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.


Remnants of a Lost World...

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:28 AM
Once again slayer you blow this drunks mind

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by AussieAmandaC

Haha yeah, maybe I should come up with a better term for describing them

Indeed, there are some that are definitely moulded out of existing rock and then others that they've just decided look quite dandy in a certain spot so have put them there.

I think that Ollyantaytambo is the best example of the precise cutting. I loved it and so took quite a lot of photos

In that second pic, it's very odd too that the "slivers" between the larger stones have the parts jutting out. All very odd..

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:51 AM

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Like you and a few others here I think that evidence of a precursor civilization will be found underwater along some coastline. Perhaps when it is found,then we will have some support for the site examples in this thread actually being reworked ancient sites.I personally believe that they are. The finely carved right angles and very flat cuts displayed in some of the photos are very impressive and indicate to me that the people who did the carving were capabile of great precision. I wonder about what tools were used to give such precision.

I think that's the question.

The moving and placing of the stones given enough people could have been accomplished fairly easily. It's the precision cuts and shaping that I find intriguing.
edit on 28-12-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:56 AM
How were these ancient master builders able to fit large blocks of stone together so precisely wihtout gaps? My theory is that they looked for natural stone slopes or rock which had been fractures by earth seismic activity. They would then quarry rocks aroound the fracture line which has a sloping edge. The fracture line can go very deep into rock. Fitting the quarried stones back togther will then allow achieving a perfect symtery fit.

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Klassified
I personally have a few beliefs, and that's all they are at this point. But someday maybe I'll be vindicated...

1. A massive and advanced civilization will one day be found underwater.
2. The biggest, most advanced, and oldest pyramid in the world, is yet to be found(Or is it?).

More and more the jungles of central America and eleswhere are slolwy giving up their secrets. I think the odds are good for vindication of your beliefs...

As I used to tell Zorgy, and it fits you as well. "You always bring meat to the table". Looking forward to the next installment.

I enjoyed many of his contributions and his threads were instrumental in my joining of ATS.

edit on 28-12-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Brilliant thread Slayer. I agree with regards to the fine cutting that is and cannot be explained especially when taking into account ancient technology. Diorite is an extremely hard rock which makes this all the more mysterious. Modern methods rely on diamond tipped blades to cut this type of rock with precision. Even with the diamond tipped blades they rely on the use of machinery and or laser. Even so I doubt we would be able to come up with the precision over and over again that is witnessed in Puma Punku.

The cutting and the interlocking stones that appear to be part of an intricate moving door or contraption of sorts very much like a puzzle remains a mystery. It is hard to know what such a stone puzzle could have actually been. It is an engineering marvel that is and will remain unsolved.

The fact that it was purposely destroyed also lends credence to wanting to hide something or 'someone' (an unknown people with a secret to hide and keep hidden). How will we ever solve this one? How will we ever understand that around 16,000 years ago this could have possibly been built our current linear understanding, about what we are taught with regards to our linear history.

We all know our linear history is based on manipulated partial truths. Most of the actual knowledge is either hidden and safe guarded from humanity or not yet discovered.
edit on 28-12-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 02:05 AM

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by will2learn
The circular structure on the top of Sacsayhuaman was clearly a reservoir at some point in the past or was flooded. It still has the overflow drainage channels clearly visible in your pic. that would not make a good observatory I guess..


I saw that.
What should be kept in mind though is that originally that circular structure was actually the base of a tower once upon a time. It was dismantled by the Spanish in search of Gold. So, was that channel original or was it cut later?

Did it have the purpose you described before the tower was built back in prehistory?


either way it puts water or some liquid on the site. so do your pics from the old thread on water sources up in the mountains of Peru.

As for vitrification, Jan Peter de Jong has done some analysis on a sample of apparent vitrification from the stones of Peru. He showed explicitly that the glassy surface of a limestone block had the composition and texture of a ceramic glaze. Almost identical in its makeup to glazed pots from the era. The big q is how does one fire a glaze on limestone without breaking up the stone mass?

Vitrified Stone of Peru Proof


posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:44 AM
It appears they were using a form of concrete.

A slow curing mass would be easy to shape into the desired forms compared to a hard granite rock.

In some of the photos there is clear evidence of surface erosion that resembles old concrete not stone. Sandstone like flaking of layers, large porous looking areas, slump looks that resemble concrete that was not settled properly when poured etc. The coloration is not right for stones assembled from far and wide, too uniform.

That's what I see anyway, no aliens or laser chisels.

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Cruff

Back to Ollyantaytambo - what has me (and others I suspect) baffled is what the heck are the little stone parts that jut out. Were they originally small ledges or something or were they attached to something else?

It reminds me about (forgive my poor english), like when you poor whippe cream in place and on the finishing part (when you quit whipping cream in place) you often get something there which you don't want, so you get those bumps/parts sticking out. Not sure how I can explain it better, hope you get it.

And what's striking the same little stone parts/bumps sticking out you can find at many other places arround the world on huge ancient stones, like the great pyramids. Which means they used the same method to make them in my opinion.


edit on 28-12-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)
extra DIV
extra DIV

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:19 AM
im a big fan of the cement theory ,that a lot of these big stones were in fact `poured `on site but being in the building trade for many years i have a problem with this theory`d need to create big shutter boards that are incredibly smooth or oiled to get such smooth finish on the stones A) did they have the tech to make huge sheets of wood for the shuttering ? B)or did they use pulh whereby they poured a form of cement over existing stones to add to their sizes ?
examples of pulhamite work ^

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:52 AM
Love it Slayer...

Cheers for the heads up too, i firmly believe we are fed a much more easy to understand version of our history than what actually occured, its slowly becoming an obsession

looking forward to the next instalment.

