83 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Oniomancer, on 10 October 2011 - 06:39 PM, said:

The test here is in the failure, not the success. It's all well and and use modern tools and show the trials and tribulations thereof.
Now let's see him use primitive tools and methods and not succeed. You know, unlike Jean-Pierre Protzen in the course of his experimental research.

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-1-of-6

http://www.pbs.org/w...s/2404inca.html

Sure, he used modern tools afterwords but only to expedite the work for TV.

I really enjoyed that Secrets of Lost Empires The Inca Empire link Oniomancer.  Great show, thanks for sharing.

Quite amazing how that appears to have been accomplished.

[Oniomancer]

booNyzarC, on 31 October 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

I really enjoyed that Secrets of Lost Empires The Inca Empire link Oniomancer.  Great show, thanks for sharing.

Quite amazing how that appears to have been accomplished.

You're welcome. It's hard to find it when I need it. It keeps disappearing from youtube and I didn't realize videopedia had such a weird setup.  The transcripts are a bit easier to locate. You should look up the rest of the Lost Empires series too if you haven't already. They do a lot of experimental replication work on other sites too, like stonehenge and Easter Island. Mostly moving stuff.

[booNyzarC]

Oniomancer, on 01 November 2011 - 12:02 AM, said:

You're welcome. It's hard to find it when I need it. It keeps disappearing from youtube and I didn't realize videopedia had such a weird setup.  The transcripts are a bit easier to locate. You should look up the rest of the Lost Empires series too if you haven't already. They do a lot of experimental replication work on other sites too, like stonehenge and Easter Island. Mostly moving stuff.

I will definitely look the others up.  It was a bit of a chore tracking down all 6 parts of this one though, even with your initial link.  I ended up having to search independently because I didn't see any intuitive linkage from part 1.

But it was well worth the effort.  My thanks again.

[Banksy Boy]

Oniomancer, on 31 October 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

I welcome corrections on any outright mistakes

I'll start with the very first sentence then.

Oniomancer, on 30 October 2011 - 07:59 PM, said:

You can't go by the surface appearance of the rough parts.

That and watching and understanding what is going on within the clip   , how else do you think you can tell whether the stone is 'open' or not ? You do understand what the terms 'open' and 'closed' mean don't you ?

Where did I say that the stone was soft ?


You see that's 50 years of worth of experience working with and handling the stuff right there for a start. I previously got the length of experience time wrong, he's worked with the stuff from the ages of 15-65.

Oniomancer, on 31 October 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

so as far as I can tell, you've already lost.

Is this a competition then ?.......Oh yeah ok you win then, he's really not that interested tbh and has nothing to prove to anybody by me sticking links up everywhere to try and prove a point .......tap tap tap  

Oniomancer, on 31 October 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

You want to continue to dodge my points about your granite straw man argument though

Not dodging your points at all, we are told in the AA program by a stone mason who says he has 45 years worth of experience that some of the worked stone is of granite. You can argue all you like whether there is granite or not and how much there is of it. I can't see why a guy of his reputation would ruin that just for a few quid and to appear on a TV program. I suppose it all depends on what side of the fence you stand and what reputation you have to lose or gain.

[Oniomancer]

Banksy Boy, on 01 November 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

I'll start with the very first sentence then.

That and watching and understanding what is going on within the clip   , how else do you think you can tell whether the stone is 'open' or not ? You do understand what the terms 'open' and 'closed' mean don't you ?

Self-explanatory. You're making out like it's porous and practically friable. The stone's been pounded within an inch of it's life and subjected to hundreds of years of picking of the grains from weathering on the older examples besides. Just because the grains appear to be coming off in a sandy fashion doesn't mean it isn't tightly cemented. That's what happens when you literally pulverize the stone that way. (and yes, I have tried this a bit just to see. It's slow, but it does produce results.)
Did you bother to look at the last links I posted?

Quote

Where did I say that the stone was soft ?

Why else are you bringing up the grain structure then, other than to insinuate that the stone is easily worked?

Quote

You see that's 50 years of worth of experience working with and handling the stuff right there for a start. I previously got the length of experience time wrong, he's worked with the stuff from the ages of 15-65.

With all due respect to his experience, that only speaks to one way of doing it, the way he was trained. It says nothing about other possible ways, especially those that happen to go completely against all that training.

Quote

Is this a competition then ?.......Oh yeah ok you win then, he's really not that interested tbh and has nothing to prove to anybody by me sticking links up everywhere to try and prove a point .......tap tap tap  

Who compared this to a tennis match? All debate is competition, but you did seem to act as though you'd scored some telling blow that settled the matter yourself.

Quote

Not dodging your points at all, we are told in the AA program by a stone mason who says he has 45 years worth of experience that some of the worked stone is of granite. You can argue all you like whether there is granite or not and how much there is of it. I can't see why a guy of his reputation would ruin that just for a few quid and to appear on a TV program. I suppose it all depends on what side of the fence you stand and what reputation you have to lose or gain.

Stone tradesmen have a bad habit of calling a lot of things granite that aren't. There's a reason they call those kind of shows infotainment. Getting their facts absolutely correct is about as crucial as it is to your average episode of Blackadder, and there is such a thing as spin. You'll recall much of this whole argument to begin with stems from Tsoukalos's preposterous and demonstrably false statements about diorite proper. They say what they like and no one challenges them on it. No one _thinks_ to challenge them on it, because they just assume they know what they're talking about.

