The Shamir, the gem that cuts stone!

Everyone likes to pretend that a laser can cut through stone like a sawblade.

Not.

Lasers are good for etching stone, but they can't cut cleanly through stone. The temperature differentials would crack and break the stone.

Harte

Hi Harte

Sorry I didnt see that comment buried on the next page.

originally posted by: Harte
Everyone likes to pretend that a laser can cut through stone like a sawblade.

Not.

Lasers are good for etching stone, but they can't cut cleanly through stone. The temperature differentials would crack and break the stone.

Harte

Interesting the idea that etching cant cut through stone. A chisel is used to etch and cut through stone, but lets leave that for the moment and touch on the technique Jordan is actually talking about.

As you point out correctly the heat differentials would crack the stone. This technique is widely reported in any mainstream history book. Its a technique used by the romans to reduce boulders to rubble and the chinese to 'cut' canals through granite bedrock a thousand years ago. These groups used relatively primitive methods, just setting fires on the stones and then dowsing the hot rock with water, it breaks up nicely/

Jordan describes how he cut a simple tile along a line with a shaving mirror. He just moved the mirror or tile (cant remmeber which he said) back n forth along the line he wanted to 'cut' and the tile fractured silently along that line due to the heat differential you mention. Its directed heat focused on a single strip as opposed to the blanket nature of roman or chinese fire.

The more telling example is the stones he has covered in glass using those sundishes. His first work invariably cracked the stone at the point of the beam where the glass was formed. There are several examples in his books on 3/4 inch granite shattered at the beam point as you suggest. The later examples are not shattered, seems it takes a bit of practice to just apply vitrified glass with those tools.

On balance thats a two for one solution to a couple of ancient mysteries.

1. How the ancients applied glass directly onto stone in the open air eg the Incas
2. How various ancient civilizations could fracture very hard stones without much effort

I would say it was idle speculation, but the tell tale signs of heat shown on Jordan's examples are also seen on some (not all) quarried rock extrusion points. In Egypt the quarries have straight lines of reddened granite right next to the straight block extrusion point. Some Wall stones in Cuzco also have the reddened edges on the stones in the wall. I think Jordan needs to test those stones, if the curators would let him and prove.

For me its a fair bet just based on the visual evidence alone. However we all know how those assumptions can lead to false conclusions. At least this guy is delivering techniques with tools actually found in the museums as opposed to speculating on the tools they might have had. Its really a question of whether you believe the countless thousands of curved mirrors found in the archaeological record were simply for putting on make up or for starting fires (academic acceptance), combat weapons, vitrifiying stones, fracturing stones, annealing stones, fusing metals with metals, glass or stone etc...Seems its pretty easy to make glass once you have one of these dishes and theres the odd piece of glass out there before the furnace was invented.

Likewise the subject here can be explained wit these devices. Jordans Ark of the Covenant Manual makes a laughing stock of most books on the subject. He just shows how to use the ark to deliver almost unlimited energy and how to perform the miracles of the OT with contemporary technology. He outlines it on the radio show here>

Ark Manual Radio Show

The book is much more fun if you ask me, shows the techniques and results

Ark of Covenant Manual

Hey maybe they just used all those curved mirrors for making themselves look pretty, you tell me

Best

Will

There isn't any evidence of vitrified stone by the Incas or the Egyptians.

I'd rather not wade through some guy's woo claims, I'd much rather see the evidence for such methods in the relics we have, and there is none.

The idea that the Egyptians, or the Inca, could create mirrors or lenses powerful enough to do anything at all to any stone seems ridiculous on several levels.

The Inca were observed by the Spanish - no reports of any fine glass products.

The Egyptians certainly couldn't create any mirror or lens for such use. Such methods require very fine lenses/mirrors. These sorts of things, or evidence of their manufacture/use, would have absolutely been found by investigators, yet there are none.

Re. both the Egyptians and the Inca, we do have evidence of how they quarried stone of several different kinds. If stone was cut with light, why then did they leave big "scallop" marks in the granite (Egypt) and andesite (Inca) quarries which match exactly what pounding stones would leave behind?

