Ancient Aliens

[Harte]

My resolve to keep him on ignore was vitrified in that thread.

Harte

[seeder]

And then he hits a major problem you see with his Peruvian Aliens building expertise when we point out some simple timelines to him....so, in zosers world the aliens cut and shaped rocks or at least helped ancient (stone aged according to zoser) - man to do this....because you know, they had no tools strong enough and they had no apparent written language (implying they were not very smart at all).... and that what they built was amazingly difficult for a bunch of natives

so here is what the aliens helped with or did themselves

and this is the only thing man could achieve....BUT A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE PUMA PUNKU

Yes, The Parthenon was built 1000 years before .... But the AA series and therefore zoser... dont like this little dirty little fact. The AA series implies Puma Punku was impossible with 'mans tech' back then...

But the Parthenon turns the entire theory on its head, if we could build structures that still stand such as the Parthenon, which is such an incredibly precise engineering and building feat even today.... then why should he and the AA series imply that 1000 years later in Peru/Bolivia...Aliens were needed to build something to much lower standards...than the ancient Greeks

.

Edited November 3, 2013 by seeder

[SHaYap]

And with that we shall now ponder on the words of the right honorable Sir Arthur C. Clarke :

Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.

The best proof that there’s intelligent life in outer space is the fact that it hasn’t come here.

Any teacher that can be replaced by a machine should be!

—Electronic Tutors, 1980

source : http://www.clarkefou...urs-quotations/

and Sir Arthur's three Laws :

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
   
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
   

link : http://en.wikipedia....39;s_three_laws

and to add :

A fourth law has been added to the canon, despite Sir Arthur Clarke's declared intention of not going one better than Sir Isaac Newton. Geoff Holder quotes: "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert" in his book 101 Things To Do With A Stone Circle (The History Press, 2009), and offers as his source, Arthur C. Clarke's Profiles of the Future (new edition, 1999).

~edit : me needs a new keyboard

Edited November 3, 2013 by third_eye

[Harte]

if we could build structures that still stand such as the Parthenon, which is such an incredibly precise engineering and building feat even today.... then why should he and the AA series imply that 1000 years later in Peru/Bolivia...Aliens were needed to build something to much lower standards...than the ancient Greeks

Obviously, because the people living around Pumapunku were browner.

Duh.

Harte

[lightly]

so here is what the aliens helped with or did themselves

.

.. actually seeder most of the above is a modern RE construction... sort of guessed at.

Edited November 3, 2013 by lightly

[seeder]

.. actually seeder most of the above is a modern RE construction... sort of guessed at.

OH yes indeed I know, most of the site was in ruins before being rebuilt, I looked into this case VERY deeply some time back on the original thread. But whatever image is used doesnt detract from the fact the the ancient Greeks had ALREADY mastered finer architecture... including of course the use of the 'arch' which dates back to the Mesopotamians

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

Arches as you know, were a breakthrough discovery in the building process. No such refinements existed at the PP site. What was achieved at PP is indeed remarkable, though hardly what you'd expect from alien visitors who would have known such fine structures existed elsewhere, yet chose just to stack rocks.

You know, Ive said this a number of times on other threads, if there was a building, a monument/structure, made of some fascinating materials that defied all known understanding, designed in such an other worldly and unknown fashion, with a purpose that defied all guesses, then that WOULD be interesting. But we dont have any such sort of thing, anywhere in the world.

[stereologist]

I've been to places such as the pyramids in Egypt, pyramids in Mexico, Pyramids in Guatemala, Zimbabwe, and none of these sites requires ancient aliens. What these sites do suggest is that ancient people were quite clever in using the technologies available to them. It also shows that the builders were more clever than those that throw in the towel and suggest aliens.

[Baz Dane]

Yes, The Parthenon was built 1000 years before ....

Not that I believe in aliens helping ancient man, but there's no atcual truth in that statement. Peer-reviewing archaeologists agreeing together that something is fact, does not in fact make it true.

Some proven facts we have from South American/Mesoamerican cultures are that:

1 - People have lived in S. America since 12,400BCE (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Abra )

Maybe before... That's the oldest one found... Maybe there are older ones undiscovered?

2 - There are many sites throughout Central and South America with stone construction, some with very similar qualities in thier size, precision, and odd cuts, and many unanswered questions about how these were cut, moved and assembled... Sources are obvious

3 - Unlike Europe/Africa etc, we only have documentation coming from Mesoamerica from about 3000yrs ago, with Mayan at about 300yrs BC. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing#Mesoamerica )

With no documention of how, when or who built their sites.

So the truth continues to be that we really don't know when, how, or who, built sites like Tiawanaku Puma Punku etc.

We do have evidence of peoples who habitated these sites, and that evidence is what's dated of course, but does not mean that those are the people who constructed these sites.

Also, in comparison, The Parthenon is made of Limestone and Marble, with sizes that quite obviously for the time, were managable.

While in Meso/S.America there is a lot of use of much harder Granite and Andosite, with much larger sizes, from a people who had not invented the wheel.

I don't know as much about The Parthenon and the ancient Greeks, but they do have written documentation and I'm sure the date of construction IS verifiably proven. So the question of who, how and when is easily answered, and based on material and sizes, there is nothing spectacular or unreasonable at that site.

So as far as the "1000 years before" midset goes in comparison to some of these sites, maintstream archaeologists may be in agreement as to when and who built the Meso/South American sites, but that does not make it fact.

Unfortunately, we may never know the actual "facts".

Just a side note... Not trying to start an argument, and I'm far from a regular here at UM, but I do enjoy reading the forum quite a lot on my cell phone when travelling and have learned quite a lot from people like KMT, Harte, Cormac, Sweede, Cladking and plenty of others. This is a great site! I just don't have the time to participate as much as I'd like to.

Cheers all!

[seeder]

Not that I believe in aliens helping ancient man, but there's no atcual truth in that statement. Peer-reviewing archaeologists agreeing together that something is fact, does not in fact make it true.

Some proven facts we have from South American/Mesoamerican cultures are that:

1 - People have lived in S. America since 12,400BCE (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Abra )

Maybe before... That's the oldest one found... Maybe there are older ones undiscovered?

2 - There are many sites throughout Central and South America with stone construction, some with very similar qualities in thier size, precision, and odd cuts, and many unanswered questions about how these were cut, moved and assembled... Sources are obvious

3 - Unlike Europe/Africa etc, we only have documentation coming from Mesoamerica from about 3000yrs ago, with Mayan at about 300yrs BC. (source: http://en.wikipedia....ing#Mesoamerica )

With no documention of how, when or who built their sites.

So the truth continues to be that we really don't know when, how, or who, built sites like Tiawanaku Puma Punku etc.

We do have evidence of peoples who habitated these sites, and that evidence is what's dated of course, but does not mean that those are the people who constructed these sites.

Also, in comparison, The Parthenon is made of Limestone and Marble, with sizes that quite obviously for the time, were managable.

While in Meso/S.America there is a lot of use of much harder Granite and Andosite, with much larger sizes, from a people who had not invented the wheel.

I don't know as much about The Parthenon and the ancient Greeks, but they do have written documentation and I'm sure the date of construction IS verifiably proven. So the question of who, how and when is easily answered, and based on material and sizes, there is nothing spectacular or unreasonable at that site.

So as far as the "1000 years before" midset goes in comparison to some of these sites, maintstream archaeologists may be in agreement as to when and who built the Meso/South American sites, but that does not make it fact.

Unfortunately, we may never know the actual "facts".

Just a side note... Not trying to start an argument, and I'm far from a regular here at UM, but I do enjoy reading the forum quite a lot on my cell phone when travelling and have learned quite a lot from people like KMT, Harte, Cormac, Sweede, Cladking and plenty of others. This is a great site! I just don't have the time to participate as much as I'd like to.

Cheers all!

The thing is, archaeologists had tested the dirt UNDER some of the large stones at P-Punku and were able to date the organic material found under them to the times given, Which therefore DOES date the Parthenon as being much older, the 1000 years I have quoted in fact. But the Parthenon while grand, is one of MANY fine ancient buildings/monuments, all preceding the efforts at PP

Determining the age of the Pumapunku complex has been a focus of researchers since the discovery of the Tiwanaku site. As noted by Andean specialist, Binghamton University Anthropology professor W. H. Isbell,[2] a radiocarbon date was obtained by Vranich[3] from organic material from lowermost and oldest layer of mound-fill forming the Pumapunku. This layer was deposited during the first of three construction epochs and dates the initial construction of the Pumapunku to CE 536–600 (1510 ±25 B.P. C14, calibrated date). Since the radiocarbon date came from the lowermost and oldest layer of mound-fill underlying the andesite and sandstone stonework, the stonework must have been constructed sometime after CE 536–600. The excavation trenches of Vranich show that the clay, sand, and gravel fill of the Pumapunku complex lie directly on the sterile middle Pleistocene sediments. These excavation trenches also demonstrated the lack of any pre-Andean Middle Horizon cultural deposits within the area of the Tiwanaku Site adjacent to the Pumapunku complex.[3]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Pumapunku#Age

Edited November 3, 2013 by seeder

[seeder]

A fairly recent image of a tribe shifting large stones.. ropes, braces, possibly roller-logs...and MAN POWER! No aliens required

People on Nias Island in Indonesia move monoliths to a construction site, circa 1915

.

Not big enough? Well then in that case we have this:

Thunder Stone in St Peterburg

The statue's pedestal is the enormous Thunder Stone, claimed to be the largest stone ever moved by man (1,250 t). In its original state the stone weighed about 1500 tonnes. It was carved during transportation to its current site.

So as we see, nothing too difficult about moving large rocks about. The above rock was shifted/dragged nearly 4 miles, with NO animals or Machines used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Horseman#The_.22largest_stone_ever_moved_by_man.22

Now hopefully this can be the end of the notion that ancient man, or man in general, cant shift or work on huge rocks, and needed imaginary aliens with even more imaginary anti gravity devices

.

Edited November 3, 2013 by seeder

[spacecowboy342]

Makes you wonder why these advanced aliens wouldn't have taught the builders of Pumapunku about arches or concrete or the forging of steel.

[seeder]

Makes you wonder why these advanced aliens wouldn't have taught the builders of Pumapunku about arches or concrete or the forging of steel.

or the basics of reading and writing! Dentistry, medicine, science, physics etc etc etc.... nope they come all that way.... and helped stack rocks, with some natives in the middle of nowhere, while the rest of the world was already very advanced, compared to the natives that is.

Now wouldn't it have been more likely, that any alien visitors who were checking out the planet, saw the ancient Greek civilisation with its grand buildings, understanding of mathematics and complex society, and also saw some natives up a mountain in Peru... and decided, that such an intergalactic first meeting, had to take place with largely very simple uneducated natives half-way up a mountain....

I mean come on, youd most likely want to talk to the civilised earth men of the times, wouldn't you?

And besides, why didnt they leave us any alien books or similar means of passing on their knowledge?

.

Edited November 3, 2013 by seeder

[spacecowboy342]

My favorite was the one about the mesa that was supposedly the remains of a mountain that had it's top lasered off. The proof aliens did it? The rubble from the supposed mountain top was missing!

[DBunker]

Obviously, because the people living around Pumapunku were browner.

Duh.

Harte

Why do you write your name in every post, when it says right over your avatar????

[seeder]

Why do you write your name in every post, when it says right over your avatar????

Maybe the same reason Badeskov does?

Cheers,

seeder

[ancient astronaut]

I am an ardent believer, but I must say, they have pretty much run out of ideas for the show and it is pretty much **** now.

[Swede]

...and what is indisputable evidence that stone was somehow softened.

Well the proof is there but people seem to evade it.

Zoser

At the risk of raising the justifiable ire of the moderators, let us address this matter once and for all.

To review:

Personal time has been and will continue to be limited. However, to return to certain critical aspects of your "speculation":

1) It would appear that you are attempting to assert that elements of the stonework in question are the product of altering the mass of the stone to a plastic and/or molten state. Correct?

2) It would also appear that, while not being overly specific, you are referring to primarily three lithic material types (limestone, sandstone, and andesite). Correct?

3) If the above evaluations are accurate, kindly inform us in regards to the speculated maximum temperature ranges/pressure gradients/cooling period involved in these processes as specifically applied to each of the three lithic material types.

4) You would appear to be quite confident in your assertions regarding wide-spread vitrification. Can we then presume that you have credible trace element and thin-section analyses to support these contentions? If so, kindly present such. And no, the notably lacking tidbits of De Jong do not qualify.

Swede- AA Theory is True.3-24-13. #10032

1) Yep

2) Yep

3) Hutchinson noticed intense heat as a result of his melting the iron block. The power output was only low. The figures are unknown but vitrifications tends to suggest (for andesite) in excess of 1000 degrees.

4) I'm not at my pc at my pc at the moment and cannot copy links. Google 'vitrification in Peru' and click on the PDF file. This indicates the properties you refer to, check in later if you cannot find the link.

With respect you are in no position to comment on the knowledge of Jan Peter de Jong. He knows far more about the Peruvian artefacts than you ever will.

A little humility would go a long way since you have only just joined the discussion yes?

Zoser – AA Theory is True. 3-25-13. # 10086

The above exchange took place (as cited) this past March. Shortly after this exchange the topic was wisely closed by the moderators. This prevented further commentary on my part.

To continue:

In the above response you clearly indicate that it is your contention that the lithic materials sandstone, limestone, and andesite have been altered by their modification into a plastic/molten state.

The realities:

You are limited in the mechanisms/outcomes for your speculation:

1) Sandstone: Generally composed primarily of cemented quartz (silicate) grains. Heating sandstone (without pressure) to a plastic/molten state results in a fusing of the grains ie glass. Thus, the material would no longer be recognized or classed as sandstone.

• True metamorphosis (as opposed to diagenesis) requires both heat (in excess of 200^o C) and pressure (in excess of 300 MPa).
  
• Metamorphosed sandstone is known as quartzite.
  

2) Limestone: Generally composed of 50-100% CaCO_3, 0-50% MgCO₃, 0-15% silicates (quartz). Due to its chemical/mineral composition, limestone does not respond well to excessive heat, becoming quite friable. In your scenario you would be left with a pile of rubble. This aspect is well demonstrated in the slaking process.

• Metamorphosed limestone is known as marble.
  

3) Andesite: Andesite is an extrusive igneous material that lies between basalt and rhyolite. As such, and due to the conditions under which it is formed, it is quite heat tolerant and not particularly subject to metamorphism. Purely heating andesite to a molten state and then allowing it to cool would result in a different igneous material based upon the crystalline formation and size as determined by the cooling temperature and time.

• Metamorphosing andesite would likely result in some form of greenschist, amphibolite, or granulite.
  

To summarize: Any speculation on your part that high levels of heat have been utilized to "mold" the lithic materials in question is demonstrably erroneous. Should such practices have been attempted, the materials involved would have been altered to states that would result in their re-classification, if not outright destruction (eg limestone).

As to your poorly substantiated "vitrification", this aspect has already been addressed by other contributors, with one possible exception. In the case of any exterior components one should also take into account the effects of aeolian abrasion. This is a rather common natural lithic modification in certain environmental regions. "Desert varnish" is also a potential causation for the misinterpreted surface features.

Addendum: Again, apologies for the above "derailment". However, the factors addressed above would appear to have continually resurfaced without a (from my perspective) more comprehensive critique.

Edit: Addendum.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Swede

[Babe Ruth]

By the time of Von Daniken, we already had well established science/astronomy/physics//medicine/archaeology/ and a notion of what is possible.. but....Von Dan chose to go against that with his own fantasies.. totally ignoring established facts and study and understandings...which left him wide open to professional criticism and rebuttal.. his motive was profit, not furthering scientific knowledge..... a total conman, and convicted of being so... typical ex con, he has all that time ...to cook up his next money making scam..

A while back...Someone came up with the idea that attaching magnets to the fuel lines in your car gave extra consumption, ie, more MPG... and countless thousands bought the magnets...... but they didnt work...(even tho they had testimonials to say they DID work) and when the con was made public knowledge, it didn't matter, the guy was already rich...

Which was the entire goal and motivation, of Von Dan. Who has, many times, back pedalled and said, publicly, that he DIDN'T SAY...it was aliens, and that he ONLY...posed the question of 'could it be'

Clearly, his imagination is much healthier and somehow more advanced than yours.

Magnets on the fuel lines is a silly example. I'm aware of fraud and misrepresentation. The government is in the business of that.

Once one understands that we are not alone in this cosmos, imagination is a good thing.

[spacecowboy342]

Clearly, his imagination is much healthier and somehow more advanced than yours.

Magnets on the fuel lines is a silly example. I'm aware of fraud and misrepresentation. The government is in the business of that.

Once one understands that we are not alone in this cosmos, imagination is a good thing.

We may not be alone in the cosmos and imagination is a good thing but von Daniken's outright lies masquerading as research is inexcusable

[jaylemurph]

We may not be alone in the cosmos and imagination is a good thing but von Daniken's outright lies masquerading as research is inexcusable

There always has been and always will be a thriving market for criminals to tell idiots the things they want to hear.

--Jaylemurph

[seeder]

Clearly, his imagination is much healthier and somehow more advanced than yours.

Clearly youre not familiar with the actual facts surrounding V-D who, in fact, copied the ideas of those before him, and just presented the ideas in a different way

“There are some remarkable parallels in Von Daniken's and Lovecraft's work” as “H. P. Lovecraft expounded the same theories in his Cthulhu Mythos stories back in the nineteen thirties.”

http://www.examiner....e-h-p-lovecraft

and

Prior to von Däniken's work, other authors had presented ideas of extraterrestrial contacts. Von Däniken failed to credit these authors properly or at all, even when making the same claims using similar or identical evidence.[13] The first edition of von Däniken's Erinnerungen an die Zukunft failed to cite Charroux's One Hundred Thousand Years of Man's Unknown History despite making very similar claims, and publisher Econ-Verlag were forced to add Charroux in the bibliography in later editions, to avoid a possible lawsuit for plagiarism.

and

That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times.[15]... I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.[15]

—Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed

http://en.wikipedia....ch_von_Däniken

Next?

.

Edited November 3, 2013 by seeder

[spacecowboy342]

There always has been and always will be a thriving market for criminals to tell idiots the things they want to hear.

--Jaylemurph

Yeah, or to take advantage of naive thirteen year olds who don't realize people can get away with printing outright lies as truth. OK so I was a little gullible as a child. Maybe that's why I'm so skeptical now.

[kmt_sesh]

Him and his vitrified stone again. Do you know on the previous mad AA thread, he kept asking why the 'ancient' builders would 'vitrify' the rock inside a cave... (because there is a cave that shows the apparent vitrification, especially on the roof inside)....and this was a major issue for him " WHY would they vitrify inside a cave"... "How did they do this" and over and over again like a broken record. he had no possible ideas how this could have happened, it must have been done by aliens using high heat lasers to get the rock into such a high heat state that when cooled it left a glassy shiny surface texture. "But why he asked, go to all the hard work and effort to vitrify INSIDE this place?

The question was asked repeatedly, the photos were posted endlessly...

Until that is, I explained the cave had been a kiln.. you know, where they used HIGH HEAT to fire their bowls and pots....and you could sense, even thru the internet, that he had the slow realisation of what a total fool he had been. Classic zoser

Oh and heres his humanoids in space suits...just watch first 2 mins or so, more if you like

<<Snip>>

.

Vitrification of stones is attested in prehistoric Scottish forts. This is the consensus, so I imagine it's occurred elsewhere in the world. The question is, how did it happen? The idea that it must have been aliens with lasers or heat rays or other such devices, need not be taken seriously, of course. It does not take impossibly high temperatures to do this to masonry. Far from it. That said, while the Scottish sites are not fully explained, it could have resulted from assaults on the forts by enemy clans (or whatever the correct term might be for prehistoric Scotland).

Equally important is not to jump to conclusion. Ever. Photos have been posted of stones with a sheen or almost glossy appearance in some cases. Does this mean we must immediately jump to aliens with lasers or heat rays or other such devices? Of course it doesn't. Should we not explore the many other and more plausible explanations of ancient engineering with stone masonry? The buffing and polishing of stones was fairly commonplace. The aliens weren't even there at the building site. I suspect they were more busy rounding up humans for probing.

[kmt_sesh]

At the risk of raising the justifiable ire of the moderators, let us address this matter once and for all.

To review:

Personal time has been and will continue to be limited. However, to return to certain critical aspects of your "speculation":

1) It would appear that you are attempting to assert that elements of the stonework in question are the product of altering the mass of the stone to a plastic and/or molten state. Correct?

2) It would also appear that, while not being overly specific, you are referring to primarily three lithic material types (limestone, sandstone, and andesite). Correct?

3) If the above evaluations are accurate, kindly inform us in regards to the speculated maximum temperature ranges/pressure gradients/cooling period involved in these processes as specifically applied to each of the three lithic material types.

4) You would appear to be quite confident in your assertions regarding wide-spread vitrification. Can we then presume that you have credible trace element and thin-section analyses to support these contentions? If so, kindly present such. And no, the notably lacking tidbits of De Jong do not qualify.

Swede- AA Theory is True.3-24-13. #10032

*Snip*

Ire? No.

But Swede's post provides an opportune moment for me to comment on something. I realize how heated things can get when certain posters bang heads, but the more mature thing to do is to remain level headed and civil. You can disagree with a poster and bring up what you believe to be his weaknesses, as long as it's in an appropriate and civil manner complete with a well-detailed summation of your own position. Swede's post is a very good example of this.

Where you will raise my ire is if you use posting for little more than to ridicule a poster with whom you disagree. Do not do that.

kmt_sesh

[seeder]

Vitrification of stones is attested in prehistoric Scottish forts. This is the consensus, so I imagine it's occurred elsewhere in the world. The question is, how did it happen? The idea that it must have been aliens with lasers or heat rays or other such devices, need not be taken seriously, of course. It does not take impossibly high temperatures to do this to masonry. Far from it. That said, while the Scottish sites are not fully explained, it could have resulted from assaults on the forts by enemy clans (or whatever the correct term might be for prehistoric Scotland).

Equally important is not to jump to conclusion. Ever. Photos have been posted of stones with a sheen or almost glossy appearance in some cases. Does this mean we must immediately jump to aliens with lasers or heat rays or other such devices? Of course it doesn't. Should we not explore the many other and more plausible explanations of ancient engineering with stone masonry? The buffing and polishing of stones was fairly commonplace. The aliens weren't even there at the building site. I suspect they were more busy rounding up humans for probing.

Exactly, and I also produced the following picture on the old thread, one caused by glacial polishing. It was assumed by some that Peru didn't have any ice, but it still has 3 glaciers and in the deep past of course much of the world was ice bound. Now such a shiny polished rock may have attracted the eyes of ancient builders who may want to use such a rock in a place of prominence

Hualcan glacier. Peru, one of 3

.

Edited November 4, 2013 by seeder