Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:52 PM
zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:
Here is the kind of thing you guys ought to be looking into.
How many of you noticed the very slight step top left?
Notice also the overall bevel effect at the borders. The stones look flat in the middle but there is a definite curving at the borders.
As if someone ran along the borders with a tool to create the effect. Yet this is hard stone not clay. It looks like more evidence of moulding.
If it was not done like this then you have to assume that they were cut this way. That's unlikely since it would have been far easier to cut the blocks flat and still have the polygonal shapes. Maybe they wanted to emphasise the polygonal work by doing this?
Zoomed in slightly:
Instead of shouting 'no aliens' it would be great for a change to hear some of you guys give realistic explanations.
this was covered in the video clip...
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain
Wearer of Hats, on 09 January 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:
It's hilarious that I'm of the opinion that the peple who built the artefacts and edifaces in question were capable of building the edifaces and artefacts in question?
I find it sad you think the ancients were idiots.
Since the question is how did they get built if humans could NOT have done it, yes it's hilarious in a pitiful sort of way. To think ancient humans might not have been able to do what no one today knows how they could have done doesn't mean they were idiots, nor that people today who don't know are idiots. Were you somehow, in some incredible way, unaware of that fact? If so, how could you have been???
Zoser, you have completely failed at every debate you've had in this thread. You have been shown to be lacking education time and time again. When real evidence is given, you just skip over it and refuse to comment on it. Then you go on with the same BS again and again.
You still believe
99.9% of researches are lying.
.01% of researchers are telling the truth even though they are making loads of money for spewing their BS.
These are all things that you have posted in this thread. (Newcomers, this is no joke. Zoser actually used these to plead his case).
If it is on video then it is real.
500 years ago was the stone age.
It never freezes in Peru.
Humans cannot move large rocks.
If it is on the History Channel then it must be true.
The show Ancient Aliens is 100% fact.
Let's not forget how you feel that anything can be labled as being precise.
Looks like quite a few people have been drawing conclusions about stone moulding in Peru:
Peru glaced stones
There are two lines of enquiry that converge to this page: the first is the problem of how the builders of the stone structures at Sacsayhuaman and Ollantaytambo could reach the combination of massivity and precision of their constructions. The other line comes from the images in the Peru sculptures and Marcahuasi galleries. It does not need require much imagination to come to the conclusion that in order to make the images, the builders used the existing structure of the terrain as their basis. Upon this basis they worked to get the desired result. Again, there is a problem in how this result was obtained. Many of the features are not consistent with the process usually associated with working on stone: hacking it away by some way or another. The first picture below shows this most clearly: if one accepts the elephant, surely there must have been some effort to get this result, and this effort looks much more like the shape of the stone has been fluidly changed then by hacking. Pictures 2 and 3 show the fluidished phenomenon even more dramatically. Pictures 4 to 14 show more signs of the material having been worked upon by moulding it. Picture 15 shows a direct contrast with the result expected when hacking the stone.
If one accepts the moulding theory, the next step is to determine how the state of fluidity or mouldability is reached. Clues for this can be found in pictures 16 to 19. Pictures 11, 13, 15, 18 & 19 are from the site Ancient walls by Richard Nesbit.
Note the small protrusions, extra visible because of the shadows, that are not very sensible as result of a "hacking away of the stone" process.
The picture above shows the image of a lion build into the flanks of the mountain at Ollantaytambo. The picture below shows how this effect is reached. Again it looks like the raw stone has been melted at specific places, also giving it a bluish colour, just like the stone at Quenko in the previous pictures.
The massive blocks from the structure at Ollantaytambo have features that are more easily explained by fluid modelling than by hacking away at the stone. The inward curving surfaces of the protrusions remind one of similar results when objects are formed by pouring fluid in a mould. The surface irregularities of the blocks also have this property.
A bit more detail of the irregularities: why should anyone hack this features into the stone?
This stone is one of the so-called "weary stones", the seems to be abandoned on its way from the quarry in Katchiqhata to the construction site. The indentions on its surface almost look like someone with strangely shaped shoes has stepped upon a concrete casting when it wasn't yet completely hardened; for a comparison. The next picture from Quenko shows very similar imprints.
Here also note the way the base material exposed by the "footsteps" has a colour differing from that of the surface. The previous picture also shows this feature, though in a less dramatic way.
More data on the possibility of the use of a mouldable stone technique is found in the Toolmarks gallery.
This picture originates, according to its source, from Cusco (probably meant generically; according to the looks of it, Sacsayhuaman is more probable). It is representative for the method of building all over the region. For a technical reason, one can think of the fact that this kind of irregular but highly fitting structures are probably the most resistant to earthquakes of any known ancient construction method.
However, in the top version, the arrows point to places where the neighbouring stones follow each other contours to an amount of detail that technically absolute has no sense other then when would try to make the structure watertight, especially in the corners. Even an esthetic background is unlikely, because this kind of detail would hardly be visible from all but the most closest ranges. For an example of how one would expect normal stone work of this nature to look, click here.
The bottom picture point to regions where one sees what seem to be small ridges sticking out, as if the material has been pushed away; this is most clear for the region on the right. The discolouring around many other parts of the bounderies could be consistent with this outflowed material having been removed when still mouldable
The two arrows on the left point to other examples of seemingly pointless construction detail. The right arrow to a place where the bevelling of the joints seems to have been forgotten, and the stones look so much joined to each other that it is a matter of discussion whether this is one ore two blocks.
This picture, in all probability from Ollantaytambo, shows the way a cut or hacked stone surface looks like (see the chipped edge of the top left block), in direct contrast with the quite smooth, regular, surfaces of the stones at most of the major constructions at Ollantaytambo and Sacsauhuaman, and many elsewhere.
It almost looks like that there was a enclosing wall, and that a part of it has been melted away.
Note how the colour of the top layers, that have been worked upon, differ from the colour of the material at the base; the latter is the regular type of brown expected of stone, the fo
Addendum: The conclusions above were reached purely on basis of the data available. Later searches turned up similar conclusions by others, using similar arguments, see e.g. sources 1, 2. This shows the strength of the available data, in that it satisfies one of the essential criteria of good science: using the same data, different people come independently to the same conclusions.
Lord Vetinari, on 10 January 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:
I'm sorry, has this turned into a Star Trek geek discussion thread?
Let's put it in perspective then. A lot of people like to talk about what a brilliant original thinker VD is and how earth shattering his ideas are. Consider that "who mourns for Adonis" aired in 1967 while Chariots wasn't published until 1968, and the English version not until 1969
"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.