Harte

Harte

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 06:59 AM link quote reply

Hi Harte

Those are pretty sure comments.


"There isn't any evidence of vitrified stone by the Incas or the Egyptians. "

Since von Daniken the reports of vitrified stones have been virtually ignored by mainstream. Fortunately we have the net to refute the naysayers. This guy seems to have spent a lot of time capturing the non existent vitrified stones.

examples of vitrified stone





"I'd rather not wade through some guy's woo claims, I'd much rather see the evidence for such methods in the relics we have, and there is none. "

Loads of examples down the right hand side. Of course the mainstream whines its just polished stone, without proof. De Jong ran that analysis and found glassy ceramic on limestone. Hard to polish a limestone cave to glass in anyone's book. The paper is on that site.


"The idea that the Egyptians, or the Inca, could create mirrors or lenses powerful enough to do anything at all to any stone seems ridiculous on several levels.

The Inca were observed by the Spanish - no reports of any fine glass products. "

Well the examples above would suggest otherwise. You seem to be forgetting ceramics are glazes n the s Americans were famed for them.

"The Egyptians certainly couldn't create any mirror or lens for such use. Such methods require very fine lenses/mirrors. These sorts of things, or evidence of their manufacture/use, would have absolutely been found by investigators, yet there are none."

Well they made vanity mirrors which have a much more accurate curve than a stone melting or fracturing mirror needs to be. Are u suggesting those vanity mirrors were crazy mirrors like in the fun park?

"Re. both the Egyptians and the Inca, we do have evidence of how they quarried stone of several different kinds. If stone was cut with light, why then did they leave big "scallop" marks in the granite (Egypt) and andesite (Inca) quarries which match exactly what pounding stones would leave behind? "

I couldn't agree more, there is evidence of pounding marks from stones, but that's not the ONLY technique on display is it. There's the wet wedge, the chisel, plaster/concrete, fire fractured and if you know what to look for there's also fractured thru beams of light.


Will

I'm sure it seems convincing to you.

But I prefer sources other than tour guides fishing for tourist dollars.

Harte

a reply to: secretsofthesunsects

Are there any videos of this shamir in action?

originally posted by: combatmaster

Are there any videos of this shamir in action?

Is this what you want?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
I'm sure it seems convincing to you.

But I prefer sources other than tour guides fishing for tourist dollars.

Harte

Or academics wishing to retain their tenures by ignoring and repeating the same old lines.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: secretsofthesunsects

Are there any videos of this shamir in action?

This guy shows a few of the methods with a mirror made of mirror tiles. Does the burning bush or lump of wood. Cutting melting metals. Turning stone to glass. I'm sure you know what would happen if the stones were dowsed with water. Boiling water etc. The dish on a trolley reminds me of that relic of a horse drawn dish from the Nordics.

There are hundreds of demos of the power on YouTube. Any search for parabolic dish melting will bring up loads. Its all the same with the curved dish, mosaic dish, Fresnel lenses etc just the power of concentrated sunlight. I like the greenpowerscience demos with shield sized dishes. That guy runs through loads of the applications.

Here's the power of the mosaic dish, enjoy

dish destruction

These dishes are seen in museums all over the world. There was a guy who got to test a few in a Chinese museum. He showed that one or two easily started fires. When that was shown they tested the rest and they found more than 20 of the previously sacred/religious mirrors were adequate fire starters. Of course its all ignored in favour of the received wisdom.

more old firestarting dishes found only 6000 years old

Best

Will

originally posted by: will2learn

originally posted by: Harte
I'm sure it seems convincing to you.

But I prefer sources other than tour guides fishing for tourist dollars.

Harte

Or academics wishing to retain their tenures by ignoring and repeating the same old lines.

I see you don't understand what tenure is or how it works, lol!

Care how to explain how your comment relates to Professor Ivan Watkins?

originally posted by: will2learn
"The idea that the Egyptians, or the Inca, could create mirrors or lenses powerful enough to do anything at all to any stone seems ridiculous on several levels.

The Inca were observed by the Spanish - no reports of any fine glass products. "

Well the examples above would suggest otherwise. You seem to be forgetting ceramics are glazes n the s Americans were famed for them.

Ceramic glazes are not examples of vitrification of native stone.

originally posted by: will2learn
"The Egyptians certainly couldn't create any mirror or lens for such use. Such methods require very fine lenses/mirrors. These sorts of things, or evidence of their manufacture/use, would have absolutely been found by investigators, yet there are none."

Well they made vanity mirrors which have a much more accurate curve than a stone melting or fracturing mirror needs to be. Are u suggesting those vanity mirrors were crazy mirrors like in the fun park?

Yes, pretty much.

Have you never seen one? They are polished bronze. link1 link2

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Hi Harte

Nice to see you've stopped making absolute comments.

Ceramic glazes as you say are not vitrified native stone but Jan dear Jong ran analysis of the glassy surface of a vitrified layer on a limestone cave and the spectral analysis showed nothing short of a ceramic layer. Here's the spectral analysis run by a Dutch lab

spectral analysis of cuzco vit stone

On this page its in there with links to other spectral analyses of s american glazes and it compares very closely. There are also pictures of vitrified stones both in natural settings, on walls and even in the block joints.

[url=http://secretsofthesunsects.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/incan-vitrified-stones/]vitrified stone proof[

Or are pictures of vitrified stone along with lab spectral analyses too 'woo woo' for you?

As for the mirrors being all wobbly n producing crazy images. I suggest u tell the mainstream academics that they are completely wrong n those are not vanity mirrors. Better still talk to iPerlin and tell him those mirrors from the museums he tested n started fires with were just figments of his imagination.

Are you just playing devils advocate to get a rise or do you really believe in your wonky mirror theory and that all those researchers talking about vitrified stones are deluded?

Best

Will

a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans

Ivan Watkins has been treated abominably by the mainstream researchers despite the excellent work he has been doing showing how even a small mirror can fracture or vitrify stone. The guy who advocates pounding incan stones ONLY wouldn't even wait and look at Watkins demo in a recent documentary. I've never seen a supposedly serious researcher act so childishly taking the camera team off with him in a huff. Hardly the actions of open minded mainstream academic researchers , but maybe that's how you think those with tenure should act :-)

Best

Will

It was w Novo documentary if memory srrves

originally posted by: will2learn
a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans

Ivan Watkins has been treated abominably by the mainstream researchers despite the excellent work he has been doing showing how even a small mirror can fracture or vitrify stone. The guy who advocates pounding incan stones ONLY wouldn't even wait and look at Watkins demo in a recent documentary. I've never seen a supposedly serious researcher act so childishly taking the camera team off with him in a huff. Hardly the actions of open minded mainstream academic researchers , but maybe that's how you think those with tenure should act :-)

Best

Will

It was w Novo documentary if memory srrves

So you admit your absolute comment, noted below:

Or academics wishing to retain their tenures by ignoring and repeating the same old lines

...is wrong. Watkins has been able to produce his research, state it, publish it - or do you deny that?

Other scientists are under no obligation to believe what another puts out, just like Watkins doesn't have to believe the mainstream, that is how science works.

As I noted earlier you don't know how tenure works and you threw out a silly fringe cliche without evening knowing what it means......

Onto other comments:

Garcilaso de la Vega quote, care to explain how igniting unprepared cotton shows they had mirrors that could melt stone?

Have you seen the work of José J. Lunazzi?

edited to add: One simple question - what is Igneous rock and how do you think it might relate or impact on this discussion?

originally posted by: will2learn
a reply to: Harte



Hi Harte


Nice to see you've stopped making absolute comments.


Ceramic glazes as you say are not vitrified native stone but Jan dear Jong ran analysis of the glassy surface of a vitrified layer on a limestone cave and the spectral analysis showed nothing short of a ceramic layer. Here's the spectral analysis run by a Dutch lab


spectral analysis of cuzco vit stone


On this page its in there with links to other spectral analyses of s american glazes and it compares very closely. There are also pictures of vitrified stones both in natural settings, on walls and even in the block joints.


