Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Racho Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I may have been confused a little because
> beginning shows him entering a cave but after
> watching again, seems to connect to a larger
> opening.

I think people aren't watching enough of the vid to get the point of it. It opens with Vlad stooping to enter a cave, the opening not being large enough to walk into. She (narrator) calls this a "prehistoric" quarry. The vid switches between modern and prehistoric quarries, in order to show the difference between cut marks, cut widths and style. From the comments made I gather they are fully aware of which ones are modern. If the cave, that she calls "prehistoric", is actually modern, I have to wonder why 'modern' didn't enlarge the opening and instead went with the back breaking work of removing stones through a very small opening. Geesh even the old west miners blasted openings they could work through with donkeys, carts and shovels. I don't know that she should call the prehistoric site a "quarry". Doesn't look to be a mine as no minerals are mentioned. I lean towards it being a shelter.

> That being said, I noticed a few things
> which made me interested in the first place. As
> interpreter comments, the cuts are fairly fine -
> some sort of tool seems to be clear because of
> uniform cut width but doesn't really fit saw
> profile throughout as some cuts are curved. If
> argument is that a chisel was used...where are the
> chisel marks on the back wall (any wall for that
> matter) where the block was removed. Why would
> they go to the trouble of smoothing out all the
> walls rather than what we see in a modern quarry
> as seen in this vid?
>
> This was underground so ...anyone able to show me
> the actual machinery Stalin's group used to create
> this? I fully realize that this rock isn't all
> that hard but this underground quarry doesn't have
> the same marks as the other quarry...why quarry
> this with handheld tools when it's so much easier
> to open mine with large machinery that is also
> able to be moved/carried with machinery?

Much easier to have an open pit mine/quarry, if the depth isn't too great. Does anyone know of an underground quarry where the stone is at such a depth it can only be reached by tunnels/shafts?

> It struck me last night, after
> watching this vid:
> [www.youtube.com] (of if
> want to listen to an expert on same...this vid:
> [www.youtube.com] ...
> that there really isn't an explanation for how the
> Serapeum boxes were moved into those confined
> tunnels and then lowered into place. I realize is
> a change of subject but it's probably the best
> example of a truly perplexing mystery.

Guess we have to fall back on the old 'they did it because they're there' explanation. That way we don't have to think very hard and we can remain within established Egyptian history. No boats rocked.

> Yes, I watched the vid about rocks being alive or
> 'mushrooms'...don't agree with the narrator on
> conclusion with that vid but doesn't mean that we
> then throw out everything seen beforehand.

Mushrooms are totally beside the point. I have to hand it to these Russians, they are open minded and putting out videos and photos we've never seen before. Mushrooms or not, their work is appreciated.

He who knows all the answers has not been asked all the questions - Confucius

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
No other explanation ...high tech 1425 Racho 11-Nov-17 21:39
sorry to all...but at the 21 min mark and a few minutes after 260 Racho 11-Nov-17 22:08
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 331 D-Archer 12-Nov-17 08:57
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 289 Thanos5150 12-Nov-17 17:31
Not megalithic 353 Racho 14-Nov-17 06:40
Re: Not megalithic 194 Audrey 14-Nov-17 18:08
Re: Not megalithic 218 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 20:33
Re: Not megalithic 133 Audrey 14-Nov-17 21:56
Re: Not megalithic 159 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 156 Audrey 14-Nov-17 22:49
Re: Not megalithic 128 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 23:33
Re: Not megalithic 203 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:49
Re: Not megalithic 304 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 07:35
Re: Not megalithic 142 Audrey 15-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 189 Racho 27-Nov-17 01:46
Re: Not megalithic 173 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 02:28
Re: Not megalithic 201 Racho 27-Nov-17 02:52
Stone Spheres Are Natural Formations 97 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 05:37
I think the point is proven 130 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:04
Re: I think the point is proven ; 161 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 11:02
dismissive 90 Racho 27-Nov-17 16:48
Re: I think the point is proven 98 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 15:36
Let's learn about the science/realities associated with cutting stone 118 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:41
Re: Not megalithic 101 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 06:50
I Second That 178 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 20:52
wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 130 Racho 27-Nov-17 23:26
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 128 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 23:46
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 166 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 00:00
you start... 176 Racho 28-Nov-17 03:53
Re: you start... 175 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:15
Re: I Second That 193 Audrey 28-Nov-17 01:43
Wacko or Crackpot? 188 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 02:30
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 150 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 02:49
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 168 Audrey 28-Nov-17 03:38
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 218 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:23
Re: Not megalithic 103 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 20:03
Re: Not megalithic 171 Audrey 28-Nov-17 00:11
Re: Not megalithic 193 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 00:55
Re: Not megalithic 161 Audrey 28-Nov-17 02:02
Re: Not megalithic 240 Warwick 29-Nov-17 21:08
Re: Not megalithic 158 Origyptian 15-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 136 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:10
Re: Not megalithic 133 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:32
Re: Not megalithic 228 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 145 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:43
Re: Not megalithic 226 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 21:58
Re: Not megalithic 193 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:14
Re: Not megalithic 160 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 140 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 22:55
Re: Not megalithic 199 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 23:02
Re: Not megalithic 125 Audrey 14-Nov-17 23:46
Re: Not megalithic 183 Corpuscles 15-Nov-17 00:09
Re: Not megalithic 192 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:15
Re: Not megalithic 211 Thanos5150 15-Nov-17 00:26
Re: Not megalithic 180 Corpuscles 14-Nov-17 22:47
Re: Not megalithic 182 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 214 Audrey 15-Nov-17 04:06
Re: Not megalithic 137 Warwick 18-Nov-17 00:59
Re: Not megalithic 185 Racho 15-Nov-17 06:26
Re: Not megalithic 214 Warwick 18-Nov-17 01:01
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 289 Origyptian 12-Nov-17 14:37
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 302 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 17:48
There Has Never Been Solid Ground 247 cladking 12-Nov-17 19:10
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 214 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 20:06
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 213 cladking 12-Nov-17 20:55
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 212 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 21:26
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 241 cladking 12-Nov-17 21:42
Facinating 214 Warwick 14-Nov-17 20:23
Re: Facinating 187 cladking 14-Nov-17 21:33
Re: Facinating 204 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:51


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.