"Industrial Revolution era technology"...... some of it
>certainly is, not all of it.
>So now that we've got that "simple technology vs. relatively
>simple technology" issue straight, let's recap your (so-called)
>"argument" so far. To Von Daniken's assertion that nobody moved
>more than 50 ton blocks until recent times, instead of actually
>naming one of several ancient examples, you cite the Thunder
>Stone which actually WAS moved recently, specifically 1770...
Ya...... because he seems to think that aliens or whatever moved the big ones from ancient times both real and imaginary (so why would I uses one of those)..... thus I picked one from a number of recent examples that occurred before his claim about modern cranes and the inability to move monolith greater than 50 tons until recently. I have pointed this out to you in one form or another now about 5 times..... there is no legitimate excuses for repeatedly not understanding the context of what was originally stated in the question to Mr. Daniken.
>And as for how the ancients moved the Trilithion at Baalbek,
>you've claimed this could be done with "simple technology".
>However, when pressed for details as to what this entailed, you
>merely reply "Why cannot simple technology move an 800 ton
Actually, in this thread I cited Adam (1977) in that particular context long before you jumped into the discussion about the Trilithion at Baalbek..... Adam (1977) proposes a method for the Trilithion blocks' transport, thus it's title "À propos du trilithon de Baalbek: Le transport et la mise en oeuvre des mégalithes".... I suggest you make more of an effort to actually read both the messages in the thread (including the ones you are replying to) and Adam (1977).
>Well, unfortunately, the answer is really simple: Until
>someone can duplicate this feat with "simple technology", there
>is no scientific evidence backing up your claims.
Actually there is...... considerabily more then for aliens and/or Lost Wandeing Ones (which appear to be only the blocks themselves and little to nothing else, with the added twist of ignoring the enormous everything else that does not fit the new-dream paradigm). I think at this point you already know that considering the only "clear" evidence or whatever you were able to produce was the rhetorical explainish "why they decided to erect their engineering masterpiece in Lebanon, a little far from the capital of the Roman Empire".
>last but not least, when pressed for evidence backing up the
>(grossly exaggerated) weight claims of the Thunder Stone,
>you've provided me with a DRAWING!?!
If it is "grossly exaggerated" then please tell us how much it weights?
>Seriously?!? After ten years, this is the best you can do to
>try and refute authors like Von Daniken?!? (Well, given your
>shameful little tantrums in the community interview thread
>earlier, I suppose it's not really THAT surprising...)
Again, the context of the question to Mr. Daniken is quite clear.... the only one here having "tantrums" is those that need to be straight-jacketed and muzzled as a result.
It's a glacial erratic, 7 × 14 × 9 m are not the
>measurements of a prefect rectangle, it's rounded...... as a
>result the volume is not 889 cubic meters, it's something less.
>That's funny, because in the La Nature article the dimensions
>of the Thunder Stone are clearly listed as 7 x 14 x 9 m... So
>how on earth does one get 1500 tons from 7 x 14 x 9 m? (Sound
Ya, it is funny considering I just answered it in the part you sniped out (it's not a perfect rectangle, it's has irregular in its shape).
How can you not get "approximately 1500 tons" from a granite boulder with dimensions of 7 x 14 x 9 m describe as "prisme de irrégulier"?
>Hint: It might be more useful to start from a source
>that has a better grasp on reality... Oh, the irony of it
Why specifically is "7 x 14 x 9 m" not reality.... other than the sources in question continually seem to contradict the claims you make (example being 9 months to move 3.7 miles)?
>And finally, when I jokingly asked if two-thirds of Thunder
>Stone was buried beneath the Bronze Horseman statue, you
>actually reply in the affirmative with the following
>strangely-worded, grammatically-incorrect statement: "That's
>right.... Catherine II ordered it to be deliver to St.
>Petersburg as Falconet original proposed for it to be displayed
>in-situ at Lakhta. They carved the portion that was originally
>above ground as was planned and left the rest buried." And when
>I ask for a source confirming that two-thirds of the Thunder
>Stone is buried beneath the Bronze Horseman statue, you give me
>a link which says nothing of the sort...
You asked: "Oh yeah, and BTW, so based on that drawing, it appears that they buried two-thirds of the Thunder Stone underground for the Bronze Horseman statue, correct???"
The drawing is showing the Thunderstone in the ground at Lakhta after Catherine II ordered it to be moved to St. Petersburg from where it was planed to originally reside in situ. Now in St. Petersburg it has been repositioned in the same way with the original part above ground carved and the rest of it buried. What % of the stone's height do you think was buried in the ground originally at Lakhta based on the drawing...... 2/3, 1/3, 0.00001/3? It's pretty clear from the Nature article that the Thunderstone was significantly buried in the substrate where it was originally planed to be the base for the statue. Bakmeystera (1786) states the block is 44 feet long, 22 feet wide, and 27 feet high, and was buried 15 feet in the ground. So that would make it about 56%. Estimated weight is give as 4,100,000 lbs. based on a cubic foot of the ashen coloured granite. Only 6 cubic yards were removed before transport due to a protrusion at the bottom of one side interfering with the process of extraction..... the carving of the wave on the top did not start until the Gulf of Finland was reached.
Bakmeystera I.G. (1786) Thunder-stone, and its transportation to St. Petersburg. Petersburgisches Journal (1782. T. 4. Pp. 1-71), published a separate edition in 1783 (« Nachricht von der metallenen Bildsäule Peters des Grossen »). Russian edition 1786
>So anyway, "Archae", apparently the only thing you've managed
>to PROVE here and back up with solid evidence is that there was
>another option to my earlier question about your lack of
>open-mindedness on this topic... which is 3.) Both. (And BTW,
>if you'd like to hear my unrecycled, uncensored and less
>message-board-friendly opinion of your type of ilk, let me know
>and I'll happily email it to you personally.)
Well, if you're not up to posting it here, and since you kinda appear to be an adult, you don't really need my permissions..... you know, the last time I had to put up with something like that was a young earth net-cake who just had his warm and fuzzy burst after trying to affirm to all the earth was not 4.5 billion year old..... so you'll be in good company if you do.
So long and good luck with whatever.....
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)