Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
zoser

Precision Architecture Cuzco Peru

35 posts in this topic

Here is a short clip of some highly intriguing precision stonework. Very difficult to explain. Watch carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing stonework. Dare I say...astonishing.

In fact, only the chronically anesthetized would fail to find it so. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing stonework. Dare I say...astonishing.

In fact, only the chronically anesthetized would fail to find it so. :yes:

I totally agree; that this information gets written out of mainstream history is totally criminal. Something mysterious clearly was used to bore that hole; the grooves testify to something other than a rotary tool otherwise the scoring would be spiral and not straight. Also how long was the tool? The questions are endless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree; that this information gets written out of mainstream history is totally criminal. Something mysterious clearly was used to bore that hole; the grooves testify to something other than a rotary tool otherwise the scoring would be spiral and not straight. Also how long was the tool? The questions are endless.

You may want to read this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=226518

Or else a couple of useful links:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=143234453&page=1

http://www.oocities.org/unforbidden_geology/ancient_egyptian_stone_vase_making.html

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/ahist/arnold/arnold.htm

http://www.geocities.ws/unforbidden_geology/ancient_egyptian_copper_coring_drills.html

http://www.geocities.ws/unforbidden_geology/Tomb_3111.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, to date, no one has been able to accurately reproduce the features seen on these heavy blocks (flat surfaces, large holes, etc.) using the claimed techniques.

4,500 years later and NOT ONE accurate reproduction to prove how it was done...just a bunch of cartoon sketches offered as "proof".

Yet 4,500 years ago they made thousands.

I am unconvinced. I'd like to see someone create a (small) 300 cm cube of granite with smooth, accurate faces and a straight, 80mm hole through it just using the tools named in those links. Shouldn't be too difficult, right? No inside corners or anything complex.

In about one man-year of labor, using a laborer of average skill, I guarantee it would look like crap.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so how do you think it was done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so how do you think it was done?

I do not know. And I am not too proud to admit it.

The better question is, why do those who claim to be the standard-bearers of "science", so completely abandon the scientific method in cases like this and refuse to test their hypotheses. Suddenly, cartoons are sufficient as evidence.

The answer, sadly, seems to be that they know there is much more to the story, but ARE too proud to admit it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, to date, no one has been able to accurately reproduce the features seen on these heavy blocks (flat surfaces, large holes, etc.) using the claimed techniques.

4,500 years later and NOT ONE accurate reproduction to prove how it was done...just a bunch of cartoon sketches offered as "proof".

Yet 4,500 years ago they made thousands.

I am unconvinced. I'd like to see someone create a (small) 300 cm cube of granite with smooth, accurate faces and a straight, 80mm hole through it just using the tools named in those links. Shouldn't be too difficult, right? No inside corners or anything complex.

In about one man-year of labor, using a laborer of average skill, I guarantee it would look like crap.

I guess you already know what I think: the methods described in that thread and those links look highly plausible, but I want to see a demonstration too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree; that this information gets written out of mainstream history is totally criminal. Something mysterious clearly was used to bore that hole; the grooves testify to something other than a rotary tool otherwise the scoring would be spiral and not straight. Also how long was the tool? The questions are endless.

Why are we to assume the grooves were made as the hole was being bored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you already know what I think: the methods described in that thread and those links look highly plausible, but I want to see a demonstration too.

Yep...I'd for sure watch THAT episode of Myth Busters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's my overactive imagination, but- it seems that those scatches inside the bore coincide with fault lines in the stones which the boring process somehow accentuated. Check the end of the stone adjacent to the scratch, especially in the second bore shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we to assume the grooves were made as the hole was being bored?

That's a fair question and deserves further consideration.

At the very least, when watching the video in zoser's OP, it's best to turn off your volume and just enjoy the camera shots. This is another of those videos produced for hiddenincatours.com, whose main man proudly affiliates himself with Ancient Aliens and espouses "lost technologies" and other fringe twaddle. Therefore, the credibility of the script for this video is immediately suspect, which is why turning off the volume is warranted. Nice shots of stonework, though.

While I'll be the first skeptic to admit we don't have all of the answers and have likely forgotten many stone-working methods commonly used by ancient craftsmen, I think we can do a little better and exercise some critical thinking rather than allowing ourselves to degenerate into a sci-fi mentality. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's my overactive imagination, but- it seems that those scatches inside the bore coincide with fault lines in the stones which the boring process somehow accentuated. Check the end of the stone adjacent to the scratch, especially in the second bore shown.

I had the same thought, except they don't continue through the other side of the bore. But then I've seen zone lines peter out in the middle of a rock before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same thought, except they don't continue through the other side of the bore. But then I've seen zone lines peter out in the middle of a rock before.

BTW it's nice to be here again. Apologies for causing such a storm. You can't be serious when you say that these stone marvels were the produce of indigenous Indians using pounding tools? So how did they bore out the hole? What was the tool? What was the motive power? How fast was the cutting speed? What caused the grooves (rotating tools do not do that; common sense?), what was it's purpose?, how did they achieve the high precision joints?

I'm waiting. Sorry to be a pain.

Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW it's nice to be here again. Apologies for causing such a storm. You can't be serious when you say that these stone marvels were the produce of indigenous Indians using pounding tools?

Now where did I say that?

So how did they bore out the hole? What was the tool? What was the motive power? How fast was the cutting speed?

If you're going to debate this stuff, you really have to pay attention to all the arguments. The types of tools available to the Inca and their predecessors have been brought up before in other threads.

What caused the grooves (rotating tools do not do that; common sense?), what was it's purpose?, how did they achieve the high precision joints?

I'm waiting. Sorry to be a pain.

Z

Do the local stations air police procedurals on your lonely little island Zoser? Stuff like Bones or CSI? In forensics, there's specific emphasis on whether a given wound or mark occurred antimortem, parimortem or postmortem. That is, before, during or after death. Do you see what I'm getting at? And I'll make the same point I made in QM's thread, If you can lay out and carve a perfectly square block with nothing but steel hand chisels and a square, why is it such a stretch from there to stone tools using the exact same method, only slower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW it's nice to be here again. Apologies for causing such a storm. You can't be serious when you say that these stone marvels were the produce of indigenous Indians using pounding tools? So how did they bore out the hole? What was the tool? What was the motive power? How fast was the cutting speed? What caused the grooves (rotating tools do not do that; common sense?), what was it's purpose?, how did they achieve the high precision joints?

I'm waiting. Sorry to be a pain.

Z

I'm not an expert in ancient stone-working in Mesoamerica, but of course it was indigenous Indians. The ancient Peruvians were the people who constructed and inhabited the site, so who else would it have been? Logic guides the answer.

I am more acquainted with stone working in the ancient Near East, where ancient craftsmen used any number of different stone-type drills. In ancient Egypt, for example, diorite drill bits were used to produce the coffers of granite and quartzite sarcophagi. These were hand-turned drills, so the going was slow but it worked fine. And before anyone displays chronic astonishment and declares this couldn't have been done, bear in mind there are many examples of such drill bits recovered in archaeological digs, and many ancient sarcophagi still bear the tool marks of this drilling process. Khufu's is an example, in the Great Pyramid.

I would imagine it was similar at this site. It's Puma Punku, correct? The guy who makes these videos for the hiddenincatours website likes to proclaim that all of these stones are diorite and too hard for ancient man to have worked, but he's decidedly incorrect on both counts. First, ancient man did very well with diorite, and second (if not more important), the vast majority of the hewn blocks at Puma Punku are sandstone, not diorite. Ancient man made plentiful use of sandstone because it's very easy to work.

Why shouldn't the drill hole be straight all the way through? Was ancient man too simple-minded to drill and cut straight? I think not. Drilling and cutting straight hardly requires modern science.

As for the grooves, others have questioned whether they had anything to do with the drilling process, at all. I second that cautionary note. We can't know for sure, and the credibility of the guy in the video is far from solid, so we need to be careful. I personally believe it's possible that something was set into this hole and removed, over and over and over through the years. Whatever the object was that once fit into the hole, it likely scarred the interior of the sandstone bore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now where did I say that?

If you're going to debate this stuff, you really have to pay attention to all the arguments. The types of tools available to the Inca and their predecessors have been brought up before in other threads.

Do the local stations air police procedurals on your lonely little island Zoser? Stuff like Bones or CSI? In forensics, there's specific emphasis on whether a given wound or mark occurred antimortem, parimortem or postmortem. That is, before, during or after death. Do you see what I'm getting at? And I'll make the same point I made in QM's thread, If you can lay out and carve a perfectly square block with nothing but steel hand chisels and a square, why is it such a stretch from there to stone tools using the exact same method, only slower?

Totally impossible to cut stone with stone to that precision. You know it and everyone knows it. Those surfaces were prepared to a mirror like finish to obtain such a precise fit; not even the thinnest engineering feeler gauge could be inserted between the join. That indigenous Indians whose highest achievement was the spear and terracotta bowl that were hard pressed to even to survive never mind about commit decades and vast labour were the creators of such wonders is plain ridiculous. The mirror like finish on the multi-tonne blocks can be seen at the relics of Puma Punku.

Well that video is the smoking gun; it's the clearest footage that I have yet seen; the PP footage was incredible enough. It's time to re-write the history books.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Totally impossible to cut stone with stone to that precision. You know it and everyone knows it.

I know no such thing. Protsin seemed to to be doing a pretty good job of it. And again that assumption of single-process work technique.

Those surfaces were prepared to a mirror like finish to obtain such a precise fit; not even the thinnest engineering feeler gauge could be inserted between the join. That indigenous Indians whose highest achievement was the spear and terracotta bowl that were hard pressed to even to survive never mind about commit decades and vast labour were the creators of such wonders is plain ridiculous. The mirror like finish on the multi-tonne blocks can be seen at the relics of Puma Punku.

Here we go again. Flat statements and blatant exaggerations. Gosh, it's like you never left. _Some_ of the stones in Cuzco have a light sheen on them. Some. Consistent with polishing. Hardly mirror-like. You could pour Palmolive on them and you still wouldn't be able to see yourself.

Those indigenous indians you're talking about were living in small well-engineered cities supported by extensive agriculture and trade networks, with sophisticated early bronze-age metal technology and records keeping. But by all means, you just feel free to go right on misrepresenting them.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks; you fellows that are defending the No problem/made with common tools and lots of elbow grease approach... would you care to explain the dog-bone and other shapes that clearly were filled (at one time) with metal links to stabilize these constructions? They were most likely poured-in-place using molten metal as its not really practical to just put a cold formed metal link in there. Seems these Peruvian Indians (at least the ones from the time frame claimed for construction) didn't have that kind of metal smelting technology. And also please repeat the idea that this technology similar to that seen in ancient Greek constructions was invented independently in both places. Thanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I thought the Inca had copper and bronze weapons, I'd think at some point these would have to be molten. So making the 'dog-bone' conections might not be that hard to explain... IMO

inca.h110.jpg

inca.h112.jpg

Please set me straight if I'm wrong...

http://incas.homestead.com/inca_metallurgy_copper.html

Edited by Pax Unum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pax; I thought these ruins were attributed to the Amara indians, not the Incas. There's a real debate going on about the true age of these sites and that makes it tougher to sort things out ( I've always hoped for some poor fellow who was working on/moving a large stone to be flattened by it only to be dis-interred by archeologists in our time who lift the stone and secure some great material for carbon-dating!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Pax; I thought these ruins were attributed to the Amara indians, not the Incas. There's a real debate going on about the true age of these sites and that makes it tougher to sort things out ( I've always hoped for some poor fellow who was working on/moving a large stone to be flattened by it only to be dis-interred by archeologists in our time who lift the stone and secure some great material for carbon-dating!).

My bad, carry on...

Notable features at Pumapunku are I-shaped architectural cramps, which are composed of a unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy. These I-shaped cramps were also used on a section of canal found at the base of the Akapana pyramid at Tiwanaku. These cramps were used to hold the blocks comprising the walls and bottom of stone-lined canals that drain sunken courts. I-cramps of unknown composition were used to hold together the massive slabs that formed Pumapunku's four large platforms. In the south canal of the Pumapunku, the I-shaped cramps were cast in place. In sharp contrast, the cramps used at the Akapana canal were fashioned by the cold hammering of copper-arsenic-nickel bronze ingots.[8][10] The unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy is also found in metal artifacts within the region between Tiwanaku and San Pedro de Atacama during the late Middle Horizon around 600–900.

LINK-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

Hope this is relevant...

Edited by Pax Unum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puma Punku is part of the wider Tiwanaku complex in Bolivia. The stonework was crafted by the indigenous population, of course. As I understand it, the term "Amerindian" is basically the latest politically correct word for American Indians and probably more accurately refers to Indians of North America. I think I'm being a bit flippant about the term "Amerindians," and for that I apologize. I mean no disrespect. It's just that I have a natural dislike of political correctness, and here in Chicago I've known quite a few American Indians and none of them refers to themselves as Amerindian. Maybe it's more of a regional thing?

