The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

[DBunker]

I dont think it matters much if there are other posters here, poor zoser will claim victory even if he is alone.

[taniwha]

You have been fooled far far worse than you can possibly imagine and Von Daniken has nothing to do with it. You questioned the wrong person and backed the wrong horse. Simple.

Tis you the one Zoser flogging a dead horse.

[Abramelin]

Another debunk concerning the claim made earlier in the thread that de La Vega witnessed the build. The truth is he had not a clue himself.

I have said dozens of times that De La Vega wrote down the stories he had heard from his uncle, plus that he had written down what he had heard from people who had accompanied Pizarro, other chroniclers.

[Hazzard]

I dont think it matters much if there are other posters here, poor zoser will claim victory even if he is alone.

I would be surprised if there wasnt a clinical definition for guys like that.

[TheSearcher]

well.. I think I will join seeder and forget about this thread.. I can see zoser has nothing new.. has not learned anything either..

catch you guys in the other threads..

oh btw zoser.. its not a victory on your part mate.. the only person your fooling is yourself

we are bound to see you again on other threads when this one dries up and you try it again somewhere different..

Right there with ya mate, soddit, but this is really not worth it any more. Besides Zoser is already trying to paddle his same bovine droppings in other threads...... I think he feels the end coming as well.

[zoser]

^sigh^ Poor zoser. Stuff like this must completely confound you:

http://en.wikipedia....viv,_Israel.jpg

http://www.artgaller...anu/throne.html

http://www.bluffton....tsc/noguchi.jpg

http://www16.ocn.ne..../2006/sf1-4.jpg

Mostly Sausages.

Apart from the last one which is an example of a modern moulding.

Looks like the Peruvian blocks

Edited March 19, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

Short, simple and to the point. Amazing that not everyone can see this.

Hey, zoser, do us all a favour..... Please read this and do your best to try and understand it.

Sounds like a badly disguised complaint that there are no more counter arguments left.

Saying of Zoser:

"It's not what people say, but rather what they say says".

[zoser]

Did I really, and I mean: really just read through all that? I got to page 200 or so and just for some reason felt compelled to return every evening for my 'nightly read'.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that think the mods may well be getting the lock and key ready for this one.

To sum up: there is simply zero evidence that anything / one other than man is responsible for any structure that exists on this planet. However much I get a pleasant feeling wishing that wasn't the case, it doesn't make it so...

Your counter argument to the moulding, vitrification and precision fitting is where?

If you cannot submit an attempt please at least have the honour to not hide behind shallow denial.

[zoser]

well.. I think I will join seeder and forget about this thread.. I can see zoser has nothing new.. has not learned anything either..

catch you guys in the other threads..

oh btw zoser.. its not a victory on your part mate.. the only person your fooling is yourself

we are bound to see you again on other threads when this one dries up and you try it again somewhere different..

Please feel free to rejoin the discussion after you have done some research and adding up. Certainly you have adding nothing here in the last few weeks other than trolling.

That goes for others too.

Better to let others get on with some serious work I would suggest.

Good luck.

Edited March 19, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

Tis you the one Zoser flogging a dead horse.

That's no way to refer to the skeptics here !

I've never flogged anyone!

Edited March 19, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

Just a little observation.

For all the claims, denials and complaints.

Not one person has offered anything like a counter argument in the last few days.

That says to me that even though people are reluctant to accept the conclusion, the hypothesis is proved.

Is it not true that the criminal denies the evidence all the way to the gallows?

[scowl]

Not one person has offered anything like a counter argument in the last few days.

That says to me that even though people are reluctant to accept the conclusion, the hypothesis is proved.

Yes, folks! That's how science is done. Propose a hypothesis, then if you don't get any more negative responses to ignore for a few days, then it is proved! Proving a hypothesis is just a matter of waiting, not testing.

Is it not true that the criminal denies the evidence all the way to the gallows?

Is that what you're planning on doing, Zoser?

[Oniomancer]

Mostly Sausages.

Apart from the last one which is an example of a modern moulding.

Looks like the Peruvian blocks

Look carefully at the marks where they're visible. Are they or are they not "bashed out with chisels?" How does a chisel work?

