'Lost Civilisations'

King of the Americas said:
For all my 'feeding', NO ONE has linked or demonstrated themselves replica PP work created by period tools.

WHICH IS ALL THAT I HAVE ASKED FOR.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone bother to do it? You have asked for more than that,you are asking us to believe in a departed race of super beings. Carving rock is small beer compared to that.
 
King of the Americas said:
'I' think there well COULD have been saws back then.

That line LOOKS sawed to me. The 'problem' is that there are NO Bronze Age saws in the Americas. In fact, bronze, copper, and tin/arsenic alloys are the ONLY tools that have been found.

Regardless of what others say, I am not ill-read.
Click to expand...

No,just ill-informed.
 
Here is an excerpt from ‘Lost City of the Incas, The Story of Machu Picchu and its Builders’ by Hiram Bingham, on Inca metallurgy.

There is no mention of saws, but it is an excellent overview with some good details about how the people of c. 1400 Peru manufactured and employed metal tools. Machu Picchu was built about 900 years after Puma Puncu, but many of the technologies used overlap.

Here is a passage of interest to the current discussion:

Some [bronze] axe blades bear evidence that they were used upon stone. Their structure shows severe damage of a character which could only result from very hard usage. They were probably used in cutting square holes in ashlars and in making sharp inside corners. It is difficult to conceive of any stone tools that could have been used successfully for this purpose. Some writers have assumed that the Incas use bronze implements to a large extent in finishing their best stone work. It seems to me, however, that even their best bronze was too soft to last long in such activities. It is not likely that it was often so employed. Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite.​

So here we have Bingham, the expert archeologist on this region and its people, discussing how bronze axes were used to cut square holes in stone blocks and "making sharp inside corners"; and that "Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite."

Please place this in your proverbial pipe, and smoke of it.
 
King of the Americas said:
For all my 'feeding', NO ONE has linked or demonstrated themselves replica PP work created by period tools.

WHICH IS ALL THAT I HAVE ASKED FOR.
Click to expand...

Why would any one do this? Archeologists have narrowed it down to several different ways in which the work was done...they know it was done by one of the methods (which have been offered to you here over and over again)...they are satisfied without having to build a replica...why can't you be? Do you think the Great Wall of China was built with lost technology because no one has built a replica with period tools?
 
Last edited:
KotA said:
This is NOT my argument. I provided my argument, then you re-worded and changed it. Why would you do that?
Click to expand...
To fit reality.

You may SAY that you're interested in chiseling and carving stone, but your continued refusal to even read the literature demonstrates that you have another agenda.

Wrong wrong Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG.

I am asking the Mythubsters (or anyone) to TRY to recreate one of the PP lego stones or that line, with period tools.

When someone DOES, I'll shut my yap, period.
Click to expand...
See, this kind of arrogance is what I'm talking about. As I have stated many times, and as you yourself have amply demonstrated, you have no knowledge of what experiments have or have not been done, nor do you have any interest.Simply put (again), you have no way of knowing if this experiment has been done or not. Yet you continue to insist that it has. Why? Well, after you refused to accept proof that SOMEONE DID IT, the only viable solution remaining is that you evaluate evidence based on whether or not it supports your a priori conclusion.

As for what I'm arguing, you have continuously mischaracterized our arguments. We have stone, metal, and wood tools everywhere. We have stone blocks. A rational conclusion is that the people who made the stone blocks used said stone, metal, and wood tools. You and I don't work with stone as much as they did, so another rational conclusion is that perhaps they were simply better at it than us. You, however, have postulated in this thread that it is instead evidence of an advanced civilization. You backed down once we demonstrated that you knew nothing of the types of evidence an advanced civilization would leave behind (page 9 or 10 or so), but that was still your argument.

Furthermore, your rejection of the person doing what you say you want done demonstrates that you hold yourself above the experts. You don't care what the people who have bothered to do the background research think--you simply reject it, on the flimsiest grounds. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you rejected it because it disagrees with what you want to be true.

Finally, you insist on using TV comedy shows as references but reject the peer-reviewed literature. This shows a remarkably shallow desire to know something. I mean, when I want to know what rocks are in an area I don't turn on the Discovery channel, I break out my copies of Dibblee's map series. Mythbusters, for all the good it does, is no where NEAR cutting edge in any field, nor do they pretend to have a broad or deep knowledge of any field other than special effects.

So, in summary: You demand an experiment and reject it when it appears. You've been offered peer-reviewed literature and refused to read it. You insist on using the second-worst references possible (I like Mythbusters, but...well, see the above paragraph). You, sir, have no interest in educating yourself.

'I' have ran tests, worked with stone and various metal hardnesses. I am telling you that line wasn't chiseled.
Click to expand...
First, no you can't--polishing would remove chisel marks. Second, so what? No one here argued that it was. Third, you've admitted that you're an amateur, and these were experts. Sorry, but your "experiments" are not good enough.

I have better tools and using known methods, it would take 'me' years to duplicate one of those lego stones. You and others have dismissed MY tests, because you think 'I' am unqualified.
Click to expand...
You don't even know the basics about the stones! You thought andecite and diorite were the same thing, and that diorite is extraordinarily hard! You've rejected pretty much everything I've said about stones, and I'm a geologist. And you refuse to read any serious literature on the subject. Sorry, but you're NOT qualified to discuss this.

Fine...run your own tests. Help me get the Mythbusters to run better, more astute tests.
Click to expand...
I want you to repeat this until you understand it: Mythbusters are not archeologists. If you want to learn something about archeology, you need to read peer-reviewed archeology journals.

Also, I don't need to. First, this isn't my field. Other people are more interested, and I'll let THEM run the tests. Oh wait, they have--and ancient methods work. Second, I really, honestly don't care if two special effects guys can re-create the work of master stone carvers. It's an irrelevant test, in that it doesn't actually TEST the hypothesis under consideration. I'd start with.......the academic journals in archeology. :jaw-dropp Of course, I'm not adverse to accepting circumstantial evidence either, and as all we have is metal, stone, and wood tools (cudoes to you for finally, after 15 PAGES, admitting that stone tools exist :rolleyes:) and stone blocks, with no evidence of advanced infrastructures, I'm willing to accept the idea that the ancients used stone, wood, and metal tools to carve the stone. It's really only the fringe groups that think otherwise, and prefer to take the lead of Creationists and attempt to poke holes in theories they can't be bothered to research rather than actually finding evidence of their own theories.

And I have a hundred flint arrowheads, and I've done or been part of several amateur digs in the greater norther central texas area. I 'helped to find' a clay burn pit, but no pottery.
Click to expand...
Gods below, I hope someone checked your field notes. I've worked with people with your attitude towards science before, and have never been impressed with the quality of their notes. Of course, if it's an amateur dig I have serious doubts about the quality of work anyway.....

Regardless of what others say, I am not ill-read.
Click to expand...
Nope. You have to bother to read the literature to be ill-read. You haven't achieved that lofty status yet.
 
Last edited:
KotA, the default position, held by mainstream archeologists and historians and based on good, empirical data collected over decades, is that bronze and other metal tools, and stone tools in conjunction with "perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand" are sufficient to the task of carving granite and andesite stone into the shapes as we have them at Puma Puncu and other ancient American and Incan sites.

Your claim, that such tools would not be sufficient to the task, is the opposing claim. Therefore it falls on you to demonstrate it.

Your claim that an advanced race of now-departed super-humans is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence.

Please come back when you have it.
 
KotA said:
To PROVE that it could have been done that way.
Click to expand...

Hiram Bingham said:
Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite.
Click to expand...
Okay. Your demand has been met. It can be done, as is illustrated by experiments done by archeologists, which is vastly better than anything the Mythbusters could hope to do. I take it the thread's done now?
 
King of the Americas said:
To PROVE that it could have been done that way.
Click to expand...

Why? It was done that way,there are no super beings. You want somebody to go to all the bother of doing that just to prove to you that it was not done by little green men. People have got better things to do.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
First, no you can't--polishing would remove chisel marks. Second, so what? No one here argued that it was. Third, you've admitted that you're an amateur, and these were experts. Sorry, but your "experiments" are not good enough.
Click to expand...

I doubt if Kota comes from a long line of stonemasons who handed down knowledge and skills down the generations.
 
King of the Americas said:
LOOOOOOOONG exhale...

THAT is some good stuff. Thank You.

Too bad the old bird is likely dead, because I'd LOVE to ask him about that 'sawed line', and if he managed to find anything that could make it...
Click to expand...

Most likely done by a saw. Could have been done by an ancient laser wielded by an alien,but the odds are hugely stacked against that. So you have given up. Best thing to do.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
I am arguing that to suggest it WAS chiseled or created with known or traditional methods, IS a statement WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...


No. That is a lie. First of all that the Puma Punku complex was created with tools and technology readily available to humans and common to the period of its construction is supported by evidence. It is also a lie because you are arguing that...

THIS LINE WAS NOT CHISELED.

It was created with a "lost technology".
Click to expand...
 
Dinwar said:
Okay. Your demand has been met. It can be done, as is illustrated by experiments done by archeologists, which is vastly better than anything the Mythbusters could hope to do. I take it the thread's done now?
Click to expand...


I've got a $100 bill that I'd like to double if you're willing to put a little wager on that. ;)
 
Nah--I'd rather just burn the money, get more use out of it that way. :D

KotA said:
Too bad the old bird is likely dead, because I'd LOVE to ask him about that 'sawed line', and if he managed to find anything that could make it...
Click to expand...
Goal post shifts again.....And you wonder why people don't do the experiments you demand we do.
 
King of the Americas said:
I have some pictures up on a geology site, hoping they can identify the kind of stone, that has the line with the through holes.

It looks like it should be diorite, but I am looking for confirmation.
Click to expand...

There's your problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom