The Ancient Astronaut Argument

[John Cuthber]

Just a quick line to trash the idea that Moh's hardness scale tells you anything about whether or not you can drill into hard rocks.

 

In the good old days when record players had diamond needles you had to buy a new stylus from time to time because the diamond wore out by being rubbed against the shellac or PVC that the records were made from.

 

Also, the "star child" DNA is likely to be degraded so there's no surprise it isn't a perfect match for human DNA.

[Tres Juicy]

Just a quick line to trash the idea that Moh's hardness scale tells you anything about whether or not you can drill into hard rocks.

 

In the good old days when record players had diamond needles you had to buy a new stylus from time to time because the diamond wore out by being rubbed against the shellac or PVC that the records were made from.

 

Also, the "star child" DNA is likely to be degraded so there's no surprise it isn't a perfect match for human DNA.

 

 

Given a long enough period of time a drop of water will erode any rock

[Virtue]

Just a quick line to trash the idea that Moh's hardness scale tells you anything about whether or not you can drill into hard rocks.

 

In the good old days when record players had diamond needles you had to buy a new stylus from time to time because the diamond wore out by being rubbed against the shellac or PVC that the records were made from.

 

Also, the "star child" DNA is likely to be degraded so there's no surprise it isn't a perfect match for human DNA.

 

dude, thats possibly the worst analogy ive ever heard. For a start how is records comparable to rock? Tiwanakans didnt have access to diamonds, they were bronze age people. You do realise Puma Punku has NO evidence of primitive hand tool marks? and that the culture that supposedly built it had no written language? or the fact that to drill a hole so precise and perfect as the ones in that rock would require a hardened tipped drill and not some copper/bronze fashioned tip? Dont listen to me, listen to every single engineer that has been to that site and examined it. They all come to the same conclusion that there is NO WAY for the time period that the site couldve been engineered so precise.

[Moontanman]

dude, thats possibly the worst analogy ive ever heard. For a start how is records comparable to rock? Tiwanakans didnt have access to diamonds, they were bronze age people. You do realise Puma Punku has NO evidence of primitive hand tool marks? and that the culture that supposedly built it had no written language? or the fact that to drill a hole so precise and perfect as the ones in that rock would require a hardened tipped drill and not some copper/bronze fashioned tip? Dont listen to me, listen to every single engineer that has been to that site and examined it. They all come to the same conclusion that there is NO WAY for the time period that the site couldve been engineered so precise.

 

 

Let me get this straight, because you don't understand how they could have done it aliens must have done it?

[imatfaal]

dude, thats possibly the worst analogy ive ever heard. For a start how is records comparable to rock? Tiwanakans didnt have access to diamonds, they were bronze age people. You do realise Puma Punku has NO evidence of primitive hand tool marks? and that the culture that supposedly built it had no written language? or the fact that to drill a hole so precise and perfect as the ones in that rock would require a hardened tipped drill and not some copper/bronze fashioned tip? Dont listen to me, listen to every single engineer that has been to that site and examined it. They all come to the same conclusion that there is NO WAY for the time period that the site couldve been engineered so precise.

 

And you clearly didn't understand John's post - the import wasn't that diamonds can cut shellac, the take-home message was that soft shellac (or the synthetic replacement vinyl) can wear down the diamond.

 

To drill a hole in a few moments with that degree of accuracy requires modern equipment - if you have practically unlimited labour then it is a piece of cake. Personally I have carved a lump of marble into three links of a chain - my tools were sometimes scrap found on a greek beach but mainly other bits of stone used as scrappers that seemed to fit the shape I was looking for; admittedly even mild iron nails are tougher than copper but the concept is exactly the same.

 

Thirdly - I have been to bronze age sites with mech engs and civ engs - and none of them have ever said it must be aliens

[John Cuthber]

dude, thats possibly the worst analogy ive ever heard. For a start how is records comparable to rock? Tiwanakans didnt have access to diamonds, they were bronze age people. You do realise Puma Punku has NO evidence of primitive hand tool marks? and that the culture that supposedly built it had no written language? or the fact that to drill a hole so precise and perfect as the ones in that rock would require a hardened tipped drill and not some copper/bronze fashioned tip? Dont listen to me, listen to every single engineer that has been to that site and examined it. They all come to the same conclusion that there is NO WAY for the time period that the site couldve been engineered so precise.

I was just pointing out that this

" he concludes that there is no possible way the inner chambers made out of solid granite could've been constructed using contemporary tools, at the time they supposedly only had bronze hammers and copper chisels. We look at the MOHs scale of hardness and both are around 3-4 whilst granite sits at 7-8"

is utter trash. Moh's scale has nothing to do with it.

 

But, since you drew my attention back to it I will point out that the next line is meaningless too.

