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This topic has been archived.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

#4456    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

View Postseeder, on 10 January 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

so you cant be bothered to watch it then?

I have.   Nothing in it refers to the evidence.  It's just a few guys doing exactly what you guys here do.  Deny everything.

Posted Image


#4457    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 14,120 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

View Postzoser, on 10 January 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

It was the only way some could save face I think.

Be back later.  Hopefully by then some will have done some serious research instead of posting fairytale nonsense.



ha...he says! Like aliens building stone walls is a serious subject?  As said before, and before you avoid it, if Aliens were involved, why was the site abandoned before it was finished?

Answer the question.....you may have to do a little research though. And how was the Parthenon built,? 1000 years before PP, which by the way, compared to the Parthenon... PP is like childs play...

It wasn’t the miners who got rich; it was the people selling picks and shovels. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

"The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it"

#4458    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 14,120 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

View Postzoser, on 10 January 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Here is the kind of thing you guys ought to be looking into.

Posted Image



How many of you noticed the very slight step top left?

Notice also the overall bevel effect at the borders.  The stones look flat in the middle but there is a definite curving at the borders.

As if someone ran along the borders with a tool to create the effect.  Yet this is hard stone not clay.  It looks like more evidence of moulding.

If it was not done like this then you have to assume that they were cut this way.  That's unlikely since it would have been far easier to cut the blocks flat and still have the polygonal shapes.  Maybe they wanted to emphasise the polygonal work by doing this?

Zoomed in slightly:



Instead of shouting 'no aliens' it would be great for a change to hear some of you guys give realistic explanations.

this was covered in the video clip...

It wasn’t the miners who got rich; it was the people selling picks and shovels. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

"The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it"

#4459    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

Here is another with some interesting detail

Again it can be better appreciated if you click it to zoom.

Posted Image

Look where the vitrification has peeled off a layer of the stone.

Notice also the moulding marks in the blocks higher up.  The unexplainable protuberances.  It also proves the point regarding the precision foundations to refute Abe's earlier post.

These pictures are truly fascinating.

Posted Image


#4460    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:10 PM

View Postseeder, on 10 January 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

this was covered in the video clip...

You mean covered up.

What you just did seeder was classic denial.  No explanation or justification just nothing.

Am I supposed to take you seriously?

Edited by zoser, 10 January 2013 - 06:11 PM.

Posted Image


#4461    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 January 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 08 January 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:
You seem like the biggest *Snip* in the bunch from my pov. Maybe someone else noticed it too.
how could you possibly understand what I say at any point?
:lol: You are so full of *Snip* :yes: AND you think very very small with that odd obsession about movies you STILL have. :lol:

Edited by kmt_sesh, 11 January 2013 - 02:52 AM.
The word censors are there for a reason. Avoid trying to bypass them.


#4462    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:44 PM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 09 January 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

It's hilarious that I'm of the opinion that the peple who built the artefacts and edifaces in question were capable of building the edifaces and artefacts in question?
I find it sad you think the ancients were idiots.
Since the question is how did they get built if humans could NOT have done it, yes it's hilarious in a pitiful sort of way. To think ancient humans might not have been able to do what no one today knows how they could have done doesn't mean they were idiots, nor that people today who don't know are idiots. Were you somehow, in some incredible way, unaware of that fact? If so, how could you have been???


#4463    Myles

Myles

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:44 PM

Zoser, you have completely failed at every debate you've had in this thread.   You have been shown to be lacking education time and time again.    When real evidence is given, you just skip over it and refuse to comment on it.   Then you go on with the same BS again and again.
You still believe
99.9% of researches are lying.
.01% of researchers are telling the truth even though they are making loads of money for spewing their BS.


These are all things that you have posted in this thread.   (Newcomers, this is no joke.   Zoser actually used these to plead his case).
If it is on video then it is real.
500 years ago was the stone age.
It never freezes in Peru.
Humans cannot move large rocks.
If it is on the History Channel then it must be true.
The show Ancient Aliens is 100% fact.  

Let's not forget how you feel that anything can be labled as being precise.


#4464    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:50 PM

Looks like quite a few people have been drawing conclusions about stone moulding in Peru:

Peru glaced stones

There are two lines of enquiry that converge to this page: the first is the problem of how the builders of the stone structures at Sacsayhuaman and Ollantaytambo could reach the combination of massivity and precision of their constructions. The other line comes from the images in the Peru sculptures and Marcahuasi galleries. It does not need require much imagination to come to the conclusion that in order to make the images, the builders used the existing structure of the terrain as their basis. Upon this basis they worked to get the desired result. Again, there is a problem in how this result was obtained. Many of the features are not consistent with the process usually associated with working on stone: hacking it away by some way or another. The first picture below shows this most clearly: if one accepts the elephant, surely there must have been some effort to get this result, and this effort looks much more like the shape of the stone has been fluidly changed then by hacking. Pictures 2 and 3 show the fluidished phenomenon even more dramatically. Pictures 4 to 14 show more signs of the material having been worked upon by moulding it. Picture 15 shows a direct contrast with the result expected when hacking the stone.

If one accepts the moulding theory, the next step is to determine how the state of fluidity or mouldability is reached. Clues for this can be found in pictures 16 to 19. Pictures 11, 13, 15, 18 & 19 are from the site Ancient walls by Richard Nesbit.

Note the small protrusions, extra visible because of the shadows, that are not very sensible as result of a "hacking away of the stone" process.

Ollantaytambo

The picture above shows the image of a lion build into the flanks of the mountain at Ollantaytambo. The picture below shows how this effect is reached. Again it looks like the raw stone has been melted at specific places, also giving it a bluish colour, just like the stone at Quenko in the previous pictures.

The massive blocks from the structure at Ollantaytambo have features that are more easily explained by fluid modelling than by hacking away at the stone. The inward curving surfaces of the protrusions remind one of similar results when objects are formed by pouring fluid in a mould. The surface irregularities of the blocks also have this property.

A bit more detail of the irregularities: why should anyone hack this features into the stone?

Katchiqhata

This stone is one of the so-called "weary stones", the seems to be abandoned on its way from the quarry in Katchiqhata to the construction site. The indentions on its surface almost look like someone with strangely shaped shoes has stepped upon a concrete casting when it wasn't yet completely hardened; for a comparison. The next picture from Quenko shows very similar imprints.

Here also note the way the base material exposed by the "footsteps" has a colour differing from that of the surface. The previous picture also shows this feature, though in a less dramatic way.

More data on the possibility of the use of a mouldable stone technique is found in the Toolmarks gallery.

Sacsayhuaman

This picture originates, according to its source, from Cusco (probably meant generically; according to the looks of it, Sacsayhuaman is more probable). It is representative for the method of building all over the region. For a technical reason, one can think of the fact that this kind of irregular but highly fitting structures are probably the most resistant to earthquakes of any known ancient construction method.

However, in the top version, the arrows point to places where the neighbouring stones follow each other contours to an amount of detail that technically absolute has no sense other then when would try to make the structure watertight, especially in the corners. Even an esthetic background is unlikely, because this kind of detail would hardly be visible from all but the most closest ranges. For an example of how one would expect normal stone work of this nature to look, click here.

The bottom picture point to regions where one sees what seem to be small ridges sticking out, as if the material has been pushed away; this is most clear for the region on the right. The discolouring around many other parts of the bounderies could be consistent with this outflowed material having been removed when still mouldable

The two arrows on the left point to other examples of seemingly pointless construction detail. The right arrow to a place where the bevelling of the joints seems to have been forgotten, and the stones look so much joined to each other that it is a matter of discussion whether this is one ore two blocks.

This picture, in all probability from Ollantaytambo, shows the way a cut or hacked stone surface looks like (see the chipped edge of the top left block), in direct contrast with the quite smooth, regular, surfaces of the stones at most of the major constructions at Ollantaytambo and Sacsauhuaman, and many elsewhere.

puca pucara

It almost looks like that there was a enclosing wall, and that a part of it has been melted away.

Quenko

Note how the colour of the top layers, that have been worked upon, differ from the colour of the material at the base; the latter is the regular type of brown expected of stone, the fo

Addendum: The conclusions above were reached purely on basis of the data available. Later searches turned up similar conclusions by others, using similar arguments, see e.g. sources 1, 2. This shows the strength of the available data, in that it satisfies one of the essential criteria of good science: using the same data, different people come independently to the same conclusions.

http://criticalbelie...int&thread=2887

The guy whoever he is has made some sound observations.

Edited by zoser, 10 January 2013 - 06:54 PM.

Posted Image


#4465    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,126 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:54 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 10 January 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Zoser, I think you will find this photo of a wall in Cusco quite interesting; notice the small stones at the bottom:

Posted Image
There seems a great big crack across the stone at top right. I think I might want to give that a wide berth. :unsure2:

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#4466    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,050 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:59 PM

Question: why haven't we actually found any of the alien's technology or is it a cover up (as per usual in this field)?


#4467    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,606 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:59 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 10 January 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I'm sorry, has this turned into a Star Trek geek discussion thread?

Let's put it in perspective then. A lot of people like to talk about what a brilliant original thinker VD is and how earth shattering his ideas are. Consider that "who mourns for Adonis" aired in 1967 while Chariots wasn't published until 1968, and the English version not until 1969

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#4468    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:01 PM

View Postzoser, on 10 January 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Here are the ones that I found:








Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Look at the last picture (click on it to zoom). The bottom foundations still look precise.

Your picture is misleading I think.

It's still precision architecture as far as I can tell.

Not Inca definitely.

In what way is my picture misleading?

The real question is:  why would they need those 'ramp like' rows of small stones?

I mean, we're talking about an 'advanced technology'....


#4469    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:03 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 10 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

There seems a great big crack across the stone at top right. I think I might want to give that a wide berth. :unsure2:

That's not a crack, that part of the top layer that has eroded away.


#4470    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:06 PM

But whatever wall you and I post, Zoser, you will have noticed that on many stones in those walls you'll see (at least) two protuberances near the bottom edge.

That you don't see them on all stones is because after placing the stones, using the levers I mentioned earlier, they chopped off those things.