Think about how you would carve an oblong stone into a smooth sphere. The bumpy balls may simply be unfinished spheres.
Harry > >From: Wm. Scott Smith <scott...@hotmail.com> >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 11:24:53 PM >Subject: [Vo]:One-man Stonehenge > >When the first European explorers asked how the huge stone on Easter Island >were >moved, they were told that they walked there; I, for one, believe this is the >case. There are stories of large stones being made to "float" above the >ground. >I ran across a website where a man was casting large stones for his life-sized >"Stonehenge;" true to tradition, after casting them on one side of his >property, >moved and erected them, on the other size of the property. (Not a real big >piece >of ground.) by himself without any modern pulleys or levers of any kind. > > > >Underneath each block, on either side of the balance point he inserted a knob >and then a second knob. (I'm not sure what he used, but a trailer hitch knob >would help us visualize.) He could effortlessly tilt the enormous blocks in >any >direction. He would swing the block around so that one knob was in front of >the >other, then he would pivot on the knob in front until the other knob swung >around to the front and so-on. > > >He raised the upright stones by walking them out over a pit until he could >rotating one end up above the pit while the other end rotated down into the >pit; >again, this could be done by one person with amazingly little effort. > > >Finally, he could raise the lintels onto to the posts by tilting and inserting >blocks alternately under each knob, with stack of blocks at the two ends to >make >certain that the stone never tipped too far. > > >I think these stones, which Fran mentioned, would be better pivot points than >ball bearings. Maybe the only difference between the two kinds is some got >used, >which smoothed them down to a smaller size. > > >Scott > > > > > > > > >ate: Thu, 12 May 2011 17:09:08 -0400 >From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: [Vo]:WOT stonehenge ball bearings to move bluestones > > >Hi, > Just saw a PBS documentary of students from Exeter moving >weights at Stonehenge to test radical theory - Experts hit on the new idea >after >examining mysterious stone balls found near Stonehenge-like monuments in >Aberdeenshire, Scotland About the size of a cricket ball, they are precisely >fashioned to be within a millimetre of the same size. This suggests they were >meant to be used together in some way rather than individually. There were two >types of balls found where one was almost a perfect sphere which they >concentrated on in this theory and the second type appeared similar but with >about a dozen large bumps spaced evenly over the surface which they ignored >totally. >In the video they made a pair of lumber tracks with a cut out hollow so the >balls could roll and placed the balls evenly with a platform then laid across >the balls and their test weights stacked on the platform. They were able to >move >about 4 ton with just a handful of students but the soft wood was being >crushed >by the stones and had to be reinforced with harder wood. > > My question is regarding the “other “ stones mentioned but then >ignored in the video – I find it hard to believe the similar scale was just a >coincidence and I would like to know if Neolithic man could have used animal >fat >and these “other” balls to create a hip l ike joint or multiple hip like >joints >with a “nest” of these “other” balls imbedded into logs or otherwise contained >such that the smooth balls would seat partially into the nest and be able to >spin on the animal fat caught between the bottom half of the smooth ball and >the >round bumps of the “other” type balls in which the smooth ball is seated - >like >a hip joint but with fewer points of contact. > > >Fran > >
