As a dental technician I've done a lot of castings where resin has been forced into a mother mould to accurately form around existing gums, teeth, etc. The mould would be prepared with air vents at points where resin needed to be forced in areas that would normally create air bubble. Tina, perhaps the slumpy type blocks were formed by material poured into bag-like moulds where holes were left at points where material, as it was compressed from the top (or some pour point), would squeeze out of the vent holes, as the material slumps into position around the existing blocks. Maybe the material was quite quick setting as there was limited time to remove the mould then remove all the knobs and could also account for the unfinished screeding work on some blocks.
Interesting thought - thank you for sharing with me! Much appreciated! I considered the bag-molds idea too; though it's hard to find a comparable bag material which is very thin and ultra strong to hold big heavy concrete/ geopolymer blocks, plus the bags would need to be removed or dissolved after the curing of blocks. If we can explain these, then the bag-mold will be a very sound proposal.
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Perhaps the mother mould didn't need a base where the material would pushed over the top of the previous blocks. The material could have been quite thick like putty or clay-like rather than liquid and needed pressing into place, thus only requiring a mould around areas where the block wasn't touching anything else. The mould could have been quite thick perhaps the thickness of the knobs, as that's where the material would squeeze out while it was left to set. I thought that some of those indents on some of the stones looked as if beams had been propped up against the outside of the mould to give it support, pushing the mould walls into place but sometimes leaving a mark if pushed in too much.
The blocks weren't poured, cast or anything that requires some kind of mix like concrete. You can easily determine whether it's naturally formed rock or a poured mixture. None of the megalithic blocks anywhere in the world have been found to be a mixture. They're all naturally formed and we know where 99% of them were quarried from.
@@Spectre4913 I already commented on this concept, but wanted to also mention here that I had heard the same thing. That the composition of the megalithic blocks have been studied, and were determined to be in their natural states. Not demonstrating any type of "mixing" or concrete-like structure. It is fun to speculate though!
yeah sadly since she's just an Asian woman most people looking for evidence of "ancient race of white superhumans with high technology" will completely ignore whatever she has to say.
@@jkid4855 There are world renown Orientals all through the science communities , holding positions in faculty & industry & have been for many many decades , both male & female !!! Not a new thing !!!
Tina, I believe you are spot on in how these stones were made. There is a book written by Joseph Davidovits that deals with geopolymers and their chemical composition. He analyzes some of the ancient stones and finds that some of the shells are randomly mixed around. If the stones had been quarried, the shells would have settled flat in layers while the stones were being naturally formed. Randomly mixed up shells points to being cast. Thanks for posting this video, it's an accurate one.
@@garrythompson8166 If they did go to all that trouble, as you say, then why didn't they sand them off. After the process you describe, sanding would be nothing at all to do.
This is very little😊, but I feel like giving you something back for taking the time to create these intriguing videos. I have enjoyed them all. Thank you, Tina！
google for . . . . . Explosive - The Osiris temple of Abydos ( Osireion ) was made 12450 years ago by Kerala Danava Thiyya king Kalanemi Jr whose face is on the Sphinx he made .. it is distinct , separate and at a lower level than the adjacent temple of Seti I built 5900 years ago by Imhotep ( Ayyappa the ninth avatar of Vishnu ) who also built the Giza pyramids . .. Son of Seti I , Ramesses II never chased Moses - both never existed.. the reason why Jews stole their homeland of sons of soil Palestinians . The mystery of “ flower of life” on megalith stones of Osireion , the hexagon stones and small nubs , the healing water , the markers in the sky - all revealed - Capt Ajit Vadakayil
Tina, I have injection molding experience and the nobs look like runners that inject polymer into the mold from the extruder. It's not a result of suction but injection into a mold. Runners can be cut in a variety of shapes, as full round, parabolic, trapezoid, wide trapezoid, half round, and quarter round. Full round is the most efficient runner shape. It has the lowest pressure drop over the same volume of material.
I agree with the injection-moulded theory. The closest I can think of are styrene model sprues. It's as if each individual block were injected in place as a semisolid geopolymer glob, thus the slight bulge at the edges as it set. Scoops and marks may have been done before each block were set or cured, to a desired shape or carry impressions/embossed. Why they did not sand it off? Set stone may had been too hard, the effort too inefficient. The Puma Punku blocks, however, may have had a mould, like pressure cast blocks today, the precise modules designed to fit like Lego blocks.
i am following this topic with a religious passion. this is the best presentation of the most reasonable theory i have heard so far. didnt watch your videos for a while, you dont stop to astound me. you do an amazing work, thank you so much
The great rigor of this analysis should provide the definitive explanation of the mechanics which produced these knobs. Consider that only in the 21st century do they think they have the formula for Roman concrete. It is certainly plausible there were sophisticated methods in use in many places which we have yet to engineer for ourselves. Thank you again, Tina. You are a bright light of reason and talented explanation. Your clarity shines.
The antikythera mechanism has been found to have a movement that slides inside allowing for the odd elliptical movements of planets. It's taught us something we haven't thought of doing. I saw that in the past week.
There is a very big difference between cast and naturally formed rock. These are naturally formed. They even know where they were quarried from. You can ignore reality all you want but the facts are these blocks were not cast.
@@Spectre4913 I presented a 2012 material analysis done on Sacsayhuaman's blocks by a group of geophysicists in this earlier video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html These scientists stated that the material is not natural. You can find my references under that video.
One thing, suppose that all of the large stones were poured, basalt is a very hard stone to liquify the stone it would have to been ground up into a powder, then reconstituted. In modern concrete. Lime is used. It helps to bind the sand and rock. It also helps to pull the water and moisture away. We use gravel and sand for our concrete. We crush rock with a crusher then screen the rock and classify it into sized material. Sand, 3/8 chip stone, 3/4” crushed rock, and the oversized rock recycles back into the crusher. Of course the fines are 1//16” or less. Then the 3/8” materials are used for chip seals on roads, the other aggregate are used for driveways and sand. Some are brought to the cement batch plant. All of this is done with heavy equipment and big trucks. The size of so many of the stones used. Still would have required a huge amount of equipment and man power. And the other notion that the people credited with building these structures would not have had rope strong enough to lift them up, has also been proven. So that brings us back to the question who and when? Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. You are always a thought provoking person and I do appreciate your content.
Tina Tina Tina, again, your extensive research is mind blowing. Having worked with concrete, in my younger years, what you say about slump is spot on. When pouring concrete in the Refineries, we would perform a 'Slump Test' before each pour. The concrete temperature was also measured. Also, your theory of the different types of knobs is a first, and it makes sense. However, I would truly love to see this theory applied in a real situation. Love you mind 🥰🤔
Brilliant analysis Tina! I have no doubt you've solved one of the ancient building mysteries. Your education in architecture brings a level of professionalism not often seen in ancient mysteries channels. Have you thought about doing a video on the architecture of predynastic Egypt or the long lost Labyrinth under the Giza plateau? Ken S.
Thank you very much, Ken! I really appreciate your support. I'll see what I can find on predynastic Egyptian architecture. As for the labyrinth of the Giza plateau, I think they might be part of an underground mine. I made two videos on the Osiris Shaft - hope you will find them interesting 😊 1. The Underground Complex: the Giza Osiris Shaft Created by a Lost Advanced Civilization? ua-cam.com/video/GloDq_h7yLg/v-deo.html 2. The Osiris Shaft: Part of a Prehistory Mine from a Lost Civilization? ua-cam.com/video/JuGt7JEWT6E/v-deo.html
Good video. I couldn't help laughing at the constant mention of knobs. Some seem to be for beams. I do wonder why they'd have left them on the stones if they weren't for some purpose afterwards when the rest of the stones are so perfect.
To be flexible enough to get the tight joints, any medium would require a form to hold the shape, the blocks have a soft rounded shape looking like a fabric bag, nothing comparable would hold the volume without splitting or collapsing completely
The nubs were stone mason marks, to show which face went to the front, and which stone was right for that position. Sometimes they indicated place this side down, or place left or place right. The nubs were large so that they could act as a ledge where a prop could be placed under, holding it in place until all of the stone were in position. When we consider the size and weight of the blocks, one would not want to discover that a block cut for the top was positioned and locked in at the bottom. Photographs of the Penkalas Bridge built by the Romans in the 2nd century AD, in Aezani, Asia Minor, present day Turkey, show different nub markings for different locations. When cutting blocks for arches on a bridge, the blocks are not rectangular. Locating each stone in the correct position with the correct face outwards is critical. Stones transported long distances, stored in the quarry and at the building site need more than a chalk mark. Sometimes masons marked their blocks with a sign or trade mark to ensure that they were paid for their work. It is believed that facing stones were often finished after being positioned in the wall. They suggest that the pyramids had their final face angle cut and finished starting at the top of the pyramid and working their way down. Easier than cutting stone and the trying to get the perfect fit every time. The angle of the pyramids is very steep when finished to smooth sides. Stone masons kept their trade methods secret, to ensure that they got the building contract.
I would think a hole would perform the same functions and be easier to make. Of course finishing the surface would be easier with nubs as you can just chisel them off.
they are still fucking puzzled today. they literally WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS THEORY, OR EVEN ONE OF MACHINED STONE! THIS WAS MADE BY DUDES IN BUTTFLAPS'S WITH OTHER ROCKS RUBBING THEM TOGETHER DANGIT!!!!
The stones with the knobs are andesite and granite, not concrete. Both andesite and granite are high in quartz, making it a good carrier of electromagnetic energy. I suspect an inductive tuning device that softened these materials caused the knobs. Apparently it was circular at the end, which makes sense for creating a standing waveform inside the rock that cancelled the rock's magnetic field making it malleable.
Tina I find this very interesting, its probably the best explanation I've heard to date, thanks for putting the work in for armchair enthusiasts like myself. x
Someone may have already posted this comment, so I apologize if they have. Just curious as to why some of the knobs weren't removed after serving their purpose. Screeding or chiseling, whichever was appropriate in the specific situation. This is the first time I have ever heard a concrete ( sorry, couldn't help that ) explanation on the purpose of the knobs. So well presented and explained. Ancient Architects has a wonderful video explaining the geopolymer evidence in Peru. Thanks so much for sharing, and I hope everyone has a wonderful day or night!
Yes, love this lady and her posts. We have seen many rounded knobs at Cussco, for example. Would not work for lifting especially since so many are at corners or two close together near an end. A bizarre thing to ponder. What I want to know is how they melted the stones to fit perfectly together.
I recall your previous episode on these strange “knobs” or “bosses” are seen at many megalithic sites around the world. The exterior walls with knobs seem to be randomly placed, at least the type I saw in Egypt. It is quite puzzling, and your videos pose many interesting questions and descriptions.
Using electrical currents, the growth of crystals that provide structural support to the geopolymer conglomerate can be forced. The accelerated growth of the crystal is what causes the hardening of the artificial rock. In the analysis of saqsaywaman stones carried out a few years ago, a Russian company found these fast-growing crystals, which are completely different from those that appear in natural rocks and which are in the quarry, just a few meters away. To force this growth, an anode and a cathode must be induced in the rock mass and removed when the crystals have grown and the rock already has an adequate consistency. These 2 electrical terminals must be submerged and adhered to the dough and when removed they would form a thread, like melted cheese on pizza. That machine exists today, but has very limited use. Good video and better analysis. Greetings from Spain.
Given the large amount of work required to split a quarried stone, only to reface the whole thing to leave a small knob, it seems unlikely that the effort would be worth it. The cast block theory makes a lot of sense as these knobs would be simple holes in the mold. Perhaps left there to allow fluid drainage as the mixture set. I find it extraordinary that so called experts refuse to accept that cast blocks were used in ancient construction. Instead they just declare that unknown quarrying techniques must be the answer.
@@petejung3122 Given the limited number of ways stone can be worked with hand tools, do you really think modern stone masons can't work out how past generations worked the same stone we use today? Most of these "Ancient Mysteries" exist only to bring in tourists and their dollars. We have the ability to replicate their work, especially with modern tools. But there is an entire industry that profits from marketing these "Mysteries".
Yeah, but you need to use your brain....to cast anything, you need a mold. These rocks range from ones as big as your fist to ones that are as wide as 15 people standing shoulder to shoulder, and as high as 3 people standing on each others shoulders. You also need a separate mold for every single block ever made as all of them are different shapes and sizes. Then you need to tell me what the molds were made of? Animal skin? Wood? Why would you make a huge rock if you need to make a mold for it that involves sewing 40 animal skins together? Why not just make it a smaller block? Also, why not just make uniform size blocks and reuse the same molds rather than make a new mold for every single block? They weren't stupid...... And what mixture did they use that made them into real rocks when the mixture dried? Roman cement is strong, super strong, but we can easily see it's cement and not rock. I'm always open to ideas.....post your theory in more detail please. I'd love to see what makes you think these are cast other than "a knob from a drainage hole". (How did drainage work when the knob was at the top of the block?)
By large amount of work you mean 1 hour, 1 man, 1 chisel, 10 wedges and 1 hammer or block can split a 30 ton granite boulder with little to no experience. Basically, anyone with basic human functions can split a boulder in half, there is nothing next level about it at all. But I guess since we are incapable of thinking things up it must have been this intelligent species of humans that travelled the world but left no trace and lived in the shadows but educated those in the light.
@@petejung3122 There is this thing called geology that debunks the geopolymer theory, but people who think that humans had to be taught how to become intelligent instead of just learning fail to listen this. I mean, who would of thought that Machu Picchu, a place surrounded by an abundance of granite rocks just sitting there waiting to be used, would be noticed by humans and one of them would think, look at these rocks, i wonder what will happen if we whack them and shape them and move them and put them on top of each other. No way we as a species we could ever learn this naturally, meanwhile a few thousand years later, some guy invents a way to grow a sheep from nothing but a few cells, in a bit of glass that humans invented. in a lab that we created, but these conspiracy theorist don't start looking at him like he somehow has been speaking to god for the cheat code and then start looking in the shadows for his hidden communication line and his ethernet cable to heaven :D
Yes, I think your explanation is perfect! Not cut and carried from a quarry, but molded on-site casting each on top of the other. Casting one on top of the other would require only minimal lifting of the mixture, not lifting of heavy blocks!
Finally an excellent story about all those so-called carved stones and the mysterious techniques. You are most likely describing exactly how these stones were produced. Ever since I read the French chemist Davidovits' extensive account of geopolymers, I have always wondered what material the molds were made from for the stones that look spherical. You may be able to pour small stones into bags made of textile, but they will probably bulge too much, so that seemed to me to be an incorrect idea, so they were cast in a strong mold in a slightly liquid state and subsequently processed. I still wonder how they did that. You can also see that the cement of some stones has not been mixed properly, because layers are formed that fall off over time. You can make concrete from any type of stone, including granite. I think that the artists who made statues and pots also used this technique, because it often looks too homogeneous to be processed natural stone, but artists can of course also make beautiful variations. The so-called boreholes that have emerged in granite are also not mysterious. It is clearly visible that the distances per revolution on the drill core are too large to do this in hard granite. It is not feasible even with diamond, due to the excessive force required. It can easily be done with a copper plate bent round at the end of a stick, forming a tube and turned by hand into soft unhardened granite casting. That is why you also see that the pitch of the revolutions is irregular. Everything can also be made quickly by artists, especially if you have seen a plasterer/restorer working, which was of course also possible a long time ago. You tell a very plausible story, nice that you tell it in detail, many thanks for this.
Hard at this point to say which civilization was more advanced: the one pouring stone, or the one lifting enormous solid pieces of stone? Of course, they could be the same civilization, but they could also be different ones ... because why move a gargantuan solid piece when you can transport slurry? Slurry should be more economical. So we have ancient mining tool tech, ancient lifters, ancient stone pourers, and ancient precision cutters ... any of which could be separate or the same civilization.
@@2seconds992 I really don't know which approach was higher tech. Probably the precision cuts and the mining could most easily be from the same era as each other, as they resemble things we can do in the present. The other two technologies - stone pouring and giant stone moving - are harder for me to evaluate, as we don't really do either.
Thank you! I made a series of videos on megalithic sites - hope you will enjoy them :-) Here is the list just in case: ua-cam.com/play/PL92SXkFO15Cwy90BlCQWWYhavJzop2PtU.html
I always love your videos. You look at things with clear vision and logic and don't try to fit your conclusions to the dominant consensus. Thank you. This was excellent.
As a little boy I used to go on holidays to my grandmother's. It's been more than half a century. Downstairs, where my grandmother lived, there was a bakery. They baked buns that were chubby and the same as the stones in Saxahumana that I saw in their photo in the magazine. I couldn't read yet, there was no internet, and back then there wasn't much talk about Saxahuman. But my child's brain at that time was not influenced by the already mentioned widespread media, he assessed that the stone in Saxahuman is like buns in a bakery and must have been in a plastic state like dough.I still think about it today
I could imagine some uncentered knobs as tipping handles but, other than the Roman and Greek ones, most really don't seem intended for lifting or tipping purposes.
Even with the pre-dynastic Egyptians there is some evidence of 'softened rock'. For me this is the only explanation for how they did certain things in stone.. and thanks again Tina for another great vid!
Thank you so much Curious Being and for all the research you must have carried out. A fascinating and credible explanation of an intriguing part of ancient civilisations. Your channel has been quite a find!
Often the simplest, most obvious solutions are the hardest to prove or even perceive. It takes a great analytic mind to distinguish between that which is true or impossible and that which is not. The process that you've described is flawless and your explanation for the indentations and protrusions makes absolute sense. I think that your hypothesis is spot on and I'm convinced that it will be proven sometime in the future. I have said it before: there's much more of a scientist in you than there is in many so-called experts. GREAT WORK, TINA. 👍👏
Hey Tina😊 Definitely moldable "rock" techniques, Like so many other Unsolved mysteries, Lost ancient technology is the common thread. You are awesome. ⛱️🙏👍😊 Hope you are enjoying your spring time!!