 

This " he actually measured the surface of a wall and it had a discrepancy of around 1/500th of a millimetre, " doesn't make sense because there's no datum. Discrepancy of 2 microns from what?

And that's before I point out that temperature gradients and thermal expansion mean that if that accuracy (from any give point) was produced, it wouldn't last.

 

Finally, It's not terribly difficult to polish something to a better finish than that. A soft cloth and powdered clay or rouge will get to a "mirror finish" that is smooth to better than half a micron (or 1/2000 mm if you prefer that unit).

There are, of course, plenty of other errors in what you have posted.

Edited August 22, 2012 by John Cuthber

[CGOLDING]

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.

[studiot]

i would like to see evidence of stones like those at balbek being moved today - but there is no evidence

 

 

Whilst such movements are not everyday occurrences, they are not unusual in modern civil engineering.

 

I recall recent projects to

 

1) Remove a 2,500 tonne concrete bridge deck, rotate it through 90 parallel to the motorway lower it onto bogies on the M5 motorway and then drive it away up the motorway.

 

2) Jack up the A38 Plymouth viaduct and move it sideways nearly half a mile to realign the road. I don't know the weight of this viaduct, but it must have been of the order of 10 times that of the other bridge.

Edited August 22, 2012 by studiot

[Greg H.]

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.

 

There is plenty of evidence, if you're willing to actually look for it.

In St. Petersburg, Russia, sits the statue The Bronze Horsemen, a monument to Peter the Great. As the base of this statue, a 1,250 ton boulder, known as the Thunder Stone, was moved six kilometers from the Finnish marsh where it was found, loaded onto a boat, and sailed to St. Petersburg.

According to the wikipedia article:

 

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.

[too-open-minded]

Hey guys.

 

Regardless of whatever your saying. I'm willing to bet diseases are like snowflakes. An alien wouldn't even let a human on-board their ship, let alone step on our planet.

 

Theirs plenty of resources and minerals floating around in space, what would they want ours for?

 

I'm not saying your wrong, just saying i'm skeptical and willing to bet a species capable of interstellar space travel would look at us in amazement of our stupidity, laugh, and go on about their business doing cool stuff for science in space.

[Ringer]

 

I'm not saying your wrong, just saying i'm skeptical and willing to bet a species capable of interstellar space travel would look at us in amazement of our stupidity, laugh, and go on about their business doing cool stuff for science in space.

 

I would like to think that if a species was that advanced they would be more interested in observation of an unknown species due to being so scientifically advanced and science minded. But then there is the non-hopeful side of me that agrees they would just use as a comedy show. We should make a large sign on a satellite that reads, "I swear we aren't all dumb!".

[CGOLDING]

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.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CGOLDING

[Greg H.]

in response to greg h <snip the rest>

 

First, learn to use paragraphs. Your previous post is like trying to read alphabet soup.

 

Second, you asked for an example where a stone as large as the stones at Balbek were moved. I provided one example that is not lost in the mists of antiquity but has historical written documentation to support it.

 

It also says they continuously shaped the monolith as it was being moved, which implies that, logically, it would still have weighed as much as it did when the pulled it out of the ground when they started moving it.

 

The simple fact is that humans move enormous weights everyday in the modern world, and not just in building structures. Your previous claim (bolded)

 

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

 

is quite demonstrably false. Here's another good example for you.

 

According to wikipedia, the Space Shuttle weighs in at 2030 tons - twice the estimated weight of the Balbek stone. We not only manage to move it, we can stand it upright and launch it into orbit. So yes, I would have to say that us poor modern humans are quite capable of moving massive stones around if we want to - did it occur to you we just have easier ways of building structures these days and those stones aren't required?

Edited August 23, 2012 by Greg H.

[imatfaal]

to add to Greg H argument and his refutation of your point about modern humans not being able to lift and move such large masses. Here is a link to website of a company in my industry that does that sort of thing all the time http://www.sal-shipping.com/eng/home/ So those guys will lift a 2000 mtonne mass and move it around on a ship at 20kts

[CGOLDING]

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.

[studiot]

@cgolding.

 

I'm sorry you chose to ignore the post from soneone who has actually moved such objects.

 

go well

[Greg H.]

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.

 

Your claim was that we (modern humans) were incapable of moving such a rock - you placed no limits on the equipment used. Do you still assert that, or do you admit that we can move objects much heavier than those rocks in modern times?

[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.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2012 by CGOLDING

[Phi for All]

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.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

CGOLDING, you are posting in our Speculations section, and there are certain rules that need to be followed, rules you agreed to when you joined. Please refer to those rules here, and be advised that religious arguments and those with no scientific evidence to back them up will not be allowed in this thread.

 

If you have objections to this modnote, please send them via PM to me. Please don't further derail this thread by voicing them here.