Evidence Of Advanced Technology Thousands Of Years Ago In Peru (Interesting)

reply to post by casenately


Well stated.

I concur as you may know.

Same as the Egytians. "Able to build such great buildings/structures... but ...... lived in mud huts and so on.

Originally posted by Marco0Aurelio



BTW, to cut granite you need diamond, sand will not make the trick. As reagarding the concrete theory I say yes It can explain some constructions (maybe even that of the great pyramid as the french investigator proposed).

Try to apply any of those explantions to this one:


www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

you don't need diamonds.....


Also I'm right there with any theory with tangible evidence. I know/understand all these other theories, but there is no substance other than conjecture at best. I'm not saying it is wrong or incorrect to think of anyother way, I just don't buy into them as if they were factual.

Originally posted by Marco0Aurelio
reply to post by Harte

 

True same hardness at seven.

Yet how where the cuts made to be so perfect? I doubt that such a rudimentary technique would allow for the close fit that these structures are known for. An engineer showed that at no point could you fit a papper in an interstice, that is not a posible result with that kind of cutting.

And there's the problem of the transporting, the smaller stones could be carried, the larger ones could not (by any of the explanations I've seen so far).

Btw I scanned your posts and in no one did you provide an explanation for how can this have been, so I paste it again:

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

edit on 26-2-2012 by Marco0Aurelio because: (no reason given)

I mention this before and it got lost....

In the video they said they could not find any true right angles though the surfaces were very flat. With all their great technology why could they not make true right angles?

Originally posted by Harte
I believe that poster mentioned a certain plant compound that can soften some stones. I've recently (in the last year) read more about this and it turns out to be true, though not on such a scale that one can liquify entire stones (and certainly, if one did, one could not put humpty dumpty back together again!)

This is sort of analagous to the softening of granite using fire, which I mentioned concerning the Egyptians.

Harte

Interesting, do you remember the plant used? and what was meant by the use of fire to soften stones, was it alchemical or mechanical?

We do know that certain acids and bases could disolve very hard materials, with some alchemical knowledge you should also be able solidify previously liquified stones..

reply to post by anti72


That's an enriching POV.

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by Hanslune

 

The HUGE and perfect ones were built by the Incas, and the other small, dinky, crude and ugly ones were built by the "Incapaces" which means the incapable.

They didn't just produce those structures again. They never built them to begin with. Most peoples of the old world and the Americas occupied existing cities that were abandoned in the far distant past.

That's what I think too so far.

reply to post by Marco0Aurelio


I believe that is the majority of peoples opinion here on ATS.

There is just too much to demostrate that the history being taught to us is a "best guess"

Not that the teachers etc are wrong with intent... they are just wrong, now, by ignorance.

reply to post by anon72


First of all, very interesting post, S&F!
Although, I would like to point out that humans, and their understanding of math and architecture has always been evolving. Statements like "there is no way in hell the people who built this could have built this" do not consider evolution. Of course they could not have built megalithic structures the same year they invented clay huts, but 100 - 200 years later they could have. It would be like saying that the romans, who lived in "primitive" houses could never have built the Colloseum.

Originally posted by Illustronic

.... Lake Titicaca is no where near the largest lake, it is the largest lake at the highest altitude above sea level (outside of Tibet). Lake Baikal in Russia holds the most fresh water of any lake in the world and Lake Superior has the largest inland fresh water surface area....

That was my mistake, not Bellamy's. What I should have posted there was:

Titicaca is one of the world’s largest freshwater lakes, 138 miles long and in places 70 miles wide.

"Lake Titicaca sits 3,811 m (12,500 ft) above sea level, making it the highest commercially navigable lake in the world.

By volume of water, it is also the largest lake in South America."

Source: Wikipedia

reply to post by anon72


When he said harder than iron or steel, it was iron that did the job but not just any iron, 100% pure iron which can beat anything else science tries to come up with that will try to prove that it wan't iron. It's near impossible to make a diamond bandsaw of sufficient quality and structure, so that is out the window.

This is why looking at the pasts historic technology is a better way to provide a future for us, but a word of caution. IF this gets too out of hand then HE won't hesitate to wipe the slate clean. My best interests are that what the condition of the world was in with it's technology before the Deluge aren't going to kill us.

And if it wasn't for those dumb head excuse of leaders that burned down countless libraries that held endless amounts of information, we would be in a really good position of making some impossible feats.

Read "DEAD MAN'S SECRETS" to learn more.

reply to post by anon72


Debunking David Hatcher-Childress' new book on ancient megaliths in South America -- I have a response from a professor in archaeology, Dennis Ogburn, who specializes in South American archaeology in Peru and Ecuador:

The stones were shaped by hand, primarily using harder rounded stones (often quartz river cobbles), and I've seen a number of these in the stone quarries. They also used some bronze tools to extract blocks, but the shaping involving battering the blocks with the hammerstones. Moving the largest stones involved dragging them with ropes, and often required a thousand men or more. They only moved the largest stones over short distances of a few kilometers. The stones they moved up to Ecuador were still quite large, but only up to about 700 kg/1,500 lbs - these I suspect were carried on something made from wooden poles, like a litter. Archaeologists and other researchers have done quite a bit of work on these questions, and there is plenty of historical and archaeological evidence to show that the Incas were quite capable of doing these things using very basic technology in combination with the labor of many thousands of their subjects.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Just guesswork and in the Inca's words: we didn't make them (at least the really big stones&ancient looking structures).

Ropes and a thousand men, and what about lifting them, fitting them on top of eachother?

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


I beg to differ. Show me the plentiful amounts of proof to demostrate the Incas (or any culture) were able to make exact straight lines etc.

I love it when they say "about a 1000 men and some rope (or the alike).

You can bask a rock all you want with other ones. Yes. But, that is NOT what caused that straight line in the OP vid.

Did you send him the video? If so, ask him to tell us where we can find other such rocks.

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Just guesswork and in the Inca's words: we didn't make them (at least the really big stones&ancient looking structures).

Ropes and a thousand men, and what about lifting them, fitting them on top of eachother?

Of course they didn't, they built a great deal but they built on the foundations and added to construction that was done before them. The Inca empire only lasted one century. Do you even known enough about South American history to know who they were?

I know this will be a complete shock to you but the Inca weren't talking about aliens, Atlanteans or Lemurian; there were referring to the the Huari, Tiwanaku, Chancay, Sipan, Cajamarca, Chimur, Chachagpapas, Kotosh, Chavin, Padacas, Lima, Nasca, Moche, Wari, Chimu, Chan Chan and others that were their predecessors or nations they conquered between 1438 and 1533 when they themselves were conquered by the Spanish.

Why don't you provided us with evidence of this culture that had the technical ability to do this; since you seem to deny any evidence of the abilities of the Inca and the earlier cultures?

Denial coupled with guessing leads to nothing

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by anon72

 

Debunking David Hatcher-Childress' new book on ancient megaliths in South America -- I have a response from a professor in archaeology, Dennis Ogburn, who specializes in South American archaeology in Peru and Ecuador:

The stones were shaped by hand, primarily using harder rounded stones (often quartz river cobbles), and I've seen a number of these in the stone quarries. They also used some bronze tools to extract blocks, but the shaping involving battering the blocks with the hammerstones. Moving the largest stones involved dragging them with ropes, and often required a thousand men or more. They only moved the largest stones over short distances of a few kilometers. The stones they moved up to Ecuador were still quite large, but only up to about 700 kg/1,500 lbs - these I suspect were carried on something made from wooden poles, like a litter. Archaeologists and other researchers have done quite a bit of work on these questions, and there is plenty of historical and archaeological evidence to show that the Incas were quite capable of doing these things using very basic technology in combination with the labor of many thousands of their subjects.

the incas didnt build puma punku. This even earlier civilisations of Tiwanaka should have done these exact forms with simple hammerstones? no way-

Originally posted by anti72

the incas didnt build puma punku. This even earlier civilisations of Tiwanaka should have done these exact forms with simple hammerstones? no way-

Yes the Tiwanaku people built it and they were excellent craftmen.

Wow denial, okay I deny your denial, so what do we do now?

Maybe look at evidence? Or shall we have another round of incredulous denial? lol

So, if you don't think they did - what evidence do you have for this other culture?

reply to post by Hanslune


That's the whole problem perhaps, evidence. Proving something, especially a long time ago leads only to guesswork ''not knowing for sure''.

So when they say they just did it with ropes and allot of people, that is guesswork, nothing more. So why could we not accept, that we simply don't know with some structures how, and perhaps even who did it?

As with the old Egypt empire, there are no written records. I simply don't know, only thing I know; we don't know

Good change we never know, sadly.

Originally posted by Plugin


That's the whole problem perhaps, evidence. Proving something, especially a long time ago leads only to guesswork ''not knowing for sure''.

Which is why you take what information you have, make a hypothesis and use that as a basis to gather more information, when you find information that supports or refutes you modify the hypothesis.

So when they say they just did it with ropes and allot of people, that is guesswork, nothing more. So why could we not accept, that we simply don't know with some structures how, and perhaps even who did it?

The default is that unless we have evidence to the contrary the people in the area at the time of construction are deemed the builders. If you have nothing else you do have the known archaeological truth that cultures leave lots of archaeological evidence behind. Trying to say that x or y were not made by z by by w just leaves you in a worse mess; their you have to go from speculation to fantasy.

As with the old Egypt empire, there are no written records. I simply don't know, only thing I know; we don't know

There are lots of written records but no always on stuff we want to know about. The AE left us images of moving heavy stones, quarries and making stuff; that can be applied to their culture and to others that did the same type of work. Others worked stone in historic times and we can see how that work was done and apply it to what we see now in the archaeological record.

reply to post by Hanslune

WIKI:

The blocks were so precisely cut as to suggest the possibility of prefabrication and mass production, technologies far in advance of the Tiwanaku’s Incan successors hundreds of years later

en.wikipedia.org...

no inca architecture.

Originally posted by anti72
no inca architecture.

Yes Tiwanaku architecture as I stated before. The Incan only existed as an empire for a century. They took over lots of other people but not the Tiwanaku who seemed to have dispersed for other reasons.

'Mass production' isn't just a modern invention; lots of things got mass produced in antiquity, mud bricks, pottery, weapons and tools, glass ware too