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

One big problem is that apparently many people can't. To appreciate the significance and consider the possibility that practically stone age people could NOT cut and move hundred ton rocks etc is somehow beyond the mental ability of what seems to be the majority of people who post here. Considering the possibility some of the things that were built could not have been built by the people who used them so they must have had help, is a starting line. Apparently many people can't get to it. :lol: Amusingly such people often seem to feel that they're beyond it, like they've thought it through and researched it to the point that they now somehow incredibly know the truth and that it's always the same in every situation. That means they necessarily could not have any realistic thoughts as to a distinction between which things were likely to have been influenced by xts and which were not. They're trying to discuss something they're not mentally capable of thinking about in any realistic way(s) at all! To the point that to them it seems idiotic when other people do it. You and I have learned to do it, but they have not. Could you or I unlearn? I doubt I could. Could any of them learn to? Any of them? Ever? At any point during their entire life? If so when? How? What does it take for a person to finally reach :huh: the starting line?

I agree with you. The speculation being offered on this thread goes far beyond that needed in the AA hypothesis. Yet the skeptics don't realise it.

Never mind; it's all good fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Future Zoser: The people of 2013 were idiots, and forcefed garbage via their screens in order to keep them dumb. Forcefed by who I ask?

Wearer of Future Hats: If you're going to say "aliens" then stop right there. We know full well from the Zoggians that no aliens were on Earth until 2033. I reckon they were just stupid back then.

Nopeda (for he is immortal): I was there, were we idiots.

Psyche10001: Role play is forbidden here, p*** off.

No ; don't understand a word of that :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose they added chicken curry? The speculation is infinite.

Is chicken curry known to form a vitrification-like layer under this process? I know it tends to have the opposite effect on certain other solids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is chicken curry known to form a vitrification-like layer under this process? I know it tends to have the opposite effect on certain other solids.

Is lime? And if so how was it applied to the unlevelled surfaces where stone was quarried and why? How fast does it act? It would need to act fast if it was going to melt andesite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is lime? And if so how was it applied to the unlevelled surfaces where stone was quarried and why? How fast does it act? It would need to act fast if it was going to melt andesite.

Precipitated lime is limestone. In the process you yourself described, the andesite doesn't need to melt at all. Do try to keep up.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precipitated lime is limestone. In the process you yourself described, the andesite doesn't need to melt at all. Do try to keep up.

I have difficulty keeping up with all these bolt on theories needed to cope with the shortcomings of other theories.

So remind me again how is the stone softened according to the skeptics version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. The speculation being offered on this thread goes far beyond that needed in the AA hypothesis. Yet the skeptics don't realise it.

Never mind; it's all good fun.

And what are you doing but endlessly speculating on AA theories and "evidence"?

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have difficulty keeping up with all these bolt on theories needed to cope with the shortcomings of other theories.

So remind me again how is the stone softened according to the skeptics version?

Simple, it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what are you doing but endlessly speculating on AA theories and "evidence"?

Not really. Looking at evidence and drawing obvious conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another blow to the chemical theory then isn't it? Logic says that a reaction isn't going to be that potent if the reactive parts are such a small percentage of the whole stone composition. How fast does lichen operate on stone? Years, decades?

:blush:

Lichen is able to - indeed, slowly - attack rock chemically.

So what to do? Extract the chemicals, concentrate them, and then apply them to rock for a faster process. For this you don't use lichens, but plants that contain a much larger quantity of the same or similar chemicals.

You knew that was what I meant.

It's like saying that windpower and sand can polish rock in a 1000 years, but we can do it in a day using basically the same process: abrasives and muscle power.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have difficulty keeping up with all these bolt on theories needed to cope with the shortcomings of other theories.

So remind me again how is the stone softened according to the skeptics version?

Why you keep asking for what has been posted several times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple, it's not.

Oh; then how do you explain this:

zoser32-1_zps95dcfa8e.jpg

zoser33-1_zpsef9a0e75.jpg

When we know that they were perfectly capable of producing totally flat surface across larger blocks like this:

zoser43-1_zps84fb99c5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lichen is able to - indeed, slowly - attack rock chemically.

So what to do? Extract the chemicals, concentrate them, and then apply them to rock for a faster process. For this you don't use lichens, but plants that contain a much larger quantity of the same or similar chemicals.

You knew that was what I meant.

It's like saying that windpower and sand can polish rock in a 1000 years, but we can do it in a day using basically the same process: abrasives and muscle power.

I genuinely didn't Abe. It was by no means clear. Notwithstanding, the chemical theory I believe now has another serious flaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely didn't Abe. It was by no means clear. Notwithstanding, the chemical theory I believe now has another serious flaw.

And your 'theory' is better? In fact, you haven't any.

Oh right: "I have no idea how it could be done, so it was aliens or some technologically advanced civilization."

Let's be glad not everybody thinks that way, or we would still think it are 'gods' who create fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Replied to wrong post. Something funny going on.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Looking at evidence and drawing obvious conclusions.

Funny, I thought that's what we were doing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your 'theory' is better? In fact, you haven't any.

Oh right: "I have no idea how it could be done, so it was aliens or some technologically advanced civilization."

Let's be glad not everybody thinks that way, or we would still think it are 'gods' who create fire.

I don't know how they produced the heat. It doesn't detract from the principle that heat was used, the evidence for which is everywhere.

Jan Peter de Jong discusses the issue:

Funny, I thought that's what we were doing.

I know. Some more successfully than others Mr O. No disrespect intended there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh; then how do you explain this:

When we know that they were perfectly capable of producing totally flat surface across larger blocks like this:

Refer to Abe's post above yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

delete

Edited by Oniomancer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refer to Abe's post above yours.

Part 9; he draws some conclusion about moulds:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. Some more successfully than others Mr O. No disrespect intended there.

None Taken. The others can't all aspire to my level of greatness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 9; he draws some conclusion about moulds:

[media=]

[/media]

Speculations, you mean, based on prior assumptions. Where the hell are they getting that "tens of thousands of years" dating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculations, you mean, based on prior assumptions. Where the hell are they getting that "tens of thousands of years" dating?

It was there before the Inca is what he's saying; I also think he is having a pop at the mindless pap dished out by the archaeologists over the last hundred years.

I happen to believe he's nearer the mark than they are btw. I would happily put my money on him being nearer to the date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was there before the Inca is what he's saying; I also think he is having a pop at the mindless pap dished out by the archaeologists over the last hundred years.

I happen to believe he's nearer the mark than they are btw. I would happily put my money on him being nearer to the date.

"There before the Incas"... that would be the 6th century or something like that.

Nothing proves it was tens of thousands of years old, unless he was thinking of Posnansky's theory based on P's very own archeoastronomical interpretation of the jumbled mess Puma Punku was in when he rediscovered the site.

Posnansky's theory has been proven wrong, btw.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 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.

Sorry for my late reply, I completely missed it. There you have it: I really didn't see your post. Great or what?? Lol.

Maybe I am fast, but the trick with Googling is HOW to do it. Using the right 'keywords' is the trick that does it.

And you know what an amazingly simple way of finding an answer is? Google your exact question. "How do you do XXX?", "What should I use when I want to do YYY?"

An example:

What type of begonia has red fleshy stems, red leaves and tropical red flowers? I need the proper name for this.

You might be talking about the wax begonia (fibrous begonia), whose flowers come in either red, pink or white. They're common semperflorens begonias. They earn their name, due to their waxy leaves that may come in bronze or red.

Below is a picture of the wax begonia.

--

I believe the Begonias to which you are referring are known by the name Begonia x semperflorens-cultrorum, or more simply Wax Begonias and sometimes Fibrous Begonias. Wax Begonias can have waxy leaves ranging in color from red to purple, with some varieties sporting variegated foliage. The flowers also vary in color from white to red depending on the cultivar.

http://www.webanswer...per-name-eea743

And by finding that, I continued. There ARE Begonias in the Perené Valley in Peru, the site where those plants were found that could dissolve granite. And... Begonias contain oxalates,

It's more of a brainstorm: don't ponder too long on what you read, but immediately jump on a possible link using only one or a couple of words from what you just read, and continue doing so for a while.

Using that, I found out about many Peruvian varieties of Peperomia. Some of them also have red, fleshy leaves, and also contain oxalates..and are a foot high (just like in the accounts).

And, as you may remember, the plant we are looking for is a common plant, and sold in any florist shop. So we now have Caladium, Begonia, and Peperomia. All contain oxalates (some in high quantities), many varieties are red or purple red, many varieties have 'fleshy' leaves (or 'spongy'), many varieties are indeed about a foot high.

Man, I even watched Youtube videos. I entered "Perené' and watched every video with that river name in it, hoping to see some red herbs in the background.

But alas.

+++

EDIT:

I should add that I also have some 2000 (or is it 3000?) books on many topics, and lots about botany, herbal medicine, biology. So I read something online, I remember, "Hey, I read that somewhere in one of my books", then I go look for the book I think the info I am looking for is in, and find new keywords with which I continue Googling.

Another trick (I am really opening up here, lol): make connections very fast, don't hesitate, don't start thinking, "Hmm, maybe that's wrong' ; your keyboard won't bite you when you make a mistake.

And then this: when you Google and one of the results shows a line that is exactly what you were looking for, but when you click on the link, the link appears dead. No problem, click on "cache", and if that doesn't work, use the Internet Archives ( http://www.archive.org/ ). If Google didn;t save some page, that site most often did.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

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.