High Technology In Ancient Meso America

reply to post by tadaman


And this part is not true:

It is thought that the Mica was mined locally but there are no large deposits of it in anywhere in Mexico.

The Large amounts exist in Brazil. The type of mica found at Teotihuacán is only found in Brazil in deposits that are more than 2000 miles away. It is a mystery how it was transported to Teotihuacan and what its function is in the inside layer of the Pyramid of Sun.

This mica, which was put in as flooring, was mined a few miles away.

Obviously, it didn't make good flooring so it was covered over.

I bet nobody told the king/high priest "I told you so" on that goof up.

Mica got used a lot, but it shouldn't be used as structural support or even to walk on because of the way it cleaves so easily into thin sheets.

But it looks cool, especially to people used to looking at limestone and andesite. And, after all, it is a stone that you can see through, which is rare. If not transparent, it is usually gold-colored or silverish, another plus.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


um, how do you know? More importantly how do WE know what you say?

It was used as decorative flooring? then covered up? If it was a poor building material, why did they finish installing it once they realized it was not good?

Also how do you know where it was mined? Please back up what you say with more than your word on it. Where was it mined exactly according to you? Where are the nearest Mica deposits large enough to make a temple floor, or ....insulator."

Mica deposits are found in India, Africa, Brazil and China.
The principal deposits of Mica in India are found in Bihar, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh

www.icrmica.com...

EDIT:
You made up that entire post. What exactly did you base ANY of that information on? Your imagination?

There are no significant Mica deposits in Mexico or the immediate area to make more than a few bead necklaces a year. It is scarce there. Not nearly enough for a MAJOR construction project.

Also, that little story about hating to be the priest getting scolded for that screw up is just the icing on the cake. If it was decorative they would have placed it ABOVE ground, not buried it. You want to imply that they were intelligent enough to PRECISELY align temples to stars and build structures that last thousands of years using near perfect engineering, yet couldnt choose what to make a floor out of? Even cave people would know the obvious fickle qualities of mica since it was probably used as a prehistoric material for flake tools when (if) found. It wasnt used allot as you say. Where? for what purposes? What do you base that comment on? More imagination?

The reason why I am taking this seriously is that I have noticed that more than half your activity is spent as a debunker. You ALWAYS provide the negative comment. Either you are the most negative person on this site or enjoy shutting down discussion.

Also, you just lied. How do you justify the statement that my information was false and that there are mica deposits near the temple, if ALL official data in the subject says differently. It is like you didnt even check and just made a false statement hoping I wouldnt check either. I did before I posted the information from that link. I had to since it is not a scholarly source and I do double check when in doubt.

I really would like a response.

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by Harte

 

um, how do you know? More importantly how do WE know what you say?

I suppose you don't. But I've investigated the claim.

Don't take my word for it - but don't take the fringe's word for it either. If you're really interested, you'll research it like I did.

Originally posted by tadamanIt was used as decorative flooring? then covered up? If it was a poor building material, why did they finish installing it once they realized it was not good?

As I tried to imply, you don't tell the king what's what. He tells you.

Originally posted by tadaman Also how do you know where it was mined? Please back up what you say with more than your word on it. Where was it mined exactly according to you? Where are the nearest Mica deposits large enough to make a temple floor, or ....insulator."

I believe I've addressed this before here at ATS. I didn't see this reply until late. I'll have to get back to you on this. But you can probably find it here at ATS. My recommendation is that you use google to search here though. The search function here leaves much to be desired.

Look at this search and you'll see how to do it (if you don't already know.)

Hell you might find it in that search. If I posted it here, it's just a matter of using the right keywords.

Originally posted by tadaman

Mica deposits are found in India, Africa, Brazil and China.
The principal deposits of Mica in India are found in Bihar, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh

www.icrmica.com...

EDIT:
You made up that entire post. What exactly did you base ANY of that information on? Your imagination?

No, I don't do that.

Check my posts here if you don't believe me. You won't find any flights of fancy, I assure you. Just a wet blanket on silly fringe claims.

Originally posted by tadamanThere are no significant Mica deposits in Mexico or the immediate area to make more than a few bead necklaces a year. It is scarce there. Not nearly enough for a MAJOR construction project.

The Mica could have come from Oaxaca, IIRC.

Originally posted by tadamanAlso, that little story about hating to be the priest getting scolded for that screw up is just the icing on the cake. If it was decorative they would have placed it ABOVE ground, not buried it.

That's just my take on the why of it. It is very pretty, after all.

