Eric & Ian Smith from Allendale / Port MacDonnell got out their old saws and show us how limestone blocks were cut out of the ground in the 1950`s before mechanisation changed the job.
Glad I stumbled upon this video. Thank you for making it. What an admirable bunch, doing such hard work in such a skilled way, returning to it with a smile on their faces. Amazing!
This more or less solves the Great Pyramid cutting "issue", although I do want to make a few notes. Copper and Bronze are only 1 MOH less than steel, so for the limestone this is not a problem at all. The design of the teeth more than likely is where most of the work happens, along with the water pushing out older material and acting as a lubricant. The ancient Egyptians did it a little different and more efficient as far as which cuts to take from the rock in the ground. It's possible so that when you make those end cuts, you cut the block in a way for each piece of the Pyramid, even when you cut the ends off, you use those too. With the recent papyrus find of the Royal Inspector telling us basically that these huge stones were carried by a barge from the quarry, straight to the pyramid, this completes the other part. For the people who are saying we never found anything to indicate this, there are a few reasons. 1. We just literally haven't not excavated enough of Egypt, some of the great Egyptologists say there is another 70%-80% of "Egypt" to dig out. 2. Almost everything would have been recycled, including the wood to build the sleighs, since they would be using Lebanese Cedar.
Certainly have a lot of respect for the men and what they did with the tools they had. Do you have other videos on what happened to these pieces of limestone....RL Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Every young person (from about third grade up--boys AND girls) should have stone cutting for about 1/2 hour daily as part of their school class---they need to know what chores are. If they end up on welfare, free money comes with daily stone cutting duty.
Keep the same angle. Requires effort. I cut softer stone sometimes and sometimes it gets snagged. Just re introduce the saw and try again until you can cut all the way across.
Just the way these guys... Smile and kinda just stare for a sec. I think theirs something very secret within this whole world of stone free masonry. These guys probably know so much more that they don't want to share. I'm sure the huge stone blocks can be used for soo much more, why else would they even exist.
No way, my eye nearly popped out of the sockets, "is this for real". My hat is off to these guys. I live in Ireland beside an old lime stone quarry. I've seen some saws like this around the place, assumed they were used for cutting trees now I'm beginning to wonder could those saws have been use in the quarry, interesting. How do they maintain any kind of cutting edge, must be high carbon steel blade or unusual lime stone.
ik incans used sand in between the gullets as an abrasive to cut the stone the teeth werent really for cutting but who sknows maybe they did xD must have had lots of file time
this limestone is very soft when in ground and damp.....it drys out to be tougher.....sandstone saws use what they called "chat" or "shot" it was granite chips and the blade teeth were square.....water dripped in slowly and 2 men would cut a foot per hour the length of the saw.......look ar the pdf book "practical masonry" from 1903.....not the 1960 version .....is online for free to download.....full drawings and descriptins of all old pre steam tools.
They're called frig bobs. Nothing magic, just iron, the mechanism of action's success is all in the teeth being properly aligned, a willing arm, patience, attrition....
Those cuts are impressively straight. Hats off to these two! At the same time couldn't help noticing all that beautiful slurry going to waste. I would want to monetize that bitch and sell it as boutique facial scrub 20ml at a time...
well, here we see that cutting stone is not as difficult as historians would have us believe. the cuts look pretty accurate to me as well, and I would bet if there were a pint riding on it,they could do far better as far a squareness and quality of finish in almost the same amount of time.
It's not the historians it's the modern theorists who're claiming this was impossible with the tools back then so it had to be aliens or ancient advanced tech. 😅
+manchild4ron....try just picking up a sledge hammer some time nitwit......granite was the reason nitro glycerine was developed.....but the usual procedure for granite and trachite is CRACKING AND SPLITTING... with wedges......savvee.
Why? Most of the stone slabs in pyramids were made from limestone, and only the inner chamber and the sarcophagus were made from transported granite. That granite requires just more work and additional processes for straightening edges and smoothing out the surfaces. The polishing wasn't even applied in the Great Giza one, and the bull sarcophagi were found in different stages of the process.
THERE would be three million cuts to make the great pyramid, assuming thay had a nice hardend steel saw to cut with, can you tell me how long it would take to do the cuttine by hand?
@Robert Stennett what Egyptian records say it took 20 years? There are no mention of the pyramids in any ancient Egyptian texts or hieroglyphs. The 20 year timeline is something Egyptology just made up.
Robert Stennett Have a look at the Kings chamber. That is granite from Answar. Above are precisely cut granite supporting the rest of the structure. Also underneath are around 300 rooms a labyrinth. There are four shafts to the pyramid and pointing to the constellation of Orion. There are over 2.3 million blocks of limestone some weighing 60 tonnes. If you ran measuring equipment to level it was done with such accuracy we cannot reproduce today. The Egyptologists are liars. Big big liars and full of disinformation. The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. They were already there. That's the reality the Egyptians claimed it to be their own and tried to reproduce and draw poor quality hieroglyphs on the structures. There are also granite boxes each weighing 100 tonnes with a twenty tonne lid cut from the same material. So accurate we don't have that kind of technology. There are eight sides to the pyramids. There are pyramids all around the world.
@ron1martens So accurate that we couldn't recreate it today? Brother, we have a 1 million pound football field sized space station orbiting 17,000 miles per hour around Earth, with humans traveling back and forth(think about the accuracy of rocketing a human into space and landing on something that is moving 17,000mph) and living in it over 20+ years. We have a 2,700 ft Earthquake resistant building, a A Large Hadron Collider that is so "accurate" that it can slam protons and ions together at 182,000 miles per SECOND. My man, we can stack some stones level to the ground.
@@Welcome2GirafficPark Egypt "stacked some stones" but how did they cut the granite for the kings chamber? 8000 tones of granite where cut with sizes from 20 to 80 ton's each,, , , what I am saying is Egyptians did not have the tools to do that work. 🤠 some one in prehistoric times did it, it's there, but not Egyptian's.
it's not the metal saw that is doing the cutting. they put abrasive particles in there, which is much harder than the limestone. so, yes, bronze saw will cut limestone, if proper abrasive is added.
Lotyle Lemon Because they supposedly didn't use iron nor steel. Still they achieved monuments that we struggle to make with our "superior" technology. And to be honest thats relatively small block compared to what some ancient men maisoned.
@Albynn Yutha Bronze and copper are way too soft. Building the monuments ancient men build would have taken hundreds of years, majestic supply of copper and tin and generations of skill passed on. Moreover the level of finnish with these supposedly bronze tools is better than what we can achieve. I have worked with stone tools and bronze tools. Try to cut hard granite with a bronze axe and see how clean cuts you can get before your axe dissappears on the surface of the stone. Your axe wil be grind to dust before you can even get a proper indentation. Lime stone is easy to cut. Youcan cut it with a hard robe before it breaks. Economically it would have been catastrofic investment of precious metals and man power. Some unfinished and failed cutting marks show bright as day that ancients were using circular blades. These people were not dumb.
@@ReasonAboveEverything 1. Bronze isn't too soft, in fact, it is pretty much the same as iron. Steel is a different question entirely. 2. They weren't using axes, they were using hammers, chisels, and wedges. 3. Only a tiny amount of stone slabs were made from granite for the inner chamber, sarcophagi and statues of the royalty, rest is limestone like the ones in the video. 4. Their level of finish isn't even close to what we can achieve and use for fucking kitchen countertops.
AristOwl Yes, bronze is way too soft. So is iron. Even to attempt anything like that you would need steel. You will get absolutely nowhere trying to chisel or saw granite or similar harder stones with a bronze chisel or saw. You can bang away weeks and all is left is an rather small indentation colored with the bronze from your chisel. Achieving this you have wasted a lot of bronze and valuable time. Trying to build something like pyramides of granite using this technology would be waste of everything precious. Yes stones were split but to split them you need to saw a slit to get it started. And then you need to finish it to make it an perfect cupe. You will just blunt the tip after three blows and mushroom the other end like crazy. One mason should have many chisel and a smith with a forge nearby to constantly sharpen the tips. It would be waste of everything. Workforce, time, precious metals, coal... Stone masons use also axes to carve the finish the surface. Sarcophagies were just one example. We have numerous examples of stone work we can not repeat with modern technology. They are small percentage. Still they are many in numbers. Their lines angles are perfect. And the finish IS better than what we can achieve because those pieces were not sanded smooth. Their surface is melted smooth. One particular failed stone sawing was found years back. The saw that was used had an circular blade the circled in high speed. It is an proof they ancient man did have more than just hammer and soft chisels.
Excellent! I'm an American expat, I can tell you that today's generation of American mommy's boys could not do the sort of work these men do. Imagine how much work could be done if America placed all of their welfare, free housing, and food stamp recipients on either end of those saws. We could drive on highways of granite. But no, it's easier for the bums here to sell drugs, steal, attack people, and whine about how beat down they are. My respect to these men and the work ethics of Australia.
the real problem here is that in order to fit the narrative sold to us currently they would have had to be cutting, moving, and placing 1 block every 3 mins. Can you imagine the infrastructure required to do this, the amount of humans required and the food to feed them, the water to drink, the houses to sleep etc.
the tougher the stone ....the easier it is to split.....they made a fire on top and sides after making small fracture line.....then quenched the fire with cold water.....KKRRRRAAAAKKKK....to easy.....wood logs swell when soaked in a drilled hole or natural fissure....look it up....thats how it was done.
We need to stop relying on the "scientists" who pretend to know the world we live in and depend instead upon the Real People who actually do the work. We can certainly see how the "experts" (not farmers) messed up agriculture and the environment.
400 men moved the Thunder Stone over the course of nine months. On icy terrain, using capstan winches, a metal sled and metal ball bearings in a track, all while tons of stone were constantly being cut off (it didn't weigh 1500 tons the whole trip), finally using a barge pulled by warships to finish the journey. All of which seems unlikely to have been used to move the Baalbek stones (3 each over 800 tons, and 24 other foundation stones over 300 tons a piece) given the likely technology of the period and the local climate.
I said nothing about aliens. I just pointed out that the Thunder Stone move utilized more advanced technology and frozen terrain that was not available in Baalbek. The two can't really be compared in any meaningful fashion.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 They used rope winches, stone rollers and hundreds of men to pull the Baalbek stones. Primitive technology works just fine with enough labor and some planning.
I dont think bronze was all they had. I dont think it would be that much harder to cut granite in this way. looking at the tool marks in ancient quarrys you see marks exactly the same as what these gentlemen left behind. we with our tractors and other labor saving devices dont tend to think about how much power you can get out of four men and a block and tackle properly rigged. today we try doing things the old fashoned way and give up after working up the beginings of a sweat and think " there is no way they could have...." but they didnt have what we do, but at the same time they didnt have an option. it's easy to set aside grandpa's old tools and pick up a power tool. but what if you didnt have any power tools and you still had to get things done?
@@lukewarmwater6412 the pyramid of Giza was built in 20 years and consists of around 2.300.000 stone blocks. So you have to cut and place a block every 5 minutes for 20 years straight. That's not humanly possible. I am not saying the aliens did constructed the pyramids. That's just silly. It was certainly not done the way these guys in the video did it.
@@Rami-vr9dy I'm sure it took a few more guys to cut the stones and stuff... acualy I think the pyramids are much older than anyone thinks they are and were built by people who had at least as much tech as we do today, so yeah, about 25 years sounds right. but not cutting stone like we think they did, they had what we have today.
Not bad, but steel wasn’t available. What about the larger circular saw marks? Some I understand are 10 to 30 feet in diameter according to the evidence of tool marks. Regardless, more research is needed
