The Shamir, the gem that cuts stone!

originally posted by: will2learn
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.

However, some ceramic glazes are air dry and don't require heat.

Besides, the evidence at your link is entirely photographic and I don't see any melted stone. Such evidence simply can't be missed in any decent photo of a Scottish vitrified fort.
Do you suppose the Inca et al. vitrified the stone then polished out the evidence?

originally posted by: will2learnVanity 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.

Not a chance in hell that ANY Ancient Egyptian mirror could do this.

However, I'd be interested to see any AE mirror that's not bronze, much more so parabolic.

Did you forget I asked?

originally posted by: will2learnMaybe 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 :-)

"Possibilities?"

Show me evidence of any such possibility.

What you have here is pictures of shiny stones. Not a single one melted in any way. Before I "open up to the possibilities," the possibilities have to exist.

Shiny stones open exactly no possibilities of vitrification. They open possibilities of fine polishing at best, and many pics on the referenced site don't even show that.

At the correct angle, the majority of stone types will shimmer and shine.

Where holes have been drilled out with sand, you often find a nice finished surface inside the hole. Is this surprising?

Kilns get vitrified over time, that's probably how glass making was invented in the first place.

Harte

Harte

originally posted by: will2learn
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.

or his evidence doesn't support his contention.

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.

Lighting cotton is not the same as cutting rocks....

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

er, no he's written papers on meso-american mirrors

José J. Lunazzi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Instituto de Física

Olmec mirrors

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.

The zone you are talking about and much of the stone used was that type of rock, its been melted.

a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans


Watkins has published his mirror techniques in geoscience journals I think he's also got a patent for a mirror device that cuts rocks. God forbid the historians should wake up to these ideas. I'm not sure if he's got the vitrification stuff done but Jordan certainly has. He's got pics of stones he vitrified. Even that kid in the YouTube video was vitrifying stones with a mirror.

As for the difference between a cotton lighting mirror and a stone fracturing one I fail to see it. Jordan lit cotton with a shaving mirror and proceeded to cut a tile with the same mirror. If you think about it a fire isn't much hotter than the ignition temp of cotton wood or whatever material the mainstream suggests rock boulders were fired n fractured with. Its funny you don't make the link.

The difference is the dish beam can be concentrated on a point which is what is needed. Jordan shows this with tiles, granites and bricks. Whilst the tile is the only one fractured in a straight line a lot of his vitrified stone and brick samples samples are clearly fractured.

That lunazzi paper proves the point along with Perkin in China and Jordan in India or south east Asia, as soon as researchers get their hands on the museum pieces to test them, they are shown explicitly to be parabolic fire starting mirrors. This opens up dozens of possibilities.

My favourite is telescopes. I mean are we really to believe that the ancients used curved mirrors to enlarge their faces for make up and they didn't turn this facility to their apparent obsession with astronomy. It takes less than a minute to make a very very powerful telescope with two vanity mirrors. But hey let's stick to believing the most revered devices in Egypt, s america n Asia were just for putting on make up and jangling about in some ritual. It makes makes me laugh.

You are still not making that point about igneous rocks clear. Obviously they are melted but when you see Jordan's granite samples he's melted them again to glass. He's got a whole pile of them on Facebook. Of course that's no historical journal but he did demo the process at an an ancient ceramics conference.

Best

Will

a reply to: Harte

Harte

You are clearly getting irritated by this very simple idea and seem to be trying to limit it to ancient Egypt and nickel n dining it to death.

You keep bleating on about bronze mirrors it makes no difference! They work so do the gold ones. Check the end of tuts bed. Check out the refs Hans had below for proof of the curve. When tested they are proven. Seems curators guardianship of the devices is your only defensive hope.

Not a chance in hell the Egyptians made parabolic dishes, you have gotta be kidding! Maybe it was only proven in s america, China n Asia before and after AE.

Funny its possible to do all of Moses OT miracles with one, didn't he supposedly spring fourth from Armana?

