Previous  Top Menu   Nasca Monkey Report    Namon's Gallery   

 Articles    Frame   Frame's Triple Hexagon   Frame's Pentagram

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 21:40:49 -0700
From: Jiri Mruzek
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks

  Rolling the Wheeled Stone-block Dice
                                         Part 6 - End

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:21:42 -0700, Jiri Mruzek wrote:

> >A slew of amazing problems had materialized.
> >If you actually tried to move the Hadjar el
> >Gouble, I am sure that a slew of problems would ensue, just as well.

> So am I, but we're not talking about one thing, moved once. We're talking
> about an industry of transporting stones. The workers would quickly learn
> the problems and find the solutions. Ask the people who moved the machine
> how hard it would have been to move it the second time, and the tenth.

Those people were on Fidonet-Science. I was forbidden to raise the subject
of Nasca Monkey, or Atlantean Mathematics there. It was a moderated group,
and its boss was slightly skeptical of my theories. I don't go there anymore.
But, we are also talking the 1,000 ton blocks category, in which we have
the four Baalbek Trilithons, and, as according to Tompkins - the mystifyingly
non-famous 1,000 ton Egyptian obelisks.
While writing this reply, I saw ABC's Chariots of the Gods - the Myste-
ries Continue. In it, Erich von Daniken - the star - posed with some
shaped monoliths from Carnac, France. Erich informed us that the stone
he was hugging weighed 350 tons, and originated from before the discovery
of wheel (which I doubt, but I don't doubt the weight).

Holy guacamalli, but, those stones are big! So big, I would never ever
take it into my head to bother with moving one. But the Hadjar el Gouble
near the Baalbek quarry is four times larger, yet.

> Again, I'm not trying to say it's trivial or easy; it's not. It's a hell of
> a lot of work, but it can be done in a straightforward manner by not an
> unreasonable number of people.

Up to a certain weight that might be true. But, we're talking about
stones bigger than that.

> >I have never disputed that. Of course there are limits to what you say.
> >For instance: To mount wheels, you would have several choices like
> >hoisting the block up, or dig holes, and then roll the wheel out,
> >or build three sides - roll the block, add the fourth side.
> >The problem is in getting enough people connected to the relatively
> >compact block to carry out all the chores.

> That's true. But again, it's not just once, for one block. It's a process
> repeated many times.

> >Spooling towing lines on the smaller diameter block produces
> >a mechanical dis-advantage. The length of rope needed to turn
> >the block once, will be shorter than the distance traveled by
> >the wheel, which will also spin around once.

Wow! A Poker-Faced Answer.

It would matter greatly with the Baalbek Trilithons. How many people
does it take to pull these. How many ropes? How big would the wheels
be? It would matter greatly with smaller blocks under more difficult

>It might mean you need
> 11 people instead of ten (whatever), but isn't insurmountable. On a level
> surface I don't think it would make a lot of difference. Uphill it might,
> but then again you can add more people.

Here you are talking small blocks.

> >You would really need to spool your ropes somewhere near the outside
> >of the taller wooden wheel. This spells troubles for the project..
> It would give a better advantage, but I don't think it's a kill.

I would like to see an experiment. I wish someone sponsored you to
experiment with, let's say, the Carnac stones.

> I suppose
> one could add rounded blocks of wood that would turn the block shape
> cylindrical where the ropes are. Without going out and doing with those
> tremendous blocks, it's impossible to say what all the problems are. I am
> convinced, however, that this technique can be used to move, by human labor
> alone, much heavier loads than many people thought.

> >> Once again, I didn't mean for this to be *the* explanation. There have been
> >> other reasonable ideas posted.

> >Such as?

> For moving the blocks up the ramps, sledges or mechanical advantage from A
> frames could be used. Lots of things could be; I haven't really looked at
> moving the directly up as opposed to rolling them up a ramp. I still feel
> that the ramp is the most likely.

> >Well, only on the side ramps skimpy on material usage.. One could have a
> >wide road atop a large-volume self-supporting ramp.
> I was thinking not of a ramp that spirals up the pyramid as much as a
> straigh ramp at 90 degrees to one of the sides. And of course, once the
> block is rolled roughly into place, there's still the problem of accurate
> placement; perhaps A frames were used here.

> >With a large ditch along the planned route, you could slip a large
> >spooler onto the wheel, and thus regain the mechanical advantage.

> That's what I was talking about, above, with the rounded blocks. As I say,
> I'm not sure they're necessary

It could mean a difference of a thousand-tons at Baalbek.

> >Must I do problem-solving for the skeptical party? :)

> Hey! *You're* the skeptic in this discussion!

> >I just meant that there is no limit to skeptics simply scaling Lo-Tech
> >up to any desired size.

> I apologize for personalizing it. And you're right, you can't scale
> technology very far. That's what killed the Titanic.

> >Wanna launch satellites into orbit?
> >Build a sloping ramp high enough..

> As far as I know, the builders never described how they did their work. Too
> mundane for the nobility to worry about and record. My goal was to show
> that the materials can be transported via low-tech means, without magic or
> alien intervention. I believe we've agreed on that much.

Yes, and no. As to the records, how come the Egyptian folklore
did not become enriched by sundry stories from the Pyramid?
Mighty strange isn't it? Of course, I presume that there is such
a thing as Egyptian folklore.

> >We still can't duplicate the Pyramid with Lo-Tech methods and
> >materials.

> Do you have any idea how much that would cost, to the labor unions alone?!

But you seem to think the Egyptians were economical idiots? Face it,
it would be idiotic to engage an entire economy for decades in the
production of one tomb. Why, they could have built magnificent
granite forts instead, from which they could have laughed at their
enemies for millenia.

> You have to be careful when applying math to artifacts so that it doesn't
> become numerology instead. Someone once posted a wonder article on how his
> bicycle held all the mathematical, physical, and astronomical constants and
> ratios, and he was working on QM at the same time. A real pity I've
> misplaced it.

The infamous Schwynn bicycle! I have faced its legend before.
But my demands to have this numerology given to me so that I could
rip its logic to pieces, and thus show the fundamental difference
between this numerological legend, and my own discovery, went unheeded.
Everyone has misplaced it mysteriously. Pity, as there are no doubts
that such debunking can be easily done, lest the data were doctored,
as any checking on the findings is beyond our means. We couldn't
easily obtain that particular model of Schwynn bicycle.

In contrast, no-one is debunking the Atlantean Math. That's
because it isn't numerology.
Like I say, accusations of numerology do not faze me, I've faced them
before. See here old excerpts from Fidonet-Science, in which the
moderator, Jeff Sterling tries to stick me with a witch-doctor label.

A Fidonet-Science Discussion with the moderator

JM But, did I do it? Nope. I'd rather step into the lion's den -
JM till the lion miauies! (Lion's den meant Fidonet -Science)

JS> Actually, pal, my good natured humor is one reason you haven't been
JS> told to take your "numerology" to another echo, post haste! Your
JS> post was presented in a manner that at least -looked- like science
JS> (which is the worst thing about it... less knowledgable individuals
JS> might be suckered into thinking it really -is- science
JS>, which it most definitely is not

JM You look like an Angel, talk like an Angel, walk like an Angel.
JM You're nothing but a DEVIL IN DISGUISE!

Next, the moderator issued the first plea to Fido mathematicians,
since there were always a few math professors there:

JS>) and I was curious to see if any of our resident mathematicians
JS > would take the bait and pick your "calculations" apart piece
JS > by piece. When I decide to get my alligator teeth out, you'll
JS> know it... technically speaking, numerology is off-topic in this
JS> echo, and I'm the moderator around here.
JS> : Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

Jeff also wrote a little later:

JS> Ok, math guys... I'm taking recommendations: is there
JS> anything to this stuff or should we save the bandwith?
JS> Jeff Sterling Science Echo Moderator

Still later Jeff was posting paragraphs like:

JS> BTW... where were you when Jiri was posting his
JS> "Atlantean Mathematics?" I was left to try and debunk his numerology
JS> all by myself... in spite of a plea to our resident mathematicians to
JS> help out. I'm afraid I didn't do a very good job, as several here
              (Jeff actually meant "several mathematicians here!!!")
JS> appeared to swallow his bunk about ancient cavemen hiding the secrets
JS> of the universe in "mathematical" relationships that were supposedly
JS> buried within their artwork. (Sigh!)


PD> You also were wondering why none of the "mathematicians" didn't
PD> do an analysis of "Atlantean Mathematics" ... well, time is limited,
PD> and so is interest. I just wrote off the whole series as fiction.

JS > As I suspect most knowledgable people did. I was looking
JS > for enough people saying that it was garbage to justify (!!!) (sic)
JS > banning the subject as "numerology" rather than science.
JS > That is why I posted a message to All asking for opinions...
JS > unfortunately, the only people I heard from were people who
JS > were interested. (!!!) (sic)

And so Jeff just banned me on his own authority.. (for being impolite)

Jiri Mruzek 355/113=3.141592..(Now, that's what I call Numerology!)

> Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454
Previous    Top Menu    Nasca Monkey Report    Namon's Gallery   

Articles     Frame    Frame's Triple Hexagon    Frame's Pentagram