Remnants of a Lost World...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks for the great post; I really appreciate the depth that you put into them.

The video was interesting, but to put the "researcher" in perspective, some of his first comments were incorrect. He describes the large blocks of, "red granite...andesite." He's off in so many ways.

Granite is an intrusive class of rock, meaning it formed under the ground slowly, and thus has a strong, well developed crystal structure. Granite is one of the strongest rocks out there. Red granite would indicate the presence of potassium feldspar.

Andesite is an extrusive rock. It's volcanic, and although it shares some similar minerals to granite, the crystaline stuctures were formed more quickly. This means that the crystals are smaller and less strong than its intrusive cousin, granite. Extrusive rocks are considerably less strong than intrusive ones.

To complicate things more, the rock found at the Ollantaytambo site was actually neither of these rocks. The quarry near the town produced rhyolite, which is another extrusive, or volcanic, rock. Rhyolite is even more similar to granite than andesite due to it having less mafic (iron) minerals in it. Rhyolite would likely be stronger than andesite, but still less than granite.

For me, this lack of research to understand the basic materials of his study shows a lack of diligence, which steals from his credibility.

At this very same time period....say first century BC onwards, the Romans were developing the use of Concretes using native readily available materials.

Roman Concrete

Why couldn't humans isolated from them also come to the same conclusions?

Some of the examples are clearly using this construction to create terraces for cultivation. This necessity use would come first before employing the learned techniques to societal flufferies like temples and such.

I appreciate the feedback but the fact remains whether you think it's silly or not there was a tower built on top of it at one time. Why was it built and when? Is anybody's guess. Also, In Central and South American ancient native cultures/civilizations building on top of older [sometimes more advanced structures] was the norm not the exception.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I meant, to think the stonework is a foundation is silly and the tower was built on top of it because it was the perfect place to build a tower. Where there is already what would be a foundation.

It would have made sense for native cultures/civilizations to do that. Similar to buying a bar and turning it into a nightclub.

hey i know this isnt the right place to do this but i just finally created an account here after a long time of just visiting the page and just wanted to say hello to all

Originally posted by TRUELIES11
I meant to think the stonework is a foundation is silly

OK I'll bite.

Why?

the tower was built on top of it because it was the perfect place to build a tower. Where there is already what would be a foundation.

Which you think was silly of them to use?

Originally posted by ImMe19xx
hey i know this isnt the right place to do this but i just finally created an account here after a long time of just visiting the page and just wanted to say hello to all

Hello back

Glad to have another new member.


Avoid beezzer's world famous "Special" oatmeal raisin cookies.

reply to post by SLAYER69




I am not trying to be mean but I already answered the why question and the tower question. Read what I wrote again.

which you think was silly of them to use?

Where did that come from? You seem to be well educated and aware and I enjoy reading what you write. If there is by chance I am coming across as arrogant or attacking in any way, please, that is not the case. It is silly to think the stonework is a foundation.

reply to post by sheeplearepeople


I appreciate the feedback and perspective. I'm glad you enjoyed the topic.

Thanks for the contribution

Is it fair to deduce that humanity is always in a cycle of creation and destruction from the beginning of our existence? I will make more commentary about your thread when I re read it sometimes it takes me a few times to let it really sink in. Nice piece though thank you!

Wow Slayer, great work as usual!

That first high-res image is spectacular! If you zoom in and scroll to the top where "Viva El Peru Gloriosu ?" is written on the side of the mountain...

Look at the top of the stone wall and you can clearly make out the gaps where much larger stones were supposed to be placed. This place must have been huge. I can also make out the bases of pillars on some of the corners of the bottom level. There's also the side profile of a head on the bottom wall almost all the way to the left.

I need to learn how to screencap

Originally posted by TRUELIES11
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I am not trying to be mean but I already answered the why question and the tower question. Read what I wrote again.

which you think was silly of them to use?

Where did that come from? You seem to be well educated and aware and I enjoy reading what you write. If there is by chance I am coming across as arrogant or attacking in any way, please, that is not the case. It is silly to think the stonework is a foundation.

You have me confused.
If something is built on top of something...the bottom part is a foundation.

Noun The lowest load-bearing part of a building, typically below ground level.

or.....A body or ground on which other parts rest or are overlaid.

It has already been stipulated that this former foundation may have been used before, are we hung up on the word foundation?

reply to post by SLAYER69


that hatcher needs to slow down a bit
he looked very uncomfartable presenting that video

i used to be on the side of ancient alien theorys.
but the last 12-18 months of reading and studying ancient civilisations ive moved over to the frequency/harmony/resonating train

in other words my beliefs are that at some point, betwenn 15,000BC and ?? (who knows how far back)
there was a worldwide culture who used the same techniques for construction.
by some means of frequencies or vibrations, similar to this



but without smashing the stones to pieces, they perfected a way of controlling it rather than just unleashing a full wave
thats what i believe on the cutting and shaping side
but the difficult one to answer is how did they move them 50 - 100 tons a time from the top of the mountain quarry, across the river and then all the way up the other mountain?
levitation? not by mind but a similar technique to the cutting and shaping?
i realy dont know
one things for sure, that one wheel wouldnt of contributed much to the hauling around
looks more like a grinding stone

but the kid in me says it was giants!


ive got my flame proof suit on so im ready for the backlash!


and as always Slayer a top thread.

reply to post by GezinhoKiko


It would seem they also would have to have been very advanced in the ability to see the ground from above or even from space, knowing the earth was a globe and maps having been found of the planet and the vast amount they knew of the solar system.

reply to post by MysterX


Thats a very interesting theory too.

I do know that the guide had showed us that the old stonework had in most places generally survived earthquakes whereas the newer stonework didn't fare as well.

Another pic which is from Olly - an amazing internal joint.

reply to post by Char-Lee


The point I made about the "foundation" is, what was used as a foundation was not created to be a foundation.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Great thread SLAYER!

Looking forward to the next ones.

-SAP-

THERE WERE GIANTS IN THE LAND !!!!!

As Graham Hancock says, "we area society with amnesia" and monolithic structures serve as evidence as such. Most of us here will only get to read about and remotely research what is presented on ATS and elsewhere concerning these structures. I hypothesize that anyone that sees these structures first hand, will have a mind opening experience that will bring on the questioning of everything prior that they have been taught. From the comfort of my own arm chair, I have read much on this topic and a few common threads seam to always prevail:

1. Modern man is at minimum anywhere from 12,000 - 30,000 years old. This is backed up by geological evidence such as, pre-last ice age evidence, how long it takes calcium to deposit over cave art (see cave of forgotten dreams: en.wikipedia.org...), evidence of civilizations that are now underwater (post last melt-down).

2. We have always been intelligent, resourceful and dominant. There is no evidence to the contrary that I have encounter. Every year something additional is uncovered that have us burning our our " how did they do that " gland. The possibility of early flight, electricity, advanced metallurgy and stone works - all counter to what we have been taught.

3. There was a great flood. It most likely is why we "Reset" as a global society and why we lost the significant amounts of knowledge. Its also probably the root to why we only can find giant stones from a distant past. A triangle (pyramid), a giant buried stone, keystone bracing, etc. all well suited to survive a massive flood. Its a safe assumption that our wooden homes would

4.The past is suppressedand the researcher ridiculed when the discovery does not fit nicely in the box that is today's academic understanding.

And yes, these are my views and of course they have been spoon fed to me by the internet, so they may be flawed.

I will also add the following, we look at these large stones and marvel at the precision, size and manipulation all from our average 5.5 foot - 6.0 foot frames. If you are on ATS often, then you have all read stories of early-time giants, inclusive of the bibilical accounts ( giants in the land, the Nephilim, men of renown, etc.).
You have also seen the pictures of massive skeletons which inevitably are trolled with " Fake ! " or "Photoshopped" .

So the question I ask is, If you were 20" + tall, would you live in a house or worship in a temple that was made for today's average size man? Does it make sense that a race of people of this size could easily manipulate massive stones into there positions? After all, a 12" tall stone would only be waste high to a giant (as described in antiquity). The machining techniques have been lost, but it seams very plausible that a race of giants could and would build giant structures with much greater ease then out current puny sized race.

As always, thanks for the great post and food for thought. S+F for you again!

Nice, very good read.

Thanks

reply to post by SLAYER69


Damn it Slayer !!!! The wife is gonna kill me, cause I'll be stuck here for hours.
Dude you just made my weekend !!!