“Saihuite is about 4 hours drive south of Cusco Peru and is rarely visited by tourists. Its claim to fame is a large heavily carved stone, but beyond this, and in the nearby valley are clear examples of megalithic lost ancient technology that the resident Inca could not have made. They may be what remains of a mysterious culture that lived there 12,000 plus years ago.”
What seems almost impossible – carving andesite stone that’s harder than granite with primitive tools – could easily have been done by casting and shaping these objects with geopolymer. As we’ve reported in previous blog posts, geopolymer (Roman concrete) has been around a long time.
On the other hand, these monolithic sculptures may have been carved from naturally occurring boulders with machines. That seems impossible given the estimated date of these objects, but here’s a video with very clear evidence of power machine marks on ancient stone structures. They (the Laboratory of Alternative History) said they found thousands of similar unexplained machine marks in stone structures around the world. As a long time builder, I know these marks look like machine marks but I sure can’t explain them.
Here’s another thing to think about. Almost every video I’ve seen on this subject does not discuss the most important details. Ideally they would look closely and see if the stone appears natural or cast and report their findings. Are there form marks? When measuring flat surfaces, ideally they would take length into account. For instance, these amateur explorers love to say things like “flatness is within 1/1,000th of an inch” or whatever. They’re often using short tools 12” or less and they fail to say “flatness is within 1/1,000th of an inch over X inches”. Big difference. Why don’t they take a 4’ level or longer tool and give the results?
YouTube
Advanced Ancient Civilizations – Results of the LAH Expeditions from 2004-2011
A lot of people will scoff at the idea that machines and/or geopolymer were used on ancient stone construction… but how else do you explain the evidence? Traditional archeological theories don’t provide adequate answers. Soft copper and bronze tools are not up to the task and don’t leave machine marks as shown in the second video. *Watch the second video. It’s much better than the first. It’s much longer so I used the short video in the blog post.