Mysterious Disney Documentary about UFOs

[Leighgull]

This area of archaeology is one that has intrigued people for hundreds of years. The first discoveries of these sites were seen, at the time, as evidence for an ancient civilisation of immense sophistication. What has happened over time is that later archaeologists developed a world view that said that these sites could not be as ancient as they seemed so the rubbishing of the dates began.

The facts are still plain. In relation to some of these sites, there is no chance of properly dating them as they are so contaminated but the best assumption is still that they began as huge megalithic sites with very impressive and STILL Impossible to replicate methodology that were built on top of by later cultures who were completely unable to match the achievements of the earliest builders.

Archaeology doesn't work backwards. These sites don't fit so they're dismissed.

The end of the Roman Empire saw a decline in culture and a loss of interest in building high status temples etc. but the skills weren't LOST they were just no longer required so were paused.

There is no mystery about how the Romans built things but they came nowhere near the building skills of the earliest engineers...we STILL can't do what some of these so called primitives were able to do.

If is just lazy to assume we have all the answers.

 

[Nibble]

This area of archaeology is one that has intrigued people for hundreds of years. The first discoveries of these sites were seen, at the time, as evidence for an ancient civilisation of immense sophistication. What has happened over time is that later archaeologists developed a world view that said that these sites could not be as ancient as they seemed so the rubbishing of the dates began.

The facts are still plain. In relation to some of these sites, there is no chance of properly dating them as they are so contaminated but the best assumption is still that they began as huge megalithic sites with very impressive and STILL Impossible to replicate methodology that were built on top of by later cultures who were completely unable to match the achievements of the earliest builders.

Archaeology doesn't work backwards. These sites don't fit so they're dismissed.

The end of the Roman Empire saw a decline in culture and a loss of interest in building high status temples etc. but the skills weren't LOST they were just no longer required so were paused.

There is no mystery about how the Romans built things but they came nowhere near the building skills of the earliest engineers...we STILL can't do what some of these so called primitives were able to do.

If is just lazy to assume we have all the answers.

This is all a bit iffy but the highlighted part is utter, utter nonsense. Of course we don't have all the answers but really, a vast, vast amount more is understood about the world than is thought of by the man in the street

 

[dingodan]

I know it's possible to move very light objects using sound vibrations but really, lifting 800 tonnes with noise? Perhaps the sound of people laughing at this utter tripe might be enough.

"I know it's possible to move this 4 wheeled metallic object along a few miles of road using a combustion engine but really, lifting 4.5 million Ibs, 384,400 km upwards into space & to the moon by burning stuff? Perhaps the sound of people laughing..."

 

[Nibble]

"I know it's possible to move this 4 wheeled metallic object along a few miles of road using a combustion engine but really, lifting 4.5 million Ibs, 384,400 km upwards into space & to the moon by burning stuff? Perhaps the sound of people laughing..."

Uhm, I know both those things are possible because, uhm, well because they have actually been done, I've seen them. The day you show me some genuine footage of an 8000 tonne piece of granite being levitated with pure sound I'll apologise and my thinking will move on accordingly.

I'll be over here. On the edge of my seat.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's kind of my point. Acoustic levitation is science. Man moving 800 tonne blocks is pseudo-science.

What I am suggesting is not problematic on scientific grounds, it is problematic on historical grounds.

no, its not a problem on conceptual grounds, the concept may apply. however for the science, there's something missing - the energy source required to apply to the acoustic levitation (even assuming there are no technical flaws). so we need to have evidence of a considerably large power generator nearby. this is a great example of mis-appropriation of science i refered to earlier, take half the scientific idea and assume the answer is provided, ignoring all the problems.

 

[dingodan]

Uhm, I know both those things are possible because, uhm, well because they have actually been done, I've seen them. The day you show me some genuine footage of an 8000 tonne piece of granite being levitated with pure sound I'll apologise and my thinking will move on accordingly.

I'll be over here. On the edge of my seat.

Actually I was making a broader statement about how the laws of science work.

If you still don't get it, you probably aren't going to.

 

[Nibble]

no, its not a problem on conceptual grounds. the concept applies. however theres something missing - the energy source required to apply to the acoustic levitation (even assuming there are no technical flaws). so we need to have evidence of a considerably large power generator nearby. this is a great example of mis-appropriation of science, take half the science and assume the answer is provided, ignoring all the problems.

"Lost Technology". It's the phrase that can explain away any glitch in their theory.

Where was the power source for this sound? Uhm, we lost that technology. Oh, how convenient.

Lost technology. Jeez, Unfounded, ill informed, fantasist hokum trotted out by people who don't realise that archaeology is long, tedious, intricate work that they couldn't begin to undertake. People have been watching too many Indiana Jones films.

 

[Nibble]

Actually I was making a broader statement about how the laws of science work.

If you still don't get it, you probably aren't going to.

There's a phrase tha applies to this post. "If you couldn't explain it to a 6 yr old, you probably don't understand it yourself". No offence mate, but it's from a website that believes in Teleporters.

It's fun to speculate and imagine fantastical things on earth in our past but let's not try and pass it as actual science eh? It's a bit insulting to people that do their work properly.

 

[dingodan]

no, its not a problem on conceptual grounds, the concept may apply. however for the science, there's something missing - the energy source required to apply to the acoustic levitation (even assuming there are no technical flaws). so we need to have evidence of a considerably large power generator nearby. this is a great example of mis-appropriation of science i refered to earlier, take half the scientific idea and assume the answer is provided, ignoring all the problems.

You are missing the point. The scientific theory is sound, we understand it today. There is nothing scientific missing. All that is required is a workable theory.

You say we need to have evidence of a considerably large power generator nearby. - No we do not.

Get this straight. There is a scientific principle which would allow for these stones to be moved using sound (as an example). There is no scientific principle that would allow for these stones to be moved by the hands of men. That's why I propose sound as a better theory.

I am not saying it was likely to be acoustic levitation, or that there is even any evidence to support it. I am throwing up an idea which has a sound basis in science, to replace an idea which has no basis in science at all.

 

[Silk]

Please post the links as I haven't seen them. We're not talking 15 tons or 150 tons, but 1500 tons. If you can, please post a link to a modern mobile crane that could lift and position the stones as shown in the photograph.

Are you suggesting the ancients had better cranes than us?

 

[Nibble]

You are missing the point. The scientific theory is sound, we understand it today. There is nothing scientific missing. All that is required is a workable theory.

You say we need to have evidence of a considerably large power generator nearby. - No we do not.

Get this straight. There is a scientific principle which would allow for these stones to be moved using sound (as an example). There is no scientific principle that would allow for these stones to be moved by the hands of men. That's why I propose sound as a better theory.

I am not saying it was likely to be acoustic levitation, or that there is even any evidence to support it. I am throwing up an idea which has a sound basis in science, to replace an idea which has no basis in science at all.

What? Anything can be moved given enough manpower and good engineering.
Levitation, sound power. Fair play, logic is clearly not swaying you. I would love yo to be right, I would love to find out stuff I though unbelievable happened. It won't though but you seem to be having fun so fair do's.

 

[dingodan]

There's a phrase tha applies to this post. "If you couldn't explain it to a 6 yr old, you probably don't understand it yourself". No offence mate, but it's from a website that believes in Teleporters.

It's an innocent science website.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/

Mate, the laws of science are expressed mathematically as equations. When the first combustion engine was fitted to the first car, the laws being applied to make that car run could have been used, even at that time, to predict with mathematical certainty that 4.5 million Ibs could indeed be moved 384,400 km into space at 17,500 mph. They could not have done it at that time, but to know it could be done all they would have needed is the relevant mathematical equation and a pen.

 

[dingodan]

What? Anything can be moved given enough manpower and good engineering.
Levitation, sound power. Fair play, logic is clearly not swaying you. I would love yo to be right, I would love to find out stuff I though unbelievable happened. It won't though but you seem to be having fun so fair do's.

Logic says that man power alone did not move those stones.

There are other ideas that could be considered, and it's not logic that is the problem with some of these other ideas, it's culture & history.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Are you suggesting the ancients had better cranes than us?

No, but

They could pull things over wet sand better than us, for sure

But I have yet to see any hieroglyphics showing the lifting methods used for the colossal blocks. I find it strange that they do show how statues were pulled and obelisks raised but nothing for their mightiest achievements.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Are you suggesting the ancients had better cranes than us?

I am, also, particularly interested in the methods used to lift the 800 ton blocks as my company has used huge sea cranes in the past



Here we cut the sea wall for the New Tyne Tunnel into approx 150 ton lumps and lifted out with the sea crane Norma.

So when it comes to lifting 800 ton monoliths, 5000 years ago with manpower rope and levers (and maybe some sort of pulley system) and placing on top of another, of the same size, with pinpoint precision, I would love to know how they did it.

Remember that 800 tons is equivalent to 12,500 men, and how many of us could lift our own body weight. To me, anyway, it is a mind boggling achievement, however it was done.

 

[symyjym]

I am, also, particularly interested in the methods used to lift the 800 ton blocks as my company has used huge sea cranes in the past

View attachment 55345

Here we cut the sea wall for the New Tyne Tunnel into approx 150 ton lumps and lifted out with the sea crane Norma.

So when it comes to lifting 800 ton monoliths, 5000 years ago with manpower rope and levers (and maybe some sort of pulley system) and placing on top of another, of the same size, with pinpoint precision, I would love to know how they did it.

Remember that 800 tons is equivalent to 12,500 men, and how many of us could lift our own body weight. To me, anyway, it is a mind boggling achievement, however it was done.

But the largest ones were foundation stones and were never stacked as you describe, so they never had to be lifted and swung into position like the above photo insinuates. At each level the stones got smaller than the ones at the base.

 

[beorhthelm]

You are missing the point. The scientific theory is sound, we understand it today. There is nothing scientific missing. All that is required is a workable theory.

You say we need to have evidence of a considerably large power generator nearby. - No we do not.

Get this straight. There is a scientific principle which would allow for these stones to be moved using sound (as an example). There is no scientific principle that would allow for these stones to be moved by the hands of men. That's why I propose sound as a better theory.

see, you start off with a statement seemingly factual, then immediatly contradict it: the scientific theory is sound, all thats required is a workable theory. so which is it, do we have a theory or not?

then you take this "scientific principle" and dispense with all the actual science. acoustic levitation is a concept, an idea, a method that might work. the science is in how it works, and brings with it a whole bunch of assumptions and laws of physics. such as, you need a crap load of energy to lift a 1500 ton stone, sustained over time. doesnt matter if aliens, magic, Ganesh or acoustic levitators are used, 1500tons is an awfull lot of rock to argue with gravity. yes im aware this is problem for men too. however, to bring in some technical problems, the acoustic levitator needs to be underneath the object to work, which is a bit difficult to implement (presumably still in place under the rocks resting place?). and its also inefficient, dragging a big rock across the ground requires alot less energy than lifting and moving it does (experiment to illustrate: climb up a half dozen flights of stairs. compare with walking the same distance on a level). and then theres problems like does the acoustics shatter the rock.
then you laughably dismiss the scientific principle of men pulling stuff, which does have a flaw of how well it scales, but is very well understood as scientific principle: men/animals with ropes, dollys, levers, earthworks and massive whips can move big rocks. there isnt a science question, theres a question of engineering, *how* it was done with the known or supposed knowable technology.

so really you've proposed nothing but half-baked psuedo-science, which was my point. frankly aliens done it makes more sence, and they wouldnt do it with acoustic levitation.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

But the largest ones were foundation stones and were never stacked as you describe, so they never had to be lifted and swung into position like the above photo insinuates. At each level the stones got smaller than the ones at the base.

There are two periods of construction here. The monoliths form the top course of the original construct, the "smaller" stones on top are from the far later Roman era. Lifting 800 tons on top of an existing wall is the point I am making

 

[Hillian1]

There is a big difference between Theory and Fact.

It may be fact that there is a theory, but the theory remains just that, a theory.

 

[Leighgull]

There are two periods of construction here. The monoliths form the top course of the original construct, the "smaller" stones on top are from the far later Roman era. Lifting 800 tons on top of an existing wall is the point I am making

Is the crux of the matter.

The sites mentioned in this thread have this anomaly in common. The biggest and most mind boggling blocks are at the bottom. The later phases are crudely built on top by more modern peoples. Strangely though it is seemingly normal for archaeologists to date the sites from the newest features as that fits the thing into a more sensible paradigm for them.

Anyone who watches Time Team knows that dating evidence works from the bottom up, not the other way around so how does archaeology square that circle? They scoff at people who ask..."hang on, what went on here" and call them nutters.