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 14
Alphamale06

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

10,149 posts in this topic

So you see mortar? Where?

Zoser90_zpsa4fef3dd.jpg

If the Inca did do this and I no reason to dispute the claim, it will not suffice as evidence that they were able to replicate high precision work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need a close-up of the corners.

Well, you already did post them, and they were rounded.

Look pretty good to me. I still don't see that they need to be precise. Why does a tool need to be that sharp to cut into soft stone? I really don't see what your getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser90_zpsa4fef3dd.jpg

If the Inca did do this and I no reason to dispute the claim, it will not suffice as evidence that they were able to replicate high precision work.

No, what you think is mortar is nothing but 'vitrification', lol.

And it could be the result of lichens.

But you are not really serious, right?

The blocks I posted an enlarged pic of (from the same wall) don't show any mortar.

And the 'gaps' are shadows. I can post a similar image using YOUR photos.

Here:

post-18246-0-28920700-1358542398_thumb.j

And your arrows point at NOTHING at all.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awe inspiring precision at Puma Punku

Zoser91_zps557157f2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandstone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So were they just showing off, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what you think is mortar is nothing but 'vitrification', lol.

And it could be the result of lichens.

But you are not really serious, right?

The blocks I posted an enlarged pic of (from the same wall) don't show any mortar.

And the 'gaps' are shadows. I can post a similar image using YOUR photos.

Here:

.

That's your picture I can assure you.

Looks like mortar or some filling material to me. The point is that if you are looking for evidence of Inca high precision that will not do.

Lichen, shadows or not it's not evidence.

One other minor question. Can we be sure where they got the stones from? Are we sure that they cut them? Or was it stone from an already dismantled wall. Because we know that recycling of old blocks did occur.

Sandstone.

Proof?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof?

proof that it was in fact ETs that did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So were they just showing off, then?

Not sure what your getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

proof that it was in fact ETs that did it?

The technology was not available to the Aymara indians. Plus on the AA documentary they made the obvious point that such an endeavour would need planning, blueprints, language, logistics writing, number skills, and this is something the Aymara were known not to possess.

It's obvious if you think it through.

Proof of spacecraft not needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what you think is mortar is nothing but 'vitrification', lol.

And it could be the result of lichens.

But you are not really serious, right?

The blocks I posted an enlarged pic of (from the same wall) don't show any mortar.

And the 'gaps' are shadows. I can post a similar image using YOUR photos.

Here:

post-18246-0-28920700-1358542398_thumb.j

And your arrows point at NOTHING at all.

.

You can see that the shadow on the Sacsayhuaman block is not shadow because the sun is obviously casting. I'm not convinced that it is shadow on your picture though It looks like gaps to me.

Look carefully where I pointed to the mortar. It's exactly where I expected it to be holding in the smaller pieces that are more difficult to fit precisely. In other words they cheated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your picture I can assure you.

Looks like mortar or some filling material to me. The point is that if you are looking for evidence of Inca high precision that will not do.

Lichen, shadows or not it's not evidence.

One other minor question. Can we be sure where they got the stones from? Are we sure that they cut them? Or was it stone from an already dismantled wall. Because we know that recycling of old blocks did occur.

Proof?

I know it's my picture, and your arrows point at nothing.

Like my arrow pointed at a shadow in your picture.

And I posted part of the same wall. I want to see some of your red arrows in that one.

-

The chroniclers reported about the quarries and Incas working in them with ropes and many workers.

And Zoser, jeesh, read my posts again.

They - the Incas - dragged a huge block of stone. They dragged it and positioned it.

If it was pre-made, how were they able to make it fit that precisely??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see that the shadow on the Sacsayhuaman block is not shadow because the sun is obviously casting. I'm not convinced that it is shadow on your picture though It looks like gaps to me.

Look carefully where I pointed to the mortar. It's exactly where I expected it to be holding in the smaller pieces that are more difficult to fit precisely. In other words they cheated.

I have seen them from up close, and - like you can read all over the internet - you can't push a razor blade between them.

There is NO mortar.

What you think is mortar is lichens.

The edges of the stones are smoothed, and somewhat inward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what your getting at.