I think you must be looking at de Jong's photos with blinkers on. The layers are clearly milimeters thick. That's not from polishing. They refract light polish just reflects I'm guessing you know the difference and why.

The sample de bJong tested was as you put it thought to be shiny stones. The test prove absolutely they were ceramic fired ceramic just like the pot it was compared to. Really what is your game. Have another read of that paper your dimes n nickels won't get any change.

vitrified stone paper

Just don't try telling me that temple of the moon stone or the rough snake pictured are polished its making you look foolish.

Will

originally posted by: will2learn
a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans


Watkins has published his mirror techniques in geoscience journals I think he's also got a patent for a mirror device that cuts rocks. God forbid the historians should wake up to these ideas. I'm not sure if he's got the vitrification stuff done but Jordan certainly has. He's got pics of stones he vitrified. Even that kid in the YouTube video was vitrifying stones with a mirror.

So what is his complaint and yours then? You previously were saying

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

You have shown Watkins has published unhindered but you seemed to be bothered that his theories are unaccepted, that is normal. Each year around 15,000 papers with some sort of relationship to anthropology or archaeology are published only a tiny amount of those theories therein replace existing theories or even modify existing ones.

As for the difference between a cotton lighting mirror and a stone fracturing one I fail to see it. Jordan lit cotton with a shaving mirror and proceeded to cut a tile with the same mirror. If you think about it a fire isn't much hotter than the ignition temp of cotton wood or whatever material the mainstream suggests rock boulders were fired n fractured with. Its funny you don't make the link.

Speaking of a link you haven't linked to evidence that Jordan has done so with a Inca mirror. That would be helpful. So you think the melting point of rock is the same as igniting cotton eh....now that is funny. A link to these wonders you are talking about would be appreciated, if you put one in earlier I apologize in advance for missing it.

That lunazzi paper proves the point along with Perkin in China and Jordan in India or south east Asia, as soon as researchers get their hands on the museum pieces to test them, they are shown explicitly to be parabolic fire starting mirrors. This opens up dozens of possibilities.

No I would think that any parabolic mirror can be used to start fires that doesn't mean it was built to do so. Just like any tube found isn't necessarily a cannon.

My favourite is telescopes. I mean are we really to believe that the ancients used curved mirrors to enlarge their faces for make up and they didn't turn this facility to their apparent obsession with astronomy. It takes less than a minute to make a very very powerful telescope with two vanity mirrors. But hey let's stick to believing the most revered devices in Egypt, s america n Asia were just for putting on make up and jangling about in some ritual. It makes makes me laugh.

You are suffering from "we could do it so could they ism", its a belief that if we in the modern world can do x and the ingredients for said x existed in the ancient world then.....they must have done it too.

All ancient civs and cultures had charcoal, sulfur and saltpeter (Potassium nitrate ) but nobody - until as far as we know - the Chinese figured it out and even then it took centuries to get it right. Most could make bronze tubes - but strangely no one built a cannon....

You are still not making that point about igneous rocks clear.

So why is the idea that a rock that was once melted would tend to look melted later on strange to you?

a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans

So why is the idea that a rock that was once melted would tend to look melted later on strange to you?

I think its pretty clear the difference , these are granites and bricks. Jordan turned these to glass with a sun dish just by pointing the beam at them.








Any unbiased reviewer would agree these samples compare well to the ancient examples in this paper. Well at least a lot better than polishing as some fools suggest.

pictures of ancient vitrified stones

As for the we can do it ism, you seem to be suffering from the ancients were idiotism . clearly your gunpowder example is complicated so is a cannon. This glass making just involves putting whatever you find in front of a simple beam. Just like the example of the cotton you picked out. Now we have reports from China, s america, Greece etc of them lighting fires are you really suggesting they didn't put anything else in the beam just like that kid in the video. He vitrified stone before your eyes. Don't bother waiting for him to fire up a furnace. Really is this the best convention wisdom has to offer in resistance to such a simple idea.