Another fantastic video, thank you Tina! Your channel, alongside Paul Cook's one, are my two top ones on ancient mysteries. Paul finds and notices things that no one else does but he can be chaotic and rambling (sorry Paul if you are reading this, but that's the truth:D ) whereas you are so refreshingly meticulous, clear cut and logical. A joy! And I love how you draw parallels to modern engineering and architectural practices, so we get to learn about those too. Thanks again xx
As always your analysis is exceptional. Your use of illustrative photos is also supporting. This is really a complex and not consistent topic. Rock vs “concrete”. Today we have expert geologists tell us that these stone walls are true stone, not some concrete like material. And yet as recently a 150 years ago expert geologists told us that many Roman constructs were stone, not “Roman concrete” as we know it today. They even came up with the approximate formula for Roman concrete. I personally lean to the “cast not cut” school. Simply because of the appearance you point to. Now the protuberances, since “knob” gets a few of my fellow viewers all worked up….. Some as you indicate are riggers hard points. Either to lift the block they are on, or as hard points for lifting some item below. A third possibility presents. Lost function. If there is indeed a lost civilization(s) with advanced but diminished “lost technology” as many suggest, then the bumps may simply be stylistic rather than functional. A good example of this comes from the field of firearms of the early 20th century. The C-96 Mauser pistol was quite popular. Especially in what we call today third world countries. Countries without a sophisticated arms industry but talented metal workers. I’m some cases these metalworks set out to make copies of the C-96. But they were neither shooters or gun smiths. So the elaborate tangent rear sight of the C-96 with its many small parts was simply reproduced in general outline only. The reproductions are not adjustable nor do they really function as a rear sight. One could say they are symbolic sights at best. I’m a few cases the C-96 standings were reproduced. The MauseR banner was reproduced as WauseR on a few examples. Indicating no understanding of written English, but a possible belief that this “mark” was spiritually necessary for the piece to function. Rifling inside the barrels was also variable or completely optional. And yet most such examples are functional to some degree. So could all these stone structures actually be the product of much older high technology, still functional for the purpose, but with only vestiges of some largely forgotten architecture? I don’t know. There is no “proof” per se. Only speculation. Keep up the good work Tina! You may be right. You may be wrong. But your always entertaining and interesting! Until next time! Fox out
@@CuriousBeingbyTinaThis analysis relies on the fact that modern western "Portland Cement" is the only known form of concrete. Actually Portland cement is the worst kind of cement with a very short life span 🙏
@@ETALAL Actually it’s far from the only formulation we know as “cement”. Portland cement is used to make many different grades of concrete. And there are other options. It’s popular today because it lasts an appropriate period of time for our cultural purposes and is affordable. That is “cheap”. It is also highly consistent in appearance. We value uniformity of appearance. By contrast what we call Roman concrete is not uniform nor is it cheap to make. The lack of uniformity makes it appear as if it’s local rocks which it essentially is, bound with volcanic ash and laboriously produced lime. It’s lack of fine grind and granular structure is it’s key to longevity. But it too weathers externally, adding to its rugged rock like external character. I could go on discussing medieval “concrete” used as a binder within the walls of castles all the way down to foundations for simple huts. Largely sand, clay and burnt lime it’s not strong but is very durable if protected from moisture. And so it was used more as a mortar by masons. Our modern concrete serves our needs. It’s compatible with steel reinforcing which many other concretes are not. Portland cement is elastic enough to allow us to use concrete as a structural load bearing element such as bridge spans. Left unmolested it can last for generations. Sufficient for our purposes. Examples of concrete failure often reveal some contractor who shorted the mix to save money, or as in the case of German fortifications on the French and Dutch coasts, sabotage by local space labor crews who added salty sea sand to the mix making it weak. Concrete and cement is a deep subject. Sure you want to go down this twisty rabbit hole with an old fox? Fox out
@@vulpesvulpes5177 @vulpesvulpes5177 Archeologists take a long time to catch up, They are still living in the early 1900s when it comes to engineering. You should have read my comment more carefully. But, thanks for the information.
@@ETALAL I read quite well. You stated that Portland cement was the only kind and the worst. Two very absolute statements. Both incorrect in general context. Archeologists have never been know for their engineering or other practical skills. Sadly. Fox out
archeologists don't want to entertain your hypothesis because it would mean there truly was an advanced ancient civilization! awesome video - very thought provoking!
Thank you again for sharing your insights and inquisitive thoughts filled videos always !! Scientific and intelligent thought provoking hypotheses and analyses !! Excellent !! Greetings from California … I wish you and folks good health , success and happiness !! Much Love ✌️😎💕
I aways thought these walls were some type of concrete, especially with the screed marks, but then there is the unfinished obelisk in Egypt which shows scoop marks underneath and that was solid granite, so its still a mystery to me.
Many (super) ancient constructions WERE carved out of single rocks (e.g. some temples in India, colossi of Memnon, obelisks). (See Mystery History channel) This does not contradict anything that Tina has said re. polygonal buildings. (The main reasons for polygonal would be: different purpose, and built in an earthquake prone place?) Yes?
Fascinating and compelling as ever. I have always been sceptical about plasticity/geopolymer explanations for these exquisite structures; but the key question is: can there be any alternative rational explanation for their construction? The biggest mystery in preliterate societies is recovering any explanation for why they were constructed and what the builders thought they were building. Anything we do not understand tends to be described as "magical". Before decipherment it was widely believed that Egyptian Hieroglyphs were literally magical writing or spells from the Gods; and if understood would confer magical powers. It must have been a surprise when on translation most of them were quite banal tax decrees or the usual monarchical boasting about proximity to the supernatural.
Tina, congratulations for the channel and the explanations. I arrived a few days from Indonesia and was amazed at what I saw in temples like Borobodur and Prambanam. As for the Knobs, I always thought they were leftovers from an extrusion process. like a tip left by the possible machine.
Wish I knew English better than I do to explain what you perfectly did sweetheart! I thought I wasn’t going to come across anyone who did what you just did by explaining a phenomenon with one word equal to many encyclopaedias on this subject witch is nothing but guesses to known and very simple as something lost as technology’s and cataclysm’s summary ! Thanks very much sweetheart ! You are the one and only real thing explaining to the eye what is there they present as unconstructed impossible miracle by lost methods our ancestors used ! THANK YOU STAR
Yes - a group of Russian geophysicists analyzed samples taken from Sacsayhuaman and proposed that the material is not natural. I discussed this (with references) in the following video of mine: Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html
Hi Tina, it's been a while, but I'm always watching and learning. As usual your logic, factual based and indepth research is so much needed, and is lacking by others in this topic. Thankyou for teaching us, 84 videos and counting. Some great comments here for you to ponder. They make me think back while on job sites and discussing concrete with engineers. Different slumps, electrically growing crystals, life expectancy of the concrete, geopolimers etc. Many are discussing how they were built, but are skirting around another very important question that has been bothering me. In this day and so called advanced age, we almost never think of building anything that will last more than 100 years. So a question for you Tina, why did a civilization(s) of ancient sites build them to last many thousands of years and knowing full well they will stand the test of extreme time? If, in our short life we can begin to answer this, it would go a long way to understanding how these people lived. Just one more thought, we may tend to lump these ancient sites into the same time line, where in fact I think they are at the very least 100's to thousands of years apart in time. Thank you again Tina 🤔
Thank you for sharing with me. I appreciate your support :-) Some Greek and Roman structures last over 2,000 years. The megalithic sites we are seeing now are the leftover ruins that survived, and there ought to be a lot more buildings from the same periods collapsed and disappeared. Structures built with earthly materials like stone, bricks and concrete (such as retaining walls) would outlive the ones structured with metals. Our modern masonry retaining walls would likely last thousands or tens of thousands of years too. Many well-constructed modern high-rise buildings can stand for a few hundred years or longer with proper maintenance. I agree that it's possible that these ancient megalithic sites were built in different times.
Very accurate description and explanation, proof that these blocks were poured and molded, the evidence is there for those of us that look, one aspect that is well hidden from the public is objects that are encased in the blocks and protruding out for supports, these are well hidden, places you are not allowed to visit, very good job.
Your intuition is uninformed and you are wrong. You are also carelessly denigrating the actual skill and arduous labour involved in masonry construction. Please do some actual investigation. Geopolymers are largely a modern invention. Dr. Davidovitz should be given credit for his work here, but his attribution of its use to the ancient Egyptians is misplaced. The pyramids were masonry construction, not cast-in-place artefacts.
@@Axetrax1976 Your choice of language belies your mindset, Rick. If a person 'can't tell you anything', then your mind is made up and you are closed to further evidence that contradicts our fixed belief. She has presented evidence to support her point of view, so kudos to her. I just pointed out that her evidence is weak and actually demonstrates other processes. She also did not have access to information on how the masons in the Andes used plant sap and pyrite to form strong acids to help 'erode' the rock joints to fit together better. Early Spanish colonists observed and recorded this. One Spanish friar in particular, said that the Incan builders used a mortar of plant sap, sand and 'gold' to build their structures. The gold was pyrite and we've found residue of this. It wasn't mortar, it was a slurry they used to erode and fit the rock into place. The Inca and their predecessors had three different types of masonry, but all employed internal joints, fitted face boulders, robust foundations and a backward slope to combat the earthquakes. The stone would 'dance' in place, then resettle exactly into place because of this. We see these types of solutions throughout the ancient world where seismic activity was an issue: Japan, the Graeco-Roman world, the Middle East and Western Asia. The stone used in all these areas was native rock and we have identified the quarries. The stones have internal structure and fossil inclusions still in place. The Romans developed pozzolanic mortar and this was the first concrete ever used for construction. Other cultures such as the Maya and the Aztec only had limestone plaster, which they used to mortar their stone structures together and for stucco. Geopolymer silicates are a deliberate, modern invention. If you want information on how the pyramids were built and how they fitted their stones together in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the UA-cam channel 'History For Granite' is arguably the very best.
I think you’re close but I don’t believe it was a mold. I beilieve if you have a powerful enough dc electric device you can super charge a piece of granite to the point that it starts melting from the inside out. It’s like a temporary softening
Whatever the cause or use, they stand as stark evidence that this method is a signature of a single culture that spread this knowledge across the globe.
Tina, your penetrating analysis and brilliant presentation has, IMHO, finally nailed the argument that these large blocks HAD to have been CAST in place versus precisely CARVED for each unique location. The casting process is obviously much much easier to do, so that explains why they made so many of them all over the world. The foolish focus on tight joints "where nothing can be inserted," is like trying to describe an elephant by analysing the wrinkles in its hide. It's often necessary to back up a bit in order to see the bigger picture and the context in order to properly understand something -- just like you did here. Unfortunately, that is a very rare human perspective which you most evidently possess, and that makes you very rare and precious, which is why we all keep coming back to you for insights and knowledge not found elsewhere. Thank you Curious Being! We'll see you in the next one.
Great stuff again Tina, I'll add one thing, Bag construction, The nobs may be for expansion Puncturing the bag and the excess is squeezed out like tooth paste from a tube to be broken off when hardened. Also adding timber floors in explanation 4 is easy to spot. Where the timber rubs on the material, over time it would appear to be highly polished. For a future video the use of terrazzo to simulate granite blacks would be interesting 🙏🌻🐝❤️👉💐
Thank you for sharing your insight! Much appreciated ❤️Bag construction has merit, and the terrazzo granite blocks is very interesting. Thank you for the suggestions!
Great video as always, and my original takeaway is that these knobs on carved stone were probably far more universal than we thought, as they make lifting ropes far more secure, and crawling around for workers easier... There is so much amazing but simple engineering throughout history.
that's what I think too. I personally think that they were made from burlap sacks, sometimes you can see that they were supported with wooden planks and that concrete already existed before the Greeks and the Romans. just look at cart tracks Malta, this is volcano dust where people fled with horse and cart
Great technical analysis. Sure seems like this is a likely method of achieving some of the results we see at these sites. I too have spent years trying to solve this riddle. One major issue I see in the cast hypothesis is the fact that these scoop or screed marks are also found on massive living stone outcroppings, the sides of cliffs, and even inside cavern walls etc. We also see these marks in massive in situ projects like the unfinished obelisk. Another issue is how could many of the polygonal blocks be cast given such a multitude of intricate and hard angles? Surely the moulds needed to create this level of complexity would defeat the purpose... A mystery that will no doubt confound and drive us all crazy long into the future.
I like your casting theory Tina, it helps to explain the amazingly tight fit of the stones. I wonder however why in some cases the shapes are so irregular; when you cast stones would you not make them the same shape? Your productivity is amazing, the research and recording must take up a lot of your time. Well done and keep going!
Thank you :-) I appreciate your support. I explained my thoughts on the molds and irregular shapes in the later half of this video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html
Best explanation so far. Considering similarities in Egypt, Central America and other disparate places, one concludes the widespread ability to melt quartz laden granite and other extremely hard stone has been obfuscated. How is it no process artifact remains? Also, the dimensional accuracy and surface perfection of ancient orthogonal shapes is unexplained. Some hypothesize that quartz emits energy under pressure, but conclude the Egyptians were not the authors of this unknown method of liquifying ultra hard materials.
I long ago thought these "stones" were poured on site. It explains the almost perfect seams. I guess it was some superior type of concrete. Great video. Love the logical approach. Thanks.
They are "push points" used during a lapping operation NOT for lifting. They are near the bottom because they stone most slide and not roll. Sometimes they are not knobs but dents from repeated pushing. I did an experiment and found our why.
I love keeping an open mind and studying many different opinions and conclusions. Nice job Tiny especially with the four main types of stone knobs. What do you think about scientist who are confident about the quaries from which the large stone come from. Apparently they've matched the stones to where they come from in the ground. What do you think about the natural mineral structure inside the stones (they look naturally formed)? Can you please explain a bit more on how you imagine the stones were cast in place? Did they use generic molds or custom ones? Was there so little slump that they didnt need molds? I cant wait to discuss this further! Tiny or anyone else that has some constructive replies, I welcome your comment!
Thank you. I discussed the possible construction method, the molds and the material analysis of Sacsayhuaman from a group of Russian geophysicists in this video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html I also listed my references under that video. Hope you will find it interesting :-)
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Thank you for pointing me in the right direction - sorry for not searching for that topic before commenting. I'll see ya over at the other video, thanks again!
👍 Nice job as always. It looks like some of the bulging block walls could have been cast in bags of some kind and the lower knobs being where there were holes in the bags and the polymer was escaping and so forth. The bad thing is, we'll most likely never know for sure just who did this work and how. I still think that the elongated skull culture could manipulate the elements and yes, even levitate stone.
Hi Tina. The irregular knobs could be from injection moulding plasticized material. A lot more pressure available pumping than using suction. Very fascinating topic.
0:46 to me, its obvious the walls were poured , hose connection points for inflow out flow for leveling? Thought this for years, after i pumped enough cement. We use crushed rock to make cement, i image after enough time and possibly heat they can become natural looking? Or natural again?
As a dental technician I've done a lot of castings where resin has been forced into a mother mould to accurately form around existing gums, teeth, etc. The mould would be prepared with air vents at points where resin needed to be forced in areas that would normally create air bubble. Tina, perhaps the slumpy type blocks were formed by material poured into bag-like moulds where holes were left at points where material, as it was compressed from the top (or some pour point), would squeeze out of the vent holes, as the material slumps into position around the existing blocks. Maybe the material was quite quick setting as there was limited time to remove the mould then remove all the knobs and could also account for the unfinished screeding work on some blocks.
Interesting thought - thank you for sharing with me! Much appreciated! I considered the bag-molds idea too; though it's hard to find a comparable bag material which is very thin and ultra strong to hold big heavy concrete/ geopolymer blocks, plus the bags would need to be removed or dissolved after the curing of blocks. If we can explain these, then the bag-mold will be a very sound proposal.
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Perhaps the mother mould didn't need a base where the material would pushed over the top of the previous blocks. The material could have been quite thick like putty or clay-like rather than liquid and needed pressing into place, thus only requiring a mould around areas where the block wasn't touching anything else. The mould could have been quite thick perhaps the thickness of the knobs, as that's where the material would squeeze out while it was left to set. I thought that some of those indents on some of the stones looked as if beams had been propped up against the outside of the mould to give it support, pushing the mould walls into place but sometimes leaving a mark if pushed in too much.
Are you real? You look computer animated. 😢
The blocks weren't poured, cast or anything that requires some kind of mix like concrete. You can easily determine whether it's naturally formed rock or a poured mixture. None of the megalithic blocks anywhere in the world have been found to be a mixture. They're all naturally formed and we know where 99% of them were quarried from.
@@Spectre4913 I already commented on this concept, but wanted to also mention here that I had heard the same thing. That the composition of the megalithic blocks have been studied, and were determined to be in their natural states. Not demonstrating any type of "mixing" or concrete-like structure. It is fun to speculate though!
Tina, I like your logic, practical and no-nonsense approach to our worlds mysteries. You are a gem amongst all the rubble!
yeah sadly since she's just an Asian woman most people looking for evidence of "ancient race of white superhumans with high technology" will completely ignore whatever she has to say.
@@jkid4855 What a racist comment. Asians are Caucasoids
@@jkid4855 There are world renown Orientals all through the science communities , holding positions in faculty & industry & have been for many many decades , both male & female !!! Not a new thing !!!
@@davidwhiren817 “Orientals” 😂 nice try.
She's 100% correct too.
Tina, I believe you are spot on in how these stones were made. There is a book written by Joseph Davidovits that deals with geopolymers and their chemical composition. He analyzes some of the ancient stones and finds that some of the shells are randomly mixed around. If the stones had been quarried, the shells would have settled flat in layers while the stones were being naturally formed. Randomly mixed up shells points to being cast. Thanks for posting this video, it's an accurate one.
Probably the most in depth, believable and most accurate explanation for this mystery I have ever heard.
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
They are stone plugs to cover eletroid holes . Melted into place it's being proven now. They would melt the fit .
@@garrythompson8166 If they did go to all that trouble, as you say, then why didn't they sand them off. After the process you describe, sanding would be nothing at all to do.
@@garrythompson8166 The hell it is. GTFOH.
@@LeeDaleness I'd rather know why random pattern. Did ancient civs hate symmetry and straight lines?
This is very little😊, but I feel like giving you something back for taking the time to create these intriguing videos. I have enjoyed them all. Thank you, Tina！
Wow, thank you! I really appreciate it. Hope to see you sometime soon.
amazing overview. Well done on summarizing all this information Tina!
Thanks so much!
Yup. Love this lady.
This is the best coverage on the megalithic knobs that I've seen. Thanks.
The best video i have seen regarding those knobs! Love Your channel!
Glad to hear that! Thank you 😊
google for . . . . . Explosive - The Osiris temple of Abydos ( Osireion ) was made 12450 years ago by Kerala Danava Thiyya king Kalanemi Jr whose face is on the Sphinx he made .. it is distinct , separate and at a lower level than the adjacent temple of Seti I built 5900 years ago by Imhotep ( Ayyappa the ninth avatar of Vishnu ) who also built the Giza pyramids . .. Son of Seti I , Ramesses II never chased Moses - both never existed.. the reason why Jews stole their homeland of sons of soil Palestinians . The mystery of “ flower of life” on megalith stones of Osireion , the hexagon stones and small nubs , the healing water , the markers in the sky - all revealed - Capt Ajit Vadakayil
Tina, I have injection molding experience and the nobs look like runners that inject polymer into the mold from the extruder. It's not a result of suction but injection into a mold. Runners can be cut in a variety of shapes, as full round, parabolic, trapezoid, wide trapezoid, half round, and quarter round. Full round is the most efficient runner shape. It has the lowest pressure drop over the same volume of material.
Thanks for sharing!! That's an interesting idea :-)
I agree with the injection-moulded theory. The closest I can think of are styrene model sprues. It's as if each individual block were injected in place as a semisolid geopolymer glob, thus the slight bulge at the edges as it set. Scoops and marks may have been done before each block were set or cured, to a desired shape or carry impressions/embossed. Why they did not sand it off? Set stone may had been too hard, the effort too inefficient.
The Puma Punku blocks, however, may have had a mould, like pressure cast blocks today, the precise modules designed to fit like Lego blocks.
i am following this topic with a religious passion. this is the best presentation of the most reasonable theory i have heard so far.
didnt watch your videos for a while, you dont stop to astound me. you do an amazing work, thank you so much
The great rigor of this analysis should provide the definitive explanation of the mechanics which produced these knobs. Consider that only in the 21st century do they think they have the formula for Roman concrete. It is certainly plausible there were sophisticated methods in use in many places which we have yet to engineer for ourselves. Thank you again, Tina. You are a bright light of reason and talented explanation. Your clarity shines.
Well said, Dan. Thank you very much for the support and recognition. It means a lot to me ♥
The antikythera mechanism has been found to have a movement that slides inside allowing for the odd elliptical movements of planets. It's taught us something we haven't thought of doing. I saw that in the past week.
There is a very big difference between cast and naturally formed rock. These are naturally formed. They even know where they were quarried from. You can ignore reality all you want but the facts are these blocks were not cast.
@@Spectre4913 I presented a 2012 material analysis done on Sacsayhuaman's blocks by a group of geophysicists in this earlier video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html These scientists stated that the material is not natural. You can find my references under that video.
probably used magic
One thing, suppose that all of the large stones were poured, basalt is a very hard stone to liquify the stone it would have to been ground up into a powder, then reconstituted. In modern concrete. Lime is used. It helps to bind the sand and rock. It also helps to pull the water and moisture away.
We use gravel and sand for our concrete. We crush rock with a crusher then screen the rock and classify it into sized material. Sand, 3/8 chip stone, 3/4” crushed rock, and the oversized rock recycles back into the crusher. Of course the fines are 1//16” or less. Then the 3/8” materials are used for chip seals on roads, the other aggregate are used for driveways and sand. Some are brought to the cement batch plant. All of this is done with heavy equipment and big trucks.
The size of so many of the stones used. Still would have required a huge amount of equipment and man power. And the other notion that the people credited with building these structures would not have had rope strong enough to lift them up, has also been proven. So that brings us back to the question who and when?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. You are always a thought provoking person and I do appreciate your content.
I was surprised at the professional approach taken here. Many go sort of crazy in speculation…nice work.
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
Tina Tina Tina, again, your extensive research is mind blowing. Having worked with concrete, in my younger years, what you say about slump is spot on. When pouring concrete in the Refineries, we would perform a 'Slump Test' before each pour. The concrete temperature was also measured. Also, your theory of the different types of knobs is a first, and it makes sense. However, I would truly love to see this theory applied in a real situation. Love you mind 🥰🤔
And I luv her knobs
As always, amazing content! Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it! 😊
This is one of the best explanations I have ever heard regarding the polygonal stones and how they could have been done. Great work!
the smartest analyst to approach this subject yet, absolutely the best
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
Brilliant analysis Tina! I have no doubt you've solved one of the ancient building mysteries. Your education in architecture brings a level of professionalism not often seen in ancient mysteries channels. Have you thought about doing a video on the architecture of predynastic Egypt or the long lost Labyrinth under the Giza plateau?
Ken S.
Thank you very much, Ken! I really appreciate your support. I'll see what I can find on predynastic Egyptian architecture. As for the labyrinth of the Giza plateau, I think they might be part of an underground mine. I made two videos on the Osiris Shaft - hope you will find them interesting 😊
1. The Underground Complex: the Giza Osiris Shaft Created by a Lost Advanced Civilization? ua-cam.com/video/GloDq_h7yLg/v-deo.html
2. The Osiris Shaft: Part of a Prehistory Mine from a Lost Civilization? ua-cam.com/video/JuGt7JEWT6E/v-deo.html
This lady is spot on
Best analysis yet
Thank you!
@@CuriousBeingbyTina If you are a simpleton. It was obviously ufo lasers.
In the UK we call them "nubs ", because "knob" has a very different meaning 😂
Ya , don't be a knob.
"knob" seems ok for certain discussed meanings
I was laughing my ass off
All those rounded, bulging, protruding knobs and the suction! 🤪
Several, in fact.
Finally, someone who can pronounce 'polygonal' correctly. THANK YOU!
Great presentation..your ideas make sense...thx for sharing😊
Thanks for watching! 😊
Good video. I couldn't help laughing at the constant mention of knobs. Some seem to be for beams. I do wonder why they'd have left them on the stones if they weren't for some purpose afterwards when the rest of the stones are so perfect.
To be flexible enough to get the tight joints, any medium would require a form to hold the shape, the blocks have a soft rounded shape looking like a fabric bag, nothing comparable would hold the volume without splitting or collapsing completely
The nubs were stone mason marks, to show which face went to the front, and which stone was right for that position. Sometimes they indicated place this side down, or place left or place right. The nubs were large so that they could act as a ledge where a prop could be placed under, holding it in place until all of the stone were in position.
When we consider the size and weight of the blocks, one would not want to discover that a block cut for the top was positioned and locked in at the bottom.
Photographs of the Penkalas Bridge built by the Romans in the 2nd century AD, in Aezani, Asia Minor, present day Turkey, show different nub markings for different locations. When cutting blocks for arches on a bridge, the blocks are not rectangular.
Locating each stone in the correct position with the correct face outwards is critical. Stones transported long distances, stored in the quarry and at the building site need more than a chalk mark. Sometimes masons marked their blocks with a sign or trade mark to ensure that they were paid for their work.
It is believed that facing stones were often finished after being positioned in the wall. They suggest that the pyramids had their final face angle cut and finished starting at the top of the pyramid and working their way down. Easier than cutting stone and the trying to get the perfect fit every time. The angle of the pyramids is very steep when finished to smooth sides.
Stone masons kept their trade methods secret, to ensure that they got the building contract.
I would think a hole would perform the same functions and be easier to make. Of course finishing the surface would be easier with nubs as you can just chisel them off.
What a fascinating video. Makes you wonder what future archaeologists will be puzzled by.
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
they are still fucking puzzled today. they literally WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS THEORY, OR EVEN ONE OF MACHINED STONE! THIS WAS MADE BY DUDES IN BUTTFLAPS'S WITH OTHER ROCKS RUBBING THEM TOGETHER DANGIT!!!!
The stones with the knobs are andesite and granite, not concrete. Both andesite and granite are high in quartz, making it a good carrier of electromagnetic energy. I suspect an inductive tuning device that softened these materials caused the knobs. Apparently it was circular at the end, which makes sense for creating a standing waveform inside the rock that cancelled the rock's magnetic field making it malleable.
There is no Nobel prize for B.S.
I agree 100%
@@dananorth895 You don't know what you don't know.
Once I saw the title knobs from your channel, I had to watch it. Like always I’m blown away from the quality. Thank you 😊 ❤
I am so happy to finally see someone else believe these structures were cast and not precisely chiseled.
Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Yes, I have been. I have only had time to see a few of them, so far, but they have all been great.
@@jajwarehouse1 Glad to hear that 🙂
Tina I find this very interesting, its probably the best explanation I've heard to date, thanks for putting the work in for armchair enthusiasts like myself. x
Glad you enjoyed it :-) Thank you for the support.
Someone may have already posted this comment, so I apologize if they have. Just curious as to why some of the knobs weren't removed after serving their purpose. Screeding or chiseling, whichever was appropriate in the specific situation. This is the first time I have ever heard a concrete ( sorry, couldn't help that ) explanation on the purpose of the knobs. So well presented and explained. Ancient Architects has a wonderful video explaining the geopolymer evidence in Peru. Thanks so much for sharing, and I hope everyone has a wonderful day or night!
Yes, love this lady and her posts.
We have seen many rounded knobs at Cussco, for example. Would not work for lifting especially since so many are at corners or two close together near an end. A bizarre thing to ponder.
What I want to know is how they melted the stones to fit perfectly together.
Excellent work again! You really have studied the details to find out the mystery. Genius!👏🏻
Thank you very much! Glad you enjoyed it :-)
I recall your previous episode on these strange “knobs” or “bosses” are seen at many megalithic sites around the world.
The exterior walls with knobs seem to be randomly placed, at least the type I saw in Egypt. It is quite puzzling, and your videos pose many interesting questions and descriptions.
Thanks for that video. This is the best on that theme if have seen so far. This is real science. Great
Thank you for the support :-)
Using electrical currents, the growth of crystals that provide structural support to the geopolymer conglomerate can be forced. The accelerated growth of the crystal is what causes the hardening of the artificial rock. In the analysis of saqsaywaman stones carried out a few years ago, a Russian company found these fast-growing crystals, which are completely different from those that appear in natural rocks and which are in the quarry, just a few meters away.
To force this growth, an anode and a cathode must be induced in the rock mass and removed when the crystals have grown and the rock already has an adequate consistency. These 2 electrical terminals must be submerged and adhered to the dough and when removed they would form a thread, like melted cheese on pizza.
That machine exists today, but has very limited use.
Good video and better analysis.
Greetings from Spain.
And every place on earth back in the day, since we see this world wide, had electricity to make the electrical current?
@@subaruthug Of course, anywhere. That's what portable generators are for.
B.S.
The least probable is NOT the most likely.
more info on the technology?
Best Lecture on knobs i have ever seen !
Thank you. Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
Thank you. Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
This video taught me so much about knob's, the 4 types of knob, bulging knobs and huge old knobs, I can't wait for more of your informative uploads.
Thank you for the support! Hoe you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
Given the large amount of work required to split a quarried stone, only to reface the whole thing to leave a small knob, it seems unlikely that the effort would be worth it. The cast block theory makes a lot of sense as these knobs would be simple holes in the mold. Perhaps left there to allow fluid drainage as the mixture set. I find it extraordinary that so called experts refuse to accept that cast blocks were used in ancient construction. Instead they just declare that unknown quarrying techniques must be the answer.
It's because the geopolymer theory has been debunked many times.
These are all natural rocks which were quarried. It's still a mystery.
@@petejung3122 Given the limited number of ways stone can be worked with hand tools, do you really think modern stone masons can't work out how past generations worked the same stone we use today? Most of these "Ancient Mysteries" exist only to bring in tourists and their dollars. We have the ability to replicate their work, especially with modern tools. But there is an entire industry that profits from marketing these "Mysteries".
Yeah, but you need to use your brain....to cast anything, you need a mold. These rocks range from ones as big as your fist to ones that are as wide as 15 people standing shoulder to shoulder, and as high as 3 people standing on each others shoulders. You also need a separate mold for every single block ever made as all of them are different shapes and sizes. Then you need to tell me what the molds were made of? Animal skin? Wood? Why would you make a huge rock if you need to make a mold for it that involves sewing 40 animal skins together? Why not just make it a smaller block?
Also, why not just make uniform size blocks and reuse the same molds rather than make a new mold for every single block? They weren't stupid......
And what mixture did they use that made them into real rocks when the mixture dried? Roman cement is strong, super strong, but we can easily see it's cement and not rock.
I'm always open to ideas.....post your theory in more detail please. I'd love to see what makes you think these are cast other than "a knob from a drainage hole". (How did drainage work when the knob was at the top of the block?)
By large amount of work you mean 1 hour, 1 man, 1 chisel, 10 wedges and 1 hammer or block can split a 30 ton granite boulder with little to no experience. Basically, anyone with basic human functions can split a boulder in half, there is nothing next level about it at all. But I guess since we are incapable of thinking things up it must have been this intelligent species of humans that travelled the world but left no trace and lived in the shadows but educated those in the light.
@@petejung3122 There is this thing called geology that debunks the geopolymer theory, but people who think that humans had to be taught how to become intelligent instead of just learning fail to listen this.
I mean, who would of thought that Machu Picchu, a place surrounded by an abundance of granite rocks just sitting there waiting to be used, would be noticed by humans and one of them would think, look at these rocks, i wonder what will happen if we whack them and shape them and move them and put them on top of each other.
No way we as a species we could ever learn this naturally, meanwhile a few thousand years later, some guy invents a way to grow a sheep from nothing but a few cells, in a bit of glass that humans invented. in a lab that we created, but these conspiracy theorist don't start looking at him like he somehow has been speaking to god for the cheat code and then start looking in the shadows for his hidden communication line and his ethernet cable to heaven :D
That's the most cogently constructed argument for the casting of megalithic blocks that I have yet seen. Very well done.
Thank you for the support 🙂 I appreciate it.
Yes, I think your explanation is perfect! Not cut and carried from a quarry, but molded on-site casting each on top of the other. Casting one on top of the other would require only minimal lifting of the mixture, not lifting of heavy blocks!
Wow, this is the best video on this subject that I have seen. Good work!
Glad you enjoyed it! Hope you will like my other videos on megalithic sites :-)
Finally an excellent story about all those so-called carved stones and the mysterious techniques.
You are most likely describing exactly how these stones were produced.
Ever since I read the French chemist Davidovits' extensive account of geopolymers, I have always wondered what material the molds were made from for the stones that look spherical.
You may be able to pour small stones into bags made of textile, but they will probably bulge too much, so that seemed to me to be an incorrect idea, so they were cast in a strong mold in a slightly liquid state and subsequently processed.
I still wonder how they did that.
You can also see that the cement of some stones has not been mixed properly, because layers are formed that fall off over time.
You can make concrete from any type of stone, including granite.
I think that the artists who made statues and pots also used this technique, because it often looks too homogeneous to be processed natural stone, but artists can of course also make beautiful variations.
The so-called boreholes that have emerged in granite are also not mysterious.
It is clearly visible that the distances per revolution on the drill core are too large to do this in hard granite.
It is not feasible even with diamond, due to the excessive force required.
It can easily be done with a copper plate bent round at the end of a stick, forming a tube and turned by hand into soft unhardened granite casting.
That is why you also see that the pitch of the revolutions is irregular.
Everything can also be made quickly by artists, especially if you have seen a plasterer/restorer working, which was of course also possible a long time ago.
You tell a very plausible story, nice that you tell it in detail, many thanks for this.
Hard at this point to say which civilization was more advanced: the one pouring stone, or the one lifting enormous solid pieces of stone? Of course, they could be the same civilization, but they could also be different ones ... because why move a gargantuan solid piece when you can transport slurry? Slurry should be more economical.
So we have ancient mining tool tech, ancient lifters, ancient stone pourers, and ancient precision cutters ... any of which could be separate or the same civilization.
Stones have different properties, chemical resistance for example.
So, the building, by carving out of solid rock, was more high-tech?
Therefore more ancient, methinks (hundreds of thousands of years ago)
@@2seconds992 I really don't know which approach was higher tech.
Probably the precision cuts and the mining could most easily be from the same era as each other, as they resemble things we can do in the present. The other two technologies - stone pouring and giant stone moving - are harder for me to evaluate, as we don't really do either.
@@SG-js2qn Ok. But the carved buildings seem extremely impressive to me, because of size, but, especially, the requirement of making NO errors.
The best presentation I have ever seen on this subject. Ancient stone cutting/shaping is my favorite study.
Thank you! I made a series of videos on megalithic sites - hope you will enjoy them :-)
Here is the list just in case: ua-cam.com/play/PL92SXkFO15Cwy90BlCQWWYhavJzop2PtU.html
Very interesting ideas. I didn't realize that you were such an expert on knobs, Tina. 😜LOL I look forward to your next video. Chris. x
I always love your videos. You look at things with clear vision and logic and don't try to fit your conclusions to the dominant consensus. Thank you. This was excellent.
Thank you very much for the support and recognition.
As a little boy I used to go on holidays to my grandmother's. It's been more than half a century. Downstairs, where my grandmother lived, there was a bakery. They baked buns that were chubby and the same as the stones in Saxahumana that I saw in their photo in the magazine. I couldn't read yet, there was no internet, and back then there wasn't much talk about Saxahuman. But my child's brain at that time was not influenced by the already mentioned widespread media, he assessed that the stone in Saxahuman is like buns in a bakery and must have been in a plastic state like dough.I still think about it today
Best explanation on knobs so far👍 expecially those once in Sacsayhuamán👍
Thanks! 😃
I could imagine some uncentered knobs as tipping handles but, other than the Roman and Greek ones, most really don't seem intended for lifting or tipping purposes.
Even with the pre-dynastic Egyptians there is some evidence of 'softened rock'. For me this is the only explanation for how they did certain things in stone.. and thanks again Tina for another great vid!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you 😊
100% spot on
Thank you so much Curious Being and for all the research you must have carried out. A fascinating and credible explanation of an intriguing part of ancient civilisations. Your channel has been quite a find!
Thank you very much for the support! I appreciate it 🙂
Best looking "knobs" on youtube. :)
Check out ahc Ancient history criticism
I agree with your thesis, casting these stones on site would make construction so much easier. Well done 👏 Tina
Thanks so much 😊
Your welcome, greetings from the U.K @@CuriousBeingbyTina
first time here and left a sub, good content!
Appreciate it! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
Often the simplest, most obvious solutions are the hardest to prove or even perceive.
It takes a great analytic mind to distinguish between that which is true or impossible and that which is not.
The process that you've described is flawless and your explanation for the indentations and protrusions makes absolute sense.
I think that your hypothesis is spot on and I'm convinced that it will be proven sometime in the future.
I have said it before: there's much more of a scientist in you than there is in many so-called experts.
GREAT WORK, TINA.
👍👏
Thank you very much for the support and recognition ♥ Much appreciated!
Hey Tina😊
Definitely moldable "rock" techniques, Like so many other
Unsolved mysteries, Lost ancient technology is the common thread. You are awesome.
⛱️🙏👍😊
Hope you are enjoying your spring time!!
Thank you Jeff! It's getting warm now - Spring is here 😊
Another fantastic video, thank you Tina! Your channel, alongside Paul Cook's one, are my two top ones on ancient mysteries. Paul finds and notices things that no one else does but he can be chaotic and rambling (sorry Paul if you are reading this, but that's the truth:D ) whereas you are so refreshingly meticulous, clear cut and logical. A joy! And I love how you draw parallels to modern engineering and architectural practices, so we get to learn about those too. Thanks again xx
So glad you enjoy my videos! Thank you very much for the support ♥
As always your analysis is exceptional. Your use of illustrative photos is also supporting. This is really a complex and not consistent topic.
Rock vs “concrete”. Today we have expert geologists tell us that these stone walls are true stone, not some concrete like material. And yet as recently a 150 years ago expert geologists told us that many Roman constructs were stone, not “Roman concrete” as we know it today. They even came up with the approximate formula for Roman concrete. I personally lean to the “cast not cut” school. Simply because of the appearance you point to.
Now the protuberances, since “knob” gets a few of my fellow viewers all worked up…..
Some as you indicate are riggers hard points. Either to lift the block they are on, or as hard points for lifting some item below.
A third possibility presents. Lost function. If there is indeed a lost civilization(s) with advanced but diminished “lost technology” as many suggest, then the bumps may simply be stylistic rather than functional.
A good example of this comes from the field of firearms of the early 20th century. The C-96 Mauser pistol was quite popular. Especially in what we call today third world countries. Countries without a sophisticated arms industry but talented metal workers. I’m some cases these metalworks set out to make copies of the C-96. But they were neither shooters or gun smiths. So the elaborate tangent rear sight of the C-96 with its many small parts was simply reproduced in general outline only. The reproductions are not adjustable nor do they really function as a rear sight. One could say they are symbolic sights at best. I’m a few cases the C-96 standings were reproduced. The MauseR banner was reproduced as WauseR on a few examples. Indicating no understanding of written English, but a possible belief that this “mark” was spiritually necessary for the piece to function. Rifling inside the barrels was also variable or completely optional. And yet most such examples are functional to some degree.
So could all these stone structures actually be the product of much older high technology, still functional for the purpose, but with only vestiges of some largely forgotten architecture?
I don’t know. There is no “proof” per se. Only speculation.
Keep up the good work Tina! You may be right. You may be wrong. But your always entertaining and interesting! Until next time!
Fox out
Interesting insight, Fox! Thank you for sharing with me. You always have new information to offer :-)
@@CuriousBeingbyTinaThis analysis relies on the fact that modern western "Portland Cement" is the only known form of concrete. Actually Portland cement is the worst kind of cement with a very short life span 🙏
@@ETALAL
Actually it’s far from the only formulation we know as “cement”. Portland cement is used to make many different grades of concrete. And there are other options. It’s popular today because it lasts an appropriate period of time for our cultural purposes and is affordable. That is “cheap”. It is also highly consistent in appearance. We value uniformity of appearance.
By contrast what we call Roman concrete is not uniform nor is it cheap to make. The lack of uniformity makes it appear as if it’s local rocks which it essentially is, bound with volcanic ash and laboriously produced lime. It’s lack of fine grind and granular structure is it’s key to longevity. But it too weathers externally, adding to its rugged rock like external character.
I could go on discussing medieval “concrete” used as a binder within the walls of castles all the way down to foundations for simple huts. Largely sand, clay and burnt lime it’s not strong but is very durable if protected from moisture. And so it was used more as a mortar by masons.
Our modern concrete serves our needs. It’s compatible with steel reinforcing which many other concretes are not. Portland cement is elastic enough to allow us to use concrete as a structural load bearing element such as bridge spans. Left unmolested it can last for generations. Sufficient for our purposes.
Examples of concrete failure often reveal some contractor who shorted the mix to save money, or as in the case of German fortifications on the French and Dutch coasts, sabotage by local space labor crews who added salty sea sand to the mix making it weak.
Concrete and cement is a deep subject. Sure you want to go down this twisty rabbit hole with an old fox?
Fox out
@@vulpesvulpes5177 @vulpesvulpes5177 Archeologists take a long time to catch up, They are still living in the early 1900s when it comes to engineering. You should have read my comment more carefully. But, thanks for the information.
@@ETALAL
I read quite well. You stated that Portland cement was the only kind and the worst. Two very absolute statements. Both incorrect in general context.
Archeologists have never been know for their engineering or other practical skills. Sadly.
Fox out
archeologists don't want to entertain your hypothesis because it would mean there truly was an advanced ancient civilization! awesome video - very thought provoking!
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
Thank you again for sharing your insights and inquisitive thoughts filled videos always !! Scientific and intelligent thought provoking hypotheses and analyses !! Excellent !!
Greetings from California … I wish you and folks good health , success and happiness !! Much Love ✌️😎💕
So glad you liked the video 😊 Thank you very much for the support and good wishes! ❤
Bravo Tina! Once again your logic, research and deductive reasoning is top tier! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Thank you!! I appreciate your support!
I aways thought these walls were some type of concrete, especially with the screed marks, but then there is the unfinished obelisk in Egypt which shows scoop marks underneath and that was solid granite, so its still a mystery to me.
Many (super) ancient constructions WERE carved out of single rocks (e.g. some temples in India, colossi of Memnon, obelisks).
(See Mystery History channel)
This does not contradict anything that Tina has said re. polygonal buildings.
(The main reasons for polygonal would be: different purpose, and built in an earthquake prone place?)
Yes?
Fascinating and compelling as ever. I have always been sceptical about plasticity/geopolymer explanations for these exquisite structures; but the key question is: can there be any alternative rational explanation for their construction? The biggest mystery in preliterate societies is recovering any explanation for why they were constructed and what the builders thought they were building.
Anything we do not understand tends to be described as "magical". Before decipherment it was widely believed that Egyptian Hieroglyphs were literally magical writing or spells from the Gods; and if understood would confer magical powers. It must have been a surprise when on translation most of them were quite banal tax decrees or the usual monarchical boasting about proximity to the supernatural.
Well said - thank you! The Roman concrete was previously thought to be stone until the mystery of Roman construction was rediscovered.
Is the only reason we cannot replicate it today because we don’t have the recipe for that geopolymer?
Tina, congratulations for the channel and the explanations. I arrived a few days from Indonesia and was amazed at what I saw in temples like Borobodur and Prambanam. As for the Knobs, I always thought they were leftovers from an extrusion process. like a tip left by the possible machine.
Thank you for sharing with me :-) It must be amazing to see Borobodur and Prambanam in person. Enjoy your trip!
Interesting theory and well presented too, subscribed! Love the calm and rational tone.
Awesome, thank you!
You nailed it, this was a breath of fresh air amidst a sea a academic ignorance
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
Agree with everything, came to same conclusion a while ago.
You are the TRUTH. I always get more than I expected and leave saying I never looked at it from that point. Brilliant ❤❤
I'm flattered and humbled. Thank you very much for the support ❤
You are the best! Always excited when you have a new video
Thank you for your support! :-)
Wish I knew English better than I do to explain what you perfectly did sweetheart! I thought I wasn’t going to come across anyone who did what you just did by explaining a phenomenon with one word equal to many encyclopaedias on this subject witch is nothing but guesses to known and very simple as something lost as technology’s and cataclysm’s summary ! Thanks very much sweetheart ! You are the one and only real thing explaining to the eye what is there they present as unconstructed impossible miracle by lost methods our ancestors used !
THANK YOU STAR
Thank you for the support! I appreciate it :-)
Has anyone done a simple analysis to determine if the stones are a cast material or natural rock?
Yes - a group of Russian geophysicists analyzed samples taken from Sacsayhuaman and proposed that the material is not natural. I discussed this (with references) in the following video of mine: Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html
Hi Tina, it's been a while, but I'm always watching and learning.
As usual your logic, factual based and indepth research is so much needed, and is lacking by others in this topic. Thankyou for teaching us, 84 videos and counting.
Some great comments here for you to ponder. They make me think back while on job sites and discussing concrete with engineers. Different slumps, electrically growing crystals, life expectancy of the concrete, geopolimers etc.
Many are discussing how they were built, but are skirting around another very important question that has been bothering me. In this day and so called advanced age, we almost never think of building anything that will last more than 100 years.
So a question for you Tina, why did a civilization(s) of ancient sites build them to last many thousands of years and knowing full well they will stand the test of extreme time?
If, in our short life we can begin to answer this, it would go a long way to understanding how these people lived.
Just one more thought, we may tend to lump these ancient sites into the same time line, where in fact I think they are at the very least 100's to thousands of years apart in time.
Thank you again Tina 🤔
Thank you for sharing with me. I appreciate your support :-)
Some Greek and Roman structures last over 2,000 years.
The megalithic sites we are seeing now are the leftover ruins that survived, and there ought to be a lot more buildings from the same periods collapsed and disappeared. Structures built with earthly materials like stone, bricks and concrete (such as retaining walls) would outlive the ones structured with metals. Our modern masonry retaining walls would likely last thousands or tens of thousands of years too. Many well-constructed modern high-rise buildings can stand for a few hundred years or longer with proper maintenance.
I agree that it's possible that these ancient megalithic sites were built in different times.
Great analysis!
Very accurate description and explanation, proof that these blocks were poured and molded, the evidence is there for those of us that look, one aspect that is well hidden from the public is objects that are encased in the blocks and protruding out for supports, these are well hidden, places you are not allowed to visit, very good job.
My intuition tells me most megaliths are geopolymer
Your intuition is uninformed and you are wrong. You are also carelessly denigrating the actual skill and arduous labour involved in masonry construction. Please do some actual investigation. Geopolymers are largely a modern invention. Dr. Davidovitz should be given credit for his work here, but his attribution of its use to the ancient Egyptians is misplaced. The pyramids were masonry construction, not cast-in-place artefacts.
@@paulus.tarsensus He did say most. There are a lot of saw marks found on stone there, which is equally interesting. Just say'n.
@@paulus.tarsensus I've seen enough PROOF you can't tell me anything
@@Axetrax1976
Your choice of language belies your mindset, Rick. If a person 'can't tell you anything', then your mind is made up and you are closed to further evidence that contradicts our fixed belief.
She has presented evidence to support her point of view, so kudos to her. I just pointed out that her evidence is weak and actually demonstrates other processes. She also did not have access to information on how the masons in the Andes used plant sap and pyrite to form strong acids to help 'erode' the rock joints to fit together better. Early Spanish colonists observed and recorded this. One Spanish friar in particular, said that the Incan builders used a mortar of plant sap, sand and 'gold' to build their structures. The gold was pyrite and we've found residue of this. It wasn't mortar, it was a slurry they used to erode and fit the rock into place. The Inca and their predecessors had three different types of masonry, but all employed internal joints, fitted face boulders, robust foundations and a backward slope to combat the earthquakes. The stone would 'dance' in place, then resettle exactly into place because of this.
We see these types of solutions throughout the ancient world where seismic activity was an issue: Japan, the Graeco-Roman world, the Middle East and Western Asia.
The stone used in all these areas was native rock and we have identified the quarries. The stones have internal structure and fossil inclusions still in place.
The Romans developed pozzolanic mortar and this was the first concrete ever used for construction. Other cultures such as the Maya and the Aztec only had limestone plaster, which they used to mortar their stone structures together and for stucco.
Geopolymer silicates are a deliberate, modern invention.
If you want information on how the pyramids were built and how they fitted their stones together in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the UA-cam channel 'History For Granite' is arguably the very best.
The most accurate end detailed explanation up to date!!!!!
Thank you!
I think you’re close but I don’t believe it was a mold. I beilieve if you have a powerful enough dc electric device you can super charge a piece of granite to the point that it starts melting from the inside out. It’s like a temporary softening
Whatever the cause or use, they stand as stark evidence that this method is a signature of a single culture that spread this knowledge across the globe.
I heavily disagree. All of the knobs were result of the same or nearly similar production process/methods.
Wrong!
In the case of the Peruvian megalithic construct, it seems that they could have been blatter water vents . Mortar form sacks.
Ask an old, well skilled stone mason.
I would say that the Roman buildings were reusing stone. Edit: I’m betting on geopolymer.
Tina, your penetrating analysis and brilliant presentation has, IMHO, finally nailed the argument that these large blocks HAD to have been CAST in place versus precisely CARVED for each unique location. The casting process is obviously much much easier to do, so that explains why they made so many of them all over the world. The foolish focus on tight joints "where nothing can be inserted," is like trying to describe an elephant by analysing the wrinkles in its hide. It's often necessary to back up a bit in order to see the bigger picture and the context in order to properly understand something -- just like you did here. Unfortunately, that is a very rare human perspective which you most evidently possess, and that makes you very rare and precious, which is why we all keep coming back to you for insights and knowledge not found elsewhere. Thank you Curious Being! We'll see you in the next one.
Thank you very much for the support and encouragement! Much appreciated ♥
The knobs are the outlets for the geopolymer liquid.
Great stuff again Tina, I'll add one thing, Bag construction, The nobs may be for expansion Puncturing the bag and the excess is squeezed out like tooth paste from a tube to be broken off when hardened. Also adding timber floors in explanation 4 is easy to spot. Where the timber rubs on the material, over time it would appear to be highly polished.
For a future video the use of terrazzo to simulate granite blacks would be interesting
🙏🌻🐝❤️👉💐
Thank you for sharing your insight! Much appreciated ❤️Bag construction has merit, and the terrazzo granite blocks is very interesting. Thank you for the suggestions!
Knubs NOT knobs....
Correct, these are knubs, knobs vote democrat.
Great video as always, and my original takeaway is that these knobs on carved stone were probably far more universal than we thought, as they make lifting ropes far more secure, and crawling around for workers easier... There is so much amazing but simple engineering throughout history.
I agree - thank you for sharing!
Picking things apart is why I like your channel.
Thank you :D
that's what I think too. I personally think that they were made from burlap sacks, sometimes you can see that they were supported with wooden planks and that concrete already existed before the Greeks and the Romans. just look at cart tracks Malta, this is volcano dust where people fled with horse and cart
Yes, but then, on the littlest pyramid, you can see where a machine has surfaced the rocks and eliminated the knobs or knobs
Great technical analysis. Sure seems like this is a likely method of achieving some of the results we see at these sites. I too have spent years trying to solve this riddle.
One major issue I see in the cast hypothesis is the fact that these scoop or screed marks are also found on massive living stone outcroppings, the sides of cliffs, and even inside cavern walls etc. We also see these marks in massive in situ projects like the unfinished obelisk. Another issue is how could many of the polygonal blocks be cast given such a multitude of intricate and hard angles? Surely the moulds needed to create this level of complexity would defeat the purpose... A mystery that will no doubt confound and drive us all crazy long into the future.
I like your casting theory Tina, it helps to explain the amazingly tight fit of the stones. I wonder however why in some cases the shapes are so irregular; when you cast stones would you not make them the same shape?
Your productivity is amazing, the research and recording must take up a lot of your time. Well done and keep going!
Thank you :-) I appreciate your support. I explained my thoughts on the molds and irregular shapes in the later half of this video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html
Best explanation so far. Considering similarities in Egypt, Central America and other disparate places, one concludes the widespread ability to melt quartz laden granite and other extremely hard stone has been obfuscated. How is it no process artifact remains? Also, the dimensional accuracy and surface perfection of ancient orthogonal shapes is unexplained. Some hypothesize that quartz emits energy under pressure, but conclude the Egyptians were not the authors of this unknown method of liquifying ultra hard materials.
I long ago thought these "stones" were poured on site. It explains the almost perfect seams. I guess it was some superior type of concrete. Great video. Love the logical approach. Thanks.
They are "push points" used during a lapping operation NOT for lifting.
They are near the bottom because they stone most slide and not roll.
Sometimes they are not knobs but dents from repeated pushing.
I did an experiment and found our why.
Great analysis and convincing conclusions. As always. Good work.👍
Much appreciated!
Very clear and convencing explanations. Tina, you are very practical and logical .
I love keeping an open mind and studying many different opinions and conclusions. Nice job Tiny especially with the four main types of stone knobs.
What do you think about scientist who are confident about the quaries from which the large stone come from. Apparently they've matched the stones to where they come from in the ground.
What do you think about the natural mineral structure inside the stones (they look naturally formed)?
Can you please explain a bit more on how you imagine the stones were cast in place? Did they use generic molds or custom ones? Was there so little slump that they didnt need molds?
I cant wait to discuss this further! Tiny or anyone else that has some constructive replies, I welcome your comment!
Thank you. I discussed the possible construction method, the molds and the material analysis of Sacsayhuaman from a group of Russian geophysicists in this video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built ua-cam.com/video/x9S4CqY3eSA/v-deo.html
I also listed my references under that video.
Hope you will find it interesting :-)
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Thank you for pointing me in the right direction - sorry for not searching for that topic before commenting.
I'll see ya over at the other video, thanks again!
Best videos of megalithics I have ever seen
👍 Nice job as always. It looks like some of the bulging block walls could have been cast in bags of some kind and the lower knobs being where there were holes in the bags and the polymer was escaping and so forth. The bad thing is, we'll most likely never know for sure just who did this work and how. I still think that the elongated skull culture could manipulate the elements and yes, even levitate stone.
Danke!
Thank you very much for the support!
Hi Tina. The irregular knobs could be from injection moulding plasticized material. A lot more pressure available pumping than using suction. Very fascinating topic.
0:46 to me, its obvious the walls were poured , hose connection points for inflow out flow for leveling? Thought this for years, after i pumped enough cement. We use crushed rock to make cement, i image after enough time and possibly heat they can become natural looking? Or natural again?