Peruvian stone walls

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, WVK said:

"Adding all that up, I would even bother looking at the paper. " 

Why should anybody with any marbles?

The whole concept adds a lot more work and over complicates it. It's stupid. 

On top of the fact that nobody has been able to turn a large stone into a lump of Play-Doh^TM 

[Hanslune]

6 hours ago, Geomy said:

Ok, bottom shot,line along where hands are. Everything below is pro ably one rock as above also. Lines carved into them to make them look like individual stones

....and you've been there and examined it? Or read a paper by a professional who stated it? If not how could you possible state even 'probably'?

[Hanslune]

6 hours ago, Geomy said:

So you do get it. 

I do, you don't, the big secret the BF is hiding is that the people of SA used skills, and standard masonry efforts. In some cases they did so in masterly way. In the case of the Inca they conquered the Tiwanaku people and seemed to have made them their imperial masons. No advanced invisible civilization, no high tech, no aliens.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

6 hours ago, Geomy said:

They were easy and so obvious. Got anything harder that proves my idea wrong? Not some negative attack on my motives or reasoning or explanations regarding your lack of interest just for the sake of trying to compete with each other for who can come up with the funniest or rudest line that sounds like I'm wrong because you say so. Nah, not good enough.. 

 Please show me something that proves  my idea wrong. 

First you must the connection of understanding just what it is before you can prove it wrong or a waste of anyone's time.

 Prove it wrong.

Prove what is wrong? You haven't presented anything but vagueness. Lol

I would recommend that once Covid-19 is over take a trip there and see the sites themselves.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, WVK said:

"I wouldn't trust this source, as it was published in a known predatory journal."

"I started composing a more detailed reply than this one will be, but this stupid editor just went  crazy and I lost what I'd done, and now won't let me split the dam quote and I can't be bothered to waste more time.  So I shall just briefly point out:

- the first page of Scholarly entries do show Mr Tributsch may have some expertise on the chemistry, but it shows nothing whatsoever on stonemasonry or inca history.  If I was promoting my prowess on those topics, I'd show some existing research I'd done that was more relevant than just geochemistry..

- this is arguable I guess, but imo, and certainly in the circle of scientists I know, NONE of them would stoop to a predatory journal to get something 'published'.  It's the kiss of death, and all you are paying for is not having it reviewed or checked by anyone.  Say Hello to the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and the likes of the fabulous Journal of Scientific Exploration - credibility just oozes out from these 'Journals'..  Being invited by that type of Journal sadly suggests they found out something, like you had lost your job, or were open to 'controversial/tinfoilish' topics.."

"Adding all that up, I would even bother looking at the paper. " 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/315444-inca-stonemasonry-redux/#comments

 

I'm sorry WVK the only way to 'prove' stone softening is to recreate the technique and demonstrate it. The reason you'd have to do that is because the evidence points to the people of SA using standard masonry technique. However, lets not derail Geomy's "they are really detailed rocks" idea to discuss 'your' idea once again.

[Oniomancer]

4 hours ago, Geomy said:

Indeed I think the geology of this and the immediate surrounding area have exposed domelike Pluto'ns, igneous structures of already interesting shape and look. One huge batholith not unlike Yosemite probably  exists underfoot for the entire region. ,There is much evidence of the locals fondness and abilities gracing much of the rocks around the place.

Point: Sacsayhuaman at least is made of limestone, not igneous rock.

And what about the "tired stones" and quarries?

[Geomy]

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

....and you've been there and examined it? Or read a paper by a professional who stated it? If not how could you possible state even 'probably'?

Of course not. It's my educated guess. And I know I'm right. Prove it wrong instead of b****in at me bro

.

[jaylemurph]

1 minute ago, Geomy said:

Of course not. It's my educated guess. And I know I'm right. Prove it wrong instead of b****in at me bro

.

You can't prove a negative, so we can't prove you wrong.

But you haven't proven anything other than your own pomposity. If you have info, provide. If not, we assume you're lying and you'll be treated accordingly.

--Jaylemurph

[Geomy]

2 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Point: Sacsayhuaman at least is made of limestone, not igneous rock.

And what about the "tired stones" and quarries?

I think the quarries have not been the source of the material . Why cart huge weight for miles when you can carve it in situ?

[Geomy]

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Prove what is wrong? You haven't presented anything but vagueness. Lol

I would recommend that once Covid-19 is over take a trip there and see the sites themselves.

Its vague to you because you want it to be. You are not interested in some newbie like me comin along and just putting it out there.  You are one of the several types of folks who inhibit the thing becoming known..

But that's normal and part of the necessary obstacles that form the much needed barrier with which to overcome.

[Geomy]

Ui

8 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

You can't prove a negative, so we can't prove you wrong.

But you haven't proven anything other than your own pomposity. If you have info, provide. If not, we assume you're lying and you'll be treated accordingly.

--Jaylemurph

Ok. Good, I didnt consider that point.

 Although I am new here I am no stranger to Forum functionality.

I have a thread on the WoodenBoat Forum documented the three year restoration of a wooden sailboat.  Please check k it out if you into boats.

The thread is called "a folkboat found me", by floatingkiwi. That would be me.Because I'm from New Zealand. Big deal.

 Ok. My point, I have seen many people similar to whom you describe who come onto forums and for whatever reason, start talking ****. Making **** up. Hell I even found my opening post on another site once, someone had stolen and pretending it was theirs. Why the **** wou li d an...ok.

This kind of person and the person in society that use bull**** as a large part of their life, or any at all, are in a subset of people I have no interconnection with.

 I have such a weird and wonderful life with so many mind boggling, for me, events  that have presented themselves to me, I dont need to make **** up to make it interesting.

Lying is  a fear based mechanism.

Believe me when I tell you I am not afraid of you or anyone else on this good Earth, except perhaps myself, so I have not any need to lie to anyone.

 I despise it. Its counterproductive.

 It creates pain and unnecessary dysfunction. 

It's a tool for the weak minded. The gutless.

 The lazy mother****ers who point fingers and wont accept responsibility for their very own actions.

 Please, don t associate me with this type of person.

Anyway , actions are the measure of a person and not the things they say so, enough of that.

I'll get down to a concise, short, to the point , understandable description immediately.

I really didnt think it would be this difficult to expkain. But since when have expectations been of a good indication of what's to come?

 Thanks.

 

[Geomy]

 Another thing, ahh, Jaylemurph.

" You can't prove a negative, so we can't prove you wrong.".

I don t understand what you mean by a negative.

[Geomy]

4 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I do, you don't, the big secret the BF is hiding is that the people of SA used skills, and standard masonry efforts. In some cases they did so in masterly way. In the case of the Inca they conquered the Tiwanaku people and seemed to have made them their imperial masons. No advanced invisible civilization, no high tech, no aliens.

Yeah, so? 

I do t disagree with that. What do you mean by this?

[Harte]

37 minutes ago, Geomy said:

I think the quarries have not been the source of the material . Why cart huge weight for miles when you can carve it in situ?

Because you can't carve it in situ when it's not in situ.

Harte

[Swede]

13 hours ago, Geomy said:

Ok. Good point and thanks. Not all of the walls are this way. They are sectional. Just the noteworthy impossible looking g work is of this nature. More than likely  sheetlike or panels if you will with some filling material behind it with hidden structure behind. But the main point being the work on the face that's visible. It's natural plutonic   material with manmade carving on its surface.

Incorrect:

Sacsayhuaman. Note the numerous displaced blocks and their associated structural context. Also note the complexity of the construction. Further reading:

https://www.ancient.eu/Sacsayhuaman/

Sacsayhuaman. Note the numerous displaced blocks and their associated structural context.

https://warriorretreats.org/sacsayhuaman-a-fortress-of-culture-and-learning/

.

[Swede]

10 hours ago, Geomy said:

Please show me something that proves  my idea wrong.

Prove it wrong.

You have already been provided with photographic documentation that your speculation is incorrect. If you would like technical reports, at least some can be provided. Some referring to the fact that a number of the reports are not, for obvious reasons, in English.

That said, you would appear to suffer a deficit in regards to understanding scientific research. Many well-qualified specialists have spent many decades studying the structures in question. Should you disagree with their findings, it is up to you to prove that you are correct. Not vice-versa.

Edit: Format.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Swede

[lightly]

11 hours ago, Geomy said:

Ok, bottom shot,line along where hands are. Everything below is pro ably one rock as above also. Lines carved into them to make them look like individual stones

Ok,.    Middle shot, on your post #60 (pics provided by Hanslune)  See the smaller, rougher rocks in the upper left corner with what looks like ,and is, Mortar?   Did the carvers ,carve those to look like smaller ,rougher rocks with mortar between them?

your idea is interesting Geomy, but I'm guessing you may be having second thoughts about the idea?  Anyway, you've found a good place to have some fun and learn.... There are some amazingly knowledgeable people in here .  I'm not one of them 

.    Ahhhh, I just noticed Swede's post #90 . .  Like they say ..a picture (or2) is worth a thousand words. !

those pictures say it all !

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by lightly

[Geomy]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

You have already been provided with photographic documentation that your speculation is incorrect. If you would like technical reports, at least some can be provided. Some referring to the fact that a number of the reports are not, for obvious reasons, in English.

That said, you would appear to suffer a deficit in regards to understanding scientific research. Many well-qualified specialists have spent many decades studying the structures in question. Should you disagree with their findings, it is up to you to prove that you are correct. Not vice-versa.

Edit: Format.

I've seen no photographic  evi in ence that proves me wrong.

 Just because their are cake crumbs on a plate does not prove there was a piece of cake there. Sure looks like there was. I mean, there had to of been. Not necessarily.

As for r reports.

 They all say more or less the same ****.

 They should title them, "we dont really know".

 Many of them surround my idea in so many ways right down to the stone surface, then lead off elsewhere.

 All facts and evidence I can find only goes to solidify my idea.

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, Geomy said:

Of course not. It's my educated guess. And I know I'm right. Prove it wrong instead of b****in at me bro

.

I just did.... You haven't stated anything but an opinion unsupported by evidence. Given no evidence and with only your opinion being offered up. I reply with my opinion-nope.

Note: One standard fringe technique is to state something vague and outrageous - and without evidence - then dismiss everything put up in opposition to it - because they say so. I don't play that game. So unless you have something that is evidence to support your cause.....................

 

 

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, Swede said:

You have already been provided with photographic documentation that your speculation is incorrect. If you would like technical reports, at least some can be provided. Some referring to the fact that a number of the reports are not, for obvious reasons, in English.

That said, you would appear to suffer a deficit in regards to understanding scientific research. Many well-qualified specialists have spent many decades studying the structures in question. Should you disagree with their findings, it is up to you to prove that you are correct. Not vice-versa.

Edit: Format.

I was thinking of asking Geomy if he has heard of a guy named Jean-Pierre Protzen?

 

Chuckle

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Geomy said:

Deleted denials

I deny your denials.

 

[FLOMBIE]

16 hours ago, Geomy said:

Well, I'm sorry you  feel the need to appear interested or helpful. It's not necessary. Especially if your clocks are a bit ahead.

That doesn't even make sense. This is simply not a creative writing class. Or would you like me to mark it and tell you what you can do better? 

I don't know what my place in the world has to do with it. 

[Geomy]

15 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I'm sorry WVK the only way to 'prove' stone softening is to recreate the technique and demonstrate it. The reason you'd have to do that is because the evidence points to the people of SA using standard masonry technique. However, lets not derail Geomy's "they are really detailed rocks" idea to discuss 'your' idea once again.

Really detailed rocks?

[Geomy]

11 hours ago, lightly said:

Ok,.    Middle shot, on your post #60 (pics provided by Hanslune)  See the smaller, rougher rocks in the upper left corner with what looks like ,and is, Mortar?   Did the carvers ,carve those to look like smaller ,rougher rocks with mortar between them?

your idea is interesting Geomy, but I'm guessing you may be having second thoughts about the idea?  Anyway, you've found a good place to have some fun and learn.... There are some amazingly knowledgeable people in here .  I'm not one of them 

.    Ahhhh, I just noticed Swede's post #90 . .  Like they say ..a picture (or2) is worth a thousand words. !

those pictures say it all !

 

I haven't had any change of mind. I didnt expect everyone e to not totally get what I meant immediately.

I mean, like you said and  by the standard of  writing skills around here, you guys are pretty clever.

 The joints with obvious mortar are joints with obvious mortar.

Not all parts of the walls are of the nature I suggest. But the big impossible looking sections , are.

[Geomy]

I need to learn how to support my idea with evidence and present it  n a way that follows certain guidelines.

Hang on.

I'll be back.