10148 replies to this topic

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

Oh dear Mr O.  I took a look at some poor wag bashing a block with a lump of granite. Why is that relevant?

How can the sinking in be possibly explained.

It can be explained by precisely that method if one does not assume it to be the result of sinking in the first place.

Quote

The last few posts prove beyond doubt that the conventional theories are utter nonsense.  If you can't see it from these last few posts then you will never see it.

Right back at you.

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 04 January 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

It can be explained by precisely that method if one does not assume it to be the result of sinking in the first place.

Right back at you.

So why do think they didn't flatten the stones then?  Why do they show ridges and different depths?

[zoser]

Wearer of Hats, on 04 January 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

You say "in an oven" I say "build a great big fire around".


Hasn't the topic of conversation for the last few pages been about rock softening chemicals from plants?

A big fire enough to soften andesite?  Really?  What sort of fire would soften these?



The flower display; that's Abe's conversation not mine.

Edited by zoser, 04 January 2013 - 10:23 PM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The fire wouldn't soften the rock, that's the result of the chemical - the fire would be used to "cook off" the chemical allowing the stone to naturally harden again.
And why not? A big enough fire pit, rock goes in, fired, out it comes again. Time consuming certainly.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

So what does all this add up to?

Several indicators of intense heat.

Deep mould marks in solid rock all over Peru consistent with objects being pushed into the stone, both accidental and deliberate (see snake effect above ).

Bulging out effects in much larger blocks consistent with weight being exerted on soft material.

Vitrification which is known to be a side effect of intense heat.

Evidence of blocks from dismantled walls where deep prints have been made from heavy blocks on top.  This now fully accounts for the precision joins.

Vitrification on unlevelled surfaces from quarrying areas.  This must have been the result of initial cutting and not post chemical treatment.

That's all for tonight.

Z

Once again, for rock to soften under heat, it must melt. Even though andesite has a relatively high viscosity, any rock that was melted enough to deform like that would flow like fresh taffy, and radiate heat like nobody's business.

[the L]

When we found plant and do experiment where we can see that soften those stones I will believe in it. I think its some kind of allegory. Its hard to me to believe that such plant exist.

[bmk1245]

Its like talking to the wall



Zoser, please, stop peddling bs.

[zoser]

Wearer of Hats, on 04 January 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

The fire wouldn't soften the rock, that's the result of the chemical - the fire would be used to "cook off" the chemical allowing the stone to naturally harden again.
And why not? A big enough fire pit, rock goes in, fired, out it comes again. Time consuming certainly.

Well nice try.

I'm claiming this one.  It's taken a long time, but the evidence is now totally insurmountable and all I see is pretty flowers and people fumbling desperately trying to dig up enough sand to bury the evidence.

Good luck.  This nut is cracked.  

The top of the dismantled stones was the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle which validates everything that I have claimed; that the blocks sunk into each other while the stone was in a heated soft state.  The vitrification is again proof of heat, and chemical treatment alone has never been proved to vitrify stone.  Heat is easily provable to cause this effect.

The evidence is on the Gamarra documentary and cannot be refuted.

Good luck with your frantic digging and don't forget to smell the flowers on the way.

Edited by zoser, 04 January 2013 - 10:42 PM.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

So why do think they didn't flatten the stones then?  Why do they show ridges and different depths?

Conservation of effort for the most part, and if the blocks differ in size, why shouldn't the interfaces necessary to make stable joints between them differ too?

[zoser]

the L, on 04 January 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

When we found plant and do experiment where we can see that soften those stones I will believe in it. I think its some kind of allegory. Its hard to me to believe that such plant exist.

Someone with a bit of sense.  When they find the plant they then have to explain the quantities needed.

This one is over!

Oniomancer, on 04 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Conservation of effort for the most part, and if the blocks differ in size, why shouldn't the interfaces necessary to make stable joints between them differ too?

[zoser]

bmk1245, on 04 January 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

Its like talking to the wall



Zoser, please, stop peddling bs.

Then feel free to explain my last posts

here

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4607836

here

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4607867

and here

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4607874

The effect has been replicated.

It's done.

[zoser]

Here's one of the men that found the evidence though 60 years of painstaking research.



Foerster himself while not agreeing with all of his theories nevertheless credits him with a lot of ground breaking work.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

Well nice try.

I'm claiming this one.  It's taken a long time, but the evidence is now totally insurmountable and all I see is pretty flowers and people fumbling desperately trying to dig up enough sand to bury the evidence.

Good luck.  This nut is cracked.  

The top of the dismantled stones was the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle which validates everything that I have claimed; that the blocks sunk into each other while the stone was in a heated soft state.  The vitrification is again proof of heat, and chemical treatment alone has never been proved to vitrify stone.  Heat is easily provable to cause this effect.

The evidence is on the Gamarra documentary and cannot be refuted.

Good luck with your frantic digging and don't forget to smell the flowers on the way.

Gamarra again. Maybe that's how they did it...



You haven't even proven the vitrification yet. The only way it's irrefutable is because you've barely posted anything too refute.

(Imaginarynumber, I finally saw what you did there)


Edit: Perfect timing zoser.

Edited by Oniomancer, 04 January 2013 - 10:58 PM.

[bmk1245]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

Then feel free to explain my last posts

here

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4607836

[...]

Pounding, grinding, pounding, grinding... many manhours.

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

[...]
here

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4607867
[...]

Weathering. You've been provided with several images of weathered granites, need more?

You know, nature can come up with spectacular things, for example

(link, in Russian)
OMFG, alienz spaceship!

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

[...]
and here

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4607874

[...]

Weathering again...

So? What else do you have?

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

[...]
The effect has been replicated.

It's done.

Right, someone stick his dick in the clay. Thats considered the "evidence"?!

[bmk1245]

Abramelin, on 04 January 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

And Brian Fawcett says, using the notes of his father, that the bird in question lives near rivers and looks somewhat like a kingfisher. It builds its nest in the steep cliffs along the river. That's a few paragraphs before someone called it a woodpecker.

They live in the Montaña of Peru and Bolivia.

Follow the bird along the Perené, and then someone should be able to find that plant too.

Others think it's a dipper:

There are reports of a small, kingfisher-like bird, probably
the white-capped dipper, ‘cinclus leucocephalus’, which
nests in spherical holes in the Bolivian Andes and bores
these out of solid rock on the banks of mountain streams
by rubbing a leaf on the stone until it is soft and can be
pecked away.

-Lyall Watson, Supernature, pp.177,178

http://www.beforeus..../nl02_proc.html


But I think kingfisher is a lot better possibility:

Kingfishers in Peru

Here's one on its way to a nesthole in a cliff:
[...]

http://www.galleryof...Kingfishers.htm

Besides leaves of the plants, have you considered Oxalis tuberosa, which was domesticated in the area? (sorry, if that was brought earlier... with such pace its hard to follow).