> My primary concern is more about igneous rock and
> not so much about sedimentary. As I recall, those
> “marshmallow” bulbous blocks are igneous
> (granite, gneiss, andesite, etc.), not limestone.
> Likewise, we don't see "bosses" on sedimentary
> rock. It's almost exclusively limited to igneous
> It’s not at all clear how those early
> civilizations (Egypt, Peru, etc.) would have been
> able to work natural igneous stone, and so
> this opens the possibility that such work may be
> significantly older than we think and/or that the
> builders had a method that we still are unaware of
Exploring the possibilities.
Is igneous stone more responsive to molecular agitation than none igneous?
> > However, lets presume there is some ancient
> > technology that allows us to liquefy stone so
> > it might be formed into shapes for artistic or
> > structural purposes. At present, to imagine
> > with our present material science limitations,
> > can only see that being possible by the use of
> > extreme heat. So lets say we consider this
> > hypothetical technology generated extreme heat,
> > enough to effectively melt stone. If so, then
> > what ever the mold material was that was used
> > form the shapes we see today, had an extremely
> > high melting point. Much higher than granite.
> > Also, we can presume that a higher melting
> > implies a much harder material, (see link
The direct application of an external extreme heat source through thermal conduction would certainly achieve the required melting point.
There's also induction to consider, either through induced magnetic or electro magnetic molecular agitation where no direct heat source is applied. In other words the heating is not due to direct contact thermal conduction.
> > So its safe to say if melting stone was
> > to form it through extreme heat, then what ever
> > material they used for the molds would easily
> > survive today as its hardness would greatly
> > granite and therefore be virtually
> > Then of course this scenario begs the question
> > how they made those molds, but that's an
> > unnecessary digression.
> As I recall, natural volcanic granite can contain
> about 2%-4% water, or more. But when you melt
> granite with extreme heat at normal atmosphereic
> pressure, the water vaporizes out of the slurry so
> that when it cools and hardens, it has less water
> than before it was melted, typically less than 2%.
> So it should be easy to determine if any granite
> blocks were the result of softening with extreme
> > So, lets now consider a larger leap and presume
> > they had some magical technology that could
> > stone to liquid, but without that limiting
> > effect of extreme heat. Lets presume it could
> > done with totally manageable temperatures
> > mold material to be fairly simple stuff that
> > man could easily work with like wood.
> We heat water to boil it, but it’s not really
> the heat that boils it. Rather, the heat simply
> lowers the air pressure above the water which
> causes the water to evaporate violently. But you
> can boil water at room temperature simply by
> putting it in a vacuum to remove the pressure.
> Same principle when divers contract the bends when
> they surface too quickly. You also can boil water
> by running tuned microwaves through it at room
Boiling be the process of induced and increased rate of evaporation due to reduced atmospheric pressure.
Boiling itself not being heat.
Water will boil in a vacuum at any temperature without the application of heat.
> Nothing magical about any of that, unless you
> don’t know about vacuums, freeze drying or
Or a lens to induce focused electromagnetic radiation into a body.
> > What I've suggested many times about the
> > possibility of liquid mold able stone is that
> > technology would allow them to create far more
> > elaborate shapes. Imagining and creating the
> > shapes was never the hard part for early man.
> > visualizing and the artisan skill of sculpture
> > inherent as an ability in the modern human
> > Its not an advanced form of intelligence that
> > we've only recently developed. Its simply a
> > that's been there since the beginning. So if
> > some how figured out how to liquefy stone at a
> > manageable temperature allowing us to make
> > to form it, we'd see countless sculptural and
> > architectural designs that vastly exceed what
> > remains today. It would be almost
> > considering we're talking about granite
> > So the absence of those findings tells me that
> > highly unlikely they were ever able to make
> > for stone.
Unless the objective was to reduce stone to a sufficiently plastic condition which would allow shaping and forming through plastic deformation. As opposed to molding.
> Excellent point, but it does make a few
> assumptions about how widespread such a method
> might have been. For example, if the method was
> very “expensive”, then I would expect it to be
> used only for certain essential functions and not
> for less practical decorative applications. But
> that said, how can you be so sure that some of
> those granite monolith statues we see in Egypt
> weren’t fabricated from a slurry?
I take it by "slurry" you mean a liquid, semi liquid or plastic state?
> Of course, I’ll be the first to entertain the
> notion that the architectural ruins we see today
> are a tiny fraction of what’s actually out there
> still waiting to be discovered. I recall hearing
> that more than 90% of all ancient ruins in Egypt
> have yet to be discovered there.
Long wavelength satellite imaging of Egypt?
The lady's a genius.
I rather think that the "90%" was a colloquial term meaning a great deal of, or the greater part of Ancient Egypt is still undiscovered.
> > When considering the technological advancements
> > ancient civilizations, you can break it down
> > different disciplines and different degrees and
> > stages of advancement of those separate
> > disciplines. For one, with respect to the
> > discipline of material science, it seems that
> > were certainly able to soften stone. And I
> > believe that advancement came earlier than the
> > ability to create architecturally complicated
> > structures.
As are most technologies. First directly observed, developed and then utilised.
> At this point, there is no principle that
> prohibits the possibility that intelligent beings
> on Earth may have been around for FAR longer than
> we originally thought and have gone through many
> cycles of growth and catastrophe with each
> successive ice age, astronomical catastrophe, etc.
> Whether such intelligent beings were around 100k
> or 1000k years ago is still to be determined, but
> from my perspective, it seems very tenuous to
> argue that all of that stonework around the globe
> was accomplished within the past 6000-15,000 years
> or so. The physical evidence strains that notion
> to its breaking point, in my opinion.
All of the above resulting in the eventual recognition and discussion of these historical anomalies.
> > The walls in South America would be a good
> > of early structural application of this stone
> > softening. In the absence of that leap, the
> > seamless connections of the stones in those
> > is extremely confounding. But if you presume
> > could soften or loosen the material bonds of
> > granite to the point that it would sag like
> > Plasticine, then those connections begin to
> > as a rudimentary and early application of that
> > tech.
> > Yada yada yada. I could go on and on, but I'd
> > interested to see if anyone else is thinking
> > these lines.
> I’ve seen some of those blocks in the Andes
> disassembled so that you can see the opposing
> faces within a complex joint, and one surface can
> have many angles and small pocks and bumps while
> faithfully mating to the equal but opposing
> surface contour. I saw one block in Machu Picchu
> with 32 distinct surfaces where every surface was
> perfectly jointed to neighboring blocks so that
> you couldn’t fit a credit card into any of the
> joints. Same is true for the 280 ton block at
> Sacsayhuaman. It clearly appears to have been
> softened substances that ooze against each other
> in semi-fiuld fashion. For what it’s worth, when
> I asked the guides who did the stonework, they
> typically shrugged their shoulders pointed up to
> the sky.
Irrespective of who was responsible, or when the 'who' was responsible, the first challenge has to be HOW were the 'who',
who were certainly responsible achieve something that is totally inexplicable by our understanding today.
What did they know that we don't?
Whether it was metallurgy that enabled super hard copper tools equivalent to our present day hard tool technology or focused microwaves, it's a lost technology.
We don't know how they achieved it.
Hence the Graham Hancock Mysteries forum.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29-Aug-17 11:29 by Jon Ellison.