Want to see more experiments? Then consider supporting our project ► www.patreon.com/antropogenez Our video about the ‘impossible’ sarcophagi of the Serapeum ► ruclips.net/video/47HAYcii_Q8/видео.html
as far as i remember there is a huge roke 600 tons mooved 300 years ago in russia on rolers and artist drue the since ----they mooved it for hundreds of km and it is now a statue of one of their rullers i think -----i sow a video on it -the title is the bigest roke ever moved
Your experiments are so important to refute the slick videos of non-experts suggesting extraterrestrials did it! We should never underestimate our ancestors. Their brains were as big as ours and they had many challenges to solve. Thank you!
Our present level of technology has less to do with "brain size" of course as = our systematized method of recording and passing on information. Once man developed educational systems so as to improve literacy + methods for storing and retrieving data + and finally a global "network" such as the internet = our ability to expand our knowledge began to grow exponentially. Even things like computers only really mattered when they were able to be linked in networks for otherwise disparate people to communicate with and access what others knew. As a species we as you alluded to have not fundamentally changed much over the past millennia. Were we able to bring an ancient Egyptian forward to today and educate them as we now take for granted there is no reason why they could not fit into today's society.
It has nothing to do with underestimating our ancestors (how many times have we heard that), it's about not attributing the ridiculously impossible to a civilisations who's tool set extended to copper chisels and pounding stones. If you're talking about woo-woo theories, it doesn't get more woo-woo than that, does it? The ancients moved stone blocks up to and over 1000 tons. This video moving 2 or 3 tons of stone refutes nothing at all. I, like the vast majority of the sceptics of the mainstream nonsense, haven't got the faintest as to how they were moved, that's why we call it a mystery. We do know for absolute certain that the mainstream academia narrative does not resolve any of the mystery. Of course academics can't say they 'don't know', because they claim to be the 'experts', so they fabricate nonsense up and call it history. Please just search RUclips for "Moving the "Levitated Mass" Rock on Florence / HD Part One" ....... That's how we transported a 340 ton granite rock 12 years ago. A specially made trailer with over 40 axles, 206 wheels using the energy of 5 huge 600 horsepower trucks, all on solid roads, not sand. It gives an accurate insight into how big a 340 ton block actually is, and what's involved in transporting it. You will see that it puts a whole different, and much more accurate, perspective of what's involved in moving such megalithic stone blocks. Just watch it and then ask yourself how the ancients achieved such feats. You'll find it a lot more difficult, I sincerely assure you. Archaeologists are no experts in engineering, yet they claim to know how it was all done. They really do not have any idea, well, not that they'd say publicly, as they'd be out of a job. Leading engineers should be called in to assess the narrative claims of such engineering feats. The archaeologists would soon be laughed out of the park if they did, which is why there is no platform for voices with expertise in construction, transport and precision engineers, in archaeology/history applied to the ancient's engineering. We know hardly anything of the ancients of prehistory. A few years back, archaeologists/historians would have you believe that homo sapiens have been on the planet 200,000 years. Until a relatively recent discovery of jaw bone, a couple of teeth and a finger knuckle joint from homo sapiens dating back 300,000 years. Boom, we became a hundred thousand years older overnight. So have we now discovered true length of time homo sapiens have habited Earth? No of course we haven't it's just the oldest we've found so far. So what happened to the skeletal remains of the billions of humans that existed between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago. My point being that the archaeologists have dug up precious little of prehistory, the tiniest fraction. And while archaeologists claim to have so much certainty about what their finds must mean, based purely on the limitations of archaeological discoveries (copper chisels and pounding stones), is not accurate, and will be proven so with further discoveries. This would happen much more quickly if only archaeology would be more inquisitive, more open minded, more inspired, to resolve many obvious mysteries, and the blatant holes in the official narrative, instead of heavily restricting the digs at our most important prehistoric archaeological sites. They have no interest in proving themselves and their narrative wrong. The burden of proof for the archaeology's claims regarding global megalithic structures is on the archaeologists, not on those that point out the flaws, and the wild assumptions in their narrative. This is what you'd require from anyone who claims that aliens, ancient advanced civilisations, or divine intervention was responsible, before you'd give them the slightest bit of credibility. That's a reasonable natural stance to take, but only if you apply the same standards across the board, including the 'theories' you tend to favour. If you did, you'd soon find that the ground you stand on is actually just as, if not more, shaky than anything else you can think of. The methods and technology behind megalithic architecture and artefacts is unfathomable to us. Thousands of years later and we still can't figure these wonders out. The problem is that archaeology can't contemplate or consider anything previously unimaginable, not that some non archaeologists do. Archaeologists can't think outside of their very restrictive box, and they'll dismiss, supress or ignore any anomalies or stumbling blocks that might require them to do so. As with most authoritative power structures, if you speak against them, you're out of favour, and out of funding.
True. And regarding the OP's comment, why on earth are people now so extraordinarily stupid? How on earth can they believe such crap when there isn't a single drop of evidence anywhere? I'm very worried by the huge numbers of people that are so incredibly gullible! In masses they believe Putin, Trump, Graham Hancock, and the thousands of others who are cashing in on their stupidity, including Netflix, Tubi TV, and the History channel. It becomes dangerous when there are so many people that dumb! There used to be laws about lying in public and false advertising. What ever happened to those laws? And to the public, which formerly would not tolerate lies? Oh yeah. Ronald Reagan and the GOP happened. And corporations became people, with all the same rights as people, and MORE! I don't want to know where things will go from here. Nothing good can come from the fact that people are allowed to do anything they choose in the name of profit while nothing else matters at all. The GOP used to pretend to be all about ethics and regulating things, but now THEY are the biggest liers of all, chasing profit at the expense of people. Thank the gods that some people are still persuing the truth, like this channel, as far as I've seen in viewing this video.
Viewers, if you are interested, Dr David Miano at the 'World of Antiquity" channel has discussed the engineering acumen of the ancient Egyptians in several of his videos. He has also debunked a number of so-called "alternative archeology" speculations He has also worked with these creators, :Scientists Against Myths", on one of his presentations, which is how I found out about them.
I agree that its awesome that they did this, but If you call this showing how something is possibly done in this way then you have one hell of a low bar. we are talking here about 2.3 million blocks and the heavyest ones coming from 800 miles away. having to be dragged uphill. I guess the uphill part is the most difficult when you are working with rollers. Having said that, again it is cool that they try.
@@inforuimteschip5970I think that the vast majority of blocks were quarried near the site. And ranging in size from a few hundred pounds to several tons or more. A relatively small number of large blocks came from far away but the quarries were located up river and near it. It is fairly well understood that the egyptians were capable of transporting very heavy cargo on barges and were capable of moving very heavy weigh on land. I'm not sure how much uphill was involved or how much of an impediment it would be with thousands of workers available and the largest block going maybe 80 tons.
@@Docrock-z9k It is fairly wel understood because, the evidence is there in that the blocks came from 800 miles upriver. There are no boats found that where capable of this if I'm not mistaken. There is an interesting correlation with the Olmecs in Middle America, where the Olmec heads where found to be to heavy to be transported on boats that are able to navigate the rivers. They would have to be to big to be useable was the finding of I believe it was Ed Barnhardt. and have you ever heard of the Spanjard explorer writing about the Maya's trying to move a giant granite boulder (like the one's in the pyramid) over a mountain. He discribes it falling down and killing 3000 people. and giving up on it.
It's nice to see you are expanding your range of experiments. Just a few thoughts: 1) the beam used for redirecting the rope does not produce any mechanical advantage, it only adds friction and thus hinders the process 2) if you can add rope handles or wooden poles to the main rope, the workers can get a much better grip. Imagine you attach the sled to a rope ladder and make the workers stand inside the "steps" of the ladder, thus each worker can push instead of pulling on the rope. Keep up the good work!
LOLOL this experiment reminds me of the only surviving image of the inca moving a 500 kg boulder with the chief standing ontop of the misshaped rock with a heard of minions pulling him with ropes. Three cultures so far are known to use this method for sure, the Inca, the dynastic period and these balloons in 2024🤭😆😆
@@Kitties-of-Doom Ladies and gentlemen, we can observe here a typical case of an internet cultist. Largely recognized by their lack of knowledge, a love for pseudo-science and conspiracies, arrogance and general lack of logic. They often talk without saying anything. If you throw facts at them they will start to screetch and go into cognitive dissonance.
You did this cold without generations of experience behind you and still succeeded. Well done! I suspect the Egyptians would have laughed at the idea that moving heavy stones was difficult. Likely they'd have had a smoother surface, better rollers and a bunch of guys standing by with 6 meter hardwood poles to use as levers wherever adjustments were necessary and they would make it look easy.
@@chrisgrill6302 read about the strength of the thick steel ropes that are needed to withstand the load. 18 mm rope, maximum load 30 tons. they put blocks weighing over a thousand tons...
@@dennisjames3711If an 18mm rope can carry 30 tons you'd only need 33 of those to lift 1000 tons off the ground. Of course those are steel cables and they didn't have steel cables, but they did have much thicker fiber ropes, and they did not need to lift the blocks off the ground, they were pulling them along on rollers. I've done this myself with 10 meter fishing boats heavily laden with miles of wet netting, dragging them up the beaches in Mexico. It's not that hard! Of course 1000 tons would be pretty difficult but that was hardly the norm, most blocks were only a few tons at most. I really don't see what you think is so impossible.
@@chrisgrill6302 no wooden cylinder can hold 1000 tons. how are you going to get the sleepers out? look at the structures in baalbek. not 33 because there are variable, uneven stresses during transport. the transport company was transporting a boulder weighing about 300-400 tons. he said that just lifting something like that is extreme, let alone over 1000 tons. many boulders weigh tens and hundreds of tons. a few tons are small blocks
Watching the guys who claim it can't be done as they give their foil hat tours shows me something. Those guys back then, by the thousands and eventually millions did this work for their entire life. It's how they fed themselves. Most of the foil hat tour folks can't even walk on camera out there without sweating profusely and looking like their about to have a heart attack. The Egyptians were a lot tougher than those soft bellies. Of course they can't figure it out. It requires thinking and getting out of ones biases that it "Cant be done just because they can't grasp hard work and millions of man hours."
Good effort guys and since you had no magic beans to trade for an Ox. Split and corduroy your logs so they don't roll. Rounded tips on sled's skids. Each man body barrel sling hitched to main line. Use legs and weight of body only, think 'tug of war'. Make an oily clay slip to grease your logs. Slow and steady wins the race.
This was a very interesting and useful experiment. But from what I have read, the Egyptians did not use rollers; they didn't have enough trees. I understand they built sleds, just as you did, and just dragged them over the bare ground. I hope you try an experiment doing that; but I think you will have to bring back those tough schoolgirls.
You read from where............ = and *THAT* is always the critical point in these things. Moral: Tut's tomb as an example contained many wooden artifacts = and they were not date palm......... Hence the Egyptians could and did import many types of wood. Where do you think they got all the cedar they used to build their ships - of which they would have maaany of them considering they depended upon the Nile for their survival. The Palermo Stone as an example details how Khufu's father ordered 40 shiploads of Cedar from Lebanon and decreed ships up to 50 meters in length be built. Think about Lebanon in relation to Egypt. They would not be travelling all the way there and back for a few cords of wood each trip. Clearly they had ships capable of carrying large loads to make the risky journey worthwhile.
Not sure if this is useful to you, but the ropes found in the boat pits of the Great Pyramid were made of twisted leaves and culms of desmostachya bipinnata (Haifa grass).
@ScientistsAgainstMyths I'm surprised you did not try laying the logs like railroad ties. This would prevent them from rolling and still reduce friction points. I'm sure a simple lubricant like wet sand (dirt, clay, etc.,) would help the sled slide over the ties. What are your thoughts?
The massive stones of the Inca have obvious, spaced, notches on one side. I believe these carved in notches were used to do this type of moving them. Necessary, for the Incredible vertical inclines from quarry to placement. So no slipping or jostling would occur. That's theory. What do you guys think? Have you seen them, the notches? Never heard anyone explain the notches, except for total...u kno what. I love this channe!❤
Funny that the features one set of people might see as "mysterious", another, more practically minded set, would see as containing RIGHT THERE the answer to the former's proposed "but it's just too 'impossible'!" contention.
Maybe use a parbuckling technique or use a similar method from Chersiphron or his son Megatenes. I believe those methods would work well with just one large slab or stone. If moving multiple large stone, it might be best to secure them tightly together. Then build a wooden frame or 'cage' around them and turning the whole thing into one large roller or drum. Which would make it easier to move with just one or two ropes and minimum manpower.
This is important work. When any group of people decide to tackle a difficult task in order to achieve a goal, there will be fits and starts; steps forward and steps back. With each challenge there will possibly be multiple failures. If the Egyptians, Olmec, or Romans threw their hands up in defeat when some tool failed or when an attempt to get a heavy object moved seemed futile, there would be none of the structures we all marvel at. When there is a common hope and belief in the purpose of the undertaking, the only real limit is imagination. The details inevitably take time and effort to smooth out. No mystery is ever solved on the basis of one experiment.
great job, S A M! if you guys could do this with only a handful of pullers, think what could be done with hundreds.....or thousands!! the ancients were smart enough and had access to large numbers of workers....and, plenty of time. no need for special technology or aliens! keep up the good work, guys and gals👍👍
look up Wally Wallington, forgotten Technology, he's moved giant blocks using pebbles and wooden planks. He might be able to give some insight on a more efficient experiment in the future
Unfortunately wally's techniques don't work too well on sand. You will get a lot of alt history folks that completely ignore the proof of concept that wally demonstrates. The point is that it is possible to move very heavy things, With the solutions often being so painfully simple to implement that you feel stupid for not having thought of them yourself. For instance, Who would think to wet sand in front of a sled to make it easier to pull weight over? It boggles my mind that the solution was so simple yet so impactful. Another thing that atl history folks don't consider Is that the egyptians had extensive artificial canals and docks made specifically to load and transport stones with the annual flooding. Ninety nine percent of the distance traveled for Some of the heaviest stones wasn't even over land, And the vast majority of the core masonry of the Giza pyramids was quarried on the plateau itself.
@@lastofmygeneration really? the techniques don't work on sand? even if a platform is placed beneath? the wet sand thing is brilliant and I even remember reading from journal accounts from ancient workers who helped transport the stones for the pyramids, some stones were transported over rivers using large boats, while others elsewhere were dragged on land (the means of transporting on land not being specified, but it likely could've been sleds) . I just find it fascinating that despite the ancient past being so old, it was still far from primitive, and humans will always find solutions to complicated tasks
@@Pixpaint1 If you placed platforms, you could use some of the techniques, But that would require a platform strong enough, and Enough material to have at least 2 substantial platforms you can alternate between to move a stone. If you're moving many stones at once this becomes a problem logistically. It makes much more sense to use a single sled for each rock in my opinion.
