Pumping stations

Ancient stone masonry. Enchanted soul

Before the main part of the text, let's take a look and enjoy the accuracy and beauty of the polygonal masonry that has come down to us through the centuries.

The most famous part is that attributed to the Incas.

polygonal masonry in Egypt. Presumably by the ancient Egyptians. And this is older than the Incas.

Russia. Kronstadt.

Admire? Such masonry is common in almost all the globe- Mexico, Turkey, the Caucasus... I haven't put the Roman aqueducts here yet as an example.

Let's now look at the definition of what is polygonal masonry.

The general definition of polygonal masonry sounds like

Polygonal masonry - masonry of the building wall, made of polygonal stones hewn to each other.

Here we can add that "completed often without a binder solution", if we are talking about the affairs of bygone days.

Polygonal mortar masonry is recognized as one of the subspecies of rubble masonry, namely dry masonry (if done without cementing mortar).

Dry masonry is a construction method in which buildings or their elements are constructed from stone without the use of a binding mortar. The stability of dry masonry is ensured by the presence of a load-bearing facade of interlocking stones carefully selected to each other. This is the most archaic of the masonry methods. Usually used to build walls, but entire buildings and bridges are known to have been constructed using this method.

Here is an example of entire buildings built in just the above way.

(Thanks to Vzor for the provided picture and description.)

The ancient builders figured out the best methods for laying out the stone without mortar or supports, from the base to the final pom-pom stone at the top of a sharp round roof. Buildings have been standing for several centuries, they cannot be destroyed by time. This is France, by the way.

In all these buildings, people are surprised by both the filigree precision of the stones and their size, especially when it comes to the buildings of Ancient Egypt and the Inca Empire. And, as a follow-up, the very possibility of mining and processing huge boulders and building structures from them.

What versions are given to us various sources? Let's look at them, summarizing a little similar options.

1) Made by hand

Mining, processing, delivery and construction were carried out manually by people (respectively, the Incas, ancient Egyptians, Romans, etc.) using the tools, technologies and devices that existed then.

This method is criticized by all and sundry. The main criticism is based on the fact that it is impossible to manually extract such blocks, nor process them so smoothly, nor transport them, nor build a structure from them. It is simply impossible to do all this manually, especially with the technologies that existed at that time.

2) Made by reptilians, intelligent mushrooms, etc.

No matter how strange it looks, but if we take into account the criticism of paragraph No. 1, then only this option remains - Extraction, processing, delivery and construction were carried out by aliens from other worlds, because. there could not have been technologies on Earth that could have done this. So the aliens did it with the help of turbo-plasma cutters, anti-gravity engines, geo-concrete, etc. alien technology that is beyond our understanding. This theory at the same time justifies the presence of strange drawings of aircraft, humanoids in spacesuits, etc., which are found from time to time among various peoples. Also, this version goes smoothly on those tracks in the quarries, on the stones, which seem strange.

3) Made by Atlantis

If you do not believe in aliens, and realize the impossibility of such operations manually, according to our knowledge of the ancients, then there is only one alternative left - our ancestors knew much more than we imagine about them. Accordingly, all this was done by the Atlanteans (someone says that they were giants, someone ignores the question of their size), which had disproportionately greater capabilities than even our civilization now. (Or not Atlanteans, but simply ancestors better developed than us.) They did it with the help of ultra-/infra-sound, stone softeners, magnetic fields and magma solidifying in them, geoplasticine and some technologies that deprived objects of weight. This version may be superimposed on giant skeleton finds, Atlantean legends, and the like. This theory also fits well with the marks on the quarries and on the cut stones, which seem strange.

4) Gift of the gods

When you do not believe in the possibilities of the ancients, or in intelligent mushrooms from Alpha Centauri, or in the Atlanteans, then only faith in Divine intervention remains. Divine technologies are divine for that, that we cannot understand them. Therefore, these technologies can explain everything. Even the construction of the Alexander Column. (He is also a god. He erected, changed the memory of people and added documents so that everything would fit in the accounting department.)

I propose to postpone the divine version. No, not to postpone for later, but completely. It is simply not interesting for consideration, because. it can explain anything without any effort. Boring.

Other versions that would not fit into those indicated above have not been found by me. If someone has something to offer, I'll be happy to consider and study.

Therefore, I propose now to proceed to the consideration of these remaining three versions in more detail. Let's start immediately with the second and third - i.e. the work was carried out by reptilians or Atlanteans. In my opinion they are almost identical. Who asked: "Why?" Because in one, in another, we will look at technologies that are not available even to our civilization for the most part. And they are fundamentally similar to each other. Well, the difference between geoconcrete and geoplasticine is not fundamental for me, although the technologies are not comparable.

Let's go step by step.

1) Stone mining and processing.

I combined both processes here, since the answer to one question will give an answer to the other.

Manually, as the adherents of the version of mushrooms and Atlanteans say, it is impossible to extract such blocks of stone, as presented below.

Do you see these little people? They are not capable of such work.

Let's take a closer look at the walls of this obelisk. The weight of the finished obelisk must be about 1200 tons, made in granite. By the way, do not pay attention to the cracks in the obelisk itself. It split during the manufacturing process, because only the gods are omnipotent. So, we see neat (well, almost neat) grooves on the lateral surface. We would have seen the same furrows on the wall of the main mass from which this piece of stone was mined. These furrows are traces that were left by the mechanisms with which they cut trenches in granite.

What kind of mechanisms / technologies could do this?

Option one - some tricky bucket. Well, it looks like traces of an excavator bucket. Unfortunately, this option can be dismissed, because. there are quarry walls where the tracks form steps or are clearly not vertical (in some cases the slope reaches 30 degrees Celsius).

And in some cases, the traces are more like a dig.

In addition, you obviously cannot dig such a passage with a bucket (even if this passage is in sandstone, not granite).

And in general, the mechanism must be simply of incredible strength in order to cut granite in the same way as we are now sand. In addition, there should have been traces of granite "squeezed out" upward along the edges of the holes.

Well, let's add another version. This is a plasma / laser (or other kind) cutter that affects the rock with fire, sound, gravitational waves, thought force, etc. The version is good. The cutter can be reached anywhere and any way. Although it remains unclear why make a passage at an angle to the vertical, if you can humanly make an even vertical cut. And why sometimes make a cut with "holes", and sometimes leave a conditionally smooth wall. Well, as in the tunnel above. Different cutters? Why then use different cutters on the same object? Look, here the walls are smooth, and "hollow-shaped" go to the bottom.

Why then not do everything at once with a "smooth" cutter - after all, there would be less work on leveling later?

The previous pictures were from the territory of Egypt, but similar methods can be found among the Incas. In the image below, on the left side is a stone from Kachikata, and on the right side is a stone in Aswan.

Isn't it similar traces? So the same technology was used. True bad luck - the construction of structures by the Incas dates back to approximately 11-16 centuries AD, in contrast to Ancient Egypt. Therefore, either the structures were built at about the same time (and then the dating of the structures has a clear error of millennia !!!), or the reptilians or the Atlanteans existed on earth for a rather long period of time. I wouldn't bet on a mistake in the dates. In principle, during the indicated period of our era, no such work was already carried out in Egypt, at least there is no information about this for sure. And people already lived there. At what conditionally the same that live now. So they would have left written evidence of the presence of reptilians / Atlanteans at that particular time. Rather, we can conclude that the Atlanteans left Ancient Egypt, and after some time settled in the territory of Peru, and then left from there. Good version? Nothing worse than others.

However, the presence of the same "holes" in both Egypt and Peru does not answer the question of the difference in stone mining technologies during the same period and in the same place, i.e. simultaneously. (I'm talking about "hole-like" cuts and straight cuts of the rock.) It looks awkward.

Let's take another look at one of the photos already cited.

I circled another type of footprint. It seems that someone was quarrying the stone using another method - there are clear traces of something rectangular in shape stuck into the stone. The forklift type option does not work because traces within the same line differ in level. The traces themselves are located exactly in those places where mining was carried out by the aforementioned methods. Well, it turns out that the Reptilians / Atlanteans used as many as 3 technologies in the place where they could use one.

Very strange...

And there are still traces similar to cuts. Thus, a version of saws with a diamond working surface or with other abrasives appears. (Sorry, I couldn't find a suitable photo). However, the use of a saw does not then explain the presence of "holes" and other traces in the extraction of stone. And even more strange to see also saws when there are cutters. However, cuts are found on individual stones, so it is impossible to simply discard the saw version in any design.

Another option is milling machines. This version explains both the "ladder", and smooth walls, and "hollow-shaped" walls, and cuts, and even a tunnel. But it does not explain why one option, then another, is used on one object. Well, the presence of traces of the "forklift" is also embarrassing. It would be redundant in this case. But this version is perfectly complemented by the presence of such ancient products:

Another option is acoustic waves. Explains a lot, but not the traces of the "loader" and the presence different surfaces on one object. And the accuracy of tuning such waves to the penetration depth is alarming - although the capabilities of these technologies are unknown.

As far as stone processing is concerned, polishing can be carried out really different ways available even now. Stone carving can also be done with current technology. round holes, found on ancient Egyptian stones, are also fully explained by current technologies. Although there are doubts that modern methods could leave traces in the holes like this:

Perhaps there are enough options for now. Each of them has its pros and cons.

Of the pluses, one main one can be distinguished - with the help of such technologies it is possible to extract a stone and, moreover, process it.

Of the minuses of the versions:

Uncertainty about exactly what technologies were used (individual experts criticize each other so that feathers fly),

The use of several technologies (or performance techniques directly) at the same time in cases where one would be enough.

Let's move on to the next stages.

2) Delivery and construction.

Combined these points too. After all, it is obvious that if there is a technique / technology for lifting a massive load to a height, then there is an opportunity to transport this load from one place to another.

In principle, at the moment there is a technique that allows you to lift a load weighing about 2000 tons to a height of several meters. Made to order. But this technique is not capable of transporting cargo.

In principle, at the moment there is also equipment capable of transporting such a cargo, but it requires enough flat surface. And such a flat surface from quarries to construction sites is not observed in the vast majority of cases.

Here you can make a small digression.

Within the territory of Ancient Greece almost always used the stone that was in close proximity. For them it was easy, because. Greece is almost 80% mountainous.

Within the territory of ancient rome it was different. Granite, for example, was also imported from Ancient Egypt, including large blocks.

The Incas obviously used their local stone (they have a mountainous area), but usually it was necessary to lift it up the slopes.

In ancient Egypt, they also used their stone, but often delivered it from afar.

In general, we can say that the delivery of blocks or their blanks was absolutely necessary. If we take into account that the weight of individual products reached 1000 tons and more, then this would be a significant problem in our time.

If we talk about how intelligent mushrooms or Atlanteans could deliver stone blocks and products, then this could be done using various Vehicle or through "weight loss" technologies. There is no particular controversy on this score, since few people are interested in developing ideas regarding transportation.

As for the construction itself, the huge blocks are presented exclusively in the form of building foundations / walls, i.e. this is the first or second row of stones. The higher the building, the smaller and smaller stones were used. Does this mean the technology is limited, or was that the original idea? We are unlikely to ever get an answer to this question within the framework of the two versions under consideration (meaning the version of the one who was the builder).

If the builders could transport giant blocks, then they could lift these blocks using almost the same technologies, especially if we are talking about "weight loss" technology.

However, in the construction technology itself there are several versions that you can focus on.

molten stone(magma), the shape of which is set using magnetic or other fields. To obtain raw materials, no special efforts are required, because. even the smallest stones (or even natural magma) can be used. Thus, the problem of extraction and transportation of stone disappears. But it is not clear how the stone was forced to harden in such bizarre forms, and why, if you can get by with more "correct" samples. And this approach does not quite explain the traces of stone processing, although they could have been processed additionally after manufacturing.

"geoconcrete"- this is a kind of concrete obtained from stone (the same granite), which, when solidified, gives complete identity to natural stone. That is, geoconcrete is poured into certain forms in which it solidifies in the required configuration, and then the resulting block is installed on the wall.

This approach almost completely removes the problem of mining, processing and transportation of blocks, because. even stone dust can serve as a source. However, questions remain.

Why are blocks made heterogeneous in shape and size? It's illogical and uneconomical to make a separate mold for each stone. And why did individual stones turn out so clumsy?

"Geoplastilin" is a kind of specific plasticine, which, when solidified, turns into a natural stone. Those. blocks were molded from geoplasticine and installed on top of each other. Plasticine under its own weight filled the joint with a neighboring stone, giving such a dense laying. Actually, geoplasticine removes the problem of individual preparation of the form for each block (which geoconcrete has). But this version does not explain why the plasticine did not melt into lower part block when frozen. To circumvent the problem of slumping, there are versions about the local cancellation of the gravitational force on a specific block, which allows the block to freeze without experiencing gravity. But then it is not clear how plasticine could fill the joint with a neighboring stone.

Both geoconcrete technology and geoplasticine technology do not explain the main stage of work - namely, the presence of stone quarries. Why mine huge blocks if you can get by with crushed stone, which is later processed into concrete / plasticine?

There is another more logical scheme. It involves the installation of stone blocks without fitting, after which they are enclosed in certain forms. Then the entire wall/building is stripped of weight and the stone is forced to expand with some technology. Due to the expansion, the stone fills the gaps and acquires a characteristic swelling, stopped by the shape. After the end of exposure to the expander, gravity is returned and the stone wall becomes something like this:

This technology still requires both mining and transportation and some stone processing. And all sorts of costs, such as very "clumsy" blocks and inaccurate fitting, can be explained by the fact that they did not have time to apply the technology in these areas.

But such influxes of lava are explained by a breakthrough in the field that limits the magma, or destruction in the form in which the "expanding" stone is placed.

Here I have listed only some of the possible technologies that could be used by Reptilians or Atlanteans. It is not possible to view all possible versions, because almost every expert is ready to express his vision of the problem, and even give out several options for each action, respectively, and the number of versions tends to increase over time. In addition, for the most part, each subsequent version is usually a kind of semblance of those already mentioned, with some variations (for example, the use of nanothreads instead of a saw).

At the moment, none of the listed technologies of possible builders has been approved as unambiguously correct and final.

And what versions are you ready to put forward?

Recipe from a professional historian-archaeologist Yu.E. Berezkina with multiple hallmarks of quality:
1. The blocks of the bottom row are adjusted to the top ones by trial and error (that's right, the bottom ones to the top ones!)
2. The natural deformation of the stone fills all the gaps.
It's all so simple and uncomplicated.
I didn’t read Berezkin’s book, I didn’t check whether this nonsense was really written in it, but the approach is recognizable: “How to feed hundreds of thousands of Tatar-multi-headed horses in winter? It’s very simple - you take it and feed it.”

Further text taken from fabiy_maxim A Soviet scientist unraveled the mystery of polygonal masonry back in 1991

o tempora, o mores

Everything as usual. Numerous fans of alternative history run around like bitten and shout at all corners about the "civilizations of the gods", the unknown technologies of the "ancient civilizations" and the construction of the pyramids by aliens. With bated breath, they watch films by von Deniken and Andrei Sklyarov, discussing how some Incas, who owned only copper tools, processed giant stones and joined them together with filigree accuracy. Meanwhile, everything is extremely simple and uncomplicated.

As many history buffs know, in many ancient buildings, the so-called megalithic ones, the builders managed to fit stones to each other in such a way that even a piece of paper could not be inserted between them. Pairing is perfect. And not only that, as if mocking modern builders, ancient people managed in this way to customize not standard factory-made blocks, but stones of the strongest rocks with curvilinear surfaces, including. They built structures in this way without any cement, standing without damage in earthquake-prone regions of the planet. Well, to top it all off, this was done with a copper tool, which is much softer than the stone they process. Yes, and tossing stones weighing under a hundred tons, they also managed to easily.

Meanwhile, official science has long known the methods of building such structures. Anyone can verify this by reading the relevant literature. For example, the publication of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the book by Yuri Evgenievich Berezkin "The Incas. The Historical Experience of the Empire", which was published back in 1991. I must say right away that the respected Yuri Evgenievich Berezkin is not some kind of laboratory assistant of the history department who knows nothing about the Incas. He is a professional historian, archaeologist, ethnographer, specialist in comparative mythology, history and archeology of ancient Western and Central Asia, as well as the history and ethnography of the Indians (especially South America). Head of the Department of America of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Professor at the Faculty of Ethnology at the European University at St. Petersburg. Doctor of Historical Sciences.

Here is a quote from the above book:
It must be said that although the cyclopean buildings of the Incas are mentioned episodically in the "new" myths characteristic of our time (unknown highly developed technology, space aliens, etc.), these plots in this case did not receive much distribution. All too well known are the quarries where the Incas cut the blocks, and the paths along which the stones were transported to construction sites. Only stable the legend about as if a needle cannot be inserted between the plates - they fit so tightly. Although there are really no gaps between the blocks now , the reason here lies not in careful fitting, but only in natural deformation of the stone, which filled all the cracks over time . Inca masonry as such is quite primitive: the blocks of the lower row were adjusted to fit the upper ones, acting by trial and error.

I will allow myself to cite a number of photographs typed in Yandex under the tag "polygonal masonry" as an illustration of the opinion of a respected scientist

As they say: "May Vitzliputzli and Quetzalcoatl save us from the representatives of pseudoscience." Amen.

o tempora, o mores

Here is a quote from the above book:
It must be said that although the cyclopean buildings of the Incas are mentioned episodically in the "new" myths characteristic of our time (unknown highly developed technology, space aliens, etc.), these plots in this case did not receive much distribution. All too well known are the quarries where the Incas cut the blocks, and the paths by which the stones were transported to the construction sites. Only stable the legend about as if a needle cannot be inserted between the plates - they fit so tightly. Although there are really no gaps between the blocks now , the reason here lies not in careful fitting, but only in natural deformation of the stone, which filled all the cracks over time . Inca masonry as such is quite primitive: the blocks of the lower row were adjusted to fit the upper ones, acting by trial and error.

I will allow myself to cite a number of photographs typed in Yandex under the tag "polygonal masonry" as an illustration of the opinion of a respected scientist

As they say: "May Vitzliputzli and Quetzalcoatl save us from the representatives of pseudoscience." Amen.

Polygonal masonry in Egypt. Presumably by the ancient Egyptians. And this is older than the Incas.

Japan

Russia. Kronstadt.

Admire? Such a laying is widespread practically
all over the globe - Mexico, Turkey, the Caucasus ... This is me still Roman
aqueducts are not included here as an example.

Let's now look at the definition of what is polygonal masonry.

The general definition of polygonal masonry sounds like

Polygonal masonry - masonry of the building wall, made of polygonal stones hewn to each other.

Here we can add that "completed often without a binder solution", if we are talking about the affairs of bygone days.

Polygonal
mortar masonry is recognized as one of the subspecies of rubble masonry, namely
dry masonry (if done without cement mortar).

