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

Unlikely.

But then if it was a handling mark why not discard the piece and start over? Manipulating these blocks clearly wasn't difficult. Suggests to me that it was done after initial build.

Conversely, if molding the rocks was so easy, why didn't they smooth out the marks and protrusions after the fact?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does all this add up to?

Several indicators of intense heat.

Deep mould marks in solid rock all over Peru consistent with objects being pushed into the stone, both accidental and deliberate (see snake effect above ).

Bulging out effects in much larger blocks consistent with weight being exerted on soft material.

Vitrification which is known to be a side effect of intense heat.

Evidence of blocks from dismantled walls where deep prints have been made from heavy blocks on top. This now fully accounts for the precision joins.

Vitrification on unlevelled surfaces from quarrying areas. This must have been the result of initial cutting and not post chemical treatment.

That's all for tonight.

Z

Unless the heating/cooking/firing is used to reverse the softening process, just like firing clay to form porcelain.

Basically, they use the chemical to soften the rock, get it into a good shape and the heat it again to harden it/cook off the chemical, except some of the crystals in the rock react to the heat and vitrify or the rock gets scorched - shoddy/easily distracted workmen are not a modern development after all.

That serpentine shape could have been easily carved in a soft, clay-like rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were doing that? Didnt know that. In what period? Imagine if ignorance is reason for those polygonal blocks.

Memories are sadly vague, but I seem to recall it turning up in early Renaissance art and/or architecture.

Or ... as our friend Professor Google informs us ... it's Islamic art.

http://www.geometricdesign.co.uk/perfect.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the heating/cooking/firing is used to reverse the softening process, just like firing clay to form porcelain.

Basically, they use the chemical to soften the rock, get it into a good shape and the heat it again to harden it/cook off the chemical, except some of the crystals in the rock react to the heat and vitrify or the rock gets scorched - shoddy/easily distracted workmen are not a modern development after all.

That serpentine shape could have been easily carved in a soft, clay-like rock.

Not convincing. Try putting a 100 tonne block in an oven.

No evidence that they had chemicals to soften rock never mind penetrate that depth in the rock.

Jan Peter de Jong and Chris Jordon's findings on the subject:

http://www.scubbly.com/item/51578/

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely, if molding the rocks was so easy, why didn't they smooth out the marks and protrusions after the fact?

Why they were left in this state with mould marks I have no idea. Maybe it just didn't matter at Sacsayhuaman. The Cuzco walls are nearly perfect with just the odd blemish.

The marks are what they are regardless.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.

In my summary on precision architecture I stated that the lips and steps in the stone wall joints were not intended but the result of different weight blocks acting on soft clay like stone.

Here is the proof in the form of blocks from a dismantled wall. The images are snapshots taken from a documentary summarising Gamarra's findings:

zoser32-1_zps95dcfa8e.jpg

zoser33-1_zpsef9a0e75.jpg

Here is one picture that you would most probably have seen from the youtube clip on the subject of vitrification. I didn't appreciate the significance of it until now.

zoser34-1_zps6b38c950.jpg

The shine is the vitrification effect again.

The striking thing is the depth of the moulding. This piece was again done when the stone was in a clay like condition and some moulding tool was run down the stone to create the snake effect. The stone to the far right of the block must have been subject to the heat of the whole block because it too is vitrified but it wasn't smoothed to the same degree with the flat moulding tool.

This is exactly the same effect you would get if a moulding tool was run across a piece of soft clay. Then smoothed with a flat implement.

Can this be explained chemically? It's too deep for that. Unless the stone was hacked out to a certain depth first. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here Abe.

It does look more and more to me like the result of heat however. We know that heat does this. We don't know that chemical does. We also don't know that they had the quantity of any chemical to carry out burning to this degree.

Another smoking gun.

I refer you again to Nova, where J P Protzen replicates just this type of joint. From 2:00:

http://www.videopediaworld.com/video/31891/Secrets-of-Lost-Empires-The-Inca-Empire-Part-3-of-6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- 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.

I agree its impossible to find it. But I was thinking that you with your special searching skills would have better chance. Why I thought you are hacker? Well I didnt think you are hacker, hacker. Just that beside your work or else (such as history interests) that you have amazing searching skills. You presented that skill numerous time. Not just that you always find right thing but in a unbelivble short time period. You are fast.

So, I concluded that you are in way special with your skills and I asked a question.

Because of your skill you could search job in Lotto.nl

If they have had beting on football,basketball and similar. They search for people who are fast in searching history about certain events, news about some certain events to set up cours. But beside internet skill you have you must have knowledge in history of sport and sport in general.

So...If you ever make career of it and start earning millions remember me. :innocent:

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

I feel horrible now. Please dont my judgement stop you in anything. I would be very happy if you find it.

I do hope you will find it. Just my pessimistic note there. Me out of order there. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer you again to Nova, where J P Protzen replicates just this type of joint. From 2:00:

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

Oh dear Mr O. I took a look at some poor wag bashing a block with a lump of granite. Why is that relevant?

How can the sinking in be possibly explained.

The last few posts prove beyond doubt that the conventional theories are utter nonsense. If you can't see it from these last few posts then you will never see it.

Plus the joins in Peru are infinitely better than the poor efforts of the pounding man.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why they were left in this state with mould marks I have no idea. Maybe it just didn't matter at Sacsayhuaman. The Cuzco walls are nearly perfect with just the odd blemish.

...until you look up, and start seeing lugs on the highest blocks.

The marks are what they are regardless.

Therein lies the question.

Notice too nearly all the lugs and indentations are located at the edges of the blocks, exactly where you would need to get ahold of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not convincing. Try putting a 100 tonne block in an oven.

You say "in an oven" I say "build a great big fire around".

No evidence that they had chemicals to soften rock never mind penetrate that depth in the rock.

Hasn't the topic of conversation for the last few pages been about rock softening chemicals from plants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear Mr O. I took a look at some poor wag bashing a block with a lump of granite. Why is that relevant?

How can the sinking in be possibly explained.

It can be explained by precisely that method if one does not assume it to be the result of sinking in the first place.

The last few posts prove beyond doubt that the conventional theories are utter nonsense. If you can't see it from these last few posts then you will never see it.

Right back at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be explained by precisely that method if one does not assume it to be the result of sinking in the first place.

Right back at you.

So why do think they didn't flatten the stones then? Why do they show ridges and different depths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say "in an oven" I say "build a great big fire around".

Hasn't the topic of conversation for the last few pages been about rock softening chemicals from plants?

A big fire enough to soften andesite? Really? What sort of fire would soften these?

Sacsayhuaman1.jpg

The flower display; that's Abe's conversation not mine.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fire wouldn't soften the rock, that's the result of the chemical - the fire would be used to "cook off" the chemical allowing the stone to naturally harden again.

And why not? A big enough fire pit, rock goes in, fired, out it comes again. Time consuming certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does all this add up to?

Several indicators of intense heat.

Deep mould marks in solid rock all over Peru consistent with objects being pushed into the stone, both accidental and deliberate (see snake effect above ).

Bulging out effects in much larger blocks consistent with weight being exerted on soft material.

Vitrification which is known to be a side effect of intense heat.

Evidence of blocks from dismantled walls where deep prints have been made from heavy blocks on top. This now fully accounts for the precision joins.

Vitrification on unlevelled surfaces from quarrying areas. This must have been the result of initial cutting and not post chemical treatment.

That's all for tonight.

Z

Once again, for rock to soften under heat, it must melt. Even though andesite has a relatively high viscosity, any rock that was melted enough to deform like that would flow like fresh taffy, and radiate heat like nobody's business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we found plant and do experiment where we can see that soften those stones I will believe in it. I think its some kind of allegory. Its hard to me to believe that such plant exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like talking to the wall

hello_wall_zps67235389.jpg

Zoser, please, stop peddling bs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fire wouldn't soften the rock, that's the result of the chemical - the fire would be used to "cook off" the chemical allowing the stone to naturally harden again.

And why not? A big enough fire pit, rock goes in, fired, out it comes again. Time consuming certainly.

Well nice try.

I'm claiming this one. It's taken a long time, but the evidence is now totally insurmountable and all I see is pretty flowers and people fumbling desperately trying to dig up enough sand to bury the evidence.

Good luck. This nut is cracked.

The top of the dismantled stones was the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle which validates everything that I have claimed; that the blocks sunk into each other while the stone was in a heated soft state. The vitrification is again proof of heat, and chemical treatment alone has never been proved to vitrify stone. Heat is easily provable to cause this effect.

The evidence is on the Gamarra documentary and cannot be refuted.

Good luck with your frantic digging and don't forget to smell the flowers on the way.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do think they didn't flatten the stones then? Why do they show ridges and different depths?

Conservation of effort for the most part, and if the blocks differ in size, why shouldn't the interfaces necessary to make stable joints between them differ too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we found plant and do experiment where we can see that soften those stones I will believe in it. I think its some kind of allegory. Its hard to me to believe that such plant exist.

Someone with a bit of sense. When they find the plant they then have to explain the quantities needed.

This one is over!

Conservation of effort for the most part, and if the blocks differ in size, why shouldn't the interfaces necessary to make stable joints between them differ too?

:innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one of the men that found the evidence though 60 years of painstaking research.

alfredo-gamarra1.jpg

Foerster himself while not agreeing with all of his theories nevertheless credits him with a lot of ground breaking work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well nice try.

I'm claiming this one. It's taken a long time, but the evidence is now totally insurmountable and all I see is pretty flowers and people fumbling desperately trying to dig up enough sand to bury the evidence.

Good luck. This nut is cracked.

The top of the dismantled stones was the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle which validates everything that I have claimed; that the blocks sunk into each other while the stone was in a heated soft state. The vitrification is again proof of heat, and chemical treatment alone has never been proved to vitrify stone. Heat is easily provable to cause this effect.

The evidence is on the Gamarra documentary and cannot be refuted.

Good luck with your frantic digging and don't forget to smell the flowers on the way.

Gamarra again. Maybe that's how they did it...

6a00d8341c630a53ef013480ff7b97970c-600wi.jpg

You haven't even proven the vitrification yet. The only way it's irrefutable is because you've barely posted anything too refute.

(Imaginarynumber, I finally saw what you did there)

Edit: Perfect timing zoser. :lol:

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then feel free to explain my last posts

here

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4607836

[...]

Pounding, grinding, pounding, grinding... many manhours.
Weathering. You've been provided with several images of weathered granites, need more?

You know, nature can come up with spectacular things, for example

235463193.jpg

(link, in Russian)

OMFG, alienz spaceship!

Weathering again...

So? What else do you have?

[...]

The effect has been replicated.

It's done.

Right, someone stick his dick in the clay. Thats considered the "evidence"?!
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

Besides leaves of the plants, have you considered Oxalis tuberosa, which was domesticated in the area? (sorry, if that was brought earlier... with such pace its hard to follow).

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.