10148 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Hasina, on 10 January 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

Second, where's the tools the aliens used? I see spoons and sticks making marks in clay but nothing in stone.

Pictures of tools not available I'm afraid.  Proof of principle is established.  No tool pictures required.

You see nothing being done in stone?  Were you alive thousands of years ago?

The pictures are everywhere to be seen.

Edited by zoser, 10 January 2013 - 08:46 PM.

[Hasina]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

They took them back to the stars.

You see nothing being done in stone?  Were you alive thousands of years ago?

The pictures are everywhere to be seen.

And they didn't accidentally leave anything? Anything at all? Or they did but someone's hiding it?

Also, can these stone marking be reproduced, say, by sanding it but by bit?

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Just another thought.  Being as they are so keen to carbon date this, why not carbon date the Paracas skulls?

Seems very convenient to me Abe.  I would't trust their results as far as I could throw them.  I really wouldn't.

I will bet a dime that those who asked for the skulls to be analyzed more than a year ago already know the results.

But the results didn't confirm their fantasies, so they just hoped anyone interested would eventually forget about it.

We won't.

And Zoser, if they said radiocarbon dating proved Sacsayhuaman to be 10,000 years old, would you believe them THEN?

I just know you would, suddenly forgetting about your distrust of science and scientists.

[zoser]

Quaentum, on 10 January 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

You mean like billions of years ago when the earth was molten and cooling but the rocks had not yet become hard?

Not irrefutable proof.  Pareidolia is fascinating but is not evidence for high technology or the molding of stone.  Try coming up with something a little more concrete (pun intended)

Done it mate.





Need any more?

Just ask.

Or if you insist on a posture of rigid denial; that's your right.

[zoser]

Hasina, on 10 January 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

And they didn't accidentally leave anything? Anything at all? Or they did but someone's hiding it?

Also, can these stone marking be reproduced, say, by sanding it but by bit?

Maybe someone could be hiding them.  Who knows.

Sanding would cause abrasion.

The vitrification speaks otherwise:

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Pictures of tools not available I'm afraid.  Proof of principle is established.  No tool pictures required.

You see nothing being done in stone?  Were you alive thousands of years ago?

The pictures are everywhere to be seen.

I posted a picture of tools: hardened bronze chisels and cobbles.

They were found alright.

You just won't accept that those are the tools they used.

[Oniomancer]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words and I have certainly found that to be true.

In Clay:






In stone:



In Clay:




In stone:



In clay:





In Stone:




In clay:





In stone:




Irrefutable proof of moulding.  

Not hammer or pounding marks.

Heat.



And Ollyantaytambo?  Check it out.

Remember my advice was for you to look at all the evidence.  Not selected pieces.

Please tell you're joking. Man, the Buddha must've had some serious corns:

Edited by Oniomancer, 10 January 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 10 January 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

I will bet a dime that those who asked for the skulls to be analyzed more than a year ago already know the results.

But the results didn't confirm their fantasies, so they just hoped anyone interested would eventually forget about it.

We won't.

And Zoser, if they said radiocarbon dating proved Sacsayhuaman to be 10,000 years old, would you believe them THEN?

I just know you would, suddenly forgetting about your distrust of science and scientists.

They never will Abe.  The reason being that everything is packaged neatly to fit the childish mentally of the modern education system.

[DONTEATUS]

Abramelin, on 10 January 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

I will bet a dime that those who asked for the skulls to be analyzed more than a year ago already know the results.

But the results didn't confirm their fantasies, so they just hoped anyone interested would eventually forget about it.

We won't.

And Zoser, if they said radiocarbon dating proved Sacsayhuaman to be 10,000 years old, would you believe them THEN?

I just know you would, suddenly forgetting about your distrust of science and scientists.

LOL ! too true "A"  Our Zoser is quite the piece of work indeed. If E.T. made all of these there would be actual proof of an advanced people on earth Long before ,say Us .  And hince we would of been privey to it ,and would have the factual proof and Hardware ect Machines left behind.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Done it mate.





Need any more?

Just ask.

Or if you insist on a posture of rigid denial; that's your right.

Yes, I need more: what are all those tiny dents in those blocks of stone?

That can't be the effect of vitrification, right?

It should be a glaze, heh.

[Hasina]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

Maybe someone could be hiding them.  Who knows.

Sanding would cause abrasion.

The vitrification speaks otherwise:

Sanding as in blasting it with sand or rubbing it down? What if two stones were 'sanded' against each other? Could you heat up a rock, cover your hand and then continually rub till it got smooth?

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 10 January 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

I posted a picture of tools: hardened bronze chisels and cobbles.

They were found alright.

You just won't accept that those are the tools they used.

Did they cause all this:

http://www.unexplain...85#entry4615539

I sincerely doubt it.

Stop dreaming Abe.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 10 January 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

They never will Abe.  The reason being that everything is packaged neatly to fit the childish mentally of the modern education system.

The childish people are those who think aliens did it or some advanced civilization........ because THEY have not the faintest clue about how the ancients did their thing.

Hasina, on 10 January 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Sanding as in blasting it with sand or rubbing it down? What if two stones were 'sanded' against each other? Could you heat up a rock, cover your hand and then continually rub till it got smooth?

Zoser can. Ask him.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 10 January 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Yes, I need more: what are all those tiny dents in those blocks of stone?

That can't be the effect of vitrification, right?

It should be a glaze, heh.

Oh dear Abe

Now you see it:



Now you don't



Same artifact; different angle and lighting.

[Harte]

nopeda, on 10 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

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.

Well, that was a short stay off my ignore list.

Harte