The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

[seeder]

quote: "So when the archaeologists study the vitrified forts and report that we don't know how they were made, all we're saying is that we don't know exactly what method was used. We're not saying that it is a surprising or inexplicable accomplishment. Any number of methods could have been used; we just don't know which. The vitrified rocks require about 1100°C to vitrify in the observed manner. So let's take a quick look at what various researchers have discovered"

This is a good read... persevere with reading the whole page pls

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4326

ending: "This brings us to our final step, assessing what we've learned, and establishing a provisional conclusion. Like all science-based conclusions, it's provisional because it's always subject to new information that may arise. We've learned that the technology required to create the vitrified forts was not extraordinary. Nothing found at the sites requires any re-examination of the history of knowledge. The questions that do remain are sociological. Why were the forts vitrified, and who vitrified them? I'm happy to report that we don't know yet, and that this is one more item to add to our list of mysteries still to be solved.

Edited December 20, 2012 by seeder

[zoser]

Zoser (and all those interested of course) here's an online and downloadable translation of part of De La Vega's book:

First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas

by the Unca Garcilaso de la Vega

VOLUME II, containing Books V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX.

CHAPTER XXIX, SEVENTH BOOK

(next part from the text about Sacsayhuaman)

page 331 (= page 316 following the numbering of the book itself):

The historical truth, as related by the Ynca Amautas,

who were the wise philosophers and doctors in the time of

their idolatry, is that more than twenty thousand Indians

dragged the stone with stout cables. They proceeded with

great difficulty, as the road was very rough, and passed up

and down many steep mountains. Half the people hauled

upon the cables in front, while the other half held on be-

hind to prevent it from fetching way down the hills, and

falling into places whence it could not be got out. In one of

these steep places (where, through carelessness, they were

not all hauling with equal force) the weight of the stone

overcame the force of those who held it, and it slipped

down the hill, killing three or four thousand Indians who

were guiding it. Notwithstanding this disaster, they raised

it up, and brought it to the place where it now lies.

http://archive.org/s...rkgoog_djvu.txt

http://archive.org/s...age/n8/mode/2up

It's more than 12 Mb, nearly 600 pages....

Not wanting to put the kybosh on de la Vega but it doesn't really help the argument.

What is needed is a detailed account of how the stones were precision cut and fitted into place to such amazing accuracy. If de la Vega could testify to that the AA would be refuted in a single sweep.

Proponents of AA might argue that what he was seeing was a primitive attempt to emulate some previous great achievement. They had heard about such feats from folklore but knew not what technology was being used. Was he witnessing the Inca trying to finish off something already started thousands of years previously?

I know what you are aiming at Abe; it's like when Mr O or someone comes up with what they feel is a prosaic explanation of some great feat because in their mind the possibility does theoretically exist even if very remotely.

In my mind it's perfectly feasible that a later more primitive culture would try and emulate the feats of a greater more advanced people particularly when they revered them as Gods or beings from the stars.

Do you see my point? The prosaic argument can work both ways. I'm not trying to be awkward I genuinely believe that that is what de la Vega was witnessing. The precision architecture was not the result of tribal indians. That's what the Inca basically were. How would they have melted rock or fitted hundred tonne blocks together to extremely high precision? Indians don't do that.

That's the confidence with which I construct my arguments.

Edited December 20, 2012 by zoser

[LRW]

A lot of people say on the thread they need the manpower and resources to construct the pyramid with primitive tools and ramps to prove the "egyptologists theory".

It would never happen because the modern engineers would not know exactly how to construct it with primitive tools and ramps. They would fail to duplicate and replicate it even on the smallest of levels. They don't have any blueprints. They have no planning to do it. You can't just give an incredibly "advanced architectural creation" to modern man and expect them to replicate it with the so called proof of tools that they found around the complex.

There was already an attempt at it, and it became so hard that the smaller scale model was not even finished with primitive tools, they had to use modern methods to finish it.

The fact is that whoever built the "Great pyramids" - knew something that modern man does not. It was not just a stack of rocks, there are also precise measurements that relate to the cosmos. It was a legacy from an ancient stage of "architectural construction on earth", that pound for pound appears somewhat more superior and advanced compared to modern construction methods. The ancient buildings built with stone are stunning from an aestethic standpoint. It can not be denied, that the knowledge used to build the great pyramids stems from a more ancient route to a different but little known era in the history of humanity, that the mainstream fails to entertain, or even the history of "extraterrestrials involvement with earth" or its possible manipulation of its fauna, the latter also does not necessarily have to be extraterrestrial, the earth is very old, there may have been "other intelligent species" that inhabited earth before humans, those species do not necessarily have to be extraterretrial in origin per se.

Mainstream history model is not accurate, they have not proven their theories. When they can't prove their theories, then people will start to look for answers from "alternative sources" (so called fringe etc) that entertain ideas and theories that mainstream advocates and their army of skeptics don't entertain because they are too biased towards the mainstream and appear as closed minded and ignorant. The mainstream historians make out their theories to be undeniable hardcore facts and the truth. They leave no room for the idea that they could be wrong in general. When they can't prove their theories correct with solid evidence, and people start looking at other ideas, opinions and theories, only for the skeptics and the mainstream to call such people derogatory terms like fringe lunatics and trolls etc, then the skeptics and mainstream appear like they are hostile towards other rival theory models being expressed. Calling those rival models pseudo archaeology or fringe archaeology and trying to degrade such models with unwarranted aggression and ignorance, really looks bizarre. To be ridiculed for expressing alternative ideas and theories is preposterous when the mainstream are only basing some of their version of history around unproven theories aswell.

The mainstream academic archaeological community and their so called accepted scientific and analytical methods of their discipline are not the end all and be all of everything as regards the ancient world, and never should be. The mainstream academic archaeological community are only expressing opinions, theories, and their concluded version of history stemming from their so called research.

To say that research is the yardstick to measure the past is ludicrous, the very fact that archaeologists have to dig and look for clues of the ancient world proves that they know very little about the ancient world in reality and are only building their theoretic version of history based on what they found, they also have been known to exclude artifacts that don't fit into their seemingly warped and extremely inaccurate version of history. The more you read their version of history, the more holes found in it.

The extraterrestrial theory is not as far fetched as the mainstream makes it out to be.

They are all trolls and fringe too?

I am convinced there was thought behind the thing’s manoeuvres.”


Lieutenant George Gorman (F51 pilot after being in a 30 minute dogfight with a small UFO in 1948)

"Flying saucers are real. Too many good men have seen them, that don't have hallucinations."


- Captain Eddie Rickenbacker

It is my thesis that flying saucers are real, and that they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our earth for centuries.

-Hermann Oberth -

Austro-Hungarian-born Germanphysicist and engineer. He is considered one of the founding fathers of rocketry and astronautics.

Flying saucers are real. Too many good men have seen them, that don't have hallucinations.

-Captain Rickenbacker- he was known as, American Ace of Aces, medal of honor-winning commander

Bernard Haisch, physicist, “Be Skeptical of the Skeptics”

“Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence? Be skeptical of the "skeptics."”

Stanton Friedman, nuclear physicist and leading UFO researcher, author of several books and numerous articles on UFOs.

“The evidence is overwhelming that the Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled vehicles from off the Earth.”

[Abramelin]

Zoser,

Read my post again: those 600 pages is only part of the book.

In total it must by at least 1200 pages. You think I read them all yet? lol.

And I first need to find the other volumes, chapters and all.

.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Abramelin

[zoser]

quote: "So when the archaeologists study the vitrified forts and report that we don't know how they were made, all we're saying is that we don't know exactly what method was used. We're not saying that it is a surprising or inexplicable accomplishment. Any number of methods could have been used; we just don't know which. The vitrified rocks require about 1100°C to vitrify in the observed manner. So let's take a quick look at what various researchers have discovered"

This is a good read... persevere with reading the whole page pls

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4326

ending: "This brings us to our final step, assessing what we've learned, and establishing a provisional conclusion. Like all science-based conclusions, it's provisional because it's always subject to new information that may arise. We've learned that the technology required to create the vitrified forts was not extraordinary. Nothing found at the sites requires any re-examination of the history of knowledge. The questions that do remain are sociological. Why were the forts vitrified, and who vitrified them? I'm happy to report that we don't know yet, and that this is one more item to add to our list of mysteries still to be solved.

I saw the information on vitrified forts earlier this week. I don't believe that it's valid in this discussion. The simple reason that we are talking about vitrification as a process of fitting together blocks with great precision. No European fort is built to that precision.

[zoser]

Zoser,

Read my post again: those 600 pages is only part of the book.

In total it must by at least 1200 pages. You think I read them all yet? lol.

And I first need to find the other volumes, chapters and all.

.

I can't do that ; I just don't have the time. If you find any reference to cutting precision architecture then please post it. Specifically relating to Cuzco, Sacsayhuaman, or Ollantaytambo.

I guarantee that you won't find it because it was all done well before de la Vega existed.

[Abramelin]

Not wanting to put the kybosh on de la Vega but it doesn't really help the argument.

What is needed is a detailed account of how the stones were precision cut and fitted into place to such amazing accuracy. If de la Vega could testify to that the AA would be refuted in a single sweep.

But what I quoted doesn't sound like a prime example of 'alien technology' to me:

The historical truth, as related by the Ynca Amautas,

who were the wise philosophers and doctors in the time of

their idolatry, is that more than twenty thousand Indians

dragged the stone with stout cables. They proceeded with

great difficulty, as the road was very rough, and passed up

and down many steep mountains. Half the people hauled

upon the cables in front, while the other half held on be-

hind to prevent it from fetching way down the hills, and

falling into places whence it could not be got out. In one of

these steep places (where, through carelessness, they were

not all hauling with equal force) the weight of the stone

overcame the force of those who held it, and it slipped

down the hill, killing three or four thousand Indians who

were guiding it. Notwithstanding this disaster, they raised

it up, and brought it to the place where it now lies.

[zoser]

But what I quoted doesn't sound like a prime example of 'alien technology' to me:

The historical truth, as related by the Ynca Amautas,

who were the wise philosophers and doctors in the time of

their idolatry, is that more than twenty thousand Indians

dragged the stone with stout cables. They proceeded with

great difficulty, as the road was very rough, and passed up

and down many steep mountains. Half the people hauled

upon the cables in front, while the other half held on be-

hind to prevent it from fetching way down the hills, and

falling into places whence it could not be got out. In one of

these steep places (where, through carelessness, they were

not all hauling with equal force) the weight of the stone

overcame the force of those who held it, and it slipped

down the hill, killing three or four thousand Indians who

were guiding it. Notwithstanding this disaster, they raised

it up, and brought it to the place where it now lies.

It doesn't refute any argument about AA. I would be extremely surprised if the Inca had not tried desperately to emulate the achievements of their predecessors.

Every successive culture tries to prove technological superiority compared to the former.

We tried to build a pyramid didn't we to prove how good we were. I'll let you be the judge of that attempt.

[Abramelin]

It doesn't refute any argument about AA. I would be extremely surprised if the Inca had not tried desperately to emulate the achievements of their predecessors.

Every successive culture tries to prove technological superiority compared to the former.

We tried to build a pyramid didn't we to prove how good we were. I'll let you be the judge of that attempt.

Well, if the Incas tried to emulate the achievements of their predecessors, they did quite well.

[LRW]

It remains a possibility that latter people entering the region post construction of Great Pyramid were in awe of the pyramids and actually decided to attempt to duplicate the great pyramids with more primitive and inferior attempts. The smaller pyramids being those attempts, the skeptics say, that the builders started building small first then progressed, hmm, it could also be the other way around, perhaps latter inhabitants on the regions tried to duplicate the 3 pyramids with 3 smaller and inferior ones.

Note the remarkable similarity of the smaller pyramids compared with the ludicrous nippon attempt of duplication.

[seeder]

Any of mans attempts to build a great pyramid, cannot be done? What a load of bull !

You need to factor in the thousands of work force, as used in the original build .... to start with...and thats never been attempted!

You cannot recreate something that took many years and thousands of hands, unless you use the same strategy..

simples!

[seeder]

“We Couldn’t Build the Great Pyramid Today” – We Could Do Better

snip: (but do read the entire link privided pls)

Just one statistic will suffice for this post. It has been estimated that, if the Great Pyramid were built today it would require 3 million cubic yards of concrete. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? A drop in the bucket compared to the Panama Canal.

In just the American phase of the construction (1903-1914) a total of 238,845,587 cubic yards were excavated. In 1907, men were moving 1,000,000 cubic yards every month. Three million cubic yards pales in comparison. It would have been a vacation for the tens of thousands of men working in Panama. And the cubic yardage doesn’t even begin to describe the engineering logistics and obstacles, not to mention this was all done through waves of malaria and yellow fever.It’s truly a colossal feat of engineering.

continue reading:

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2012/07/build-great-pyramid-today/

!

Edited December 20, 2012 by seeder

[zoser]

Well, if the Incas tried to emulate the achievements of their predecessors, they did quite well.

If there is evidence of Inca precision artetfacts then we need to to see it. An account of a thousand Inca dragging a block up a mountainside proves nothing but how stupid they were.

There is in several places a direct comparison of two types of architecture; one rough one precision in some cases only a matter of feet from each other. That needs to be explained away if AA is be disproved.

[zoser]

Any of mans attempts to build a great pyramid, cannot be done? What a load of bull !

You need to factor in the thousands of work force, as used in the original build .... to start with...and thats never been attempted!

You cannot recreate something that took many years and thousands of hands, unless you use the same strategy..

simples!

Experts agree we couldn't do it. Look at what is inside the GP. Ventilation shafts, corbeled walls and ceilings, and precision granite work. We could never hope to match that accuracy.

[seeder]

Experts agree we couldn't do it. Look at what is inside the GP. Ventilation shafts, corbeled walls and ceilings, and precision granite work. We could never hope to match that accuracy.

I think you posted this seconds before I made my secondary post, the one about the panama canal, do read it fully!

So - the skyscrapers of today, much bigger than pyramids, with ventialtion shafts, air conditioning, staircase and elevators, and perfectly straight and accurate dimensions, say otherwise dont they?

[seeder]

snip: "As impressive as the Great Pyramid is, its engineering problems are known and solvable. Sure, a couple of dim-witted scientists in a NOVA television special weren’t up to the task — which only shows they weren’t up to the task. Engineers like Jean Pierre Houdin have articulated in great (and coherent) detail how the pyramid could have been built without modern machinery. Other engineers (namely Davidovits and Barsoum) have proposed that the pyramid blocks were fabricated ancient concrete. Scholars of Egyptian engineering are well informed in Egyptian construction methods, including the pyramids.

And isn’t it odd how ancient astronaut theorists never seem to talk about the failed pyramid projects, like the pyramid of Huni (the Meidum collapsed pyramid), built during the reign of Sneferu, the father of Khufu? Maybe the aliens were on vacation for that one. And also the Bent Pyramid . . . and the Step Pyramid of Djoser, which was built in stages after altering the non-pyramid burial mastaba style. These are all examples of human engineering — the Egyptians learned how to build pyramids gradually, trying new techniques and learning from failures. Pyramid engineering evolved through various transitions. The pyramids themselves demonstrate this quite clearly. To say they needed alien help is just insulting.

http://michaelsheise...-pyramid-today/

Edited December 20, 2012 by seeder

[zoser]

I think you posted this seconds before I made my secondary post, the one about the panama canal, do read it fully!

So - the skyscrapers of today, much bigger than pyramids, with ventialtion shafts, air conditioning, staircase and elevators, and perfectly straight and accurate dimensions, say otherwise dont they?

It's not precision architecture in stone is it? We are talking specifically about that feat. They had no extruders to fabricate steel joists, no high speed cutting equipment to cut bricks on a production line, no hydraulic drills to cut foundations.

Yet they still produced an amazing feat of architectural genius. It's no good discussing the Panama canal or the Empire state building. You must compare like for like.

The argument is could we do that in stone today?

[Abramelin]

Heh, 'aliens'....

Busy scrolling and reading through the 600 page pdf:

Ynca Uira-ccocha (Inca Viracocha) had 'invisible' helpers, men with beards, who helped him conquer in battle. And that was long before the arrival of the Spaniards.

Another thing: the Incas ( = rulers of the Quechua) spoke a different language from the common people. That language is lost. The others and the common people were not allowed to learn that language.

.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Abramelin

[zoser]

Heh, 'aliens'....

Busy scrolling and reading through the 600 page pdf:

Ynca Uira-ccocha (Inca Viracocha) had 'invisible' helpers, men with beards, who helped him conquer in battle. And that was long before the arrival of the Spaniards.

Another thing: the Incas ( = rulers of the Quechua) spoke a different language from the common people. That language is lost. The others and the common people were not allowed to learn that language.

.

Alluding to the presence of visitors with special abilities perhaps?

It doesn't surprise me in the least.

Edited December 20, 2012 by zoser

[LRW]

A common argument of skeptics when they are getting thoroughly and utterly destroyed in a debate is to bring out the "modern man builds better" card.

Modern man destroys the natural environment and creates devastating pollution that wrecks the ecosystem. Their buildings are also less aesthetically pleasing as ancient stone buildings that correlate with the cosmos beautifully.

Modern mans creations don't fit in as nice as the ancient structures around the panama canal. Modern cities look revolting compared to the ancient stone monuments around the area.

If there was a beauty contest between ancient mesoamerican structures and mesoamerican modern cities, then mesoamerican ancient structures would win easily.

[seeder]

It's not precision architecture in stone is it? We are talking specifically about that feat. They had no extruders to fabricate steel joists, no high speed cutting equipment to cut bricks on a production line, no hydraulic drills to cut foundations.

Yet they still produced an amazing feat of architectural genius. It's no good discussing the Panama canal or the Empire state building. You must compare like for like.

The argument is could we do that in stone today?

and as the link I shared above - if read - states we could do better. But no-one has the will to try...because... you'd need a single leader with a vision and great power over the workers, and huge wealth, plus many thousands of workforce with a shared vision and determination, youd need to house them, feed them, water them, youd need to find a spot to build on with enough localised raw materials.... youd need to let your workforce know this was a job for life..

None of the above will ever happen again. BUT IT COULD BE DONE! And in stone too!

Zoser its not that it cant be done....its just that...its 'already been done'.... and we've moved along. To building bigger and better things, and yes the panama does count in this discussion, as do skyscrapers...

Edited December 20, 2012 by seeder

[zoser]

A common argument of skeptics when they are getting thoroughly and utterly destroyed in a debate is to bring out the "modern man builds better" card.

Modern man destroys the natural environment and creates devastating pollution that wrecks the ecosystem. Their buildings are also less aesthetically pleasing as ancient stone buildings that correlate with the cosmos beautifully.

Modern mans creations don't fit in as nice as the ancient structures around the panama canal. Modern cities look revolting compared to the ancient stone monuments around the area.

If there was a beauty contest between ancient mesoamerican structures and mesoamerican modern cities, then mesoamerican ancient structures would win easily.

That's right; I personally will never look in awe at the Panama Canal and wonder how it was done; but I always do when I look at the GP, PP or the Peruvian artefacts.

[seeder]

A common argument of skeptics when they are getting thoroughly and utterly destroyed in a debate is to bring out the "modern man builds better" card.

Modern man destroys the natural environment and creates devastating pollution that wrecks the ecosystem. Their buildings are also less aesthetically pleasing as ancient stone buildings that correlate with the cosmos beautifully.

Modern mans creations don't fit in as nice as the ancient structures around the panama canal. Modern cities look revolting compared to the ancient stone monuments around the area.

If there was a beauty contest between ancient mesoamerican structures and mesoamerican modern cities, then mesoamerican ancient structures would win easily.

Youve so missed the point and deviated into aesthetics (and polution), perhaps you didnt take the time to read the posts with provided links? The last 2 are corkers, especially the bit about the ugly' pyramids, I mention that as it may appeal to your value of aesthics!

And about being a skeptic, on the contrary, Id love to believe in aliens and all that jazz...its just theres one trifling thing lacking in all the theories..

PROOF!

we can talk all day, you can believe what you want, but the facts are out there, Ive provided more solid info about the buildings than anyone here has - in respect of aliens/lost technology ad infintum...

Edited December 20, 2012 by seeder

[seeder]

That's right; I personally will never look in awe at the Panama Canal and wonder how it was done; but I always do when I look at the GP, PP or the Peruvian artefacts.

I expect thats an age related thing, time and further knowledge may help that along. Its good to wonder, its good to think, but its not good to close your ears and eyes to solid facts. I know, I know it hurts - to have your illusions dashed...

Personally Im in awe of the pyramids too, what a great HUMAN accomplishment!

[Abramelin]

Alluding to the presence of visitors with special abilities perhaps?

It doesn't surprise me in the least.

Well, at least I don't hold back anything.

GdlV wasn't some 'Caucasian' with a prejudice towards South Americans, he was one of them. And having full beards wasn't common among them. Or 'facial hair', as he also calls it.

Btw, many think "Viracocha' was some white guy with a beard, but no: he was a native American. However, his 'invisible' helpers did have beards. Doesn't mean there are no NDNs with beards, but not like the Spaniards had (or I have now, lol).