> You claim that the limestone wall blocks at
> Sacsayhuaman are Artificial.
> I claim that these stones are Natural.
> The onus is on the claimant to prove his claim.
> So, there you go.
> The floor is yours.
> Prove it.
The proof is there to be discovered . Specialist science is slowly progressing toward confirmation.
What level of proof:
Is there a crime scene for the guilt to be established, "beyond all and any reasonable doubt"?
Is it a civil matter? Where the balance of probability points to most likely (> 50%)
Or , is it when finally Orthodoxy accepts, via consensus & peer review, sufficiently that it becomes an accepted theory?
The object of the thread was to bring to the forums attention a lengthy but clear lecture by a world leading specialist explaining actual science done on Tiwanaku and Pumapanku sites . The megalithic red sandstone foundations, the various gates, and the intriguing H blocks have been thoroughly analysed tested and found to be artificial. This is by someone who has developed the science of geopolymer to the point where it is rapidly replacing older technology and finding huge number of practical applications.
I was unaware of the Russian teams analysis of Sacsayhuaman. I am grateful for that information. The verdict is unclear and Davidovits does not offer opinion on that site because he has not done the analysis specifically.
I think it will take an entire new generation of Industrial Chemists, Geologists, and Archaeologists in order for the proof to be established. (I will be long gone then)
This will be retarded because to borrow your Barbelo statement: " won't gel with mainstreamers or alternatives".
The tourist industry at ancient sites and controlling bodies relies on maintaining the wow 'mystery factor'
The mainstreamers have committed to a group think , exclusive position.
The alternatives don't want a solution because that thwarts opportunity for all sorts of bizarre woo speculation .
I have learnt a great deal from the exercise. Thankyou all.
(Barbelo, the Tufa concept I think likely does possibly explain many intriguing sites (lots of walls Greece Japan etc) might be made of cut and shaped stuff like that?)
Some might in future choose or be prompted to consider whether known ancient cultures had the ability to soften stone or manufacture it and apply that possibility to the hours of musing. Then wonder whether that the most likely explanation, and does it solve many of the logistics and tool technology issues associated with such.
(eg Qorikancha - Much easier to mould a 4 ft straight bore hole in plastic artificial stone, than bore it with a copper and sand tube)
I think I missed a reply to poster 'WDK' - I am grateful for the info, but still trying to digest the material. I might make some later comment on that - soon
Meantime, Thank you all.
No dogmatic proof yet! - but it will come one day, imho.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Jan-20 20:59 by Corpuscles.