10148 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Imaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

What you fail to undertand is that the widely accepted theories are theories precisly because they have evidence to support them, unlike your quackery of "lasers, or ultra sound, or something."

How about the quackery of copper tubes and bows?  That's far worse; at least we know that lasers and ultra sound can produce precise effects on hard rock.  That's more that your conjecture proves.

[zoser]

Imaginarynumber1, on 08 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

From your link:


I'm supposed to listen to a guy that doesn't understand plate tectonics? No thanks.

Brien's the man.  Give it a try.  Listen to his clips and hear what he has to say.

[Imaginarynumber1]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

How about the quackery of copper tubes and bows?  That's far worse; at least we know that lasers and ultra sound can produce precise effects on hard rock.  That's more that your conjecture proves.

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Brien's the man.  Give it a try.  Listen to his clips and hear what he has to say.

Keep living in your fantasy world.

[Babe Ruth]

Egads!  Is that the pot calling the kettle black?

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Here is another serious full time researcher who refutes the orthodox theories.  I have read none of his books so I cannot say that he is an AA advocate but what he does say is that the megalithic relics were built with unknown technology by unknown people and far older than the history books suggest.

I'll settle for that.

http://brienfoerster.com/

The conquistadores admired Inka stonework sufficiently to employ Inka stonecutters and techniques in colonial buildings, and many of the "ancient Inka" walls in Cusco belong to the colonial period, such as this wall with carved snakes and stones in non-Incaic shapes:



http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html

[synchronomy]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Here is another serious full time researcher who refutes the orthodox theories.  I have read none of his books so I cannot say that he is an AA advocate but what he does say is that the megalithic relics were built with unknown technology by unknown people and far older than the history books suggest.

I'll settle for that.

http://brienfoerster.com/

So...because he agrees with your beliefs, you are presenting his claims in order to support your hypothesis?
...and you've read none of his books?
But as you say, "I'll settle for that."

That's just,....well, silly.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 08 December 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

The conquistadores admired Inka stonework sufficiently to employ Inka stonecutters and techniques in colonial buildings, and many of the "ancient Inka" walls in Cusco belong to the colonial period, such as this wall with carved snakes and stones in non-Incaic shapes:



http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html

Look closely and compare with Cuzco.  You could fit a cheese sandwhich in those joints,  Noth the same architecture by any stretch.

[zoser]

synchronomy, on 08 December 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

So...because he agrees with your beliefs, you are presenting his claims in order to support your hypothesis?
...and you've read none of his books?
But as you say, "I'll settle for that."

That's just,....well, silly.

Just listen to the guy.   You can soon see where he is coming from.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Look closely and compare with Cuzco.  You could fit a cheese sandwhich in those joints,  Noth the same architecture by any stretch.

It was just an example of what the Incas made when the Spanish conquistadores were present.

OK, you won;t read the whole webpage.


The fortress-temple of Ollantaytambo is famous for its beautifully fitted great slabs of red porphyry forming a portion of what must have been intended to be its principal temple. But this complex, a work in progress when the conquistadores arrived, was never finished. A number of large cut blocks were abandoned en route to the site and remain today, known as piedras cansadas or "tired stones".  Within the complex, a stone that was in the process of being maneuvered into its final position can be seen lying on its emplacement ramp:



http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 08 December 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

It was just an example of what the Incas made when the Spanish conquistadores were present.

OK, you won;t read the whole webpage.


The fortress-temple of Ollantaytambo is famous for its beautifully fitted great slabs of red porphyry forming a portion of what must have been intended to be its principal temple. But this complex, a work in progress when the conquistadores arrived, was never finished. A number of large cut blocks were abandoned en route to the site and remain today, known as piedras cansadas or "tired stones".  Within the complex, a stone that was in the process of being maneuvered into its final position can be seen lying on its emplacement ramp:



http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html

Still no proof that the inca built Cuzco or Sacsayhuaman

Never heard of that site; will look into it later.