Sorry, I digress. The point is, ancient indigenous people of Bolivia were responsible for Tiwanaku (including Puma Punku) and they alone deserve the credit.

Plenty of archaeology has taken place at Puma Punku and, in fact, C14 analyses have been conducted. The large earthen mounds on which much of the stone-work masonry was situated contains plenty of organic matter, and as I recall, the earliest building stages at Puma Punku date to the fifth century CE. I'm going by memory here, so I can't guarantee precision in my dates. The Tiwanaku culture peaked around the ninth century CE and no one knows why it declined and disappeared. Anyone feel free to polish this description, if my figures are off. LOL However, if you decide to do so, please do not use Ancient Aliens as a source.

The "dog bones" cut into the stones are not unique to Puma Punku. It was a simple and reliable way for stone workers to help two blocks of masonry stay together. I believe the same technique was used on two or more Egyptian pyramids dating to the Middle Kingdom. At Puma Punku:

...some of the stones were held together with copper fasteners, some of which were cold hammered into shape, and others that were poured into place molten.

(Source)

There is nothing technologically advanced about working with copper. The people of Tiwanaku were more than up to the task, as were other Mesoamerican cultures. Copper is a lot stronger than a lot of people seem to understand, especially if it contains arsenic impurities. It was a very valuable metal to many ancient peoples, not to mention easy to produce and use. Pouring molten copper into carved grooves hardly represents advanced science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW it's nice to be here again. Apologies for causing such a storm. You can't be serious when you say that these stone marvels were the produce of indigenous Indians using pounding tools? So how did they bore out the hole? What was the tool? What was the motive power? How fast was the cutting speed? What caused the grooves (rotating tools do not do that; common sense?), what was it's purpose?, how did they achieve the high precision joints?

I'm waiting. Sorry to be a pain.

Z

Very good video Zoser. However, as you already know very well, most here are going to deny the truth and simply state that they don't know, or go to extremes to make it look like it's plausible in some way it couldn't even be done in your wildest dreams.

The truth is this, and I can't give you any proof. They used an IRON, (did everyone hear that?), yes an iron bit, much like those used today to hang pictures on the brick wall.. It had a flat shank, quite large in diameter and was very long. It was threaded around a bow string, like the old make a camp fire trick, while a too man job on each end with a weight on top.

We look at the ancient world and contemplate the capablilities to make such wonders and then doubt their resources just because WE can't find proof, which makes no difference at all, expecially to them, those who did the job. ...Rusted away and gone, how many times have I said it? That's where the main tools are, most turned into weapons for a few hundred years, neverthless STILL ALL rusted away and gone. It's like searching for a needle in the hay stack after tourching it, burying it in a flood, finding the rust particles of that needle after years of research, removing it into a foreign land and then looking for it right there anyway... and saying no proof, so it's sci fi. Take a good look around you, today's sci fi keeps winding up tomorrow's reality.

Lilthor made an excellent point, as well. Way too many high and mighty proud that are not willing to admit they don't know. Then there are those who cover up the truth to hide, so know one will come looking there way and find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks; you fellows that are defending the No problem/made with common tools and lots of elbow grease approach... would you care to explain the dog-bone and other shapes that clearly were filled (at one time) with metal links to stabilize these constructions? They were most likely poured-in-place using molten metal as its not really practical to just put a cold formed metal link in there. Seems these Peruvian Indians (at least the ones from the time frame claimed for construction) didn't have that kind of metal smelting technology.

Where exactly did you come by that impression? Bronze and copper artifacts and other metals have been found associated with Tiwanaku and their contemporaries the Wari.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kcfs91CwlksC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=wari+bolivia+bronze&source=bl&ots=EiVaqAxBZm&sig=YrbBqAKjjRckzwcIeg5p_ebu9Og&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xx63T770N-qK6QHRouHqCg&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=wari%20bolivia%20bronze&f=false

http://www.precolumbiangold.com/tiwanaku.htm

http://www.precolumbiangold.com/huari.htm

And were well known to their predecessors the Moche:

http://www.precolumbiangold.com/moche.htm

Besides which, while Tiwanaku may not have been associated with the Inca, the stone work presented by the OP was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.