- 0.1 The recent incidents of censorship on Facebook, particularly concerning AI-generated images, have raised concerns about the platform’s understanding of reality and the extent of censorship. The fact-checking process, which questioned the authenticity of images supposedly dating back 5,000 years, reflects either a misunderstanding of basic historical knowledge or an Orwellian level of censorship. (Stone transportation and censorship)
- 0.2 Mechanical Advantage of Poles (from the book – Dawn of the Lost Civilisation)
- 0.3 A-Frames and Cranes
- 1 Pages
- 2 Categories
The recent incidents of censorship on Facebook, particularly concerning AI-generated images, have raised concerns about the platform’s understanding of reality and the extent of censorship. The fact-checking process, which questioned the authenticity of images supposedly dating back 5,000 years, reflects either a misunderstanding of basic historical knowledge or an Orwellian level of censorship. (Stone transportation and censorship)
It’s noteworthy that the warning about the age of the pictures, considering the invention of cameras only 200 years ago, seems to underestimate the public’s intelligence and awareness of historical facts. Your attempt to share these images served as an opportunity to highlight the limitations and flaws in current archaeological theories, especially those related to stone transportation methods in prehistoric times.
The application of Occam’s razor, favouring the simplest explanation, leads to the logical conclusion that our ancestors likely carried the stones rather than employing more complex methods such as sliding, rolling, or sledging. This perspective challenges prevailing archaeological assumptions and emphasizes the importance of questioning established theories based on practicality and simplicity. (Stone transportation and censorship)
Mechanical Advantage of Poles (from the book – Dawn of the Lost Civilisation)
The principle of leveraging, applied through poles, serves as a mechanical advantage in handling heavy weights. Professor John Cunningham, an art professor at Skidmore College, has introduced a novel concept, creating a new class of simple machines based on flexible rods. Unlike traditional machines, Cunningham’s design not only multiplies force but also distributes it and stores mechanical energy.
Consider a scenario with a 20,000-pound stone. If you attempt to support it on two rigid beams, each will bear half the weight (10,000 pounds), posing a risk of fracture. Now, imagine spreading the load across 20 solid parallel beams, and each only has to support a fraction of the total weight, making the burden manageable. Cunningham’s innovation takes this idea further by replacing solid beams with flexible poles.
In the flexible pole structure, each pole can be raised independently without affecting the others, thanks to their flexibility. By lifting one end of a pole, a small amount of extra energy is imparted to that pole, and the energy is distributed across the structure. The weight rises by a fraction of the raised end, divided by the number of poles ends. If one end is lifted by a foot, the weight on each of the other pole ends diminishes by a corresponding fraction. Using this method, heavy loads can be lifted with significantly fewer people, as each person is only moving a fraction of the weight at a time.
This innovative approach allows for the efficient handling of substantial weights, introducing a unique perspective on the application of mechanical advantage in lifting and distributing loads. (Stone transportation and censorship)
Cunningham has distilled the concept to a formula:
D = S x 1/N
Where D is the distance, the load is raised, s is the distance any one pole is blocked up, and N is the total number of pole ends in the system. Given n is the number of pole ends lifted simultaneously, the mechanical advantage for any symmetrical pole configurations will be N/n.
So, the fact that a pole bends like a bow storing energy makes it easier to carry. So easy in fact, that it acts as a lever and gives you a mechanical advantage. This principle would be well known as it is the same principle as how a bow works as it is a store of potential energy, you can’t throw an arrow 100 metres, but the bowing of the wood channelled through a small area (the string) give you the potential energy.
Walk like an Egyptian
The experiment showed that 48 students ( four x 12 poles) could lift 2.3 tonnes – which was the weight of one of the pyramids building stones – the larger the stone the more poles and men you need but quite easy even for wimpish students. In prehistoric Days with Cro-Magnon works you would need only 24 people to move a Pyramid stone or a Bluestone at Stonehenge without the rest blocks the video has included in their H & S safety assessment….LOL!!
A-Frames and Cranes
The advancement of technology and the movement of massive stones, such as the Sarsen stones at Stonehenge, Avebury, and Carnac, demand a closer examination of the engineering and logistical challenges faced by the ancient civilization of Homo Superior, also known as Cro-Magnons. The Sarsen stones, weighing up to 60 tonnes, were not merely transported but meticulously erected, presenting a feat that even modern attempts struggle to replicate.
In our exploration of ancient technology, we encounter the question of transportation and the handling of colossal loads. The Sarsen stones serve as an illustrative example due to their significant size, and it is perplexing that historians and archaeologists often overlook the intricacies of moving and placing these stones. This oversight persists even though, even with today’s technology, replicating the achievements of Homo Superior at Stonehenge remains a daunting challenge.
The crane, a machine designed for lifting and moving heavy materials, is pivotal in the transport and construction industries. Equipped with a hoist, wire ropes or chains, and sheaves, a crane utilizes mechanical advantages to lift and lower materials beyond the capacity of human effort. Historically, the invention of the crane is attributed to the Ancient Greeks in the late 6th century BC, evidenced by cuttings for lifting tongs and Lewis irons on stone blocks of Greek temples around 515 BC.
However, when scrutinizing Stonehenge, we encounter a fascinating divergence. In contrast, archaeological evidence points to the use of lifting devices, particularly with cuttings indicating the application of cranes, the peculiarities of Stonehenge’s construction challenge conventional narratives. Notably, the placement of lintels on Sarsen uprights and the presence of holes like Y & Z, potentially serving as foundations for A-frame crane legs, hint at a more sophisticated lifting apparatus.
The reluctance of some scholars to acknowledge advanced lifting devices within the historical context of Homo Superior may stem from the challenge it poses to established historical frameworks. Nevertheless, the investigation into the engineering marvels of Stonehenge encourages us to reassess the capabilities of this ancient civilization, prompting a deeper understanding of their technological prowess and organisational acumen.
The transition from ramps to the more sophisticated winch and pulley hoist marked a significant shift in construction technology during ancient times. The emergence of the compound pulley system, attributed to Aristotle in the Mechanical Problems, coincided with a notable decrease in the weights of stones handled on Grecian building sites. This transformative period saw the prevalence of smaller stones, weighing less than 15–20 metric tonnes, in contrast to the archaic era’s trend of using larger blocks.
The adoption of the crane, facilitated by the compound pulley system, introduced a more efficient and practical method of vertical motion. Grecian temples of the classical age, exemplified by the Parthenon, favoured the use of several smaller stones over fewer larger ones. Monolithic columns, a prominent feature in earlier constructions, were gradually replaced using multiple-column drums.
The reasons behind this technological evolution are not entirely clear. It raises intriguing questions about whether the shift from larger to smaller stones was due to a loss of past techniques, improved quarrying methods enabling faster cutting of shorter blocks, or other factors influencing construction practices. The shift in societal dynamics, with smaller, professional construction teams being favoured over larger bodies of unskilled labour, is proposed as a potential contributing factor. The crane, with its efficiency in handling smaller stones, became preferable in the more volatile social and political conditions of ancient Greece.
While the exact circumstances of this transition remain uncertain, the historical record indicates that the compound pulley system and the crane became integral to Grecian construction sites. The literary evidence from Aristotle’s Mechanical Problems and the resurgence of larger block sizes at Grecian temples suggest a correlation between the adoption of the compound pulley and advancements in construction techniques. The earliest construction cranes, likely powered by humans or beasts of burden like donkeys, marked a transformative period in ancient construction methods.
The evolution of cranes played a crucial role in the construction of tall buildings, and their development over time enabled the lifting of heavier weights. In the High Middle Ages, harbour cranes emerged to facilitate ship loading and unloading, often integrated into stone towers for enhanced strength and stability. The earliest cranes were crafted from wood, but with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, materials like cast iron and steel became predominant.
At Stonehenge, the construction methods are a subject of speculation, with suggestions that timber A-frames were employed to raise the stones. Teams of individuals may have hauled the stones upright using ropes, and the topmost stones (lintels) could have been incrementally raised on timber platforms and slid or pushed into place. Carpentry-type joints on the stones indicate a high level of woodworking skill among the builders.
The idea of A-frames finds support in demonstrations by individuals like Wally Wallington, a retired construction worker, who showcased techniques based on lever principles to rotate, lift, and position heavy monoliths. An A-frame, essentially a basic crane without a pulley or winch, operates on similar principles, facilitating vertical movement. Adding a swivel base could transform it into a fully functional crane, a concept compatible with the mortise and tenon joints observed at Stonehenge.
Estimates of the manpower required for Stonehenge construction suggest a substantial effort, with millions of hours of work involved. The various phases of Stonehenge’s construction, from the initial to the third phase, may have required extensive human labour, reaching up to 20 million hours for working the stones. The primitive tools available at the time necessitated considerable effort, highlighting the strong will and advanced social organization required to build and maintain such a monumental site. Stonehenge stands as a testament to the ingenuity and determination of its ancient builders. (Stone transportation and censorship)
For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports. This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.
Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.
Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:
For active discussions on the findings of the TRILOGY and recent LiDAR investigations that are published on our WEBSITE, you can join our and leave a message or join the debate on our Facebook Group.
(Stone transportation and censorship)
- 1003037 – Ditch 530yds (484m) SW of Stitchcombe Farm
- 1003254 – Linear earthwork NW of Sidbury camp
- 1003726 – Earthwork 360yds (328m) NW of Warren Copse
- 1003769 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 560yds (510m) in Pennsylvania Wood, Ufton Park
- 1003784 – Wansdyke: section 610yds (560m) NW of Wernham Farm to 250yds (230m) SW of New Buildings
- 1003804 – Dray’s Ditches See also LUTON 1
- 1004534 – Dray’s Ditches See also BEDFORDSHIRE 1
- 1004719 – Wansdyke: section from S of Furze Hill to Marlborough-Pewsey road
- 1004736 – Section of the Wansdyke
- 1005373 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 300yds (275m) in Church Plantation
- 1005374 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 880yds (795m) in Old Warren
- 1005375 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 470yds (430m) in Little Heath
- 1005376 – Grim’s Bank: Section extending SW 900yds (825m) from New Plantation, Ufton Park, to a point 250yds (230m) SE of Rectory
- 1005377 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 420yds (400m) in Old Park and Raven Hill, Ufton Park
- 1005386 – Wansdyke (now Bedwyn Dyke), section 530yds (490m) on W side of Old Dyke Lane
- 1005389 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 240yds (220m) E of Padworth Gully
- 1006958 – Boundary ditch E of Near Down
- 1006977 – Ditch on Boydon Hole Farm
- 1006981 – Grim’s Ditch: section 1 mile long E from Southfield Shaw to Streatley parish boundary
- 1006982 – Grim’s Ditch: two sections in Portobello Wood, Holies Shaw and High Holies Wood Gap
- 1007136 – Bishop’s Dyke (Cumbria)
- 1007525 – Three (Cross) Dykes on Middle Hill – Kidland Forest Northumberland
- 1008274 – Cross dyke, 200m south east of Hosedon Linn
- 1008275 – Cross Dyke South East of Uplaw Knowe
- 1010988 – Hadrian’s Wall and Vallum from A6071 to The Cottage in the case of the Wall, and to the road to Oldwall, for the Vallum, in wall miles 57, 58 and 59
- 1010990 – The Vallum between the road to Laversdale at Oldwall and Baron’s Dike in wall miles 59 and 60
- 1010992 – Hadrian’s Wall and Vallum between the field boundary west of Carvoran Roman fort and the west side of the B6318 road in wall mile 46
- 1011396 – Cross dyke, South of Campville
- 1014695 – Hadrian’s Wall Vallum between Mill Beck and the field boundary east of Kirkandrews Farm in wall mile 69
- 1014708 – section of the north Oxfordshire Grim’s Ditch at Model Farm on the Ditchley Park Estate
- 1016860 – Scot’s Dike
- 1017288 – Wansdyke and associated monuments from east of The Firs to the eastern side of Tan Hill
- 1017736 – Cross Dyke and two building foundations at Copper Snout
- 1020643 – North east of Buttington Farm
- Britain’s Linear Earthworks (Dykes) Gazetteer
- Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
- LiDAR Mapping Service – Contact Page
- Prehistoric Bedfordshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Berkshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Buckinghamshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cambridgeshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cheshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cornwall Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric County Durham Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cumbria Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Derbyshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Devon Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Dorset Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Durham Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Essex Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Gloucestershire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Hampshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Herefordshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Kent Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Lancashire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Leicestershire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Lincolnshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Middlesex Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Norfolk Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Northamptonshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Northumberland Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Oxfordshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Shropshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Somerset Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Suffolk Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Surrey Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Sussex Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Warwickshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Wiltshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Worcestershire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Yorkshire Canals (Dykes)
- The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
- The Stonehenge Enigma