There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw · 2025-11-06T01:46:50-0600

sjastro said:
For reference here is the predynastic flint tool for reference produced by knapping.

View attachment 372743

In my possession are flint tools I obtained from my uncle a geophysicist who found them in a cave in Northern Italy.
I recall the tools were described as being extremely old by an expert on flint tools.

View attachment 372744

As one of my AI challenges I asked GPT-5 to identify the stone tools and a possible time frame of manufacturing, the only reliable information I could give it they were found in Northern Italy.

View attachment 372745

If these are Neanderthal tools at least 40,000 years old, one would have expected the Naqada culture having the supposed capability of making granite vases on lathes would have been able to go beyond the use of knapping to produce flint tools.

But this is the exact narrative that the OP is questioning. That human knowledge and tech must advance from simple and primitive to complex and modern. A similar epistemics to material sciences and gradualism and reductionism. Each step explained within a certain paradigm.

Whereas I keep saying that knowledge and tech can be alternative to what the modern idea of knowledge and tech is. Outside the box so to speak. Like stone softening. I mentioned that ancients may have had knowledge of how nature works being more immersed in it because they were naturally more conscious of nature.

So the tech maybe something completely different to how we have progressed tech today.

The other point is that knowledge and tech may come and go. So 1,000s of years ago ancients were creating precision works and megaliths and then they disappeared fairly quickly. Along comes a new lot of people who find these works who themselves don't understand how the ancients made them.

So they inherit them while being less advanced themselves. They start again and develop theior own style and method. Each overlapping sometimes where different methods advanced and simple exist together sometimes. Or multiple methods from across time accumulated in one site.

Theres all sorts of possibilities for how knowledge comes and goes, peaks and declines or gets lost and rediscovered including new ways.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-11-06T01:49:11-0600

stevevw said:
But this is the exact narrative that the OP is questioning. That human knowledge and tech must advance from simple and primitive to complex and modern. A similar epistemics to material sciences and gradualism and reductionism. Each step explained within a certain paradigm.

Whereas I keep saying that knowledge and tech can be alternative to what the modern idea of knowledge and tech is. Outside the box so to speak. Like stone softening. I mentioned that ancients may have had knowledge of how nature works being more immersed in it because they were naturally more conscious of nature.

So the tech maybe something completely different to how we have progressed tech today.

The other point is that knowledge and tech may come and go. So 1,000s of years ago ancients were creating precision works and megaliths and then they disappeared fairly quickly. Along comes a new lot of people who find these works who themselves don't understand how the ancients made them. So they inherit them while being less advanced themselves.

Theres all sorts of possibilities for how knowledge comes and goes, peaks and declines or gets lost and rediscovered including new ways.

Then show us the tech itself then.

stevevw · 2025-11-06T02:05:35-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
So why can't we find any of it?

As I said, your assuming that it has to be like todays tech and devices. It would be rediculous to say that there was machines and computers like today everywhere. Yes we would definitely find it. We should have found something as its not small and the works are wide spread counting other signatures in blocks ect.

It may have been something similar to a modern machine but made of basic components of stone and copper. Or as some have said a copper cutter embossed with diamonds or some or very hard stone. Maybe aqua power. Most of the components will have been reused, melted down by later people.

Or it could be something completely outside the box like stone weakening or softening. Then hardly any tools or machines are needed. Am ordinary spatula or shovel can dig out or shape the stone. More about changing the material than needing powerful tools to cut such hard material. To me this makes the most sense.

The point is not to assume any particular tech or device was used and especially that it worked like modern tech. Their modern tech may have been in a completely different ball park. Something more natural perhaps and toying with the structures and makup of rocks themselves perhaps.

But I am not saying this is a fact. Only that we should not assume that over 100s of thousands of years and especially say in the last 12 to 14,000 years that knowledge and tech did not peak several times and was los. Then people began again. Some continue and others disappear. All sorts of alternative knowledge could have been around and lost.

THis is the exact testimony the peoples of the later cultures were saying. That their ancestors or people that came before them had advanced knowledge and it was lost. That they found their works and inherited them. Don't you believe them.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-06T02:45:45-0600

stevevw said:
But I am not saying this is a fact. Only that we should not assume that over 100s of thousands of years and especially say in the last 12 to 14,000 years that knowledge and tech did not peak several times and was los. Then people began again. Some continue and others disappear. All sorts of alternative knowledge could have been around and lost.

The near east have been inhabited in an unbroken chain over the last 10000 years, agriculture survived into the present in an unbroken chain over the last ~10000 years, why don't we have the technology here and now? Without actually having any evidence for it why should we posit that something exists/existed?

stevevw · 2025-11-06T03:03:37-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
The near east have been inhabited in an unbroken chain over the last 10000 years, agriculture survived into the present in an unbroken chain over the last ~10000 years, why don't we have the technology here and now? Without actually having any evidence for it why should we posit that something exists/existed?

Like I said if its some sort of alternative advanced knowledge that we don't know about to even understand and outside the box. There may be nothing to find.

For example like I said. If stone weakening or softening was involved then this may have been more about using nature rather than any human made lathes or machines.

What sort of tech would we find for stone softening or weakening. A magic spell or something lol. Its knowledge rather than tech I think. Indigenous knowledge does not rely on tech. It taps into nature and uses its tech.

The best way I can describe it is with crops as you mention. Or plants and the natural landscape ect. Ancients and Indigenous peoples understand the land. They have a spiritual connection. They understand how it works. So they can plant crops that are maximised and disease resistent through using natures own mechanisms.

Modern day tech has actually destroyed nature and despite all its tech really cannot do it as well as the ancients in regards to working with nature.

Now times that by many examples where a deep understanding maybe down to the molecular level the ancients were able to manipulate nature and its very structure. By the simple fact that they were completely immersed in nature on some transcedent level that gave them knowledge that is different to the material science worldview..

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-06T03:08:34-0600

stevevw said:
Like I said if its some sort of alternative advanced knowledge that we don't know about to even understand and outside the box. There may be nothing to find.

For example like I said. If stone weakening or softening was involved then this may have been more about using nature rather than any human made lathes or machines.

What sort of tech would we find for stone softening or weakening. A magic spell or something lol. Its knowledge rather than tech I think. Indigenous knowledge does not rely on tech. It taps into nature and uses its tech.

Perhaps the world was created last thursday whilst looking old and and us with memories and all. With no evidence to think so, why would I entertain the idea?

stevevw · 2025-11-06T03:43:28-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Perhaps the world was created last thursday whilst looking old and and us with memories and all. With no evidence to think so, why would I entertain the idea?

Yeah we could be fleas living on the back of an elephant lol. I have never said anything about magic or creationism. Believe it or not there is some rational.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-06T04:00:32-0600

stevevw said:
Yeah we could be fleas living on the back of an elephant lol. I have never said anything about magic or creationism. Believe it or not there is some rational.

You said magic spell in the post I quoted? Without any evidence for the use of any stone softening techniques, why should we presume that they even used it. That is what I'm wondering? Even if something is possible, that doesn't mean that is what actually happened.

I'm fine with people trying out out-of-the-box ideas, but until they have showed that those ideas could actually make whatever they think they were involved in it's just conjecture.

What is indigenous knowledge but a catch-all term for whatever tickles your fancy? The way you use it, it could be anything or nothing.

sjastro · 2025-11-06T04:17:57-0600

stevevw said:
"Horribly confused" lol. When people use such dramatic language I know they are more invested that the actual topic. I will have to go back and make a list of all the names you have used. Its getting quite long now.

The rest of the sentence which you conveniently omitted provided the context.
Not only are you confused but disingenuous by cherry picking.

stevevw said:
Yes for the predynastic vases. I said of the obelisk that not all were made by later dynasties like the 18th. We have evidence for this. I said that the earliest obelisks and columns are the best and all made of the granite and the later ones of softer stone like sandstone and less quality.

So now you are trying to spin doctor your way out by making up BS that the earliest obelisks were made out of granite and 18th dynasty obelisks were poor softer stone imitations.

Obelisk	Pharaoh	Dynasty	Period	Original Location	Current Location	Material	Status / Notes
Sun Temple Obelisk Remains	Userkaf	5th	Old Kingdom	Saqqara (Abusir Sun Temple)	Saqqara	Limestone core (granite cap lost)	Integrative proto-obelisk architecture
Sun Temple Obelisk Remains	Nyuserre	5th	Old Kingdom	Abu Ghurab Sun Temple	Abu Ghurab	Limestone w/ granite apex originally	Earliest clear Benben obelisk form
Obelisk Fragments (Pyramid Complex)	Teti	6th	Old Kingdom	Saqqara	Saqqara	Limestone (possible granite casing)	Fragmentary bases near entrance
Heliopolis Obelisk (Al-Masalla)	Senusret I	12th	Middle Kingdom	Heliopolis	Heliopolis	Aswan red granite	Only intact MK obelisk still at original site
North Karnak Obelisk	Thutmose I	18th	New Kingdom	Karnak	Karnak	Red granite	One of a pair; the other removed
Hatshepsut’s South Karnak Obelisk	Hatshepsut	18th	New Kingdom	Karnak	Karnak	Pink granite	Tallest surviving in Egypt (~29 m)
Fallen Karnak Obelisk	Hatshepsut	18th	New Kingdom	Karnak	Karnak	Pink granite	Broken where quarry flaws exist
Luxor Temple Obelisk (Remaining)	Ramesses II	19th	New Kingdom	Luxor Temple	Luxor Temple	Red granite	Pair sent to Paris
Abu Simbel Paired Solar Obelisks*	Ramesses II	19th	New Kingdom	Abu Simbel	Abu Simbel	Granite	Stela-obelisks flanking façade
Unfinished Obelisk	Hatshepsut?	18th	New Kingdom	Aswan Quarry	Aswan Quarry	Pink Aswan granite	Shows quarrying technique failures

Over a hundred years of archaeological diggings proves you as being dishonest as it was the earliest obelisks in the Old Kingdom were made of limestone, smaller and far less intricate than their 18th dynasty counterparts.
Given the evidence how do you explain the 18th dynasty Egyptian obelisks lacking the super technology of their Old Kingdom counterparts are made of harder stone and more intricate?

Once again it gets back to the obvious answer which you cannot accept the Egyptians did just fine with simple tooling.

stevevw said:
The OP video is about a giant flaw in the narrative of human history relating to advanced knowledge and tech. Examples can be given from any time. But the earliest advanced knowledge is the most out of place. Look at the 2,100-year-old Antikythera Mechanism. Is that not advanced tech for its age.

No I am not saying that the obelisks were made by dolerite pounders. If they were made the same way as the unfinished obelisk then the science shows they could not have been completely made of dolerite pounders in any dynasty.

As usual don’t let the facts get in the way, what was the purpose of hundreds of dolerite pounders found in a granite quarry for making obelisks?

stevevw said:
See how you inject unnecessary biases into what is suppose to be objective. You qualify a word, not any evidence or explanation. But a single word in a negative way to undermine its importance.

Call it what you like but its a descriptor about the marks on the object that identify the maker or method. Like a literal signature. Or you could call them 'witness marks' as the marks suggest a method or tool.

Are you seriously saying we cannot tell by the style, precision, material, and other markers anything about who made the works and when they were made in general. So we can tell say the old kingdom granite works from the new kingdom. Is there no markers we can use.

I find it amusing how you engage in psychoanalytical claptrap when you have no idea of the context.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you to comprehend, the signature for Old Kingdom obelisks using New Kingdom obelisks as the reference is they are clearly inferior in every respect.
Ironically the New Kingdom did have the benefit of superior technology, they used bronze tools which being harder than copper did not wear out as quickly increasing the efficiency rate of production.

stevevw said:
No one ever said that say a stone vase cannot be made by hand. Look at Olgas vases (though she cheated on one). But we see examples of hand made vases I linked that were pounded, chiselled and rubbed into existence. Many made by the bore stick and they look slightly warped as a result because the bore stick leaves that kind of signature.

The same with all tools. No one says there was not copper saws cutting soft and hard stone. Someone over 1,000s of years come along and tried that method and did not know of any other method. The same with the

Now try explaining why 18th dynasty obelisks are superior to their Old Kingdom counterparts without the use of hi tech.

stevevw said:
Lol thats all you have been doing. Telling me how rediculous and stupid I and the testers are and how I must wake up to myself and agree with you. Like I am in trouble or something because I was a naughty boys lol.

I didn't need the caption. I knew it was early and Neolithic. Once again you assume things.

Cherry picking as you have demonstrated in this thread is either deliberate or a sign of limited comprehension. Your response clearly indicated you did not take the caption into consideration.

stevevw said:
So your logic is because we find the vases and primitive knapped knives and tools together the same culture must have made them.

I am not fixed on the vases being made even earlier that the Naqada period. In fact we have evidence for such. I am saying that the mainstream narrative is that the vases were made by the Naqada people. I am saying if so they must have had some sort of lathing because the signatures match lathing. Yet they had no laths and not even the wheel. I said this 10 times or more.

But I never said that the Naqada people did not also knap flint tools. You seem to think that either two different methods could happen at the same time. Or that two different methods can be found in the same site from different times.

I actually said earlier that its strange that everything about the Naqada people is primitive and these precision vases look out of place to the level of tech they had for everything else they did.

It suggests that like Djoser who inherited these vases that the Naqada people may have also inherited them.

I think this is more a conspiracy than saying a lathe was involved. It blindly accepts without any evidence at all that a certain method was used. Simply because these were found at the same site.

If someone built a house over an earlier house and some coins were found. Would that mean the earlier house was made when the later coins were made because they happen to be in the site.

Here we have another example of your dishonesty or lack of basic comprehension skills, if the claim is now the granite vases predates the Naqada period then why have you posted this on numerous occasions in this thread?

"The metrology done by Maximus was also done on the Naqada vases and several fell in the precise class."

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels
Abstract
I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology. The remarkable precision of the stone vessels, which starkly contrasts with the capabilities of late Neolithic societies, suggests these artifacts originate from a previously unrecognized, technologically advanced culture capable of rotational accuracy rivaling modern tools.

stevevw said:
Actually I haven't. This is a strawman. How can I admit the obelisks were made by pounders when I just linked a paper saying they could not have been used to make the obelisks.

Once again explain.
(1) Why are 18th dynasty obelisks superior to Old Kingdom obelisks despite lacking the supposedly high technology of the Old Kingdom.
(2) Explain the presence of dolerite pounders at the Aswan granite quarry?

sjastro · 2025-11-06T04:47:09-0600

stevevw said:
But this is the exact narrative that the OP is questioning. That human knowledge and tech must advance from simple and primitive to complex and modern. A similar epistemics to material sciences and gradualism and reductionism. Each step explained within a certain paradigm.

Whereas I keep saying that knowledge and tech can be alternative to what the modern idea of knowledge and tech is. Outside the box so to speak. Like stone softening. I mentioned that ancients may have had knowledge of how nature works being more immersed in it because they were naturally more conscious of nature.

So the tech maybe something completely different to how we have progressed tech today.

The other point is that knowledge and tech may come and go. So 1,000s of years ago ancients were creating precision works and megaliths and then they disappeared fairly quickly. Along comes a new lot of people who find these works who themselves don't understand how the ancients made them.

So they inherit them while being less advanced themselves. They start again and develop theior own style and method. Each overlapping sometimes where different methods advanced and simple exist together sometimes. Or multiple methods from across time accumulated in one site.

Theres all sorts of possibilities for how knowledge comes and goes, peaks and declines or gets lost and rediscovered including new ways.

You just don't get do you?
Try to understand if a lathe was developed by some culture to produce granite vases there would be a considerable impact on their toolkit in the form of stone knives, spear tips, arrowheads, axe heads, flint tools etc. In this case the toolkit would change from a knapped process to a smoother and sharper toolkit.
If there is zero evidence of the knapped process changing, then it is the existing toolkit that produces the granite vase not a lathe.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-06T08:13:46-0600

stevevw said:
How many of the 20 vases should they give up. A rare opportunity to measure precision vases and you want to force the testers to lose precisous opportunity in measuring precise vases and replace them with crooked ones they already know are crooked and won't learn anything.

I'm not going to design their studies for them as I don't have the relevant information to do so, but the vase phrenologists are *not* designing proper studies. That you don't like that assessment is too bad, but that is your problem, not mine.

stevevw said:
Thats because your hyper skeptical on stuff like this which is more about a belief than actual objective data.

Its widely acknowledged these precision vases occupy a seperate class or category if you like from other vases. Whether thats simple their looks to the naked eye, the many tests done, or the many references to these vases as being special and the peak of Egyptian vase making.

The plots from the products of the vase-nuts make it unclear that these categories exist. This has been pointed out in posts to you for weeks. This is the whole problem with vase phrenology -- it is not rigorous. It is presented with the veneer of science, but it is just the Potemkin-village version. The sensitivity of your meter does not make ghost hunting into science.

stevevw said:
Do you think there was more than one method from making vases. Do you think at least some vases have been lathed and some not. Do you see any difference in the signations on the vases I linked in alabasta to the hard stone vases that may indicate method..

The alabaster vases are Old Kingdom and are not relevant to the pre-dynastic vase claims.

stevevw said:
And those pointing out the non rigorous work. Where is their tests and analysis and publication of their findings. Are you asking me to believe sources that have no formal work to back their claims. That would be bad epistemically.

I know one thing. Any reasonable and fair source would not be deriding those they are trying to prove wrong. Or be assuming they are wrong before any work has been to to support such. Just on that basis they are disqualified. The testers have conducted themselves much better.

Much of the objections are blown out of proportion. We are talking microns deviations in circularity and suddenly its not lathed. Thats why I cut to the chase and asked what is the threshold for lathed. Is there not good and bad lathing. How does a couple of microns suddenly make it not lathed.

I also pointed out that the Petrie museum vases had better circularity than an actual CNC replica vase that we definitely know was lathed. How is that not support for lathing.

You are under the mistaken impression that those hearing an iffy claim must disprove it rigorously. The burden of proof falls on those making it and you gang of misfit pseudoscience sources make very poor arguments. These unreliable narrators are the sources you use. There is little point in discussing their "results" until we talk about their "problems". Please read and reply to post #1004.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

I don't know I am not a physicist or geologist lol. It may be that particular granite is higher in radioactivity. That would be the sensible answer. It may be that this had something to do with the cutting method. That would not. I think they discovered high levels of Thorium-232 which has...

www.christianforums.com

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-11-06T11:18:01-0600

stevevw said:
As I said, your assuming that it has to be like todays tech and devices. It would be rediculous to say that there was machines and computers like today everywhere. Yes we would definitely find it. We should have found something as its not small and the works are wide spread counting other signatures in blocks ect.

It may have been something similar to a modern machine but made of basic components of stone and copper. Or as some have said a copper cutter embossed with diamonds or some or very hard stone. Maybe aqua power. Most of the components will have been reused, melted down by later people.

Or it could be something completely outside the box like stone weakening or softening. Then hardly any tools or machines are needed. Am ordinary spatula or shovel can dig out or shape the stone. More about changing the material than needing powerful tools to cut such hard material. To me this makes the most sense.

The point is not to assume any particular tech or device was used and especially that it worked like modern tech. Their modern tech may have been in a completely different ball park. Something more natural perhaps and toying with the structures and makup of rocks themselves perhaps.

But I am not saying this is a fact. Only that we should not assume that over 100s of thousands of years and especially say in the last 12 to 14,000 years that knowledge and tech did not peak several times and was los. Then people began again. Some continue and others disappear. All sorts of alternative knowledge could have been around and lost.

THis is the exact testimony the peoples of the later cultures were saying. That their ancestors or people that came before them had advanced knowledge and it was lost. That they found their works and inherited them. Don't you believe them.

An absolute load of bunk and bull.

I don't give a flying fig if the tech is the same as it looks now or if it looks totally different but functions the same way or looks totally different and functions a totally different way, the bottom line is that when you and others like you who claim that the ancients had advanced tech greater than anything we say they had, you present NOTHING of said tech existing. You always go with just saying "Oh, they created these things! That's evidence enough!", but when pushed by any skeptic to present evidence for the tech that created the so-called evidence, you suddenly go deaf, blind and dumb.

I don't give a care about groups who said that their ancestors had advanced knowledge and lost it, because it's just a 'just-so' story to explain something they couldn't explain back then. And it's such a brilliant example of hypocrisy from you, especially since you've shown that you ignore the traditional workmanship of others who actually know their craft and just go "But they couldn't do it!"

Why couldn't they do it? Simple: because your entire argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. You can't personally imagine how it could be done, therefore no-one knows how it could be done, so you have to use such extraordinary claims to fill in the gaps in your own knowledge and ignore what other more intelligent people, are telling you time and again.

Again: you want to make the claim that the ancients had advanced technology? Then present the evidence of the technology existing; either the technology itself or actual contemporary artistic depictions of said technology. Because the fact that the latter fails to exist is suspicious, but coupled with the fact that in over a century of exploration and discovery in Egypt and other places linked to so-called 'advanced ancient cultures', we have not found a single shred of actual advanced tech existing, it's pretty damning that your claims are bunk.

Graham Hancock must be someone you look up to, I bet.

stevevw · 2025-11-06T23:43:59-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
You said magic spell in the post I quoted?

Yes a one off joke to be ironic. To say I don't know what sort of knowledge they had which may seem magic or beyond what we would think ancients could do. But its all based on reasoning. About tapping into natures forces and not the supernatural.

Stopped_lurking said:
Without any evidence for the use of any stone softening techniques, why should we presume that they even used it. That is what I'm wondering? Even if something is possible, that doesn't mean that is what actually happened.

First the point was that there may be knowledge and tech that falls outside what we consider tech today that we may be overlooking. Second there is evidence for either stone softening or weakening. The first step is looking at the images and signatures as to what it looks like .

Scans have been done which show certain patterns in the so called pounding marks. As though the pounding is creating a pattern and art itself. Too much like a pattern to be random pounding down of granite. But also the time factor and something more than pounding was used.

As the patterns are so uniform it may be that the signatures are actually showing a uniform tool scooping or scraping out stone. Which implies the stone was either softened or weakened somehow. There are various hypothesis but also tests done have shown this can happen with natural chemistry and physics.

We also so similar stone softening or weakening around the world. Such as in Peru.

On the reddish, glittery mud the Inca used for perfecting their stone masonry

https://www.academia.edu/37497925/O...Current - Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

Stopped_lurking said:
I'm fine with people trying out out-of-the-box ideas, but until they have showed that those ideas could actually make whatever they think they were involved in it's just conjecture.

What is indigenous knowledge but a catch-all term for whatever tickles your fancy? The way you use it, it could be anything or nothing.

That seems a pretty broad and stereotypical label.

Its not so much what exactly is Indigneous knowledge but that there is Indigenous knowledge at all. That there is another way of seeing the world besides scientific materialism or naturalism and that people are open to such knowledge rather than dismiss it as "just another way to tickle your fancy".

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-07T00:42:40-0600

stevevw said:
Its not so much what exactly is Indigneous knowledge but that there is Indigenous knowledge at all. That there is another way of seeing the world besides scientific materialism or naturalism and that people are open to such knowledge rather than dismiss it as "just another way to tickle your fancy".

No one is rejecting indigenous knowledge of nature. But there is one poster who keeps talking about it and doesn't demonstrate that it has anything to do with the evidence he presents. Instead we get pages of "sources" from people who's ideology goes back through a popular crank author to a book written by a 19th century Minnesota congressman based on a mythical Greek city.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-07T00:43:41-0600

stevevw said:
As the patterns are so uniform it may be that the signatures are actually showing a uniform tool scooping or scraping out stone. Which implies the stone was either softened or weakened somehow.

Who published that study?

stevevw said:
There are various hypothesis but also tests done have shown this can happen with natural chemistry and physics.

Sure you can even melt rock, but have it been done in any of the place you propose? Where are the changes in the rock on would expect then?

stevevw said:
View attachment 372797 View attachment 372800

View attachment 372801 View attachment 372803

We also so similar stone softening or weakening around the world. Such as in Peru.

No, it seems that you think that it has been proved, where was is published then?

stevevw said:
On the reddish, glittery mud the Inca used for perfecting their stone masonry

Now I have read it, he speculates(!) that the exterior most part of the stones might have been exposed to acids that cause vitrification. There is no direct evidence presented in the article. He also highlights the need for follow-up studies. The vitrified layer was 10 µm thick.

stevevw said:
Notice in the first image the top of the block shows the imprint of the bottom of the block that sat on top. As though the stone was soft and as it settle it sank into the stone and also bulged then out like pillows.

No one was going around grinding back surfaces to perfectly fit what amounts to a jigsaw puzzel of cut outs. Lifting and removing massive stones back and forth 100s of times to shape them into paper thin joints.

View attachment 372798 View attachment 372799

But there are other proposals for how the molecular structure of hard stomne may be weakened. I am not a physicist so I don't understand this. But I get the principles involved in how certain chemical and physical elements can be altered by messing around with the natural physics and chemistry.

Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Currents.
Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Current - Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

Do we find the different fragmentation patterns caused by this, in any of the places you propose? This is now testable, if the results are positive then it's publishable even if they are negative it is probably publishable in a less impactful journal.

stevevw said:
That seems a pretty broad and stereotypical label.

Its not so much what exactly is Indigneous knowledge but that there is Indigenous knowledge at all.

If it exists, what is it then?

stevevw said:
That there is another way of seeing the world besides scientific materialism or naturalism and that people are open to such knowledge rather than dismiss it as "just another way to tickle your fancy".

Show it then. Give a observable example that influences reality, so we can evaluate it

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-11-07T01:19:25-0600

Hans Blaster said:
No one is rejecting indigenous knowledge of nature. But there is one poster who keeps talking about it and doesn't demonstrate that it has anything to do with the evidence he presents. Instead we get pages of "sources" from people who's ideology goes back through a popular crank author to a book written by a 19th century Minnesota congressman based on a mythical Greek city.

That's got to be a fallacy in there; appealing to indigenous myths to explain anything is fallacious logic.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-07T01:22:49-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
That's got to be a fallacy in there; appealing to indigenous myths to explain anything is fallacious logic.

There isn't even an indigenous myth buried in the posts. Just some non-specific reference to "indigenous knowledge" while accusing us of ignoring it because of our dogmatic naturalism. oy vey.

sjastro · 2025-11-07T01:36:09-0600

Here is an example of this rock softening technology.

On the other hand it could be Buzz Aldrin's footprint on the moon.

stevevw · 2025-11-07T07:49:10-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Who published that study?

Not sure what you mean. There are various studies or research. I linked a couple already. The one on the signatures of scoop marks around the unfinished obelisk is peer review in case your wondering. No that this matters.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

Stopped_lurking said:
Sure you can even melt rock, but have it been done in any of the place you propose? Where are the changes in the rock on would expect then?

There are signs in many places and they appear very similar to other signatures around the world.

This video best explains things

Scoop Marks on Unfinished Obelisk: What Tools were ...

Stopped_lurking said:
No, it seems that you think that it has been proved, where was is published then?

I gave you the papers.

Stopped_lurking said:
http://Now I have read it, he specu...studies. The vitrified layer was 10 µm thick.

How do you get the vitified layer. From heat yes. From the stones experience severe heat. Some metmorphesis in the stone. This is only one method proposed.

The Report was actually done as part of looking into why the Sacsayhuaman fortress was subsiding and deteriorating. They did a chemical analysis and found out how the stones were softened or made into a plasticine type material. Signatures are similar in Egypt.

A few early explorers like Percy Fawcett were told the story of the ancients softening sones with some plant or chemical reactions. Knowing which chemicals softened or weakened the stone.

PERU Sacsayhuaman
How can we explain the presence of “plasticine stone,”

https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/00-EXPORT/00-06-07-word-grammar/Notes/work/programs/c/projects/archaeology/sacsayhuaman/russians-report/russians-en.pdf

Once again forget about the technical analysis and look at the signatures with your naked eyes. The first image at Sacsayhuaman Fortress there are similar scoop and scape marks along the stones as though they were pliable. The second image clearly shows how the weight of the upper stone sank into the top of the lower stone face. Squeezing into joints. Thats why they are so tight in their joints that you can't fit a piece of paper into.

These look like the scoop marks at the unfinished obelisk. See the uniform square patterns. Usually either square (40 x 40cm) or around a 40cm wide longer scoop. But very uniform like a set tool repeated scoooping and leaving pointed ridges around it like a shovel into wet cement.

Stopped_lurking said:
Do we find the different fragmentation patterns caused by this, in any of the places you propose? This is now testable, if the results are positive then it's publishable even if they are negative it is probably publishable in a less impactful journal.

Yep they have been published.

Stopped_lurking said:
If it exists, what is it then?

Show it then. Give a observable example that influences reality, so we can evaluate it

Thats what I am trying to do. If ancients had some way of understanding and manipulating nature, physics, chemistry ect then this is another form of knowledge. Its different because though it may have similar aspects ie toying around with physics and chemistry. Basically todays science is doing the same thing.

Except this is not from a material science worldview but an experiential one. A conscious experience of nature and reality. L:iving within a different paradigm that is more conscious and experiential of nature being immersed in it. Under this paradigm deeper knowledge can be known rather than the outside looking in material science.

In otherwords the ancients became part of nature itself. Another component that existed within the realm rather than outside it. This gave a deeper understanding to the secrets of nature and how it worked.

That may have been simply because they lived with nature they experienced and see stuff that we westerners never experience and see which gives insights into how nature works and can be manipulated.

You say give examples. When I tell you that even today Indigneous and Native knowledge is being lost and was of this type and the ancients tell you this. THis is their testimony and the same attitude that dismiss it and caused it to be lost is still asking for more evidence because it does not fit the box you think it should.

This snake cutout looks as though its scooped out of the stone and the rock shows softened and even melted signatures.

Back to Egypt.

stevevw · 2025-11-07T07:50:02-0600

sjastro said:
Here is an example of this rock softening technology.

View attachment 372806

On the other hand it could be Buzz Aldrin's footprint on the moon.

Right idea just wrong substance lol. Look at the snake at Sacsayhuaman Fortress above. This is the proper way to do it.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Active Member

inquisitive

Active Member

inquisitive

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

I march with Sherman

Active Member

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

Newbie

inquisitive

Scoop Marks on Unfinished Obelisk: What Tools were ...​

inquisitive

Similar threads

Scoop Marks on Unfinished Obelisk: What Tools were ...