Dry
masonry - a method of construction in which buildings or their elements
constructed of stone without the use of a binding solution.
The stability of dry masonry is ensured by the presence of a load-bearing facade made of
interlocking stones carefully matched to each other. This is the most
archaic of masonry methods. Usually used for building
walls, but entire buildings and bridges built by such
method.

Here is an example of entire buildings built in just the above way.

(Thanks to Vzor for the provided picture and description.)

ancient
builders have calculated the best methods for laying stone without mortar and
supports, from the base to the final pom-pom stone at the top
sharp round roof. Buildings have been standing for several centuries, destruction
do not lend themselves to time. This is France, by the way.

In
of all these buildings, people are surprised how filigree precision of fit
stones, and their sizes, especially if we talk about the buildings of the Ancient
Egypt and the Inca Empire. And, as a consequence, the very possibility of extraction
and the processing of huge boulders and the construction of structures from them.

What versions are given to us by various sources? Let's look at them, summarizing a little similar options.

1) Made by hand

Mining,
processing, delivery and construction were carried out manually by people
(respectively, the Incas, ancient Egyptians, Romans, etc.) with
using the tools, technologies and devices that existed then.

This
the method is criticized by all and sundry. The main criticism is based on
that it is impossible to manually mine such blocks or process them so
exactly, neither transport nor build a structure out of them. Do it all
manually is simply impossible, especially with the then existing
technologies.

2) Made by reptilians, intelligent mushrooms, etc.

How
no matter how strange it looks, but if we take into account the criticism of point number 1, then
the only option left is - Extraction, processing, delivery and
construction was carried out by aliens from other worlds, because on earth could not
then there are technologies with which it would be possible to
do. So the aliens did it with turbo plasma cutters,
anti-gravity engines, geoconcrete, etc. alien technology,
which are beyond our understanding. This theory justifies
the presence of strange drawings of aircraft, humanoids in space suits
etc., which are found from time to time among various peoples. Also
this version fits smoothly on those traces in the quarries, on the stones that
seem strange.

3) Made by Atlantis

If not
believe in aliens, and realize the impossibility of such operations
manually, according to our knowledge of the ancients, then there remains only one
alternative - our ancestors knew how much more than we do about them
presenting. Accordingly, all this was done by the Atlanteans (someone
says that they were giants, someone hushed up the question of their size),
which possessed disproportionately greater capabilities than even ours
civilization now. (Or not Atlantes, but simply ancestors developed
better than us.) They did it with the help of ultra-/infra-sound,
stone softeners, magnetic fields and magma solidifying in them,
geoplasticine and some technologies that deprived objects of weight.
This version can be superimposed on finds of giant skeletons, legends
about the Atlanteans, etc. This theory also fits well into traces on
quarries, and on worked stones that seem strange.

4) Gift of the gods

When
you do not believe in the possibilities of the ancients, nor in intelligent mushrooms from Alpha
Centauri or Atlantis, then only faith in the Divine remains
intervention. Divine technologies are divine for that, what to understand
we are unable to do so. Therefore, these technologies can explain everything. Even
construction of the Alexander Column. (He is a god. Raised, changed
memory of people and added documents so that everything fits in the accounting department.)

I propose
postpone the divine version. No, not to postpone for later, but completely. She
is simply not interesting for consideration, tk. it can explain anything
without making any effort. Boring.

Other versions that are not
would fit into the above, were not found by me. If somebody
offer something, I'll be happy to consider and study.

That's why
I propose now to proceed to the consideration of these remaining three versions
in details. Let's start immediately with the second and third - i.e. work was
reptilians or Atlanteans. In my opinion they are almost identical. Who
asked: "Why?" Because in one, in another we will
look at technologies that are not available even to our civilization in
the majority. And they are fundamentally similar to each other. well no
fundamentally for me the difference between geoconcrete and geoplasticine, although
technologies are incomparable.

Let's go step by step.

1) Stone mining and processing.

I combined both processes here, since the answer to one question will give an answer to the other.

Manually, as the adherents of the version of mushrooms and Atlanteans say, it is impossible to extract such blocks of stone, as presented below.

Do you see these little people? They are not capable of such work.

Let's take a closer look
to the walls of this obelisk. The weight of the finished obelisk should be about
1200 tons, made in granite. By the way, do not pay attention to the cracks in
the obelisk itself. It split during the manufacturing process, because only the gods
omnipotent. So, we see neat (well, almost neat) furrows on
side surface. We would see the same furrows on the wall
the main mass from which this piece of stone was mined. These furrows
are traces left by the mechanisms with which they carved
in granite trenches.

What kind of mechanisms / technologies could do this?

Option
the first is a kind of tricky bucket. Well, it looks like traces of an excavator
bucket. Unfortunately, this option can be dismissed, because. there are walls
quarries, where the traces form steps or are clearly not vertical (in
in some cases, the slope reaches 30 degrees Celsius).

And in some cases, the traces are more like a dig.

In addition, you obviously cannot dig such a passage with a bucket (even if this passage is in sandstone, not granite).

And in general, the mechanism should be simply incredible
strength to cut granite as well as we now sand. Besides,
there should have been traces of granite "squeezed out" upward along the edges
holes.

Well, let's add another version. Is it plasma/laser (or
a different kind) a cutter that affects the rock with fire, sound,
gravitational waves, thought force, etc. The version is good.
The cutter can be reached anywhere and any way. Although it remains
incomprehensible, why make a passage at an angle to the vertical, if possible
to make a straight vertical cut in a human way. And why sometimes make a cut
"holes", and sometimes leave a conditionally smooth wall. Well, like in a tunnel
above. Different cutters? Why then use different cutters on one
object? Look, here the walls are smooth, and "hollow-shaped" go to the bottom.

Why then not do everything at once with a "smooth" cutter - after all, there would be less work on leveling later?

Previous
the pictures were from the territory of Egypt, but the Incas can find similar
methods. In the image below, on the left side, a stone from Kachikata, and from
right stone in Aswan.

Isn't it similar traces? So a similar
technology. True bad luck - the construction of structures among the Incas
refers to approximately the 11th-16th centuries AD, in contrast to the Ancient
Egypt. Therefore, either the buildings were built at about the same time (and then
dating of structures has a clear error of millennia !!!), or
reptilians or Atlanteans existed on earth for quite a long time
time interval. I wouldn't bet on a mistake in the dates. IN
principle, during the specified period of our era, no similar work in Egypt
no longer conducted, at least there is no information about this for sure. And people
already lived there. At what conditionally the same that live now. Means
they would have left written evidence of the presence of reptilians / Atlanteans
exactly at that time. Rather, we can conclude that the Atlanteans are gone
from Ancient Egypt, and after some time settled in the territory
Peru, and then left from there. Good version? Nothing worse than others.

However,
the presence of the same "holes" in both Egypt and Peru does not answer the same
to the question of the difference in stone mining technologies during one period and in
the same place, i.e. simultaneously. (I'm talking about "hole-like"
cuts and straight cuts of the rock.) Looks awkward.

Let's take another look at one of the photos already cited.

I circled another type of footprint. It feels like
someone mined the stone using another method - obvious traces are visible
something rectangular in shape, stuck into a stone. Type option
forklift does not pass, because traces within one line
differ in level. The traces themselves are exactly in those places where
mining was carried out by the methods mentioned above. Well, it turns out
reptilians / Atlanteans used as many as 3 technologies in the place where they could
would use one.

Very strange...

And there are more traces
cut-like. Thus, a version of saws with a diamond
working surface or with other abrasive. (Sorry, I couldn't find a photo.
appropriate). However, the use of a saw does not then explain the presence
"holes" and other traces in the extraction of stone. And even more strange to see
also saws when there are cutters. However, cuts are found on separate
stones, so just discard the saw option in any performance
it is forbidden.

Another option is milling machines. This
version explains both the "ladder", and smooth walls, and "hole-shaped"
walls, and cuts, and even a tunnel. But does not explain why on one
The object uses one option, then another. Well, the presence of traces
"Forklift" is also confusing. It would be redundant in this case.
But this version is perfectly complemented by the presence of such products
ancient:

Another option is acoustic waves. Explains
a lot, but not traces of a "loader" and the presence of different surfaces on one
object. Yes, and the accuracy of tuning such waves to the penetration depth
alarming - although the capabilities of these technologies are unknown.

What
concerns exclusively stone processing, polishing can
carried out in really different ways, available now.
Stone carving can also be done with current technology. Round
holes found on ancient Egyptian stones are also quite
explained by current technology. Although there are doubts that
modern methods could leave such traces in the holes:

Perhaps there are enough options for now. Each of them has its pros and cons.

Of the pluses, one main one can be distinguished - with the help of such technologies it is possible to extract a stone and, moreover, process it.

Of the minuses of the versions:

Uncertainty about exactly what technologies were used (individual experts criticize each other so that feathers fly),

-
the use of several technologies (or directly
execution) simultaneously in cases where it would be sufficient and
one.

Let's move on to the next stages.

2) Delivery and construction.

merged
and these points too. After all, it is obvious that if there is a technique / technology
lifting a massive load to a height, that is, there is an opportunity to transport
this cargo from one place to another.

Basically, currently
there is a technique that allows you to lift a load weighing about 2000 tons on
several meters high. Made to order. But this technique is not
able to carry cargo.

Basically, there are currently
equipment capable of transporting such a load, but it requires enough
flat surface. And such a flat surface from quarries to places
construction in the general majority of cases is not observed.

Here you can make a small digression.

On the
the territory of ancient Greece almost always used that stone,
which was in close proximity. For them it was easy, because.
Greece is almost 80% mountainous.

On the territory of Ancient Rome it was different. Granite, for example, was also imported from Ancient Egypt, including large blocks.

At
The Incas clearly used their local stone (they have the whole area
mountainous), but it was usually necessary to lift it up the slopes.

In ancient Egypt, they also used their stone, but often delivered it from afar.

IN
in general, we can say that the delivery of blocks or their blanks was
definitely necessary. Considering that the weight of individual products reached
1000 tons and above, then this would be a significant problem in our time.

If
talk about how intelligent mushrooms or Atlanteans could deliver
stone blocks and products, then this could be done using various
vehicles or through "weight loss" technologies. On that
account of special disputes is not observed, since few people are interested
develop ideas for transportation.

Concerning
directly construction, then huge blocks are presented
exclusively in the form of foundations of buildings / walls, i.e. this is the first and second row
stones. The higher the building, the smaller the stones
were used. Does this mean the limitations of technology or it was
original idea? The answer to this question within the framework of the
two versions (meaning the version of the one who was the builder) we are unlikely
someday we'll get it.

If the builders could carry out
transportation of giant blocks, which means they could lift these blocks
due to almost the same technologies, especially if we are talking about "depriving
weight" technique.

However, in the construction technology itself there are several versions that you can focus on.

molten stone(magma), the shape of which is set using magnetic or other fields. For
obtaining raw materials does not require much effort, tk. can be used
even the smallest stones (or natural magma in general). So
Thus, the problem of extraction and transportation of stone disappears. But it's not clear
how they forced the stone to harden in such bizarre forms, and for what,
if you can get by with more "correct" samples. And this approach is not
completely explains the traces of stone processing, although they could already process
additionally after production.

"geoconcrete"is a certain
concrete obtained from stone (the same granite), which, when solidified, gives
complete identity of natural stone. Those. geoconcrete is poured into some
forms in which it freezes in the required configuration, and then
the resulting block is installed on the wall.

This approach is practically
completely removes the problem of mining, processing and transporting blocks,
because even stone dust can serve as a source. However, there remain
questions.

Why are blocks made heterogeneous in shape and size? This
after all, it is illogical and uneconomical to make a separate form for each
stone. And why did individual stones turn out so clumsy?

"Geoplastilin" is a kind of specific plasticine, which
when solidified, it turns into a natural stone. Those. sculpted from
geoplasticine blocks and installed on top of each other. Plasticine under
filled with its own weight the joint with a neighboring stone, giving such a dense
styling. Actually, geoplasticine removes the problem of individual
preparing a form for each block (which geoconcrete has). But this
version does not explain why the plasticine did not float to the bottom of the block when
solidification. To circumvent the problem of slumping, versions are expressed about
local cancellation of the gravitational force on a specific block, which allows
solidify the block without experiencing gravity. But then it is not clear how
plasticine could fill the joint with a neighboring stone.

Like technology
geoconcrete, and geoplasticine technology does not explain the main stage
works - namely, the presence of quarries for the extraction of stone. Why mine
huge blocks, if you can get by with crushed stone, processed later in
concrete/clay?

There is another more logical scheme. She
involves the installation of stone blocks without fitting, after which they
put into some form. The entire wall/building is then stripped of weight and
Some technology causes the stone to expand. Through expansion
the stone fills the gaps and acquires a characteristic swelling, which is stopped
form. After the end of exposure to the expander, gravity is returned
and the stone wall becomes something like this:

This technology still requires both mining and
transportation and some stone processing. And any costs like
very "clumsy" blocks and inaccurate fit, can be explained
the fact that the technology in these areas did not have time to apply.

And here
such lava flows are explained by a break in the field that limits the magma, or
destruction in the form in which the "expanding" stone is placed.

Here I have listed
only some of the possible technologies that could be used
Reptilians or Atlanteans. All possible versions cannot be viewed,
because almost every expert is ready to express his vision of the problem, and
then give out several options for each action, respectively, and
the number of versions tends to increase over time. Besides, in
for the most part, each subsequent version is usually some
similarity to those already mentioned, with some variations (for example,
using nanofilaments instead of a saw).

At the moment, none of
listed technologies of possible builders has not received approval,
as unambiguously true and final.

The Kramola portal offers you a scientific point of view on the plasticine technology for creating polygonal megaliths in Peru. The conclusions are based on the research of the Institute of Tectonics and Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, mineralogical data and physical and chemical conditions for creating such polygonal masonry are given.

A similar technology is described in detail in a voluminous article., in particular, it provides such interesting fact: when disassembling dolmens for transportation, with subsequent assembly in a new place, modern scientists cannot repeat the perfect fit of huge sandstone blocks.

This sore point has been tormenting more than one generation of researchers for a long time. The cyclopean buildings amazed even the first conquistadors, who set foot on hitherto unknown lands to Europeans, with their scope. The virtuoso processing of wall elements, the most precise fitting of mating seams, the dimensions of the multi-ton blocks themselves, make us still admire the skill of ancient builders.

Over the years, various researchers, independent of each other, established the material from which the blocks of the walls of the fortress were made. This is gray limestone, which composes the surrounding rock strata. The fossil fauna contained in these limestones allows us to consider them equivalent to the Ayavacas limestones of Lake Titicaca, belonging to the Aptian-Albian Cretaceous.

The blocks that make up the masonry of the wall do not at all look cut down (as many researchers prefer to claim), or carved by some kind of high-tech tool. With a modern machining tool, it is also very difficult, and often completely impossible, to achieve such mates when working with hard material, and even in such a quantity.

What can we say about the ancient peoples, who, with a low level of technological development, had to accomplish truly incredible deeds? Indeed, according to the prevailing official version, the blocks were allegedly hewn in the nearby quarries being developed, and then dragged, while being processed from different sides for fitting and docking in mates with subsequent installation in the wall masonry. Moreover, given the weight of the blocks themselves, this version does look like a fairy tale. All this action is attributed to the Quechua people (Incas), whose great empire flourished on the South American continent in the 11th-16th centuries. AD, the end of which was put by the conquistadors.

At this point, it is worth clarifying that the Incas inherited and used the knowledge products of previous civilizations that existed in the territories subject to them. Multiple archaeological studies of these areas testify to the existence of more ancient cultures, which are the indisputable predecessors and founders of the very “base” on the basis of which the Inca empire grew up. And it is far from a fact that the grandiose cyclopean buildings of Sacsayhuaman were the work of the Incas, who could well have used the ready-made buildings, completely without putting their hands on cutting down and dragging heavy blocks, not to mention their processing.

The Incas, or their predecessors, do not have any high-tech research, with the help of which it would be possible to carry out the whole range of such work on the construction of grandiose structures. No archaeological research confirms any presence of appropriate tools and devices that can justify the prevailing opinion. Some "way out" of this situation is trying to offer prospectors, allowing the factor of alien interference. They say - they flew in, built and flew away, or disappeared without a trace / died out, leaving no knowledge about the technologies used in the construction of the walls. What can be said about this? This question can be answered concretely only by excluding all other possibilities. And as long as those are not excluded, one should rely on facts and sound logic.

The limestone of the blocks is so dense that some prospectors speak in favor of andesite, which, of course, is in no way fair and, accordingly, brings confusion and confusion, serving as a source of misinterpretations in the direction of further research. Most recent studies of the Sacsayhuaman fortress by Russian scientists (ITIG FEB RAS) together with (Geo & Asociados SRL), which conducted georadar scanning of the area in order to identify the reasons for the destruction of the walls of the fortress by order of the Ministry of Culture of Peru, sufficiently clarified the situation in the matter of the composition of the block material. Below is an excerpt from the official report (ITIG FEB RAS) on the results of X-ray fluorescence analysis of samples taken directly from the research site:

]]>
]]>

As can be seen from the composition, there can be no talk of any andesite, since the content of silica itself in it should already be in the range of 52-65%, although it is worth noting the rather high density of the limestone itself, which makes up the blocks. It is also worth noting the absence of organic remains in the samples of material taken from the blocks, just like the presence of these in the samples taken from the alleged mining site - the "quarry".

Accordingly, on the next fragment, represented by a thin section of a sample taken from the block, no obvious organic remains are observed. It is precisely the fine-grained structure that is clearly visible.

]]>
]]>

In this case, it is likely to assume a purely chemogenic origin of this limestone, which, as is known, is formed as a result of precipitation from solutions and should usually be expressed as oolitic, pseudo-oolitic, pelitomorphic and fine-grained varieties.

But don't rush. Along with the study of a section of a sample taken from a block, a similar study of a section of a sample taken from a proposed quarry showed clearly distinguishable inclusions of organic remains:

]]>
]]>

Similar chem. compositions of both samples with a one-time difference in terms of the presence/absence of organic remains.

First intermediate output:

The limestone of the blocks during construction was subjected to some impact, the consequences of which were the disappearance / dissolution of organic remains along the route of the block material from the quarry to the place of laying in the wall. A kind of “magic” transformation, which, in all likelihood, taking into account all the available facts, did take place.

Let's take a closer look - what do we have in stock? In fact, the composition of the studied samples indicates a direct analogy with marl limestones. Marl limestone is a sedimentary rock of clay-carbonate composition, and CaCO3 is contained in such a size of 25-75%. The rest is the percentage of clays, impurities and fine sand. In our case, fine sand and clay are contained in small quantities. This is confirmed by the experiment with the decomposition of a sample piece with acetic acid, when a very negligible amount of impurities precipitates in the insoluble residue. Consequently, silicon dioxide, instead of fine sand (which does not dissolve in acetic acid), is represented by amorphous silicic acid and amorphous silica, which were once contained in the initial solution along with precipitated calcium carbonate and other components.

]]> ]]>
Photo of an experiment on the decomposition of limestone from the composition of samples taken from the blocks of the walls of the Sacsayhuaman fortress, when interacting with acetic acid. (I. Alekseev)

As you know, marls are the main raw material for the production of cements. The so-called "marls - naturals" are used in the manufacture of cements in their pure form - without the introduction of mineral additives and additives, since they already obviously have all the necessary properties and the appropriate composition.

It should also be noted that the content of silica (SiO2) in ordinary marls in the insoluble residue exceeds the amount of sesquioxides by no more than 4 times. For marls with a silicate modulus (SiO2:R2O3 ratio) greater than 4 and composed of opal structures, the term "silica" is used. Opal structures in our case are presented in the form of amorphous silicic acid - silicon dioxide hydrate (SiO2*nH2O).

]]>
]]>

Silicon dioxide hydrate forms such a rock as flasks (the old Russian name is siliceous marl). The flask is a rock that is strong and resonant upon impact. This characteristic correlates well with the experiments on the impact on the blocks of the Sacsayhuamana fortress. When tapped with a stone, the blocks ring in a peculiar way.

An excerpt from a commentary by one of the researchers of the ISIDA project, who participated in an expedition to conduct georadar research on the cause of the destruction of the walls of the Sacsayhuaman fortress in Peru, gives a clear description of this:
“... It was quite unexpected to find that some small blocks of limestone, when tapped, emit a melodic ringing. The sound is intoned (has a well-read pitch, i.e. notes), reminiscent of metal strikes. It is possible that many blocks sound like this when they are placed in a certain position (hanging, for example). I even thought that the Sacsayhuaman blocks would make a good and very unusual-sounding musical instrument.” (I. Alekseev)

However, the flask is a rock consisting mostly of silicon dioxide with minor inclusions of various impurities (including CaO). To apply the classification of flasks to limestones and the material of the blocks of the walls of the Sacsayhuaman fortress would not be the right approach, since the main component in the percentage of the rock under consideration, according to the analyzes of the samples, is just calcium oxide (CaO).

Calculation of silicate modulus (SiO2: R2O3) :
- according to the results of analyzes of a sample from the "quarry", it gives a value of 7.9 units, which means that the studied samples belong to the group of "silica" limestones;
- for the block material, respectively, is 7.26 units.

The rock under consideration, represented by the material of the blocks of the walls of the Sacsayhuaman fortress, can be characterized as "silica limestone" (according to the classification of G.I. Teodorovich), and as "microparite" (according to the classification of R. Folk).

The rock from the so-called "quarry" can be characterized as "organogenic micrite" mixed with "pellmicrite" (according to R. Folk's classification).

Returning to marls, we note that in addition to raw materials for the production of cements, marls are also used to produce hydraulic lime. Hydraulic lime is obtained by roasting marl limestones at temperatures of 900°-1100°C, without bringing the composition to sintering (i.e., in comparison with the production of cements, there is no clinker). During firing, carbon dioxide (CO2) is removed with the formation of a mixed composition of silicates: 2CaO*SiO2, aluminates:

CaO*Al2O3, ferrates: 2CaO*Fe2O3, which, in fact, contribute to the special stability of hydraulic lime in a humid environment after hardening and petrification in air. Hydraulic lime is characterized by the fact that it hardens both in air and in water, differing from ordinary air lime in its lower plasticity and much greater strength.

It is applied in the places subject to influence of water and moisture. The dependence between the calcareous and clay parts, together with oxides, affects the special properties of such a composition. This dependence is expressed by the hydraulic module. Calculation of the hydraulic modulus, according to the data obtained from the analyzes of samples from

Sacsayhuamana is represented by the following results:

M = %CaO: %SiO2+%Al2O3+%Fe2O3+%TiO2+%MnO+%MgO+%K2O

According to the sample taken from the masonry, the module value: m = 4.2;
- according to a sample taken from the so-called "quarry": m = 4.35.

To determine the properties and classifications of hydraulic lime, the following ranges of modulus values are accepted:

1.7-4.5 (for highly hydraulic limes);
- 4.5-9 (for weakly hydraulic limes).

In this case, we have the modulus value = 4.2 (for the material of wall blocks) and 4.35 (for the material from the "quarry"). It is possible to characterize the obtained result as for "medium-hydraulic" lime with a bias towards strongly-hydraulic.

For strongly hydraulic lime, hydraulic properties and a rapid increase in strength are especially pronounced. The higher the hydraulic modulus, the faster and more completely the hydraulic lime is slaked. Accordingly, the lower the value of the modulus, the reactions are less pronounced and are determined for weakly hydraulic limes.

In our case, the value of the modulus is average, which means a completely normal speed, both for extinguishing and curing, which is quite appropriate for the complex construction works for the construction of the walls of the Sacsayhuamana fortress without the need for high-tech surveys and tools.

When quicklime (heat-treated limestone) is combined with water (H2O), it is quenched - the anhydrous minerals of the mixture are converted into hydroaluminates, hydrosilicates, hydroferrates, and the mass itself is converted into lime dough. The quenching reaction of both air and hydraulic lime proceeds with the release of heat (exothermic). The resulting slaked lime Ca(OH)2, reacting with air CO2 ((Ca(OH)2+Co2 = CaCO3+H2O)) and the composition of the group (SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3)*nH2O, upon solidification and crystallization turns into into a very durable and water-resistant mass.

When slaking both hydraulic and air lime, depending on the time of slaking, the quantitative composition of water and many other factors, a certain percentage of "unslaked" CaO grains remains in the lime paste. These grains can be quenched after a long time with a sluggish reaction, already after the mass has petrified, forming microvoids and cavities, or separate inclusions. These processes are especially susceptible to near-surface rock layers, which interact with the aggressive effects of the external environment, in particular, the effects of water or moisture containing various alkalis and acids.

Presumably, such formations, caused by unextinguished grains of calcium oxide, can be observed on the blocks of the walls of the Sacsayhuamana fortress in the form of white dots-blotches:

]]>
]]>

Experienced, when quicklime is mixed with finely dispersed silicon dioxide in the appropriate percentages, followed by quenching and the formation of shapes from the resulting dough, after the samples harden, pronounced strength and moisture resistance are established compared to ordinary lime (without the addition of finely dispersed silicon dioxide).

The noted moisture resistance also affects the absence of sticking of an already frozen sample with a newly prepared mass, laid close to form a gapless seam. Subsequently, upon solidification, the samples are easily separated, without showing solidity in conjugation at all. When the samples harden, their surfaces become noticeably shiny, similar to polishing, which is most likely due to the presence of amorphous silicic acid in the solution, which forms a silicate film in combination with CaCO3.

Second intermediate output:
- Sacsayhuamán wall blocks are made of hydraulic lime dough obtained by thermal treatment of Peruvian limestones. At the same time, it is worth noting the property of any lime (both hydraulic and air) - an increase in the mass of quicklime in volume when quenched with water - swelling. Depending on the composition, an increase in volume by 2-3 times can be obtained.

Possible ways of thermal impact on limestones.
The temperature required for burning limestone at 900 ° -1100 ° C can be obtained in several ways:
- when lavas are ejected from the bowels of the planet (it implies close contact of limestone strata directly with lava);
- at the very explosion of a volcano, when minerals are burned and emitted under the pressure of gases into the atmosphere in the form of ash and volcanic bombs;
- with direct reasonable human intervention using targeted thermal exposure (technological approach).

Researches of volcanologists show that the temperature of the lava pouring out on the surface of the planet fluctuates in the range of 500°-1300°C. In our case (for burning limestone), lavas with a substance temperature ranging from 800°-900°C are of interest. These lavas include, first of all, silicon lavas. The content of SiO2 in such lavas ranges from 50-60%. With an increase in the percentage of silicon oxide, the lava becomes viscous and, accordingly, spreads over the surface to a lesser extent, warming up the rock strata adjacent to it well, at a slight distance from the exit point, directly contacting and alternating outer layers with associated limestone deposits.

The same “throne of the Inca”, carved in one of the “streams” of the Rodadero rock, may well be represented by silicified limestone with a high percentage of silicon dioxide and alumina, or flask, the crystallization of which occurred in a completely different way, in comparison with clearly different from the main rock a layer covering the "streams" of Rodadero. Accordingly, this assumption requires separate analyzes and a detailed study of the formation itself.

]]>
]]>

The presented formation is located in close proximity to the object under study and, in all respects, is quite suitable for the role of a “thermoelement”, which once warmed up the limestone strata to the required temperature. This same formation was formed by a bizarre-looking rock that ripped open and scattered limestone strata in different directions from the injection site, preheating them to high temperatures.

According to some reports, this rock is represented by porphyritic augite-diorite (which is known to be based on silicon dioxide (SiO2 - 55-65%)), which is part of plagioclases (CaAl2Si2O8 or NaAlSi3O8). The main bet, apparently, should be made on the anorthite plagioclase CaAl2Si2O8.

The frozen "streams" of Rodadero are not limited to the injection site, but continue among the strata and under the limestone massifs of the area. The study of this formation is not completed and requires additional research and analysis, however, all signs of the impact of high temperatures (about 1000°C) are evident.

Accordingly, the limestone heated and burned in this way (the resulting quicklime hydraulic lime), when reacting with rain, geyser, reservoir, or water in a different state of aggregation (steam), immediately turns into lime dough (extinguished). Crystallization and petrification occurs according to the previously considered scenario.

It should be noted that in this case, it is the reaction with water that turns the fired starting material into a finely dispersed mass (no preliminary grinding into powder is required). Accordingly, during thermal exposure followed by quenching, the destruction of all organogenic inclusions occurs, producing the same “magic transformation” by recrystallization from organogenic limestone to fine-grained limestone.

With the right approach, lime dough can be stored for years without letting it dry out in the air. A striking example of a frozen lime dough is the well-known, so-called "plasticine stones", on which the surface is often processed, or a layer, the "skin" is removed - which is well combined with the assumption that the entire mass of the "boulder" was heated as a whole, when the near-surface areas were subjected to better thermal effect than the core. Most likely, this was the reason for the appearance of such specific traces - through the selection of plastic dough to the depth of unheated layers, which remained intact and were not used to the end, having petrified and preserved traces of exposure to this day.

]]>
]]>

Another similar possibility for obtaining lime paste can be volcanic ash, whose particle size and mineralogical composition differ significantly, depending on the rocks that make up the geological horizons of areas of volcanic activity. And the smaller the particles of such ash, the more plastic the dough will turn out, and crystallization and petrification will end with increased rates. It has been established that ash particles can reach a size of 0.01 microns. Compared with these data, the fineness of the grinding particles of modern cements is only 15-20 microns.

The fineness of particles of volcanic ash, when combined with moisture, forms a mineral dough, which, depending on the composition and conditions, is either distributed on the soil and mixed with the latter, forms a fertile cover, or, when solidified, forms stone-like surfaces and masses of various shapes when accumulated in crevices and lowlands. Various traces often remain on the surfaces of such formations, revealing various information to researchers at the time of solidification and crystallization of the composition of the mass.

But the version with volcanic ash in this case does not explain the presence of deposits from organic remains in the limestones of the so-called "quarry".

Footprints in the ashes Tanzania. Laetoli

You should not, of course, discount the human factor (in terms of thermal effects on limestone). With a skillfully built fire, you can reach a temperature of 600 ° -700 ° C, or even all 1000 ° C.

Note that the combustion temperature of wood is approximately 1100 ° C, hard coal- about 1500°С. In this case, for firing and holding at high temperature, it is necessary to build special "furnaces", which is not a particular problem for both ancient peoples and modern times. Naturally, more detailed studies will show what exactly caused the thermal impact on the studied limestones - human or natural factors, but the fact remains - recrystallization from organogenic siliceous limestone into fine-crystalline siliceous limestone, which we have the opportunity to observe in the blocks of the walls of the Sacsayhuaman fortress, under normal conditions over time - exactly what is impossible. The recrystallization process requires prolonged exposure to temperatures of the order of 1000°C, followed by mixing the resulting quicklime analog with water and forming a dough of slaked lime. Taking into account the above facts and all of the above, the plasticity of the blocks is no longer in doubt. The technology of laying raw lime dough of hydraulic lime stuffed into large blocks is completely subject to the peoples ancient world. Moreover, in this case, the need to use high-tech equipment and fantastic tools is completely eliminated, as well as manual back-breaking labor in carving and dragging building materials to the construction site in the form of heavy blocks.

Alexey Kruzer