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

want to bet on that? and you just contributed to the swerve didnt you

Its just I cant stand some donut will try sway highly gullible others.... that their ridiculously insane beliefs are based on fact.

If that's what Lord v thinks..good luck princess! you know that many others will give you a right royal rse kicking as time goes by..

What do you think to the clips?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think to the clips?

what do you think of my posts... is the most revealing question....

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ears are burning again :unsure2:

Good to see you all.

Just plodding on through the Foerster video's and AA documentaries. No doubt you guys have already watched them all, so I thought I'd better acquaint myself with all the information.

Some cracking stuff there I must say.

Good that the issues have attracted some lively debate, and I don't mean that sarcastically.

So I'm just pausing a little and looking at different angles of the AA phenomena.

I'll perhaps check in later to see what's happening.

Good to see you back seeder.

It looks like as soon as there is news on the DNA postiing it will be posted here; a good book mark for anyone interested:

http://www.dnaforpat...ng-to-find-out/

Why does Foerster go through all the trouble of getting a piece of the inside of the skull? For a DNA analysis it would be enough to send in a tooth. A tooth is 100% proof of no contamination with modern DNA.

There's another thing: I hope the skulls were from a fresh dig, and not skulls that have been handled by a myriad of people during the time they were exposed in some museum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you think of my posts... is the most revealing question....

Post a link to the one's I've missed and I promise to check em out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Foerster go through all the trouble of getting a piece of the inside of the skull? For a DNA analysis it would be enough to send in a tooth. A tooth is 100% proof of no contamination with modern DNA.

There's another thing: I hope the skulls were from a fresh dig, and not skulls that have been handled by a myriad of people during the time they were exposed in some museum.

I think that's why he took a sample from within the base area for a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's why he took a sample from within the base area for a guess.

But extracting a tooth from a skull and send it up for DNA analysis (of the pulp in the heart of the tooth or molar) is the safest way to get uncontaminated DNA. I assumed that was common knowledge.

Imagine the results: the skull appears to be from a normal human being who lived in that area.

I know what will happen next: people will say what I said just now, and that the results are not conclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of impossibly high precision. From one of Brien's clips. Location unknown; suspected Ollyantaytambo?

zoser68_zps5d322b4c.jpg

zoser70_zps23307921.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But extracting a tooth from a skull and send it up for DNA analysis (of the pulp in the heart of the tooth or molar) is the safest way to get uncontaminated DNA. I assumed that was common knowledge.

Imagine the results: the skull appears to be from a normal human being who lived in that area.

I know what will happen next: people will say what I said just now, and that the results are not conclusive.

I can't see how anyone could say that these skulls belonged to normal people Abe. Something weird went on in that area to account for the extreme differences not just in skull size and cranial volume, but jaw thickness, enlarged eye sockets, molar discrepancies and cranial plate differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of impossibly high precision. From one of Brien's clips. Location unknown; suspected Ollyantaytambo?

hahaha :w00t: :w00t: :clap: :clap:

he just gets better doesnt he??

quote: " Location unknown;"

:w00t: :w00t:

but the fact he doesn't know where its from

makes it OK to post as proof?

my mums got the same wallpaper

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha :w00t: :w00t: :clap: :clap:

he just gets better doesnt he??

quote: " Location unknown;"

:w00t: :w00t:

but the fact he doesn't know where its from

makes it OK to post?

See 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

Final check on the thread, just to see myself proven right about this thread going nowhere, and I was right, back to walls and molds already, so this REALLY is my last ever post.. but it was REALLY only inspired by seeing his unbelievable (beleif in fairy power) post about PP being there to channel energies...FFS! You know - zoser for sure must be young, gullible and certainly impressionable to be swayed so much by the semi fictional AA series. A more mature person would not be posting like he does. Thats not an insult BTW but a simple observation....

so a classic zoser quote was made yet again

The question is what advanced skill produced the Coricancha walls?

Ah - I get ya - do you mean the advanced skills which made parts of the Coricancha walls as shown below?

Or are you just cherry picking nicer pics..yet again? Or maybe the vids you watch cherry pick the nicer pics...you know....to squeeze into their theories?

quote: "Below is a shot showing some of the rougher sections of the Coricancha wall, presumably built earlier than the smooth-fitting stonework further along"

click for bigger

post-135078-0-56706900-1358113335_thumb.

and these ones show gaps you couldn't get a rolled newspaper in either

post-135078-0-07901600-1358113046_thumb.

post-135078-0-78540800-1358113050_thumb.

erm, so is what we are seeing, proof of what other have said to zoser all along? Their perfection was built up after a lot of mistakes and lots of practice? YES of course it is! This is the problem for those who dont research!!

You cannot look at just a handful of pics and think you have it all!

You need to see other pics to really be a smarty... and crush statements like perfection

But zoser cherry pics his images, relying on the fact he can fool YOU ALL, if no-one researches!!

And I really wont be back, at all, ever again, so I will leave you with this:

Now zoser is saying 'again' these stones are granite. But the largest are red sandstone, ie - easy to work. Dont forget that

quote:

"Pumapunku's large blocks are a common red sandstone that was quarried about 10 kilometers away. Many of the smaller stones, including the most ornamental and some of the facing stones, are of igneous andesite and came from a quarry on the shore of Lake Titicaca, about 90 kilometers away"

source and good read:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4202

and

"The Plataforma Lítica contains the largest stone slab found in both the Pumapunku and Tiwanaku Site. This stone slab is 7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide and averages 1.07 meters thick. Based upon the specific gravity of the red sandstone from which it was carved, this stone slab has been estimated to weigh 131 metric tons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

Now the first quote states igneous andesite... anyone know what that means? No worries as usual I do the work for you!

quote:

"Igneous rock (derived from the Latin word ignis meaning fire) is one of the three main rock types, the others being sedimentary and metamorphic rock. Igneous rock is formed through the cooling and solidification of magma or lava. Igneous rock may form with or without crystallization, either below the surface as intrusive (plutonic) rocks or on the surface as extrusive (volcanic) rocks. This magma can be derived from partial melts of pre-existing rocks in either a planet's mantle or crust. Typically, the melting is caused by one or more of three processes: an increase in temperature, a decrease in pressure, or a change in composition.

anyone following the bolded?

with crystalization, ie a shine? sheen? specially when lightly polished? Mistaken for vitrifcation of course...

someone may even search on 'polished igneous andesite'

over and out for good.

chanelling energies indeed...

IMPOSSIBLY HIGH PRECISION ONCE AGAIN.. posted above... so precise they cant build corners..

my sons and wooden blocks built better walls than those advanced twerps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how anyone could say that these skulls belonged to normal people Abe. Something weird went on in that area to account for the extreme differences not just in skull size and cranial volume, but jaw thickness, enlarged eye sockets, molar discrepancies and cranial plate differences.

I explained to you what could have happened:

http://www.unexplain...85#entry4601284

http://www.unexplain...70#entry4601182

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of impossibly high precision. From one of Brien's clips. Location unknown; suspected Ollyantaytambo?

zoser68_zps5d322b4c.jpg

zoser70_zps23307921.jpg

Great.

See all the lichens growing on those stones?

Brush them off, and what's left is a gloss.

And don't we all just love those protuberances at the bottom of these stones?

Why should they be there, anyway?

Because maybe they used levers?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you know where this temple of....(clearly European man).....come from?

you of all people should know this as a great researcher

its some very very common knowledge!

post-135078-0-21974500-1358197113_thumb.

and if someone knows, but not zoser, just keep quiet a while pls?

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you know where this temple of....(clearly European man).....come from?

you of all people should know this as a great researcher

its some very very common knowledge!

post-135078-0-21974500-1358197113_thumb.

.

Disneyland?? (I've never been there, btw).

Hmm... I think I spoiled the fun, lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin

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.

A guy shaping andesite, by hand and on camera, a guy with a professional reputation to lose, is refute by a blind man sitting on his ass at home with the words "they didn't use cold steel chisels!"

Perhaps that means that you don't need cold steel chisels one might be led to suppose.

But not one like Zoser.

Riiiight.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy shaping andesite, by hand and on camera, a guy with a professional reputation to lose, is refute by a blind man sitting on his ass at home with the words "they didn't use cold steel chisels!"

Perhaps that means that you don't need cold steel chisels one might be led to suppose.

But not one like Zoser.

Riiiight.

Harte

The guy in the video was being modest.

He and his team did a great job.

And all that in a short time.

Now imagine lots of people having "all the time in the world" , happily hammering and pounding these rocks for days on end.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disneyland?? (I've never been there, btw).

Hmm... I think I spoiled the fun, lol.

.

not for some of us - no...

just be sure you're not a part of the fun if you dont want to spoil it!

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMPOSSIBLY HIGH PRECISION ONCE AGAIN.. posted above... so precise they cant build corners..

my sons and wooden blocks built better walls than those advanced twerps

Ok thanks.

A few things; the Coricancha images.

The rougher stonework (crude boulders, adobe etc) is architecture that Foerster, Gamarra, de Jong, and others attribute to the Inca. Built most probably just before the Spanish arrived. Always seen built top of precision work as fill in work or some kind. The only one exception I know of is at Ollyantaytambo were it looks as if Inca dragged already cut megalithic blocks and put them on top of a rubble base or ramp. For what reason I don't know,

It's vitally important to distinguish between building styles. Those responsible for the rough adobe boulder constructions were clearly not the same people who did the precision megalithic work at Sacsayhuaman or the more uniform cuboid walls of Coricancha. Gamarra asserts that they were different people of very different technology and time.

On the documentary by de Jong summarising Gamarra's work there is this; look at the different styles. Always the rougher work is built on top of the precision work. Quite the opposite of what one would expect:

zoser71_zps52818deb.jpg

zoser72_zps07f9e37e.jpg

zoser71_zps52818deb.jpg

So the technology was different and logically so were the people that built these differing constructions. Remember that AA proponents are only chiefly interested in the precision work.

Regarding the picture of the Coricancha wall you posted showing gaps; I'm not sure what you are highlighting here? Are you indicating mistakes made? Maybe they are maybe they are not. The Spanish worked extensively in that area to build churches etc. What damage did they do? What of earthquakes over the centuries? In any case a clear point need to be made. They obviously were highly capable of achieving extreme precision. The question of whether they were able to do this 100% of the time is of less concern than the fact that it was actually done in lots of places if you get my point.

The fact is that we can point to numerous places where high precision was achieved. That we can also identify places where it was not achieved first we need to look at was it the same people, and then has the work been subject to damage. Then we are still left with the unarguable evidence that it was achieved elsewhere and that is what is of most interest.

By analogy Stan Freidmann makes the point that up to 95% of UFO sightings are explainable. It's the 5% unexplainable that he is interested in.

The final point regarding what you speculate could be natural vitrification. They have proved that with the rock and cave carvings that the vitrification is only on a thin surface layer:

zoser75_zpse53be258.jpg

Notice the vitrification top right; yet not evident on the fractured part.

Whatever it was that produced the vitrification it wasn't according to this sample endemic in the rock. It was a result of the cut.

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/evidence-of-vitrified-stonework-in-the-inca-vestiges-of-peru/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not for some of us - no...

just be sure you're not a part of the fun if you dont want to spoil it!

Apparently the joke is lost on me.

I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy in the video was being modest.

He and his team did a great job.

And all that in a short time.

Now imagine lots of people having "all the time in the world" , happily hammering and pounding these rocks for days on end.

.

I would agree. They did however admit themselves that their finished work was not as good as the precision work they inspected. Nothing wrong with Protzen and his team enjoying some good honest labour in the Peruvian sunshine.

It's other people making claims about it that I would strongly challenge; claims refuted by the visual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks.

A few things; the Coricancha images.

The rougher stonework (crude boulders, adobe etc) is architecture that Foerster, Gamarra, de Jong, and others attribute to the Inca. Built most probably just before the Spanish arrived. Always seen built top of precision work as fill in work or some kind. The only one exception I know of is at Ollyantaytambo were it looks as if Inca dragged already cut megalithic blocks and put them on top of a rubble base or ramp. For what reason I don't know,

It's vitally important to distinguish between building styles. Those responsible for the rough adobe boulder constructions were clearly not the same people who did the precision megalithic work at Sacsayhuaman or the more uniform cuboid walls of Coricancha. Gamarra asserts that they were different people of very different technology and time.

On the documentary by de Jong summarising Gamarra's work there is this; look at the different styles. Always the rougher work is built on top of the precision work. Quite the opposite of what one would expect:

zoser71_zps52818deb.jpg

zoser72_zps07f9e37e.jpg

zoser71_zps52818deb.jpg

So the technology was different and logically so were the people that built these differing constructions. Remember that AA proponents are only chiefly interested in the precision work.

Regarding the picture of the Coricancha wall you posted showing gaps; I'm not sure what you are highlighting here? Are you indicating mistakes made? Maybe they are maybe they are not. The Spanish worked extensively in that area to build churches etc. What damage did they do? What of earthquakes over the centuries? In any case a clear point need to be made. They obviously were highly capable of achieving extreme precision. The question of whether they were able to do this 100% of the time is of less concern than the fact that it was actually done in lots of places if you get my point.

The fact is that we can point to numerous places where high precision was achieved. That we can also identify places where it was not achieved first we need to look at was it the same people, and then has the work been subject to damage. Then we are still left with the unarguable evidence that it was achieved elsewhere and that is what is of most interest.

By analogy Stan Freidmann makes the point that up to 95% of UFO sightings are explainable. It's the 5% unexplainable that he is interested in.

The final point regarding what you speculate could be natural vitrification. They have proved that with the rock and cave carvings that the vitrification is only on a thin surface layer:

zoser75_zpse53be258.jpg

Notice the vitrification top right; yet not evident on the fractured part.

Whatever it was that produced the vitrification it wasn't according to this sample endemic in the rock. It was a result of the cut.

http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/

Gamarra was a dreamer, not a scientist.

The different style of stones make me think of a quick way to repair things.

The stones that were made in that very precise way were made when people had all the time of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree. They did however admit themselves that their finished work was not as good as the precision work they inspected. Nothing wrong with Protzen and his team enjoying some good honest labour in the Peruvian sunshine.

It's other people making claims about it that I would strongly challenge; claims refuted by the visual evidence.

Their finished work was not as good as the precision work they inspected, because they only had a limited time to experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this photo:

zoser72_zps07f9e37e.jpg

It shows they were in a hurry, and the later it got, the less precise the stones were cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamarra was a dreamer, not a scientist.

The different style of stones make me think of a quick way to repair things.

The stones that were made in that very precise way were made when people had all the time of the world.

Speculation after speculation. Not all the rough boulder work was repair. Lots of new constructions were made using the rough boulder style. Nor can we say as you previously assert that difference was merely a class distinction exercise. These pictures prove that point. Who repairs King's property with rough boulders?

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.