Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 7 votes

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10148 replies to this topic

#7441    EllJay

EllJay

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,152 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2009

Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:48 PM

View PostTheSearcher, on 23 February 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Check this site, they explain in a quit nice way how they made the vessels in question.
http://www.geocities...ase_making.html

Thanks, great site. Will take a while reading though.
I could understand if used on alabaster or sandstone, but was that technique really applicable on granite?

"Opinions are like a**holes, everyone seems to have one" - Dirty Harry

"All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand... "

"I have a black belt in Feng Shui, the subtle martial art. I go home to you and move a lamp and a chair... twelve years later you lay there on the floor with broken kneecaps and destitute."

#7442    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 7,346 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012

Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:53 PM

View Postshrooma, on 23 February 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

'monoatomic gold turns man into papa smurf' shocker-
father abraham to sue for copyright infringement.....
:-)

hehe :clap:   (but is was the silver stuff)



It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#7443    Colonel Rhubarb

Colonel Rhubarb

    Scrupulously Polite

  • Member
  • 22,235 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005

Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostHasina, on 23 February 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

It's monoatomic silver that guy used, I'm unsure if monoatomic gold would turn your skin the same color.

The only reason I know this is because some blue-skinned guy in a werewolf book I read coated his body in monoatomic silver so any time a werewolf would try to bite him, it's mouth would disintegrate.
useful tip. B)

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#7444    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 7,346 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:00 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 23 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

useful tip. B)

:w00t:

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#7445    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:18 PM

View Postzoser, on 22 February 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

You are quite welcome to.

I have made it quite plain what the difference is between Roman and Peruvian construction that makes the latter interesting to AA proponents and the former not.

It's up to you to argue against it.

All you seem to be doing is making us aware of the artistic achievements of the Romans and that they had millions of slaves to man haul with.

Precision work however to match Peruvian quality has not so far been proven.

I share your appreciation of the Roman artefacts.

That is not however what the debate is about.

This is about how the ancients did it, and because we have no idea how they did it, it must have been aliens.

You still have not explained to me how people were able to transport a 300 tonnes weighing stone over a great distance, and then put it on top of a church.

You still have not posted a reply to how these Romans were able to transport many 60 tonnes weighing, and smoothly carved huge granite pillars over a long distance from Egypt to Rome..

Have you ever in your life watched those domes they created?

Why is THAT not a mystery to you?

Because you think the Romans were a lot more clever than those 'injuns'??


#7446    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:23 PM

View Postzoser, on 22 February 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

Are you seriously claiming that the Baalbek stones were lifted by crude hauling?  Pull the other one mate.

You must be absolutely joking.

Architects and construction engineers, however, not having any preconceived ideas of ancient history to uphold, will frankly state that there are no known lifting technologies even in current times that could raise and position the Baalbek stones given the amount of working space. The massive stones of the Grand Terrace of Baalbek are simply beyond the engineering abilities of any recognized ancient or contemporary builders.

There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archaeologists and conventional theories of prehistoric civilization. There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age. ..........



http://www.alien-ufo...ion-stones.html

Let me put it another way.  If you think the Baalbek trilithons were the work of the Romans then prove it.  Evidence suggests otherwise.

Try again.

I will try:

Read this:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html




Hi!

I don't know what your sources are, but they are crap. This time, your Baalbek-claims.

First: The three blocks used weight about 800 tons each, the heavy, unmoved block weights about 1200 tons.

Second: The quarry for the blocks lies higher then the temple, about 15 meters. Distance to the platform: about 600 meters, but to get round a ditch the way had to be about 1100 meters long.

Third: A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.

Fourth: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.

Read some real literature about the things you are phantasizing about.

Bye,
FD

And another article
Frank_Doernenburg@do2.maus.ruhr.de
(edited) says:

The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors. The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons.

The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim.

As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul.

They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.

But its irrelevant, because they needed only three weeks per block, and that's OK. Oh by the way, the Romans worked a few hundred years on the temple, until the project was finally canceled.

Bye,
FD

And a more recent post:

Subject: Re: Stone of Baalbek
From: fdoernen@ruhrgebiet.net (Frank Dörnenburg)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 23:16:04 GMT
Dear ...
This is no flame but a rational post to explain some things to you :-)

It would be nice if you would read just some of the basic stuff about antique transporting techniques before arguing about "I don't know how to do it, and therefore anciens certainly didn't know it". From Roman times, and the trilithon was built in Roman times, we have full documentations about the methods they used. For example, the transport of a 900 t block at the time of Thedosius (compareable to the Bal Bekaa blocks) was accomplished with 12 winches manned with 24 men each - or only 264 men!!!
The romans developed a system of continous winch movement, called in German a "Göpelwinde". With this system, winches are placed on poles dugged into the ground besides the transport way. In the example listed above 2 parallel rows with 6 winches on each side, between them the weight was moved. Each winch had a distance of about 5 m to the next. All 6 winches on each side had a different repe angle to the weight to pull. The lower, the smaller the transport force afflicted to the block. When the angle ot the two winches most behind got unpracticable, the winches were removed from the pole and moved to the frontmost position and the ropes got new connected. And so on. The blocks were transported on sleds. The transport of the Byzanz-Obelisk eg. took about 2 weeks for 3 kilometers from waterfront to 300 m height. The Trilithon-blocks were transported only 600 meters to a lower position!!
When the work was finished, the poles were pulled out and the holes filled.

Next point: How were the blocks in Bal Bekaa lifted? Answer: They werent lifted. The quarry was slightly higher than the platform of the forum, so the Romans only had to fill a small trench with rubble to bull the blocks horizontally to their places.

Next point: Why do I write Bal Bekaa instead of Baalbek? Because this is the original name of the settlement after roman times: Bal Bekaa means "Valley of the Bekaa" and has nothing to do with the old god Baal (you notice the similarity between "Valley of Bekaa" and the famous "Bekaa-plateau" in Lebanon??? Yeah, right, they both mean the same location.) . "Bal Bekaa" was the official name up to the 19th century, and the French use this writing (or the shortened form Bal Bek) until today.
In fact, the whole settlement is of Roman origin, first mentioned in about 20 AD as "Colonia Iulia Felix Helipolitania", named not after the Greek sun god Helios (as Sitchin proposes), but after a local Roman hero, Iuppiter Heliopolitanus. The city lay in the center of several trade routes and therefore flourished after it had to be abandoned because of the onrush of the Arabs.

Next: Why is it no ancient spaceship landing platform? Because of its construction. Its a typical Roman honeycomb-brick-construction. Underneath the forum is a labyrinth of brick walls and chambers, filled to support the weight with shards and other compact trash. All of roman origin. Only beneath the temples on top of the forum are fundaments to the bedrock to support their weight. And in typical roman fashoin, to conceal the flimsy inner construction an outer wall of monoliths between 50 and 800 tons each was placed around the construction so that it lookes massive. But this is only an outer appearance, the whole construction is so unstable, that any decent space ferry would simply break through the ceiling and land in a heap of roman shards.

All these things are known since the publishing of the Wiegand- Baalbek-report between 1921-1925. Z. Sitchin (from where you as I believe you got the "facts") is or was in posession of these reports (because he uses pictures from these books, without mentioning their origins). He publishes the pictures, but doesn't mention the other facts published in the three volumes - so I think I can say, he is a fraud. Once I believed in these people, too. Because I thought "When they publish such things they must be true, because nobody can publish lies as facts". Silly me. When you care to take a look at my home page, you can find some of these silly old believes right there. And I only can say: Think before you flame against "schoolbook science". There is a reason because we have to go to school ;-)

Literature: Wiegand, TH; Baalbek 1-3; Berlin/Leipzig 1921-1925 (the original digging report)
Bruns, G. "Der Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel", Istanbuler Forschungen Bd. 7

Bye,
FD
Visit http://ourworld.comp...es/FDoernenburg
Message-ID: <364766ed.14717168@news.nacamar.de>


Return to Doug's archaeology page


Edited by Abramelin, 23 February 2013 - 07:54 PM.


#7447    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,113 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:28 PM

View Postseeder, on 23 February 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

You are exactltly right in that respect.  I too, beleived in lots of stuff, and loved the internet when I first got on it, because it meant unlimited info/findings to suit my interests

but the thing is....I don't and didn't believe in 'lots of stuff'.....contrary to popular belief, I'm quite fussy about what I will

consider to be true. (possibly true or probably true).. So I must be different to you.... :)


Quote

But in wanting to know more about the subjects, and by having the info on the net waiting to be found, you suddenly realise that there is a great - shall we say - 'balance' of info out there. For and against.

Balance is whats needed if you really want to research something, isnt it?

Balance is good....


Quote

I just REALLY WANT to know, so I look at both sides of the coin.

I REALLY WANT to know as well.


Quote

By doing that, (for many years now), Ive grown naturally, skeptical.

Fair enough...I can see how it can happen. But just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Please

:tu:


View Postshrooma, on 23 February 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

'monoatomic gold turns man into papa smurf' shocker-
father abraham to sue for copyright infringement.....
:-)


:lol:




.


#7448    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 7,346 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:04 PM

View Postbee, on 23 February 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

but the thing is....I don't and didn't believe in 'lots of stuff'.....contrary to popular belief, I'm quite fussy about what I will

consider to be true. (possibly true or probably true).. So I must be different to you...
.

Well then the question begs, what do you believe in? A list if you will pls?





.

Edited by seeder, 23 February 2013 - 08:04 PM.

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#7449    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:14 PM

View Postzoser, on 22 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

To put it in perspective here is the basis of the argument of the AA proponent.

Modern man is capable of constructing the buildings that Abe has posted.

However it is highly question even with modern machine tooling that this could be done.
(snip)

or this

(snip)

That is what the skeptics of the AA hypothesis would have to prove.

That man could do it.  Without advanced tools.

There is no precedent for this anywhere in classic architecture and we don't attempt it today (only unsuccessfully - Protzen et al).

That's the argument right there.

No posting of ornate Roman relics will do it; unless we can see replicated megalithic precision.

Precision stonework?

http://www.stoneworl..._Cribbs01LG.jpg

http://www.cec-water...rchitect-1.html

http://www.flickr.co...N06/2188220747/

http://www.geograph....k/photo/2771661

And the piece de resistance,

http://hamiltonstone....com/index.html

in particular, see sculpture: studio work.



Stones not big enough? try these:

http://farm6.staticf...5fce85e34_z.jpg

http://denverpost.sl...sJPG?1320096066

http://stock.irabloc...atue-of-liberty

http://upload.wikime...-of-Liberty.png

http://www.bcausa.co...oklynbridge.jpg


This one's interesting. Apparently our pre-incan stone masters visited early 19th century dartmoor: (about 19 and 20 down)

http://www.dartmoorc...ley/shapley.htm



Now I know what you're going to say, but if they can do one and do the other, there's no reason they can't do both together.

If we don't do it that way, it's only because we use this instead:

http://www.google.co...img.85z_DodjBVA

There is absolutely nothing about those stones that couldn't be done by hand sculpting, given time. Go google stone sculpture. You are completely ignorent of the subject, even of how ignorant you are about it. Ignore the fact that protzen squared off the test rock completely. Ignore the fact that he replicated the shallowest of your indentations as well as the chamfered edges and achieved a tolerence within half a cm. without even really trying.
It'll do you no good in the end.

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#7450    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,113 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:17 PM

View Postseeder, on 23 February 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Well then the question begs, what do you believe in? A list if you will pls?

that would be completely off topic wouldn't it.... :innocent:

but in all honesty I can't be bothered, sorry...


#7451    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:32 PM

View PostHasina, on 23 February 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

It's monoatomic silver that guy used, I'm unsure if monoatomic gold would turn your skin the same color.

The only reason I know this is because some blue-skinned guy in a werewolf book I read coated his body in monoatomic silver so any time a werewolf would try to bite him, it's mouth would disintegrate.

Not monatomic, colloidal, which just means in solution. The "monatomic"  supposedly changes into a completely new substance. I don't have to tell you what I think that substance largely consists of. :rolleyes:

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#7452    zoser

zoser

    Blue Emerald

  • Member
  • 8,755 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:33 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 23 February 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

I will try:

Read this:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html



All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

This guy's research however looks much more detailed than any other I have read and as I deduced fairly quickly the Trilithon's pre-date the Romans.

They were just not capable of that type of construction and it was not even their style.

Give this a read and let me know what you think:

http://vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

A few snippits:


It then follows that by the apparent rate of aging, the heavily eroded blocks should be at least several millenia older than the newer blocks. Ergo, the older part of the wall cannot be Roman.


Orthodox scholars of today scoff at all suggestions that Romans had not brought the great blocks to the temple site, despite the fact that building with megalithic blocks was not at all in the Roman style, and was no longer practised in those days.Romans knew and used concrete. The Colosseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.

The sad truth is that regarding the Trilithon, some scholars have mental blocks its own size. Admissions that blocks weighing over a 1000 metric tons were quarried and transported in prehistoric times would invite uncomfortable questions on what technology had made it all possible. Regardless of such touchy issues,  I have several personal observations, which support dating of Baalbek's megalithic walls to the megalithic era. Have a look at this nice northwestern view of the wall as it was circa 1870.

The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue really seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks (see below) when it is almost like new after having been recently sanded.  However, sanding did not get rid of the deep pits, signs of either considerable previous erosion, or the product of drilling, if not both.

This guy really has done his research.  He has examined the layers in detail, looked at the erosion, the construction method that was not typical Roman, and puts together a very strong case.

Again the material evidence points to unknown builders using unknown technology.

Posted Image


#7453    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 7,346 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:37 PM

View Postzoser, on 23 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

This guy's research however looks much more detailed than any other I have read and as I deduced fairly quickly the Trilithon's pre-date the Romans.

They were just not capable of that type of construction and it was not even their style.

Give this a read and let me know what you think:

http://vejprty.com/baalbek.htm



WHOOPS?

Didn't check his sources YET again

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#7454    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:52 PM

Are we going to get your definition of 'precision' any time soon zoser? Because I'm willing to wager that there is no way you can define it that it won't also include other ancient sites that are proven to be made by man alone. I'm sure that is why you insist on the term remaining ambiguous.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#7455    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,153 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:57 PM

Please not the "Z" name ! :no:

This is a Work in Progress!