Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14
Alphamale06

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

10,149 posts in this topic

Add Peizoelectric and Radiation to the previous list as well. Not sure how I forgot those....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The particles in my diamond blade are bigger than dust. About the size of fine sand. It's a cheap blade though so there aren't too many, and it's imbedded in binder affixed to the surface of a steel disc instead of solid sintered. The particles only have to be in the outer layer, which would fit with seeder's hypothetical. Common sand is mostly quartz so it would abrade anything from quartz on down. That's what stocks used. It's been suggested they crushed flint is more efficient.

My idea would be to use an adhesive to bind a layer of abrasive to the outside of the saw the same way, so the bronze wouldn't even touch the stone.

The only drawback would be possible softening from friction.

THe 'adhesive binder' needs a whole different kind of tech in itself, wood and cloth/leather adhesives are an entirely different kind of beast compared to metal adhesives ... don't believe it was possible then, if there were there would be evidence of it found. This is a very specialized category of technology proposed here. Flints/obsidian sounds viable but again there would be evidence of it found at quarries. Copper, bronze alloy or not is not the same as iron or steel, folding quartz or even flint in it wont work, molten or red hot, they don't behave the same. Ceramic saws would have been easier to incorporate the abrasive components, but again no tools found thus far shows evidence of this is mentioned as far as I know. We're talking of a highly specialized kind of saw here, not just another cutting tool that is used on rocks/stones/boulders/monoliths.

The devices I've seen, mainly using wire, were configured as a bow saw. No more than two people were needed to operate it.

THe bow saw works up to a point dictated by the cut or size of the stone required, it could only be efficient up to a point and not on all kind of stones, brittle stones tend to chip and I don't think harder stones can be sawed with it over certain limited dimensions, the ones I've seen are the small ones, easily operated by one, less dangerous too, the breaking string can hurt someone real bad when the body is loosed, one man one less target plus you feel it better and knows when something is kicking back, with two operating, the one on the 'off' stance won't see it coming. It is of course possible but for the job mentioned here I would say highly unlikely.

Wrong kind of stone, wrong kind of size, wrong kind of cut for this choice of saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe 'adhesive binder' needs a whole different kind of tech in itself, wood and cloth/leather adhesives are an entirely different kind of beast compared to metal adhesives ... don't believe it was possible then, if there were there would be evidence of it found. This is a very specialized category of technology proposed here. Flints/obsidian sounds viable but again there would be evidence of it found at quarries. Copper, bronze alloy or not is not the same as iron or steel, folding quartz or even flint in it wont work, molten or red hot, they don't behave the same. Ceramic saws would have been easier to incorporate the abrasive components, but again no tools found thus far shows evidence of this is mentioned as far as I know. We're talking of a highly specialized kind of saw here, not just another cutting tool that is used on rocks/stones/boulders/monoliths.

I mean just plain gluing it on, no matrix. The AE had access to several tree resins, bitumen and hide glue.

Flint was widely used by the AE as well. Stocks describes a flint chisel discovered during an excavation and several experiments conducted with a replica. I believe he goes into the problem of debris.

THe bow saw works up to a point dictated by the cut or size of the stone required, it could only be efficient up to a point and not on all kind of stones, brittle stones tend to chip and I don't think harder stones can be sawed with it over certain limited dimensions, the ones I've seen are the small ones, easily operated by one, less dangerous too, the breaking string can hurt someone real bad when the body is loosed, one man one less target plus you feel it better and knows when something is kicking back, with two operating, the one on the 'off' stance won't see it coming. It is of course possible but for the job mentioned here I would say highly unlikely.

Wrong kind of stone, wrong kind of size, wrong kind of cut for this choice of saw.

That depends on what you consider small. http://www.palagems.com/ruby_mines_mogok5_pt2.htm 5th picture down. Note the 4th too while you're at it.

One would assume caution would be exercised in it's use. Since they're holding the saw frame though and there also appears to be some slack, there actually seems to be relatively little danger of it snapping back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The particles in my diamond blade are bigger than dust. About the size of fine sand. It's a cheap blade though so there aren't too many, and it's imbedded in binder affixed to the surface of a steel disc instead of solid sintered.

I see particles about the size of small grains of sand (aren't they pretty when the sparkle?) but there may be diamond dust that I can't see. I don't know how the blade was made but it seemed expensive when I bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you get a rock roughly the shape of the hole you wish to fill, you then cover the rock in clay and get a rough fit. The clay is left to harden naturally, (or not maybe)...and so it can simply sanded, very easily, until a precise fit/joint is made. This means less work of course and easy to change the shape by the sanding.

But this would only create material as strong as sun-dried bricks, not stone, right?

Can clay turn into a form of sandstone? If the clay was full of sand 'does' that make it a sandstone? (Bear in mind clay can be red)

I don't think so. If it could, I'd like some!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see particles about the size of small grains of sand (aren't they pretty when the sparkle?) but there may be diamond dust that I can't see. I don't know how the blade was made but it seemed expensive when I bought it.

Yeah, the more expensive the blade, the more diamond and the more surface area it has. You'll notice the turbos are like twice as much as the thin continuous rims. Cheapest one I found was husqvarna at 7.00 and change. That's cheaper even than harbor freight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, we're really all the way to page #536 with this thread? I've certainly missed a lot... Although based on the tone of what little I can see merely on this page and the last, not a lot appears to have changed... Hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought maybe I could take my chunk of granite and drop it on a material that is actually piezoelectric. That should cause stress/acceleration/amplification.

But zoser warned me to beware of radiation since granite is a highly active material.

Which is why you sand it down to a shape similar to a bat. The radiation you inhale via that process, well, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

Hulkte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is total evidence of ancient high technology.

A saw cut in granite.

Poor oaf obviously lacked a rock melter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, shall I send you a pair of glasses??

Oh, you mean a sketch depicting those AA working stone?

I thought he meant a comedy sketch. Maybe Carol Burnett?

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why you sand it down to a shape similar to a bat. The radiation you inhale via that process, well, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

Hulkte

And you hold the illusion that we like you when you are not angry?

:P

Cheers,

Badeskov

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean just plain gluing it on, no matrix. The AE had access to several tree resins, bitumen and hide glue.

Flint was widely used by the AE as well. Stocks describes a flint chisel discovered during an excavation and several experiments conducted with a replica. I believe he goes into the problem of debris.

Natural adhesives and metal won't go very far, the binding strength required to make it work just isn't possible. Better to stick with free inserted/addition of fluid abrasive material to help the blade along. Copper and bronze just isn't the metal suitable for this. If copper is just what was available then :

Copper was the first metal in common use for tools and containers since it is one of the few metals available in non-oxidized form, not requiring the smelting of an ore. Copper is easily softened by heating and then cooling (it does not harden by quenching, as in cool water). In this annealed state it may then be hammered, stretched and otherwise formed, progressing toward the desired final shape, but becoming harder and less ductile as work progresses. If work continues beyond a certain hardness the metal will tend to fracture when worked and so it may be re-annealed periodically as the shape progresses. Annealing is stopped when the workpiece is near its final desired shape, and so the final product will have a desired stiffness and hardness. The technique of repoussé exploits these properties of copper, enabling the construction of durable jewelry articles and sculptures (including the Statue of Liberty).

wiki

That depends on what you consider small. http://www.palagems...._mogok5_pt2.htm 5th picture down. Note the 4th too while you're at it.

One would assume caution would be exercised in it's use. Since they're holding the saw frame though and there also appears to be some slack, there actually seems to be relatively little danger of it snapping back.

burma_sawjade.jpg

I read it took three days of three shifts per twenty four hours day which sounds about right, that's about the limit to the size of it, not so sure about the type of rock though, they probably work at a different pace and care considering the value of their crafted material.

I am curious about the 'carborundum mixed with oil' , synthesized compound or chemical formulas and what kind of oil ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame zoser for getting excited , that is an impressive cut in the stone that is , conventional saws would get stuck more often than not that deep in the stone

Agreed.

It's not about getting excited. It's about how the cut was not made.

Saws do not produce variable thickness like this.

SC8_zps52b961b9.jpg

SC4_zps382164f7.jpg

Completely rules out any sawing technique. Not that they were able to do it by sawing anyway,

They had no material that could do this to granite, nor has any been found.

This is exactly what it appears to be.

A cut using unknown technology; most likely sound. The force or energy emitted by the tool diminishes with depth according to natural principles explaining why the cut is wider at the top than the bottom.

A saw just would not do that. The teeth of a copper saw would wear to nothing very rapidly and it would become blunt causing anything but a tapering thickness.

I still assert the hypothesis is proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry: Zoser will 'forget' about that post right after he reads it, heh.

The most important line from that post is this one:

The reported chemical analysis of these metal pours is 95.15% copper 2.05% arsenic, 1.70% nickel, .84% silicon and .26% iron.

:yes:

It was hard alright. It wasn't just copper as Zoser keeps repeating.

.

I will keep repeating as long as you keep posting absurd, irrelevant, non-sensical and impractical arguments.

Deal?

So back to the nitty gritty as they say,

Unless it can be demonstrated that the above cut was done with a conventional saw, producing decreasing cut width, then the idea is just dellusion.

Then where is the material evidence?

You maintain that the work was recent (500 years). The evidence should be around or in some archaeological museum or at least reported in some chronicle. So where is it?

I maintain that the work is far more ancient however.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another image showing how the cut width reduces to wafer thin:

The thinner the saw, the faster it wears. The theory of a saw is defeated by natural reason.

Again you never looked at the evidence Abe. Just like the chemical theory. It was never going to work because it doesn't match the evidence.

SC5_zpsa1c58331.jpg

Unless you guys address the evidence properly there is little point in the discussion.

If you put your minds to the problem seriously instead of trying to dream up fantastic unworkable ideas, you may get to the truth of how it was done.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

It's not about getting excited. It's about how the cut was not made.

Saws do not produce variable thickness like this.

Completely rules out any sawing technique. Not that they were able to do it by sawing anyway,

They had no material that could do this to granite, nor has any been found.

Surely the aim of any precision sawing would be to not get variable thickness; surely the aim of sawing something is consistency. This looks rather more like further evidence of a bodge, I'm afraid.

Perhaps that doesn't rule out Aliens, but if it was, maybe it's why they didn't hang around, or maybe they were defeated by someone else, who did things rather better.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the aim of any precision sawing would be to not get variable thickness; surely the aim of sawing something is consistency. This looks rather more like further evidence of a bodge, I'm afraid.

Perhaps that doesn't rule out Aliens, but if it was, maybe it's why they didn't hang around, or maybe they were defeated by someone else, who did things rather better.

The cutting tool whatever it was obviously did what the image portrays.

The evidence is there in stone.

Fact.

The cutting power of the tool obviously diminished with distance. For some reason they never completed the cut.

A saw would maintain even cutting width like this:

basalt_pavement.jpg

I believe that the above work was done with a copper saw around 10mm thick and it was done in the middle to late kingdom (Egypt).

Nothing like that can be said of the Peruvian artefact,

Here is what looks like another shot of the same artefact.

bswctcl.jpg

It may be even thicker than 10mm. Difficult to say but certainly much thicker than the Peruvian stone.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~snip

Completely rules out any sawing technique. Not that they were able to do it by sawing anyway,

They had no material that could do this to granite, nor has any been found.

~snip

what makes this piece of granite so special ? There are more than ample evidence of working with granite available throughout the region.

You're looking down a blind alley thinking this cut is done in one clean slice when you yourself noted the variation in thickness, that only means it took much longer to get the cut, that's all, but it is a very impressive cut, obviously they took much care in attempting to get the piece to the dimensions they wanted, or maybe it was an apprentice that couldn't cut this stone in time as well.

Ever considered that ?

~edit : Lord Vetinari beat me to it

Edited by third_eye
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could just as easily replace "aliens from another planet" with "a technologically advanced species of subterranean mole men" and it would make very little difference to the narrative. We dont have any evidence for either scenario, or any knowledge of either alleged interlopers. All we have got is wild speculation, and nothing else.

