If your going to come in here and ridicule the content here without taking the 30 mins of time it takes to research the subjects so you know wtf your actually talking about, get stuffed.
I've been to Puma Punku and Sachehuaman. Literally cannot slide a pin into the cracks. No mortar. Built to withstand Earthquakes in the area more than likely. They employed a method of building with stone that we cannot replicate, even with the best stone workers at our disposal. There has been many tradesmen that have journeyed to the sites around Peru to see the stonework. They've all remarked at the unsurpassed craftsmanship and cannot begin to understand how they were built and crafted. Especially to such large dimensions. With such precision. Many of the details are so fine that the only hypothesis that makes sens to anyone is they must have employed laser cutters or something of that nature.
Those stones they made all of this out of are the two of the hardest stones you can find in the world of geology.
You can see machining lines along many of the straight walls. The grooves of what looks like a large power saw. It lends credence to the theory that they used some sort of water driven blades to cut some of the stone works there, but that still doesnt explain the melting, scooping and deforming of the rocks. Nor how they have been reinforced to withstand the test of time compared to many other stone works worldwide.
I'm rambling...
Just stop being cunts and look shit up. It's all there at your fingertips if you really have an interest. Fuckin kids I swear.
First, it is pretty good odds that I'm older than you. And I look shit up all the time, but I knew that if I googled it I would immediately get all kinds of opinionated articles, maybe from both sides, but skewed nonetheless. It happens every single time I try to look into one of these topics. So, since Kiroy made a pretty easily explained statement ("should not exist") I figured I would ask him before trying to figure out which of the undoubtedly several claims I would find he was talking about. His response probably took him a minute, and I doubt he was put out by my question.
But ok, my bad, I should just start immediately googling everything you guys talk about and do my own homework. Forget the fact that 99% of what gets posted is fucking videos that I can't watch at work, or quite honestly don't want to spend my entire evening at home watching, I'm sure there are still plenty of written articles. Which I have since looked at.
Couple of things that immediately caught my attention.
"Two of the hardest stones you can find in the world of geology." I'm seeing a few places that it is red sandstone, which is nowhere near the hardest stone, and would have been easily worked by the tools of the time. You were at the site. Which is it? Did you bring back some rock samples for us? Or maybe you are just going off of what the sites you choose to believe said, just like I do?
"The only hypothesis that makes sense to anyone is they must have employed laser cutters or something of that nature." Really? You even talk about water driven blades later on. Are you SURE that laser cutters are the only hypothesis that makes sense? Let's skip the water saws, there are even apparently plenty of spots where they apparently poured "concrete" into wooden forms and tied them together with those metal ties.
I've already addressed the "cannot slide a pin into the cracks thing." And then pair that with the other comments that I see used to describe EVERY SINGLE site like this. "They employed a method of building with stone that we cannot replicate, even with the best stone workers at our disposal." Really? REALLY? So when they say the same things about other sites and people show how it could have been done (whether or not that's how it was actually done is irrelevant, the fact that someone CAN do it without advanced tech is all that matters), am I just supposed to assume that THIS example is the one that defies logic, even if all the other ones don't?
Listen, I'm not saying that I know the real answers to all of this shit, nor do I think that I am right and you are wrong, etc. But that paragraph you wrote above was about as cunty as they come in terms of trying to get someone that leans towards the skeptical to entertain your arguments. I could have literally taken almost every single sentence of what you wrote from any of hundreds of websites that say the same exact shit about hundreds of different "mystery" sites. Typically you at least try to be a little bit less antagonistic and tinfoil hat with your posts, so I don't know if this was just a bad day for you, or if this is how you really feel and it slipped out. Either way, if you just want to throw out your theories without any criticism or skepticism or even simple questions like, "I know nothing about this, please tell me why you said it should not exist", I'll refrain from commenting anymore. But that doesn't seem to be what you wanted initially, so maybe this was just a hiccup.
I said it before, I'm skeptical of everything you guys are posting, and it is going to take way more than someone telling me that "experts are baffled" to do more than roll my eyes. And I get that my attitude might not be conducive to the atmosphere you're looking to promote in this thread. I might even have the exact opposite effect, when you read that I don't believe you, maybe you roll your eyes at me and wonder how I can be so stupid and blind. Hey, I get it. If that's the case, and I'm just supposed to nod my head and believe you because you've been to the site and I should trust you because I'm a lazy cunt, well ok then, let's get that out of the way.
Chukzombi