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 06:19 AM
reply to post by TinfoilTP

I have my doubt about the whole poured stone concept at this site.
I'm not saying it isnt possible just that I doubt it.

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:24 AM
Good thread OP, thanks.

Regarding the stone circle feature at the start of your post...notice how there are exactly 12 large rectangular pits around the perimeter, and between them, at all cardinal points there are thinner rectangles.

If this were a timepiece, and there was once a tall, narrow tower at the centre of the circle, the smaller rectangles are the hour markers, the larger ones are the 'minutes' markers, or the period between hours.

A huge sundial.

Now, depending on it's orientation, this could have a dual function.

It could be both a clock and a calendar, with the 12 narrow 'hour' rectangles being the month markers, and the larger 'minutes' ones being the period of 1 month each.

So it can be a daily / hourly clock, with minute intervals, a yearly calendar, with daily intervals, and even more amazingly, could...could...also mark out the procession of the equinoxes...with each 'hour' segment, marking a new 'star age'...such as the age of Aquarius.

The 'minutes' segments would then become periods of about 26,000 years each, for a 312,000 year complete cycle of the constellations.

Water channels are included which would have acted as a symbolic mirror of the stars in the heavens.

At night, when the water is glassy still...the current 'age' would be symbolicly reflected in the central pool.

That's my theory, anyway.

And yes, it's normal for older settlements to be continually built over as the generations roll by. There are often very long periods of abandonment in many ancient settlements, followed by newer periods of a cyclic fasion.

So it's quite a safe bet to assume there is evidence of a mixture of much older and younger settlement and stone working at this site.

edit on 28-12-2012 by MysterX because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:55 AM
Another great intriguing thread. It always fascinates me as to who actually built these structures before the Incas,what their purpose was and what techniques they used to quarry these stones.If one sight, built before the Incas, was used to mark an astrological event, then how did the Incas also come upon that same knowledge?

I watched a show in recent months on Machu Picchu, the eleborate drain/water system is an amazing piece of engineering.

edit on 12/28/2012 by mugger because: add

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 08:58 AM
A couple of thoughts from a non-scientist:

Poured stone:
Are we implying a cement based aggregate or melted granite, shaped to what was required? The former is easy enough to verify. The internal structure of each is quite different. Has this ever been done? The latter, is probably a bridge too far. The amount of heat energy required to melt those large chunks of granite is exceptional. I would caution against 'surface softening' too. The temperature differential inside those large pieces would most likely lead to cracking/shattering versus a softer, more malleable surface.

Protrusions on the stone face:
I have read where some believe these are remnants of the system used to move the stones. Could be, but why not remove them after the stone is in place? If "they" had sufficient technology to shape and move large stones, surely removing these little pieces would have been nothing to them. Perhaps they were used to hold or attach other items. Has anyone ever seen these protrusions on the interiors of the structures, i.e. stone to stone surfaces?

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by will2learn

I'm in agreement about the circular area collecting water. Possibly the outer ring had an inward sloping roof to better collect rain water.

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by Plugin


those stone forms can be found widely in modernish buildings. I have seen the in the City of London on the banks, presumably trying to look old and in the West Country (UK) on old farmhouses. Not always granite but the form is something to do with the old cutting methods. They were part of the stonemasons craft.

As for the grante on the sides of the Giza pyramids, it is is much more refined, there seems to be evidence of heat being used along some of the joints. The majority of them were waterproof at some point.


posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:17 AM
I am not aware of the process used to create the sites but from looking at the stone closely, I can see water had a lot to do with it. The carving and moving of the stone involved water. I think it involved water with light.

The sites or cities were originally built under water, which explains why much of the stone looks as it does. The sites are usually on a mountain or hill but that could have occurred with an earthquake.

If you had the ability to breath under water, you would build a city under water also because the water would protect you and you could use the water. What would you use to build? Of course you would use stone.
edit on 28-12-2012 by TRUELIES11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Benchkey
reply to post by will2learn

I'm in agreement about the circular area collecting water. Possibly the outer ring had an inward sloping roof to better collect rain water.

For sure there was a lot of rainwater to collect, but I think underground sources were also a big factor. Many 'sacred' sites seem to have been built on underground water sources, and it was free flowing at the time of construction. Today a lot churches sit on these ancient sites, they still have at least wells, sometimes springs and this is after the water table has been falling for centuries.

Some classic examples, include Cheops, Saqqara, Silbury Hill, Stonehenge and many fed by canals like Angkor, Teotihuacan, Babylon. Of course today they are mostly dried up sites that the archaeologists can't imagine having vast populations because of the lack of water


posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I have to relate this, I just can't resist.I can't remember the name or author of the book,But back when I was in college writting a paper on some of these civilizations for my anthropology course. I came across a book written by an archeologist who had worked on some South American sites. He claimed that the natives had told him that the close fit between the stones was acheived by using a plant found in the jungle. The plant was collected and crushed for it's juice. The juice of said plant was used to soften the stone face. When the stone was placed it settled into place with a very close fit as the facings were softened by this plant juice.

Apparently he was told that the stones were shaped for rough fit and the plant juice softened the stone facings causing them to fit closely together, but not to fuse. My thoughts on this are that the type of stone used could be because that particular stone was suseptable to the softening action of this juice.

I apologise for not being able to site a source for this,but advancing age has doomed my memory. I read this many years ago and because of it's unusual nature it has stuck with me inspite of my bad memory.I think that this could at least be plausible. The Natives live very close to the land and know much more about the properties of the natural world around them than we do. Perhaps they discovered this by chance,or perhaps because of their deeper understanding of their world they knew that this plant could be used in this fashion. Possibly they observed this plant growing near a piece of this stone and causing the stone to soften. We will never know for sure.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in