If the evidence fits the subterranean mole men hypothesis equally as well as the ancient aliens hypothesis, then what reason is there to believe that either of them represent what actually happened? It could just as easily be a third scenario, such as beings from another dimension, or a fourth, that they did it through powerful psychokinesis.

The Evidence For Ancient Stone Cutting - http://www.dumbassgu...blog.php?bid=87

Video. http://science.disco...tting-tools.htm

Also,I find this pretty interesting at first glance, but havent had time to triple check it. http://www.cheops-py...ne-cutting.html

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what makes this piece of granite so special ? There are more than ample evidence of working with granite available throughout the region.

You're looking down a blind alley thinking this cut is done in one clean slice when you yourself noted the variation in thickness, that only means it took much longer to get the cut, that's all, but it is a very impressive cut, obviously they took much care in attempting to get the piece to the dimensions they wanted, or maybe it was an apprentice that couldn't cut this stone in time as well.

Ever considered that ?

~edit : Lord Vetinari beat me to it

Doesn't explain how it was done TE.

The piece could well be unique in that it is unfinished. That gives vital clues as to how it was done and more importantly how it was not done.

My point is that they had no saw that was capable of cutting to this tiny thickness. That cut is wafer thin at the bottom probably less than 1mm.

Sawing is a non starter.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could just as easily replace "aliens from another planet" with "a technologically advanced species of subterranean mole men" and it would make very little difference to the narrative. We dont have any evidence for either scenario, or any knowledge of either alleged interlopers. All we have got is wild speculation, and nothing else.

If the evidence fits the subterranean mole men hypothesis equally as well as the ancient aliens hypothesis, then what reason is there to believe that either of them represent what actually happened? It could just as easily be a third scenario, such as beings from another dimension, or a fourth, that they did it through powerful psychokinesis.

The Evidence For Ancient Stone Cutting - http://www.dumbassgu...blog.php?bid=87

Video. http://science.disco...tting-tools.htm

Also,I find this pretty interesting at first glance, but havent had time to triple check it. http://www.cheops-py...ne-cutting.html

All these links are irrelevant to the piece under consideration.

Northing remotely related.

Sorry Haz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't explain how it was done TE.

The piece could well be unique in that it is unfinished. That gives vital clues as to how it was done and more importantly how it was not done.

My point is that they had no saw that was capable of cutting to this tiny thickness. That cut is wafer thin at the bottom probably less than 1mm.

Sawing is a non starter.

stones bloat, expand and bulge or sag over time, takes a long time, but noticeable, more so in stones that is left out in the elements,

I see a very good saw cut, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again we have another artefact that is inexplicable in modern terms.

The only thing mainstream history has that can relate to in regard to this piece is abrasive sawing. The cut is so thin at the bottom to make that utterly impossible. Only the hardest of steels impregnated with industrial diamond would make an impact on that granite at wafer thin widths.

Just like the moulding marks, the vitrification, the hole cutting, the precision fitting, not of it matches conventional explanations.

Non of the above phenomena has been successfully refuted, and it all remains evidence of advanced unknown technology that had to come from a superior culture.

Those techniques were lost, through epoch change or natural catastrophe, however fortunately the stone artefacts survive.

It's very clear why the AA theory exists and it's support growing.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stones bloat, expand and bulge or sag over time, takes a long time, but noticeable, more so in stones that is left out in the elements,

I see a very good saw cut, nothing more.

Can you prove that that happens to granite? The evidence on the stone looks extremely clear. Wishful thinking imho.

A good saw cut yes I agree. The question is how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you prove that that happens to granite? The evidence on the stone looks extremely clear. Wishful thinking imho.

A good saw cut yes I agree. The question is how?

Happens to all natural rock stone formations, stones are regarded as a 'living' element (literal) as in 'organic'

You'll have to find the 'proof' to satisfy your requirements as 'proof' I'm not a specialist in that field.

As to how, well ... you're right that we'll never know, unless you found someone who there at the time, otherwise it's all speculative on our part, hardly evidence or even proof.

We can attempt to recreate the methods but that still won't be proof to you can it? Just another viable proposition.

Nobody knows anything exact by pursuing inexact clues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.