The size of the blocks are revealed in other photos down the page:
"https://www.soulask.com/i-never-knew-that-russia-has-these-shocking-ancient-megaliths/"
I reject the notion that the wall of huge, stacked blocks depicted is "natural".
Posted on 12/04/2022 10:32:52 AM PST by Montana_Sam
Why not?
“Why should he not have ignored it...”
Because it displays either incompetence or intellectual dishonesty to ignore the obvious cause of the vast majority of the erosion. That might be irrelevant to you, but it’s not irrelevant to me.
“That erosion is ONLY caused by long-term exposure to heavy rainfall.”
Says one guy who seems to only be talking about evidence that fits his preferred hypothesis and ignoring other contrary evidence.
Apparently, your understanding of science is minimal.
“That erosion is ONLY caused by long-term exposure to heavy rainfall.”
"Says one guy who seems to only be talking about evidence that fits his preferred hypothesis and ignoring other contrary evidence.
There is no "contrary evidence". Erosion caused by rainfall and erosion caused by runoff water are two totally different phenomena, and show up in different physical places. Runoff water only causes erosion at the bases of the structures, rainfall water causes erosion on the tops of the structures. This difference isn't difficult to understand, but such understanding seems beyond your comprehension level.
BTW..I "am" a scientist. Retired PhD chemist with a successful 60 year career (and a longterm interest in archaeology which started in grade school).
“There is no “contrary evidence”. “
Of course there is contrary evidence. Nearly every geologist who has examined the features disagrees with Hancock and Schock. They don’t disagree simply because they don’t like those guys. They cite plenty of evidence for their disagreements, but of course, it’s not really what you are interested in, so I guess you will just pretend it doesn’t exist.
“Runoff water only causes erosion at the bases of the structures...”
Blatantly false. Runoff erosion mainly erodes preexisting weak faults in the bedrock, especially in very easily eroded rock like the Giza limestone. Those faults tend to be vertical, and thus flood runoff is the prime candidate to explain the most prominent erosion features we see around the Sphinx enclosure wall.
“BTW..I “am” a scientist. Retired PhD chemist”
Obviously not a geologist, and you should probably read more about geology instead of just taking one guy’s theories at face value because he is doing you a disservice since he’s clearly either incompetent or dishonest.
Göbekli Tepe, the Garden of Eden, the Niphilim, forbidden knowledge?
The evidence that interests me is world-wide, and ignored - on the whole - by the tenured science community.
That community seems quite incurious, and unable to seriously consider data and evidence outside the accepted model.
Like if they ignore the data, it isn’t real.
Well, that tells a different story. We really don’t know much about our past, so all of this is possible.
Most of those Montana monoliths are natural.
They look nothing like the man made monoliths in the old world.
And none look like highly developed engineerin if by that you mean anything beyond neolithic. Stonehenge is impressive, as are the pyramids but both are neolithic or chalcolitic.
Yet those don’t indicate metal blades either.
“I’d encourage you to do more research. The marks of large, circular sawblades are compelling.”
I have watched every one of these archaeological and anthropological videos from every source. I am fortunate to have extensive apprentice knowledge in archaeology, anthropology, geology, and have done quite a bit of stone cutting myself. So this topic is a personal lifelong passion.
There are saw cuts and core drilling in these so precise that we can’t even reproduce them now with modern tools. Those who tried in an effort to debunk these theories failed, but you don’t hear about the failures because then it would not fit their control narrative.
Truth is we really can’t explain how they did it, but I do know we still can’t do it yet.
An important point is that the most precise cutting is all on the bottom in the older structures that were built over. This is counter intuitive. Newer stonework should be more advanced not less. Same with their stoneware bowls and vessels, the older are more advanced. This older work was there before the Egyptians inherited it and built over it with less advanced knowledge. I am sure the more advanced was there from a previous antediluvian civilization.
Those features are not the evidence cited. "Most prominent" is not "most relevant". I am not the party ignoring data...you are.
Get lost.......
Can you give examples of this “There are saw cuts and core drilling in these so precise that we can’t even reproduce them now with modern tools”
please?
The most compelling evidence for ancient civilization are the artifacts found in coal.
You’re welcome to your opinion, no matter how far off the evidence it is.
The many thousands of dolmens found around the world are anything but natural formations. The many walls constructed from large, rectilinear stones are far from “natural” (examples:
https://www.montanamegaliths.com/uploads/6/9/2/9/69295147/published/sage-wall-julie.jpg?1598642154 and https://www.soulask.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1517506860_925_i-never-knew-that-russia-has-these-shocking-ancient-megaliths.jpg). Same for the huge zoomorphic shapes found in various places.
Sure... There are a couple videos tucked away on Youtube that show it in detail and explain why it would be hard to replicate. I will have to go search them out again because it has been awhile since I watched them. But I am at the moment multitasking and in our forum server editing code to fix an issue. Later today I will try to get caught up and help with that. You are always welcome to go watch some of those videos over there. A couple are very good at explaining the exact differences and why. Cutting marks, speed rate, feed rate, sheer sizes of face cuts, Etc. Feats that we would have trouble replicating even now.
Tell you what impresses me most... The very oldest works like stone vessels were done on lathes with precision much better than the later works. And of a much harder stone than any later works. But they are lathed so precise that even now it would be extremely hard to do because they were somehow able to do this on material that had fractures. Yet they were able to do this without so much as chipping these fractures as the vessel was lathed. This would be hard to do now even with cracked wood let alone extremely hard stone.
“The most compelling evidence for ancient civilization are the artifacts found in coal.”
I agree...
Actually I take that back... For me it would be the ancient oral traditions and writings. No matter where in the world they come from they speak of an advanced civilization before the flood. Even the Bible... They are just as important as physical artifacts.
Thank you for the links.
The first one could be construed as non-natural, but the second one is definitely natural.
Even if the second one is man-made it does not signify any great leap from the creators of stonehenge i.e. neolithic hunter-gatherers.
This isn’t even the pyramid level (Chalcolithic) - that’s not to dismiss stonehenge as nothing, they are impressive, but they aren’t “civilizations” as in the sense of “civis” i.e. cities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.