It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The AMAZING stonewall of INCA ROQA STREET in CUSCO PERU HD

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Every time I see this wall I think there was something very peculiar going on when this was being built.

Is that vitrification we see here?

If it is then how can we explain that?

And what of those knobs, scrapes and flat surfaces? Made with a chisel? It looks like it was moulded or pressed to me but how can that be as we have never had the kind of technology that can shape, press and mould whole stones?

I guess I’ll just have to go along with the chisel theory until this kind of building technology gets invented again –

The amazing stonewall of Inca Roqa Street in Cusco



YouTube Link -

www.youtube.com...




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

i have travel trough peru an bolivia and easter island, the things are saw there where incredible
seeing it in real life with over whelming evidence right in your face of proof of advanced ancient civilisations, pumu punku and tiwanaku where my favourite. there are many questions that main stream archeology wont ask



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

It is wonderful stonework. It's interesting to note though that this is a wall where we are always told "The stopnes are so precisely shaped that you could not fit a cigarette paper between them"

In the first thirty seconds though there are a number of gaps between the stones.

Looks like it IS shaped by humans with hand-tools guided by skill and scribers after all. Laser wielding aliens or Atlanteans would not make such mistakes.

Do you have a time marker for examples of vitrification? Bit pushed for time here and may have missed it while doing too many things at once.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: sacredvisions
a reply to: JamesTB

i have travel trough peru an bolivia and easter island, the things are saw there where incredible
seeing it in real life with over whelming evidence right in your face of proof of advanced ancient civilisations, pumu punku and tiwanaku where my favourite. there are many questions that main stream archeology wont ask


Yet it is only mainstream that works hard to understand it and have published scores of books and PRP's on the subject.They have looked at the quarries, the culture and don't analysis of the stones themselves.

Fringe is content to throw up its collective arms and whine that they don't know or write books for the popular market which contain baseless speculation as fact.

Alternatives do some work but not enough to understand the processes only to narrowly attempt support of one narrow concept or ideas.

Now I've been to Easter Island (twice) and saw nothing more than good craftsmanship and the finished work of clever Polynesian people.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: JamesTB

It is wonderful stonework. It's interesting to note though that this is a wall where we are always told "The stopnes are so precisely shaped that you could not fit a cigarette paper between them"

In the first thirty seconds though there are a number of gaps between the stones.

Looks like it IS shaped by humans with hand-tools guided by skill and scribers after all. Laser wielding aliens or Atlanteans would not make such mistakes.

Do you have a time marker for examples of vitrification? Bit pushed for time here and may have missed it while doing too many things at once.



Howdy

Yup not all stone work is the same, different generations of craftsmen, various artists of different skills, you can see the same in European Cathedrals, the different skills of the passing generations/artists show up clearly.

Taking exceptional pieces and touting them as representative of all is an old 'trick'.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Hiya Hans, I know (obvs).... Just taking a different tack with the OP. I try a new approach every now and again to see if any points will be discussed or openly acknowledged but ground- hog-ness prevails.
I used to work with some stone masons amongst other makers during a decade spent working with traditional crafters, which is why a lot of the "they could not do that" twists my melons, man.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTB
Every time I see this wall I think there was something very peculiar going on when this was being built.

I guess I’ll just have to go along with the chisel theory until this kind of building technology gets invented again –


Ah more personal incredulity - and as you well know if you had read anything about pre-Inca and Inca stonemason you would know that this type of wall was not made merely by chisels.

They used stone hammers for the shaping, they did use chisels for cruder work.

Why is this wall, that you have selected as being beyond native working capacity, so uneven, irregular and badly shaped certainly Atlanteans could have done better?

At about 2:00 they show a place where the outer stone has been removed and you can see the rubble fill/second wall of much cruder construction.

Later they show a larger rock with rilles on it - a clear sign of the use of hammer stones, as is the rounded pillow style of the those unfinished stones. Can you tell us what structure that wall is associated with?



Here is an image of higher quality Inca work, with Spanish style stone work above it. As we discussed before the Inca had four types of masonry styles ....so how many styles did these Atlantean's have?


edit on 17/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB
Every time I see this wall I think there was something very peculiar going on when this was being built.

I guess I’ll just have to go along with the chisel theory until this kind of building technology gets invented again –


Ah more personal incredulity - and as you well know if you had read anything about pre-Inca and Inca stonemason you would know that this type of wall was not made merely by chisels.

They used stone hammers for the shaping, they did use chisels for cruder work.

Why is this wall, that you have selected as being beyond native working capacity, so uneven, irregular and badly shaped certainly Atlanteans could have done better?

At about 2:00 they show a place where the outer stone has been removed and you can see the rubble fill/second wall of much cruder construction.

Later they show a larger rock with rilles on it - a clear sign of the use of hammer stones, as is the rounded pillow style of the those unfinished stones. Can you tell us what structure that wall is associated with?



Here is an image of higher quality Inca work, with Spanish style stone work above it. As we discussed before the Inca had four types of masonry styles ....so how many styles did these Atlantean's have?



Did they?
Would you show us with the aid of photographs what these styles look like in your opinion.
Thanks.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

We covered this before; you don't get to demand information from me until you answer my questions first.
However, as you doubt the Inca had four styles why don't you show us your evidence that they didn't and also how you can tell which is Inca, pre Inca (from the many prior cultures of west SA) and your Atlanteans.

That should be easy for you to do. lol



edit on 17/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

We covered this before; you don't get to demand information from me until you answer my questions first.
However, as you doubt the Inca had four styles why don't you show us your evidence that they didn't and also how you can tell which is Inca, pre Inca (from the many prior cultures of west SA) and your Atlanteans.

That should be easy for you to do. lol




No, we didn't cover anything at all, what happened was, I asked you to show examples of your belief that the Inca had 4 styles of building. You couldn't just as you can’t now because you're talking nonsense. You really don't know what you're talking about. If you do then show the 4 styles if not then please go away I can't be bothered with your hypocrisy and invective anymore.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

I work in stone albeit not masonry typically. For what it is worth, it is my opinion that this is high quality work done by remarkably skilled craftsmen no doubt, but otherwise ordinary human beings utilizing ordinary tools and methods. It always chafes me a bit when people discredit that work with this sort of speculation.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Those of you who absurdly imagine that this stone wall was hammered and chisselled just by stone and copper tools have not explained all the points made by the guy in the video, e.g., the obvious patches that have been added as though it was once plastered on like wet cement, some of which have worn off, revealing the hard granite underneath. You have not accounted for the shine or glaze in the surface of some slabs, indicative of vitrifaction. Why is the shine near the joins, suggesting that the stone was heated only near the edge, to soften them so as to improve the fit? You have not explained why Inca stone masons would have bored indentations and carved lumps at the BOTTOM of blocks if they were done for lifting, for the more practical position would have been surely near the tops of blocks if they used only ropes and poles. Why are there no toolmarks on the problematic stone work, whereas in known Inca stones displaying rough workmanship the marks are clearly visible? The pre-Inca walls show perfect joinery, not the rough work of known Inca buildings. Anyone without ideological blinkers can see clearly that there are TWO styles of building: PRE-Inca, displaying modern standards of finish in the stonework, and Inca that is relatively far more primitive. Truth of the matter is the Incas modelled their buildings after the finer. much earlier style of architecture that they discovered, made by a vanished people with higher technology.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: JamesTB

I work in stone albeit not masonry typically. For what it is worth, it is my opinion that this is high quality work done by remarkably skilled craftsmen no doubt, but otherwise ordinary human beings utilizing ordinary tools and methods. It always chafes me a bit when people discredit that work with this sort of speculation.



I work in masonry with stone and as a plasterer. While we do utilize modern machinery more than our forebears, the walls in the video are not above hand tool technology. I see no evidence of vitrification on the rock only polishing. Not every shiny stock is vitrified and even hand polishing can achieve a high lustre. Verifying the rock had been vitrified would require tooling at it's molecular structure not just appearance to the naked eye. Oddly I never see fringe theorists making serious attempts to have such study of the material completed.

The walls were built using bronze age techniques, some of those have been lost iin the fog of history and provide us with puzzles to work out.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jarocal

You miss the point about the signs of glazing. Why would the Inca stone masons concentrate their polishing near the edges of the blocks? This refutes your suggestion that the glazing is due to polishing. You ignore the fact that glazing has been found in ancient South American and Scottish forts in areas where there would have been no point in polishing the slabs, such as the moon temple located on the Sacsayhuaman site. There are several confirmed cases of unusual vitrified remnants from across the globe. In Europe, there are several forts and buildings with vitrified ramparts. The crude stone enclosure walls seem to have been subjected to the action of heat. No mortar has been found in any of these structures. Despite this, the rocks seem to be fused together. This fusion is uneven throughout the various forts and even in a single wall. Some stones are only partially melted and calcined. Whilst in others their adjoining edges are fused firmly together. In many instances, pieces of rock are enveloped in a glassy enamel-like coating, which binds them into a whole. At times, the entire length of the wall presents one solid mass of vitreous substance.

