Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 7 votes

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10148 replies to this topic

#7456    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:19 PM

View Postzoser, on 23 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

Ahh how often have we heard this..

then he comes back with a link to a guy who apparently is a expert and has done good research..

rolls eyes

View Postzoser, on 23 February 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Proof is something that has been in pitiful supply from the skeptics end.

I haven't seen any :blush:


Yes you have but you kind of just ignore it..

View Postbee, on 23 February 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

oh...ok



re italic above...


people like to believe in things...OR explore ideas about 'things'.....including AA theories...and related subjects.

humans are a curious and creative lot....

some people like to only believe what orthodox scientists/historians tell them...


there is a difference in exploring idea's and those who basically have read a book.. website.. or watched a show and say 'its the truth' without actually looking into it themselves.. then try to convince others that 'its the truth you must believe'

kinda like the religious door knockers in a way..

Yes.. Humans are a curious and creative lot.. look at what they have built over the years for us today to look at and go wow.. not for us to say 'oh they couldnt have built that it must be aliens' ..

mainly us skeptics believe in the orthodox scientists because we have looked at what they say.. and what the other says.. and joined the dots so to speak.. afterall this is something they have trained.. and studied to do..

they are not armchair Chronologists.. Archeologists.. Cultural Experts.. so on and so forth that the AA crowd.. ie Dunn.. Danikin and that ilk are..

On the whole Hutchinson effect.. I'll leave that alone.. I know seeder etc loves this kind of thing..


#7457    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,414 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008

Posted 24 February 2013 - 12:21 AM

View PostDingoLingo, on 23 February 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

On the whole Hutchinson effect.. I'll leave that alone.. I know seeder etc loves this kind of thing..

The Hutchison effect is pure bunk front to back. I usually steer clear of it as well as there is no amount of logic that can breach the mindset of a believer. They will dismiss logic and evidence (or lack thereof) and plead excuses and cover ups....you know, the usual.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#7458    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,646 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:30 AM

View Postseeder, on 23 February 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Well then the question begs, what do you believe in? A list if you will pls?

Mistake.

To save time, you should have asked what she didn't believe in.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#7459    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,646 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:41 AM

View Postseeder, on 23 February 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

WHOOPS?

Didn't check his sources YET again

Here's a lie from his source:

Quote

Elsewhere in the Roman empire, just a little over 300 metric tons seemed to be the limit for the transport of big blocks, achievable only with the greatest difficulty. Transport of the 323 ton Laterano obelisk to Rome spanned the reigns of three emperors. Clearly, the record setting engineers from Baalbek, had they existed, could have also managed the task of transporting the relatively light Lateran Obelisk.
The fact that they were nowhere to be found, no matter, how crucial the task, indicates that they simply did not exist.

See, similarly sized stones were used in similar retaining walls built by Herod just down the road in Jerusalem, around the same time Romans were erecting Baalbek.  Somehow I doubt that he had help from Jesus to levitate them.

The above lie illustrates the utter cynicism of the author at that site regarding the intelligence of his readership.  I.e., comparing transporting obelisks overland, across the sea and uphill to sliding some admittedly large stones downhill a mile or two is a bit much.



Bee,

I'd stay away from the white powder gold scam.

Quote

2j. Drug references: Do not post content describing or advocating personal drug use. This includes vitamin mega dosing, human growth hormones, prescription drug abuse, white powder of gold, psychic experience inducing drugs or any other illegal or mind-altering substances.

from the Rules.

Harte

Edited by Harte, 24 February 2013 - 02:49 AM.

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#7460    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,074 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 24 February 2013 - 04:14 AM

View Postzoser, on 23 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

This guy's research however looks much more detailed than any other I have read and as I deduced fairly quickly the Trilithon's pre-date the Romans.

They were just not capable of that type of construction and it was not even their style.

Give this a read and let me know what you think:

http://vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

A few snippits:


It then follows that by the apparent rate of aging, the heavily eroded blocks should be at least several millenia older than the newer blocks. Ergo, the older part of the wall cannot be Roman.


Orthodox scholars of today scoff at all suggestions that Romans had not brought the great blocks to the temple site, despite the fact that building with megalithic blocks was not at all in the Roman style, and was no longer practised in those days.Romans knew and used concrete. The Colosseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.

The sad truth is that regarding the Trilithon, some scholars have mental blocks its own size. Admissions that blocks weighing over a 1000 metric tons were quarried and transported in prehistoric times would invite uncomfortable questions on what technology had made it all possible. Regardless of such touchy issues,  I have several personal observations, which support dating of Baalbek's megalithic walls to the megalithic era. Have a look at this nice northwestern view of the wall as it was circa 1870.

The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue really seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks (see below) when it is almost like new after having been recently sanded.  However, sanding did not get rid of the deep pits, signs of either considerable previous erosion, or the product of drilling, if not both.

This guy really has done his research.  He has examined the layers in detail, looked at the erosion, the construction method that was not typical Roman, and puts together a very strong case.

Again the material evidence points to unknown builders using unknown technology.

I have read it, and it didn't convince me.


#7461    Myles

Myles

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:31 AM

View Postzoser, on 22 February 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Precision fitting.  Not bettered since.  Notwithstanding modern machine tools.

Opinion will not do.  It's a fact
You have not been correct yet.


#7462    Zeta Reticulum

Zeta Reticulum

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Joined:15 Jun 2012

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:48 AM

View PostDingoLingo, on 23 February 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

then he comes back with a link to a guy who apparently is a expert and has done good research..

rolls eyes

..
Dingo by name dingo by nature

View PostMyles, on 24 February 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

You have not been correct yet.
And you think that you have ?


#7463    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:33 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 24 February 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

I have read it, and it didn't convince me.

Lots more where that came from.  

The Baalbek Trilithon's are a hotly disputed issue just like virtually everything else in archaeology beyond a certain time frame.


These cyclopean stones are certainly not Roman. The square cut Roman stones are heaped on top of them by the Arabs or Crusaders, whoever turned the ruins into a medieval fortress. Look at how small the two men are compared to the cyclopean stonework, let alone the megaliths upon which they are built.

The Funerary Temple of Kafre at Giza, 4th dynasty (about 2500 BC). Similar to the stonework seen above, noteworthy for economical cutting and fitting of imprecise angles in the blocks, unlike the precision seen in great megaliths here.

Left, the excavated walls of Kafre’s (Chefren) temple. It stands in the shadow of no less than the 2nd great pyramid at Giza, Egypt. Even this very ancient monumental wall seems later than the megaliths at Baalbek. They match some of the unascribed stones built thereon, however, possibly by later peoples or early Canaanites.

Their style is identical to the earliest cultures of monumental stone we know of like the Egyptian and the Pre-Incan Peru cultures, like those on Malta and, frankly, like those being encountered on the Bahamas Banks within the Triangle.

So it's no good at all claiming with any certainty that the Trilithon's are Roman.  The evidence suggest that again they belonged to an earlier culture and archaeology instead of addressing the problem just sweeps it under the rug and pretends it's Roman.

Despite the fact that it wasn't the Roman style doesn't seem to bother anyone.  Just a tiny trivial detail.

So where are we now?

Back to my assertion that the following precision was never replicated in classical architecture.  Why not?  The technology had long departed.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


#7464    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:56 AM

This may be of interest to people here.

It certainly is relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.facebook....&type=1

Take a look at the whole collection.

They make close comparisons between this stonework and Peru.

Also more evidence of ancient machining.

Edited by zoser, 24 February 2013 - 09:04 AM.

Posted Image


#7465    Esoteric Toad

Esoteric Toad

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2007

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:03 AM

View Postzoser, on 24 February 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Lots more where that came from.  

The Baalbek Trilithon's are a hotly disputed issue just like virtually everything else in archaeology beyond a certain time frame.


These cyclopean stones are certainly not Roman. The square cut Roman stones are heaped on top of them by the Arabs or Crusaders, whoever turned the ruins into a medieval fortress. Look at how small the two men are compared to the cyclopean stonework, let alone the megaliths upon which they are built.

