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 Ancient Methods of Softening Stone

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
This is my first thread so bare with me


This is somewhat a revival of an older thread The plant that softens stone which discusses how the Inca and several other civilizations used an unknown plant to soften stone to their needs. It is discussed that a bird rubbed a 'red leaf/berry' onto stone to soften it and create holes for their nests. Learning from that, people used the plant to soften and modify stone such as the Incan structures.

Later it was discussed that Catholic Priest Jorge A. Lira, an expert in Andean folklore, rediscovered the ancient method of softening stone but was unsuccessful as re-hardening it. The actual name of the plant used by him he called 'jatcha' which is inconclusive and almost impossible to classify. However, after some time of research I have found the plant used by Jorge A. Lira. I have sadly lost the source of this information but found that what he called 'jotcha' is a plant referred to as Pingo Pingo.

Pingo Pingo (Ephedra andina) is a plant native to the Andes Mountains which grows small red or white fruits. Ephedra distachya is also a close relative to the plant. I'm sure if you search for the connection between the plant and Jorge A. Lira you will find it.

There may be more ingredients for the final product as mentioned here

Stone softening in South America would be achieved by combining the extract of several rare plants that have natural acidic qualities, the Pito or Pitu, the Kechuca and a possible third plant known as Punco-Punco. The exact process and quantities used are still a mystery. Scientists have been able to partially reproduce the method of dissolving the stone but are unable to reform the slurry back to original hardness and name Acetic acid, Oxalic acid and Citric acid as being the main constituents. The Egyptians have also been mentioned as to having been able to dissolve the Limestone used in the Pyramids construction completely, then reform this into concrete like blocks. Additives such as kaolin (clay), salt and lime make the finished product and it still very much appears to be natural Limestone, but unlike any other Limestone known. Only under electron microscope can this be determined.

edit on 30-10-2014 by 6Taco6Smell6 because: link




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: 6Taco6Smell6

Howdy 6Taco



Can you demonstrate that it works?
edit on 30/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I'm not certain but it's supposedly a natural process called Chelation. Check out the old thread I mentioned, it's really interesting.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

well, for a minor demonstration, refer to the known properties of oxalic acid, and plants that are known to have roots that dissolve rock.

I don't doubt that over tens of thousands of years a few genius graced the Americas. Observant geniuses might note that plants have proprties that dissolve rock, and investigate from there. Perhaps.

Now, for evidence of human use on the scales insinuated....you and I both wait with baited breath.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Excellent find OP! So how did they move the stones to begin with? I am assuming that the stone softening would be crucial to setting them in place, but it doesn't seem like it would help for transportation, unless they dissolved the stone to a liquid and poured it in a form for setting. Anyways, this reminds me of Coral Castle and Ed Leedskalnin, so now I have something else to look into.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 6Taco6Smell6

If these people possessed such an amazing technology, why wouldn't they put the stones in molds and make uniformly sized bricks? Take a look at this wall from Machu Picchu:



I chose this picture because toward the bottom, the wall is fashioned similarly to those in the more popular images that have people talking about melting stone but as you look higher up the wall, you can observe a gradual transition as less and less time was spent finishing the stones until at the very top it looks like any other dry stacked stone.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Just to play some devils advocate....there could be esoteric/spiritual reasons for all manner of oddities. If every ancient site is a holy site, and every pile a stones an altar, why not have religious/spiritual reasons behind buildings where some amount of thought went into its building.

ETA: the black markings on those stones...any idea what it is and what caused it?
edit on 10/31/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It seems as if the larger, more intricately placed/cut stones were more important as a heavy base rather than smaller ones; especially for their position up high on the steep mountain. However if you're a fan of Brien Foerster's theories, there's still a possibility that he larger structures were there before the Inca who took over the area and rebuilt over the megaliths with smaller stones. We may never know for sure though



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   

edit on 31-10-2014 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I wasted my breath. Sorry
edit on 31-10-2014 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Yes but that is just dissolving not 'softening', allowing shaping, then restoring it 'hardness'.

Whole different thingy.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: 6Taco6Smell6
a reply to: theantediluvian

It seems as if the larger, more intricately placed/cut stones were more important as a heavy base rather than smaller ones; especially for their position up high on the steep mountain. However if you're a fan of Brien Foerster's theories, there's still a possibility that he larger structures were there before the Inca who took over the area and rebuilt over the megaliths with smaller stones. We may never know for sure though


Actually we do know when the Spanish showed up the Inca were in the process of building buildings and when the Inca descendents and Spanish wrote about their masonry they used dragging and hammering plus that they built x, y and z. Good old Brien is unfortunately just making stuff up.

There was an amusing thread here a few days ago with a video of Brien acting all confused and shocked that there were ruins under Cusco, beneath the Inca ruins - he didn't seem to understand that the Inca built on top of two earlier cultures. (not super advanced ones either).



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: 6Taco6Smell6
a reply to: Hanslune

I'm not certain but it's supposedly a natural process called Chelation. Check out the old thread I mentioned, it's really interesting.


Yes I remember that thread: it ran into the same problem this thread will probably run into.

Its a nice idea but runs into three practical problems: no way to duplicate/demonstrate a soften, shape and harden cycle

Chisel and hammer stone marks on existing stone work

Both literature and images (not in all cultures/civs) of their doing stone work with regular old tools



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I would hazard a guess that if you know that you have earthquakes there,you would have the stones fit like a jigsaw puzzle so they would not be easily dislodged.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The smaller stones could well have been placed there after the fact. After being uninhabited for as long as it was I'd dare say someone cleaned up for the tourists. Pure speculation though.

As for the black rock crud.... It's mould man. It happens to grow on rocks when there not pressure washed regularly enough. Lazy Inca bastards!



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: 6Taco6Smell6

If these people possessed such an amazing technology, why wouldn't they...


I feel like this is one of the top questions that represents how we ask questions with our evolution as a frame of reference.

If an ancient highly evolved/advanced species did exist at one point people have to remember, the way we see technology is exactly that, the way we see it.

Just because our society has taught us we are the apex of evolution, especially in terms of intelligence, probability tells us it does not necessarily mean we are.

I feel it is important to remember that. It is plain as day that some ancient people, long before "us", created certain structures the are astonishingly enigmatic even to this day. Some will remain debatably forever, I believe as well

If you think about it, if these ancients were less advanced, why did they decide to literally build with the most difficult material humans could manipulate. Was it because those ancients were less advance? I leave that to the readers.

I'm obsessed with the facts that these ancient peoples somehow cut stone using primitive tools, transported some for exhausting amounts of distances, carve them to ultra precise detail, then set into place in a Herculean fashion and all done before history was "written" down.

Is it not possible these megalithic enigmatic sites are not the remains of our current knowledge of history? But actually remnants of a group of people so old that there would not be anything left except the stone itself?

Perhaps the extreme vastness of time is involved, making it entirely probable that these people would of evolved differently, thus having all cognitive interaction within their environment evolving different that ours. That would explain how these "ancients" could manipulate nature in a way we find difficult if not impossible.

This of course is all theoretical. Just like much of modern academic "history".

One thing is for certain, I love this stuff!! Hey Hanslune!



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Not to be too critical, but isn't this topic a copy of this recent ATS thread (Did the ANCIENT BUILDERS Know How to SOFTEN SOLID STONE?) and paraphrasing several of the posts within it?

(ATS post

The name of the plant that allegedly 'softens stone' is Ephedra andina. It's alkaline and also a banned performance enhancing drug.


(ATS post

The bird identified by Fawcett does indeed make nests in stone hollows (as well as in trees), but it doesn't create the hollow, it only fishes around in them - for insects, much like a woodpecker. The hollows are created by pebbles and small rocks that rattle around by winds until the carve out their niches, a process that can take many years (called 'swirl' holes). It may be that these birds are using an alkaline plant to further clean the stone hollow for use as a nest, perhaps there is a paper out there in academia on that topic.

Here is a Andean web page that goes into great depth of these tales - by far the most in depth I've seen compared to the glut of incredulous web sites:

Vivat Academia Magazine (this is the Google Translated page)

"Grupo de Reflexión de la Universidad de Alcalá" (GRUA); 2003. Las piedras de plastilina. (original in Spanish language)

I found that page after looking at some peer-reviewed papers on the Andean Flicker; Traditional use of the Andean flicker (Colaptes rupicola) as a galactagogue in the Peruvian Andes. It gives a few mentions of the lore of this bird in 'softening stone,' but more credence is given to it's role as a meat source and health benefits to young mothers.


Personally I think the board would have been better served if you had added your input to that discussion, or the previous one from 2011.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I would question why they didn't just form the entire wall as one stone shape.

Of course, having grown up in California, I know that engineering for earthquake-prone areas necessitates things that often seem illogical on the surface, so maybe they realized that this was the best way to ensure minimal crumbling of structures over time.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Disagree...it's nice to open a new thread and it have the information right at the top instead of having to read through multiple pages to find it.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: 6Taco6Smell6

but you cannot identify this aledged plant - or the chemical process of this aledged " stone softening "

lastly - stone that hand been " softened " shaped and rehardened would be very obvious - hint crystal structure and orientation

is there any evidence - or just more annecdotes ?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join