Jump to content

Who Built All These & When ?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Bombadil said:

 

It took 20 years to build the pyramid in Egypt.

The calculation says they would had to move 320 stones per day which equates to 1 stone every 4 mins. Jus saying...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2022 at 7:23 PM, MarcusOmouse said:

However, look at the incredible architecture, size and overall weight of these buildings. Then look at both the populations and technology available to those who are claimed to have built them less than two hundred years ago, given the clearly insufficient resources of both people and technology  available  to them in order to pull this sfuff off.

 

They had fantastic resources to pull it off. Our country is now littered with the now closed quarries of yesteryear. Every farm had powerful teams of oxen or horses to pull ploughs so using horsepower was a well understood method. The rope industry was a massive industry. The country is also peppered with old lime kilns where they were producing their own lime. There were thousands of tons of processed lime being shipped out of charleston harbour, near edinburgh, alone. It was so dangerously reactive with sea water that many ships were lost to fires. This prompted the creation of maritime insurance. So we were producing everything we needed in vast quantities and labour also was very cheap. Skilled labour was organised into the guild system which ensured high standards of work and good pay for the craftsmen.

 

All it needed was skilled geometry and vision:

Medieval Masons and tracing-floors

10 May 2021

By Jennifer Smith

The tracing-floors of York Minster offer a rare glimpse into the relationship between drawing and the Cathedral, the most iconic monument to the medieval Gothic. Tucked away into the loft of a small vestibule connecting the North Transept to the Chapter House, the Mason’s Lodge, as it is known, is one of only two surviving tracing floors in England; the other resides in Wells Cathedral, Somerset. Laid with several thin layers of plaster of Paris, the floor was a convenient space for the master mason to draw designs for elements and moldings to scale. There is evidence to suggest that a new layer of plaster would be laid at regular intervals and trampled flat to provide a fresh working surface, with the plans copied onto thin timber or metal sheets for templates. Drawings could easily be brushed out or partially erased, with the most recent etchings shown in the sharpest, clearest white.

This temporary medium for drawing indicates that the process of iterative design was practiced by medieval masons. With an already limited number of drawings by masons, it is perhaps more incredible that we retain examples of such a transient practice. The surviving tracings-floors at York Minster, believed to be for the construction of the parish church of St Michael-le-Belfrey, are significant for the insight they provide into the role drawing played for the medieval architect. 

The role of design in the Gothic cathedral has long divided opinion. We have a tendency to see the cathedral, a source of awe and veneration separated from contemporary architecture in scale and ornament, as a monument built to embody a transcendental or Promethean vision. The cathedral as an opus in mente conceptum derives from a romantic understanding. This is supported by the lack of any complete architectural drawings as we would understand them. The drawings that do survive, as in York Minster, or the more or less complete parchment drawings of Strasbourg Cathedral, seem to be templates for specific elements rather than evidence of a holistic design. The deeply experiential and complex structural form of the Cathedral makes it difficult to assume they could ever be understood in totality, or fully rationalised through drawing.

York-Minster_John-Harvey.jpg
John Harvey (1911–1997), York Minster: Drawings on the plaster tracing-floor, c. 1360- c.1500, 1977. Courtesy of the University of York.
 

The coordination required to construct a Gothic cathedral was ambitious and required a large number of skilled trades and labourers. The Master Mason, or Stonemason, was responsible for all aspects of the cathedral’s construction. While the dogma and influence of the Church could inspire such large-scale projects, the logistics and material investment would be impossible to justify if there were not a plan to work to or an ultimate vision to present. Some point to contemporary practices of washing parchments for their reuse, and the potential loss of drawings on organic materials such as timber or parchment over time, to demonstrate that a lack of surviving evidence cannot rule out the role of drawing as being one we would be familiar with now. The tracing-floors layered and intersecting markings (as seen in John Harvey’s drawing) suggest that despite representing individual elements, each drawing was created in relation to another. Designing individual elements would have been necessary when drawing at this scale and may have been a way to make the drawing and design of such a large monument more manageable. These interpretations, however, perhaps attempt to locate the Gothic cathedral within a contemporary understanding of the relationship between architecture and drawing.

York-Minster-Tracing-floors.jpg

The surface of the York Minster tracing-floors. Courtesy of the University of York.

 

 

The placement of the tracing-floors within the Mason’s Lodge at York Minster reveals a different dynamic. It is clear that the drawings were not only an iterative method to create templates, but a process of design. The room is too inaccessible to have been used to trace the designs directly onto the stone, as had previously been assumed, and its presence within the Minster itself, rather than amongst the workshops outside, speak to its importance and the need for design to be carried out in close proximity to construction. There is also evidence that there was a close relationship between the tools used for drawing and the tools used to mark materials or the ground for cutting. For the masons responsible for York Minster, drawing was tied to their skill in construction. It would have been easy to transfer a scaled floor plan constructed and measured using pins and string to the worker marking out the site with stakes and rope, without the need for modern aides. The structure was designed through the application of geometric principles, rather than mathematics, allowing these simple tools to result in the complexity witnessed on the plaster floors and in the finished Minster. 

The tracing-floors represent a period of architectural drawing where the building was conceived as a sculptural and solid mass, rather than the result of a network of lines flattened into two dimensions. The drawings in plaster are not just tracings or depictions of intent, but a thoughtful and methodical process that would involve bodily navigation, collaboration, and a skilled connection with materials. It was not an act that could be rushed, but one which promoted dwelling and careful consideration. This process blurred the line between drawing and construction, with the Cathedral itself became an act of drawing.

Strasbourg-Cathedral-848x1200.jpg
Facade of Strasbourg Cathedral (‘Plan A1’), Strasbourg, France, 1260s. 860 x 590 mm. Musée de l’Oeuvre Notre-Dame, Strasbourg, Inv. no. 2. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
 

The elevations of Strasbourg Cathedral, whilst bearing pinprick marks that point to the use of similar geometric techniques as at York, show the beginning of the formalisation of drawing away from this constructive practice. In contrast, the plaster floors of York Minster imply a practice where drawing and construction formed key and interlinked parts of the design process. This is a method of working that practices are slowly rediscovering. The adoption of VR, BIM practices, and emerging construction techniques like concrete printing, will begin to turn the process of drawing and design back into a more three-dimensional and sculptural understanding of space. Though made at a time when the role of the architect and drawing were neither formalised nor distinct, the tracing floors in York show how the two seemingly disparate fields of drawing and construction can become part of a simultaneous design process.

Jennifer Smith is currently studying for an MPhil in Architecture and Urban Design at the University of Cambridge.

https://drawingmatter.org/medieval-masons-and-tracing-floors/

Edited by Macnamara
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to all posting on this thread.

The fact that we were as  humans capable of constructing such magnificence from way back, using human ingenuity and very little by way of modern technology  is food for thought for sure.

It would appear that not so long ago we humans had not only the capability, but more importantly  the time to engage in such stuff.

People could make a living doing this  and not so long ago.

Not so readily available today.

This is possibly the real reset ?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2022 at 1:30 PM, gregory-peccary said:

Ways to make holes in everything from sea shells to skulls (for trepanning) have been around for 30,000 years or so.

'Accurate' ways of making holes in metal for making guns and machines have been around for hundreds of years.

 

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20239/20239-h/20239-h.htm

is a translation from the latin of the 10 books on architecture by Vitruvius, a Roman engineer and architect.

That should tell how they have been building things for the last couple of thousand years.

 

Stone is not that hard to cut with the right tools or abrasives.

 

Most of these monumental buildings are made of various kinds of limestone..... a relatively soft stone which if you were to hack at a piece for a few hours with something made of metal you would be able to gouge great holes in, or smash it to pieces.

 

Lots of people, with lots of time and lots of money.....gouging holes in stone....isn't that hard to understand.

Edited by Edgewood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2022 at 10:10 PM, Bombadil said:

 

 

Impressive. So it was that simple. Interesting. Then it is certainly more than easy to produce these two simple examples at any time. Good luck...

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a fantastic example that history is nonsense. The most developed is always the oldest. And it's all pure form and function. The ancient world is nothing more than a primitive copy based on cargo cult. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2022 at 9:17 PM, Bombadil said:

Check out scientists against myths on Youtube.

 

These deboonkers do prove a lot of stuff is possible, like the Serapeum, but why would anyone (so called primitives) go to the lengths they did to bury some bulls.

 

Countless examples I could point out, like the Osireion massive rectangular granite blocks, brought in from 200 miles away, rather than using limestone ffs.

These septics insult our intelligence & high tech machinery or not, these guys were definitely not primitives.

 

Check out the vases found at Saqqara & diorite vases.

 

Like they will show how its possible to move the granite sarcophagus into position & the huge lids on top, but they like to attack others pointing this stuff out like anyone could do it if you "trust the science" kind of shit. *Blankety blank fail*

 

The Egyptologist we was kangz stories are full of massive poop.

The three pyramids credited to one pharaoh for example, at Dashur.💩

 

There is tons of evidence the earlier structures, were the original as Origin points out & later dynastic cargo cult, came along during the later Pharaonic times, when man didnt live quite so long after the great cataclysm, which there is massive evidence for & built on top & claimed it for themselves with their hieroglyph cargo cult graffiti.

Why all over the world you find so many huge stone carvings that have literally been thrown around like leggo.

 

Establishment Linear Evolution..Rockefeller Vatican Baalshit.

Edited by oddsnsods
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 3:33 PM, Origin said:

Here is a fantastic example that history is nonsense. The most developed is always the oldest. And it's all pure form and function. The ancient world is nothing more than a primitive copy based on cargo cult. 

 

 

 

This is a mad structure & great example, like most of the structures in that part of the world..there is a huge cylopian rebuilt wall below & like you point out has no relevance to the later structure built on top. Just like Baalbek, Jerusalem & all over, same polygonal stone techniques, no body has ever explained used all over the world, with knobs & keystone cuts included. Romans & Greeks built ontop.

 

Delphi Iran.

 

Iran, stairway of palace on the Persepolis Terrace at Persepolis - Cities  Around The World - UWM Libraries Digital CollectionsPersepolis, Terrace, Southwestern corner (with "horns") - Livius

 

Hittites Turkey rebuilt on earlier ruins.

 

Lion Gate in Hattusa | Turkish Archaeological NewsHattusa, Turkey.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

These deboonkers do prove a lot of stuff is possible, like the Serapeum, but why would anyone (so called primitives) go to the lengths they did to bury some bulls.

 

Countless examples I could point out, like the Osireion massive rectangular granite blocks, brought in from 200 miles away, rather than using limestone ffs.

These septics insult our intelligence & high tech machinery or not, these guys were definitely not primitives.

 

Check out the vases found at Saqqara & diorite vases.

 

Like they will show how its possible to move the granite sarcophagus into position & the huge lids on top, but they like to attack others pointing this stuff out like anyone could do it if you "trust the science" kind of shit. *Blankety blank fail*

 

The Egyptologist we was kangz stories are full of massive poop.

The three pyramids credited to one pharaoh for example, at Dashur.💩

 

There is tons of evidence the earlier structures, were the original as Origin points out & later dynastic cargo cult, came along during the later Pharaonic times, when man didnt live quite so long after the great cataclysm, which there is massive evidence for & built on top & claimed it for themselves with their hieroglyph cargo cult graffiti.

Why all over the world you find so many huge stone carvings that have literally been thrown around like leggo.

 

Establishment Linear Evolution..Rockefeller Vatican Baalshit.

Totally agree with what your saying. Humankind has forgotten more than it will ever understand now . Especially when the establishments allow for no deviating from the script.

The reason I like Graham Hancock I’d because he actually learnt to dive so that he could use firsthand data in his books. Plus I think he makes compelling arguments in favour of a pre flood group/s with advanced knowledge.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bombadil said:

Totally agree with what your saying. Humankind has forgotten more than it will ever understand now . Especially when the establishments allow for no deviating from the script.

The reason I like Graham Hancock I’d because he actually learnt to dive so that he could use firsthand data in his books. Plus I think he makes compelling arguments in favour of a pre flood group/s with advanced knowledge.

 

 

 

 

I liked Graham Hancock & Robert Bauvals Orion stuff, also John Anthony West RIP.

Dont agree with everything, but they definitely open your mind to possibilities the lamestream try so hard to keep us dumbed down for obvious reasons.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

I liked Graham Hancock & Robert Bauvals Orion stuff, also John Anthony West RIP.

Dont agree with everything, but they definitely open your mind to possibilities the lamestream try so hard to keep us dumbed down for obvious reasons.

Andrew Collins has done some alright stuff about Gobekli Tepe and how it may have come about. If you haven’t read it, Underworldby Hancock is ok as well

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Broken bit of scagliola (artificial marble) i made about 10 yrs ago. ~6"x4" (poor photo)

scagliola1.jpg.8fe2e2701f988add1084b9b3460b68a3.jpg

 

 

I have a copy of millars plastering plain and decorative first published 1897 

They had a great many recipes for transformation of plaster to stone-like robustness using resins, gums, acids, bases, oils, tars and dissolved minerals and metals.

Various cements and concretes incl roman cement which can have vastly different properties dependant on the added constituents.

Anything that can form a crystalline matrix over time can be used to culture stone with the appropriate aggregate.

 

Seems to me that antiquity had a more thorough comprehension of elemental chemistry than the limited compartmentalised thinking of contemporary sapiens.

Not to say construction wouldnt have logically been a combination of real stone and geopolymer.

 

I would think that a castable equivalent to marble or granite was eminently possible & discoverable over the past 20K yrs.

Likely multiple resets and culls have left us at a disadvantage.

Edited by zarkov
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

This is a mad structure & great example, like most of the structures in that part of the world..there is a huge cylopian rebuilt wall below & like you point out has no relevance to the later structure built on top. Just like Baalbek, Jerusalem & all over, same polygonal stone techniques, no body has ever explained used all over the world, with knobs & keystone cuts included. Romans & Greeks built ontop.

 

Delphi Iran.

 

Iran, stairway of palace on the Persepolis Terrace at Persepolis - Cities  Around The World - UWM Libraries Digital CollectionsPersepolis, Terrace, Southwestern corner (with "horns") - Livius

 

Hittites Turkey rebuilt on earlier ruins.

 

Lion Gate in Hattusa | Turkish Archaeological NewsHattusa, Turkey.

 

I know. The traces are worldwide. Everything is altered, built over and recycled. The gigantic foundations and the remains of the standing walls could not be eradicated. Or what was created underground. The older it gets, the more obvious it becomes. And the traces of technologies used. Today's Egypt shows clear traces of an unknown high civilisation. Baalbek has been completely reassembled multiple times and it is no longer possible to trace what kind of structure it was. Just like in Egypt. Almost everything is overbuilt with junk at cargo cult level. Or primitive graffiti was chiselled in afterwards. But they lied, nothing built the ancient world itself. They could only produce a far more primitive version.

I study many of these videos. It doesn't matter if they are from Japan or who records them, the language, I am only interested in the images and details.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

These deboonkers do prove a lot of stuff is possible, like the Serapeum, but why would anyone (so called primitives) go to the lengths they did to bury some bulls.

 

Countless examples I could point out, like the Osireion massive rectangular granite blocks, brought in from 200 miles away, rather than using limestone ffs.

 

 

You ask why would primitive go to length to bury bulls.


You just answered your own question. They buried bulls as part of a religious belief system. I'd call that pretty primitive.

 

Also granite brought from 200 miles away, Using the Nile to carry them from the granite quarries of Aswan, that is quite easy to conceptualise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Edgewood said:

 

 

Also granite brought from 200 miles away, Using the Nile to carry them from the granite quarries of Aswan, that is quite easy to conceptualise.

it doesn't prove that is the way they were build,it's just a theory,one of and very stupid one.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, screamingeagle said:

it doesn't prove that is the way they were build,it's just a theory,one of and very stupid one.......

 

What's stupid? Carrying granite using the natural buoyancy of the Nile?

 

No, it makes perfect sense. What's the alternative? Dragging it through the hot desert? 

 

That's not going to work.

 

I'll go one further and say that perhaps the waters of the Nile, correctly channeled were instrumental in the construction of the Great Pyramids.

 

 

 

Edited by Edgewood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Edgewood said:

 

You ask why would primitive go to length to bury bulls.


You just answered your own question. They buried bulls as part of a religious belief system. I'd call that pretty primitive.

 

Also granite brought from 200 miles away, Using the Nile to carry them from the granite quarries of Aswan, that is quite easy to conceptualise.

 

You are welcome to your beliefs. Mine is more a Nephilim or dracula grotto/bunkers, as the Apis bulls were only found in a few sarcophagus, which imo would have come from later settlers.

Obvious being, older more precise works dont have any graffiti on them.

You would not move 100 ton granite or carve diorite with pure precision & symmetry using copper tools. Would be an insane undertaking.

There are labyrinths under Saqqara also, that have still not been fully explored, I put the theory it was originally a mining operation maybe or bunkers.

Later adopted by a cargo cult

.Ancient-Egyptian-Pyramid-Rediscovered-at-Saqqara-3

 

There are also older mastaba burial mounds/bunkers, with huge granite precision cut blocks, few talk about.

Obvious in many cases later cultures have recolonised these structures, like the Osirion as I pointed out & all over Peru.

Osirion & Giza you find exact same polygonal masonry techniques found in Peru. Still not explained.

 

LasVegApps's tweet - "Osirion. "We have as yet no certain indications of  the date of the construction; but the style, the size of the materials, the  complete absence of all ornamentation, all

 

Dig a shaft 90 ft down & place a 100 ton sarcophagus down there for the fuck of it..Osiris grave site in Giza.

There are miles of dug out tunnels under Saqqara also, where they found vases that we would not be able to carve today using any hand tools.

 

 

image.jpeg.bc901e386300f133300ef66778e14d8e.jpeg

Edited by oddsnsods
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using terms like 'machined artifacts' is disingenuous and I would say deceptive....

 

Such artefacts can be created using cylindrical copper drills with quartz sand as a  Mohr scale 7 cutting agent, while granite is only 6 on the Mohr's hardness scale. Therefore the quartz sand infused copper drill WILL cut granite..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...