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

Zoser, I think you will find this photo of a wall in Cusco quite interesting; notice the small stones at the bottom:

CUSCO.jpg

Here are the ones that I found:

cuzco-copia.jpg

Inca-Wall-in-Cuzco-Peru.jpg

57051902.jpg

28712AA1DE4B4C27BCD51391AC2D6125.jpg

Look at the last picture (click on it to zoom). The bottom foundations still look precise.

Your picture is misleading I think.

It's still precision architecture as far as I can tell.

Not Inca definitely.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is still going on?

I gave up ages ago on this one.. zoser will never change his mind.. even if aliens landed and turned around and said 'no we did not make it or help make it' his reply would be.. well you were not the aliens that helped then..

In the face of unequivocal evidence why should I?

It's maybe unclear what technology was used but the principle has been totally stitched up.

So have the skeptics.

Sorry.

Every attempt to defeat it has failed. Even Abe's picture above.

For the simple reason and I have said this before a dozen times that you are all too eager to dismiss the claims and are just posting the first thing you can lay your hands on. It's all very easy to defeat.

You need to do some serious research instead of posting the first thing that Google throws up.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, has this turned into a Star Trek geek discussion thread?

It was the only way some could save face I think.

Be back later. Hopefully by then some will have done some serious research instead of posting fairytale nonsense.

The Aymara built Puma Punku? Good heavens.

'Once there was a man called Jack who lived with his mother and they were very poor. One day he went to the market and swapped their prize cow for some worthless beans.............."

You all know the rest. It's a fairytale.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth cannot be dismissed. It can be evaded though.

I doubt very much that they used the pictorial evidence I used. Also did they refer to Jan Peter de Jong's report? Have they done a more detailed analysis on the vitrification?

I think I know the answers to these questions by the way but please feel free to answer.

By the way; you guys seen to refer to this one video an awful lot. Just an observation.

so you cant be bothered to watch it then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the kind of thing you guys ought to be looking into.

peru07.cuzco6436bh500.jpg

How many of you noticed the very slight step top right?

Notice also the overall bevel effect at the borders. The stones look flat in the middle but there is a definite curving at the borders.

As if someone ran along the borders with a tool to create the effect. Yet this is hard stone not clay. It looks like more evidence of moulding.

If it was not done like this then you have to assume that they were cut this way. That's unlikely since it would have been far easier to cut the blocks flat and still have the polygonal shapes. Maybe they wanted to emphasise the polygonal work by doing this?

Zoomed in slightly:

zoser44-1_zpsf833e0d5.jpg

Instead of shouting 'no aliens' it would be great for a change to hear some of you guys give realistic explanations.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you cant be bothered to watch it then?

I have. Nothing in it refers to the evidence. It's just a few guys doing exactly what you guys here do. Deny everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the only way some could save face I think.

Be back later. Hopefully by then some will have done some serious research instead of posting fairytale nonsense.

ha...he says! Like aliens building stone walls is a serious subject? As said before, and before you avoid it, if Aliens were involved, why was the site abandoned before it was finished?

Answer the question.....you may have to do a little research though. And how was the Parthenon built,? 1000 years before PP, which by the way, compared to the Parthenon... PP is like childs play...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the kind of thing you guys ought to be looking into.

peru07.cuzco6436bh500.jpg

How many of you noticed the very slight step top left?

Notice also the overall bevel effect at the borders. The stones look flat in the middle but there is a definite curving at the borders.

As if someone ran along the borders with a tool to create the effect. Yet this is hard stone not clay. It looks like more evidence of moulding.

If it was not done like this then you have to assume that they were cut this way. That's unlikely since it would have been far easier to cut the blocks flat and still have the polygonal shapes. Maybe they wanted to emphasise the polygonal work by doing this?

Zoomed in slightly:

Instead of shouting 'no aliens' it would be great for a change to hear some of you guys give realistic explanations.

this was covered in the video clip...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another with some interesting detail

Again it can be better appreciated if you click it to zoom.

Cusco12corner.jpg

Look where the vitrification has peeled off a layer of the stone.

Notice also the moulding marks in the blocks higher up. The unexplainable protuberances. It also proves the point regarding the precision foundations to refute Abe's earlier post.

These pictures are truly fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this was covered in the video clip...

You mean covered up.

What you just did seeder was classic denial. No explanation or justification just nothing.

Am I supposed to take you seriously?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 08 January 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

You seem like the biggest *Snip* in the bunch from my pov. Maybe someone else noticed it too.

how could you possibly understand what I say at any point?

:lol: You are so full of *Snip* :yes: AND you think very very small with that odd obsession about movies you STILL have. :lol:

Edited by kmt_sesh
The word censors are there for a reason. Avoid trying to bypass them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hilarious that I'm of the opinion that the peple who built the artefacts and edifaces in question were capable of building the edifaces and artefacts in question?

I find it sad you think the ancients were idiots.

Since the question is how did they get built if humans could NOT have done it, yes it's hilarious in a pitiful sort of way. To think ancient humans might not have been able to do what no one today knows how they could have done doesn't mean they were idiots, nor that people today who don't know are idiots. Were you somehow, in some incredible way, unaware of that fact? If so, how could you have been???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, you have completely failed at every debate you've had in this thread. You have been shown to be lacking education time and time again. When real evidence is given, you just skip over it and refuse to comment on it. Then you go on with the same BS again and again.

You still believe

99.9% of researches are lying.

.01% of researchers are telling the truth even though they are making loads of money for spewing their BS.

These are all things that you have posted in this thread. (Newcomers, this is no joke. Zoser actually used these to plead his case).

If it is on video then it is real.

500 years ago was the stone age.

It never freezes in Peru.

Humans cannot move large rocks.

If it is on the History Channel then it must be true.

The show Ancient Aliens is 100% fact.

Let's not forget how you feel that anything can be labled as being precise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like quite a few people have been drawing conclusions about stone moulding in Peru:

Peru glaced stones

There are two lines of enquiry that converge to this page: the first is the problem of how the builders of the stone structures at Sacsayhuaman and Ollantaytambo could reach the combination of massivity and precision of their constructions. The other line comes from the images in the Peru sculptures and Marcahuasi galleries. It does not need require much imagination to come to the conclusion that in order to make the images, the builders used the existing structure of the terrain as their basis. Upon this basis they worked to get the desired result. Again, there is a problem in how this result was obtained. Many of the features are not consistent with the process usually associated with working on stone: hacking it away by some way or another. The first picture below shows this most clearly: if one accepts the elephant, surely there must have been some effort to get this result, and this effort looks much more like the shape of the stone has been fluidly changed then by hacking. Pictures 2 and 3 show the fluidished phenomenon even more dramatically. Pictures 4 to 14 show more signs of the material having been worked upon by moulding it. Picture 15 shows a direct contrast with the result expected when hacking the stone.

If one accepts the moulding theory, the next step is to determine how the state of fluidity or mouldability is reached. Clues for this can be found in pictures 16 to 19. Pictures 11, 13, 15, 18 & 19 are from the site Ancient walls by Richard Nesbit.

Note the small protrusions, extra visible because of the shadows, that are not very sensible as result of a "hacking away of the stone" process.

Ollantaytambo

The picture above shows the image of a lion build into the flanks of the mountain at Ollantaytambo. The picture below shows how this effect is reached. Again it looks like the raw stone has been melted at specific places, also giving it a bluish colour, just like the stone at Quenko in the previous pictures.

The massive blocks from the structure at Ollantaytambo have features that are more easily explained by fluid modelling than by hacking away at the stone. The inward curving surfaces of the protrusions remind one of similar results when objects are formed by pouring fluid in a mould. The surface irregularities of the blocks also have this property.

A bit more detail of the irregularities: why should anyone hack this features into the stone?

Katchiqhata

This stone is one of the so-called "weary stones", the seems to be abandoned on its way from the quarry in Katchiqhata to the construction site. The indentions on its surface almost look like someone with strangely shaped shoes has stepped upon a concrete casting when it wasn't yet completely hardened; for a comparison. The next picture from Quenko shows very similar imprints.

Here also note the way the base material exposed by the "footsteps" has a colour differing from that of the surface. The previous picture also shows this feature, though in a less dramatic way.

More data on the possibility of the use of a mouldable stone technique is found in the Toolmarks gallery.

Sacsayhuaman

This picture originates, according to its source, from Cusco (probably meant generically; according to the looks of it, Sacsayhuaman is more probable). It is representative for the method of building all over the region. For a technical reason, one can think of the fact that this kind of irregular but highly fitting structures are probably the most resistant to earthquakes of any known ancient construction method.

However, in the top version, the arrows point to places where the neighbouring stones follow each other contours to an amount of detail that technically absolute has no sense other then when would try to make the structure watertight, especially in the corners. Even an esthetic background is unlikely, because this kind of detail would hardly be visible from all but the most closest ranges. For an example of how one would expect normal stone work of this nature to look, click here.

The bottom picture point to regions where one sees what seem to be small ridges sticking out, as if the material has been pushed away; this is most clear for the region on the right. The discolouring around many other parts of the bounderies could be consistent with this outflowed material having been removed when still mouldable

The two arrows on the left point to other examples of seemingly pointless construction detail. The right arrow to a place where the bevelling of the joints seems to have been forgotten, and the stones look so much joined to each other that it is a matter of discussion whether this is one ore two blocks.

This picture, in all probability from Ollantaytambo, shows the way a cut or hacked stone surface looks like (see the chipped edge of the top left block), in direct contrast with the quite smooth, regular, surfaces of the stones at most of the major constructions at Ollantaytambo and Sacsauhuaman, and many elsewhere.

puca pucara

It almost looks like that there was a enclosing wall, and that a part of it has been melted away.

Quenko

Note how the colour of the top layers, that have been worked upon, differ from the colour of the material at the base; the latter is the regular type of brown expected of stone, the fo

Addendum: The conclusions above were reached purely on basis of the data available. Later searches turned up similar conclusions by others, using similar arguments, see e.g. sources 1, 2. This shows the strength of the available data, in that it satisfies one of the essential criteria of good science: using the same data, different people come independently to the same conclusions.

http://criticalbelie...int&thread=2887

The guy whoever he is has made some sound observations.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, I think you will find this photo of a wall in Cusco quite interesting; notice the small stones at the bottom:

CUSCO.jpg

There seems a great big crack across the stone at top right. I think I might want to give that a wide berth. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: why haven't we actually found any of the alien's technology or is it a cover up (as per usual in this field)?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, has this turned into a Star Trek geek discussion thread?

Let's put it in perspective then. A lot of people like to talk about what a brilliant original thinker VD is and how earth shattering his ideas are. Consider that "who mourns for Adonis" aired in 1967 while Chariots wasn't published until 1968, and the English version not until 1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the ones that I found:

cuzco-copia.jpg

Inca-Wall-in-Cuzco-Peru.jpg

57051902.jpg

28712AA1DE4B4C27BCD51391AC2D6125.jpg

Look at the last picture (click on it to zoom). The bottom foundations still look precise.

Your picture is misleading I think.

It's still precision architecture as far as I can tell.

Not Inca definitely.

In what way is my picture misleading?

The real question is: why would they need those 'ramp like' rows of small stones?

I mean, we're talking about an 'advanced technology'....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems a great big crack across the stone at top right. I think I might want to give that a wide berth. :unsure2:

That's not a crack, that part of the top layer that has eroded away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But whatever wall you and I post, Zoser, you will have noticed that on many stones in those walls you'll see (at least) two protuberances near the bottom edge.

That you don't see them on all stones is because after placing the stones, using the levers I mentioned earlier, they chopped off those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at it logically, there is no other satisfactory explanation to explain these mould marks. They are occur with such regularity and size at Sacsayhuaman that they are clearly not natural, and too deep to be caused by anything other than some object that pushed into the stones while they were soft.

Click to zoom.

3690246-massive-stones-in-inca-fortress-walls--sacsayhuaman--cusco-peru-south-america.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: why haven't we actually found any of the alien's technology or is it a cover up (as per usual in this field)?

we haven't found any because there isn't any, simples! And there are far far older structures than this one - and with more amazing stonework... yet for some idiotic reason, the theory of the AA's helping man stack stones in Pumapunku seems to get some people, like zoser, convinced enough to throw rationality out of the window

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems a great big crack across the stone at top right. I think I might want to give that a wide berth. :unsure2:

Look again.

Vitrification peeling off. Well spotted. The same effect as in post 4459.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find much of what has been presented to you is not insult, your deliberate ignorance just kicks into self defence.

"you are ignorant of all aspects of real space travel" - you

"you know nothing of the world around you" - you

"lives with his head in the clouds and thinks movies are fact" - you

"your deliberate ignorance" - you

"Your are an embarrassment to yourself" - you

"You are a troll" - you

"you know I do not like you " - you

"You are a forum joke" - you

"You are a joke, a living one " - you

"I find you just a horrible person" - you

:lol:

I find you to be a horrible person too :yes: bullshiit dude. You bullshiit and you think very very small. You insult people, and then try to pretend you don't.

What's not to think is horrible about you? Nothing :no: afaik

Edited by nopeda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we haven't found any because there isn't any, simples! And there are far far older structures than this one - and with more amazing stonework... yet for some idiotic reason, the theory of the AA's helping man stack stones in Pumapunku seems to get some people, like zoser, convinced enough to throw rationality out of the window

Evidence of tools used isn't needed. The principle has been established. Simple. You don't need to find the murder weapon when someone has a 9mm round embedded in the back of the leg. Think about it.

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.