The Funerary Temple of Kafre at Giza, 4th dynasty (about 2500 BC). Similar to the stonework seen above, noteworthy for economical cutting and fitting of imprecise angles in the blocks, unlike the precision seen in great megaliths here.

Left, the excavated walls of Kafre’s (Chefren) temple. It stands in the shadow of no less than the 2nd great pyramid at Giza, Egypt. Even this very ancient monumental wall seems later than the megaliths at Baalbek. They match some of the unascribed stones built thereon, however, possibly by later peoples or early Canaanites.

Their style is identical to the earliest cultures of monumental stone we know of like the Egyptian and the Pre-Incan Peru cultures, like those on Malta and, frankly, like those being encountered on the Bahamas Banks within the Triangle.

So it's no good at all claiming with any certainty that the Trilithon's are Roman.  The evidence suggest that again they belonged to an earlier culture and archaeology instead of addressing the problem just sweeps it under the rug and pretends it's Roman.

Despite the fact that it wasn't the Roman style doesn't seem to bother anyone.  Just a tiny trivial detail.

So where are we now?

Back to my assertion that the following precision was never replicated in classical architecture.  Why not?  The technology had long departed.

Posted Image

Posted Image
Is it possible that with the emergence of newer,  REAL technologies in Europe and the rest of the world it was no longer trendy nor intelligent to have overly complicated fortifications because weapons of war made stone walls a useless defense?

I am certain there were very stylish walls in Europe built to look at but made with more practical materials. Why build a bridge out of titanium when steel will do?


#7466    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:08 AM

View PostEsoteric Toad, on 24 February 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Is it possible that with the emergence of newer,  REAL technologies in Europe and the rest of the world it was no longer trendy nor intelligent to have overly complicated fortifications because weapons of war made stone walls a useless defense?

I am certain there were very stylish walls in Europe built to look at but made with more practical materials. Why build a bridge out of titanium when steel will do?

If people were able to replicate that they would.  Think about the religious ferver that builds Cathedrals for example and how long they took.

If the Pope could have had his churches built as precise as the Peruvian walls and out of granite he would have.  

They last longer.

Edited by zoser, 24 February 2013 - 09:09 AM.

Posted Image


#7467    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,524 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:21 AM

Sorry, you really think that a bodged wall is more impressive than any cathedral that you care to name? If that really is the case, I really can only conclude, having tried very hard to be as fair as I possibly can, that you just don't actually mean seriously what you say, or that you really are completely deluded. I'm really sorry about this, I have tried to be fair, but your arguments are just... silly.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#7468    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:24 AM

View PostZeta Reticulum, on 24 February 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Dingo by name dingo by nature

And you think that you have ?

LoL ZR.. that actually made me chuckle ..


#7469    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:28 AM

View Postzoser, on 24 February 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

This may be of interest to people here.

It certainly is relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.facebook....&type=1

Take a look at the whole collection.

They make close comparisons between this stonework and Peru.

Also more evidence of ancient machining.

did .. done.. and I do not see the evidence of ancient machining.. I see the evidence of ancient stone working techniques..


#7470    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009

Posted 24 February 2013 - 10:10 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 24 February 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Sorry, you really think that a bodged wall is more impressive than any cathedral that you care to name? If that really is the case, I really can only conclude, having tried very hard to be as fair as I possibly can, that you just don't actually mean seriously what you say, or that you really are completely deluded. I'm really sorry about this, I have tried to be fair, but your arguments are just... silly.

Doesn't looked bodged to me.  It looks and is extremely precise.

The problem you are having as I see it is that you have been educated to appreciate modern styles or styles over the last thousand years (namely Renaissence building and art).

What you are looking at with the polygonal wall is from another time and if the AA proponents are correct then nothing to do with the imagination of mankind.

That's why you cannot appreciate it.  The Peruvian consructions probably had no artistic value or purpose whatsoever.  The cathedrals obviously did.

The precision is still undeniable regardless.  



Posted Image