As for Watkins I'm sure anyone reading knows the difference between a geoscience paper and an accepted historical paper. You are just being obtuse to try and win a point. The mainstream history dudes hate anything outside of their domain changing stuff too much. They've rejected Watkins proposal left and right. Its only in the public domain because science isn't like history. If it works publish. History is about consensus CON being the operator. No wonder people are so bored with the mainstream teachings its an embarrassment to learning.

As for melting points of rocks they are much higher than fracture temps. A stone will fracture at much lower temps which is what Jordan shows with the tile obviously.

Best

Will

a reply to: will2learn

First you need to work on your quoting function

Second - you have not provide a link showing 'Jordan' doing anything, please do so

As for Watkins I'm sure anyone reading knows the difference between a geoscience paper and an accepted historical paper.

No idea what you are talking about

The mainstream history dudes hate anything outside of their domain changing stuff too much.

Oh nice fringe cliche is that why science has made so many changes in the last 200 years? I didn't notice history being static......lol, when did it stop changing, state the year...

They've rejected Watkins proposal left and right.

Which is what science does when the evidence doesn't support the contention.

Its only in the public domain because science isn't like history. If it works publish. History is about consensus CON being the operator.

I haven't seen that lame piece of propaganda for a quite awhile.....

No wonder people are so bored with the mainstream teachings its an embarrassment to learning.

Man a whole trunk load of meaningless comments showing fringe frustration with science not accepting the fringe theory of the day. That happens and continues to happen.

Wannna guess why?

a reply to: Hanslune

Hans

So absolutely no comment on the technique all these guys have been talking about. Just defending the indefensible with regards to historical attitudes. You are wrong about Watkins his work is freely accepted in the scientific community, just seems those historians haven't a clue about science old or new. They borrow the kudos when they can abuse techniques like carbon dating and carry on like chumps ignorant of the true scientific method.

You clearly do not like the criticism of mainstream archaeology or the false logic being shown up. Are you a faculty member :-)

You didn't say whether or not you could tell the difference between those natural melted rocks and the sun dish melted ones. Do you not like new information that changes your perspective or just dislike your assumptions being shown to be false. Please state clearly for the forum whether you can spot the difference otherwise the readers might be forgiven for thinking you ate defending conventional wisdom at all cost :-)

As for people demonstrating the methods, why should they when there's dozens of people on YouTube already demonstrating the power of these simple devices. Personally I like that kid who goes through the methods one by one. He vitrified a bit of stone quickly for the cameras. I did see jordan demo ceramics making at that ancient ceramics conference he pointed me to examples in Cambodia.

He suggested I look at a statue in Phnom Penh that I found in his book. He didn't mention that there were statues made from stone from the same area that were polished, they were shiny grey, the vitrified statue was so glaringly different I needed no more convincing. You could see clearly from breaks in the statues that the underlying stones were the same. The glimmering light dispersing glaze on the vit stone had a skin a milimeter or two thick. The polished stone wasn't even a hairs thickness. The way the finish had started to peel was also markedly different. I guess you would only notice if you knew what to look for.

Will

originally posted by: will2learn
a reply to: Harte

Harte

You are clearly getting irritated by this very simple idea and seem to be trying to limit it to ancient Egypt and nickel n dining it to death.

You keep bleating on about bronze mirrors it makes no difference! They work so do the gold ones. Check the end of tuts bed. Check out the refs Hans had below for proof of the curve. When tested they are proven. Seems curators guardianship of the devices is your only defensive hope.

You assume too much about me, and believe too much of what you read.

From Han's link:

In respect to their use for fire making purposes, the only successful experience was obtained with one spherical mirror by Ekholm3 in 1973, probably using dry wood, reported in a paper at the "Congreso degli Americaniste" in Rome. That article could not be found neither by us nor by other archaeologists1, who also tried to obtain fire, unsuccessfully. A description of the operation was not available to us. The Inca Garcilaso de la Vega wrote, in his "Libro Sexto de los Comentários Reales de los Incas", ch. XXII, that the way the Incas made sacred fire was by using a "highly burnished concave bowl, in the shape of a half orange, and where the sun rays concentrated, they put a piece of not burned cotton, which is very flammable". Garcilaso wrote in old Spanish, an intricate language of Cervantes's times. Concave bowls similar to the ones reported by Garcilaso can be found at a collection in Lima, Peru, made on gold7. Nordeskiold3 and also Cooper3 expressed serious doubts about Garcilaso's report. In our consultation to bibliographic references we did not found any mention to the "not burned cotton" technique, which seems to be of great help in making fire because it dries and blackens the cotton, making it very absorbing to the luminous energy.

Note the emphasized portion in particular.

Not a chance in hell the Egyptians made parabolic dishes, you have gotta be kidding! Maybe it was only proven in s america, China n Asia before and after AE.

Please provide any evidence whatsoever of any parabolic mirror at all from ancient Egypt.

You talk a lot. I note that you provide no evidence at all for what you claim.

Funny its possible to do all of Moses OT miracles with one, didn't he supposedly spring fourth from Armana?

No, what's actually funny here is that you would use Moses as some sort of point in your argument.

I think you must be looking at de Jong's photos with blinkers on. The layers are clearly milimeters thick. That's not from polishing. They refract light polish just reflects I'm guessing you know the difference and why.

I note that your source can't tell us what the surface layer is. Why is that?

Could it possibly be because he knows what it is, and it doesn't support his woo claims?

The sample de bJong tested was as you put it thought to be shiny stones. The test prove absolutely they were ceramic fired ceramic just like the pot it was compared to. Really what is your game. Have another read of that paper your dimes n nickels won't get any change.

All you provided was a spectral analysis that showed not a thing about any vitrification at all. Such analyses are incapable of showing vitrification. Do you think maybe that's why he chose to use such an analysis in the first place?

In your mind, this is simply not possible?

Harte

originally posted by: will2learn
a reply to: Hanslune

Hans

So absolutely no comment on the technique all these guys have been talking about. Just defending the indefensible with regards to historical attitudes. You are wrong about Watkins his work is freely accepted in the scientific community, just seems those historians haven't a clue about science old or new. They borrow the kudos when they can abuse techniques like carbon dating and carry on like chumps ignorant of the true scientific method.

I'm still waiting for you to link to a source showing what type of mirror you keep talking about, I've asked several times, yet each time you refuse - why is that? I'd like to see if this Jordan is using an authentic Inca mirror or is using modern technology and make believing that the Inca had it?

Link please or concede the point

You clearly do not like the criticism of mainstream archaeology or the false logic being shown up. Are you a faculty member :-)

I like criticism of archaeology but not fringe cliche's which are meaningless which is all you are throwing around to avoid providing a link - I'm sure you know the difference.

lol

a reply to: Hanslune

Hans

Can u be specific about what an authentic incan mirror is?

You are clearly trying to make a point like the indistinguishable glass or the impossibility of fracturing rocks with shaving mirrors. What is it before I search the books for the various types of reconstructions. Or you could answer your own question n tell us all which of these mirrors are not parabolic. Try here sun disks

Which I noticed also had an ancient sun dish of Jordan's on it.
I'm still waiting for you to concede the following

1 curve dishes can cut and melt stone
2 they had curved dishes in the past
3 the texts describe burning mirrors
4 the OT miracles can be created with these dishes
5 there's plenty of videos showing these miracles
6 you are just playing devils advocate

I asked jordan to comment n he said he got deleted from here and all his answers were deleted. Seems its beyond about be top secret. What is there some uber posting elite in here who decide who can or can't post?

Don't like n idea eliminate n remove proponents. We know where that ends

Will

a reply to: will2learn

If Jordan came here and flogged his book they would have deleted him; as they do anyone who advertises stuff without their permission and paying the fee.