By cutting fancy shapes like that. It doesn't seem to be essential structurally, so are they just being decorative, also known as showing off how clever they are/were? Pity their cleverness couldn't have extended to ofering something that would materially help the Incas' way of life, such as something that might have helped them resist the Spanish.

Sorry to be a wet blanket. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unthinkable that these were achieved by stone age indian people.

Again, they were not stone age peoples.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technology was not available to the Aymara indians. Plus on the AA documentary they made the obvious point that such an endeavour would need planning, blueprints, language, logistics writing, number skills, and this is something the Aymara were known not to possess.

It's obvious if you think it through.

Proof of spacecraft not needed.

I hope that one day you meet these 'stupid' Aymara.

The AA documentary is meant for those following the AA program; it will make them think of other things so they will get rid of their addiction more easily. And I hope you know what AA means (= NOT Ancient Aliens).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, they were not stone age peoples.

They used hardened bronze tools.

Tools a Zoser is not able to handle, that much is clear.

But they could.

And they used cobble stones of course.

All that with a huge amount of patience and determination.

These two characteristics are 'alien' to us now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They used hardened bronze tools.

Tools a Zoser is not able to handle, that much is clear.

But they could.

And they used cobble stones of course.

All that with a huge amount of patience and determination.

These two characteristics are 'alien' to us now.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot larger, yes.

But not polygonal, and not any sign of 'vitrification'.

So you see mortar? Where?

Technically, squares and rectangles are polygons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, they were not stone age peoples.

Zoser really doesn't understand the human progress. Of course he must believe that the aliens were "stone-age" aliens. They just stacked and cut stones you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slave, WoH, Myles, Harte, Badeskov, Psyche and everyone else just pop in occasionally and scream "show me the aliens or I'll never believe you"

Actually, dear Zoser - I'd be happy to see evidence of aliens. Evidence I can't debunk. And I'll be entirely and utterably honest (and this is put my membership of the pooh-pooh brigade at risk) the blocks we've been talking about are deeply intriguing and indicative of a highly skilled culture being involved, they're technical marvels. They're not direct evidence of aliens however - they might be good solid supportitive evidence though, if there was some other evidences we could all lump together as being from the same hand/mind then we'd be onto something.

However, all we have is one anomaly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zoser did you actually watch the AA debunked video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By cutting fancy shapes like that. It doesn't seem to be essential structurally, so are they just being decorative, also known as showing off how clever they are/were? Pity their cleverness couldn't have extended to ofering something that would materially help the Incas' way of life, such as something that might have helped them resist the Spanish.

Sorry to be a wet blanket. :cry:

You mean the quarry areas?

I think they were simply extracting whole blocks for construction purposes and were able to do so because of soft stone. A bit like how eskimo extract cuboid blocks of ice and snow.

I don't think they were trying to create art in andesite outcrops in the middle of nowhere. This was high tech quarrying.

By the way this isn't Foerster's theory. He seems to believe that these creations are ceremonial or religious. I think they are quarry areas.

Having heard Gamarra's moulding theory it seemed logical to me that they would have extracted the blocks by softening if they had the technology.

To remind you here is an example:

zoser80_zps07bac2c7.jpg

This was clearly done by block extraction. It had to be. The problem with doing this in hard rock is that it wouldn't leave straight edges and so they would have had to have finished the remaining stone which to me is a non starter. Also in this example the block is held in on either side and it's a lot more difficult to extract than say slicing the corner off a cube.

Clearly this is the result of slicing, and for that the rock had to be soft. This ties in with Gamarra's moulding theory and the pictures where we see pock marks, imprints, and other unexplainable impressions in the stone.

A sharp tool wouldn't be needed to do this if the stone was soft. That would account for the very slight radius.

If you think about it no sharp tool is needed to cut clay blocks. However having proposed the idea I can see a slight flaw with it. I'm not going to suggest it, because I want to look into it myself first. I wonder if anyone else can suggest what's on my mind?

Be back later.

Here are my other images to save you searching back:

http://www.unexplain...85#entry4626077

http://www.unexplain...45#entry4626774

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-73295-0-63076800-1358588505_thumb.j

What about the rounded corners here? How do you explain those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but that doesn't make sense, if the rock was being soften so they could mold it, why isn't wherw htey'd cut it from either showing signs of softening, or if they cut it so perfectly, why soften it at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.