• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Their Return

Sean84 said:
This is, and always has been, your stance:

"Aliens did it then left because we weren't looking up enough."

That may be slightly over-simplified but it remains true despite all the bluster and talk about what you can't do to rocks.

A grossly over-simplified version goes like this:

ROCKS??? ALIENS!!!
Click to expand...

I don't believe in aliens...

You are lying...

You're wrong.

You should stop.
 
Actually I am beginning to wonder if KoTa has watched too many episodes of Star Gate Atlantis, in which the so called "ancients" have always been here, but eventually left the planet. Anyway, he does say these beings have always been here, but they would have had to have arrived on earth at some point, so wouldn't that make them aliens? So by that logic, he does believe in aliens. Just a guess there of course.
 
Yeah_Right said:
Actually I am beginning to wonder if KoTa has watched too many episodes of Star Gate Atlantis, in which the so called "ancients" have always been here, but eventually left the planet. Anyway, he does say these beings have always been here, but they would have had to have arrived on earth at some point, so wouldn't that make them aliens? So by that logic, he does believe in aliens. Just a guess there of course.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with the Stargate angle except for one minor quibble; Stargate's Ancients came from another galaxy.

KotA's "gods of the heavens" come from a garbled mess of explanations that equate to "aliens" in every sense but the simple fact that he doesn't want to call them that.

Either way; aliens, I say.
 
King of the Americas said:
I did find this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh...page&q=cold hammered copper, hardness&f=false

Please note the hardness of the alloys achieved.
Click to expand...
Too bad some pertinent pages are not included free, but I see from what you found that those folks possessed a gold-copper alloy that is said to be harder than regular bronze. Ordinary bronze when forged correctly is harder than plain wrought iron, and not too far behind forged iron, so although I haven't found good comparative charts yet it seems likely that the superior alloys in question would have been at least as good as, and possibly better than, those used by other ancient cultures whose bronze-age stone cutting technique is rather uncontroversially attributed by most to well trained human craftsmen. Of course we can't know for sure what bronze they used, but it is at least certain that they knew hot to make it.

Here's a link on Inca Metallurgy, which cites successful modern experiments in the use of bronze and stone tools, along with abrasives, in the kind of work we're talking about:

Some axe blades bear evidence that they were used upon stone. Their structure shows severe damage of a character which could only result from very hard usage. They were probably used in cutting square holes in ashlars and in making sharp inside corners. It is difficult to conceive of any stone tools that could have been used successfully for this purpose. Some writers have assumed that the Incas use bronze implements to a large extent in finishing their best stone work. It seems to me, however, that even their best bronze was too soft to last long in such activities. It is not likely that it was often so employed. Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite.
Click to expand...
 
bruto said:
Too bad some pertinent pages are not included free, but I see from what you found that those folks possessed a gold-copper alloy that is said to be harder than regular bronze. Ordinary bronze when forged correctly is harder than plain wrought iron, and not too far behind forged iron, so although I haven't found good comparative charts yet it seems likely that the superior alloys in question would have been at least as good as, and possibly better than, those used by other ancient cultures whose bronze-age stone cutting technique is rather uncontroversially attributed by most to well trained human craftsmen. Of course we can't know for sure what bronze they used, but it is at least certain that they knew hot to make it.

Here's a link on Inca Metallurgy, which cites successful modern experiments in the use of bronze and stone tools, along with abrasives, in the kind of work we're talking about:
Click to expand...

I have two chisels, one is carbide tipped, and the other is forged steel. I don't use the steel one on anything but limestone, and concrete patio stones. Granite dulls it fast. The granite dulls the carbide tip too, but you can get 'some' stone moved, (about- 6-8 grams), with an 1/8 inch lettering chisel, before it is dull.

Gold & copper alloys would be softer than my forged steel chisel...

Those stones weren't chiseled into those shapes.
 
Last edited:
Goddamn it, KotA, why do you keep ignoring this?

Here's a link on Inca Metallurgy, which cites successful modern experiments in the use of bronze and stone tools, along with abrasives, in the kind of work we're talking about
Click to expand...
Sand. Quartz. A *********** abrasive.

Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite.
Click to expand...

Sand! Go pound it.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Goddamn it, KotA, why do you keep ignoring this?


Sand. Quartz. A *********** abrasive.



Sand! Go pound it.
Click to expand...

You CAN easily, although time consuming, cut and polish any stone with water, sand, and a saw or drill.

These techniques WON'T cut square holes in stone, regardless of the font size you employ.
 
King of the Americas said:
You CAN easily, although time consuming, cut and polish any stone with water, sand, and a saw or drill.

