Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Stone spheres

Expand Messages
  • Rick Osmon
    Stan, Those are great links, but I don t see the perfection of the spherical shape in the natural versions that is evident in the finds . Also, IIRC, the CA
    Message 1 of 7 , May 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Stan,

      Those are great links, but I don't see the "perfection" of the spherical
      shape in the natural versions that is evident in the "finds". Also,
      IIRC, the CA versions are either limestone or granite instead of
      mudstone. Limestone may form interesting concretions, but granite nyet.

      Please don't misconstrue that I am trying to be argumentative, but what
      is it about the natural rocks in the south Pacific that makes you
      think the CA examples are natural?

      Oz



      --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "minnesotastan"
      <minnesotastan@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have for years been fascinated by the stone spheres found in banana
      > plantations and have assumed they were man-made. I found out
      > otherwise this morning. Full story for those interested at my blog
      > entry -
      >
      > http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-of-stone-spheres.html
      >
      > with several links that are worth following.
      >
    • james m. clark jr.
      It s taking some time to load the pages, but I just wanted to make a comment. I don t know why I didn t follow up on stone spheres last year. From about March
      Message 2 of 7 , May 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        It's taking some time to load the pages, but I just wanted to make a
        comment.

        I don't know why I didn't follow up on stone spheres last year.
        From about March 18th of last year to about the same time this year I
        have been without a server. Plus I had sent some of my research to
        Cherokee History, which was somewhat a embarrassment. Perhaps I can
        redeem myself a bit with some of these links.
        I already had assumed that the clay, marble, and quarts marble size
        stones I have are or were natural. I thought they were all marble
        except for the clay ones. Being naturally made would only explain why
        there was a core. I could make a Betty Rubble necklace. My brother
        still has about a hundred of them. I was going to send photos soon to
        ancient_waterways. Perhaps he may sell them, but I would like to keep
        the clay one, or perhaps just send some to each of you.

        be well,
        jamey

        --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "minnesotastan"
        <minnesotastan@...> wrote:
        >
        > I have for years been fascinated by the stone spheres found in banana
        > plantations and have assumed they were man-made. I found out
        > otherwise this morning. Full story for those interested at my blog
        > entry -
        >
        > http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-of-stone-spheres.html
        >
        > with several links that are worth following.
        >
      • minnesotastan
        Rick/Oz - I certainly don t mind argument - facilitating (polite) argument is one of the reasons this board was created. I used an image of the Central America
        Message 3 of 7 , May 7, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Rick/Oz -

          I certainly don't mind argument - facilitating (polite) argument is
          one of the reasons this board was created.

          I used an image of the Central America spheres because those are the
          most famous. It's true the article I linked was about the natural
          formation of the New Zealand spheres. That, of course, does not prove
          that the Central American ones were formed in similar manner.

          But the hardness of the stone in Central America does not preclude
          natural formation. As the Wikipedia entry on concretions points out...

          "They are commonly composed of a carbonate mineral such as calcite; an
          amorphous or microcrystalline form of silica such as chert, flint, or
          jasper; or an iron oxide or hydroxide such as goethite and hematite.
          They can also be composed of other minerals that include dolomite,
          ankerite, siderite, pyrite, marcasite, barite and gypsum."

          Some of the latter are very hard minerals.

          As far as granite goes, I have seen spheroids formed in kettles below
          waterfalls where rocks are tumbled in the kettle by the water motion.
          You can see these at Interstate Park on the MN-Wisc border and
          probably at many other places.

          Again, I'm not construing that as proof of natural formation of the
          Central American spheres - just as a suggestion of possible natural
          modes of genesis.

          Congenially,

          Stan




          --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Osmon"
          <ozman@...> wrote:
          >
          Stan,

          Those are great links, but I don't see the "perfection" of the
          spherical shape in the natural versions that is evident in the
          "finds". Also, IIRC, the CA versions are either limestone or granite
          instead of mudstone. Limestone may form interesting concretions, but
          granite nyet.

          Please don't misconstrue that I am trying to be argumentative, but
          what is it about the natural rocks in the south Pacific that makes
          you think the CA examples are natural?

          > Oz
        • james m. clark jr.
          Hi All, Well said Stan. In one of my philosophy groups of 400 plus I practically beg for criticism, but with no suggestions, the group as a whole, especially
          Message 4 of 7 , May 14, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi All,

            Well said Stan.

            In one of my philosophy groups of 400 plus I practically beg for
            criticism, but with no suggestions, the group as a whole, especially
            the new moderator is very one sided which contradicts philosophy in
            general and basically is causing stagnation because sometime we forget
            why we are where we are and that is to be further educated.

            I was wondering if it would be ok to quote you Dr. Stan, as a reminder.

            be well,
            jamey

            --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "minnesotastan"
            <minnesotastan@...> wrote:
            >
            > Rick/Oz -
            >
            > I certainly don't mind argument - facilitating (polite) argument is
            > one of the reasons this board was created.
            >
            > I used an image of the Central America spheres because those are the
            > most famous. It's true the article I linked was about the natural
            > formation of the New Zealand spheres. That, of course, does not prove
            > that the Central American ones were formed in similar manner.
            >
            > But the hardness of the stone in Central America does not preclude
            > natural formation. As the Wikipedia entry on concretions points out...
            >
            > "They are commonly composed of a carbonate mineral such as calcite; an
            > amorphous or microcrystalline form of silica such as chert, flint, or
            > jasper; or an iron oxide or hydroxide such as goethite and hematite.
            > They can also be composed of other minerals that include dolomite,
            > ankerite, siderite, pyrite, marcasite, barite and gypsum."
            >
            > Some of the latter are very hard minerals.
            >
            > As far as granite goes, I have seen spheroids formed in kettles below
            > waterfalls where rocks are tumbled in the kettle by the water motion.
            > You can see these at Interstate Park on the MN-Wisc border and
            > probably at many other places.
            >
            > Again, I'm not construing that as proof of natural formation of the
            > Central American spheres - just as a suggestion of possible natural
            > modes of genesis.
            >
            > Congenially,
            >
            > Stan
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Osmon"
            > <ozman@> wrote:
            > >
            > Stan,
            >
            > Those are great links, but I don't see the "perfection" of the
            > spherical shape in the natural versions that is evident in the
            > "finds". Also, IIRC, the CA versions are either limestone or granite
            > instead of mudstone. Limestone may form interesting concretions, but
            > granite nyet.
            >
            > Please don't misconstrue that I am trying to be argumentative, but
            > what is it about the natural rocks in the south Pacific that makes
            > you think the CA examples are natural?
            >
            > > Oz
            >
          • Chris Patenaude
            Hey Stan, :-) [P.S. Written on top instead of at the bottom... i wrote the following as kneejerk reaction to the post (dang, backlogged again) before i read
            Message 5 of 7 , May 15, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey Stan, :-)
              [P.S. Written on top instead of at the bottom... i
              wrote the following as kneejerk reaction to the post
              (dang, backlogged again) before i read the rest of the
              thread(s). OK, you replied to Oz that Natural
              elsewhere doesn't = Natural everywhere else, too. But
              now that my bit is written, i'm too rushed and lazy to
              change what's already down... gotta run]

              Now now, don't go throwin' the Baby out with the
              Bathwater! (grin)

              Of course, Nature loves round things as much as she
              abhors vacuums. (Well, so do i, my Dirt Devil is
              giving me no end of problems, lately...) But as is
              obvious, with a bit of thinktime, us nutty humans will
              EVERLUVINly be facinated by Natural objects and set
              our caps to emulate, recreate, copy and embue
              intrigueing, found objects with spiritual or religious
              symbolism.

              Most certainly, given a plethora of ways, Natural
              Forces will create round things out of nothing or
              break down huge things into round things with water
              action. Just because one finds spheres in Natural
              settings does not cross-reason in the least that the
              Central Amn are not artifactual. Nature has created
              the most marvelous networks of caverns and caves. Does
              that mean the NY subway system is Natural? I dont
              thiiiiink so! LOL

              One only needs to examine the bulk of the C.Amn items
              to see the carving textures left by the rock-carving
              techniques perfected by both Andean cultures to the
              south and Olmec/Mayan cultures to the north. The
              finished spheres themselves, for the most part, are
              covered in symbolic script and petroglyphic carvings,
              to top off their artifactual confirmation.

              For stonecarvers of such skill, it was childsplay to
              make a reasonably round rock. In fact, they probably
              employed child labor to get a lot of the roughing out
              done. The techniques are the same used in Egypt, Rapa
              Nui, India and Bolivia. You take a rounded river
              "pebble" the size of a large cantelope and start
              dropping it in a controlled, turning motion against
              the larger one to be rounded. Gravity creates a lot of
              the 'carving' energy for you. Both the larger stone
              and the pounder become rounder and more cooperative to
              the process as the task progresses.

              And, no, the man-carved spheres are NOT 'perfectly'
              round, far from it. They vary as much as 3/4 inch out
              of round in reality. Less if done by a better
              craftsman. But still, it's a rough-measure using a
              cord and eyeball confirmation in the end. They just
              LOOK exact when sitting partially sunk in the ground,
              as most are. Our own vision cortex will 'adjust' the
              picture our mind is interpreting to make the illusion
              of perfection more complete than it really is.

              -chris


              --- minnesotastan <minnesotastan@...> wrote:

              > I have for years been fascinated by the stone
              > spheres found in banana
              > plantations and have assumed they were man-made. I
              > found out
              > otherwise this morning. Full story for those
              > interested at my blog
              > entry -
              >
              >
              http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-of-stone-spheres.html
              >
              > with several links that are worth following.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/
              >
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/join
              > (Yahoo! ID required)
              >
              mailto:ancient_waterways_society-digest@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              mailto:ancient_waterways_society-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              ancient_waterways_society-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
            • bigalemc2
              Chris - I have to respond to something in particular that you talked about. (It goes far afield from the subject of this group, but your comparison to
              Message 6 of 7 , May 24, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Chris -

                I have to respond to something in particular that you talked about.  (It goes far afield from the subject of this group, but your comparison to Egyptian stone cutting needs to be addressed and not given a pass).
                You said:
                For stonecarvers of such skill, it was childsplay to make a reasonably round rock. In fact, they probably employed child labor to get a lot of the roughing out done. The techniques are the same used in Egypt, Rapa Nui, India and Bolivia. You take a rounded river "pebble" the size of a large cantelope and start dropping it in a controlled, turning motion against the larger one to be rounded.
                This just is not so.  Read up on the calculations done by Christopher Dunn about how much time it takes to remove granite (at least some of the basaltic Costa Rican stones are close to granite in hardness).  See http://www.gizapower.com/, his web site. Chris is, besides being a good friend of mine, THE man who has brought attention to the SILLINESS of the archaeologists' idea of dropping stone balls as a means of 'machining' stone.  The stone removal rate is SO freaking small that to make one of the obelisks such as the large one in Aswan (see this picture of the one Chris did calculations on: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/images/cuttingslide02.jpg) would take 80+ years with people working as close together as possible, round the clock.

                Also there is this (Chris is the man in the green shirt) http://www.gizapower.com/Articles/gyp_037.jpg  (a modern attempt to make a sarcophagus at Memphis by this method, which attempt was done for TV, and which is a CHEAT).  NOTE THAT THE MATERIAL IS NOT GRANITE, BUT LIMESTONE, a far easier stone to cut.  Why didn't they try it on granite?  Because they knew it wouldn't work worth a diddly damn.

                Until Chris challenged them, the Egyptologists told lay people that the granite and diorite was cut with copper tools.  Copper tools, being far softer than granite, have had - since the beginning of the Earth - absolutely ZERO chance of cutting granite, and those eons include that time period when the arkies were selling that argument, thinking that lay people were stupid.

                NOW they have changed their tune, but only to the extent of the pathetic crude attempts to cut stone in this manner - the wrong stone even - and the results even with limestone are completely abysmal.

                To see what kind of cutting WAS possible in Egypt, see Chris' link at http://www.gizapower.com/pma/index.htm which shows photos of VERY LARGE DIAMETER SAW CUTS and what can only be SONICALLY  DRILLED HOLES.

                I won't even go into the precision that exists in Egyptian stonecutting.  Being a mechanical engineer, I (less so than Chris, who has been both a Master Machinist AND a Chief Engineer) know that precision is dependent on controlling the position and motions of both the object being cut and the cutting tool and also accounting for wear of the cutting tool edge. 

                Chris acknowledges that a few artifacts in Egypt show evidence of being made by the method you describe and as touted by Nova producers and Egyptologists, but those artifacts are pale, horrible examples of Egyptian capabilities.

                ONLY CHRIS has any explanation at all for the absolutely beautiful and precise cutting of hieroglyphs in granite and diorite that I have seen.  These hieroglyphs are absolutely amazing in their consistency of their draft angles, their - for all intents and purposes - dead sharp edges, and the flatness of the flat surfaces, even down in the small recesses.  The symbols are cut approximately 3/8" deep, and are sometimes only 1/4" wide (my estimates based on long ago memories).  DO go to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo some day and see these for yourself, or traipse around the Giza plateau, or travel down to Karnak, Aswan, Thebes, Memphis or Saqqara.

                I can't pretend to be an expert on the waterways and pre-Columbian sites here, but I know Egyptian stuff quite well.  Take it from me as a knowledgeable opinion:  The Egyptians did NOT (with a few bad exceptions) cut stone in the fashion that Nova puts forward.  They are simply wrong, in my very humble opinion.  So why do they put forward such a theory?  Simple: They are clutching at straws.  There is simply no other option - except Chris Dunn's explanation, that the Egyptians could and did machine stone with some POWER to drive the cutting that we have not yet identified, AND with locational control far, far in excess of what our "modern" world in its hubris thinks is possible for people that long ago. 

                (Remember that their kind has only just in the last decade been brought kicking and screaming to CONSIDERING the view point that the people then could pilot boats well enough to reach the Americas.  MANY of them still fight the idea.  ONLY the vetting of the Monte Verde site FINALLY shot down their holy of holies, the Clovis Barrier.  They function on such antiquated paradigms and resist nearly to their last breath anything approaching Diffusionism.  How likely are they in our lifetime to admit that people 4,000 to 10,000 years ago had better technology than western Europe and America had in the 1800s?  They are so sold on the superiority of western science and technology that only very heavy hammers will bust through their thick skulls.)

                Back to the stone balls, to imagine that the indigenous peoples held - under control - the large stone balls, simultaneously turning them - under control of both rate of rotation and consistent direction - while some other person or persons - in some magically coordinated dance - had the ability to time their cantaloupe-sized stone dropping precisely to that rotation in 3-dimensions - all of this is a figment of the imagination.  The coordination is superhuman and clearly impossible.  The ball would come out oblate, 1,000,000 times out of 1,000,000.  Which is more impossible - that they could coordinate that well, or that they had machining capabilities.

                In the crystal skull show on network TV the other night the chief skeptic, the lady from the Smithsonian who also wrote a skeptical article in Discover Magazine this month about them, had as her SOLE argument about their validity that they showed machining markings.  Her hubris?  That no one before our time could machine anything.  Therefore machining marks = fraud.  It is simple for her, a case of black and white. 

                BUT SHE IS WRONG. 

                They MAY still be hoaxes, yes.  But not for the reasons she claims.  Machining WAS done long, long ago. 

                All of archeology accepts that as an impossibility.   Hence, their own fraud against the people of the world, in trying to convince them that Egyptians cut stone with stone balls.

                And they are wrong. 

                Look at Chris' site.

                - - - - Steve
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.