Would also go some ways towards explaining the secret societies/mystery schools obsessed with geometry which likely eventually became the “free masons”, kaballah, etc
How does one make a brick? Compression. What's the opposite of compression? Rarefaction aka expanding a body of matter during motion.
first layer
First implies foundation...only thereupon can something be layered. Motion implies the foundation for any layer of matter.
I attribute
I implies taking; attribute implies giving. Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from each being (life). If one ignores the latter, then another can exploit the former to shape the growth of ones perception.
Ancient bricks were made by baking clay mixed with straw in the sun, bro, there was no compression involved unless you count the workers pressing the clay into shape by hand.
It is often overlooked that there were ~2000 years before the flood. Man lived here with angels, nephilim and giants. Look at how far we've come in just the last few hundred years, without any angels, giants, or nephilim..
Do you see it more as a “technology” or a “power” (perhaps one restricted to these beings or their descendants)? - I ask because you draw your own link between what was happening back then and today
Most likely some combination of both. We do know there was definitely some tech involving genetic manipulation. Enoch as well as canonized scripture cover what the watchers (angels) taught man how to do.
True and false are at odds with one another. Change implies even, which alters into each ones different choice, which then can choose to put true and false at odds with one another.
ideas of technology
Techno/tekhnē (artifice) logy (logic; circular thinking)...the ideas another suggests become artificial idols within oneself, which then shapes true or false circular thinking.
Nature implies linear progression; each being within a potential to shape form.
innate powers
Aka power native within energy...a process of internal separation (analysis), which holding onto ideals/idols inverts (synthesis).
Technology implies the synthetic inversion of natural analysis.
Technology implies the synthetic inversion of natural analysis.
Literally!
Though I wonder, what would the natural application of natural analysis look like? What would it be called? Perhaps something like “the Way”? Or even “free will”?
what would the natural application of natural analysis look like?
a) Look/lock implies holding onto; like implies differences synthesized together...it's all perceivable separating each ones perception, which allows one to analyze what others synthesize.
b) Apply; verb - "join or combine" aka a synthesis. Ation/action implies separation into reaction aka analysis.
It's your consent to the suggested word "application" which hides analysis (cation) within synthesis (apply)...you are choosing to artificially hold together what nature sets apart from one another. I can analyze this, but not take apart your synthesis.
What would it be called?
It wouldn't. Putting a label onto something implies a synthesis...being one thing within everything implies an analytical process. You answering the call, you questioning others what to call, any you holding onto the called label...that's what inverts analysis into synthesis.
Perhaps something like “the Way”?
a) What does way (inception towards death) imply? Wanderer (life)...not a likeness, but internal differentiation aka the inert power you wrote about.
b) Perhaps implies by happenstance aka by chance. Being implies choice given by balance...only then can choice take a chance, which once again implies an inversion.
c) Being implies one thing within everything (analysis)...something implies the sum of things together (synthesis).
Or even “free will”?
Balance (even) gives and takes free will of choice (odd)...that's how nature evens the odds of being. It's OR (either, else, otherwise, as an alternative or substitute) which another exploits to tempt choice at odds with one another.
Taking the chance of even or odds implies gambling ones choice away. Only within even can there be odd..."or" inverts that.
It's your consent to the suggested word "application" which hides analysis (cation) within synthesis (apply)...you are choosing to artificially hold together what nature sets apart from one another.
Heat flows up, water flows down, this i can discern from analysis, yet don’t I, the human, still require the synthesis to decide to, and ultimately to actually produce a roofed structure which will keep the heat in and the rain out? Is that an inversion of the natural analysis or is that an example of natural synthesis?(though if I read right, such a thing doesn’t even properly exist in the framework you describe, so the question has inherent limits) - forgive the use of the word “or”
The “official” story behind these sites is that stones were either picked up off the ground in these shapes, then fitted together, with maybe some light polishing by pumice or other soft stones.
In some cases (Egypt) the official narrative is that these stones were “rough hewn” from a quarry (with copper tools that came from MICHIGAN ore deposits), then somehow (???) smoothed and shaped with a precision practically unheard of in even modern construction. All by a culture that had never invented the wheel, apparently.
Clearly, humanity has risen to extreme heights in the past that we have trouble imagining (and duplicating) today.
Best documentary I’ve ever seen on the holes in the mainstream story of the Pyramids and their worldwide significance
then somehow (???) smoothed and shaped with a precision practically unheard of in even modern construction.
Check out the Easter Island statues. They were apparently built, and quarried, by hand. It just takes something like 10 years to wear the stone down.
I know it's boring, but my theory here is that people back then realized that they had nothing better to do with their lives than seeking perfection of craft. That's it. Because of that, they'll spend an entire week making a single stone perfectly fit it's alotted space, rather than churning out 100 "good enough" blocks and having to mortar them all to hide the faults.
None of us think that way today. No one here would spend ten years kicking rocks into shape because, surely, that time could be better spent learning, or arguing, or making money, or sitting around. But, if you believed in something greater than yourself, really believed, you could build something like this.
First time I've heard of Michigan copper in the old world, looks like an interesting rabbit hole to explore. Transatlantic trade secrets being lost in the bronze age collapse is definitely very possible.
It is a really interesting rabbit hole - i first came across it in, iirc, Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods and it helped tie together a few things that seemed anomalous but disconnected, like the level of sophistication seen in prehistoric America (the Mound Builders, South American pyramids with surrounding populations plausibly in the millions despite having all but vanished into barbaric cannibalistic remnants by the time Europeans show up), the common building patterns (e.g. megaliths, PSM, and pyramids) showing up around the globe, and so on. Hell, it even ties together with the Book of Mormon of all things lol!
I don't know much about masonry, so can you explain why this level of precision is remarkable? We have ancient statues with much more precise shapes going back allegedly 6000 years, including hard materials like marble. This article includes an ancient illustration of how Egyptian sculptors did their work, appearing to use stones to chisel away: https://www.thecollector.com/classical-art-marble-sculpting/. That article says for hard materials they used the same material to sculpt it. Couldn't that be how it was done in architecture as well if not with metal tools?
Perhaps I should have added the word “megalithic” (aka massive stones) to the title, I went with “polygonal stone masonry” because the last time I posted about this someone mentioned that was one of the names which research in this subject went under (so it could be easily searched for and more results/details could be found)
These stones get up to literally hundreds of tons - many easily over a million pounds. The notion that pre-industrial societies, societies lacking THE WHEEL (i.e. ancient egypt, ancient celts, etc) could quarry these stones, much less move them, MUCH LESS LIFT AND PLACE THEM WITH PRECISION NOT EVEN SEEN IN MODERN CONSTRUCTION EFFORTS (because of how insanely uneconomical, not to mention plain difficult these levels of precision are to achieve) - for one example of hundreds, you can’t fit a razor blade between the stones in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid, and some of those are over 75 tons
I strongly recommend that documentary linked on Vimeo for a deep dive into megalithic architecture and the repeated patterns found across the world
That's goy thinking. If you thought you were building a monument for a living God, to the point where you hoped to be entombed with them, economics aren't a consideration.
We think in terms of efficiency and wasted effort. These people didn't. They had nothing to "entertain" them so all their time was either working or bored. They could literally have build ramps several miles long out of earth just to keep the slope low enough to roll these things up on logs.
We wouldn't do that because "there must be a better way". They just did it.
That’s great, and probably true to some extent - it’s still impossible for those civilizations to have achieved the level of precision they did with the technology we claim they had
They could literally have build ramps several miles long out of earth just to keep the slope low enough to roll these things up on logs.
No, they literally couldn’t have lol, certainly not without leaving any evidence
I reckon they may only have needed a very strong lever, strong ropes and a strong wheeled platform in order for a bunch of slaves to lift and move large rocks. I don't know what the official story is but I'm guessing it was something along those lines. A lever capable of lifting such large weights would be very heavy itself, but it could have been deconstructed for transport and assembled where it was needed, e.g. multiple stone columns that could be bound together. Strong ropes could also be made from many ropes wound together and many wheels under a platform would allow it to bear greater weights. What else would they need?
For sand the weight just has to be distributed over a larger area, no? And I don't think Egypt is loose sand everywhere, although I've never been. I think to accomplish what they did they probably had the wheel or something like it like logs for rolling things on.
It’s very easy to check if modern science thinks that ancient egypt, during the reign of Khufu, had the wheel. The field of Egyptology agrees - they didn’t. If your response is just going to be “well they MUST have had the wheel!”, congrats, you’re at step 0.5 of figuring out the official narrative is bullshit.
And no, you can’t just use “a lever” (made out of what?) on Saharan sand (yes, it’s all they have) to lift hundreds of tons without constructing a massive, modern foundation and mooring system (i.e. concrete).
I'm not saying the mainstream history is correct. I don't think they are good at dating things.
And no, you can’t just use “a lever” (made out of what?) on Saharan sand (yes, it’s all they have) to lift hundreds of tons without constructing a massive, modern foundation and mooring system (i.e. concrete).
I said the lever could be made out of stone columns bound together. The pivot can be made of stone too and if it sinks into the sand too much then put it on a wide base. Not exactly easy but that's the simplest way I can think of. Maybe they found a better way but I don't see any direct of evidence of sophisticated technology.
Such walls layered with grinding in stones inplace with hand labour.
In the past, time cost nothing. Today most think it is impossible to spend a day grinding one brick into another for perfect fit. People just can't imagine that. However, that's not something outstanding at all if you have a decade to build a building and thousands of workforce. No any advanced technologies needed. Just time and workforce.
First, I don't see 200 ton stones. 10 tons max. Stone have density of around 2500kg/m³ So, stone of size meter by meter by meter will be 2.5 tons. Stone with size 2 meters by 2 meters by meter will be 10 tons. Stones on your picture are smaller.
They have no plausible means of moving them, much less lifting them precisely into place
That's just not true. It is not only perfectly possible, but it is not even complex and could be done by few people and some wood. It will take some time, but absolutely nothing impossible at any level of human development since paleolite.
If you need something really misterious - look at Nazca pictures. Nothing complex to create, but you definitely need something flying to control the process of creation. Was it kite or baloon, or something else, made from organic materials like wood, leather and other materials that will not leave any remains over time - that's really interesting question.
And no, log rollers or log pivots to move massive stones don’t work in desert sand lol, though I did enjoy that comment when I first saw it, I don’t believe it applies.
Megaliths weighing (up to) many hundreds of tons moved into position:
Linking to pedowikia as an argument is an idiocy.
It does not matter what pedos in pedowikia approve. There are simple methods of cutting, moving and glueing large stones. They need time and workforce, but there is absolutely nothing exceptional.
And no, log rollers or log pivots to move massive stones don’t work in desert sand lol
But they perfectly work if you put few long logs as a rails on a sand.
Seriously, is it that hard to just think and experiment a little to find out that most "ancient technology misteries" are not misteries at all, just basic knowledge of simple physics perfectly available at the time. Even monkeys, bears, parrots and ravens understand what lever is and now to use it.
The main fuckup of those who still dance around "ancient technologies" is that they completely unaware, that any advanced technology have a long and wide trail of industries that make parts of that technology. If there was some advanced technology, then we have to constantly find tools, pieces, materials, gears that specific for that technology in different stages of readiness everywhere.
But there is nothing. Just regular up-to-date tools, parts, materials, gears and all that things. No any specific tools, materials, parts, gears that could be a part of some out-of-time technology.
Antykhtera mechanism have nothing to do with moving stones. And it is not something "out-of-time" at all. All parts of it could be made with tools available at the time. There are several working replications, already, using only antique technology of the time. And as usual, it took time, but perfectly possible.
And woefully unimaginative:
And nothing scientific.
Science assume a full and proper information with all possible parameters about phenomenon that allow completely independent replication of phenomenon.
If it can't be replicated by completely independent researcher using only information from research paper, than it is not a science at all.
I appreciate your providing the reference. Oddly, the first item is the modern Russian Thunder Stone, the second is the Ramesseum 1000t with a credible documented sea transport explanation, and only the third is Baalbek 800t that is regarded as a bit mysterious. So the ancients were able to move and document a larger stone than Baalbek and yet you're still using the argument from ignorance.
Heh heh, Ruprechtsberger reports that the 1000t Stone of the Pregnant Woman at Baalbek, which was never moved from its quarry, is associated with a legend that nobody knew how to get it out of the quarry. So I guess there really was a limit after all.
>Mfw you can “roll” 200 ton stones through fucking sand, then lift them into positions so precise you couldn’t fit a razor blade between them (u triggered?)
Lmao
I know how comforting “just so” stories are. Doesn’t stop them from being retarded however.
I asked for evidence of this "razor" standard, evidence of analysis of this impossibility of movement. I didn't go long on engineering so I'm not prepared to argue (as you apparently are) that particular ideas are possible or impossible when they seem sufficiently plausible. Evidence, now there'd be an interesting discussion, rather than (checks notes) argument from ignorance.
Yeah, I don't watch 2-hour videos without some plan or reason. I mean at all. I'm weird that way, especially seeing as I'm willing to write a single post over 2 hours.
Most were not necessarily mortarless. Was just on a pyramid kick and the builds did have a mortar like slop of calcite, charcoal, clay, etc ..all which has mostly ablated over time due to erosion and pressure.
That aside, the methodology of the build is still fascinating and arrogantly ayh have decided to assert that Khufu's pyramid build was changed mid way thru and archeologists are leaning too heavily on linearity between planning to finish. Not necessarily conspiracy but gate keeping behavior by egyptologist cunts like Zahi and Lehner.
Look into it some more, the entire justification for attributing the Pyramid to Khufu is a single stone stele that reads more like a shopping list for repairs carried out under his reign than any kind of building dedication. I’d start here:
Ayh have no issue with assigning the pyramids to the periods and pharaohs that most have been given. Same with the mastabas. It is the Sphinx ayh refuse the narrative about. It was clearly modified and repaired for millennias and every egyptologist who claims the head is original -- ayh immediately dismiss as a unreliable narrator.
I guess we can exclude the Herodian construction of the Kotel with similarly weighted-stone, because those you can at least stick a piece of paper into.
Joke aside, I've found this to be a claim that becomes too vague to worry about. You're free to call me lazy again, but I'm not inclined to find out exactly what the meaning or application of "can't fit a razor blade" would be. Logically given any two touching stones of any shape, there will be places razors can't fit, and places they can. Most of these photos look like a razor would fit, or they look like they have mortar equivalents. So it isn't proven by photos. I don't have any data that disproves the idea that high-quality quarry planing is incapable of the phenomenon described.
I see no reason to doubt what I've heard, that the biggest such structures are 3 pyramids and they could each have taken 20 years for 100,000 people to build, which were certainly within the parameters. The general logistics were worked out; DeMille even popularized some in Ten Commandments for raising an obelisk. Now, I'm not opposed to saying that demons, giants (nephilim), and golems were all involved; but that doesn't change the likelihood any because none are necessary.
I'd love to interact with specific reports rather than generic ideas. You link (1) a 2-hour pyramid video without transcript or summary, which I respectfully decline; (2) an article on the thesis that many tons of copper were traded between Michigan and the Near East 4,000 to 3,000 years ago, a subject on which I have no prior experience and are therefore agnostic despite its rather novel claims; and (3) another reference to your interested in multiple cyclical catastrophes, which both opposes the Biblical record and is irrelevant to the period covered by OP. So I don't know that you have your blocks put together.
I have no interest in spending two hours on new doubt-raising experiences for topics that I already am comfortable with reasonable answers about.
In my youth I was a bit concerned about how these things were built because I didn't have reasonable answers. I put in the time and now I'm comfortable. You could easily attempt to pique my doubt again by listing 5-10 top unanswered questions, but since you already made one attempt with the links and it fell flat to me I don't think I'd be interested. Atlantis stuff, that might be interesting. You posted a photo of humans standing next to a giant (about 8-foot) body, and I say, great, more proof of known acromegaly in the Americas, and what's it to me, and your answer has been something like "but don't you get it" and you post about starting newspapers on fire with body heat. No, I don't get it, and the things of yours I don't get I haven't been inspired to get. You've posted things I've wanted to get, and I look through them until I get them. These aren't they.
You never actually dive into the stuff I share and invite you to dive into. You’ve never shared your thoughts on the Gospel of Thomas despite multiple occasions and invitations, nor the Tao Te Ching, nor John Chang and Mo Pai, nor gTummo yoga, nor any of the “prehistory” stuff I’ve shared (including this). If you do ever comment, it’s usually gay and passive aggressive like these last two, and never about the substance of the post. Only retards are convinced the earth is 6,000 years old - why would I design my posts around retards?
As Elwood Dowd might say: now, you mean 6,017 years, let's stick to the facts.
I've interacted with Gospel of Thomas quite a bit, and with the one passage of Tao te Ching, and answered about Chang and friends, and I generally support and interact with prehistory. But you don't like what I say, and the topic goes away after a bit (especially when you descend into namecalling those who are actually interested in the general field). Somehow I'm not giving you the approval you seek. Even when I throw you something freely about the fact that I don't doubt golems were involved but I'd like more than just photos and razor talk, that doesn't stroke you, golems are not "substance".
If you wanted to me keel over and admit that any of these things proves undeniably that the earth is more than 6,017 years old; or that there's more to theology than can fit within Christianity; then I repeat that I have enough evidence to keep me sustained on those propositions for quite some time and that it'd take a lot of effort on both our parts. If you don't want to put in that design effort, that's why you get the comments you did.
OP is a cute conspiracy-tweaking group of nondescript photos that asks a loaded question that is easily parried by ignorant normies who know that people are still building tall buildings, even pyramids, today and don't care about showing off stone when they can show off glass and steel. I gave it more time than it deserved. I read most of your fascinating link on a subject new to me, Michigan copper, and found that more interesting, declaring myself agnostic rather than slamming it to the ground with prejudgment. If we want to compare effort, maybe I should just redirect my effort to those who give evidence of wanting to put in similar effort with me.
Yeah. Because inevitably it’s 10 fucking paragraphs about irrelevant shit closed out with some snide insult or passive aggressive faggotry from an unearned high-horse
I attribute the oldest of stone masonry to the giants. It makes sense as too why the first layer of the temples were massive blocks.
Would also go some ways towards explaining the secret societies/mystery schools obsessed with geometry which likely eventually became the “free masons”, kaballah, etc
How does one make a brick? Compression. What's the opposite of compression? Rarefaction aka expanding a body of matter during motion.
First implies foundation...only thereupon can something be layered. Motion implies the foundation for any layer of matter.
I implies taking; attribute implies giving. Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from each being (life). If one ignores the latter, then another can exploit the former to shape the growth of ones perception.
Ancient bricks were made by baking clay mixed with straw in the sun, bro, there was no compression involved unless you count the workers pressing the clay into shape by hand.
I’d say that’s fair, no? It’s like the determining factor between a pile of mud and what might eventually become a “brick”
Putting ingredients together isn't compression? Put clay+straw in one hand and a brick in the other...which one looks compressed?
If one counts, then one can be held accountable...another compression, this one preventing expression outwards.
If flow (inception towards death) generates form (life), then how do heat (living) and cold (dying) work?
It is often overlooked that there were ~2000 years before the flood. Man lived here with angels, nephilim and giants. Look at how far we've come in just the last few hundred years, without any angels, giants, or nephilim..
What do call them digging out the tartarian structures after the mud flood...?
Free masonry
Digging out reveals...calling conceals by labeling. Nature reveals; few utilize artificial labels to conceal nature from many.
Call; verb - "to summon; invoke"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/call
We try not to, lol
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARKEOOcTQ/the-nephilim-were-on-the-earth-i/c
Do you see it more as a “technology” or a “power” (perhaps one restricted to these beings or their descendants)? - I ask because you draw your own link between what was happening back then and today
Most likely some combination of both. We do know there was definitely some tech involving genetic manipulation. Enoch as well as canonized scripture cover what the watchers (angels) taught man how to do.
True, even in our oldest records are the ideas of technology and innate powers conflated
True and false are at odds with one another. Change implies even, which alters into each ones different choice, which then can choose to put true and false at odds with one another.
Techno/tekhnē (artifice) logy (logic; circular thinking)...the ideas another suggests become artificial idols within oneself, which then shapes true or false circular thinking.
Nature implies linear progression; each being within a potential to shape form.
Aka power native within energy...a process of internal separation (analysis), which holding onto ideals/idols inverts (synthesis).
Technology implies the synthetic inversion of natural analysis.
Literally!
Though I wonder, what would the natural application of natural analysis look like? What would it be called? Perhaps something like “the Way”? Or even “free will”?
a) Look/lock implies holding onto; like implies differences synthesized together...it's all perceivable separating each ones perception, which allows one to analyze what others synthesize.
b) Apply; verb - "join or combine" aka a synthesis. Ation/action implies separation into reaction aka analysis.
It's your consent to the suggested word "application" which hides analysis (cation) within synthesis (apply)...you are choosing to artificially hold together what nature sets apart from one another. I can analyze this, but not take apart your synthesis.
It wouldn't. Putting a label onto something implies a synthesis...being one thing within everything implies an analytical process. You answering the call, you questioning others what to call, any you holding onto the called label...that's what inverts analysis into synthesis.
a) What does way (inception towards death) imply? Wanderer (life)...not a likeness, but internal differentiation aka the inert power you wrote about.
b) Perhaps implies by happenstance aka by chance. Being implies choice given by balance...only then can choice take a chance, which once again implies an inversion.
c) Being implies one thing within everything (analysis)...something implies the sum of things together (synthesis).
Balance (even) gives and takes free will of choice (odd)...that's how nature evens the odds of being. It's OR (either, else, otherwise, as an alternative or substitute) which another exploits to tempt choice at odds with one another.
Taking the chance of even or odds implies gambling ones choice away. Only within even can there be odd..."or" inverts that.
Heat flows up, water flows down, this i can discern from analysis, yet don’t I, the human, still require the synthesis to decide to, and ultimately to actually produce a roofed structure which will keep the heat in and the rain out? Is that an inversion of the natural analysis or is that an example of natural synthesis?(though if I read right, such a thing doesn’t even properly exist in the framework you describe, so the question has inherent limits) - forgive the use of the word “or”
The “official” story behind these sites is that stones were either picked up off the ground in these shapes, then fitted together, with maybe some light polishing by pumice or other soft stones.
In some cases (Egypt) the official narrative is that these stones were “rough hewn” from a quarry (with copper tools that came from MICHIGAN ore deposits), then somehow (???) smoothed and shaped with a precision practically unheard of in even modern construction. All by a culture that had never invented the wheel, apparently.
Clearly, humanity has risen to extreme heights in the past that we have trouble imagining (and duplicating) today.
Best documentary I’ve ever seen on the holes in the mainstream story of the Pyramids and their worldwide significance
“prehistoric” Michigan Copper found in a Mediterranean shipwreck
What wiped them out? Probably the 26,000 year cyclical catastrophe:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F-d4zfovcog
Check out the Easter Island statues. They were apparently built, and quarried, by hand. It just takes something like 10 years to wear the stone down.
I know it's boring, but my theory here is that people back then realized that they had nothing better to do with their lives than seeking perfection of craft. That's it. Because of that, they'll spend an entire week making a single stone perfectly fit it's alotted space, rather than churning out 100 "good enough" blocks and having to mortar them all to hide the faults.
None of us think that way today. No one here would spend ten years kicking rocks into shape because, surely, that time could be better spent learning, or arguing, or making money, or sitting around. But, if you believed in something greater than yourself, really believed, you could build something like this.
