Pumapunku was not made with stone tools.

[Nordmann61]

And neither could Tiahuanaco, Teotihuacan, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo and Machu Picchu have been built with stone tools.

Because that is impossible. To shape and form stone by banging handheld stones against the hardest granite, and these buildings are made from the hardest granite. A handheld stone, weighing from about 4 to 10 pounds, depending on the persons strength, will only make scratches on the surface, maybe at best make some small stone chips fly.

Someone just coming out of stoneage was not less intelligent than modern man, and after experimenting with banging some handheld stones against a granite wall, only making scratches, will not get the idea of building Ollantaytambo or its like.

If you want to shape stone with stone, the best stones to use as tools is round stones, as found in riverbeds. A round stone will transfer all its weight to the point of impact, an irregular shaped stone will not be the most effective.

Still this method will be next to natural erosion in speed.

It will take generations to shape one of the typical blocks of stone that make up a site like Tiahuanaco.

Just try to imagine what it would take so separate one the blocks that make up the entrance to Kalasayaya temple, Tiahuanaco, from a granite mountain side. Granite equal to 2-3 times the volume of the block must be removed to end up with the finished block of stone. And to smooth the sides of a block of stone like this with stone tools will take eons in it self. The precisely made straight grooves and cuts on the blocks will it not be possible to make with stone tools.

And then we have not even started to talk about how impossible it would have been to transport these blocks of stone from the quarries to the sites with the use of ropes, wooden rollers and elbow grease.

So why have archealogists claimed that it was stone tools that were used? Because stone tools has been found close to the sites, period.

Only people with no practical inclination at all would seriously believe that. Archealogists are not experts in shaping stone, transportation or logistics, yet it has been left to archealogists alone to explain sites like this to the public for a century.

Because of the unpresidented status archealogists have, they were the first to present sites like Tiahuanaco to the public, so we trust them.

Despite archealogy is not an exact science, more qualified guessing.

A panel of scientist from several scientific disiplines should have been present at the excavations, together with experts on shaping of stone, and experts in transportation to decide if the archealogists theories were feasible.

It would be interesting to make an experiment, let companies that are specialists in heavy construction and big building sites, to make "bids" on a copy of for instance Pumapunku, to see what it would take of modern technology to build it. And then ask them to build it with the tools and means the archealogists say the people that built Pumapunku had.

Here is a link with photos of the sites in question http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_6.htm#top

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Nordmann61

[legionromanes]

And neither could Tiahuanaco, Teotihuacan, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo and Machu Picchu have been built with stone tools.

Because that is impossible. To shape and form stone by banging handheld stones against the hardest granite, and these buildings are made from the hardest granite. A handheld stone, weighing from about 4 to 10 pounds, depending on the persons strength, will only make scratches on the surface, maybe at best make some small stone chips fly.

Someone just coming out of stoneage was not less intelligent than modern man, and after experimenting with banging some handheld stones against a granite wall, only making scratches, will not get the idea of building Ollantaytambo or its like.

If you want to shape stone with stone, the best stones to use as tools is round stones, as found in riverbeds. A round stone will transfer all its weight to the point of impact, an irregular shaped stone will not be the most effective.

Still this method will be next to natural erosion in speed.

It will take generations to shape one of the typical blocks of stone that make up a site like Tiahuanaco.

Just try to imagine what it would take so separate one the blocks that make up the entrance to Kalasayaya temple, Tiahuanaco, from a granite mountain side. Granite equal to 2-3 times the volume of the block must be removed to end up with the finished block of stone. And to smooth the sides of a block of stone like this with stone tools will take eons in it self. The precisely made straight grooves and cuts on the blocks will it not be possible to make with stone tools.

And then we have not even started to talk about how impossible it would have been to transport these blocks of stone from the quarries to the sites with the use of ropes, wooden rollers and elbow grease.

So why have archealogists claimed that it was stone tools that were used? Because stone tools has been found close to the sites, period.

Only people with no practical inclination at all would seriously believe that. Archealogists are not experts in shaping stone, transportation or logistics, yet it has been left to archealogists alone to explain sites like this to the public for a century.

Because of the unpresidented status archealogists have, they were the first to present sites like Tiahuanaco to the public, so we trust them.

Despite archealogy is not an exact science, more qualified guessing.

A panel of scientist from several scientific disiplines should have been present at the excavations, together with experts on shaping of stone, and experts in transportation to decide if the archealogists theories were feasible.

It would be interesting to make an experiment, let companies that are specialists in heavy construction and big building sites, to make "bids" on a copy of for instance Pumapunku, to see what it would take of modern technology to build it. And then ask them to build it with the tools and means the archealogists say the people that built Pumapunku had.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

Mods please do we have to put up with this garbage posting again and again and again

all the sites he mentioned were built using copper and bronze tools,

[The_Spartan]

And neither could Tiahuanaco, Teotihuacan, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo and Machu Picchu have been built with stone tools.

The best answer is "We Dont Know!!"

My Question is 'Do you Know How they are made?"

The best answer that would and should come from you is "I Dont Know!"

period!

[Nordmann61]

Mods please do we have to put up with this garbage posting again and again and again

all the sites he mentioned were built using copper and bronze tools,

Copper and bronze tools are too soft to shape the hardest granite effectively, it will still take too much time to chiesel out all the blocks to make up the buildings.

The logistics for sites like this is certainly beyond that ancient people could have done, it is almost beyond the capacity we have today.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

[legionromanes]

Copper and bronze tools are too soft to shape the hardest granite effectively, it will still take too much time to chiesel out all the blocks to make up the buildings.

uhuh, then you clearly don't know what youre talking about, both copper and bronze saws can cut the hardest granite.

The logistics for sites like this is certainly beyond that ancient people could have done, it is almost beyond the capacity we have today.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

none of the sites you listed are ancient, they are all common era

before you start op's perhaps next time you had better make sure you know what youre talking about because currently your level of credibility is falling, of course I expect it to fall much quicker when everyone realises that you are in fact Ron O Cook, and have for some reason decided to post the exact same material here that you posted at Hancocks site last week under your Enigcom alias

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.p...05&t=258805

3h. Multiple usernames: Registering another account and then posting under it in order to either back up your own arguments, attack other members or otherwise take on more than one identity is known as creating a "sock puppet" and if caught you risk having both accounts disabled.

**Legion, read the PM I am sending you**

Edited January 12, 2009 by aquatus1

[Orion von Koch]

The best answer is "We Dont Know!!"

My Question is 'Do you Know How they are made?"

The best answer that would and should come from you is "I Dont Know!"

period!

You are right ... the tools necessary to shape such objects would have to be highly advanced and few of today's academics have ever used any tool other than their nose. I have seen some of these stones and have often wondered if they might have cast these stones in some advanced fashion. Certainly, if copper or bronze tools were used, they were hardened at higher temper strengths than current tools. What ever the method, the work was certainly fantastic. I have pounded a few stones in my life and I wonder where the mistakes are hidden.

[Oniomancer]

Nordmann61, You're argueing a position that's already been more or less demonstrably disproved.

Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2404inca.html

...And the video, in 6 parts: (courtesy of Darkbreed) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE4JZ-_TPzE

As mentioned, this is also the exact same topic you went several rounds with Harte over a while back, to no good end.

Almost word for word in fact.

[Nordmann61]

The best answer is "We Dont Know!!"

My Question is 'Do you Know How they are made?"

The best answer that would and should come from you is "I Dont Know!"

period!

"We dont know!!" Really, if you are representing etablished archaelogy, that is an tremendous improvement! Then you must inform your fellow archaelogists, because they constantly claim it was done like this.

I think the people who built them was much more techologically advanced than we like to think, even more advanced then we are.

The sites speak for themselves.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

[Nordmann61]

uhuh, then you clearly don't know what youre talking about, both copper and bronze saws can cut the hardest granite.

none of the sites you listed are ancient, they are all common era

before you start op's perhaps next time you had better make sure you know what youre talking about because currently your level of credibility is falling, of course I expect it to fall much quicker when everyone realises that you are in fact Ron O Cook, and have for some reason decided to post the exact same material here that you posted at Hancocks site last week under your Enigcom alias

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.p...05&t=258805

**Legion, read the PM I am sending you**

There are some discussion if the sites really are from common era, that is why I choose the word ancient, but ok.

Am I Ron O'Cook? The Exact same material:-)? Then this Ron O'cook must have copied my posts and posted it on Hancocks site, fine with me. Enignom alias?

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

[Resonance]

Okay, well...

I'd say.... no go on the copper tools...

Drilling and such, wouldn't work..

"Carved stone block at Puma Punku. This precision-made 6 mm wide

groove contains equidistant, drilled holes. It seems impossible that this

cuts were made with use of stone or copper tools. "

Check it out.

[Nordmann61]

Nordmann61, You're argueing a position that's already been more or less demonstrably disproved. Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2404inca.html

...And the video, in 6 parts: (courtesy of Darkbreed) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE4JZ-_TPzE

As mentioned, this is also the exact same topic you went several rounds with Harte over a while back, to no good end.

Almost word for word in fact.

Yes, you are right, I made posts with almost the same words back in April in the topic: topic pre-historic visits by aliens. I remember Hartes replies, yes. No good end for who:-)?

"Nordmann61, You're argueing a position that's already been more or less demonstrably disproved". If that statement comes from someone within the archealogical community, I am not surprised.

I decided to try to start as dicussion about this topic again, because the more I look into this, the more skeptical I get about the archealogists claims about the sites.

It would have been interesting to get more feedback on this, that is why I started this topic.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

[legionromanes]

Okay, well...

I'd say.... no go on the copper tools...

Drilling and such, wouldn't work..

"Carved stone block at Puma Punku. This precision-made 6 mm wide

groove contains equidistant, drilled holes. It seems impossible that this

cuts were made with use of stone or copper tools. "

Check it out.

uhuh ok, then I guess that this 4 page pdf which tells you how to drill in granite using bronze tools must be imaginary

http://130.91.80.97:591/PDFs/25-3/Ancient.pdf

[Mattshark]

Yes, you are right, I made posts with almost the same words back in April in the topic: topic pre-historic visits by aliens. I remember Hartes replies, yes. No good end for who:-)?

"Nordmann61, You're argueing a position that's already been more or less demonstrably disproved". If that statement comes from someone within the archealogical community, I am not surprised.

I decided to try to start as dicussion about this topic again, because the more I look into this, the more skeptical I get about the archealogists claims about the sites.

It would have been interesting to get more feedback on this, that is why I started this topic.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

Why are you sceptical about archaeologists? They have standards and rules to conform to as well as presenting actual evidence, rather than the fringe who rely on conjecture and in some cases out right lies?

Edited January 12, 2009 by Mattshark

[legionromanes]

There are some discussion if the sites really are from common era, that is why I choose the word ancient, but ok.

Am I Ron O'Cook? The Exact same material:-)? Then this Ron O'cook must have copied my posts and posted it on Hancocks site, fine with me. Enignom alias?

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

Ron , enhver stolpe du lage her over idet nordman benytter beskjed tidligere postet fra enigcom eller orion von hannfuglen er lett gjenkjennelse fordi du alltid lage stolpe fra din innbilningen , i.e. der flere å sock dukke enn bare skiftende din navnet

?

in your own time Northman

[Oniomancer]

uhuh ok, then I guess that this 4 page pdf which tells you how to drill in granite using bronze tools must be imaginary

http://130.91.80.97:591/PDFs/25-3/Ancient.pdf

Bronze? Pfft. The Chinese used bamboo abrasive drills to work jade for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Did the Inca and whoever built pumapunku even have bronze and copper tools?

Edited January 12, 2009 by Oniomancer

[Nordmann61]

Why are you sceptical about archaeologists? They have standards and rules to conform to as well as presenting actual evidence, rather than the fringe who rely on conjecture and in some cases out right lies?

Back in the time when they excavated this sites, the archaeologists words ruled about how the blocks of stone were made. They still do for many. Noone made a question mark on anything the archaeologists said then, they were in the forefront of science. Now in our technologically advanced age, it is much easier to air skepticism on their claims on how they were built.

"They have standards and rules to conform to as well as presenting actual evidence", you say. Then I would like to ask if they ever have tried to separate a typical block of stone from for instance Tiahuanacu, from a granite wall using stone tools, and finish it.

That would be evidence for me if they were successful.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Nordmann61

[Harte]

uhuh ok, then I guess that this 4 page pdf which tells you how to drill in granite using bronze tools must be imaginary

http://130.91.80.97:591/PDFs/25-3/Ancient.pdf

Legionromanes,

I can't get the link to work.

Could you check it?

I could use this link!

Harte

[Oniomancer]

Yes, you are right, I made posts with almost the same words back in April in the topic: topic pre-historic visits by aliens. I remember Hartes replies, yes. No good end for who:-)?

I suppose it depends on your viewpoint.

"Nordmann61, You're argueing a position that's already been more or less demonstrably disproved".

If that statement comes from someone within the archealogical community, I am not surprised.

Follow the links. Experimental archaeologists Jean-Pierre Protzen and Vincent Lee have successfully duplicated inca-stlye stonework using only stone tools. I don't know how much is actually in the video or what part if so but I gather they had witnesses.

I should point out as well much of what you're refering to as granite isn't. You mentioned andesite before for instance.

Andesite is a fine grained porphoritic rock, and fine grained stones, basalt in particular, tend to chip much more easily than course crystaline granites.

[Mattshark]

Back in the time when they excavated this sites, the archaeologists words ruled about how the blocks of stone were made. They still do for many. Noone made a question mark on anything the archaeologists said then, they were in the forefront of science. Now in our technologically advanced age, it is much easier to air skepticism on their claims on how they were built.

"They have standards and rules to conform to as well as presenting actual evidence", you say. Then I would like to ask if they ever have tried to separate a typical block of stone from for instance Tiahuanacu, from a granite wall using stone tools, and finish it.

That would be evidence for me.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

Actually now it is just easier for people ignorant of fields to get ridiculously bad information of the internet and frauds and liars can spread their rubbish further. How many journals for example have you read on this subject?

No, why should I have? I'm a biologist not a stone mason.

Just because it is the evidence you want doesn't make it the be all and end all of evidence.

Also it was built in AD550 I think they probably had tools other than stone by then.

[Oniomancer]

Legionromanes,

I can't get the link to work.

Could you check it?

I could use this link!

Harte

Works for me, though it loaded a bit slow. (not on dialup any more. Yipee!) How up to date is your Adobe Acrobat?

[Mattshark]

Works for me, though it loaded a bit slow. (not on dialup any more. Yipee!) How up to date is your Adobe Acrobat?

Worked for me too.

[Mr Supertypo]

Ron , enhver stolpe du lage her over idet nordman benytter beskjed tidligere postet fra enigcom eller orion von hannfuglen er lett gjenkjennelse fordi du alltid lage stolpe fra din innbilningen , i.e. der flere å sock dukke enn bare skiftende din navnet

Orion von hannfuglen? lool, seriøst er du fra skandinavien eller har du brugt babelfish?

[Nordmann61]

I suppose it depends on your viewpoint.

Follow the links. Experimental archaeologists Jean-Pierre Protzen and Vincent Lee have successfully duplicated inca-stlye stonework using only stone tools. I don't know how much is actually in the video or what part if so but I gather they had witnesses.

I should point out as well much of what you're refering to as granite isn't. You mentioned andesite before for instance.

Andesite is a fine grained porphoritic rock, and fine grained stones, basalt in particular, tend to chip much more easily than course crystaline granites.

Most interesting, Oniomancer. The links you refer to do not show up in the post, if you could try to post the links again, please, I would appreciate it very much.

I cannot remember mentioning Andesite, but thank you for the information.

Cheers,

Nordmann61.

[legionromanes]

Bronze? Pfft. The Chinese used bamboo abrasive drills to work jade for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Did the Inca and whoever built pumapunku even have bronze and copper tools?

are you asking the question because you don't know ?

the Inca civilisation knew of all the types of metal we knew in the west, Bronze, copper, Iron etc, but then as their civilisation didn't exist until about 800 years ago this should come as no surprise.

the builders of Tiwanaku discarded bronze and copper tools which have been found throughout the site, which is believed to have been at this location in the first place to take advantage of the nearby tin deposits.

[legionromanes]

Orion von hannfuglen? lool, seriøst er du fra skandinavien eller har du brugt babelfish?

JEG har den assistanse av mange venner