Sign in to follow this  
themiddleway

The 1100 ton Unfinished Obelisk

Recommended Posts

Ben's channel unchartedX dose an excellent job at debunking the debunkers and  presenting alternatives to how the megalithic sites around the world could have been constructed. Who is more qualified to talk about this subject archaeologist or engineers ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, themiddleway said:

Ben's channel unchartedX dose an excellent job at debunking the debunkers and  presenting alternatives to how the megalithic sites around the world could have been constructed. Who is more qualified to talk about this subject archaeologist or engineers ? 

 

 

 

 

I doubt you will get a response of any validity . Its an hour long vid !   I started and it took SOOOO long to get anywhere I gave up .

 

Who has an hour to spare to watch the whole lot just to give you some feedback .

 

You would be better off outlining his case in your post in text and giving us some reference times in the vid to check it .

 

regarding your question : Who is more qualified to talk about this subject archaeologist or engineers ?  I am sure you realise that would depend on what type of  archaeologist and what type of engineer . I have a nephew that is a  qualified archaeologist and I tried to engage him in conversation and he didnt have a clue what I was talking about  ... and I am , in no way an archaeologist . He said he doesnt 'do that stuff'  . What does he do ?  he sits at a computer all day , entering  data so it comes out as images . or 3 d scans etc .

 

A modern engineer might be good at modern engineering  , but what would he know about   ancient engineering  ?

 

One might be better off to listen to someone like Mark Learner , who started off as an alternative  ... geee maybe space aliens did all this type of guy , but was so determined to get an answer , started studying archaeology and Egyptology  ( field you neglected to mention  as a possible 'best' candidate for  study ad solutions ) , graduated and is now respected in the main stream .

 

But STILL, have heard him say really weird stuff that contradicts  current theories and even what he said 10 mins earlier ! *   But this is all on TV docos  and, they are much like youtubes .  Sorry to disappoint  you , but you cant really learn about this stuff from youtubes .

 

* tv doco is marvelling at pyramid of Khafre

 

 

 

 

Pyramid-Khafre2.jpg

 

" WOW , we have discovered that this pyramid changed everything  ... it broke tradition by  being the first one to have its chamber at ground level , the others before it had them up in the body of the pyramid . "

 

Abso BS !   The one before this broke 'tradition' by doing that , all others before that had ground level chambers . - they must mean  that it was different than the one before it ? But no, they keep insisting . Then Learner comments that it it is different  , than the ONE BEFORE IT .   Okay, maybe commentary was pushing some exciting mystery  ( fake )  BUT then at the end Learner says exactly that 'Its broken the tradition of all other pyramids before it by having its chamber at ground level . " 

 

So what's going on here ?  TV thats what , its cut up, mixed around edited .   Gotta look  like something new and wonderful  has been found  'cause  ....... we just spent 10g on 'Lidar', 12 G on data point laser photography to make a  cool 3 d model , plus the drone fees  (all tech not available before ) so we need 'findings' to justify the expenses .

 

In short, you cant learn much from youtubes and tv docos .... that is accurate .

 

... if I DO find I have a spare hour, I will try again , but if you want a discussion I suggest you do what I sad above .

 

- it did get my curiosity though, I would LOVE to hear about any new VALID and NON STUPID*  ideas on this . 

 

* like the guy that believed  they used gold mirrors to focus the sun and melt through rocks = a 1 hr tv doco and  at the end he  couldnt even scorch a piece of paper with it  .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I persevered  .... wish I hadn' t   :D    Same same , I have seen it all before .

 

They keep hitting on   a few good points  , but sometimes , nearly every sentence uttered could be disputed  ... too much to go through on that one.  Sometimes , previous premises suggested , later somehow turn into facts that further  extrapolations are then drawn from  and presented as valid .  Then again, at times he follows  up his assertions with , maybe not, others dont think so ... but I dont agree  .. ...  so, a matter of personal opinion .

 

Worse is the diversion into  glossed over points , where we are told they are fully explained in other episodes of the series  ( more 1 1/2 hr long vids !    Also, we can find out by following the directions at the beginning , the money / advertising part  , that goes for  some time , a thing he says he doesnt usually do,  but in this case  ....  well, he does .

 

  " Lion cloth wearing savages "  , he describes the  ancient Egyptians  ( Late Kingdom ) as .   The Late Kingdom holds some of the most advanced  ....  ( ahh forget it !  Its plainly a loaded statement ! ... and it doesnt do his presentation any good .  )

 

Its a shame as he does make some good points  and  at times asks good focused questions .  I agree with him about the silly experiments some archaeologists have tried to replicate things , some of them are REALLY bad .

 

He also makes a point that  archaeologists only go on the evidence they find  ; the see the marks, they find the 'pounding balls ' , they find no other tools so they assume  the method .  Well, that's what archaeologists do  .... they are not supposed to make theories beyond physical evidence they find .   The V.O. admits however that 'its all speculation"  on video's  part  (  54:40 )

 

 

Conclusions ?

 

-  The most likely solution is it was some type of  advanced tool or machine  that was designed so as to leave the effects and marks  we see -  and that  the 'orthodox' explanation is too  fantastic  and unrealistic .  

 

( I personally think that the 'advanced tool' we have no evidence of  is rather fantastic  :)   . They make a point that the same marks are on stone work at  other places and countries  . Well, at those places and times , they only had similar technology to  New Kingdom Egypt , so that isnt surprising  .  What is surprising is the suggestion that they might all have had this 'advanced tool' , that in all these other places  there is no record of either  .   Some secret advanced hidden technology tool , mega hard granite  rock scrapper , that is used in different countries ,  with similar technology levels , sometimes separated by 1000s of years  , that leaves no other trace other than the marks in the rocks that they presume must be left by a tool that made similar marks  ( they do show a few ideas and admit none of them would have been suitable) .  To me that is just as silly as them showing how hard it is to use a pounder by showing soft western tourists trying it out , or themselves or modern archaeologists  ... too hard , it hurt , etc etc .  Well go look in some mines and places where  , admittedly with iron picks and shovels navvies and miners did amazing feats of engineering , and suffered  and died from it , with no more than picks and shovels and wheel barrows  .... and in recent history too ! .

" I only lasted a few minutes at it "   :)  ... they didnt even address the possabilities of relays of people , it isnt impossible that people swapped jobs every 1/2 hr or 15 mins .... lots of other options possible all through their complaints about logical  impossibility are not mentioned either .  

 

From  0;55 on you will hear the standard explanation  ... rave , all familiar , as before , replete with holes of logic all through it . So just go to there and watch 10 mins if you want the gist of this video .    ( As to why this idea of his -  and others  ideas ,   its 'standard fare - is imprtant to us , he doesnt say ... but he will be making a video about that in the future  ;) )

 

  I' ve addresses   all this before here in  a few  posts , so go there for the info . 

 

OR  I will soon have a  3 hr video coming out where I read all those posts to you .  or you could buy my book coming out .

 

I also offer tours where you can pay for my holiday  get   a   'discount price'  for  booking early ; Egypt ... or the  Egypt / South America package  ( with a stop off for a bit in Columbia  )  .

 

PS . dont bother with the last 8 mins - merchandising    T- shirts , etc     :) 

 

  - why didnt I think of that ?  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the large tightly fitted stones near Titicaca have trowel marks - as if the stones were soft enough to trowel into shape - perhaps even being poured like concrete. 

 

 Hence perhaps the bits of straw reported as embedded in the limestone blocks of the great pyramid of Giza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lairg said:

Some of the large tightly fitted stones near Titicaca have trowel marks

 

Got an image to demonstrate this ?

 

 

13 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

 

- as if the stones were soft enough to trowel into shape - perhaps even being poured like concrete. 

 

 

'Have' trowel marks ... or have things that look like trowel marks ?

 

People describe the 'scoop marks' around the obelisk  as looking like   a big ice cream scoop had scrapped out bits of rock . of course, even if we had such a mechanised scoop and tried it .... no way would the surface look like that  ( it would be fractured and broken, even ice cream will do that if you scoop it out - look closely at the surface , it isnt smooth at all.  ). Even in this video here , they suggest the 'scooper' would have to be some huge type of abrasive 'belt sander' ,  but that 'belt sander would not have a flat surface , as a 'scoop' is  deeper in the middle - so a belt sander that has a convex base plate  ..... as we go on and look further into it, the ore the idea falls apart . 

 

Some of the blocks certainly LOOK LIKE they where once malleable  and then set . I spent a LOT of time in the past looking into this and particularly  Davidovit's ideas  ... he is an engineer  has replicated the process he believes  they used and made a  scad of bucks out of it  ( geopolymer for deep site nuclear waste containment and burial ) .... but his ideas start to fall apart as well, the more we go into them .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Davidovits

 

 

13 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

 Hence perhaps the bits of straw reported as embedded in the limestone blocks of the great pyramid of Giza

 

I cant find any reference to that whatsoever . I think you we need a citation for that ... otherwise its just ' hearsay' .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the European explorers of the Titicaca area wrote that he found a stone bottle with a liquid that when poured on some rocks made them soft - potentially how the builders at Titicaca could fit polygonal stones so closely. 

 

Look also at the finishing marks where the stones join.  Some marks flow over on to the next stone.  How could that happen?

 

Google is your friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No answers to mine above ?

 

This 'found a bottle thing' - hearsay too .

 

What 'finishing marks' and what do you mean by  " flow over on to the next stone "  ?

 

Posting an image to what you are trying to describe would  demonstrate what you mean .

 

Google might be my friend but it still will not show me any entries about 'straw' inside the limestone blocks of  the Great Pyramid .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/17/2022 at 11:35 PM, Lairg said:

One of the European explorers of the Titicaca area wrote that he found a stone bottle with a liquid that when poured on some rocks made them soft - potentially how the builders at Titicaca could fit polygonal stones so closely. 

 

I've also heard this. Percy Faucet, I think is the guys name the Lost city of Z book/movie is about him.

 

I just want to share some ideas about it because it fascinates me, and I've researched it to a point.

I've heard other references to this as well but also just 2nd hand accounts. My Aunt learned of it from Peruvians in the Amazon saying they could soften the stone with some kind of  natural mixture Then this is where it gets extremely fascinating. I also heard reference to it in an interview from Praveen Mohan an Indian Archeologist. He mentioned that The Sculptors from ancient family lines in India, still have this secret  formula and use it to make temple statues, etc. It makes sense that if the top or bottom of one stone is softened the next one is going to conform to it  perfectly from the weight with no gaps, though it could be a polymer too. Now how old they are is a total mystery unless you get into psychic territory. But you can see clear similarities in the oldest stuff in Egypt and the stuff in South America. If you get into Steiner He talks about how they are all post Atlantean cultures, with Vedic India being the oldest, around 7000 bc then  Zoroastrian Persia, then the Egyptian/Samaritan/Chaldean culture last, But this is Psychic territory so questionable.. but it resonates with me.

 

Here's a couple images I took when I went a few years ago to Cusco.  The 1st is some really scooped out looking stones at a place called Qenqo. The 2nd is in downtown Cusco at a famous spot for the many sided stones and 3rd is at the ancient  megalithic temple of Saqsaywaman.The last is an example of Ancient vs Incan architecture, And here is that interview  where it's referenced https://www.earthancients.com/?portfolio=praveen-mohan-pyramid-cultures-of-ancients-cambodia

 

Qenqo.jpg

Cusco-wall.jpg

Saqsay-wall.jpg

oldvsnew.jpg

Edited by Klinsly
one Photo didn't work
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo in which you are standing shows very smooth bevels - as if the stone were soft at the time - and what might be trowel marks on the flat surfaces.

 

In one photo I saw, the beveling over-shot on to the next stone - indicating that the beveling was done in situ and that there was little effort involved.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lairg said:

The photo in which you are standing shows very smooth bevels - as if the stone were soft at the time - and what might be trowel marks on the flat surfaces.

 

In one photo I saw, the beveling over-shot on to the next stone - indicating that the beveling was done in situ and that there was little effort involved.  

 

How do you know there are trowel marks? From my reading the stone is granite a type of igneous rock. There is also limestone (sedimentary rock)  in that area that was used for the walls. Stone of this type is subject to weathering and not liquefying the stone. :lol: Liquefying a vertical surface without a form denies gravity. :lol:

 

All this speculation of aliens and bottles of liquid that soften rock is nothing more than an active imagination and fails to give credit to ancient stone masons that labored for decades to build these fascinating structures. 

Edited by ralis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are trowel marks as some believe, then why is the rock surface rough and textured? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

How do you know there are trowel marks?

 

Oh , this thread doesnt work like that at all ! It works like this :

 

" My auntie knows some south Americans and they said it is trowel marks  ."   and no further questions will be responded to .  ;)

 

- But we ( me and you ) can go on without them  , and since no explanations of meaning are forthcoming  , we must assume he means the surface of the blocks exterior  ; which clearly shows a common weathering pattern .

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

From my reading the stone is granite a type of igneous rock. There is also limestone (sedimentary rock)  in that area that was used for the walls. Stone of this type is subject to weathering and not liquefying the stone. :lol: Liquefying a vertical surface without a form denies gravity. :lol:

 

Messrs Dunning - Kruger  says   " Thats why they looked 'slumped'  ."   :) 

 

- and if you ask what I mean by that  , I will ignore the question .

 

:D 

 

 

 

Quote

 

All this speculation of aliens and bottles of liquid that soften rock is nothing more than an active imagination and fails to give credit to ancient stone masons that labored for decades to build these fascinating structures. 

 

I cant decide whether its born from modern man's jealousy or  sheer stupid uneducated ignorance 

 

 

Spoiler

Of course, its a combination of both   ;)

 

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ralis said:

If there are trowel marks as some believe, then why is the rock surface rough and textured? 

 

 

 

 

.................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ralis said:

If there are trowel marks as some believe, then why is the rock surface rough and textured? 

 

I will ask YOU this question ;

 

Do you think it is easier, when making a wall out of such blocks  ( and requiring  tight ,interlocked , earthquake proof joints )

 

Do you think it is easier to ;

 

1 . Make all your blocks a regular same size ,  working them all down to a standard .

or

2.  Using the blocks as different sizes -  as the easiest way  they are quarried, split  off, etc is to work the natural breaks and fauts and splits in them , resulting in all different sizes . 

 

AND  moving along from  this ;  if you have blocks of all different sizes , is it easier to use various sizes by trimming so they fit neatly

 

OR 

  

cutting them all back down to regular square  blocks . 

 

 

Pretty much the same principle exists , in simplicity , where there is NOT a significant earthquake risk and the wall is low  ;

 

 

stone-wall.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ralis said:

If there are trowel marks as some believe, then why is the rock surface rough and textured? 

 

Perhaps the rock has been out in the rain and snow for 1000 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there WHERE trowel marks but now they have been obscured by weathering  ? 

 

 

:D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Snow " .   :D 

 

 

" Temperatures in Cusco don't vary much during the year (the temperature holds in the 60s-70s Fahrenheit during the day and 30s-40s at night), and it never snows, but the region does have two distinct seasons: dry and rainy ."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm certainly no expert, nor said anything about trowel marks, or know what that means, I actually missed most of the converstation. Just sharing some cool photos and new ideas.  There were tons of stones with something that sort of  resembles a handle, a quick google image search will show these like   and some that were hollow inside  with a channel in a museum showing some were interlocked together.

 

 I'm just fascinated by it. The more you research it, people have no idea how old it all is or how long ago they were built. Why would a lost art be out of the question from a time when we weren't so disconnected from direct wisdom from the spiritual world.  I think a chemical reaction that can soften granite is being  rather conservative in that realm of possibility. But also She was an Archeologist/tour guide in the area and is making a movie about the idea that's mostly done. I know how funny it sounds with what I originally said haha. That's why I was there helping out. The softening I think is  more the idea that it just softens the surface you put it on so you can smooth or shape it. Some bird there is known for digging nests in rock faces by using some plant mixed with it's saliva.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lairg said:

 

Perhaps the rock has been out in the rain and snow for 1000 years.

 See I actually like the idea of certain researchers/authors like Freddy Silva who compares ancient sites all over the world using Sacred geometry, celestial, alignments, procession, as well as the local stories and mythology and his own intuitive insights he gets at the places, that sites Like Saqsaywaman, and more specifically at Lake Titicaca might be up to 12,000 plus years old, or whats considered antedeluvian, and could be related to those multiple  groups of  7 sages  whose stories show up at the begging of almost all  major cultures in our modern history.( not the mainstream books but the actual culture's histories.) He's like Graham Hancock but lesser known and way more interesting for those into mystical things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

Perhaps the rock has been out in the rain and snow for 1000 years.

 

Did you look at the images of granite I posted? Ever seen a natural outcropping of granite? The High Sierras are a classic example. Climbers love climbing on granite since it has a texture that makes climbing possible.

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Klinsly said:

Well I'm certainly no expert, nor said anything about trowel marks, or know what that means, I actually missed most of the converstation. Just sharing some cool photos and new ideas.  There were tons of stones with something that sort of  resembles a handle, a quick google image search will show these like   and some that were hollow inside  with a channel in a museum showing some were interlocked together.

 

Yeah, very cool and amazing pics, thanks .  Those 'handles' , if you mean the protuberances or 'bosses'  / 'knobs ' are a  placement aid .

 

Think about lifting a block up and down  in its position .... gotta put the rope around it , or use levers against it somehow without them being trapped beneath when its lowered in position. Some where smoothed back and some where not  .... maybe they liked the look of that  .   . 

 

 

7 hours ago, Klinsly said:

 

 I'm just fascinated by it. The more you research it, people have no idea how old it all is or how long ago they were built. Why would a lost art be out of the question from a time when we weren't so disconnected from direct wisdom from the spiritual world.  I think a chemical reaction that can soften granite is being  rather conservative in that realm of possibility. But also She was an Archeologist/tour guide in the area and is making a movie about the idea that's mostly done. I know how funny it sounds with what I originally said haha. That's why I was there helping out. The softening I think is  more the idea that it just softens the surface you put it on so you can smooth or shape it. Some bird there is known for digging nests in rock faces by using some plant mixed with it's saliva.

 

I guess my response to this part would be similar .... think about how they would soften the surface of a stone .... and all of that's implications , in many areas  - and I'll leave it at that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Klinsly said:

 See I actually like the idea of certain researchers/authors like Freddy Silva who compares ancient sites all over the world using Sacred geometry, celestial, alignments, procession, as well as the local stories and mythology and his own intuitive insights he gets at the places, that sites Like Saqsaywaman, and more specifically at Lake Titicaca might be up to 12,000 plus years old, or whats considered antedeluvian, and could be related to those multiple  groups of  7 sages  whose stories show up at the begging of almost all  major cultures in our modern history.( not the mainstream books but the actual culture's histories.) He's like Graham Hancock but lesser known and way more interesting for those into mystical things.

 

 

:huh:

 

 

What  " multiple  groups of  7 sages  whose stories show up at the begging of almost all  major cultures in our modern history. "  ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example the original gods of Egypt were 7 male-female pairs that were believed to be "without father and without mother"  presumably because they were born outside the planet.

 

You will recall the expression "without father and without mother" from St Paul's description of Melchizedek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this