Atlantis Online
July 02, 2022, 11:59:56 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Underwater caves off Yucatan yield three old skeletons—remains date to 11,000 B.C.,000b.c.yucata.html
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

ARCHAEOLOGICAL COVER-UPS - A Plot to Control History?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]   Go Down
Author Topic: ARCHAEOLOGICAL COVER-UPS - A Plot to Control History?  (Read 6667 times)
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #105 on: January 28, 2008, 10:25:45 pm »


Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 02-12-2005 08:35 AM                       

Far from being piles of unworked rubble, every stone was turned with its flat side out and placed together by stone masons.

With slopes of the volcano Mt. Teide at their back and facing the Atlantic, the edifices are precisely aligned according to the sunset on the summer solstice, as are other sacred structures in different parts of the world.

Carefully built stairways on the west side of each pyramid lead up to the summit, which is not a pile of stones, but a perfectly flat platform covered with gravel, as though for ceremonial performances and/or sun worship.

The stones were not weather-worn, rounded boulders, such as farmers had found in the fields, but sharp fragments of lava, and some of the corner stones had been trimmed.

Archaeologists from the University of La Laguna were contracted to do test excavations of a ceremonial platform between two of the pyramids. As predicted by Dr. Heyerdahl, they found that rather than being a random pile of stones as they had expected, it was built of blocks, gravel and earth.

Skeptics had to admit that this was definitely some kind of ceremonial architecture. Yet some still refused to admit that such impressive structures could have been built by the Guanche, the original inhabitants of Tenerife, and suggested that they might have been constructed by the early Christian conquistadores as a time measuring device to know when to celebrate the Catholic festivities of St. John.

The Canary Islands are a popular solution to the location of Atlantis, based on their location west of the Mediterranean, and their mountainous terrain - they are part of a volcanic archipelago with marine trenches as deep as 3,000 metres and mountains as high as 3,718 meters above sea level.

Archaeological findings suggest that the original inhabitants were Berbers who arrived from north Africa around 200 B.C. However, some early navigators reported the Canarians as being a race of tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed people, perhaps suggesting northern European or Atlantean origins.[/QUOTE]   
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #106 on: January 28, 2008, 10:28:15 pm »


Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 12-31-2004 05:09 AM                       


Influence on Egypt:

The Guanches mummified their dead and the mummification techniques they used were almost identical to those used in ancient Egypt, although fact is that the Egyptians attained a higher form of perfection. Both cultures would balm the bodies before removing the internal organs that were kept aside in special vases. Also the bandages were used the same way, and similar offering in both cultures complete the circle.
Influence on America: there are pyramids on the Canaries that resemble monuments from ‘the opposite continent’
like in Mexico and Peru, and they seem to be aligned to the sunset on the summer solstice. But I wouldn’t exclude a link with Egypt either, because the alignment reminds me of Giza and the basic shape makes me think of for example Djoser’s step Pyramid from the Third Dynasty. Their purpose though was completely different and the Canary pyramids didn’t have an inside.

Influence on Greece: just like the Atlas we know from Greek mythology the Guanche god Achaman ‘he who carried the world’ was depicted as a mountain that separated heaven and earth, or as carrying heaven on his shoulders.
Furthermore the first King of Atlantis was called Atlas. This suggests they were actually one and the same.

When Thor Heyerdahl started investigating the pyramids on the Canaries, many people claimed them to be nothing more than piles of rubbish, despite the fact that the Guanches themselves tell us about these pyramids and their rituals involving these monuments. A central point in their religion was the belief that if their main pyramid collapsed, it would mean the end of their island in the same way Atlantis sunk.

Unlike what many people think, the Canary Islands didn’t get their name from the birds who share their name, but
from the dogs that lived on the islands. The Latin name of the islands was ‘Insulae Canariae’ or Islands of dogs.
These dogs were a central part in the religious culture of the Guanches, with a position just under Achaman, who was
the Canary equivalent of the Greek Atlas. Dogs were also an important part of the Egyptian culture. Take for example their god Anubis, always portrayed as a man with the head of a dog.

The Canary Ridge we described earlier in this survey is such an uplifted part of the earth and much of the religion of the Guanches is also about such a disaster. In their culture there was a group of holy virgins, called the Harimagada. Every year this group jumped in the sea and
drowned. With this voluntary offer they tried to prevent that their island would sink in the sea.

Sopdit, the Egyptian god whose appearance on June 15 in the form of the dog star meant the start of the new year,
was honored as ‘the western’ and the story goes that he documented the history from before the Great Flood, that
destroyed his ‘island-house’ in the far West.

My conclusion is that the Guanches lost their advanced knowledge in a flood, which resulted in the fact that their culture degenerated for many millennia because there was no contact with the outer world. In the mean time, that outer world continued to progress with the Egyptians, and later the Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians. The Guanches were isolated from the rest of the world, and they were heading back towards the Stone Age in their time machine of amnesia.


* Timaeus and Critias (360 B.C.): Benjamin Jowett translations

* The Canary Balcony:

* Atlantisquest:

* Shadowlands website:

* Atlan:

* Factmonster website:

* Graham Hancock: Fingerprints of the Gods (1994 edition)

* Andrew Collins’ website:

* The 1911 Encyclopedia:

* Sunrise Magazine, August/September 1999

* Lonely Planet website:

* USGS/Cascades Volcano Observatory, Vancouver, Washington :

* Website of Bryan Cousens: Research Adjunct Professor Igneous Petrology and Isotope Geochemistry:

* Wave of disaster warning:,3858,4246811,00.html

* New York Times May 21, 1978: article on Soviet expedition on the Atlantic Ampere Seamount, cited on various
sites on the internet.

* Jules Verne: 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea

* Dutch site with information on Guanches & Atlantis:

* Jonah G. Lissner: Evidence for the Ancestors of the Guanches as Founders of Predynastic Egypt :

* Charles Berlitz: The Lost Ship of Noah

* Talk Origins page on Cro Magnons:

* Info on Djoser’s step pyramid:

* Photographs of Djoser’s step pyramid:

* Fred Olsen: Pirámides de Güímar:

* Institutum Canarium:[/QUOTE]   



Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Keith Ranville
Superhero Member
Posts: 2387


« Reply #107 on: August 31, 2008, 12:08:19 am »

Atlantis  At land land is
Report Spam   Logged
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #108 on: October 07, 2008, 08:23:48 pm »

                                        Something is Wrong with this Picture!

Great Pyramid Shocker

by Will Hart

Everyone including Egyptologists, historians, alternative researchers and tourists agree on one thing: the Great Pyramid is awesome. The experts claim that it was constructed about 4500 years ago by the early Egyptians using primitive tools and methods to serve as a tomb for the reigning Pharaoh Khufu.

Egyptian scholar's claim that it was built in 23 years with stone hammers, cooper chisels, wooden sledges, ramps and manpower. But is this possible? Let's look at the facts and statistics first. The Great Pyramid is estimated to be composed of 2.3 million blocks of stone having a combined mass of 6 million tons. The stone blocks weigh from 1 to 70 tons and the average is about 2.5 tons.

Logic, common sense and basic math tell us that there is a serious problem with the formula and timeline presented by Egyptologists. We will assume that the builders were intent on finishing the massive project before Khufu died so they worked every day of the year for 20 years. That gives us a total of 7300 days to build the pyramid. Now we take the 2.3 million blocks that had to be quarried, transported, dressed and placed into position and divide that by 7300 and we come up 315 blocks.

So to build the pyramid in 20 years the builders had to place 315 blocks per day on average. We can further break that down into hours and minutes. Using a ten-hour workday they had to place between 31 and 32 per hour or about 2 blocks per minute. To further refine and conform the formula to the real world the experts tell us the builders only worked seasonally, about 120 days per year. So we can throw out the above average delivery rate because we have a massive "peak" delivery rate to configure.

To finish the pyramid on time working seasonally they would have had to radically increase the delivery rate to about 900 blocks per day or about one every 45 seconds. Is this possible? The truth is, none of it is possible and a careful analysis of the actual construction process using the primitive tools and methods clearly demonstrates that these scholars need to go back to the drawing board and quick.

For starters the closest quarry is about 1,000' from the site. It takes an average walker about 3 to 4 minutes to cover that distance. Now let's include the ramps. The pyramid is about 700' on each side. That means the lowest ramp would have to be at least 1000' long since it is on an incline. So if we walk from the quarry to the site and up the first ramp we have used up 7 to 8 minutes. Probably more since it is uphill.

Clearly a crew pulling a sledge bearing a 2.5-ton load is going to take longer, much longer. Conservatively we could triple the walking time and say 24 minutes. But we have to back up and add the quarrying process. How long does it take to quarry the average block of limestone? The quarry crew has to cut a trench around the blocks, then undercut the block and finally lift it out and onto a waiting sledge. Could this possibly take less than 20 minutes?

Actually, we have to account for two lifts, one from the quarry to the sledge and then off the sledge at the delivery point. It is as plain as day that the quarry-lift-transport-delivery-lift-and-place process, which is unavoidable given the tools and methods, would have taken at least 45-50 minutes per block. Anything less is physically impossible and that assertion can be easily proven.

We have added the practical physical steps and constraints into a real world formula as opposed to the abstract one that Egyptian scholars have made to fit their scenario. In addition to the average size blocks we have 30-70 ton granite megaliths and 140,000 outer casing stones weighing from 10 to 15 tons to factor in. Studies performed by Denys Stocks, the leading expert on ancient Egyptian stone working, have shown that using primitive hammer-stones required massive amounts of time to quarry large granite blocks. The Aswan quarry was 500 miles from Giza.

The casing stones also pose a significant challenge. They were cut from the Tura and Masara quarries east of Cairo across the river. These quarries produce high-grade limestone that polishes into marble as it ages. The rough-hewn blocks were probably 40 tons apiece. Engineers have marveled over how precisely these casing stones were cut and finished at right angles on all sides except the outer surface, which was honed to a 51-degree plane. There are no tool marks on the remaining casing blocks and the accuracy with which they were set into position is stunning.

How long did it take to haul these blocks from the quarry? Then they had to be finished and carefully set into place, some more than 400 feet up the pyramid. It is laughable to think this was supposed to have been done by men pulling wooden sledges or stone- masons pounding the blocks perfectly smooth with hammer-stones and then sanding them. 300 blocks per day for 20 years…more like 20 blocks per day for 300 years!

By what series of miracles did the ancient builders quarry, transport and position the huge granite slabs above the King's Chamber that are more than 150 vertical feet above the base? Egyptologists should get close to a group of computer programmers, systems analysts, mathematicians and construction engineers because their formula is not viable -- and does not matter if it includes levers, poles and spiral ramps -- it is embarrassingly flawed and illogical.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 09:57:54 pm by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #109 on: October 07, 2008, 08:25:30 pm »

                                        The Ancient Enigma - Moving the Megaliths

by Will Hart

Generations of explorers, archaeologists, historians, engineers and tourists have puzzled over one the great mysteries of ancient prehistory. At its core this incredible anomaly is quite simple. How did ancient cultures move 100, 200 and even 400-ton blocks of stone using primitive tools and methods? Not only move them also accurately position them to tight tolerances. The question is simple; the problem is complex.

I think we need to look at the issues with a modern perspective in the context of what our heavy equipment is capable of today to really get a grip on what kind of challenge we are discussing. Too often I read descriptions of how the Great Pyramid was built or how the ancient builders managed the megalithic stones in Peru that gloss right over the magnitude of these accomplishments. Cutting right to the chase, a modern locomotive engine weighs 200 tons.

Take that steel leviathan off the track and give a large team of men some ropes and let's see how far they can pull it or if they can lift it up at all. The average 18-wheel tractor-
trailer is rated to about a 20-ton capacity. Our highways have a legal load-limit of 40 tons, anything over that has to get special permits. I have come to realize after doing years of study of the ancient megalithic sites and modern technological capabilities that most people that write on these topics have not done their homework.

Many archaeologists and historians either skip over these problems or they dance around the real issues and simply give some unsupported scenario of how these massive blocks of stone were transported and lifted. There is an unavoidable physical problem that engineers are very aware of and that is the density and relative compactness of stone versus the manpower needed to exert enough force to move or lift it. The two simply do not go together. Even if we scale things way down the problem does not go away.

Let's take the average 2.5-ton limestone building block that was used to construct the core of the Great Pyramid. The block would be about four-foot long three high and three feet deep. How many men can be positioned around it? I would say no more than eight. Unfortunately, eight men cannot lift up 4,500 lbs. Pulleys and hoists were unknown in the pyramid building era. This poses a very simple and practical construction problem. It only grows worse as we raise the tonnage and the vertical lift.

How did the Egyptians lift 100-ton blocks up forty feet in the air to position them in the Sphinx temple? In addition, how did the Incas so carefully lift up and position their massive polygonal blocks so that they fit like a jigsaw puzzle?

There is an equally serious difficulty that precedes the transport and lifting of megaliths that takes place in the quarry. The only tools the ancient Egyptians had were very small copper chisels and rounded hammer-stones. The inflexible and insurmountable problem that the Great Pyramid presents is the fact that 43 blocks of granite weighing from 30 to 70 tons were quarried, lifted out of the bedrock, transported 500 miles and raised 150 vertical feet to the King's Chamber.

Several years ago Egyptologist Mark Lehner spent five hours in the Aswan quarry with a hammer-stone pounding against the granite bedrock (copper is too soft to cut granite). He was trying to prove that the ancient tools could do the job. He managed to excavate a one-foot square hole one-inch deep for his efforts. The granite blocks in the King's Chamber were 17' long and the trench that had to be dug around to them was about 8' deep. No one has ever shown how these megaliths were undercut and lifted out of the quarry.

These were relatively small blocks compared to the great obelisks that were quarried, transported and then raised up thousands of years ago, many of which still stand. They weigh from 100 to 350 tons. There isn't an archaeologist or engineer that has the slightest idea how this was done. Our largest modern day, heavy-duty cranes are rated from 100 to 300 tons. We have custom cranes that can lift up to 500 tons. Anyone that believes manpower alone could have moved these monstrous blocks of stone using ropes and manpower is living in a fantasy world.

In fact, Lehner set up an experiment to see if it was possible to quarry, move and lift an obelisk weighing one-tenth of what the largest Egyptian obelisks weighed. It was filmed by NOVA and was an utter failure. The team's master stonemason could not quarry the 35-ton obelisk so a bulldozer was called in. They could not move it, a truck was called in. These failures represent a turning a point in the long-standing debate. Lehner actually confirmed what a Japanese team funded by Nissan had already learned in 1979, it is not possible to duplicate what the ancients did using primitive tools and methods.

Team Nissan was trying to prove something and they were very confident. But when they could not begin to excavate the blocks of stone they planned on using for their small scale-model of the Great Pyramid with ancient tools they turned to jackhammers. When they tried to ferry the blocks they quarried across the river on a primitive barge, the stones sank. When a boat got them across the river they discovered that the sledges sank in the sand. They called trucks in to move the blocks to the site. Once at the site they could not manipulate the blocks into place and found, to their ultimate embarrassment, that they could not bring the four walls together into an apex despite the deployment of helicopters.

This debate has matured and moved along. It is time for those that believe they have the solution and can prove that the ancients used primitive tools and methods to step up to the plate. We need to dispose of this obsolete thinking and move on to more realistic solutions!
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 09:58:38 pm by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #110 on: October 07, 2008, 08:27:08 pm »

Perspective - Settling an Old Controversy

an article by Will Hart about the vexing

                                      "how the ancients built the stone monuments" issue

A long-standing debate some refer to as a mystery confronts us. How were the Great Pyramid, Tiahaunaco and other monolithic and megalithic monuments in Egypt, Peru and elsewhere constructed, moved and lifted into place? Some people believe that matter has been settled because several teams were able to build and move inexact replicas or demonstrated that it is possible to move a block of stone weighing several tons using primitive methods.

However, those simulations did not prove that the methods modern scholars ascribe to the construction of ancient artifacts could work. In fact, it appears that they actually proved the opposite, as we will see. At any rate, this article will definitively show they could not have been manipulated using primitive methods.

How? A man may be able to lift 350 pounds off the ground, but that doesn't mean he can lift 3,500 pounds. The problem quickly goes from difficult to impossible as you add weight to an object that has to be moved. We could frame it another way. If I claimed that I was the strongest man in the world and I could lift 3,500 lbs. and Ripley's took me up on that boast. Do you think they would include me in the record book for lifting 350 pounds? Of course not and I would be foolish for even trying that kind of trick.

But that is exactly what the academic promoters of the "primitive method" theory have done. Oddly enough, the public seems to have bought into the hoax. In 1994 NOVA sponsored a team of experts that wanted to prove the old theory, dispose of "alternative theories" and lay the debate to rest. As NOVA writers framed it: "In 1995, the NOVA team dared to demonstrate firsthand what has mystified historians for millennia: how to raise an obelisk using only materials and techniques the ancient Egyptians might have used."

The team included an archeologist, a master stonemason and one of Egypt's foremost specialists in moving heavy statues, Aly el Gasab. They chose to quarry, dress and lift a 35-ton obelisk. That was a cheat right away. The largest Egyptian obelisks weigh 400 tons.

The problem is even more complex than people generally suppose. Setting the finished stone in place is only one part of the building process. The first step involves cutting the stones away from the matrix rock at the quarry. Then it has to be dressed into a transportable shape. Next it has to be transported, sometimes great distances, from the quarry to the construction site and then lifted.

With what tools did the ancient Egyptians free the stone from the matrix rock? According to the archeologist they used dolorite hammers. How were the stones transported? Gasab said they would use ropes and wooden sledges. The first problem, and it proved insurmountable, came when they soon realized the dolorite hammers could not do the job. That "ancient method" was quickly abandoned.

The ancients executed considerable engineering feats. We gain a useful perspective by examining a modern day moving attempt. In 1996 The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology found that it needed to renovate an Egyptian burial tomb that was part of its collection. An article from the department's newsletter contains the following sub-heading.

Massive moving effort
"…the treated section of the tomb chapel was disassembled, including
one block which alone weighs five tons, and moved to the Conserv-
ation Technical Associates Connecticut Lab. Due to the massive
size and weight of the chapel blocks, special handling equipment
was employed for removal from the chapel."

Why is a five-ton lid considered a "massive" size and weight with the modern equipment the movers had? Much larger monolithic stones were "easily" manipulated by the primitive methods used by the ancients according to historians and archeologists. A special block and tackle system and rollers had to be set up to lift the slab and move it out of the chapel. What would they say if they had to move and lift the 2.5 million stones that went into the construction of the Great Pyramid some weighing 50 tons?

Examining how several modern day monuments were built is a fascinating juxtaposition. The Statue of Liberty is a beacon to the world. The actual statue, less the pedestal, stands 151' high from the base to the torch and 305' from the foundation of the pedestal to the top. It was made in Paris. Construction began in 1875 and was completed in 1884. The statue was made of copper. Steel was added to the structure to increase its strength.

Following its completion in France it was shipped to the U.S; broken down into 350 pieces that were packed into 214 crates. Lady Liberty's head is 17'3" from chin to cranium. Her right arm is 42' long. Her sandal is 25 feet, a ladies size 879! It is a stunning piece of work and a profound symbol; it is also massive.

When we look at the total weight of the copper and steel that went into the statue it really puts an edge on the 'ancient construction' problem: 200,000 pounds, or 100 tons, of copper were used then add 250,000 pounds, 150 tons, of steel. That is a combined weight of 250-tons. Two and half million stones went into the Great Pyramid and the estimated weight is 6 million tons! The largest stone blocks in the pyramid weigh about 70 tons. However, there are numerous 40, 100, 200 and a few 400-ton blocks of precisely cut stones in Peru that had to be hauled a considerable distance and then fit into place at various sites.

The Statue of Liberty was assembled in New York using cranes. What did the Maya use to raise Setele E the Quiroga site, which is 35' high and weighs 65-tons? They did not have the benefit of block and tackle let alone cranes and as far as we know they didn't have cables or high strength rope.

After throwing in the towel on the first basic challenge, the NOVA team brought in bulldozers and other modern equipment to quarry and move the 35-ton obelisk. This is a rather stunning fact. The team was comprised of top professionals who had the benefit of 5,000 years of engineering history to draw upon. What did the ancient Egyptians have?

Mount Rushmore yields a different kind of perspective. This amazing monument sits where it was sculpted out of solid rock in the mountains of South Dakota. It is a massive work of art and a wonderful testimony to key figures in American history. The epic sculpture features 60-foot high faces, 500 feet off the ground. How and why was it made?

In 1923 state historian Doane Robinson wanted to memorialize the history of the West by carving some giant statues in the Black Hills. Backers thought it was a great idea that also might attract tourists to the state. A sculptor by the name of Gutzon Borghum was brought in to do the work. In an era when many artists scorned traditional patriotism, Borghum made his name through celebration of things American. He had already achieved a degree of fame by remodeling the torch for the Statue of Liberty.

A crucial change was made when Borghum entered the picture. The master sculptor refused to work on anything that was not of national importance. The committee agreed to his selection of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

A huge amount of rock had to be removed as the sculptor and his assistants worked. Dynamite was used to remove 90 percent of the unneeded rock, about 450,000 tons of it. It took 14 years from start to finish. The actual carving used up about half of that time. The rest was spent on blasting. He had a crew of 400 skilled men under his supervision working with high-powered drills. Most of the men were experienced hard- rock miners. They were accustomed to strenuous work, harsh conditions and long hours.

Could all the slaves in Egypt really lift and drag millions of tons of stones with rope and wooden sleds? According to the Nova team's experiment, they could not have used the dolorite hammers to quarry the stone that historians claimed were the only tools they had at the time. The Nova team did not even try to move the obelisk. Once the bulldozer had quarried it the piece was hauled to the site by truck. The second cheat; strike two.

The Washington Monument is an elegant testimony to America's first president. It is reminiscent of Egyptian and Roman obelisks. The monument is 555' high, the tallest freestanding stone structure in the world. The cap at the top weighs 300 tons and the weight of the entire structure is 90,859 tons. But the monument is not a single solid piece of stone, it is hollow inside and was built in stages.

The Lincoln Memorial statue is 19' high and weighs 175 tons. It is a fitting testimony to the man who had the misfortune to be president during the civil war. The statue is large and imposing. The weight of it is similar to mid-sized statuary and obelisks in Egypt and there are many comparable artifacts in Peru.

These are examples of modern large-scale stone work and large monuments. But nearly all have been constructed using modern equipment and machinery. This in no way detracts from the artistry, craftsmanship or the spirit embodied in them. Who wouldn't utilize state-of-art tools to accomplish such Herculean tasks? The NOVA team sure did. They reluctantly admitted their failures but they pressed on to at least try to prove they could lift it using the one primitive method they had left.

That brings us back to the main issue. How did the ancient builders cut, dress and move 20 to 200-ton blocks of stone? We've all seen a diesel tractor-trailer with a load of 10 new full-size American automobiles driving down the freeway headed for the new car lot. The combined weight of the vehicles is about 15 tons. If you are getting the idea that the magnitude of the problem is severe, you're right!

We are not saying it is impossible to move the 1 and 2-ton stones using the primitive methods ascribed to the builders of the Great Pyramid. We are saying that it is impossible to move a 200-ton stone using those methods!

If you have ever done any landscaping that involved moving boulders around you know what is involved. It takes a 300 horsepower diesel engine and hydraulic lifter to pick up a 7- ton granite slab. That is a cut and dry fact. The Great Pyramid consists largely of stones weighing 1 to 2 tons, however, there are 20-ton, 40-ton and 60-ton blocks and the largest block at Giza hoisted up several hundred feet. They could not have been moved by the methods that scientists claim they were moved. The NOVA team was just attempting a single rather smallish obelisk that was not going to be lifted upwards as the elevated tiers of the pyramid demanded of those building blocks.

We are back to the principle outlined at the beginning of the article. Because you can lift up and carry 10 sleeping children weighing 30 lbs each from the van to the house, one at a time, doesn't mean you can lift up one 300 lb man and carry him up a flight of stairs.

The ancients did not have jackhammers, dynamite, loaders, tractor-trailers, cranes, hoists, pulleys, dray animals or block and tackle devices. This is the kind of equipment it would take to handle megalithic stones. Part of the difficulty in grasping the engineering problem involved seems to stem from the fact that we don't build with monolithic stones in the modern era. If we routinely saw the kind of equipment that is needed to manage a 50-ton stone the average person might have a better appreciation of the underlying dynamics of this long-standing debate.

When the problem is broken down and compared to every day experiences and how we handle these kinds of challenges in the present, reality and pragmatism start to sink in. The typical boxcar on a train weighs about 25 tons and can handle a payload of around 60 tons. A 48' tandem tractor-trailer has a load capacity of approximately 20 tons.

To be more cogent to the problem at hand we need to examine the latest Caterpillar equipment used in quarry operations. The 973C track loader has a 229 horsepower engine. It has an operating weight of almost 30 tons, a big machine. The bucket is rated at a maximum capacity of 4 yards, which is a little over 4 tons. That means one bucket can pick up 4 tons of rock and dump it into a waiting dump truck.

The 771D off-highway Caterpillar dump truck weighs about 90 tons. It runs on a 518 horsepower diesel engine, a very large dump truck. The payload capacity is 45 tons. It would take the loader 10 trips to fill up the dump truck presumably with rocks and gravel. But the loader cannot lift a single 40-ton megalith. You need a crane for that.

There are a number of cranes on the market that are rated to the 100 and even 300-ton capacity. They could handle the 40 to 300-ton blocks. However, it takes a specially made crane to lift anything above that tonnage. NASA had to make a custom crane with a lifting capacity of 430 tons to lift the shuttle during attachment to the fuel tanks. There is a New York engineering company that also has a specialty crane with a lift capacity of 500 tons that is used to lift other cranes to the top of high-rise construction sites. These are custom pieces of equipment used for specialized operations.

But as huge as the dump truck described above is - it so big that it cannot travel on the highway - we would also need an even bigger truck. Out of luck again. The biggest earthmovers used in large-scale open pit mining operations max out at about the 350-ton carrying capacity. It is preposterous to think that a group of men could do what it takes out largest pieces of machinery to achieve.

The NOVA team tried valiantly to lift the obelisk in place but that too failed. Strike three!

They took a hiatus and came back three years later. This time at the plate they decided to skip the first two steps and concentrate on the visual pay off, lifting it into place in the second attempt. They succeeded in doing it the second time, but what did the two efforts prove? They actually demonstrated that the pyramid could not have been built using the "primitive theory" methods. The Egyptian who owns the rock quarry was asked what he thought about it. He replied that he did not think, "Any attempt below 100 tons proved anything." He is absolutely correct and his point says it all.

The bottom line is that we can barely move a 300-ton megalithic block of granite today; they surely did not do so with primitive means in the distant past. You may as well believe they used teleportation or some other magical means because that is as practical a
solution as the old dolorite hammers, wooden sledges and ropes concept. So how did they
build the monuments? No one knows. If any scientist or engineer still desires to debate this issue, the author would be happy to oblige in any public forum. I would be even happier to arrange a test of proposed methods.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #111 on: October 07, 2008, 08:28:26 pm »

                                   Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims

by Will Hart

Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.

The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.

They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.

The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.

Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.

Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.

The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.
I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.

This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.

Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 09:41:39 pm by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #112 on: October 08, 2008, 12:20:30 am »

                                        Forbidden History - Covered Up Again!

Following last report of an unusual stone structure found in the East Oklahoma area, several samples of the layered and mitred stones were analyzed. The striations appeared to be the result of extreme heat and rapid cooling over many -- perhaps several hundred -- years. This was expected since the structure appears to be a huge smelt for refining gold ore. Certainly this was not the work of the indiginous population in North America. Gold crystals and red mercury oxide were found in traces on the specimen that Viewzone examined.

We were just about to form an expedition to the site when another huge foundation was located nearby. Some symbols, possibly First Tongue, were described on one of the stones. But, sadly, the site was abruptly shut down and the excavations were bulldozed with earth by some arm of our own government. An informed source close to the family that owns the land reported that the family was threatened with harm if they allowed anyone to dig on their land in the future. They were told to forget what they saw. This type of threats remind one of the aftermath of Roswell in the late 40's.

At Viewzone we receive many such reports from all over the globe. Ancient sites that appear to be very old are shut down or quickly buried by the host governments. Why?
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #113 on: October 08, 2008, 12:23:44 am »

We asked an individual from New Zealand to tell us why some of his country's ancient sites were being covered up. Here is his reply.

Hello Gary & team,

You ask why archaeological sites and significant information is being hidden by government the US and elsewhere around the world?

I suppose one could write a whole book on the probable answers to that question, but in the end it would all boil down to "power & control". The eradication of archaeological sites & artifacts is most certainly going on in the Australia/ New Zealand region, where "concealment teams" are being employed to both destroy or seal away from sight any traces of anomalous discoveries.

In the last few years the New Zealand teams have removed/ buried/ concealed: A trilithon/ obelisk arrangement, composed of about 5 component sets, from the Wairaki area of New Zealand's central North Island.

The "Artiamuri Stones", registered by Captain Mair in the 1800's and described by him as the 2nd most significant site he'd seen in New Zealand...these were, seemingly, pushed into a river by a "Forestry Department" bulldozer.

A number of burial caves containing large stature skeletons with red, brown & blond hair. These skeletal remains are a most unwelcome find, as the ancient individuals were very definitely of Indo-European ethnic origin. Platted samples of their red or brown hair used to be on display at the Auckland Museum...but have long since been removed from public scrutiny.

An ancient stone jetty on a northern river estuary.

A beautifully hollowed out and fashioned communal dwelling/ assembly area in a limestone cliff. This was at Castlehill in New Zealand's South Island. A friend who revisited it in recent weeks found that the entranceway had been collapsed...undoubtedly by explosives.

These few examples represent some of the skullduggery going on, officially, to throw a spanner in the works of normal scholastic pursuit within the confines of New Zealand. A gentleman named Tristan Rankin, who runs the Australian web site:

complains about similar clandestine, insidious "concealment team" interference in Australian archaeological endeavors.

A friend of mine, in recent years, had a long talk with a New Zealand girl called Lisa Kerr. She'd done extensive traveling, like many young New Zealanders, who head out on their traditional OE (overseas excursion).
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #114 on: October 08, 2008, 12:25:07 am »

Lisa, amongst several jobs she got around the world, worked for a while with the New Mexico Park's Department. During her term of employment there was a big "washout" in one of the Park regions and I'm assuming it was up in Pueblo country around Taos. The flash flood scoured out embankments and in doing so a large number of anomalous skeletons were exposed. Lisa and her colleagues were assigned the task of gathering up the remains and placing them into crates. Also in attendance at the site were Smithsonian Institute officials and FBI agents.

Each day as Lisa and the other Park's Department employees went onto the site, they were searched for cameras. Similarly they were searched as they left the site each day to make sure they weren't removing artifacts. They were also obliged to sign "secrecy documents" ensuring that they would never divulge details of their participation in this undertaking. The reason for this degree of secrecy stems from the fact that the skeletons were of people who were about 8 feet tall. They had six fingers on each hand and six toes per foot. They also had a strange, double row arrangement of teeth.

The crates containing the recovered remains, at the termination of work, were taken away by the Smithsonian officials and, undoubtedly, will never be seen again. Strangely enough, there is a report of two similar skulls having been found in New Zealand's far north around the beginning of the 20th century. Lisa later had official "hassles" when trying to come home to New Zealand and was severely grilled by US government functionaries as she attempted to depart from the US.

The short answer as to why there is suppression of true archaeological and historical evidence in New Zealand appears to be due, in part, to the ambitions of big business and the multinationals. Using "indigenous rights" legislation as leverage, large parcels of New Zealand natural resources and wealth are wrestled out of the hands of the New Zealand populace. They then fall into the hands of a small number of corrupt, so-called, "indigenous" leaders/ representatives, who turn around and sell "exploitation rights" to big business.

The vast majority of New Zealand's Maori people (Polynesian...officially designated indigenous) derive no benefit from these massive financial "payouts" or from the acquisition of "redistributed" resources.

Privately owned farms and large tracts of land are being gobbled up by the "Waitangi Tribunal" and big business is the final beneficiary. Our corrupt politicians are little more than an executive arm to the multinationals and take their orders from the World Bank.

That's the simple, superficial answer, but the tentacles of control go much deeper. One would have to probe age-old, long established, "control-freak" organizations to find out why they perceive "forbidden archaeology" to represent such an undermining danger. Maybe there's a large element of "religious" interference, wherein those large organizations, with influences reaching who knows where, see an inherent danger to the story they tell and product they promote. I can't fathom the fullness of this insanity, but realize we must all work quickly to photograph and record as much as possible of the ancient traces before "big brother" erases them forever.

Best wishes, Martin Doutré

ViewZone Magazine
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #115 on: December 01, 2008, 08:41:29 pm »

                                               Lost History of North America

Claims of anomalous archeological finds in North America have been around for a long time - note the names Cairo, Illinois and Memphis, Tennessee. Many are clearly hoaxes or have conventional explanations, but some, like the Egyptian Burial Cave written on by David Hatcher Childress in the Grand Canyon of Arizona, The Kensington Runestone, and copper mines and smelting furnaces in the upper Midwest that seem to have supplied Bronze Age Europe, may have some substance.

The 3,500-year-old Celtic America's Stonehenge is well documented. More recently the discovery of **** and tobacco in samples from numerous Egyptian mummies have rekindled the arguments. There is evidence that an Irish monk, Saint Brendan, sailed to Newfoundland in the 6th century AD.

Chinese exploration of North America may be documented in the Shan Hai King, a book the Chinese claim to have been written in 2205 B.C.E, and the explorer Zheng He may have arrived 50 years before Columbus in ships over 400 feet long. Zheng He article.

Abubakari II (Abu Bakr II), king of the vast African empire centered in what is now Mali, sailed on a journey West with 2000 ships of a variety of sizes in 1311 AD, and did not return. Article and a BBC article. Indeed there are reasons to suspect that the Olmec civilization (1200 - 400 BC) - the first large scale American empire, was founded by Africans: Article.

Mounds of North America and a lot more possible evidence is at Sparky's American Epigraphy alternative prehistory site.

"Exploration in Texas" is an online book tracing many claims of pre-Columbian visitors to America, written by a scholar who is surprisingly open minded. The different levels of evidence are examined and sifted into shades of grey. The author believes many of the stories have roots in fact, it is just not clear which ones. An excellent overview, not as Texas-centered as the title suggests.

The Native residents of America had many tales of visitors from over the oceans, most notably the White god Quetzalcoatl.

These and other bits of evidence point to the possibility that America's existence was known to a select few in the "old world" for many centuries and the information was kept secret, perhaps to protect the commercial value of their sources for goods.

Conventional science always seems to resist changing its views and ancient communication between America and the Mediterranean would be a severe shock to the system. . .
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Superhero Member
Posts: 41646

« Reply #116 on: July 14, 2009, 09:38:30 pm »

                                                Topper (archaeological site)

Topper is an archaeological site located along the Savannah River in Allendale County, South Carolina in the United States. It is noted as the location of controversial artifacts believed by some archaeologists to indicate human habitation of the New World as far back as 50,000 years ago.

Since the 1930s, the prevailing theory concerning the peopling of the New World is that the first human inhabitants were the Clovis people, who are thought to have appeared approximately 13,500 years ago. Artifacts of the Clovis people are found throughout most of the United States and as far south as Panama. The standard theory has been challenged in recent decades with the emergence of pre-Clovis sites such as Monte Verde and other possible pre-Clovis candidates such as Cactus Hill. To date, no consistent pre-Clovis cultural patterns have been established and the accuracy of these claims have been found controversial and unverified.

In 2004, Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology announced that radiocarbon dating of a bit of charcoal found in the Topper Site dated to approximately 50,000 years ago, or approximately 37,000 years before the Clovis people. Goodyear, who began excavating the Topper site in the 1980s, believes that the artifacts are stone tools, although other archaeologists dispute this conclusion, suggesting that the artifacts may be natural and not human-made.

Other archaeologists have challenged the radiocarbon dating procedure of the Topper artifacts. Goodyear discovered the artifacts by digging 4 m deeper than the Clovis artifacts. Before discovering the oldest artifacts, he had discovered other artifacts that he claimed were tools dating around 16,000 years old, or about 3,000 years before Clovis.

Until the recent challenges to the Clovis theory, it was unusual for archaeologists to dig deeper than the layer of the Clovis culture, on the grounds that no human artifacts would be found older than Clovis.

MORE ON THE 'TOPPER SITE' HERE:,19816.msg159526.html
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 09:40:36 pm by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy