seeder Posted January 12, 2013 #4751 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) You saying that Harte, Abe, Mr O, Jgirl, Wearer of Hats, Dingo, Q, Hassin, Slave, BMK, Psyche, DBunker, are not my friends? Id say that, YES, 100% for sure in 'real life'.. but forum friends, are not really friends. or do you really believe that forum friends are really real zoser? They are avatars and imaginative names only! You dont even know who is female but claims they are male, and vice versa, do you? But, test the theory then, ask one of them for £500? Or ask to kip on their sofa for a month... Edited January 12, 2013 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted January 12, 2013 #4752 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Au contraire Mr Abe: Their credibility was at stake here. They were fighting for science and trying to bury non conventional possibilities. 99+% accuracy on a first-time, one-off attempt. That ought to give anybody pause. I don't get the point of using Protzen's work earlier since you can't actually see into the join,t and it's a closeup, so the outer edge of the join looks pretty much he same. The problem is you and I have different definitions of precision. The megalithic stones match, but they have no consistency, no uniformity. They look like they were made individually piecemeal, for best fit. I showed you work from the Renaissance on the other hand that were not only consistent from one block to another but aligned to form cohesive units that wouldn't even go together if they weren't precise, and you dismissed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted January 12, 2013 #4753 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Ancient Aliens are like its stated Ancient,so what if they live for thousands of years? What If they can be here and there at the flick of a switch? What If everything we think is done by Ancient Aliens are really done by good old Human hard work ? Im thinking the latter! What if is the Big question, So far no factual proof that Aliens even exist ! So ? WHat we can do Is really Go Looking for Aliens. I bet we find them in a few Hundred years . What Says you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted January 12, 2013 #4754 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Vitrification and moulding of which the evidence is all over Peru. This is only created by extra-ordinary technology. This is the broken logic I referred to earlier. I could say that the vitrification was caused by black winged evil fairies by use of magic and it would have the same evidentiary weight that you have shown for aliens. To extrapolate that 'if A then B' when you have no evidence for 'B' isn't logical at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted January 12, 2013 #4755 Share Posted January 12, 2013 That lip I highlighted in the stone is highly significant because it again supports the molding hypotheses and no way could anyone suggest it was designed that way. It was caused by unequal weight on soft rock. Irrefutable proof. Design is a misleading term. And I ask you, if the stones were all soft when they went together, why was there a gap for the lip to sink into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted January 12, 2013 #4756 Share Posted January 12, 2013 yeh like the way Doctor Who scares and fascinates kids...till they grow up and know better OI! I find that offensive. I grew older watching Doctor Who, and as a result I never grew up Ironically one of the few times Doctor Who went into Ancient Aliens territory it was a reference to tmeples in Peru, and even then it was left open as to wether or not it was done by the aliens in question anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted January 12, 2013 #4757 Share Posted January 12, 2013 OI! I find that offensive. I grew older watching Doctor Who, and as a result I never grew up Ironically one of the few times Doctor Who went into Ancient Aliens territory it was a reference to tmeples in Peru, and even then it was left open as to wether or not it was done by the aliens in question anyway! Dr. Who went to Peru? Please, dont you know thats gonna give zoser even more evidence to post about? sshhhh - pleeeease! Besides....if Tom Baker hadnt of gone, Id still be the kid watching it too.. and while i dont want to divert a thread... for me he WAS the Doctor! Oh and Jon Pertwee of course... along with the master... but now Im just showing my age.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted January 12, 2013 #4758 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Ancient Aliens are like its stated Ancient,so what if they live for thousands of years? What If they can be here and there at the flick of a switch? click for bigger . Edited January 12, 2013 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted January 12, 2013 #4759 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Actually, he was on another planet at the time (Death to the Daleks - a later Pertwee story, one of my favourites actually) where he compared the architecture of the city he was in to one he visited in Peru - then was promptly told (basically) "yeah, we went to tonnes of planets, it was probably us who did it". It was, IIRC, the only time it was outright said that aliens built anything on Earth - all the other times it was either "aliens convinced humans to do it" or "it was just humans, being humans". Edited January 12, 2013 by Wearer of Hats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted January 12, 2013 #4760 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) click for bigger . Only one time? Edited January 12, 2013 by Slave2Fate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted January 12, 2013 #4761 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Only one time? yeh havent you noticed its the young and inexperienced stoners who ramble on and on and on? with no logic whatsoever? man - you'd have to be on drugs to even believe this monkeycrap (which is really ten times worse than bullsheet) Edited January 13, 2013 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted January 13, 2013 #4762 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Actually, he was on another planet at the time (Death to the Daleks - a later Pertwee story, one of my favourites actually) where he compared the architecture of the city he was in to one he visited in Peru - then was promptly told (basically) "yeah, we went to tonnes of planets, it was probably us who did it". It was, IIRC, the only time it was outright said that aliens built anything on Earth - all the other times it was either "aliens convinced humans to do it" or "it was just humans, being humans". thats the thing about those frikkin Daleks, they are unreliable totally lying bastoods. Besides the cybermen could have won any day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 13, 2013 #4763 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Vitrification and moulding cannot be explained by stone age methods. You have tried bravely but unsuccessfully. High technology in the ancient past only alludes to one thing............ You never did post any proof of aliens. Admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted January 13, 2013 #4764 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You never did post any proof of aliens. Admit it. He did post a nice mystery I've entirely enjoyed being part of the intellectual exploration of though. Sadly, we're now at the "so, it's basically X then" phase, and everyone is entrenching which means debate and discussion ends and instead we get into mudslinging and name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 13, 2013 #4765 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) Zoser, do you have any comment in this post of mine? "Look Ma, no aliens !" The grey granite columns that were actually used in the Pantheon's pronaos were quarried in Egypt at Mons Claudianus in the eastern mountains. Each was 39 feet (12 m) tall, five feet (1.5 m) in diameter, and 60 tons in weight.[28] These were dragged more than 100 km from the quarry to the river on wooden sledges. They were floated by barge down the Nile River when the water level was high during the spring floods, and then transferred to vessels to cross the Mediterranean Sea to the Roman port of Ostia. There, they were transferred back onto barges and pulled up the Tiber River to Rome.[29] After being unloaded near the Mausoleum of Augustus, the site of the Pantheon was still about 700 meters away.[30] Thus, it was necessary to either drag them or to move them on rollers to the construction site. http://en.wikipedia..../Pantheon,_Rome Maybe I should highlight some sentences in bright red. . They dragged several stones weighing 60 tons over a distance of 100 km. No Inca or alien ever did that! . Edited January 13, 2013 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 13, 2013 #4766 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) I challenge you to prove the AA hypothesis wrong. To prove 'aliens did it' you will have to show proof aliens were around. You never did show us any proof. Why? Because you - or any of us - don't know what aliens were capable of. It's nothing but, "I have no idea how they did it, so it must've been aliens." That is a very weak way of trying to explain something you don't understand. People who believe in 'aliens' always say we should have an 'open mind', but their own mind is locked like a safe. . Edited January 13, 2013 by Abramelin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 13, 2013 #4767 Share Posted January 13, 2013 He did post a nice mystery I've entirely enjoyed being part of the intellectual exploration of though. Sadly, we're now at the "so, it's basically X then" phase, and everyone is entrenching which means debate and discussion ends and instead we get into mudslinging and name calling. I have tried to refrain from 'mudslinging and name calling'. Yeah, I know it's hard, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 13, 2013 #4768 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You saying that Harte, Abe, Mr O, Jgirl, Wearer of Hats, Dingo, Q, Hassin, Slave, BMK, Psyche, DBunker, are not my friends? I have a good friend and neighbour who believes in things not even you are willing to believe in. This has nothing to do with being friends or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashyne Posted January 13, 2013 #4769 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I have been a devoted Christian for many years, however, when you add the Ancient Alien Theory to the Biblical story... It all starts to make complete sense... These ancient people had no reference points to accurately describe what they were witnessing. Anyone who lived in those times would have referred these aliens to being gods and angels... If you add the Ancient Alien Theory to the tale of Thumbelina or Jack & the Beanstalk, these fairy tales make sense too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted January 13, 2013 #4770 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) You never did post any proof of aliens. Admit it. No ones refuted the vitrification and moulding theory. As far as this thread or forum is concerned it's new information. It's been in the world for at least a few years though. There is no refuting analysis or successful competing theory to account for the signs of moulding and vitrification. No science academy has produced a refuting argument. It's done. So the theories of Gamarra regarding moulding and vitrification stand with obvious implications. That technology could not have been endemic here. Nothing more to say apart from the fact that Protzen's work was another valuable piece of the jigsaw and it was very useful to check through that and compare it. The theory now all hangs together; the stonework, the folkore, the art, and modern man's failed attempt at replicating the ancient stonework. Nothing more needed. Edited January 13, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted January 13, 2013 #4771 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) 99+% accuracy on a first-time, one-off attempt. That ought to give anybody pause. I don't get the point of using Protzen's work earlier since you can't actually see into the join,t and it's a closeup, so the outer edge of the join looks pretty much he same. The problem is you and I have different definitions of precision. The megalithic stones match, but they have no consistency, no uniformity. They look like they were made individually piecemeal, for best fit. I showed you work from the Renaissance on the other hand that were not only consistent from one block to another but aligned to form cohesive units that wouldn't even go together if they weren't precise, and you dismissed them. I would utterly refute 99% for several reasons. 