It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:12 PM

originally posted by: richapau
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.

His date was based on Posnansky, Posnanskys date was made up, based on a flawed premise. I have already posted the carbon dates numerous times recently, they prove that the Tiahuanaco culture didn't start building until 200CE
This is the same civilisation we are talking about, the Tiahuanaco culture. That Hancock was talking about in Fingerpaints of the Gods

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:15 PM
a reply to: PyramidGuy

Possibly simply 'al-chemically' faced with superior cement

care to elaborate?
thats what i am after.
because thats a fine collection of adjectives. not sure its helpful or desciptive though

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:19 PM
a reply to: PyramidGuy
also pyramids are not directly related to dry ashlar.
it exists independently.
the historical descriptions mention white limestone, yet the lil pyramid has ashlar.
more evidence of renovation phases?

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:26 PM

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk

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)

The word Henge is probably derived from "Old English" To Hang, and is only used in reference to stones with lintels. So just Stonehenge. Its old name was "the giants dance".
List of Variants

And yes, its all pish, just because the pyramids seem to have been laid out in the shape of Orions belt, doesn't make it true, If it wasn't laid out like that, then there would be hundreds of other constellations to claim it was based on, Andrew Collins alternatively claims Cygnus has something to do with it, but he's a nutcase. The Egyptians of the early dynasties didn't give a toss about Orion, they were Sun worshippers
How to fudge geography

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:37 PM

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: PyramidGuy

Possibly simply 'al-chemically' faced with superior cement

care to elaborate?
thats what i am after.
because thats a fine collection of adjectives. not sure its helpful or desciptive though

Sure! I mean the alchemical process may have been a stone-making process. I recommend the book by Davidovits, if you havn't seen it. "Pyramids, an Enigma Solved", accounting for the smooth edges on huge monoliths. I tried making the pyramid rock he described but it doesn't work for me, works for others on youtube however, if you search geopolymer.


posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:01 PM
a reply to: Marduk

ah thanks! i thought you'd had a cardiac arrest, thinking up new expletives to use on nutters

i got the henge postulation from francis pryor (uk, decades ago, i imagine)
and it was thornborough henge array, sorry
yeah, i cant see how it would have served them to aim for such symbolism.
navigation tools are just so. it doesnt help. you can see all the stars in your hemisphere from your hemisphere.
you cant see the shape of orion laid out on the ground when you are stood on the ground next to a pyramid.

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:33 PM
a reply to: PyramidGuy

hmmm, yeah geopolymers. fair enough. thing is that really is a strawman in some ways. for me, anyway.
up to 15 tonnes, mostly 1-3.
well thats not a superhuman feat with aids and manpower, although not easy.
and limestone too so maybe, if they did want a certain property from it, your man got the idea from thinking about fire resistant properties, i believe.
and it would make herodotus account seem more plausible, building it with planks and water, though i am pretty sure he studied egypt from various hospitable establishments.
what about the granite? 80 tons
and the ashlar- what kind of mould would you use for that effect.( maybe sandcasting?)
and granite sand is very coarse, holds no water and does not even look like granite in cement.
the ingredients for chemical reaction must be present for geopolymer to set and cure
if its not to layer in settling it must be vibrated of tamped
you also have to contain as a liquid initially, slurry.
2.4 times mass of water, 2400kg per m3
15 tons- you need steel in it, it will disintegrate otherwise
maybe you could get round this with a good plastifier or glue.
water based, obviously. we use pva or latex type stuff now but that would have to be organic without having hydrocarbons
all options are tricky

posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:26 PM
a reply to: username74

so i have an idea.
for the prehistoric intellectual tool shed.
growing up in the 70s we had a game/toy called spirogragh.
anyone have this?
basically its a set of geometric shapes, just circles and rulers in mine, but all with equally sized teeth, and pins. so you could take a straight piece,pin it to your paper, and get one of your circles of varying diameter, an on all the peices there are holes, for your pen. so you put yor pen in your circle and roll it like a rack and pinion and you draw a perfect elongated spisal. i think it was a draughtmans kit made a toy.
you would need some kind of expedient analogue, and maybe template to create dry ahslar.
for bench work i have another old tool. its like a trellis fence. diamond shaped. when you compress it the diamonds get taller and thinner and when you stretch it they are shorter and fatter, its meant to marking out holes for uphostery or carpentry but if you combine the two you have the mechanical analogue of c+c machine ir a replica writing, scribing machine. sticks and hide, just like the wall of a yurtz (mongolian steppe structure)
edit on 23-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:32 PM
a reply to: username74

and if you can suss out a lathe. like everytime you spit a rabbit to cook. then we have an analogue to all present milling machinery so my first conclusion is we arent as bright as they were,
stuck in a rut eh.

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 12:04 PM
a reply to: username74

so we have some expedient quantity surveying tools, strings and gyroscopes (and dont expect to find their remains, all organic), all physical analogues, of our tech. so you see we learnt nothing. we mimic well, but we dont reason so well.
we identify patterns, but we apply them without sufficient analysis.
so all our civilisation has done is reinvented the wheel, multiple times.
original precepts, we had a few but our tech is neccesarily just a continuation of several branches of the same thing.
manifestation of physical properties, developed with offshoots as a result of our direct challenges with the local enviroment.
so to drive this point home, simplified,......
i have an example, the end of the last great war. wwII . allies built radar. germans infrared.
both theoretical at the time, both coming from correct or incorrect ideologies.
so to further this within the world of computer games/simulations/models, you would refer to this as a technology tree.
if you start down one branch of this tree there is a finite 'phasespace' you can fill (read as realm of potential development within available toolkit) and other routes where the primary supposition allows development
of a different branch of tech, with different applications to the same end.
a little like geneaology, but as we now know, it would be better to regard the system as a braided stream, were routes can dead end or recombine, rather than being mutually exclusive as is the tree branch.
a more flexible model, if you will.
like systems science as a roadmap.
like the dry ashlar wall systems and i have since learnt a crude distinction within the classification as
convex polygonal, or block.
well indeed, two distinct markers in antiquity, squarish and random polygonal.
clearly apparent.
so back to the tool shed.
the bit i have been shying away from.
i cant give you the physical tools they had.
we can measure and mark.
how do we cut , its easier that i first list what you cant have, as in accord with orthodox theory, and obviously geography has some sway.
no wheels, no pulleys
no hard metal/metallurgy beyond predefined tech/temperature level (very bad form in my humble opinion)
no precise tools
no measuring devices (though we have postulated such)
no beasts of burden
no infrastructure
no central organisation, though i must contend our standard version of such is very linear, hierarchical, centralised thus neccesarily blinkered to alternatives, so semantics comes into play again, as with culture/civilisation definition.
probably they dont even get a spade for the foundations.
.so in fact we define them as savages. academically, catagorically and socially.
when it comes to size, we decree brute force.
when it comes to quality we decree lots of time and exceptional talent.
is it a reflection of our existence, that we must denigrate those who came before
that we must deny the apparence of the evidence before us
do we subconciously recognise our inferiority in the face of these awesome constructions and equate it to barbarous qualities, vis a vis our post colonial civilisational tendancies.
you will notice it gets quiet on these construction related threads, when such things are postulated, perhaps
to deride such notions would be to aquiesce to their pertinence.
as though to admit that unconciously advocated centralised control may not be the origin of true efficient human relationship and endeavor, that another method of organisation, was moving the big rocks.
because they sure as hell arent giving them tools to do it with!
bear in mind this hierarchical structure is endemic to our relationship with everything we percieve, even academia!
this is not to degrade the value of empirical studies, but boundaries between disciplines are oft illusory!

posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:44 PM
a reply to: username74

so on the subject of the dry ashlar walls, initially, within the paradigm, there are some observations
relating to the OP pictures:
our modern ashlar uses mortar and although hetrogeneous is composed of about 11 different types and sizes of standardised rectangle.
so its not comparable, in fact, i cannot find any 'dry' comparison in recorded history, regarding the convex polygonal type constructions
so we are a world apart from this concept.
the only reasonable assumption i can manage is that the rocks were already fractured in their vertical cleavage in said shapes and chiselled off and erected vertically, otherwise they are going to need all the postulated tools above and metals, smacking rocks into rocks isnt going to do it.
the second example appears to be a simplication while keeping the basic structural principles, interlocking but with controlled shaping and harvesting of material

posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:49 PM
Most people realise when a thread has died and have the good grace to let it go

This ones for you

edit on 27-8-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 12:26 PM
a reply to: Marduk

thats nice marduk!
is this how you approach bedtime?

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 12:32 PM
a reply to: Marduk

are you approaching all your studies from this perspective?, let that anger go, marduk
i am sure that all our issues can be resolved in a similar fashion!
whats the line from the clip you posted?
"let it go, let it go, its in the past!"
wise words, indeed!

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 12:45 PM
a reply to: Marduk

in reference to the post, i am sure this is a well trodden route but, is this like the born again christians i occaisonally encounter, who want to abuse me for my lack of christianity, but when i say, turn the other cheek, they get angrier.
where are the proudly fostered, open minded converts of this 'faith'?
at times i could ask the same of the academics!
i dont think you could invent a more primitive system of production, than i concluded,
but your redoubt, or rebuttal is a disney picture!??

edit on 28-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:37 PM
wow, three more responses from you on a dead thread that no one but you is interested in...

maybe this is more your speed

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:49 PM
a reply to: Marduk
ah. come on they were ok, walking on sunshine was better
just to keep you limber, marduk, heres a little math puzzle for the great pyramid
just to bring the constructions mass into perspective,
lets be generous and say we have 24 hour shifts.
24 by 365 is 8760
8760 hours per year.
8760 by 27 (years) is 236520 hours.
if the orthodox figure is to be believed, in continuous motion, for 27 years, 24 hours a day, at a mass of 5900000 tonnes is,
an average accretion of 25 tons an hour!
thats at 24 hours, 365 days for 27 years.
thats 2500000 meters cubed, which is a growth rate of 10.6m3 an hour.
if tou think this is correct tell me how
it is possible????????
if they dont work at night, double the figures, if they work 6 months a year double again.
is archeaology outside natural laws????
music reccomendations pending,

edit on 28-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:59 PM
a reply to: Marduk
touche' !

(non gender specific)
edit on 28-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 04:59 PM
a reply to: username74
Your math is accurate,
but its only accurate per manpower
i.e. if you had thought of two men building the pyramid, then you could probably halve those figures and I think its highly unlikely each man worked a 24 hour day, so you'd need to add at least a third on again to account for sleep,
Hey wait, we could use three men...

oh dear, your little fantasy math fell apart didn't it

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: Marduk

"oh dear, your little fantasy math fell apart didn't it "

not really.
its accurate in work done.
mass moved against time taken.
a time and motion study, they used to call them.
albeit only a brief one. more a quantitive approach.
you dont find it illustrates the point?

"i.e. if you had thought of two men building the pyramid, then you could probably halve those figures and I think its highly unlikely each man worked a 24 hour day, so you'd need to add at least a third on again to account for sleep,
Hey wait, we could use three men..."

and either thats misdirection or your maths 'aint so hot'.
unless you think i am trying to estimate the number of labour hours needed.
that was a given.
the analysis was to demonstrate the absolute minimum average accretion rate per hour within the postulated timescale.
(obviously if you want to work less you must increase value of metres cubed per hour)
the manpower is whatever is required to quarry shape transport and fit the pieces plus other logistics (we could call it ' x ' its value is unknown, a hypothetical constant)
thanks for checking my workings out, though!
we all make mistakes

edit on 29-8-2016 by username74 because: clarity. see, i told you we all make mistakes.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in