Negative. Read the "Thiaoouba Prophecy" by Michel Desmarquet
@dennisblair9626
5 күн бұрын
More likely high voltage, high amperage melding techniques. kzitem.info/news/bejne/z26euKedcaaIi5w
@johnpick8336
13 күн бұрын
Many of those stones are 10's of thousands of tons !
@1father1
16 күн бұрын
The stones could have been made from a much softer material and petrified into stone over hundreds and thousands of years
@1father1
17 күн бұрын
One of the best possible explanations i have ever heard you could be on the right track but it doesn't explain the extremely heavy lifting and moving into place but the actual idea of how the blocks was made is a great possibility
@PacoOtis
21 күн бұрын
Delusional nonsense!
@jeffo4817
24 күн бұрын
Ancient Egyptians fit stones together FAR tighter than even the tightest South American stonework. Check out kahfres temple enclosure=mindbliwng
@MyVoice369
28 күн бұрын
Doesn't explain the intricate 12 sided interlocking block... 🤔🙄😎
@caseylewis2835
28 күн бұрын
They moved the stones with harmonic vibration one day. The rest of you will catch up and figure it out
@MonsterCookieHammer
Ай бұрын
Also Some of those stones weigh in the tens of tons.
@startsontime
Ай бұрын
So easy to prove/dis-prove. As another commenter mentioned, evidence of grain and other materials that should match a single slab theory, and examination of the other stone faces on the blocks for chiseling and carving. I find this theory to be highly unlikely due to the likelihood of faults in the stone or the technique leading to damage of even a single block that would make the entire slab useless.
@wompbozer3939
Ай бұрын
Even if they did break the occasional block, this method would still be faster than rough shaping every single block. They had the ability to process stone, it just wasn’t efficient and led them to use this as their primary method.
@startsontime
Ай бұрын
@@wompbozer3939 examining the hidden faces for tooling would settle this theory once for all. If they are shaped, then his theory is wrong, if they are split, he is correct. Easily resolved.
@wompbozer3939
Ай бұрын
@@startsontime What if they split them, then shaped the backside of the stone?
@startsontime
Ай бұрын
@@wompbozer3939 I imagine that the removal by tooling would undermine the razor thin fit between blocks. His theory relies on the economy of labor realized by the minimization of labor and technology. It’s still an ingenious (if unlikely), theory. He bases his idea on the stubby projections remaining on the highly polished faces of the blocks acting as fulcrums to break the carved matrix in a controlled manner. I think it highly unlikely that they would not polish them off when the wall was reassembled if that was their only purpose.
@wompbozer3939
Ай бұрын
@@startsontime From what I’ve gathered, the backside of many of the South American polygonal masonry have a boot shaped profile that isn’t dressed as nicely as the front. Whether or not they are finished or not doesn’t change the quarrying method that they used. Being able to place even some of the quarried stones in the same configuration would speed up the construction a lot, even if you have to still make some of your own shapes occasionally. I think they had the technology for smoothing and removing smaller amounts of material, but had problems crosscutting them which led to them trying to use some of the original shapes that fell out when they quarried them. Some of the larger pieces would have taken thousands of hours to rough out, and anyone who thought to try to reassemble them somewhat would have been a hero. It also explains why they used such weird patterns and threw in tiny blocks every so often that would bridge multiple large pieces together.
@JohnViinalass-lc1ow
Ай бұрын
weight of blocks and acupositioning them prohibits your point of view, it seems to me
@dijpdepijp2154
Ай бұрын
interesting. So... they.. had.... circular saws of 10m?
@khaldounmnb5197
Ай бұрын
They used sea-plants to soften hard rocks.
@MrWeebable
Ай бұрын
The constant retouching of the stone shapes shows how impractical soft stones are. Moreover, if the stones were that soft, the relative positions of the stones don't really matter. Additionally, many polygonal walls show the lower stones to have the concave corners, meaning the top stones would have had harder bottoms than the tops of the lower stones. Equally soft stones result in voronoi patterns, without concave corners. The polygonal walls are NOT voronoi diagrams.
@DrinkYourNailPolish
Ай бұрын
The problem is you're reproducing this in clay, not actual stone. The real test would be to use stonw on stone as you hypothesize
@MartinCardosa
Ай бұрын
So the stones are made of clay? Gotcha.
@CodeNameTech
Ай бұрын
bro knobs are there for wooden support while they were pouring concrete on the next piece of the puzzle and then remove them when it can support itself :") ... so much effort and so much time lost in vain :)
@fcuk_x
Ай бұрын
How did they fit the sides or corners? Surely they didnt cut the whole lenght of a wall out of one singular slab of rock.
@ernsailor9041
Ай бұрын
Interesting but can't be right, there's walls with damaged stones and fallen stones, they're also different shades of colour and you casually said they plane the wall flat, how it's Granite? Your theory only covers those stones what about all the others that are massive, and there's quarries where the stones came from they already weigh a lot on their own now you add them all up to one piece?
@carlospinheirotorres9499
Ай бұрын
Aside from Davidovits' theory, this the one I find to be the most interesting. I side with the geopolymer explanation, but I reckon you have come up with a very insightful observation of the monoliths. I really think you have thought out an extremely interesting method that if not the one actually used, one that can actually be. Thank you for sharing this ❤
@johnwattdotca
Ай бұрын
Give me a break. This man is just trying to carve a recreation of what he is seeing. He's wrong about the Inca, proven to be incapable of copying the megalith structures that existed before they inhabited them. He doesn't know the blocks aren't square but have curved sides, said to jumble around during earthquakes and settling back down.
@scark00
Ай бұрын
No evidence of this technique in the quarry’s where these stones came from. Granite and Dolomite are too hard for stone tools. The ancients moved these stone across several mountain ranges in some cases up and down valleys and over mountains. No way Jose!
@wompbozer3939
Ай бұрын
You are assuming that the stones came hundreds of miles. It’s very likely that the quarry was very close by, and exhausted itself from hundreds of years of people removing rocks. If you look at the geology of Machu piccu, you will notice that it is on a very flat mountain top. All the other mountains in the area have pointy tops with craggly cliff faces. It’s quite possible that they created a flat area while exploiting the quarry, and left no proof of the original shape.
@davidwardlaw4865
Ай бұрын
the height of some off the walls would have shattered some of the stones . and how did the pick them up to place them when some weigh many tons myself i think they had mastered the art of concrete in large bags
@Exaltation-heliacal
2 ай бұрын
Playdough. Cool
@zee7705
2 ай бұрын
Shut up nerd
@chrismalcomson7640
2 ай бұрын
Certainly the best explanation of the knobs I've heard and why they're seen so widely around the world on this kind of masonary. Obviously you'd be hard pressed to use this construction technique on the larger walls but there's no reason why you couldn't use a combination of this technique where possible and cutting them in maually when you had no choice. Keeping it as simple as possible is the key.. Polygonal blocks obviously had to be cut in by hand and the irregular shapes on some walls suggests they cut them in individually.. I guess the techniques used would de dependent on the properties of the stone in the quarries. Not all stone will fracture in the way you like it to..
@skepticalgenious
Ай бұрын
I concur it's an excellent hypothesis or actually theory. The only thing I'm wondering like yourself, would be dynamics. Will it work if scaled up in size.
@MatthieuSCHREK
2 ай бұрын
I like listening to this kind of inovative ideas. It just broadens my mind. Good job, sir. However, I don't think all the tightly fitted blocks were originaly one somewhere. Do they ? Furthermore, when we think of the most heavy pieces, it just does't seem feasible. But well... what do I know ?
@simonramos485
2 ай бұрын
lolol... 🙋🤦🤷 no...
@pitodesign
2 ай бұрын
Most complicated and difficult way of building a wall ever. They shoudn't have finished a single wall till today.
@yuotwob3091
2 ай бұрын
Sound theory, neatly demonstrated. I was thinking the patterns look like magnetic domain crystal structures, only on a much bigger scale. Given that you can magnetise iron by striking it sharply with a hammer, I was imagining a gang synchronously pounding away on a rocky protrusion to get it ringing. With some initial 'tuning', we could imagine that a pattern emerges, to the 'sighted', that could be scored into the rockface.
@muhammedguveloglu2084
2 ай бұрын
I think it s a good explanation
@charlessudom288
2 ай бұрын
Interesting but lots of unanswered questions.
@johncopeland3826
2 ай бұрын
How did they load 70 ton granite stone blocks on and off wooden boats ,when transporting them on the Nile when building the Pyramids ? How did they do it without sinking the boats ? Removing the blocks off the boats at the Giza site must have been a nightmare to do ! An unbelievable feat of endeavour ....
@dsharpness
Ай бұрын
Suspended between two boats, with floats...😮
@greypawn7780
2 ай бұрын
BS at its best ...
@frankdillon6127
2 ай бұрын
like putting a cracked plate back together. end would look like a plate with seams
@Kommander_Rahnn
2 ай бұрын
Maybe not a perfect solution but I think you may be on to something.
@jessicarae1982
2 ай бұрын
Well how do you explain where some stones blocks of different kind. that are next to each other. Like jaguar. And others.
@chopperharly
2 ай бұрын
nope this is rubish
@alanbrown4446
2 ай бұрын
Well done. Very compelling.
@viralworth1998
2 ай бұрын
No need to make it fall, they just made these cut marks on a big boulder and left it as it is. That's even more easy. Just carve the joining lines on a big boulder and leave it
@robertqueberg4612
2 ай бұрын
This another example of discussion and thought leading to solutions. I have doubts about this idea being the total answer. Your thoughts would require a partial disassembly of the blocks from the wall. Has anyone done this, to examine the joint faces for fracture lines? There is a slight possibility that the walls are a solid boulder with decorative grooves cut into the first inch or two to simulate a block wall. This could have been done as a thousand year joke on us. Seeing the joint faces is the only way to produce a workable answer. I do not have any other answers, just a few thoughts about the mechanics of splitting large stone slabs in a technologically primitive society.
@ensenadorjones4224
2 ай бұрын
I love this fresh idea. I read all of the comments and your follow up response to people. This makes sense to me and is possible in some circumstances. There were obviously rocks that didn’t break cleanly and had to be scrapped or reshaped and used elsewhere. I also believe that they used basic methods rather than fringe ideas that many people seem to subscribe to. They had a labor class often obligated to work for the ruling class. They had thousands of years of experimental practice on stone passed down until they became proficient, no, highly advanced at shaping and moving stone.
@Kwalade
2 ай бұрын
UPDATE July, ’24: Thank you for all the comments. There are many great praises and critiques that I’d like to address. 1. Protrusions on Stones: Many have questioned why some protrusions were removed while others were not. There could be multiple reasons for this: • Removing protrusions is time-consuming. In areas of the wall that are out of sight or covered, such as beneath a first-floor ceiling, the extra time and effort to remove them might not have been deemed necessary. • They could have been used for a secondary purpose, such as hanging items or serving another function unrelated to their original use. • It could also be that the civilization encountered some disaster or change in leadership during construction, which could’ve led to other priorities outside of completing some structures. 2. Natural Stone Fractures and Quarrying: A common comment relates to the ability to split off long layers of stone from a quarry. There are pictures and videos showing natural fractures in exposed rock outcrops (search on the internet: “Exposed Rock Outcrop Fracture”). Although such outcrops are not common today, I believe they were more prevalent in the past. Similar to other natural resources, the easily accessible ones were used first, much like early oil reserves compared to today’s deeper reserves that require more complex extraction methods like fracking. Another observation of mine is that this might be why they had to bring these stones from great distances. Early civilizations likely traveled long distances to find stone outcrops with favorable natural fractures. 3. Consistent Grain Pattern Through Each Stone: This could be the Achilles’ heel to this theory. However, if this technique works precisely, it may not be necessary to abut neighboring stones to their original placement. It could be that some of the stones we see are placed back in the order from where they fell naturally, but there could be others that were not in the original location or order to their adjacent stones. This could explain why some polygonal fittings are more precise than others. Although I believe this theory is original, I’m not married to it and have no stake in it. I hope someone smarter than me can provide a better explanation. Like many of you, I don’t believe that these protrusions were used as props to hold the stones up while they were being chiseled, nor do I believe that it was some super-advanced technology. It’s been a couple of years since I made this video, and I hope to create another soon to delve deeper into how I believe these stones were chiseled efficiently using dolomite stones with small crews of labor.
@thiagoribeiro021
2 ай бұрын
nice try but it didn't happen like that lol your theory has more holes than swiss cheese
@bofpwet9500
Ай бұрын
This is one of the very too much rare few rational explanations I have ever seen about this topic and I believe it's indeed original as well as very likely to be true, I admire your thinking and I thanks your confidence to generously share it with everybody.
@kpizzlemynizzle922
2 ай бұрын
I actually feel a little bit DUMBER after watching this!!! SMH
@garryharrington8255
2 ай бұрын
DUMB ARS FOOL
@Denver_Risley
2 ай бұрын
I gotta say, that's not too bad. No lasers, no aliens, no stone-melting algae, no sonic levitation. Finally. Very nicely done.
@RustyPlug
2 ай бұрын
lol I agree
@thebobloblawshow8832
3 ай бұрын
Not a bad theory. However stone has a grain to it. And nobody has said the grain is consistent from one stone to the next. If it was this would be one of the first things they would have noticed when inspecting these monoliths.
Пікірлер