104 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

ancientpolygon, on 23 April 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

You are also entitled to your opinion troll.

Thank you for the honorable title, and what is your opinion about yourself ?

[Oniomancer]

ancientpolygon, on 22 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

The sad thing is that you had started out well enough, providing some good input but then descended into pure trollery almost to the level of Questionmark.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You've been taking cheap shots at me for a while now, where the most I was doing until recently is calling you on avoiding questions and moving the goalposts, plus a little hyperbole and a couple arguments from ridicule aimed entirely at your hero.

Quote

"I'm suggesting they were both produced as a result of quarrying. That could even be used to support his position." - Well, I don't really care about limestone quarries presumably in the US and how they look, what I really care about is an assessment of technology used to make the dual cut incisions in the mountain in Sacsahuaman, which when one looks at the weathering which occurred on the rest of the stone surface as well as the grooves is evident that it was not done recently with a grinder from a hardware store. I doubt the two of you can debate that. BTW, it may interest you to know that he had a hard time getting that shot.. there was a team of local people following his group at that point, he even filmed them.

Firstly, They were intended as comparison shots showing the remnants of channeling cuts, which given that such is one of the prime  bases of his thesis, one would think he would recognize and note as such.

Secondly, that second pic whose URL you took such an interest in is of the source quarry for the Great Pyramid at Giza, which oddly I don't recall seeing featured in his inquiries.

Quote

"Say what you will, it gets my point across. Another article in the same vein:
http://www.csicop.or...nce_dangerous/" - Oh, so now you are posting the first Google search result for the keywords "Pseudoscience Russia".. moving up in the world are we?

Still not seeing any negation of the premise.

Quote

"Perhaps you'd care to provide a breakdown of the proportion of new details to previously addressed material?" - I've provided enough breakdown and fed the troll for way too long.

So far I've seen maybe a handful of objects which haven't been presented or referred to by others, and virtually all of those simply feed into the same tired hypothesis which goes back to VD and AA.

Quote

"And I believe Swede already reiterated my position adequately." - Yes, you two seem to reiterate each others points quite frequently.

As do you and Skylyarov. Similar points of view must necessarily parallel.

[ancientpolygon]

Oniomancer, on 23 April 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You've been taking cheap shots at me for a while now, where the most I was doing until recently is calling you on avoiding questions and moving the goalposts, plus a little hyperbole and a couple arguments from ridicule aimed entirely at your hero.

Haha, I do know what that word means. Quite familiar with forum etiquette. The difference between a troll and a fussy argumentative poster is that a troll doesn't add anything new to the discussion except for inflaming it and should not be fed since he uses the replies to bolster his own ego and inflames the situation further. While someone who adds to the conversation while even if sometimes being a bit belligerent about it is still worthwhile to listen to. You added to the conversation in the beginning, but once you ran out of material you descended into pure trollery, the latest of which is simply posting links from the top results of Google to reinforce your belief, both image and text.

I'm sorry but I can't reply to you anymore, since that would be feeding the troll and would not provide this discussion any further benefit.

If anything I have to commend this forum, as the number of trolls here is greatly limited when compared to other forums of equal size.

Edited by ancientpolygon, 23 April 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[Oniomancer]

questionmark, on 22 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

The point this gets all to is that somebody, evidently out of ignorance of the technological capabilities and methods of older civilizations, is maxturbating his brain about how he would go about it , where his/her first stop evidently is Handy-Andie's to stock up on Black&Decker utensils.

They're underestimating the capabilities of a Black and Decker too judging from the commentary on cut depth and increments.

Quote

What gets ignored is that not only has stone been worked with amazing precision in the past with simple methods but also that amazing feats have been achieved, lets just stop a moment at Roman aqueducts and aquifers.
(snip)
And the work was so "Shoddy" that 2000 years later 2 of the original 4 Roman aqueducts are still in use in Almuñécar, Spain.

And There's this little beauty in Segovia:

http://en.wikipedia....duct_of_Segovia

All-granite mortarless construction. I wonder if you can get a blade or a piece of paper between the contact points?

Quote

In view that nowhere in Roman literature there is a mention about a Ingenious Black and Deckerus but certainly lots to mallets and chisels and thousands of slaves hacking away we must conclude that they did not have any diamond power saw.

And what did they use for their fine stone-carving?:

http://www.dartmouth...ap_drill_72.jpg

[questionmark]

Oniomancer, on 23 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

They're underestimating the capabilities of a Black and Decker too judging from the commentary on cut depth and increments.


And There's this little beauty in Segovia:

http://en.wikipedia....duct_of_Segovia

All-granite mortarless construction. I wonder if you can get a blade or a piece of paper between the contact points?



And what did they use for their fine stone-carving?:

http://www.dartmouth...ap_drill_72.jpg

Yep, but I bet that it is not a diamond studded B&D

[questionmark]

Oniomancer, on 23 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

They're underestimating the capabilities of a Black and Decker too judging from the commentary on cut depth and increments.


And There's this little beauty in Segovia:

http://en.wikipedia....duct_of_Segovia

All-granite mortarless construction. I wonder if you can get a blade or a piece of paper between the contact points?



And what did they use for their fine stone-carving?:

http://www.dartmouth...ap_drill_72.jpg

I did not forget that one, but as the fringe always claims that the rocks used to build that are very small (sic.) I skipped it

[Banksy Boy]

Don't rise to it ancientpolygon, you've done a smashing job.

[ancientpolygon]

Banksy Boy, on 23 April 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

Don't rise to it ancientpolygon, you've done a smashing job.

Thanks! I won't, just wanted to let the trolls know where I stand.

[questionmark]

Could a mod check if somebody is having a self-conversation here?

[Oniomancer]

ancientpolygon, on 23 April 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

Haha, I do know what that word means. Quite familiar with forum etiquette. The difference between a troll and a fussy argumentative poster is that a troll doesn't add anything new to the discussion except for inflaming it and should not be fed since he uses the replies to bolster his own ego and inflames the situation further. While someone who adds to the conversation while even if sometimes being a bit belligerent about it is still worthwhile to listen to. You added to the conversation in the beginning, but once you ran out of material you descended into pure trollery,

Considering that a troll is generally only trying to get a response and the only responses I've got from you over the last few posts are dodges and ad hominems, your confusion is understandable. I can only do so much with what I'm given. I made several points which you wrote off as "nonsense" or implying same, when you even bothered to, without explaining why you thought they were nonsensical. That's on a par with any expectation of cited sources.

Quote

the latest of which is simply posting links from the top results of Google to reinforce your belief, both image and text.

...And when you finally get sources, you dismiss them again out of hand. I'll have you know I went through several pages of various search terms before finding something that matched what I was looking for. Would at least acknowledging the nature of the source material really be too much to ask?

[Harte]

ancientpolygon, on 20 April 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

As for Obsidian being only used for ornaments, a) that's just your opinion and b ) well that's the big mystery, if they had some other function then, why use Obsidian and Mountain Crystal.

"But what kind of technology?" - Exactly what everyone wants to know!

"Transition is in the eye of the beholder, and while there is some cross over with some materials, knappable lithics and other hardstone work require completely different techniques from each other and are by no means mutually exclusive. The crystal as I said falls into the former category as well and still shape-able by abrasion like any other stone." - Shape-able yes, perfectly symmetrical, this is where we differ in opinion. I have seen some very beautifully done hand made works which I can however with difficulty say that they were hand made. Nearly perfect. However, there are always some kind of imperfections left by a working tool, usually deep in the crevases. And then there are other objects like the Obsidian monkey jar http://www.mexicolor...&id=502&typ=reg at the Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City, perfect in every respect.

People have been polishing obsidian down to an extremely fine finish for a very long time:

Quote

Among the intriguing finds at the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in central Anatolia are a few polished obsidian artifacts believed to have been used as mirrors.

SNIP

In conclusion, there is abundant archaeological evidence for grinding and polishing stone to make tools and ornaments. No technological innovation was required before obsidian mirrors could be produced. While the only raw materials available locally to the ancient inhabitants of Çatalhöyük were clay, lake-bed marl, grasses, and animal hide, at some distance, the Tarus Mountains to the south and several volcanoes in other directions, could have been the sources of materials suitable for grinding and polishing obsidian.

Source: Archaeology Magazine

Harte

[Oniomancer]

If it's new sub-topics that's lacking, here's another one for the interim. In the first video, We're shown in one instance a block of Egyptian limestone with a surface discoloration that shows in cross-section. The narration suggests this to be the results of some unknown working process occurring when the block was cut.
It has been noted by other members of this forum on other threads relating to the age of the Great Sphinx that limestone is especially susceptible to chemical weathering over time purely from exposure to the atmosphere. Said weathering manifests as a discoloration and change in texture and hardness extending some ways into the rock.

[questionmark]

Harte, on 23 April 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

People have been polishing obsidian down to an extremely fine finish for a very long time:

Source: Archaeology Magazine

Harte

To add, even extreme hard materials like Dolerite has been successfully polished by troglodites:




These are two specimens you can find at the Hunt museum and were found in Limmerick Ireland.

[Oniomancer]

questionmark, on 23 April 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

To add, even extreme hard materials like Dolerite has been successfully polished by troglodites:

They did a marvelous job with jade too.

http://www.britishmu...e_axe-head.aspx

Edited by Oniomancer, 23 April 2012 - 09:41 PM.

[MMXX]

1. If you see something in the sky and don't know what it is...it's the aliens!

2. If you see an ancient structure and have no idea how it was built...the aliens built it!

3. If you see a dead cow somewhere and have no idea how it died...the aliens killed it!

This is the way it has always been, and will always be.