[Banksy Boy]

Oniomancer, on 02 November 2011 - 03:33 AM, said:

With all due respect to his experience, that only speaks to one way of doing it, the way he was trained. It says nothing about other possible ways, especially those that happen to go completely against all that training.

Having read this out to him, the look I got was was not unlike this which was on par to showing the parents my last school report.

 implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393.jpg   46.52K   4 downloads

Oniomancer, on 02 November 2011 - 03:33 AM, said:

Stone tradesmen have a bad habit of calling a lot of things granite that aren't.

On that note.....

 FacePlam.jpg   31.79K   3 downloads

Any more discussion has become pointless.

[booNyzarC]

Banksy Boy, on 02 November 2011 - 11:24 PM, said:

Having read this out to him, the look I got was was not unlike this which was on par to showing the parents my last school report.

implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393.jpg
--

That explains much...

[Oniomancer]

Banksy Boy, on 02 November 2011 - 11:24 PM, said:

Having read this out to him, the look I got was was not unlike this which was on par to showing the parents my last school report.

implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393.jpg

I'll put it to you this way, again, On the one hand I've got this guy on video actually doing something and on the other hand I've got you two sitting there telling me how what he's doing can't be done. I think under the circumstances I'm being rather generous. Some might say overly so.
I didn't get an answer before but I'm still curious how much of that experience extends to working trap and the like.

Quote

On that note.....

FacePlam.jpg

Any more discussion has become pointless.

That was based on having actually seen things listed as granite by dealers that would invoke much the same reaction from any self-respecting geologist. I'm sure He's heard of trade or b****** granite for instance.
If the only rebuttal you can offer is a few pat net-meme witticisms and condescending eyebrow waggling, then I would have to agree.

Edited by Oniomancer, 03 November 2011 - 12:41 AM.

[Oniomancer]

No response? Not surprising. Lest you think that last was just some personal opinion I concocted on my own:

http://www.kitchenan...tamorphics.html

http://www.kitchenan...ite-at-all.html

http://docs.google.c...7bo_vOLn5geqaIQ

And saving the best for last,

http://www.findstone.com/daniel1.htm

[bulveye]

Hi,

Awesome work!!!! Very interesting! I will be studying them closely.

[jules99]

Oniomancer, on 12 October 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

I have yet to see any proof that precision and uniformity isn't possible by hand means. If anything, I've been helpfully provided with evidence to the contrary. Primitive drilling technology likewise works much the same as advanced and I see no reason to assume other cutting technologies wouldn't or couldn't as well. You're actually more liable to be precise because you're going slower and removing less material at a slower rate.

Agreed; I havent read up on what type of drill was used at puma punku, it certainly would be curious if it was a tube drill....

[Harte]

jules99, on 08 November 2011 - 09:22 PM, said:

Agreed; I havent read up on what type of drill was used at puma punku, it certainly would be curious if it was a tube drill....

Longitudinal elements were likely sawn.

The precise-seeming holes that the fringe is chronically astonished by could have been made with tube drills, albeit smaller ones than we see in Egypt.

Harte

[jules99]

Harte, on 09 November 2011 - 02:06 AM, said:

Longitudinal elements were likely sawn.

The precise-seeming holes that the fringe is chronically astonished by could have been made with tube drills, albeit smaller ones than we see in Egypt.

Harte

Hi Harte;
When a drill  is used to bore a hole both accuracy and uniformity is increased as measurements become standardised, the same as when a saw is used to make a cut...the cut becomes straighter and a higher rate of accuracy is achieved. As opposed to say an artisan pounding at a rock relying on luck or the muse for inspiration to complete the finished product. From what I see from photos of Puma Punku some carvings are crude and childlike in search of the muse, other stoneworks display skill, knowledge and accuracy in their execution. A seeming adherance to mathematical principals...Personally I Dunno but I would suspect different levels of skill evident in the stoneworks..maybe the sites been occupied by different peoples over time.
If tube drills were used at puma punku you would have to wonder where they got the idea from.

[Harte]

jules99, on 09 November 2011 - 05:59 AM, said:

Hi Harte;
When a drill  is used to bore a hole both accuracy and uniformity is increased as measurements become standardised, the same as when a saw is used to make a cut...the cut becomes straighter and a higher rate of accuracy is achieved. As opposed to say an artisan pounding at a rock relying on luck or the muse for inspiration to complete the finished product. From what I see from photos of Puma Punku some carvings are crude and childlike in search of the muse, other stoneworks display skill, knowledge and accuracy in their execution.

Like I said, longitudinal cuts were likely sawn.

jules99, on 09 November 2011 - 05:59 AM, said:

A seeming adherance to mathematical principals...Personally I Dunno but I would suspect different levels of skill evident in the stoneworks..maybe the sites been occupied by different peoples over time.
If tube drills were used at puma punku you would have to wonder where they got the idea from.

I wonder why you wonder this.

That is, since humans have been drilling holes in hard objects for at least 110,000 years:

Quote

The oldest known objects that are believed to have served a decorative purpose for the human body are 110.000 years old. Drilled shell beads from this time (the middle paleolithic period) have been found in a cave in present day Morocco. Whether these shells have fulfilled a purely decorative purpose or were used as an amulet or status symbol is not known.

one would think these people were aware of how to drill a hole in a hard object.

Harte

[Oniomancer]

jules99, on 09 November 2011 - 05:59 AM, said:

If tube drills were used at puma punku you would have to wonder where they got the idea from.

As it happens, tube drills grow right out of the ground throughout the Americas.

http://www.guaduabam...es-of-peru.html