Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Alphamale06

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

10,149 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Wearer of Hats

could that "fusing" not be mud that's over the decades/centuries gotten into the cacks and hardened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

I have kept using the expression, "chemically altered", but it is in fact about a chemical reaction.... that leaves no chemical traces !!

The next is about marble, true, but like I said, it will also work (and better) on granite that contains about 2 % of CaO.

Unlike crystallization, steel wool is not required when using an oxalic acid polish. Most often, polishes are used with a red or natural floor pad under a 175rpm floor machine. Floors with deeper scratches or other damage, typically must be diamond honed prior to using marble polishing products. During marble polishing, the reaction taking place is shown below.

H2C2O4 + 2CaCO3 ¨CaC2O4 + CO2 + H2O

Again the resulting surface is more glossy than the original stone surface. The difference is that the reaction taking place using oxalic acid does not chemically alter the surface of the stone. The calcium oxalate (CaC2O4) formed in the reaction is washed away with the slurry from the process leaving behind a smoothed and polished stone surface that has not been chemically altered.

http://multimedia.3m...d1qGd1q111111--

What we need here is someone who does this daily to tell us about her or his experiences.

Btw, Zoser, if you go to the beginning of that pdf, you will read this:

Crystallization (also known as re-crystallization or vitrification) is a method of creating a gloss on calcium bearing stone floors such as marble, limestone, and travertine.

So even if the ancients used vitrification, they didn't have to use some source of extreme heat.

Take a look at the above picture. It's much more than polishing. It's a deep melting causing almost a fusion effect.

That would need copious quantities of liquid, which I strongly believe refutes this theory. Any theory has to fit all the evidence Abe and so far the only one that I see that applies to every case is heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

could that "fusing" not be mud that's over the decades/centuries gotten into the cacks and hardened?

Whatever it was burned deep into the andesite and was then somehow smoothed. A bit like a plasterer smooths over his work with a radius tool while the plaster is still very wet,

Also look at the two dimples. As I said to Abe, any theory needs to take account of all the evidence. It's no good bolting on sub-theories to other theories.

I totally agree with Alfredo Gamarra. These blocks were handled in a clay like state. The imprints and marks testify to that. Some of these marks can be seen on the walls of Cuzco too.

More evidence of handling prints:

Peru-034-Sacsayhuaman-Stonework-Cuzco-P20-17.jpg

Looking at that impossibly tight fit on the bottom right hand side, it would make much more sense if the blocks were handled in a clay like state. There is no other way that this could be achieved with such enormously large blocks. There is much less scope for trial and improvement style stone removal possible with such large blocks.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Take a look at the above picture. It's much more than polishing. It's a deep melting causing almost a fusion effect.

That would need copious quantities of liquid, which I strongly believe refutes this theory. Any theory has to fit all the evidence Abe and so far the only one that I see that applies to every case is heat.

I see a gloss, and that's it.

You keep talking about 'copious quantities of liquid', and I tell you that was more than readily available plus that we don't know how potent the chemical mix was they could have used.

People use the chemical technique to create a gloss, but no one uses extreme heat to get the same effect.

You will have to show me a stone of which has been proven it was treated with extreme heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

I see a gloss, and that's it.

You keep talking about 'copious quantities of liquid', and I tell you that was more than readily available plus that we don't know how potent the chemical mix was they could have used.

People use the chemical technique to create a gloss, but no one uses extreme heat to get the same effect.

You will have to show me a stone of which has been proven it was treated with extreme heat.

Well here's another tell tale piece of evidence to support the soft stone theory. I was pondering that if this was how they did achieve the perfect fit, then when the weight of the stones settled you would expect to see a dome (radius) effect as the stone material bulged outward as it then set hard again.

Sure enough here it is. Look carefully at the stones on the right where the dome is more pronounced:

zoser13-1_zps13322a7a.jpg

zoser14_zps9f081b39.jpg

Undeniable. They had the technology to cut perfectly flat surfaces. We know that from other sites in the area. Why are these not flat? They bulged as they were fitted into place caused by the shear weight of the stone.

Furthermore the bulge is more pronounced at the bottom where the larger mass is exerted.

Would we expect to see it in the smaller blocks? Only to a much lesser extent, Let's see:

zoser15_zps5f483547.jpg

Generally the larger blocks display the effect but the smaller ones do not. Exactly what I would expect to see

It's nice when evidence supports the theory.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

I found an interesting blog on the subject of vitrified stone, specifically in Cuzco. It in part at least seems to indicate that the contents of the surface layer are different than the stone underneath and theorizes that a ceramic glaze was applied to the stone and subsequently 'heated'. The method of applying the amount of heat necessary is still a mystery however. If the vitrified forts in Europe are any indication though, it is still within the abilities of human ingenuity,

v_section.jpg

If an antique ceramic sample is compared to the spectra of the glaze above there is little to separate the two. In the Paper X-Ray Techniques Applied to Surface Paintings of Ceramic Pottery Pieces From Aguada Culture (Catamarca, Argentina) there are several comparable results. The samples are from pottery pieces from Argentina so an exact match is unlikely. These researchers tested a variety of different colored samples from Argentine pottery shards, which had residual gold leaf on the surface. The spectra are surprisingly similar if the gold leaf is ignored along with the Manganese (Mn) and Iron (Fe). The latter two elements have oxides that are common colorants in ceramic pastes. This is the source of the various colors in their research paper. The key constituents Silicon, Aluminum, Magnesium, Carbon and Oxygen are present in the same ratios.

Whilst the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified, the composition is that of a glaze. It has a different makeup to the limestone body. This means it is very likely that the glaze was made from a ceramic paste applied to the limestone surface. This is clear from the comparison with the ancient glazed ceramic pottery shards.

The microscope photos above of the surface do not show the amorphous state of the layer. This can be shown explicitly by electron microscopic analysis. Further analysis needs to be carried out to confirm the state of the layer. The different chemical composition makes it very unlikely that these surfaces were created by polishing. The layer has the composition, sheen, hardness and glassy texture of a glaze.

http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/

Edited by Slave2Fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

If the vitrified forts in Europe are any indication though, it is still within the abilities of human ingenuity,

Heating a 30 tonne block up to make it like clay and then fitting it into position isn't. Look at my last post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

Heating a 30 tonne block up to make it like clay and then fitting it into position isn't. Look at my last post.

Yeah but you're just guessing that that is what happened. How many times must it be said that what something 'looks like' means diddly squat?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

Yeah but you're just guessing that that is what happened. How many times must it be said that what something 'looks like' means diddly squat?

Nice guess work though eh? When you find the exact evidence?

On the first picture the bottom arrow shows the bulging out effect again. The top arrow more handling marks.

zoser17_zps69695709.jpg

Could this next picture indicate evidence of final finishing? The overhang looks as if it has been trimmed off. Again this would not be such a gargantuan task if the stone was semi-soft:

zoser18-1_zps8b57dcb1.jpg

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

Zoser, quick question, what direction is the pull of gravity?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

Heating a 30 tonne block up to make it like clay and then fitting it into position isn't.

Could this next picture indicate evidence of final finishing? The overhang looks as if it has been trimmed off. Again this would not be such a gargantuan task if the stone was semi-soft:

Zoser you get more ridiculous every day! You really do, your mind lives in doolally world matey!

Heating a 30 tonne block up to make it like clay?

OK and once its that hot hows it going to be handled? Lifted? Be too hot right? It'd fall out of shape too quick to even lay it. Not the kind of thing youd want to keep your hands on while positioning perfectly is it?

You lift just a tonne of soft clay, and whatever you lift it with, rope hoists, rollers whatever, squashes it and leaves behind the marks! So where are they?

Im amazed anyone takes you seriously enough to even make a reply sometimes, I mean they have to realise, youre intent on claiming aliens or their tech did it somehow...

But there were no aliens. And stone doesnt have the same properties as clay, as per your example - so you must rule out 'soft as clay' in all future discussions!

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

Zoser, quick question, what direction is the pull of gravity?

No refutation there Mr O.

What's in the pictures is in the pictures.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

What we need is a botanist:

Colonel Percy H.Fawcett, the famous explorer of South America, once had a conversation with another explorer who had lived in the Amazonian forests for more than 25 years. They talked about a strange bird that nested in round holes in rock cliffs, and this is what that other explorer had to say about that bird:

"(...) They make the holes themselves. I've seen how they do it, many a time. I've watched, I have, and seen the birds come to the ciff with leaves of some sort in their beaks, and cling to the rock like woodpeckers to a tree while they rubbed the leaves in a circular motion over the surface. Then they would fly off, and come back with more leaves, and carry on with the rubbing process. After three or four repetitions they dropped the leaves and started pecking at the place with their sharp beaks, and - here's the marvelous part - they would soon open out a round hole in the stone. (..)"

"Do you mean to say that the bird's beak can penetrate solid rock?"

"...No, I don't think the bird can get through solid rock. I believe, as everyone who has watched them believes, that those birds know of a leaf with juice that can soften up rock till it's like wet clay."

"The man continued with a personal story about his nephew. He had walked through the thick bush to a nearby camp to retrieve his horse, which had gone lame and had been left there temporarily. He noticed, when he arrived, that his New Mexican spurs had been eaten away almost completely. The owner of the camp asked him if he had walked through a certain plant about a foot high, with dark reddish leaves. The young man said he had walked through a wide area that was completely covered with such plants.

"That's it!' they said, 'That's what's eaten your spurs away! That's the stuff the Incas used for shaping stones. The juice will soften rock up till it's like paste. You must show me where you found the plants.' But when they retraced the young man's steps they were unable to locate them."

(from: "Exploration Fawcett" by Brian Fawcett)

Similar accounts come from members of the Yale Peruvian Expedition - the one with Hiram Bingham as head - who discovered Machu Pichu in 1911 :

"Some years ago, when I was working in the mining camp at Cerro de Pasco (a place 14,000 feet up in the Andes of Central Peru), I went out one Sunday with some other Gringos to visit some old Inca or Pre-Inca graves - to see if we could find anything worth while. We took our grub with us, and, of course, a few bottles of pisco and beer, and a peon - a cholo - to help us dig. Well, we had our lunch when we got to the burial place, and afterwards started to open up some graves that seemed to be untouched. We worked hard, and knocked off every now and then for a drink. I don't drink myself, but the others did, especially one chap who poured too much drink into himself and was inclined to be moisy. When we knocked off, all we had found was an earthenware jar of about a quart capacity, and with liquid inside it.

" 'I bet it's chicha!" said the noisy one. "Let's try it and see what sort of stuff the Incas drank!"

" 'Probably poison us if we do." observed another.

" 'Tell you what, then - let's try it on the peon!"

" 'They dug the seal and stopper out of the jar's mouth, sniffed at the contents and called the peon over to them.

" 'Take a drink of this chicha, " ordered the drunk. The peon took the jar, hesitated, and then with an expression of fear spreading over his face thrust it into the drunk's hands and backed away.

" 'No, no, señor," he murmured. "Not that. That's not chicha!" He turned and made off.

" 'The drunk put the jar down on a flat-topped rock and set off in pursuit. "Come on, boys - catch him!" he yelled. They caught the wretched man, dragged him back, and ordered him to drink the contents of the jar. The peon struggled madly, his eyes popping. There was a bit of a scrimmage, and the jar was knocked over and broken, it's contents forming a puddle on top of the rock. Then the peon broke free and took to his heels.

"Everyone laughed. It was a huge joke. But the exercise had made them thirsty and they went over to the sack where the beer-bottles lay.

"About ten minutes later I bent over the rock and casually examined the pool of spilled liquid. It was no longer liquid; the whole patch where it had been, and the rock under it, were as soft as wet cement! It was as though the stone had melted, like wax under the influence of heat."

Hiram Bingham tells a similar tale about what he heard from the natives. He says the natives knew of a certain plant they used the juices of to rub on the edges of large stones to soften those edges. The edges of the stone would turn into something like clay, which made it possible to create a perfect fit with the next stone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Same story, but told a bit different:

That began to make Colonel Fawcett think that perhaps there used to be advanced cultures east of the Andes and that maybe a lot of other things which we ignored, which the Indians said happened, were real.

Of course, the thing that got me most interested in him was, well, he was going up a valley, the Parahyva Valley in southern Peru, on the Amazonian side. He came to a granite cliff in a gorge. This cliff was absolutely upright, like a wall, and then there were these perfect little round holes all over it. As he came down the trail he saw little birds that went in and out of these holes. So he said to the people, “What’s that?” and they said, “Well, they nest in those holes.” He said, “How very convenient that there should be all these little holes all ready for the little birds to nest in!” The Amerindians then said to him, “Oh no. They make the holes.”

Fawcett answered with, “But that’s granite! How can a little tiny bird, about the size of a warbler, make a hole in solid granite?” They said, “Well, sit down sir, and watch!” And sure enough, the birds began coming with little pieces of a red leaf in their bill. We have now found out what the plant is, what the leaf is, and it’s quite well known. It’s a very common plant. As a matter of fact, we use it for ornamental purposes. You can buy it in the stores, in a florist’s in New York. The Latin name escapes me, but its got ordinary sort of rather spongy-looking red leaves–it’s red and purple instead of being green. It has a substance in it that is a very strong alkali and not an acid.

The birds would go and take pieces of these leaves and then they would hang on the cliff with their little claws, like a bat, and they’d rub this leaf onto the rock. Then they would fly away and get another one. They would work on this all day. Then in the evening when the sun went down; with their little soft bills they’d peck, peck, peck, and all the rock would be dissolved by the juice out of this plant in combination with their saliva. As they picked at it, it would all turn to something like sand and crumble away. Working three or four days, they could make a perfect spherical hole big enough to get into and lay their eggs.

Well, Colonel Fawcett got very interested in this, and he said, “There must be something in this juice which softens stone.” And the Amerindians said, “Oh, of course, sir, how do you think we made all our great big carvings? You don’t think that we carved all those huge stone monuments? Oh no, we softened them with this juice until it was like plastic, plasticine, then we molded our gods and figures, and then we poured cold water on it and set it again, and it turned back to stone.”

Fawcett went on with this, and he actually got a pot of this stuff out of an old grave, and it was a long story, but it fell over and broke, and it dissolved the stone under it. It was just like putty, and you could make anything you wanted out of it. Now we’re working back historically and we found that the ancient Hebrews had it in the Near East, and the North American Indians had it, this same process of softening stone rather than chipping it. They could dissolve limestone with it and set it again, making all those fantastic “carvings,” you know? We found out that the process is quite well known, it’s called chelation. It’s well known to all botanists, and it is nothing else but the simple natural process by which the roots of plants dissolve rock. Look out of this window here, I mean we have a picture window here, and all of these trees growing around the house. The way these trees can put their tap roots right down through the soil, into the subsoil, right through that, and maybe into solid rock, is called chelation. The little tiny ends of the soft roots, the very tips, dissolve the stone and soften it. Then they move in, drag all the moisture out and pump it up to make the leaves and everything else. It’s an enormous industry now in this country.

http://richardgrigonis.com/Ch09%20Sidetrip%20Colonel%20Percy%20Harrison%20Fawcett.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

Zoser you get more ridiculous every day! You really do, your mind lives in doolally world matey!

Heating a 30 tonne block up to make it like clay?

OK and once its that hot hows it going to be handled? Lifted? Be too hot right? It'd fall out of shape too quick to even lay it. Not the kind of thing youd want to keep your hands on while positioning perfectly is it?

You lift just a tonne of soft clay, and whatever you lift it with, rope hoists, rollers whatever, squashes it and leaves behind the marks! So where are they?

Im amazed anyone takes you seriously enough to even make a reply sometimes, I mean they have to realise, youre intent on claiming aliens or their tech did it somehow...

But there were no aliens. And stone doesnt have the same properties as clay, as per your example - so you must rule out 'soft as clay' in all future discussions!

I thought there would be some gnashing of teeth once this had sunk in (no pun intended).

You guys instead of trying to invent exotic arguments, start and look at the evidence yourselves.

Alfredo Gamarra studied these relics for decades, and if anyone alive has spent an equivalent amount of time on the subject then please tell me.

He was adamant that the stones had to be soft to be worked with,

At least four pieces of evidence now support his theory:

1) Impossibly precise joins

2) Unexplained pock marks, Evidence of handling while in the 'clay' like state,

3) Bulging effect of the megalithic stones.

4) Fusing and melting evidence seen on the stones.

Furthermore, our expert Mr de La Vega didn't seem to have much idea on how it was done did he?

The chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega was born around 1530, and raised in the shadow of these walls. And yet he seems not to have had a clue as to how Sacsayhuaman was built. He wrote:

"....this fortress surpasses the constructions known as the seven wonders of the world. For in the case of a long broad wall like that of Babylon, or the colossus of Rhodes, or the pyramids of Egypt, or the other monuments, one can see clearly how they were executed...how, by summoning an immense body of workers and accumulating more and more material day by day and year by year, they overcame all difficulties by employing human effort over a long period. But it is indeed beyond the power of imagination to understand now these Indians, unacquainted with devices, engines, and implements, could have cut, dressed, raised, and lowered great rocks, more like lumps of hills than building stones, and set them so exactly in their places. For this reason, and because the Indians were so familiar with demons, the work is attributed to enchantment."

Surely a few of those 20,000 labourers were still around when Garcilaso was young. Was everyone struck with amnesia? Or is Sacsayhuaman much older than we've been led to believe?

All pure theorising and conjecture and in fact he saw nothing being done at Sacsayhuaman.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_9.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Anyone?

We have now found out what the plant is, what the leaf is, and it’s quite well known. It’s a very common plant. As a matter of fact, we use it for ornamental purposes. You can buy it in the stores, in a florist’s in New York. The Latin name escapes me, but its got ordinary sort of rather spongy-looking red leaves–it’s red and purple instead of being green. It has a substance in it that is a very strong alkali and not an acid.

It confirms what Davidovits claimed the Huanka did, although he said they used herbal acids.

,

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

I thought there would be some gnashing of teeth once this had sunk in (no pun intended).

You guys instead of trying to invent exotic arguments, start and look at the evidence yourselves.

Alfredo Gamarra studied these relics for decades, and if anyone alive has spent an equivalent amount of time on the subject then please tell me.

He was adamant that the stones had to be soft to be worked with,

At least four pieces of evidence now support his theory:

1) Impossibly precise joins

2) Unexplained pock marks, Evidence of handling while in the 'clay' like state,

3) Bulging effect of the megalithic stones.

4) Fusing and melting evidence seen on the stones.

Furthermore, our expert Mr de La Vega didn't seem to have much idea on how it was done did he?

The chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega was born around 1530, and raised in the shadow of these walls. And yet he seems not to have had a clue as to how Sacsayhuaman was built. He wrote:

"....this fortress surpasses the constructions known as the seven wonders of the world. For in the case of a long broad wall like that of Babylon, or the colossus of Rhodes, or the pyramids of Egypt, or the other monuments, one can see clearly how they were executed...how, by summoning an immense body of workers and accumulating more and more material day by day and year by year, they overcame all difficulties by employing human effort over a long period. But it is indeed beyond the power of imagination to understand now these Indians, unacquainted with devices, engines, and implements, could have cut, dressed, raised, and lowered great rocks, more like lumps of hills than building stones, and set them so exactly in their places. For this reason, and because the Indians were so familiar with demons, the work is attributed to enchantment."

Surely a few of those 20,000 labourers were still around when Garcilaso was young. Was everyone struck with amnesia? Or is Sacsayhuaman much older than we've been led to believe?

All pure theorising and conjecture and in fact he saw nothing being done at Sacsayhuaman.

http://www.world-mys...s.com/mpl_9.htm

And I have quoted Garcilaso de la Vega where he explains HOW it was done: using the muscle power of thousands of men. He had heard the story from his uncle.

(lol)

.

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

That's the trick: use bold and huge fonts.

Saves repeating, and now anyone can read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

Same story, but told a bit different:

That began to make Colonel Fawcett think that perhaps there used to be advanced cultures east of the Andes and that maybe a lot of other things which we ignored, which the Indians said happened, were real.

Of course, the thing that got me most interested in him was, well, he was going up a valley, the Parahyva Valley in southern Peru, on the Amazonian side. He came to a granite cliff in a gorge. This cliff was absolutely upright, like a wall, and then there were these perfect little round holes all over it. As he came down the trail he saw little birds that went in and out of these holes. So he said to the people, “What’s that?” and they said, “Well, they nest in those holes.” He said, “How very convenient that there should be all these little holes all ready for the little birds to nest in!” The Amerindians then said to him, “Oh no. They make the holes.”

Fawcett answered with, “But that’s granite! How can a little tiny bird, about the size of a warbler, make a hole in solid granite?” They said, “Well, sit down sir, and watch!” And sure enough, the birds began coming with little pieces of a red leaf in their bill. We have now found out what the plant is, what the leaf is, and it’s quite well known. It’s a very common plant. As a matter of fact, we use it for ornamental purposes. You can buy it in the stores, in a florist’s in New York. The Latin name escapes me, but its got ordinary sort of rather spongy-looking red leaves–it’s red and purple instead of being green. It has a substance in it that is a very strong alkali and not an acid.

The birds would go and take pieces of these leaves and then they would hang on the cliff with their little claws, like a bat, and they’d rub this leaf onto the rock. Then they would fly away and get another one. They would work on this all day. Then in the evening when the sun went down; with their little soft bills they’d peck, peck, peck, and all the rock would be dissolved by the juice out of this plant in combination with their saliva. As they picked at it, it would all turn to something like sand and crumble away. Working three or four days, they could make a perfect spherical hole big enough to get into and lay their eggs.

Well, Colonel Fawcett got very interested in this, and he said, “There must be something in this juice which softens stone.” And the Amerindians said, “Oh, of course, sir, how do you think we made all our great big carvings? You don’t think that we carved all those huge stone monuments? Oh no, we softened them with this juice until it was like plastic, plasticine, then we molded our gods and figures, and then we poured cold water on it and set it again, and it turned back to stone.”

Fawcett went on with this, and he actually got a pot of this stuff out of an old grave, and it was a long story, but it fell over and broke, and it dissolved the stone under it. It was just like putty, and you could make anything you wanted out of it. Now we’re working back historically and we found that the ancient Hebrews had it in the Near East, and the North American Indians had it, this same process of softening stone rather than chipping it. They could dissolve limestone with it and set it again, making all those fantastic “carvings,” you know? We found out that the process is quite well known, it’s called chelation. It’s well known to all botanists, and it is nothing else but the simple natural process by which the roots of plants dissolve rock. Look out of this window here, I mean we have a picture window here, and all of these trees growing around the house. The way these trees can put their tap roots right down through the soil, into the subsoil, right through that, and maybe into solid rock, is called chelation. The little tiny ends of the soft roots, the very tips, dissolve the stone and soften it. Then they move in, drag all the moisture out and pump it up to make the leaves and everything else. It’s an enormous industry now in this country.

http://richardgrigon...on Fawcett.html

All easily refuted in terms of how the ancients cut blocks from mountain sides and caves and rock outcrops to such precision:

Huge blocks have to be undercut to be removed from those locations. An alkali brew may soften the outside enough for joining and fusing but never would it soften to cut a 6 foot block from a mountainside.

That's what would need to be explained for the theory to work.

Then there is still:

1) Production of the chemical in industrial quantities to explain the huge range of relics across Peru and Bolivia.

2) That the chemical is mysteriously unknown and unused today.

The theory does not fit all of the facts.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

And I have quoted Garcilaso de la Vega where he explains HOW it was done: using the muscle power of thousands of men. He had heard the story from his uncle.

(lol)

.

No Abe. No need to shout. According to your theory he would have been around to witness the building. All he has is conjecture. See his writing for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

All easily refuted in terms of how the ancients cut blocks from mountain sides and caves and rock outcrops to such precision:

Huge blocks have to be undercut to be removed from those locations. An alkali brew may soften the outside enough for joining and fusing but never would it soften to cut a 6 foot block from a mountainside.

That's what would need to be explained for the theory to work.

Then there is still:

1) Production of the chemical in industrial quantities to explain the huge range of relics across Peru and Bolivia.

2) That the chemical is mysteriously unknown and unused today.

The theory does not fit all of the facts.

If it was indeed a common plant - as I have suggested - then the 'industrial quantities' should not pose a big problem. And I said it was only used to soften the already cut sides, not the entire block. It is also responsible for the sheen, gloss, shine, whatever on many of those stones.

The blocks were removed from the quarry using known methods (wedges, water-expansion, ramps, coble stones, tree trunk rollers, lots of manpower).

if you know a botanist, drag him here, lol.

But I will now search in like 40 books I have about plants. Well, it's about herbal medicine, but who knows. I have 2 about plants from North and South America.

No Abe. No need to shout. According to your theory he would have been around to witness the building. All he has is conjecture. See his writing for yourself.

I quoted from his own book, and he says he heard it from his uncle.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

Well, Colonel Fawcett got very interested in this, and he said, “There must be something in this juice which softens stone.” And the Amerindians said, “Oh, of course, sir, how do you think we made all our great big carvings? You don’t think that we carved all those huge stone monuments? Oh no, we softened them with this juice until it was like plastic, plasticine, then we molded our gods and figures, and then we poured cold water on it and set it again, and it turned back to stone.”

Abe what I would say is this probably is how they did the statue carvings and I think it is a good discovery. I would stress nothing in your link suggests that this was how megalithic precision architecture was done. We are talking about two different constructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

Nice guess work though eh? When you find the exact evidence?

On the first picture the bottom arrow shows the bulging out effect again. The top arrow more handling marks.

zoser17_zps69695709.jpg

Could this next picture indicate evidence of final finishing? The overhang looks as if it has been trimmed off. Again this would not be such a gargantuan task if the stone was semi-soft:

zoser18-1_zps8b57dcb1.jpg

Those are not handling marks. Every block would have the same marks if they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser

No Abe. No need to shout. According to your theory he would have been around to witness the building. All he has is conjecture. See his writing for yourself.

And I have quoted Garcilaso de la Vega where he explains HOW it was done: using the muscle power of thousands of men. He had heard the story from his uncle.

(lol)

.

Who heard it from a farmer, who heard it from a shepherd who heard it from a blacksmith..............................compelling evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

"Surely a few of those 20,000 labourers were still around when Garcilaso was young. Was everyone struck with amnesia? Or is Sacsayhuaman much older than we've been led to believe?"

No, for GdlV was writing his chronicle in Spain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.