The AMAZING stonewall of INCA ROQA STREET in CUSCO PERU HD

More copy and pasting from you if you really do know what you're talking about rather than just C and Ping then show us some examples of this kind of work please -

''Cellular polygonal masonry: with small blocks Cyclopean polygonal masonry: with very large stones Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned Sedimentary coursed masonry: in which stones are laid out in horizontal rows''

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: JamesTB

I work in stone albeit not masonry typically. For what it is worth, it is my opinion that this is high quality work done by remarkably skilled craftsmen no doubt, but otherwise ordinary human beings utilizing ordinary tools and methods. It always chafes me a bit when people discredit that work with this sort of speculation.

The walls were built using bronze age techniques, some of those have been lost iin the fog of history and provide us with puzzles to work out.

For the record I agree with you. I'm not sure if you were arguing with me or not though.

I think the primary techniques "lost in the fog of history" are probably patience and the utilization of man power. Man power was a primary resource and these days we think "machine" first. That is what moves an (modern) industrialized economy.

If I had the responsibility of attempting to crank out enough of those stones of that quality to build a wall, I would have the less skilled/experienced labor in the initial stages and move the stone up the line of experience as it needs refining. If you have three or four skilled craftsman working on it at the final stage they could peck and polish that out eventually.

originally posted by: JamesTB
More copy and pasting from you if you really do know what you're talking about rather than just C and Ping then show us some examples of this kind of work please -

''Cellular polygonal masonry: with small blocks Cyclopean polygonal masonry: with very large stones Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned Sedimentary coursed masonry: in which stones are laid out in horizontal rows''

Again James you have in the past provided nothing, continue to provide nothing and I presume in the future will provide nothing.

Kinda sad don't you think?

Besides just stating over and over again what you've been told to believe from Youtube can't you attempt to make the slightest effort to back up your statements?

lol

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: JamesTB

I work in stone albeit not masonry typically. For what it is worth, it is my opinion that this is high quality work done by remarkably skilled craftsmen no doubt, but otherwise ordinary human beings utilizing ordinary tools and methods. It always chafes me a bit when people discredit that work with this sort of speculation.

The walls were built using bronze age techniques, some of those have been lost iin the fog of history and provide us with puzzles to work out.

For the record I agree with you. I'm not sure if you were arguing with me or not though.

I think the primary techniques "lost in the fog of history" are probably patience and the utilization of man power. Man power was a primary resource and these days we think "machine" first. That is what moves an (modern) industrialized economy.

If I had the responsibility of attempting to crank out enough of those stones of that quality to build a wall, I would have the less skilled/experienced labor in the initial stages and move the stone up the line of experience as it needs refining. If you have three or four skilled craftsman working on it at the final stage they could peck and polish that out eventually.

Agreeing with you. There was another thread on here about moving stones and someone brought up Wally Wallingford. The rebuttal was that it would take a 63 meter long lever to move the size of the size stones in the thread instead of 10 ton blocks like Wall has moved. The fallacy in tthinking is that only one lever was utilized or that levers alone were the technologies eemployed. Movable counterweights in tthe form of a couple guys moving back and forth on top of the blocks from the fulcrum point toward the edges would add a couple hundred pounds of downward force on tthe opposite side as the lever exerting the upward force. The larger the block the more space for additional weight. Recent studies on plant based acids affecting stone have been done and it is not completely implausible that this technology utilized by an older civilization assisted in creating the inside corners, holes bored into blocks, and stones polished to a high sheen. I am not declaring this is how it was done. I am merely suggesting that cultures leaving behind no evidence of complex machinery or iron based metallurgy may have utilized organic compounds more than we realise.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Fringe is content to throw up its collective arms and whine that they don't know or write books for the popular market which contain baseless speculation as fact.
Now I've been to Easter Island (twice) and saw nothing more than good craftsmanship and the finished work of clever Polynesian people.

Don't forget out right lies so that their speculations work. Such as there is "nothing hard enough to cut/sand/chip the stone", when a simple Google search would show that the stone walls are about 5.5 on the Mohs scale and something as simple as getting river cobbles that are mostly made of quartzite would work just fine in chipping all these stones into whatever shape they wanted.

Even going down the path of molding stone, I could say that bricks are rather primitive too, but in this case none of the stones are the same, so it is kind of hard to suggest they had a unique mold for every stone made...hehe

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Hanslune
Fringe is content to throw up its collective arms and whine that they don't know or write books for the popular market which contain baseless speculation as fact.
Now I've been to Easter Island (twice) and saw nothing more than good craftsmanship and the finished work of clever Polynesian people.

Don't forget out right lies so that their speculations work. Such as there is "nothing hard enough to cut/sand/chip the stone", when a simple Google search would show that the stone walls are about 5.5 on the Mohs scale and something as simple as getting river cobbles that are mostly made of quartzite would work just fine in chipping all these stones into whatever shape they wanted.

Even going down the path of molding stone, I could say that bricks are rather primitive too, but in this case none of the stones are the same, so it is kind of hard to suggest they had a unique mold for every stone made...hehe

It was a thread on molding stones on here that lead me to a"The plant that soften stone" thread. My question would be if that technology was utilized, why dissolve they entire stone when you can use a fraction of the amount of acid needed to soften just the areas you want to chip away? Edward Leedskalnin and Wally Wallingford have demonstrated that maneuvering heavy blocks with simple machinery is possible. Ascribing supernatural or extraterrestrial oorigins to these structures to me is only a means for the proponent of those theories to cement todaythe inferior intellect of our forebears in their psyche. They claim "We can't do it today" so it had to be nephilim or aliens.

originally posted by: Jarocal
They claim "We can't do it today" so it had to be nephilim or aliens.

The thing that really gets me the most is that these aliens used lasers to cut and anti grav machines to move and we are still talking about raw stone work...hehe

Just think about today, would we go to some place and use all out technology today to only build with raw stone? Now take that and ask the same question to a race that is millions of years advance to us if they do the same... lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

Absolutely, I've done some limited stone working (besides being a stone tool maker) in Egypt, Cyprus and on Rapa Nui, as you've noted it not particularly difficult to knock pieces off a rock with another rock. I have used a copper chisel on limestone too.

The problem is that they want mystery and they want their advanced humans and aliens ...... and they are not to be denied. lol

I always suggest that the Phyringee (the fancy way to write fringe) should offer up a 500,000 USD prize to artists to replicate -and up to 2,500,000 to get a group to replicate some of the more complicated works. Unless that is offfered I don't see any reason for an artist to spend his life trying to re-create something that would bring him/her nothing more than praise.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Jarocal
They claim "We can't do it today" so it had to be nephilim or aliens.

The thing that really gets me the most is that these aliens used lasers to cut and anti grav machines to move and we are still talking about raw stone work...hehe

Just think about today, would we go to some place and use all out technology today to only build with raw stone? Now take that and ask the same question to a race that is millions of years advance to us if they do the same... lol

That is an observation that is at the core of the question - why would advanced humans/aliens do such work? When they could just as 'easily' made a ceramic dome or used any other far easier and long lasting materials?

......

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB
More copy and pasting from you if you really do know what you're talking about rather than just C and Ping then show us some examples of this kind of work please -

''Cellular polygonal masonry: with small blocks Cyclopean polygonal masonry: with very large stones Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned Sedimentary coursed masonry: in which stones are laid out in horizontal rows''

Again James you have in the past provided nothing, continue to provide nothing and I presume in the future will provide nothing.

Kinda sad don't you think?

Besides just stating over and over again what you've been told to believe from Youtube can't you attempt to make the slightest effort to back up your statements?

lol

Sad? No, I don't think so it's a matter of perspective.

My perspective is to put out ideas and thoughts of others and mine which I find interesting. I do it because I like to learn and if I'm going to learn then I want it to be exciting and if it comes to nothing or is left hanging that that's cool with me I'll either revisit it later or forget it.

Your perspective in my opinion is that everything has to be right or wrong and peer reviewed or it is BS. Am I right to some degree?

Well to play Devil’s Advocate here (I think?!). I believe science doesn't really move that fast when it comes to new discoveries. It takes time for the archaeologists and scientists to get their new found facts proven and accepted and then the information has to be disseminated to the public and so on. Meanwhile as that process is taking place discovery goes on contradicting everything we once thought we knew.

Some of the Academics who I’ve come across have a tendency to rubbish what they've termed the 'fringe’. Doesn’t seem to matter what sphere of learning they are in they nearly always get defensive about the ‘fringe’ Well fringe archaeology it seems to me is just really archaeology with more of a spirit of discovery. And surely the fruits of our new found discoveries are the facts that everyone loves so much.

But facts are transient. Known facts in the year let’s say 1036 are completely different to known facts today. Interestingly the things they believed to be facts back then we now consider to be false but are we right or

are we too only seeing part of the picture?

Shouldn’t we be worried about how well be judged by our future selves haha?

Of course the history books are going to have to be rewritten and corrected (Gobekli Tepe?) as our searching and learning techniques become even more sophisticated and sensitive as the decades pass and we should embrace this and also show support to the LAH in Russia. And also to people like BF who keeps on happily and enthusiastically looking for clues and bringing his discoveries in this immensely interesting subject to us.

Well listen I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask questions about our species past especially as the whole subject is in flux and I would like to pursuit this on ATS if that’s cool with you?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Jarocal
They claim "We can't do it today" so it had to be nephilim or aliens.

The thing that really gets me the most is that these aliens used lasers to cut and anti grav machines to move and we are still talking about raw stone work...hehe

Just think about today, would we go to some place and use all out technology today to only build with raw stone? Now take that and ask the same question to a race that is millions of years advance to us if they do the same... lol

That is an observation that is at the core of the question - why would advanced humans/aliens do such work? When they could just as 'easily' made a ceramic dome or used any other far easier and long lasting materials?

......

My question is why would they bother leaving behind resources they apparently came here for?

I personally ascribe to cyclical forms of evolution rather than a linear form. Civilisation rises and falls. In thethe falling process knowledge is lost. As civilisation rises again the technology may not look the same as what previous cultures utilized. The adage " There is more than one way to skin a cat" seems appropriate to me. Take for example the difference in bridge construction in Meso-America compared to Europe in antiquity. The difference in road construction based on domesticated animals and transport methods. Ancient Meso-Americans had the wheel on toys but did not scale it to transport most likely due terrain allowing for alternatives. COnquistador horses had difficulty traversing andean steps that llamma had no issues with.

Working in construction I see unified building codes iimplemented by today's culture to try and provide a one answer fits all solution to varied construction necessities. The hybrids we have that there is only one correct answer to a problem I think sometimes precludes our ability to reason out why another culture accomplished a task in the manner that they did

a reply to: JamesTB

Trouble is James, that you do not discuss most of what is raised in your threads - you just ignore inconvenient truths and facts and start another (usually hyperbolically titled) thread as if you have taken umbridge and decided to scoop up your ball and play somewhere else.

And dude, learn to post pics ffs.

originally posted by: JamesTB


Sad? No, I don't think so it's a matter of perspective.

My perspective is to put out ideas and thoughts of others and mine which I find interesting. I do it because I like to learn and if I'm going to learn then I want it to be exciting and if it comes to nothing or is left hanging that that's cool with me I'll either revisit it later or forget it.

Your perspective in my opinion is that everything has to be right or wrong and peer reviewed or it is BS. Am I right to some degree?

Nope, I believe opinions should be based on observed facts and evidence not what one wants or what one has been told to believe.

Well to play Devil’s Advocate here (I think?!). I believe science doesn't really move that fast when it comes to new discoveries. It takes time for the archaeologists and scientists to get their new found facts proven and accepted and then the information has to be disseminated to the public and so on. Meanwhile as that process is taking place discovery goes on contradicting everything we once thought we knew.

This is true in part, science as a system of consensus tends to move more slowly than individual perceptions/opinions.

Some of the Academics who I’ve come across have a tendency to rubbish what they've termed the 'fringe’. Doesn’t seem to matter what sphere of learning they are in they nearly always get defensive about the ‘fringe’ Well fringe archaeology it seems to me is just really archaeology with more of a spirit of discovery. And surely the fruits of our new found discoveries are the facts that everyone loves so much.

Because there is a fringe view, an alternative view and a fantasy view

Alternative is based on what a minority of the specialists (and others) believe and agree (rarely) on the accepted facts - but have a different idea what they mean

Fringe as above but the facts are either ignored or stuff is made up

Fantasy, facts pretty much ignored or made up stuff predominates often violating physical laws or is dependent on beleif in religious fiction or other biases.

But facts are transient. Known facts in the year let’s say 1036 are completely different to known facts today. Interestingly the things they believed to be facts back then we now consider to be false but are we right or

are we too only seeing part of the picture?

Shouldn’t we be worried about how well be judged by our future selves haha?

Some are, some change, some don't that is why science constantly resets and corrects as new observations become available. Science is never static.

Of course the history books are going to have to be rewritten and corrected (Gobekli Tepe?) as our searching and learning techniques become even more sophisticated and sensitive as the decades pass and we should embrace this and also show support to the LAH in Russia. And also to people like BF who keeps on happily and enthusiastically looking for clues and bringing his discoveries in this immensely interesting subject to us.

Don't know what LAH in Russia is? BF unfortunately makes up stuff, fails to do rudimentary research and plays to the crowd for money, he is (as noted above) a player in fringe and fantasy and in some cases produces outright misrepresentation.

Well listen I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask questions about our species past especially as the whole subject is in flux and I would like to pursuit this on ATS if that’s cool with you?

Posting an image and then saying its Atlantean is meaningless unless you know something about Inca architecture and about the cultures these structures came from. Knowing as little as possible about a subject is not the way to challenge its conclusions. You might want to start with what the Spanish and the Inca wrote about this/their cultures and what academics have actually determined (see list of sources previously posted)

While I do feel that the stonework is from a lost technology (no aliens), the "vitrification" in the video appears to be just hand polished sections from millions of people walking by and rubbing against the stones. I would look up higher above the height of people, and see if there are any polished "vitrified" areas.

I am not saying it isn't possible, it is just that I have seen this kind of hand polishing of stone in tourist sites where there is continuous traffic. There are whole sections of stone on the path to Ruby Falls in Tennessee that are this way.

originally posted by: Halfswede
While I do feel that the stonework is from a lost technology (no aliens), the "vitrification" in the video appears to be just hand polished sections from millions of people walking by and rubbing against the stones. I would look up higher above the height of people, and see if there are any polished "vitrified" areas.

I am not saying it isn't possible, it is just that I have seen this kind of hand polishing of stone in tourist sites where there is continuous traffic. There are whole sections of stone on the path to Ruby Falls in Tennessee that are this way.

This is where I am at. There are ways of making perfect circles without ubdrsysding pi and ways of making perfect right angles without knowledge of what we ascribe to the pythagorean ttheorum. Simple tools and a bit of tthought go a long way if you don't have petrol cchemistry driven machinery to offset the workload. I smack stones ((manufactured and natural) eeveryday. Yes I use a steel hammer rather than a dolomite pounder but I am firm inky belief that if the ancients had steel tools they would have used them instead of what they had ti work with.