201 replies to this topic

[Harte]

He also states that the Great Pyramid is made primarily of sandstone, but its not.  You can find that statement at the link, IIRC.

My understanding is that Andesite is the stone which was carved into the "lego-type" blocks but I could be wrong.

I believe that Andesite is the South American "equivalent" of diorite, and that diorite is not found there, but I could be wrong about that as well.

Regardless, people around the world were carving diorite - which is harder than granite - into very nice shapes in 3000 BCE.

Harte

[bee]

Harte, on 29 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

He also states that the Great Pyramid is made primarily of sandstone, but its not.  You can find that statement at the link, IIRC.

My understanding is that Andesite is the stone which was carved into the "lego-type" blocks but I could be wrong.

I believe that Andesite is the South American "equivalent" of diorite, and that diorite is not found there, but I could be wrong about that as well.

Regardless, people around the world were carving diorite - which is harder than granite - into very nice shapes in 3000 BCE.

Harte

well that chap on the video I posted chipped a bit off the diorite he held in his hand so I expect it could be carved.....even thousands of years ago?

although he used a pen knife....

What struck me when I was having a cursory look around on the internet for info on what the stones at Puma Punku were made of

was how influencial the Chris White video has become in such a short space of time and how people are taking what he says as gospel...lol

.

[Harte]

Yes, nobody is correct 100% of the time.

Well, almost nobody (ahem.)

Here's some carved diorite containers from around 3100 BC in Egypt:




Source (and there's more there) : Link.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Harte, on 29 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yes, nobody is correct 100% of the time.

Well, almost nobody (ahem.)

Here's some carved diorite containers from around 3100 BC in Egypt:




Source (and there's more there) : Link.

Harte

I'm glad you clarified that "correct 100% of the time" thing, Harte. I feared you were starting to slip.

But have those diorite vessels appeared on Ancient Aliens at all? That's where they need to be properly analyzed. The addled talking heads (von Däniken et al) would assure us aliens carved them, and we would be comforted. After all, ancient man simply couldn't have done the job, right?

[padiae]

Harte, on 07 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Chris White and Michael Heiser took a few moments to squash Giorgio & Co.  Actually, a pretty good thuumping of the Greek Melon (head.)

It's at this site.
It's a three hour vid if you watch the whole thing.  White has broken it into pieces concerning the various claims, and includes some text on each page with the shorter clips.

A sampling from the textual section concerning PumaPunku:


Believers have no choice but to concede or stamp their feet and cry 'No Fair!"

These are the various sections available for viewing individually:

Megalithic sites:
Intro, Puma Punku, The Pyramids, Baalbek, Incan sites, Easter Island.

Ancient artifacts:
Pacal’s rocket, The Nazca Lines, Tolima “fighter jets”, Egyptian “light bulb”, Ufo’s in ancient art, The crystal skulls

Ancient text issues:
Ezekiel’s Wheel, Ancient nuclear warfare, Vimana’s, Anunnaki, Nephilim, Misc. and conclusion

Harte

I'm not a believer but if this is debunking, then this is bad. To just refute something without a legitimate scientific study is not debunking. And saying things close to "My friend says he can cut a rock" isnt debunking.  There is just too much in those links that tells me that this isnt much towards debunking this.

In fact, if someone reads and watches these, they might think, "these aren't very good debunking points, so maybe there is something to the story."

Try using real science to debunk things instead of conjecture.

[JGirl]

Abramelin, on 24 November 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

And what were you smoking while you were posting?

oops sorry - he told me he'd go easy on it...

[JGirl]

i've watched ancient aliens a few times but only because the show was about a site that interested me or that i'd not heard of. i don't listen to the 'theories' presented. *ahem.
if i want further information about the site i hunt it down elsewhere

[LRW]

The television documentary "Ancient Aliens" telling lies is not anything surprising or ground breaking. They have an agenda to make people believe that extraterrestrials built the pyramids, of course they will not always tell the truth to further that agenda. Egyptologists do the same, they lie to further their agenda aswell, by saying that the pyramids were not constructed by highly advanced technology. Until they can replicate and duplicate the pyramids with primitive ramps and pulleys and copper chisels, then their so called evidence is primitive at best. Ancient Aliens bizarrely seems like a more probable theory than the vomit that egyptologists spew out with their dodgy inaccurate AD/BC chronology and twisted and corrupted bible material. They are no more credible than von Daniken or other people who promote wild assumptions.

[JGirl]

LRW, on 03 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

Until they can replicate and duplicate the pyramids with primitive ramps and pulleys and copper chisels, then their so called evidence is primitive at best. Ancient Aliens bizarrely seems like a more probable theory than the vomit that egyptologists spew out with their dodgy inaccurate AD/BC chronology and twisted and corrupted bible material. They are no more credible than von Daniken or other people who promote wild assumptions.

ok let me understand this -
because we cannot exactly duplicate the ramp and pully theory that means alien intervention is a more logical idea?
really??

[Harte]

Obviously.

I mean, anyone can duplicate the alien method.  All you have to do is get a crew of aliens from the millions that are sitting around my house watching "Ancient Aliens" and giggling, and ask them to whip up a pyramid this afternoon.

QED

Harte

[LRW]

JGirl, on 05 December 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

ok let me understand this -
because we cannot exactly duplicate the ramp and pully theory that means alien intervention is a more logical idea?
really??

Not exactly, however, other explanations are needed, one being was some secret ancient knowledge used and if so? where did the ancients acquire that knowledge? another possibility, was the "Great Pyramid" given as a gift by something not of the earth, the latter being a gift for ceremonial and ritual purposes. It most certainly was not a tomb.  

I believe those possibilities more than the idea that "Egyptologists" have put forth which of course they have never proven, because they have not been able to replicate the "Great Pyramid" with the methods they say it was built with. It would be simply impossible for them.

[JGirl]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Not exactly, however, other explanations are needed, one being was some secret ancient knowledge used and if so? where did the ancients acquire that knowledge? another possibility, was the "Great Pyramid" given as a gift by something not of the earth, the latter being a gift for ceremonial and ritual purposes. It most certainly was not a tomb.  

I believe those possibilities more than the idea that "Egyptologists" have put forth which of course they have never proven, because they have not been able to replicate the "Great Pyramid" with the methods they say it was built with. It would be simply impossible for them.

to be honest, i am still waiting for any inkling that it could have been extraterrestrial beings at all. just because we don't yet fully understand the construction does not mean it's something otherworldly.
it just means we haven't figured it out yet.
i wouldn't have issue with it if it was any evidence suggesting alien intervention - actually i would be quite fascinated! the issue i have is that there is no reason to entertain that idea.
other than the belief that we could not have done it ourselves (humans) what is it for you that points to extraterrestrials, other than the drawings that some claim are of alien beings?

[LRW]

JGirl, on 05 December 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

i wouldn't have issue with it if it was any evidence suggesting alien intervention - actually i would be quite fascinated! the issue i have is that there is no reason to entertain that idea.
other than the belief that we could not have done it ourselves (humans) what is it for you that points to extraterrestrials, other than the drawings that some claim are of alien beings?

I also would not have an issue with Egyptologists if they could prove their theories, but they can't. So, i look to other theories, i am also aware that ancients knew about the spirit world and put themselves in a trance to get there, in those trance states they will see things and learn things, they will feel empowered and create immense art. Those beings in the spirit world are probably from a different realm that has a different wavelength to the earth. Who knows what knowledge those beings possess?

Most people think of the AA theory as something like star trek, spaceships visiting etc, it does not have to be that, it can take other forms too. I like many different theories, i'm not limited to just the AA theory. However, i simply do not agree with Egyptologists cause i feel they are lieing, promoting false history with unproven theories etc.

Look at some paintings from shamans who connect with the spirit world.

Just because the human eye can not see things, it does not mean those things are not there. Bats do not have human eyes, they see the world differently to humans, cats have different eyes to humans, who knows what they see? who was it who worshipped cats? where were cats worshipped and glorified and adorned as divinity?

  

Wonder why they worshipped cats? ever hear of the witch with the cat who sees into the spirit world? There are many theories, to limit yourself to Egyptology is boring and not colourful, its bland, dry and boring, therefore its not vibrant.  

[JGirl]

LRW, on 05 December 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

I also would not have an issue with Egyptologists if they could prove their theories, but they can't. So, i look to other theories, i am also aware that ancients knew about the spirit world and put themselves in a trance to get there, in those trance states they will see things and learn things, they will feel empowered and create immense art. Those beings in the spirit world are probably from a different realm that has a different wavelength to the earth. Who knows what knowledge those beings possess?

Most people think of the AA theory as something like star trek, spaceships visiting etc, it does not have to be that, it can take other forms too. I like many different theories, i'm not limited to just the AA theory. However, i simply do not agree with Egyptologists cause i feel they are lieing, promoting false history with unproven theories etc.

Look at some paintings from shamans who connect with the spirit world.

Just because the human eye can not see things, it does not mean those things are not there. Bats do not have human eyes, they see the world differently to humans, cats have different eyes to humans, who knows what they see? who was it who worshipped cats? where were cats worshipped and glorified and adorned as divinity?

  

Wonder why they worshipped cats? ever hear of the witch with the cat who sees into the spirit world? There are many theories, to limit yourself to Egyptology is boring and not colourful, its bland, dry and boring, therefore its not vibrant.  

yes i do understand what you're getting at, and some of it i agree with. my objection to the whole ancient aliens thing is that we didn't confirm aliens yet. how can we base other theories on them?

[JedI734]

I enjoy AA at times for pure entertainment. I think alot of people get their panties in a twist over what these guys put forth but their delivery alone should  put their material in the category of comical ratings snatchers. The truth is we cant confirm nor deny the existence of any life outside our own little planet here. Ill check the video out later.