Sacsayhuaman. How Heavy Are The Stones?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- #sacsayhuaman #inca #lostancienthightechnology
Just how much do the MEGALITHIC stones of Sacsayhuaman really weigh? How to check for yourself?
Part of a great series from Ancient Architects channel on Sacsayhuaman
Geopolymer or Natural Rocks? The Geological Truth of Sacsayhuaman, Peru | Ancient Architects
• Geopolymer or Natural ...
A sample of a non LAHT site using stats for Sacsayhuaman that are a little on the exaggerated side. Bad references do get repeated and spread on the internet for benign reasons, not just nefarious ones.
www.gct.com/co...
From the David Thornley collection:
photos.google....
You've been overly generous as to deserve a Nobel peace prize for your efforts here mate. Keep chipping away !
Obama got a Nobel prize for being black! A few calculations certainly are a better qualification.
@@marutanray This is a science and reality channel. Are you entirely lost?
Whenever I read Sacsayhuamán, I always sing it in my head to the melody of ELOs Evil Woman 😁🤷♂️ Great video bud. Loving your channel
This was up in smoke. Thanks for supplying grounded, logical research. And yes, you’re being easily very conservative with your numbers.
Very conservative with numbers. The Inca also didn't have access to wood logs in that area, nor were there anything like horses to move the blocks. He's also conveniently left out the Machu Picchu Peak. There are some stones up there that are nearly as large. I guarantee you they were not moved downhill. Again, there were no trees to make logs from and there were no horses or donkeys. Creator is doing his best to make the case that this wasn't all that hard. But he's discounting a lot of things, or simply not including them.
@@BillBird2111 I checked your channel to see what you have up on it. You expressed yourself with such confidence I just had to look. I didn't see anything there. Talk is what now?
@@danielpaulson8838 Talk is cheap, sir. I will be the last one to tell you that I am any kind of expert in this field. Because I am not. I didn't realize that I "had to have something on my channel" to express an opinion on this issue, The creator of this content did leave it open to comments, did he not? At any rate, I do have questions about how this was done. I do have questions about who did it. I'm not going to suggest some silly theory about aliens because there's no proof of that either. I just find it strange that there is evidence of this work all over the globe. Yet, I've yet to hear anything other than "they moved it with logs."
@@BillBird2111 Of course it is open to comments. That is why I left mine. Do you think you can question him and I cannot question you?
He showed facts and postulated viable theory. You made claims with no facts.
That's as far as this has gone.
An enormous empire that stretched from the ocean to the Amazon didn't have logs?
Thank you for your service!
Very interesting and thoroughly done! I enjoyed this, even though I myself perhaps am not fully adverted to the idea thay there perhaps have existed more advanced technology than what we are currently willing to admit. Such as iron tools for example. I wanted to ask you wheter you have access to any pictures of the faces which are hidden in between the blocks, or where I perhaps could find these, I believe they could tell a lot about the sophistication of those who built them. Sincerely, Tysken
Good assessment.
I think that big one with the 5 stones on top is called bear paw?
You should rename your channel Found Ancient Recovered Technology..
.FART
old.FART
The small cubic blocks (same stone) at the site were deceptively light, I tried picking one up and fell backwards due to over-compensating.
Good to know, I thik i know exactly which ones you mean. At the top near the circular thingy?
Either way looking into the site it's very interesting, all those lesser known neighbours. About 800 metres away in a nature reserve there's a place called Llaullipata ;-) I think i found the source of the stone softening legend
@@SacredGeometryDecoded yeah that was it (closer to the valley), they had hundreds of blocks laid out about a metre apart. The whole area is filled with carved rock outcrops, I spent a whole day wandering aimlessly around, there is much more than just the well known sites.
Good science! This provides a "reality check" to the many claims of the rocks weights. Possible doctoral dissertation material. (Cheech, Chong and Dave's Not Here Man...🤣😂)
Cheech and Chong, apt. The second ruler is a short ass at 5"4, I agree a lot of the big ones are likely bedrock. They probably quarried from the site itself, just worked and rearranged.
Old stones. Old Stoners. ;-)
Thanks, I wanted to be sure to oversell the weight rather be accused of underselling them.
@@SacredGeometryDecoded indeed, very generous as others commented.
Honestly the obsession over weight on the part of LAHT is tedious. Given enough manpower and resources most things can be overcome. As the video alludes these larger stones are seen on the lower tier resting upon the ground. Ergo they were not "lifting" anything. As discussed in other videos the Inca the same as others were experienced terraformers who created terraces on the sides of mountains. That showed knowledge of using soil and other materials to create usable surfaces = such as roads.
As with other Inca sites the topography is conducive to loads being pushed/pulled along slopes mild enough for teams of men to overcome. Look at where the modern roads exist today around these sites = engineers often simply follow the existing paths as people back then also took the easiest route to scale a thing. LAHT needs a lesson in map reading. 🤓
Are they true stones or molded as has been suggested?
If they were moulded, wouldn't they make them all the same size?
@@Simon-fm8yc Yeah. And if they were molded, why would they mold single stones and not a whole wall instead?
Definitely natural and not molded, the rear of the stones is rough natural split, and with big gaps between, show a sample of that here, will cover in more details in next videos.
"Molded" gets tossed around like it's a simple technology. The amount of technology infrastructure needed to homogenously cast something this large which approximates stone is not supported in the very least.
If you melt most rocks in air you transform them to dirty/black obsidian glass. It's no longer "rock".
If you are thinking "concrete" and not "melted rock reformed", then think of this; why would you mould stones in such stupid shapes? If you are using formwork, then you pour the whole wall at one time, and you leave the wooden impressions of the formwork on the surface of the concrete. If you are making blocks, then you make all the blocks the same - just like when you make bricks!
You use the same mould over and over to make the same block over and over.
The reason the blocks here are all irregular is because the rocks they dug out of the base of the cliffs in the quarry were all irregular. They were transported to the site, where the foreman picked the stones which required the least amount of work to fit into the walls. Do you see that?
People are not stupid. People work stone extremely well. People can move extremely large stones without problems, both up and down hill. People can shape stones to match side faces extremely quickly (using nothing but two sticks and a rope!), and ONLY the front face has to match nicely - the rest can remain rough. That is why the backs of the stones remain unworked.
The stones don't even need to be lifted, because you bury the wall in dirt as you work your way up, making a ramp to bring the stones up. Then when the wall is finished, you remove the soil in front of the wall, and backfill behind it.
This should be obvious to you if you spend some time actually thinking about the subject.