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

The Greeks built houses for Gods.

Do you expect Thor, Zeus or Aphrodite to appear any time soon?

And the Pantheon is still more impressive. So it the Colosseum. Larger, older, more detailed, and construction methods that seem beyond their years. But do you know why the AA people do not consider those sites and leave them out of the series and their evaluations?

We have clear records of man doing them. It would have been hilarious if the records had been lost until very recent times, something like the recent discoveries at Herculaneum. I have little doubt Giorgio would have egg on his face had that been the case.

I never stated that Gods constructed Puma Punku. I simply stated that there could of been somebody else the locals explained as Gods there at the beginning of construction or at any time. What about the idea that the locals saw their God standing in the field where Puma Punku was and got the idea to construct the site there? What about them getting the idea to construct it exactly there because it was ideal in someway? Either one works or both work for me during time back then.

The Greeks did build houses for Gods. This is true. The Pantheon and Colosseum did bust better and I always thought that as well. I technically don't know what Puma Punku looked like, but from what we see one would think that.

They're reports of somebody else appearing around the World and most of the time locals thought of them as Gods. If someone asks for evidence try the television show Ancient Aliens. I myself had forgot to mention the actual evidence. The evidence of somebody else being here in ancient times is about the same as Bigfoot, cryptic animals, paranormal and religion. Those are true. The evidence is word of mouth and scripture. It's up for us to believe the stories that have withstood the test of time.

I definitely expect that the ancient Greeks witnessing something that they explained as Gods at sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolded is the kicker..... not to your knowledge. :tu:

you can prove otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets here some theories other than "they used chizzles" they didnt jsut use hammers and chizzles. there would be marks. there would be a quarry. there would be piles of stones that mistakes were made on. you can find carve marks on sculpters in Greece, Egypt, Inca, and Aztec ruins. lets hear how the ancients did this exact construction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets here some theories other than "they used chizzles" they didnt jsut use hammers and chizzles. there would be marks. there would be a quarry. there would be piles of stones that mistakes were made on. you can find carve marks on sculpters in Greece, Egypt, Inca, and Aztec ruins. lets hear how the ancients did this exact construction.

That's what sanding is for, getting rid of the chisel marks.

Furthermore, if the "they used a chemical to soften the rock" theory holds water, any hammer and chisel mark would be destroyed by the softening/hardening process.

Further furthermore - Michaelangelo's David was hammer and chiselled from rock - can't think of many rampant chisel marks on that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Peru there are c. 80 000 plants.

Jungle in Brasil and Peru is older then Europe wood. Europe wood is 10 000 BC. Amazon forest is over 50 000 BC. There was no ice there.

In one hectar in peru they found 314 different plants. While in whole Europe we have cca 250 spicies of plants. Brasil and area is epicenter of biodiversity.

I dont think we will ever find that plant.

What's amazing is that the Amazon jungle is not as old as always thought. Large parts have been cultivated by the native Americans, and many millions of people lived there before the Europeans came and wiped them all out with European diseases.

But if you had read what I posted about those plants, then you should know that it must have been a very common plant for the Incas to use it for working stone.

Experiments have been done using several plants and if we have to believe Davidovits and that Peruvian (?) friar then their experiments were successful.

I only try to find a plant with red leaves that fits the description, a plant that you can find today in florist's shops.

+++

EDIT:

To answer your other questions:

- No, I'm not a hacker. Whatever made you think that? I know my way around on the internet, yes, but that's about it.

- No, I haven't found that Arabian scifi story. Most probably you'll have to google using Arabic. Good luck with that.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in our frame of reference at least.

This is the hinge point of it all really. People say alien's; what alien's show me the proof. I think it was Synch who made the point. This picture is definitely Inca and not alien:

7641507-stone-inca-ruins-on-the-island-isla-del-sol-bolivia.jpg

Everywhere you go in the UK you see dry stone walls or similar constructions. You can trace this exact style of architecture very close to our time.

This however is different:

11083903-close-up-of-the-famous-12-angle-stone-in-the-inca-wall-in-rumiyoc-street-in-cuzco-peru.jpg

There is nothing remotely recognisable in this. Nothing even remotely matches it over the last few thousand years to my knowledge. It has no modern analogue whatsoever. Not just huge blocks but small too:

zoser31-1_zps52548b9a.jpg

'We' just do not do this. We do other architecture. Recognisable as Roman, Greek, Renaissance, take your pick. But not these above.

In this sense the above work is well and truly 'alien'.

The cap fits you see.

It certianly seems an extremely elaborate way to do it; if a block doesn't quite fit then saw bits off the corner and make niches here and there rather than just, say, cutting it to fit properly in the first place or finding one a slightly different size.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certianly seems an extremely elaborate way to do it; if a block doesn't quite fit then saw bits off the corner and make niches here and there rather than just, say, cutting it to fit properly in the first place or finding one a slightly different size.

The Incas and their predecessors discovered that structures made of irregular, polygonal blocks are more earthquake-proof.

The top of these walls and buildings were finished with layers of regular cut stones, like our way of building.

Then there is the 'quick and easy' way of building for common housing, what Zoser and others consider to be the only true Inca way of building.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never stated that Gods constructed Puma Punku.

No, the show Ancient Aliens assumes that any Gods discussed are real and are alien.

I simply stated that there could of been somebody else the locals explained as Gods there at the beginning of construction or at any time. What about the idea that the locals saw their God standing in the field where Puma Punku was and got the idea to construct the site there? What about them getting the idea to construct it exactly there because it was ideal in someway? Either one works or both work for me during time back then.

I beg your pardon, you would not have a source to back this up would you, as far as I know it was a religious complex, but I did not know records existed that state any God appeared and indicated that was the spot the build Puma Punku. In fact, Puma Punku stood in the middle of a large farming community f about 400,000 people, I find it quite possible that some fable such as the story of the ten commandments might have been the inspiration for the location, but I would like to see those records of you have them.

Neither "works" for me, I'd like some proof please.

The Greeks did build houses for Gods. This is true. The Pantheon and Colosseum did bust better and I always thought that as well. I technically don't know what Puma Punku looked like, but from what we see one would think that.

Well, it's just fact, man did build them, and there is no denying them, they did not break better if that is what you mean, Puma Punku is thought to have never been finished. It seems reasonable to surmise that with environmental change in the region brining devastating drought drove these people to desperation, where they turned to the only power higher they could think of to appeal to - the Gods of the sky that bring the thunder and lightning, and more importantly, rain. Puma Punku obviously did not get the attention of the Gods, the society failed, broke up and moved on. This is the last ditch effort to save the society and all that remains of a community of 400,000 farmers. By comparison, I think the Greek Structures hold up pretty well considering the conflict they have seen from a "developed" society.

They're reports of somebody else appearing around the World and most of the time locals thought of them as Gods.

According to Ancient Aliens, and that is why they deserve no respect. The original records do not say Aliens, they clearly refer to Gods they hope to appease, which are natural phenomena - rain, and good growing conditions. Self preservation, not trading anti grav tech for pottery.

If someone asks for evidence try the television show Ancient Aliens.

Really?

Please read this link, and then get back to me if you will - LINK

I myself had forgot to mention the actual evidence.

Hrmzzz, there seems to be a lot of that about..............

The evidence of somebody else being here in ancient times is about the same as Bigfoot, cryptic animals, paranormal and religion.

You know what, I have no argument to that.

I do not believe a single one of them is any more than mans active imagination.

Those are true.

I am afraid not. Aliens? sure, Ancient Aliens, no, that some people refuse to believe man was as good a tradesman, as he was, I find no more than pure insult. I see and do things now that these halfwits would call "impossible". I strongly suspect Bigfoot is a similar story to the Yowie, they seem to follow many parallels, and I can safely say that the Yowie does not exist. Religion is so full of holes I would not know where to start. Stranger things exist in fact, instead of the Yowie, consider a tribe clued Ebu Gogo, for which considerable evidence exists, or the Florence Hobbit, The Denisovians, a Jelly Fish that is immortal, the elusive Colossal Squid. We do not need waste time with childish fantasies, real evidence is out there ready to unravel mysteries all over the place. AA is entertainment, taken far to seriously by a small crowd of people. That is the be all end all of it.

The evidence is word of mouth and scripture.

Hearsay and conjecture is not evidence in any way.

It's up for us to believe the stories that have withstood the test of time.

No, and I find that Lazy. I think it is up to us to stand on the shoulders of giants and continue research, and understand the world around us as best we can. We let the real pioneers of science down if we fall back to old religions and worshiping Gods in the hope of rain, as opposed to predicting drought and preparing for it.

To me it seems absolutely ridiculous to suggest such to be frank.

I definitely expect that the ancient Greeks witnessing something that they explained as Gods at sometime.

Yes, thunder. Where did it come from? Must be a God with a Mighty Hammer up in the clouds where the noise comes from. Lighting. Straight as an arrow, and always hit the earth. Must be hurled from the clouds by a giant man who exists to throw lighting bolts around. Good work if you can get it I suppose.

No offence, but you seem to have missed the Industrial revolution. Good news is it is not too late to catch up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets here some theories other than "they used chizzles" they didnt jsut use hammers and chizzles. there would be marks. there would be a quarry. there would be piles of stones that mistakes were made on. you can find carve marks on sculpters in Greece, Egypt, Inca, and Aztec ruins. lets hear how the ancients did this exact construction.

Have you even read the Wikipedia entry on Puma Punku?

Based upon detailed petrographic and chemical analyses of samples from both individual stones and known quarry sites, archaeologists concluded that these and other red sandstone blocks were transported up a steep incline from a quarry near Lake Titicaca roughly 10 km away. Smaller andesite blocks that were used for stone facing and carvings came from quarries within the Copacabana Peninsula about 90 km away from and across Lake Titicaca from the Pumapunka and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site.[3][5]

This Egyptian example would be the most noteworthy an magnificent instance I can think of, the unfinished obelisk. Some very interesting examples in China as well.

220px-Obelisk2.jpg220px-Assuan_07.jpg

It is nearly one third larger than any ancient Egyptian obelisk ever erected. If finished it would have measured around 42 m (approximately 137 feet) and would have weighed nearly 1,200 tons (1,066,621 kilograms).[1] Archeologists speculate that it was intended to complement the so-called Lateran Obelisk which was originally at Karnak and is now outside the Lateran Palacein Rome. (Thutmose III obelisk in Lateran, Rome: 105 ft) Other archaeologists suggest that the pharaoh Hatshepsut ordered it to be built to celebrate her sixteenth year in power.

The obelisk's creators began to carve it directly out of bedrock, but cracks appeared in the granite and the project was abandoned. Originally it was thought that the stone had an undetected flaw but it is also possible that the quarrying process allowed the cracking to develop by releasing the stress. The bottom side of the obelisk is still attached to the bedrock. The unfinished obelisk offers unusual insights into ancient Egyptian stone-working techniques, with marks from workers' tools still clearly visible as well as ocher-colored lines marking where they were working.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are 2 pages from John Hemming's excellent book, "The Conquest of the Incas" :

Hemming_The_Conquest_of_the_Incas.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you even read the Wikipedia entry on Puma Punku?

Based upon detailed petrographic and chemical analyses of samples from both individual stones and known quarry sites, archaeologists concluded that these and other red sandstone blocks were transported up a steep incline from a quarry near Lake Titicaca roughly 10 km away. Smaller andesite blocks that were used for stone facing and carvings came from quarries within the Copacabana Peninsula about 90 km away from and across Lake Titicaca from the Pumapunka and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site.[3][5]

This Egyptian example would be the most noteworthy an magnificent instance I can think of, the unfinished obelisk. Some very interesting examples in China as well.

220px-Obelisk2.jpg220px-Assuan_07.jpg

It is nearly one third larger than any ancient Egyptian obelisk ever erected. If finished it would have measured around 42 m (approximately 137 feet) and would have weighed nearly 1,200 tons (1,066,621 kilograms).[1] Archeologists speculate that it was intended to complement the so-called Lateran Obelisk which was originally at Karnak and is now outside the Lateran Palacein Rome. (Thutmose III obelisk in Lateran, Rome: 105 ft) Other archaeologists suggest that the pharaohHatshepsut ordered it to be built to celebrate her sixteenth year in power.

The obelisk's creators began to carve it directly out of bedrock, but cracks appeared in the granite and the project was abandoned. Originally it was thought that the stone had an undetected flaw but it is also possible that the quarrying process allowed the cracking to develop by releasing the stress. The bottom side of the obelisk is still attached to the bedrock. The unfinished obelisk offers unusual insights into ancient Egyptian stone-working techniques, with marks from workers' tools still clearly visible as well as ocher-colored lines marking where they were working.

LINK

Do you think the builders were fired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certianly seems an extremely elaborate way to do it; if a block doesn't quite fit then saw bits off the corner and make niches here and there rather than just, say, cutting it to fit properly in the first place or finding one a slightly different size.

When I cut a granite floor with my father from left over bench tops, it was an easier way to go most of the time. Of course you set out all the pieces for "best fit" first then cut the lines and fit them. It looked pretty effective in the end. All different cuts of granite, the hard part was the level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the builders were fired?

LOL, if they cracked it, they might be those "mystery mummies"!

But I thought general consensus was that it was a flaw in the rock revealed during the work.

All the best for the new year Lord 7, I do hope the break was, and continues to be most excellent for you.

ETA do you mean why did they stop building altogether? If so, I believe it is the same as our current threat, global environmental change.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, if they cracked it, they might be those "mystery mummies"!

But I thought general consensus was that it was a flaw in the rock revealed during the work.

All the best for the new year Lord 7, I do hope the break was, and continues to be most excellent for you.

ETA do you mean why did they stop building altogether? If so, I believe it is the same as our current threat, global environmental change.

Constructing the biggest Obelisk ever seen for the glory of Queen Hatshepshut, and they either crack it or don't notice that there's a flaw in it; she wouldn't be happy, would she?

Very happy new year greetings to you too. :santa: (One last appearance for him.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Incas and their predecessors discovered that structures made of irregular, polygonal blocks are more earthquake-proof.

The top of these walls and buildings were finished with layers of regular cut stones, like our way of building.

Then there is the 'quick and easy' way of building for common housing, what Zoser and others consider to be the only true Inca way of building.

The Birds nest in China built for the games has a most complex earthquake system, the entire structure flexes, I think if AA'ers saw what goes into that, they would insist that we are still getting help, and it is covered up.

I'd like to see them tell the engineer that though.

I mentioned I have family in your part of the world, they are in Leiden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constructing the biggest Obelisk ever seen for the glory of Queen Hatshepshut, and they either crack it or don't notice that there's a flaw in it; she wouldn't be happy, would she?

Very happy new year greetings to you too. :santa: (One last appearance for him.)

Maybe not, after all, the base is still fixed, it seems an honest mistake from that I would think. But it is certainly feasible that someone got a royal boot. Had there been Ancient Aliens around, one would think they would have X Rayed the rock before getting so far into it though.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of burning. Could be handling marks? Who knows. Can't see how this was done chemically or by pounding. Reminds me of fossilised prints left in ancient mud. I think this was burned in. The site is Sacsayhuaman. Working though these video clips is revealing some unbelievable features.

zoser28_zpsee8cc530.jpg

zoser26_zps1f266e19.jpg

zoser27_zps43a31236.jpg

From Video:

Inca Sachsayhuaman: Gate Of The Creator Viracocha

I have noticed you are quick with the word "evidence', Zoser.

It's a strange mark indeed, but is it evidence for burning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone asks for evidence try the television show Ancient Aliens.

You cannot be serious. The show has been shown to lie and leave out facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, back to botany again, lol.

I have not given up, despite The L saying we will never find it.

Well, the lead was obviously that quote from Brian Fawcette's book, "EXPLORATION FAWCETT", The Companion Book Club, London, 1954: 105-106 :

"My nephew was down in the Chuncho country on the Pyrene River in Peru, and his horse going lame one day he left it at a neighbouring chacra, about five miles away from his own, and walked home. Next day he walked over to get his horse, and took a short cut through a strip of forest he had never before penetrated. He was wearing riding breeches, top boots, and big spurs–not the little English kind, but the great Mexican spurs four inches long, with rowels bigger than a half-crown piece–and these spurs were almost new. When he got to the chacra after a hot and difficult walk through thick bush he was amazed to find that his beautiful spurs were gone–eaten away somehow, till they were no more than black spikes projecting an eighth of an inch. He couldn't understand it, till the owner of the chacra asked him if by any chance he had walked through a certain plant about a foot high, with dark reddish leaves. My nephew at once remembered that he came through a wide area where the ground was thickly covered with such a plant. 'That's it!' said the chacarero. That's what's eaten your spurs away! That's the stuff the Incas used for shaping stones. The juice will soften rock up till it's like paste. You must show me where you found the plants.' When they came to look for the place they couldn't find it. It's not easy to retrace your steps in jungle where no trails exist."

I can tell you: I have looked on modern online maps till my eyes hurt, but coudn't find either that Chuncho country or the Pyrene river. Yes, there are some area called Chuncho, but they are the wrong ones, and also no Pyrene River. I even read the whole chapter in my Dutch edition of 1953 ("LANGS DE ACRE", page 88), followed the route Brian Fawcett mentions, and still nothing.

Well, you got it: go look on an OLD map !

And then I hit jackpot.

Look on this map: http://upload.wikime...kerton-1818.jpg

And then go to 71 degrees west and 11-12 degrees south : Chuncho country! Then scroll to the left and there he is: the Perené River.

post-18246-0-15450900-1357311480_thumb.j

So the Pyrene River from the quote is spelled wrong: it is the Perené River:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Perené_River

.

OK, now I'll go look for a foot high red plants with red, spongy/fleshy leaves along the Perené River.

May take a while....

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Brian Fawcett says, using the notes of his father, that the bird in question lives near rivers and looks somewhat like a kingfisher. It builds its nest in the steep cliffs along the river. That's a few paragraphs before someone called it a woodpecker.

They live in the Montaña of Peru and Bolivia.

Follow the bird along the Perené, and then someone should be able to find that plant too.

Others think it's a dipper:

There are reports of a small, kingfisher-like bird, probably

the white-capped dipper, ‘cinclus leucocephalus’, which

nests in spherical holes in the Bolivian Andes and bores

these out of solid rock on the banks of mountain streams

by rubbing a leaf on the stone until it is soft and can be

pecked away.

-Lyall Watson, Supernature, pp.177,178

http://www.beforeus..../nl02_proc.html

But I think kingfisher is a lot better possibility:

Kingfishers in Peru

Here's one on its way to a nesthole in a cliff:

Amazon%20Kingfisher%209875.jpg

http://www.galleryof...Kingfishers.htm

,

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Brian Fawcett says, using the notes of his father, that the bird in question lives near rivers and looks somewhat like a kingfisher. It builds its nest in the steep cliffs along the river. That's a few paragraphs before someone called it a woodpecker.

They live in the Montaña of Peru and Bolivia.

Follow the bird along the Perené, and then someone should be able to find that plant too.

Others think it's a dipper:

There are reports of a small, kingfisher-like bird, probably

the white-capped dipper, ‘cinclus leucocephalus’, which

nests in spherical holes in the Bolivian Andes and bores

these out of solid rock on the banks of mountain streams

by rubbing a leaf on the stone until it is soft and can be

pecked away.

-Lyall Watson, Supernature, pp.177,178

http://www.beforeus..../nl02_proc.html

But I think kingfisher is a lot better possibility:

Kingfishers in Peru

Here's one on its way to a nesthole in a cliff:

http://www.galleryof...Kingfishers.htm

,

:tu: Hats off to your passionate research, its good to see a mystery getting fleshed out with places and names! If zoser could put his heart into researching stuff, like a lot of us do, rather than just accepting the content of videos, we may see another side of zoser. Who knows Abe, you just may solve a riddle and bring to the world an amazing substance that is long forgotten about!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astroskull.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

astroskull.jpg

I just wanted to share this cause I thought it was pretty cool. It, in no way, is meant to enforce the ancient alien astronaut dribble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolded is the kicker..... not to your knowledge. :tu:

Humility is a virtue. Can't say the same for people who knit pick other peoples language like wild scavengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humility is a virtue. Can't say the same for people who knit pick other peoples language like wild scavengers.

Now who is knit picking zoser?

BTW: Webster dictionary says:

nit–pick·ing: noun \nit-pi-kiŋ\

Definition of NIT-PICKING

minute and usually unjustified criticism

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.