My question again is

With an authentic Inca mirror can you cut rock? You seem to keep referring back to modern high tech mirrors.

1 curve dishes can cut and melt stone
2 they had curved dishes in the past
3 the texts describe burning mirrors
4 the OT miracles can be created with these dishes
5 there's plenty of videos showing these miracles
6 you are just playing devils advocate

1. Yes using modern high tech mirror systems- did the Inca have those?
2. Yes, see comment above
3. ?
4. Not really but perhaps you believe that
5. Videos are not proof you should have PRP to support this
6. I'm trying to get you to answer questions that you don't seem to want to answer.

a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans

I didn't see the discussion jordan entered into but apparently it was a long one about the nature of the shrines. The ptb in ATS discussed n discussed until they could find no hole in what was being said and then deleted everything discussed citing rules long after the debate had gone on. Were u a party to said discussion. Is this why Myers doesn't discuss in here too?

As for the mirrors I've asked you repeatedly what u mean specifically about incan mirrors? If u are asking the ridiculous q has anyone got hold of the gold mirrors housed in the Spanish n s american museumsvand tested them I think even an idiot would know thevwnswer to that.

If you are asking have decent copies been made with a variety of materials better and worse than those on hand in antiquity I'd say yes. Worse because gold is by far the best reflector. Reflective plastics and silver backed glass are much worse than the mirrors found in the tomb goods.

Is there any technique like that mosaic tile example the kid made or a curved mirror based on the ancient techniques jordan describes that could not have been carried out by the artisans of antiquity? Absolutely not.

I re read the burning mirror paper n realised I've been calling these mirRors parabolic which may be true of Greek or later. However jordan talks of spherical mirrors made on potters wheels that are very good approximations to parabolas. Its a subtle difference but the uses remain the same. A simple vanity mirror will light fires n fracture stone. Just like it describes in the texts. I mean really do you honestly think they guessed at these properties.

Will

a reply to: Harte

Harte

I refer to Moses n OT because that's what this threads about, have u forgotten?

You really are beginning to look as ridiculous as the blinkered scholars who try to ignore the existence of vitrified stone.

The sample is NOT limestone on which it is found. It has the composition of a standard ancient ceramic. It is a milimeyer or so thick. Light passes through it and disperses. Its a Mohr's of 5. Its brittle like glass. It feels like glass.

Yet because it doesn't have the expensive x ray crystallography done you the expert say its not glass. Honestly do u check every pane in your house to make sure its glass. Do you run spectroscopy on every mug in your cupboard. Do u seriously think every ceramic pot in a museum has had any of these tests performed?

Honestly this is like being locked in a room with a couple of pitballs nipping around my ankles. The lack of reasoning means u guys keep getting your leads tangled up as you bundle around with these crude criticisms. Maybe you should try your honed critical minds on easier targets like all those ancient tombs assumed built for a corpse. I mean where does it say we dragged stone upon stone to build a tomb. What we've really got is a stiff dumped near something old n big. Find easier fish u ain't making any in roads on this

Will

originally posted by: will2learn
a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans

I didn't see the discussion jordan entered into but apparently it was a long one about the nature of the shrines. The ptb in ATS discussed n discussed until they could find no hole in what was being said and then deleted everything discussed citing rules long after the debate had gone on. Were u a party to said discussion. Is this why Myers doesn't discuss in here too?

Sorry I never heard of Jordan before.

As for the mirrors I've asked you repeatedly what u mean specifically about incan mirrors? If u are asking the ridiculous q has anyone got hold of the gold mirrors housed in the Spanish n s american museumsvand tested them I think even an idiot would know thevwnswer to that.

Ones made by Inca and used in the matter you/Jordan theorize....

If you are asking have decent copies been made with a variety of materials better and worse than those on hand in antiquity I'd say yes. Worse because gold is by far the best reflector. Reflective plastics and silver backed glass are much worse than the mirrors found in the tomb goods.

