mcrom901 Posted March 4, 2013 #8101 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Corresponding logistics. a crucial factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted March 4, 2013 #8102 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) I think that most people here get it. Except poor zoser of course. Bottom line - The claim of ancient aliens is as far away from being proven as ever. No matter how many times one throws around the "Advanced cutting = advanced civilisation = deeply ancient = visitors" slogan. To prove alien visitation (in the present or back in ancient times) we need something with a little more substance than a question mark being answered with "what else could it have been". The matter of alien visitation will be decided by the evidence not by the intensity of opinion. Whats being offered by zoser doesnt even bear a passing resemblance to such,... his assertion falls far short of any standard of scientific proof. Edited March 4, 2013 by Hazzard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted March 4, 2013 #8103 Share Posted March 4, 2013 o_O You must have tough hands. Remind me never to hire you to refinish furniture either. Well I meant on metal surfaces ... but you knew that ... on wood usually we scrape it off then sand down carefully when dried, using solvents might discolor or damage the wood They're strong enough that they were used to secure spear heads and drill points, etc. I would think cutting stone would be different than cutting wood. The biggest problem with wood saws is it gums up the cutting edge. I found too a fine coat of dirt blocks any residual stickiness. I was referring to copper and grit alone BTW, which has been demonstrated by stocks. I know, thing is the demonstrations is usually for a one off instance showing the viability of the idea, paints probable picture but for long term practice and use problems arises which makes it less convincing. Its easier for adhesives to stick fast to stone/hard surfaces than wood ... as wood splinters the adhesion bond breaks, but it just increases the workload and slows down progress much too much to considered 'negligible' Going back to zoser's stone, the fine trailing end of the saw cut is a rip, fissure when the sawed part peeled away. The saw didn't go as deep or as fine as believed. I think it's an end piece of a bigger block. Can't be sure unless I'm there ... Power saws are the way it's normally cut in the rest of the world. The blade can be quite thin and the saws are water lubricated. They give pretty fine cuts. Usually these gem mining communities don't have access to the sophisticated machinery we have today, don't really trust them much either, the cutting process isn't a cut and go ... it's like opening a present ... sometimes angles have to be changed, surfaces shifted because the center of the stone turned out to be not as expected from the outer. The linked example situation differs from today's industrial gravel stone/marble harvesting as it is closer to gem standard harvested stone 'cottage industry' from times of old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBunker Posted March 4, 2013 #8104 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I think that most people here get it. Except poor zoser of course. Bottom line - The claim of ancient aliens is as far away from being proven as ever. No matter how many times one throws around the "Advanced cutting = advanced civilisation = deeply ancient = visitors" slogan. To prove alien visitation (in the present or back in ancient times) we need something with a little more substance than a question mark being answered with "what else could it have been". The matter of alien visitation will be decided by the evidence not by the intensity of opinion. Whats being offered by zoser doesnt even bear a passing resemblance to such,... his assertion falls far short of any standard of scientific proof. I could not agree more. Good post, hazz. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted March 4, 2013 #8105 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Or using the equivalent of sand paper... To produce flat stone surfaces, you slide two stones of equal strength back and forth. After a lot of work, both stones will have a flat surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted March 4, 2013 #8106 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Power saws are the way it's normally cut in the rest of the world. The blade can be quite thin and the saws are water lubricated. They give pretty fine cuts. Check out these diamond-tipped band saw blades. They're used in water-cooled masonry saws for cutting granite tiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 4, 2013 #8107 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) 0:34, what does he say? "it's even all the way through" Trolling, or more of that famous short attention span of yours? Stocks' saw did not have teeth. Stocks' saw did not "shred". The usage ratio was 1-3 mm. Hardly rediculous. All old, old news for this thread. Now we know that other means than cutting were used to shape rocks, so how much cutting was actually done? I'm betting it was no where near enough to bankrupt their copper supply. Not to mention they also had bronze besides the copper. Those figures are just for stocks' method too. How do we know the AE didn't have a more efficient method? Oh, and zoser? The copper is not doing the cutting! Get that through your head! There, I said it. I feel better. Utterly ridiculous. Copper will not cut that. Far too thin; razor blade thin in places, visible on the left and the right. Copper would shred instantly. Steel would struggle. Show me what stocks did and I'll listen. The hole cutting by Stocks was utterly unconvincing. Far too much copper usage for too little result. The holes were way too small to be credible in depth. Then consider that cut in the block; two feet or three feet wide? You have no proof that the Inca had saws that thin. The chroniclers never mentioned it. It had to be ancient, and means not known to mainstream archaeology. So without lots of bickering and denying. Show me where Stocks did it please. To that depth (say 1m high block, and a 3mm cut). Prove that if you would. Otherwise all you have is unsubstantiated claims. Edited March 4, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBunker Posted March 4, 2013 #8108 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Prove that if you would. Otherwise all you have is unsubstantiated claims. The irony. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted March 4, 2013 #8109 Share Posted March 4, 2013 You have no proof that the Inca had saws that thin. The chroniclers never mentioned it. That would be the "we burnt everything because they're heathens and they didn't give us all the gold when we told them to" chroniclers right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 4, 2013 #8110 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Zoser, you found anything, yet? From Peru to the Middle East. Zoser strikes again. Game over boys. Conventional sawing impossible. The surface is concave! Shades of Puma Punku perhaps? No further comment required. Edited March 4, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted March 4, 2013 #8111 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Why would conventional sawing not be possible if the surface was Concave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 4, 2013 #8112 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Why would conventional sawing not be possible if the surface was Concave? Think it through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted March 4, 2013 #8113 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I have done. Care to elaborate further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted March 4, 2013 #8114 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Actually I haven't got time now, i have to go & see to a rabbit. c u 2moro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted March 4, 2013 #8115 Share Posted March 4, 2013 -SNIP- Show me where Stocks did it please. To that depth (say 1m high block, and a 3mm cut). Prove that if you would. Otherwise all you have is unsubstantiated claims. Talking of which, since you're the engineer and all, how about you show us in small scale how it's done and post it on youtube. Seen from your own link, the only thing you need is a tuning fork of larger size and a hammer.... Unless you can show us in a movie, since that is the standard you use to measure the truth, all you have is unsubstantiated claims. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted March 4, 2013 #8116 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Its hard to answer on all posts just one small correction to Onionmancer and co. Copper cant cut a wood. Copper usage was for show. Hierarchy. Not for cuting stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 4, 2013 #8117 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Its hard to answer on all posts just one small correction to Onionmancer and co. Copper cant cut a wood. Copper usage was for show. Hierarchy. Not for cuting stones. Now you've done it. I would run and hide if I were you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted March 4, 2013 #8118 Share Posted March 4, 2013 From Peru to the Middle East. Zoser strikes again. Game over boys. No further comment required. A link from were those pictures came from, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 4, 2013 #8119 Share Posted March 4, 2013 A link from were those pictures came from, perhaps? From Egypt, Peru, Bolivia, Turkey, Easter Island............ The technology and artefacts vary little. Neither does the truth Haz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted March 4, 2013 #8120 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Think it through. That's Zoser realizing he said something provably wrong. Expect a sudden topic change from him as he runs into a new corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted March 4, 2013 #8121 Share Posted March 4, 2013 From Egypt, Peru, Bolivia, Turkey, Easter Island............ The technology and artefacts vary little. Neither does the truth Haz. I meant the link from where you got the pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted March 4, 2013 #8122 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Its hard to answer on all posts just one small correction to Onionmancer and co. Copper cant cut a wood. Copper usage was for show. Hierarchy. Not for cuting stones. Except in this case it is the sand abrasive doing the cutting and not the copper itself. The copper just facilitates the process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted March 4, 2013 #8123 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Now you've done it. I would run and hide if I were you. Its hard core history facts. Truth defends me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted March 4, 2013 #8124 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Except in this case it is the sand abrasive doing the cutting and not the copper itself. The copper just facilitates the process. Why would they if they have had iron? Copper cuts stones-Its just one of set up theories. Working hypothesis. From where people who trust in it start to search archaeological evidence for such. Copper was not tool. It was accesories. Decoration. For show. Like gold. It was among first metals that we use because of softness. Try cut granite with Au... Edited March 4, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted March 4, 2013 #8125 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Why would they if they have had iron? Who had iron? The Inca? The Ancient Egyptians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts