It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte
what makes you think the pounding stones didn't arrive after the obelisk had been sitting there for a thousand years? who's to say the locals didn't try to work on the existing unfinished obelisk that their ancestors always talked about and after pounding away with little result they said "to hell with this!" and dropped the stones where they're found today?
I see no connection between the stones and the obelisk. You don't seem to want to talk much about how you release the stone from the bottom and raise it out of a ditch. That's a very important element and probably one you'd like to ignore.
Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte
what makes you think the pounding stones didn't arrive after the obelisk had been sitting there for a thousand years? who's to say the locals didn't try to work on the existing unfinished obelisk that their ancestors always talked about and after pounding away with little result they said "to hell with this!" and dropped the stones where they're found today?
I see no connection between the stones and the obelisk. You don't seem to want to talk much about how you release the stone from the bottom and raise it out of a ditch. That's a very important element and probably one you'd like to ignore.
You don't want to see any connection, then.
Hundreds of diorite balls found there. Every side of the cracked obelisk covered with gouges matching these stones.
Here: Link
Botton of page four, on to page five.
That is, when you decide to open your mind a little and take off the blinders.
Similar findings have been made in Incan quarries, by the way.
You might be interested to know that softer stone, such as limestone, was broken out in a manner similar to what was mentioned earlier, along a cliff or bluff face.
Of course, not all limestone was quarried this way. After all, the quarry at Giza is right there in front of the pyramids. Not much cliff face there.
Harte
Originally posted by charlyv
10 points for an archeological fact. non-disputable.
Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by charlyv
10 points for an archeological fact. non-disputable.
Yes. Or so one would think.
However, someone's still disputing it.
Odd.
Harte
Originally posted by Harte
So, you deny, then, the existence of the diorite hammerstones (and hammerstone marks on the obelisk) that were found alongside the cracked obelisk?
That's a sure way to maintain an ignorant view - completely ignore any evidence that's been found which would contradict your sparkley vision of Man's ancient past.
Harte
Originally posted by Sinny
Here's some links that back up the the idea of a lake/reservoir/water pump being beneath the pyramids: