10148 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 08 December 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

Whatever method the Incas used, it was apparently not special enough for the Spaniards to report.

There were no aliens walking around (apart from the Spaniards themselves), there were no giants, there was no fancy technology, the technology you also have no idea off but keep pushing anyway.

I know there were no visitors around when the Spanish arrived.  They had probably departed thousands of years before.  You are making the very point that I'm making; that had the Inca have made the precision relics they would have told the Spanish about it surely?  It would be part of their established culture and architectural method.  

Yet the Spanish reported no such thing.  All they got from the Inca was denial.  The deduction from this is that the Inca were the inheritors of the megalithic relics.  It's clear.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

The lines indicate to me a high degree of abrasion.

...Or low to moderate abrasion in stone with weak spots, as indicated by the fact that the lines continue on the outside of the rock at right angles to the direction of drilling.

Quote

I made the point earlier that a copper or soft metal tool would have shredded under that degree of abrasion.

Correction, you made the assumption, an assumption based both on the prior assumption of the feed rate and the false belief that softer metals are incapable of cutting hard stone despite evidence to the contrary.

Quote

It points to high feed rate drilling; exactly what Chris Dunn deduced with the Egyptian relics.

He makes his living from precision engineering.  He should know.

I imagine dunn is reasonably competent within the confines of his field of mechanical engineering but he has demonstrated an extreme level of incompetence when venturing outside of it, as shown by his incredibly daffy opinions regarding piezoelectricity and sculpture to name just two.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

I know there were no visitors around when the Spanish arrived.  They had probably departed thousands of years before.  You are making the very point that I'm making; that had the Inca have made the precision relics they would have told the Spanish about it surely?  It would be part of their established culture and architectural method.  

Yet the Spanish reported no such thing.  All they got from the Inca was denial.  The deduction from this is that the Inca were the inheritors of the megalithic relics.  It's clear.

Christ, I think you have some reading problem: the Spaniards were there when the Incas were still busy building Ollantaytambo, they used  Inca stone workers to construct many of what  modern tourists consider to be 'ancient pre-colonial walls' in Cusco.

No visitors departed thousands of years ago, the only 'visitors' were the Spaniards.

They didn't have to tell the Spaniards about anything, because the Spaniards saw them do it, and that is why the Spaniards used their expertise to erect new buildings in their typical Inca style.

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 08 December 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

...Or low to moderate abrasion in stone with weak spots, as indicated by the fact that the lines continue on the outside of the rock at right angles to the direction of drilling.

Correction, you made the assumption, an assumption based both on the prior assumption of the feed rate and the false belief that softer metals are incapable of cutting hard stone despite evidence to the contrary.

I imagine dunn is reasonably competent within the confines of his field of mechanical engineering but he has demonstrated an extreme level of incompetence when venturing outside of it, as shown by his incredibly daffy opinions regarding piezoelectricity and sculpture to name just two.

No I have to disagree with you again Mr O.  How can you assume that stone as hard as that has weak spots?  I can see what you are getting at but I feel you have made a big assumption with the lines.

Can't you imagine the time taken to drill a hole that deep (the commentator estimated several feet) in hard rock with a bow and the effort and skill needed?   How come we don't see examples as precise  this today if the process is that easy?  There are plenty of primitive cultures around still or there certainly were in the last century that have had no access to modern power tools.

The answer has to be that whoever is responsible for this example had the means to do it easily.  The same with the walls of Cuzco and SacsayHuaman.  Whoever did it, managed the task easily and so they were able to replicate it on a vast scale.  Several hundred tonne blocks 15-20 feet high.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 08 December 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

Christ, I think you have some reading problem: the Spaniards were there when the Incas were still busy building Ollantaytambo, they used  Inca stone workers to construct many of what  modern tourists consider to be 'ancient pre-colonial walls' in Cusco.

No visitors departed thousands of years ago, the only 'visitors' were the Spaniards.

And the stone quality demonstrated to the Spanish was not megalithic for a guess?

The visitors were from elsewhere.

[Abramelin]

Tools:

Garcilaso de la Vega is the only chronicler who says something about the tools Incas used to carve the stones. He mentions a kind of iron called hihuana.

“Los canteros no tuvieron más instrumentos para labrar las piedras que unos guijarros negros que llamaban hihuana, con que las labran machucando más que no cortando”.

Furthermore, archaeologists have found around the quarries tools such as hammers made of stone, metal bars, chisels and plumbs made of metal and stone:



How the Walls were  Built:

In order to put a stone on another, the Incas built slants and then pulled rocks using ropes and logs. This is according to Bernabé Cobo and Cieza de León.

However, the best explanation I found comes from Gutiérrez de Santa Clara in his book Historia de las Guerras Civiles del Perú (1590) in which states soil was put until the level of the wall and then stones were pulled:

“…cuando estos indios labraban edificios soberbios, para poner una piedra grande sobre otra labrábanla primero, i antes de subir la piedra ponían primero mucha tierra al pie de la primera piedra asentándola hasta que emparejaba con ella. I luego ponían unos morrillos largos i gordos de pino sobre la tierra pisada  i por allí subían la otra a fuerza de brazos. I de esta manera, estando arriba, la encajaban muy bien en la otra de abajo…i después quitaban las vigas i toda la tierra”

[...]



Garcilaso de la Vega says Sacsayhuaman was built by Inka Yupanki around 1400 AD.

Juan de Betanzos has the same opinion. In his book “Suma y Narración de los Incas“, he mentions Topa Ynga Yupangue as well as the name of the mountain where the site was and the quarry where the rocks were carried from.

“…salió Topa Ynga Yupangue…y parescióle que era bien que se edificase en un cerro que se dice Xacxahuaman Urco y luego por él fue hecha la traza…”

“…mandó el Ynga que acarreasen los cimientos della y acarreasen de todas las canteras de Oma y Salu y de Guairanga pueblos entorno desta ciudad el más lejano a cinco leguas…”

Even though he says the site was completed in six years, he does not mention when it was started.

Six years seem to be a short time for a site like Sacsayhuaman to be completed. Some scholars claim Sacsayhuaman was not completed when Spanish arrived here.

This could be true because Pedro Cieza de Leon says “this fortress had been begun in the days of Pachacuti; his son Topa Inca and Huayna Capac and Huascar added greatly to it”.

http://peruenroute.w...aso-de-la-vega/

[Abramelin]

Zoser, you are not giving the Peruvian people credit for what they and their ancestors were capable of.

We now may not know exactly  how they did it, but the Spanish conquistadores knew and were present when these Incas were on the job.

Because you and I are no stone workers, that doesn't mean aliens were needed using 'advanced technology' to construct those buildings.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 08 December 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Tools:

Garcilaso de la Vega is the only chronicler who says something about the tools Incas used to carve the stones. He mentions a kind of iron called hihuana.

“Los canteros no tuvieron más instrumentos para labrar las piedras que unos guijarros negros que llamaban hihuana, con que las labran machucando más que no cortando”.

Furthermore, archaeologists have found around the quarries tools such as hammers made of stone, metal bars, chisels and plumbs made of metal and stone:



How the Walls were  Built:

In order to put a stone on another, the Incas built slants and then pulled rocks using ropes and logs. This is according to Bernabé Cobo and Cieza de León.

However, the best explanation I found comes from Gutiérrez de Santa Clara in his book Historia de las Guerras Civiles del Perú (1590) in which states soil was put until the level of the wall and then stones were pulled:

“…cuando estos indios labraban edificios soberbios, para poner una piedra grande sobre otra labrábanla primero, i antes de subir la piedra ponían primero mucha tierra al pie de la primera piedra asentándola hasta que emparejaba con ella. I luego ponían unos morrillos largos i gordos de pino sobre la tierra pisada  i por allí subían la otra a fuerza de brazos. I de esta manera, estando arriba, la encajaban muy bien en la otra de abajo…i después quitaban las vigas i toda la tierra”

[...]



Garcilaso de la Vega says Sacsayhuaman was built by Inka Yupanki around 1400 AD.

Juan de Betanzos has the same opinion. In his book “Suma y Narración de los Incas“, he mentions Topa Ynga Yupangue as well as the name of the mountain where the site was and the quarry where the rocks were carried from.

“…salió Topa Ynga Yupangue…y parescióle que era bien que se edificase en un cerro que se dice Xacxahuaman Urco y luego por él fue hecha la traza…”

“…mandó el Ynga que acarreasen los cimientos della y acarreasen de todas las canteras de Oma y Salu y de Guairanga pueblos entorno desta ciudad el más lejano a cinco leguas…”

Even though he says the site was completed in six years, he does not mention when it was started.

Six years seem to be a short time for a site like Sacsayhuaman to be completed. Some scholars claim Sacsayhuaman was not completed when Spanish arrived here.

This could be true because Pedro Cieza de Leon says “this fortress had been begun in the days of Pachacuti; his son Topa Inca and Huayna Capac and Huascar added greatly to it”.

http://peruenroute.w...aso-de-la-vega/

How do bars and axes make the precision joints in the above post?  What were the means of achieving perfectly flat surfaces in walls all over 3 feet deep?  How many of these bars and axes have been found?  They would have needed literally thousands and thousands to be manufactured in a production line fashion.

It's a brave try Abe but it's just not going to work.  The means to do this was just not naturally around on the planet.

Can I also trouble you to say how you believe they moved blocks weighing hundreds of tonnes?  How were they quarried, excavated, lifted and positioned?

I'm sorry but these questions have to be asked.  Otherwise the AA hypothesis stands as proud as the 12 angled stone.

[DingoLingo]

No matter what we could put forward as proof zoser and the rest of the AA club have already got it in their heads that it's only aliens.. You could have them standing right in fron of you while you actually show them how it was done and they would find a reason why it was not possible and only aliens could have done it..

Yet none of the can actually prove what they are saying.. None.. Not one shred of credible evidence can be forwarded to show they are right..

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 08 December 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Zoser, you are not giving the Peruvian people credit for what they and their ancestors were capable of.

We now may not know exactly  how they did it, but the Spanish conquistadores knew and were present when these Incas were on the job.

Because you and I are no stone workers, that doesn't mean aliens were needed using 'advanced technology' to construct those buildings.

I'm sure they were bright people; believe me I'm not being dismissive.  I know you are being sincere and you are a genuinely decent guy.  The AA hypothesis has evolved for good reasons, and the awareness of such ideas have been long overdue.  There is no evidence that pre-industrial revolution cultures ever achieved feats like this.  If they did how did the skills and technology become lost?  Why isn't it still being replicated in such cultures in the last century?  Where did it all go?

No one in these old cultures has any recollection of how it was all achieved.  That strikes me as highly suspicious.  Nothing passed down.  Absolutely nothing.

What has been passed down is folklore.  'Stones moving through the air to the sound of trumpets' and similar incredible tales.  All hinting at some previous unknown culture.  Got to go now.  See you tomorrow everyone.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

How do bars and axes make the precision joints in the above post?  What were the means of achieving perfectly flat surfaces in walls all over 3 feet deep?  How many of these bars and axes have been found?  They would have needed literally thousands and thousands to be manufactured in a production line fashion.

It's a brave try Abe but it's just not going to work.  The means to do this was just not naturally around on the planet.

Can I also trouble you to say how you believe they moved blocks weighing hundreds of tonnes?  How were they quarried, excavated, lifted and positioned?

I'm sorry but these questions have to be asked.  Otherwise the AA hypothesis stands as proud as the 12 angled stone.

You ask me how? Ok, maybe you should try to find the records of the Spanish conquistadores I mentioned who were there when the Incas were busy building.

"A brave try"?? At least I don't let my lack of knowledge of stone working get in the way of logical thinking.

You prefer to explain anything YOU don't understand by saying it must have been 'aliens'.

I, on the other hand, acknowledge the fact that I have no experience in stone working.

[DingoLingo]

Mind you.. I have to admit I was like zoser and the AA crowd in my early 20's took everything from Von d and the like as truth..

Then I started to look into it.. Read a lot of historical books.. And woke up

[zoser]

DingoLingo, on 08 December 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Yet none of the can actually prove what they are saying.. None.. Not one shred of credible evidence can be forwarded to show they are right.

The only proof the AA proponents have are the artefacts.  These take my breath away every time I see them.  The folklore is another highly significant part of the hypothesis and should not be disregarded.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

No I have to disagree with you again Mr O.  How can you assume that stone as hard as that has weak spots?

Because I've seen it before. Just because a rock is hard doesn't mean it's uniformly hard. Joints, fractures, veins, All of these can affect  structural integrity, and clearly something caused that rock to be slightly indented on the surface in a way that has nothing to do with actual contact with whatever did the drilling.

Look at the first picture you posted, the topmost block on the immediate right of the biggest block, See those lines running across it? Also on the lowermost diagonally opposite it.

Quote

I can see what you are getting at but I feel you have made a big assumption with the lines.

No more so than you're  doing.

Quote

Can't you imagine the time taken to drill a hole that deep (the commentator estimated several feet) in hard rock with a bow and the effort and skill needed?   How come we don't see examples as precise  this today if the process is that easy?  There are plenty of primitive cultures around still or there certainly were in the last century that have had no access to modern power tools.

We wouldn't see them precisely because they took so long, And there are primitive and not so primitive cultures who until recently were doing just that.  I'll refer you again to this thread too:

http://www.unexplain...look mama&st=0

[zoser]

DingoLingo, on 08 December 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Mind you.. I have to admit I was like zoser and the AA crowd in my early 20's took everything from Von d and the like as truth..

Then I started to look into it.. Read a lot of historical books.. And woke up

I truly believe Von D was correct.  I really do.  Not in every instance perhaps but in the spirit of his ideas.  He has been well supported too by lots of scientifically and engineering minded people.