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

An extension for you Zoser...

where are the trial buildings? Where are the less advanced versions? Where did they do the moulding? Why is PP unfinished?

No evidence of trial buildings is there? We only see shoddier work built on top of precision work in the vast majority of cases.

Where did they do the moulding? Peter Smith's workshop? How earth do I know? Who cares?

Was PP unfinished or was it destroyed? What does it say to you when shattered fragments are strewn across a wide area? Unfinished work or cataclysmic disaster? Looks more like a disaster to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) Enough CaO in andesite. According to one poster it's like 6%. If it was 20 % or more, the rock would become like a soup when treated with acid..

5.2% not enough. You know that really.

(2) Vitrification (ie, giving it a gloss) is possible by applying acids. Fact: They still use that nowadays.

These people say otherwise. Proof needed to contradict them. Show me where acid vitrifies granite please.

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

(3) There are enough plants in Peru and the Amazon jungle that have more than enough acid. The problem is finding out which one of them the Incas used. The plant we are looking for may be standing in front of your window.

Speculation and no proof. As you say "the problem is......." (that's a big problem).

Davidovits has already proven it. He was able to mold rock by using plant acids; I posted a link to his paper a couple of times. We are here only talking about chemically altering the outer layer of rock (granite and andesite), or your 'vitrification

No proof. Plus the moulding goes very deep. My pictures proved that. Your ignoring key evidence.

(4) No need to penetrate quickly.

So how long does your chemical take to act on rock to completely soften it? Heat can do that. Chemicals? Never.

(5) No need to treat it. Just pour the liquid over a finished rock, and every hole and crack will be 'vitrified'.

The problem I identified was the quantity needed. Are you proposing that they dipped 50 tonne blocks in an acid bath to soften them? The pock marks and mould marks go deep and all over the rocks in some cases. How could they be coated if not dipped in a bath?

You have posted several photos of accurately cut stones, stones of which even a blind man can see they have been pounded on with some rock giving its surface a zillion tiny dents.

You conveniently skipped past those posts where I asked you about it.

Pure conjecture. No proof that the precision blocks at Sacsayhuaman and Cuzco were pounded. Far more evidence exists that they were moulded. I have provided many pictures that prove this. You have produced none to show that they were pounded. The Inca walls definitely were. Not the precision ones. You have never attempted to explain the mould marks.

The burden is on you Abe. You have provided no evidence. I have provided ample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just more bizarre irrelevancies. No idea what point is being made here. I do like Mr O thought.

Hardly irrelevant. If there's vitrification, and it's a product of the manufacturing process, one would expect it to be on all the surfaces equally, not limited to certain heights within easy reach.

Not polish.

Vitrification (me thinks he knows that really).

See here:

http://secretsofthes...trified-stones/

It's all there; I can't read it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's no coincidence these protuberances are almost always near the bottom (or edge) of the stone. If the Incas did indeed move these stones using leverage, then that is where one expects these protuberances.

Yes, but some smaller stones have two protrusions close to each other, while other larger stones completely lack of those (maybe had been pounded/chiseled off, or hidden in the wall?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but how does it help with this:

26029331.jpg

The more I read these bizarre posts the more I really draw the conclusion that people are either living in dreamland or don't have a clue what they are talking about or both.

How on God's earth is a template going to help with irregular stonework.

God help the minds of some of you people.

How can individual templates possibly produce work as accurately as that?

The scribe method shown in the nova video was demonstrated as feasible. There's more than one way to make a template too. A strip of clay pressed against the surface to be matched would work. A clever person could even rig a primitive profile gauge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_gauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the video Oniomancer posted:

How to precisely shape rock with primitive tools:

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

This is the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/w...s/2404inca.html

Intro:

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-1-of-6

"Aliens" (a whole village) moving a huge stone:

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-2-of-6

"Melting" stone using mirrors... not. And part of the Inca Trail... sigh:

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-4-of-6

A whole village building a suspension bridge from rope in 3 days (and how to prepare guinea pig):

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-5-of-6

How to walk over a suspension bridge and not sh1t your pants:

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-6-of-6

Especially that remark from the commentator was nice: only use the rails for balance, but don't lean on it or it will topple over...

Btw, I found out the best way to do it (certainly if you are 6 feet tall like I am) is to walk with bent legs, almost like a frog. The Peruvians will laugh at you from both sides... and you will laugh too, once you've crossed it and swear to everything holy you won't do that ever again (forgetting you have to get back too...).

.

Here's the finished result from your video clip (recommend zoom in to get a better comparison)

zoser60_zpsd1838980.jpg

Here's some precision work from Cuzco:

zoser61_zps2dd55b1c.jpg

zoser62_zpsbd65e3e2.jpg

zoser44-1_zps10a39734.jpg

That people are approving your posts Abe either says that they are doing the ostrich ritual or not looking at what you are posting.

What your motive is for posting this nonsense I dread to think.

The precision work has withstood possibly earthquakes and all kind of abuse. Your example in the first picture would not withstand a kick from a pair of steel toe caps. And the sample of work was pitifully small.

Your posts are dreadful Abe they really are.

Shame on you guys for trying to argue against the truth. That's all I can say/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scribe method shown in the nova video was demonstrated as feasible. There's more than one way to make a template too. A strip of clay pressed against the surface to be matched would work. A clever person could even rig a primitive profile gauge. http://en.wikipedia....i/Profile_gauge

Refutation:

Many of the blocks are cut to precision in 3 dimensions. Try and get a template in clay to do that. Utterly impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refutation:

Many of the blocks are cut to precision in 3 dimensions. Try and get a template in clay to do that. Utterly impossible.

Not if you're only working one side at a time.

Really zoser, if we keep holding hands like this, people are going to talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly irrelevant. If there's vitrification, and it's a product of the manufacturing process, one would expect it to be on all the surfaces equally, not limited to certain heights within easy reach.

[media=]

[/media]

No real proof of that. The vitrification is difficult to see and needs the correct angle and light conditions. Not surprising because on some samples the vitrification is only an extremely thin layer.

I would fully expect it to be difficult to see and that's what the observers report.

Furthermore over time it has peeled of on some stones.

Again what you are saying is unsupportable and the argument is at best very weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if you're only working one side at a time.

Really zoser, if we keep holding hands like this, people are going to talk.

Can't be done Mr O. Practically and reasonably impossible. Why not make uniform blocks if you need to make a template for every unique block? How would a template give the accuracy?

Just unfeasable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

All through this document are references to the use of heat as a source of vitrification. The most comprehensive work done on the subject so far. There has been no refutation of this document to my knowledge.

It stands against the views of the skeptics. That's why they never read it.

http://www.ancient-mysteries-explained.com/support-files/evidence_of_vitrified_stonework_in_the_inca_vestiges_of_peru.pdf

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be done Mr O. Practically and reasonably impossible. Why not make uniform blocks if you need to make a template for every unique block?

Asked and answered in post 4621.

How would a template give the accuracy?

Do you even know what a template is? It's a profile of the surface you're matching. The exact surface you're matching. Again, there are ways to do it with out making a new one for every square inch of surface. This all assumes though you even need a template. You're underestimating a craftsman's ability to work by eye. Certainly Protzen didn't seem to need one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr O

I don't think you read this:

Just a few quotations from Jan Peter de Jong's and Chris Jordon's report in case there still any dissenting voices:

The results strongly indicate that heat was used to produce the surface, which raises several

questions. Even if a layer of a ceramic paste was applied, how was the whole heated to the requisite

temperatures without cracking the limestone? It tends to shatter at these sorts of heats..........

The finish on the stone sample was not the thickest, shiniest or the glassiest of the examples.

However, its composition and morphology are the same as a ceramic glaze. This means that heat

was somehow applied to the stone. How the heat was applied is not clear. What is clear is that an

unknown technology has been used. To create ceramics on this scale, the heat production must

have been greater than the normal ceramic methods..........

