not have been intentional if they didn't know about each other.

I will mention something about it in my site soon one way or another.

Originally posted by QuetzalcoatlAlien
The Mayans were aware of black holes, how is that possible?

Wait!
What? Reference...please!

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The 20,000MT site is also apreciated although I'm not sure the MT stands for metric tonnes. the fact that these 2 sites seem to contridict each other means one of them is mistaken although it may not have been intentional if they didn't know about each other.

Its not a contradiction. I'm guessing his claim is the worlds largest land based mobile crane. The one I noted is a dockyard crane. Yes its metric tonnes, and my example isnt the only super lifter. The original weight claim I made, 15,000, is from a sea based rig used to build oil rigs.

If you want to know how the ancient build things, take a look into Roman engineering. Their cranes are pretty amazing: ours are just bigger versions of them. We dont know how the Egyptians did it, but if they where half as skilled as the Romans they could do it easily.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte

This linked site says the following:

For example the largest trilithon stone is aproximately 3.4 meters by 4.5 meters by 19 meters. (source: sacred sites) That comes to 290 cubic meters. If the stone weighs 3.5 tons per meter then the 1,000 ton estimate would be acurate. If the stone weighs 2.9 tons per cubic meter then estimates below 850 tons would be accurate.

Baalbek
3- 750 ton rocks
24- 300 to 400 ton rocks

Baalbek was a purely Roman construction. It was excavated all the way to the bedrock over fifty years ago.

What was under it? Roman artifacts.

I would suggest you not use "sacred sites" as a source since they have apparently bought into the ravings of a money-grubbing conman "Alternate Historian" (Zecharia Sitchin) who continues to promote the idea of Baalbek as some "mysterious construction of Ancient Man" when the archaeological world has known for over three generations now that the Romans built it using their enormous cranes.

Harte

I only speculated about the possibility of influence of an advanced intelligence I didn't declare it a fact. I won't censor myself just because some people are easily offended by new ideas.

That's fine, but you did ask the question. I merely answered you.

Regarding your "new ideas," exactly what ideas in your post are "new?"

The Ancient Astronaut theory was first speculated on by H.P. Lovecraft in the mid 1920's. See here to verify what I just said.

Your suggestion: "Is this evidence of an advanced intelligence of some sort that has become known as "God"?" is simply a rehashing of an idea that is almost 100 years old now.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
It would have been better if these people used there ingenuity of the human brain for more practical reasons including ways to prevent ther culture from collapsing for one reason or another. If they were as wise as some choose to believe they would have prevented their own colapse. If modern people pretend they didn't make mistakes when they did they run the risk of repeating those mistakes.

Can't argue with that. I've several times lamented the Greeks, based partially on the Antikythera mechanism and their apparent ability to make fine gears. If only they had used this technology to make more fine gears, instead of to predict planetary movements, they would have probably been the dominant power in the Mediterreanean, rather than Rome.

Originally posted by zacherystaylorThe site of Baalbek is inconclusive as far as I can tell as to who moved the trilithon stones. Not just because of claims by sacred sites but other sources. In fact I'm inclined to believe that it is probably older than the Roman ocupation although I don't know for certain.

Perhaps I can disincline you:

Third: A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.

Fourth: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.

You should try to find some info on the 1921 paper published about the dig (to the bedrock) that took place in 1904, if you can't believe what I just quoted. The name of the author is given in the above excerpt.

The above commentary is by Frank Doernenburg. Here is his webpage, though the above doesn't come from there. That page comes from a collection of information put together by Doug Weller, a member here and a moderator at the Hall of Ma'at forum. The collection is called "Doug's Archaeology Site" and it is literally loaded with info in these types of areas.

Another place you might like to look around in is the Antiquity of Man Pseudoscience Page. Lot's of excellent information there.

Originally posted by zacherystaylorI'm not trying to limit it to one point of view so I don't intend to delete every site that I disagree with. I have advised people to use there own judgement. Some of what sacred sites says is worth considering although I don't consider it completely reliable as I implied when I pointed out that he had the density wrong.

I'd agree that not every woo-woo site (like "sacred sites") has every single detail wrong. But I will say that there's no real need to use such places as references, since the real information, uncluttered by the crapola like the trilithion is a "mysterious" temple built in prehistory, is readily available out there. Explore Doug's site, take a gander at the massive list of links at the Antiquity of Man website I linked, you might also peruse Catchpenny Mystyeries of Ancient Egypt, which is run by Larry Orcutt, one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet online (assuming you do.)

Many of these sites have "guestbooks" where you can ask the operator specific questions if you want. You can meet these people this way if you try.

Originally posted by zacherystaylorAs for Zecharia Sitchin any one who reads what he claims will quickly realize how foolish he is if they know anything about science. The bigger concern is people who partialy quote him that seem rational. This may make Zecharia Sitchin seem retional since the reader may not be aware of his foolish theories.

In some cases I have partialy debunked my own sources in addition to putting a disclaimer on it. I will consider debunking Zecharia Sitchin since he is mention indirectly.

Thanks.

The above statements are greatly appreciated. Sitchen is a cancer on Ancient History.


Harte

[edit on 10/30/2008 by Harte]

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The 20,000MT site is also apreciated although I'm not sure the MT stands for metric tonnes. the fact that these 2 sites seem to contridict each other means one of them is mistaken although it may not have been intentional if they didn't know about each other.

Its not a contradiction. I'm guessing his claim is the worlds largest land based mobile crane. The one I noted is a dockyard crane. Yes its metric tonnes, and my example isnt the only super lifter. The original weight claim I made, 15,000, is from a sea based rig used to build oil rigs.

If you want to know how the ancient build things, take a look into Roman engineering. Their cranes are pretty amazing: ours are just bigger versions of them. We dont know how the Egyptians did it, but if they where half as skilled as the Romans they could do it easily.

I did mention the cranes of the Greeks and the Romans on the website. I believe the romans may have gotten the idea from the Greeks assuming the Greeks had cranes which I think they did. The Romans also had a treadmill that men could walk in to use as a tool for lifting large items which I mentioned as well kind of like what you see in a gerbils cage only much larger. I don't know whether the Greeks had that or not. A closer look at other Roman Technology would be helpful I'm sure.

That still doesn't explain how many of these other stones were moved by other civilizations around the world including Tiahuanico, Easter Island, India, Korea etc.

Nor is it sufficient to explain the colossi of Memnon (700 tons) which was moved 400 miles over land.

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte

when the archaeological world has known for over three generations now that the Romans built it using their enormous cranes.

Actualy there isn't a consensus on that. the history channel has mentioned that. They did claim it was the Romans but they didn't seem to believe it was solved. 1 show speculated about them using levers to slowly roll them flipping them over time after time. It didn't sound very convincing. Also they may have dug thouroughly in most of the site but they didn't look under the 300 to 750 ton stones. Apparently the most reliable estimate for that site isn't much if any higher than 750 tons. I'll have to revise the site to clear up the implied contridictions. Sacred sites got the dimensions right but the density and the weight wrong. Thanks for bringing that to my attention whether you intended to or not.

Originally posted by Harte
Regarding your "new ideas," exactly what ideas in your post are "new?"

The Ancient Astronaut theory was first speculated on by H.P. Lovecraft in the mid 1920's.

Lovecraft was fiction. But you are right to a point they are not new entirely. Some of it was used by Von Daniken but I don't agree with everything he says by a long shot. He relys to much on mythology and symbolism. He also catered to the beliefs of some people in the 70's etc. There are a lot of problems with his theories. I wouldn't consider him a reliable source although he isn't quite as bad as Sitchen.

What I'm saying is first the official version doesn't add up there are many things that havn't been explained properly.

An unknown advanced intelligence would explain this but that would lead to more questions like the nature of this intelligence and the motive etc.

This is speculation until there is solid evidence to confirm or refute.

