One man, One 26,000lb stone, one 2 pound hammer.

reply to post by benrl


I love how when people find something like this (or Ed Leedskalnin's Coral Castle) and they go, "See! Humans are smart. Mystery solved."

I give plenty of credit to our ancestors for their magnificent achievements and abilities.

Still LOTS to explain and account for.

S & F for posting something very cool, regardless.

vind21

One example would be Harte's lack of understanding regarding stone hardness and how abrassive cutting is accomplished. You could try for decades to cut granite with copper but you wouldn't even scratch the surface. The hardness of granite is far higher than copper. Those with practical experience would know that. This is where archeology falls short....

reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

I suppose I'll have to make you a video of me cutting a block of solid granite with some beach sand and a flat copper alloy block of the same copper alloy the Egyptians used for their tools. Takes about 90 minutes to cut a 3 inch channel.

All you need is high quartz content sand, a rectangular piece of copper alloy, about a 1/2 inch thick, and 16 inches longer than whatever it is you're cutting so you can get a good 8 inches of travel. It's a bit of a pain in the butt to start but once the channel gets about 3mm deep, its a pretty easy process. The heavier and flatter piece of copper the better. I found that doing a fast rough cut with a chisel on the block where Im going to make the cut makes getting it going alot easier.

I'd also recommend wrapping the "handle" end of the copper with some rope or other insulation, that stuff get HOT fast.

Copper alloy.. You mean Bronze? right?

Seriously though... I'd love to see a video... take your time but if you do make one... please let me know.

I'm not disputing that granite or basalt can be cut with abbrasive techniques.

...You sound like you're familiar with stone cutting. Please... go to the link I posted. Look at the stones and cuts. Look at the saw marks. Look at the overcuts. Look at the precision. Then tell me you can reproduce those same cuts and marks with the crude tool you describe.

Then.... look up Puma Punku and explain how you would accomplish those cuts using modern tools.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


And, also, remember to talk about the time commitment to using such techniques and why documenting the process seems to always be non-existent, quite often.

yes... and he'll also need to demonstrate a cut, using the crude Copper alloy tool that maintaines a mean variation from a straight line no greater than 0.1 inch. for at least 75"

reply to post by Blarneystoner


I did check them out. I will agree that if you were to take a piece of copper, or copper nickel, or whatever and try to cut granite, all you would end up with is a sore arm, and some bloody knuckles and possibly a nice piece of copper sticking out of your hand.

Abrasive cutting of granite SUCKS, seriously took me like 2 days to make any real progress at first, but once a channel developed, it was dramatic the speed at which it cuts. About 90 minutes for a 3 inch channel.

I would consider a man powered abrasive saw a tool. It certainly took tools to cut those stones. Abrasive cutting certainly does not explain all the artifacts found.

I have spent a fare amount of time with stone, I have a geophysics degree from Texas ATM, and have always had a strange fascination with building from stone (in fact I think wood should be done away with in modern construction entirely) so here's my take on it.

If me and 4 friends, can get drunk and move about 12 tons of stone to build "Man Dam 2011" in a single afternoon so we can block enough water to make a swimming hole (the rocks where round with an average diameter of 3 feet and made of lime stone, then I took a hammer to them and shapped them) and I can cut granite with hand tools after only spending about 5 days in trial and error, then Im SURE that others could do alot better.

Ancient society was way better than ours today in alot of ways. Building these monuments was the persons's 9-5. This is what they did, day after day, broke rocks. If you have ever worked with real professional tradesmen you know they can get serious about their work. I can only imagine the kinds of experts that a society where a large part of the population was devoted to a single type of work, would produce some serious professionals.

I also belive the pyramids and alot of the construction along the band of peace in egypt pre-date the Egyptians. I think it's pretty obvious when you look at the workmanship. Most of us have never been to these sites, we have simply been shown a few pictures from someone's predetermined perspective.

As far as balbek in concerned, all one has to do is watch AA debunked to get a really good perspective of that site. The parts the Romans built, and the parts pre-exsisting the Romans, are there in plain sight.

I have part of the block of granite I cut, but I do not have an copper billets. I recently saw a good video of people doing some very similar cutting, I will consider making a video but it feels kind of wasted unless I can document that I do indeed have the same copper alloy used and prove it scientifically, otherwise it's a lot of work to just have someone scoff at it saying " he used the wrong stuff."

Blarneystoner
yes... and he'll also need to demonstrate a cut, using the crude Copper alloy tool that maintaines a mean variation from a straight line no greater than 0.1 inch. for at least 75"

Heh I doubt I'm that good, but I can measure the cut I did make as I still have part of the block. The heavier the "saw" the more even the cut.

You need to realize though that in the pictures you posted, the cuts are not even, they are angled, where they started the inital cut on the side of the block to get a channel going. The cuts were probably smoothed out using something other than copper.


Also why 75" you have any idea how much a piece of granite that size costs lol? My block is about 25inches in width and 12 inches thick.

Also:

And, also, remember to talk about the time commitment to using such techniques and why documenting the process seems to always be non-existent, quite often.

Are you implying you want to watch a 14 hour video of some dude repeatadly dropping a piece of copper, drinking beer, and being laughed at while sand blows in thier face cause they decided to start on the down wind side of the block like a tard

reply to post by Blarneystoner


thanks for the link!

reply to post by vind21


hehe... yep. I'm a lapidary stone cutter. I use damond scintered blades to cut agates and jaspers. Both are comparable MOH to Granite and Basalt. I agree that a tradesman would be more efficient and use advanced techniques.

What I'm saying is... the tools that archeologists attribute to those ancient stone cutters are insuficient to do the work. They must have had other, more sofisticated tools and I think there is evidence of that. Circular saw marks left behind look very familiar to someone who has cut stones with that type of blade.

And man... I tell ya... I have no idea how the cuts were made at Puma Punku. I'm not an expert by any means but I've seen interviews with masters who just scratch their heads.... It's a nice mystery and we may never know the answer to.

Also why 75" you have any idea how much a piece of granite that size costs lol? My block is about 25inches in width and 12 inches thick.

One example cited on the page I linked. A mean variation of 0.1" from a straight line along a 75" cut... Amazing...

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Have you ever watched Ancient Aliens Debunked?


AAD: YouTube

Really good info regardless of your stance on aliens or whatever, they collected some good links.

There is an accompanying website with good literature on how those cuts were made. THOSE I will not be trying to duplicate lol, hell with that.

I'd give you better links but Im just about to leave work and the site is blocked as malware for whatever reason.

There is no way Im shelling out the cash for a 75" piece of granite, unless I can find some old counter tops someone is selling, but then that's really not the same thing and the block wouldn't be more than an inch or so thick. Is it really fair to require me to replicate one of the most outstanding and profound examples, that's kinda like saying I don't believe you can fly unless you can build an F22 raptor in your garage.

Blarneystoner
reply to post by vind21

 

hehe... yep. I'm a lapidary stone cutter. I use damond scintered blades to cut agates and jaspers. Both are comparable MOH to Granite and Basalt. I agree that a tradesman would be more efficient and use advanced techniques.

What I'm saying is... the tools that archeologists attribute to those ancient stone cutters are insuficient to do the work. They must have had other, more sofisticated tools and I think there is evidence of that. Circular saw marks left behind look very familiar to someone who has cut stones with that type of blade.

So can you tell the difference between a cut made by 'circular' saw and a saw using abrasion. If the AE had an advance saw, why did they bash out stones with other stones and where did these magical saws come from?

Did the Sumerians also have magic circular saws too?

Think for a moment what technology you would need for a circular saw......

And man... I tell ya... I have no idea how the cuts were made at Puma Punku. I'm not an expert by any means but I've seen interviews with masters who just scratch their heads.... It's a nice mystery and we may never know the answer to.

Also why 75" you have any idea how much a piece of granite that size costs lol? My block is about 25inches in width and 12 inches thick.

One example cited on the page I linked. A mean variation of 0.1" from a straight line along a 75" cut... Amazing...

edit on 25-10-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

Carefully, skillfully and with a great deal of elbow grease!

Vasa Croe
Here is an illustration of what has been discussed in regards to moving these large stones.

I would imagine rollers of that size would need a completely level, and flat surface to support the weight of the foundation stones at Baalbek. Virtually no resistance could be allowed in order to not hinder the momentum of the stones moving forward on the rollers. Any variances would cause the rollers to gouge into the road, it would be extremally critical to maintain a flat road surface.

Any maps and pictures of the areas surrounding the Temple at Baalbek and the quarry itself looks to be quite hilly, with no evidence for any past excavation of land needed to form the type of path or road from quarry to temple.

Does anyone here have any links,showing evidence of excavation for the road used to move the stones?

It is highly probable, that the Egyptians did have circular saws.

Here is a picture of the "Boat pits of Giza"

Quite possibly saw pits for large circular saws, although don't hold me to that I have not looked into any debunking of that idea.

Boat Pits of Giza

I would imagine rollers of that size would need a completely level, and flat surface to support the weight of the foundation stones at Baalbek. Virtually no resistance could be allowed in order to not hinder the momentum of the stones moving forward on the rollers.

Well have you considered the problems of STOPPING a stone of that size rolling DOWNHILL as the quarry would suggest??

I would HIGHLY suggest you guys watching AADebunked as a lot of this is covered and supported with evidence.

Specifically the moving of the Stones at Balbek for the retaining wall. Also the tools used to make the carvings in the stones of puma punku.

I mean come on, you guys are talking about a people who invented concrete that hardens under water and built entire cities out of the stuff in the bay around Alexandria, I think they could manage rolling a stone down a hill.

That's it for me for today gtg.

reply to post by vind21


I have seen AA Debunked. The Documentary didn't answer that question. It didn't even address the question concerning a level path from quarry to Temple.

reply to post by crawdad1914


AA Debunked, also doesn't really address the movement of the stones other than showing the rollers that might have been used and showing a smaller stone used in a Temple 1 country over, as "proof" that Baalbek is no real mystery.

I actually enjoyed the AA Debunked documentary though, and thought it did a decent job of addressing many of the mysteries of the past, but concerning Baalbek it falls short of reasonable explanations. That's my perspective anyways.

I would love to see a university get a bunch of students and volunteers together to simulate cutting and moving, just one stone the size of the foundations stones at Baalbek. Just cut one, lift it out of the rock bed, and move it just 100 feet, and then lift it 30 feet into the air on a platform. The project would put an end to all these questions. If I were a billionaire I would give a grant to the archaeological department finance just such an endeavor!

crawdad1914
reply to post by vind21

 

I have seen AA Debunked. The Documentary didn't answer that question. It didn't even address the question concerning a level path from quarry to Temple.

The absence of an obvious road is not one of the major fringe claims about the site, which was they were debunking.

At any rate, they certainly addressed it:

So, did the Romans have the technology to move and lift such stones?
Well, all you have to do is look one country over to find out. About the same time the Romans were beginning their 200 year project at Baalbek, another project of similar magnitude was beginning by the Roman “client king” Herod “the great” in 19BC.[10]

Herod, using Roman techniques, renovated the temple mount to earn favour with the Jews, who viewed him as a Roman proxy and not a Jew.

The expanded version of the temple was double the size of the original, but in order to make this expansion, he had to incorporate part of the hill to the northeast, which meant that he had to construct a massive retaining wall in order to hold back the force of the earth in order to build the massive platform.

There is a portion of this retaining wall still standing today, and it contains the second largest set of single stones, next to Baalbek.

Just like Baalbek there are several of these stones lined up to form the wall and to provide the weight and size needed to hold back the earth. They call the four largest stones the “Master Course.”[11]

The weight of the heaviest one is 630 tons, only a little over 100 tons less than Baalbek’s biggest stone. And no one denies that these stones were cut, moved and lifted to perfection using Roman and local techniques.[12]

(As a side note, it’s tempting to think the holes visible in theses stones were used for lifting, but these holes were cut after the stones were placed, they were used to hold plaster in place for certain water projects, and only go a few inches deep.)[13]

Anyway is it really logical to believe that the Romans could cut, move and lift 630 ton blocks for retaining walls just fine, but if you added another 100 tons, it would require alien technology? - See more at: ancientaliensdebunked.com...

Harte

reply to post by Hanslune


Haha... that's what I'm talking about. You don't know enough about the subject to ask an intelligent question. A circular stone cutting saw IS an abrasive saw.You can't cut rock without some kind of abrasive. Modern saw blades are scintered with diamond dust.

It's not magic... although it might seem that way to you.

reply to post by Harte


What I am looking for is some evidence of the path needed from quarry to Temple. The topography looks to be quite hilly, and no evidence (that I know of) of a path of a size needed, for teams of men and animals to move stones that size. A road like that cut through the hills should be in evidence today I would think. That's why I asked if anyone knew of a link to the information or pics, since I cant find any.

reply to post by vind21


I don't buy the ancient aliens theory. I just think they had tech that we don't know about or understand yet.

Blarneystoner
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Haha... that's what I'm talking about. You don't know enough about the subject to ask an intelligent question. A circular stone cutting saw IS an abrasive saw.You can't cut rock without some kind of abrasive. Modern saw blades are scintered with diamond dust.

It's not magic... although it might seem that way to you.

In fact I making a point that escaped you. I'll explain it in a simpler way so you can, perhaps, understand.
In AE a powered circular saw would have been considered 'magic', unless of course you believe they were using a manually powered circular saw?

The difficulty with a powered saw of course is multiple levels of technology that AE were not remotely close to.

crawdad1914
reply to post by Harte

 

What I am looking for is some evidence of the path needed from quarry to Temple. The topography looks to be quite hilly, and no evidence (that I know of) of a path of a size needed, for teams of men and animals to move stones that size. A road like that cut through the hills should be in evidence today I would think. That's why I asked if anyone knew of a link to the information or pics, since I cant find any.

Any archaeological studies on the site are difficult to find unless you're fluent in French or German. There is, however, a pretty good bit of info here at ATS about it, in a thread from last year (I believe it was.)

I'd be interested to see any extant evidence of transportation myself, as (I'm sure) would a million other people.

The fact that I can't find it might mean nothing though. Remember how they mentioned in AA Debunked that the area is one of the worst in the entire world for soil erosion? Maybe any remnants are long gone, or maybe any Roman roads built for the project came into use and were later co-opted and improved and paved by the locals.

Let us know if you ever find anything about this.

Harte