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

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

Do microwaves only cook something containing liquids?

You ever touched the plastic container or ceramic bowl in which you prepared your meal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ajnr.org/content/24/6/1142.full

This is an x-ray of King Tut. Child of Akhenaten. Fat, rounded, elongated skull. NOT flat and manipulated as with wrappings or boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ever touched the plastic container or ceramic bowl in which you prepared your meal?

Isn't that just conduction through the food? That said I did see a guy transform a piece of glass into a plasma state in a microwave once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ajnr.org/.../24/6/1142.full

This is an x-ray of King Tut. Child of Akhenaten. Fat, rounded, elongated skull. NOT flat and manipulated as with wrappings or boards.

Interesting; maybe the representations of the Armana family were more than just artistic license?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that just conduction through the food? That said I did see a guy transform a piece of glass into a plasma state in a microwave once.

Microwaves work by heating polar molecules, and they are present in some plastics and ceramics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ajnr.org/.../24/6/1142.full

This is an x-ray of King Tut. Child of Akhenaten. Fat, rounded, elongated skull. NOT flat and manipulated as with wrappings or boards.

It doesn't look anyway near to the elongated Peruvian skulls discussed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't look anyway near to the elongated Peruvian skulls discussed here.

No it doesn't. Still an enigma though. I would have expected to see elongation on earlier specimens say from the Old Kingdom. I haven't researched Egyptian skulls in any great detail really. Except this:

One of the most important finds within the land of Egypt occurred when Egyptologist and archaeologist Professor Walter B. Emery (1903-1971) was excavating tombs at the necropolis of Saqqara, one of the oldest cities in the land. Professor Emery discovered the remains of men with blond hair and fair complexions.

These individuals were revered by the Egyptians as a gifted elite. Vittorio Di Cesare and Adriano Forgione write about Emery's enigmatic discoveries in their articleMalta: Skulls of the Mother Goddess:

...the famous Egyptologist, author of "Archaic Egypt"...discovered the remains of individuals who lived in the pre-dynastic epoch. These presented a dolichocephalous skull, larger than that of the local ethnic group, fair hair and a taller, heavier build. Emery declared that this stock wasn't indigenous to Egypt but had performed an important sacerdotal and governmental role in this country.

This race kept its distance from the common people, blending only with the aristocratic classes and the scholar associated them with the Shemsu Hor, the "disciples of Horus"...The Shemsu Hor are recognized as the dominant sacerdotal caste in pre-dynastic Egypt (until approximately 3000 B.C.), being mentioned in the Turin papyrus and the list of the kings of Abydos.

Professor Emery wrote of his finds in Archaic Egypt: Culture and Civilization in Egypt Five Thousand Years Ago:

Towards the end of the IV millennium B.C. the people known as the Disciples of Horus appear as a highly dominant aristocracy that governed entire Egypt. The theory of the existence of this race is supported by the discovery in the pre-dynastic tombs, in the northern part of Higher Egypt, of the anatomical remains of individuals with bigger skulls and builds than the native population, with so much difference to exclude any hypothetical common racial strain. The fusion of the two races must have come about in ages that concurred, more or less, with the unification of the two Egyptian Kingdoms...The racial origin of these invaders is not known and the route they took in their penetration of Egypt is equally obscure.

http://www.irishorig...erpts/ch10.html

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this Abe:

What is Vitrification?

Also referred to as crystallisation or re-crystallisation, this is a method used to achieve a high gloss finish. This procedure is usually used as the final polishing process or for regular maintenance in high traffic areas that require a constant shine such as a hotel reception. It is thought by some people that this is a relatively new method of shining stone however it has in fact been used for around 30 years since its invention in Barcelona.

The method works by creating a chemical reaction on the surface of the stone with the use of steel wool and specially formulated chemical compounds. This is only achievable on stone containing calcium carbonate and so most limestone, marble and travertine can be vitrified where as granite cannot.

How does it work?

Most manufacturers of vitrification products will use three main ingredients:

An acid

Fluorosilicate compounds

Waxes

Now it may sound strange to use acid in a product which is used on calcite stone because as we know, acid etches these types of stone. In this case however the acid is used to break down the bond between the calcium and the carbonate. This allows the fluorosilicate to bond with the calcium to produce calcium fluorosilicate. This process has chemically altered the surface of the stone producing a harder finish.

http://www.ethosmarblecare.co.uk/restore-stone/vitrification.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I already said: vitrification can also be the result of a chemical process called crystallisation.

What's left out in the article is that granite contains small amounts of CaO (1,8%) and that reacts well with oxalic acid.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I already said: vitrification can also be the result of a chemical process called crystallisation.

What's left out in the article is that granite contains small amounts of CaO (1,8%) and that reacts well with oxalic acid.

.

They are stating though that it cannot be done with granite. Most of the Peru relics are andesite, akin to granite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are stating though that it cannot be done with granite. Most of the Peru relics are andesite, akin to granite.

From the article:

"The method works by creating a chemical reaction on the surface of the stone with the use of steel wool and specially formulated chemical compounds. This is only achievable on stone containing calcium carbonate and so most limestone, marble and travertine can be vitrified where as granite cannot."

Then they are wrong: I showed you the chemical reaction between oxalic acid and CaO.

It may take a more stronger acid, but it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

"The method works by creating a chemical reaction on the surface of the stone with the use of steel wool and specially formulated chemical compounds. This is only achievable on stone containing calcium carbonate and so most limestone, marble and travertine can be vitrified where as granite cannot."

Then they are wrong: I showed you the chemical reaction between oxalic acid and CaO.

It may take a more stronger acid, but it can be done.

How much Cao is there in andesite; do we know?

Edited by zoser

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.

.

Rocks start to melt at around 1100 degrees, depending on the mineral content.

One thing you have to be careful with is microwaves mainly cook by exiting water molecules. If there's any water in the rock, it could potentially explode.

Wow, you really can find anything on youtube:

If you want some andesite to play with without ruining your souvenir, you're not that far away from some:

http://www.mindat.org/loc-14808.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocks start to melt at around 1100 degrees, depending on the mineral content.

One thing you have to be careful with is microwaves mainly cook by exiting water molecules. If there's any water in the rock, it could potentially explode.

Wow, you really can find anything on youtube:

[media=]

[/media]

If you want some andesite to play with without ruining your souvenir, you're not that far away from some:

If Abe doesn't report back tomorrow we may gather that something didn't go to plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this Abe:

What is Vitrification?

Also referred to as crystallisation or re-crystallisation, this is a method used to achieve a high gloss finish. This procedure is usually used as the final polishing process or for regular maintenance in high traffic areas that require a constant shine such as a hotel reception. It is thought by some people that this is a relatively new method of shining stone however it has in fact been used for around 30 years since its invention in Barcelona.

The method works by creating a chemical reaction on the surface of the stone with the use of steel wool and specially formulated chemical compounds. This is only achievable on stone containing calcium carbonate and so most limestone, marble and travertine can be vitrified where as granite cannot.

How does it work?

Most manufacturers of vitrification products will use three main ingredients:

An acid

Fluorosilicate compounds

Waxes

Now it may sound strange to use acid in a product which is used on calcite stone because as we know, acid etches these types of stone. In this case however the acid is used to break down the bond between the calcium and the carbonate. This allows the fluorosilicate to bond with the calcium to produce calcium fluorosilicate. This process has chemically altered the surface of the stone producing a harder finish.

http://www.ethosmarb...ification.shtml

Nice. Very similar to what I already told you about the Bielby layer, and they're adding silicates, like in the sample. And all at room temperature.

Only thing is they've got their terminology a bit off. In true vitrification, you're actually destroying the crystal structure, leaving a glass, which is amorphous, IE non-crystalline. (vitreous=glassy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Abe doesn't report back tomorrow we may gather that something didn't go to plan.

Heh, I am not going to Southern Germany to get me some adesite, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
#

How can a reaction with an acid on a block of stone be that effective with only such a small amount of material to react on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. Very similar to what I already told you about the Bielby layer, and they're adding silicates, like in the sample. And all at room temperature.

Only thing is they've got their terminology a bit off. In true vitrification, you're actually destroying the crystal structure, leaving a glass, which is amorphous, IE non-crystalline. (vitreous=glassy)

OK but the point they are making is that granite does not vitrify. Most of the Peruvian relics are similar to granite (high quartz).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we now trying to say that they may have microwaved the rocks?! Heavens, what will they think of next. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK but the point they are making is that granite does not vitrify. Most of the Peruvian relics are similar to granite (high quartz).

By that specific process, which isn't true heat vitrification anyway. I see lime content seems to be the determining factor. Suppose they added lime to the surface as part of the treatment?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#

How can a reaction with an acid on a block of stone be that effective with only such a small amount of material to react on?

If lichen can, why can't we?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and nopeda both enjoy the fallacious straw man argument i see.

:lol: You people are HILARIOUS! I doubt either of us are saying we know xts have been to this star system...at least I know I'm not saying that. But I certainly do consider the possibility and feel that it would be idiotic not to. You in contrast insist :lol: that it's idiotic to consider that they have. Tell us then :mellow: is it impossible for any beings in the universe to travel from any star system to another? Or is it possible that they do in some places but impossible for them to do it here for some reason(s)? Either way, explain why you want people to believe it's impossible for them to do it here. And don't give us some lameass fallacious straw man "reason" either. Give us at least one good solid reason why it's impossible for any xts to travel to this star system, then we'll let the rest of the world know and we can settle this stupid shiit once and for all. Go:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 05 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

I'd expect them to look as they do, which they do, because they were carved to look that way. You can't even comprehend how it would be different if some plaster was still left, than it would be if none was left. That's pretty bad. On top of that there's no reason to believe they were ever plastered over or carved over, except that some people guess it possibly happened. So far I've seen no reason to believe it did though.

You said, "Let's not forget that it doesn't LOOK LIKE they were plastered over." I repeat, How would you expect them to look?

I'd like to know how I "can't comprehend" when I just brought it up. Given the amount of space we've got to work with, they could look like almost anything.

I've just given you several very good logical reasons to believe just that, all of which you've ignored in favor of an oblique attack. There is no guesswork involved. As you say, either they look like two overlapping sets of legible hieroglyphs or they don't, and since they do...

They look like they were carved to appear as they do in ALL of the pics WE have seen of them, otherwise you would have presented one where it doesn't by now. :lol: Pics with computer generated drawings on them don't count btw. Maybe you think they do somehow? :no: They don't.

When considering the only possibility you're capable of which is that they WERE plastered over you can't comprehend how it would be different if some plaster is still there, than if none is still there. YOU told me that, and I have no idea how you could possibly be clueless enough to believe it. It often comes down to this: Are you honestly clueless enough to believe there is no difference in those two different possibilities, or are you dishonestly pretending you are for some reason? Either way, could you ever learn to appreciate it and move on, or are you stuck and cluelessly unable to for your entire life?

Either they look like two overlapping sets of legible hieroglyphs or they don't, and they sure don't in any pics I've seen of them. Apparently not in any :no: you've seen either or you would have presented it/them by now.

Edited by nopeda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 05 January 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Most of the time from what I've been led to believe they did it to honor and sometimes worship beings who if they existed were/are almost certainly xts. So, you think the most likely thing if the humans who used the places couldn't create them is that they went and found other humans who could. :lol: Maybe. The likelyhood of that would be below the likelyhood of xt influence imo, of course especially in cases where the people tell us gods and/or xts have been around.

that's a very selective interpretation of what I said.

In fact, what I said was "it wasn't the culture we ascribe the buildings to who did the building", implying (an implicition you missed, either intentionally or otherwise) that the current culture is a squatter in someone else's buildings.

Well, I just take it for granted that none of the thousand + year old structures are still being used by the original builders. Also that since no one knows how they could have built them the people who currently have control over them couldn't reproduce them using ancient technology. So...I sort of feel that everyone should take that for granted and wouldn't expect anyone to make a point of it, so I figured you must have been referring to something else and what I mentioned seemed the most likely thing from my pov. So all you really said is that the civilizations who built them have died out. The question now is: why even bother mentioning it?

My original question is: IF the people who used the monoliths ORIGINALLY! were not technologically capable of creating them, how else do you think they could have been built?

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.