First time I've heard of Michigan copper in the old world, looks like an interesting rabbit hole to explore. Transatlantic trade secrets being lost in the bronze age collapse is definitely very possible.
It is a really interesting rabbit hole - i first came across it in, iirc, Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods and it helped tie together a few things that seemed anomalous but disconnected, like the level of sophistication seen in prehistoric America (the Mound Builders, South American pyramids with surrounding populations plausibly in the millions despite having all but vanished into barbaric cannibalistic remnants by the time Europeans show up), the common building patterns (e.g. megaliths, PSM, and pyramids) showing up around the globe, and so on. Hell, it even ties together with the Book of Mormon of all things lol!
I don't know much about masonry, so can you explain why this level of precision is remarkable? We have ancient statues with much more precise shapes going back allegedly 6000 years, including hard materials like marble. This article includes an ancient illustration of how Egyptian sculptors did their work, appearing to use stones to chisel away: https://www.thecollector.com/classical-art-marble-sculpting/. That article says for hard materials they used the same material to sculpt it. Couldn't that be how it was done in architecture as well if not with metal tools?
Perhaps I should have added the word “megalithic” (aka massive stones) to the title, I went with “polygonal stone masonry” because the last time I posted about this someone mentioned that was one of the names which research in this subject went under (so it could be easily searched for and more results/details could be found)
These stones get up to literally hundreds of tons - many easily over a million pounds. The notion that pre-industrial societies, societies lacking THE WHEEL (i.e. ancient egypt, ancient celts, etc) could quarry these stones, much less move them, MUCH LESS LIFT AND PLACE THEM WITH PRECISION NOT EVEN SEEN IN MODERN CONSTRUCTION EFFORTS (because of how insanely uneconomical, not to mention plain difficult these levels of precision are to achieve) - for one example of hundreds, you can’t fit a razor blade between the stones in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid, and some of those are over 75 tons
I strongly recommend that documentary linked on Vimeo for a deep dive into megalithic architecture and the repeated patterns found across the world
That's goy thinking. If you thought you were building a monument for a living God, to the point where you hoped to be entombed with them, economics aren't a consideration.
We think in terms of efficiency and wasted effort. These people didn't. They had nothing to "entertain" them so all their time was either working or bored. They could literally have build ramps several miles long out of earth just to keep the slope low enough to roll these things up on logs.
We wouldn't do that because "there must be a better way". They just did it.
That’s great, and probably true to some extent - it’s still impossible for those civilizations to have achieved the level of precision they did with the technology we claim they had
No, they literally couldn’t have lol, certainly not without leaving any evidence
I reckon they may only have needed a very strong lever, strong ropes and a strong wheeled platform in order for a bunch of slaves to lift and move large rocks. I don't know what the official story is but I'm guessing it was something along those lines. A lever capable of lifting such large weights would be very heavy itself, but it could have been deconstructed for transport and assembled where it was needed, e.g. multiple stone columns that could be bound together. Strong ropes could also be made from many ropes wound together and many wheels under a platform would allow it to bear greater weights. What else would they need?
You can’t do any of that stuff on desert sand and with a tech tree that doesn’t even include the wheel
For sand the weight just has to be distributed over a larger area, no? And I don't think Egypt is loose sand everywhere, although I've never been. I think to accomplish what they did they probably had the wheel or something like it like logs for rolling things on.
It’s very easy to check if modern science thinks that ancient egypt, during the reign of Khufu, had the wheel. The field of Egyptology agrees - they didn’t. If your response is just going to be “well they MUST have had the wheel!”, congrats, you’re at step 0.5 of figuring out the official narrative is bullshit.
And no, you can’t just use “a lever” (made out of what?) on Saharan sand (yes, it’s all they have) to lift hundreds of tons without constructing a massive, modern foundation and mooring system (i.e. concrete).
I'm not saying the mainstream history is correct. I don't think they are good at dating things.
I said the lever could be made out of stone columns bound together. The pivot can be made of stone too and if it sinks into the sand too much then put it on a wide base. Not exactly easy but that's the simplest way I can think of. Maybe they found a better way but I don't see any direct of evidence of sophisticated technology.
Such walls layered with grinding in stones inplace with hand labour.
In the past, time cost nothing. Today most think it is impossible to spend a day grinding one brick into another for perfect fit. People just can't imagine that. However, that's not something outstanding at all if you have a decade to build a building and thousands of workforce. No any advanced technologies needed. Just time and workforce.
How did they place these 200 ton stones? They have no plausible means of moving them, much less lifting them precisely into place
First, I don't see 200 ton stones. 10 tons max. Stone have density of around 2500kg/m³ So, stone of size meter by meter by meter will be 2.5 tons. Stone with size 2 meters by 2 meters by meter will be 10 tons. Stones on your picture are smaller.