[url=http://secretsofthesunsects.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/incan-vitrified-stones/]vitrified stone proof[


Or are pictures of vitrified stone along with lab spectral analyses too 'woo woo' for you?

Spectral analysis cannot identify vitrification.

It only identifies the elements present in (or on) the stone.
Your source makes claims he says are backed up by pictures of shiny rocks.
Rocks don't have to be vitrified to be shiny.

As for the mirrors being all wobbly n producing crazy images. I suggest u tell the mainstream academics that they are completely wrong n those are not vanity mirrors. Better still talk to iPerlin and tell him those mirrors from the museums he tested n started fires with were just figments of his imagination.



Are you just playing devils advocate to get a rise or do you really believe in your wonky mirror theory and that all those researchers talking about vitrified stones are deluded?

"..all those researchers?" You're talking about one guy (Foerster is another) that's a tour guide (so is Foerster, BTW.) Is his "research" as valid as, say, Protzen's?

Of course it's not.

Regarding mirrors, the pics I provided are of mirrors that came from cosmetics sets. If that's not vanity, then what would you call it?

Please provide evidence for any mirror at all from Ancient Egypt that is not made solely of polished bronze.

Regarding vitirification of stone, your cave could easily have been used as a kiln. A great many such kiln-caves have been found in South America.

Of course, I wouldn't expect your source to provide that information. Tends to let the sparkly out and thus doesn't help line his pockets.

Harte

Wait, they had glass and even jars made out of glass back then? I thought glass even found in Egyptian tombs was pretty darn rare?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Wait, they had glass and even jars made out of glass back then? I thought glass even found in Egyptian tombs was pretty darn rare?

Glass making in Egyp[t actually predates the Old Kingdom.

Such glass wasn't used the way we use it though because they couldn't make sheets of it and they couldn't make it transparent.

Stand alone glass (glass that wasn't some sort of glaze on pottery) was used for translucent beads and for other small decorative items.

Harte

a reply to: LUXUS

One question...if this blue/green stone could literally eat its way through almost any material...how come any of them are ever found, and they don't all sink to the center of the Earth?

a reply to: Hanslune

Hans

I think Watkins proves my point. He's a geoscience professor without a chance of the archaeologists taking him seriously as Protzen showed in a huff on the history show on incan stones.

It was just a throw away comment like your original one ;-)

Vega is cited by Watkins and other authors on the subject of mirrors. That cotton lighting competition is some sort of evidence for ranged burning mirrors tho middle east they complain of a 30 cubit limit. Which is about the limit if u scale up a standard shaving mirror to a couple of meters.

Of course in s.america there is a report of a mirror twice the height of a man which would be better.

Not seen Lunazzi seems to have the right name for it.

Igneous rock?? What r u getting at. Sure looks similar to vitrified stone but crystal sizes v different because of times to cool being different.

Best Will

a reply to: Harte

Hi Harte

All your comments are covered in that paper exactly as you state. Spectral analysis doesn't prove glass but it shows the glassy or polished if you like material has the same composition of ceramic glazes on pots, which incidentally don't need x ray crystallography for folk to accept they are glass. Likewise it should be unnecessary on a limestone cave coated in bits of glass.

The pictures are just other examples. I think its mentioned that the cave is probably a kiln but those glassy walls aren't and neither are the glassy brick joints. Maybe they polished mortar :-)

Vanity mirrors are physical proof of the technology of parabolic mirrors. Gold, silver, brass bronze aluminium etc will all spark a fire what's the issue. Why do you need other examples they all work the same way.

BTW I don't appreciate those kinds of researchers anymore than you but I appreciate it when people have put the effort in to provide the pictures, video, spectral analyses and papers that cover all of your points at least. Maybe you think finding the scam is how history works, but I doubt they faked their results there's enough showing what's possible. Maybe you should open yourself up to the possibilities rather than trying to debunk all the time :-)

Best
Will