Did the ANCIENT BUILDERS Know How to SOFTEN SOLID STONE?

a reply to: SLAYER69

It looks similar to those from Giza in basalt. This is where I consider that the Egyptians were a literate society existing amongst literate neighbours. There are no textual references to circular saws or exotic technology. And of course there's tthe problem of no illustrations or remains of any technology. The technology they did feature in paintings and carvings have been found e.g. dolorite pounders, chisels etc.

Now, you're probably wondering wth this has to do with your image? I think the Egyptian example parallels your example. If what looks like exotic tech in Egypt is not, then what we see in Peru also is not. Instead, they are examples of conventional technology creating results that look unconventional to our modern eyes.

That isn't to say I don't sometimes gaze at the images and wonder...

A little tiny guy (Edward Leedskalnin) built a castle in Florida. He worked on it from 1923 to 1951 at night so no one knows how he did it. There were no heavy equipment or tools found after his death to explain how he did it.

He said it’s not difficult really; the secret is in knowing how. He felt that scientists have incorrect knowledge of atomic structure and electricity. What a pity he chose not to share his secrets! If a 100 pound, 5 foot man could build Coral Castle by himself, then there is a major misunderstanding of technology amongst our scholars.

I also keep coming back to the idea of frequencies playing in to the equation somehow. It seems like we're looking so hard for some complex secret knowledge that we may not be able to see the obvious, very simple method.

We're the age of complex tools and gadgets needed for everything we do, so may be over-think how past civilizations could do even greater things without using all the bells and whistles we have now.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: SLAYER69


Now, you're probably wondering wth this has to do with your image? I think the Egyptian example parallels your example. If what looks like exotic tech in Egypt is not, then what we see in Peru also is not. Instead, they are examples of conventional technology creating results that look unconventional to our modern eyes.

I appreciate the thought.
Now, if we could actually see how it was really done that would be cool.

I mean, how they created not just the one in the image I've posted but all the others as well which are in some of the most bizarre locations and angles and heights.

They used stone to chisel stone. This one is a good example of facing. Its unfinished but began by simply using rocks to hammer away bit by bit at the surface, 'wearing' away the face until its "square". Scraping with smaller and finer grained stones would provide a smoother finish.



These people had time, lots of time on their hands. The flatter the wall the more 'finished' it was.

They didn't use acids, lasers or "softeners" what ever that is, they used stone to shape stone.

Image

a reply to: nugget1

Leedskillen used a truck, a generator and a block and tackle. There are plenty of photographs of him with these items. It doesn't detract from the achievement of Coral Castle although it entirely rules out the belief that he had any *special* knowledge.

He just had a great work ethic and shaggy dog tale to draw visitors.

a reply to: JamesTB

Well I believe this was the reason why...Quarry Methods

In order to accurately split hard stone such as granite, a series of small holes are chiseled out, then filled with wood fibers which expand when soaked in water, thereby splitting the stone.

I went about learning a long time ago (and still am) on how stone was cut and formed in the way Ancient societies did all over but I keep finding water to be the culprit. Whether its natural erosion from rainfall to methods that included using water.

That gigantic cut could be the finished part of a quarry, once the rock removed it was then softened either naturally or manually.

a reply to: SLAYER69

This is where a time machine and a video camera would settle just about anything, heh.

But since we don't have those: recreation.

Try to recreate the same thing, using the same materials, and utilizing the methods proposed by historians an archaeologists.

I mean it may not prove things to be 100% correct, but it certainly would lend supporting evidence (or may show the opposite).

a reply to: SLAYER69

It'd be very high on my bucket list to see Pumu Punku being constructed, Easter Island giant statues being moved and any of your saw-like features being created. Same for some of the more bizarre-looking outcrops posted by JamesTB in recent months.

I can hold on to the conventional explanations, but oh man! It'd be something else to witness these events with our own eyes.

originally posted by: Lunica
It is as obvious as the images present, these constructions are not made by copper tools. Its impossible.

Just because you cannot believe it, or think it impossible, does not mean that a lost civilization who used copper, bronze and stone, and who were accomplished masons, could not. There is no reason why these structures could not have been built given time, labour and a mastery of the art at the time.

It is saddening to see people dumbfounded by what our ancestors did without bulldozers and dynamite.

Regards

a reply to: JamesTB

Which ones are you talking about? If you mean the unfinished obelisk that was pounded out. I spend several hours at the site and you could clearly see how it was done. It was very similar to the methodology used on Easter Island.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

Which ones are you talking about?

The gigantic one.

I've put a black square on it so you can see it -

kechuca (plant), jotcha (plant), punco-punco (plant), Ephedra andina (plant), Jakkacllopito (bird), Colaptes rupicola (bird), Colaptes pitius (bird, aka pitiwe, pite, and pitio)...

Despite knowing all these names from hand-me-down tales no one has yet to witness (in modern times) any of these miracles of birds using a plant to soften stone nor has anyone managed to recreate this magic elixir.

The tales come from unlikely sources: Hiram Bingham (who invented Mormonism after pulling golden plates out of a hat...) and an explorer (Col. Fawcett) in search of a lost city of gold. There was a priest, Jorge A. Lira, an 'expert in Andean folklore,' who claimed he recreated the formula in 1983 - and conveniently forgot to write any of it down, which is now lost - again.

This is how myths work. Each new generation goes off in search of a myth and adds their own spin to it. The myth lives on even more obfuscated by the later twists and turns.

The truth may be far less glamorous, that the plants above are alkaline which does have some properties to weaken the surface of stone to allow it to be marred. We use acids today to clean the surfaces of stone, tiles, and concrete, but that does not 'reshape' them or allow them to be molded. Some truth perhaps, mixed with a lot of myth.

The bird identified by Fawcett does indeed make nests in stone hollows (as well as in trees), but it doesn't create the hollow, it only fishes around in them - for insects, much like a woodpecker. The hollows are created by pebbles and small rocks that rattle around by winds until the carve out their niches, a process that can take many years (called 'swirl' holes). It may be that these birds are using an alkaline plant to further clean the stone hollow for use as a nest, perhaps there is a paper out there in academia on that topic.

Here is a Andean web page that goes into great depth of these tales - by far the most in depth I've seen compared to the glut of incredulous web sites:

Vivat Academia Magazine (this is the Google Translated page)

"Grupo de Reflexión de la Universidad de Alcalá" (GRUA); 2003. Las piedras de plastilina. (original in Spanish language)

I found that page after looking at some peer-reviewed papers on the Andean Flicker; Traditional use of the Andean flicker (Colaptes rupicola) as a galactagogue in the Peruvian Andes. It gives a few mentions of the lore of this bird in 'softening stone,' but more credence is given to it's role as a meat source and health benefits to young mothers.

originally posted by: JamesTB

The gigantic one.

I've put a black square on it so you can see it -

Okay what's it name and where is it (I need to find a close up shot or find a site report)

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hiram Bingham wasn't a Mormon but other than that.....

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

The gigantic one.

I've put a black square on it so you can see it -

Okay what's it name and where is it (I need to find a close up shot or find a site report)

Aswan.

a reply to: Hanslune

Oh man I totally confused him with Joseph Smith. My bad everyone. It's the role as 'hostile missionary' he played that does not sit well with the modern sensibility of leaving native peoples to themselves. (The Making of a Missionary: Hiram Bingham's Odyssey)

I find this one very intriguing. It appears to me that at sometime in the past there was water runoff flowing over the steps. Now, how long would it take to wear the pattern it did if it was indeed water runoff and when was the last time geographically speaking that much rain in that dry environment to account for that amount of wear?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Hanslune

Oh man I totally confused him with Joseph Smith. My bad everyone.

Yeah you were a tad off but we'll forgive you ....I think you were thinking of Bingham Young.

Oh and I knew about Hiram Bingham as I went to HS with a relative of his in Hawaii.

You do realise that sand, water and time all means erosion - this smooths rock.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Hardness of rock x amount and type of grit x amount of rain fall not to mention thermal expansion, wind and 'foot' erosion.

Also the state of the rock prior to carving/modification.