As for one of simple and handy methods - read my comment here - https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARK0LWSrU/x/c/4eXtiGbGUlA
That's just not true. It is not only perfectly possible, but it is not even complex and could be done by few people and some wood. It will take some time, but absolutely nothing impossible at any level of human development since paleolite.
If you need something really misterious - look at Nazca pictures. Nothing complex to create, but you definitely need something flying to control the process of creation. Was it kite or baloon, or something else, made from organic materials like wood, leather and other materials that will not leave any remains over time - that's really interesting question.
Only one of the pictures has anything providing any kind of size reference
Anyway, here’s the wiki page. Megaliths weighing (up to) many hundreds of tons moved into position:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_monoliths#Moved_monoliths
And no, log rollers or log pivots to move massive stones don’t work in desert sand lol, though I did enjoy that comment when I first saw it, I don’t believe it applies.
Linking to pedowikia as an argument is an idiocy.
It does not matter what pedos in pedowikia approve. There are simple methods of cutting, moving and glueing large stones. They need time and workforce, but there is absolutely nothing exceptional.
But they perfectly work if you put few long logs as a rails on a sand.
Seriously, is it that hard to just think and experiment a little to find out that most "ancient technology misteries" are not misteries at all, just basic knowledge of simple physics perfectly available at the time. Even monkeys, bears, parrots and ravens understand what lever is and now to use it.
The main fuckup of those who still dance around "ancient technologies" is that they completely unaware, that any advanced technology have a long and wide trail of industries that make parts of that technology. If there was some advanced technology, then we have to constantly find tools, pieces, materials, gears that specific for that technology in different stages of readiness everywhere.
But there is nothing. Just regular up-to-date tools, parts, materials, gears and all that things. No any specific tools, materials, parts, gears that could be a part of some out-of-time technology.
Wikipedia was linked to as catalogued evidence of multiple 200+ ton stone megaliths moved into position from their quarry site and nothing more.
Regarding your ideas about lack of out-of-place/“out-of-time” technological artifacts, you seem both woefully uninformed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
And woefully unimaginative:
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARKEOOd4S/a-scientific-analysis-of-chi-and/c
Which is a sad shift from how I normally see your comments.
Antykhtera mechanism have nothing to do with moving stones. And it is not something "out-of-time" at all. All parts of it could be made with tools available at the time. There are several working replications, already, using only antique technology of the time. And as usual, it took time, but perfectly possible.
And nothing scientific.
Science assume a full and proper information with all possible parameters about phenomenon that allow completely independent replication of phenomenon.
If it can't be replicated by completely independent researcher using only information from research paper, than it is not a science at all.
Well it looks like there are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than your science can dream of
I appreciate your providing the reference. Oddly, the first item is the modern Russian Thunder Stone, the second is the Ramesseum 1000t with a credible documented sea transport explanation, and only the third is Baalbek 800t that is regarded as a bit mysterious. So the ancients were able to move and document a larger stone than Baalbek and yet you're still using the argument from ignorance.
Heh heh, Ruprechtsberger reports that the 1000t Stone of the Pregnant Woman at Baalbek, which was never moved from its quarry, is associated with a legend that nobody knew how to get it out of the quarry. So I guess there really was a limit after all.
Earthworks, ramps, rollers (of course they had wheels), wedges, team ropes, etc.
>Mfw you can “roll” 200 ton stones through fucking sand, then lift them into positions so precise you couldn’t fit a razor blade between them (u triggered?)
Lmao
I know how comforting “just so” stories are. Doesn’t stop them from being retarded however.
I asked for evidence of this "razor" standard, evidence of analysis of this impossibility of movement. I didn't go long on engineering so I'm not prepared to argue (as you apparently are) that particular ideas are possible or impossible when they seem sufficiently plausible. Evidence, now there'd be an interesting discussion, rather than (checks notes) argument from ignorance.
You “respectfully” (read: faggily) declined to review the evidence, don’t you remember? It was only a couple hours ago
Yeah, I don't watch 2-hour videos without some plan or reason. I mean at all. I'm weird that way, especially seeing as I'm willing to write a single post over 2 hours.
How about “my friend of 5 years asked me to”
Feel free to live blog it so you feel like you’re doing something productive.
Most were not necessarily mortarless. Was just on a pyramid kick and the builds did have a mortar like slop of calcite, charcoal, clay, etc ..all which has mostly ablated over time due to erosion and pressure.
That aside, the methodology of the build is still fascinating and arrogantly ayh have decided to assert that Khufu's pyramid build was changed mid way thru and archeologists are leaning too heavily on linearity between planning to finish. Not necessarily conspiracy but gate keeping behavior by egyptologist cunts like Zahi and Lehner.