Hardly polishing to enhance the aesthetics! So get real and try to deal with the problem posed by these ancient buildings, instead of denying them by pretending that they are illusions based upon underestimating the building skills of ancient peoples. Such denial simply won't wash any more.
edit on 18-10-2014 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: Jarocal

You miss the point about the signs of glazing. Why would the Inca stone masons concentrate their polishing near the edges of the blocks? This refutes your suggestion that the glazing is due to polishing. You ignore the fact that glazing has been found in ancient South American and Scottish forts in areas where there would have been no point in polishing the slabs, such as the moon temple located on the Sacsayhuaman site. There are several confirmed cases of unusual vitrified remnants from across the globe. In Europe, there are several forts and buildings with vitrified ramparts. The crude stone enclosure walls seem to have been subjected to the action of heat. No mortar has been found in any of these structures. Despite this, the rocks seem to be fused together. This fusion is uneven throughout the various forts and even in a single wall. Some stones are only partially melted and calcined. Whilst in others their adjoining edges are fused firmly together. In many instances, pieces of rock are enveloped in a glassy enamel-like coating, which binds them into a whole. At times, the entire length of the wall presents one solid mass of vitreous substance.

Hardly polishing to enhance the aesthetics! So get real and try to deal with the problem posed by these ancient buildings, instead of denying them by pretending that they are illusions based upon underestimating the building skills of ancient peoples. Such denial simply won't wash any more.


we are not discussing Scottish forts, the discussion is about this particular wall in s different hemisphere. Is this wall vitrified? I have yet yo see one empirical study on it claiming that it is. It is not even a particularly expensive or difficult test. as to the question of why ththose particular areas have been polished I could only hazard an unsubstantiated guess which is what the video and to an extent you seem to be doing. My statements were:

* having a professional background in masonry I see nothing in the video not accomplishable with hand tools.(I even conceded techniques and methodology use in the Bronze age probably lost over time.

* I said not all shiny rocks are vitrified and that there are simple tests that would verify actual vitrification.

Which oF my statements are wrong in regard to this wall? Do you have proof this rock has vitrified edges beyond forts in another hemisphere made by a different culture or some YouTube video where a statement is made but no reference given to actual testing?

The video also references areas near the shiny areas where the faces have been chiseled possibly removing designs on the original stone face. To make the statement that polishing those edges does nothing for the aesthetics without a full comprehension of that culture(which no one has ) is ludicrous.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

Ah yes more evasion, you just cannot come up with anything to defend your claims can you?

Well if you don't know anything about the subject why do you keep posting claims you cannot defend then get upset that people question you?

Seems a bit masochistic. lol



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

Ah yes more evasion, you just cannot come up with anything to defend your claims can you?

Well if you don't know anything about the subject why do you keep posting claims you cannot defend then get upset that people question you?

Seems a bit masochistic. lol


So once again you have no valid information to add to the thread. Fool.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Here we have an old photo of the same wall. On the left in my opinion we see typical Inca work to the right I'm not so sure.


s24.postimg.org...


Inca work removed -


s9.postimg.org...


What I find interesting is that fact that on the typical Inca walls we never find the knobs, scrapes or scoop marks.

Take a look at this work The Temple of the Condor -


s28.postimg.org...


Again look at the top part of the photo we see the knobs protruding from the rock face where swathes of rock have been very smoothly removed. Can you imagine how hard it would be to remove all that material AROUND the knobs to leave the knobs sticking out? Why did they do that? The knobs are not repeat not aids for lifting simply because they appear 70/80 feet still on the face of the rock which hasn't been removed.

Also look at the foreground of the photo we see crudely built walls but also very finely cut blocks which stand out for their perfect geometric shapes.

What I find curious is the crude walls are intact but the precision blocks are strewn/assembled about randomly as if cast asunder but some great force.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTB


So once again you have no valid information to add to the thread.


One could say that about you too.

Endless claims and no evidence



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

Again how do you determine what is Inca and what is not? You appear to just be making stuff up.

By the way you already showed these same images before. You are just repeating your old claim again and again without evidence.

Your opinion is real nice and everything but will you ever put out any evidence in support of your position?

Can you show how you know they are not Inca and what is Inca and also what was made by the other pre-Inca cultures?

There is a great deal of information on this, some of which I provided you but you have ignored it.

Your personal opinion just isn't going to cut it laddie.

For lurkers interested in the subject:

Here is some material you might want to read:


Agurto, Santiago. Estudios acerca de la construcción, arquitectura y planeamiento incas. Lima: Cámara Peruana de la Construcción, 1987. In Spanish
Gasparini, Graziano and Margolies, Luize. Inca architecture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980. ISBN 0-253-30443-1
Hyslop, John. Inka settlement planning. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990. ISBN 0-292-73852-8
Kendall, Ann. Aspects of inca architecture: description, function and chronology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1985.
Protzen, Jean-Pierre. Inca architecture and construction at Ollantaytambo. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Rowe, John. An introduction to the archaeology of Cuzco. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1944
Vergara, Teresa. “Arte y Cultura del Tahuantinsuyo”. Historia del Peru. Editorial Lexus, 2000. ISBN 9972-625-35-4 in Spanish

The archaeology of Inca origins

Cellular polygonal masonry: with small blocks
Cyclopean polygonal masonry: with very large stones
Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned
Sedimentary coursed masonry: in which stones are laid out in horizontal rows





edit on 19/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join