You don't seem to get it, I didn't say that they were polished. I pointed out a possible alternative explanation that the researchers have to show is less likely than their own explanation.
I get it. But the point is I don't think anyone who has even looked at this based on fairly common knowledge. Do you think from your knowledge that someone polishing the works was more likely. What basis did you use to suggest that this was a possibility in the first place. Was there anything or was it just something you threw out there.
They haven't shown that the most likely explanation is that the ancients had an lost technology or knowledge. That is the researchers job.
So if they show that the ancient alters and stones were vitrified and/or softened by human intervention would that count as advanced knowledge.
If they want to be convincing they need to get it into the journals after peer-review.
You know I sort of believe the unknown independents who actually go out on site and show the evidence first hand. Its good that there are independents who can bypass all that gatekeeping now and show us the truth.
Of course, it is the actual archeological field that needs to be convinced for widespread acceptance.
Lol yeah I know. Thats the problem. Like Hawass who gatekeeps a lot of evidence he does not want released.
The very fact that independents can show obvious evidence that is claimed to not exist or show obvious contradictions in the narrative is the evidence that theres no convincing some.
So don't say that they are being kept out if they haven't even tried to get it published.
They have lol. Some of these issues and discoveries that are being discussed in recent times have already been submitted in journals years ago. Look at GT. Its only resurfaced recently due to a reinvestigation.
But thats part of the issue. The evidence was dismissed and assumed as nothing in the first place.
No, that is an overinterpretation on your part. Presenting alternative hypothesis is not the same as saying they look to modern.
Its self evidence and logically follows. If they claim its a modern forgery then they can't claim that unless they believe it looks modern lol. Otherwise its not a forgery and theres nothing to compare it to.
There are no clear observations.
So you don't see any arcs in the cuts. You don't see a fine, sharp and thin lip along the edge where the cut meets the uncut stone. You don't see a cut bending or moving up and down with the surface of the stone its cutting.
You don't have difficulty reconciling how a 20 foot cut in the stone could even happen. That there is no such thing as a hand held saw that could possibly cut that.
You keep saying its not clear and in your experience that this is not the case. Yet you never explain exactly how you think its not clear.
Or have been struck by lighting, or scared in a accidental fires or....
Yes everything is an act of nature or an accident. This is the scientific materialist go to explanation. Everything except the agency of the people and their ability to do it themselves.
So your saying that either a lightening bolt just happen to hit specific works and never the untouched stones around them. Or they just happened to keep having accidental fires when they made these works and never any accidental fires of the untouched rocks around the works.
Maybe they controlled lightening as well lol. Actually thats not a bad idea. I think there was suggestion of solar heat was used. You may be onto something.
You obviously think what you want in any case.
No I just admit what I see in front of my eyes. Sure there may be a logical explanation. But you can't work out whats going on if you pretend that a circle is a square in the first place.
I think 9 times out of 10 when people see a arc cut they don't think a straight edged handsaw can create that. But if you pretend it can then how do we even work out whats going on when the simple observation is denied.
Ok. You can believe what you want.
They say that proper belief is the repeated and persist same belief despite whether it makes sense or conforms to a preset idea. Whenever I look at these images I immediate think of machining. I don't see any evidence of rough grinding and hand held tools that go off line or never machine flat and sharp.
I don't think its my belief alone but a persistent and nagging thought of linking these signatures with machining by the similarities they have with how machines cut into stuff with uniformity and precision.
But I think its even more interesting that two people can see a completely different thing in the first place. If this was true then this would be evidence that there is no objective reality and that two different subjects can see completely different observations in the object world.
Which sort of supports the idea that there is no objective knowledge and its all in the mind of the observer. Fascinating stuff.
Like I said when you dispute that these are machine, planer or routing cuts and give not explanation then who knows. You said they don't look like machine marks and have implied the orthodoxy.
What else is left if its not one of these. If you propose anything but the orthodoxy then your advocating an alternative and possibly advanced method. But you have never explained yourself lol.
Normally you don't present the data to non-experts before you write the article and send it to the journal. Upon acceptance they can ask you to put a link on social media.
Nah I don't trust that. I trust the smaller independents without the gatekeeping. They are more likely to tell the truth and not be biased or dismiss ideas out of hand. I have learnt this from this thread actually lol.
I don't know if it is done by the ortodox methods. I'm just not convinced that machining is a better fit for the data.
I am not asking you "if its machining". I am asking the first step. Just acknowledging whats in front of you. What it looks like. You don't have to be an expert or have peer review to tell the difference between a circle and a square. In this case the difference between a straight edged saw and an arc cut lol.
You don't have to be an expert to know that this cannot produce an arc cut. That an arc cut is usually acknowledged as the result of some fixed and guided cutter like a circular saw or planer ect. Or that a straight edged saw cannot cut around bends lol.
Why, because you know you cannot. That if you do you will have to come to the realisation that there is contradicting evidence for the orthodoxy.
If we cannot even engage in discussing what the examples look like as observational science. To determine what it is we are dealing with. Then no science at all can be done.
You sort of have when the only stock standard explanation you keep giving as the possibility is the orthodoxy. You mention it could be abrasion, and then grinding and then polishing which are all within the orthodoxy.
Along with offering no support this seems like dismissing everything in favor of the orthodoxy.
So far you have not given anything. You have not explained how this does not look like machining and that the marks look more like the result of of what you claimed (abrasion, grinding and polishing).
I say the signatures look more like machining that the orthodoxy and gave the reasoning along with at least some preliminary evidence. You have given nothing but your experience and opinion.
So how do you purpose to differentiate between stories that depict what actually happened from those that had a some different function?
Like anything. You dedicate time and effort to get to understand and perhaps come to know or gain some insight into what that knowledge was. Or how it was obtained.
The first thing we know is that the whole paradigm and the epistemics is a reality. There is such a thing as spiritual and transcedent knowledge expressed in the beliefs of the ancients and people today.
So that tells us its there. It now a case of trying to work this out. But this is not easy as remember that we cannot measure this in the conventional way of material science. You can't put experiences in a test tube.
So like all transcedent domains it comes down to collecting data on the experiences and lots of it. The more the better as this helps to identify patterns and behaviours and mindsets.
I see the frontier of consciousness and quantum physics studies closely linked. So imagine the "Hard Problem of Consciousness' and science overcoming this.
This is the difficultly now in more or reinvention how we can measure this aspect. More or less a complete paradigm shift. Not just within science as like the deterministic mechanical schema of classical physics to the inderminent one of Quantum physics. BUt even a completely different dimension that is more like Mind than Matter.
What? There is nothing transcendental with lived reality, it is like all other knowledge.
So is the belief in say God when someone experiences the awe and majesty of the universes noght sky. Or the astronaught who comes to believe in God from his experience of outerspace. How is that not transcedent.
The knowledge came that there was a creator God who was a reality. It was spoken through HIs creation and reveals as real knowledge.
The same with the ancients. If they are living within an experiential realm with nature then they are at one and see how nature works more clearly. Animals have this built in connection as well. Its not just what the physical world represents. There are as many superficial perspectives as there are species.
There is a deeper connection and nature has certain designs and fundemental aspects that humans can connect with on a more fundemental relationship as the ancients did and we have lost or are losing.
See this is the point. You just claimed there is nothing transcedental with lived reality and no knowledge besides empiricle knowledge. Yet we have the majority of the world for the majority of history in reality believing and declaring there is this knowledge.
So according to you your metaphysical belief that the only real knowledge is material and naturalistic or is measured as such/ Thus dismissing the majority as make believe. The very point I was making about how material sciences position comes down to a belief and not science itself.
That philosophical argument is not seen as slam dunk among philosophers, so how you think that it proves anything is really strange.
Thats not the only evidence for something beyond. We have the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' and other philosophical arguements that stand up.
But most of all we have the majority of people for the majority of history believing such. That belief in such is as normal as love or music or even the need for food. Thats the lived reality. How we actually live and declare it truth over our long lived and real history. Its not spurstition afterall. Now we can finally begin to understand instead of fobbing it all off as make believe.
The name of the sub forum is physical and life sciences.
What is Life Sciences. It covers both. There has been aspects like the vases and rock softening that requaire the hard sciences like physics and chemistry or engineering.
But as some have acknoledges as with archeology this requires a cultural understand, anthropology and sociology. They are also sciences and you can;t have one without the other when it comes to alternative ways of knowing.
Its not really about the end results of the works. But what sort of knowledge led to the end results. If its transcedent knowledge such as direct conscious experiences that helps the ancients understand say how rocks work and change through mixing potions associated with their beliefs. Then its an alternative way of knowing.
For vitrified stone? Give the post number if you don't wish to link them again.
Gee, ok let me find it. The trouble is they are hard to find. Heres one
Evidence of Vitrified Stonework in the Inca Vestiges of Peru
Heres another
Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island
This book presents the study on Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island regions, exploring the artificial nature of the volcanic rocks
link.springer.com
en.wikipedia.org