After the analysis of the surface layer above, it is clear that

polishing alone will not produce the requisite heat needed to produce a ceramic glaze. This

eliminates polishing as a means of creation.............

Peruvian Alfredo Gamarra has identified vitrification on many stones and has argued that the

ancients had a technology to treat stone with heat and that the stone was soft at the moment of

construction. The comparison at the spectrum level with clay and ceramic pastes is interesting.

Ceramic pastes and clay are soft prior to being treated with heat.

Conventional geological understanding is not compatible with this idea. However, the impression

from the vitrified stonework is that the stone was once soft. In many of the stones, there are places

where it looks as if objects or molds were pressed into the stone. The perfect fitting stones in the

walls of Cusco and the other Inca vestiges could have been obtained more easily this way...........

Whilst it is possible that the ancients were capable of producing flat mirrors for the task, it does

seem overly complicated. This method could work for stones on the surface, but is clearly limited

in its use deep within a cave..........

On balance, it has to be admitted that a method is difficult to define. Further analysis of samples

from the various locations needs to be undertaken to confirm the use of heat in all of the sites.

However, the sample tested shows explicitly that the similarity to ceramic pastes is near certain. It

is obvious to conclude that heat was used.......as somehow applied to the stone. How the heat was applied is not clear. What is clear is that an

unknown technology has been used. To create ceramics on this scale, the heat production must

have been greater than the normal ceramic methods...........

http://www.ancient-m...ges_of_peru.pdf

Unless you skeptics can offer any better independent analysis that this above, or convincing visual material that refutes my photographs of moulded stones then the argument should in all honour go on no more.

The sculptors videos show no proof of comparable precision. That's obvious from the comparison pictures above.

If you cannot offer these things yet continue to argue then I will have to assume that you arguing from some internal frustration, denial, or stubbornness which in the end is just plain stupid.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All through this document are references to the use of heat as a source of vitrification. The most comprehensive work done on the subject so far. There has been no refutation of this document to my knowledge.

It stands against the views of the skeptics. That's why they never read it.

http://www.ancient-m...ges_of_peru.pdf

This really is getting monotonous. Their only criterion they've provided for indicating the presence of vitrification is "shiny." They may have listed several but they all boil down to the same thing.

And you are consistently dancing around this statement: "the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified." Nowhere in the report do I see the one thing that would indicate whether it was vitrified or not, a thin-section micrograph of each layer alone, which would show whether the structure was crystalline as in rock, or amorphous as in a glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr O

I don't think you read this:

Just a few quotations from Jan Peter de Jong's and Chris Jordon's report in case there still any dissenting voices:

(snip)

...all proceeding again (and again and again and again) from the assumption of vitrification. And to add to the previous post, this is again only from one single sample from a different type of rock than all the rest. All shines are not created equal, as demonstrated in many, many posts here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is getting monotonous. Their only criterion they've provided for indicating the presence of vitrification is "shiny." They may have listed several but they all boil down to the same thing.

And you are consistently dancing around this statement: "the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified." Nowhere in the report do I see the one thing that would indicate whether it was vitrified or not, a thin-section micrograph of each layer alone, which would show whether the structure was crystalline as in rock, or amorphous as in a glass.

Simple question. If it's not vitrification then what is it? It has the exact effect of glass prisms. Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...all proceeding again (and again and again and again) from the assumption of vitrification. And to add to the previous post, this is again only from one single sample from a different type of rock than all the rest. All shines are not created equal, as demonstrated in many, many posts here..

It's been analysed and that is what the evidence all points to. Without the users of the high technology writing a letter and stating "Yes we vitrified it and here's how we did it" then what more is there?

I repeat there has been no better analysis and you are arguing for the point of arguing; nothing more.

You can't explain the pock marks, the lips, the fused rock, the multiple examples of other mould marks, the vitrification, nothing.

It's done.

Your beaten.

The only thing is that you won't admit it because you have sold the people on this forum lies and deception for years along with the others. You have all enjoyed strong social and mutual support, and that's why you all do this.

There can be no other reason why you argue with the evidence.

You take it in shifts to take me on and one by one I can easily dispose of the weak arguments put forward not by posting here say and opinion but by scientific analysis and irrefutable visual evidence.

The precision fits on the photo's I have provided are unparalleled outside of the ancient world. Your video's that Abe reposted show poor attempts to replicate the precision, It took that guy hours and in the end it was no bigger that a brick! Totally laughable.

You put forward these stupid theories about bacteria eating stone, chemical treatment causing vitrification, polishing causing shines, desert varnish, weathering. Yes that's 5 theories now. How really stupid when creativity leads to more fiction and invention than the original hypothesis. Do any of you actually agree on any of these 5 competing theories?

Well any more new competing theories or is that it for now?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are consistently dancing around this statement: "the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified."

Honest question Mr O

Does it argue against vitrification when you read the highlights of the conclusion? Really? See post 4638 if you are unsure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

Go to 7:00

"The joint that we've gotten is certainly not as good as the ones in the ruin (Sacsayhuaman)"

I must say I would have to agree.

They say that people are prone to understatement don't they.

If you don't believe me go to the video yourself.

Nothing more to be said here.

Edit

And by the way the stone doesn't look like andesite either. They claim it is. But they did use cold steel chisels!

Total garbage.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had the time to look at the video to be honest. Is it just a hole that was drilled by an actual drill bit or is it one of those 'mysterious ancient "perfect holes"'. (The multiple layers of quotes was needed to contain the hilarity)

I posted links ages ago that showed how circular, or tube saws were used to cut these holes, we even have the drilled cores as 100% total evidence that this is how they were done. Not only that, but as mentioned above, a drill, no matter the type, produces shedloads of friction, and friction causes heat, a lot of heat and friction will 'polish' any hole... its a no brainer

Think of how fire is made by rubbing a stick into a hole in wood... friction of the twisting/rubbing...produces lots of heat... and eventually, fire

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not polish.

Vitrification (me thinks he knows that really).

See here:

http://secretsofthes...trified-stones/

It's all there; I can't read it for you.

You ought to know full well by now that I believe nothing you post...why?

well if aliens (or their tech in the hands of man) did all these amazing structures...then why...why why why.....

was the site unfinished and abandoned? ANSWER THAT?

I mean - WHY go halfway? If aliens were involved as you seem to believe as fact, why give up before its done? That sounds more like a council trick than advanced aliens doesn't it?

so if this was such a special place...why not complete it?

Why do we see unfinished quarry stones?

And its a FACT... the site was abandoned...

and it being a fact...blows the AA theory clean out the water...

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) Enough CaO in andesite. According to one poster it's like 6%. If it was 20 % or more, the rock would become like a soup when treated with acid..

5.2% not enough. You know that really.

(2) Vitrification (ie, giving it a gloss) is possible by applying acids. Fact: They still use that nowadays.

These people say otherwise. Proof needed to contradict them. Show me where acid vitrifies granite please.

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

(3) There are enough plants in Peru and the Amazon jungle that have more than enough acid. The problem is finding out which one of them the Incas used. The plant we are looking for may be standing in front of your window.

Speculation and no proof. As you say "the problem is......." (that's a big problem).

Davidovits has already proven it. He was able to mold rock by using plant acids; I posted a link to his paper a couple of times. We are here only talking about chemically altering the outer layer of rock (granite and andesite), or your 'vitrification

No proof. Plus the moulding goes very deep. My pictures proved that. Your ignoring key evidence.

(4) No need to penetrate quickly.

So how long does your chemical take to act on rock to completely soften it? Heat can do that. Chemicals? Never.

(5) No need to treat it. Just pour the liquid over a finished rock, and every hole and crack will be 'vitrified'.

The problem I identified was the quantity needed. Are you proposing that they dipped 50 tonne blocks in an acid bath to soften them? The pock marks and mould marks go deep and all over the rocks in some cases. How could they be coated if not dipped in a bath?

You have posted several photos of accurately cut stones, stones of which even a blind man can see they have been pounded on with some rock giving its surface a zillion tiny dents.

You conveniently skipped past those posts where I asked you about it.

Pure conjecture. No proof that the precision blocks at Sacsayhuaman and Cuzco were pounded. Far more evidence exists that they were moulded. I have provided many pictures that prove this. You have produced none to show that they were pounded. The Inca walls definitely were. Not the precision ones. You have never attempted to explain the mould marks.

The burden is on you Abe. You have provided no evidence. I have provided ample.

If you refuse to read my posts carefully, for me this conversation is over.

I am not going to repeat myself again and again.

You want the last word? You got it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question. If it's not vitrification then what is it? It has the exact effect of glass prisms. Think about it.

I'm still not convinced it isn't a camera artifactt. In every instance, they're shooting into a strong light source or direct reflection from same to get the effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you refuse to read my posts carefully, for me this conversation is over.

I am not going to repeat myself again and again.

You want the last word? You got it.

AGREED! Couldnt have said it better! shall we just abandon him and his ravings? You see only a total fool can either ignore or not even bother reading something which offers an alternative, earthly solution to not very much of a mystery in the first place

But as he seems to read my posts, (but not the links) I will state this one more time

A mold is made to reproduce the same shape over and over, FACT!

The stones we see in his links, are all different sizes and shapes, FACT!

So if there are a few thousand well fitting stones, each one would have had to had its own mold. FACT

But there is NO evidence, whatsoever of molds being used. FACT!

Conclusion? Molds were never used

so how did they make perfect fitting joints from odd shaped stones? How did they make the intricate joints?

simples: Heres a factual video clip, but you just need to watch from the 4 min marker

http://www.videopediaworld.com/video/31891/Secrets-of-Lost-Empires-The-Inca-Empire-Part-3-of-6

If any haven't seen the vid, watch from the beginning

zoser really needs to see this...but he wont no doubt..he doesnt like facts,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been analysed and that is what the evidence all points to. Without the users of the high technology writing a letter and stating "Yes we vitrified it and here's how we did it" then what more is there?

I repeat there has been no better analysis and you are arguing for the point of arguing; nothing more.

You can't explain the pock marks, the lips, the fused rock, the multiple examples of other mould marks, the vitrification, nothing.

It's done.

Your beaten.

My beaten what?

Did, did, did and did. I don't think you quite understand the sculpture process either. A properly smoothed and finished surface can be made to look quite natural. Just because something looks like it was done a certain way doesn't mean it was:

http://frimminjimbits.blogspot.com/2012/07/stone-sculptures-hirotoshi-itoh.html

It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and so far all you've trotted out is Kate Moss with laryngitis.

The only thing is that you won't admit it because you have sold the people on this forum lies and deception for years along with the others. You have all enjoyed strong social and mutual support, and that's why you all do this.

There can be no other reason why you argue with the evidence.

You take it in shifts to take me on and one by one I can easily dispose of the weak arguments put forward not by posting here say and opinion but by scientific analysis and irrefutable visual evidence.

The precision fits on the photo's I have provided are unparalleled outside of the ancient world. Your video's that Abe reposted show poor attempts to replicate the precision, It took that guy hours and in the end it was no bigger that a brick! Totally laughable.

You put forward these stupid theories about bacteria eating stone, chemical treatment causing vitrification, polishing causing shines, desert varnish, weathering. Yes that's 5 theories now. How really stupid when creativity leads to more fiction and invention than the original hypothesis. Do any of you actually agree on any of these 5 competing theories?

Well any more new competing theories or is that it for now?

Better than a foot square is a fair-sized brick.

I enjoy a good debate, no doubt. No more than that. So far though you haven't given me much to work with. The entire point of presenting opposing hypotheses is to show that due diligence has not been done in formulating yours. Very little has been eliminated except by ridicule, in other words, not at all by any empirical method you'd care to mention. Until this is done, this vitrification idea (I can't rightly call it a theory) remains little more than that, an idea.

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.