Lost Civilizations of the Andes | Hacker News Reader

Lost Civilizations of the Andes

davidpratt.info

124 pointsiamben38 comments

When I see that other links on this lone author's site are

Sunken continents versus continental drift

and

Human origins: the ape-ancestry myth

I know he is being willfully ignorant of a lot of better quality current scientific literature, as is also made clear by the old and unsystematic references on the page submitted here. Hacker News can do better for finding pages to discuss about Inca architecture. I'll suggest two sites here after checking some other sites.

http://www.discover-peru.org/inca-architecture/

http://www.ancient.eu/Inca_Architecture/

He's also an AIDS denialist and anti-vaccination, from the looks of things.

What's wrong with his references? It seems like the links you referenced don't have as many references or as much detail about the subject. Are they more factually correct?

(I also take issue with the use of 'willfully' ignorant as though the author was presented with two roads and took the latter. More likely, he doesn't know what he doesn't know.)

I agree, the GP's alternative links leave much to be desired; surely there are even better sources available that are, additionally, credentialed.

Some of the references do look rather somewhat dubious. For example, in the "Tunnels" section there is a reference to "Subterranean tunnels and the hollow earth" - which appears to be available at:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol...

"What if I told you that I had been inside a fantastic tunnel system that runs beneath the continent of South America? Would you think me a liar? Or worse yet, insane? Though I admit it is a story that seems difficult to believe, I am telling the truth. Read on, dear reader, and decide if I am mad or lying."

Edit: Reading further down that page I see a positive reference to Erich von Daniken (NB as I have mentioned in another comment, I learned the importance of skepticism from the works of von Daniken at a very young age).

I agree with that. I think it's right to be skeptical of the article, but also right to be skeptical of alternate links if they're not better sourced themselves. I understand the merit of the heuristic approach, but it shouldn't be conflated with the method of logically examining the reference material.

Unfortunately, the downvotes show that HN doesn't appreciate this distinction, at least not when it's said to a popular member of the community. :)

I think I'd take this with a couple of bags of salt without some sign of peer review.

Edit: look at his sources.

What specifically are you talking about?

While it was an interesting article, the main website page looks like the author is a complete crackpot.

You're being overly dismissive. There's quite clearly a substantial amount of research here, and in a cursory reading I detected no explicitly bombastic claims, which are usually indicative of crankwork.

Sure, it's not peer-reviewed, and his other articles might look quite loony, but he does highlight some anthropological discrepancies in this piece. Not everyone can have their articles peer-reviewed.

I think that it is a sign of crankwork to imply that the Inca sites were produced by ancient Greeks using stone softening.

Where does he claim that?

Look at his sources. This is where he is drawing evidence for his claims. This is why it is important for people with credentials to vouch for each other. It is a web of trust. One can sound reasonable while spouting lunacy if the broader population doesn't have the specific knowledge to assess their claims.

The author doesn't claim ancient greeks did it (though one of his sources does.) Stone softening is an interesting idea and a heck of a lot less crazy than "aliens did it."

I am from Greece. Unfortunately, I can't find anything in english but I have read quite a few "theories" about ancient Greeks traveling to America.

And I am from Scotland and I've heard all manner of "theories" about the Scots being a lost tribe of Israel and that the Lia Fàil (the Stone of Destiny) is the stone used by the biblical Jacob as a pillow.

Just because something is a nice story doesn't mean it is true!

Isn't there a famous church in Scotland that has carved stone reliefs of Corn/Maize, except they were carved many years before the New World, and corn, were officially known about in the Old World.

I think ancient people did travel, after all, we have learnt they had number systems, watched the constellations, had crude but reasonable ancient maps, and genetics are discovering things all the time about the hereditary lines.

That would be Rosslyn Chapel - which has such a stunningly high level of detail in the stone carvings (NB well worth seeing) that it's not surprising that parts of it look a bit like something else. It wouldn't surprise me if parts of Rosslyn Chapel look a bit like Lady Gaga or an Xbox controller....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosslyn_Chapel

Rosslyn Chapel is also famous for apparently housing the Ark of the Covenant and/or the Holy Grail... :-)

You can rent and stay in Rosslyn Castle, very close to the chapel. I stayed there once, and it was one of the neatest places I've been. The only shower is on the way to the dungeon.

http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/search-and-book/properties/r...

So, I did a quick image search for Rosslyn Chapel maize and corn (see sibling comment), and I found nothing that looked convincingly like corn to me. There were a few things that looked a little like corn, but I would interpret them as other plants and/or bread.

They pretty clearly look like sheaves of wheat to me, to the extent that it wouldn't have occurred to me they might be something else.

I never said the stories were true, exclamation mark. I only noted the fact that such theories exist in Greece as well.

If the substantive bulk of someones work is loonery, I don't have to accord them any serious consideration because they got some minor detail right. That's exactly the approach all woo-peddlers use...find some triviality to establish credibility for a pack of bunk.

Absolutely. It's fair to describe his writings as interesting, and for all his cynicism about conventional theories he never actually comes out and says obviously it was the Giant Atlanteans that built it shortly after they'd finished with Ancient Egypt.

But there's also some rather sympathetic treatment given to theories that the world was built by giants during 365 days of darkness, and short shrift given to pretty conventional views that it's pretty normal for a single engineering project to use big rocks for foundations and fortification walls, smaller blocks for fiddly little details like eaves for roofs, and rubble for unimportant or needs-to-be-finished in a hurry structures.

If you actually visit some of the sites in question and consider them as a whole there's a pretty smooth quality gradient between the tightly packed massive stone blocks, the impressively-precisely cut small ashlar blocks and the relatively loose blockwork. Which reminds me that I need to go back to Peru some time...

Plants that make rocks soft? Rocks "carved as if they were clay".

Lacking extraordinary evidence, those are absurd claims.

If I had another life I would go search for this plant. It seems plausible to me and would definitely be awesome to find it if it exists.

When I was 7 or 8 I read one of Erich von Däniken's books and got terribly excited - a couple of years later I realised that it was, of course, complete nonsense. I remember being quite indignant that someone could write a book like that. Quite a useful learning experience actually...

This reads remarkably like something from von Däniken but with any mention of ancient aliens removed... Sacsayhuaman, Cuzco, incredible stonework, tunnel networks, lost civilizations....

Peer review isn't the problem. In fact, many of his article do appear to be peer reviewed. For example, this[1] article was published in the peer-reviewed "Journal of Scientific Exploration"[2]. This JSE also publishes a quarterly magazine called EdgeScience[3]. Topics include ESP, telekinesis and UFOs affecting aviation. This doesn't mean nothing he says is valid, but I believe it's a good indication that one ought to read the OP with caution.

[1] http://davidpratt.info/tecto.htm

[2] http://www.scientificexploration.org/

[3] http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/

I found his "Who am I?" page interesting:

http://davidpratt.info/cv.htm

There are so many other massive ancient achievements too that boggle the mind, the Incas are often singled out for some reason.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/top50stones.htm

Lets all accept one undisputable fact: NOBODY CAN EXPLAIN HOW THE INCAS MADE THEIR SITES. If you accept this, you are on the right path.

Can we also accept that the "those ignorant savages could never have accomplished this" subtext is ludicrous?

I don't know what you mean. Please rephrase.

Except it's not an undisputed fact.

so, how were those sites made? The article gives alot of examples, but none of those examples is a proven fact.

I doubt we could reproduce most of what ancient cultures did. Why did they build things the hardest way possible and where are the tools?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods%3F

There is very good documentary how Machu Picchu was made on youtube. It goes into extensive details about water drainage, securing terraces against land slides and so on.

And there are similar stone walls all over Greece.

Manpower and time, like anything else in the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com