Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Look Mama, no diamond saw


questionmark

Recommended Posts

I watched your viking video in post #749.yes it can be done that way but that is the cowboy way,I know,I've done plenty of cowboy myself.I'm one of those nefarious womanizing gearheads that Puzzler was talking about.About 20 years ago a couple of like mined gearheads like me decided that we would smelt all of the aluminum that we were collecting from stripping and building cars.We built a furnace at the farm just out of town and I built a cooling rack and molds for ingots,smelting trays and screens.One of the first things guys that do the kinds of things that guys like me do is make tools to do the things we do

I might use a wooden hammer right up until I had made a hammer out of that piece that he was beating on with a stick and then used it to make the next piece.

Oh and Puzzler just so you know I treat women with the same respect I do for a firearm,I never leave one in the chamber and I always store the ammo in a secure location.lol

jmccr8..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Questionmark,

I have been busy and haven't had time to respond.Yes I agree that technology spread with the shipments of ore and alloys.I don't know how to copy and link exerts from links so I will writ down as close to possible some high-lights.

Until the New Kingdom most copper used in Egypt was seemingly minded in the eastern desert or Sinai.Country of Atika with it's great copper mines has been variously identified as the region of the Sinai Dessert(Wadi Araisah is mentioned),or the Negev(the Tinna copper mines).

Mentioned in the link the I am quoting from there is an inscription about a shipment of 12.5 tons of copper ingots.

Oldest copper in Egypt-beads and tools dating to the 4th millennium fashioned from native copper.

As for bronze the oldest artifacts date to the old kingdom,produced some copper-arsenic alloy of it's own,began to import significant amounts of bronze from Syria during the middle kingdom which reduced the amount of copper-arsenic alloy bronze and eventually replaced it.Bronze was used until well into the first millennium.

jmccr8

Also from your link:

Naturally occurring copper is somewhat harder due to metallic impurities.

Edit: But yes, that is accurate, I was thinking pyramids not 1st dynasty when I made my bronze statement. The oldest bronze tools in Egypt are contemporary with the GP.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Dunn is on the far fringe and possesses little working understanding of ancient engineering techniques. Appearances on Ancient Aliens and similar shows should make that abundantly clear.

You only have a charlatan's word for the idea that the marks left on cores representg feed rates you know.

Core drills were filled with sand and were turned in both directions over a long period of time. Straitions on the sides of the cores represent marks left by grains of sand, not high speed drills.

Any idiot can wrap a thread around one and say "See? High feed rates!!"

Harte

So where's your hand worked core drill then through granite that has produced these marks left by grains of sand ?

Can you direct me to a clip or a site where somebody you approve of has investigated these markings. A granite core produced using the supposed method and materials would be smashing. :tu:

You see any idiot can make up things to please themselves and their agenda they wish to push.

Mr Dunn has put his money where his mouth is and produced a granite core like you and others say it should be done and the finish is totally different. He has also shown us on a web site how he took all his measurements etc on that core. I'm not sure his findings are was quite as simple as you would like us to believe.

Now who exactly am I supposed to listen to ? You and the others who keep TELLING us how things are done with certain materials, or a guy you all like to slag off and call childish schoolboy names, who SHOWS us that when those exact materials are used the results are not what we are supposed to expect.

Edited by Banksy Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where's your hand worked core drill then through granite that has produced these marks left by grains of sand ?

Can you direct me to a clip or a site where somebody you approve of has investigated these markings. A granite core produced using the supposed method and materials would be smashing. :tu:

You see any idiot can make up things to please themselves and their agenda they wish to push.

Mr Dunn has put his money where his mouth is and produced a granite core like you and others say it should be done and the finish is totally different. He has also shown us on a web site how he took all his measurements etc on that core. I'm not sure his findings are was quite as simple as you would like us to believe.

Now who exactly am I supposed to listen to ? You and the others who keep TELLING us how things are done with certain materials, or a guy you all like to slag off and call childish schoolboy names, who SHOWS us that when those exact materials are used the results are not what we are supposed to expect.

You mean Mr. Dunn was incapable of drilling that hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where's your hand worked core drill then through granite that has produced these marks left by grains of sand ?

Can you direct me to a clip or a site where somebody you approve of has investigated these markings. A granite core produced using the supposed method and materials would be smashing. :tu:

You see any idiot can make up things to please themselves and their agenda they wish to push.

Mr Dunn has put his money where his mouth is and produced a granite core like you and others say it should be done and the finish is totally different. He has also shown us on a web site how he took all his measurements etc on that core. I'm not sure his findings are was quite as simple as you would like us to believe.

Now who exactly am I supposed to listen to ? You and the others who keep TELLING us how things are done with certain materials, or a guy you all like to slag off and call childish schoolboy names, who SHOWS us that when those exact materials are used the results are not what we are supposed to expect.

You understand the search function here, right?

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with a diamond saw...or a whole bunch of diamond saws, this would not be possible to produce with such fine seams and within any reasonable timeframe:

limatambo2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Tarahuasi_Archaeological_site_-_overview.jpg

A wall like this is extraordinarily beautiful...a work of art. One might even argue its form is timeless, considering that its durability has no peer beyond other similarly unexplained ancient walls.

Why then have no artists or sculptors, let alone stone masons, even attempted to replicate such a masterpiece? I'll tell you why. It would take far too long, even using powered, diamond-edged tools, to complete just a few courses of a wall like this for any artist, sculptor, or stone mason to attempt it.

But they would if they could because their work would survive nearly forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with a diamond saw...or a whole bunch of diamond saws, this would not be possible to produce with such fine seams and within any reasonable timeframe:

limatambo2.jpg

http://upload.wikime..._-_overview.jpg

A wall like this is extraordinarily beautiful...a work of art. One might even argue its form is timeless, considering that its durability has no peer beyond other similarly unexplained ancient walls.

Why then have no artists or sculptors, let alone stone masons, even attempted to replicate such a masterpiece? I'll tell you why. It would take far too long, even using powered, diamond-edged tools, to complete just a few courses of a wall like this for any artist, sculptor, or stone mason to attempt it.

But they would if they could because their work would survive nearly forever.

I do not find your suggestion even a bit plausible. I've been happy just to read the statements in this thread till now. Such walls took a tremendous time to construct in ancient times. Today such a wall could be built faster using modern tools. The reason no one bothers to built like that today is cost. We have other construction methods that are faster, stronger, and better. All of the stone walls in our area are built from squared stone. Stones such as the ones in the wall above are broken into smaller and nearly identical sized pieces that can be used. No block is special. This is the age of mass produced items in which there is a regularity between pieces. A block breaks or is found to be discolored and it can be replaced with little fanfare since all of the blocks are the same. There are even walls made today in which the stone is a veneer and stone that is not natural, but manufactured in an oven. Pieces can be replaced easily.

There is no need to construct a wall of boulders. The result is limited because it cannot be used as a foundation for larger structures. Technologies change and these types of walls are no longer needed or cheap to build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been happy just to read the statements in this thread till now.

Glad to finally get you off your rear-end.

As I said, these walls are works of high art and not simply utilitarian. They did not need to build them this way back then either. Rather, they were built to make a statement and show sophistication and capability for millenia.

You make the same mistakes I most often see in these discussions in thinking these structures were built the way they are for purely utilitarian purposes (as things are generally made today) and that they all took "tremendous time" to build. Those two beliefs are at cross -purposes to one another and there is zero proof for either.

By the way, adjacent to this wall is a similarly impressive ancient wall built of...wait for it...squared stones. But these squared stones, unlike modern blocks, require no mortar to fill the gaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to finally get you off your rear-end.

As I said, these walls are works of high art and not simply utilitarian. They did not need to build them this way back then either. Rather, they were built to make a statement and show sophistication and capability for millenia.

You make the same mistakes I most often see in these discussions in thinking these structures were built the way they are for purely utilitarian purposes (as things are generally made today) and that they all took "tremendous time" to build. Those two beliefs are at cross -purposes to one another and there is zero proof for either.

By the way, adjacent to this wall is a similarly impressive ancient wall built of...wait for it...squared stones. But these squared stones, unlike modern blocks, require no mortar to fill the gaps.

You might see it as art, but is there any proof it is art? In the case of walls constructed from boulders we see nothing more than a construction technique minimizing the amount of material removed. Today dry wall and dry wall looking structures are built. They are not used today because building with mortar is much faster. The walls are stronger and do not have to be built as thick. Some groups did not reach the technological level of ... wait for it... making mortar that was strong enough to construct buildings.

It's not that we can't do it today. It is cheaper, faster, stronger, and easier to maintain using today's methods.

As far as time to build, it takes a long time to build a wall using stone tools versus having mechanized tools and metal.

A mistake commonly made by people examining such walls is to think that the close contacts seen at the surface imply tight contacts throughout the structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already addressed the Incan stonework. There's nothing supernatural about any of it. You can plainly see the increased dimpling around the edges and the joints that are plain indicators of stone on stone tools being used to shape the stones.

This link details how they did that and more: http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html

... and as I mentioned before, useless the locals were enlisted in a massive conspiracy to plant stoneworking tools at both the quarry sites and the foot of the walls pictured, with no one to this day admitting to the conspiracy, then you have to accept that the Incas were master craftsmen.

It always amazes me how often contemporary man underestimates the ability of their distant ancestors. These folks had hundreds, even thousands of years of observing nature, devising techniques for changing their environment and passing them on to the next generation to be improved upon. Just as modern computers have rendered the skill of using a slide rule obsolete, so has our technology rendered us unable, or unwilling to accept the skill and ingenuity of our ancestors to wield the tools at their disposal.

Edited by Kahn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always amazes me how often contemporary man underestimates the ability of their distant ancestors.

I don't think the issue is about contemporary man underestimating anything. It's about contemporary man's inability and/or refusal to duplicate the feats of those same distant ancestors. Believe me, such assurances as those you've given as to "how it was done" are a dime a dozen and yet are backed with absolutely nothing.

