Dry Ashlar Walls in Peru (Inca Attributed) Eerily Unique in a World Filled with Ancient Megaliths

a reply to: Marduk

maybe it was the mushrooms.
seen the polka dot shamans in lapland
reindeer pull the sled and the presents are under the tree
what grows under the tree? red and white presents!
eat your presents and the dmt will introduce you to the elves
a ready source of inspiration
you know its always been a cherished notion of mine, used to like a bit of terrance mckenna (wonderfully dry lateral thinker!)
its been shown a small amount of Psilocybin mushrooms increase visual acuity, good for a hunter, and where doesit grow best, on the leavings of the herd, and if we were following the herd we eat the easy protien an the positive feedback loop begins cementing cows and hardcore hallucigens into human culture.
explains alot, if you like it, it cant be that bad!
makes egyptology easier to gel with. too much lotus

a reply to: username74

oh and just to weird that up a bit more, funghi spores can travel through space, on space debris.
ergo our mushrooms may have come from elsewhere
check that if you dont believe it

A very interesting find indeed Will pay attention to any additional related findings THANK YOU!

a reply to: Imhotepic

The inca didnt make the second set. Even their own myths say that certain sites belonged to the gods.

I am so tired of saying it. Its absurd.

THEY DIDNT MAKE THEM. The first picture is their work. The second, IS NOT.

By the GODS....not by them.

Also there were plenty of unknown civilizations before the Inca or Aztecs. We go off such a limited knowledge base and tout all day about it in schools.

ASK THEM. They have a better oral record after years of conquest than everything scholars say and use to push the "accepted history".

Perhaps this video helps to explain the irregular, rounded-corner type masonry and it's origins. I did see some irregular stones within more squared off stones. Fascinating.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Imhotepic

The inca didnt make the second set. Even their own myths say that certain sites belonged to the gods.

I am so tired of saying it. Its absurd.

THEY DIDNT MAKE THEM. The first picture is their work. The second, IS NOT.

By the GODS....not by them.

Also there were plenty of unknown civilizations before the Inca or Aztecs. We go off such a limited knowledge base and tout all day about it in schools.

ASK THEM. They have a better oral record after years of conquest then everything scholars say and use to push the "accepted history".

Agreed.

I was in Peru 3 month ago...I have to tell you that many local, ordinary folk and tour guides...dont believe that Incas built many of these sights. In fact...they even say that Incas were not people of that region...they were not local.

They say that Inca people were tall and strong...nothing resembling the local tribes that survived to this day...

for what it's worth. I cant of course vouch for the veracity of this...but it is what they say.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Imhotepic

Almost all of the oral history in the areas say they didn't build them, the gods did.

That's a pretty significant claim from a culture that regularly deified their own ancestors, so they were saying, their ancestors built it, and presumably these are myths that were first recorded by Conquistadores, which means you have a 1400 year gap between the first construction and the time of the claim...

How many ancestors do you think they deified during that period

I guess that's why all the bodies that have been excavated from the site were Indian..

I guess that's why Indians are depicted in all the murals

I guess that's why all the carbon dates are within the academic consensus for dating the site

I think I first heard that claim from Graham Hancock in "Fingerpaints of the gods",
its as insignificant in face of the facts then as it is now

Wrong. Teotihuacan, was in the eyes of the aztecs "the place where the gods live/ gods are born". here

Just saying, of course it was another civilization who built them, not god, but to claim it has sthg to do with deified ancestors is just wrong.
Unless of course you simplify and say olmecs, Mexica and Aztecs all are one thing?

a reply to: InTheLight

very interesting. there are vitrified stoneworks in scotland but it looks more like nature slapped it, than any thing controlled. like plasma strike or extreme heat. do you have any idea of how this sort of thing may have been achieved without a significant pass with a large heavenly body? , no pun intended
because thats the sort of energy release needed. to create plasma lightning. thats the "waterways" on mars for example.
has anyone got any idea how we could do this? we need a mechanism to even form a hypothesis
thanks.

a reply to: Peeple
"Just saying, of course it was another civilization who built them"
ok fair enough.
but you must contend with this
"I guess that's why all the carbon dates are within the academic consensus for dating the site"
which does suggest that within the dates accrued, within the range of the sample types, that the proposed activitys were in progress, as stated.
however, that does not rule out all sites due to definite construction dates, but you will find yourself in a purely circumstantial position just as you ask marduk to disprove something you hypothesize.
if you can define method of construction, it may allow reanalysis of paradigm, in the event of being illuminating in many ways for all sides.

a reply to: darkspace

ah,so for your reference, related to the comment
the sacred mushroom and the cross- john m allegro
mushrooms and mankind- james arthur
the spirit molecule- rick strassman
obviously this side of human culture e.g. shamanism, prehistoric origins of such, has been hard to study as recent power dynamics wish to sanction against divers' states of conciousness
make of it what you will!

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

joseph conrad rocks!

a reply to: Marduk

well, since we are near the subject, archeoastronomy has never yet been my hobby horse, i have always been curious if there was any upshot to the old orion on the ground thing (and is it mirror image or transposition?), i mention this because you remark on the henge post marks (although i am under the impression "henge" denotes ditch and bank) and i recall there is " the farnborough henge array?" which is also to be a representation of such like gizeh and various others i assume. was orion "famous " merely due to its visibilty? or was it all pish?
thanks

double post

a reply to: username74

I used the diplomatic term "civilization".
Didn't say human tribe, or whatever, did I?

Don't know how you would carbon date stone? If you can explain me that?

a reply to: Peeple

"I used the diplomatic term "civilization".
Didn't say human tribe, or whatever, did I? "
ok, so whats your point.
i said "fair enough."

"Don't know how you would carbon date stone? If you can explain me that?"
you dont.
usually they try to find material in a position that predates placement of stone. or by association.
theres erosian, weathering, maybe lichen and the patina.

a reply to: username74

Then how do you get definite construction dates?

You can't.

a reply to: Imhotepic

Go read Fingerprints of the Gods Grahmn Hancock. There is very compelling scientific evidence of a civilization in South America that used this technique in 12500 BC.

a reply to: Peeple

thers no point telling me.
i am not the droid you are looking for.
thats why i mentioned deposition earlier in the thread.

a reply to: richapau

did they happen to mention how?
fancy telling us?

I would call these 'rocks of the pyramid builders'. This construction technique is not unique to the Americas but was known to certain wandering tribes of the pyramid builders. I saw a photo of a wall on the Giza plateau in front of the pyramids, with stones bearing these very shapes. Possibly simply 'al-chemically' faced with superior cement, to give them a certain render which makes them appear to be huge monoliths, when in fact their real secret may lie beneath. Our geopolymer science is only in infancy.