The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

[zoser]

I see no gloss, or sheen, but I do see numerous tiny dents. Where has your vitrification gone?

.

In the documentary on Gamarra's work it shows how on some megalithic blocks the vitrification is easily recognisable because the surfaces are smoother. Like this:

On the smaller block work it's not so easily recognisable however and needs to be viewed at an angle to see it or with use of a torch:

On some other blocks it is visible only at the joints.

Whether or not it is viewable on an image depends on light conditions.

Traces of it can be seen in the top left of the picture you refer to:

Edited January 5, 2013 by zoser

[mcrom901]

that's what i call laser precision

[Oniomancer]

Let's also not forget that rock is not metal.

If you heat stone to the point of plasticity, when it hardens it won't be the same stone anymore. Most stone will become basalt upon cooling.

The difference between basalt and andesite is chemical. Most rock becomes basalt because most rock is granite, its plutonic equivalent. You'll recall andesite's equivalent is diorite.

Also, many stones - such as limestone and sandstone, cannot be heated to the point of softening. Sandstone will just turn into glass (and i don't see any glass - I see plenty of sandstone.) Limestone will become simple lime (due to chemical reactions under the heat) and crumble away.

I should've thought of that about limestone. It's not like I wasn't discussing local limekilns with my brother recently. One thing though, under geological heat and pressure, limestone metamorphoses into marble, but that's more of a slow roasting. Likewise sandstone turns to quartzite. Following the rock cycle, IIRC, I think it'd turn into high-quartz granite or pure quartz if it were allowed to slowly crystallize, depending on the accessory minerals. That's all under sub-surface conditions of course.

As mentioned earlier, if those accessory minerals aren't present in the limestone part of the sample taken, they could only be added.

I was trying to find info on lava when I wrote that. Andesite is lava straight out of a volcano. How it cools dictates the crystal size and type. The quicker, the finer. I'm not convinced the vit layer wouldn't be deeper if the rock were remelted.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Oniomancer

[mcrom901]

On the smaller block work it's not so easily recognisable however and needs to be viewed at an angle to see it or with use of a torch:

why was the vitrification done in a sporadic manner?

eta...

i didn't pay attention to the rest of what you were saying, so, basically, your'e saying...

On some other blocks it is visible only at the joints.

Whether or not it is viewable on an image depends on light conditions.

that the whole surface is vitrified and that we need to rotate it in order to get a glimpse of the 'invisible' vitrifications?

Edited January 5, 2013 by mcrom901

[synchronomy]

Is it possible to determine how deeply the vitrification penetrates into the rock, or has it been done? This might give some indication of the length of time required for application of heat or chemical (plant based) treatment to cause the vitrification.

Maybe I missed it, but has there been any serious scientific analysis of the vitrified sample to determine the chemical makeup or determine the cause?

[Abramelin]

When I watch some of these photos I realize the 'glaze' could not have been caused by melting.

If a rock is molten or just its surface, no weathering can wear off the surface. It would be hard and stable as glass.

But if the surface has been chemically treated, the shine will wear off because it isn't strongly attached to the lower layer of untreated rock.

.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Abramelin

[Harte]

When I watch some of these photos I realize the 'glaze' could not have been caused by melting.

If a rock is molten or just its surface, no weathering can wear off the surface. It would be hard and stable as glass.

Again, depends on the rock:

Basalt is a common extrusive igneous (volcanic) rock formed from the rapid cooling of basaltic lava exposed at or very near the surface of a planet or moon.

SNIP

Compared to other rocks found on Earth's surface, basalts weather relatively fast.

Wiki

Basalt is a stone that was molten on the surface, at one point, just like any melted stone would be (that is, if anyone actually believes native Peruvians ever melted any stone.)

Harte

[seeder]

Of course there is a big chance that any vitrified rocks..were quarried that way...and not vitrified after a structure was built

[Oniomancer]

When I watch some of these photos I realize the 'glaze' could not have been caused by melting.

If a rock is molten or just its surface, no weathering can wear off the surface. It would be hard and stable as glass.

But if the surface has been chemically treated, the shine will wear off because it isn't strongly attached to the lower layer of untreated rock.

.

This is something I've been wondering about with this "layer" they're talking about. No surface is invulnerable. Any polished surface is subject to mechanical scratches, pits and dings. Even obsidian glass breaks down chemically into perlite from atmospheric exposure. It occurred to me that Cuzco has an enormous freeze/thaw differential, which could easily cause any surface layer to pick off preferentially over time, giving the appearance of a skin.

There are some rocks which exhibit so-called onion skin weathering or exfoliation:

This layer incidentally is the result of glacial polishing.

[Oniomancer]

Ok having watched now all 6 parts, this is a 'very' good reference to watch, for anyone interested that is

part 1: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-1-of-6

part 2: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-2-of-6

part 3: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

part 4: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-4-of-6

part 5: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-5-of-6

part 6: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-6-of-6

.

Pay close attention to the part where they show how the domed faceting actually makes the stones easier to pull by reducing surface drag.

[Abramelin]

Again, depends on the rock:

Wiki

Basalt is a stone that was molten on the surface, at one point, just like any melted stone would be (that is, if anyone actually believes native Peruvians ever melted any stone.)

Harte

"Compared to other rocks found on Earth's surface, basalts weather relatively fast."

But I am talking about the glazed surface that indeed looks like glass. I am not talking about the weathering of basalt or granite.

[Abramelin]

This layer incidentally is the result of glacial polishing.

It is?

[Oniomancer]

It is?

Or rather the polish is, according to the site:

http://www.tectonique.net/tectask/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=73

[Abramelin]

Or rather the polish is, according to the site:

http://www.tectoniqu...id=27&Itemid=73

Thanks.

That should give a Zoser a second thought.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Bore-ring

Harte

Ofcourse because it doesnt fit in scientific community. And if something doesnt fit, label it and ignore it.

But to me it is all but defenetly not boring.

Why? Maybe you need to read again.

In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: Strong and durable must the body of the Vihmana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth.

The Hakatha (Laws of the Babylonians) states quite unambiguously: The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives.

[Harte]

Ofcourse because it doesnt fit in scientific community. And if something doesnt fit, label it and ignore it.

But to me it is all but defenetly not boring.

Why? Maybe you need to read again.

No, maybe you need to respond to my actual comments rather than ones you fabricate and attribute to me.

A tome on architecture is boring, L. There are a paltry few pages in your book concerning vimanas, and a thousand on architecture, hence nobody is willing to pay for it. Let us not forget that it was you that couldn't even find an English translation.

Let me know if you find it free online, and never assume I haven't read all the great Hindu epics that are available for free.

Maybe not every word (the Mahabarata is just way too long, and, yes, boring as well.) However, I've read much even of that monstrous work.

I think, should you ever choose to use the search function here, you can confirm that I'm fairly well-read on the subject. Most of my posts speak for themselves and, on this subject, I've posted plenty.

Harte

[Space Commander Travis]

I found something which is on my mind till moment I stumble upon.

In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: Strong and durable must the body of the Vihmana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth.

The Hakatha (Laws of the Babylonians) states quite unambiguously: The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives.

Anyway I search for English tranlation of Samarangana Sutradhara and I couldnt find it. I realy start to think that we talk about suppressed knowledge.

If those two are true. Sadly I cant check Hakatha too.

Abramelin

Did you find your plant? Or Arab Sci Fi ?

is that true? I mean, is that what it says? if so, what is the rational explanation?

[Babe Ruth]

The rational explanation is that life teems in the universe. And man is rather primitive when you get down to it, and arrogant.

There is ample evidence that this planet has been visited, and it only makes sense, considering our tiny spot in the universe. Wee tiny spot.

[Harte]

is that true? I mean, is that what it says? if so, what is the rational explanation?

Unlikely, unless you think they were flying around in the sky as recently as 1000 AD, approximately when that book was written.

Harte

[Space Commander Travis]

Unlikely, unless you think they were flying around in the sky as recently as 1000 AD, approximately when that book was written.

Harte

So it doesn't actually say that, you mean? So was it faked, or is it a (deliberate?) mistranslation?

[Harte]

So it doesn't actually say that, you mean? So was it faked, or is it a (deliberate?) mistranslation?

It absolutely says that, or words to that effect.

The description given does not include how "mecury" can be used as a power source. Mercury was a very mysterious thing back then, and all sorts of crazy things were attributed to it, and not just by the Hindu culture.

Harte

[Space Commander Travis]

It absolutely says that, or words to that effect.

The description given does not include how "mecury" can be used as a power source. Mercury was a very mysterious thing back then, and all sorts of crazy things were attributed to it, and not just by the Hindu culture.

Harte

So what is the accepted explanation of the references to flying machines & so on? Is it an anticipation of Leonardo da vinci? Obviously the "mercury" might well be associated with alechemy and that kind of thing, so is "flying machines" of the manner of a metaphor or or allegory?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Lord Vetinari

[Harte]

So what is the accepted explanation of the references to flying machines & so on? Is it an anticipation of Leonardo da vinci? Obviously the "mercury" might well be associated with alechemy and that kind of thing, so is "flying machines" of the manner of a metaphor or or allegory?

Seems like a good question.

I think (this is me) that you can attribute the concept similarly to what the Greeks considered to be flying chariots - the Sun, etc.

In the earliest Ancient Indian texts, vimanas were chariots pulled by flying animals such as elephants. They were used by gods to travel around.

I suppose if you're gonna postulate that gods travelled around, then you'd need a superior conveyance by which they would do their travelling.

I've read that the Mahabharata attributes the invention of the vimana to the "clever Greeks" (Clive Hart, "The Prehistory of Flight," - no relation, BTW .) It's listed there for 79 cents. If you buy it, let me know if he references that claim and how.

Checking the Mahabharata itself, I've found some quotes attributing things to the "clever Greeks," but I've never seen the vimana so attributed.

Harte

[nopeda]

Sadly, to start the year I have to strongly disagree on this point mate. This is exactly what is wrong with UFOlogy, and why it has so little respect. With this sort of tomfoolery being entertained, I am really nor sure it deserves any better until this sort of outright ridiculous nonsense is ousted for what it is. This is an embarrassment to the human race

Hilarious! That's exactly the way I feel about people who think so small that they've put their faith in the one possibility that no beings from other star systems have ever been to another one, or even been to this one I think of people like that and hamsters as being similar in their abilities to think realistically about the possibility that there are beings in the universe who are good at space travel, since neither hamsters nor such humans are able to. With the hamsters it's more understandable though, since they're not in a position to try while the humans are.

[nopeda]

As far as I can tell, the main rebuttal seems to be "I don't get it so it must be wrong"

You don't get how any beings could develop interstellar travel, so none could have been able to HILARIOUS!!! Maybe the history of the entire universe will change if you ever get some idea of how it could have been done?