Well no worries, thank you for this reply. Please forgive if my tone sounds terse, when I try to explain things in detail I come across that way sometimes. Do not take any remark in this post as personal. I think it I make it quite obvious when someone does irk me
Coulda shoulda what exactly? Diamonds are the hardest substance know to man. As I pointed out to Zoser, a phosphor bronze blade is used to cut diamond today. How does bronze, a copper alloy, cut diamond which is much harder the red sandstone, the primary content of Puma Punku?
You said common sense insisted man was given this knowledge. That is not even a coulda shoulda. That is simply not the case as I pointed out, common sense indicates necessity is the mother of invention. There is no reason whatsoever to claim that man had help. there is no need to invoke such, nor any evidence. There are some wild unsupported theories which are largely based on outright lies pertaining to the type of material, the actual construction sizes and the dates. And we know those three items in particular are definitely lied about when the AA people talk about them. How does one base common sense on known lies?
Common sense says that if Bronze can cut Diamond, then copper can cut sandstone wouldn't you say? Leading edge and abrasion are terms you need to become familiar with here to better understand the process.
Ed Leedskin. A housing to protect the pulley from the elements. I really, really hope you are not suggesting it is an anti gravity box or some such nonsense. The tripods were not very portable as you can see. A good nights rain could sieze up the system. Just a preventative maintenance measure. The pulley Ed used were electric and powered by his own hand built generator. The man was a master tradesman, not an Alien counterpart.
See the cables leading to his motor?
and the generator he built to power them
I'd like to look into the claim a bit deeper, I have herd that he made his own motor windings as well, and used stainless as opposed to copper. Be interesting to see how the resistances tolerated.
They did not use tripods on the Pyramids like that LOL, that is a funny suggestion. Nearly as funny as the Mammoths in the movie 10,000BC. Ramps and logs, leverage and labour, ropes and pulleys. But that is going off topic, and should be in the Ancients section. And I am sure that kmt_sesh could clear this up much better than I can. Note I said can, not could.
Again I draw you to a modern comparison. If it is impossible to move such things I can show you if you ever visit Downunder one of these going in - timing permitting.
Have a look at that bottom rail. One piece. These things weigh in the order of tonnes. I know a guy who had one fall on his leg one time. Snapped it like a matchstick. Yet we manage to get these behemoths into rooms they barely fit into, once the ceiling and room is complete with only man power, no machines.
How do we do it? No machines mind you. Just manpower. Are electricians aliens?
You have seen the tools used, the were bows and copper. Things that rot away in no time. Yet the same methods are still deployed today to create the same effects and using the same flimsy tools. Why would you expect a bow to last 1,800 years? Thats a bit unreasonable isn't it? I am not sure how that is not documented evidence, and much, much more qualifies than any alien theory. We still do it, so why do we need aliens? Because the finishes are nicely rounded after the last 1800 years or so? Heck, water in the environment does that. Look at the Grand Canyon. It's called weathering, but not enough to remove the telltale grooves left inside the holes that match the examples of today nicely.
I do not see any argument from you at all to be frank. Nothing, just objections to the methods shown to you that are used to accomplish the same structures and effects today. You have not qualified a single objection, you have just made them. If the above holds no answers for you, I have to consider that you do not want answers, as I would like you to point out how and why they would be inadequate, if you still hold that opinion. You have not cited any specific information offered in my post, but just offer a general objection. If you can narrow down any objections, perhaps we can address each one at a time. I am sure I have given you plenty to work with?
I cannot prove you wrong sir, and you cannot prove yourself right either, insofar as proving that this planet has never been visited by ET or that they have interacted with humans.
That is my only point here--that the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests visitation and interaction, probably even interbreeding.
Some of what I call circumstantial evidence may actually be direct evidence, and maybe that is the theme of the AA theory. I don't know.