> Regarding the bosses, this conversation was had by
> many of the same participants three years ago in a
> thread titled What is the purpose of the bosses?
> .... A response by me:
> "Is it not possible that they are exactly
> what they are reported to be which are protrusions
> for lifting, a known construction technique for
> thousands of years by many different cultures?
A "known construction technique" as evidenced how and by whom?
> Unfinished Greek temple of Segesta c. 5th century BC:
> And no, this is not "decoration".
...perhaps in your opinion, but not mine. I consider those examples to be a false equivalency.
From my perspective, these...
...are not necessarily the same as these...
> If you look at most of the "knob" like bosses,
> regardless of where they are from, they almost
> always lie near an edge. There are many pictures
> above thread that speak to this. I have to wonder
> if the reason why some have them and others don't
> is that they were used to pull large blocks out of
> the quarry then cut into smaller blocks once
> removed, hence why some still have bosses while
> other pieces do not. For whatever reason it was
> typical to cut the sides at the boss. This may be
> because it would make sense the bosses be near the
> bottom if pulling up or at the sides if pulling
> out to provide maximum leverage per weight
> distribution of the load.
I don't understand how such nubs could be crafted into the side walls of blocks during quarrying, or how such nubs would better facilitate pulling them from the quarry socket as opposed to just wrapping a wide strap around the block to haul it out with far better load distribution.
> I can't find any pictures, but bosses are also
> found on unfinished blocks still in the quarries.
> A little tough to chalk these up to "injection
> port molding".
I, too, would like to see such examples.
> I am not discounting the connections between
> Peruvian and AE stoneworking; bosses are but one
> similarity that combined are far more than just
> coincidence, but the use of lifting bosses in
> ancient and not so ancient stone working is quite
> common in many geographic locations for thousands
> of years."
Again, "quite common" by whose standards? Where has it been determined that those nubs were used for lifting those blocks?
> The Osireion, Abydos:
> A video in which we can even see the bosses
> right on the on the quarry walls and quarriedblocks:
> [www.youtube.com]]Knobs on Megalithic blocks
> All around the
> world, in structures thousands of years apart, all
> with the same bosses the least of which abundantly
> found in Greek and Roman architecture that have
> nothing to do with “lost civilizations".
Those nubs on the bedrock wall do not necessarily have a function similar to the bosses on the masonry. In my opinion, you are drawing false equivalencies and making assumptions about the provenance of such stonework and the function of those nubs which vary greatly across different scenarios. What do you assume is the purpose of shaving a wall so smoothly and yet going through all that effort to carefully carve around such tiny nubs? Think of how much stone and effort is wasted to hone the rock face down far enough to allow such a nub to remain. Do you not agree it would be so much easier to carve a hole or slot into the surface and use a hook, bar, Lewis lift, etc., made of the same substance that was strong enough to quarry the block in the first place so that the rock face can simply be carved and finished without worrying about harming the integrity of that boss throughout the quarry, shaping, transporting, installation process? I don't see the practical logic to that paradigm any more than I see the logic of claiming that the tiny recesses that remain in the socket between G1s Granite Plug and the AP is evidence of the existence of a "Prism Stone".
I'm curious how you reconcile what certainly appears to be a hollow granite casing stone at Menkaure.
> The idea these bosses are left overs from "port
> injection molding" is debunked on many levels, the
> least of which these same bosses being on the
> quarries themselves.
Can you cite photos? I haven't seen anything that so strongly debunks the "port" notion, let alone "on many levels".
> Those who still argue its
> possibility do not do so from a logical fact based
> position, but rather an emotional one, namely the
> product of the "backfire effect" and "identity
> cognitive cognition", something that seems to be
> part and parcel of fringe thinking.
Trying to read people's minds again? The fact is, my own notions about those bosses are completely based on facts. The bosses in Egypt and South America are mostly on igneous rock (fact), they're mostly toward the bottom of the rock (fact), many of them have the appearance of having been partially or completely "scooped" off as if in clay (fact). There is no "emotional" conclusion being drawn by me. And if by "fringe" you mean it's being proposed by a "minority", so be it.
> I see it here
> every day where the same people say the same
> things over and over again despite being shown
> clear evidence to the contrary many times over yet
> despite knowing what they are saying is
> fundamentally untrue they just keep on with the
> same as if it never happened.
If it happens "every day" and "over and over again", then it should be easy for you to cite a couple of examples.
And resorting once again to insulting others by claiming they are saying things they know is "fundamentally untrue" has gotten old. It's strange how often you gravitate to calling people liars when they simply disagree with your logic. Certainly one thing that happens "over and over again" is your claim at being psychic to know what others are thinking, and that so much dishonesty is posted here "over and over again" and despite "clear evidence to the contrary", and yet you seem to have difficulty citing specific details.
> If the port
> injection molding idea has no merit, which it does
> not, then just let it go. Its ok. The sun will
> still come up tomorrow and does not mean there are
> not many other "mysterious" technologies at work
> one can imagine, but this one is dead.
I disagree. The fact remains that the "soft stone" idea is alive and well and is supported by the physical evidence more strongly every day.
> > The one example in Cuzco of the corner "aggregate"
> > being broken away, shows a pile of rubble in the
> > center. A fill around which the malleable stuff
> > may have been forced or injected.
> Show a picture or give a link.
There've been several posts of that corner stone in this discussion so far. Also of the igneous Colossi twins.
> Look, I think it goes without saying there is more
> at work here than hammers and chisels, but there
> is no evidence whatsoever to support "port
> injection molding" if only clearly and definitely
> to the contrary.
I disagree with your own opinion of the physical evidence. Others here do see very strong physical evidence supporting the "soft stone" hypothesis. Whether it really is akin to "baking bread" remains to be seen, but the hypothesis is not wishful thinking, dishonest, or dillusional. It's backed by hard evidence which is all around the world.
> Those who argue this do not do so
> from a factual standpoint, but an emotional one as
> it is seen as an attack on their beliefs so they
> double down and come up with one nonsensical
> counter-argument after another, which
> unfortunately has become par for the course here.
You are on an ideological soapbox talking at people rather than sharing a logical rationale. Of course the evidence is there. And that evidence needs to be reconciled. There is little to no evidence contradicting the "soft stone" hypothesis. If you think a nub of stone sticking out of a flat wall of bedrock is equivalent to the rounded boss at the bottom of a block of andesite, that's your own personal opinion which is not based on any quantitative or objective standard.
> Again, to dismiss port injection molding does not
> mean there are not whatever "mysterious" forces at
> work to explain such things one can imagine, it
> just means that this one has no merit. Oh, well.
> Just move on.
Not really. It means you simply choose to deny the merit that others see in that same physical evidence, and you deny others their right to an opinion that's different than yours without them necessarily being deliberately dishonest.
I heartily agree with "Just move on" though.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31-Aug-17 23:44 by Origyptian.