10148 replies to this topic

[Slave2Fate]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

When they find the plant they then have to explain the quantities needed.

You have no idea of the quantity necessary but I have to say that an appeal to one's own (presumed) authority is a new one for me.

[Esoteric Toad]

I cannot understand the whole concept of advance beings traversing huge amounts of space and/or time to help mankind build stone structures they, the native people, could already build? What unexplained leaps in human learning and technology did these ancient (and apparently bored stiff) aliens teach the capable humans? Where is the real evidence beyond the stone blocks and truly stunning leaps of logic regarding written descriptions of their gods or the art created by the humans during those times? Surely there must be something the aliens left behind that would be clear to even the most closed minded skeptics?

I think this ancient alien thing is nothing more than a trolls wet dream or a strange new religion based on "toss what we do know and make up the rest and if we cannot understand it then it must be ANCIENT ALIENS - sort of like the oxymoron "intelligent design" or "creation science". Just my 2¢

[Abramelin]

bmk1245, on 04 January 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

Besides leaves of the plants, have you considered Oxalis tuberosa, which was domesticated in the area? (sorry, if that was brought earlier... with such pace its hard to follow).

Does it fit the description? I don't think so. No red fleshy/spongy leaves.

But what the hell is that... fleshy, spongy? Today I touched the leaves of a Caladium, one that looked so red it hurted my eyes. The leaves of this one had sort of 'bubbles', but 'fleshy' or 'spongy'?

[Abramelin]

the L, on 04 January 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

When we found plant and do experiment where we can see that soften those stones I will believe in it. I think its some kind of allegory. Its hard to me to believe that such plant exist.

Actually, there ARE plants that dissolve stone. You should click the links to the papers I posted.

Lichen dissolves granite. It has no roots with which it can penetrate into cracks in rock.

It uses chemicals to dissolve the rock.

But the same chemicals are present in larger quantities in real plants/herbs.

But even if it IS the Caladium, as I think it could be, then still we need to find out how the Incas or their predecessors concocted the brewage.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Again on the same documentary the concept is demonstrated using some clay like material.



The following imprint is formed.



The same effect is seen in stone everywhere:

Still nothing that points to extreme heat being used.

You keep on posting photos, I will keep on posting research that prove it may have been caused by chemicals.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

A big fire enough to soften andesite?  Really?  What sort of fire would soften these?



The flower display; that's Abe's conversation not mine.

It is not a FLOWER display.

But at least the plants I posted about are able to dissolve rock.

You still have not shown a process using extreme heat to soften rock AND handle them.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

Well nice try.

I'm claiming this one.  It's taken a long time, but the evidence is now totally insurmountable and all I see is pretty flowers and people fumbling desperately trying to dig up enough sand to bury the evidence.

Good luck.  This nut is cracked.  

The top of the dismantled stones was the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle which validates everything that I have claimed; that the blocks sunk into each other while the stone was in a heated soft state.  The vitrification is again proof of heat, and chemical treatment alone has never been proved to vitrify stone.  Heat is easily provable to cause this effect.

The evidence is on the Gamarra documentary and cannot be refuted.

Good luck with your frantic digging and don't forget to smell the flowers on the way.

The vitrification is NOT proof of heat at all.

Gamarra is a fantast, that much I gathered.

Google 'chelation', oxalic acid, oxalates.

You won't hear that from his mouth because he has no fkg clue what it means.


People fumbling? And what do you do, apart from posting videos?

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

Not convincing. Try putting a 100 tonne block in an oven.

No evidence that they had chemicals to soften rock never mind penetrate that depth in the rock.

Jan Peter de Jong and Chris Jordon's findings on the subject:

http://www.scubbly.com/item/51578/

The evidence that they did have those chemicals is growing.

And continuing reposting the same link is not very convincing.

Moving a 100 tonne block? For that they used thousands of men. Just like Garcilaso de la Vega said.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 January 2013 - 05:44 AM.

[Abramelin]

Oniomancer, on 04 January 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I refer you again to Nova, where J P Protzen replicates just this type of joint. From 2:00:

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

That's another great find, Oniomancer!

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Playing devil's advocate and looking to see how it could not have been heat,  I came across this:

The same effect again.  Handling marks, or mistakes show up all the time; whatever they were they are undeniably deep mould marks.  Not chemically formed.  Again as if something dug in to the clay like blocks.  Just like as if someone put their foot into it and left a footprint.  The evidence is everywhere.  



The following image really proves the point.  Another example of dismantled blocks showing the sinking in effect.  Too deep for chemicals to penetrate.  The whole block was soft and it just sank in too much.  

Would you put your foot into molten rock??

And what do you know about possible chemicals used?

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

Someone with a bit of sense.  When they find the plant they then have to explain the quantities needed.

This one is over!

The plant has been found, but it's still not clear which plant it is because the guy who claimed to know is dead now (he said he forgot the name of the plant).

It's a common plant, not some rare orchid or something.

You can buy it in any florist shop, so maybe it is in your very own house.

And then there are the people who did experiments (you know, the experiments you keep ignoring?) using herbal juices to dissolve rock.

[seeder]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

That's another great find, Oniomancer!

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

agreed, very good find Oniomancer! Very interesting to watch even just the first 4 mins! Cheers

[seeder]

Oniomancer, on 04 January 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I refer you again to Nova, where J P Protzen replicates just this type of joint. From 2:00:

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

This is such a GOOD find I'm searching the other parts out as I type! Here we have a visual reference, with a half dozen men or so, fitting rocks with tight joints, using no tools etc, just what the original builders had.

Not that I doubted these were man made, but we can now 'see' for ourselves... in the video towards the end we even see why some rocks had the impressions in them. Using a scribe it shows how to trace already laid stones onto an uncut stone to get the required shapes.   This has provided me with an answer that works, and no doubt about it!!

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

zoser, on 04 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Playing devil's advocate and looking to see how it could not have been heat,  I came across this:

The same effect again.  Handling marks, or mistakes show up all the time; whatever they were they are undeniably deep mould marks.  Not chemically formed.  Again as if something dug in to the clay like blocks.  Just like as if someone put their foot into it and left a footprint.  The evidence is everywhere.  



The following image really proves the point.  Another example of dismantled blocks showing the sinking in effect.  Too deep for chemicals to penetrate.  The whole block was soft and it just sank in too much.  

If it was ETs* that constructed these constructions, why would they make mistakes like forgetting not to step in it while it's still sof? Or was that theur human slaves that did that? So did the ETs just do the clever stuff, and leave the humans to do all the donkey work lifting and Carrying?

* or Alienz

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

It is not a FLOWER display.

But at least the plants I posted about are able to dissolve rock.

You still have not shown a process using extreme heat to soften rock AND handle them.

Fantasy Abe I'm afraid.  If we are seeing evidence of thin surface melting only in the pictures you may have a case.  These prints and mould marks are deep.  Chemical melting wouldn't penetrate that deep for a start unless the blocks had been dipped in a bath and soaked for weeks.  Not very practical is it?

Have you also checked whether anything potent enough to melt stone would not eat it away in the process?

Then there is the vitrification that chemical treatment cannot explain.

All the evidence now ties up.  

Quoth Mr O

"Proof of method trumps conjecture every time" and to that remark I can only agree.

To cheer you up here is a nice little song:

Edited by zoser, 05 January 2013 - 08:36 AM.