Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum The mystery of the stones at baalbeck and the pregnant stone

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 Tags Baalbek

 9th November 2012, 06:29 AM #41 catsmate1 Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 8,964 Originally Posted by StankApe Is this the former contractor building stonehenge in his backyard pretty much by himself (with the odd helper) using nothing but ancient tech? I saw a little byte on that guy a few years back.Moving big stones by himself with only a single pebble as a pivot. neat stuff!!! ETA: Yep!! It's that guy! Wonderful, thanks. Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy I'll admit in advance that I'm totally spitballing this and would love to know how far I'm off. The stone's mass is about 1,000,000 kg, and it measures (approximately) 20 x 4 meters. Under gravity, it's exerting a pressure of ~9.8 million Newtons on a surface area of 80 m^2, or 122,500 N/m^2. Converting to US measurements this is ~18psi. The weakest type of wood I can find numbers for, white cedar, has a compressive strength of ~3900 psi. Even if only 1% of the surface area is bearing the load, this is still only 1800psi. Would wooden rollers really "literally be crushed"? No, or at least only in the imaginations of certain people. __________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
 9th November 2012, 07:15 AM #42 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241 Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy I'll admit in advance that I'm totally spitballing this and would love to know how far I'm off. The stone's mass is about 1,000,000 kg, and it measures (approximately) 20 x 4 meters. Under gravity, it's exerting a pressure of ~9.8 million Newtons on a surface area of 80 m^2, or 122,500 N/m^2. Converting to US measurements this is ~18psi. The weakest type of wood I can find numbers for, white cedar, has a compressive strength of ~3900 psi. Even if only 1% of the surface area is bearing the load, this is still only 1800psi. Would wooden rollers really "literally be crushed"? Thanks for doing that. You would also have to consider that wooden logs are not perfectly tube shaped, so could not be rolled. They would have to be hand crafted into near perfect tubular/circular shapes and moved on an equally smooth runway to actually negate the weight of the stone. The closer the logs get to a circular shape the less surface area is touching the stone rolling on it, so the more psi is applied to it. You also have to account for the compressive strength under this assumed geometry, as the weight of the stone will cause flat spots on the top and the bottom (proportionally) that will severely resist any lateral force applied to it.
 9th November 2012, 07:26 AM #43 marplots Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,923 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Thanks for doing that. You would also have to consider that wooden logs are not perfectly tube shaped, so could not be rolled. They would have to be hand crafted into near perfect tubular/circular shapes and moved on an equally smooth runway to actually negate the weight of the stone. The closer the logs get to a circular shape the less surface area is touching the stone rolling on it, so the more psi is applied to it. You also have to account for the compressive strength under this assumed geometry, as the weight of the stone will cause flat spots on the top and the bottom (proportionally) that will severely resist any lateral force applied to it. Interesting analysis. I think it's hugely wrong, but I find it a wonderful example of thinking about a subject in a certain way and what results. Try this experiment. Take a bit of clay between your flat palms. Move your palms back and forth. What shape do you end up with? The perfect cylinder you think you need is the result of just those uneven pressures you mentioned. Any portion that bumps out gets smashed more than surrounding parts, tending overall to make a smoother cylinder than before. But if all that still bothers you, just make your rollers out of stone. They had stone, right? Don't like stone cylinders? Go with stone balls instead. Don't like stone balls? Go with pig lard on stone tracks. The point is that all you really need to do is reduce friction somewhat. Lots of ways to do it.
 9th November 2012, 07:27 AM #44 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,321 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Thanks for doing that. You would also have to consider that wooden logs are not perfectly tube shaped, so could not be rolled. That doesn't follow. Logs don't have to be perfectly tube shaped to roll. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 9th November 2012, 07:34 AM #45 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241 Originally Posted by godless dave That doesn't follow. Logs don't have to be perfectly tube shaped to roll. Apply the weights needed in this situation and you are talking about every non smooth bump having many many orders of magnitude more friction than it would be subject to if not under considerable vertical force.
