10148 replies to this topic

[synchronomy]

Questfortruth, on 02 December 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

The evidence need not be physical, as the skeptic with ones head buried in the sand will force their mind to see and believe whatever they want it to, it is one of the greatest weaknesses of mankind.

The evidence surrounding the ancient astronaut theory is very simple and inarguable. Most believers make the mistake of making the arguement too complicated and fantastic, much like religion.

When in reality to simplistic evidence is all that is needed to assure the BASIC accuracy of the theory; Every single civilization since the beginning of time has documentation of humaniod beings coming from the skies and meddling in the affairs of man, posing as Gods. Their fantastic abilities easily explained by todays technology and that which is imminent in the future.

When one hears of a God described as a bronze bird spitting fire that blocked out the sun and shook the ground, not making the connection can only be explained by denial, and fear. The so called "theory" is so simple compared to every other explaination that has been offered to us, our minds have simply been trained since birth to reject such things.

To delve deeper, I challenge anyone on this earth to explain how we evolved into intelligent creatures overnight in terms of evolution. Where as every other thing takes hundreds of millions of years to make the slightest change our evolution occured at a literal magical rate.

Thanks for explaining.
I always wondered how religion was able to convince the masses for centuries that the Earth was the center of the Universe.
BTW, although you might find it difficult to accept, there's a world of wonder and reality awaiting you if you dare to set foot in the non-fiction section of your local library.

[Babe Ruth]

Slave2Fate, on 01 December 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

You're making the same mistake as all of the other AA proponents. You are assuming that primitive equals stupid. Hardly the case as the Natives at Pumu Punku had the same cognitive abilities as you or I. We only have the advantage of having access to more knowledge. They could solve problems as well (or better) than their modern day counterparts...us.

Perhaps you are making the same mistake as other self-described skeptics.  It is not a matter of intelligence.

It is a matter of tools.  And knowledge, which is not the same as intelligence.

[zoser]

bmk1245, on 02 December 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Hogwash.
Three men (two pushing/pulling bow at the rate of 120 revolutions/min, and one holding 2.5 kg capstone)


(Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Denys A. Stocks, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004, page 132)

in 20 hours drilled 6 cm deep hole in red granite using copper tube 8 cm in diameter, and 1 mm thick walls (it is argued, that more experienced workers could drill that hole in 10 hours)


(Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Denys A. Stocks, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004, page 133)

And similar "grooves", or striations,  you mentioned, were seen on the hole wall (as well on the column wall) after drilling.


Hmmm... As far as I know, Incas knew fire.

The hole is a mess!  Just like people here have been saying!  Proves the point very well.

[BorisIWantToKnow]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

The problem is assuming the Biblical stories are correct.

I suggest to the O.P to go get some Burn Aid cus' that was fiery hot

[bmk1245]

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

The hole is a mess!  Just like people here have been saying!  Proves the point very well.

What point? Where do you see mess? Nicely cut hole, thats it.
Ah... I see... Shadows on irregular  surface make your decision "mess". Isn't it?

[Tesla II]

This is alien to us how they did it ! But were they alien or alien? Word alien doesn't nessearly mean little green men.

[zoser]

bmk1245, on 02 December 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

What point? Where do you see mess? Nicely cut hole, thats it.
Ah... I see... Shadows on irregular  surface make your decision "mess". Isn't it?

Let me clarify Mr B.  No amount of pictures showing arabs brandishing 6 foot poles is going to do it.  I can tell that hole in your picture isn't the same thing as shown in the Egyptian and Mayan photos.  I wouldn't expect it to be.

For a start how is he going to be able hold the pole steady?

The nail in the coffin for your theory lies in the evidence that the cutting marks in the ancient holes are one directional.

That's it.  It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).

Your theory may be excellent to demonstrate how arabs produce an oval or irregular hole after hours of painstaking work.  However it's not how the ancients did it.  

Just one more thing you may wish to research; did the ancients have 6 foot long tubular copper pipes to play around with?

Edited by zoser, 02 December 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[zoser]

Nuke_em, on 02 December 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

This is alien to us how they did it ! But were they alien or alien? Word alien doesn't nessearly mean little green men.

I agree.  I don't think our extra terrestrial ancestors were little green men either.  In fact they were quite humanoid in appearance by all accounts.

Edited by zoser, 02 December 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[bmk1245]

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Let me clarify Mr B.  No amount of pictures showing arabs brandishing 6 foot poles is going to do it.  I can tell that hole in your picture isn't the same thing as shown in the Egyptian and Mayan photos.  I wouldn't expect it to be.

For a start how is he going to be able hold the pole steady?

The nail in the coffin for your theory lies in the evidence that the cutting marks in the ancient holes are one directional.

That's it.  It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).

Your theory may be excellent to demonstrate how arabs produce an oval or irregular hole after hours of painstaking work.  However it's not how the ancients did it.  

Just one more thing you may wish to research; did the ancients have 6 foot long tubular copper pipes to play around with?

Boy, you're top banana...
Ancients could have pipes as long as they could wish, and in drilling process they could exchange pipes on their experience.

[bmk1245]

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Let me clarify Mr B.  No amount of pictures showing arabs brandishing 6 foot poles is going to do it.  I can tell that hole in your picture isn't the same thing as shown in the Egyptian and Mayan photos.  I wouldn't expect it to be[...]

But you swallow any crap from AA without any doubt.

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

[...]
[...]For a start how is he going to be able hold the pole steady?

The nail in the coffin for your theory lies in the evidence that the cutting marks in the ancient holes are one directional.

That's it.  It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).
[,,,]
[...]

At some extent pole could be held steadily.Whats your point? And who said one directional? Dunn? Can he produce prints of the one-directonal cutting marks?

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

[...]That's it.  It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).
[...]

On the contrary, It doesn't.

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

[...]
Your theory may be excellent to demonstrate how arabs produce an oval or irregular hole after hours of painstaking work.  [...]

What do you see when looking at circle in slant angle?

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

[...]
did the ancients have 6 foot long tubular copper pipes to play around with?

Thats the question. I don't know, and I'm sure no one else know. Nevertheless experiments were performed, which show earthly origin.

[zoser]

bmk1245, on 02 December 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Boy, you're top banana...
Ancients could have pipes as long as they could wish, and in drilling process they could exchange pipes on their experience.

Really?  How do you suppose they fabricated circular long pipes?  Just run them through the extrusion die?

If the pipes were not perfectly circular then neither would the holes in the granite.  Think about it.

[Oniomancer]

bmk1245, on 02 December 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

At some extent pole could be held steadily.Whats your point? And who said one directional? Dunn? Can he produce prints of the one-directonal cutting marks?

He actually got access to the core and checked it using the high-tech method of wrapping a string around the groove. He was personally called on the accuracy of this over on graham hancock's forum. Even so, this doesn't eliminate the possibility that the marks were made in the process of removing the core or a jammed tool. To my knowledge, no other extant cores have been examined for, and thus shown to have, similar marks.

[Gaden]

zoser, on 02 December 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Really?  How do you suppose they fabricated circular long pipes?  Just run them through the extrusion die?

If the pipes were not perfectly circular then neither would the holes in the granite.  Think about it.

Talk about being close minded, geesh. Tool wander only occurs at the surface, once a hole is started the hole itself serves as a guide.
You don't need a six foot tube to cut a six foot hole, you could do it with a one inch tube if you wanted to, you would just have to break off the core more often.
That last part is so funny, it bears repeating; "If the pipes were not perfectly circular then neither would the holes in the granite.  Think about it." That's hilarious. By your way of thinking, a squre tube would cut a square hole. Think about it, and use your head, the tube could be eliptical and still cut a round hole, the part that changes is efficiency.

Edited by Gaden, 02 December 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[Paxus]

bmk1245, on 02 December 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

What point? Where do you see mess? Nicely cut hole, thats it.
Ah... I see... Shadows on irregular  surface make your decision "mess". Isn't it?

Hey bmk!
I think what zoser was talking about is that the resultant hole is very wide, irregular and rough. He's right there. It is very crude and rough when compared to the wonderous examples AA theorists usually talk about. You know the ones, I'm sure you've seen them, they look like they have 0.001mm flaws!

I'm not saying that this means it was ET, but when Zoser said that hole was a mess, he was spot on.

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 02 December 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

this doesn't eliminate the possibility that the marks were made in the process of removing the core or a jammed tool. To my knowledge, no other extant cores have been examined for, and thus shown to have, similar marks.

Can you explain how that works exactly please?