The Stone-Slicing Tool of 'the Gods' at Aswan

arnash

Jun 11

Have you ever looked at this stone wall in the Aswan quarry where the unfinished obelisk lies and asked yourself "what happened here?". If you didn't then it is because you were bamboozled by the archaeology establishment into assuming that the age-old conventional thinking of Egyptologists must reflect the simple truth. But the truth is not simple. It is in fact unknown, although there exist plenty of hints of what it might be.
If you have asked yourself anything about that wall then you are still in the dark if what you asked is not the question: "How?????". How was so much stone mass removed in what appears to be a continuous process? What 'technique' can be credited with that? The quarrying technique that the establishment will not even ask about, much less propose, is one that they cannot allow themselves to seriously think about because anything and everything that might come to mind normally, must be rejected since it would not match what is seen.
That wall cannot be ascribed to any techniques or tools used by the ancient Egyptians. Go ahead and try to do the intellectual contemplation needed to perceive an answer and see how far you get. What you'll come to is the conclusion that no quarry-master in all of the very long history of Egypt, whether Kushite, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek or Roman ever possessed a quarry extraction technology that could produce what is seen in that wall.

The features of that wall cannot be ascribed to ANY terrestrial technology that ever existed… although it probably will publicly exist within your lifetime. I'm referring to a technology that allows a tool to slice through stone of any kind like a warm knife cuts through cold butter… -a process which works via the physics of 'heat' and what it does to the ionic bonds of molecules. But in place of heat, the force exerted was ultra-powerful sonic vibrations at the resonance frequency of the stone. That force neutralized the strength of the ionic bonds where the tool made contact, allowing the tool to pass between the molecules unimpeded.
That kind of force is relatable to that of UFOs which pass through Earth's air as if it weren't there, -with no impact due to mass inertia or gravity since they are both neutralized. It's not me claiming that. It's scientists, -and even the government. The U.S. Navy has filed for patents to secure the rights to the technology that powers UFOs. If you don't know that yet then you have been out of touch. It's time that you got informed and opened your eyes to what not only exists in the universe today but also existed thousands of years ago.
That wall should open your eyes by alerting you to the realization that nothing that anyone may have idly postulated can stand up to any scrutiny. It simply cannot be explained as the result of any terrestrial technology and manual muscle power.
Most people are not content to just leave it there as an unsolved mystery and their minds respond instead with the inescapable deduction that if terrestrial technology cannot be credited, then non-terrestrial technology must be credited because the wall did not carve itself.

This thinking process, employing Logic, is similar to that in the Sherlock Holmes murder mystery involving "the dog that did not bark". The woman who was killed in her own bed in the dark of night died in total silence because the dog did not bark. Think about what that implies and you'll be thinking just like Sherlock Holmes. [-a dog barks at strangers, but not at people it knows.]

That wall has a total of FOUR major anomalies, none of which can be explained as the result of any kind of terrestrial tools or techniques. The first of which is the flatness and smoothness of the wall. It should not be either flat nor smooth because the action of quarrying, aka "splitting", igneous stone, produces a rough, uneven surface. We need not even consider the natural absence of chisel marks because the site is a quarry and not a stonework workshop.

Also, we need not consider the manual smoothing of the wall with chisels and grinders because quarry walls have never been, and will never be, smoothed. So we are forced to concluded that the flatness and smoothness of that wall is not due to terrestrial technology or technique…but something else.

Next is the anomaly that is least noticeable, and that is the square impressions made in the over-hang left by the undercutting of the wall. They are not artwork nor uniform patterns but are nothing other than tool marks. Well, at least that much is clear.

But wait! What terrestrial tool leaves tool-mark impressions like that? The answer is that no such tool has ever existed… a tool that would leave depressions in hard stone. Such a tool would be from the same class of tools as that which created the "scoop marks" on and around the obelisk.

So again, if terrestrial technology cannot be credited, then non-terrestrial technology must be credited.
Third is the overhang itself. There is no technique, technology, or even theory that includes such an odd anomaly. By our limited knowledge, such a thing should not exist and would not exist if terrestrial technology was the desired means to produce it.
ALL quarrying methods start from the top and proceed straight down vertically. The don't include an option to leave a useless overhang near the surface. That feature is not found in any quarry anywhere else in the world. Who can even conceive of any explanation for it? Why such a crude result positioned right atop the nice flat surface of the wall? They seem incompatible. It certainly wasn't for artistic reasons. But there was a reason. It's just unknown and undiscoverable.

Last but not least is the oddest quarry feature of all, -not to be found anywhere else in the world. I'm referring to the transition between the side wall and the end wall, -the 90 degree corner where they meet perpendicular to each other. It absolutely should not exist the way it is shaped.
Why? -because it curves!

It is not a corner where perpendicular walls meet at a hard right angle, instead they are joined by a gentle curve. No quarrying tool or technique ever invented on Earth would produce such a curve. No one can even propose one and so the issue goes totally unaddressed.

If your life depended on finding a terrestrial-technology explanation for that curvature then you would lose it. There isn't one. But that does not mean that there is no explanation at all. But it means that it must, of necessity, involve the use of non-terrestrial technology.

That technology was used before Egypt emerged as a nation, hundreds, or perhaps thousands of years earlier. And it was not limited to Egypt alone. It was also used in Peru, Arabia, the Levant, and other locations in the middle East.
But it was accompanied by similarly powerful technologies, including the capacity to not only slice hard stone but to also cut it as competently as massive machines cut it today. I recently figured out the design of a large high-speed stone saw that the Egyptians undoubtably used. Read all about it here:

https://sciencetheory.wordpress.com/2023/04/29/high-speed-stone-cutting-in-ancient-egypt/

They also possessed the capability of moving gargantuan blocks that were either quarried somewhere unknown or were formed in molds using crushed and powdered stone mixed with powerful binder material. Such material included both inorganic mineral powders as well as organic materials.

They were masters at making adhesives, binders, sealers, varnishes, resins, etc. from natural polymers, including bitumen (tar) amber (sap) wax, gums, plant and animal proteins like egg albumin and milk casein, joint and tissue collagen, and mucilaginous slime from plants like garlic, onions, and leeks. Such materials, when expertly combined with inorganic matter and allowed to harden in the hot sun or in a kiln will solidify into stone.
Consider modern cement. It can be literally poured like a milkshake into formwork and in a short time it will harden into man-made stone. The water molecules become bound in the mineral matrix.

The reconstituting of stone in such a manner is seen all over the world. In today's world it would be called architectural-grade stone concrete if made from powder alone. It was used all over very ancient Peru (as well as Egypt) by an unknown group in an unknown time by an unknown means. But open minds will easily perceive that those stone blocks do not look like any stone blocks that we are familiar with in the modern age. Many blocks apparently were cast while other stone surfaces were sliced, such as those in the photos below. Here's a quote from an observer who wrote about his observation:

~extract of "The Temple of the Andes" - 1884
"The good curate of Tiahuanaco told me that it was commonly supposed that the blocks were not stone at all, but of a kind of cement. Without believing this, I must admit having seen artificial stones so closely resembling natural ones that it would be difficult to distinguish the difference.
With an unknown number of centuries in which to harden, it is possible to conceive some of these fragment as having been molded rather than carved. I saw no mark of chisel in any of the stones."

Establishment thinking has always avoided addressing the realities of moving massive weights, and that is because no answers can be found in the real world to solve the mystery. As an example of the problem, here's a quote regarding the Italian archaeologist Belzoni. He set himself the task of moving a gigantic head & torso of Ramesses II from Egypt to London.

"On the recommendation of the orientalist J. L. Burckhardt, he was sent by Henry Salt, the British consul to Egypt, to the Ramesseum at Thebes, from where he removed with great skill the colossal bust of Ramesses II, commonly called the "Younger Memnon". Shipped by Belzoni to England, this piece is still on prominent display at the British Museum in London."

"This weighed over 7 tons. It took him 17 days and 130 men to tow it to the river. He used levers to lift it onto rollers. Then he had his men distributed equally with four ropes to drag it on the rollers.
On the first day he covered only a few yards (!), but on the second he covered 50 yards. After 150 yards, it sank into the sand, and a detour of 300 yards on firmer ground was necessary. From there, it got a little easier, and, on 12 August he finally reached the river, where he was able to load it onto a boat for shipment to England."

That was a 'mere' seven tons, -which is essentially unrelated to the 1,200 estimated tons of the unfinished obelisk. Aside from the insurmountable challenge of raising it out of its inexplicable trench, to drag it using manpower with the burden of 100 pounds per man, that would have required 24,000 men at maximum exertion. At a sustainable level of 50 pounds per man, 48,000 men would have been needed… which is an insanely huge number and impossible to muster and manage.

Here's a response about moving heavy stone blocks from one who would know: "Fortune PTg wrote:
"Lifting 20 tons or pulling 20 tons with wood and ropes is just not possible. I, who worked with excavators and used to lift heavy weight with the bucket, know that even metal bends with 10 tons… -imagine pulling 30 tons with wooden levers and winches, not even iron at that time. Iron would have very weak composition and break, also copper. It's a mystery and will remain a mystery."

Here's the link to my exposition regarding the nuts & bolts of the mechanics of moving the unfinished obelisk in the Aswan quarry:

The Lying Pretense of Egyptology Regarding Ancient Stonework

Someone wrote: "Quarrying, transporting, and sculpting large stones for monuments and buildings has continued from the stone age…"
That is what the establishment narrative assures us, but the proof is absent. It can't be found anywhere with the exception of transporting via the Nile. I have debunked the veracity of a drawing on a temple wall that shows a large statue of a seated king being dragged along the ground. I won't repeat myself here. My assertion is that "the past was cast almost entirely" by use of the reconstituting of stone from crushed and powdered rock... with the exception of the use of limestone... which is rather easily carved.

Objects made of it are hard to pin down... with the exception of the gigantic slabs of limestone that serve as pavement on the Giza plateau. They're enormous and too fragile to be put to the strain of lifting them (if even possible). They fit precisely next to each other because they were poured side-by-side.
I have found the evidence of stone casting and stone modeling all over the world… having acquired over 100,000 images, -11,000 of Egypt alone. You can discover what I've shared in the Media and Groups sections of my Facebook group "Ancient Stonework Mysteries".

Here is what a quarry looks like:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 by Adrien Nash  June 7, 2023

Addendum: To discover the complicated truth about ancient stonework, you have to start at three places: Puma Punku & Tihuanaco, Baalbek, and the Aswan quarry. From Puma Punku alone we learn that all such stone objects were formed in molds, not with non-existent chisels. And the Gateway of the Sun could not be more obviously a work of concrete formwork.
Also, no stonework in Peru can be attributed to any quarry because no ancient quarry shows the shapes that would be the result of the extraction of mega-blocks. The tall-tale about quarrying mega-blocks is actually a deliberate self-delusion or out-right lie.

Baalbek is similar in that the supposed quarry that the mega-blocks are attributed to is not a bedrock quarry but merely a gravel quarry full of nothing but shattered field stone. All of the mega-blocks were formed in gigantic molds using geopolymer (binder) cement.
Once formed, they then had something in common with the Aswan quarry and the unfinished obelisk, which is that it was literally impossible to move and raise them with nothing but terrestrial technology. Something more powerful had to be employed, and it was probably an gravity-cancelling force.

Lastly is the issue raised by a high, flat, long, smooth wall in the Aswan quarry. No method on earth existed or exists today to produce such a wall of granite. It had to have been sliced with a stone slicing tool, a tool that could slice through stone and even extract quadrangular blocks of stone from stone masses or cliff faces.
So, you have four subjects that need broad investigation:
1. Chemistry. -the reconstitution of stone via organic and inorganic binder material, being used as both pourable 'fluid' and thick cement that could be shaped by tools; with curing to full hardness resulting from time and solar infrared heat.

Molds. -stone cement being used in molds of all shapes and sizes, including flexible shapes made of pliable material.
Stone Slicing via neutralizing the ionic bonds between molecules by the force of extreme sonic vibration at resonant frequency. -And…
the employment of anti-gravity technology, perhaps along the lines of the technology that renders UFOs weightless.

Comment