1) The gaps are way to big to compare with the best of the Peruvian work. We can argue what is the best Peruvian work is and it's true that much of the work unfortunately has been subject to earthquakes and vandalism but no modern attempt has come anywhere close to this example above. We need to be clear about that Mr O otherwise we are back to fantasy and deception. 2) The stones they used were way too small to claim comparable method. The Sacsayhuaman blocks are typically 10-15 tonnes with many being between 25-50 tonnes and some much more. Protzen used a nothing larger than a house brick for his first attempt and a 0.5 tonne block for the second attempt which is the photo you refer to. 3) He used cold steel chisels and lump hammers. 4) Eight men around the 0.5 tonnne block. Barely enough room for each man to get a grip. They dropped it at one point. Imagine dropping a 25 tonne block! 5) When you say they only had one go. The fact is they didn't have the enthusiasm for another go. Why not? I thought the idea was to prove comparable accuracy and method. Common sense says that it was not going to get better and they knew it. Eight exhausted and bewildered men working 12 days to produce that result. I repeat the fact is they didn't do it again. One must ask why not. Conclusion Conjecture will not do. No good saying they only had one attempt. It may or may not have improved. Assuming they had had the energy and will to carry on, we don't know that it would have got better. Unless a team gets together using nothing more than stone age tools or the tools they were only supposed to have had, and puts together a construction as precise as the Peruvians were clearly able to do with a comparable size block then any claim of comparison has to remain moot. So I stand on the evidence of Protzen's attempt. They were not the first to be defeated and they will not be the last. The evidence strongly suggests more than ever that extra-ordinary methods are needed to produce the Peruvian accuracy. Edited January 13, 2013 by zoser 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherSide1945 Posted January 13, 2013 #4772 Share Posted January 13, 2013 no matter what anyone says, the people who were there thousands of years ago, are talking about gods that came from space. this is where no matter how many theories of how man gained this knowledge of monolithic building by himslelf, I will always think that aliens were here. if the records of ancient man say there were gods from space, i think there it is at least a worthy theory. i believe in aliens wwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyy before jesus, budha, and alah says. chances are they were aliens anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted January 13, 2013 #4773 Share Posted January 13, 2013 No ones refuted the vitrification and moulding theory. As far as this thread or forum is concerned it's new information. It's been in the world for at least a few years though. There is no refuting analysis or successful competing theory to account for the signs of moulding and vitrification. No science academy has produced a refuting argument. It's done. So the theories of Gamarra regarding moulding an vitrification stand with obvious implications. That technology could not have been endemic here. Nothing more to say apart from the fact that Protzen's work was another valuable piece of the jigsaw and it was very useful to check through that and compare it. The theory now all hangs together; the stonework, the folkore, the art, and modern man's failed attempt at replicating the ancient stonework. Nothing more needed. And yet all of that still culminates in nothing more than an argument from ignorance. The simple fact that you have yet to overcome that minor yet troublesome hurdle should really tell you something zoser. Furthermore, the fact that archaeologists aren't afforded the luxury of making things up isn't the feather in your cap that you think it is, quite the opposite really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted January 13, 2013 #4774 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) And yet all of that still culminates in nothing more than an argument from ignorance. The simple fact that you have yet to overcome that minor yet troublesome hurdle should really tell you something zoser. Furthermore, the fact that archaeologists aren't afforded the luxury of making things up isn't the feather in your cap that you think it is, quite the opposite really. There is no ignorance. Ignorance is making claims that cannot be justified, such as modern man has proved that they could do it using stone age methods. That's ignorance and here is the irefutable proof. I have provided a volume of evidence that states the principle of how precision work was done. Compare this to the Coricancha wall above. It's an utter joke. The ignorance and denial is yours not mine. Worse than ignorance what the skeptics are doing is fraud. Claiming that Protzen's work compares with ancient high precision when pictorial evidence says that it isn't. This thing is done. Edited January 13, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted January 13, 2013 #4775 Share Posted January 13, 2013 No ones refuted the vitrification and moulding theory. erm, except I have, many times, I even posted piccies. dont ask when and where, the last post I made about vitrification was a page or 2 back but heres the swerve again It would seem this thread will just regurgitate previous posts over and over, thus never will it end or be concluded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts