Видео

The stones could have been made from a much softer material and petrified into stone over hundreds and thousands of years

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

Delusional nonsense!

Ancient Egyptians fit stones together FAR tighter than even the tightest South American stonework. Check out kahfres temple enclosure=mindbliwng

Doesn't explain the intricate 12 sided interlocking block... 🤔🙄😎

They moved the stones with harmonic vibration one day. The rest of you will catch up and figure it out

Also Some of those stones weigh in the tens of tons.

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.

weight of blocks and acupositioning them prohibits your point of view, it seems to me

interesting. So... they.. had.... circular saws of 10m?

They used sea-plants to soften hard rocks.

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.

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

So the stones are made of clay? Gotcha.

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 :)

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.

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?

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 ❤

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.

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!

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

Playdough. Cool

Shut up nerd

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..

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 ?

lolol... 🙋🤦🤷 no...

Most complicated and difficult way of building a wall ever. They shoudn't have finished a single wall till today.

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.

I think it s a good explanation

Interesting but lots of unanswered questions.

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 ....

BS at its best ...

like putting a cracked plate back together. end would look like a plate with seams

Maybe not a perfect solution but I think you may be on to something.

Well how do you explain where some stones blocks of different kind. that are next to each other. Like jaguar. And others.

nope this is rubish

Well done. Very compelling.

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

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.

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.

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.

I actually feel a little bit DUMBER after watching this!!! SMH

DUMB ARS FOOL

I gotta say, that's not too bad. No lasers, no aliens, no stone-melting algae, no sonic levitation. Finally. Very nicely done.

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.

Only 1 nob on this video

Not at all practical .

I think that anybody wanting to explain about stone cutting, should know about stone cutting. Like, you know, having worked in a quarry, or as a stone cutter, or as a stonemason...

Interesting thought process and thank you for sharing Probably the best explanation of nubs to date however like many comment here cutting the back wall would be interesting and let’s not forget they have saw marks signs in some of these south American queries just like in Egypt So question I have is why were some nuns left and others fully removed ?

Of all the ideas I've heard, this is the best.