Not attempting to convince anyone. I am convinced as you may see more reason in a follow up post later.
Open mind Wrote:
> I've seen this before. It was interesting. While
> not a real fan of the geopolymers idea, I can
> accept this as a solid first step towards this
> With respect to the sandstone samples, it was
> interesting to see that spike in sodium in the
> monument sample as compared with all the other
> source location material. That's certainly a cool
> discovery. It was far more convincing having a
> direct comparison with all the source location
> candidate material samples. Unfortunate they
> couldn't do the same with the Andesite samples.
> Definately would be cool to read a follow up from
> the Peruvian scientists if they ever get
> cooperation about those source sites.
The Andesite signature's were the guano and acid signature from organic material.
The lack of cooperation refers to 1970 . There is now access as his team went to both with a Peruvian Geologist.
> But at the end when he held up those pucks of
> stone material he said they made in their lab with
> those recipes they derived, it was odd he didn't
> say anything about the hardness they got. I have
> to assume it wasn't anywhere near comparable. If
> not, then I didn't see the point of that part.
Modern 'fake' geopolymer stone achieves similar hardness.
However I do think it is shame they did not take the source material and reconstruct from that.
> But as for the Andesite "H's", while they do have
> that crisp edging and smooth surface which does
> make one think geopolymers, what it didn't have to
> really land that presumption was the similarity
> sufficient to demonstrate that they were made with
> the same mold, OR, another mold built as close as
> possible in measurements. They're all unique from
> what I recall in past discussions or stuff I've
> watched, and from what I can see on the various
> videos I think.
Point taken, however obviously many blocks are missing or broken so no real way of matching exact replicas and perhaps modifying mould slightly was to increase the illusion of stone cutting?
> This means they had to make different molds for
> each one and if they were at last attempting to
> duplicate those shapes, which it appears they
> were, then when making the molds, you might expect
> each piece they made, to have been duplicated at
> that time as the same size, since they were making
> multiples. But the final shapes don't
> substantiate that.
> Also, as the shapes all have pretty good 90 degree
> angles, it demonstrates that they didn't build in
> relief angles to make mold release easier, and
> that means the molds were extremely complex as
> multiple parts that had to be disassembled to be
> removed from the sculpture after it had hardened.
> So that implies extremely complex molds with many
> parts, and this situation means it would be highly
> advantageous to make all those many complex mold
> pieces at the same time and the same size to
> simplify that process but as all the sculptures
> are different enough, it means they did these
> shapes in the most time consuming and inefficient
> way, one at a time, over and over again. To me it
> at the very least is a strong distraction away
> from a slam dunk on the geopolymer theory, at
> least when considering all those similar "H"
> shapes of Andesite.
Points taken, however obviously many blocks are missing or broken so no real way of matching exact replicas and perhaps modifying mould slightly was to increase the illusion of stone cutting? Some of the decorative inserts are very similar.
I think the project was bespoke not a commercial enterprise focused on mass manufacture for efficient profit and large scale production.
> And as I've brought this up many times before, if
> there was an ancient period of geopolymer casting
> in molds, it stretches credulity to consider that
> there isn't at least ONE spot where you can see
> exact duplicates of sculptural elements
> demonstrating that advantage they had. When, as a
> civilization, you figure out casting in molds, the
> very first thing you think about is the advantage
> of duplicating multiples of something. If that's
> NOT evidence against the previous existence of
> geopolymers, its certainly evidence of the most
> confounding coincidence of all time that
> absolutely none of the examples of page one of the
> mold casting period have all been lost.
> For some reason when humanity developed 'bricks'
> made orders of magnitude softer and more brittle
> than this hypothetical geopolymer andesite, bricks
> as a building shape really took off. Someone
> really missed the forest for the trees if it was
> in fact something as hard as andesite was
> manufactured from a wet slurry and hardend. This
> is my biggest challenge.
I enjoyed the fact that the unanswered questions in particular the exact method of acidic dissolution was not specifically mentioned however Davidovits reckons the source material for the 'concrete' was volcanic tuff not hard stone (or as you will se later likely a combination?).
Like Pompeii which was ash from pyroclastic flow , that has now (LATER) hardened to appear as if solid rock.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Dec-19 21:34 by Corpuscles.