That one looks like a magma tube that was exposed.   The inside wall on one side shows the striations of an eroded face, but I don't know much about this stuff.  If I wanted to make a tunnel, I wouldn't have made it so pretty, just made it a wall.

It looks a lot like cooled basalt or inverse Lava Tubes, Cherry Picking that photo, of course.   Maybe all the Super Coal was mined away from that useless obsidian rock, or the dragon had indigestion puked a bit?

It could be "Get Both", part of it was exposed, then people used it, since it is a nice roof over a head.   What area is this in?  Native population?  Volcanic activity?

--ETA:  Although low quality, that "ceiling" appears awfully flat, compared to the eroded wall.    The color mix looking like what you see when you cut a rock open is what makes me think that something was sheared off the "ceiling", maybe a little harder rock sticking down that they hit with rocks until it was smooth?   We really have no idea what all occured there in the time it from when it was formed to the time it was properly documented, then public.

That's where a 'glitch' is.  The rocks were shaped far more accurately, that is clear.

If they were melted into place, our made from a slurry like concrete or any method like that, the chunks would be much larger or not have seams at all.  If they could selectively melt rock in place, the seams would be fused.

The absolute conformity of the rocks in these structures around the world is the puzzler, uniform color and texture relative to other walls made from rock in the area.  No cracks in the placed rock, chosen and fit very carefully.

Those flat gaps are flat and matched (doubly hard), where the surfaces meet to within paper thickness (~1/128") along the length on all sides.  Similar work seen at several sites around the world.   With Wood, 1/16" is good for framing work, unless fine woodwork creation, then 32nds.   If they had "Far Advanced technology", why didn't they make the facing of the rock all match?  If they had the ability to fit them, you'd think they'd have made faces flat (Egypt did in areas), angled, or some other ornamentation.   That seems odd. Has a broken wall been examined to see if they have interlocking "tabs" on the rocks, like a rabbit joint so no mortar is needed?  Did they resort to making as flat as possible because they couldn't produce a "stone glue"?

In short, I don't know what means or methods they used to do it, but the methods weren't any more advanced than we currently have for making walls from natural stone, with lots of petience even with diamond blades on power saws, forklifts, etc.

Have any tests been attempted to shape or mould granite in a kiln by somebody interested in these things?   Have any samples of that fitted rock been properly analyzed for content, inclusions, grain, and the other details that define rock, or is all identification made by what's seen on the surfaces?

That said, there could have been a lot more population that we are told existed pre-historic, worshiping stone, with agriculture developed to the point many full time masons could work on those walls and buildings for generations.   That does create the need to have that many people free.  Hunting/Gathering didn't allow for much free time, and cultivated farming along with supporting infrastructure is something we're told didn't exist.   I don't know how it's known it didn't exist, "They were all barbarian tribes', etc. etc.

These Ancient Technology/Alien guys haven't done those tests, and seem to not want to, or even to try to re-create using modern tools, a sample wall that matches.   I know a guy did a stone henge type pi of 3 rocks with one horizontal on top thing in his backyard with wood, levers, pulleys and rope.  There was a documentary on it on YouTube somewhere.

We don't know everything about Earth, especially the oceans, and our own history, it all goes fuzzy once you get to the "Dark Ages", and then it's highly selective due to languages and choice of what to preserve / reprint /study.

I'd like to know more, but it's to the point where if an academic paper even looks at "Ancient stonework", they're laughed at because of all these theories pushed.  How do we know the bones they're attributing to dinosaurs weren't actually their tamed dragon stonemasons?

The items shown are amazing.  Though his descriptions are FAR too expansive.  "perfectly flat - no straightedge comparison, perfect circle, same.  perfect arc, again, ditto.  There are simple tools that could be brought in to get dimensions since they could have been touched.  Sighting down the side is good.  The flat and polshed is what says the most, along with inside corners on flat sides.  He could even afford a 3D Scanner to answer "How good was it" once and for all, why isn't he?


He could get a LOT more exposure by re-phrasing - "These were certainly made on a lathe, suggestng electricity..".  Those are unknowns.  Equally astounding is "These appear to have been created with a device such as lathes, though we're unsure of the power source, the results speak for themselves".   That would make a lot of people keep listening beore he tries to dump a bunch of assumptions t you and expects you to believe them.

The linear saw marks on the large flat area - could have been done by man with pullies and an abrasive cord of some sort..    it speaks for itself that it wasn't created ith the methods they're espousing, but that leaves open dozens of other more plausible methods.

The biggest unanswered question is - What happened to those tools, techniques, ideas, information to be lost in the dynastic period?

I like the pictures of the items, nice and clear, high resolution.  We aren't told how much "restoring" was done.

I'm not in disagreement with you, I feel a change in his presentation would garner thousands more people interested in these items which we've only heard about and seen only very recently (past 300, or even 10, years).

It's very fine craftsmanship stuff to look at if you like building things.    People grinding on it for months on end could produce that result as well.

Is there an inventory of what we aren't seeing, or do the museums sort of limit knowledge of what they have available?

All but the last question could be answered by a few 3D scans of the relics, which would then show pretty clearly how they were made, instead of assuming "lots of stuff we could not match today".

That could only be possible if Man made Global Warming is the reasons the magnetic poles have moved around and even flipped a few times.

Embed for you:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKgUGDuuVB4[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKgUGDuuVB4

--ETA:

I watched the vid, and am 95.878787% certain the civilizations developed a compass.

Aging by what they called North would be neat stats, which he shows only results of checks.   The intersections fit the magnetic pole wandering better than the Earth choosing a different equator over time, but I won't say it can't be that, Pangea and all, continents migrated, planets changing their spin due to asteroid impacts (hence loss of tech/knowledge) and other things able to put some English on Earth.   Still believe continents migrating is more likely, as we've seen it, than our rotational axis moving, though a large enough asteroid would do that, such as one that could make our moon.  So yes, coconuts can migrate.

Magnetic poles are more straightforward, though. No surveying needed.  We still orient things to True north rather than magnetic North, that doesn't rule out other possibilities, though, he just kind of ignores it.



Slow paced, feel free to do the arrow key time jumps...

I'll hit his argument against a lathe with "many tangents" using a rope of a constant length and a bounding box.  I'm sure that technology was within their reach (rope, 2 points = straight line).

Math proof

3D Visual version, imagine blue lines as rope, intersection is a circle.  2 D land is just a bunch of ropes on ground - touches rock, rock needs cutting.  Doesn't touch rock, don't cut it.  Pause at t=1.5-2.0, See axis at z=0 (vertical center) raise hyperboloid along length of rock to create cylinder instead of circle, or tighten with height to create sphere.



Lathes just make it easier by rotating the work instead of the tool.

Though the pictures and facts they exist as they do is still amazing.

Thing about what we are actually taught and gain by osmosis ->  Human History:   Cavemen -> Pyramids -> Rome -> Europe -> Middle/Dark Ages -> Present

There are several gaps of who knows how long prior to the last 2500 or so.  Oral histories are sketchy, and even today, if all media were wiped out, there'd be a million different 'versions' of oral histories to compile into "What happened" and few would agree.    We don't even know how large those gaps in knowledge are.   There is little to argue against the world at 1800s tech level when an asteroid hit and rearranged things.  The only archeological digs are found where things are noticed above the surface, and who knows how many have been built atop others.   We know more about space than the content of 70%+ of Earth.

I'm not saying humans populated the earth at 1800s tech level until an Asteroid hit, but there's not much to prove against that idea, either.   The theories of "aliens did it" is a bit far.   Maybe it IS cyclic, and each time we "reboot", we get a little further, as Buddhists believe.

Enough magnesium or natural analog of thermite, hydrocarbons such as  easily found coal with enough air supply could do it.

Something easily found in high concentration, but then depleted.  The trick would be getting it to burn, like magnesium and coal need a hot fire to start, then get hotter.   Of course, we haven't seen kilns, unless these temples are kilns they polished up later.

There are a lot of possibilities, for flatness.  Though I have just successfully made 3 plates of rock smooth to 1 micron across the surface by rubbing them together with sand between them.  They feel like silk, but aren't shiny.    No mill, power tools or diamonds involved for the last 1/8" removed.  Though the edges aren't yet square and opposite sides are not parallel, I need to keep doing that with more weight on one side than the other to get the parallel aspect during lapping, which I'm still doing in spare time.   Main project is to create a perfectly square 1" cube of steel via lapping only from a cut scrap 1.5" bar 1.5" long.  That gets into artistry level and many weeks of exercise, with the need of re-leveling the rocks I just created in between several times.    I don't know how post a picture of them that shows it.  a ruler on edge over it lets no light through on any line at any angle, and a spherometer can't find more than the 1 micron grain size of the rock and is the best equipment I've had access to.  I know, odd hobby, it's more physical therapy doing something neat with exercise instead of picking things up and putting them back down without creating something.

(Full Disclosure, my sand was silicon carbide and aluminum oxide, just faster versions of any other sand)

OMG!!  PROOF that alien technology can lower the melting point of stone!!

Seriously, I like that angle of thought as well.  It would be neat if we knew the composition and crystal structure of the in place rocks as well as the "apparently melted" rocks, in addition to those 'pillow' rocks that may have been "poured" as some say.

The fact these huge works exist at all is amazing to me, no matter the thoery of how.  Watch the "Machine Thinking" video linked earlier to understand why straight lines in huge rocks are rather difficult.

Though the data we get is a bit off, such as "perfectly round cylinder" and "perfectly smooth surface".  There are portable gauges and scanners to non destructively measure in an instant, all required still in a 5 digit price tag, which is cheap for the measurements, surface quality, and form, compared to what we'd learn from it.   The chemical make up and crystal structures would cost a bit more and be a tiny bit destructive, but hey, they're already broken anyway!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt3c8hjDnKk[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt3c8hjDnKk

Refrigeration, on the other hand...  They had electricity!!  

While not mathematically perfect focal point, I'm sure they could have made something along the lines of this to eventually get the shape and layout right with reflective bits of stuff:



Though it'd have to be pretty big, unless it was only being used to ignite something like coal or "SuperCoal" or thermite or magnesium or whatever, since the sun is outdoors, the fire would have been outdoors and left no trace, they'd have gotten enough metal from a rich ore rock to make a neat cutter.

I'm thinking along the lines of the "ceramic" knives, where they're all metal, but have the white ceramic 1/8" strip glued in for the edge.   They'd have stuck metal to wood, like we do with, hammers, chisels, etc.

It would have had to have been quite large to melt the very large rocks, but they had lots of time.    Could have been lots of shiny stuff laying around, once it was discovered what it could do, it was hoarded by the Rulers and quickly depleted...   We see that happen even today, the raping of the earth's resources to advance.   Which is Good, we discover new stuff faster that way.

How do we know of Archimedes?  The Greek Gods?  Everything prior to the printing press?

On hieroglyphs and tablets.   What would have been important enough to painstakingly inscribe for millennia?  Who decided what would be preserved?

How about a civilization who taught science by demonstration and common sense, they'd not bother to write down "the obvious", so they didn't inscribe the construction methods used for everything from the pyramids around the globe to the Pantheon, we only have decent guesses as to exactly why.   It was only recently discovered why the Roman concrete was so durable, for example.

We've lost a lot of wisdom and "doing things", and losing more each generation already.  Then, boom, asteroid hits, we're all under a mile of new continent 400,000 years from now, and our souls will be arguing about the pyramids or some other tectonically stable region that wasn't destroyed by the impact.

Cycles.  Dragons.  Time Machines.  Ingenuity forgotten makes more sense to me, ,there's just little evidence of it beyond the results.   The quarries seen show that many of the large stones were still cut by hand with no magic, they wouldn't have employed the magic only for fitting.   Well, except a couple where the lines are awfully straight and square while still in ground without much room for pulleys, but we don't know when those were created beyond assumptions, guesses, and sketchy oral history.   The oral history we don't hear a lot of because "it doesn't match what we see", so it's not fully translated.

The "Real Archeologists" only pop their heads out to say how wrong somebody is, without ever making all new findings and full analysis public.   Some big sites end up in the news, but try to get more detail on recent things and it's a paywall/school/restricted info site.   They also don't answer many of the VALID questions about their published history.

This is why I gave up on 'official archaeology' after a short glimpse into it a while back, it's like the climate science groups, questions aren't allowed.  The ones on YouTube are scoffed away from "Real Archaeologists" cutting them out of the loop on some things (some obvious, some went further to get an audience).   It's not an open info group like metalworking, electronics, chemistry, physics, etc.  Sites need an "authorized" person to view and study, without requirements other than 'who vouched for you' kind of club.

I wish Indiana Jones would pop in here and tell us how it all really went down.

Yes, my tongue was partially planted against cheek for some of the above, but not all of it.

That looks like two spinning items from striations.

Like a tailstock grinder for a lathe, but a little less power.    Put the obsidian on a shaft that can rotate, get your rounded coarse rock on another shaft that can rotate and swivel a bit.   I'm sure they had those things, they'd have gotten tired of hand grinding everything into round circles and invent one if they didn't.   Could even be foot pedal powered made from timber and rock alone, which I've seen re-creations of that are pretty cool.

So anyway, you hold the bracelet on a shaft while spinning the grindstone, and slowly rotate the obsidian onto the grinder while both are spinning.   Obsidian can't be cut, like most rock.  It can only be abraded away, which is a way of cutting.    I mean not cut like metal can by shaving, it needs to be abraded to powder like a grinder rather than a cutting tool like a lathe single point.

Had one of these from my Grandpa growing up, it was a 30"+ diameter rock on a shaft, and two foot levers to push alternately to spin the thing, used it to sharpen lawnmower blades and grind nails into nothing for fun.



Idea is put the obsidian on a "arm" and have it also spinning on a shaft, maybe one foot for the grindstone, one for the obsidian shaft, which could pivot in and out only a couple inches.   Then grind away.

Picture another little arm sticking up that swings toward the grindstone in that photo on the 'user side', with another lever or spin-string to keep it rotating.

That, and "form cut" grindstones for different tasks, would explain the High Polish seen on granite carved "pottery" from the period that wasn't cast clay/baked.  It's actual granite in bowls and spheres.  All of that could be done with what I describe above.

One grindstone for flats, one for Vee cuts, and one for a 4" radius, when those are combined, a pretty huge number of variations can be made.   A mobile form of this could be used to make some of the smooth stone we see, but the largest don't show signs of grinding, unless they had developed surface grinders comparable to 1950s tech (0.0005" accuracy, vs 0.002" for off a mill assembly line)   Today tolerances are often ±0.003 to ±0.0005 or even smaller, and equipment is capable of that in a mass scale, rather than limted to dedicated careful craftsman doing it.  Self correcting CNC machines that account for tool wear, machine vision and measurement, all of parts of The Stuff that maeks engines today last forever compared to 30 years ago.

They're still very basic, a lathe spins the work into a precisely positioned cutting/grinding tool, while a mill spins the cutting/grinding tool into a precision fixed workpiece.   No different than a dremel at heart, just with far higher precision movement.

I found a picture, but this surface grinder is used to make Very Flat items, but NOT as flat as what we are seeing (well, what they are claiming, and the sheer size/scale).  When you see "precision ground tool faces" and such, it's because it was run through one of these to get a nice finish as well as exact final dimensions.  It's just a Good grind stone on tight precision bearings with an X-Y-Z table   with a magentic clamp under it, it makes stuff flat.   Wish I had one.

The circles and arcs to determine features could have been laid out with a few pivots stuck into stone that would be removed in finishing the statue, when the two strings/ropes are tight, you're on the right line to keep carving, don't carve when two or more ropes don't meet (need to think in terms of depth as well).

For the perfectly square, I'm sure they figured out the diagonals and/or the 3-4-5 methods because right angles were required, they may have used a different name for the same concept, but it's the Pythagorean theorem in construction terms that even the common frame guy knows to check square without a square by using centimeters, inches, yards, or multiples of one of those to simplify to 3-4-5, they just don't realize they're doing math, so they're OK with it.

For squares and circles, nothing more than "same length rope" is needed to lay out what it should be.    Making it how it should be is the hard part that is VERY puzzling when looking at the scale of some of these items.   Sure, copper sonic drills and sunlight and chisels and slaves and time, those tools don't produce the sort of finishes we see unless ground, which I can easily see them doing as the preferred method of rubbing rocks together to make both smaller.   Doing that while also hitting dimension AND shape without waves/squiggles/oopsies is a whole other kettle of fish.   For fun, put your phone in bubble level mode, and measure all your pictures and mirrors hung, odds are they aren't at 0.00 degrees.   Most houses aren't within 0.1° of square, and some are far out of that when talking about older construction.

Look at your first wood project, where you did measure, have and use a square, and it still came out 1/8"+ lopsided.

Illustrations of how to do perfect arcs, chords, circles, square and parallel with nothing more than a mark on a string (or 3), or a pivot and a mark/length of cordage of some sort.   Just a referesher for those who hated Geometry and Trig, which is used everyday in construction, but it's called "shop math" or "build rule" instead of "geometric constructions" and "Trigonometry" (until at the survey or foreman level, anyway).

3-4-5:  Measure 3' out one wall, measure 4' out the other wall, if the line between those two isn't 5, it isn't square, so adjust it before nailing it permanent (or pouring the concrete).   Can be yards, meters, or multiples, like 9 12 15 rule (×3 of 3-4-5).



Square and parallel check, if one corner is square, and the diagonals are equal, it's square and parallel, floor, wall, etc.


Arc,chord, circle, connected tangents layout - for marking edges with bricks to be in an arc, make a design, build a wall, etc.


That last one is used for most all crop circles, BTW.

Like we are scratching our heads on this?   Quick Answer:   Carbon Dating is not accurate.  It's a Model T spark plug.   Say all you want about convergent evolution, I doubt we made the exact same spark plug in U.S.A. during our previous existence... Or did we?   Maybe the nuclear war that ended us last go around is why carbon dating is so far off?  Cycles?





500,000 year old spark plug

This is the issue I see, blurted out.



ALL of it may be "considered" as allegorical, myth, oral history, embellished history, etc.

However, they throw out anything not fitting what they 'know', even though it conflicts directly with what they're looking at, because they don't understand the links between that and the parts of the site that were A) Found B) survived this long, so it's a mythology.

Very cool links, Thanks!   I like looking at the stuff and thinking how I'd do it without modern tools, then I look at their explanations, and it would seem many who wrote the papers have never actually built anything, just had other people do it while they didn't even watch.  Huge assumptions about math/geometric rules/tools are missing because they didn't survive this long, or weren't found.  Carbon dating is the final word in their mind. They can't be happy with including all the info and mentioning the one that makes the most sense to them, they only include the info they like and tell their version of 'history'.

That happens everywhere from news to history to fake news to 'victors write the history books' to philsophy.   Keep an open mind, look at all sides and possibilities.   The structures and artifacts are there, in that place.  How was it done?   Jumping to Aliens did is a fancier way saying "I never thought about it, but they couldn't have done it".

Knowledge, methods, etc.  Like the guy that built the huge "Coral Castle" in FL using giant stones that pivot freely, needing no assistance, and never told anybody how he did it, even after he died it's not known entirely.