Originally posted by tadamanYou want to imply that they were intelligent enough to PRECISELY align temples to stars and build structures that last thousands of years using near perfect engineering, yet couldnt choose what to make a floor out of? Even cave people would know the obvious fickle qualities of mica since it was probably used as a prehistoric material for flake tools when (if) found. It wasnt used allot as you say. Where? for what purposes? What do you base that comment on? More imagination?

"Near perfect" isn't the way I'd characterize it, and aligning something to the stars or the Sun is ridiculously easy, to start with. The hard part is maintaining the alignment, but not so hard if you can kill the workers that screw it up - there won't be many screw-ups.

Originally posted by tadamanThe reason why I am taking this seriously is that I have noticed that more than half your activity is spent as a debunker. You ALWAYS provide the negative comment. Either you are the most negative person on this site or enjoy shutting down discussion.

So, you'd rather live the delusion than find out the truth?

I enjoy facts, not silly, uneducated parroting of an idea that came from... wait for it... Zecharia Sitchin. Yes, he's the originator of this claim.

And if I've only spent half my time debunking, I must have been slacking off.

Originally posted by tadamanAlso, you just lied. How do you justify the statement that my information was false and that there are mica deposits near the temple, if ALL official data in the subject says differently.

You have yet to show any "official" data that say differently.

Mica is found all over the world. Do you even know what it is? You've seen it yourself at least a million times, assuming you ever look around when you're outdoors.
Here - I just found this: Link.
As you can tell from the above, it's been a while. Pardon me for not remembering exactly.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I see you are defending your position instead of admitting that you made an unfounded claim.

There are no mica deposits in Oaxaca that have mica like the one used in the temple. I showed you a source with the worlds mica deposits that confirms what my original source said, yet you say it is somehow not good enough.

Here is one with the mineral wealth of the Americas detailed.
mineral-resources.findthedata.org...

There are many more.

You just made another unfounded claim about the mica coming from Oaxaca.

I dont need to write out a verbose and lengthy response to tell you that you did in fact make up the mica as a poor flooring choice idea. You say they chose it and then finished it, but decided to bury it afterwards. YET, no where in previous constructions is there a mica floor to be found in any other structure.

oh, and now you contest the engineering and architectural master piece that it the meso american ruins, wow. My god man, just admit you MAY be wrong.

So in short, I see that rather than admit a slight over sight or provide the information requested you chose to go on the offensive.

Your argument is laughable.

EDIT:
your quest for orthodoxy has blinded you from the joy of new discoveries not aligned with your "theory" of how it must have been for people in times far removed from our own. You bring a modern mind to the past and are blind for doing so. You do not see as they did.

I had a long reply, but my connection went down when I was posting, so here's a short version.

There is plenty of mica in Oaxaca for the purpose. You can find the info in the Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 89

You have linked to information on mica in the world, true. However, your information is about active mica mines. No active mica mine exists in Oaxaca today.

Rather that I being the one who is blind to the past (by orthodoxy,) your own posts show that it is you that is blind to the past (by fringe authors.) That is why you can't stop for one moment to consider that ancient peoples could find their resources wherever and not necessarily in the sort of large quantities necessary to maintain a modern mining operation.

Lastly, you are a belligerent ignoramus. You prefer to live the delusion. That's your choice, and I respect that. Myself, I prefer to find the facts. However, you demonstrate that you cannot respect that. In a millisecond, I could list the unfounded claims you (and your mentor Sitchin) have made in this thread. I have made none - other than the speculation that the mica was originally the flooring of the pyramid and later covered over.

What is factual about the mica layer is that it was once exposed, then later covered over. Why that might be is what I was trying to give my take on. Whether you like it or not, at least it was my take. I do not operate like you, where you find what fringe authors claim about a thing then pass that off as if you have formed an opinion.

The mica, as I said, could have come from Oaxaca, a place you claimed had no mica (there's an unfounded claim for you.) Nuff said.

Harte

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the mica is in pieces that were fitted together and certainly not in two "massive" sheets - another unfounded claim made by you and Sitchin.

H

reply to post by Harte

you are a belligerent ignoramus.

and youre a hateful little douche.

I didnt mention Stichen. BUT the fact that you have such a problem with him and so you try and pin him to me shows your bias. I have not mentioned Stichen as a worthy contributor or not, but since everyone that doesnt agree with you must be lumped together into one derogatory group, then so be it. You generalize and insult everyone not in line with your thoughts. That is also what makes you blind.(and a mean idiot)

I happen to not agree with stichen on every one of his translations of SUMERIAN texts. Considering this thread is about the Americas I guess you ignored that little fact but still wanted to lump me together with everyone you could discredit.

Also Going back to that "fringe" article that you have such a problem with, it is correct in mentioning the mica layer and was good enough to point this out. The Mica in Mexico is metallic in nature. It is not very transparent. The same quality mica used in the temple is found in Brasil NOT in Mexico, which it also pointed it. Trace element testing showed it to come from Brazil. End of story.

SOO. You can cherry pick what you try to discredit, but in the end you are just being a negative person. You know why you are always appalled? Because your mind is toxic, and even you cant stand yourself. Try a little positive effort on your part and see how it feels. Everything in life doesnt have to be some ignorant intellectual hate fest.

gross.

EDIT:
I too like facts and learning. You are not "special" in that regard. We all do, hence why we bother learning at all.

Your condescending tone is not one that is similar to, or even an approximation of, a teacher of men. You are a little fool that learns today so as to scold tomorrow. That is taking joy in knowing more than others. Your celebration of ignorance is more akin to a child acting selfishly with a toy he will not share and being a jealous brat with others who have a better toy they do share.

Your loss.

Your bile drenched mind is poison for you as well. I am smiling. You can only do so when you ignorantly celebrate the "superiority" of your self juxtaposed to the "inferiority" of others.

In learning we are equal for not knowing. Yet you would think some above others...? What do you know ´oh wise fool?

reply to post by Harte


How do you figure?, what evidence do you put forward that presents an opposing theory? Or are you just here to mindlessly banter and try to sway people away from actual evidence with you simple opinion?

Originally posted by Kman2420
reply to post by Harte

 

How do you figure?, what evidence do you put forward that presents an opposing theory? Or are you just here to mindlessly banter and try to sway people away from actual evidence with you simple opinion?

Why should I have to present the evidence that Pumapunku dates to the common era, if the claimant (in this case, Labtech767) made his claim with no evidence?

What bias calls for me to provide evidence I'm right, when the one I responded to need provide nothing but words?

Check for yourself, or alternatively, provide evidence of your own beliefs before you require it of those who dispute you.

As an aside, I used to go along with inane requests such as yours. I stopped because I have a life. The information you want has been posted before by myself and many others right here on this website of which you are a member. I'm not into doing the same thing over and over, while fringe claimants simply toss off a few sentences with no evidence at all.

Harte

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by Harte

 

you are a belligerent ignoramus.

and youre a hateful little douche.

I didnt mention Stichen. BUT the fact that you have such a problem with him and so you try and pin him to me shows your bias. I have not mentioned Stichen as a worthy contributor or not, but since everyone that doesnt agree with you must be lumped together into one derogatory group, then so be it. You generalize and insult everyone not in line with your thoughts. That is also what makes you blind.(and a mean idiot)

Yet the very claim you made originated with Sitchin. Hence, I pointed out this verifiable fact.

Originally posted by tadaman
I happen to not agree with stichen on every one of his translations of SUMERIAN texts. Considering this thread is about the Americas I guess you ignored that little fact but still wanted to lump me together with everyone you could discredit.

I'm glad you don't agree with Sitchin, as far as you know, however your claim that I addressed is an example of you agreeing with him. The only thing you left off was his claim that the Anunnaki flew the mica from Brazil to Teotihuacan.

Originally posted by tadaman
Also Going back to that "fringe" article that you have such a problem with, it is correct in mentioning the mica layer and was good enough to point this out. The Mica in Mexico is metallic in nature. It is not very transparent. The same quality mica used in the temple is found in Brasil NOT in Mexico, which it also pointed it. Trace element testing showed it to come from Brazil. End of story.

How is your typing a few words the "end of story?"

Where is this analysis you claim to have? You realize, I hope, that this is not the first time I've requested it.

Don't forget - we started from a point where you claimed there was no mica at all anywhere in Mexico.

Please provide evidence that the mica in Oaxaca is different from the mica in Brazil. And I mean a real reference, not crystalinks or Sitchin. You appear to have seen this analysis, judging by your claim. So, where is it? Why won't you share it?

It makes people wonder about you, you know.

You accused me of making stuff up. I've not accused you of the same. But you are inching closer.

Originally posted by tadaman
SOO. You can cherry pick what you try to discredit, but in the end you are just being a negative person. You know why you are always appalled? Because your mind is toxic, and even you cant stand yourself. Try a little positive effort on your part and see how it feels. Everything in life doesnt have to be some ignorant intellectual hate fest.

I'm just asking for your evidence that I'm wrong. I provided you with all you need in order to realize the mica could have (I did say could have, go back and check) come from Oaxaca. I get a reply about how I make stuff up, I'm hateful because I don't believe in fairy tales, and I'm toxic because I don't join in on a conversation like a bobblehead doll in an earthquake.

So, will you provide the analysis you claim to know about, or will readers here sit back and in short order make their own decisions about your credibility?

Harte