Tina, I like your logic, practical and no-nonsense approach to our worlds mysteries. You are a gem amongst all the rubble!
@jkid48558 ай бұрын
yeah sadly since she's just an Asian woman most people looking for evidence of "ancient race of white superhumans with high technology" will completely ignore whatever she has to say.
@czarcastic14588 ай бұрын
@@jkid4855 What a racist comment. Asians are Caucasoids
@davidwhiren8178 ай бұрын
@@jkid4855 There are world renown Orientals all through the science communities , holding positions in faculty & industry & have been for many many decades , both male & female !!! Not a new thing !!!
@jkid48558 ай бұрын
@@davidwhiren817 “Orientals” 😂 nice try.
@nowaistedspace49468 ай бұрын
She's 100% correct too.
@cshing60188 ай бұрын
This is very little😊, but I feel like giving you something back for taking the time to create these intriguing videos. I have enjoyed them all. Thank you, Tina!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Wow, thank you! I really appreciate it. Hope to see you sometime soon.
@synx69888 ай бұрын
amazing overview. Well done on summarizing all this information Tina!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thanks so much!
@Craig52-zq1bt2 ай бұрын
Yup. Love this lady.
@DarkGryphon078 ай бұрын
As a dental technician I've done a lot of castings where resin has been forced into a mother mould to accurately form around existing gums, teeth, etc. The mould would be prepared with air vents at points where resin needed to be forced in areas that would normally create air bubble. Tina, perhaps the slumpy type blocks were formed by material poured into bag-like moulds where holes were left at points where material, as it was compressed from the top (or some pour point), would squeeze out of the vent holes, as the material slumps into position around the existing blocks. Maybe the material was quite quick setting as there was limited time to remove the mould then remove all the knobs and could also account for the unfinished screeding work on some blocks.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Interesting thought - thank you for sharing with me! Much appreciated! I considered the bag-molds idea too; though it's hard to find a comparable bag material which is very thin and ultra strong to hold big heavy concrete/ geopolymer blocks, plus the bags would need to be removed or dissolved after the curing of blocks. If we can explain these, then the bag-mold will be a very sound proposal.
@DarkGryphon078 ай бұрын
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Perhaps the mother mould didn't need a base where the material would pushed over the top of the previous blocks. The material could have been quite thick like putty or clay-like rather than liquid and needed pressing into place, thus only requiring a mould around areas where the block wasn't touching anything else. The mould could have been quite thick perhaps the thickness of the knobs, as that's where the material would squeeze out while it was left to set. I thought that some of those indents on some of the stones looked as if beams had been propped up against the outside of the mould to give it support, pushing the mould walls into place but sometimes leaving a mark if pushed in too much.
@bobkielbasa75008 ай бұрын
Are you real? You look computer animated. 😢
@Spectre49138 ай бұрын
The blocks weren't poured, cast or anything that requires some kind of mix like concrete. You can easily determine whether it's naturally formed rock or a poured mixture. None of the megalithic blocks anywhere in the world have been found to be a mixture. They're all naturally formed and we know where 99% of them were quarried from.
@roccov19728 ай бұрын
@@Spectre4913 I already commented on this concept, but wanted to also mention here that I had heard the same thing. That the composition of the megalithic blocks have been studied, and were determined to be in their natural states. Not demonstrating any type of "mixing" or concrete-like structure. It is fun to speculate though!
@LeeDaleness8 ай бұрын
Probably the most in depth, believable and most accurate explanation for this mystery I have ever heard.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
@garrythompson81667 ай бұрын
They are stone plugs to cover eletroid holes . Melted into place it's being proven now. They would melt the fit .
@LeeDaleness7 ай бұрын
@@garrythompson8166 If they did go to all that trouble, as you say, then why didn't they sand them off. After the process you describe, sanding would be nothing at all to do.
@erichamilton89525 ай бұрын
@@garrythompson8166 The hell it is. GTFOH.
@fcuk_x4 ай бұрын
@@LeeDaleness I'd rather know why random pattern. Did ancient civs hate symmetry and straight lines?
@Lasse_Viklund8 ай бұрын
The best video i have seen regarding those knobs! Love Your channel!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Glad to hear that! Thank you 😊
@AjitVadakayil-kv1ho2 ай бұрын
google for . . . . . Explosive - The Osiris temple of Abydos ( Osireion ) was made 12450 years ago by Kerala Danava Thiyya king Kalanemi Jr whose face is on the Sphinx he made .. it is distinct , separate and at a lower level than the adjacent temple of Seti I built 5900 years ago by Imhotep ( Ayyappa the ninth avatar of Vishnu ) who also built the Giza pyramids . .. Son of Seti I , Ramesses II never chased Moses - both never existed.. the reason why Jews stole their homeland of sons of soil Palestinians . The mystery of “ flower of life” on megalith stones of Osireion , the hexagon stones and small nubs , the healing water , the markers in the sky - all revealed - Capt Ajit Vadakayil
@jamesalec13218 ай бұрын
This is the best coverage on the megalithic knobs that I've seen. Thanks.
@davidclark59757 ай бұрын
Tina, I believe you are spot on in how these stones were made. There is a book written by Joseph Davidovits that deals with geopolymers and their chemical composition. He analyzes some of the ancient stones and finds that some of the shells are randomly mixed around. If the stones had been quarried, the shells would have settled flat in layers while the stones were being naturally formed. Randomly mixed up shells points to being cast. Thanks for posting this video, it's an accurate one.
@Dan-DJCc8 ай бұрын
The great rigor of this analysis should provide the definitive explanation of the mechanics which produced these knobs. Consider that only in the 21st century do they think they have the formula for Roman concrete. It is certainly plausible there were sophisticated methods in use in many places which we have yet to engineer for ourselves. Thank you again, Tina. You are a bright light of reason and talented explanation. Your clarity shines.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Well said, Dan. Thank you very much for the support and recognition. It means a lot to me ♥
@GoHomeKamala8 ай бұрын
The antikythera mechanism has been found to have a movement that slides inside allowing for the odd elliptical movements of planets. It's taught us something we haven't thought of doing. I saw that in the past week.
@Spectre49138 ай бұрын
There is a very big difference between cast and naturally formed rock. These are naturally formed. They even know where they were quarried from. You can ignore reality all you want but the facts are these blocks were not cast.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
@@Spectre4913 I presented a 2012 material analysis done on Sacsayhuaman's blocks by a group of geophysicists in this earlier video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmq2ZXanjpiYiaM These scientists stated that the material is not natural. You can find my references under that video.
@bobwilliams-k8k7 ай бұрын
probably used magic
@annunacky44638 ай бұрын
I was surprised at the professional approach taken here. Many go sort of crazy in speculation…nice work.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
@daviduitenbroek71878 ай бұрын
Tina, I have injection molding experience and the nobs look like runners that inject polymer into the mold from the extruder. It's not a result of suction but injection into a mold. Runners can be cut in a variety of shapes, as full round, parabolic, trapezoid, wide trapezoid, half round, and quarter round. Full round is the most efficient runner shape. It has the lowest pressure drop over the same volume of material.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thanks for sharing!! That's an interesting idea :-)
@enricoflor36017 ай бұрын
I agree with the injection-moulded theory. The closest I can think of are styrene model sprues. It's as if each individual block were injected in place as a semisolid geopolymer glob, thus the slight bulge at the edges as it set. Scoops and marks may have been done before each block were set or cured, to a desired shape or carry impressions/embossed. Why they did not sand it off? Set stone may had been too hard, the effort too inefficient. The Puma Punku blocks, however, may have had a mould, like pressure cast blocks today, the precise modules designed to fit like Lego blocks.
@sorcerersofstone3 ай бұрын
This is one of the best explanations I have ever heard regarding the polygonal stones and how they could have been done. Great work!
@AntonApostolov6 ай бұрын
i am following this topic with a religious passion. this is the best presentation of the most reasonable theory i have heard so far. didnt watch your videos for a while, you dont stop to astound me. you do an amazing work, thank you so much
@lip3gate8 ай бұрын
As always, amazing content! Thanks
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it! 😊
@thomasratliff92788 ай бұрын
Tina Tina Tina, again, your extensive research is mind blowing. Having worked with concrete, in my younger years, what you say about slump is spot on. When pouring concrete in the Refineries, we would perform a 'Slump Test' before each pour. The concrete temperature was also measured. Also, your theory of the different types of knobs is a first, and it makes sense. However, I would truly love to see this theory applied in a real situation. Love you mind 🥰🤔
@BrickWilbur20208 ай бұрын
And I luv her knobs
@SMMBHQ-cg2zy6 ай бұрын
the smartest analyst to approach this subject yet, absolutely the best
@CuriousBeingbyTina6 ай бұрын
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
@Insectoid_8 ай бұрын
Good video. I couldn't help laughing at the constant mention of knobs. Some seem to be for beams. I do wonder why they'd have left them on the stones if they weren't for some purpose afterwards when the rest of the stones are so perfect.
@janetunderhill61758 ай бұрын
Best analysis yet
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@bobwilliams-k8k7 ай бұрын
@@CuriousBeingbyTina If you are a simpleton. It was obviously ufo lasers.
@ianasquith39028 ай бұрын
In the UK we call them "nubs ", because "knob" has a very different meaning 😂
@nicklasschmltt69598 ай бұрын
Ya , don't be a knob.
@johanwise97138 ай бұрын
"knob" seems ok for certain discussed meanings
@Insectoid_8 ай бұрын
I was laughing my ass off
@informationwarlord8 ай бұрын
All those rounded, bulging, protruding knobs and the suction! 🤪
@paulus.tarsensus8 ай бұрын
Several, in fact.
@Za7a7aZ8 ай бұрын
Great presentation..your ideas make sense...thx for sharing😊
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thanks for watching! 😊
@ideagora378 ай бұрын
Brilliant analysis Tina! I have no doubt you've solved one of the ancient building mysteries. Your education in architecture brings a level of professionalism not often seen in ancient mysteries channels. Have you thought about doing a video on the architecture of predynastic Egypt or the long lost Labyrinth under the Giza plateau? Ken S.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you very much, Ken! I really appreciate your support. I'll see what I can find on predynastic Egyptian architecture. As for the labyrinth of the Giza plateau, I think they might be part of an underground mine. I made two videos on the Osiris Shaft - hope you will find them interesting 😊 1. The Underground Complex: the Giza Osiris Shaft Created by a Lost Advanced Civilization? kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZ3SdaSVnZysgsk 2. The Osiris Shaft: Part of a Prehistory Mine from a Lost Civilization? kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKaqpWqAeryHbKc
@Fuzzmo1477 ай бұрын
This lady is spot on
@darrylbaber63298 ай бұрын
One thing, suppose that all of the large stones were poured, basalt is a very hard stone to liquify the stone it would have to been ground up into a powder, then reconstituted. In modern concrete. Lime is used. It helps to bind the sand and rock. It also helps to pull the water and moisture away. We use gravel and sand for our concrete. We crush rock with a crusher then screen the rock and classify it into sized material. Sand, 3/8 chip stone, 3/4” crushed rock, and the oversized rock recycles back into the crusher. Of course the fines are 1//16” or less. Then the 3/8” materials are used for chip seals on roads, the other aggregate are used for driveways and sand. Some are brought to the cement batch plant. All of this is done with heavy equipment and big trucks. The size of so many of the stones used. Still would have required a huge amount of equipment and man power. And the other notion that the people credited with building these structures would not have had rope strong enough to lift them up, has also been proven. So that brings us back to the question who and when? Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. You are always a thought provoking person and I do appreciate your content.
@susannah10668 ай бұрын
What a fascinating video. Makes you wonder what future archaeologists will be puzzled by.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
@FFNOJG7 ай бұрын
they are still fucking puzzled today. they literally WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS THEORY, OR EVEN ONE OF MACHINED STONE! THIS WAS MADE BY DUDES IN BUTTFLAPS'S WITH OTHER ROCKS RUBBING THEM TOGETHER DANGIT!!!!
@neatchipops34288 ай бұрын
Finally, someone who can pronounce 'polygonal' correctly. THANK YOU!
@arthurkarner79858 ай бұрын
Danke!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the support!
@lcmlcm24608 ай бұрын
Once I saw the title knobs from your channel, I had to watch it. Like always I’m blown away from the quality. Thank you 😊 ❤
@markusstreffing22838 ай бұрын
Thanks for that video. This is the best on that theme if have seen so far. This is real science. Great
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you for the support :-)
@iainmcfadyen91978 ай бұрын
Tina I find this very interesting, its probably the best explanation I've heard to date, thanks for putting the work in for armchair enthusiasts like myself. x
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it :-) Thank you for the support.
@pamelagaull39282 ай бұрын
Thank you so much Curious Being and for all the research you must have carried out. A fascinating and credible explanation of an intriguing part of ancient civilisations. Your channel has been quite a find!
@CuriousBeingbyTina2 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the support! I appreciate it 🙂
@raunoo.53208 ай бұрын
Excellent work again! You really have studied the details to find out the mystery. Genius!👏🏻
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you very much! Glad you enjoyed it :-)
@sorcerersofstone3 ай бұрын
I always love your videos. You look at things with clear vision and logic and don't try to fit your conclusions to the dominant consensus. Thank you. This was excellent.
@CuriousBeingbyTina3 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the support and recognition.
@Taz66888 ай бұрын
To be flexible enough to get the tight joints, any medium would require a form to hold the shape, the blocks have a soft rounded shape looking like a fabric bag, nothing comparable would hold the volume without splitting or collapsing completely
@Johnrack8 ай бұрын
I recall your previous episode on these strange “knobs” or “bosses” are seen at many megalithic sites around the world. The exterior walls with knobs seem to be randomly placed, at least the type I saw in Egypt. It is quite puzzling, and your videos pose many interesting questions and descriptions.
@thelastaustralian75837 ай бұрын
Best Lecture on knobs i have ever seen !
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Thank you. Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Thank you. Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
@photomaker113 күн бұрын
The best explanation and analysis Ive seen on this subject. Very insghtful.
@CuriousBeingbyTina13 күн бұрын
Thanks, I appreciate it! 😊 Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
@anthonystark63728 ай бұрын
Very interesting ideas. I didn't realize that you were such an expert on knobs, Tina. 😜LOL I look forward to your next video. Chris. x
@MrVanhovey8 ай бұрын
The stones with the knobs are andesite and granite, not concrete. Both andesite and granite are high in quartz, making it a good carrier of electromagnetic energy. I suspect an inductive tuning device that softened these materials caused the knobs. Apparently it was circular at the end, which makes sense for creating a standing waveform inside the rock that cancelled the rock's magnetic field making it malleable.
@dananorth8958 ай бұрын
There is no Nobel prize for B.S.
@drew-shourdАй бұрын
I agree 100%
@MrVanhoveyАй бұрын
@@dananorth895 You don't know what you don't know.
@SHPR20138 ай бұрын
This video taught me so much about knob's, the 4 types of knob, bulging knobs and huge old knobs, I can't wait for more of your informative uploads.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you for the support! Hoe you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
@rprimbs8 ай бұрын
Wow, this is the best video on this subject that I have seen. Good work!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it! Hope you will like my other videos on megalithic sites :-)
@jajwarehouse17 ай бұрын
I am so happy to finally see someone else believe these structures were cast and not precisely chiseled.
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
@jajwarehouse17 ай бұрын
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Yes, I have been. I have only had time to see a few of them, so far, but they have all been great.
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
@@jajwarehouse1 Glad to hear that 🙂
@vladimirkaspar97908 ай бұрын
As a little boy I used to go on holidays to my grandmother's. It's been more than half a century. Downstairs, where my grandmother lived, there was a bakery. They baked buns that were chubby and the same as the stones in Saxahumana that I saw in their photo in the magazine. I couldn't read yet, there was no internet, and back then there wasn't much talk about Saxahuman. But my child's brain at that time was not influenced by the already mentioned widespread media, he assessed that the stone in Saxahuman is like buns in a bakery and must have been in a plastic state like dough.I still think about it today
@NextWorldVR11 күн бұрын
I have never subscribed to a channel in the first minute before until now. Thank you
@CuriousBeingbyTina10 күн бұрын
Thanks a lot for subscribing and for the support! 😊
@bobjuniel86837 ай бұрын
The nubs were stone mason marks, to show which face went to the front, and which stone was right for that position. Sometimes they indicated place this side down, or place left or place right. The nubs were large so that they could act as a ledge where a prop could be placed under, holding it in place until all of the stone were in position. When we consider the size and weight of the blocks, one would not want to discover that a block cut for the top was positioned and locked in at the bottom. Photographs of the Penkalas Bridge built by the Romans in the 2nd century AD, in Aezani, Asia Minor, present day Turkey, show different nub markings for different locations. When cutting blocks for arches on a bridge, the blocks are not rectangular. Locating each stone in the correct position with the correct face outwards is critical. Stones transported long distances, stored in the quarry and at the building site need more than a chalk mark. Sometimes masons marked their blocks with a sign or trade mark to ensure that they were paid for their work. It is believed that facing stones were often finished after being positioned in the wall. They suggest that the pyramids had their final face angle cut and finished starting at the top of the pyramid and working their way down. Easier than cutting stone and the trying to get the perfect fit every time. The angle of the pyramids is very steep when finished to smooth sides. Stone masons kept their trade methods secret, to ensure that they got the building contract.
@danweikert7 ай бұрын
I would think a hole would perform the same functions and be easier to make. Of course finishing the surface would be easier with nubs as you can just chisel them off.
@bobisbell18377 ай бұрын
The best presentation I have ever seen on this subject. Ancient stone cutting/shaping is my favorite study.
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Thank you! I made a series of videos on megalithic sites - hope you will enjoy them :-) Here is the list just in case: kzbin.info/aero/PL92SXkFO15Cwy90BlCQWWYhavJzop2PtU
@nasied8 ай бұрын
Using electrical currents, the growth of crystals that provide structural support to the geopolymer conglomerate can be forced. The accelerated growth of the crystal is what causes the hardening of the artificial rock. In the analysis of saqsaywaman stones carried out a few years ago, a Russian company found these fast-growing crystals, which are completely different from those that appear in natural rocks and which are in the quarry, just a few meters away. To force this growth, an anode and a cathode must be induced in the rock mass and removed when the crystals have grown and the rock already has an adequate consistency. These 2 electrical terminals must be submerged and adhered to the dough and when removed they would form a thread, like melted cheese on pizza. That machine exists today, but has very limited use. Good video and better analysis. Greetings from Spain.
@subaruthug8 ай бұрын
And every place on earth back in the day, since we see this world wide, had electricity to make the electrical current?
@nasied8 ай бұрын
@@subaruthug Of course, anywhere. That's what portable generators are for.
@dananorth8958 ай бұрын
B.S. The least probable is NOT the most likely.
@zigavojska16728 ай бұрын
more info on the technology?
@EnigmaBuscandorespostas8 ай бұрын
Tina, congratulations for the channel and the explanations. I arrived a few days from Indonesia and was amazed at what I saw in temples like Borobodur and Prambanam. As for the Knobs, I always thought they were leftovers from an extrusion process. like a tip left by the possible machine.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing with me :-) It must be amazing to see Borobodur and Prambanam in person. Enjoy your trip!
@K22channel8 ай бұрын
Best explanation on knobs so far👍 expecially those once in Sacsayhuamán👍
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thanks! 😃
@simpleiowan31238 ай бұрын
That's the most cogently constructed argument for the casting of megalithic blocks that I have yet seen. Very well done.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you for the support 🙂 I appreciate it.
@nat7x78 ай бұрын
Another fantastic video, thank you Tina! Your channel, alongside Paul Cook's one, are my two top ones on ancient mysteries. Paul finds and notices things that no one else does but he can be chaotic and rambling (sorry Paul if you are reading this, but that's the truth:D ) whereas you are so refreshingly meticulous, clear cut and logical. A joy! And I love how you draw parallels to modern engineering and architectural practices, so we get to learn about those too. Thanks again xx
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
So glad you enjoy my videos! Thank you very much for the support ♥
@BrickWilbur20208 ай бұрын
Best looking "knobs" on youtube. :)
@313barrygmail8 ай бұрын
Check out ahc Ancient history criticism
@_TravelWithLove8 ай бұрын
Thank you again for sharing your insights and inquisitive thoughts filled videos always !! Scientific and intelligent thought provoking hypotheses and analyses !! Excellent !! Greetings from California … I wish you and folks good health , success and happiness !! Much Love ✌️😎💕
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
So glad you liked the video 😊 Thank you very much for the support and good wishes! ❤
@dliu3281Ай бұрын
Best videos of megalithics I have ever seen
@anordenaryman.70578 ай бұрын
Given the large amount of work required to split a quarried stone, only to reface the whole thing to leave a small knob, it seems unlikely that the effort would be worth it. The cast block theory makes a lot of sense as these knobs would be simple holes in the mold. Perhaps left there to allow fluid drainage as the mixture set. I find it extraordinary that so called experts refuse to accept that cast blocks were used in ancient construction. Instead they just declare that unknown quarrying techniques must be the answer.
@petejung31228 ай бұрын
It's because the geopolymer theory has been debunked many times. These are all natural rocks which were quarried. It's still a mystery.
@anordenaryman.70578 ай бұрын
@@petejung3122 Given the limited number of ways stone can be worked with hand tools, do you really think modern stone masons can't work out how past generations worked the same stone we use today? Most of these "Ancient Mysteries" exist only to bring in tourists and their dollars. We have the ability to replicate their work, especially with modern tools. But there is an entire industry that profits from marketing these "Mysteries".
@subaruthug8 ай бұрын
Yeah, but you need to use your brain....to cast anything, you need a mold. These rocks range from ones as big as your fist to ones that are as wide as 15 people standing shoulder to shoulder, and as high as 3 people standing on each others shoulders. You also need a separate mold for every single block ever made as all of them are different shapes and sizes. Then you need to tell me what the molds were made of? Animal skin? Wood? Why would you make a huge rock if you need to make a mold for it that involves sewing 40 animal skins together? Why not just make it a smaller block? Also, why not just make uniform size blocks and reuse the same molds rather than make a new mold for every single block? They weren't stupid...... And what mixture did they use that made them into real rocks when the mixture dried? Roman cement is strong, super strong, but we can easily see it's cement and not rock. I'm always open to ideas.....post your theory in more detail please. I'd love to see what makes you think these are cast other than "a knob from a drainage hole". (How did drainage work when the knob was at the top of the block?)
@Inks_Inspirations8 ай бұрын
By large amount of work you mean 1 hour, 1 man, 1 chisel, 10 wedges and 1 hammer or block can split a 30 ton granite boulder with little to no experience. Basically, anyone with basic human functions can split a boulder in half, there is nothing next level about it at all. But I guess since we are incapable of thinking things up it must have been this intelligent species of humans that travelled the world but left no trace and lived in the shadows but educated those in the light.
@Inks_Inspirations8 ай бұрын
@@petejung3122 There is this thing called geology that debunks the geopolymer theory, but people who think that humans had to be taught how to become intelligent instead of just learning fail to listen this. I mean, who would of thought that Machu Picchu, a place surrounded by an abundance of granite rocks just sitting there waiting to be used, would be noticed by humans and one of them would think, look at these rocks, i wonder what will happen if we whack them and shape them and move them and put them on top of each other. No way we as a species we could ever learn this naturally, meanwhile a few thousand years later, some guy invents a way to grow a sheep from nothing but a few cells, in a bit of glass that humans invented. in a lab that we created, but these conspiracy theorist don't start looking at him like he somehow has been speaking to god for the cheat code and then start looking in the shadows for his hidden communication line and his ethernet cable to heaven :D
@JohnCompton17 ай бұрын
Someone may have already posted this comment, so I apologize if they have. Just curious as to why some of the knobs weren't removed after serving their purpose. Screeding or chiseling, whichever was appropriate in the specific situation. This is the first time I have ever heard a concrete ( sorry, couldn't help that ) explanation on the purpose of the knobs. So well presented and explained. Ancient Architects has a wonderful video explaining the geopolymer evidence in Peru. Thanks so much for sharing, and I hope everyone has a wonderful day or night!
@Craig52-zq1bt2 ай бұрын
Yes, love this lady and her posts. We have seen many rounded knobs at Cussco, for example. Would not work for lifting especially since so many are at corners or two close together near an end. A bizarre thing to ponder. What I want to know is how they melted the stones to fit perfectly together.
@europeantechie8 ай бұрын
first time here and left a sub, good content!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Appreciate it! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
@robertroberto47497 ай бұрын
The most accurate end detailed explanation up to date!!!!!
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@atticuspaine658 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the support!
@robg52098 ай бұрын
Even with the pre-dynastic Egyptians there is some evidence of 'softened rock'. For me this is the only explanation for how they did certain things in stone.. and thanks again Tina for another great vid!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you 😊
@subaruthug8 ай бұрын
100% spot on
@ottodidakt30698 ай бұрын
I could imagine some uncentered knobs as tipping handles but, other than the Roman and Greek ones, most really don't seem intended for lifting or tipping purposes.
@jeffjeff44778 ай бұрын
Hey Tina😊 Definitely moldable "rock" techniques, Like so many other Unsolved mysteries, Lost ancient technology is the common thread. You are awesome. ⛱️🙏👍😊 Hope you are enjoying your spring time!!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you Jeff! It's getting warm now - Spring is here 😊
@jean-pascalpillot65408 ай бұрын
Very clear and convencing explanations. Tina, you are very practical and logical .
@SG-js2qn8 ай бұрын
Hard at this point to say which civilization was more advanced: the one pouring stone, or the one lifting enormous solid pieces of stone? Of course, they could be the same civilization, but they could also be different ones ... because why move a gargantuan solid piece when you can transport slurry? Slurry should be more economical. So we have ancient mining tool tech, ancient lifters, ancient stone pourers, and ancient precision cutters ... any of which could be separate or the same civilization.
@Greg0428698 ай бұрын
Stones have different properties, chemical resistance for example.
@2seconds9928 ай бұрын
So, the building, by carving out of solid rock, was more high-tech? Therefore more ancient, methinks (hundreds of thousands of years ago)
@SG-js2qn8 ай бұрын
@@2seconds992 I really don't know which approach was higher tech. Probably the precision cuts and the mining could most easily be from the same era as each other, as they resemble things we can do in the present. The other two technologies - stone pouring and giant stone moving - are harder for me to evaluate, as we don't really do either.
@2seconds9928 ай бұрын
@@SG-js2qn Ok. But the carved buildings seem extremely impressive to me, because of size, but, especially, the requirement of making NO errors.
@norbertdrust90097 ай бұрын
Yes, I think your explanation is perfect! Not cut and carried from a quarry, but molded on-site casting each on top of the other. Casting one on top of the other would require only minimal lifting of the mixture, not lifting of heavy blocks!
@sergeyt29478 ай бұрын
Agree with everything, came to same conclusion a while ago.
@dvd7218 ай бұрын
Bravo Tina! Once again your logic, research and deductive reasoning is top tier! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you!! I appreciate your support!
@freeottis8 ай бұрын
Is the only reason we cannot replicate it today because we don’t have the recipe for that geopolymer?
@MatthieuSCHREK6 ай бұрын
This content is pure gold. Enough said.
@jacknelson83978 ай бұрын
I aways thought these walls were some type of concrete, especially with the screed marks, but then there is the unfinished obelisk in Egypt which shows scoop marks underneath and that was solid granite, so its still a mystery to me.
@2seconds9928 ай бұрын
Many (super) ancient constructions WERE carved out of single rocks (e.g. some temples in India, colossi of Memnon, obelisks). (See Mystery History channel) This does not contradict anything that Tina has said re. polygonal buildings. (The main reasons for polygonal would be: different purpose, and built in an earthquake prone place?) Yes?
@AwakeningToReality8 ай бұрын
Well done, good to see you still going strong!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you for the support!
@Andrew73H8 ай бұрын
Interesting theory and well presented too, subscribed! Love the calm and rational tone.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Awesome, thank you!
@slave2damachine8 ай бұрын
I agree with your thesis, casting these stones on site would make construction so much easier. Well done 👏 Tina
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thanks so much 😊
@slave2damachine8 ай бұрын
Your welcome, greetings from the U.K @@CuriousBeingbyTina
@janellepank8 ай бұрын
You are the best! Always excited when you have a new video
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you for your support! :-)
@marcmarc1728 ай бұрын
I love keeping an open mind and studying many different opinions and conclusions. Nice job Tiny especially with the four main types of stone knobs. What do you think about scientist who are confident about the quaries from which the large stone come from. Apparently they've matched the stones to where they come from in the ground. What do you think about the natural mineral structure inside the stones (they look naturally formed)? Can you please explain a bit more on how you imagine the stones were cast in place? Did they use generic molds or custom ones? Was there so little slump that they didnt need molds? I cant wait to discuss this further! Tiny or anyone else that has some constructive replies, I welcome your comment!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you. I discussed the possible construction method, the molds and the material analysis of Sacsayhuaman from a group of Russian geophysicists in this video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmq2ZXanjpiYiaM I also listed my references under that video. Hope you will find it interesting :-)
@marcmarc1728 ай бұрын
@@CuriousBeingbyTina Thank you for pointing me in the right direction - sorry for not searching for that topic before commenting. I'll see ya over at the other video, thanks again!
@vulpesvulpes51778 ай бұрын
As always your analysis is exceptional. Your use of illustrative photos is also supporting. This is really a complex and not consistent topic. Rock vs “concrete”. Today we have expert geologists tell us that these stone walls are true stone, not some concrete like material. And yet as recently a 150 years ago expert geologists told us that many Roman constructs were stone, not “Roman concrete” as we know it today. They even came up with the approximate formula for Roman concrete. I personally lean to the “cast not cut” school. Simply because of the appearance you point to. Now the protuberances, since “knob” gets a few of my fellow viewers all worked up….. Some as you indicate are riggers hard points. Either to lift the block they are on, or as hard points for lifting some item below. A third possibility presents. Lost function. If there is indeed a lost civilization(s) with advanced but diminished “lost technology” as many suggest, then the bumps may simply be stylistic rather than functional. A good example of this comes from the field of firearms of the early 20th century. The C-96 Mauser pistol was quite popular. Especially in what we call today third world countries. Countries without a sophisticated arms industry but talented metal workers. I’m some cases these metalworks set out to make copies of the C-96. But they were neither shooters or gun smiths. So the elaborate tangent rear sight of the C-96 with its many small parts was simply reproduced in general outline only. The reproductions are not adjustable nor do they really function as a rear sight. One could say they are symbolic sights at best. I’m a few cases the C-96 standings were reproduced. The MauseR banner was reproduced as WauseR on a few examples. Indicating no understanding of written English, but a possible belief that this “mark” was spiritually necessary for the piece to function. Rifling inside the barrels was also variable or completely optional. And yet most such examples are functional to some degree. So could all these stone structures actually be the product of much older high technology, still functional for the purpose, but with only vestiges of some largely forgotten architecture? I don’t know. There is no “proof” per se. Only speculation. Keep up the good work Tina! You may be right. You may be wrong. But your always entertaining and interesting! Until next time! Fox out
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Interesting insight, Fox! Thank you for sharing with me. You always have new information to offer :-)
@ETALAL8 ай бұрын
@@CuriousBeingbyTinaThis analysis relies on the fact that modern western "Portland Cement" is the only known form of concrete. Actually Portland cement is the worst kind of cement with a very short life span 🙏
@vulpesvulpes51778 ай бұрын
@@ETALAL Actually it’s far from the only formulation we know as “cement”. Portland cement is used to make many different grades of concrete. And there are other options. It’s popular today because it lasts an appropriate period of time for our cultural purposes and is affordable. That is “cheap”. It is also highly consistent in appearance. We value uniformity of appearance. By contrast what we call Roman concrete is not uniform nor is it cheap to make. The lack of uniformity makes it appear as if it’s local rocks which it essentially is, bound with volcanic ash and laboriously produced lime. It’s lack of fine grind and granular structure is it’s key to longevity. But it too weathers externally, adding to its rugged rock like external character. I could go on discussing medieval “concrete” used as a binder within the walls of castles all the way down to foundations for simple huts. Largely sand, clay and burnt lime it’s not strong but is very durable if protected from moisture. And so it was used more as a mortar by masons. Our modern concrete serves our needs. It’s compatible with steel reinforcing which many other concretes are not. Portland cement is elastic enough to allow us to use concrete as a structural load bearing element such as bridge spans. Left unmolested it can last for generations. Sufficient for our purposes. Examples of concrete failure often reveal some contractor who shorted the mix to save money, or as in the case of German fortifications on the French and Dutch coasts, sabotage by local space labor crews who added salty sea sand to the mix making it weak. Concrete and cement is a deep subject. Sure you want to go down this twisty rabbit hole with an old fox? Fox out
@ETALAL8 ай бұрын
@@vulpesvulpes5177 @vulpesvulpes5177 Archeologists take a long time to catch up, They are still living in the early 1900s when it comes to engineering. You should have read my comment more carefully. But, thanks for the information.
@vulpesvulpes51778 ай бұрын
@@ETALAL I read quite well. You stated that Portland cement was the only kind and the worst. Two very absolute statements. Both incorrect in general context. Archeologists have never been know for their engineering or other practical skills. Sadly. Fox out
@alanheadrick79978 ай бұрын
Picking things apart is why I like your channel.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you :D
@charlesdowning58998 ай бұрын
Great analysis!
@heinpereboom55217 ай бұрын
Finally an excellent story about all those so-called carved stones and the mysterious techniques. You are most likely describing exactly how these stones were produced. Ever since I read the French chemist Davidovits' extensive account of geopolymers, I have always wondered what material the molds were made from for the stones that look spherical. You may be able to pour small stones into bags made of textile, but they will probably bulge too much, so that seemed to me to be an incorrect idea, so they were cast in a strong mold in a slightly liquid state and subsequently processed. I still wonder how they did that. You can also see that the cement of some stones has not been mixed properly, because layers are formed that fall off over time. You can make concrete from any type of stone, including granite. I think that the artists who made statues and pots also used this technique, because it often looks too homogeneous to be processed natural stone, but artists can of course also make beautiful variations. The so-called boreholes that have emerged in granite are also not mysterious. It is clearly visible that the distances per revolution on the drill core are too large to do this in hard granite. It is not feasible even with diamond, due to the excessive force required. It can easily be done with a copper plate bent round at the end of a stick, forming a tube and turned by hand into soft unhardened granite casting. That is why you also see that the pitch of the revolutions is irregular. Everything can also be made quickly by artists, especially if you have seen a plasterer/restorer working, which was of course also possible a long time ago. You tell a very plausible story, nice that you tell it in detail, many thanks for this.
@jay73088 ай бұрын
Has anyone done a simple analysis to determine if the stones are a cast material or natural rock?
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Yes - a group of Russian geophysicists analyzed samples taken from Sacsayhuaman and proposed that the material is not natural. I discussed this (with references) in the following video of mine: Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmq2ZXanjpiYiaM
@Iseeyou-cf6ln5 ай бұрын
You nailed it, this was a breath of fresh air amidst a sea a academic ignorance
@CuriousBeingbyTina5 ай бұрын
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
@Axetrax19768 ай бұрын
My intuition tells me most megaliths are geopolymer
@paulus.tarsensus8 ай бұрын
Your intuition is uninformed and you are wrong. You are also carelessly denigrating the actual skill and arduous labour involved in masonry construction. Please do some actual investigation. Geopolymers are largely a modern invention. Dr. Davidovitz should be given credit for his work here, but his attribution of its use to the ancient Egyptians is misplaced. The pyramids were masonry construction, not cast-in-place artefacts.
@alanheadrick79978 ай бұрын
@@paulus.tarsensus He did say most. There are a lot of saw marks found on stone there, which is equally interesting. Just say'n.
@Axetrax19768 ай бұрын
@@paulus.tarsensus I've seen enough PROOF you can't tell me anything
@paulus.tarsensus8 ай бұрын
@@Axetrax1976 Your choice of language belies your mindset, Rick. If a person 'can't tell you anything', then your mind is made up and you are closed to further evidence that contradicts our fixed belief. She has presented evidence to support her point of view, so kudos to her. I just pointed out that her evidence is weak and actually demonstrates other processes. She also did not have access to information on how the masons in the Andes used plant sap and pyrite to form strong acids to help 'erode' the rock joints to fit together better. Early Spanish colonists observed and recorded this. One Spanish friar in particular, said that the Incan builders used a mortar of plant sap, sand and 'gold' to build their structures. The gold was pyrite and we've found residue of this. It wasn't mortar, it was a slurry they used to erode and fit the rock into place. The Inca and their predecessors had three different types of masonry, but all employed internal joints, fitted face boulders, robust foundations and a backward slope to combat the earthquakes. The stone would 'dance' in place, then resettle exactly into place because of this. We see these types of solutions throughout the ancient world where seismic activity was an issue: Japan, the Graeco-Roman world, the Middle East and Western Asia. The stone used in all these areas was native rock and we have identified the quarries. The stones have internal structure and fossil inclusions still in place. The Romans developed pozzolanic mortar and this was the first concrete ever used for construction. Other cultures such as the Maya and the Aztec only had limestone plaster, which they used to mortar their stone structures together and for stucco. Geopolymer silicates are a deliberate, modern invention. If you want information on how the pyramids were built and how they fitted their stones together in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the KZbin channel 'History For Granite' is arguably the very best.
@raydessa18 ай бұрын
Your Video's & Research are very good!!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you! I appreciate it :-)
@daveknight3368 ай бұрын
I think you’re close but I don’t believe it was a mold. I beilieve if you have a powerful enough dc electric device you can super charge a piece of granite to the point that it starts melting from the inside out. It’s like a temporary softening
@ThunderboltWisdom8 ай бұрын
Great analysis and convincing conclusions. As always. Good work.👍
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Much appreciated!
@davetaylor16878 ай бұрын
The knobs are the outlets for the geopolymer liquid.
@riverwalkersresearch25972 ай бұрын
archeologists don't want to entertain your hypothesis because it would mean there truly was an advanced ancient civilization! awesome video - very thought provoking!
@CuriousBeingbyTina2 ай бұрын
Thank you! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too.
@CosmicCrimes8 ай бұрын
I heavily disagree. All of the knobs were result of the same or nearly similar production process/methods.
@loopvil3698 ай бұрын
Wrong!
@nicklasschmltt69598 ай бұрын
In the case of the Peruvian megalithic construct, it seems that they could have been blatter water vents . Mortar form sacks.
@johanwise97138 ай бұрын
Ask an old, well skilled stone mason.
8 ай бұрын
I would say that the Roman buildings were reusing stone. Edit: I’m betting on geopolymer.
@ralewijnse8 ай бұрын
I like your casting theory Tina, it helps to explain the amazingly tight fit of the stones. I wonder however why in some cases the shapes are so irregular; when you cast stones would you not make them the same shape? Your productivity is amazing, the research and recording must take up a lot of your time. Well done and keep going!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you :-) I appreciate your support. I explained my thoughts on the molds and irregular shapes in the later half of this video - Explained: How were Peru’s Sacsayhuamán Walls Built kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmq2ZXanjpiYiaM
@truthbebolder8 ай бұрын
Knubs NOT knobs....
@cameronbechtold7 ай бұрын
Correct, these are knubs, knobs vote democrat.
@May-mh3er8 ай бұрын
Hi Tina, it's been a while, but I'm always watching and learning. As usual your logic, factual based and indepth research is so much needed, and is lacking by others in this topic. Thankyou for teaching us, 84 videos and counting. Some great comments here for you to ponder. They make me think back while on job sites and discussing concrete with engineers. Different slumps, electrically growing crystals, life expectancy of the concrete, geopolimers etc. Many are discussing how they were built, but are skirting around another very important question that has been bothering me. In this day and so called advanced age, we almost never think of building anything that will last more than 100 years. So a question for you Tina, why did a civilization(s) of ancient sites build them to last many thousands of years and knowing full well they will stand the test of extreme time? If, in our short life we can begin to answer this, it would go a long way to understanding how these people lived. Just one more thought, we may tend to lump these ancient sites into the same time line, where in fact I think they are at the very least 100's to thousands of years apart in time. Thank you again Tina 🤔
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing with me. I appreciate your support :-) Some Greek and Roman structures last over 2,000 years. The megalithic sites we are seeing now are the leftover ruins that survived, and there ought to be a lot more buildings from the same periods collapsed and disappeared. Structures built with earthly materials like stone, bricks and concrete (such as retaining walls) would outlive the ones structured with metals. Our modern masonry retaining walls would likely last thousands or tens of thousands of years too. Many well-constructed modern high-rise buildings can stand for a few hundred years or longer with proper maintenance. I agree that it's possible that these ancient megalithic sites were built in different times.
@MissouriExplorer7 ай бұрын
Mystery solved, excellent work Tina! 👍
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for the support!
@bryonhogg48518 күн бұрын
They were so proficient at casting these blocks - Like you said - The blocks must have been in a pliable state . . .
@RUBBERTANK_37 ай бұрын
I can't believe how good your theories are, I'm honestly enlightened by you. Have you covered "mount noco gyama" yet? Even though a lot of ancient buildings can be put down to a type I cement, I think some monuments and structures can't like mount noco gyama. I would love to hear your thoughts on that place if you haven't already covered I yet. Regards
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the support! Are you referring to mount Nokogiriyama / Nokogiri? My next video is on this ancient quarry site :-)
@ApocalypseofMichael7 ай бұрын
This is incredibly informative, thank you kindly!
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it! Hope you will enjoy my other videos too :-)
@ApocalypseofMichael7 ай бұрын
@@CuriousBeingbyTina haha, I'm currently binge watching your channel. You have a brilliant level of research in clear, concise and relevant interpretations of the unknown. Congratulations on Being you Tina. I look forward to all your videos. Much continued success! ✨👊
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
@@ApocalypseofMichael So glad to hear that. Thank you for watching my videos!
@Leeroy67.8 ай бұрын
Love your work Tina.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you! :-)
@DerekFrazier20147 ай бұрын
You are the TRUTH. I always get more than I expected and leave saying I never looked at it from that point. Brilliant ❤❤
@CuriousBeingbyTina7 ай бұрын
I'm flattered and humbled. Thank you very much for the support ❤
@terrycureton20428 ай бұрын
Tina, your penetrating analysis and brilliant presentation has, IMHO, finally nailed the argument that these large blocks HAD to have been CAST in place versus precisely CARVED for each unique location. The casting process is obviously much much easier to do, so that explains why they made so many of them all over the world. The foolish focus on tight joints "where nothing can be inserted," is like trying to describe an elephant by analysing the wrinkles in its hide. It's often necessary to back up a bit in order to see the bigger picture and the context in order to properly understand something -- just like you did here. Unfortunately, that is a very rare human perspective which you most evidently possess, and that makes you very rare and precious, which is why we all keep coming back to you for insights and knowledge not found elsewhere. Thank you Curious Being! We'll see you in the next one.
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the support and encouragement! Much appreciated ♥
@World-as-i-c-it8 ай бұрын
Great analysis as usual!
@CuriousBeingbyTina8 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@anasevi94568 ай бұрын
Great video as always, and my original takeaway is that these knobs on carved stone were probably far more universal than we thought, as they make lifting ropes far more secure, and crawling around for workers easier... There is so much amazing but simple engineering throughout history.