10148 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Looking at it logically, there is no other satisfactory explanation to explain these mould marks.  They are occur with such regularity and size at Sacsayhuaman that they are clearly not natural, and too deep to be caused by anything other than some object that pushed into the stones while they were soft.

Click to zoom.

[seeder]

Hasina, on 10 January 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Question: why haven't we actually found any of the alien's technology or is it a cover up (as per usual in this field)?

we haven't found any because there isn't any,  simples! And there are far far older structures than this one - and with more amazing stonework...  yet for some idiotic reason, the theory of the AA's helping man stack stones in Pumapunku seems to get some people, like zoser, convinced enough to throw rationality out of the window

[zoser]

Lord Vetinari, on 10 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

There seems a great big crack across the stone at top right. I think I might want to give that a wide berth.

Look again.

Vitrification peeling off.  Well spotted.  The same effect as in post 4459.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 09 January 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

I think you will find much of what has been presented to you is not insult, your deliberate ignorance just kicks into self defence.

"you are ignorant of all aspects of real space travel" - you
"you know nothing of the world around you" - you
"lives with his head in the clouds and thinks movies are fact" - you
"your deliberate ignorance" - you
"Your are an embarrassment to yourself" - you
"You are a troll" - you
"you know I do not like you " - you
"You are a forum joke" - you
"You are a joke, a living one " - you
"I find you just a horrible person" - you


I find you to be a horrible person too bullshiit dude. You bullshiit and you think very very small. You insult people, and then try to pretend you don't.

What's not to think is horrible about you? Nothing afaik

Edited by nopeda, 10 January 2013 - 07:10 PM.

[zoser]

seeder, on 10 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

we haven't found any because there isn't any,  simples! And there are far far older structures than this one - and with more amazing stonework...  yet for some idiotic reason, the theory of the AA's helping man stack stones in Pumapunku seems to get some people, like zoser, convinced enough to throw rationality out of the window

Evidence of tools used isn't needed.  The principle has been established.  Simple.  You don't need to find the murder weapon when someone has a 9mm round embedded in the back of the leg.  Think about it.

[nopeda]

Harte, on 09 January 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 08 January 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:
I'm asking you to explain why anyone should put their faith in the possibility that it's impossible for beings from other star systems to travel to this one. If you can't do that, then you're not in any position to be critical of considering the possibility that they have, or even that they still do. Were you unaware of that?

I've never ruled out the possibility at all.
. . .
I've never said there's no intelligent life out there.  Only an ignoramus would make such a claim.  However, given that there's no evidence for any ancient visitation (at all,) then it follows that postulating that there has been none is perfectly logical.  Not that I expect you to recognize this basic and absolutely undeniable fact.

If you believe it IS possible for beings from other star systems to travel to this one then please say so specifically because there are people who believe it's not possible, and you ACT LIKE you're one of them. That being the case I'd like to have a quote of you saying otherwise in your own words.

IMO the majority of what is discussed in this thread IS evidence that xts have been here, whether they have been or not. That being the case, your claim that there is no evidence tells me you're either completely clueless and unable to think about this topic in a realistic way, or you're dishonestly claiming you can't recognise any of the evidence that's being discussed right in front of you and sometimes BY YOU. Not know which is actually the true situation it makes a person in my position wonder whether you're more clueless or dishonest, and of course it makes me wonder which would be worse? Would it be worse if you really are that clueless or if you're being deliberately dishonest. Most likely the truth is the latter imo btw, whether it's better or worse.

Edited by nopeda, 10 January 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[zoser]

nopeda, on 10 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

"you are ignorant of all aspects of real space travel" - you
"you know nothing of the world around you" - you
"lives with his head in the clouds and thinks movies are fact" - you
"your deliberate ignorance" - you
"Your are an embarrassment to yourself" - you
"You are a troll" - you
"you know I do not like you " - you
"You are a forum joke" - you
"You are a joke, a living one " - you
"I find you just a horrible person" - you


I find you to be a horrible person too bullshiit dude. You bullshiit and you think very very small. You insult people, and then try to pretend you don't.

What's not to think is horrible about you? Nothing afaik

Well I can add to that without upsetting the moderators or using offensive language.

If you look carefully, psyche never quotes anything technical.  He specialises in defaming forum users instead.

Last time I checked he didn't know Sacsayhuaman from down town Sydney.

He thought that Puma Punku was an 80's pop band.

To be quite honest I haven't responded to him for months.

Edited by zoser, 10 January 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Oniomancer]

"If one accepts"

"looks like"

"as if"

"almost looks like"

That's an uncommon number of qualifiers for a supposedly factual "conclusion"

[seeder]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Looking at it logically, there is no other satisfactory explanation to explain these mould marks.  They are occur with such regularity and size at Sacsayhuaman that they are clearly not natural, and too deep to be caused by anything other than some object that pushed into the stones while they were soft.

Click to zoom.

as was mentioned in the video clip you obviously didnt watch or didnt listen too, molds were not used, if they were used, youd see the same shape and same sized rocks everywhere. Thats what happens with molds...everything looks the same...

but in all these pics, every stone is a different size and shape... meaning... if molds were used, they made a new one for each stone...looking at it logically of course..

which didnt happen., as rocks cannot be melted

[Oniomancer]

Myles, on 10 January 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

These are all things that you have posted in this thread.   (Newcomers, this is no joke.   Zoser actually used these to plead his case).

It never freezes in Peru.

What? Where? When did he say this?

[nopeda]

zoser, on 09 January 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Remember these ancients were supposed never to even have the wheel.

No wheels, no pulleys, no steel tools, and most likely no furnaces hot enough to melt steel or anything else requiring that much heat. It's amazing things like that don't matter to these people who try to act as if they're really thinking about it. They're not and can't. Maybe that's the whole problem? If those rocks were softened up in place as it appears, then they had to have something that could penetrate. IF they used some sort of chemical which seems unlikely they would have to have made it penetrate very deeply in order to produce the end result. But how could they, and then how could they remove it before it caused TOO MUCH melting? How could they transport a chemical that melts rock IF they could manage somehow to produce it? How can people insist ancient humans with no wheels or pulleys or steel or high heat furnaces managed to do all that, without having any clue at all how they possibly could have? While at the same time totally rejecting the possibility that the beings ancient humans TELL US came around during that time, helped people with projects it seems impossible they could have done on their own?

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 10 January 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

But whatever wall you and I post, Zoser, you will have noticed that on many stones in those walls you'll see (at least) two protuberances near the bottom edge.

That you don't see them on all stones is because after placing the stones, using the levers I mentioned earlier, they chopped off those things.

You can't move these with levers Abe.  Think of the height problem.  Utterly impossible.

[seeder]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

You can't move these with levers Abe.  Think of the height problem.  Utterly impossible.

further proof you didnt watch the video clip..which shows...RAMPS... still in place leading to the top of the structures...RAMPS! PROOF!

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 10 January 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

What? Where? When did he say this?

Prove that they hauled the blocks over ice in Peru.  If you can I'll listen

Otherwise your just trying to discredit again which is all the skeptics here do when they lose an argument. That is all seeders video clip is as well by the way.

[nopeda]

zoser, on 09 January 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

The only thing you skeptics have had on your side all through this debate is sheer weight of numbers.  There have been dozens and dozens of you, sometimes rotating in shifts to maintain not a valid counter argument but denial.
The only slightly credible counter argument was Abe's chemical theory.  Some of you even deny that!  That no melting took place at all.  At least Abe acknowledges the melting evidence.
Never can denial compete with solid visual evidence and established physical principles.  I'm amazed that you thought it would.

Much of what they do is amazing in its absurdity. Some would even deny there's any evidence of xt influence at all, when the majority of what's discussed in this thread IS the very evidence they're denying. Really for some people acknowledging the evidence they're arguing about would be a starting line for them, as pathetic as that fact is.