Well good and how well did they work?

Is there any technique like that mosaic tile example the kid made or a curved mirror based on the ancient techniques jordan describes that could not have been carried out by the artisans of antiquity? Absolutely not.

As I noted before you are assuming that since we could do it the ancient could - remember my gunpowder example, can you show that the Inca built 'high tech' mirrors?

I re read the burning mirror paper n realised I've been calling these mirRors parabolic which may be true of Greek or later. However jordan talks of spherical mirrors made on potters wheels that are very good approximations to parabolas. Its a subtle difference but the uses remain the same. A simple vanity mirror will light fires n fracture stone. Just like it describes in the texts. I mean really do you honestly think they guessed at these properties.

Then that remains the central question can you do what you theorize with a reproduction Inca mirror?

I cut Glass with diamonds. The tools have small diamonds that are very small and cant be seen, Diamonds are very strong, extremely hard, and are used to either score the glass, and then apply pressure where the score is. another way is on my CNC machine, the tools are much bigger, but have diamonds also, and cut the glass by milling out, or grindng through the glass. Its a sight to see.

a reply to: LUXUS

Is it your assumption that the ancients understood science but explained it away as divinity to fool masses? or did they not differentiate between science and divinity at all?

Very informative thread. I like the link that explains what the possible Shamir and arc were. It would be beneficial for governments to deny these tales as anything but fables. The possible technology could make all our weapons of mass destruction worthless.

I'm sure there is something to this laser like technology. Humans aren't really that creative, where did they get the ideas for lasers from long ago? Maybe from these ancient writings, maybe from some incredible intelligence that steers this world.

originally posted by: rickymouse

It would be beneficial for governments to deny these tales as anything but fables.

Like, Israel, Pakistan, China, north Korea and Iran? I would suspect they would very much want to use such technology.

originally posted by: will2learn
a reply to: Harte

Harte

I refer to Moses n OT because that's what this threads about, have u forgotten?

And it's just as ridiculous now as I said it was earlier.

originally posted by: will2learnYou really are beginning to look as ridiculous as the blinkered scholars who try to ignore the existence of vitrified stone.

Hmmm...
You look as ridiculous as the greedy lying con men that claim the stone is vitrified in order to make more money on ignorant New Age tourists itching to satisfy their own confirmation biases.

originally posted by: will2learnThe sample is NOT limestone on which it is found. It has the composition of a standard ancient ceramic. It is a milimeyer or so thick. Light passes through it and disperses. Its a Mohr's of 5. Its brittle like glass. It feels like glass.

"Looks like" and "feels like" are subjective terms.

The only think you've produced for us is the analysis report, which says not a single word about what the sample looked or felt like. Nor does it mention hardness or transparency.

If you believe that the surface differs from the underlying stone, then please tell us - in what way is this "vitrification?"

Heat can't create new elements in the surface of the stone. You have yet to show that your analysis - assuming it is valid and of a sample from the stone you claim - differs from the constituent elements in the underlying stone.

If this is vitrification, the analysis of elements should be exactly the same. If it is a glaze, then it shouldn't be. But like I already pointed out, not all glazes require any great heat, and no glaze requires enough heat to vitrify stone.

originally posted by: will2learnYet because it doesn't have the expensive x ray crystallography done you the expert say its not glass. Honestly do u check every pane in your house to make sure its glass.

If some idiot online said my windows were made of vitrified limestone, no. If vitrified limestone windows were worth money to me, then yes.

originally posted by: will2learn Do you run spectroscopy on every mug in your cupboard. Do u seriously think every ceramic pot in a museum has had any of these tests performed?

Are you under the impression that a ceramic mug is no different than a vitrified stone mug?

originally posted by: will2learnHonestly this is like being locked in a room with a couple of pitballs nipping around my ankles.

No, it's more like two guys with a flyswatter, both killing the same minuscule gnat simultaneously.

Harte