Hanslune Posted March 21, 2019 #226 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, WVK said: https://pumapunkutheories.webs.com/moldedvschiseledrock.htm How does that link answer my question? Are those suppose to be block that don't look molded? Then we agree. From that link " With this method you would not need steel molds or diamond tip tools. You only need tools and materials that they had available to them at the time" Really they had rocks and sand which is all you need to shape stones every other culture/civilization did exactly the same thing https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/329072 This dude is Gudea a fine fellow from Sumeria - carved in diorite a stone harder than andesite in the year 2090 BC about 2600+ years before the Tiwanaku started carving sandstone. What did they use? Rocks and sand.... Unless of course it was, wait for it....cast? A new task for Davidovits Edited March 21, 2019 by Hanslune 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted March 21, 2019 #227 Share Posted March 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, stereologist said: If the rock were ground up and reformed into rock, then the result would be an arkose, not andesite. If andesite were ground up and reformed chemically as Dravidovits suggests would the result would be an arkose? "You can go sit over there with the flat earthers and anti vaxxers and argue about whether Lee Oswald faked the GMO chemtrails when he hacked the Benghazi moon landing or whatever. Nobody cares about your crazy conspiracy theories. We have real work to do. " Floyd Aranyosi Davidovits to demonstrate that the carved rocks have a fundamentally different origin than the rocks that are found in the area. Quote Top "You can go sit over there with the flat earthers and anti vaxxers and argue about whether Lee Oswald faked the GMO chemtrails when he hacked the Benghazi moon landing or whatever. Nobody cares about your crazy conspiracy theories. We have real work to do. " Floyd Aranyosi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted March 21, 2019 #228 Share Posted March 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, Hanslune said: Really they had rocks and sand which is all you need to shape stones every other culture/civilization did exactly the same thing So therefore that is how these blocks were made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted March 21, 2019 #229 Share Posted March 21, 2019 32 minutes ago, WVK said: If andesite were ground up and reformed chemically as Dravidovits suggests would the result would be an arkose? "You can go sit over there with the flat earthers and anti vaxxers and argue about whether Lee Oswald faked the GMO chemtrails when he hacked the Benghazi moon landing or whatever. Nobody cares about your crazy conspiracy theories. We have real work to do. " Floyd Aranyosi Davidovits to demonstrate that the carved rocks have a fundamentally different origin than the rocks that are found in the area. Quote Top "You can go sit over there with the flat earthers and anti vaxxers and argue about whether Lee Oswald faked the GMO chemtrails when he hacked the Benghazi moon landing or whatever. Nobody cares about your crazy conspiracy theories. We have real work to do. " Floyd Aranyosi Not if the material were then chemically different. Calling the rock an andesite is describing the components and origin of the rock. If the constituents are reformed through a process then it is given a new name. If the chemicals are no longer the same or even if the manner in which the chemicals are stacked in the crystals is different then it is given a new name. The processes Davidovits claims would mean that they are no longer andesites. It is up to Davidovits to show that the materials are different. An arkose would show that the crystals in the material no longer interlock as would be expected in an igneous rock. An arkose shows pores. The vesicular nature of the rock is common in an andesite since it is an extrusive. Is there a difference in the pores, either fraction of the rock volume, or size distribution that differentiates it from the rocks in the area? Here is an example of a stereological method: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026080073900013 The paper is 1973 making it towards the end of the classic development era of stereological techniques. It uses a model based method. It shows that analytical methods have existed for quite some time and Davidovits should be well aware of them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted March 21, 2019 #230 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Hanslune said: 'they may have" Yeah they 'may' have. YET: They DID transport full sized andesite stone from the quarries and selection fields toward the site and a few were left along that route. Why would they do that? Can you point to site where the stone were formed? There should be tuff remains scattered all over the place? Is there? What do you think this stone was for? Probably a training stone to teach new works how to pound such a stone. Clever. This is like the groove and break technique modern carvers use to work down a surface. Once they're deep enough, the ridges can be broken off with a heavy maul, reducing the amount of stone needing to be pounded. Looks like maybe they got sick of carrying the undressed stone all the way to the site and decided to lighten the load right there. I remember a picture of one of the quarries, from Sacsayhuaman I think? In an old thread here. You could plainly see how they were staging down the rock face to get it to where they could get a block off. Edited March 21, 2019 by Oniomancer 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted March 21, 2019 #231 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, stereologist said: Not if the material were then chemically different. Calling the rock an andesite is describing the components and origin of the rock. If the constituents are reformed through a process then it is given a new name. If the chemicals are no longer the same or even if the manner in which the chemicals are stacked in the crystals is different then it is given a new name. The processes Davidovits claims would mean that they are no longer andesites. It is up to Davidovits to show that the materials are different. Good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted March 21, 2019 #232 Share Posted March 21, 2019 2 hours ago, WVK said: So therefore that is how these blocks were made? No how they were probably made given no evidence to any other method. Everyone seems to have used similar methods - remember they came to carving large stones from working smaller stone to make stone tools which often used stone on stone hammering. Lets see they dragged big stones to the site...... You didn't mention how many metric tons of tuff were taken from the tuff mine - how many tonnes would have been needed for the site? 500-1000+ tons what? Must have left a big hole. They seemed to be practicing to work stones with stone. Later when they were conquered they continued to use stone on stone action 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted March 21, 2019 #233 Share Posted March 21, 2019 48 minutes ago, Hanslune said: No how they were probably made given no evidence to any other method. Everyone seems to have used similar methods - remember they came to carving large stones from working smaller stone to make stone tools which often used stone on stone hammering. Lets see they dragged big stones to the site...... Later when they were conquered they continued to use stone on stone action Only because the European fiends gifted the indigenous people infectious diseases rather than steel tools. I will concede that I would also reserve a hesitancy to hand a warrior able to behead a horse with an obsidian blade a steel item which would make an effective weapon. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted March 21, 2019 #234 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Chris Dunn on PP https://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/article/the-engineers-of-puma-punku-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted March 21, 2019 #235 Share Posted March 21, 2019 On 3/20/2019 at 11:23 AM, WVK said: I have. Ialso do my my own research. For example I sent the following question to the USGS last Aug Gentlemen, Inca stonemasonary There are 3 main theories regarding the method of stone fitment http://www.nowtopians.com/travel-report/inca-stonemasonry-in-cuzco Concentrated heat: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00357529.1990.11761720?journalCode=vram20 Trial and error and scribing pounding: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986SciAm.254b..94P http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf044/sf044p01.htm Chemically: https://www.siftdesk.org/article-details/On-the-reddish-glittery-mud-the-Inca-used-for-perfecting-their-stone-masonry/264 Is there a scientific method distinguish between these? Hi there Wayne: I would imagine that some sort of "litho-forensics" would be able to solve the question because using heat, physical methods, or chemicals would all leave tell-tale traces. Heat could alter the mineralogy and (or) the morphology of mineral crystals in the stone. Physical methods would leave scars (perhaps microscopic) on the surface. Chemical would alter the outer rim of the stone. Ralph. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ralph J. Haefner, Deputy Director (Data) U.S. Geological Survey Why on earth would you send a query to the US Geological Survey group? They know about rocks but don't know beans about archaeology and architecture. That's like sending a letter of query to the late Jacques Cousteau to ask him about the origins of the song, "Frere' Jacques" since he's French and is named Jacques. That said, Haefner gave a nice response but again it's clear from the response that this is not his area of expertise in any form. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted March 21, 2019 #236 Share Posted March 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Kenemet said: Why on earth would you send a query to the US Geological Survey group? They know about rocks but don't know beans about archaeology and architecture. That's like sending a letter of query to the late Jacques Cousteau to ask him about the origins of the song, "Frere' Jacques" since he's French and is named Jacques. That said, Haefner gave a nice response but again it's clear from the response that this is not his area of expertise in any form. I viewed his response as a polite way of saying "read the published papers by those who study Lithic technologies and have done testing" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted March 21, 2019 #237 Share Posted March 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Oniomancer said: I remember a picture of one of the quarries, from Sacsayhuaman I think? In an old thread here. Can't find the shot in question but I remember we were arguing about Ollantaytambo and the weird fluting on the walls that some claimed was evidence the rock had been smeared while soft. You've got layer then layer then layer sticking out. Sensible if you're surfacing down rock by slow handwork, less so if you can mold it any way you please at will. And another from the "What does God need with a spaceship?" category: https://johnsmachines.com/2014/12/20/more-inca-stonework/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted March 21, 2019 #238 Share Posted March 21, 2019 27 minutes ago, Kenemet said: Why on earth would you send a query to the US Geological Survey group? They know about rocks but don't know beans about archaeology and architecture. That's like sending a letter of query to the late Jacques Cousteau to ask him about the origins of the song, "Frere' Jacques" since he's French and is named Jacques. That said, Haefner gave a nice response but again it's clear from the response that this is not his area of expertise in any form. Why on earth would you send a query to the US Geological Survey group? I first sent it to the IRS but they never responded. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted March 21, 2019 #239 Share Posted March 21, 2019 20 hours ago, WVK said: 1) Do those documented factors absolutely rule out molding? It's up to Davidovits to provide acceptable evidence. I have no clue other than that the blocks look molded - to me. 2) "Your question(s) in regards to such?" Inca Stone Masonry 1) Yes, it is up to Davidovits to irrefutably demonstrate that the lithics in question are not of natural origin. A factor that he has failed to demonstrate in the past. As to your personal perceptions of "molding", this may be more due to your lack of familiarity with lithic technology than the reality. 2) Pardon my confusion. Are you attempting to discuss Incan construction or Tiwanakan construction? As to Incan practices, a lay oriented article and access to more technical literature: https://peruenroute.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/sacsayhuaman-how-incas-built/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271342032_Inca_Quarrying_and_Stonecutting . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted March 21, 2019 #240 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Kenemet said: Why on earth would you send a query to the US Geological Survey group? They know about rocks but don't know beans about archaeology and architecture. Because archaeology doesn't know beans how "‘to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones. "Jean-Pierre Protzen points out that pit scars and patterns of cup- or trough-like depressions are found on several roughly hewn and shaped stones at Tiwanaku. This, he says, shows that hammer stones were used. He readily admits, however, that more advanced tools were also required: ‘to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to techniques unknown to the Incas and to us at this time’'. http://davidpratt.info/andes2.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted March 21, 2019 #241 Share Posted March 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, WVK said: Because archaeology doesn't know beans how "‘to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones. "Jean-Pierre Protzen points out that pit scars and patterns of cup- or trough-like depressions are found on several roughly hewn and shaped stones at Tiwanaku. This, he says, shows that hammer stones were used. He readily admits, however, that more advanced tools were also required: ‘to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to techniques unknown to the Incas and to us at this time’'. http://davidpratt.info/andes2.htm Could you quote JP Protzen's remarks in context I'd like to see what else he was saying. A source with page number will do to. Thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted March 21, 2019 #242 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, WVK said: Why on earth would you send a query to the US Geological Survey group? I first sent it to the IRS but they never responded. Why not contact the organizations/key individuals of masonry experts and artists who deal in stone sculpture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted March 21, 2019 #243 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Oniomancer said: Can't find the shot in question but I remember we were arguing about Ollantaytambo and the weird fluting on the walls that some claimed was evidence the rock had been smeared while soft. You've got layer then layer then layer sticking out. Sensible if you're surfacing down rock by slow handwork, less so if you can mold it any way you please at will. And another from the "What does God need with a spaceship?" category: https://johnsmachines.com/2014/12/20/more-inca-stonework/ Looks like they didn't finish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted March 21, 2019 #244 Share Posted March 21, 2019 17 minutes ago, WVK said: Because archaeology doesn't know beans how "‘to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones. Again, why geologists? They don't know anything about working stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted March 21, 2019 #245 Share Posted March 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, Hanslune said: Could you quote JP Protzen's remarks in context I'd like to see what else he was saying. A source with page number will do to. Thanks .-P. Protzen and S. Nair, Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 56/2 (1997), 146-167. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted March 21, 2019 #246 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Creating planar faces is much easier than you imagine. You use to stone that are roughly planar and worked them back and forth and in circles. The action makes the stone faces mirror images of each other or planar. Going back and forth creates linear grooves. By constantly turning the stone and working from many directions you end up with a planar face. We used such a technique in a shop to produce metal surface that were planar within microns. I believe we were limited to the size of the grit we used between the metal pieces. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted March 22, 2019 #247 Share Posted March 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Hanslune said: Could you quote JP Protzen's remarks in context I'd like to see what else he was saying. A source with page number will do to. Thanks You know the source. "Who taught...?" Harte 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted March 22, 2019 #248 Share Posted March 22, 2019 3 hours ago, WVK said: .-P. Protzen and S. Nair, Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 56/2 (1997), 146-167. Page 156 Thanks have you read the five paragraphs after that? You might wish to. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted March 22, 2019 #249 Share Posted March 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Hanslune said: Page 156 Thanks have you read the five paragraphs after that? You might wish to. Not recently, enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted March 22, 2019 #250 Share Posted March 22, 2019 20 hours ago, WVK said: Because archaeology doesn't know beans how "‘to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones. ...you don't seem to know a lot about the field, so maybe your opinion here isn't particularly useful or insightful. See also: weirdly inappropriate emails to government agencies. --Jaylemurph 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now