> Good on you for having a go.
> Yes. The quarried limestone has evidence of
> skeletal remains, most probably of marine origin,
> indicating that this bed of limestone was formed
> under the sea and uplifted to its present
> However, the wall block limestone exhibits no such
> qualities and, is in fact, a different limestone
> altogether as proven by the Russian scientists. As
> already stated, it contains no material which is
> most often found in sedimentary limestone but is
> microcrystalline in nature.
> Now, leaving magic and reconstitution by some
> long, lost ancient technology aside, how could
> this situation have arisen?
> Below is an image of the Water Temple at
> Sacsayhuaman. The blocks at this site are not
> megalithic but are in the same configuration as
> those of the Walls. Like little children who
> haven't grown up yet.
> Drinks, anyone?
> BTW. Best to leave Davidovits for another thread.
> Different template.
I refer to a post or content of posted by Barbelo (sheesh it is hard not to think of you as Loveritas!)
(Lee can't either it seems?)
An ATS thread I barely ever go there unless I need a laugh. But this one (OP video) IS interesting with different opinion . I think there must be a longer version somewhere?
The acidic destruction (if, for some reason required) can cause the lack of distinct micro marine shell shapes.
Barbelo, the whole thread was based on Davidovits ????
When are you starting this "other thread"????
It is not smart to be so obtuse and cryptic such that no poster can understand you. Me (many others) have had many years of practice at guessing what you mean!? Others do not.
Spit it out! Clearly PLEASE
Note the only andesite is in the renovated back fill. The structure is essentially reconstituted limestone, so no igneous component, derr…. despite dipstick comments in the thread.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08-Jan-20 07:20 by Corpuscles.