 9th November 2012, 07:36 AM #46 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241 Originally Posted by marplots Try this experiment. Take a bit of clay between your flat palms. Ok. Clay is not stone. I just tried rolling it; didn't work. Quote: Any portion that bumps out gets smashed more than surrounding parts, tending overall to make a smoother cylinder than before. Rock is too brittle, smashing out the 'kinks' would crack it. Check the tensile stress and strain graph of the stone used. Doesn't seem feasible to me. And no evidence of stone rollers in the quarry. Quote: Go with pig lard on stone tracks. The point is that all you really need to do is reduce friction somewhat. Lots of ways to do it. What a bizarre idea Can you explain how this model of pigs would work?
 9th November 2012, 07:39 AM #47 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,321 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz What a bizarre idea Can you explain how this model of pigs would work? What's bizarre about it? Many cultures used animal fat as lubricant. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 9th November 2012, 07:40 AM #48 LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 13,738 Who would pick lumpy logs for rollers? Who would try to roll on uneven ground? Given the use of a sled and tracks, who wouldn't know to lubricate? __________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
 9th November 2012, 07:47 AM #49 marplots Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,923 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Ok. Clay is not stone. I just tried rolling it; didn't work. Really? Works great for me. It's how I make French bread. I take a blob of dough and roll it between my flat hands and the table. I get a cylinder every time. Quote: Rock is too brittle, smashing out the 'kinks' would crack it. Check the tensile stress and strain graph of the stone used. Doesn't seem feasible to me. And no evidence of stone rollers in the quarry. If that were so, how does the monolith keep from crushing itself? Surely the lowest side has the weight of the everything above it on it. Rock's pretty strong under compression. It's kinda how it becomes rock in the first place. Remember, you are distributing the weight over very many of whatever you use. I think you are stuck on the "too much weight" instead of dividing and conquering here. I don't know if they used stone rollers or not, I was trying to give you some alternate ideas. Did you see how that guy doing Stonehenge in his backyard did it? Pivoting on a couple stones. Quote: What a bizarre idea Can you explain how this model of pigs would work? Sure. You butter up some stone rails with pig fat. Get them really slippery. That's all your rollers do anyhow -- they reduce friction. It's what the aliens would have done by floating the things -- reduce friction. Remember, you don't need to eliminate friction entirely, just reduce it enough to get things moving. Last edited by marplots; 9th November 2012 at 07:49 AM.
 9th November 2012, 07:54 AM #50 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241 Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Given the use of a sled and tracks, who wouldn't know to lubricate? Is there any evidence for these smooth surface weight bearing tracks?
 9th November 2012, 08:00 AM #51 marplots Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,923 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Is there any evidence for these smooth surface weight bearing tracks? Not that I know of. But I thought we were just speculating here. What evidence is there for any particular method at all? How do you think they were moved? Last edited by marplots; 9th November 2012 at 08:02 AM.
 9th November 2012, 08:05 AM #52 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz They were on level ground, the construction site and the quarry are level to the nearest meter. This opens the possibility of a canal being used, but the mechanics of the size of water needed to be displaced with air plus the weight of the stone severely constrains this possibility. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz You would also have to consider that wooden logs are not perfectly tube shaped, so could not be rolled. They would have to be hand crafted into near perfect tubular/circular shapes and moved on an equally smooth runway to actually negate the weight of the stone. The closer the logs get to a circular shape the less surface area is touching the stone rolling on it, so the more psi is applied to it. You also have to account for the compressive strength under this assumed geometry, as the weight of the stone will cause flat spots on the top and the bottom (proportionally) that will severely resist any lateral force applied to it. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Apply the weights needed in this situation and you are talking about every non smooth bump having many many orders of magnitude more friction than it would be subject to if not under considerable vertical force. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Ok. Clay is not stone. I just tried rolling it; didn't work. Rock is too brittle, smashing out the 'kinks' would crack it. Check the tensile stress and strain graph of the stone used. Doesn't seem feasible to me. And no evidence of stone rollers in the quarry. What a bizarre idea Can you explain how this model of pigs would work? So you're hand-waving away every plausible explanation anyone offers. Carving, moving, and constructing things with those massive stones can be done, of course. We know this because those stones are there for us to observe to this very day. Obviously it was an awesome task, but just because you don't have the creativity or ingenuity of the ancients surely doesn't mean they didn't have it. They did. Look at the photos.
 9th November 2012, 08:26 AM #53 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241 Originally Posted by marplots Not that I know of. But I thought we were just speculating here. We are. I managed to shoot down the idea of using a canal before even posting it, yet still shared the geological information and physics about why it is impossible. Quote: What evidence is there for any particular method at all? How do you think they were moved? There seems to be none that can hold up to scrutiny, yet. But there likely will be one proposed eventually. Apart from the one clever old Geemack said he worked out in a minute, that uses 'just six people, a couple of shovels. Period. No ropes, no timbers, no oxen, no rollers' but he's keeping that closely guarded secret. His motivation for this is unknown. It appears he believes in forum based telepathy. Last edited by Zeuzzz; 9th November 2012 at 08:31 AM.
 9th November 2012, 08:34 AM #54 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,321 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz We are. I managed to shoot down the idea of using a canal before even posting it, yet still shared the geological information and physics about why it is impossible. There seems to be none that can hold up to scrutiny, yet. Several have been proposed so far. Rolling on logs. Pulling on sledges or on the ground. Lifting with cranes. All are plausible. All are known from archeological evidence to have been used at other sites. There is no mystery here. Many stone age, bronze age, and iron age civilizations knew how to work stone and how to move large, heavy objects. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 9th November 2012, 08:45 AM #55 Captain_Swoop Illuminator     Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 4,599 Quote: There seems to be none that can hold up to scrutiny, yet. But there likely will be one proposed eventually. What literature have you looked at on the subject? there is a lot more to this than a few articles on Web Sites. What makes you say archeologists have just 'assumed' it is roman? What makes you think no work has been done to or evidence found to confirm it? If they aren't Roman why would the techniques used to form and move them be any different?
 9th November 2012, 08:50 AM #56 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 35,529 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz They were on level ground, the construction site and the quarry are level to the nearest meter. This opens the possibility of a canal being used, but the mechanics of the size of water needed to be displaced with air plus the weight of the stone severely constrains this possibility. So rollers are still a possibility, you still haven't really stated a premise or why it is supported by the evidence. __________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
 9th November 2012, 08:50 AM #57 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz We are. I managed to shoot down the idea of using a canal before even posting it, yet still shared the geological information and physics about why it is impossible. It seems all your working-it-out is based on incredulity and a lack of understanding the physics involved. So yes, the ancients knew something you don't know. They were capable of performing a daunting task with minimal tools and technology, where your access to contemporary technology still leaves you baffled. Quote: There seems to be none that can hold up to my scrutiny and incredulity, yet. But there likely will be one proposed eventually. Fixed that for you. Quote: Apart from the one clever old Geemack said he worked out in a minute, that uses 'just six people, a couple of shovels. Period. No ropes, no timbers, no oxen, no rollers' but he's keeping that closely guarded secret. His motivation for this is unknown. I figured you might be willing to think it through. It may have taken the ancients several tries to tweak the methods, and depending on the available manpower it might have taken days or even weeks to do the actual job, but they did it, didn't they? I think you can work out how they might have done it if you stop trying so hard to convince yourself that they couldn't. Quote: He appears he believes in forum based telepathy. I already said my method doesn't require magic.
 9th November 2012, 09:11 AM #58 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 35,529 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz We are. I managed to shoot down the idea of using a canal before even posting it, yet still shared the geological information and physics about why it is impossible. Nope, you haven't. Wooden rollers will smooth down very quickly. __________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
 9th November 2012, 09:17 AM #59 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,321 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz They were on level ground, the construction site and the quarry are level to the nearest meter. So maybe they filled in the holes afterwards. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 9th November 2012, 09:31 AM #60 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241 Originally Posted by godless dave So maybe they filled in the holes afterwards. Shovels would have made that easier.
 9th November 2012, 09:59 AM #61 marplots Philosopher   Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,923 I think "plausible" explanations take away the lovely taste of mystery without replacing it with the mellow satisfaction of certainty. I have stuff I try to hold in the mystery column for much the same reason. Last edited by marplots; 9th November 2012 at 10:17 AM.
 9th November 2012, 10:50 AM #62 LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 13,738 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Is there any evidence for these smooth surface weight bearing tracks? Did you not know what "given" meant in context? __________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
 9th November 2012, 11:22 AM #63 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241 Plenty of more room on the bandwagon, hop on people. Still waiting for a complete model to be posted here, or dare I say, even evidence.
 9th November 2012, 11:26 AM #64 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,321 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Plenty of more room on the bandwagon, hop on people. Still waiting for a complete model to be posted here, or dare I say, even evidence. Why? There is no mystery. People have been working with stone for hundreds of thousands of years. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 9th November 2012, 11:35 AM #65 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241 Yes people made it, we established that in a few posts. How they did it is the question. It's an open question.
 9th November 2012, 11:35 AM #66 Sledge Grammaton Cleric     Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Plenty of more room on the bandwagon, hop on people. Still waiting for a complete model to be posted here, or dare I say, even evidence. Evidence of what, exactly? That people thousands of years ago were capable of moving large pieces of stone? The evidence is already there. Unless you have some other explanation for those stones being where they are. __________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
 9th November 2012, 11:41 AM #67 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,321 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Yes people made it, we established that in a few posts. How they did it is the question. It's an open question. It would be interesting to know the details of this particular construction, sure. But we know how other cultures built stone structures, so it's just a question of which methods the builders of this particular monument used. We may never know. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
 9th November 2012, 11:45 AM #68 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Yes people made it, we established that in a few posts. How they did it is the question. It's an open question. It's not a mystery. Several of us seem to have a pretty good handle on how that stoneworking was done, or at the very least how it could have been done. Just because you don't understand the simple physics involved, does that mean we have some responsibility to educate you?
 9th November 2012, 11:54 AM #69 Tomtomkent Philosopher     Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,955 Originally Posted by Dancing David Nope, you haven't. Wooden rollers will smooth down very quickly. Yes. You know what, wooded rollers can be smoothed down before the stone is rolled anyway. Im sorry, but am to believe that stone cutting techniques exist, yet straight lengths of timber can not be selected and trimmed cut away knots and limbs? First the trees were too weak. That was proven false so they were too lumpy, despite people using them to demonstrate they can work to move stones today. That is not deduction that is handwaving with out varifying. __________________ @tomhodden This Christmas THERE WILL BE TROUBLE: http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...-Hodden-ebook/
 9th November 2012, 12:00 PM #70 dafydd Suspended   Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border. Posts: 34,795 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Apply the weights needed in this situation and you are talking about every non smooth bump having many many orders of magnitude more friction than it would be subject to if not under considerable vertical force. The math please.
