Oldest Structure at Puma Punku- Bolivia

Discussion in 'History' started by brokenpower, Apr 20, 2009.

  1. eckersonian Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    lol. and thats exactly what i mean when i say we cant conceptualize anything else. we need spreadsheets and hard evidence. but i dont think they had access to a lot of computers or laboratories. the fact that we cant figure it out shows that they were at least as smart, if not smarter than us. and its insulting not only to the memory of all these ancient peoples, but to my intellegence as well, to say that these monoliths were created with stone age technology. the great pyramid was built in twenty years with thousands of slaves and a two mile ramp? sure. that show ancient aliens also said that if that was true it would mean they finished and placed a block every 19 seconds. thats assuming theres 2.5 million blocks. the lowest estimate i found was 590k. even at that number it works out to about 80 blocks a day. that means that for twenty years that ramp had a constant caterpillar of blocks day and night. im sorry, i dont buy it. they had to have a much more efficient system. all this modern arrogance has gotten us to the point we're at today. effed. and we cant even build a pyramid

    also, that means every block travelled the two miles up the ramp in 18 minutes. 6.66 mph. you walk at three miles an hour. and the egyptian government and egyptologists wont allow soundings anymore and severely restrict access to the best of my knowledge. theyre still trying to figure out the technology and the point of the technology for themselves. we have such a rich history and heritage as a species and it gets downplayed constantly by all the clever "scientists". its a missed opportunity to learn, its detrimental to the enlightenment of the human race(which is a fantasy anyway) and its complete egotistical and small-minded bs. but the worlds full of that nowadays
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    The stylistic differences are expected. They were a culture all to their own. The degree of architecture, however, is very much consistent with other monumental architecture occurring in other cultures at stages of technology analogous to that of Tiwanaku.

    Really? They're deteriorating more and more each day. Cultural heritage sites the world over are as at risk to acid rain and anthropogenic wear as modern buildings. The natural preservation at Tiwanaku is likely due to its consistent climate and altitude which isn't conducive to the acid rains found at sites in more inconsistent climates and near metropolitan areas like Cairo or Athens.

    Sure it can. It's just chemistry, which is the basis for nutritional science. People just aren't interested in what's good for us.

    Approximately 160,000 to 200,000 years depending on the extent to which you consider human "form" to be human.

    And that's a problem because...? If anything, this is evidence of the strength of science. The fact that there are researchers dissatisfied with the status quo and willing to revise their assumptions says volumes about the ability of science to explain the universe. Surely you aren't suggesting something so daft as the notion that science should have "all the answers" or its not worth paying attention to?

    You haven't shown this to be the case nor have you explained why it would be meaningful assuming it were. The ability to admit when you're wrong and revise a conclusion is a strength and an advantage of science.

    To daftly claim to have a theory without establishing tested hypotheses whilst ignoring the tested hypotheses of actual theory is utter bunk. I will gladly revise my assumptions and understanding about the nature of any archaeological site, including Tiwanaku in Bolivia. But not without evidence and good reason. Simply wishing a mystery to be significant isn't good enough. The site is well-dated. The levels of occupation are well known. The cultures that lived there are clearly defined in the archaeological record. And the methods hypothesized to have been utilized to construct the temple have been born out through experimentation. The parsimonious explanation is smacking you in the face. Accepting alternative (speculative -not theoretical) explanations requires too many new assumptions that simply aren't supported in the archaeological record.

    8.

    It wasn't difficult for them. Indeed, given the resources they had, it would be more significant if they hadn't devised a relatively accurate calendar.

    You're kidding, right? What sort of new age nonsense are you going on about? What are you suggesting was used? Why wouldn't they use the simplest, most efficient tools available? Are you that desperate for a mystery that you simply insert nonsense in your assumptions? What a sad state it must be for significance junkies that are incapable of seeing the wonder and awe already present in scientific discovery that they must insist on poppycock.

    Just because you don't have any concept of how they lived doesn't mean that those researching the region do not. Please don't project your own ignorance on others. Pick up a book. A real book.

    ,

    Meh. That's complete bullshit. In fact, I had this same discussion with a nut that believed aliens built the Great Pyramid. He, too, claimed that the stones couldn't have been cut with "simple tools."

    Other significance-junkies and mystery-mongers have made the same or similar assertions about a half dozen other sites of monumental architecture.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    You're ignoring the fact that it has been figured out and demonstrated via experimental archaeology. The blocks were cut with tools present for the culture; transported by means present to the culture; moved by means present to the culture.

    The only insult to your intelligence here is you. No one has suggested that the Tiwanaku culture was lacking in intelligence or ingenuity. Indeed, that they sorted out the methods described above, probably through a lot of trial and error, speaks a lot about their intelligence. In addition, that the pyramids of Egypt were constructed by slave labor is a myth -evidence in the material record shows that they were willing and paid workers who lived in towns near the construction site. The "two mile ramp" appears to be another fabrication and I know of no one who advocates such a thing.

    Well... you got it from a show about aliens. This must all be true then (hint, you're insulting your intelligence again).

    This sentence is nonsensical.

    More likely this rich history and heritage is constantly insulted by mystery-mongers and significance-junkies that watch alien shows rather than obtain actual educations -then they lament about "clever 'scientists'" without a shred of qualification.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. eckersonian Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    Really? They're deteriorating more and more each day. Cultural heritage sites the world over are as at risk to acid rain and anthropogenic wear as modern buildings. The natural preservation at Tiwanaku is likely due to its consistent climate and altitude which isn't conducive to the acid rains found at sites in more inconsistent climates and near metropolitan areas like Cairo or Athens.

    and when exactly do you propose the pyramid will waste away to nothing?




    Approximately 160,000 to 200,000 years depending on the extent to which you consider human "form" to be human.

    and that figure was 4 times less 20 or 30 years ago. they didnt figure that out until they found the footprints of the man and extinct species side by side in the fossilized riverbed.




    You haven't shown this to be the case nor have you explained why it would be meaningful assuming it were. The ability to admit when you're wrong and revise a conclusion is a strength and an advantage of science.

    i just showed it to be the case. please see above and below. its meaningful because of the arrogance of the scientific community. see below where you call the guy a nut



    8.

    it was nine or ten not too long ago






    Meh. That's complete bullshit. In fact, I had this same discussion with a nut that believed aliens built the Great Pyramid. He, too, claimed that the stones couldn't have been cut with "simple tools."

    why do you need to call the guy a nut? thats what people do when they feel threatened. this is what im talking about. and im not trying to pick a fight. but is he a nut just because his theory is different from the accepted one? his theory may not have the hard scientific evidence that people like, but that doesnt mean its wrong or crazy. thats why i brought up the point about science being wrong sometimes. evidence or the lack thereof in itself doesnt mean anything. like the way we can only date human life back to the point where we have hard evidence of human life on earth. that doesnt mean we havent been here much longer, as is currently being shown. its just the mentality the scientific community has of being almost like an ancient priesthood where only they can possess the truth. and im not saying that youre like that skinwalker, i dont know you from adam. its just how it seems to an outsider. its great that we can constantly reevaluate our view of the universe and our place in it. it just seems to me sometimes that we become too comfortable in our ideas and that makes us unwilling to explore new possibilities.

    p.s. im not championing ancient alien contractors. i have no idea how any of them did any of that stuff. the accepted theories just dont ring true to me in a lot of cases.

    p.p.s. this is my first time trying to quote. i hope its not a jumbled mess
     
  8. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    What riverbed and what footprints are you referring to?

    You didn't show anything. And the guy was a nut. Of his own admittance if I recall. But please: recap what you showed to be the case.

    You're kidding right? 9 or 10? Are you sure it wasn't 11 or 7? Not too long ago?

    It was considered to be 9 until very recently. New discoveries of planetoids in the Kuiper Belt necessitated that we review how we classify a planet as a "planet" and what characteristics define it. Pluto didn't suddenly cease to exist, it just isn't considered the smallest "planet" anymore -now its the larges of "dwarf planets" -king of the Kuiper Belt.

    But you still haven't shown why a revision of scientific understanding; why the provisional nature of science is a bad thing. If anything, this is a characteristic of science that is precisely what you are criticizing science for not being. You really aren't making a lot of sense and it may be worth your time to collect your thoughts. I'd recommend a couple of books for you: A Demon-Haunted World (Carl Sagan) and Death by Black Hole (Neil Tyson).

    He was a nut. But not a very threatening one, given that he was armed only with a limited intellect and a keyboard hooked to the internet.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "currently being shown" and it would depend upon what you mean by "much longer."

    Read. There are some good books out there that will capture your imagination and satisfy your curiosity without having to resort to third-rate television programs on channels that proclaim to be about "history." (not that I know what you watch, when or how often). You're clearly interested in these topics and have a curiosity about them.

    The books I mentioned above aren't about this specifically, but they do give a good understanding about how science is done. So, even if you want to criticize science (and science needs and deserves its critics), reading them would benefit you in understanding precisely what to critique.

    It was, but no worries!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The easy way is to highlight the text with your mouse then click the little quote icon along the top row in the edit window.
     
  9. eckersonian Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    look man, i never should have posted anything at all. and thank you for taking it down a notch or two. your tone can be pretty insulting, which is unneccessary. you still havent convinced me that you know any more than anyone else, just that you can be more condescending. dont insult me by telling me i need to read. you dont know me from adam either. you may have some good book learning when it comes to your particular field, but from the way you talk to people its obvious how little you know about human interaction. ill take that over dusty old ruins any day. its real easy to pick other people apart. but i didnt read a single original thought from you. you just regurgitate. youre a toolbag, skinwalker, and you wont see me again.

    but i will hang around to see if you delete this. i dont know the rules, but i saw one in a post about no personal attacks. im sure calling you a toolbag qualifies, but you definitely took a few unwarranted shots at me, too
     
  10. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    I think I can handle toolbag. And I was passionate and probably condescending. But I'm serious about the two books I suggested. Not only do I think they'll give you a helpful perspective, but I also think you'll enjoy them. The authors write to the lay-person but still give good information. And neither are in the field of archaeology.
     
  11. eckersonian Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    alright, i appreciate it man. and sorry about the toolbag. i dont like to call people names. but i probably wont post again anyway. i get pretty passionate too, and ive seen a lot of topics on here id like to go to town on. the older i get, the more i try to just keep my mouth shut, but i obviously falter sometimes. lol. take it easy man
     
  12. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    The point is not to say that the site might not have been built in some way that we have not yet figured out. There is no way to absolutely disprove that it was built using advanced technology, as you suggest. That said, there is no way to absolutely disprove that it was built by magic either.

    What needs to be done, especially since this is an informal discussion, is that we have to first try to find the simplest explanation that fits the facts we can objectively show. Right now the simplest explanation for the site is that they used technology that we would judge as "simple" to construct the site. "Simple" does not mean ineffective and it certainly does not mean that their work was in any sense crude.

    Amazing things can be done with leverage and ingenuity. Look what this man can move, largely by himself:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

    If you want to assert and convince people that advanced technology was used, that is an extraordinary claim. It should be backed by some kind of proof, but really you have only a hint. In fact "advanced technology" is kind of a "black box" because there is no real proposal for what type of technology, how it worked, hoe it was developed, where it went and why it left no archeological evidence apart from the site itself. In other words, it seems to me that it's not even a very specific claim about the site. It just seems that you do not believe the current speculations of the archeologists (which is fine) and your mind makes the logical leap from that doubt to a belief in some now lost technological advance made by the site builders.

    Personally, I'd be very excited if you could offer the sort of extraordinary evidence that can back up your belief, but in the absence of that evidence, I am not sure why we should back your side over the more conventional theory.
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    This is Hockum (I don't recall seeing anyone comment on this aspect of it).

    Diorite is the inrusive form of Andesite (hence it occuring in the Andes).
    Diorite is composed primarily of Feldspar, and can be expected to have a hardness comparable to that of Andesite (because it's just Andesite that's cooled slowly, instead of quickly).
    Diorite can therefore be expected to have a hardness of 6-6.5 on Mohs' hardness scale(I'll have a breeze through my geology texts when I get home to see if I can't find anything more accurate, if I have time).

    This means that Lapidary techniques will work, as long as you use, for example, Quartz, or corundum tools.

    Diorite's hardness is comparable to that of Nephritic Jade which the Chinese have been working for millenia.
     
  14. eckersonian Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    i tried to stay away. lol. and pandaemoni, those are very good points. and i guess my skepticism comes mainly from what ive heard from mainstream sources all my life about how the great pyramid was built. and yes, im talking grade school teachers and tv shows. i dont have a scientific background at all; i dont know what the current theories are. all ive read is 5/5/2000. and obviously the world didnt end so skinwalker would probably call the guy a nut

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    P) but the authors theories about how the pyramids were built do intrigue me. and he got a patent for his vacuum water pump so there must be some practical science behind it at least. at least hes thinking outside the box. i dont usually read books like that either. i hardly ever pick up nonfiction. reality is subjective in large part and i feel like i can learn a lot about the world from other peoples perspectives. fiction really allows you to crawl around in someone elses head. but thats a tangent.

    i think, to laypeople and fringe researchers, i guess you could call them, puma punku is so intriguing because of the stylistic differences. and skinwalker agreed there. in my limited observation, i havent seen anything like the interlocking blocks with straight grooves and equidistant holes. theyre like prehistoric legos. right? is there anything else stylistically similar? and do we agree that its older than the other monolithic panamerican sites? someone mentioned it was inhabited at a later date, but that doesnt neccessarily have anything to do with its construction. so if those two postulates are true, that its older and different from anything else, then it does make it special. regardless of how it was constructed, why was it made that way and why dont we see comparable structures anywhere else? i believe its currently accepted that cultures all over the world independently built pyramids. but theres only one puma punku. i know im just shooting from the hip here, but it makes sense to me that the site doesnt make a lot of sense in the context of ancient architecture. ideas?
     
  15. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
  16. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    It looks like the whole http://penn.museum/ server is down. Perhaps it'll be back up soon.
     
  17. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    :bugeye: so what? you ARE saying it was ancient astronauts?
     
  18. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    I think you missed that point of eckersonian's post's. we couldn't recreate their techniques even if we tried see? that's the whole point, it's a mystery, they knew something we don't!
     
  19. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    :roflmao:

    Give me a fire hardened steel chisel, pick, and hammer? Yeah, it could be done. With just another stone? No, not the precision in those carvings.
    I'm an artist, I've carved stone before. YOU have obviously NEVER carved stone. You want me to believe that these people carved this hardness of stone with other stone? I looked at the precision of the carvings, I'm calling you out right here and now, BULLSHIT. It isn't happening, not in a year, not in ten, not in a lifetime. Go pick up some some quartz and carve your-self some precision granite.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2009
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    :Yawn:

    Do some research into traditional lapidary and try again.
    The only thing required to carve something is something harder, and some patience.

    You can call me out all you want, the simple fact of the mater is that you're wrong.

    Besides which, we're talking about Diorite, not granite - learns ome geology while you're at it.

    Also, where did I say that you'd be using lumps of quartz, as seems to be implied by your post?

    I didn't.

    Sand paper is a quartz or corundum based tool.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,444
    I didn't miss that point, I just thought it was silly. That is nothing eckersonian - or anyone else really - could possibly state with reason.

    As I pointed out, "we" haven't put much effort into any such project. The dozens and dozens of similar "mysteries" that we have put effort into have been eventually explained somewhat, or not yet, depending on evidence and ingenuity. We know how boomerangs fly, now. We have several good ideas about how Stonehenge might have been built, how the great heads on Easter Island were set up, where corn came from, and so forth.

    Meanwhile, the same people who couldn't figure out how anyone merely human could possibly have been making crop circles, are now claiming there is some kind of significance in the fact that they can't figure out how some obviously skilled stonemasons made some grooves in hard stone.

    Please.
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Besides which, you're either completely ignoring, or completely ignorant of the fact that it's possible to use a material of the same hardness to carve a groove.

    It's possible, with a piece of wood, and a small piece of diorite, and some elbow grease to cut a straight groove.

    All that's really required to make that sort of a groove is some wood, to provide a straight groove, and to limit the depth of that groove, some rocks, to ensure that the pressure applied on the tool point is even, some small chips of diorite or quartz, and some form of rope to lash it all together with.

    Done like that, you could probably acheive a comparable groove with 2-3 days work.

    This groove
    http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/quartz-3_500_dpi_groove.jpg
    Was made using this tool
    http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/quartz-2_500_dpi_quartz_scriber.jpg

    And took about an hour to make, and is 1mm wide and .3-.5mm deep. The tool itself is simply a piece of quartz held in a toothpick, and the author estimates that he gould make a 1cm deep incision in quartz, using quartz, in about a day.
     
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    /sciforums response

    Well, isn't it at least nice that Poseidon did apologize? Can't you at least admit that?

    You pro-pirate people piss me off.

    /sciforums response
     

Share This Page