Originally posted by Harte
Can't argue with that. I've several times lamented the Greeks, based partially on the Antikythera mechanism and their apparent ability to make fine gears. If only they had used this technology to make more fine gears, instead of to predict planetary movements, they would have probably been the dominant power in the Mediterreanean, rather than Rome.

If they did a better job handleing their social problems, improving democracy and ending infighting then instead of dictatorship from the Romans or anyone else we would have something much better than thousands of years of warfare.

If the USA and other leading countries do a better job handleing their social problems, improving democracy and ending infighting then we might avoid thousands of years of more war and dictatorship. The following is from another page of my site:

Jim Jones hung a sign over his stage in Giuana that said "Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."

"To study history means to search for and discover the forces that are the causes of those results which appear before our eyes as historical events. The art of reading and studying consists in remembering the essentials and forgetting what is not essential." Adolf Hitler

In both cases the "lesson from history" was controlled by cult leaders and the results were disastrous.

If rational people don't try to do a better job the next cult leader just might do it again!

I'll check out the sites you recomended doug's is already on my site although not prominantly. After I take a closer look maybe I'll move it up. He helped correct the Baalbek exageration and provide the 750 ton estimate.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
Nor is it sufficient to explain the colossi of Memnon (700 tons) which was moved 400 miles over land.

Just as a curious question since you probably know more about it than I, why was it moved over land? The reason on Wiki seems to be that "they are too heavy to transport upstream on the Nile". I'm fairly sure the Egyptians had the engineering skills to build barges specifically designed for transporting such a heavy load.

Btw, the heaviest stone ever moved without modern technology was about 1500 ton and we know for a fact it was moved by mere men since it is well documented: the Thunder stone. It took 400 men 9 months to move a short 4 miles.

The biggest problem with judging the ancients is that we dont know how many men and how long it took. Moving a 700 ton stone 400 miles you say? Its was no doubt a pain in the arse, but pick some numbers on random, 10,000 men and 10 years (coupled with the well drilled stone moving skill of the Egyptians of course), is it still unreasonable?

[edit on 1-11-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
Nor is it sufficient to explain the colossi of Memnon (700 tons) which was moved 400 miles over land.

Just as a curious question since you probably know more about it than I, why was it moved over land? The reason on Wiki seems to be that "they are too heavy to transport upstream on the Nile". I'm fairly sure the Egyptians had the engineering skills to build barges specifically designed for transporting such a heavy load.

Wiki bases ther information on other sources including
Scarre, Chris editor "The Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World", (1999) Thames & Hudson, London
Time Life Lost Civilizations series:Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile (1993)

They get there information from traditional scholars

Originally posted by merka
Btw, the heaviest stone ever moved without modern technology was about 1500 ton and we know for a fact it was moved by mere men since it is well documented: the Thunder stone. It took 400 men 9 months to move a short 4 miles.

The biggest problem with judging the ancients is that we dont know how many men and how long it took. Moving a 700 ton stone 400 miles you say? Its was no doubt a pain in the arse, but pick some numbers on random, 10,000 men and 10 years (coupled with the well drilled stone moving skill of the Egyptians of course), is it still unreasonable?
[edit on 1-11-2008 by merka]

This is the first I heard of the Thunder stone thanks for pointing it out. I found these sites based on a quick search:
www.tcaup.umich.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm a little skeptical of the weight estimate but it is worth looking into.

Even if this does turn out to be true it still raises questions like how they did this and why can't it be replicated?

I created the following list of efforts to move stones that weren't nearly as sucessful listed in next post.

If they could do it before they should be able to repeat it.

Why is it that others seem to be able to make longer posts than me?

because I'm new here?

For anyone who is interested I created the following list of efforts to move colossal stones in recorded history. None of them come close to pulling the 700 ton Colossi of Memnon.


*Josh Bernstein and Julian Richards organized an effort to pull a 2 ton stone on wooden tracks with a group of about 16 men. Aproximately 8 men pulled each ton. source: Josh Bernstein: Digging for the Truth p. 133-5 book based on History Chennel series
*Thor Heyerdahl organized an effort to pull a 10 ton Moai on a sledge with a group of 180 men. Aproximately 18 men pulled each ton. sources www.pbs.org...
source: Heyerdahl, Thor Aku-Aku; The 1958 Expedition to Easter Island.
source: Heyerdahl, Thor. Easter Island - A Mystery Solved. 1988. ISBN 951-30-8952-5
*Henri Chevier organized an effort to pull a 6 ton block on a sledge with a group of 6 men. Aproximately 1 man pulled each ton. source: Edwards, Dr. I.E.S.: The Pyramids of Egypt 1986/1947 p. 273-4
*Giovanni Battista Balzoni organized an effort to pull a 7.5 ton fragment of a statue of Ramses on rollers with a group of 130 men in 1815. This statue was towed to the river and loaded on a barge where it was sent to London. Progress increased with practice as they went along. Aproximately 17 or 18 men pulled each ton. source: Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile (1993) p. 47-48
*Henry Layard organized an effort to transport 2 10 ton colossal Statues of a winged Lion and a winged Bull with a group of 300 men in 1847. He loaded them on a wheeled cart and towed them to the river and loaded on a barge where it was sent to London. Aproximately 30 men pulled each ton. source: Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Mesopotamia: The Mighty Kings.(1995) p. 112-121
*Paul Emile Botta and Victor Place attempted to move 2 additional 30 ton colossi to Paris from Khorsabad by in 1853. In order to facilitate their shipment to Paris they were sawed in pieces and they still ran into problems. One of them fell into the river into the Tigris never to be retrieved. The other made it to Paris. source: Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Mesopotamia: The Mighty Kings.(1995) p. 112-121

reply to post by zacherystaylor

No offense, but putting up the "hardship" of moving small rocks as examples on how it must be impossible to move heavier rocks is stupid. You only need a quick look at those numbers to see that the amount of men vary wildly in what is needed per ton: The Egyptians that had moved stone for thousands of years damn well knew how to optimize it.

How about taking some better examples? The 300 ton plus Aswan granite slab that now stands in front of the Vatican in Rome. It has unquestionably been moved from Egypt (and later moved within Rome). Or what about another obelisk taken from Egypt, the once 400 ton one standing in Istanbul? Again, it has unquestionably been moved and it was not the Eygptians.

Originally posted by merka
reply to post by zacherystaylor

 

No offense, but putting up the "hardship" of moving small rocks as examples on how it must be impossible to move heavier rocks is stupid. You only need a quick look at those numbers to see that the amount of men vary wildly in what is needed per ton: The Egyptians that had moved stone for thousands of years damn well knew how to optimize it.

How about taking some better examples? The 300 ton plus Aswan granite slab that now stands in front of the Vatican in Rome. It has unquestionably been moved from Egypt (and later moved within Rome). Or what about another obelisk taken from Egypt, the once 400 ton one standing in Istanbul? Again, it has unquestionably been moved and it was not the Eygptians.

This is true and it is mentioned on my site. This includes 2 sources with a list of obelisks. The largest is the one at St. peters sq. I think it was moved by Constantine in the fourth century and erected in the 15th century on orders from the pope.

there are several that were moved in the 19th century between 170 and 230 tons using cranes so they weren't limited to ancient technology.

That is part of my point why do people have such a hard time on numerous occasions with stones no more than 10 tons but on other occasions they are able to move stones over 700 tons.

Another reason I didn't highlight them is that if they are well documented I couldn't find the details. the Paris Obelisk has limited details sited on my website. I cited sources that provided additional details if your interested they include problems with them being bogged down in the sand.

I'm not saying I can solve this mystery quite the opposite but even though many seem to think it is solved I don't believe any of the alledged solutions add up.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
That is part of my point why do people have such a hard time on numerous occasions with stones no more than 10 tons but on other occasions they are able to move stones over 700 tons.

Because they're idiots?

Something else to keep in mind is that stones arent always pulled by human hand. The Eygptians where well accustomed to using oxen (we see it in their wall paintings).

Though someone more skilled in the use of cattle will have to inform you how much oxen can pull, because if I do a search on it I only get "the power of OS X", haha.