Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


dill786

Ancient Machining Technology?

71 posts in this topic

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing but conjecture. 

No proof of anything. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

what kind of proof do you want, you want someone to pull out a 1000 year old lathe out of there arse for you?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Johnny2 said:

Nothing but conjecture. 

No proof of anything. 

 

Aren't the pillars and the tool marks evidence?

 

What's your theory?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Cambium said:

 

Aren't the pillars and the tool marks evidence?

 

What's your theory?

The pillars and so called tool marks are only evidence that they were made...not evidence that they were tooled.

 

I’m far too thick to have a credible theory of my own.

and that is all any of can have, theorys. No evidence, no proof of anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, dill786 said:

what kind of proof do you want, you want someone to pull out a 1000 year old lathe out of there arse for you?

 Lol. No but I’d like credible proof.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Johnny2 said:

The pillars and so called tool marks are only evidence that they were made...not evidence that they were tooled.

 

The marks can only be made in the fashion we see when the item we are machining is turned.

You can chisel that shape, what you cannot do is chisel tool marks perfectly round a circumference in such a way

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, blackpoolbouncer said:

 

The marks can only be made in the fashion we see when the item we are machining is turned.

You can chisel that shape, what you cannot do is chisel tool marks perfectly round a circumference in such a way

We can’t now but maybe we could then.

Share this post


Link to post

A man could continuously chisel with enough pressure to score rock whilst revolving round the entire circumference without deviating a mm in both depth width and height?

And then repeating the prepossess thousand and thousand of times, without once slipping?

 

e2a. It is fascinating

Edited by blackpoolbouncer
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

I must be missing something?

from wikipedia - re: the temple

" Its construction started around 1121 CE and was complete in 1160 CE.[2][3]  "

also from wikipedia

 re: lathes

The origin of turning dates to around 1300 BCE when the Ancient Egyptians first developed a two-person lathe. One person would turn the wood work piece with a rope while the other used a sharp tool to cut shapes in the wood.

Where's the mystery??

Or are we saying the technique didn't evolve in 2400 years?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

it stone not wood though.....

 

did you watch the vid...

Edited by dill786
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps pre Christian civilizations were smart and Rome had all these documents and knowledge suppressed and the Ancient Aliens is the fake distraction cover story, not as sexy but more probable   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

the romans and the greeks were given lots of stuff they didnt make or invent by the victorians .

 

its all about the euro-white dominance. kinda like all middle age pictures of jesus in europe he is whiter than white.

 

like when any empire take over something ,its their scribes who dictate what was written down . so if the greeks say they invented something then they did in some peoples eyes .

 

 

there was a well found in london they were saying it was roman ect but when they did some actual science work the well was 1st built in the 1centry bc .

 

the roman were not here then so it was british , and british design ,bristish built . but they were insisting it was a roman idea then copied by the british .

 

anything but pre roman . for fuck sake .

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

never heard of "soapstone " until i watched the vid

 

Quote

Soapstone is a metamorphic rock that is composed primarily of talc, with varying amounts of chlorite, micas, amphiboles, carbonates and other minerals. The fact thatsoapstone is composed primarily of talc makes it a soft stone and its nonporous, nonabsorbent nature make it ideal for many uses.

 

Edited by dill786
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

On 22/11/2017 at 1:05 PM, Johnny2 said:

Nothing but conjecture. 

No proof of anything. 

On 22/11/2017 at 1:09 PM, dill786 said:

what kind of proof do you want, you want someone to pull out a 1000 year old lathe out of there arse for you?


Well, it's funny you should mention that lol 
 


 

Edited by worzel
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now