 9th November 2012, 12:01 PM #71 Tomtomkent Philosopher     Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,955 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Yes people made it, we established that in a few posts. How they did it is the question. It's an open question. Yeah. Did they use sled, rollers, or some combination of the methods described that have been recreated in several experiments? That is not really an open question, as the answer is "some combination of the known and mundane methods used to achieve the same results by other ancient cultures". How large lumps of stone got moved around stopped being a question a long time ago. All that is open is specifics that make little difference to the level of discussion you are willing to have. If you wanted to know precisely what kind of wood, or rope, or sled, then a general forum is not the place to ask, and I am sure the British Museum will look forwards to your e-mail and reading your peer review paper. As you seem to want to discuss on a general level, and the equipment used will have left few remains, is there any point discussing what model of sled, or how finely worked the rollers were? __________________ @tomhodden This Christmas THERE WILL BE TROUBLE: http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...-Hodden-ebook/
 9th November 2012, 12:16 PM #72 lionking In the Peanut Gallery     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 31,393 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Plenty of more room on the bandwagon, hop on people. Still waiting for a complete model to be posted here, or dare I say, even evidence. Zeuzzz do you have Soapy Sam on ignore? His link provided a complete model. Would you like to comment on that? __________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill
 9th November 2012, 12:34 PM #73 George152 Master Poster     Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,149 The Romans built in stone. They built monuments and palaces, temples and houses. A 1200 ton stone is moved in the same way that a 12 ton stone is moved. And who better to move large stones than the engineers who moved small stones ? __________________ Unemployment isn't working
 9th November 2012, 12:40 PM #74 LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 13,738 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Yes people made it, we established that in a few posts. How they did it is the question. It's an open question. There are several ways they could have done it. It may not be possible to pin down exactly how. Clearly they managed it. They did not use magic. Alien beings from space did not assist them. They did not invent anti-gravity devices. They figured out a way that worked for them with what they had available to them. Exactly what method they used is not clear. It certainly involved hard work and intelligent people and probably some wood and maybe some road work and digging. And sweat. __________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
 9th November 2012, 01:38 PM #75 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 35,529 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Plenty of more room on the bandwagon, hop on people. Still waiting for a complete model to be posted here, or dare I say, even evidence. Zeuzzz, you made the claim it could not have been done with ancient technologies. So far you have not presented any evidence. __________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
 9th November 2012, 01:40 PM #76 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 35,529 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Yes people made it, we established that in a few posts. How they did it is the question. It's an open question. My guess is ramped earth and rollers. That is about easiest, but being that it is attributed to the romans, they have may have used pulleys and blocks with the rollers. __________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
 9th November 2012, 01:42 PM #77 StankApe Banned   Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643 I'm a bit puzzled here Zeuzzz; You aren't saying it was done by Aliens, or magic, or "lost technology of the ancient world" but you DO seem to be saying it couldn't even be done by humans now (well that's what the article in the OP claims, and perhaps you aren't agreeing with them). So ,what are you asking? how did they do it? well a pretty good explanation was linked on page one regarding rollers on the stones themselves and lots and lots of elbow grease.
 9th November 2012, 04:30 PM #78 pakeha Philosopher     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 9,784 Hi, Zeuzzz. Did you get around to the linked material I posted up earlier?
 9th November 2012, 05:21 PM #79 Vortigern99 Philosopher     Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,557 Zeuzzz, please respond to Tomtomkent's post #75, quoted below. Thanks! Originally Posted by Tomtomkent Yeah. Did they use sled, rollers, or some combination of the methods described that have been recreated in several experiments? That is not really an open question, as the answer is "some combination of the known and mundane methods used to achieve the same results by other ancient cultures". How large lumps of stone got moved around stopped being a question a long time ago. All that is open is specifics that make little difference to the level of discussion you are willing to have. If you wanted to know precisely what kind of wood, or rope, or sled, then a general forum is not the place to ask, and I am sure the British Museum will look forwards to your e-mail and reading your peer review paper. As you seem to want to discuss on a general level, and the equipment used will have left few remains, is there any point discussing what model of sled, or how finely worked the rollers were? __________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
 9th November 2012, 08:29 PM #80 Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger     Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 31,333 Could someone point me to the webpage that Zeuzzz's OP plagiarised? I'd like to know what claim he's afraid to claim he claimed. __________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit