The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,664
212,884
Kiroy said:
Even assuming it was known worldwide and they could create enough 'mud', I still have problems with the theory vs final product. That said, it's the best serious attempt at a reasonable explanation i've seen so far and i'd be perfectly fine having my problems with the theory argued away.
Click to expand...
its really too perfect, it melts the stone into precision fiiting shape AND leaves no residue it was ever there? i do believe there was something that was used to shape the stone, but this pyrite idea it ticks all the right boxes without even being tested to see if it does anything.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Kiroy

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,615
99,894
Chukzombi said:
its really too perfect, it melts the stone into precision fiiting shape AND leaves no residue it was ever there? i do believe there was something that was used to shape the stone, but this pyrite idea it ticks all the right boxes without even being tested to see if it does anything.
Click to expand...

honestly, it seems incredibly easy to test, which means the people who would want to test it likely already know intuitively it won't work
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,664
212,884
Kiroy said:
honestly, it seems incredibly easy to test, which means the people who would want to test it likely already know intuitively it won't work
Click to expand...
it probably works, but over a really long period of time and with a lot of pyrite goo.
 
MusicForFish

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
31,806
124,816
I just happen to have all the ingredients, save for the Mudd and the suggested mine acid. Easy enough to get the acid here in Oregon. But that mud mixture...not sure. Possibly able to recreate it, or find a contact to send me a bag or two.
I'm all for a garage experiment... curious as hell.
 
Kiroy

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,615
99,894
MusicForFish said:
I just happen to have all the ingredients, save for the Mudd and the suggested mine acid. Easy enough to get the acid here in Oregon. But that mud mixture...not sure. Possibly able to recreate it, or find a contact to send me a bag or two.
I'm all for a garage experiment... curious as hell.
Click to expand...

dl the paper he cites, you can order all the ingredients, they care cheap, which is why i'm skeptical. This theory is very easily tested.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
MusicForFish

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
31,806
124,816
Kiroy said:
dl the paper he cites, you can order all the ingredients, they care cheap, which is why i'm skeptical. This theory is very easily tested.
Click to expand...
This will either be a lot of fun, or a waste of the silver necklaces my ex threw at me.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sledge

Sledge

Trakanon Raider
923
2,007
Kiroy said:
It seems impossible to get the 'melting' to happen uhhh, at an equal rate across the surface area (pretty sure there is one word for this?), which is explained by some of the walls being perfectly connected on the front, but OP admitted that there are a lot of walls that are perfectly connected all the way through on all sides. I don't see that happening with a more volatile chemical process the way he says it happened
Click to expand...

The weight of the rock would help even things out that weren't melting/softening at the same exact rate. It would also explain how many of them aren't perfectly level, yet fit together tightly. Most of the walls were only made to look like that on the front side probably to use less of the mud/paste because it was harder to produce/mine in different areas. I'm sure their were kings that demanded his wall must look perfect all the way through or they had access to making more of the resource rich paste.

Thinking about it, it would probably be easier to make the wall connected the same way from front to back *if* you could get more of the paste. The more mortar you use while making a field stone wall, the easier it is to make. It uses a lot more mortar which would cost more, but definitely easier.

The way those stones fit together was always the main puzzler to me because they looked so incredible. But it seems they're zeroing in on how it was done.

Honestly, the moving of the stones has never really been a mystery to me. Manpower and time can explain that even though some disagree. Some guys say 'no one today has been able to duplicate it'. That's because no one today has actually tried the same way. Show me where someone today gathered up 5000 men to work for a year moving some large stones. Throwing out huge weight numbers doesn't mean too much without also mentioning how many men were working and a time frame. No one has ever tried duplicating that same thing today.....because there's no reason to with modern equipment and modern mortar.

T and T - Time and Testosterone: pretty much accomplished everything we see today.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Kiroy

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,615
99,894
Sledge said:
The weight of the rock would help even things out that weren't melting/softening at the same exact rate. It would also explain how many of them aren't perfectly level, yet fit together tightly. Most of the walls were only made to look like that on the front side probably to use less of the mud/paste because it was harder to produce/mine in different areas. I'm sure their were kings that demanded his wall must look perfect all the way through or they had access to making more of the resource rich paste.

Thinking about it, it would probably be easier to make the wall connected the same way from front to back *if* you could get more of the paste. The more mortar you use while making a field stone wall, the easier it is to make. It uses a lot more mortar which would cost more, but definitely easier.

The way those stones fit together was always the main puzzler to me because they looked so incredible. But it seems they're zeroing in on how it was done.

Honestly, the moving of the stones has never really been a mystery to me. Manpower and time can explain that even though some disagree. Some guys say 'no one today has been able to duplicate it'. That's because no one today has actually tried the same way. Show me where someone today gathered up 5000 men to work for a year moving some large stones. Throwing out huge weight numbers doesn't mean too much without also mentioning how many men were working and a time frame. No one has ever tried duplicating that same thing today.....because there's no reason to with modern equipment and modern mortar.

T and T - Time and Testosterone: pretty much accomplished everything we see today.
Click to expand...

ya could be, and the moving hasn't been too much of a problem for me either
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,430
2,213
That melted rock theory is really interesting. I would love to see someone try to duplicate it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
If they had figured out a way to chemically melt rock it would also help explain intricate sculptures while making them no less impressive.

And honestly been viewed as magic. You can make an entire priesthood with that one trick.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,664
212,884
iannis said:
If they had figured out a way to chemically melt rock it would also help explain intricate sculptures while making them no less impressive.

And honestly been viewed as magic. You can make an entire priesthood with that one trick.
Click to expand...
i was thinking about that too, but then it dawned on me, you cant melt something into a sharp corner or edge
look how sharp these are.
IMGP5125.JPG

if you tried to smush a bunch of marshmallows together, you wouldnt get that above image. those were clearly shaped and cut.
you sure as hell arent going to get any cut sculptures
aztecserpent.jpg
 
  • 1Truth!
Reactions: 1 user
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
It all depends on the exact methods being employed. You could get the wall picture with the sharp edges if those lines are the imprint of your scaffolding. The irregularities are odd, but that might be attributable to the material they were working with. Those protusions could be the remanants of handles that they used to move the unworked stone into place before they applied withcraft to it to make the worked wall. It doesn't have to be one or the other. They could have done rough construction with placing irregular stones, apply a stone melting technique and finish the work with what we would consider more obvious tools.

The irregulatities in the angles and sizing of stones are odd, not the straight edges along the borders. If you're casting stone like a primitive concrete, why don't you make all your angles right angles? Or at least relatively close to right angles. It would make the work easier. It implies some physical limitation of your materials or process. There's no meta pattern there to indicate an artistic aesthetic, which would be one good reason why you don't make all your angles right angles or all your stones the same size.

Wall building is a regimented process, so you can't really account for it with the personal difference among individual artisans. It's the irregularties that are odd, the regularities are explicable.

I don't know if any of that did happen i'm saying that's a basic principle construction really, it's not unreasonable to think of multi stage construction. It's how we build today. It's how they would have built back then. It's just how reality forces you to build things if you want to build them. You don't build a house by starting with painting the drywall.

The scultures are probably entirely chiselwork, but I mean for the really big projects like some of those indian temples which seem to date into far antiquity that are an artistic accomplishment equal to any christian cathedral. If they -didn't- have to rough chisel out the entire edifice that's a significant time saver. Doing it in one generation is just as impressive as having done it in many.
 
Last edited:
Sledge

Sledge

Trakanon Raider
923
2,007
We probably shouldn't use the word 'melting', but instead 'softening'. I don't think the idea was to take an odd shaped stone, coat it with melting paste, stick it in place and watch liquefied rock ooze out. The whole rock doesn't soften, just a thin outer layer. They likely used the paste on a couple sides of the stone before it was ever fitted into the wall. Let it soften a bit and get it shaped kind of close enough with hand tools. Then add more paste to the lower level and one side of the new rock like you'd do with mortar. As the edges softened up the rock would settle into it's final position simply due to gravity and the weight of the stone. As they said in the video, that's why heavier stones left bigger imprints on the row they sat on. I would also assume the thicker the layer of paste, the deeper it would soften the stone being worked on making it easier to remove bulges, etc.

You would still have the sharp clean edges, especially after they removed the squished out paste/mortar lines later like the video mentioned. That's why there's no visible residue of the paste. They also showed small rock 'plugs' that were softened and installed where there might have been gaps during the whole process. They improved the appearance of the wall by cleaning the joints after the paste did it's job. That's pretty much how they do mortar work today, minus the 'softening'. :D

They could have back filled as they went to hold it in place while it settled in, which explains why a lot of times the backs looked bad but not the fronts. If they were in a resource rich place, they could make more paste to work on all the surfaces for a nicer (and probably easier to build) wall.


There is one issue that could cause problems. They wouldn't be able to stop work in the *middle* of a layer with a perfect 90 degree angle because there would be no way to get 'molding' pressure from the next stone the following day. So whatever rock they stopped on would have to be at a slight angle like this: / or \ depending on the direction you're adding the next stone. That way the next stone would be applying pressure sideways to mold it into place. And if you look at the walls, you can see those angles all over the place to keep that pressure.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,664
212,884
Sledge said:
We probably shouldn't use the word 'melting', but instead 'softening'. I don't think the idea was to take an odd shaped stone, coat it with melting paste, stick it in place and watch liquefied rock ooze out. The whole rock doesn't soften, just a thin outer layer. They likely used the paste on a couple sides of the stone before it was ever fitted into the wall. Let it soften a bit and get it shaped kind of close enough with hand tools. Then add more paste to the lower level and one side of the new rock like you'd do with mortar. As the edges softened up the rock would settle into it's final position simply due to gravity and the weight of the stone. As they said in the video, that's why heavier stones left bigger imprints on the row they sat on. I would also assume the thicker the layer of paste, the deeper it would soften the stone being worked on making it easier to remove bulges, etc.

You would still have the sharp clean edges, especially after they removed the squished out paste/mortar lines later like the video mentioned. That's why there's no visible residue of the paste. They also showed small rock 'plugs' that were softened and installed where there might have been gaps during the whole process. They improved the appearance of the wall by cleaning the joints after the paste did it's job. That's pretty much how they do mortar work today, minus the 'softening'. :D

They could have back filled as they went to hold it in place while it settled in, which explains why a lot of times the backs looked bad but not the fronts. If they were in a resource rich place, they could make more paste to work on all the surfaces for a nicer (and probably easier to build) wall.


There is one issue that could cause problems. They wouldn't be able to stop work in the *middle* of a layer with a perfect 90 degree angle because there would be no way to get 'molding' pressure from the next stone the following day. So whatever rock they stopped on would have to be at a slight angle like this: / or \ depending on the direction you're adding the next stone. That way the next stone would be applying pressure sideways to mold it into place. And if you look at the walls, you can see those angles all over the place to keep that pressure.
Click to expand...
i think its possible for some, but probably not all. that above image, that large center stone can be nothing but fitted with precision. the ones around it are better candidates for "melting". if they can duplicate this process then it potentially solves a half of a puzzle piece. there are still several hurdles to be met. like confirming this was the actual method they used and practicality of it all. there are hundreds of thousands of these "melted" rocks all over Peru. if they're melting down precious metals for each stone. then holy fuck.
 
Last edited:
Sledge

Sledge

Trakanon Raider
923
2,007
The walls get built from bottom up and side to side, so that larger rock in the above photo wouldn't be any different than the smaller ones around it. Using the different sized stones helps to make a wall lock in better. Honestly, that's how natural field stone walls are made without any mortar.

Using precious metals to make the paste is likely why the process was stopped later. They said the builders/kings wanted the walls to have a certain look and back then it was likely looked at as a 'status' symbol to mark a well off community. "We're doing so good that our walls are smooth and locked together from front to back. Yours are only on the front side....plebs!".
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.