If there were tools left behind, then all the more reason to (convincingly) demonstrate their use...even on a small scale. But it doesn't happen and until it does, assurances like yours are indeed empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the issue is about contemporary man underestimating anything. It's about contemporary man's inability and/or refusal to duplicate the feats of those same distant ancestors. Believe me, such assurances as those you've given as to "how it was done" are a dime a dozen and yet are backed with absolutely nothing.

If there were tools left behind, then all the more reason to (convincingly) demonstrate their use...even on a small scale. But it doesn't happen and until it does, assurances like yours are indeed empty.

Hey, if you like an Incan wall, may I suggest building one in your backyard?

Other people would surely not do that as you can build something just as durable with half the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, if you like an Incan wall, may I suggest building one in your backyard?

Other people would surely not do that as you can build something just as durable with half the effort.

Incan walls are ok. In fact I do have a rock wall stacked Incan-style, and you're right, not very durable.

It's the pre-Incan stuff that needs explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the issue is about contemporary man underestimating anything. It's about contemporary man's inability and/or refusal to duplicate the feats of those same distant ancestors. Believe me, such assurances as those you've given as to "how it was done" are a dime a dozen and yet are backed with absolutely nothing.

But it doesn't happen and until it does, assurances like yours are indeed empty.

That has got to be the silliest thing I've ever read. So all those stone tools laying around are the work of the Bavarian Illuminati! You have to base an argument upon fact, not fiction.

If there were tools left behind, then all the more reason to (convincingly) demonstrate their use...even on a small scale.

If? There is no "if", there is only fact that they litter the site in question.

Duh, it's been done already.

On American TV no less: [media=]

[/media] Edited by Kahn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has got to be the silliest thing I've ever read. So all those stone tools laying around are the work of the Bavarian Illuminati! You have to base an argument upon fact, not fiction.

Your cynicism and hyperbole work against the credibility of your argument. I do agree that an argument is best when based upon fact. An important fact here is that, contrary to sound scientific methods, the preeminent theory concerning how these rock forms were created is as yet unproven with anything but weak speculation.

The claim that "all those stone tools laying around" somehow amounts to proof is more akin to a faith-based system of beliefs than to actual science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your cynicism and hyperbole work against the credibility of your argument. I do agree that an argument is best when based upon fact. An important fact here is that, contrary to sound scientific methods, the preeminent theory concerning how these rock forms were created is as yet unproven with anything but weak speculation.

The claim that "all those stone tools laying around" somehow amounts to proof is more akin to a faith-based system of beliefs than to actual science.

Beats the tools you claim they musta had but have not been found... if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On American TV no less: [media=]

[/media]

We've all seen that pathetic video. It proves 2 things: that their theory and method are WRONG, and, that they are idiots to conclude from their results that their theory is correct.

Nobody could create the rock forms we see using those methods alone.

Edited by lilthor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beats the tools you claim they musta had but have not been found... if you ask me.

You'll have to refresh my memory on what I've claimed they had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to refresh my memory on what I've claimed they had.

You must have, as you evidently deny that the tools found were used. Or are you claiming that the walls were made by intonating chants to the gods?

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or are you claiming that the walls were made by intonating chants to the gods?

No I wasn't, but if you hum a few bars, I might get to liking it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've all seen that pathetic video. It proves 2 things: that their theory and method are WRONG, and, that they are idiots to conclude from their results that their theory is correct.

Nobody could create the rock forms we see using those methods alone.

It's painfully obvious that you have no knowledge on the subject what-so-ever and are merely trolling.

Edited by Kahn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the guy in that first video looks blazed out of his mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's painfully obvious that you have no knowledge on the subject what-so-ever and are merely trolling.

That is some rejoinder you've managed.

Staying on topic seemed a bit risky, did it? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is some rejoinder you've managed.

Staying on topic seemed a bit risky, did it? lol

I wouldn't go so far as to say you're trolling, lilthor, but I think you'll remember my complaint here. You spend post after post throwing out quips and sarcastic remarks, ridicule orthodox scholarship at every turn, decry all of us in the conservative camp for not rolling up our sleeves and doing some experimental archaeology, and you yourself...continue to sit idly by throwing out quips and sarcastic remarks while doing no experimenting for yourself. Yes, it gets old, so when are you going to roll up your sleeves? :innocent:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the issue is about contemporary man underestimating anything. It's about contemporary man's inability and/or refusal to duplicate the feats of those same distant ancestors. Believe me, such assurances as those you've given as to "how it was done" are a dime a dozen and yet are backed with absolutely nothing.

If there were tools left behind, then all the more reason to (convincingly) demonstrate their use...even on a small scale. But it doesn't happen and until it does, assurances like yours are indeed empty.

I went to a talk some 30 years ago in which someone showed movies of replicating stonework in Peru to make a tight fitting wall using only stone tools. All you seem to be claiming is that you are unaware of knowing that this has been done and decades ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.