Oniomancer Posted March 19, 2013 #9876 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Rocks cannot do this Mr O It's far too perfect to be the result of stone bashing. Why? Because you say so? Again, how does a chisel work? I see we're also still in the single-method mindset. It looks exactly as if something stamped into it and impressed the stone. A metal clamp.Neither is this the result of stone bashing: What something might look like is irrelevant to what it actually is, otherwise I would have to believe this is a petrified giant: http://joyce.taron.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lincoln-memorial.JPG Are you sure it wasn't Protzen and his team? I'm fairly sure that was who I watched. His goal he claimed was to reproduce the precision in the walls of Sacsayhuaman. He obviously realised he was going to get no where near that with soft tools or stone. Why miss an opportunity to totally prove the concept? It doesn't make sense. It was the man right after him trying to verify the scribing method. I don;t think Protzen was even in that sequence. They had a half a dozen different experimenters in the show. It makes plenty of sense not to blow half the season's budget on a single one-hour episode. As far as he and probably most of the others viewers except you are concerned, he got close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted March 19, 2013 #9877 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Just one more post tonight: Look carefully at the precision joins: Especially look at the gap in the crappy vertical one at the bottom which appears to get worse and worse to the bottom of the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBunker Posted March 20, 2013 #9878 Share Posted March 20, 2013 As poor zoser just admitted himself, his goal is to get as many posts on this thread as possible. If the OP was at least willing to debate counter argument in a normal manner I would have no problem with it. But that is not the case. Therefore I say to this thread - Later dudes. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian hacktorp Posted March 20, 2013 #9879 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Especially look at the gap in the crappy vertical one at the bottom which appears to get worse and worse to the bottom of the photo. Actually, that is a very precise joint...you may be looking at shadow and thinking it is a gap. You can enlarge the photo by clicking on it. Protzen only proved he had neither the time or the knowledge to demonstrate how these blocks were really made and fitted. His 'conclusion' is weak and unsubstantiated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted March 20, 2013 #9880 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Actually, that is a very precise joint...you may be looking at shadow and thinking it is a gap. There's a shadow because there's a gap between the faces of the rocks. Why this gap? What they did to make the joints look precise is grind and chip away into the joints until they got to parts of the stone that were close. That's why the joints have uneven depth like in this photo -- sometimes they got lucky and the surfaces met close to the face. Sometimes they met deeper in the rock so it took more work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9881 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Circular reasoning again, the very model of fallacy. You're presupposing the buildings were already there as evidence that they were already there. You're going one further in answering supposition with supposition, Again predicated on the prior assumption. Evidence speaks for itself. The rubble was put on top of the megalithic stones. Anything else is just intellectualism. All that nonsense about the rubble being put there because of economic hardship or civil war is just weird evasion of the truth. It says quite clearly that the site was occupied, built on and improvised by later people. Common sense. There's a shadow because there's a gap between the faces of the rocks. Why this gap? What they did to make the joints look precise is grind and chip away into the joints until they got to parts of the stone that were close. That's why the joints have uneven depth like in this photo -- sometimes they got lucky and the surfaces met close to the face. Sometimes they met deeper in the rock so it took more work. Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9882 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Actually, that is a very precise joint...you may be looking at shadow and thinking it is a gap. You can enlarge the photo by clicking on it. Protzen only proved he had neither the time or the knowledge to demonstrate how these blocks were really made and fitted. His 'conclusion' is weak and unsubstantiated. Agreed. Neither Protzen nor anyone else has proved that they can do this: I would wager my last pound note that no one will ever convince the reasonable of mind that this was the work of stone age folk. Before anyone shouts foul on the stone age bit: remember they supposedly never had the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9883 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) As poor zoser just admitted himself, his goal is to get as many posts on this thread as possible. If the OP was at least willing to debate counter argument in a normal manner I would have no problem with it. But that is not the case. Therefore I say to this thread - Later dudes. No true. I simply implied that there is still much to post. It's not a game. Edited March 20, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9884 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Especially look at the gap in the crappy vertical one at the bottom which appears to get worse and worse to the bottom of the photo. Enlarge it please or seek optical assistance. No gaps there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9885 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Why? Because you say so? Again, how does a chisel work? I see we're also still in the single-method mindset. What something might look like is irrelevant to what it actually is, otherwise I would have to believe this is a petrified giant: http://joyce.taron.n...ln-memorial.JPG It was the man right after him trying to verify the scribing method. I don;t think Protzen was even in that sequence. They had a half a dozen different experimenters in the show. It makes plenty of sense not to blow half the season's budget on a single one-hour episode. As far as he and probably most of the others viewers except you are concerned, he got close enough. Bless you Mr O. Protzen didn't get anywhere near. Did he come back for a second try? I don't believe he did. That should tell you a lot. I'm really sorry but I just can't see the relevance of the Lincoln statue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9886 Share Posted March 20, 2013 An excellent shot of vitrified artefacts in a cave. One has the light shining at the correct angle and one does not to demonstrate the prism effect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9887 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Why? Because you say so? Again, how does a chisel work? I see we're also still in the single-method mindset. 1) The straight edges are too perfect to be the result of stone bashing. 2) The inside surfaces are rounded indicating that something was pushed into the stone. 3) The whole stone looks too smooth to be the result of bashing, It bears the vitrification characteristics. Edited March 20, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOrchid Posted March 20, 2013 #9888 Share Posted March 20, 2013 hi all, just joined here but have been reading this topic the last couple of days. Has the vitrification been proven on this thread? I have searched thru it, I really have, but cant see any. I ask becuase if not then all the other points are just moot until that can be proven scientificly. For the record I used to believe in AA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted March 20, 2013 #9889 Share Posted March 20, 2013 No vitrification has been found. You can't prove vitrification in a forum post. You can only quote and link to analyses that prove it, and no analyses have ever been done. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOrchid Posted March 20, 2013 #9890 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Thanx. Thought I had missed it somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9891 Share Posted March 20, 2013 hi all, just joined here but have been reading this topic the last couple of days. Has the vitrification been proven on this thread? I have searched thru it, I really have, but cant see any. I ask becuase if not then all the other points are just moot until that can be proven scientificly. For the record I used to believe in AA. Take a look at this: Study the text and study the images. http://www.ancient-mysteries-explained.com/support-files/evidence_of_vitrified_stonework_in_the_inca_vestiges_of_peru.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9892 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) No vitrification has been found. You can't prove vitrification in a forum post. You can only quote and link to analyses that prove it, and no analyses have ever been done. Harte We have proved what it is not. This includes chemical treatment, polishing, kilns, weathering, and just about everything else. Oh and the use of good old common sense combined with dozens of images of walls, quarries, caves, and temples that all show exactly the same effect. This is an excellent smoking gun: Edited March 20, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOrchid Posted March 20, 2013 #9893 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Hi Zoser, With respect mate it wasnt you the question was intended for. I should have made it clearer. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9894 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Hi Zoser, With respect mate it wasnt you the question was intended for. I should have made it clearer. Sorry. A question posed here can be answered by anyone. It's an open forum. With respect Sorry. Edited March 20, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOrchid Posted March 20, 2013 #9895 Share Posted March 20, 2013 A question posed here can be answered by anyone. It's an open forum. With respect Sorry. I didnt say dont answer I just told you it was not intened for you. To be honest mate I knew what your answer would have been. Another link. Sorry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted March 20, 2013 #9896 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Evidence speaks for itself. The rubble was put on top of the megalithic stones. Anything else is just intellectualism. All that nonsense about the rubble being put there because of economic hardship or civil war is just weird evasion of the truth. It says quite clearly that the site was occupied, built on and improvised by later people. Common sense. Evidence, as this thread exemplifies, is subject to interpretation. Yes, the smaller stones are on top of the larger but how did they get there, when and why? There are multiple possibilities for these questions besides the one you favor and you continue to do nothing to eliminate them categorically other than to declare them eliminated. So-called "common sense" is every bit as subjective: http://www.mcckc.edu/longview/socsci/psyc/westra/CommonSense/cs1.html (if necessary, skip to the last page) You can call that intellectualism if you want but as usual it's preferable to the alternative, or as another article on the subject quoted, “Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it.” – Anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9897 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Evidence, as this thread exemplifies, is subject to interpretation. That's a cop out Mr O. Better if you said "subject to reason and common sense". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted March 20, 2013 #9898 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Bless you Mr O. Protzen didn't get anywhere near. Did he come back for a second try? I don't believe he did. That should tell you a lot. I'm really sorry but I just can't see the relevance of the Lincoln statue. Protzen came within at least a millimeter of a perfect fit complete with an indented joint. Still just a matter of degrees. There is again the subject of who's paying for all this and since we only have a few minutes of footage of Protzen working to go by, we really can't speak that authoritatively as to just how much work he's actually done IRL with or without the cameras rolling, can we? You may recall an individual in the other forum who swore up hill and down that colossal statuary were clearly intended as actual 1:1 realistic depictions of living giants who ruled in ancient times, backing this assertion up with reasoning and "evidence" very similar to your own. My comparison was in the same vein, to which I need only add the case of the (in)famous Cardiff Giant as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9899 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Protzen came within at least a millimeter of a perfect fit complete with an indented joint. Still just a matter of degrees. There is again the subject of who's paying for all this and since we only have a few minutes of footage of Protzen working to go by, we really can't speak that authoritatively as to just how much work he's actually done IRL with or without the cameras rolling, can we? You may recall an individual in the other forum who swore up hill and down that colossal statuary were clearly intended as actual 1:1 realistic depictions of living giants who ruled in ancient times, backing this assertion up with reasoning and "evidence" very similar to your own. My comparison was in the same vein, to which I need only add the case of the (in)famous Cardiff Giant as an example: http://en.wikipedia....i/Cardiff_Giant Not a millimetre: More like 5mm or even more. Compare with this: and this: That primitive man was responsible for this precision work is not going to be proved on the basis of Protzen's skills. It's just a no brainer really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 20, 2013 #9900 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Another one for comparison to Protzen's effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts