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

Reflections on post 4499.

Someone has certainly done their homework to prove the point.

The last two pictures really say it all. Exactly the same effects can be replicated. No better proof needed.

The pock marks at Sacsayhuaman were printed into soft rock. Probably accidental. Not sculpted.

Proof of method trumps conjecture every time.

zoser35-1_zpsd3dac690.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason that no one is interested in Greece?

No precision architecture to compare with Peru or Egypt. Very simple. Show me how the Greeks did a Cuzco wall?

:whistle:

what a totally moronic, and totally idiotic thing to say.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing you skeptics have had on your side all through this debate is sheer weight of numbers. There have been dozens and dozens of you, sometimes rotating in shifts to maintain not a valid counter argument but denial.

The only slightly credible counter argument was Abe's chemical theory. Some of you even deny that! That no melting took place at all. At least Abe acknowledges the melting evidence.

Never can denial compete with solid visual evidence and established physical principles. I'm amazed that you thought it would.

:lol: Much of what they do is amazing in its absurdity. Some would even deny there's any evidence of xt influence at all, when the majority of what's discussed in this thread IS the very evidence they're denying. Really for some people acknowledging the evidence they're arguing about would be a starting line for them, as pathetic as that fact is.

You are the ones claiming ancient aliens were here. You are the ones claiming either they built the structures or possibly supplied the high technology required to build the structures. You are the ones claiming the rock was molded. It's time for you to present rock solid (no pun intended) evidence to support those claims. Not you believe it or see the stone in the picture could only have been done with high technology but actual evidence it was high technology or even a single mold to support your claims.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a totally moronic, and totally idiotic thing to say.....

Maybe you need some engineering background or architectural knowledge to really appreciate how intricate and difficult this is to achieve:

Until you see this seeder, it's like trying to argue that an Austin 7 is more refined than a BMW.

zoser44-1_zps10a39734.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason that no one is interested in Greece?

No precision architecture to compare with Peru or Egypt. Very simple. Show me how the Greeks did a Cuzco wall?

:whistle:

No, they were able to put it together wuithout having to resort to sawing bits off the corners and all sorts of bodge jobs.There's some very interesting geometry in greek architecture; the way that columns are slightly wider at the top than at the bottom so as to compensate fior perspective and look the same diameter all the way up & so on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the ones claiming ancient aliens were here. You are the ones claiming either they built the structures or possibly supplied the high technology required to build the structures. You are the ones claiming the rock was molded. It's time for you to present rock solid (no pun intended) evidence to support those claims. Not you believe it or see the stone in the picture could only have been done with high technology but actual evidence it was high technology or even a single mold to support your claims.

Post 4499.

Irrefutable proof.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=4485#entry4615539

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the ones claiming ancient aliens were here. You are the ones claiming either they built the structures or possibly supplied the high technology required to build the structures. You are the ones claiming the rock was molded. It's time for you to present rock solid (no pun intended) evidence to support those claims. Not you believe it or see the stone in the picture could only have been done with high technology but actual evidence it was high technology or even a single mold to support your claims.

be careful asking that...you'll get bombarded with AA videos as bullet proof evidence!! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they were able to put it together wuithout having to resort to sawing bits off the corners and all sorts of bodge jobs.There's some very interesting geometry in greek architecture; the way that columns are slightly wider at the top than at the bottom so as to compensate fior perspective and look the same diameter all the way up & so on.

No mysteries though. No high precision. That's the hinge point of this thread. You could say the same about the renaissance cathedrals. No technical high precision there either.

be careful asking that...you'll get bombarded with AA videos as bullet proof evidence!! :w00t:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=4485#entry4615539

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts 4499, 4501 and 4504

shutterstock-Goal-setting.jpg

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

Because I was busy for another thread about Peru/Incas, I happened to find this:

The Killke occupied the region from 900 to 1200, prior to the arrival of the Incas in the 13th century. Carbon 14 dating of Sacsayhuaman, the walled complex outside Cusco, had demonstrated that the Killke culture constructed the fortress about 1100. The Inca later expanded and occupied the complex in the 13th century and after. On 13 March 2008, archaeologists discovered the ruins of an ancient temple, roadway and acqueduct system at Sacsayhuaman.This find plus the results of excavations in 2007, when another temple was found at the edge of the fortress, indicates religious as well as military use of the facility.

http://www.cusco.eu/...e-of-cusco.html

http://www.msnbc.msn...l/#.UO6cKKxnYdM

http://en.wikipedia..../Killke_culture

From other archeological finds of the Killke culture I don't get the impression they were aliens or people with an incredibly advanced technology.

Now some people will wonder (of course knowing better, but asking for the bloody obvious as usual): how did they radiocarbon date those stones?? You can't radiocarbon date stones, right?

NO, they didn't radiocarbon date the stones, because indeed that can't be done on stones, they dated the organic material (between? and) below those stones.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I was busy for another thread about Peru/Incas, I happened to find this:

The Killke occupied the region from 900 to 1200, prior to the arrival of the Incas in the 13th century. Carbon 14 dating of Sacsayhuaman, the walled complex outside Cusco, had demonstrated that the Killke culture constructed the fortress about 1100.

.

One slight question. Just a slight one. Could Sacsayhuaman have been occupied by a later tribe?

Can they prove otherwise?

I doubt it. Proof of organic material found at any site is absolutely no proof that it belonged to the original builders.

Common sense really.

Apparently not to archaeologists it seems.

Between the stones? Was that original? Again not necessarily with just a little thought.

The tightly fitting ones have no obtainable material to carbon date.

Where there are gaps caused by earthquakes; anything is possible. They may have found part of a Big Mac in there!

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look again.

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

Let me tell you something:

Yes, I do believe we are watching an altered layer here.

But a chemically altered layer, a 'crust' so to speak, would peel/weather off much quicker than a layer that has been created by melting the surface using by extreme heat.

OK, just my conviction, anyway.

One slight question. Just a slight one. Could Sacsayhuaman have been occupied by a later tribe?

Can they prove otherwise?

I doubt it. Proof of organic material found at any site is absolutely no proof that it belonged to the original builders.

Common sense really.

Apparently not to archaeologists it seems.

Common sense tells me that was is found BELOW a stone was there before the stone was placed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the same marks be reproduced, in stone, with modern technology?

Second, where's the tools the aliens used? I see spoons and sticks making marks in clay but nothing in stone.

Third, can the same marks be reproduced in an archaic fashion? Has anyone provided video evidence of this being done?

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 4499.

Irrefutable proof.

http://www.unexplain...85#entry4615539

You mean like billions of years ago when the earth was molten and cooling but the rocks had not yet become hard?

Not irrefutable proof. Pareidolia is fascinating but is not evidence for high technology or the molding of stone. Try coming up with something a little more concrete (pun intended)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me tell you something:

Yes, I do believe we are watching an altered layer here.

But a chemically altered layer, a 'crust' so to speak, would peel/weather off much quicker than a layer that has been created by melting the surface using by extreme heat.

OK, just my conviction, anyway.

Common sense tells me that was is found BELOW a stone was there before the stone was placed.

Just another thought. Being as they are so keen to carbon date this, why not carbon date the Paracas skulls?

Seems very convenient to me Abe. I would't trust their results as far as I could throw them. I really wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, where's the tools the aliens used? I see spoons and sticks making marks in clay but nothing in stone.

Pictures of tools not available I'm afraid. Proof of principle is established. No tool pictures required.

You see nothing being done in stone? Were you alive thousands of years ago?

The pictures are everywhere to be seen.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They took them back to the stars.

You see nothing being done in stone? Were you alive thousands of years ago?

The pictures are everywhere to be seen.

And they didn't accidentally leave anything? Anything at all? Or they did but someone's hiding it?

Also, can these stone marking be reproduced, say, by sanding it but by bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another thought. Being as they are so keen to carbon date this, why not carbon date the Paracas skulls?

Seems very convenient to me Abe. I would't trust their results as far as I could throw them. I really wouldn't.

I will bet a dime that those who asked for the skulls to be analyzed more than a year ago already know the results.

But the results didn't confirm their fantasies, so they just hoped anyone interested would eventually forget about it.

We won't.

And Zoser, if they said radiocarbon dating proved Sacsayhuaman to be 10,000 years old, would you believe them THEN?

I just know you would, suddenly forgetting about your distrust of science and scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like billions of years ago when the earth was molten and cooling but the rocks had not yet become hard?

Not irrefutable proof. Pareidolia is fascinating but is not evidence for high technology or the molding of stone. Try coming up with something a little more concrete (pun intended)

Done it mate.

zoser33-1_zpsef9a0e75.jpg

zoser32-1_zps95dcfa8e.jpg

Need any more?

Just ask.

Or if you insist on a posture of rigid denial; that's your right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they didn't accidentally leave anything? Anything at all? Or they did but someone's hiding it?

Also, can these stone marking be reproduced, say, by sanding it but by bit?

Maybe someone could be hiding them. Who knows.

Sanding would cause abrasion.

The vitrification speaks otherwise:

zoser10_zps1c54dc6a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pictures of tools not available I'm afraid. Proof of principle is established. No tool pictures required.

You see nothing being done in stone? Were you alive thousands of years ago?

The pictures are everywhere to be seen.

I posted a picture of tools: hardened bronze chisels and cobbles.

They were found alright.

You just won't accept that those are the tools they used.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words and I have certainly found that to be true.

In Clay:

In stone:

In Clay:

In stone:

In clay:

In Stone:

In clay:

In stone:

Irrefutable proof of moulding.

Not hammer or pounding marks.

Heat.

And Ollyantaytambo? Check it out.

Remember my advice was for you to look at all the evidence. Not selected pieces.

Please tell you're joking. Man, the Buddha must've had some serious corns:

1280px-Footprints_of_the_Buddha_%282nd_century,_Yale_University_Art_Gallery%29.jpg

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will bet a dime that those who asked for the skulls to be analyzed more than a year ago already know the results.

But the results didn't confirm their fantasies, so they just hoped anyone interested would eventually forget about it.

We won't.

And Zoser, if they said radiocarbon dating proved Sacsayhuaman to be 10,000 years old, would you believe them THEN?

I just know you would, suddenly forgetting about your distrust of science and scientists.

They never will Abe. The reason being that everything is packaged neatly to fit the childish mentally of the modern education system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will bet a dime that those who asked for the skulls to be analyzed more than a year ago already know the results.

But the results didn't confirm their fantasies, so they just hoped anyone interested would eventually forget about it.

We won't.

And Zoser, if they said radiocarbon dating proved Sacsayhuaman to be 10,000 years old, would you believe them THEN?

I just know you would, suddenly forgetting about your distrust of science and scientists.

LOL ! too true "A" Our Zoser is quite the piece of work indeed. If E.T. made all of these there would be actual proof of an advanced people on earth Long before ,say Us . And hince we would of been privey to it ,and would have the factual proof and Hardware ect Machines left behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done it mate.

zoser33-1_zpsef9a0e75.jpg

zoser32-1_zps95dcfa8e.jpg

Need any more?

Just ask.

Or if you insist on a posture of rigid denial; that's your right.

Yes, I need more: what are all those tiny dents in those blocks of stone?

That can't be the effect of vitrification, right?

It should be a glaze, heh.

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.