[zoser]

zoser, on 01 September 2009 - 08:44 AM, said:

An ancient site next to Tiahuanaco in Bolivia.

A short 7 min video that focusses on the engineering enigmas.

Sensible comments please - no theories about copper hammers, pounding, blocks and tackles, and 2 mile long ramps.


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Just Realised that this topic has been raised in the Alien Astronaut thread - I did'nt mean to repeat a thread - honest!

Diorite and Granite - why these two specific types of stone? Why not use a softer more easily workable material?

This post has been edited by zoser: 01 September 2009 - 08:49 AM

[Abramelin]

And what was wrong with this recent thread with the same name??

http://www.unexplain...1&#entry3058455

[Abramelin]

Quote

zoser, in a new thread with the same name]

An ancient site next to Tiahuanaco in Bolivia.

A short 7 min video that focusses on the engineering enigmas.

Sensible comments please - no theories about copper hammers, pounding, blocks and tackles, and 2 mile long ramps.


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Say Zoser, are the comments in this thread not 'sensible' enough for you?

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 01 September 2009 - 02:53 PM, said:

And what was wrong with this recent thread with the same name??

http://www.unexplain...1&#entry3058455

I guess the truly great mysteries just will not go away

Anyway, here is an interesting point that I believe up until now has been missed:

Stonehenge - Sarsen and Bluestone
The Great Pyramid - Limestone and Granite
Puma Punku - Diorite and Granite

There could be something in this. I am thinking along the lines of positive/negative, or northpole/south pole. I recall touching the stones at Stonehenge and one felt warm, the other cold to the touch.

Is the fact of the two stones coincidence, or purposeful?

If the ancients went to the enormous trouble to construct these sites, it is sensible to me to conjucture that they must have derived some kind of functional purpose from them. I mean other than simply the usual banal explanations such as ritual practise, defense or homage.

What if the interaction between the two types of stone produced some kind of energy?

This is where we need experts on the properties of stones.

This post has been edited by zoser: 01 September 2009 - 02:10 PM

[Mattshark]

zoser, on 01 September 2009 - 03:08 PM, said:

I guess the truly great mysteries just will not go away

Anyway, here is an interesting point that I believe up until now has been missed:

Stonehenge - Sarsen and Bluestone
The Great Pyramid - Limestone and Granite
Puma Punku - Diorite and Granite

There could be something in this. I am thinking along the lines of positive/negative, or northpole/south pole. I recall touching the stones at Stonehenge and one felt warm, the other cold to the touch.

Is the fact of the two stones coincidence, or purposeful?

If the ancients went to the enormous trouble to construct these sites, it is sensible to me to conjucture that they must have derived some kind of functional purpose from them. I mean other than simply the usual banal explanations such as ritual practise, defense or homage.

What if the interaction between the two types of stone produced some kind of energy?

This is where we need experts on the properties of stones.

To produce energy they would need to have an exothermic reaction, this doesn't happen. Basic chemistry. However, granite can commonly contain uranium and is commonly radioactive.

Was one side of the stones in direct sunlight by any chance? There is nothing magical about them.

Granite is a attractive rock, it looks nice and it shines.

Why do you think the banal explanations have to be dismissed?

Also those 3 monuments where all built at completely different times 3100 BCE for stonehenge (though finish was over 1000 years later), 2650BCE for Giza and 300CE for Puma Punku

[zoser]

The dates are not important really to my conjecture (and I firmly dispute them anyway).

The Sarsen and Bluestone at Stonehenge are displayed at the entrance to the site, and visitors are encouraged to touch them to feel the effect - it is very noticeable.

Your comment about the uranium in granite interests me though.

My main point also is this:

Is it feasible that the ancients had the time and resources to produce 'luxury architecture'?

I know that we do today. We produce 'folly architecture' and modern art as two examples. A lot of our architecture indicates an exhuberent culture where art and architecture sometimes merge. Is this likely that our ancients built things out of these sentiments, or is it more likely that to them architecture was far more practical and purposeful?

I tend toward the latter, but I will leave you to form your own judgements.

This post has been edited by zoser: 01 September 2009 - 02:59 PM

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 01 September 2009 - 03:01 PM, said:

Say Zoser, are the comments in this thread not 'sensible' enough for you?

Apologies for creating another thread - I will search the DB in future

[Lilly]

Topics merged

[mcrom901]

zoser, on 01 September 2009 - 03:59 PM, said:

I tend toward the latter, but I will leave you to form your own judgements.

thanks zoser for your kind words in the other thread.... much appreciated...

puma punku is indeed something outside the realm of our 'traditional' understanding

though all the anomalies are mind boggling... i find these artifacts... 'cant think of an adjective'





how did they achieve that????

havent checked the video links in this thread....

but here is another link.... http://www.youtube.c...h?v=sy59Dk6hxPU skip to 6:39

cherio

This post has been edited by mcrom901: 01 September 2009 - 04:04 PM

[devilmaycare]

There will be no thruths for the masses. Anything 'discovered' will never contain truths of any value because anything of value is always withheld. From CNN to NASA, you can't trust anything they say at all that you couldn't deduce from simple facts that you or your neighbor is aware of.

[Mattshark]

devilmaycare, on 02 September 2009 - 02:13 AM, said:

There will be no thruths for the masses. Anything 'discovered' will never contain truths of any value because anything of value is always withheld. From CNN to NASA, you can't trust anything they say at all that you couldn't deduce from simple facts that you or your neighbor is aware of.

So how many scientific papers have you read?

[TheSearcher]

zoser, on 01 September 2009 - 04:59 PM, said:

The dates are not important really to my conjecture (and I firmly dispute them anyway).

The Sarsen and Bluestone at Stonehenge are displayed at the entrance to the site, and visitors are encouraged to touch them to feel the effect - it is very noticeable.

Your comment about the uranium in granite interests me though.

My main point also is this:

Is it feasible that the ancients had the time and resources to produce 'luxury architecture'?

I know that we do today. We produce 'folly architecture' and modern art as two examples. A lot of our architecture indicates an exhuberent culture where art and architecture sometimes merge. Is this likely that our ancients built things out of these sentiments, or is it more likely that to them architecture was far more practical and purposeful?

I tend toward the latter, but I will leave you to form your own judgements.

I think that the ancients had the time and resources to create what you call luxury architecture, but the notion itself is a product of our time. Look at the ancient constructions and you'll notice a merger of art, functionality and architecture. They might not have build out of the same sentiment as us, but the overall effect is the same. They are a product of different times and a different frame of reference as opposed to us.
Things we find, as you call it, architectural luxury, would have been something totally different to them. That's how I see it anyway. You can't compare the notions of our time with the notions of ancient times, as we and our way of thinking are a product of our respective times.

This post has been edited by TheSearcher: 02 September 2009 - 08:56 AM

[KennyB]

Zoser, The aliens that built all the megalithic structures did not see fit to inform their slaves (us) as to their motives. If you were hooking a horse to a wagon, would you explain to him why? They had powers we still don't understand. For one, they could cut, work and lift stones as if they were styrafoam. They didn't leave any information on how and why they did this. KennyB

[Abramelin]

KennyB, on 03 September 2009 - 11:24 PM, said:

Zoser, The aliens that built all the megalithic structures did not see fit to inform their slaves (us) as to their motives. If you were hooking a horse to a wagon, would you explain to him why? They had powers we still don't understand. For one, they could cut, work and lift stones as if they were styrafoam. They didn't leave any information on how and why they did this. KennyB

Why would these superior aliens need slaves?

[TheSearcher]

Abramelin, on 04 September 2009 - 11:23 AM, said:

Why would these superior aliens need slaves?

Because Sitchin said so?