CGOLDING

the thunder stone would have been moved by humans - the use of modern machines is not humans moving them and if all you can do is bring up the most modern machines as evidence that we can move such objects then the fact that they did it with only ropes and basic tools makes me believe they had more advanced tech than we are told they had. if you need an engine to move it then humans are not moving them. i just watched a video of a man showing how they did it - he used metal rollers and said that it didnt matter because he could have used wooden ones just as easily. ( so why didnt he ) the rock was only small in comparison - about 5 tonnes - and one of the rollers was moving out of position as he was rolling it it was moved about 10 foot and they cut it off. there was no footage of how the rock was put in place and none of them taking it off. i dont doubt that humans probably put the stones there - but there is no way i will believe that they did it with ropes and the tools that we are told they had. just because we can not find evidence of other tools - it does not mean they did not have them. i suppose god could have moved them - after all he did build the whole of the earth - a couple of small rocks would be no trouble.

the space shuttle is on wheels and there are modern cranes with "space age" technology used. if it is so easy to move them why didnt the romans use single pieces of stone in the construction of the temple. the thunderstone could have been a lot less than 1250 tonnes when it was moved - i would like evidence of the dimensions of the stone before i take that as evidence of a stone similar to the trilithons. from what i see in photographs it does not match the artist's drawing of when it was being moved. we can spend billions on making a machine that needs to be in two different countries - but yet we wont spend a little bit on moving a giant rock to shut people like me up. i say lets quarry some rocks and move them for the sake of science - NASA can use them to decorate the launch pads of the space shuttle if no one else wants them. i also noticed that the cranes on the "ship" were 1000 tones each and so you would need two of them to lift one of those rocks.

thats an interesting comment - considering we are out there looking for life on other planets - it wasnt long ago that there was no chance at all that life could ever exist anywhere else - even finding bacteria would be be an amazing find. so if like us they were explorers just coming here to see what to them could have been the most profound discovery of their civilisation. life on another planet - and not just any life - complex organisms that might be intelligent. darwin studied animals on remote islands which allowed him to come up with his theory of evolution. ( which he was ridiculed for ) perhaps they just wanted to study us - or perhaps like humans ( the most destructive animals on the planet ) some of them wanted to do lab tests and genetically catalogue all the species on the planet before returning home. in response to greg h Carburis directed workmen to wait for winter, when the ground was frozen, and then had them drag the large stone over the frozen ground to the sea for shipment and transport to the city. He developed a metallic sledge that slid over bronze spheres about 13.5 cm (6 inches) in diameter, over a track. The process worked in a way similar to the later invention of ball bearings. Making the feat even more impressive was that the labour was done entirely by humans; no animals or machines were used in bringing the stone from the original site to the Senate Square.[8] After Carburis devised the method, it took 400 men nine months to move the stone, during which time master stonecutters continuously shaped the enormous granite monolith.[3] Catherine periodically visited the effort to oversee their progress. The larger capstans was turned by 32 men, this just barely moving the rock. A further complication was the availability of only 100 m of track, which had to be constantly disassembled and relaid.[8] Nevertheless, the workers made over 150 m of progress a day while on level ground. Upon arrival at the sea an enormous barge was constructed exclusively for the Thunder Stone. The vessel had to be supported on either side by two full-size warships.[8] After a short voyage, the stone reached its destination in 1770, after nearly two years of work. A commemorative medal was issued to commemorate its arrival, with the legend "Close to Daring -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the most interesting part of this to me is that it says the thunder stone was buried half of its height into the ground there is a great amount of detail about how they moved it across the ground but none about how they lifted it out of the ground. they had to wait for winter so that the ground was frozen which meant that they had less friction to deal with. the thunderstone was also not placed with precision on top of another platform. there is also a part that says it was moved then carved - and another part that says it was carved as it was being moved so im not sure what to believe. i also tried to get the mesurements of the thunderstone but could only find that it was 7m tall - which would in my opinion make the other measurements - width and length smaller as they wanted the statue to be as high as possible. <BR><BR>added after - i just looked at the artists drawing of the stone being moved and it looks nothing like the stone in place now. <BR><BR>if anyone has the current measurments and can work out the weight of the stone now i would be interested. i doubt it is anywhere near the original weight given to the stone which was according to the artist square like. and as it was being worked on as it was being moved i would hazard a guess and say they defied the orders given to them to move it first before carving it because it was too heavy for them to move as she wanted.

i dont think it was Einstein's - i think it was just someone using his name so when people solved it they would think they were a genius

i think the first question anyone should ask is how accurate is the information that we are told is "FACT"? i've lost count of how many times history has had to be changed because of a new discovery. many myths and legends that we have been told have no place in reality have been proved - the most recent is the discovery of TROY. most of what we call facts are just guesses from the people who discovered them. i dont blame those people because they are pressured to give details because they are considered experts. i had a discussion before about how the pyramids were built - i said the egyptians probably had technolgy we dont know about because the figures dont add up another person said dont be silly its easily possible to lift those stones - all you need is a pully system and an A frame i said - according to the experts they didnt have pulleys. he said - well i think they did we just havn't found them yet or they removed them from the sites i said - so you agree with me then he said - no and that was an engineer i dont know if aliens came down and helped us build these structures but i dont rule out the possibility. when we consider ourselves to be the most advanced humans to ever live - but can not move the huge stones that are in some of these structures - i have to ask why i would like to see evidence of stones like those at balbek being moved today - but there is no evidence - even in our biggest skyscrapers the parts are relatively light in comparison. and we have steel cranes and the most advanced machines to date. rather than criticise those that look for alternative theories i think we should go back and do more tests with our new technologies and test what we are told are facts. after all - if einstein just accepted newton was right we wouldnt have his theory of relativity would we.

if i accelerate to near the speed of light in one minute. then travel at that velocity for 10 years. turn around while at that speed and make my way back to earth where i then slow down to the original speed in one minute. there would only be two minutes difference in age because acceleration was only applied for two minutes. (assumining that slowing is the same as accelerating) after i stop accelerating then im just travelling at a speed relative to another person i also believe that the dppler redshift is proof that relativity is wrong about length contraction. when i watch videos on you tube describing why length contraction happens it says to preserve the speed of light in all reference frames. but they show light moving away from a moving ship at the speed of light relative to that ship. but if the doppler shift happens then it means the ship will be catching up to the light after it was emitted contradicting relativity