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 vitrification is only a thin glass like layer.

but your argument is that it's a by-product from some high-technology stone cutting (machine?), right?

Often only visible when light shines in certain angles and the reflection is like a prism effect (hence the rainbow effect).

but if it resulted from the 'smooth' surfaces, how is it that the irregular surfaces are vitrified too?

What you are looking at in this photo (post 4154) is where some extra moulding was done on that one block only. Probably accidently while it was in it's clay like condition.

you're conveniently shifting goal posts with another set of imaginary clauses just in order to keep your cherished view-point intact?

On the larger megalithic relics the finish tends to be smoother and so the vitrification has a marble effect.

you seem to have missed the point about 'laser precision' which s2f also highlighted

It appears to me that you guys have not researched this very well.

Check out the video clip in this link:

i'm not going to bother myself with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the shine, or 'vitrification' is not there.

you need to tilt your screen...

Tilt-Your-Screen-Back_o_92815.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if the rocks wear cracked out of the groud along natural fault lines, this resulting in the random shapes, through the insertion of wood thst was expanded with water and fire - the fire resulting in th vitrification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but your argument is that it's a by-product from some high-technology stone cutting (machine?), right?

but if it resulted from the 'smooth' surfaces, how is it that the irregular surfaces are vitrified too?

you're conveniently shifting goal posts with another set of imaginary clauses just in order to keep your cherished view-point intact?

you seem to have missed the point about 'laser precision' which s2f also highlighted

i'm not going to bother myself with this

Watch the video clip. It's shows all the different types of surfaces.

Some flat surfaces have been cut then moulded while the stone is soft.

Whether you bother with it is up to you.

It won't change anything believe me,

Just because we have no idea of what heat technology they used that in no way negates the principle. The finger prints are there and we know that heat and moulding were the two processes.

Neither do we have any idea why they did it. These two questions will be the theme of my continuing research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if the rocks wear cracked out of the groud along natural fault lines, this resulting in the random shapes, through the insertion of wood thst was expanded with water and fire - the fire resulting in th vitrification?

No point in trying to convince anyone; the process is clear. Look at the video clip on vitrification and get to see as many images as you can. Look back over all my posts. Watch Brien Foerster and Jan Peter de Jong on you tube.

So what happened to the flawless alien 'machining' of these blocks? Have you abandoned that idea in favor of a more human explanation? Please don't trip while you are backpedaling.

See above two posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the shine, or 'vitrification' is not there.

You refer to a Puma Punku relic.

The vitrification is all over them.

3514627947_0bafc87c7d.jpg

I can't do it for you Abe.

You have to look at the relics yourself. I'm moving on to look at other important aspects of this mystery now. I'm not going to keep posting pictures of rock forever.

The angle of viewing and light shows up the vitrification as does the texture of the stone.

Do some research is what I suggest instead of picking the bones out of mine.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in trying to convince anyone; the process is clear. Look at the video clip on vitrification and get to see as many images as you can. Look back over all my posts. Watch Brien Foerster and Jan Peter de Jong on you tube.

See above two posts.

I'm not trying to cnvince anyone of anything, that's your department. I'm trying to explore ideas and posibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to cnvince anyone of anything, that's your department. I'm trying to explore ideas and posibilities.

Let the images do the convincing. That's the only way you will do it. Look at caves, mountainsides, rock outcrops, ruins and walls across Peru and Bolivia. Anywhere that precision work has happened.

Notice that any image showing vitrification is always taken at an angle; that's the only way to see it on a low resolution image. Images taken full on will not show it as clearly, and even the shots at an angle may not, it depends upon the light conditions. That's why you need to see dozens of images in different locations otherwise you will draw a false conclusion from looking at only part of the evidence.

That's where Foerster's material scores. He shows an enormous quantity of artifacts.

Example is these walls. I think this shot is inside:

Inca_wall_1_-_Coricancha_Peru.jpg

An outside wall under certain light conditions the vitrification is obvious:

4-wall-cuzco.jpg?w=620

This video however is not Brien Foerster.

Uploaded on Jun 30, 2011

Something special happened when these walls were constructed, the borders are vitrified and so tight fitting that nothing enters between the blocks. The video shows signs of vitrification, the good observer will notice refracted light on the borders, stone is also smoother there and has another color. It seems the stone has been treated with heat there. Was the stone soft on the moment of construction? For more, see: http://www.ancient-m...-explained.com/

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You refer to a Puma Punku relic.

The vitrification is all over them.

3514627947_0bafc87c7d.jpg

I can't do it for you Abe.

You have to look at the relics yourself. I'm moving on to look at other important aspects of this mystery now. I'm not going to keep posting pictures of rock forever.

The angle of viewing and light shows up the vitrification as does the texture of the stone.

Do some research is what I suggest instead of picking the bones out of mine.

I refer to this image, the one you posted:

zoser42_zps9c56223c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zoser36_zpsd3e9570f.jpg

And this one: also no glaze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this one: also no glaze.

Not on here either:

14%252520Pumapunku.jpg

But as if by magic:

zoser8-1_zps6216d215.jpg

and also:

Zoser73_zps64235353.jpg

Same site but now you see it and now you don't.

So can you work it out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not on here either:

14%252520Pumapunku.jpg

But as if by magic:

zoser8-1_zps6216d215.jpg

and also:

Zoser73_zps64235353.jpg

Same site but now you see it and now you don't.

So can you work it out?

Same site, but was it the same stone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same site, but was it the same stone?

Not sure if it is the same stone; red sand stone, diorite (rumoured not validated) and andesite were used at Puma Punku to my knowledge.

I think it's more the sun shining at certain angles. It' cant be easy to see otherwise folk would have reported it decades ago.

It's here:

zoser43-1_zps84fb99c5.jpg

but not here:

12Puma_Punku_slabs.JPG

That to me looks like the same artifact, just different angle and lighting

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing Zoser: have you checked how natural granite formations sometimes look? Google "granite" AND "shine" or "gloss" or whatever.

Btw, you advised me to 'do some research'. Well, I do, but I have been busy with botany., and how chemicals from plant roots and chemicals formed by lichen are able to attack and dissolve rock like granite.

Just so you know I am not sitting on my flat behind doing nothing, lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing Zoser: have you checked how natural granite formations sometimes look? Google "granite" AND "shine" or "gloss" or whatever.

Btw, you advised me to 'do some research'. Well, I do, but I have been busy with botany., and how chemicals from plant roots and chemicals formed by lichen are able to attack and dissolve rock like granite.

Just so you know I am not sitting on my flat behind doing nothing, lol.

.

see some of these snaps of rocks for natural shine, soft edges, and a 'vitrified' look in parts

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/landscape-photos/153854-seaside-rock-morning-sun-norwegian-shores.html

these are just seaside/shoreside rocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Zoser, did you read my comment of yesterday, about this photo you posted?

zoser36_zpsd3e9570f.jpg

It not only doesn't have that shine, but it does have many tiny dents as if someone has been hammering it like crazy

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see some of these snaps of rocks for natural shine, soft edges, and a 'vitrified' look in parts

http://forums.steves...ian-shores.html

these are just seaside/shoreside rocks

Yes, and my point is that this natural shine caused by microbes, algae and weeds is caused by these life forms chemically weathering the stone, and that this process can be sped up by extracting these chemicals in large quantities, concentrate them and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that this vitrification does exist all in nature, and alludes to volcanic or high temperature processes.

As I said to seeder though it's erroneous to think that the rock was vitrified to begin with as a little research soon verifies.

zoser41-1_zps82613840.jpg

I believe you. Keep up the good work; anything I say is only light hearted jest I can assure you.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said: the same shine is caused by life forms chemically altering the surface of rocks.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also see

see some of these snaps of rocks for natural shine, soft edges, and a 'vitrified' look in parts

http://forums.steves...ian-shores.html

these are just seaside/shoreside rocks

You also see shine on cobbled streets. In the vitrification documentary they make it clear that there is a difference between this kind of shine and the vitrification effect.

No doubt lots of things can cause a similar effect.

The only one explanation that fits all the evidence is heat.

The sinking in effect seen in the dismantled stones is the big give away, as is the moulding on the larger stones.

All points to the same thing.

zoser32-1_zps95dcfa8e.jpg

This is not deliberate pounding. It just doesn't make sense. It's stones of different weight sinking in to soft stone.

That's how the lips and steps are explained:

zoser7-1_zps417fb000.jpg

Not deliberate. Just a difference in weight and perhaps the stone got too soft.

Was this an accident or an attempted repair while the stone was in a soft state ?:

zoser22_zpsbfa1fe40.jpg

And were these marks accidents?

zoser35-1_zpsd3dac690.jpg

Also notice the vitrification on these stones. Whatever the marks are deliberate or accidental they support the same basic principle of heat being involved.

Apologies for posting these again. I just think it's important not to pick out specific cases in nature to use as counter evidence. All the evidence has to be examined.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a stupid question, but did anyone ever try out melting granite and sandstone in some oven?

If so, how did the surface look and are there photos available online?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a stupid question, but did anyone ever try out melting granite and sandstone in some oven?

If so, how did the surface look and are there photos available online?

It would need to be very high temperature. I would have thought using an oxy-acetylene torch may be a better option. Just heat it locally and see what the effect is. Andesite would be better since most of the relics seem to be made of that.

I'll see if I can arrange something. Friend of mine has a car repair workshop. Can't say if andesite is here but plenty of red granite in the Channel Islands.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would need to be very high temperature. I would have thought using an oxy-acetylene torch may be a better option. Just heat it locally and see what the effect is. Andesite would be better since most of the relics seem to be made of that.

I'll see if I can arrange something. Friend of mine has a car repair workshop. Can't say if andesite is here but plenty of red granite in the Channel Islands.

I once visited Machu Picchu (1991) and as a souvenir I took a little granite (??) stone (of a bit more than an inch long) from the site.

Lately I have been thinking of putting it in my microwave oven just to see the result, but maybe that's not a good idea.

==

I do hope you can persuade your friend.

I haven't heard of JGirl lately, after I asked her to use the leaves of Caladium she grows in her garden....

Btw, another contender to the 'throne' is the Begonia.

There is a variety growing on stone. Google "Machu Picchu" AND "Begonia", and you will see photos of Begonia growing on rock:

710799544_def9b728ef.jpg

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once visited Machu Picchu (1991) and as a souvenir I took a little granite stone (of a bit more than an inch long) from the site.

Lately I have been thinking of putting it in my microwave oven just to see the result, but maybe that's not a good idea.

Only if you can afford to scrap the microwave; or it may be ok.

Do microwaves only cook something containing liquids?

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.