Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
FractalSky
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:43 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by FractalSky »

Flabbergasted wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 8:44 pm
FractalSky wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:59 amI appreciate the work you've put into showcasing the fascinating work done by the Ancients.
I am glad it has been useful, FractalSky. It's not unrelated to my crusade against the evolutionist idiocy that man was only half human in the Pleistocene and is now in the process of becoming an übermensch.

There is a lot in your posts I want to comment on, but I need time to do some homework first, so be patient with me.
FractalSky wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:59 amWe can also deduce that the reason these pyramids were constructed after 26,000 years ago is because of Axial precession. Earth's cycle is approximately 26,000 years.
How does the explanation of the precession of the equinoxes afforded by the Tychos model affect this statement?
I definitely misunderstood precession, thanks for pointing that out. My assumption was that the geomagnetic pole changes approximately every 26000 years, and so I assumed that when the pyramids were built it had to have been within 26 000 years since they point to true north. The only thing that changes however is where true north "points to" out to space.
Last edited by FractalSky on Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FractalSky
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:43 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by FractalSky »

Kham wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:50 pm Fraud posing as ancient ruins

Stonehenge: The circular formation may have been in the ground but the stones themselves, as reported in CF, are most likely recently manufactured (1950’s?) and hollow. There are reports of people knocking on them and finding them to be not solid stone. As of today, the site is closed and can only be seen from a distance.

Gobekli Tepe: Total fraud. Go to google earth and do a time sweep. One can see a first a road made, then a bunch of fill dumped at the very top of this chain of hills, all of which are bare, except for the site named Gobekli Tepe. There are even man made berms put up to prevent further erosion of the gravel placed there. In addition, none of the pillars can stand up on their own and all of the walls are made of stacked rocks, same type as the rocks that fill the site. I was thinking of making a post about it as I have many more arguments that support the site as a fake. There has been a controversy about the planting of trees over this precious site, but one can see that these trees needed to be planted to hold in all the fill.

I love ancient sites and have done a lot of research through the years. So many fascinating places with such rich history. There is also a lot of fraud.

Could you please link your information on Stonehenge? It would be a real shame if is indeed a fraud or at the very least tampered with to "renew" it for touristic purposes. Although, even if the stones are hollow, that doesn't necessarily mean they were recently constructed. If their purpose was for acoustic resonance then wouldn't the fact that they are indeed hollow support this theory?

As for Gobekli Type, it doesn't quite make much sense to create an artificial site that challenges not only the entire mainstream archeological paradigm, but the paleontological one as well. You wouldn't want the sites validity questioned by the people that have the most invested/influence in these fields.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

FractalSky wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 6:33 pmI definitely misunderstood precession, thanks for pointing that out. My assumption was that the geomagnetic pole changes approximately every 26000 years, and so I assumed that when the pyramids were built it had to have been within 26 000 years since they point to true north. The only thing that changes however is where true north "points to" out to space.
The fact that our stars appear to be "slipping backwards" over time would have to be explained by either 1) the earth´s displacement within the solar system or 2) some 'irregularity' in the earth´s own rotation. If the first is the case, then precession is simply an optical phenomenon; if the second is true, then some extremely complex and heavy physics are required for which I believe there is no material proof. To save the Copernican model from extinction, mainstream astronomers insist on the second hypothesis, and so have invented an "off-center push or pull" that "causes a torque" like that on a spinning body, "resulting in precession". This only applies to spinning bodies subject to a downpull force, but most people are too conditioned by their physical senses to notice.

viewtopic.php?p=2411842#p2411842

According to the Tychos model, precession is an optical phenomenon, a gigantic timekeeper, nothing else. That´s why I asked you how this perception would affect your statements about orientation.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

FractalSky wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:34 pmWhile this is all speculation, it is far more plausible than the belief these structures were burial or religious/sacrificial sites.
I agree with you that we should be looking at acoustic and magnetic properties in those ancient artifacts which were produced with sophisticated techniques or aligned with great care. For example, a compass goes crazy when you slide it over the machined blocks at Puma Punku.

I have a gut feeling that heavy objects can be levitated by the human voice combined with highly specific methods of mental targeting. I don't intend to prove it, or even defend it. At best, it´s an educated guess. However, in this connection it is relevant to mention the story of the Swedish flight engineer, Henry Kjellson (1891-1962). The story is hazy, but Kjellson was supposedly friends with a "Dr. Jarl" who reportedly witnessed acoustic levitation in 1939 during the construction of a monastery in Tibet. I don't know if "Dr. Jarl" ever existed, but a poster on the Graham Hancock forum by the name 'hedvallen' claims to have verified Kjellson's background and communicated with his two sons. Be that as it may, the topic is interesting on its scientific merits alone.

Kjellson is supposed to have written 5 books, none of which is to be found on Amazon or Abebooks:

1952 - Ancient technology
1955 - Did Moses have radium in the ark of the covenant?
1957 - Between fantasy and reality
1961 - Lost technology
1982 - Seven nights on top of the Cheops pyramid (posthumous)

Image
Photograph of Kjellson and the cover of his fourth book. Allegedly.

The book 'Lost technology' is said to contain illustrations of "Dr. Jarl's" experience in Tibet.

Image

Claiming gravitational force can be nullified by a vibrating and condensed sound field, Kjellson says "Dr. Jarl" witnessed sound being used to transport 5 to 6 stone blocks per hour on a parabolic flight track approximately 500 meters long and 250 meters high. The sound was produced by 19 musical instruments (13 drums and 6 trumpets set in an arc of 90 degrees, at a distance of 63 meters from the stone block) along with about 200 singing monks positioned in rows.

Bruce Cathie did some math to try and wrestle away the secret of the Tibetan stone lifters. I don´t know if it makes much sense; perhaps it´s just a case of "false precision".

There is also a mention of two films which were reportedly seized by "the British Society for which Dr. Jarl worked". Kjellson's books seem to cover a wide range of proposed "alien technologies", from flying machines to Bible codes. The only thing I am interested in at this moment is "Dr. Jarl's" drawings.
FractalSky wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:34 pmThis would also help explain why it was built in such a strange location, seemingly away from anything that could cause noise pollution.
Fractal, your topics are all worthy of inquiry, but you have to be careful you don´t make too many leaps in your reasoning, or base your arguments on unexamined assumptions (cf. the case of precession). For example, the location of Stongehenge was almost certainly not "strange" or "away from everything" 3,000 or more years ago when no large urban centers existed in Northwestern Europe, and there were no sources of 'noise pollution' to worry about. Do we really know what sort of agricultural, military and ritual activities were taking place in Wiltshire in prehistoric times? Other than stones and burnt bones, almost nothing is left of such activities thousands of years later.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Assuming "Dr. Jarl´s" story is true, what would those singing Tibetan monks have sounded like? I may be completely off here, but the powerful kargyraa style comes to mind, the frequency of which can get as low as 41 Hz ("E1"). The video below demonstrates it with 5 monks. It would be pretty deafening with 200.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRMlQ2OtZlY

Kargyraa-like styles are known from many parts of the world. Even Popeye used it!
The more deep sounding style of throat singing is known as kargyraa (in Cyrillic: kаргыраа). Kargyraa has a deep, almost growling sound to it and is technically related to Sardinian bass singing in Canto a Tenore choirs, and also to Tibetan Buddhist chant and has some similarities with the way Popeye's cartoon voice was created. It uses both the vocal and the vestibular folds (also known as "false vocal cords") simultaneously, creating two connected sources of sound.

By constricting the larynx, the vestibular folds can be brought together (adducted) and, under certain conditions, vibrate. It can produce an undertone exactly half the frequency of the fundamental produced by the vocal folds. Therefore, for each second vibration of the vocal folds, the vestibular fold completes a whole vibration cycle. While the larynx generates such rich sound, the mouth cavity may be shaped, just like in the manipulation of vowels, to select some particular harmonics, resulting in a sound that may be perceived as having different pitches simultaneously.

This vocal mechanism has been recently elucidated and shown to be identical to Sardinian bassu, which is one of the four voices of Sardinian "canto a tenore" choirs. It is also similar to the chant practiced in Tibet by the Gyuto monastery and other Buddhist orders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_thr ... g#Kargyraa
It may also be used to make quite beautiful music, but that´s not the point here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WlI24rv__g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8hrhBZJ98
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by pov603 »

Good stuff Flabbergasted!
Thanks for the introduction.
We know chanting can create meditative states “within” so who knows what it can create “without”?
We even have this in popular culture with Dune.
Also, I remember reading that Samurai would practice their “cry” when attacking as this would (apparently) instill fear inside their opponent.
You also have the confederate/USA civil war Rebel Yell too.
We do tend to forget simple things such as why would you want to make yourself conspicuous when attacking an enemy?
One would think the exact opposite would be true, but shows the harmony/disharmony these frequencies can cause.
Anyway, thanks again (I loved the Mongolian music!).
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

pov603 wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 7:30 amAlso, I remember reading that Samurai would practice their “cry” when attacking as this would (apparently) instill fear inside their opponent.
You also have the confederate/USA civil war Rebel Yell too.
We do tend to forget simple things such as why would you want to make yourself conspicuous when attacking an enemy?
One would think the exact opposite would be true, but shows the harmony/disharmony these frequencies can cause.
Thousands of warriors emitting a battle cry or blowing trumpets or conchs can scare the living daylights out of the enemy. In the very least, it undermines his self-confidence just enough to make him vulnerable. Today, the conch (or shankh) is used only for ritual purposes (something about 'the primordial sound'), but back when the Mahabharata was composed it was used to announce an attack. No stealth there!
The prince got up and took hold of the reins. He brought the horses back to their feet and replied, "Surely I have heard many conches blown, but never one such as this. Nor have I ever heard a bow sounding like the Gandiva. This celestial banner also fills me with wonder. The monkey seems to be alive and about to leap down from the flag. My mind is simply astonished." Arjuna laughed. "Stand firm on the chariot and hold the reins tightly, for I will blow my conch again." Arjuna blew his conch and twanged his bow once more. The combined sound filled the four quarters and seemed to rend the mountains. The prince kept his position with difficulty and controlled the terrified steeds. In the distance Drona heard the terrible sounds Arjuna was making. He turned to Duryodhana. "There is no doubt that Savyasacin has come to fight with us. Even more dreadful omens are now visible, portending a great calamity for the Kurus. Your army seems cheerless, as if they are weeping. All our leading warriors stand motionless, bereft of energy. A pall of gloom seems to hang over our forces. Let us make ready for battle. When Partha appears, you will have cause to repent your actions."
- From Krishna Dharma's translation of the Mahabharata, p. 392.
Image

Blowing the shankh doesn´t seem so scary when demonstrated by a music teacher:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9f-b04bheo

How to play a shankh (from the video)
Step 1 - Lesson to the Mind
You need to produce a vibrating sound by vibrating your upper and lower lips together. You need to use a little air to produce sound. Most common mistake: People think blowing lots of air will produce a big sound, which is wrong. You need to produce sound not blow air.

Step 2 - Learn to play the shankh
Input a vibrating sound through the nozzle of the shankh. If shankh is not producing the desired sound, try variating your sound, volume etc. At one instance, you will see that the shankh locks to your sound and produce the desired sound output. Learn that stream in which it produces the desired output. Practice few times to reach out to that instance where the shankh produces steady output.

Step 3 - Use full breath to play it longer
Inhale a full breath of air to fill your lungs and steadily and slowly produce the sound output for as long as you can keep it. When you feel you are going to run out of breath, finish it with a full blow.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Mansur »

FractalSky wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 6:48 pm Could you please link your information on Stonehenge? It would be a real shame if is indeed a fraud or at the very least tampered with to "renew" it for touristic purposes. Although, even if the stones are hollow, that doesn't necessarily mean they were recently constructed.
https://www.silentearth.org/restoration ... nehenge-2/
As for Göbekli Tepe, it doesn't quite make much sense to create an artificial site that challenges not only the entire mainstream archeological paradigm, but the paleontological one as well. You wouldn't want the sites validity questioned by the people that have the most invested/influence in these fields.
That is just the essence of really big frauds! The fraud of the 'Piltdown man' for example, was certainly not made to remain undetected. The more fake is faked, the more job there is for 'debunkers.' The psychological basis is: in a normal world, every counterfeit necessarily falsifies some original; if there is, however, no original, falsification of the counterfeit is almost essential to achieve a lasting effect. That is the new norm as it were.
You wouldn't want the sites validity questioned by the people that have the most invested/influence in these fields.
Why not? They can be used in countless of ways.

I think that practically all archeological sites are now 'reconstructed,' if not for other reasons simply for tourism, and they have left ‘traces’ enough to the hosts of ‘researchers’ to find them and chew upon (as perhaps for example the saw marks are at the great pyramids’ feet), - which, in their turn, greatly enhance tourism!

It seems, however, there is no ‘challenge of mainstream paradigm’ here at all, neither in archeological nor paleontological sense. ‘Paradigm shift’ is simply a sensational catchword used when trying to introduce new items to the old ones – throughout science. The theories or assumptions attached to Göbekli Tepe are entirely evolutionist in both fields. A few thousands of years in the speculations don’t make a ‘shift,’ I think, especially when it’s still at ‘hypothetical level.’

Thanks to Kham for her remark, I could only smell the fraud. Old things always have their beauty (Time being a really big master in screening out) but what at this site can be seen is so tasteless and even repulsive… as every time when scientists are ‘giving a free-range’ to their fantasy.
glg
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by glg »

Mansur wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:29 pm
FractalSky wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 6:48 pm Could you please link your information on Stonehenge? It would be a real shame if is indeed a fraud or at the very least tampered with to "renew" it for touristic purposes. Although, even if the stones are hollow, that doesn't necessarily mean they were recently constructed.
https://www.silentearth.org/restoration ... nehenge-2/
As for Göbekli Tepe, it doesn't quite make much sense to create an artificial site that challenges not only the entire mainstream archeological paradigm, but the paleontological one as well. You wouldn't want the sites validity questioned by the people that have the most invested/influence in these fields.
That is just the essence of really big frauds! The fraud of the 'Piltdown man' for example, was certainly not made to remain undetected. The more fake is faked, the more job there is for 'debunkers.' The psychological basis is: in a normal world, every counterfeit necessarily falsifies some original; if there is, however, no original, falsification of the counterfeit is almost essential to achieve a lasting effect. That is the new norm as it were.
You wouldn't want the sites validity questioned by the people that have the most invested/influence in these fields.
Why not? They can be used in countless of ways.

I think that practically all archeological sites are now 'reconstructed,' if not for other reasons simply for tourism, and they have left ‘traces’ enough to the hosts of ‘researchers’ to find them and chew upon (as perhaps for example the saw marks are at the great pyramids’ feet), - which, in their turn, greatly enhance tourism!

It seems, however, there is no ‘challenge of mainstream paradigm’ here at all, neither in archeological nor paleontological sense. ‘Paradigm shift’ is simply a sensational catchword used when trying to introduce new items to the old ones – throughout science. The theories or assumptions attached to Göbekli Tepe are entirely evolutionist in both fields. A few thousands of years in the speculations don’t make a ‘shift,’ I think, especially when it’s still at ‘hypothetical level.’

Thanks to Kham for her remark, I could only smell the fraud. Old things always have their beauty (Time being a really big master in screening out) but what at this site can be seen is so tasteless and even repulsive… as every time when scientists are ‘giving a free-range’ to their fantasy.
It's all well and good Mansur, I for one have caught myself sharing the same theoretical frustrations i.e, ¨the essence of really big frauds¨, but to point out such a grand scheme of psycho/material control by the fraudsters requires evidence and a sound commitment to evaluate such evidence at least without grievous err.
I beleve this Forum has a few true and studied examples showing in detail not only ¨the essence of really big frauds¨ but also the immanent machinations behind those, which expose the mental and physical process of those hoaxes so that they can be comprehended on multiple levels of skepticism.
That said, there's nothing wrong with being suspicious about this or that and offering it here to test, but by now - if I may ask - why haven't you Mansur at least asked yourself, considering Stonehenge, when it was discovered first and what evidence preceded that supposed reconstruction in the 1880's or later ?
Wikipedia in this instance supplies me more then your link, but the point is, I have not even figured out what you are on about Stonehenge? Maybe Stonehenge is a roman hoax like the 17th Century Architect Inigo Jones could be cleverly interpreted as saying in his book about Stonehenge? Whatever,
Isn't the question first, what these blocks of stone - unremarkable in comparison to a mind boggling array of mega structures outside the european sphere of ancient buiding tech. - even make it worthy of considering? Perhaps it is a fake Site, but wouldn't it be a laughable fake in comparison?
Could you make a case Mansur of, why I should even be interested in this ¨pile of stones¨ being fake or alternately enhanced (try that with gothic cathedrals or ancient asian or meso american structures) for tourist purposes?

Stonehenge can be interesting for sure, but even if Inigo Jones had it built in the 17th century, he had to admit, that before him, everyone thought of it as a ¨Pile of Stones¨.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Mansur wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:29 pmI think that practically all archeological sites are now 'reconstructed,' if not for other reasons simply for tourism, and they have left ‘traces’ enough to the hosts of ‘researchers’ to find them and chew upon (as perhaps for example the saw marks are at the great pyramids’ feet)
[...]
I could only smell the fraud.
We don´t necessarily have to settle for all or nothing. For example, whereas there are power tool marks at Machu Picchu produced by modern repair work (as I pointed out here), the saw marks on this block from Egypt cannot be explained as a modern artifact, simply because there is no known tool which could have made them.

I don't want to get into the Stonehenge debate just yet, but for the sake of information I am posting some images which show that the structure was there long before the dawn of the tourism industry. The oldest known depiction is from a 14th century manuscript and shows "a giant building Stonehenge with the assistance of Merlin".

Image
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminated ... llID=11718

The earliest-known realistic painting of Stonehenge was made on site by Lucas de Heere between 1573 and 1575.
Image

The artistic renderings below are from the 17th to the 19th centuries.
Image

A very early photograph (July 1877).
Image

Also, here is a collection of 105 photos from the excavation/restoration in the 1950s and 1960s. Not very good resolution, but hopefully useful.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W10PuZ ... sp=sharing

Manfred the Mammoth´s humorous remark in the animation "Ice Age".
Image
FractalSky
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:43 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by FractalSky »

Mansur wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:29 pm
I think that practically all archeological sites are now 'reconstructed,' if not for other reasons simply for tourism, and they have left ‘traces’ enough to the hosts of ‘researchers’ to find them and chew upon (as perhaps for example the saw marks are at the great pyramids’ feet)
[...]
I could only smell the fraud.
That is just the essence of really big frauds! The fraud of the 'Piltdown man' for example, was certainly not made to remain undetected. The more fake is faked, the more job there is for 'debunkers.' The psychological basis is: in a normal world, every counterfeit necessarily falsifies some original; if there is, however, no original, falsification of the counterfeit is almost essential to achieve a lasting effect. That is the new norm as it were.
This does make sense as a concept purely for financial incentive and job creation, as it usually goes in these fields. However, I am still not sold on it being a complete hoax and as Flabbergasted has stated, we shouldn't have black and white thinking. Definitely some grey in there!
Flabbergasted wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:06 am Fractal, your topics are all worthy of inquiry, but you have to be careful you don´t make too many leaps in your reasoning, or base your arguments on unexamined assumptions (cf. the case of precession). For example, the location of Stongehenge was almost certainly not "strange" or "away from everything" 3,000 or more years ago when no large urban centers existed in Northwestern Europe, and there were no sources of 'noise pollution' to worry about. Do we really know what sort of agricultural, military and ritual activities were taking place in Wiltshire in prehistoric times? Other than stones and burnt bones, almost nothing is left of such activities thousands of years later.
You're right that was a pretty bold leap that didn't quite add anything. If "The Great Flood" holds true and the ice age that abruptly ended 15,000 years ago washed away almost everything, then anything that wasn't stone would have completely disintegrated and recycled back into nature by now. For instance, the Titanic (or whatever that ship was given the Titanic hoax theory), will be completely gone in about 25-30 years, and it has only been underwater for 110 years. The microbes absolutely wreak havoc on the steel and iron, so if we imagine the Earth in a massive flood for hundreds maybe even thousands of years, we can see why the only remnants of civilization would be these megalithic structures made out of stone.
Last edited by FractalSky on Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Mansur »

glg wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:06 pm ....................................
............Stonehenge can be interesting for sure, but even if Inigo Jones had it built in the 17th century, he had to admit, that before him, everyone thought of it as a ¨Pile of Stones¨.
You obviously misunderstood something, maybe did not even visit the link. (And this applies in part to Flabbergasted’s reply as well; you both - and FractalSky seems to join too - seem to attributing to me statement or thought that I never said or thought. Why? - I asked myself.)

The two cases (Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe) are clearly not comparable.

SH is obviously a real ‘cultural heritage’ - if this idiotic term is allowed - or at least it was until 1901, as the article testifies. Maybe a full-blooded Brit (if there is still any) could say something of this kind of reconstruction - and of its ‘cultural’ nature!


The assumption that an entire archeological site could be falsified perhaps is a bit bold, or it may seem that way. However, if that doesn’t seem like a realistic option to you, I don’t think you should react. (You demand from me facts and proofs. Why?)

It is rather strange that no theory-maker does mention or detail the processes that a given site actually goes through during the decades of excavation / reconstruction. Though (some) recent reconstructions are now taking place in footlights, so to speak, so they could say something about their nature, - at least for those who are not necessarily adherents of the ‘scientific spirit’ and the people who work with that spirit or mentality.

The old photos available (which are getting harder and harder to find) usually show a completely different site. Just like in the case of Stonehenge. But, for some reason, it doesn’t matter to people that their favorite theories are based on data from an already profoundly reconstructed site. Why not build on this data, as it is the only data available? they might say. But why the need for a theory? -
Last edited by Mansur on Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Mansur »

As to the saw marks: I’m almost sure you know very well which saw marks I referred to.
Flabbergasted wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:33 am We don´t necessarily have to settle for all or nothing. For example, whereas there are power tool marks at Machu Picchu produced by modern repair work (as I pointed out here), the saw marks on this block from Egypt cannot be explained as a modern artifact, simply because there is no known tool which could have made them.
If it ‘cannot be explained as a modern artifact, because simply there is no known tool which could have made them’, how do we know that it is really a trace of some kind of saw?

Expertise is I think out of the question here since the methods of processing raw material may differ fundamentally, and this can be exemplified even in historical times in distant ‘cultures’.

From a perspective of tens of thousands of years, I think we can only know one thing, namely 'how they could not have done it'. The others remain a mystery. The fundamentally negative aspect of this forum should, I think, be maintained even in this thread. Not only concerning the mainstream but the ‘alternative’ as well. They both heavily abuse this mysterious (or mythical) character of these monuments.
FractalSky
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:43 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by FractalSky »

Flabbergasted wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:06 am I have a gut feeling that heavy objects can be levitated by the human voice combined with highly specific methods of mental targeting. I don't intend to prove it, or even defend it. At best, it´s an educated guess. However, in this connection it is relevant to mention the story of the Swedish flight engineer, Henry Kjellson (1891-1962). The story is hazy, but Kjellson was supposedly friends with a "Dr. Jarl" who reportedly witnessed acoustic levitation in 1939 during the construction of a monastery in Tibet. I don't know if "Dr. Jarl" ever existed, but a poster on the Graham Hancock forum by the name 'hedvallen' claims to have verified Kjellson's background and communicated with his two sons. Be that as it may, the topic is interesting on its scientific merits alone.
My intuition tells me the same.
Flabbergasted wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:16 pm Assuming "Dr. Jarl´s" story is true, what would those singing Tibetan monks have sounded like? I may be completely off here, but the powerful kargyraa style comes to mind, the frequency of which can get as low as 41 Hz ("E1"). The video below demonstrates it with 5 monks. It would be pretty deafening with 200.
There is something magical about this sound. Can only imagine the power it would have with 200 monks combined with large instruments. Quite terrifying really :ph34r:
I wonder if the modern Tibetan monks retained these skills and could demonstrate to the world if it is indeed possible. I have yet to find a modern video on this specifically.

Interestingly, while reading about acoustic levitation by the monks, I stumbled upon another potential technique the Ancients could have used to transport stone. While some methods can lift the stones and essentially make them totally weightless like the ones proposed above, they can also make them "weigh" significantly less through a technique called Acoustic Lubrication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_lubrication

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2YXX7WXNKY


This guy successfully moves a 175lbs (80kg) piece of concrete with one finger using:
1. A resonator emitting a frequency of around 40hz.
2. A metal pale for reverberation
3. A "sonic sled"
Apparently it would take about 320N normally, but he manages to do it with 65N (5x less force) and this is because the sonic waves resonate underneath the slab, reducing the friction coefficient drastically. Combining this technique with wetting the ground underneath will theoretically nullify the friction almost entirely allowing the slab to glide as if it were on ice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=044hLpHuK-s
A more in-depth video on the mechanics and a better angle of the technique in action.

Believable anecdotal evidence:
Image

So could this be one of the techniques the Ancients used to transport giant blocks of stone?

Image

Take note of the ascending causeways - perfect for using this technique to transport giant slabs.

Image


As for the Stonehenge debate, I don't have much to add other than my first post about it since it's been shown impossible to verify what is actually from remote antiquity and what is not. However I would just like to add some more similar looking structures from around the world. While this does not prove anything, it is just interesting to wonder why such a design and shape is so common throughout the world. Although perhaps it could have been made in more modern times by people copying Stonehenge, who knows.

Image
Inukshuk Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada

Image
Rundling, Germany - Circular village that seems to mimic the design of Stonehenge and could fall under the category of salvaged by lesser civilizations and "upgraded" multiple times throughout history.

Image
Nelson, BC Lake, Canada - taken from a drone. Not particularly interesting.

Image
Lindisfarne Priory, Northumberland, England. Ruins supposedly date to the 12th century. ** Thank you Fbnerio :) **

This one is especially interesting if you take a close look at the designs and precision of the building. Looks like a Norman** pillar on the left, perfect 90 degree angles, and amazingly flat and smooth ramp features.

Image
Kapalua, Maui

Image
Arkaim City - dubbed "The Russian Stonehenge"

Image
According to Plato, this is what Atlantis looked like.

Image
Dubbed the "Eye of the Sahara". It has been theorized that this was actually Atlantis before the Great Flood. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5kEzxOb-3c& for evidence.
Last edited by FractalSky on Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Mansur wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:32 pmAs to the saw marks: I’m almost sure you know very well which saw marks I referred to.
No, I don´t know which saw marks you referred to. It would save time if you provided a couple of photos and information on the location.
Mansur wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:32 pmhow do we know that it is really a trace of some kind of saw?
There are good reasons to believe the markings on the block were produced by a circular saw. This may not have been obvious from the original close-up image I posted on the first page, so I am posting a couple more below. As far as I remember, stone masons and geologists have expressed no doubt the object is manmade, but if you do a little digging maybe you can find some contrary views. If you do, please share them.

Image
Mansur wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:32 pmThe fundamentally negative aspect of this forum should, I think, be maintained even in this thread.
That's a wise attitude, as long as you take the time required to collect and present objective and contextualized data before dismissing something as a fraud.
Post Reply