Notice also where they have contrasting shiny parts, some of which are shiny yet uneven at the same time. How do you suppose they got like that?

Oh, and those last ones are made of felsite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felsite

All you've done then is reenforce the conclusion that you can't tell a molded surface from a carved one.

[zoser]

Is that what you're planning on doing, Zoser?

The denial is yours.

[zoser]

Look carefully at the marks where they're visible. Are they or are they not "bashed out with chisels?" How does a chisel work?

Notice also where they have contrasting shiny parts, some of which are shiny yet uneven at the same time. How do you suppose they got like that?

Oh, and those last ones are made of felsite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felsite

All you've done then is reenforce the conclusion that you can't tell a molded surface from a carved one.

They did not possess chisels hard enough Mr O. That fact should be stark and plain to you by now.

Question: why did Protzen have to resort to steel lump hammers and chisels?

Please think before you respond.

[zoser]

Now that some of the skeptics have thrown in their cards, I thought I would expose some of the fallacious arguments put foward here in the last few months.

One of them concerned the reason why we see always rough work on top of megalithic precision.

Foerster et al claim that the rough work is later Inca style as they were technically unable to reproduce the earlier megalithic.

The skeptics argued that they simply ran short of resources in an economic recession.

Not only do I agree with Foerster et al but I would also assert two more details:

1) Sacsayhuaman was not originally a fort. It was turned in to one by later Inca improvisation.

2) This is the building work that de la Vega witnessed. He did not witness the original construction.

[Space Commander Travis]

Now that some of the skeptics have thrown in their cards, I thought I would expose some of the fallacious arguments put foward here in the last few months.

Who to? Who's taking any notice now?

[zoser]

Breathtaking examples of precision work:

Here's roughly how I think this was done in moulding style:

1) Stones A and B were positioned in a softened state and the upper edges of both stones combed with a straight edge. Notice that the upper edge of both stones are not in line.

2) Stones A and B now harden off. Stone C was positioned in a soft state and it's weight meant that it's edges were moulded to the shape of stones A and B. In principle this is how it was done.

3) It is probable that stone B was softened again since it has a step on it's upper right edge.

Notice the 'combing' or 'pointing' indicated by the arrows,

Total proof of ancient high technology.

More evidence of the same principle:

Edited March 19, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

Who to? Who's taking any notice now?

Well seeders still peeping in for a start.

Please don't think any of this is for the skeptics benefit. It's definitely not.

[zoser]

Just one more post tonight:

Look carefully at the precision joins:

[lightly]

Thanks for posting all the great pictures zoser , i love looking at that stuff.

hey look what i found, including something supposedly from Abramelin's old friend Garcilaso de la Vega.

HOW DID THE INCAS CREATE SUCH BEAUTIFUL STONE MASONRY?

© Ivan W. Watkins, Professor of Geoscience in the Department Of Earth Sciences, St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

http://www.ianlawton.com/am10.htm

"David Lindroth (personal communication, 1986) has been working for years with the thermal disaggregation of rock at the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center. Lindroth has shown that with 100 watts of light energy focused to a circle about 2 mm in diameter any rock can be cut. While each kerf is only about 2 mm deep, a rock of any size can be cut by repeated passes. He has also found that quartzite spalls very easily, while a rock like basalt does not spall, but melts.

"The rock surfaces on Inca stones are similar to those that have been thermally disaggregated. Indeed, some of. the slick surfaces on the Inca building stones are glazed, so it becomes apparent that the Incas must have used thermal disaggregation. But what was the source of the energy?

it's interesting ,,, but here's his bit..

Garcilaso de la Vega (1961) wrote about the Festival of the Sun that still takes place each year in Cuzco, Peru.

The fire used for this sacrifice had to be fresh or, as they said, given to them by the hand of the Sun. For this, they took a large bracelet, belonging to the high priest, and similar in form to that usually worn on their left wrists by the Incas. The central motif of this bracelet was a very carefully polished concavity as big as half an orange. They turned this to the sun to capture its rays, which they then concentrated on a small wisp of very dry, fluffy cotton, that caught fire instantly.

Edited March 19, 2013 by lightly

[zoser]

Thanks for posting all the great pictures zoser , i love looking at that stuff.

hey look what i found, including something supposedly from Abramelin's old friend Garcilaso de la Vega.

HOW DID THE INCAS CREATE SUCH BEAUTIFUL STONE MASONRY?

© Ivan W. Watkins, Professor of Geoscience in the Department Of Earth Sciences, St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

http://www.ianlawton.com/am10.htm

"David Lindroth (personal communication, 1986) has been working for years with the thermal disaggregation of rock at the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center. Lindroth has shown that with 100 watts of light energy focused to a circle about 2 mm in diameter any rock can be cut. While each kerf is only about 2 mm deep, a rock of any size can be cut by repeated passes. He has also found that quartzite spalls very easily, while a rock like basalt does not spall, but melts.

"The rock surfaces on Inca stones are similar to those that have been thermally disaggregated. Indeed, some of. the slick surfaces on the Inca building stones are glazed, so it becomes apparent that the Incas must have used thermal disaggregation. But what was the source of the energy?

it's interesting ,,, but here's his bit..

Garcilaso de la Vega (1961) wrote about the Festival of the Sun that still takes place each year in Cuzco, Peru.

The fire used for this sacrifice had to be fresh or, as they said, given to them by the hand of the Sun. For this, they took a large bracelet, belonging to the high priest, and similar in form to that usually worn on their left wrists by the Incas. The central motif of this bracelet was a very carefully polished concavity as big as half an orange. They turned this to the sun to capture its rays, which they then concentrated on a small wisp of very dry, fluffy cotton, that caught fire instantly.

Interesting. Not quite clear whether he was referring to something he witnessed or something he was told about that happened in the past?

I was looking at some writings of de la Vega the other day and it is blatantly obvious that he was just as bewildered as later historians about how the megalithic work was achieved. His writings are just speculative guesswork tinged with a degree of folklore.

With regard to the first bit of writing, what indeed was the source of the energy?

Edited March 19, 2013 by zoser

[Oniomancer]

They did not possess chisels hard enough Mr O. That fact should be stark and plain to you by now.

Question: why did Protzen have to resort to steel lump hammers and chisels?

Please think before you respond.

They possessed rocks. Those alone are sufficiently hard. We have some indication that their bronze was of sufficient hardness for the job as well. And I repeat, How do chisels work?

That wasn't Protzen but another team and I explained the time constraints already. Surely as an engineer you've heard of people cutting corners to bring in a project under budget?

[zoser]

They possessed rocks. Those alone are sufficiently hard. We have some indication that their bronze was of sufficient hardness for the job as well. And I repeat, How do chisels work?

That wasn't Protzen but another team and I explained the time constraints already. Surely as an engineer you've heard of people cutting corners to bring in a project under budget?

Rocks cannot do this Mr O

It's far too perfect to be the result of stone bashing.

It looks exactly as if something stamped into it and impressed the stone. A metal clamp.

Neither is this the result of stone bashing:

Are you sure it wasn't Protzen and his team? I'm fairly sure that was who I watched.

His goal he claimed was to reproduce the precision in the walls of Sacsayhuaman. He obviously realised he was going to get no where near that with soft tools or stone.

Why miss an opportunity to totally prove the concept?

It doesn't make sense.

[Oniomancer]

Now that some of the skeptics have thrown in their cards, I thought I would expose some of the fallacious arguments put foward here in the last few months.

One of them concerned the reason why we see always rough work on top of megalithic precision.

Foerster et al claim that the rough work is later Inca style as they were technically unable to reproduce the earlier megalithic.

The skeptics argued that they simply ran short of resources in an economic recession.

Not only do I agree with Foerster et al but I would also assert two more details:

1) Sacsayhuaman was not originally a fort. It was turned in to one by later Inca improvisation.

2) This is the building work that de la Vega witnessed. He did not witness the original construction.

Circular reasoning again, the very model of fallacy. You're presupposing the buildings were already there as evidence that they were already there.

You're going one further in answering supposition with supposition, Again predicated on the prior assumption.