34 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Here is a short clip of some highly intriguing precision stonework.  Very difficult to explain.  Watch carefully.

[lilthor]

Amazing stonework.  Dare I say...astonishing.

In fact, only the chronically anesthetized would fail to find it so.  

[zoser]

lilthor, on 17 May 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Amazing stonework.  Dare I say...astonishing.

In fact, only the chronically anesthetized would fail to find it so.  

I totally agree; that this information gets written out of mainstream history is totally criminal.  Something mysterious clearly was used to bore that hole; the grooves testify to something other than a rotary tool otherwise the scoring would be spiral and not straight.  Also how long was the tool?  The questions are endless.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 17 May 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

I totally agree; that this information gets written out of mainstream history is totally criminal.  Something mysterious clearly was used to bore that hole; the grooves testify to something other than a rotary tool otherwise the scoring would be spiral and not straight.  Also how long was the tool?  The questions are endless.

You may want to read this thread:

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=226518

Or else a couple of useful links:

http://forum.bodybui...43234453&page=1

http://www.oocities....ase_making.html

http://hbar.phys.msu...nold/arnold.htm

http://www.geocities...ing_drills.html

http://www.geocities.../Tomb_3111.html

[lilthor]

Abramelin, on 17 May 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

You may want to read this thread:

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=226518

Or else a couple of useful links:

http://forum.bodybui...43234453&page=1

http://www.oocities....ase_making.html

http://hbar.phys.msu...nold/arnold.htm

http://www.geocities...ing_drills.html

http://www.geocities.../Tomb_3111.html

And yet, to date, no one has been able to accurately reproduce the features seen on these heavy blocks (flat surfaces, large holes, etc.) using the claimed techniques.

4,500 years later and NOT ONE accurate reproduction to prove how it was done...just a bunch of cartoon sketches offered as "proof".

Yet 4,500 years ago they made thousands.

I am unconvinced.  I'd like to see someone create a (small) 300 cm cube of granite with smooth, accurate faces and a straight, 80mm hole through it just using the tools named in those links.  Shouldn't be too difficult, right?  No inside corners or anything complex.

In about one man-year of labor, using a laborer of average skill, I guarantee it would look like crap.

[itsnotoutthere]

so how do you think it was done?

[lilthor]

itsnotoutthere, on 17 May 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

so how do you think it was done?

I do not know.  And I am not too proud to admit it.

The better question is, why do those who claim to be the standard-bearers of "science", so completely abandon the scientific method in cases like this and refuse to test their hypotheses.  Suddenly, cartoons are sufficient as evidence.

The answer, sadly, seems to be that they know there is much more to the story, but ARE too proud to admit it.

[Abramelin]

lilthor, on 17 May 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

And yet, to date, no one has been able to accurately reproduce the features seen on these heavy blocks (flat surfaces, large holes, etc.) using the claimed techniques.

4,500 years later and NOT ONE accurate reproduction to prove how it was done...just a bunch of cartoon sketches offered as "proof".

Yet 4,500 years ago they made thousands.

I am unconvinced.  I'd like to see someone create a (small) 300 cm cube of granite with smooth, accurate faces and a straight, 80mm hole through it just using the tools named in those links.  Shouldn't be too difficult, right?  No inside corners or anything complex.

In about one man-year of labor, using a laborer of average skill, I guarantee it would look like crap.

I guess you already know what I think: the methods described in that thread and those links look highly plausible, but I want to see a demonstration too.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 17 May 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

I totally agree; that this information gets written out of mainstream history is totally criminal.  Something mysterious clearly was used to bore that hole; the grooves testify to something other than a rotary tool otherwise the scoring would be spiral and not straight.  Also how long was the tool?  The questions are endless.

Why are we to assume the grooves were made as the hole was being bored?

[lilthor]

Abramelin, on 17 May 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

I guess you already know what I think: the methods described in that thread and those links look highly plausible, but I want to see a demonstration too.

Yep...I'd for sure watch THAT episode of Myth Busters.

[calaf]

Perhaps it's my overactive imagination, but- it seems that those scatches inside the bore coincide with fault lines in the stones which the boring process somehow accentuated. Check the end of the stone adjacent to the scratch, especially in the second bore shown.

[kmt_sesh]

Oniomancer, on 17 May 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Why are we to assume the grooves were made as the hole was being bored?

That's a fair question and deserves further consideration.

At the very least, when watching the video in zoser's OP, it's best to turn off your volume and just enjoy the camera shots. This is another of those videos produced for hiddenincatours.com, whose main man proudly affiliates himself with Ancient Aliens and espouses "lost technologies" and other fringe twaddle. Therefore, the credibility of the script for this video is immediately suspect, which is why turning off the volume is warranted. Nice shots of stonework, though.

While I'll be the first skeptic to admit we don't have all of the answers and have likely forgotten many stone-working methods commonly used by ancient craftsmen, I think we can do a little better and exercise some critical thinking rather than allowing ourselves to degenerate into a sci-fi mentality.

[Oniomancer]

calaf, on 17 May 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Perhaps it's my overactive imagination, but- it seems that those scatches inside the bore coincide with fault lines in the stones which the boring process somehow accentuated. Check the end of the stone adjacent to the scratch, especially in the second bore shown.

I had the same thought, except they don't continue through the other side of the bore. But then I've seen zone lines peter out in the middle of a rock before.

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 17 May 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

I had the same thought, except they don't continue through the other side of the bore. But then I've seen zone lines peter out in the middle of a rock before.

BTW it's nice to be here again.  Apologies for causing such a storm.  You can't be serious when you say that these stone marvels were the produce of indigenous Indians using pounding tools?  So how did they bore out the hole?  What was the tool?  What was the motive power?  How fast was the cutting speed?  What caused the grooves (rotating tools do not do that; common sense?), what was it's purpose?, how did they achieve the high precision joints?  

I'm waiting.  Sorry to be a pain.

Z

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 18 May 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

BTW it's nice to be here again.  Apologies for causing such a storm.  You can't be serious when you say that these stone marvels were the produce of indigenous Indians using pounding tools?

Now where did I say that?

Quote

So how did they bore out the hole?  What was the tool?  What was the motive power?  How fast was the cutting speed?

If you're going to debate this stuff, you really have to pay attention to all the arguments. The types of tools available to the Inca and their predecessors have been brought up before in other threads.

Quote

What caused the grooves (rotating tools do not do that; common sense?), what was it's purpose?, how did they achieve the high precision joints?  

I'm waiting.  Sorry to be a pain.

Z

Do the local stations air police procedurals on your lonely little island Zoser? Stuff like Bones or CSI? In forensics, there's specific emphasis on whether  a given wound or mark occurred antimortem, parimortem or postmortem. That is, before, during or after death. Do you see what I'm getting at?  And I'll make the same point I made in QM's thread, If you can lay out and carve a perfectly square block with nothing but steel hand chisels and a square, why is it such a stretch from there to stone tools using the exact same method, only slower?