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 1951 Racho 11-Nov-17 21:39
sorry to all...but at the 21 min mark and a few minutes after 425 Racho 11-Nov-17 22:08
another cave ...more oddities 104 Racho 16-Jan-20 22:12
Re: another cave ...similar thing in China 122 forumfan 18-Jan-20 14:12
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 477 D-Archer 12-Nov-17 08:57
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 457 Thanos5150 12-Nov-17 17:31
Not megalithic 556 Racho 14-Nov-17 06:40
Re: Not megalithic 359 Audrey 14-Nov-17 18:08
Re: Not megalithic 374 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 20:33
Re: Not megalithic 260 Audrey 14-Nov-17 21:56
Re: Not megalithic 286 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 294 Audrey 14-Nov-17 22:49
Re: Not megalithic 253 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 23:33
Re: Not megalithic 355 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:49
Re: Not megalithic 460 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 07:35
Re: Not megalithic 278 Audrey 15-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 344 Racho 27-Nov-17 01:46
Re: Not megalithic 320 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 02:28
Re: Not megalithic 356 Racho 27-Nov-17 02:52
Stone Spheres Are Natural Formations 230 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 05:37
I think the point is proven 274 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:04
Re: I think the point is proven ; 307 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 11:02
dismissive 221 Racho 27-Nov-17 16:48
Re: I think the point is proven 219 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 15:36
Let's learn about the science/realities associated with cutting stone 259 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:41
Re: Not megalithic 230 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 06:50
I Second That 320 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 20:52
wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 264 Racho 27-Nov-17 23:26
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 261 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 23:46
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 298 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 00:00
you start... 330 Racho 28-Nov-17 03:53
Re: you start... 324 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:15
Re: I Second That 362 Audrey 28-Nov-17 01:43
Wacko or Crackpot? 378 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 02:30
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 304 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 02:49
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 324 Audrey 28-Nov-17 03:38
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 398 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:23
Re: Not megalithic 248 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 20:03
Re: Not megalithic 354 Audrey 28-Nov-17 00:11
Re: Not megalithic 402 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 00:55
Re: Not megalithic 291 Audrey 28-Nov-17 02:02
Re: Not megalithic 446 Warwick 29-Nov-17 21:08
Re: Not megalithic 306 Origyptian 15-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 289 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:10
Re: Not megalithic 253 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:32
Re: Not megalithic 385 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 315 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:43
Re: Not megalithic 373 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 21:58
Re: Not megalithic 318 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:14
Re: Not megalithic 291 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 272 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 22:55
Re: Not megalithic 357 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 23:02
Re: Not megalithic 252 Audrey 14-Nov-17 23:46
Re: Not megalithic 330 Corpuscles 15-Nov-17 00:09
Re: Not megalithic 338 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:15
Re: Not megalithic 376 Thanos5150 15-Nov-17 00:26
Re: Not megalithic 314 Corpuscles 14-Nov-17 22:47
Re: Not megalithic 326 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 343 Audrey 15-Nov-17 04:06
Re: Not megalithic 264 Warwick 18-Nov-17 00:59
Re: Not megalithic 358 Racho 15-Nov-17 06:26
Re: Not megalithic 384 Warwick 18-Nov-17 01:01
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 417 Origyptian 12-Nov-17 14:37
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 468 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 17:48
There Has Never Been Solid Ground 394 cladking 12-Nov-17 19:10
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 351 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 20:06
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 355 cladking 12-Nov-17 20:55
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 338 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 21:26
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 373 cladking 12-Nov-17 21:42
Facinating 348 Warwick 14-Nov-17 20:23
Re: Facinating 316 cladking 14-Nov-17 21:33
Re: Facinating 344 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:51


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.