Edited by zoser, 08 December 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Still no proof that the inca built Cuzco or Sacsayhuaman

Never heard of that site; will look into it later.

The point is this: many socalled 'ancient walls' in Cusco were constructed during the colonial period.

Second point: if the Spaniards had watched the Incas (or actually, the Quechuas;  "Inca" was the title of their rulers) construct these walls and buildings, they no doubt would have recorded any out of the ordinary tools.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 December 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Gaden]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

You are making assumptions based on what tools are available to us.  The Onion Man is doing the same thing by talking about sets of pilot drills.  Hence my sarcastic reference to Wall Mart.

We need to be extremely clear that we are talking about stone age people.  There were no high speed drills or drill bits.  The Onion Man is postulating that they used bows which rotated some mysteriously formed tube of copper on way and then the other.  Extremely cumbersome, painfully time consuming and in all honesty unrealistic.

Without a cone point keeping trhe end of a bit steady to get a start in red granite would be virtually impossible and the end result would be a total mess.

On the other hand there is this:


Now look how perfect it is and tell me in all honesty if that could have been done by spinning a copper tube back and forth with a bow using sand while some poor soul holds it erect while applying weight.  I tell you know way.

The final smoking gun is if you look carefully inside the hole there are two score marks.  This hole was cut with extreme abrasion to have left this behind.  The copper would have totally shredded experiencing that level of abrasion.

The edges are perfect.  There has been zero tool wander.

No, YOU are the one making assumptions. I, myself have drilled tens of thousands of holes, I know how a drill acts. All the ancients would have to do is chip a depression roughly the size of their drill to get started. Once started, the bit is contained within it's own hole. IT WILL NOT WANDER ONCE THE HOLE IS STARTED, even if it is out of round. The spinning drill still has a center and an outer edge. The outer edge defines the diameter of the hole. After they drilled the hole, the surface of the rock would have been dressed and polished to below the pont where tool wander occured.
I really do not believe the stone the ancients worked with was as hard as your head.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 07 December 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Just catching up with the thread; every day there are another 10 or so pages on this thread.

Pictographs of ET like beings?

It really doesn't take long to find:









Any of these look human to you?  I'll let you decide.  The ancient world is brimming with this kind of thing.  Extremely easy to find.

So THIS is your proof of the Ancient Alien Theory?

I wonder what Picasso would have thought of that.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 December 2012 - 05:03 PM.

[synchronomy]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

On the other hand there is this:



Now look how perfect it is and tell me in all honesty if that could have been done by spinning a copper tube back and forth with a bow using sand while some poor soul holds it erect while applying weight.  I tell you know way.

I think you are envisioning something similar to a Boy Scout starting a fire with a bow and stick.
There may not have been a poor soul holding a large stone on top of the pipe.  I picture more of a scaffold with a stone which can traverse vertically as the drill deepens the hole.
Also, two large bows, one of each side of the pipe, each with a man on either end.  Four men, lots of sweat, equals lots of power in that configuration.

Another possibility is a pump drill, scaled up for the task, which is described about half-way down this page.  This could be modified to include being bow powered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_drill

Edited by synchronomy, 08 December 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[Gaden]

zoser, on 08 December 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

The skeptics need to validate their claims to prove their hypothesis.  So far they have proved groundless, and banal.  It's not acceptable to have that nonsense as a default hypothesis.

The video clips, images, testimonies are my proof.  Where's the skeptics proof?

You know, the instant I read this I felt my time hear had come to an end. Many of us have offered facts and evidence. Real tools that have been found. Real chisel marks that have been found. Real workers homes, kitchens, cemetaries. There are inumerable drawings left by the AE that showed the dragging of large stones and sculptures. There are actual records from the time of the building of the GP detailing how to calculate the material needed to build ramps. Actual records written at the time detailing the rations needed for the work force. I have not even included all of the evidence provided. And what have the AA beleivers offered other than conjecture and misunderstanding? Anything? Anything at all?

Edited by Gaden, 08 December 2012 - 05:09 PM.