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 1976 Racho 11-Nov-17 21:39
sorry to all...but at the 21 min mark and a few minutes after 439 Racho 11-Nov-17 22:08
another cave ...more oddities 120 Racho 16-Jan-20 22:12
Re: another cave ...similar thing in China 143 forumfan 18-Jan-20 14:12
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 489 D-Archer 12-Nov-17 08:57
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 475 Thanos5150 12-Nov-17 17:31
Not megalithic 584 Racho 14-Nov-17 06:40
Re: Not megalithic 372 Audrey 14-Nov-17 18:08
Re: Not megalithic 387 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 20:33
Re: Not megalithic 270 Audrey 14-Nov-17 21:56
Re: Not megalithic 301 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 310 Audrey 14-Nov-17 22:49
Re: Not megalithic 266 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 23:33
Re: Not megalithic 371 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:49
Re: Not megalithic 476 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 07:35
Re: Not megalithic 294 Audrey 15-Nov-17 22:23
Re: Not megalithic 366 Racho 27-Nov-17 01:46
Re: Not megalithic 335 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 02:28
Re: Not megalithic 374 Racho 27-Nov-17 02:52
Stone Spheres Are Natural Formations 248 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 05:37
I think the point is proven 291 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:04
Re: I think the point is proven ; 326 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 11:02
dismissive 231 Racho 27-Nov-17 16:48
Re: I think the point is proven 232 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 15:36
Let's learn about the science/realities associated with cutting stone 271 Racho 27-Nov-17 06:41
Re: Not megalithic 244 Origyptian 27-Nov-17 06:50
I Second That 342 Barbelo 27-Nov-17 20:52
wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 282 Racho 27-Nov-17 23:26
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 274 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 23:46
Re: wow...talk about being unhinged/triggered 309 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 00:00
you start... 346 Racho 28-Nov-17 03:53
Re: you start... 345 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:15
Re: I Second That 383 Audrey 28-Nov-17 01:43
Wacko or Crackpot? 398 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 02:30
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 325 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 02:49
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 346 Audrey 28-Nov-17 03:38
Re: Wacko or Crackpot? 413 Barbelo 28-Nov-17 05:23
Re: Not megalithic 264 Corpuscles 27-Nov-17 20:03
Re: Not megalithic 372 Audrey 28-Nov-17 00:11
Re: Not megalithic 417 Corpuscles 28-Nov-17 00:55
Re: Not megalithic 309 Audrey 28-Nov-17 02:02
Re: Not megalithic 463 Warwick 29-Nov-17 21:08
Re: Not megalithic 322 Origyptian 15-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 302 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:10
Re: Not megalithic 265 Jon Ellison 15-Nov-17 23:32
Re: Not megalithic 401 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 337 Origyptian 16-Nov-17 02:43
Re: Not megalithic 393 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 21:58
Re: Not megalithic 333 Jon Ellison 14-Nov-17 22:14
Re: Not megalithic 304 Origyptian 14-Nov-17 22:38
Re: Not megalithic 284 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 22:55
Re: Not megalithic 375 Thanos5150 14-Nov-17 23:02
Re: Not megalithic 264 Audrey 14-Nov-17 23:46
Re: Not megalithic 344 Corpuscles 15-Nov-17 00:09
Re: Not megalithic 355 Audrey 15-Nov-17 01:15
Re: Not megalithic 386 Thanos5150 15-Nov-17 00:26
Re: Not megalithic 328 Corpuscles 14-Nov-17 22:47
Re: Not megalithic 343 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:47
Re: Not megalithic 354 Audrey 15-Nov-17 04:06
Re: Not megalithic 282 Warwick 18-Nov-17 00:59
Re: Not megalithic 377 Racho 15-Nov-17 06:26
Re: Not megalithic 396 Warwick 18-Nov-17 01:01
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 431 Origyptian 12-Nov-17 14:37
Re: No other explanation ...high tech 486 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 17:48
There Has Never Been Solid Ground 416 cladking 12-Nov-17 19:10
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 366 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 20:06
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground 372 cladking 12-Nov-17 20:55
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 353 Corpuscles 12-Nov-17 21:26
Re: There Has Never Been Solid Ground!!!!!!!!!!! 391 cladking 12-Nov-17 21:42
Facinating 367 Warwick 14-Nov-17 20:23
Re: Facinating 330 cladking 14-Nov-17 21:33
Re: Facinating 361 Warwick 15-Nov-17 02:51


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.