Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14
Alphamale06

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

10,149 posts in this topic

Now, seeing as zoser is a a person that gleans his 'facts' from the AA video series...and to add a sense of balance... heres a vid series that dissects the AA vids...

In this first one, the Puma Punku site is discussed while pointing out a few little incorrect details - from the AA vids.

These vids also come with a full text transcript under the vid - so if like me you cant wait to get to the point.... you can simply read!! Plus of course this text benefits those who cannot watch any vids.

heres a snip of the text:

"Ancient Aliens starts off with a false dilemma by making people think that it was absolutely impossible for ancient people to construct Pumapunku, even to the point of making outright false claims.

AA: “One of the most intriguing thing there is it that the stones that were used there weren’t sandstone, they’re granite and diorite. The only stone that is harder than diorite is diamond, so the only way this could have been achieved is if the tools were tipped with diamonds.”

This is funny because it’s totally wrong, the stones are not granite or diorite at Pumapunku, they are Red Sandstone and Andesite[1][2][3], but this is also funny because of the way he says it.

AA: “The stones that were used there weren’t sandstone, they’re granite and diorite.”

Well yeah, actually it is sandstone. You can’t blame him though for it becomes obvious that throughout the series he often just repeats things he has heard in Eric Von Daniken’s books. Von Daniken’s books are what the Ancient Aliens series is based on. Later we see Eric Von Daniken himself make the exact same, totally wrong claim.

AA: “Of course [Pumapunku was] made out of stones found on Earth, because you don’t transport granite or diorite from another solar system.”

Von Daniken continues building up this false dilemma:

AA: “One of these platforms is 800 tons.”

That is very incorrect, the heaviest block at Pumapunku is 130 tons[4], and most of the stones are much smaller than that. So he is off by a whopping 670 tons! Unfortunately we will come to expect this kind of thing from Von Daniken as we progress.....

watch source:

http://ancientaliens...pts/puma-punku/

Well the way I see it, if the source for zosers claims, ie the AA vids, are factually wrong.... then so are all/most his arguments

Edited by seeder
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be interesting to see his reply once he watches the vids

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be interesting to see his reply once he watches the vids

excruciating Id have said... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's if he even bothers to..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be interesting to see his reply once he watches the vids

130 tonnes is good enough for me to claim that this was not done by crude hauling. In fact I've never quoted 800 tonnes or seen it mentioned.

Andesite is a hard stone; and impossible to shape to that precision nursing stone age tools. Granite and diorite was done elsewhere.

So you can hold up numbers if you wish but it won't make a jot of difference to the hypothesis. Next.

:tu:

That's if he even bothers to..

Your so naive. I did say I would be back today. Can't wait in fact. See you later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

130 tonnes is good enough for me to claim that this was not done by crude hauling. In fact I've never quoted 800 tonnes or seen it mentioned.

Andesite is a hard stone; and impossible to shape to that precision nursing stone age tools. Granite and diorite was done elsewhere.

So you can hold up numbers if you wish but it won't make a jot of difference to the hypothesis. Next.

:tu:

Your so naive. I did say I would be back today. Can't wait in fact. See you later.

you may like to watch the vid or read the text....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

130 tonnes is good enough for me to claim that this was not done by crude hauling. In fact I've never quoted 800 tonnes or seen it mentioned.

LOL, you remember what you said about that 300 tons weighing single block of stone on top of the 6th century Mausoleum of Theodoric in Ravenna??

Immediately when I see this sort of thing I don't get the same sort of feeling of mystery. The same precision isn't there for a start, and it doesn't compare in any way to the heights involved with say the GP.

My guess is shear mass of man and horsepower; but it's a much smaller scale mystery.

No one is going to express a deep sense of awe at a one off construction. The ancients were manipulating dozens of blocks like this at the same site, and probably much more accurately cut.

The roof is composed of one enormous block of Istrian marble 33 feet in diameter, 3 feet in height, and weighing, it is said, nearly 300 tons. It is a marvel and a mystery how, with the comparatively rude engineering appliances of that age, so ponderous a mass can have been transported from such a distance and raised to such a height. At equal intervals round the outside of this shallow, dome-like roof, twelve stone brackets are attached to it. They are now marked with the names of eight Apostles and of the four Evangelists. One conjecture as to their destination is that they were originally crowned with statues, perhaps of these Apostles and Evangelists; another, to me not very probable, is, that the ropes used (if any were used) in lifting the mighty monolith to its place were passed through these, which would thus be the handles of the dome.

That 300 tons weighing stone came from Istria....

.

Edited by Abramelin
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that shuffling sound you hear is the goal posts ahifting.

so PP is sandstone, which is realively soft as stones go so could be shaped more easily then diorite.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andesite is a hard stone; and impossible to shape to that precision nursing stone age tools. Granite and diorite was done elsewhere.

stone age?

and:

"Historic use: Diorite is an extremely hard rock, making it difficult to carve and work with. It is so hard that ancient civilizations (such as Ancient Egypt) used diorite balls to work granite. Its hardness, however, also allows it to be worked finely and take a high polish, and to provide a durable finished work".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diorite#Historic_use

!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so diorite is difficult to work with...but not impossible, heres a diorite sculpture

post-135078-0-03956800-1356169109_thumb.

note finer details and smooth polished finish

that zoser says is virtually impossible with 'stone age' tools..

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zoser says...

"Andesite is a hard stone; and impossible to shape to that precision nursing stone age tools.

Oh yeh, this Egyptian andesite vase looks pretty good for something that cant be worked easily..

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ancient-art-antiquities/an-egyptian-andesite-porphyry-jar-early-dynastic-5567144-details.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Zoser, as we all know, the Romans were never associated with any 'aliens', so can tell me how they transported and erected those huge Egyptian obelisks in Roma?

Tallest obelisk in Rome, and the largest standing ancient Egyptian obelisk in the world, weighing over 230 tons. Originally from the temple of Amun in Karnak.. Brought to Alexandria with another obelisk by Constantius II, and brought on its own from there to Rome in 357 to decorate the spina of the Circus Maximus.

http://en.wikipedia....belisks_in_Rome

.

Edited by Abramelin
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case and point for Abramelin and seeders posts..

Good bye AA theory.. hello historical facts

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Zoser, as we all know, the Romans were never associated with any 'aliens',

No?

At Rome in the winter of 218 BC “a spectacle of ships (navium) gleamed in the sky”. In 217 BC “at Arpi round shields (parmas) were seen in the sky”. In 212 BC “at Reate a huge stone (saxum) was seen flying about” In 173 BC “at Lanuvium a spectacle of a great fleet was said to have been seen in the sky” In 154 BC “at Compsa weapons (arma) appeared flying in the sky”. In 100 BC, probably at Rome, “a round shield (clipeus), burning and emitting sparks, ran across the sky from west to east, at sunset.” [in 93 BC] Romans on a journey saw a gold-colored ball roll down from the sky to the earth; after growing larger, it was seen to rise upward again from the earth toward the rising sun and to block the sun itself by its size.

A Close Encounter of the Third Kind involves a UFO seen in association with an occupant, usually described as human or humanoid. According to Livy, in 214 BC “at Hadria an altar was seen in the sky; around it were forms of men dressed in shining white.” Four years earlier, “in the district of Amiternum, in many places, forms of men dressed in shining white were seen at a distance; they did not approach any- one.” The last encounter is again from the early Christian hagiographical literature and took place near the Via Campana between Rome and Capua ca. AD 150. On a sunny day, a “beast” like a piece of pottery (ceramos) about 100 feet in size, multicolored on top and shooting out fiery rays, landed in a dust cloud, accompanied by a “maiden” clad in white.

http://www.disinfo.c...-ancient-world/

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No?

He used the words: "the Romans were never associated with any 'aliens', ie, as opposed to the AA brigade who believe aliens helped humans with lazer beams and gravity defying whatnots....

Aliens built Rome too eh?

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and on that link is this...

"Embedded in the mass of relatively explicable ancient reports, is a small set of unexplained (or at least not wholly explained) reports from presumably credible witnesses

names pls?

And who is making the 'presumption'?

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case and point for Abramelin and seeders posts..

Good bye AA theory.. hello historical facts

Wishful Thinking.

I really don't see in the slightest how you think this kind of argument is going to make any headway, Let me explain.

All you guys seem to be doing is

1) Correcting random statements by saying it's not 300 tonnes, 800 tonnes. or 130 tonnes? Hey anything over 10 tonnes is an extreme challenge for stone age men that had not even invented the wheel. It doesn't make a jot of difference to the argument. The stones are there and we know what it would take to handle them. The same with the andesite against granite. Both extremely hard to work with primitive stone age tools.

2) Attacking the credentials of the expert witnesses. I gave a quotation from Roger Hopkins after he saw a few pictures of the Puma Punku relics. It was very clear. Yet you guys glossed over it. Also saying that Chris Dunn is not qualified to talk about precision stonework yet he is a precision engineer. The principles of perfectly flat 2D surfaces, Radii, circles, holes and right angles are the same in stone or metal. Extremely difficult to achieve with stone age tools.

3) Comparing artefacts of more modern cultures. What metals did they have that the ancients didn't have? Did the have the wheel? Did they produce precision architecture to the same quality as the Cuzco wall, or Puma Punku? Did they erect them in impossibly remote or high locations or were they done where raw material and a mass labour force was readily availabe? I know the answer to these questions. I'll let you reflect on them.

So as far as I can see is the last dozen or so posts amount to no more than this.

No one is putting forward carefully reasoned arguments based on the evidence at Peru, Bolivia, Egypt or elsewhere. Trying to discredit or ignore witnesses fails. If Chris Dunn and his associates in the documentary clips are not qualified to discuss precision stonework then who is? Some fossil expert archaeologist? Some Historian University Lecturer? Again I'll let you decide.

As for this not being a contentious world issue; how many famous advocates are there? How many less famous advocates are there who are now making large numbers of video's available on the subject? How many books are available? How many documentaries have been made and are still being made?

As far as I can see this subject has only gained credence since the days of Von D and Zach S. Try and correct me if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that shuffling sound you hear is the goal posts ahifting.

so PP is sandstone, which is realively soft as stones go so could be shaped more easily then diorite.

Andesite was used:

The other stonework and facing of the Pumapunku consists of a mixture of andesite and red sandstone. The core of the Pumapunku consists of clay. The fill underlying selected parts of the edge of the Pumapunku consists of river sand and cobbles instead of clay. Excavations at the Pumapunku have documented “three major building epochs, in addition to small repairs and remodeling.”[2][3][4][5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, you said that a stone weighing 130 tons was proof enough the Incas couldn't have done it. But when I mention a 300 tons block, you say it was done using crude methods.

Explain to me how they moved a 300 tons block from Istria to Ravenna.

Explain to me how the Romans moved a 230+ tons obelisk to Rome.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, precision you say? Bring tolerances for your so cherished hole, will yea?! You know, NUMBERS (I'm assuming you know what word numbers mean)... Can Dunn, so adored by you, provide it?!

PS I doubt Dunn is qualified engineer at all.

You can see it; explain this. Who needs numbers? Attacking the key witnesses is just a sign of argument failure. You need to argue against the facts.

As soon as something like this is presented the conventional explanations just collapse.

http://gntnz.blogspot.com/2010/05/photos-of-qorikancha-cusco-peru.html

IMG_9023.JPG

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as something like this is presented the conventional explanations just collapse.

No, as soon as something like that is presented, you cover your ears and eyes, and reject the explanation we come up with.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now explain to me:

How did the Romans transport a 230+ tons weighing Egyptian obelisk from Karnak to Rome?

How was the 300 tons weighing roof of the Mausoleum of Theodoric moved to Ravenna?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, you said that a stone weighing 130 tons was proof enough the Incas couldn't have done it. But when I mention a 300 tons block, you say it was done using crude methods.

Explain to me how they moved a 300 tons block from Istria to Ravenna.

Explain to me how the Romans moved a 230+ tons obelisk to Rome.

Zoser, you said that a stone weighing 130 tons was proof enough the Incas couldn't have done it. But when I mention a 300 tons block, you say it was done using crude methods.

Explain to me how they moved a 300 tons block from Istria to Ravenna.

Explain to me how the Romans moved a 230+ tons obelisk to Rome.

From what we know about the Romans they recruited slave power by the millions. Did they also not have access to the wheel? These facts cannot be said for the ancients with any certainty. How do you know that the Inca built the precision Cuzco wall and the other megalithic precision artefacts? You cannot jump in to an argument with that kind of assumption. I have repeatedly said that the Inca built much more inferior constructions. The megalithic sites pre-date the Inca,

Finally the building you showed me with the 300 tonne dome was a one off construction. I don't see evidence that they achieved it on the scale that we see in Peru and Bolivia. A one off construction will never evoke the same degree of mystery. Surely you can appreciate that.

PS I have said all this before??????

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, as soon as something like that is presented, you cover your ears and eyes, and reject the explanation we come up with.

Fruit juice melting andesite. Come Abe your a clever guy you can do better than that. So what are you proposing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elongated Skull

A detailed investigation into this has been long overdue. Since tribes in different parts of the world have practised ritualistic skull binding this has long been thought of as the reasons why similar skulls turn up in ancient history.

Yet everything must have it's original cause. To go to extraordinary lengths to deform the brain and skull they must have had a compelling reason to do so. Elongating the ear lobes for example doesn't seem quite so drastic.

This topic seems to be one of Brien Foerster's key investigations. He has found evidence of two types of ancient elongated skulls: a type attributable to binding where there is no discernible increase in cavity volume and another where there is a definite increase in volume accompanied by anomalies in cranial plates. He is also claiming to have found a correlation between where these skulls are found and sites of megalithic architecture. The implications of this are obvious:

In this clip Foerster is obtaining samples for DNA testing. As far as I can tell from preliminary investigations the results are not yet available. The problem appears to be cost. LLoyd Pye explains:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smbhmZydctM

To discern the difference between a skull deformed by binding and a naturally elongated skull is difficult without other anomalies being present. Foerster claims there are subtle differences with the cranial plates however the DNA results are crucial to such an investigation.

So why would ancients and modern day tribes practise this? It may well be considered in modern times as a feature of beauty, but that does not really explain all. It must have been done in early times to make some mark of above normal intelligence; the assumption being that as brain size increases so does intelligence. So what were they trying to emulate? Did some very ancient people undergo some physical transformation commensurate with brain development, or were there eminent visitors that actually looked like this?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.