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This topic has been archived.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

#9871    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:11 PM

Thanks for posting all the great pictures zoser  ,  i love looking at that stuff.

   hey look what i found,  including something supposedly from Abramelin's old friend Garcilaso de la Vega.

HOW DID THE INCAS CREATE SUCH BEAUTIFUL STONE MASONRY?

© Ivan W. Watkins, Professor of Geoscience in the Department Of Earth Sciences, St. Cloud State University, Minnesota


   http://www.ianlawton.com/am10.htm

"David Lindroth (personal communication, 1986) has been working for years with the thermal disaggregation of rock at the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center. Lindroth has shown that with 100 watts of light energy focused to a circle about 2 mm in diameter any rock can be cut. While each kerf is only about 2 mm deep, a rock of any size can be cut by repeated passes. He has also found that quartzite spalls very easily, while a rock like basalt does not spall, but melts.

"The rock surfaces on Inca stones are similar to those that have been thermally disaggregated. Indeed, some of. the slick surfaces on the Inca building stones are glazed, so it becomes apparent that the Incas must have used thermal disaggregation. But what was the source of the energy?

it's interesting ,,, but here's his bit..

Garcilaso de la Vega (1961) wrote about the Festival of the Sun that still takes place each year in Cuzco, Peru.
The fire used for this sacrifice had to be fresh or, as they said, given to them by the hand of the Sun. For this, they took a large bracelet, belonging to the high priest, and similar in form to that usually worn on their left wrists by the Incas. The central motif of this bracelet was a very carefully polished concavity as big as half an orange. They turned this to the sun to capture its rays, which they then concentrated on a small wisp of very dry, fluffy cotton, that caught fire instantly.

Edited by lightly, 19 March 2013 - 08:14 PM.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#9872    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:19 PM

View Postlightly, on 19 March 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

Thanks for posting all the great pictures zoser  ,  i love looking at that stuff.

   hey look what i found,  including something supposedly from Abramelin's old friend Garcilaso de la Vega.

HOW DID THE INCAS CREATE SUCH BEAUTIFUL STONE MASONRY?

© Ivan W. Watkins, Professor of Geoscience in the Department Of Earth Sciences, St. Cloud State University, Minnesota


   http://www.ianlawton.com/am10.htm

"David Lindroth (personal communication, 1986) has been working for years with the thermal disaggregation of rock at the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center. Lindroth has shown that with 100 watts of light energy focused to a circle about 2 mm in diameter any rock can be cut. While each kerf is only about 2 mm deep, a rock of any size can be cut by repeated passes. He has also found that quartzite spalls very easily, while a rock like basalt does not spall, but melts.

"The rock surfaces on Inca stones are similar to those that have been thermally disaggregated. Indeed, some of. the slick surfaces on the Inca building stones are glazed, so it becomes apparent that the Incas must have used thermal disaggregation. But what was the source of the energy?

it's interesting ,,, but here's his bit..

Garcilaso de la Vega (1961) wrote about the Festival of the Sun that still takes place each year in Cuzco, Peru.
The fire used for this sacrifice had to be fresh or, as they said, given to them by the hand of the Sun. For this, they took a large bracelet, belonging to the high priest, and similar in form to that usually worn on their left wrists by the Incas. The central motif of this bracelet was a very carefully polished concavity as big as half an orange. They turned this to the sun to capture its rays, which they then concentrated on a small wisp of very dry, fluffy cotton, that caught fire instantly.


Interesting.  Not quite clear whether he was referring to something he witnessed or something he was told about that happened in the past?

I was looking at some writings of de la Vega the other day and it is blatantly obvious that he was just as bewildered as later historians about how the megalithic work was achieved.  His writings are just speculative guesswork tinged with a degree of folklore.

With regard to the first bit of writing, what indeed was the source of the energy?

Edited by zoser, 19 March 2013 - 08:21 PM.

Posted Image


#9873    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:30 PM

View Postzoser, on 19 March 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

They did not possess chisels hard enough Mr O.  That fact should be stark and plain to you by now.

Question: why did Protzen have to resort to steel lump hammers and chisels?

Please think before you respond.

They possessed rocks. Those alone are sufficiently hard. We have some indication that their bronze was of sufficient hardness for the job as well. And I repeat, How do chisels work?

That wasn't Protzen but another team and I explained the time constraints already. Surely as an engineer you've heard of people cutting corners to bring in a project under budget?

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

#9874    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:38 PM

View PostOniomancer, on 19 March 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

They possessed rocks. Those alone are sufficiently hard. We have some indication that their bronze was of sufficient hardness for the job as well. And I repeat, How do chisels work?

That wasn't Protzen but another team and I explained the time constraints already. Surely as an engineer you've heard of people cutting corners to bring in a project under budget?

Rocks cannot do this Mr O

Posted Image

It's far too perfect to be the result of stone bashing.

It looks exactly as if something stamped into it and impressed the stone.  A metal clamp.

Neither is this the result of stone bashing:

Posted Image

Are you sure it wasn't Protzen and his team?  I'm fairly sure that was who I watched.

His goal he claimed was to reproduce the precision in the walls of Sacsayhuaman.  He obviously realised he was going to get no where near that with soft tools or stone.

Why miss an opportunity to totally prove the concept?

It doesn't make sense.

Posted Image


#9875    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:55 PM

View Postzoser, on 19 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Now that some of the skeptics have thrown in their cards, I thought  I would expose some of the fallacious arguments put foward here in the last few months.

One of them concerned the reason why we see always rough work on top of megalithic precision.

Foerster et al claim that the rough work is later Inca style as they were technically unable to reproduce the earlier megalithic.

The skeptics argued that they simply ran short of resources in an economic recession.

Not only do I agree with Foerster et al but I would also assert two more details:

1) Sacsayhuaman was not originally a fort.  It was turned in to one by later Inca improvisation.

2) This is the building work that de la Vega witnessed.  He did not witness the original construction.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Circular reasoning again, the very model of fallacy. You're presupposing the buildings were already there as evidence that they were already there.
You're going one further in answering supposition with supposition, Again predicated on the prior assumption.

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

#9876    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:17 PM

View Postzoser, on 19 March 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Rocks cannot do this Mr O



It's far too perfect to be the result of stone bashing.

Why? Because you say so? Again, how does a chisel work? I see we're also still in the single-method mindset.

Quote

It looks exactly as if something stamped into it and impressed the stone.  A metal clamp.

Neither is this the result of stone bashing:

What something might look like is irrelevant to what it actually is, otherwise I  would have to believe this is a petrified giant:

http://joyce.taron.n...ln-memorial.JPG

Quote

Are you sure it wasn't Protzen and his team?  I'm fairly sure that was who I watched.

His goal he claimed was to reproduce the precision in the walls of Sacsayhuaman.  He obviously realised he was going to get no where near that with soft tools or stone.

Why miss an opportunity to totally prove the concept?

It doesn't make sense.

It was the man right after him trying to verify the scribing method. I don;t think Protzen was even in that sequence. They had a half a dozen different experimenters in the show.

It makes plenty of sense not to blow half the season's budget on a single one-hour episode. As far as he and probably most of the others viewers except you are concerned, he got close enough.

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

#9877    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010

Posted 19 March 2013 - 10:57 PM

View Postzoser, on 19 March 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Just one more post tonight:

Look carefully at the precision joins:

Posted Image

Especially look at the gap in the crappy vertical one at the bottom which appears to get worse and worse to the bottom of the photo.


#9878    DBunker

DBunker

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,485 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2005

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:15 AM

As poor zoser just admitted himself, his goal is to get as many posts on this thread as possible. If the OP was at least willing to debate counter argument in a normal manner I would have no problem with it.

But that is not the case.

Therefore I say to this thread - Later dudes.

Now that communications technology has made it possible to give global reach to the bizarre and archive it forever, it is essential for men and women of reason resolutely to counter the delusions of the fringe element. James S. Robbins

#9879    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:12 AM

View Postscowl, on 19 March 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Especially look at the gap in the crappy vertical one at the bottom which appears to get worse and worse to the bottom of the photo.

Actually, that is a very precise joint...you may be looking at shadow and thinking it is a gap.  You can enlarge the photo by clicking on it.

Protzen only proved he had neither the time or the knowledge to demonstrate how these blocks were really made and fitted.

His 'conclusion' is weak and unsubstantiated.


#9880    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:07 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 20 March 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

Actually, that is a very precise joint...you may be looking at shadow and thinking it is a gap.

There's a shadow because there's a gap between the faces of the rocks.

Why this gap? What they did to make the joints look precise is grind and chip away into the joints until they got to parts of the stone that were close. That's why the joints have uneven depth like in this photo -- sometimes they got lucky and the surfaces met close to the face. Sometimes they met deeper in the rock so it took more work.


#9881    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:11 PM

View PostOniomancer, on 19 March 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Circular reasoning again, the very model of fallacy. You're presupposing the buildings were already there as evidence that they were already there.
You're going one further in answering supposition with supposition, Again predicated on the prior assumption.

Evidence speaks for itself.

The rubble was put on top of the megalithic stones.

Anything else is just intellectualism.  All that nonsense about the rubble being put there because of economic hardship or civil war is just weird  evasion of the truth.

It says quite clearly that the site was occupied, built on and improvised by later people.

Common sense.

View Postscowl, on 20 March 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

There's a shadow because there's a gap between the faces of the rocks.

Why this gap? What they did to make the joints look precise is grind and chip away into the joints until they got to parts of the stone that were close. That's why the joints have uneven depth like in this photo -- sometimes they got lucky and the surfaces met close to the face. Sometimes they met deeper in the rock so it took more work.

Where?

Posted Image


#9882    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:15 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 20 March 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

Actually, that is a very precise joint...you may be looking at shadow and thinking it is a gap.  You can enlarge the photo by clicking on it.

Protzen only proved he had neither the time or the knowledge to demonstrate how these blocks were really made and fitted.

His 'conclusion' is weak and unsubstantiated.

Agreed.  Neither Protzen nor anyone else has proved that they can do this:

Posted Image

I would wager my last pound note that no one will ever convince the reasonable of mind that this was the work of stone age folk.

Before anyone shouts foul on the stone age bit:  remember they supposedly never had the wheel.

Posted Image


#9883    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:16 PM

View PostDBunker, on 20 March 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

As poor zoser just admitted himself, his goal is to get as many posts on this thread as possible. If the OP was at least willing to debate counter argument in a normal manner I would have no problem with it.

But that is not the case.

Therefore I say to this thread - Later dudes.

No true.

I simply implied that there is still much to post.

It's not a game.

Edited by zoser, 20 March 2013 - 05:16 PM.

Posted Image


#9884    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:17 PM

View Postscowl, on 19 March 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Especially look at the gap in the crappy vertical one at the bottom which appears to get worse and worse to the bottom of the photo.

Enlarge it please or seek optical assistance.  No gaps there.

Posted Image


#9885    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:19 PM

View PostOniomancer, on 19 March 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Why? Because you say so? Again, how does a chisel work? I see we're also still in the single-method mindset.



What something might look like is irrelevant to what it actually is, otherwise I  would have to believe this is a petrified giant:

http://joyce.taron.n...ln-memorial.JPG



It was the man right after him trying to verify the scribing method. I don;t think Protzen was even in that sequence. They had a half a dozen different experimenters in the show.

It makes plenty of sense not to blow half the season's budget on a single one-hour episode. As far as he and probably most of the others viewers except you are concerned, he got close enough.

Bless you Mr O.  Protzen didn't get anywhere near.  Did he come back for a second try?  I don't believe he did.  That should tell you a lot.

I'm really sorry but I just can't see the relevance of the Lincoln statue.

Posted Image