Could Ancient Peruvians Soften Stone? A few worthy questions ! Still a mystery in many ways

dlbott

Thanks for link will revisit later, am I right he never disclosed what his device was or it was taken after his death i am sorry my memory is fragmenting lol.

The Bot

Bot

I always wondered about how Ed used to lift those stones, that little black box seems to be a fixation for the Coral Castle Cult members. I was lucky enough to actually come across some footage of Ed actually lifting his big stones. Here it is, seems the reality as usual is less exciting than the Cult has led us to believe.

Ed Leedskalin Actually lifting big stones

Hope it solves another mystery, he probably used cements or geopolymers too

Will

abeverage

dlbott

abeverage

dlbott

abeverage
Ancient Architecture has always fascinated me almost as much as the mythology and cultures of the past. I have not yet reconciled the monolithic structures but a form of cement makes more sense than ALIENS or even the standard model...

Yea, such a fascinating subject. Not sure I buy liquid rocks, the shear size and weight of some of these stones is amazing. There are so many fables like merlin using a staff to move stones many believe using sonics.

There is a unique place somewhere in Florida where the guy used a mysterious device in a small black box to move and place large stones. He said he discovered how the ancients did it. Mysterious story, Google it.

Not sure I buy aliens but to seriously look at the structures built all over the world and it is difficult to believe they built these incredible structures, some with no metal tools at all, without some help.

The place where it looks like it was hit with some great force, where the stones interlock like Legos. Modern stone masons can't make these cuts, they tried, this to me is extremely puzzling and can only mean they had some sort of technology.

I hope someday we have the answers.

The Bot

Ed Leedskalnin I know his story well. The coral castle built for unrequited love. He not only built a monument, that men with machines would have trouble doing today!

He also tried to instruct in building a personal monument within others through his writing...

edit on 24-9-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

Thanks for link will revisit later, am I right he never disclosed what his device was or it was taken after his death i am sorry my memory is fragmenting lol.

Thanks again for link.

The Bot

I forget many import things but I am full of completely usless information like that. Yes he took the secrets to his grave. Some say his writing holds the key.

Yea, it sucks every time it seems someone like him or tesla come along and seem to have answers to some of humanity problems like free energy it never comes to fruition for whatever reason, usually because the greedy one percent take it or prevent it. It saddens the heart, just one thing like free energy and the world would change.

It is why they spend so much time and effort defeating people working towards it. It's why we have war, greed.
Can only pray with Internet now someday they won't be able to stop it.

Thanks again my friend.

The Bot

will2learn

dlbott

Thanks for link will revisit later, am I right he never disclosed what his device was or it was taken after his death i am sorry my memory is fragmenting lol.

The Bot

Bot

I always wondered about how Ed used to lift those stones, that little black box seems to be a fixation for the Coral Castle Cult members. I was lucky enough to actually come across some footage of Ed actually lifting his big stones. Here it is, seems the reality as usual is less exciting than the Cult has led us to believe.

Ed Leedskalin Actually lifting big stones

Hope it solves another mystery, he probably used cements or geopolymers too

Will

Was not able to play the video, he often used regular means to move things, especially during the day when people could see him. Almost all his work done at night or when no one could see, he is often seen with his mysterious black box.

I personally think he cracked it, why, he saw the whole picture and in a way so radically different. This is the way it is, historically, someone like him or tesla comes along and they get smeared by the mainstream.

We know now that sound and magnetics can do amazing things, like lift or make things seem weightless and even liquid like. Look for amazing things in these areas. It explains how the ancients may have made some of their great architecture.

The Bot

His mysterious black box, which was typically fastened to the top of a mysterious wooden tripod over the stone to be lifted, and attached to the stone with mysterious steel cables, contained a mysterious electrically powered winch.

Harte

reply to post by will2learn


when you go to video it says private can you fix it please as i would like to see it

geobro
reply to post by will2learn

 

when you go to video it says private can you fix it please as i would like to see it

Bot

Try just putting this link into the weblink at the top of the page

www.youtube.com...

Maybe the cult members have forced it to be cut from Youtbe, I can't get into the link now, it says private link.

It was old B&W or sepia footage of Ed sitting on a block being lifted using 'mysterious' iron chains and a equally 'mysterious' tripod and pulleys. I spread it around every time I saw a cult member posing the magical mystery antigrav devices. I mean Ed is photographed with chains, pulleys and tripods yet this was not enough to convince he used them. The cult members stopped on seeing that footage. Of course there were some who thought it was a conspiracy to cover up the antigrav tech etc.... got to keep the magic running


Will

reply to post by will2learn


Hi Bot

this one seems to work quite well, tho its a little different to the original one I saw. I am sure you get the picture tho, chains, pulleys and tripods

Leedskalin pulling his pulleys

Will

reply to post by will2learn


Thanks I'd lost my link to that one for Ed too

The usually response to it is that its fake, a deception, etc

oh my anything to keep, as Harte says, the sparkly sparkling

reply to post by will2learn


the problem i have with the idea of them using mostly slag is that many of the pyramids were meant to be great monuments to the person being buried there. also where is the evidence of the tools used to create the stone blocks? i'm not expecting molds here, though i have to wonder how those who doubt the blocks were rolled, expect them to make molds from wood given there wasn't much wood.

i have no doubt they filled parts of some of the smaller tombs with slag and cast off stone, then again maybe the people building it didn't care as much about the big ones either, and skimped on the carving.

the idea of them creating cement like blocks sounds cool, especially with pop-sci headlines like "egyptians used nanotech!" but i'm not sure it really stands up given that the only real evidence is the claim of nano-particles in some of the tested material some scientists have.
the problem is, one there is no evidence of it, the effort is higher than just carving it, and it takes longer.
for anyone who believes this, why is there no evidence of it? concrete isn't a simple thing to make it's a process.
also there is plenty of evidence of fossils in the stones, trace fossils like tunnels and other things.

I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.

So, why do we see mortar between layers?

Harte

Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.

So, why do we see mortar between layers?

Harte

concrete theory maaaaaagic harte
that is the only way to explain why they would waste time pouring concrete to make blocks.

demongoat
reply to post by will2learn

 

the problem i have with the idea of them using mostly slag is that many of the pyramids were meant to be great monuments to the person being buried there. also where is the evidence of the tools used to create the stone blocks? i'm not expecting molds here, though i have to wonder how those who doubt the blocks were rolled, expect them to make molds from wood given there wasn't much wood.

i have no doubt they filled parts of some of the smaller tombs with slag and cast off stone, then again maybe the people building it didn't care as much about the big ones either, and skimped on the carving.

the idea of them creating cement like blocks sounds cool, especially with pop-sci headlines like "egyptians used nanotech!" but i'm not sure it really stands up given that the only real evidence is the claim of nano-particles in some of the tested material some scientists have.
the problem is, one there is no evidence of it, the effort is higher than just carving it, and it takes longer.
for anyone who believes this, why is there no evidence of it? concrete isn't a simple thing to make it's a process.
also there is plenty of evidence of fossils in the stones, trace fossils like tunnels and other things.

DG

The pyramids were eventually used as cenotaphs to the dead, this was after their function failed, they were not built as tombs originally. I see both formed and natural stones in the structures. That is consistent with a structure built over centuries as opposed to in one relatively short 20 year period.

As for the molds, the paper above cites experiments that they had with pouring slag. The hot slag tended not to stick to the cold stone, hot is another matter. It leaves a powder of sorts. Stones themselves were used as the mold edges and removed afterward.

Like you I am not saying only one method was used, there are several on display. To suggest that molded stone was not used makes the granite stones on the plateau floor hard to explain. They are flat on the top and mold to the irregular bedrock below. This is consistent with molded stone or incredibly labor intensive and complex carving methods. It would have been easier to flatten the limestone than carve irregular granite as I am sure you appreciate.

I thought that the stratification on display in the pyramid limestone blocks precluded formed stones, but this stratification is seen in formed stones just as much as natural. The fossils can be found in formed if they were rough mixes or be removed completely if they were heated to the point that the fossils break down as in the paper above. Both are likely to be used for sedimentary type formed stones. More than one method as ever.

Even the mainstream recognizes repairs carried out with neat cements/mortars/(concretes). Why they preclude this method from the main body of work is obviously the tremendous amount of effort involved in making cement. The slag approach means the cement material was ready made after the refining. The chemistry is simple enough, Davidfovitz has done plenty of it.

The process of making the concrete is buried in the refining process. The crushing of rocks and heating is carried out for the refining process. Davidovitz points to Portland cement which is still made the same way today. With a selection of ancient metals and ores a whole load of formed stones are practical. I have matched a dozen slags to their ancient odd apparently soft stone counterparts. Its just a byproduct from making metals which every researcher recognizes was an ancient industry. find refiners, you have ALSO found formed stones!

They possibly used the rubble left over from the carving of natural blocks. They crushed it with certain types of machines the remnants of which are still on display at some sites. They separated the metals with kilns and sluice gates, again both of which are still on display. They used some terrible materials in the refining process some of which remain in the soils. The clearest evidence of course is the stones above, proof of their heat treatment lies in the analysis in that paper.

Will

As for pop-sci and nanotech, I don't do it tho soundbites that attract readers are fair game. The nanotech the ancients carried out was not done with the explicit knowledge of nanoparticles in mind. I am pretty sure the writers would agree. The use of nano sized particles of gold were also used on the great cathedrals of Europe in the stained glass windows. No one suggests the glazers were aware of the reason, it was just an effect of testing different mixes of gold to make pretty windows.

Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.

So, why do we see mortar between layers?

Harte

The guys above did some neat experiments with molding the slag stone. It left gaps.

As for mortar, why not? either due to the use of many methods or the repairs that needed to be carried out.

Will

will2learn

Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.

So, why do we see mortar between layers?

Harte

The guys above did some neat experiments with molding the slag stone. It left gaps.

As for mortar, why not? either due to the use of many methods or the repairs that needed to be carried out.

Will

Apparently you are unaware of how much mortar we're talking about here.

In places it's 2 or 3 inches thick - all the way back under the stones.

The thought that "shrinkage" explains this is completely laughable. A shrinking stone won't float in mid-air 2 or 3 inches above a stone below it, necessitating that the gap be filled with mortar.

Harte

Harte

will2learn

Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.

So, why do we see mortar between layers?

Harte

The guys above did some neat experiments with molding the slag stone. It left gaps.

As for mortar, why not? either due to the use of many methods or the repairs that needed to be carried out.

Will

Apparently you are unaware of how much mortar we're talking about here.

In places it's 2 or 3 inches thick - all the way back under the stones.

The thought that "shrinkage" explains this is completely laughable. A shrinking stone won't float in mid-air 2 or 3 inches above a stone below it, necessitating that the gap be filled with mortar.

Harte

Harte

as I keep repeating one method does not preclude another. I can find natural stones at the ancient sites, it does not preclude bricks, formed stones, cements, mortar etc..

Mortar can be found in some places as an original sealant, in others its a repair. At least we are both agreeing they could use mortar.

Will

will2learn

Harte

will2learn

Harte
I'd like to add that concrete poured in place and left to set will join with the concrete layer below it.

So, why do we see mortar between layers?

Harte

The guys above did some neat experiments with molding the slag stone. It left gaps.

As for mortar, why not? either due to the use of many methods or the repairs that needed to be carried out.

Will

Apparently you are unaware of how much mortar we're talking about here.

In places it's 2 or 3 inches thick - all the way back under the stones.

The thought that "shrinkage" explains this is completely laughable. A shrinking stone won't float in mid-air 2 or 3 inches above a stone below it, necessitating that the gap be filled with mortar.

Harte

Harte

as I keep repeating one method does not preclude another. I can find natural stones at the ancient sites, it does not preclude bricks, formed stones, cements, mortar etc..

Mortar can be found in some places as an original sealant, in others its a repair. At least we are both agreeing they could use mortar.

Will

If you're saying that somewhere in there there might be some artificial stone, then all you have to do is look at the mortar.

Mortar is itself a type of artificial stone.

What I'm talking about are the serious stones. The casing stones, the backing stones 9that we see today on the exteriro,) the granite slabs.

These ALL are stone, not artificial. What would be the point of grinding up limestone to make it into limestone?

Harte

....and adding back in intact fossils?

Harte


If you're saying that somewhere in there there might be some artificial stone, then all you have to do is look at the mortar.

Mortar is itself a type of artificial stone.

What I'm talking about are the serious stones. The casing stones, the backing stones 9that we see today on the exteriro,) the granite slabs.

These ALL are stone, not artificial. What would be the point of grinding up limestone to make it into limestone?

Harte

Indeed Harte,

I am not saying there might be I am saying there definitely is artificial stone used in the old world.

Mortar is a form of stone tho the classical geologists might disagree. the granite slabs (or considered granite by the archaeologists) on the Giza plateau match the irregular bedrock so closely that one can only imagine them being poured into the bedrock. The analysis of the Cuzco stones above is most easily explained by artificial stone. Made in the same way as cements or concretes for that matter. I mean they are not even andesite as the archaeologists are saying.

The point about the slag stone approach is that the limestone is already ground up, its used when they want to fill an awkward space and at other times. You could ask the 'what's the point' question today and you would get the same answer for Portland cement. Its a byproduct of an industrial process and its a dam sight easier to mix and mold than to carve a load of blocks for a flyover.

This is particularly the case if you wish to build a structure that is waterproof like the Pyramids on the Giza plateau or the walls of Sacsayhuaman. Try carving to water tight, its a pain. In the end you have to add mortar between the joints. The ancient Peruvians used both mortar and vitrified ceramic pastes to seal joints. I guess they much prefered tight fitting stones formed from the byproduct of the refining process.

If any better evidence is needed, you can see what happened when the Peruvians ceased to refine at the sites. They went back to using near rubble shaped stones to build their walls and houses. Of course in the dubious quarters this is taken as near comprehensive 'proof' of aliens or super advanced tech from god knows where.

At the end of the day, you have to admit that the use of slag answers the reservations (mine at least) ppl have with the cements or geopolymers as some PR guys named them. There is no energy needed to grind and heat the stones to a powder. The lifting can be done in sacks or buckets. They can be piled together to make 100+ ton stones. The huge stones will fit pretty well together. Even stratification can occur depending on the forming process. Most important these facets are much much much easier than carving and grinding some giant rock, tho I do not doubt that was done.

Imagine telling a flyover builder that EVERY block has to be cut, carved and lugged by hand. Each block must fit so tightly there is no water seepage. He'll just tell you to...... go ... use those cement bags from the copper refiner

I am sure for a guy like you the penny has dropped and the potential and possibility of forming stones has been raised by the simple slag slurry premise.

Will

Hanslune
....and adding back in intact fossils?

Hans

this is one of the simplest things to explain. From my perspective there are two ways for the fossils to remain.

1. The stone was simply carved (slag stone cements do not preclude carving)
2. A common way to use cement is to make conglomerates (I think thats the term) these are mixes of both cement powders and natural stones/gravel/pebbles which saves on cement.

What the natural stone advocates CAN NOT answer is why there are no fossils in the supposedly natural stones of the wall at Cuzco when the source quarry has fossils aplenty. See the analysis in the paper above.

Will

will2learn

Hanslune
....and adding back in intact fossils?

Hans

this is one of the simplest things to explain. From my perspective there are two ways for the fossils to remain.

1. The stone was simply carved (slag stone cements do not preclude carving)

How does carving cause fossils to come back into the stone?

2. A common way to use cement is to make conglomerates (I think thats the term) these are mixes of both cement powders and natural stones/gravel/pebbles which saves on cement.

So you are saying they carefully chipped out individual fossils and added them to 'mix'? Why only fossils and not gravel?

What the natural stone advocates CAN NOT answer is why there are no fossils in the supposedly natural stones of the wall at Cuzco when the source quarry has fossils aplenty. See the analysis in the paper above.

Will

Can you cite that last claim I have not seen it before

Thanks