Machu Pic’chu was a secret installation and the general public of the Inca would have had no clue that it existed. This was likely done on purpose, as rather than a place for the Inca nobility to drink and cavort, Machu Pic’chu was more likely similar to the United States’ Camp David - a place where high officials could meet in private.
Photo showing the sheer scale of Machu Pic'chu
While the site was fully active prior to the arrival of the Spanish to Cusco in 1533, the Inca world, known as the Tawantinsuyu (the four quarters of the world) stretched from southern Colombia in the north, to the center of Argentina and Chile in the south, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the Amazon basin in the east.
Such a vast confederation of states (not an empire as most writers suggest) had many officials that governed many regions on behalf of the Inca royalty. In order for cohesive knowledge of what was going on as regards agricultural production, local disturbances, mining, and other activities in each of these areas, officials would have to occasionally visit Cusco in order to deliver this information to the Inca. As the Inca themselves strictly controlled the flow of knowledge and affairs of state, discussions were held in Machu Pic’chu, especially if they were of a sensitive nature.
There were two official entrances into the site, which were heavily guarded and both could easily be sealed off if required. Once Cusco was invaded in 1533 by the Spanish, word was sent along the Inca roads and trails to Machu Pic’chu by the highly efficient Chasqui runners and efforts were soon set into play to abandon the site. The road systems were destroyed, and that is why the Spanish never found Machu Pic’chu. It also helped that the local people either never knew of its existence, or were sympathetic to the plight of the Inca and thus kept their mouths shut when the Spanish, or their descendants, inquired about Inca places they were not aware of.
This meant that Machu Pic’chu lay dormant from about 1533 to 1911, and though time took a toll on the buildings and other structures there, very little reconstruction has occurred. This allows us to explore the site, and carefully examine how it was built. The most shocking aspect of such an exploration, which the author has now done on 50 separate occasions, is the variation in the quality of workmanship. Although most scholars insist that the finest workers were dedicated to the palatial and spiritual buildings, and that lesser important structures were not given major design and construction considerations, the following photos will show you that such a theory makes no sense whatsoever.
On the right of the following photo is what is known as the Temple of the Sun, which was at least a solar observatory, if not more. The stones fit together with an astonishing level of precision, with no mortar being used.
The work on the left and the right are profoundly different
On the left, right next to the temple, you can see that the workmanship is profoundly poorer, with roughly broken stones being cemented together with local clay as mortar. The idea that such a massive place as Machu Pic’chu would have varying degrees of quality construction is understandable, but not side-by-side as you see in the above photo. All of the stone at Machu Pic’chu is white granite, which is hard, as it contains quartz. The bronze Inca tools would not have been able to create the precision of the Temple of the Sun.
Somewhat near the Temple of the Sun, in what appears to be the megalithic core of Machu Pic’chu (that does include the aforementioned temple) we have what Hiram Bingham named the Temple of the Three Windows, in the photo below. What you can clearly see is that the walls in front and to the left are of poor construction technique, while that in the back is of huge stones that once fit together almost perfectly.
Extreme differences in construction techniques
The large gaps have been explained by geologists, who have been with the author, as being clear signs of massive earthquake activity and possibly even that of the ancient cataclysm of about 12,000 years ago. If this is the case, then Inca clearly found an ancient abandoned city, adopted it, and built around the ancient megalithic works.
Megalithic below and Inca above
The above photo shows the other end of the Temple of the Three Windows, and here you can clearly see that the work above is far inferior to that below. As this wall was not reconstructed, it appears to be a clear example, again, that the Inca found a damaged megalithic structure and added their work above it. If there were two or five examples of this, you could say that perhaps it was coincidence. However, there are far more examples than that, best seen in person, or in one of my YouTube videos.
Many of the other megalithic works at Machu Pic’chu show large gaps as in the two previous photos. The width of these gaps is very similar, and again suggest that a massive earthquake cataclysm, moving in an east-west direction, affected the site in the very distant past.
More evidence of catastrophic damage can be seen in the next photo. The right wall has sunken down almost a meter lower than the back wall, and that on the left. A geologist who inspected this with the author stated quite emphatically that such a drop would not have been the result of poor foundation work when the structure was made, but far more likely, again, the result of a catastrophic earthquake. She also stated that such an earthquake would have caused the rough stone and clay mortar buildings to be completely demolished. This, then, clearly indicates that the megalithic core of Machu Pic’chu, which comprises about 5-10 percent, is older than the Inca, and may in fact have been made prior to the cataclysmic event of about 12,000 years ago.
Wall showing extreme catastrophic damage
All of the famous ancient sites in the Cusco area, including Sacsayhuaman, Machu Pic’chu, Pisaq, Ollantaytambo, Qenqo, and many others all show signs of catastrophic ancient damage, and later Inca repair work.
The last place we will explore, though we could go on for several pages, is Saywite, located about four hours drive from Cusco.
The famous carved stone at Saywite
It is most famous for a large stone with various animal, geometric, and stair shapes carved into it. Unfortunately, perhaps only 10 to 20 visitors per day see it. What practically no one aside from locals knows is that there are many shaped stones and temples located just below the stone in a small valley. Clearly the temples were made by the Inca, but some of the megalithic stones in the area are broken in half, not the result of Spanish colonial quarrying, but cataclysmic in nature. Furthermore, Saywite, being a four-hour drive from Cusco, would hardly be a place where one would quarry stone, when there are many other ancient places much closer.
Quad copter view of one of the ancient Saywite stones
Another view of one of the broken stones of Saywite
Bolivia does not have the wealth of historical artifacts that Peru has, and the most famous pre-Colombian location is that of Tiwanaku and Puma Punku, just south of Lake Titicaca. Conventional academics believe that the major works at Tiwanaku and Puma Punku, which are in fact the same place separated by fences, were constructed by the Tiwanaku culture between 500 and 900 AD. The site was then abandoned due to a 40-year drought and invasions by local Aymara tribes, who occupy these lands to this very day.
Classic view of a restored part of Tiwanaku
All of the stone work involved in the constructions at Tiwanaku, in general, is either red sandstone from a quarry located 10 kilometers to the south, or grey andesite taken from Cerro Khapia, a volcano 70 kilometers to the north. These are extreme distances to consider, especially since one slab of the red sandstone weighs an estimated 131 tons. Also, it is believed that at least 90 percent of Tiwanaku and Puma Punku has been systematically removed to locals from nearby towns and villages, as well as the capital La Paz, over the course of the last 1000 years. Thus, there could have been much larger stones there at one time.
Inside the crater of Cerro Khapia
The question of how the stones from both quarries were moved to the Tiwanaku and Puma Punku site has been addressed by academics, with poor to ridiculous answers. Some say that the red sandstone was moved
using wooden rollers, as in tree trunks. The problem with this idea is that Tiwanaku and Puma Punku are above the tree line. The other is that the andesite from Cerro Khapia was moved using boats made of the local totora reed, which is a ridiculous presumption.
The precision of many of the flat surfaces is astonishing. In some cases, they are almost as flat as laser perfection, and the idea that a Bronze Age culture like the Tiwanaku were responsible for this work is clearly impossible.
What is also curious is that much of the stone has been partially or fully excavated from the red clay mud of the area, which infers either extreme age, or that a cataclysmic event occurred here, partially burying the site. Evidence of this can be seen in the next photo.
Just a sample of the precision surfaces at Puma Punku
Further, there are blocks which appear to have been snapped in half - not by the invading Aymara, colonial Spanish, or more recently, but at a time in the distant past. The logic behind this statement is that there are no apparent tool marks or other evidence of attempts to break the stone.
We can also see that Kalasasaya pyramid at Tiwanaku was buried by at least two meters or more of mud. This would not be the result of slow sedimentation over the course of a long time, but a massive catastrophic event. In fact, the entire area, including the nearby town of Tiwanaku and Puma Punku, appear to have very thick deposits of the same red clay that enveloped the Kalasasaya in the past.
Partial excavation at Puma Punku
Wall of mud that struck Tiwanaku
Massive snapped block and other damaged megaliths
There is also a restaurant just west of the Puma Punku site, on private property. Here the owner, who is also an archaeologist, made a discovery when digging for a foundation - an ancient cemetery.
However, whereas a normal cemetery contains bodies individually and carefully buried, most of the human remains and ceramics in this site look shattered, as if they were buried en masse due to a cataclysmic event.
Proposed cemetery near Puma Punku
As with what we have seen in Peru, the Tiwanaku could not have made the precise surfaces, quarried or moved the massive stones of Tiwanaku and Puma Punku. Thus, it is clear that an older culture did. Also, at Tiwanaku and Puma Punku we see clear evidence of cataclysmic damage that preceded the Tiwanaku people, just as we did with the Inca culture.
And now, on to Egypt...
3. Egypt
The author with the Khemit School in 2015
The most famous of all ancient civilizations actively studied to this day must be Egypt. Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC according to conventional Egyptian chronology, with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh. The history of ancient Egypt includes a series of stable Kingdoms, separated by periods of relative instability known as Intermediate Periods: the Old Kingdom of the Early Bronze Age, the Middle Kingdom of the Middle Bronze Age, and the New Kingdom of the Late Bronze Age.
Note that all three of the famous Kingdoms, during which most Egyptologists believe that the Sphinx, three great Giza pyramids, and other famous and lesser known structures were built, were all Bronze Age cultures. More specifically, the above mentioned works are theorized to have all been constructed during the Old Kingdom (2686 to 2181 BC.) (34)
However, though the Sphinx itself, and many of the pyramids of Giza, are largely comprised of relatively soft limestone, rose granite and other harder stones were used in the inner core of the pyramids, and the casing stone to some degree. This means that the Egyptian culture, like Peru and Bolivia, is thought to have been capable of working with very hard stone like granite, basalt, and diorite - successfully and with amazing precision prior to an iron age.
One of many massive granite boxes underground at Saqqara
Iron is a very common element and iron ores occur in the mountainous areas of the eastern desert and Sinai of Egypt, though high-grade ores are rare. That and the lack of hardwood or coal needed to achieve high temperatures prevented any large-scale iron production in Egypt. (35) Native iron of meteoric origin with a high nickel content was the first metallic iron to be used during the pre-dynastic, but seems to have been limited to the making of beads and other small personal adornments. During the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period, no or little iron was produced locally, and finds are few. In the 7th century BC, Ionians began to settle in the Delta and seem to have brought with them the knowledge necessary for working iron. Naukratis and Defenneh became the great Egyptian centers where iron tools were manufactured. Once they got going it took only about a century for the production of iron implements to equal the manufacture of bronze tools and weapons. (36)
What this is telling us is that iron, let alone steel or even harder materials used today to cut and shape hard stone such as granite, was not in common use in Egypt until at least 1500 years after the pyramids of Giza were constructed. Further, in Peru as well as Bolivia, iron and steel were not known to any extent by the people of those lands until the Spanish arrived in the 16th century AD.
Thanks to explorations with the Khemit School (www.khemitology.com), located across the street from the Sphinx entrance to the Giza plateau, on four yearly occasions so far, the author has seen ample evidence of the existence of complex tool marks in hard stone surfaces such as granite and basalt, as well as softer materials like limestone, in the Giza area and other famous and lesser known locations. The more obvious tools in use that left their marks behind were circular saws and drills, though routers and other forms of cutting technology could have been used.
Examples of dynastic Egyptian tools
Let us start our exploration in the Cairo Museum, which up until late 2015 did not allow photos to be taken of their thousands of artifacts. The collection on display is only a small percentage of that which they possess, likely as the result of lack of space. However, some believe that they are in possession of many artifacts that could have been parts of ancient machines and do not display them because they do not fit with the historical paradigm that they desperately want to protect.
The Egyptian Museum of Antiquities contains many important pieces of ancient Egyptian history. It houses the world’s largest collection of Pharaonic antiquities. The Government of Egypt established the museum, built in 1835, near the Ezbekeyah Garden and later moved to the Cairo Citadel. In 1855, Archduke Maximilian of Austria was given all of the artifacts by the Government of Egypt and these are now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. A new museum was established at Boulaq in 1858 in a former warehouse, following the foundation of the new Antiquities Department under the direction of Auguste Mariette. The building lay on the bank of the Nile River, and in 1878 it suffered significant damage in a flood. In 1891, the collections were moved to a former royal palace in the Giza district of Cairo. They remained there until 1902 when they were moved, for the last time, to the current museum in Tahir Square.
Two large boxes outside of the Cairo Museum
In the photo above, we see two large boxes located out in front of the entrance to the museum. The one on the right is dynastic Egyptian, and this is known because the inscriptions in the ancient Egyptian language can be read. The one on the left, however, is larger, more precisely shaped, and is labeled pre-Dynastic. There are also no inscriptions whatsoever on or in the box, or on the lid. This simple photograph by itself is telling us that whoever made the larger box on the left was technically more proficient than the Dynastic workers. We are very fortunate in that on our yearly expedition, we have had a Canadian geologist with us. While both of these boxes are listed as being granite, and the presumed location of the quarry from which the stone was harvested is stated by Egyptologists to be from the Aswan quarry some 500 miles to the south, our geologist believes it may in fact come other quarries in the Sinai area of eastern Egypt.
If this proves to be the case, then while academics believe that Aswan stone could have been floated down the Nile on rafts or boats, how would such large pieces
be transported across the desert?
The granite of Aswan tends be very large and coarse-grained, while the box on the left was made from a much smaller grained type of granite called syenite, or possibly diorite, which does not appear to have geologically formed in the Aswan area, but does seem to exist in the Sinai area, and possibly at the place called Wadi Hammamat, which is east of Luxor.
Wadi Hammamat is located about half way between Qusier and Gift (ancient Coptos), and is famous today mostly for its pharaonic graffiti. More than 200 hieroglyphic tablets adorn the quarries of the renowned ‘bekhen’ stone, which is actually made up of three distinct materials. However, the graffiti transverses time and extends into the 20th century and the reign of King Farouk. (37)
Inside the museum itself, on the main floor and in a corner alcove is a box that was never completed. As the three following photos show, someone was attempting to cut off a large slab from the bottom in order to likely make the lid. The saws that were being used went off course, causing half of the slab to snap off, and the project was then apparently abandoned.
Obvious saw cut in a box inside the museum
Members of the Khemit School tour inspecting the saw mark
Circular saw marks in the box inside the museum
The above picture clearly shows that two circular saws were at work, one from the top and another from the bottom. They were not perfectly aligned but were cutting through the granite stone very efficiently. The only saws we have in modern times that can do such work have diamond abrasives imbedded in either high carbon or cobalt steel blades, powered by very strong electric or petroleum powered engines. As the dynastic Egyptians for most of their history had at best bronze tools, and there is no evidence of them having circular saws, they could not have done this work.
Aftershock Page 5
