10148 replies to this topic

[scowl]

If anyone wants the Chariots of the God's movie experience, I posted a complete scene-by-scene debunking of it a while ago.

[scowl]

zoser, on 06 March 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

The metal clamps?  Too small for structural integrity.  Much more likely they provided electrical connectivity.  

What? Now your aliens need conductors for electricity?

Quote

We still have yet to understand the full purpose of these megalithic stone walls.

Of course if a modern person had made that chisel mark, you would say it's proof that mere humans cannot cut stones.

Quote

You have to try and broaden your thinking a little seeder.  Nothing truly ancient can be explained in our terms; it needs special thinking, insight, and logistics.

You still haven't looked up that word, have you.

[zoser]

scowl, on 06 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

[/size]

What? Now your aliens need conductors for electricity?




Of course if a modern person had made that chisel mark, you would say it's proof that mere humans cannot cut stones.



You still haven't looked up that word, have you.

The clamp in the above pic is too small for structural integrity.

Simple.

Prozaic explanations don't wash.  Just like every other feeble archaeological argument.

[zoser]

seeder, on 06 March 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

PROOF YOU DONT READ. I pasted the link already. where do you think I'm getting that above pasted stuff from?

Now, I wont paste lots of text from the other thread,  just the page link

Go here for more criticism of the Russians...scroll down for 'swedes' posts, he nails it. In fact if you can read the following pages too, just look for 'swedes' stuff.

(saves me debunking it all over again)

http://www.unexplain...ic=225431&st=30

zoser can click the link and start from page one. He will find it a rollercoaster thrill ride with more of the Russians vids



.

Watch the video.

Confirms everything I have said.

Confirms all of Gamarra's work, and Dunn's and everyone else.

They have the whole thing completely stitched up.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

zoser, on 06 March 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

They have the whole thing completely stitched up.

Oh, i'm sure they do. "stitch up" in the sense of [thank you to Urban Dictionary] a set up, a trick. If someone stitches you up, then they're playing you for a fool. It's often used when framing someone for a crime.

[seeder]

zoser, on 06 March 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

Watch the video.

Confirms everything I have said.

Confirms all of Gamarra's work, and Dunn's and everyone else.

They have the whole thing completely stitched up.

I already said Ive seen it before. But if you want people to watch your stuff why dont you read others stuff?  On the thread I mentioned we find the Russians even did a video on pumapunku, have you watched that?  

Only 7 pages in the thread, so you should be able to find all the other Russian vids. And strong criticism of them too. Is that what you're afraid of?

OH by the way, the Russians WERE INFLUENCED BY DUNN AND SIMPLY REPEAT DUNNS TOSH

A bigger collection of fringe weirdos doesn't make the subject have more facts, it just shows simple minded people being influenced by a few names only...then writing books and posting vids



.

Edited by seeder, 06 March 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[zoser]

Lord Vetinari, on 06 March 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

Oh, i'm sure they do. "stitch up" in the sense of [thank you to Urban Dictionary] a set up, a trick. If someone stitches you up, then they're playing you for a fool. It's often used when framing someone for a crime.

Watch the documentary.

It's all there.

Nothing more to debate.

The AA hypothesis is entirely true.  There have been no tools ever found to explain the cutting and fitting.

The position of the skeptics on this thread has been totally refuted and when proof of method and tooling has been claimed it has all been thoroughly debunked.

No saws, no copper, no folklore, no writing, is available in support of the idea of recent construction by known cultures.

The cuts and precision on the clip are literally out of this world.

If the skeptics could explain how any one of them was done, I would listen.

So unless the skeptics have anything new, then as far as I can see it's done.  Hypothesis proved.

[Quaentum]

zoser, on 06 March 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

It's Interesting that up until now the AA proponents have been a fairly well known and close knit team.  The older proponents being Von Daniken and Stitchen, and the 'younger' names on the block being Tsoukalos, Dunn, Childress, Foerster, etc.  Well known to each other and even working together as a team.

Now a new team has arrived, apparently independent from the above famous names, and have conducted a separate investigation yet the conclusions are very much the same.

Everything I have been saying on this thread has been confirmed by the Russian team.

In answer to your question, the last lot of visitors came around 9000 years ago; about that date I am fairly certain.  They stayed for around 3000 years is my guess.

The precision artefacts in Peru and Bolivia could well date from that time or even earlier.  So does the GP.  Of that I am also certain.

So basically archaeology has screwed up all the dates.  They have done so by erroneously linking remains of nomadic folk or later inheritors to the  original builders.  The precision and megalithic relics as I have said to you before are very much more ancient than you realise.

They are therefore at best part of our folklore not our history.

The metal clamps?  Too small for structural integrity.  Much more likely they provided electrical connectivity.  We still have yet to understand the full purpose of these megalithic stone walls.



You have to try and broaden your thinking a little seeder.  Nothing truly ancient can be explained in our terms; it needs special thinking, insight, and logistics.

The Russian commentator actually said at one point that they can not even be sure of a theoretical explanation for how these cuts were made.  For a modern scientific mind that tells volumes.

The clamps use in electrical connectivity would not be valid as the stone is sitting on the ground and electricity seeks ground.

[zoser]

seeder, on 06 March 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

I already said Ive seen it before. But if you want people to watch your stuff why dont you read others stuff?  On the thread I mentioned we find the Russians even did a video on pumapunku, have you watched that?  

Only 7 pages in the thread, so you should be able to find all the other Russian vids. And strong criticism of them too. Is that what you're afraid of?

OH by the way, the Russians WERE INFLUENCED BY DUNN AND SIMPLY REPEAT DUNNS TOSH

A bigger collection of fringe weirdos doesn't make the subject have more facts, it just shows simple minded people being influenced by a few names only...then writing books and posting vids



.

There is no refutation of the AA hypothesis.

Just claiming that the Russians were copying off Dunn is not convincing.  They have been on site in Peru, Bolivia, The Middle East, Egypt, looking at sites that Dunn has never seen.

They have done a very thorough and exhaustive study.

There is no more to be said seeder.

Do you have any refutation other than reading someone's previous opinion on UM?

That won't do.  You have to look at the evidence.

What stitched things up earlier in the thread were Foerster's images from Peru.

Well the Russians have provided us with a whole lot more.

With Foerster and Dunn's work the case was 85% sealed.

Now it's 100%.

I don't know how to help you really.  Just watch the clip and think about the issues hard is all I can suggest.

[seeder]

zoser, on 06 March 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

If the skeptics could explain how any one of them was done, I would listen.

youre a kingsize joker arent you? You dont listen to anything, so why say you will? Youre a hypocrite. A waste of time. and for the 4th time now Ive said it, the other thread.....delves into your vids quite deep.

But you see - you wont know that will you? you just ignorantly want people to watch your drivel, while totally ignoring anything you don't want to HEAR.

[zoser]

Quaentum, on 06 March 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

The clamps use in electrical connectivity would not be valid as the stone is sitting on the ground and electricity seeks ground.

It depends if these stones were sitting on the ground.  We don't really know what was underneath these stones.

seeder, on 06 March 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

youre a kingsize joker arent you? You dont listen to anything, so why say you will? Youre a hypocrite. A waste of time. and for the 4th time now Ive said it, the other thread.....delves into your vids quite deep.

But you see - you wont know that will you? you just ignorantly want people to watch your drivel, while totally ignoring anything you don't want to HEAR.

What's your refutation to the points on the Russian's video?  How do you explain those cuts?

Why do you think they cannot explain them?

Edited by zoser, 06 March 2013 - 08:27 PM.

[zoser]

seeder, on 06 March 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

youre a kingsize joker arent you? You dont listen to anything, so why say you will? Youre a hypocrite. A waste of time. and for the 4th time now Ive said it, the other thread.....delves into your vids quite deep.

But you see - you wont know that will you? you just ignorantly want people to watch your drivel, while totally ignoring anything you don't want to HEAR.

There is nothing there on the thread that debunks the video.  Just the same unsupportable claims about bow drilling (now proved false), and non-existent saws.

Ancient Polygon seemed to have it wrapped up to me.

Am I missing some vital argument?

[seeder]

zoser, on 06 March 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

It depends if these stones were sitting on the ground.  We don't really know what was underneath these stones.



What's your refutation to the points on the Russian's video?  How do you explain those cuts?

Why do you think they cannot explain them?

Its all been explained, with minute by minute breakdowns of the vid. Its there waiting for you to read just 7 pages. Got anything better to do? Im not going to re-paste someone elses work SO READ THE 7 PAGES. Lucky for you they are dotted with the kind of vids you love. (but not sesame street unfortunately)


Heres a question. We know lots of these site were, in more recent times, repaired/rebuilt by those who came across them, you know, MODERN MAN


so answer this


How do we know the age of the saw cuts at all?  Prove to me they are in FACT..ancient saw marks?

Not done in more recent times by either attempted repairs, or by pillagers?

CONVINCE ME THEY ARE ANCIENT AT ALL?

[seeder]

zoser, on 06 March 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

Am I missing some vital argument?

I sat here refreshing that page every couple of minutes waiting to see if youd appear. Your name then showed up for approx 5 mins or less. No way did you read the 7 pages. Proof of this is that you haven't posted further vids on that thread here that WOULD have got you in a frenzy of excitement

and as previously mentioned, the guy in the vid is not credible

swedes quote:

"Remember, Sklyarov would, based upon his own writings, appear to support the contention that the Giza constructs date to some 10,500 BP. And he would appear to maintain this postition in the face of the voluminous radiocarbon, archaeological, and historical data that thoroughly discounts this position.

Until such time as a professional paper that strongly supports any of his various and highly questionable speculations is presented, he will remain in his position as just another fringe "author" that preys on the gullibility of the uninformed or, as Harte would put it, the "chronically astonished".


I dont have to debunk it this time, its already been done

http://www.unexplain...ic=225431&st=30




.

Edited by seeder, 06 March 2013 - 08:47 PM.

[zoser]

seeder, on 06 March 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

Its all been explained, with minute by minute breakdowns of the vid. Its there waiting for you to read just 7 pages. Got anything better to do? Im not going to re-paste someone elses work SO READ THE 7 PAGES. Lucky for you they are dotted with the kind of vids you love. (but not sesame street unfortunately)


Heres a question. We know lots of these site were, in more recent times, repaired/rebuilt by those who came across them, you know, MODERN MAN


so answer this


How do we know the age of the saw cuts at all?  Prove to me they are in FACT..ancient saw marks?

Not done in more recent times by either attempted repairs, or by pillagers?

CONVINCE ME THEY ARE ANCIENT AT ALL?

Simple.

Nothing remotely like them in classical history.

In style, precision, or location.

Just as the Russian said, they appear sometimes in random places in the bedrock; by analogy it's like an arc welder testing his equipment before doing a proper weld.

Good analogy and totally reasonable.  These cuts appear in the most weird of places sometimes.