@@lastofmygeneration I suppose that makes sense if you consider the possibility that artificial canals were used for long distance travel, and the sleds were used for short distance, perhaps to lead the stones to a platform in and around the pyramid with which to use other means to lift and ease the stones into place
as always, I'm very impressed by your experiments! Human nature is amusing: wehen you tell them: thats impossible!....someone will come up with a clever idea to do it anyways ;) and: Of course the ancients knew how to handle large stones....they had the manpower and time and did it all the time ;) hope you are able to continue this series!
If the rope had been looped round the sledge it would have given a mechanic advantage. I don't think the old timers would have missed that. I dont think keeping yourself at a disadvantage because people think the oldtimers where stupid is a good thing, they moved stones many times heavier that that successfully. They must have had some good ideas
Yes they had generations to work out all the bugs so as to perfect the system. As an aside. Examples of Egyptian sleds can be found in museums. A Middle Kingdom sled as an example has large wooden skids with connected wooden beams which are attached via tenon joints cut into the main skids. In front of the connector beams is a thick rounded wooden bar also tenoned into position upon which a rope(s) would be looped.
You guys have done an amazing job at proving a ton of these ancient techniques, but one I haven't seen you guys tackle yet that I have some ideas on is the Unfinished Obelisk in Aswan with the scoop marks. I think these scoop marks are the result of people shaping the stone with adze' getting down to a common depth before they smooth and polished the stone. I haven't tried this yet, but I plan to as soon as I can make myself a stone adze.
I saw a documentary where they had A-frames at regular intervals along the side of the track. There were two ropes, one per side, which were pulled in a similar way to your initial attempts, using the frames as pulleys, but because the pulleys at the top of the A-frames were relatively high, they tended to lift the front of the sled, allowing it to slide onto the next log relatively easily. I can't remember what size of stone they moved, but it was pretty big, and it was quite effective. I think they also used pork fat rather than oil as a lubricant. At the sort of pressures the rope exerts, I think it's likely that grease will lubricate more efficiently than oil. I do question the applicability of this to say the 20 ton stones of Stonehenge. Those much heavier stones are likely to do significant damage to the logs, so I'm not sure the experiment necessarily scales well. I think we need to see a full-size experiment before we can say whether this technique is usable. Note that the path from the quarry to Stonehenge is not flat, so any technique would also have to deal with gradients (in both directions). Regardless of our ability to demonstrate the method, it's clear that the ancients had already had lots of practice (hundreds, possibly thousands of years' development of the methods) moving large stones by hand, so by the time they needed to move the huge stones, they would have already mastered the technique, and it was just a problem of scale. The people who say it can't be done are implying that the ancients were not just technologically inferior, but mentally inferior. That's just not true. They would have had their equivalent of Einstein (with similar intellectual capacity) working on problems like this. Keep up the good work.
Look at the video clip within this video showing the movement of the _"Mussolini Monument"_ block which weighed 200-300 tons. In other words if you use single logs then yes weight can be a factor. If you use thicker logs - and more of them = then heavier weights can be transported. The block as it was eased down the mountainside showed the men cramming the wooden rollers together rather than single ones spaced apart. As to sleds. They made this one themselves obviously. Yet if you look at examples of Egyptian sleds in their iconography + actual sleds in museums you'll see = they have upwardly sloping front ends. This would help mitigate the front end "digging in" under use - especially if the block is placed more towards the rear rather than the front to stop the sled from being "front heavy".
I love watching your videos! I like that you guys show its possible for mere human imagination intelligence and strength is all it takes to accomplish great things! Everyone underestimates our ancestors and always say that aliens must have created or built all the unbelievable objects and architecture, because they can't understand how they accomplished what they did and give up trying to figure it out after 5 minutes of failure! It is awesome that you guys don't call anyone stupid or anything. . You just show ways things could have been done and it's awesome!
The sledge was moving along very well at times. Excellent! This is how it could have been done in the past, with some fine-tuning and experience. ------ NOW, please explain to me that wavy window behind your right shoulder. I am intrigued.
Great job as always! You should check out the book "Building Big with Next to Nothing" by Vincent Lee. Has a lot of great ideas about more complex maneuvers that would be great to see attempted.
the main mistake I saw was failing to rake the small rocks out of your way first! The ancients had more manpower. With 5x as many people you could have dedicated rakers.
Perhaps. That presumes however the use of "rollers" which are lathed to be circular as we see here - I suspected they used old electrical poles to save money. If the ancients used thick boards or else somewhat round tree trunks which had the branches lopped off however they might be less inclined to roll with the sled as you see here - which also makes it more difficult to control. Watch the B&W video seen in the this video - go to the channel British Pathe - and see whereby those "rollers" used to ease the marble block down the mountainside were not as "perfectly round" as these were + they appear to be several layers thick - i.e. a path of logs stacked atop logs 2 or 3 deep given how heavy the marble block was. Also that sled as noted below also had a sloped front and back end. But yes they had more manpower = and animal power. Ancient peoples used oxen much as today in some Third World nations you still see oxen pulled plows etc. being employed - the people unable to afford tractors etc.. Final point as I noted in my comment above. They fashioned their own sled - which is fine. If however you look at the Egyptian sleds such as you see in tomb paintings and even actual sleds in museums which mirror those depictions = the front end is curved upwards to help prevent it "sticking" as sometimes occurred in the video demonstration with this simple "raft" style sled. We must remember that the ancients worked out all the bugs of the system after a time whereby people today do not typically do things this way and hence as the video speaks to they must learn from the mistakes.
@@Kitties-of-Doom Still on that meaningless argument I see........ 🥱 Hence the answer remains the same. Archeologists work with = other experts - who *ARE* familiar with the science behind construction or geology or whatever. Enjoy your trite "day job" argument which once again shows your incapacity to actually think about what is behind that job. Moral: a man who works with his hands on a construction site certainly knows about "his job" = but what does he know about the engineering principles etc. behind what he helps to build - usually little to nothing. That is why we have engineers/architects who do understand. See you next time when you once again throw out your now mundane argument.
@@varyolla435 cute , except youre not even an archeologist, are you? You're an internet sponge. A classic parot head, the bird you love so much. Gathering data in the comments and stacking it into banal combinations as you go forward in time. Anyone whos spent decades in construction has a grasp on all aspects of it. Installation of components, their manufacturing, and logistics behind it. Everytime i hear units from this camp lay out their wisdom on Egyptian construction, I think of mastery. When someone has mastered something, there is no two ways about it. I've mastered skateboarding for example. 25 year stash under my belt, national competitions, with personal friends like Rick Mccrank and Papa. I can only imagine a video gamer thats never stepped on a skateboard giving break downs on the internet on how some tricks are done with what forces involved with thousands of nuances of the sport. What a joke that would be. It would be such a bad joke, that it simply doesn't exist. It doesn't exist, because nobody is that much of a buffoon that they would begin delivering their expertise on a very physical subject that they have zero physical experience in. Unless you click one of these clips, and the bad joke manifests. 😆😆
0:10 - OMG there are Two of You :) twins, i wasnt aware of that fact - must review the previous videos :) - ny favourite "alien" channel is transmitting now again! Regarding this new experiment my friends aunt was moving a whole stone church tens of meters away :) and there is a well known example of large rock transmission around Sankt Petersburg :)
I was really excited to see this but a bit disappointed it was only a couple of tons, I don't think that proves anything but at least was a learning experience. Looking forward to the next video, how heavy a weight will you try to move? If the ancients moved blocks of 1000 tons it needs to be a serious increase from 2.5 otherwise the techniques used will be dismissed as irrelevant. If you could find the resources I hope you could try something over 100 tons, has that ever been tried in modern times using ancient techniques and equipment? Keep up the good work!
Think of it as a "proof of concept" demonstration. Remember that the Egyptians or whomever had a long time to "work out the bugs" as unlike today such technology back then was in more common use. Here we see people who while familiar with the concept still however must "re-learn" how to apply that in the most efficient manner. For that it requires as alluded to in the video practical application.
@@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks After double checking, Dieter Arnold claims there are 2 1000 ton statues of Ramses II. I guess this was his "pyramid project". That and the biggest underground tomb in all Egyptian history, KV5. Funny enough, it wasn't made for him, it was made for his sons.
Half remembered from my childhood (i'm talking late 70's or early 80's) A UK TV special was looking into how they built Stonehenge and moved the heavy stones? They came to the conclusion that the sledge running on wooden rails lubricated with water and fish guts was the most efficient way of moving such heavy loads. The thinking is thus: Most of the journey was done by river barges (especially the Welsh blue stones, no other transport method makes sense), most such sites, well in the Uk anyway, are near rivers, fish guts are a waste product, that workforce needs to be fed and there is significant evidence fish was big in their diet. Using that idea, they were able to reduce the number of people pulling vs wooden rollers by a factor of at least 4, we are talking about reducing the number of "pullers" from something like 200 to about 50. Maybe worth a try? Of course this is half remembered from like 40 years ago and change, I may have recalled this very imperfectly?
They imported cedar from Byblos, but it was extremely costly, they used it for forniture, coffins, structural pieces for construction, sledges, tools and some art carvings (if they could use acacia or sycamore fig they did instead of the cedar). Palm tree logs are not made of wood, they are like a bunch of grass roots firmly tied and glued together. They probably used the sledges with no logs under them. The only picture known of Egyptians using a sledge doesn't show logs under it, just sand and a liquid (probably water) and dozens of workers pulling ropes.
@@fenrirgg cool stuff, so you can't roll stuff on palm logs because they aren't solid enough? explains why they didn't use the log method if wood was expensive. I'm not an expert on trees but Acacia don't really grow tall and straight so logs from them would make bad rollers. I suppose they might be able to be shaped? sycamore figs are more straight from what I can see.
@@lmonk9517 yes the palm logs are not ideal, they would have to be carved and they would turn into dust and individual fibers quickly. I don't believe they used the rolling logs (at least to build the pyramids).
@@lmonk9517What about giant palms? Couldn't they be dried enough, or even fire cured to strengthen them? Maybe in ancient times the Nile had super giant palms. Idk. But, maybe?
Well done! I believe rails were discovered in the Serapeum so placing the log rollers on top of rails would be accurate. You could then grease the rails. Also using a large lever pushing behind the stones would help with leverage and breaking the dead weight.
Have you tried using two long and very tight ropes , and then pull them sideways (apart from each other) at the middle? May not be the best for long pulls though.
Great experiment! It‘s amazing to see, that a few people can actually move a great weight. But a couple of questions come to mind that kind of make things a little harder. First of all, 2.3 million blocks were used to build the Great Pyramid. Also they come from a quarry which is nowhere near the site. granite blocks weighting 70 tons each were brought from Aswan, more than 500 miles (more than 800km) away. In addition, the blocks that weight up to 80 tons were brought to a height of up to 150m. All that in ~20 years. As astonishing this experiment is, it does not do justice to that construction project, since way greater challenges had to be faced.
1 - poor assumptions invariably lead to poor conclusions......... I suggest you remember that. 2 - Google the Giza necropolis ------> switch to Maps -----> switch to Satellite view = zoom in...... Look just south - read left - of Khafre's causeway running from his pyramid complex to his valley temple adjacent the Sphinx = the main quarry which supplied the limestone for his and Khufu's Pyramids....... - oops! So I guess the quarries of Giza were not quite so far away after all. They were ~200-300 meters from the pyramids. Let is move on. 3 - while you are looking at Giza via satellite look at Khafre's valley temple again. See = 3 white "lines" pointing east towards the suburbs of nearby Cairo. Those are = sloping stone jetties which go under the ground. So you just found = _"Ro-She-Khufu"_ - which is the harbor complex used to ship in your granite blocks. It is ~500 meters from the Great Pyramid. 4 - the granite relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid are actually = below its' halfway point......... - making your "150 meters up" claim nonsensical. They are actually ~45-60 meters above ground level. Now look at photos of the western base of the Great Pyramid - see anything?? Here is your hint = a long, continuous ledge of limestone unlike the other blocks. 5 - so #4 means they built the Great Pyramid atop = an existing hill.......... They leveled it at its' edges to lay blocks atop that. So it is plausible - likely really - that the existing hillside also encompassed the ramp used to create your inner chamber area to include your relieving chambers. Remember that the lower part of the pyramid is carved from the nature bedrock unlike the areas above built of blocks. Look at the remains of Djedefre's Pyramid at Abu Rawash. They built atop a limestone hill and dug down into it to create the burial vault and then covered the area with blocks to form the pyramid. Moral: so we have just dispelled some of your assumptions here. If you got that wrong - think about what else you might be assuming poorly about........
E for effort. I would inquire as to the wooden rollers however as they appear to be old dried electrical poles?? I understand about costs of course. I would simply say that the Egyptians perhaps as our example might employ hardwood such as acacia of whom you can see examples in museums which have a high Jansky rating. Also as alluded to rather than making your own "sledge" better to have copied the design of said Egyptian sled which as we can see is sloped upwards in the front to minimize the chance of the front end digging in. Finally as the video shows using "rollers" complicates the issue as the logs then roll with the sledge rather than the sledge moving across the rollers. Think old corduroy wooden roads. If one uses thick planks rather than "rollers" which are spaced closer together with a sledge whose front end is sloped upwards then the sledge might move across the wooden planks without then rolling out of place. Just a thought.
I would fix a point of the rope in one place and the pull the other, while passing the middle on the cart. As such, for every two meter the rope is pulled, the cart move one, giving even more advantage.
If you look at examples of Egyptian Middle Kingdom sleds in museums you will see they had upward sloping front ends to prevent the sled "biting" into the ground when moved + they had crossbars in the front and back for attachment of ropes. You are correct in that what can be pulled = can also be pushed. So for especially heavy loads a wooden frame upon which say oxen could be yoked in place to pull from the front and push from the rear would be possible if anchored to the wooden sledge upon which the weight rested. p.s. - they used here what appears to be old electrical poles - no doubt for cost savings which is fine. Yet movement over rollers as we see increases the difficulty of sled control as they obviously can result in the sled skewing one way or another as they roll. If however thick planks were used to create a path of intermittently spaced boards then the boards would be less apt to move as the sled "glided" across them. Think a train which can weigh hundreds of tons - yet which moves across spaced rail ties upon which a rail was laid. The thickness of the ties is such that they are not crushed by the weight resting atop them while the weight of the train "passes through" the flat wooden ties into the ground below. That way the ties/rails do not incur all of the weight above as the ground sustains the weight.
