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 1494 Racho 11-Nov-17 21:39
sorry to all...but at the 21 min mark and a few minutes after 291 Racho 11-Nov-17 22:08
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 366 D-Archer 12-Nov-17 08:57
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 321 Thanos5150 12-Nov-17 17:31
Not megalithic 386 Racho 14-Nov-17 06:40
Re: Not megalithic 235 Audrey 14-Nov-17 18:08
Re: Not megalithic 252 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 20:33
Re: Not megalithic 155 Audrey 14-Nov-17 21:56
Re: Not megalithic 182 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 184 Audrey 14-Nov-17 22:49
Re: Not megalithic 152 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 23:33
Re: Not megalithic 228 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:49
Re: Not megalithic 339 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 07:35
Re: Not megalithic 175 Audrey 15-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 232 Racho 27-Nov-17 01:46
Re: Not megalithic 211 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 02:28
Re: Not megalithic 243 Racho 27-Nov-17 02:52
Stone Spheres Are Natural Formations 122 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 05:37
I think the point is proven 156 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:04
Re: I think the point is proven ; 188 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 11:02
dismissive 101 Racho 27-Nov-17 16:48
Re: I think the point is proven 114 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 15:36
Let's learn about the science/realities associated with cutting stone 141 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:41
Re: Not megalithic 126 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 06:50
I Second That 205 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 20:52
wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 159 Racho 27-Nov-17 23:26
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 163 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 23:46
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 193 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 00:00
you start... 219 Racho 28-Nov-17 03:53
Re: you start... 217 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:15
Re: I Second That 229 Audrey 28-Nov-17 01:43
Wacko or Crackpot? 239 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 02:30
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 180 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 02:49
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 203 Audrey 28-Nov-17 03:38
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 271 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:23
Re: Not megalithic 129 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 20:03
Re: Not megalithic 222 Audrey 28-Nov-17 00:11
Re: Not megalithic 244 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 00:55
Re: Not megalithic 194 Audrey 28-Nov-17 02:02
Re: Not megalithic 281 Warwick 29-Nov-17 21:08
Re: Not megalithic 194 Origyptian 15-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 159 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:10
Re: Not megalithic 156 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:32
Re: Not megalithic 258 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 176 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:43
Re: Not megalithic 261 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 21:58
Re: Not megalithic 224 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:14
Re: Not megalithic 193 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 164 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 22:55
Re: Not megalithic 231 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 23:02
Re: Not megalithic 144 Audrey 14-Nov-17 23:46
Re: Not megalithic 223 Corpuscles 15-Nov-17 00:09
Re: Not megalithic 229 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:15
Re: Not megalithic 245 Thanos5150 15-Nov-17 00:26
Re: Not megalithic 211 Corpuscles 14-Nov-17 22:47
Re: Not megalithic 212 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 247 Audrey 15-Nov-17 04:06
Re: Not megalithic 162 Warwick 18-Nov-17 00:59
Re: Not megalithic 224 Racho 15-Nov-17 06:26
Re: Not megalithic 252 Warwick 18-Nov-17 01:01
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 319 Origyptian 12-Nov-17 14:37
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 335 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 17:48
There Has Never Been Solid Ground 276 cladking 12-Nov-17 19:10
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 245 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 20:06
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 250 cladking 12-Nov-17 20:55
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 234 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 21:26
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 275 cladking 12-Nov-17 21:42
Facinating 248 Warwick 14-Nov-17 20:23
Re: Facinating 215 cladking 14-Nov-17 21:33
Re: Facinating 240 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:51


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.