Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
patrix
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by patrix » Sat May 23, 2020 7:28 am

An interesting and entertaining lecture by Irving Finkel on the origins of Noah's ark and a build of it


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:27 pm

A twentieth-century megalithic construction

A Latvian emigrant to the US and self-taught engineer by the name Edward Leedskalnin (Edvards Liedskalninš, 1887-1951) spent 28 years of his life building a whimsical rock castle for himself on a god-forsaken pebbly tract in Florida. The original name was “Ed’s Place”, but after relocating the construction, he renamed it “Rock Gate”. The touristy name “Coral Castle” was introduced decades after his death.

Leedskalnin quarried and sculpted over a thousand tons of oolitic limestone. The blocks weigh several tons each, with the largest one at 27 tons. The fit is said to be good enough to prevent light from passing through the joints. Reportedly, no mortar was used (I am not so sure about that).

The most famous structure is an 8-ton revolving gate (thence, the name “Rock Gate”). In 1986, it was discovered to have a hole drilled from top to bottom containing a metal shaft resting on an old truck bearing.

Image

Ed lived alone and worked mostly at night. It is claimed he never let anybody see him working, but this is hardly true: a book about his techniques (“Mr. Can't Is Dead”) was written by someone who claims to have witnessed them, and a contemporary documentary filmed him at work. This of course doesn’t rule out the possibility he was pretending when observed by others in order to protect his secret (reverse magnetism?).

Regarding his alleged secret construction technique, he said:
- It’s not difficult if you know how.
- I understand the laws of weight and leverage and I know the secrets of the people who built the pyramids.
The only advanced tool that Leedskalnin spoke of using was a “perpetual motion holder” (see further below quotes from his pamphlet on magnetism). As shown in the photograph above, his tools were made with salvaged timber and old car parts.

When asked why he committed his life to building a castle he always answered he did it for his “sweet sixteen”, a girl by the name Agnes Skuvst (or possibly Hermīne Lūsis) he was supposed to have married back in Latvia. Some have hypothesized the number 16 is actually a reference to a numerological or scientific system.

I don’t see much likeness between Leedskalnin’s crude “coral block” construction and the megalithic sites discussed earlier in this thread, but it’s worth noting that he did manage to cut and lift into place very large stone blocks single-handedly. One interesting point is that, over a 3-year period beginning in 1936, he moved the entire original castle to another site 10 miles away. The truck driver is said to have been instructed to go sit in the shade and look the other way while the blocks were loaded, but that is a bit too fanciful to take seriously.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqNRweMt-sQ

Four of the five pamphlets Leedskalnin wrote (copies of which were sold in his gift shop) dealt with the interaction between magnetism and the body. The fifth pamphlet (“A Book in Every Home”) was on moral education. In it, only the pages on the left side were printed. The reason for this was given in the introduction:
Reader, if for any reason you do not like the things I say in this little book, I left just as much space as I used, so you can write your own opinion opposite it and see if you can do better.
But why was Leedskalnin so interested in magnetism if his all-embracing obsession was building with stone blocks? Did he or did he not use reverse magnetism to lift his blocks? His most well-known pamphlet contains curious statements about the nature of magnetism (in line with the concept of "magnetic moment" or "electron spin theory", not the standard model of electromagnetism), but no direct mention of construction work, at least for the uninitiated. The passages below have been slightly edited for synthesis.
- The metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal.
- Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet in itself.
- These particles are so small they can pass through anything. In fact, they can pass through metal easier than through the air.
- They are in constant motion and possess perpetual power.
- Electric magnets hold perpetual motion. If not disturbed, they will last indefinitely.
- Magnetic current is the same as electric current.
- The reason I call the results of north and south pole magnets' functions "magnetic currents" and not "electric currents" is that electricity is connected too much with those non-existing electrons. If it had been called "magneticity" then I would accept it. Magneticity would indicate that it has a magnetic base and so it would be all right.
- The magnetic current is not one current, but two streams running against each other.
- All currents are alternating. One current alone cannot run. To run, they have to run against each other.
- When south and north pole magnets are prevented from passing from one wire to another, they create an expanding bubble from which they run out, carrying metal sparks with them. Breaking up the bubble will show the space left by the magnets.
- They are the cosmic force that hold together this earth and everything on it, and they hold the moon together too, and turn the earth around on its axis.
- The earth itself is a great big magnet.
- This will give you a rough idea of how magnets build up matter.
- Those magnets which are coming from the sun are hitting their own kind of magnets which are circulating around the earth and they hit more on the east side than on the west side and that´s what makes the earth turn around.
- Those people who have been wondering why the moon does not come down, all they have to do is to give the moon one-half of a turn so that the north end would be on the south side, and the south end on the north side, and then the moon would come down. At present the earth and moon have like magnet poles on the same side so their own magnet poles keep them apart, but when the poles are reversed they are pulled together.
- Here is a good tip for the rocket people: make the rocket´s head a strong north pole magnet and the tail a strong south pole magnet, and then lock on the moon´s north end. Then you will have better success.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14qylYJ ... sp=sharing (1945)
Addition: You may also want to check out kickstones' post from 2015 about Leedskalnin´s theories on gravity and magnetism: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2395495

Image

Not everyone is persuaded the contraptions shown in pictures and documentaries were capable of doing the job. In this picture, if Leedskalnin is removing a block from the quarry, how did he free it from the bedrock and get the rope below it without lifting it?

At 64, Leedskalnin walked into a hospital and died of complications of malnutrition and stroke. His diet was limited to sardines and crackers.

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:38 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:27 pm
If Leedskalnin is removing a block from the quarry, how did he free it from the bedrock and get the rope below it without lifting it?
It seems the answer to my question is in Orval Irwin's book “Mr. Can't Is Dead” .... or is it?

Image

In any case, chapter 7 in the book is titled "No secret method". :unsure:

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:21 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:05 pm
Interestingly, back in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the case for human evolution from apes was based on archeological evidence of very poor reporting quality. On the other hand, contemporary evidence for extreme human antiquity (the so-called 'anomalous evidence') was swept under the rug even when the reporting quality was high. A perfect example of double standard. For instance, the story about how Java Man was "discovered" and marketed is hilarious. I will try to find some time to summarize it in a post.
Sometimes I almost keep my promises :)

Here are the first 30 pages of Cremo's chapter about the Java Man swindle:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fkLYCn ... sp=sharing

Ernst Haeckel wrote about Eugène Dubois, the pseudo-discoverer of Java Man: "He has actually provided us with the bones of the ape-man I had postulated". In congratulating Dubois, he sent a telegram "from the inventor of Pithecanthropus to his happy discoverer."

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:52 pm

Back in my first post I wrote:
Ancient and well-preserved archeological sites, such as in Peru and Egypt, show a perfectly consistent pattern, not of ‘evolution’, but of loss of technological skill by degrees. Sites which have been occupied on and off by different cultures over the millennia invariably have the most sophisticated structures at the lowest/earliest level.
While this is a clear and ubiquitous pattern worldwide, it is not invariably the case. Below are two instances of what I would classify as machined blocks on top of low-technology, mortar-dense masonry. The low- and high-technology sections are made with materials of different origin. If our paleo-ancestors had favored plaster-covered walls, you might say it didn´t really matter how crude the mix looked below the plaster, but we know they didn't use plaster (capstones are not plaster), assigned great importance to the physical/magnetic/acoustic properties of the material and could quarry and transport any amount they needed.

Perfectly cut basalt lintel overlying a structure apparently restored with various (mostly crude) styles of masonry (Mitla, Oaxaca, Mexico).
Image

For the sake of comparison, this is how crude the walls can be at Mitla. I use the word "crude" with regard to style and technology, but of course they are amazingly resistant.
Image

Perfectly shaped doorway at a site (I don´t know the name*) 5 hours from Cusco, Peru. It´s almost like the Incas found it hanging in the air and built around it!
Image

The above screengrabs are from videos by Brien Foerster. I actually sent him this last example by email and asked him how he thinks the Incas managed to build beneath the megalithic structure without the doorway deforming/collapsing. Could there have been a damaged megalithic foundation under the doorway when the Incas found it? If so, where is that foundation now, and why was it not incorporated into the Inca masonry? Or was the ground much higher back then?

* The name of the site appears to be 'Watoto'. https://youtu.be/rNAtptKnI1w?t=622

glg
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by glg » Sat May 01, 2021 9:53 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
For the sake of comparison, this is how crude the walls can be at Mitla. I use the word "crude" with regard to style and technology, but of course they are amazingly resistant.
Flabbergasted, I'm not much invested in this topic and I cannot say I have read much of this thread, but when I read the sentence above I was reminded of a documentary I chanced upon not long ago.
The subject was the mysterious and surviving remnants of the supposedly still very uncompromised Tairona civilization, namely the Kogi tribe.
An archeologist informs the viewer: ¨(...) There is also certain techniques of the Tairona... they where adapting the city perfectly to the topographical condition of the area. They were building these walls in a way, that they were not eroded as a result of the running water from the constant and very frequent rains of the area.¨
While he says that we are shown very scraggly and ¨crude¨ walls not unlike those in your pictures above.
But it made sense, or rather was I intrigued by the explanation of a topographically and environmentally sound architecture, that only looks crude but isn't, so that I could imagine a similar but inherently different architecture for various topographics and environments.
But perhaps this is old news to you... anyway here's the docu - you will find said statement after the 10 min. mark:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRgTtrQOiR0

Seneca
Member
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Seneca » Sun May 09, 2021 5:03 pm

This is a bit off topic but I didn't find a more suitable topic to post it in.

Anyone who has critically examined ancient history, probably knows about dendrochronology. For others I will give a brief explanation. Dendrochronology (or tree-ring dating) is the scientific method of dating tree rings (also called growth rings) to the exact year they were formed. For dead trees this involves cross dating. This is accomplished by matching patterns of wide and narrow rings between different trees that grew under similar conditions (for example trees growing in the same region under the same climate).


What sets it apart from other dating methods is that both the extraction of samples and their examination can be done with very cheap instruments. Since the samples are preserved in libraries and I haven't heard of anyone of these burning down, in theory every measurement can be verified.

The longest continuous chronology thus obtained is the 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from Central Europe. (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... /4172/3597)

Here is a graph based on oak rings from France and Germany from an article in Science Magazine. What interests me is the dark green one, C, that shows the period that the wood recovered from buildings was felled, based on the 7284 oak-ring series from France and Germany.

Image

The authors suppose that this graph gives a good indication of the construction activity during certain historical periods. As you can see in the 3 gray columns, they even manage to link periods of decreased "construction activity" to historical periods like the Roman empire and subsequent Migration Period, the great famine and black death and the thirty years war. So all these alternative historians like Fomenko are proven wrong. There is another big decline around 1000 C.E.. that starts just after the tree felling rate had just started exceeding the rate before the previous decline, around 800 C.E. This could not be linked to a specific historical event and is explained as follows:

"many earlier structures were re-placed during a settlement boom in the 13th century (23,24), eliminating much construction evidence from the central medieval period (900 to 1100 C.E.)"


My comments: I find it strange that they expected to see significant results. For this to even be possible we have to suppose that every oak that is felled for building purposes has the same likelihood of ending up in the graph, regardless of age. Maybe I am too dumb but I would expect that this likelihood would be less for older trees. Nowhere in the article is mentioned how the samples were selected.

When I took a closer look to how the historical events fit the data from the trees I found clear signs of deceivement. In all cases the decline started at least 30-40 years earlier than the supposed historical event, which makes no sense. This was hidden by making the gray columns broader. It is most clear for the "Migration Period". The graph already has its maximum around the year 114 C.E. after which it declines steadily. Around the year 200 there is a little spike but the period around it has an all time low. Yet the authors write "Reduced tree harvesting at ~250 to 400 C.E. coincides with the biggest central European historical crisis, the Migration Period, a
time marked by lasting political turmoil, cultural change, and socioeconomic instability. According to Wikipedia, "The beginning of the period is widely regarded as the invasion of Europe by the Huns from Asia in 375 and the ending with the conquest of Italy by the Lombards in 568,[3] but a more loosely set period is from as early as 300 to as late as 800." So the period didn't start before 300 C.E. and even the source used in he article is titled "Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300–900".

You can reconstruct what they were thinking: "We have a gap of more than 100 years between our data and what history tells us, let's move the historical date 50 years and close the rest of the gap by misreading our data..."

As for the explanation of the decline around 1000 C.E. I mentioned earlier that was explained by a settlement "boom". In my view to cause people to destroy earlier buildings, the population density had to be really high. The graphs show only a 10% increase in population. And even then it is more likely that the wood would be reused. There is also no explanation for why more ancient structures where not "eliminated" or why both the decline and the subsequent rise are so gradual.

The question remains if there is any relevancy to the data.

Post Reply