As noted previously in another comment we have examples of Egyptian sleds in museums which mirror their depiction on Egyptian iconography. Egyptian sleds had a upwards sloping front end to help prevent the front "biting down into the ground" to get stuck. They also had crossbars in the front and rear for the attachment of ropes. As an aside. Egyptologists have found the remnants of flat boards lain into the surface of the ground near areas where stone blocks were placed. Thus unlike "rollers" which can be difficult to control a flat board laid into the surface of the ground spaced at intervals can still allow a sled to slide across the surface being pulled and pushed. The flat boards still distribute the weight above allowing it to pass into the ground. As long as the boards are thick enough* then they can withstand that weight and facilitate movement over them without "fighting" the rollers and sleds which can sometimes skew in the wrong direction. It is a variations of the "corduroy roads" militaries used for centuries to cross soft ground save for not rollers = boards. * - think rail lines which have closely spaced wooden ties beneath the steel rail and which support the weight of trains which can weigh hundreds of tons or more. The weight above "passes through" and into the ground consistent with the length of the ties.
@@varyolla435 Yes I see, the cross-boards would be let into the ground like railway sleepers, and the sled runners would simply 'rail' across them as it skids along. I bet with a little tallow or linseed oil lubricant on the boards, the sled would fairly skid along sweetly. Even just water splashed on can make wood 'skiddy'. It sounds much more logical that they would have prepared such a 'permanent way' for an ongoing construction job, rather than faffing with multiple loose rollers for each and every one of multiple hundreds/thousands of blocks coming along a particular access corridor. Thankyou.
@@onanysundrymule3144 There are the remnants of Egyptian ramps used in construction. During the Old Kingdom they used earthen fill ramps. At Giza in the western cemetery adjacent the Great Pyramid are partially completed tombs with small earthen ramps attached. When the limestone quarries of Giza were excavated years ago they found massive amounts of ramp filler mixture dumped into them = sand/stone chips - quarry debris/ and tafla. Tafla is a sedimentary clay. This mixture is identical to that seen with the smaller ramps. Near the worker village at Giza beyond the Wall of the Crows is the remains of a large tafla mining operation. So they used large earthen ramps to build the pyramids and when completed those were dug up and the residue dumped into the open quarries to backfill the area. The famous depiction of workers pulling a large statue shows a man on the sled pouring water before it. What happens when you moisten clay??? Answer: it gets a bit slippery for a time until it dries out again. Hence ramps made in part from clay - which can be compacted into a durable surface - will if moistened become a bit slippery facilitating movement over them a bit easier. If as noted you further lay wooden planks into the surface they help prevent the surface from being rutted by the sled skids + they give those pushing/pulling "toe holds". p.s. - do not discount draft animals as well. While the Egyptians used manpower = they also used animals - oxen specifically. There is archeological evidence of cattle at Giza in large numbers. Iconographic evidence shows yoked oxen performing manual labor to include pulling things such as a large sarcophagus on a wooden sled. Thus if they consumed cattle they plausibly also used them to help transport at least the larger blocks of the pyramids and maneuver them into position.
Right they are in the desert, 20 years to excavate move shape and place 6 millions tons of stone, how many millions of people have worked to that project, the quarry was 700 miles away…if to make a granite vase it took this guys 2 years, to make the pyramid it would take them 2-3000 years
_"National Project"_ vs. _"individual effort."_ So how about a reality break: 1 - the creation of the pyramids as noted represented a national effort whereby the entirety of Egypt was mobilized to facilitate their creation. a - financing came from the State via taxation which existed even in ancient Egypt - Egyptologists have copies of tax records. b - manpower was provided by a professional caste of craftsmen who worked directly for the State who supplied their needs + and was augmented by seasonal labor in the form of rotating groups of workers supplied by = _"the corvee."_ The corvee required able-bodied Egyptians to labor part of the year on public works projects. c - food and logistics were supplied by the State via as noted taxation - the Egyptians did not use "money" as we do today. Theirs rather was a commodity-based economy. The State also maintained "State farms" whose purpose was to supply food to public works projects. 2 - conversely what you see here are 2 artisans doing everything themselves based upon = a fixed budget...... 3 - as to the rest. Most of the blocks of the pyramids are little more than crude chunks of limestone quickly fractured off from the bedrock using chisels and hammers and wooden levers. They did not individually carve a million blocks.... They were obtained from the quarries which rest a mere = ~200 meters from the pyramids - thus stone was not transported very far. The rest of the stone - a tiny amount overall - was shipped in via barges to a harbor area which sat ~500 meters from the pyramids. It was the area just beyond Khafre's valley temple and the Sphinx. 4 - finally Egyptologists - working with engineers - have calculated that the workforce for the Great Pyramid only required = ~20K to perhaps 30K depending upon the stage of work. As the pyramid rose less manpower would be required compared to building up the initial "core" of the pyramid which was mostly stacked rubble and possible filler in a "stepped" shape ala Djoser. Also the pyramid is built atop an existing hill area and thus an estimated ~23% of its' core is bedrock rather than blocks. The other pyramids could be built using a workforce of ~10K for Menkaure and ~20K for Khafre. Should I go on........
A few useful resources for folks interested in this sort of thing. It's pretty silly that at this point in time there are people who still question whether a small group of people using basic tools and techniques could move blocks of stone. This has been a settled question for longer than the majority of the Earth's present population has been alive. Heizer 1966 Ancient Heavy Transport, Methods and Achievements Osenton 2001 Megalithic engineering techniques: experiments using axe-based technology
I agree it is silly. It is of course ultimately a reflection upon "education" - or lack thereof. Prior to the advent of the internet and cable television people for the most part got their information from "mainstream" sources - read usually vetted source material. Once the cable television industry exploded on the scene however then all those channels fighting for a viewer base led to "niche markets". To draw people to them those often unreliable sources pandered to people's poor assumptions and actively sought to undermine their trust in more reliable "mainstream" sources. As to the internet then obviously people began to directly attempt to access information bypassing their traditional sources which unlike their own supposed "self-research" = was not properly vetted. The same as with cable television the internet led to a cottage industry based upon sowing misinformation/disinformation - which we today colloquially refer to as "LAHT". LAHT is of course = a business. Moral: internet browsers are *SEARCH* engines = *NOT* "answer" engines per se. They merely provide you will information related to similar searches by others based upon preset patterns etc.. Hence what is returned can be just as easily wrong as correct. As such no matter how it flips it all boils down to a lack of understanding = of the subject-matter specifically and how to do proper research be it online or the traditional way. People who lack the background to seek accurate information - yet they assume they have anyways to generate poorly formed subjective assumptions - and more importantly = those who cater to that so as to monetize upon said ignorance and gullibility. It is a crass way to make a buck for some certainly - but human nature can be like that. In this case it is simple greed. 🤷
Others have done so already. As an aside. Jimmie is among the most comical of the LAHT crowd as his "arguments" are the most pathetically simplistic and conspiracy oriented. While other LAHT charlatans are also wrong = they at least "try" to sound plausible and employ a little science. Jimmie is just another Alex Jones wannabe using LAHT as his product model.
Have you guys heard the latest news on Stonehenge? The so called Altar stone has been found to have come all the way from the north of Scotland or even Orkney. Quite a journey.
They wouldn't have - nor would they have needed to. Moral: can oil help to lubricate a large object you are trying to move - sure. Are there other ways to accomplish the same = absolutely..... You know in the western cemetery adjacent the Great Pyramid are partially completed tombs which still have attached to them = earthen ramps. Those ramps were made from a mixture of sand/stone chips - aka quarry debris/ and tafla - a sedimentary clay the Egyptians mined. Beyond the Wall of the Crows at Giza is the remains of = a large tafla mining operation. So what happens when you moisten clay??? Answer: it gets slippery......... - and this can be accomplished using water rather than oil. Now look at close up photos of the pyramid. You can see slathered all over it = globs of gypsum mortar. Mortar was used to fill in large cracks which were stuffed with chunks of quarry debris. Yet some blocks also show globs of mortar which "oozed out" from seams between blocks. Moral: the blocks as the pyramid rises in height become smaller. Hence only the really large blocks at the bottom might require lubricant. They were not concerned with "making it look neat" as far as most of the pyramid - only the outermost layers. This means that blocks of the inner core were simply dumped in place - even if it as noted left gaps. Only the outermost layers were made to be closely fitting - and that is where you see a lot of mortar employed. Hence on the ramp itself the tafla when moistened with water helped to briefly make the ramp surface a bit slippery - which can be further assisted via using wooden planks laid into that surface. For the casing and other closely fitted stones then slathering some mortar in the spot would help them to lever it into position. Any which oozed out could simply be cleaned away.
So I count maybe about 15 hardmeeps to pull that rock, and a time of 10 minutes. Since the Pyramid was built with 40,000 over 30 years, just multiply the human power by ~2700x and the time by ~1,600,000x. Suddenly doesn't seem impossible at all, no? Then add all the efficiency adjustments suggested in the comments and ... actually not only that, but we may even feel like there is a sizeable manpower surplus: which of course makes sense, since not _everyone_ will be directly involved in moving, lifting, etc. the rocks, but will also be needed to handle logistics - distributing food and water, supervisors to oversee the work gangs, people to record information and progress reports (I believe some remnants of those reports have been found, iirc), etc.
This. This comment section is proof that such things could be achieved. Everyone is suggesting things based on their personal experiences. Humans are social and this wasnt the work of a couple people with limited budget. It was made by fucking mad lads, brains and a dream! Love the content!
@@RegularFlyGuy over 5,000 years of engineering development, and they struggle like this with such a small load? I’m sure you’re aware that the larger the rock gets the exponentially harder it gets to move that rock it’s not just like you apply the same force to a 1 ton rock and take that x20 to move a 20 ton rock.
@@cleanpiecington23191000s of years of engineering development allows us to use huge diesel powered machinery with hydraulic mechanisms. This video was about not using the advanced tech that we currently have at our disposal. Unless you have a theory about how the laws of physics were different in ancient times, mechanical advantage will be the answer.
The problem is not moving a rock, the problem is the rate of production, extraction, cutting, transportation and assembly of millions of tons of rock blocks with bronze or copper tools. In addition to having the surplus of Production to maintain an entire Working Class that does not do productive work. I understand that you may not understand it if you have never worked with cutting or drilling tools.
🤣 Again with the idiotic "logistics" argument.......... 🤦🤷 Moral: that actually reveals more about yourself than your supposed argument I'm afraid....... Question: was the Egyptian workforce created out of thin air?? Answer: no........ = they already existed and hence they already ate......... Thus in so much as the people already existed ------> they obviously ate on a regular basis and thus the necessary food etc. also already existed = all that was required was to transport both to where they were needed....... - see how easy that really was. The Egyptian civilization was built around the Nile River valley/delta - which flooded. This means a primarily river borne culture would have lots and lots of ships for transporting goods + would be adept at the creation of harbors and canal systems as the annual flood meant they had to build their communities outside of that flood zone and link those to the river. The Egyptian civilization engaged in taxation much as today - Egyptologists have copies of tax records - which means the State had the capacity to obtain necessary things to support public works via taxation. The dynastic Egyptians did not use specie as we do today = theirs was a commodity-based economy. So requiring farmers to give a percentage of their crops etc. via taxes will supply the State with what is required to sustain workforces. Things like copper being recyclable meant that any smelted locally - as well as imported from elsewhere = yielded within a few generations a supply sufficient to supply their needs for a long time with occasional additions to that supply. Egyptologists have historical records of intermittent expeditions to Sinai of thousands of men at times to harvest more copper ore....... This is there merest fraction of evidence = you *FAILED* to account for........
@@varyolla435The point is that this story is poorly told and lacks details; Perhaps, you are a Historian, I understand that you do not have a Technical or Physical way of thinking; but the Rate of production is what determines whether this Story is well told or not. Let Historians prove what they say by taking the time of cutting a stone from the quarry, its final cut, its transportation and assembly at a medium height, Multiply the time of all this by 4 million pieces. Furthermore, in the Egypt of Today, 2024, with more resources and technology than that one, try to repeat that project, I guarantee that the Government will fall
Is there any chance that they used cattle and oxen to pull the heavy stones ? Ive also got a feeling that the real heavy ,heavy stones may have been cast into position rather than lifted ? All is conjecture on my part of course ....like most ,if not all others ' guesswork too ?
🎯👏 We have a winner!......... Moral: absolutely yes = they used oxen. In Egyptian iconography you see yoked oxen performing various tasks such as pulling a plow. In the tomb of Hunefer however you see a depiction of a funeral procession whereby a team of yoked oxen are pulling = a large sarcophagus on a wooden sled. In the tomb of Djehutihotep you see teams of men* also pulling a large statue on an identical sled. Egyptologists have found actual sleds which are today in museums which look identical to those depicted in the tomb paintings. Finally at the worker village at Giza Egyptologists unearthed in the midden heaps tens of thousands of = cattle bones. That places oxen at Giza during the period of pyramid construction. If they were consuming cattle = it is certainly plausible they also employed them for manual labor. If not the smaller blocks then certainly the larger/heavier ones. * - there is often a certain amount of "propaganda" in Egyptian iconography. So showing only men pulling a large statue might be construed as a reflection of _"see how great we are......."_ Yet as noted above the archeological/historical evidence also supports draft animal use for heavy labor as well.
Duh! It shows you can move heavy objects using the technique illustrated........... Perhaps you should leave science to those better suited to it if you could not perceive what was demonstrated for you - just saying.
@@varyolla435 Everyone already knows you can move heavy objects on rollers. And this video only shows a few tons of stone being pulled a dozen meters on relatively flat terrain. Nothing else. You realize "the ancients" moved blocks hundred times heavier than that, don't you? Just saying.
@@Princip666 So critical thinking is not your forte then = got it........ Moral: if you can transport a heavy object as depicted = then "scaling up" is a matter of additional resources and manpower....... - nothing more. If you are unable/unwilling to accept this scientific reality then _Xin Loi!_ p.s. - the first rockets were small not unlike "hobby rockets" today. Yet they proved out the physics behind propelling larger rockets into our atmosphere and beyond which engineers applied to the multi-stage rockets which today go into space. Thus we see a demonstration of a few tons - and you quibble. The video demonstration in this video of the movement of a 200-300 ton block of marble down a mountainside using ropes and a sledge/rollers would no doubt simply result in your then _"moving the goalpost"_ yet again to demand a demonstration of say 1,000 tons....... Your problem therefore is not one of how much was moved = it is your obviously incredulity and apparent lack of understanding of the science represented here...... - so why bother then.
It can be optimized. Lots of optimizations already suggested in the comments here that could have been employed. That would make it go several times farther, I'd think. And remember that a real builder would have experience, so much less of these issues would be going wrong on the "real project" as they already did long before it was planned, by the first ones to develop the technology, who then noted them and passed them to the next generations. Essentially, these guys are trying to re-develop a lost technology from scratch. I would easily imagine 100 m pull for the same effort with a really good setup. And pulling even at 0.5 m/s, if you work for 24 ks a day (6 h 40 min) you can pull _12 km every day._ 100 days pulls 1200 km, you could haul it to the Sudan! Do not underestimate good ole perseverance, hard work, and discipline - the ALWAYS keys to success since time immemorial.
@@Princip666now imagine thousands of workers around the clock who are strong as a bricks from years of hard work and training from a young age who also are experts at the maintenance of the operation. If you learn how to see the scalability of this experiment or can put into the context of what ancient people would have had and there for been able to achieve then history will become much more interesting trust me!
Ok now do this with a 80 to 800 ton stone which are some of the biggest ever moved. Also how would they have lifted on to the logs and to put them in place. You guys had to use a modern crane.
Do you not realize how many people use that same attempt at an argument? Let me turn it around. When are you going to arrange and fund a project that moves an 800 ton stone?
That you think in terms of "lift" = is your downfall......... That you as noted by others use this farcical worn out argument is merely icing on the cake. Moral: large blocks such as you claim = where not lifted......... In antiquity in the quarries they would have quarried below the level of the stone/object and beneath it to either construct a wooden sledge below it if something like a large statue or obelisk - or to lever a block onto an adjacent sled. Then already being placed on the sled = it would be transported via the method described. Here as alluded to they simply sought to demonstrate how a sled could be moved across the ground - contingent upon available resources. The people and hence effort you see is probably mostly volunteers and perhaps some rented equipment. In antiquity they would have already had the available manpower and resources at hand to accomplish such tasks. Must suck to see *ONLY* what you "want to see" doesn't it....... "Confirmation bias" does that you know. 🤨
@@varyolla435 there are blocks moved over rivers and mountains 100s of miles. Your going to tell me they draged them that far in perfect condition makes absolutely no sense. Also 800 tons you dont really fathom how big and heavy that is.
@@adamwilcox6574 Reality claims it can be done. The evidence is literally in place for all to see. Please provide evidence for the failure of physics in ancient times.
Yes. Larger rollers roll more easily. Same as wheels. A large wheel goes way more easy over bumps than a small wheel. Larger logs for the sled would help as well, because it is stronger. Wood is not weak, even though some lost ancient tech believers think so.
@@ScientistsAgainstMyths The Egyptians most likely did not use rollers. Maybe in some situations, but I also am pretty sure they just used a sled. On sand rollers do not perform well. Sand with water, creates slippery mud and decreases the friction. You just need enough manpower and/or animals.
@@YATESA8Also evidence of road preparation in at least one location. Limestone and sandstone surfacing on a 7 mile stretch. Gravel and clay in other areas for ramps and roads.
Absolutely........ While the technique might vary a bit the principle is the same. p.s. - the Unfinished Obelisk rests not far from the Nile and sits uphill. The Inca structures while atop hills have nearby roads leading up to them such as were used in their creation. In both instances modern roads tend to follow the preexisting ones used in antiquity. Simply go to Maps and look at these areas via satellite and topographical to see the relative lay of the land.
The latter rocks are not much larger than these ones, so YES, absolutely. Not to mention that area is much more abundant of wood than Egypt, making it much cheaper. For the former, just add more people (if this is, say, 2 t and you need to pull 200 t just use 1500 instead of 15 to pull) and make the sled bigger/longer likewise. Also agree with the other posters that static corduroy pieces would beat rolling logs any time.
@@shidoin5398 Not really - though yours is a common mis-assumption. Consider rockets. The earliest rockets were not that large - some being little more than "hobby rockets" today. Yet upon the science proving itself out - Physics in this case - then engineers based upon that now proven science = could apply it to "larger" versions - such as the now multistage rockets which send men into space. Moral: if men using a wooden sledge + some ropes + rollers and manpower can move a stone then as alluded to by others to move something larger requires = more of the same. Heavier loads require thicker sledges and more rollers as alluded to and will require more effort to move obviously. That however can be accommodated via the addition of - animal power - oxen specifically. An ox can pull more than a horse and a fully mature bull - which can weigh upwards of a ton = can typically using a yoke pull at least twice its' own bodyweight - more if on a "slippery" surface such as rollers which act to reduce the friction of the load against the ground.
This makes so much sense. Obviously Giza used to be a dense forest. Then they cut down 3 million trees to attempt this ridiculous nonsense, and they never grew back. That's why its a desert now, completely absent the abundance of trees you would need to do this. Not because its ACTUALLY a desert that was always completely absent the abundance of trees you would need to do this. Science explains everything! 🤣 Seriously if you want to know just how flimsy the official narrative is, just note that this is the best they could come up with to defend it. The stones in the kings chamber are 4 times this size and cut so precisely you can't even put a piece a paper between two stacked on top of each other. Its sad that anyone would think that this nonsense explains anything. It only demonstrates how far we are from the truth and how desperate we are not to know it....
The most idiotic things among those that deny humans could do this is that there are several examples of humans DOING EXACTLY that, with only primitive equipment, in Roman times, in 18th century Russia, in Italy in the late 19th century I think.
Now try = watching the video........... - oops! Moral: in the video is part of an old film clip - the channel is actually here in YT: _British Pathe._ In it the workers using wooden logs - not perfectly symmetrical ones at that - moved a block of marble weighing ~200-300 tons down a mountainside and through a nearby village to a harbor where it was loaded on a ship. Increase block weight = increase the number of log rollers used.......... See how simple that was.
@@varyolla435 Good luck finding a ship in ancient Egypt that could carry 200-300 tons and good luck moving that stone uphill...presumably to the Pyramids.
@@Eyes_Open I recommend you try and fabricate an answer about the ships and uphill transport. You're spending too much time yelling at and getting flustered by commenters like myself. Ha!
Seriously....... = how many times are you muppets going to use this one....... 🥱 Moral: look at the other times below. Only a complete imbecile would imagine they were dragging large blocks across the desert........ 🤦
That confirmation bias then can be crippling can it not........... What else then do you suppose you "see" in the world around you since you clearly are not seeing things as they actually are - just curious.
@@ChiquitaSpeaks Looking at one side? Have you been listening to the side that thinks that physics did not work for the ancient peoples? What time periods did physics stop and start working?
@@Eyes_Open the question u last responded with shows you’re unaware of opposing arguments hence what I said unless u can tell me what u know otherwise. They have no ramps seperated from bedrock that big and they haven’t proven any ramps in the sides of the pyramids. Have u looked at the other side to substantiate I made a premature statement?
I think the biggest problem with the "lost/high technology" theorists is that they greatly underestimate what humans can achieve. It's like they believe our ancestors were just dumb cave men who had no ability to discover and innovate technology and techniques to solve their problems
No they didn't. So it was a plausible idea which happened in this case to incur a poor design. There are actual Egyptian sleds in museums and depictions of the same in their iconography. Clearly the Egyptians had "worked out all the bugs" to develop a viable sled design as we see.
I want to see full scale actual conditions applications. Small sample size doesn't do anything but show that it can't be duplicate d by "scientists" Try some engineers and move actual size blocks hundreds of kilometers....otherwise You're all guessing
@@varyolla435 don't get your feelings hurt. You suck at this, but then, all you do is go straight to comments so you can fail at trolling. I'm right, you rent... Next clown please
Yes, and almost surely they would have been recruited in some capacity (esp. for the long-distance transport). Good point, because you can get more "horsepower" that way.
Levers. If you are removing "blocks" of stone from a quarry and you quarry down lower than the level of what will be your blocks then upon fracturing the blocks free* from the bedrock you can with the insertion of levers = move it laterally onto a sled you have placed next to its' base. Moral: there is a photo online showing one of the areas of quarrying at Giza. It does not reveal directly side by side blocks. It rather shows what are the remaining raised bases of blocks save for = there is some distance between them - enough for workers to have gotten in between the block and the bedrock wall to push/pull/lever upon it. * - if you drive lines of long chisels into limestone bedrock at perpendicular angles then as the chisel is hammered in after a short distance = the stone will begin to split along your lines not unlike snapping off a saltine cracker. Then if you created holes for the insertion of wooden levers your block can be pried loose. There is a video here called: Arnaldo Costa Stonemason Extraordinaire. It shows the technique whereby an old man using chisels and a sledgehammer quickly fractures a block of granite into 2 clean halves.
Ok well done everyone you moved some crappy 2.5ton rocks 20 metres. Now type Trilithon into your youtube search bar and try move one of those bad boys. Good luck.
I know you think you made a point = but you really did not.......... 🤭 Moral: if they can move a 2.5 ton block using this technique = then moving something larger merely requires more resources and manpower........ Perhaps one day when you hopefully understand science you will recognize this fact. p.s. - the first rockets a century ago were little more than hobby rockets today. Yet they proved out the science and engineers were able to take that = and scale it up so that today we can send large, multistage rockets into space. This is no different.
It's alright saying that intelligent bullshit with all your little ........... But you see how those rollers snapped with only 2.5 tons on them, what you think is going to happen with 800 tons on them? How do you upscale that part of your experiment. Let me know smarty pants.
@@superuberchimp2691 So now you move the goalposts...... 🤣 Typical - if sad. Why 800 then since you are simply making it up - why not 8,000 or 80,000........ 🥱 p.s. - look carefully at those rollers........ It appears they used - likely for cost reasons - what are old power line poles. So the rollers themselves being dried out were already showing splits. Now watch actual videos as alluded to of things being moved. "Green wood" which is not dry & brittle and which is full of moisture resists deformation far more readily than dried wood. Lop a new branch off a small bush and try to break it by hand - it bends rather than breaks. Now snap an old branch which is dried out.......
@@varyolla435 I'm not moving anything. I said 800 tons because that's how much each of the Trilithon stones in the temple of Jupiter weigh and they are the biggest stones cut, moved and lifted 30 feet perfectly into position without any damage. We struggle to lift that kind of weight with modern cranes and this thing began construction thousands of years ago. That's why it's amazing. You think some green wood rollers were used to move those? Not to mention the entire complex is ennormous and the foundations alone are massive. And btw there's other stones left in the Quarry at Lebanon weighing up to 1650 tons. This experiment doesn't prove anything and you can't provide any information except trying to make me sound stupid with your childish little emojis and ............ all this bullshit. You are a total baffoon tbh.
Want to see more experiments? Then consider supporting our project ► www.patreon.com/antropogenez
Our video about the ‘impossible’ sarcophagi of the Serapeum ► ruclips.net/video/47HAYcii_Q8/видео.html
so are you going to built a piramide now?
as far as i remember there is a huge roke 600 tons mooved 300 years ago in russia on rolers and artist drue the since ----they mooved it for hundreds of km and it is now a statue of one of their rullers i think -----i sow a video on it -the title is the bigest roke ever moved
Your experiments are so important to refute the slick videos of non-experts suggesting extraterrestrials did it! We should never underestimate our ancestors. Their brains were as big as ours and they had many challenges to solve. Thank you!
Our present level of technology has less to do with "brain size" of course as = our systematized method of recording and passing on information. Once man developed educational systems so as to improve literacy + methods for storing and retrieving data + and finally a global "network" such as the internet = our ability to expand our knowledge began to grow exponentially.
Even things like computers only really mattered when they were able to be linked in networks for otherwise disparate people to communicate with and access what others knew.
As a species we as you alluded to have not fundamentally changed much over the past millennia. Were we able to bring an ancient Egyptian forward to today and educate them as we now take for granted there is no reason why they could not fit into today's society.
It has nothing to do with underestimating our ancestors (how many times have we heard that), it's about not attributing the ridiculously impossible to a civilisations who's tool set extended to copper chisels and pounding stones.
If you're talking about woo-woo theories, it doesn't get more woo-woo than that, does it?
The ancients moved stone blocks up to and over 1000 tons. This video moving 2 or 3 tons of stone refutes nothing at all.
I, like the vast majority of the sceptics of the mainstream nonsense, haven't got the faintest as to how they were moved, that's why we call it a mystery. We do know for absolute certain that the mainstream academia narrative does not resolve any of the mystery.
Of course academics can't say they 'don't know', because they claim to be the 'experts', so they fabricate nonsense up and call it history.
Please just search RUclips for "Moving the "Levitated Mass" Rock on Florence / HD Part One" ....... That's how we transported a 340 ton granite rock 12 years ago. A specially made trailer with over 40 axles, 206 wheels using the energy of 5 huge 600 horsepower trucks, all on solid roads, not sand.
It gives an accurate insight into how big a 340 ton block actually is, and what's involved in transporting it. You will see that it puts a whole different, and much more accurate, perspective of what's involved in moving such megalithic stone blocks.
Just watch it and then ask yourself how the ancients achieved such feats. You'll find it a lot more difficult, I sincerely assure you.
Archaeologists are no experts in engineering, yet they claim to know how it was all done. They really do not have any idea, well, not that they'd say publicly, as they'd be out of a job.
Leading engineers should be called in to assess the narrative claims of such engineering feats. The archaeologists would soon be laughed out of the park if they did, which is why there is no platform for voices with expertise in construction, transport and precision engineers, in archaeology/history applied to the ancient's engineering.
We know hardly anything of the ancients of prehistory. A few years back, archaeologists/historians would have you believe that homo sapiens have been on the planet 200,000 years. Until a relatively recent discovery of jaw bone, a couple of teeth and a finger knuckle joint from homo sapiens dating back 300,000 years.
Boom, we became a hundred thousand years older overnight.
So have we now discovered true length of time homo sapiens have habited Earth? No of course we haven't it's just the oldest we've found so far.
So what happened to the skeletal remains of the billions of humans that existed between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.
My point being that the archaeologists have dug up precious little of prehistory, the tiniest fraction. And while archaeologists claim to have so much certainty about what their finds must mean, based purely on the limitations of archaeological discoveries (copper chisels and pounding stones), is not accurate, and will be proven so with further discoveries.
This would happen much more quickly if only archaeology would be more inquisitive, more open minded, more inspired, to resolve many obvious mysteries, and the blatant holes in the official narrative, instead of heavily restricting the digs at our most important prehistoric archaeological sites.
They have no interest in proving themselves and their narrative wrong.
The burden of proof for the archaeology's claims regarding global megalithic structures is on the archaeologists, not on those that point out the flaws, and the wild assumptions in their narrative.
This is what you'd require from anyone who claims that aliens, ancient advanced civilisations, or divine intervention was responsible, before you'd give them the slightest bit of credibility.
That's a reasonable natural stance to take, but only if you apply the same standards across the board, including the 'theories' you tend to favour. If you did, you'd soon find that the ground you stand on is actually just as, if not more, shaky than anything else you can think of.
The methods and technology behind megalithic architecture and artefacts is unfathomable to us. Thousands of years later and we still can't figure these wonders out.
The problem is that archaeology can't contemplate or consider anything previously unimaginable, not that some non archaeologists do. Archaeologists can't think outside of their very restrictive box, and they'll dismiss, supress or ignore any anomalies or stumbling blocks that might require them to do so.
As with most authoritative power structures, if you speak against them, you're out of favour, and out of funding.
True. And regarding the OP's comment, why on earth are people now so extraordinarily stupid? How on earth can they believe such crap when there isn't a single drop of evidence anywhere? I'm very worried by the huge numbers of people that are so incredibly gullible! In masses they believe Putin, Trump, Graham Hancock, and the thousands of others who are cashing in on their stupidity, including Netflix, Tubi TV, and the History channel. It becomes dangerous when there are so many people that dumb!
There used to be laws about lying in public and false advertising. What ever happened to those laws? And to the public, which formerly would not tolerate lies? Oh yeah. Ronald Reagan and the GOP happened. And corporations became people, with all the same rights as people, and MORE!
I don't want to know where things will go from here. Nothing good can come from the fact that people are allowed to do anything they choose in the name of profit while nothing else matters at all. The GOP used to pretend to be all about ethics and regulating things, but now THEY are the biggest liers of all, chasing profit at the expense of people. Thank the gods that some people are still persuing the truth, like this channel, as far as I've seen in viewing this video.
You mean archeologists? If you think the so called "experts" are looking to tell you the truth than you're a sucker! One born every minute... 😂
Viewers, if you are interested, Dr David Miano at the 'World of Antiquity" channel has discussed the engineering acumen of the ancient Egyptians in several of his videos. He has also debunked a number of so-called "alternative archeology" speculations He has also worked with these creators, :Scientists Against Myths", on one of his presentations, which is how I found out about them.
When are you guys gonna move 1000 tons? That would be cool to see.
Not just showing THAT something is possible, but HOW it works exactly, including all the mistakes, that is what I enjoy most about your content.
Thanx
I agree that its awesome that they did this, but If you call this showing how something is possibly done in this way then you have one hell of a low bar. we are talking here about 2.3 million blocks and the heavyest ones coming from 800 miles away. having to be dragged uphill. I guess the uphill part is the most difficult when you are working with rollers. Having said that, again it is cool that they try.
@@inforuimteschip5970easier to wrap the stone in logs making it round and then moving it
@@inforuimteschip5970I think that the vast majority of blocks were quarried near the site. And ranging in size from a few hundred pounds to several tons or more. A relatively small number of large blocks came from far away but the quarries were located up river and near it. It is fairly well understood that the egyptians were capable of transporting very heavy cargo on barges and were capable of moving very heavy weigh on land. I'm not sure how much uphill was involved or how much of an impediment it would be with thousands of workers available and the largest block going maybe 80 tons.
@@Docrock-z9k It is fairly wel understood because, the evidence is there in that the blocks came from 800 miles upriver. There are no boats found that where capable of this if I'm not mistaken.
There is an interesting correlation with the Olmecs in Middle America, where the Olmec heads where found to be to heavy to be transported on boats that are able to navigate the rivers. They would have to be to big to be useable was the finding of I believe it was Ed Barnhardt.
and have you ever heard of the Spanjard explorer writing about the Maya's trying to move a giant granite boulder (like the one's in the pyramid) over a mountain. He discribes it falling down and killing 3000 people. and giving up on it.
It's nice to see you are expanding your range of experiments. Just a few thoughts:
1) the beam used for redirecting the rope does not produce any mechanical advantage, it only adds friction and thus hinders the process
2) if you can add rope handles or wooden poles to the main rope, the workers can get a much better grip. Imagine you attach the sled to a rope ladder and make the workers stand inside the "steps" of the ladder, thus each worker can push instead of pulling on the rope.
Keep up the good work!
Thanx!
LOLOL this experiment reminds me of the only surviving image of the inca moving a 500 kg boulder with the chief standing ontop of the misshaped rock with a heard of minions pulling him with ropes. Three cultures so far are known to use this method for sure, the Inca, the dynastic period and these balloons in 2024🤭😆😆
@@Kitties-of-DoomPlease read my comment, and tell me what you think if you've seen the cut out notches, I'm talking about.
@@Kitties-of-Doom Ladies and gentlemen, we can observe here a typical case of an internet cultist.
Largely recognized by their lack of knowledge, a love for pseudo-science and conspiracies, arrogance and general lack of logic. They often talk without saying anything.
If you throw facts at them they will start to screetch and go into cognitive dissonance.
@@cat_terrell this is the only comment i see. Gotta lead me to it better. don't know what to look at. However i know the notches.
You did this cold without generations of experience behind you and still succeeded. Well done!
I suspect the Egyptians would have laughed at the idea that moving heavy stones was difficult. Likely they'd have had a smoother surface, better rollers and a bunch of guys standing by with 6 meter hardwood poles to use as levers wherever adjustments were necessary and they would make it look easy.
NOW PLACE THE OVER 1000 TON BLOCK ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER VERY EXACTLY AT THE HEIGHT HAHAHA USING A WATERMELON-THICK STEEL ROPE
@@dennisjames3711Now try to write a coherent, articulate sentence. And no need to shout.
Have you ever heard of "lots of ropes"?
@@chrisgrill6302 read about the strength of the thick steel ropes that are needed to withstand the load. 18 mm rope, maximum load 30 tons. they put blocks weighing over a thousand tons...
@@dennisjames3711If an 18mm rope can carry 30 tons you'd only need 33 of those to lift 1000 tons off the ground. Of course those are steel cables and they didn't have steel cables, but they did have much thicker fiber ropes, and they did not need to lift the blocks off the ground, they were pulling them along on rollers. I've done this myself with 10 meter fishing boats heavily laden with miles of wet netting, dragging them up the beaches in Mexico. It's not that hard! Of course 1000 tons would be pretty difficult but that was hardly the norm, most blocks were only a few tons at most. I really don't see what you think is so impossible.
@@chrisgrill6302 no wooden cylinder can hold 1000 tons. how are you going to get the sleepers out? look at the structures in baalbek. not 33 because there are variable, uneven stresses during transport. the transport company was transporting a boulder weighing about 300-400 tons. he said that just lifting something like that is extreme, let alone over 1000 tons. many boulders weigh tens and hundreds of tons. a few tons are small blocks
Watching the guys who claim it can't be done as they give their foil hat tours shows me something. Those guys back then, by the thousands and eventually millions did this work for their entire life. It's how they fed themselves. Most of the foil hat tour folks can't even walk on camera out there without sweating profusely and looking like their about to have a heart attack. The Egyptians were a lot tougher than those soft bellies. Of course they can't figure it out. It requires thinking and getting out of ones biases that it "Cant be done just because they can't grasp hard work and millions of man hours."
Good effort guys and since you had no magic beans to trade for an Ox. Split and corduroy your logs so they don't roll. Rounded tips on sled's skids. Each man body barrel sling hitched to main line. Use legs and weight of body only, think 'tug of war'. Make an oily clay slip to grease your logs. Slow and steady wins the race.
_"Split and corduroy your logs so they don't roll."_
Exactly. Like railway sleepers.
@Leeside999 a railway sleeper ("tie" in my country) handles 100 tons without crushing. 7"x9" typically here.
This was a very interesting and useful experiment.
But from what I have read, the Egyptians did not use rollers; they didn't have enough trees.
I understand they built sleds, just as you did, and just dragged them over the bare ground.
I hope you try an experiment doing that; but I think you will have to bring back those tough schoolgirls.
You read from where............ = and *THAT* is always the critical point in these things.
Moral: Tut's tomb as an example contained many wooden artifacts = and they were not date palm.........
Hence the Egyptians could and did import many types of wood. Where do you think they got all the cedar they used to build their ships - of which they would have maaany of them considering they depended upon the Nile for their survival.
The Palermo Stone as an example details how Khufu's father ordered 40 shiploads of Cedar from Lebanon and decreed ships up to 50 meters in length be built. Think about Lebanon in relation to Egypt. They would not be travelling all the way there and back for a few cords of wood each trip. Clearly they had ships capable of carrying large loads to make the risky journey worthwhile.
NOW PLACE THE OVER 1000 TON BLOCK ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER VERY EXACTLY AT THE HEIGHT HAHAHA USING A WATERMELON-THICK STEEL ROPE
Over sand - with water or something sprinkled in front of it to make a low-friction surface to draw the sled over.
but, you didn't turn into lizard people and levitate the rocks 😭
Always love watching your excellent content! Keep up the good work!
Thank you!
Not sure if this is useful to you, but the ropes found in the boat pits of the Great Pyramid were made of twisted leaves and culms of desmostachya bipinnata (Haifa grass).
I want you guys to know how much I appreciate your research and demonstrations!
@ScientistsAgainstMyths I'm surprised you did not try laying the logs like railroad ties. This would prevent them from rolling and still reduce friction points. I'm sure a simple lubricant like wet sand (dirt, clay, etc.,) would help the sled slide over the ties. What are your thoughts?
I'm delighted to see another video from you folks!
The massive stones of the Inca have obvious, spaced, notches on one side. I believe these carved in notches were used to do this type of moving them. Necessary, for the Incredible vertical inclines from quarry to placement. So no slipping or jostling would occur. That's theory. What do you guys think? Have you seen them, the notches? Never heard anyone explain the notches, except for total...u kno what. I love this channe!❤
Funny that the features one set of people might see as "mysterious", another, more practically minded set, would see as containing RIGHT THERE the answer to the former's proposed "but it's just too 'impossible'!" contention.
Well done guys , science triumphs once again,all the best from sunny Troon Scotland ❤
keep up the good work guys!
Maybe use a parbuckling technique or use a similar method from Chersiphron or his son Megatenes. I believe those methods would work well with just one large slab or stone. If moving multiple large stone, it might be best to secure them tightly together. Then build a wooden frame or 'cage' around them and turning the whole thing into one large roller or drum. Which would make it easier to move with just one or two ropes and minimum manpower.
This is important work. When any group of people decide to tackle a difficult task in order to achieve a goal, there will be fits and starts; steps forward and steps back. With each challenge there will possibly be multiple failures. If the Egyptians, Olmec, or Romans threw their hands up in defeat when some tool failed or when an attempt to get a heavy object moved seemed futile, there would be none of the structures we all marvel at. When there is a common hope and belief in the purpose of the undertaking, the only real limit is imagination. The details inevitably take time and effort to smooth out. No mystery is ever solved on the basis of one experiment.
IKR, obviously the Romans built their aqueduct system using Roman Numeral Math. You believe that...🤣
great job, S A M! if you guys could do this with only a handful of pullers, think what could be done with hundreds.....or thousands!! the ancients were smart enough and had access to large numbers of workers....and, plenty of time. no need for special technology or aliens! keep up the good work, guys and gals👍👍
look up Wally Wallington, forgotten Technology, he's moved giant blocks using pebbles and wooden planks. He might be able to give some insight on a more efficient experiment in the future
Unfortunately wally's techniques don't work too well on sand. You will get a lot of alt history folks that completely ignore the proof of concept that wally demonstrates. The point is that it is possible to move very heavy things, With the solutions often being so painfully simple to implement that you feel stupid for not having thought of them yourself. For instance, Who would think to wet sand in front of a sled to make it easier to pull weight over? It boggles my mind that the solution was so simple yet so impactful. Another thing that atl history folks don't consider Is that the egyptians had extensive artificial canals and docks made specifically to load and transport stones with the annual flooding. Ninety nine percent of the distance traveled for Some of the heaviest stones wasn't even over land, And the vast majority of the core masonry of the Giza pyramids was quarried on the plateau itself.
@@lastofmygeneration really? the techniques don't work on sand? even if a platform is placed beneath? the wet sand thing is brilliant and I even remember reading from journal accounts from ancient workers who helped transport the stones for the pyramids, some stones were transported over rivers using large boats, while others elsewhere were dragged on land (the means of transporting on land not being specified, but it likely could've been sleds) . I just find it fascinating that despite the ancient past being so old, it was still far from primitive, and humans will always find solutions to complicated tasks
@@Pixpaint1 If you placed platforms, you could use some of the techniques, But that would require a platform strong enough, and Enough material to have at least 2 substantial platforms you can alternate between to move a stone. If you're moving many stones at once this becomes a problem logistically. It makes much more sense to use a single sled for each rock in my opinion.
@@lastofmygeneration I suppose that makes sense if you consider the possibility that artificial canals were used for long distance travel, and the sleds were used for short distance, perhaps to lead the stones to a platform in and around the pyramid with which to use other means to lift and ease the stones into place
The video mentioned him.
as always, I'm very impressed by your experiments! Human nature is amusing: wehen you tell them: thats impossible!....someone will come up with a clever idea to do it anyways ;) and: Of course the ancients knew how to handle large stones....they had the manpower and time and did it all the time ;) hope you are able to continue this series!
If the rope had been looped round the sledge it would have given a mechanic advantage. I don't think the old timers would have missed that. I dont think keeping yourself at a disadvantage because people think the oldtimers where stupid is a good thing, they moved stones many times heavier that that successfully. They must have had some good ideas
Yes they had generations to work out all the bugs so as to perfect the system. As an aside. Examples of Egyptian sleds can be found in museums. A Middle Kingdom sled as an example has large wooden skids with connected wooden beams which are attached via tenon joints cut into the main skids. In front of the connector beams is a thick rounded wooden bar also tenoned into position upon which a rope(s) would be looped.
You guys have done an amazing job at proving a ton of these ancient techniques, but one I haven't seen you guys tackle yet that I have some ideas on is the Unfinished Obelisk in Aswan with the scoop marks. I think these scoop marks are the result of people shaping the stone with adze' getting down to a common depth before they smooth and polished the stone. I haven't tried this yet, but I plan to as soon as I can make myself a stone adze.
Hahahba, have fun 😂😂😂
I saw a documentary where they had A-frames at regular intervals along the side of the track. There were two ropes, one per side, which were pulled in a similar way to your initial attempts, using the frames as pulleys, but because the pulleys at the top of the A-frames were relatively high, they tended to lift the front of the sled, allowing it to slide onto the next log relatively easily.
I can't remember what size of stone they moved, but it was pretty big, and it was quite effective. I think they also used pork fat rather than oil as a lubricant. At the sort of pressures the rope exerts, I think it's likely that grease will lubricate more efficiently than oil.
I do question the applicability of this to say the 20 ton stones of Stonehenge. Those much heavier stones are likely to do significant damage to the logs, so I'm not sure the experiment necessarily scales well. I think we need to see a full-size experiment before we can say whether this technique is usable. Note that the path from the quarry to Stonehenge is not flat, so any technique would also have to deal with gradients (in both directions).
Regardless of our ability to demonstrate the method, it's clear that the ancients had already had lots of practice (hundreds, possibly thousands of years' development of the methods) moving large stones by hand, so by the time they needed to move the huge stones, they would have already mastered the technique, and it was just a problem of scale. The people who say it can't be done are implying that the ancients were not just technologically inferior, but mentally inferior. That's just not true. They would have had their equivalent of Einstein (with similar intellectual capacity) working on problems like this.
Keep up the good work.
Look at the video clip within this video showing the movement of the _"Mussolini Monument"_ block which weighed 200-300 tons. In other words if you use single logs then yes weight can be a factor. If you use thicker logs - and more of them = then heavier weights can be transported. The block as it was eased down the mountainside showed the men cramming the wooden rollers together rather than single ones spaced apart.
As to sleds. They made this one themselves obviously. Yet if you look at examples of Egyptian sleds in their iconography + actual sleds in museums you'll see = they have upwardly sloping front ends. This would help mitigate the front end "digging in" under use - especially if the block is placed more towards the rear rather than the front to stop the sled from being "front heavy".
I love watching your videos! I like that you guys show its possible for mere human imagination intelligence and strength is all it takes to accomplish great things! Everyone underestimates our ancestors and always say that aliens must have created or built all the unbelievable objects and architecture, because they can't understand how they accomplished what they did and give up trying to figure it out after 5 minutes of failure! It is awesome that you guys don't call anyone stupid or anything. . You just show ways things could have been done and it's awesome!
The sledge was moving along very well at times. Excellent! This is how it could have been done in the past, with some fine-tuning and experience.
------
NOW, please explain to me that wavy window behind your right shoulder. I am intrigued.
Excellent work, great to show learning from mistakes as you go!
Great job as always! You should check out the book "Building Big with Next to Nothing" by Vincent Lee. Has a lot of great ideas about more complex maneuvers that would be great to see attempted.
You guys are incredible! Please continue to demonstrate the capabilities of our ancestors!
Thanks!
Excellent experiment.
Thanks!
the main mistake I saw was failing to rake the small rocks out of your way first! The ancients had more manpower. With 5x as many people you could have dedicated rakers.
incredible insight
Perhaps. That presumes however the use of "rollers" which are lathed to be circular as we see here - I suspected they used old electrical poles to save money. If the ancients used thick boards or else somewhat round tree trunks which had the branches lopped off however they might be less inclined to roll with the sled as you see here - which also makes it more difficult to control.
Watch the B&W video seen in the this video - go to the channel British Pathe - and see whereby those "rollers" used to ease the marble block down the mountainside were not as "perfectly round" as these were + they appear to be several layers thick - i.e. a path of logs stacked atop logs 2 or 3 deep given how heavy the marble block was. Also that sled as noted below also had a sloped front and back end.
But yes they had more manpower = and animal power. Ancient peoples used oxen much as today in some Third World nations you still see oxen pulled plows etc. being employed - the people unable to afford tractors etc..
Final point as I noted in my comment above. They fashioned their own sled - which is fine. If however you look at the Egyptian sleds such as you see in tomb paintings and even actual sleds in museums which mirror those depictions = the front end is curved upwards to help prevent it "sticking" as sometimes occurred in the video demonstration with this simple "raft" style sled.
We must remember that the ancients worked out all the bugs of the system after a time whereby people today do not typically do things this way and hence as the video speaks to they must learn from the mistakes.
@@varyolla435 3 paragraphs or redundancy by another logistics expert that hasn't left his couch or held a hammer and a chisel in their life time
@@Kitties-of-Doom Still on that meaningless argument I see........ 🥱 Hence the answer remains the same. Archeologists work with = other experts - who *ARE* familiar with the science behind construction or geology or whatever.
Enjoy your trite "day job" argument which once again shows your incapacity to actually think about what is behind that job.
Moral: a man who works with his hands on a construction site certainly knows about "his job" = but what does he know about the engineering principles etc. behind what he helps to build - usually little to nothing. That is why we have engineers/architects who do understand.
See you next time when you once again throw out your now mundane argument.
@@varyolla435 cute , except youre not even an archeologist, are you? You're an internet sponge. A classic parot head, the bird you love so much. Gathering data in the comments and stacking it into banal combinations as you go forward in time.
Anyone whos spent decades in construction has a grasp on all aspects of it. Installation of components, their manufacturing, and logistics behind it.
Everytime i hear units from this camp lay out their wisdom on Egyptian construction, I think of mastery. When someone has mastered something, there is no two ways about it. I've mastered skateboarding for example. 25 year stash under my belt, national competitions, with personal friends like Rick Mccrank and Papa. I can only imagine a video gamer thats never stepped on a skateboard giving break downs on the internet on how some tricks are done with what forces involved with thousands of nuances of the sport. What a joke that would be. It would be such a bad joke, that it simply doesn't exist. It doesn't exist, because nobody is that much of a buffoon that they would begin delivering their expertise on a very physical subject that they have zero physical experience in. Unless you click one of these clips, and the bad joke manifests. 😆😆
07:20 The dog is ready to do his part 😁 Good work camera man 👍
0:10 - OMG there are Two of You :) twins, i wasnt aware of that fact - must review the previous videos :) - ny favourite "alien" channel is transmitting now again!
Regarding this new experiment my friends aunt was moving a whole stone church tens of meters away :) and there is a well known example of large rock transmission around Sankt Petersburg :)
I was really excited to see this but a bit disappointed it was only a couple of tons, I don't think that proves anything but at least was a learning experience. Looking forward to the next video, how heavy a weight will you try to move? If the ancients moved blocks of 1000 tons it needs to be a serious increase from 2.5 otherwise the techniques used will be dismissed as irrelevant. If you could find the resources I hope you could try something over 100 tons, has that ever been tried in modern times using ancient techniques and equipment? Keep up the good work!
Think of it as a "proof of concept" demonstration. Remember that the Egyptians or whomever had a long time to "work out the bugs" as unlike today such technology back then was in more common use.
Here we see people who while familiar with the concept still however must "re-learn" how to apply that in the most efficient manner. For that it requires as alluded to in the video practical application.
The list of 1000ton blocks moved by ancients is zero
@@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks There is at least one Egyptian colossus of ~1000 tons. It's fragmentary remains are now at the Rameseum
@MrAchile13 I stand corrected .. the list of 1000 ton blocks moved by ancients is a guesstimated possibility of 1.
@@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks After double checking, Dieter Arnold claims there are 2 1000 ton statues of Ramses II.
I guess this was his "pyramid project". That and the biggest underground tomb in all Egyptian history, KV5. Funny enough, it wasn't made for him, it was made for his sons.
Great job as always.
I love this channel! Indiana jones meets mythbusters
Half remembered from my childhood (i'm talking late 70's or early 80's) A UK TV special was looking into how they built Stonehenge and moved the heavy stones? They came to the conclusion that the sledge running on wooden rails lubricated with water and fish guts was the most efficient way of moving such heavy loads. The thinking is thus: Most of the journey was done by river barges (especially the Welsh blue stones, no other transport method makes sense), most such sites, well in the Uk anyway, are near rivers, fish guts are a waste product, that workforce needs to be fed and there is significant evidence fish was big in their diet. Using that idea, they were able to reduce the number of people pulling vs wooden rollers by a factor of at least 4, we are talking about reducing the number of "pullers" from something like 200 to about 50. Maybe worth a try?
Of course this is half remembered from like 40 years ago and change, I may have recalled this very imperfectly?
were would the ancient egyptians get pine logs from? would they have cut down their valuable date palms? maybe try again with palm logs.
They imported cedar from Byblos, but it was extremely costly, they used it for forniture, coffins, structural pieces for construction, sledges, tools and some art carvings (if they could use acacia or sycamore fig they did instead of the cedar). Palm tree logs are not made of wood, they are like a bunch of grass roots firmly tied and glued together.
They probably used the sledges with no logs under them. The only picture known of Egyptians using a sledge doesn't show logs under it, just sand and a liquid (probably water) and dozens of workers pulling ropes.
@@fenrirgg cool stuff, so you can't roll stuff on palm logs because they aren't solid enough? explains why they didn't use the log method if wood was expensive.
I'm not an expert on trees but Acacia don't really grow tall and straight so logs from them would make bad rollers. I suppose they might be able to be shaped? sycamore figs are more straight from what I can see.
@@lmonk9517 yes the palm logs are not ideal, they would have to be carved and they would turn into dust and individual fibers quickly. I don't believe they used the rolling logs (at least to build the pyramids).
I wondered that, too.
@@lmonk9517What about giant palms? Couldn't they be dried enough, or even fire cured to strengthen them? Maybe in ancient times the Nile had super giant palms. Idk. But, maybe?
If you used green wood for the sled construction, it might not have broken so easily👍😊. That's most likely how they were moved though, great video👍
good job!
Thanks- Please keep going, like that you demonstrate how it works and also the quantitative aspect of manpower needed.👍
Well done! I believe rails were discovered in the Serapeum so placing the log rollers on top of rails would be accurate. You could then grease the rails. Also using a large lever pushing behind the stones would help with leverage and breaking the dead weight.
Have you tried using two long and very tight ropes , and then pull them sideways (apart from each other) at the middle?
May not be the best for long pulls though.
Great channel.good job guys
Great experiment! It‘s amazing to see, that a few people can actually move a great weight.
But a couple of questions come to mind that kind of make things a little harder.
First of all, 2.3 million blocks were used to build the Great Pyramid. Also they come from a quarry which is nowhere near the site. granite blocks weighting 70 tons each were brought from Aswan, more than 500 miles (more than 800km) away.
In addition, the blocks that weight up to 80 tons were brought to a height of up to 150m.
All that in ~20 years.
As astonishing this experiment is, it does not do justice to that construction project, since way greater challenges had to be faced.
1 - poor assumptions invariably lead to poor conclusions......... I suggest you remember that.
2 - Google the Giza necropolis ------> switch to Maps -----> switch to Satellite view = zoom in...... Look just south - read left - of Khafre's causeway running from his pyramid complex to his valley temple adjacent the Sphinx = the main quarry which supplied the limestone for his and Khufu's Pyramids....... - oops! So I guess the quarries of Giza were not quite so far away after all. They were ~200-300 meters from the pyramids. Let is move on.
3 - while you are looking at Giza via satellite look at Khafre's valley temple again. See = 3 white "lines" pointing east towards the suburbs of nearby Cairo. Those are = sloping stone jetties which go under the ground. So you just found = _"Ro-She-Khufu"_ - which is the harbor complex used to ship in your granite blocks. It is ~500 meters from the Great Pyramid.
4 - the granite relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid are actually = below its' halfway point......... - making your "150 meters up" claim nonsensical. They are actually ~45-60 meters above ground level. Now look at photos of the western base of the Great Pyramid - see anything?? Here is your hint = a long, continuous ledge of limestone unlike the other blocks.
5 - so #4 means they built the Great Pyramid atop = an existing hill.......... They leveled it at its' edges to lay blocks atop that. So it is plausible - likely really - that the existing hillside also encompassed the ramp used to create your inner chamber area to include your relieving chambers. Remember that the lower part of the pyramid is carved from the nature bedrock unlike the areas above built of blocks. Look at the remains of Djedefre's Pyramid at Abu Rawash. They built atop a limestone hill and dug down into it to create the burial vault and then covered the area with blocks to form the pyramid.
Moral: so we have just dispelled some of your assumptions here. If you got that wrong - think about what else you might be assuming poorly about........
E for effort. I would inquire as to the wooden rollers however as they appear to be old dried electrical poles?? I understand about costs of course. I would simply say that the Egyptians perhaps as our example might employ hardwood such as acacia of whom you can see examples in museums which have a high Jansky rating.
Also as alluded to rather than making your own "sledge" better to have copied the design of said Egyptian sled which as we can see is sloped upwards in the front to minimize the chance of the front end digging in.
Finally as the video shows using "rollers" complicates the issue as the logs then roll with the sledge rather than the sledge moving across the rollers. Think old corduroy wooden roads. If one uses thick planks rather than "rollers" which are spaced closer together with a sledge whose front end is sloped upwards then the sledge might move across the wooden planks without then rolling out of place. Just a thought.
you should have just recruited Kyriakos Grizzly to pull the sled by himself
I would fix a point of the rope in one place and the pull the other, while passing the middle on the cart.
As such, for every two meter the rope is pulled, the cart move one, giving even more advantage.
If you look at examples of Egyptian Middle Kingdom sleds in museums you will see they had upward sloping front ends to prevent the sled "biting" into the ground when moved + they had crossbars in the front and back for attachment of ropes.
You are correct in that what can be pulled = can also be pushed. So for especially heavy loads a wooden frame upon which say oxen could be yoked in place to pull from the front and push from the rear would be possible if anchored to the wooden sledge upon which the weight rested.
p.s. - they used here what appears to be old electrical poles - no doubt for cost savings which is fine. Yet movement over rollers as we see increases the difficulty of sled control as they obviously can result in the sled skewing one way or another as they roll.
If however thick planks were used to create a path of intermittently spaced boards then the boards would be less apt to move as the sled "glided" across them. Think a train which can weigh hundreds of tons - yet which moves across spaced rail ties upon which a rail was laid.
The thickness of the ties is such that they are not crushed by the weight resting atop them while the weight of the train "passes through" the flat wooden ties into the ground below. That way the ties/rails do not incur all of the weight above as the ground sustains the weight.
Now imagine instead of people pulling the megalithic stones animals may have… such as elephants, horses.
Oxen........ = the Egyptians and others used yoked oxen.
Excellent experiment. Consider to try again with a sheave or pulley at the sledge and a fixed back anchor to get a two to one pull advantage. Thanks
As noted previously in another comment we have examples of Egyptian sleds in museums which mirror their depiction on Egyptian iconography. Egyptian sleds had a upwards sloping front end to help prevent the front "biting down into the ground" to get stuck. They also had crossbars in the front and rear for the attachment of ropes.
As an aside. Egyptologists have found the remnants of flat boards lain into the surface of the ground near areas where stone blocks were placed. Thus unlike "rollers" which can be difficult to control a flat board laid into the surface of the ground spaced at intervals can still allow a sled to slide across the surface being pulled and pushed.
The flat boards still distribute the weight above allowing it to pass into the ground. As long as the boards are thick enough* then they can withstand that weight and facilitate movement over them without "fighting" the rollers and sleds which can sometimes skew in the wrong direction. It is a variations of the "corduroy roads" militaries used for centuries to cross soft ground save for not rollers = boards.
* - think rail lines which have closely spaced wooden ties beneath the steel rail and which support the weight of trains which can weigh hundreds of tons or more. The weight above "passes through" and into the ground consistent with the length of the ties.
Thanks! Preparing for the next experiment with a larger mass
@@varyolla435 Yes I see, the cross-boards would be let into the ground like railway sleepers, and the sled runners would simply 'rail' across them as it skids along. I bet with a little tallow or linseed oil lubricant on the boards, the sled would fairly skid along sweetly. Even just water splashed on can make wood 'skiddy'.
It sounds much more logical that they would have prepared such a 'permanent way' for an ongoing construction job, rather than faffing with multiple loose rollers for each and every one of multiple hundreds/thousands of blocks coming along a particular access corridor. Thankyou.
@@onanysundrymule3144 There are the remnants of Egyptian ramps used in construction. During the Old Kingdom they used earthen fill ramps. At Giza in the western cemetery adjacent the Great Pyramid are partially completed tombs with small earthen ramps attached.
When the limestone quarries of Giza were excavated years ago they found massive amounts of ramp filler mixture dumped into them = sand/stone chips - quarry debris/ and tafla. Tafla is a sedimentary clay. This mixture is identical to that seen with the smaller ramps.
Near the worker village at Giza beyond the Wall of the Crows is the remains of a large tafla mining operation. So they used large earthen ramps to build the pyramids and when completed those were dug up and the residue dumped into the open quarries to backfill the area.
The famous depiction of workers pulling a large statue shows a man on the sled pouring water before it. What happens when you moisten clay??? Answer: it gets a bit slippery for a time until it dries out again.
Hence ramps made in part from clay - which can be compacted into a durable surface - will if moistened become a bit slippery facilitating movement over them a bit easier. If as noted you further lay wooden planks into the surface they help prevent the surface from being rutted by the sled skids + they give those pushing/pulling "toe holds".
p.s. - do not discount draft animals as well. While the Egyptians used manpower = they also used animals - oxen specifically.
There is archeological evidence of cattle at Giza in large numbers. Iconographic evidence shows yoked oxen performing manual labor to include pulling things such as a large sarcophagus on a wooden sled.
Thus if they consumed cattle they plausibly also used them to help transport at least the larger blocks of the pyramids and maneuver them into position.
Right they are in the desert, 20 years to excavate move shape and place 6 millions tons of stone, how many millions of people have worked to that project, the quarry was 700 miles away…if to make a granite vase it took this guys 2 years, to make the pyramid it would take them 2-3000 years
It is almost like the Egyptians had a competent stone working industry. As per evidence.
_"National Project"_ vs. _"individual effort."_
So how about a reality break:
1 - the creation of the pyramids as noted represented a national effort whereby the entirety of Egypt was mobilized to facilitate their creation.
a - financing came from the State via taxation which existed even in ancient Egypt - Egyptologists have copies of tax records.
b - manpower was provided by a professional caste of craftsmen who worked directly for the State who supplied their needs + and was augmented by seasonal labor in the form of rotating groups of workers supplied by = _"the corvee."_ The corvee required able-bodied Egyptians to labor part of the year on public works projects.
c - food and logistics were supplied by the State via as noted taxation - the Egyptians did not use "money" as we do today. Theirs rather was a commodity-based economy. The State also maintained "State farms" whose purpose was to supply food to public works projects.
2 - conversely what you see here are 2 artisans doing everything themselves based upon = a fixed budget......
3 - as to the rest. Most of the blocks of the pyramids are little more than crude chunks of limestone quickly fractured off from the bedrock using chisels and hammers and wooden levers. They did not individually carve a million blocks.... They were obtained from the quarries which rest a mere = ~200 meters from the pyramids - thus stone was not transported very far. The rest of the stone - a tiny amount overall - was shipped in via barges to a harbor area which sat ~500 meters from the pyramids. It was the area just beyond Khafre's valley temple and the Sphinx.
4 - finally Egyptologists - working with engineers - have calculated that the workforce for the Great Pyramid only required = ~20K to perhaps 30K depending upon the stage of work. As the pyramid rose less manpower would be required compared to building up the initial "core" of the pyramid which was mostly stacked rubble and possible filler in a "stepped" shape ala Djoser. Also the pyramid is built atop an existing hill area and thus an estimated ~23% of its' core is bedrock rather than blocks. The other pyramids could be built using a workforce of ~10K for Menkaure and ~20K for Khafre.
Should I go on........
A few useful resources for folks interested in this sort of thing. It's pretty silly that at this point in time there are people who still question whether a small group of people using basic tools and techniques could move blocks of stone. This has been a settled question for longer than the majority of the Earth's present population has been alive.
Heizer 1966 Ancient Heavy Transport, Methods and Achievements
Osenton 2001 Megalithic engineering techniques: experiments using axe-based technology
I agree it is silly. It is of course ultimately a reflection upon "education" - or lack thereof. Prior to the advent of the internet and cable television people for the most part got their information from "mainstream" sources - read usually vetted source material. Once the cable television industry exploded on the scene however then all those channels fighting for a viewer base led to "niche markets". To draw people to them those often unreliable sources pandered to people's poor assumptions and actively sought to undermine their trust in more reliable "mainstream" sources.
As to the internet then obviously people began to directly attempt to access information bypassing their traditional sources which unlike their own supposed "self-research" = was not properly vetted. The same as with cable television the internet led to a cottage industry based upon sowing misinformation/disinformation - which we today colloquially refer to as "LAHT". LAHT is of course = a business.
Moral: internet browsers are *SEARCH* engines = *NOT* "answer" engines per se. They merely provide you will information related to similar searches by others based upon preset patterns etc.. Hence what is returned can be just as easily wrong as correct.
As such no matter how it flips it all boils down to a lack of understanding = of the subject-matter specifically and how to do proper research be it online or the traditional way. People who lack the background to seek accurate information - yet they assume they have anyways to generate poorly formed subjective assumptions - and more importantly = those who cater to that so as to monetize upon said ignorance and gullibility.
It is a crass way to make a buck for some certainly - but human nature can be like that. In this case it is simple greed. 🤷
I would love to see you do videos debunking Bright Insight.
Others have done so already. As an aside. Jimmie is among the most comical of the LAHT crowd as his "arguments" are the most pathetically simplistic and conspiracy oriented.
While other LAHT charlatans are also wrong = they at least "try" to sound plausible and employ a little science. Jimmie is just another Alex Jones wannabe using LAHT as his product model.
Have you guys heard the latest news on Stonehenge? The so called Altar stone has been found to have come all the way from the north of Scotland or even Orkney. Quite a journey.
Probably pulled that shit for a year.
Have an idea for your next experiment: how did the Egyptians produce enough olive oil to move 2.3 million stones?
They wouldn't have - nor would they have needed to.
Moral: can oil help to lubricate a large object you are trying to move - sure. Are there other ways to accomplish the same = absolutely.....
You know in the western cemetery adjacent the Great Pyramid are partially completed tombs which still have attached to them = earthen ramps. Those ramps were made from a mixture of sand/stone chips - aka quarry debris/ and tafla - a sedimentary clay the Egyptians mined. Beyond the Wall of the Crows at Giza is the remains of = a large tafla mining operation.
So what happens when you moisten clay??? Answer: it gets slippery......... - and this can be accomplished using water rather than oil. Now look at close up photos of the pyramid. You can see slathered all over it = globs of gypsum mortar. Mortar was used to fill in large cracks which were stuffed with chunks of quarry debris. Yet some blocks also show globs of mortar which "oozed out" from seams between blocks.
Moral: the blocks as the pyramid rises in height become smaller. Hence only the really large blocks at the bottom might require lubricant. They were not concerned with "making it look neat" as far as most of the pyramid - only the outermost layers. This means that blocks of the inner core were simply dumped in place - even if it as noted left gaps. Only the outermost layers were made to be closely fitting - and that is where you see a lot of mortar employed.
Hence on the ramp itself the tafla when moistened with water helped to briefly make the ramp surface a bit slippery - which can be further assisted via using wooden planks laid into that surface. For the casing and other closely fitted stones then slathering some mortar in the spot would help them to lever it into position. Any which oozed out could simply be cleaned away.
So I count maybe about 15 hardmeeps to pull that rock, and a time of 10 minutes. Since the Pyramid was built with 40,000 over 30 years, just multiply the human power by ~2700x and the time by ~1,600,000x. Suddenly doesn't seem impossible at all, no? Then add all the efficiency adjustments suggested in the comments and ... actually not only that, but we may even feel like there is a sizeable manpower surplus: which of course makes sense, since not _everyone_ will be directly involved in moving, lifting, etc. the rocks, but will also be needed to handle logistics - distributing food and water, supervisors to oversee the work gangs, people to record information and progress reports (I believe some remnants of those reports have been found, iirc), etc.
This. This comment section is proof that such things could be achieved. Everyone is suggesting things based on their personal experiences. Humans are social and this wasnt the work of a couple people with limited budget. It was made by fucking mad lads, brains and a dream! Love the content!
@@RegularFlyGuy over 5,000 years of engineering development, and they struggle like this with such a small load? I’m sure you’re aware that the larger the rock gets the exponentially harder it gets to move that rock it’s not just like you apply the same force to a 1 ton rock and take that x20 to move a 20 ton rock.
@@cleanpiecington23191000s of years of engineering development allows us to use huge diesel powered machinery with hydraulic mechanisms. This video was about not using the advanced tech that we currently have at our disposal. Unless you have a theory about how the laws of physics were different in ancient times, mechanical advantage will be the answer.
The problem is not moving a rock, the problem is the rate of production, extraction, cutting, transportation and assembly of millions of tons of rock blocks with bronze or copper tools. In addition to having the surplus of Production to maintain an entire Working Class that does not do productive work. I understand that you may not understand it if you have never worked with cutting or drilling tools.
The Egyptians had a stone working industry and when economic conditions were prime, the industry was prodigious.
@@Eyes_Open were you there?
@@espinoza6777 Forgive my casual interest that led to actually reading articles.
🤣 Again with the idiotic "logistics" argument.......... 🤦🤷
Moral: that actually reveals more about yourself than your supposed argument I'm afraid.......
Question: was the Egyptian workforce created out of thin air??
Answer: no........ = they already existed and hence they already ate.........
Thus in so much as the people already existed ------> they obviously ate on a regular basis and thus the necessary food etc. also already existed = all that was required was to transport both to where they were needed....... - see how easy that really was.
The Egyptian civilization was built around the Nile River valley/delta - which flooded. This means a primarily river borne culture would have lots and lots of ships for transporting goods + would be adept at the creation of harbors and canal systems as the annual flood meant they had to build their communities outside of that flood zone and link those to the river.
The Egyptian civilization engaged in taxation much as today - Egyptologists have copies of tax records - which means the State had the capacity to obtain necessary things to support public works via taxation. The dynastic Egyptians did not use specie as we do today = theirs was a commodity-based economy. So requiring farmers to give a percentage of their crops etc. via taxes will supply the State with what is required to sustain workforces.
Things like copper being recyclable meant that any smelted locally - as well as imported from elsewhere = yielded within a few generations a supply sufficient to supply their needs for a long time with occasional additions to that supply. Egyptologists have historical records of intermittent expeditions to Sinai of thousands of men at times to harvest more copper ore....... This is there merest fraction of evidence = you *FAILED* to account for........
@@varyolla435The point is that this story is poorly told and lacks details; Perhaps, you are a Historian, I understand that you do not have a Technical or Physical way of thinking; but the Rate of production is what determines whether this Story is well told or not. Let Historians prove what they say by taking the time of cutting a stone from the quarry, its final cut, its transportation and assembly at a medium height, Multiply the time of all this by 4 million pieces. Furthermore, in the Egypt of Today, 2024, with more resources and technology than that one, try to repeat that project, I guarantee that the Government will fall
Name of the first song ?
Once again reason defeats myth.
The myth of 1/1000 of an inch tolerances?
@@auntbeatrice6911 Those tolerances only occur when surfaces are in contact. The tolerances you claim is insanely ignorant.
NOW PLACE THE OVER 1000 TON BLOCK ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER VERY EXACTLY AT THE HEIGHT HAHAHA USING A WATERMELON-THICK STEEL ROPE
@@dennisjames3711 Stop screaming. It only make the foil hat funnier.
Is there any chance that they used cattle and oxen to pull the heavy stones ? Ive also got a feeling that the real heavy ,heavy stones may have been cast into position rather than lifted ? All is conjecture on my part of course ....like most ,if not all others ' guesswork too ?
🎯👏 We have a winner!.........
Moral: absolutely yes = they used oxen.
In Egyptian iconography you see yoked oxen performing various tasks such as pulling a plow. In the tomb of Hunefer however you see a depiction of a funeral procession whereby a team of yoked oxen are pulling = a large sarcophagus on a wooden sled.
In the tomb of Djehutihotep you see teams of men* also pulling a large statue on an identical sled. Egyptologists have found actual sleds which are today in museums which look identical to those depicted in the tomb paintings.
Finally at the worker village at Giza Egyptologists unearthed in the midden heaps tens of thousands of = cattle bones. That places oxen at Giza during the period of pyramid construction. If they were consuming cattle = it is certainly plausible they also employed them for manual labor. If not the smaller blocks then certainly the larger/heavier ones.
* - there is often a certain amount of "propaganda" in Egyptian iconography. So showing only men pulling a large statue might be construed as a reflection of _"see how great we are......."_ Yet as noted above the archeological/historical evidence also supports draft animal use for heavy labor as well.
7:21 This guy is spirited and pulling for two people no doubt.
So you managed to pull a few tons for dozen meters with extreme difficulty and that's how the ancients transported "heavy stone blocks"? Ridiculous.
Duh! It shows you can move heavy objects using the technique illustrated........... Perhaps you should leave science to those better suited to it if you could not perceive what was demonstrated for you - just saying.
@@varyolla435 Everyone already knows you can move heavy objects on rollers. And this video only shows a few tons of stone being pulled a dozen meters on relatively flat terrain. Nothing else. You realize "the ancients" moved blocks hundred times heavier than that, don't you? Just saying.
@@Princip666 So critical thinking is not your forte then = got it........
Moral: if you can transport a heavy object as depicted = then "scaling up" is a matter of additional resources and manpower....... - nothing more. If you are unable/unwilling to accept this scientific reality then _Xin Loi!_
p.s. - the first rockets were small not unlike "hobby rockets" today. Yet they proved out the physics behind propelling larger rockets into our atmosphere and beyond which engineers applied to the multi-stage rockets which today go into space.
Thus we see a demonstration of a few tons - and you quibble. The video demonstration in this video of the movement of a 200-300 ton block of marble down a mountainside using ropes and a sledge/rollers would no doubt simply result in your then _"moving the goalpost"_ yet again to demand a demonstration of say 1,000 tons.......
Your problem therefore is not one of how much was moved = it is your obviously incredulity and apparent lack of understanding of the science represented here...... - so why bother then.
It can be optimized. Lots of optimizations already suggested in the comments here that could have been employed. That would make it go several times farther, I'd think. And remember that a real builder would have experience, so much less of these issues would be going wrong on the "real project" as they already did long before it was planned, by the first ones to develop the technology, who then noted them and passed them to the next generations. Essentially, these guys are trying to re-develop a lost technology from scratch. I would easily imagine 100 m pull for the same effort with a really good setup. And pulling even at 0.5 m/s, if you work for 24 ks a day (6 h 40 min) you can pull _12 km every day._ 100 days pulls 1200 km, you could haul it to the Sudan! Do not underestimate good ole perseverance, hard work, and discipline - the ALWAYS keys to success since time immemorial.
@@Princip666now imagine thousands of workers around the clock who are strong as a bricks from years of hard work and training from a young age who also are experts at the maintenance of the operation. If you learn how to see the scalability of this experiment or can put into the context of what ancient people would have had and there for been able to achieve then history will become much more interesting trust me!
Ok now do this with a 80 to 800 ton stone which are some of the biggest ever moved. Also how would they have lifted on to the logs and to put them in place. You guys had to use a modern crane.
Do you not realize how many people use that same attempt at an argument? Let me turn it around. When are you going to arrange and fund a project that moves an 800 ton stone?
That you think in terms of "lift" = is your downfall......... That you as noted by others use this farcical worn out argument is merely icing on the cake.
Moral: large blocks such as you claim = where not lifted.........
In antiquity in the quarries they would have quarried below the level of the stone/object and beneath it to either construct a wooden sledge below it if something like a large statue or obelisk - or to lever a block onto an adjacent sled. Then already being placed on the sled = it would be transported via the method described.
Here as alluded to they simply sought to demonstrate how a sled could be moved across the ground - contingent upon available resources. The people and hence effort you see is probably mostly volunteers and perhaps some rented equipment. In antiquity they would have already had the available manpower and resources at hand to accomplish such tasks.
Must suck to see *ONLY* what you "want to see" doesn't it....... "Confirmation bias" does that you know. 🤨
@@Eyes_Open im not the one that claims it can be done. If your going to debunk something you have to provide the evidence. You make no sense.
@@varyolla435 there are blocks moved over rivers and mountains 100s of miles. Your going to tell me they draged them that far in perfect condition makes absolutely no sense. Also 800 tons you dont really fathom how big and heavy that is.
@@adamwilcox6574 Reality claims it can be done. The evidence is literally in place for all to see. Please provide evidence for the failure of physics in ancient times.
It worked well as a demonstration. Now you need to try it as the ancient's did it. With Sandals on your feet! 😎
Is it possible that larger logs on either the sled or rollers would help?
May be
Yes. Larger rollers roll more easily. Same as wheels. A large wheel goes way more easy over bumps than a small wheel. Larger logs for the sled would help as well, because it is stronger. Wood is not weak, even though some lost ancient tech believers think so.
Good question.
@@ScientistsAgainstMyths The Egyptians most likely did not use rollers. Maybe in some situations, but I also am pretty sure they just used a sled. On sand rollers do not perform well. Sand with water, creates slippery mud and decreases the friction. You just need enough manpower and/or animals.
@@YATESA8Also evidence of road preparation in at least one location. Limestone and sandstone surfacing on a 7 mile stretch. Gravel and clay in other areas for ramps and roads.
Because that's exactly how you would move the Unfinished Obelisk or the stones of Saqsaywaman..
Absolutely........ While the technique might vary a bit the principle is the same.
p.s. - the Unfinished Obelisk rests not far from the Nile and sits uphill. The Inca structures while atop hills have nearby roads leading up to them such as were used in their creation. In both instances modern roads tend to follow the preexisting ones used in antiquity.
Simply go to Maps and look at these areas via satellite and topographical to see the relative lay of the land.
The latter rocks are not much larger than these ones, so YES, absolutely. Not to mention that area is much more abundant of wood than Egypt, making it much cheaper.
For the former, just add more people (if this is, say, 2 t and you need to pull 200 t just use 1500 instead of 15 to pull) and make the sled bigger/longer likewise.
Also agree with the other posters that static corduroy pieces would beat rolling logs any time.
Show how they would move and lift
The Forgotten Stone, also called the Third Monolith
Stones don't need to be lifted. Merely repositioned.
@Eyes_Open that's a good point. But still moving a few tons vs. 1650 tons is quite different
@@shidoin5398 Would certainly require plenty of trained workers, an abundance of lumber, ropes and a knowledge of mechanical advantage.
@@shidoin5398 Not really - though yours is a common mis-assumption. Consider rockets. The earliest rockets were not that large - some being little more than "hobby rockets" today. Yet upon the science proving itself out - Physics in this case - then engineers based upon that now proven science = could apply it to "larger" versions - such as the now multistage rockets which send men into space.
Moral: if men using a wooden sledge + some ropes + rollers and manpower can move a stone then as alluded to by others to move something larger requires = more of the same.
Heavier loads require thicker sledges and more rollers as alluded to and will require more effort to move obviously. That however can be accommodated via the addition of - animal power - oxen specifically.
An ox can pull more than a horse and a fully mature bull - which can weigh upwards of a ton = can typically using a yoke pull at least twice its' own bodyweight - more if on a "slippery" surface such as rollers which act to reduce the friction of the load against the ground.
@varyolla435 With funding, we could produce a stone of 1650 tons and test the theories . But without that testing, it is guessing
This makes so much sense. Obviously Giza used to be a dense forest. Then they cut down 3 million trees to attempt this ridiculous nonsense, and they never grew back. That's why its a desert now, completely absent the abundance of trees you would need to do this. Not because its ACTUALLY a desert that was always completely absent the abundance of trees you would need to do this. Science explains everything! 🤣 Seriously if you want to know just how flimsy the official narrative is, just note that this is the best they could come up with to defend it. The stones in the kings chamber are 4 times this size and cut so precisely you can't even put a piece a paper between two stacked on top of each other. Its sad that anyone would think that this nonsense explains anything. It only demonstrates how far we are from the truth and how desperate we are not to know it....
🤦 Stick to video games kid.........
Well thats that
The most idiotic things among those that deny humans could do this is that there are several examples of humans DOING EXACTLY that, with only primitive equipment, in Roman times, in 18th century Russia, in Italy in the late 19th century I think.
How do you move a cube of limestone weighing 2.5 tons?
You make a wheel out of it and roll it
It's that simple
Being very conservative, according to this experiment you can move 1 metric ton of rock with 6 people. Impressive numbers!
👍👍👍👍
Now try doing that with stones weighing over 50 tons....
Now try = watching the video........... - oops!
Moral: in the video is part of an old film clip - the channel is actually here in YT: _British Pathe._
In it the workers using wooden logs - not perfectly symmetrical ones at that - moved a block of marble weighing ~200-300 tons down a mountainside and through a nearby village to a harbor where it was loaded on a ship. Increase block weight = increase the number of log rollers used.......... See how simple that was.
@@varyolla435 Good luck finding a ship in ancient Egypt that could carry 200-300 tons and good luck moving that stone uphill...presumably to the Pyramids.
@@eugenehong8825I recommend studying before making comments that prove your lack of study.
@@Eyes_Open Translation: You're right but I can't admit I have no answers to this smug bastard. I accept your defeat.
@@Eyes_Open I recommend you try and fabricate an answer about the ships and uphill transport. You're spending too much time yelling at and getting flustered by commenters like myself. Ha!
Bros gonna ignore the giant nodules on most of these rocks which is how they were actually turned
Why turn a megalith............ - just saying. 🤨
I thought they used alien lasers.
lol
chineese lasers couldnt make it :)
Yeah, now try moving 100 tons for 500 miles, let alone 5 miles. LOL
Seriously....... = how many times are you muppets going to use this one....... 🥱
Moral: look at the other times below. Only a complete imbecile would imagine they were dragging large blocks across the desert........ 🤦
you ever heard of scaling? 100 tons is 100 1-ton blocks fused together. so just use 100x more people, ropes, etc.
I called nodes "notches". But, if anyone knows what I mean about them being used on the massive stones of the Inca to move them, holler at me. Lol
This video is just more of an argument that there was a lost technology
That confirmation bias then can be crippling can it not........... What else then do you suppose you "see" in the world around you since you clearly are not seeing things as they actually are - just curious.
and what if the slit itself had rolls?
Why not use a pulley system?
This is fine but most ppl agree the conflict is in raising the stones off the ground, even w a ramp things are difficult
Still just mechanical advantage right?
@@Eyes_Open you should look up the conflicts regarding the ramp instead just looking at one side
@@ChiquitaSpeaks Looking at one side? Have you been listening to the side that thinks that physics did not work for the ancient peoples? What time periods did physics stop and start working?
@@Eyes_Open the question u last responded with shows you’re unaware of opposing arguments hence what I said unless u can tell me what u know otherwise. They have no ramps seperated from bedrock that big and they haven’t proven any ramps in the sides of the pyramids. Have u looked at the other side to substantiate I made a premature statement?
@@ChiquitaSpeaks Ramp evidence in Egypt is found. Do you believe that ramps beside the pyramid would remain after the work was complete?
I think the biggest problem with the "lost/high technology" theorists is that they greatly underestimate what humans can achieve. It's like they believe our ancestors were just dumb cave men who had no ability to discover and innovate technology and techniques to solve their problems
La piedra del trueno en Rusia 1500 toneladas la movieron 6 kilómetros
Light Stone 😁, maybe experiment megalit 100 tons 🤔💪💪💪💪💪
They have a RUclips Short video of 250 tons being moved.
I don't think the Egyptian sleds looked anything like that..
No they didn't. So it was a plausible idea which happened in this case to incur a poor design. There are actual Egyptian sleds in museums and depictions of the same in their iconography. Clearly the Egyptians had "worked out all the bugs" to develop a viable sled design as we see.
aha and how did they bring them up?
To what......... Next time think before you spout off.......
I want to see full scale actual conditions applications. Small sample size doesn't do anything but show that it can't be duplicate d by "scientists"
Try some engineers and move actual size blocks hundreds of kilometers....otherwise
You're all guessing
🤣 What a truly nonsensical rant...... - and I genuinely mean that. Stick to your video games kid.
@@varyolla435 don't get your feelings hurt. You suck at this, but then, all you do is go straight to comments so you can fail at trolling.
I'm right, you rent...
Next clown please
You want full scale. Good for you. The responsibility to provide full project funding is now on you.
@@Eyes_Open nope....you failed at gas lighting. Replicate or it's just as nonsensical as the alien dudes.
Next clown please
@@michaelhammond7115 You failed again due to a repeated use of false logic.
Russia must have thousands of malamutes and huskies, add them to the team. But seriously, didn't the Egyptians have oxen?
Yes, and almost surely they would have been recruited in some capacity (esp. for the long-distance transport). Good point, because you can get more "horsepower" that way.
Why not use dolerite pounding balls as rollers?
So you have proven this method does NOT work. I think the heaviest weight Egyptians moved this way was the 15 ton statue, shown in their hieroglyphs.
I guess you haven't done much research into this then........
i like but now i wonder how did they put those stones on theose wooden slides back then cheers guys
Levers. If you are removing "blocks" of stone from a quarry and you quarry down lower than the level of what will be your blocks then upon fracturing the blocks free* from the bedrock you can with the insertion of levers = move it laterally onto a sled you have placed next to its' base.
Moral: there is a photo online showing one of the areas of quarrying at Giza. It does not reveal directly side by side blocks. It rather shows what are the remaining raised bases of blocks save for = there is some distance between them - enough for workers to have gotten in between the block and the bedrock wall to push/pull/lever upon it.
* - if you drive lines of long chisels into limestone bedrock at perpendicular angles then as the chisel is hammered in after a short distance = the stone will begin to split along your lines not unlike snapping off a saltine cracker. Then if you created holes for the insertion of wooden levers your block can be pried loose.
There is a video here called: Arnaldo Costa Stonemason Extraordinaire. It shows the technique whereby an old man using chisels and a sledgehammer quickly fractures a block of granite into 2 clean halves.
Ok well done everyone you moved some crappy 2.5ton rocks 20 metres. Now type Trilithon into your youtube search bar and try move one of those bad boys. Good luck.
I know you think you made a point = but you really did not.......... 🤭
Moral: if they can move a 2.5 ton block using this technique = then moving something larger merely requires more resources and manpower........ Perhaps one day when you hopefully understand science you will recognize this fact.
p.s. - the first rockets a century ago were little more than hobby rockets today. Yet they proved out the science and engineers were able to take that = and scale it up so that today we can send large, multistage rockets into space. This is no different.
Do it then.
It's alright saying that intelligent bullshit with all your little ........... But you see how those rollers snapped with only 2.5 tons on them, what you think is going to happen with 800 tons on them? How do you upscale that part of your experiment. Let me know smarty pants.
@@superuberchimp2691 So now you move the goalposts...... 🤣 Typical - if sad. Why 800 then since you are simply making it up - why not 8,000 or 80,000........ 🥱
p.s. - look carefully at those rollers........ It appears they used - likely for cost reasons - what are old power line poles. So the rollers themselves being dried out were already showing splits.
Now watch actual videos as alluded to of things being moved. "Green wood" which is not dry & brittle and which is full of moisture resists deformation far more readily than dried wood. Lop a new branch off a small bush and try to break it by hand - it bends rather than breaks. Now snap an old branch which is dried out.......
@@varyolla435 I'm not moving anything. I said 800 tons because that's how much each of the Trilithon stones in the temple of Jupiter weigh and they are the biggest stones cut, moved and lifted 30 feet perfectly into position without any damage. We struggle to lift that kind of weight with modern cranes and this thing began construction thousands of years ago. That's why it's amazing. You think some green wood rollers were used to move those? Not to mention the entire complex is ennormous and the foundations alone are massive. And btw there's other stones left in the Quarry at Lebanon weighing up to 1650 tons. This experiment doesn't prove anything and you can't provide any information except trying to make me sound stupid with your childish little emojis and ............ all this bullshit. You are a total baffoon tbh.
Get some space lazors , cuz pulling rox suxors .
The pulley didn't work, you guys just dragged a couple tons of stone over logs, not even very far. L
.