South Of The Atacama Giant

originally posted by: Hanslune

You mean the tradition of smaller temples those exist and in many cases were built over that is clearly seen in Meso America where they specialized in 'onion' construction. The first pyramids were smaller than the apex of their construction and were built after a they had experience with mastaba's.

I meant they started the tradition of building on a grand scale out of stone in either size overall or the size of the stone blocks themselves.

'Outweighs their capacity'? Yet they did so multiple times, in various cultures thousands of years apart - they do indeed seem to have had had the capacity. On what scale or parameters are you 'rating their capacity?

I fear you have taken those words out of context as they were intended. My apologies for not articulating it in a better fashion. I think looking at the reasons for their choice of material and block size has more import than the "aliens built it/antigravity device" the "how" discussions seem to devolve into.

Many great projects were the wishes of 'great men' just as today's governments and 'great men' undertake great projects.

Look at the seven wonders all of those were created by the wishes of great men/governments which then were the same thing; (except perhaps the colossus which may have been a joint decision by the people of Rhodes)

As I have previously stated I do not discount the influence government and religion would have held. But a large building containing a "fertility goddess" statue could as easily be a brothel with a risque statue as it is a temple.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Jarocal

As a thirty year glazier I respect a thirty year mason of course.
And know very well how frustrating it can be to have flashing
installed by the wrong trade. Our trades collide often.

Do you have to wear the fema green where you're at as well?

Somewhat ironically many of today's posts have been made from 45' in the air waiting on a roofer to correct a flashing issue where it meets the chimney. Possibly even more ironic is that it is a faux chimney for aesthetics. The gas fireplace exhausts out of the side of the chimney 30' lower. Years of dealing with issues like this which in essence puts a 5 ft wide dam and leak hazard onto a structure with nothing more than the desire to have a chimney on the house has taken me from wondering how as I did when I was younger to why?

a reply to: Jarocal

Ah I see where you are going now - what you look for his repeated use; while a brothel is possible its more probable that a centrally located and outsized building is a religious structure based on the cultural norms of x culture - however if you don't KNOW the cultural norms ( like for GT) you can only guess.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Jarocal

Ah I see where you are going now - what you look for his repeated use; while a brothel is possible its more probable that a centrally located and outsized building is a religious structure based on the cultural norms of x culture - however if you don't KNOW the cultural norms ( like for GT) you can only guess.

Brothels tend to see as much repeated use as a temple IMHO. Perhaps a few more prostitutes and fewer proselytizers would reinvigorate attendance to the varied religious temples today. Just sayin...

a reply to: Jarocal

Ah yes, I understand the dilema perfectly. The same way
a water deflecting flashing set on top of a block wall as a cap
can puddle and leak, if it is shot down or fastened to tight
with tamcons or red heads. The megaliths seem to by pass
all of those worries.

Wouldn't you say?

a reply to: randyvs
You sometimes say the strangest things, randyvs.

Here’s how my interest in this site began…
I began looking at “The ‘Giant”… After studying it for a while, and coming away thrilled but no smarter…I began looking in the surrounding plain/plateau… (If this was anything like Nazca, the evidences would keep going...into the mountains and valleys and north and south and east and...to the coast --- so --- )
‘went north for a while, then followed something to the east…ending in a ‘river’ valley with numerous evidences of ‘something’…and worked back southwestward…and, stumbled upon the anomaly highlighted in the OP.
After developing that ‘idea’ for a while, I found an exhilarating demonstration a few miles, SSE of the original Southern Atacama find…then…worked south… Far south of these demonstrations
– because it looked as if I could/would find similar demonstrations almost anywhere in the vicinity…if I looked hard & long enough…
-- so -- if I could find land/s where these 'similar demonstrations' were no longer evident...then, I could work my way back to find the edge of the lands of Oz...
And…while seeing some interesting features all around, I saw something in the landscape, about 40 miles SSW of the Southern Atacama…which eventually convinced me that it (and its numerous relatives) was tied/linked to said ‘Giant complex.

So – imo – while it may appear that one location uses stone, and another uses mud/brick/clay/timber…they both use similar patterns, and, as Jarocal has identified – an apparent fundamental of the ‘design’ is – harmony with the topography &/or lay-of-the-land.

Nevertheless – back to what is strange about your reply…(to me) ---
After finding the ‘demonstrations’ that were ~40 miles SSW…I followed the trail all the way back to the ‘Giant complex…and, in the eastern perimeter of the demonstrations…I found what looked to me (first impression) to be a gigantic road…beneath the surface layer…leading toward (or from?) the river valley.
Without thinking, or trying to be smart…I questioned – “Why would anyone need a road that wide?”

Whether those impressions or questions are pertinent to this piece of history, or not, is almost as irrelevant as “why” they made their way/s into this reply.

a reply to: WanDash

Believe me, I realize when something is going to sound strange
and/or is approaching digression. I just don't let that stop me
from writing it. But I give you that.

And to me the questions are just as pertinent as the observations.