These techniques WON'T cut square holes in stone, regardless of the font size you employ.
Click to expand...

heres a video of water cutting square holes in Titanium
:p


anyone with a basic grasp of physics will understand how "high pressure" and "time" are interchangeable
thats you out then KotA
:D
 
KotA, if you're, as you say, such an accomplished, how do you say, stone maker can you please post some of your work? I would love to see some of your handy work. Or is that to much to ask for?



I Am He
 
Marduk said:
heres a video of water cutting square holes in Titanium
:p


anyone with a basic grasp of physics will understand how "high pressure" and "time" are interchangeable
thats you out then KotA
:D
Click to expand...

Great... Now KotA will claim the ascended golden age people used jets of water to cut stones...
 
King of the Americas said:
...snip...
'I' am the only one here who isn't ignorant of the difficulty it takes to complete that work.

'I' am the only one here with any direct knowledge of what a hammer and chisel to do hard stone upon striking it.

YOU are the one 'in the dark', here, and you will remain so as long as you continue to ignore the links I've provided.
Click to expand...

Ignorance, arrogance...

You wrote "beautiful" in response to Carlitos posting Ozymandias. Oh, the sad irony.

"My name is King of the Americas:
Look on my ignorance and arrogance, ye critical thinkers, and despair!"

Sorry Shelley, really sorry for what I did....
 
Of course, this whole thing about hardness is a complete red herring anyway. Here's a simple experiment to perform:
Take a diamond. Now take a hammer. Hit the diamond with the hammer. What happens? The diamond breaks and the hammer will be perfectly intact, although probably with a small scratch.

Amazing. Diamond is the hardest natural substance known, yet a regular hammer made out of regular iron can smash one into powder while remaining essentially undamaged. The simple reason is that hardness is only one of several mechanical properties, and is often not the relevant one. In the situation we are discussing, toughness is far more important. The Wiki page for diamond has this to say on the subject:
Somewhat related to hardness is another mechanical property toughness, which is a material's ability to resist breakage from forceful impact. The toughness of natural diamond has been measured as 7.5–10 MPa·m1/2. This value is good compared to other gemstones, but poor compared to most engineering materials.
Click to expand...
Despite being one of the hardest known substances, diamond is not actually particularly tough. It is difficult to polish or scratch, but relatively easy to break.

This is rather relevant, because we're not talking about people polishing or scratching stone, we're talking about them breaking them up into smaller stones. OK, so the smaller stones are still actually quite big, but that's not the point. The point is that just because the rocks here were hard does not mean it would be impossible to cut them into shape. Just as you can smash a diamond with a hammer, you can cut rocks into shape by hitting them with things, even if those things are softer than the rock.
 
I Am He said:
KotA, if you're, as you say, such an accomplished, how do you say, stone maker can you please post some of your work? I would love to see some of your handy work. Or is that to much to ask for?



I Am He
Click to expand...

Where did I claim to be accomplished, an expert, or anything but an amateur stone mason???

I'd happily post a picture. Better yet, I'll make a video of me moving some granite with my forged steel chisel, and show you guys how little work is accomplished.

Then again, I've already linked the world's greatest stone masons carving stone with modern tools, that no one bothered to view. Ignorance of evidence abounds here...
 
King of the Americas said:
I think water jets would count as advanced technology...

I wouldn't argue that's what was employed, until we uncover an ancient compressor.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

So, untill hardware such as steel chisels, vidia bits, electric motors, or some sort of "rock molding machine", etc. are found, you can not argue that they used any sort of modern technology, right?
 
Correa Neto said:
Hmmm...

So, untill hardware such as steel chisels, vidia bits, electric motors, or some sort of "rock molding machine", etc. are found, you can not argue that they used any sort of modern technology, right?
Click to expand...

The work is an indication of advanced technology.

WHAT that technology actually was will be told when we find it.

Until then, all that we know is that we DON'T know what was used, that the technology used to accomplish these work is "lost".
 
Ah, I see... Generic, vague "advanced" as in "them", "ascended"...

But hey, if you can't find any single piece of the advanced hardware, then... Note you can not even find a bit of stainless steel, plastic, copper wire, glass, anything related to modern machinery at the sites you claim to have been built with these modern tool.

Now, besides this fact KotA, you are aware that each tool leaves its tell-tale mark on its product? So, where are the marks left by these advanced tools? Why there are no published study showing these marks?

And why are you ignoring the links we posted where experimental archeology folks say -and show- how the carvings could be made even with stone tools? Same is valid for the documentary on the building of Macchu Picchu?

Maybe because they do not fit with your "feelings"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom