Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Barbelo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
Quote
The Saksaywaman construction material is
> evidently represented by the organogenic and
> fine-grained limestone with no organic residues
> and with a low amount of their fragments.
>
> ITAG experts suggest that the fine-grained
> limestone may be an artificial material produced
> with unknown technologies. This statement is
> presented in the official summary.
>
> On the other hand, the experts of Fersman
> Mineralogical Museum in Moscow, of the Geology
> Department of St-Petersburg State University and
> of the Department of Geology of Oil and Gas of the
> South Federal University have expressed their
> opinion during the private consultations that the
> mentioned fine-grained limestone is deemed to be a
> natural formation.
>
> Institute of Tectonics and Geophysics after
> Yu.A.Kosygin FEB RAS
> Performed by: Deputy Director, PhD Berdnikov N.V.
>
> Rostov University
> Performed by: department research expert Gorlova
> Yu.V.

>
>
>
>
> Have you watched Berdnikov and his associates discuss this issue?
> [www.youtube.com]
>
I am surprised you ask. Unfortunately a couple of times.
I guess you mean something like 'did I understand it?'
Well, I am glad I remembered a little about Debye Temperature but didn't understand the relevance significance of Rigid Body Physics (which I had to look up) until I got part of their full report stating "cryptocrystalline structure" .

(The version youtube allows to shown to us down under didn't have the/any bit where they discussed anything like Tofa or Travertine?) What did I miss?

> So, Berdnikov cannot explain how the Sacsayhuaman
> stones can possibly be in their present
> composition without the interference of some lost
> technology. Yet, three experts in the field state
> that these stones are natural.
>
> YOU don't need to be an expert in these matters.
> Even renowned experts disagree with the process of
> formation.

The experts were not prepared to supply written contribution to the official report, rather only private verbal comment.
It does not surprise me that Academic Geologists refuse to believe it could be anything but natural and would resist jeopardising their position and reputation by commenting anything like 'we don't know what it is or how it formed"
>
> Tufa isn't a widespread construction material.
> Because of its lightness, low density when wet and
> its ability to harden to stone upon drying makes
> it the low-hanging fruit of options. Much easier
> than quarrying, transporting, cutting and lifting
> sedimentary limestone. Even in England, at
> Canterbury Cathedral some may have been imported
> from France due to its scarcity.

This has been welcome valuable information and education (for me). It may explain many ancient structures. However the analysis of the samples does not point to or confirm any such in the case of Sacsayhuaman
>
> This tufa is different from most varieties found
> today as it borders on travertine and its
> dependent on the chemical quality of the water.
> But, that's not all.

I do not exclude the possibility that the stone is natural by some rare natural process.
However surely Academic Geologists and Geophysicists would immediately recognise and identify Travertine or Tufa?
>
>
Quote
From limestone, which became plastic, due
> to the application to it of an unknown technology
> by the ancient builders, which deliberately
> violated the crystal structure of the natural
> mineral with the goal of providing the building
> material with maximal density?

>
>
>
> Using that premise, they'll never figure it out.



They obviously need your help and suggestion. I reckon it would be worth shooting off an email and giving them some clues.
N Berdnikov:
Тел./Факс: (4212) 22-77-32

E-mail: nick@itig.as.khb.ru
At least you could get some more reliable knowledgeable feedback on the likelihood of it being Tufa?

>
> Think logically. If there was some unknown
> technology used, why did the ancients go to all
> the trouble of creating the irregular shapes? Why
> not just form up regular moulds and pour in the
> mix? What's the purpose of the walls?

The advantages of polygonal odd shaped walls has been discussed in vids posted in this thread.
Moulds is a burden and I do not believe necessary. "Pour the mix" implies a more viscous substance than what they are suggesting. (one doesn't "pour" plasticine)
>
> Look at the regular andesite blocks. Were they
> harder, or easier, to make? Pre or post the
> limestone wall blocks?

I do not understand the basis or support for this conjecture?
Mr I Alekseev of ITAG was contracted to investigate the collapsing walls by Ministry of Culture Peru.
It is only speculation, but possibly the Andesite blocks were put in there in previous restoration attempts?

>
> No one was "deliberately violating the crystal
> structure of the natural mineral with the goal of
> providing the building material with maximal
> density."
>
You seem to refuse to accept the scientific detailed analysis of the stone samples?


> Is that really possible for people of that time?
> Or even our time? Why bother? Why not just hack
> the sedimentary limestone out of the quarry, cut
> it into blocks and stack them up make a wall.
> Isn't that standard modus operandi at Giza?

It is a great idea if you can actually transport such. Even if your lightweight Tufa was involved ? Some of those big blocks would be difficult to move, even if like pumice and lighter than water. Which they are NOT, because the Electron microscopy of 10 separate samples shows densely packed fine crystal structure? (ie a very heavy stone)
>
> The ancients were simply using local, but not
> common, stone.

It is a wonderful, very creative and imaginative suggestion. You are to be congratulated!!!
However, unfortunately it's not backed up by any analysis or fact.
>
> "From limestone, which became plastic..."
>
> That's the false premise.

I agree, that speculation may be incorrect in regards Sacsayhuaman.

>
>
Quote
Yes we can all see the channels for water
> at Tombomachay, but it would take millennia, or a
> long time, to form and unlikely in that structural
> shape? ( Unless you think the original structures
> are extremely old)

>
>
>
> I'm not sure whether, or not, I have explained
> this clearly, but the walls at the Water Temple at
> Tombomchay are not something that were discovered
> as is. They were built using local stones which
> had formed into the irregular but close-fitting
> formations. Most of these stones were removed from
> their original position, trimmed and repositioned
> into walls.
>
> However, the central mass which runs down the hill
> was left in situ as a host for further creation of
> more living stones. Or, because it was deemed to
> be a sacred entity. Maybe the whole site is the
> reason for the Temple.

I at least understand what you are suggesting about this site.
I do not know as there is no scientific investigation facts.
BUT, Again very creative!
>
> Now, the wonderful research paper with images
> which you so kindly linked to, made the following
> observation:
>
>
Quote
The surface is covered with certain
> impurities, dust and current organics (Fig. 3);
> particles of copper were also found (Fig. 1,
> 2):

>
>
>
> Copper.
>
> Why copper?

Most ancient bronze age and iron age people had copper .
I do not understand completely what they are meaning by this focus or point?
>
> And, as far as the time it takes for formation
> doesn't really matter, it was used when it had
> formed sufficiently enough to be used for
> construction.

Fair enough. There must have been lots of it around in the old days. But somehow, its crystalline structure has completely changed now?
>
> Do I think that Sacsayhuaman is extremely old?
> Maybe - if those andesite blocks precede the
> limestone ones. But, below is an image of
> limestone construction from Malta. Does the one on
> the left look as though it was once soft to you?
> How old do you think that they might be? Older
> than Sacsayhuaman?
>
>

It might be (or have been)very soft? However, erosion on limestone exposed or near the salty sea breezes in such places as Malta are quite different (and far more destructive) compared to places like Cuzco (several hundred mile away and at great elevation.)
>
>
> As I said, at the beginning, there is a lot more
> to this site than has been adequately explained.
> But, my concept of what happened not just here,
> but everywhere this type of stonework exists,
> won't gel with mainstreamers or alternatives.

I pleaded ,goaded, taunted, to dig out your thinking and I am glad I did, most interesting.
However, given lack or any scientific evidence or support , I am afraid at this point - 'No cigar'.

Barbelo, over the years you have earned my respect for being an intelligent knowledgeable individual who has made some great contributions here.
I respect your right to hold private speculations on which you see no reason to investigate further. If that is your wish then you still have my respect and no ridicule at all is meant in this reply!
However, I recommend you contact a Geology department, or professional , to discuss your theories for your own gratification.

Apparently (Kon Khanyants - translation and voice over- in the video ) advised Penn State Uni had agreed to do an independent re-analysis of all the stone samples, so they might be worth contact?

Cheers

PS Call it paranoia, whatever, but if this is just a wind up, or 'takin' the piss' out of me, for starting a thread about scientific work by Davidovits then, as I know you can be a cheeky clever bugger! - IF so well done , if that IS the case!

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 1566 Corpuscles 21-Dec-19 17:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 210 Open mind 22-Dec-19 02:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 175 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 05:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 150 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 103 thinkitover 23-Dec-19 10:05
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 184 ocka 22-Dec-19 09:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 142 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 18:01
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 139 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiahuanaco architect named 103 molder 23-Dec-19 22:16
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 104 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:44
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 104 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:47
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 Hanslune 25-Dec-19 01:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 133 Thanos5150 25-Dec-19 02:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 98 Hanslune 27-Dec-19 23:09
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 92 Thanos5150 28-Dec-19 17:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 102 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 06:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 89 Merrell 29-Dec-19 14:38
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 20:31
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 87 Merrell 29-Dec-19 23:54
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 72 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:03
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 70 Merrell 01-Jan-20 10:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 65 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 80 Open mind 31-Dec-19 19:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 65 Merrell 31-Dec-19 23:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 75 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 66 Open mind 01-Jan-20 03:02
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 109 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 04:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 75 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 05:51
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 93 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 06:59
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 82 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 19:40
Basalt Pavers 77 Barbelo 01-Jan-20 21:33
Re: Basalt Pavers 75 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 23:01
Re: Basalt Pavers 68 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 03:36
Re: Basalt Pavers 82 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:42
Re: Basalt Pavers 70 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 06:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 02:17
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 94 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:03
Basalt Pillar 91 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 07:15
Re: Basalt Pillar 73 Open mind 02-Jan-20 15:43
Re: Basalt Pillar 86 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 19:06
Re: Basalt Pillar 77 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 99 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 18:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 96 Merrell 02-Jan-20 18:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 132 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 11:15
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 82 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 20:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 Merrell 03-Jan-20 21:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 80 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 23:23
Sacsayhuaman 86 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 02:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 85 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 03:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 83 Thanos5150 04-Jan-20 03:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 76 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 05:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 123 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 11:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 75 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 78 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 20:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 68 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:55
Re: Sacsayhuaman 68 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 21:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 71 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 23:40
Re: Sacsayhuaman 73 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:59
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Open mind 06-Jan-20 01:08
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 02:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 71 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 03:50
Re: Sacsayhuaman 67 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 04:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 78 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 05:10
Re: Sacsayhuaman 78 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:47
Re: Sacsayhuaman 83 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 16:53
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 19:06
The Limestone Puddle 63 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:27
Re: Sacsayhuaman 70 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 21:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 67 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 22:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 81 Thanos5150 07-Jan-20 17:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 61 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:48
Re: Sacsayhuaman 60 Open mind 06-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 70 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 21:30
Re: Sacsayhuaman 56 Open mind 07-Jan-20 20:43
Re: Sacsayhuaman 58 Open mind 06-Jan-20 13:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 67 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 11:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 65 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 10:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 68 seasmith 06-Jan-20 14:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 65 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 20:46
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Open mind 06-Jan-20 16:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 62 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Open mind 07-Jan-20 15:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 76 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:25
Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 61 Barbelo 07-Jan-20 23:51
Re: Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 75 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 01:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Open mind 08-Jan-20 00:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 65 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 00:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 01:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Open mind 08-Jan-20 02:06
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 03:20
Re: Sacsayhuaman 83 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 07:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 12:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Open mind 08-Jan-20 16:42
Re: Sacsayhuaman 62 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 18:24
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Open mind 08-Jan-20 20:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 61 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 21:44
LImestone vs Limestone 58 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 22:40
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 72 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 23:47
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 64 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 01:57
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 70 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 03:09
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 72 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 04:07
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 58 Open mind 09-Jan-20 16:06
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 58 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 20:49
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 57 Open mind 09-Jan-20 20:58
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 75 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 21:20
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 58 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:12
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 68 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 17:15
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 59 Open mind 09-Jan-20 15:25
Re:Sacsayhuaman 54 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 07:00
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 51 Open mind 10-Jan-20 13:15
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 78 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 14:34
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 51 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:47
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 60 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 59 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 52 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:00
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 78 Thanos5150 09-Jan-20 01:44
Tombomachay 71 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 06:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 66 Barbelo 10-Jan-20 07:30
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 113 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 11:41
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 74 Barbelo 11-Jan-20 05:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 68 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 01:24
Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 70 Barbelo 12-Jan-20 12:11
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 79 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 20:56
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 85 Open mind 13-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Open mind 08-Jan-20 23:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 62 Open mind 08-Jan-20 14:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 54 Merrell 08-Jan-20 17:57
On the fence... 65 Racho 08-Jan-20 04:51
Re: On the fence... 59 Open mind 08-Jan-20 15:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 78 Merrell 04-Jan-20 09:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 09:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 78 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 70 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 00:34
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 56 Open mind 05-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 70 Open mind 02-Jan-20 03:37
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 76 Merrell 01-Jan-20 14:10
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 69 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 110 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 97 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:30
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 91 Open mind 22-Dec-19 22:12
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 94 WVK 23-Dec-19 15:21
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 83 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 76 Open mind 23-Dec-19 23:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 102 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 22:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 97 seasmith 23-Dec-19 03:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 90 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 07:20
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 93 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 09:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 82 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 105 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 96 Hanslune 24-Dec-19 22:35
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 155 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 19:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 159 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 139 Enigcom 02-Jan-20 17:29


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.