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

When they crack, you'll have several pieces that fit like a jigsaw puzzle.

Herculean task..heh. Did you read what I posted about the Romans? They dragged several granite pillars each weighing 60 tons for a 100 km, and then they sailed from Egypt to Rome, and again, dragged those pillars for another 700 meters. THAT is a Herculean task.

And did you watch that video I posted? A whole village pulling a block of stone the ancients had left?

I have watched dozens of videos you posted, now I want your opinion about the ones I posted.

You have made the point about the Thunder Stone and I said that in no way was that a reasonable comparison because they deliberately waited for the ground to freeze and they used ball bearings as rollers. The Ancient Peruvians had no such advantage to my knowledge. The Romans had millions of slaves to call upon because slavery was the basis of their economy.

No evidence that the Ancient Peruvians had such resources. Your recent video; was the block lifted? If so how far? Dragged up up hill? These points need to be looked at before any such methodology can be compared. If I get time I'll look at it again.

On the subject of quarrying, this photo to me is far more interesting. It's a photo of The Wall of the Living Rock. It shows the smooth surfaces left behind when the rock was quarried. Not easy to account for that unless one brings high technology into the equation.

zoser66_zpsf1ec72f9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice picture to compare with the efforts of Protzen and his team:

Click to zoom.

zoser67_zps514f8a81.jpg

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right. Not granite though. See here:

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

"The method works by creating a chemical reaction on the surface of the stone with the use of steel wool and specially formulated chemical compounds. This is only achievable on stone containing calcium carbonate and so most limestone, marble and travertine can be vitrified where as granite cannot."

It can, but you'll need to know what chemicals to use.

And how about andesite? It contains 6% of CaO.

You know, it's just about creating a very thin, shiny sheet.

You showed photos of stones where that shine had partly weathered off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice picture to compare with the efforts of Protzen and his team:

Click to zoom.

zoser67_zps514f8a81.jpg

Oniomancer and I showed you how that kind of precision can be accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The method works by creating a chemical reaction on the surface of the stone with the use of steel wool and specially formulated chemical compounds. This is only achievable on stone containing calcium carbonate and so most limestone, marble and travertine can be vitrified where as granite cannot."

It can, but you'll need to know what chemicals to use.

And how about andesite? It contains 6% of CaO.

You know, it's just about creating a very thin, shiny sheet.

You showed photos of stones where that shine had partly weathered off.

So why do it on a quarry site?

Any proof that chemicals vitrify granite or are we just making the assertion here? Those chaps who do it for a living seem to know their onions (no pun). They must be pretty sure it cannot be done.

Oniomancer and I showed you how that kind of precision can be accomplished.

You couldn't just restate it could you? You don't mean Protzen by any chance?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do it on a quarry site?

Any proof that chemicals vitrify granite or are we just making the assertion here? Those chaps who do it for a living seem to know their onions (no pun). They must be pretty sure it cannot be done.

You couldn't just restate it could you? You don't mean Protzen by any chance?

They didn't do it on the quarry site, that's why I told you and everyone to go Google "Ollantaytambo" AND "quarry".

-

The chaps that do it for a living are no chemists. I was, once.

-

Protzen demonstrated he could work stone like the Incas did, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The best of, but what about some of the worst?

gallery_75688_7_50740.jpg

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.

Yes, let's discuss deception, shall we?

This is a brick:

5777351-hand-holding-an-old-brick.jpg

This is Protzen's stone replication experiment:

gallery_75688_7_65717.jpg

Do either of those stones look anywhere near the same size?

Here is your frequently touted shiny Cuzco street wall:

street-in-cuzco-with-stones.jpg

How big would you say those blocks were on average?

Protzen didn't use chisels, the other guy's crew did, as we can see in the video, and while more efficient, the chisels are much less accurate than Protzen's method, as they produce a rough surface rather than a finely crushed one.

Now I'm wondering, what do we see at 3:03? Is he cleaning dirt out of an older wall or is that a test wall he made?

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.

We already discussed the time factor, to which I'll add the budgetry factor. It was an experiment after all. It was clear from the discussion they were only after a proof of concept and that's exactly what they got. Only eight guys, none of whom knew what the heck they were doing because they'd never done it before.

And don't mistake tiredness for total exhaustion. I'd be winded too after horsing that stone around but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be ready to go for the next after a bit, especially if I was getting paid.

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.

Exactly! Unless or until you do a full-scale test over a realistic timescale using all the resources the Inca could've brought to bear and honing your technique as you go, you cannot call it a success or failure. Try making a basket from full court on the first try if you've never even played basketball before. Just becuse most of us couldn't doesn't mean we can't with practice, and making the hoop and having it bounce out on that first try is still pretty darned good. That's what we see in the video. Almost but not quite, but it still made the basket.

As it was, they probably could've done a lot better with what they had. My inner efficiency expert was practically screaming through some of those sequences. After watching it again, I can see one way right off the bat where they could've reduced all those sticks underneath to just one crosspiece supported on a frame or two.

All in all though, I'd say they made their point quite adequately.

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
.

And you wouldn't be the first one one in history to claim your own defeat as a victory.

The evidence strongly suggests more than ever that extra-ordinary methods are needed to produce the Peruvian accuracy.

Only if one chooses which evidence they wish to accept.

Edited by Oniomancer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting artefact I have never seen before. This is Tiwanaku.

A hole in the wall of what appears to be a block of andesite. Looks just like it was cut with heat because the same moulding effect can be seen.

The vitrification is again clearly evident (see 0:53). Nice to see consistencies in this architecture:

[media=]

[/media] Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best of, but what about some of the worst?

There is worse than that Mr O. But I did make the point about earthquakes and vandalism did I not? That must be fully taken into account.

I'm sorry but what Protzen has in his hand in your second picture is little more than a brick to me. What about 25 tonne blocks?

Time factor? Budgets? What was the time factor and budget of the Ancient Peruvians? Unlimited? How? They had to eat and survive just like anyone else. Unless of course you believe that they had some kind of magical society where food and shelter just materialised for them.

The key concluding point still stands:

Unless it's replicated it's moot. Just making excuses for Protzen's team will not do. They failed to replicate the precision.

They did however show a lot of respect for the better workmanship and for that I give them credit.

It is not however proof of replication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never responded to the videos I posted.

You never responded to the posts about the Romans.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't do it on the quarry site, that's why I told you and everyone to go Google "Ollantaytambo" AND "quarry".

-

The chaps that do it for a living are no chemists. I was, once.

-

Protzen demonstrated he could work stone like the Incas did, yes.

OK well we await proof of theory.

The quarry site has the same shiny finish as the other vitrified artefacts. How do you explain that?

Hundreds of other quarry sites do too all over Peru.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice picture to compare with the efforts of Protzen and his team:

Click to zoom.

zoser67_zps514f8a81.jpg

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

3:01.

Another interesting artefact I have never seen before. This is Tiwanaku.

A hole in the wall of what appears to be a block of andesite. Looks just like it was cut with heat because the same moulding effect can be seen.

The vitrification is again clearly evident (see 0:53). Nice to see consistencies in this architecture:

[media=]

[/media]

My, what close fitting, precise joints...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3:01.

My, what close fitting, precise joints...

Listen to the video clip.

Who reconstructed Tiwanaku? It's obvious that it was reconstructed. What we see there looks shoddy like Inca work or the archaeologists not the work of the Ancient Peruvians.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to the video clip.

Who reconstructed Tiwanaku? It's obvious that it was reconstructed. What we see there looks shoddy like Inca work or the archaeologists not the work of the Ancient Peruvians.

Then where do you get off using it as an example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not about the Romans.

They - the Romans - did an incredible thing: they dragged huge granite pillars for a 100 kilometers.

Why don't you comment on THAT?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then where do you get off using it as an example?

It's less than a 2 minute clip Mr O.

Please read what I said. I was referring to hole in the wall, not making claims of precision stonework!

Your forgiven; don't worry.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=4800#entry4619517

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not about he Romans.

They - the Romans - did an incredible thing: they dragged huge granite pillars for a 100 kilometers.

Why don't you comment on THAT?

OK I will spell out what's on my mind.

Why keep referring to the Romans or Greeks? No AA documentary even mentions them to my knowledge although I haven't managed to watch them all yet. What it's about is this:

zoser61_zps2dd55b1c.jpg

Have the Roman's or Greeks achieved precision granite work comparable to this? If they have let's see it. I see churches built from granite where I live and it all tends to be mortar filled.

It's about precision in hard rock. Nothing else. That's the mainstay of the AA proposition.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, I have posted about what the Romans accomplished.

You haven't shown sh1t to prove 'aliens' did it.

-

Show us PROOF of aliens building the Incan structures.

I have asked you before, and I ask you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is worse than that Mr O. But I did make the point about earthquakes and vandalism did I not? That must be fully taken into account.

Sounds like you're making excuses for the builders. Funny how it only effected that one rock.

I'm sorry but what Protzen has in his hand in your second picture is little more than a brick to me. What about 25 tonne blocks?

The point was to replicate an Inca joint, which he did. Are you saying that different sized stones carve differently?

Time factor? Budgets? What was the time factor and budget of the Ancient Peruvians? Unlimited? How? They had to eat and survive just like anyone else. Unless of course you believe that they had some kind of magical society where food and shelter just materialised for them.

*Sigh* Such a limited world view. But you misunderstand. Film (or videotape ATCMB. not sure about digital.) costs money. Filming costs money. The production crew is again constrained by what they can do and how long it takes them to do it. They can only do so much unless somebody's willing to bankroll more.

To answer your question though, An entire society with as much time and resources as they need versus 8 locals for hire with at most a couple months is an unfair comparison in anybody's book.

The key concluding point still stands:

Unless it's replicated it's moot. Just making excuses for Protzen's team will not do. They failed to replicate the precision.

They did however show a lot of respect for the better workmanship and for that I give them credit.

It is not however proof of replication.

By that same token we're still waiting for replication of this stone softening/melting/whatever, among other things, like it's existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3:01.

My, what close fitting, precise joints...

A direct comparison

Protzen from 3:01 in his clip:

zoser60_zpsd1838980.jpg

From the inside Coricancha wall using a block much larger than Protzen used:

zoser67_zps514f8a81.jpg

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, I have posted about what the Romans accomplished.

You haven't shown sh1t to prove 'aliens' did it.

-

Show us PROOF of aliens building the Incan structures.

I have asked you before, and I ask you now.

See above. No stone age indians did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A direct comparison

Protzen from 3:01 in his clip:

zoser60_zpsd1838980.jpg

From the inside Coricancha wall using a block much larger than Protzen used:

zoser67_zps514f8a81.jpg

You are literally quibbling over minutiae. That's a difference of millimeters.

Edit: spelling

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are literally quibbling over minutia. That's a difference of millimeters.

That's the point. Now try and achieve it with this

Sacsayhuam.jpg

What honestly do you think Protzen and his team would have achieved using these? It could only be much worse. Please think about that one. I won't even mention the lifting and positioning to give you a fighting chance.

Let's just stick with the precision. How would he have coped?

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.