Talk:Pumapunku

Regarding material science section

I added a section about the material science perspectives on the Pumapunku site. These perspectives are different to what has been previously inferred by archeologists, but not less legitimate. They are affiliated to bona-fide research institutions, they have employed scientific rigor, they've had their research peer reviewed, they've published their research in bona-fide journals, they have been cited. This is not pseudoscience, please refrain from treat it as such. This edit was not inspired from late-night History Channel content.

--Retinoblastoma (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Why did you removed the "liquid stone hypothesis" section? It doesn't matter if this theory is true or false. Materials Letters and Protzen are definitely reliable sources. If an other author publishes a "debunking" which says "this is completely bullshit" because of "reasons X-Y-Z" of course it will be mentioned too. Furthermore, there is no reason to remove the documentation of this historic hypothesis of the theory by Protzen.--JonskiC (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I restored the material science section. It is based on published research that meets all the criteria for citation. It is not fringe theory despite the repeated, unsubstantiated claims from certain users. Do you also happen to be skeptical of cement and concrete? Were the buildings in your city built by carving stones? Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

User Hemiauchenia continues to remove the scientific findigs about geopolymer concrete and the historic recorrds of liquid stone. Please report him as vandal and restore the section!--79.7.112.133 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User Hemiauchenia is not vandal as discuss below. He is only removing text related to an unproven, speculative, pet theory that lacks any mainstream scientific support and discussion in reliable secondary sources. As a result, the text that was removed gives undue support and a fringe theory and was removed for just reason. That is not vandalism. The text's removal is responsible Wikipedia editorship Paul H. (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed of Unreliable and Refuted Fringe Material From "Age" Section

In the Revision of 17:58, August 10, 2012], I removed text that consisted of an odd mixture of highly questionable and completely discredited claims of dubious reliability.

Claim #1. The Gateway of the Sun at Tiwanaku is precisely aligned to the solar events around 15,000 BC. – Arthur Posnansky, who claimed that Tiwanaku dated to 15,000 BC, did not use the Gateway of the Sun to date the Pumapunku. Instead, he argued that various parts of the Kalasasaya were erected when the obliquity of the ecliptic was 23°8"48', which he stated indicated a date of 15,000 BC. Archaeologists, who have later reviewed his arguments, concluded that they were invalid as they were a "sorry example of misused archaeoastronomical evidence." Go read:

Kelley, D. H., and E. F. Milone (2002) Exploring Ancient Skies An Encyclopedic Survey of Archaeoastronomy. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York, NY 616 pp.

Also, visitors in the 1800s found the Gateway of the Sun broken and shifted from its original position. It was later re-erected in its current position. It is impossible for it to have been used to date the Tiwanaku Site using its position.

Claim #2. Tiahuanacu is a port with wharfs. – This claim is nothing more than speculation by Arthur Posnansky for which he failed to provide any credible supporting evidence or arguments. There is a complete lack of any support, which can be found in reliable, mainstream, peer-reviewed literature, for either the presence of wharfs at the Tiahuanacu or Tiahuanacu ever having been a port. In addition, at no time during the last 98,000 years was the level of Lake Titicaca anywhere near the elevation of Tiwanaku. For example, Lake Minchin (44,000 - 34,000 BP at its youngest) only reached an elevation of of 3,825 meters asl, which is 15 meters (49 ft) below the level of Tiwanaku. Also, go see the references in Claim #3.

Claim #3. Yellow-white calcareous deposits from long, straight lines indicating pre-historic water levels. – Yes, these deposits are shorelines. However, they belong to various prehistoric lake levels (stages) of Lake Titicaca that have occupied the Tinajani Basin over the last 14 million years. These shorelines belong to Lake Mataro (Late Pliocene ?), Lake Cabana (Middle Pleistocene ?), Lake Ballivián (120,000 and 98,000 BP), and Lake Minchin (72,000 - 68,000 BP and 44,000 - 34,000 BP). For more information, go read:

Clapperton, C. M., 1993, Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology of South America. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 779 pp.

Rouchy, J. M., M. Servant, M. Fournier, and C. Causse, 1996, Extensive carbonate algal bioherms in Upper Pleistocene saline lakes of the central Altiplano of Bolivia: Sedimentology 43(6):973–993.

Placzek, C., J. Quade, and P. J. Patchett, 2006, Geochronology and stratigraphy of Late Pleistocene lake cycles on the Southern Bolivian Altiplano: implications for causes of tropical climate change. Geological Society of America Bulletin 118(5-6):515–532.

Fritz, S. C., P. A. Baker, P. Tapia, T. Spanbauer, and K. Westover, 2012, Evolution of the Lake Titicaca basin and its diatom flora over the last ~370,000 years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 317-318:93-103.

Claim #4. These ancient shorelines are strangely tilted. – There is nothing strange about how these lake shorelines became tilted. The distortion in the shorelines is the result of local differences in isostatic rebound of the crust beneath the ancient Pleistocene pluvial lakes after the weight of their water was removed. The reason for the tilting of these shorelines is discussed in:

Bills, B. G., S. L. de Silva, D. R. Currey, R. S. Emenger, K. D. Lillquist, A. Donnellan, and B. Worden, 1994, Hydro‐isostatic deflection and tectonic tilting in the central Andes: Initial results of a GPS survey of Lake Minchin shorelines. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 293-296.

Claim #5. The surrounding area is covered with millions of fossilized sea-shells. – This is true. However, these are Middle Cretaceous and Devonian marine fossils that are part of the local folded and faulted bedrock. As a result, they are completely meaningless in terms of either dating either Tiwanaku or interpretating paleoenvironmental changes associated with it. A person would have to presume that Tiwanaku was built by either dinosaurs or armored fishes to argue that these seashells are associated with it in any fashion. Go read:

Newell, N. D., 1949, Geology of the Lake Titicaca region, Peru and Bolivia. Memoir no. 36. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Claim #6. That tremendous uplift, which geologists estimate that this happened roughly around "100 million years ago," of land has taken place sometime in the ancient past. – As previously noted, these shorelines are those of pluvial glacial lakes. They reflect lake level changes resulting from climate change and the distorting effects of local isostatic rebound. Only to a limited degree do they reflect the ongoing regional tectonic uplift of the Andes. The basin, in which Lake Titicaca lies, has been in existence for about the last 15 million years. Go see:

Marocco, R., R. Baudino, and A. Lavenu, 1995, Intermontane Late Paleogene–Neogene Basins of the Andes of Ecuador and Peru: Sedimentologic and Tectonic Characteristics. in A.J. Tankard, R. Suárez Soruco, and H.J. Welsink, eds., pp. 597-613, Petroleum basins of South America: Memoir no. 62. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Bills, B. G., S. L. de Silva, D. R. Currey, R. S. Emenger, K. D. Lillquist, A. Donnellan, and B. Worden, 1994, Hydro‐isostatic deflection and tectonic tilting in the central Andes: Initial results of a GPS survey of Lake Minchin shorelines. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 293-296

Claim #7. toxodons and elephants are illustrated in carvings at Pumapunku – There is a lack of any credible source demonstrating that toxodons and elephants are illustrated in carvings at Pumapunku. This is simply speculation supported by fringe sources.

7. In the layers of rock that date to the same time, now-extinct species of plants and animals can be found mixed in with human skeletal remains. – There is a lack of any credible source that documents that the remains of now-extinct species of plants and animals were found mixed in with human skeletal remains.

and in previous edits, 8. stone was dated using C14 at Pumapunku. – Vranich did not radiocarbon date stone. Go see:

Vranich, A., 1999, Interpreting the Meaning of Ritual Spaces: The Temple Complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania.

By the way, part of the material, which I removed, seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a fringe web page "Port of Puma Punka" or another website with the same text. Paul H. (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Even this nonsense is part of its history. Kortoso (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Claim #8 Andesite carved with stone pounding and polishing with abrasives. The Peer reviewers have discounted their validity with this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CD01:603:ECC8:3DB1:9CC2:C39A (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

How old is this ?

After reading the age section I cannot yet understand how old is this place, can someone please fix this ? NN BC or NN AD thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It clearly says ", the stonework must have been constructed sometime after CE 536–600". I'm sure you know what CE means, and you might want to read WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

it means... common era/Christian era/cheeseburger era. its an alternate age denotation that's interchangeable with a.d. aka latin gibberish for "in the year of are lord". that said, it should be written xxxx ce. as writing it ce xxxx is a throw back to a.d. xxxx; as in "in the year of are lord, xxxx" so no... not only do people not know what ce means, they don't even know how to use it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.252.232 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it, but in fact our guideline says "AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)" - but only AD. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's "our Lord," not "are Lord." GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

radiocarbon date clearly stated that it was constructed around 536–600 AD. I guess, it's not really impossible to achieve the precision. Some Youtube clips stated it's constructed 12000 years ago, but it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.8.38 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You cannot radio carbon date stone. 86.140.5.124 (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

So what? The article doesn't suggest anyone did. Read it and you'll see what was carbon dated. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

At present, the article says "536–600 AD (1510 ±25 B.P. C14, calibrated date)". But the B.P. given in parenthesis does not correspond to the AD dates given. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You can carbon date concrete, if it includes organic material. In fact: latest findings from 2019 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X18315982 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf9qK9QTlq0) show, that the monoliths of PumaPunku are in fact made of geopolymer-concrete. This also explains the precise stonemason-work and the transportation of the material over long tracks. All mysteries solved! See Joseph Davidovits. Someone please include these new findings in this article.--79.7.112.133 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is complete absence of mainstream acceptance and proven "scientific facts" related to speculations about the prehistoric geopolymer-concrete. From what I have found, there is complete lack of reliable secondary sources supporting the ideas of Joseph Davidovits. I do not see where in any of his papers that he has come close to either replicating prehistoric geopolymer-concrete or demonstrated them to be factual in any manner. In addition, the only papers supporting these ideas have Joseph Davidovits either as a senior or junior coauthor. There is a noticeable absence of any secondary reliable sources by professional scientists not associated Joseph Davidovits or his Institute that critically examine, much less support his ideas. At this point, it seems that the idea of the prehistoric geopolymer-concrete is a pet theory promoted by Joseph Davidovits which nobody else takes seriously enough to even discuss. At least in case of the Egyptian Pyramids, some professional archaeologists and geologists found his ideas about geoploymers worth their time to rebut. Paul H. (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore the assumptions about the pyramides: here we are talking about Pumapunku. To any engineer, looking at these blocks, it seems obvious they are made of some kind of concrete. There's no other explanation on how those exact cuts and drills could have been made. The findings of Davidovits are from 2019, so quite new - no wonder there's no scientific literature yet to find. Also Michel Barsoum agrees with Davidovits' findings. Davidovits not only petrografically analyzed the stones but also historic documents about the routes of the other "ingredients" and all fits very well. Moreover the assumptions about the use of "liquid stone" by the Incas is not new, but was passed down by indigenuous people. Even the section about liquid stone here in Wikipedia predates the findings of Davidovits. By removing the whole section about the liquid-stone-hypotesis, you (or whoever) also cancelled facts, which were not disputed up to now. Please restore it.--79.7.112.133 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Everyone who denies it is just harming his/her own reputation in the end. There are (besides many hundreds of pieces of evidence) at least two visual proofs (at Tambomachay [1] and one small part of the Cuzco walls [2] (18:58); I don’t care if this guy might be a fringe theorist I just talk about his visual footage). This is a visual proof not simply evidence but rather a proof that these stones did not formed geologically. Generally it holds: If someone knows the proofs regarding a specific topic and keeps denying he/she is revealing him/herself as an idiot. Its like someone denying 2 + 2 = 4. Everyone who denies 2 + 2 = 4 is an idiot. No matter how many pseudo science fake studies nonmaterial scientists produce the truth cant be changed by anyone and not by ridiculous reverts or notice boards. So I don’t care anymore if it is mentioned in the Pumapunku article or not. It also doesn’t matter for truth if out there might exist some fake scientists and pseudo skeptics that keep denying and keep promoting the same bullshit of flawed papers. Everyone who minimally involved in the topic must come the conclusion that the probability that these blocks are noncast is zero, i. e. they are Geopolymer. So I don’t care anymore about the fact the stones are cast is mentioned in the article; I will address now other parts of Pumapunku which are important too and not mentioned in the article yet. The only ones who will benefit from an exclusion are fringe theorists like Däniken and Hancock because they still can go the people and say: "look we have an unsolved mystery here and science has no answer." Of course fringe theorists will deny it too; because if we have a solved mystery instead of an unsolved mystery their economic basis is gone. So a non mention in the article for a long time will save fringe theorists economic basis for many years. So in the end an exclusion will have two effects: 1) saving the income of fringe theorist and pushing stupid alien theories 3) damaging the reputation of geological sciences in general. Side-note regarding egypt: It's like Michel Barsoum said in case of Egypt "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists [...]" [3] JonskiC (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Have some nice pictures

I have some pictures, taken by me, that show the great level of precision in the cutting of the stone. I dont know how to attach them (i leave it up to some of you) boricmk@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.123.94 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

July 3, 2016 - Ongoing vandalism to Pumapunku

Since June 28, 2016, there has been ongoing vandalism by editors 69.63.83.102, 108.195.128.57, and 155.229.209.58 to the opening paragraph of Pumapunku. Someone needs to do something about it. There is a need to semi-protect / protect this article. Paul H. (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Running list: Special:Contributions/4.15.163.43, Special:Contributions/45.21.46.49, Special:Contributions/63.92.245.9, Special:Contributions/68.165.44.99, Special:Contributions/69.63.83.102, Special:Contributions/108.195.128.57, Special:Contributions/108.253.200.195, Special:Contributions/155.229.209.58, Special:Contributions/162.254.216.58, Special:Contributions/209.36.32.253, Special:Contributions/216.3.116.243...

They've (by which I mean gender-neutral singular because I'm believe it's the same person) also been screwing up Amen, Nyx, Lilith, Belial, Lucifer, and other articles. Looking up the addresses on whatismyipaddress.com reveals different ISPs and in one case different locations, but the contributions reveal that they go through a cycle. They may be using a VPN for the NY IP (which is the only one that they seem to be sharing with anyone else), otherwise they're all near LA. Although I'm gonna be useless for at least a week starting tomorrow, I'm gonna leave those IP contribs pages open in other tabs, and if any of them start to act up again, I'm thinking it's reasonable to block all of those addresses accordingly (they appear to be the same user). This could result in a touch of escalation but if it's quick and consistent it might nip the problem in the bud. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, 4.15 went after Erebus again. Blocked all of them for two weeks to match Materialscientist's block on 108.195. I'm not going to protect the page because either this should solve the problem or we'll find more addresses (and thus more articles this vandal has screwed up). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Found Special:Contributions/63.92.245.9. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Aaand Special:Contributions/45.21.46.49, Special:Contributions/68.165.44.99, Special:Contributions/108.253.200.195, Special:Contributions/209.36.32.253, and Special:Contributions/216.3.116.243.

The last few haven't been active for over a week, though... And I'm getting kinda hungry. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

More of the same edits to this article have just been made as Special:Contributions/67.142.203.140. They have been reverted by another editor, thankfully. Paul H. (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just got back from lunch. Looks like blocking all of the IPs just isn't an option. Page protected. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Pumapunku stonework

In July 31, 2016 edit comments, it was stated (with obscenity censored): "Actual facts not bull xxxx from a documentary."

The information about the composition of the stonework at the Pumapunku does not come from a "documentary" as is incorrectly claimed the above July 31, 2016 edit comments, identification of rock types come from Ponce Sanginés and Terrazas (1970). In addition, Posnansky (1957) lacks any mention of "diorite" being present at the Pumapunku. He correctly identifies the rock types that comprise stonework at the Pumapunku as sandstone and andesite.

References cIted:

Ponce Sanginés, C. and G. M. Terrazas, 1970, Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia.

Posnansky, A., 1957, Tihuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Vols. II - IV. (Translated into English by James F. Sheaver), J. J. Augustin, Publ., New York and Minister of Education, La Paz, Bolivia.

A 2013, English language paper is:

Janusek, J. W., P. R. Williams, M. Golitko, and C. L. Aguirre, 2013, Building Taypikala: Telluric Transformations in the Lithic Production of Tiwanaku. In N. Tripcevich and K.J. Vaughn (eds.), Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes, 65 Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5200-3_4, pp. 65-97.

It summarizes the research concerning the lithology of the rocks used to build the structures in Tiwanaku and their source quarries. One interesting note is that natural blocks created by tectonic jointing were used to save the effort of quarrying rectangular blocks of stone that were modified to the required size and shape. Paul H. (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The unsourced changes by self-proclaimed expert reverted (by another editor who is faster than I am). --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I found a PDF file of the above paper at either Building Taypikala: (Researchgate) or Janusek et al (2013) PDF file. Paul H. (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek

Much has been written about 'alien' involvement in this thing, given that technology to produce such precision work did not appear for thousands of years after this. Comparable cuts with lasers and modern diamond cutters have been unable to reproduce the precise planes and angles of any of these stones. Then you have the question of transportation (assuming they were prefabricated elsewhere and brought to the site). The entire area is above the treeline. No trees have ever grown there, which rules out the only, obvious technique of rolling. Not saying we need an 'alien' section 😀 - but maybe a quick mention that this has been hypothesised? Hanoi Road (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course we need such a section. If reliable sources report about those pseudoscientific theories (which they do) we have to report about them too. In all cases those pseudoscientific theories belog to the history of this monument. I will see what i can do.--JonskiC (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"mysterious technology"

I attempted to clean up this article but left it for later as it has so very many problems. It reads like a normal archaeological article was invaded by von Daniken. There are sentences that make no sense, like the one in the first section about other sites in Bolivia having no historical signifigance and Pumapunku being known from the 17th century???? And the construction methods section asserts falsely that the methods are unknown, that the quality of the work could not be achieved with the stonework methods available to indigenous people, etc. Since I'm not going to work on this till later, I'm sticking this debunking link here for future reference: https://www.ancientaliensdebunked.com/puma-punku Lucy Kemnitzer (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Lucy Kemnitzer

Geo-Polymer

More and more scientists are convinced many ancient buildings using monoliths (like the pyramids) were made of concrete-like materials. In case of Pumapunku scientific research (chemical analysis of the stones) has shown that the blocks are not of natural origin, but were cast. It is now 2022 and we must not ignore such knowledge. It's certainly much more justified than the wild theories about aliens. The requirement that there are no secondary sources that cite scientific work is nonsense if you can cite the scientific work itself. See: https://beta.nsf.gov/news/surprising-truth-behind-construction-great-pyramids 2A07:3D01:102:A900:9C91:867D:D6BB:4866 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If it is really true that "More and more scientists are convinced many ancient buildings were made of concrete-like materials...", there should exist a number of reliable secondary sources to use in Wikipedia. The lack of secondary sources, despite the numerous primary publications by an interconected set of primary researchers, is an indication that people find this research neither convincing nor useful enough to incorporate it in their research and it is not a contribution to science notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Only a few people consider this research serious enough to be worth their time and effort to prepare papers to disagree with the geopolymer concept in print such as Liritze et al. (2008).

Liritzis, I., Sideris, C., Vafiadou, A. and Mitsis, J., 2008. Mineralogical, petrological and radioactivity aspects of some building material from Egyptian Old Kingdom monuments. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9(1), pp.1-13. Paul H. (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Daidovits chemical analysis of Pumapunku is from 2018, so there's no way Liritzis could disagree with him in 2008. Liritzis only refers to the egypt pyramids. There are no scientific analyzes after those by Davidovits that contradict his' findings. The assertion that it is concrete (liquid stone) goes back a long way and is even handed down by the locals. So Davidovits and others only confirm through scientific analysis what the locals have known for a long time. Unfortunately, the local authorities do not allow any further investigations because they want to uphold the myth (for tourist reasons?). 2A07:3D01:102:A900:547B:ECED:D0C0:C80D (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, pointing the out the flaws in deeply flawed research is commonly not considered worth wasting the time and resources needed to create and published a detailed criticism / rebuttal of them. As a result, most bad science gets read, evaluated, and simply ignored to fall by the wayside. There is simply too much bad science out there for every poorly thought out and supported theory to be individually criticized in a paper dedicated to it unless there is a useful reason for doing so. As far as your conspiracy theory about local authorities and Pumapunku are concerned, like any other archaeological site, Pumapunku is a finite archaeological resource. There is no reason for local authorities to let either Daidovits or any other person access and deplete it unless the research has some obvious benefit in terms of further understanding this site. If Daidovits wants attention for his ideas, associated citations, and access to archaeological resources, he needs to come up with better arguments and research that convinces others of his ideas. Paul H. (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paul H. you're missing some basic facts: Davidovits is a recognized scientist and the foremost expert on geo-polymers. He officially had access to Pumapunku along with a delegation from the local university. The results of the thorough scientific study of the samples have clearly shown that those blocks are made of concrete. But also any civil engineer or bricklayer can clearly see at a glance that these porous blocks have the exact properties of concrete. Of course, such insights aren't enjoyable for people who believe in aliens - but that's their problem. Wikipedia should stick to science, not tell fairy tales. 2A07:3D01:102:A900:912:3A36:B7A1:40C2 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you all stick to opinions. That these blocks are cast is a fact that anyone can't change. It will not change by calling it "pseudoscience", "scrap" or whatever. I know the truth for certain, so I don't care anymore. By the way researches have found out recently that El Fuerte de Samaipata is a giant heap of cement [4].--JonskiC (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

So someone hauled tons and tons of cement up to the top of that hill, mixed it and dumped it? Rather than carving existing rock? — kwami (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Natural stone does not "peel off". Look at the picture in the article where they show that the "window" "peels off".--JonskiC (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement "Natural stone does not "peel off"." is completely false. It is quite common for natural spheroidal weathering to form weathering rinds in natural stone that eventually peel off as layers. Paul H. (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Natural stone does not "peel off" in the way visible in the linked article, fact.--JonskiC (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Physical evidence for molding:

https://pumapunkutheories.webs.com/ Wayne5142 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, just some random anonymous person's website. Useless as evidence. Doug Weller talk 06:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative is practicing in pseudoscience Wayne5142 (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

According to J.P Protzen “23But to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to tech- niques unknown to the Incas and to us at this time.” Molding explains this. Wayne5142 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like, Protzen also claims to have found unfinished blocks with designs only partly carved, which if true seems to leave the 'geopolymer' theory dead in the water https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2192r04f#page=192 , although he does also say that the site seems to have been built in several stages, so it's possible that some were carved and others weren't. Wombat140 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly claiming a personal interpretation or opinion to be either a "fact" or the "truth" does not automatically make it either a "fact" or the "truth." In over 35 years of working as either a geologist, geomorphologist, or an archaeogeologist, I have seen innumerable natural stones in the process of "peeling off" in response natural weathering the way you mistakenly claim can only happen to geopolymers. This alone is enough to make me skeptical of your alleged "facts"/ "truth" in addition to being unsupported by any reliable sources. Find me reliable modern research that specifically supports your claim that natural stone does not "peel off" in the manner as shown in the image. I think you are flogging a dead horse. Paul H. (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

On 11 May 2021 Paul H. wrote: "...If reliable sources report about those pseudoscientific theories (...) we have to report about them too...". So what, if the sources are not only reliable, but also scientific (without "pseudo-") and not only theories, but also confirmed by laboratory tests? Shouldn't we report it? And cancel the bullshit about aliens?!?

2A07:3D01:102:A900:F01B:A80:6B7A:63BE (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)