actually its not a lost wax method.. it is still used today.. recreation blacksmiths use it.. it is also still used in jewelery making..
He made reference to wax and clay molds, so I figured he was referring to the lost wax method that the Egyptians (among others) were noted for discovering.
Not lost as in forgotten, but lost during the process. Not sure if that part was misunderstood or not.
Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 08 December 2012 - 10:28 AM.
"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."
Imaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:
Regardless, he has NO idea what he's talking about and it just keeps getting funnier!
I agree.. it still makes me chuckle that the AA crowd say the art work is aliens.. I have really got to get my son in law on this forum.. he is aboriginal .. who actually believes in aliens.. but laughs at the AA'ers..
I agree.. it still makes me chuckle that the AA crowd say the art work is aliens.. I have really got to get my son in law on this forum.. he is aboriginal .. who actually believes in aliens.. but laughs at the AA'ers..
You should show him this thread.
I do a lot of anthropological work and as I believed you mentioned, various native peoples have a good laugh at those who think all those various pieces of art are aliens.
"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."
Now look how perfect it is and tell me in all honesty if that could have been done by spinning a copper tube back and forth with a bow using sand while some poor soul holds it erect while applying weight. I tell you know way.
The final smoking gun is if you look carefully inside the hole there are two score marks. This hole was cut with extreme abrasion to have left this behind. The copper would have totally shredded experiencing that level of abrasion.
The edges are perfect. There has been zero tool wander.
You keep saying "perfect". There must be some "out of round" tolerance. I would think if it were off by 1/16", it would be difficult to see with the naked eye.
Perhaps the score marks occurred during a polishing phase after drilling. Maybe a ramrod of some sort was pushed back and forth thru the hole?
Also, since no one seems to know the purpose of the holes, maybe the scoring is an artifact of whatever the holes were used for. Maybe guides of some sort for other drilling or sawing. Maybe the stones we are seeing here are the remnants of a stonemasons quarry "machinery".
Again, I am bewildered that since the methods used to create the holes and their purpose remains unclear, you leap to the conclusion that aliens did this?
Edited by synchronomy, 08 December 2012 - 01:25 PM.
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan
synchronomy, on 08 December 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:
You keep saying "perfect". There must be some "out of round" tolerance. I would think if it were off by 1/16", it would be difficult to see with the naked eye.
Perhaps the score marks occurred during a polishing phase after drilling. Maybe a ramrod of some sort was pushed back and forth thru the hole?
Also, since no one seems to know the purpose of the holes, maybe the scoring is an artifact of whatever the holes were used for. Maybe guides of some sort for other drilling or sawing. Maybe the stones we are seeing here are the remnants of a stonemasons quarry "machinery".
Again, I am bewildered that since the methods used to create the holes and their purpose remains unclear, you leap to the conclusion that aliens did this?
The first principle has to be that indiginous people did not create this. Nor did they create PP, Cuzco, Sacsayhuaman and other megalithic sites. They had absolutely no means to do it. We know what they did create; check out my last few movie clips. Listen to Brien Foerster is my recommendation. He has visited Cuzco 24 times and now lives there! Here is one of his clips below where he compares Spanish, Inca and the megalithic constructions not of Inca origin, so by definition unknown.
Then read the accounts of what the Inca themselves said. I have posted links where this can be read. Then it's a question of putting it together.
In terms of a hole being exactly circular; well what is there in life that is exactly mathematically perfect? Remember geometric maths is an idealism, not to be found in the physical world. The hole in the picture is pretty damn perfect to me.
The wall at Cuzco is 39 inches thick!
Engineers cannot explain it. This is a superb clip.
Imaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:
Regardless, he has NO idea what he's talking about and it just keeps getting funnier!
In terms of a hole being exactly circular; well what is there in life that is exactly mathematically perfect? Remember geometric maths is an idealism, not to be found in the physical world. The hole in the picture is pretty damn perfect to me.
The wall at Cuzco is 39 inches thick!
Engineers cannot explain it.
Prove me wrong. I'm still here.
I've viewed all those videos and many more.
Engineering analysis consists of more than a penlight and a camera. "Pretty damn perfect to me" is not engineering analysis.
"Prove me wrong. I'm still here."
You're still getting this backwards. You are the one presenting a hypothesis based on the sole fact that YOU don't believe conventional theories on how these structures were built. It's up to YOU to present some FACTS that support your hypothesis...and it has to be more than your own highly subjective view that you don't accept current theories because you are immersed in a mindlock of confirmation bias.
Edited by synchronomy, 08 December 2012 - 02:21 PM.
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan
Here is another serious full time researcher who refutes the orthodox theories. I have read none of his books so I cannot say that he is an AA advocate but what he does say is that the megalithic relics were built with unknown technology by unknown people and far older than the history books suggest.
synchronomy, on 08 December 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:
Engineering analysis consists of more than a penlight and a camera. "Pretty damn perfect to me" is not engineering analysis.
"Prove me wrong. I'm still here."
You're still getting this backwards. You are the one presenting a hypothesis based on the sole fact that YOU don't believe conventional theories on how these structures were built. It's up to YOU to present some FACTS that support your hypothesis...and it has to be more than your own highly subjective view that you don't accept current theories because you are immersed in a mindlock of confirmation bias.
The skeptics need to validate their claims to prove their hypothesis. So far they have proved groundless, and banal. It's not acceptable to have that nonsense as a default hypothesis.
The video clips, images, testimonies are my proof. Where's the skeptics proof?
I already have. I showed you that we have first hand accounts of Sacsayhuaman's construction and you just ignored it. Just like the AA believers. You've repeatedly been shown how such holes were created, but you just plug your ears and insist that if you can't understand it, no one can. You are inept when it comes to history.
By all means, keep rambling on. Calling the lost-wax method a fantasy was the best part so far. Bravo! I'm awaiting a few more gems from your great breadth of knowledge.
Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 08 December 2012 - 02:24 PM.
"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."
The skeptics need to validate their claims to prove their hypothesis. So far they have proved groundless, and banal. It's not acceptable to have that nonsense as a default hypothesis.
What you fail to undertand is that the widely accepted theories are theories precisly because they have evidence to support them, unlike your quackery of "lasers, or ultra sound, or something."
"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."
Imaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:
I already have. I showed you that we have first hand accounts of Sacsayhuaman's construction and you just ignored it. Just like the AA believers. You've repeatedly been shown how such holes were created, but you just plug your ears and insist that if you can't understand it, no one can. You are inept when it comes to history.
By all means, keep rambling on. Calling the lost-wax method a fantasy was the best part so far. Bravo! I'm awaiting a few more gems from your great breadth of knowledge.
Listen to Brien Foerster. He's done far more research than you or I. Listen to what he has to say.
Otherwise your theories are just another of Tommy Cooper's famous tricks gone wrong.
Listen to Brien Foerster. He's done far more research than you or I. Listen to what he has to say.
From your link:
Quote
Other projects, which will result in published books, include one about the ancient history of Hawaii, the mysterious stone monuments of Peru that predate the Inca, and the search for the lost continent of Mu.
I'm supposed to listen to a guy that doesn't understand plate tectonics? No thanks.
"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."
DingoLingo, on 08 December 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:
Bravo! I'm awaiting a few more gems from your great breadth of knowledge.