Look into it some more, the entire justification for attributing the Pyramid to Khufu is a single stone stele that reads more like a shopping list for repairs carried out under his reign than any kind of building dedication. I’d start here:
https://vimeo.com/521974505
Ayh have no issue with assigning the pyramids to the periods and pharaohs that most have been given. Same with the mastabas. It is the Sphinx ayh refuse the narrative about. It was clearly modified and repaired for millennias and every egyptologist who claims the head is original -- ayh immediately dismiss as a unreliable narrator.
Well, atleast you’ve got that much figured out
I guess we can exclude the Herodian construction of the Kotel with similarly weighted-stone, because those you can at least stick a piece of paper into.
Joke aside, I've found this to be a claim that becomes too vague to worry about. You're free to call me lazy again, but I'm not inclined to find out exactly what the meaning or application of "can't fit a razor blade" would be. Logically given any two touching stones of any shape, there will be places razors can't fit, and places they can. Most of these photos look like a razor would fit, or they look like they have mortar equivalents. So it isn't proven by photos. I don't have any data that disproves the idea that high-quality quarry planing is incapable of the phenomenon described.
I see no reason to doubt what I've heard, that the biggest such structures are 3 pyramids and they could each have taken 20 years for 100,000 people to build, which were certainly within the parameters. The general logistics were worked out; DeMille even popularized some in Ten Commandments for raising an obelisk. Now, I'm not opposed to saying that demons, giants (nephilim), and golems were all involved; but that doesn't change the likelihood any because none are necessary.
I'd love to interact with specific reports rather than generic ideas. You link (1) a 2-hour pyramid video without transcript or summary, which I respectfully decline; (2) an article on the thesis that many tons of copper were traded between Michigan and the Near East 4,000 to 3,000 years ago, a subject on which I have no prior experience and are therefore agnostic despite its rather novel claims; and (3) another reference to your interested in multiple cyclical catastrophes, which both opposes the Biblical record and is irrelevant to the period covered by OP. So I don't know that you have your blocks put together.
Watch the documentary gaylord, this is a forum post not a symposium
I have no interest in spending two hours on new doubt-raising experiences for topics that I already am comfortable with reasonable answers about.
In my youth I was a bit concerned about how these things were built because I didn't have reasonable answers. I put in the time and now I'm comfortable. You could easily attempt to pique my doubt again by listing 5-10 top unanswered questions, but since you already made one attempt with the links and it fell flat to me I don't think I'd be interested. Atlantis stuff, that might be interesting. You posted a photo of humans standing next to a giant (about 8-foot) body, and I say, great, more proof of known acromegaly in the Americas, and what's it to me, and your answer has been something like "but don't you get it" and you post about starting newspapers on fire with body heat. No, I don't get it, and the things of yours I don't get I haven't been inspired to get. You've posted things I've wanted to get, and I look through them until I get them. These aren't they.
You never actually dive into the stuff I share and invite you to dive into. You’ve never shared your thoughts on the Gospel of Thomas despite multiple occasions and invitations, nor the Tao Te Ching, nor John Chang and Mo Pai, nor gTummo yoga, nor any of the “prehistory” stuff I’ve shared (including this). If you do ever comment, it’s usually gay and passive aggressive like these last two, and never about the substance of the post. Only retards are convinced the earth is 6,000 years old - why would I design my posts around retards?
As Elwood Dowd might say: now, you mean 6,017 years, let's stick to the facts.
I've interacted with Gospel of Thomas quite a bit, and with the one passage of Tao te Ching, and answered about Chang and friends, and I generally support and interact with prehistory. But you don't like what I say, and the topic goes away after a bit (especially when you descend into namecalling those who are actually interested in the general field). Somehow I'm not giving you the approval you seek. Even when I throw you something freely about the fact that I don't doubt golems were involved but I'd like more than just photos and razor talk, that doesn't stroke you, golems are not "substance".
If you wanted to me keel over and admit that any of these things proves undeniably that the earth is more than 6,017 years old; or that there's more to theology than can fit within Christianity; then I repeat that I have enough evidence to keep me sustained on those propositions for quite some time and that it'd take a lot of effort on both our parts. If you don't want to put in that design effort, that's why you get the comments you did.
OP is a cute conspiracy-tweaking group of nondescript photos that asks a loaded question that is easily parried by ignorant normies who know that people are still building tall buildings, even pyramids, today and don't care about showing off stone when they can show off glass and steel. I gave it more time than it deserved. I read most of your fascinating link on a subject new to me, Michigan copper, and found that more interesting, declaring myself agnostic rather than slamming it to the ground with prejudgment. If we want to compare effort, maybe I should just redirect my effort to those who give evidence of wanting to put in similar effort with me.
Yeah. Because inevitably it’s 10 fucking paragraphs about irrelevant shit closed out with some snide insult or passive aggressive faggotry from an unearned high-horse