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

Where do we see megalithic blocks of granite fitted together with high precision in that picture?

What I see is highly ornate and artistic.

yes, so a sight more impressive than a bodged wall.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another piece of evidence that fits the hypothesis.

That what you are seeing is in part natural formations.

One would think if they had taken the trouble to cut the stone they would have shaped it flat. They were more than capable of doing that.

Totally incorrect. You have never cut a single stone in your life. I've built retaining walls out of dense basalt. Don't tell me what they were capable of. If it stone served its function, there was no need to cut it unless their boss was willing to pay for the extra labor to make it more attractive.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst part is, that he knows full well what is what, the origin of his images proves as much. Both his images come from a wikipedia article about dry stone walls. You'll find both images there, amongst others. Which he doesn't show of course.

No precedent in classic architecture? Really? Are you absolutely sure? Weeeeel..........

I give you, constructed without any advanced tools, the roman temple at Baalbek. Constructed quite some time before anything similar in south America.

Are you seriously claiming that the Baalbek stones were lifted by crude hauling? Pull the other one mate.

You must be absolutely joking.

Architects and construction engineers, however, not having any preconceived ideas of ancient history to uphold, will frankly state that there are no known lifting technologies even in current times that could raise and position the Baalbek stones given the amount of working space. The massive stones of the Grand Terrace of Baalbek are simply beyond the engineering abilities of any recognized ancient or contemporary builders.

There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archaeologists and conventional theories of prehistoric civilization. There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age. ..........

http://www.alien-ufos.com/ancient-civilizations-archaeology-anthropology/19465-baalbek-foundation-stones.html

Let me put it another way. If you think the Baalbek trilithons were the work of the Romans then prove it. Evidence suggests otherwise.

Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't found any yet. Vincent Lee demonstrated exactly how anyone can create stones with precise horizontal lines along with other simple techniques which you choose not to learn or understand.

So did Protzen. So did Mark Lehner. So did the Japanese.

All made high sounding claims even breaking sweat to try and prove their point.

None did.

Let me remind you:

0_zps3a143815.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the moulding marks on the bottom block.

4935387330_4f1a24c46d_z.jpg

But zoser, look at how terrible this masonry is. The lines are uneven, the joints are crooked, and so on. I showed you a similar one and you told me that it was an example of the "crude" walls that were definitely not built by aliens.

Yet here you are saying that this particular crude wall was built by your alien friends.

Son, you need to get your opinions straight for five minutes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another piece of evidence that fits the hypothesis.

One would think if they had taken the trouble to cut the stone they would have shaped it flat. They were more than capable of doing that.

Yet we see bulging out of stone along with sinking in under weight.

Highly significant and cannot be discarded as archaeologists tend to habitually do.

But yet again, if this was the ancient Aliens' construction technique, then it wasn't a very good one, was it? If it resulted in the rocks going all soft so that they went out of shape if weight was put on top of them, that was a pretty useless method of construction really wasn't it. What is the point of building a Wall with squishy rocks?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But zoser, look at how terrible this masonry is. The lines are uneven, the joints are crooked, and so on. I showed you a similar one and you told me that it was an example of the "crude" walls that were definitely not built by aliens.

Yet here you are saying that this particular crude wall was built by your alien friends.

Son, you need to get your opinions straight for five minutes.

Precision fitting. Not bettered since. Notwithstanding modern machine tools.

Opinion will not do. It's a fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yet again, if this was the ancient Aliens' construction technique, then it wasn't a very good one, was it? If it resulted in the rocks going all soft so that they went out of shape if weight was put on top of them, that was a pretty useless method of construction really wasn't it. What is the point of building a Wall with squishy rocks?

They wanted precision fit. Not precision flat external surfaces. You ask a good question; however the mystery remains or only deepens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the moulding marks on the bottom block.

4935387330_4f1a24c46d_z.jpg

Must be true, then,.

Note the molding marks on the unfinished obelisk at Aswan:

990316n03.jpeg

And:

990316n02.jpeg

Highly logistical.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously claiming that the Baalbek stones were lifted by crude hauling?

http://www.alien-ufo...ion-stones.html

How many times do I have to make you look stupid by criticizing your sources? Look at the url above where you glean info from, does alien-ufo suggest a serious source?

NO!

But this one does :tu:

The quarry was slightly higher up[17][18] than the temple itself so no lifting was required to move the stones the 800 meters (2,600 ft) to the temple. In 1977, Jean-Pierre Adam made a brief study suggesting the large blocks could have been moved on rollers with machines using capstans and pulley blocks, a process which he theorised could use 512 workers to move a 557 tonne block (approximately 243 tonnes lighter than the trilithon blocks). Adam did not approach the problem of archaeological dating, suggesting that the maritime technology that may have moved the larger stones came from a pre-Roman era, concluding "Knowing that the Egyptians knew about the pulley, it is not unreasonable to attribute the construction to a people of sailors, such as the Phoenicians or Minoans".

http://en.wikipedia....ving_the_stones

Baalbek, is a town in the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon situated east of the Litani River. It is famous for its exquisitely detailed yet monumentally scaled temple ruins of the Roman period, when Baalbek, then known as Heliopolis (Greek: Ἡλιούπολις), was one of the largest sanctuaries in the empire. It is Lebanon's greatest Roman treasure, and it can be counted among the wonders of the ancient world, containing some of the largest and best preserved Roman ruins.

Edited by seeder
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did Protzen. So did Mark Lehner. So did the Japanese.

All made high sounding claims even breaking sweat to try and prove their point.

None did.

Newsflash! Vincent Lee did right in front of cameras for a History Channel documentary a couple of years ago. For someone like me who has attempted more than one masonry project, it was a completely convincing demonstration and showed what a determined investigator can do.

Instead of dismissing him, why don't you read what he did? Then you won't have to believe in pretend aliens using pretend technology to build crude structures that we humans surpassed centuries ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precision fitting. Not bettered since.

Crude masonry. Poorly fit stones. Uneven lines. This is the best that alien technology can do? Skilled masons have built better and much more stable walls. Funny that you like this one but dismiss the one I pointed out.

Notwithstanding modern machine tools.

Poor advanced aliens came all this way and forgot their tool box!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precision fitting. Not bettered since. Notwithstanding modern machine tools.

Opinion will not do. It's a fact

A Fact eh? Only for Noddy, in Toyland

The only fact is, you're wrong on EVERY count.

Now be a good lad an answer Abes question, if you can and dont say you did because you didnt. And you cant!

If this were a brothel you'd be in serious debt for the amount of lashings you like to take.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously claiming that the Baalbek stones were lifted by crude hauling? Pull the other one mate.

You must be absolutely joking.

-snip- ( edit : considering the origin of that, I reject it's validity, you'll have to do better than that. See? I'm using your methods :whistle: )

Let me put it another way. If you think the Baalbek trilithons were the work of the Romans then prove it. Evidence suggests otherwise.

Try again.

I'm still having to see a method proposed by yourself to the contrary, Soft Stone Boy. Right now nothing you have said or shown can explain it to anybodies saftisfaction.

Now, to the issue at hand, since the quarry they originated from was situated higher, no lifting was needed. Evidence suggest you are plainly wrong. Try again.

Edit : And damned, but I just saw that Seeder beat me to the explanation and quite eloquently so.

Edited by TheSearcher
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the molding marks on the unfinished obelisk at Aswan:

990316n03.jpeg

And:

990316n02.jpeg

Highly logistical.

Obviously aliens softened the rock for the guy. You can't remove material off of a rock without using alien rock-softening technology.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still having to see a method proposed by yourself to the contrary, Soft Stone Boy. Right now nothing you have said or shown can explain it to anybodies saftisfaction.

Now, to the issue at hand, since the quarry they originated from was situated higher, no lifting was needed. Evidence suggest you are plainly wrong. Try again.

Edit : And damned, but I just saw that Seeder beat me to the explanation and quite eloquently so.

You see thats the benefit of people like us...searching for answers.....over people like zoser, who just BELIEVES and repeats - verbatim - someone elses warped and loony ramblings....without applying irrefutable logistics to his ideas!

:tu:

(I just edited in another bit to that post BTW )

.

Edited by seeder
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see thats the benefit of people like us...searching for answers.....over people like zoser, who just BELIEVES and repeats - verbatim - someone elses warped and loony ramblings....without applying irrefutable logistics to his ideas!

:tu:

(I just edited in another bit to that post BTW )

.

I just read your addition, nicely done. I'm sometimes a bit analog, still using books!! I use the "interwebs", yes, but I tend to corroborate in books whenever I can. And to think he presents himself as an engineer and to judge people he knows nothing about. I'm this close to agree with you and just label him a troll.

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read your addition, nicely done. I'm sometimes a bit analog, still using books!! I use the "interwebs", yes, but I tend to corroborate in books whenever I can. And to think he presents himself as an engineer and to judge people he knows nothing about. I'm this close to agree with you and just label him a troll.

:tu: hehe...engineer, math teacher, and British mausoleum museum worker. (Sorry got no tipex!) :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tu: hehe...engineer, math teacher, and British mausoleum museum worker. (Sorry got no tipex!) :w00t:

See I missed the last two. Must have missed him when I was at the British museum last time. It was 2 years ago if I'm not mistaken, for the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" expo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, when you say "precision stones" do you mean how well they're cut or how well they're put together?

Or that they don't use mortar?

At any rate - the Parthenon has precisely cut stones. I seem to recall reading somewhere that they were held together by the physics of their construction too and not by mortar

By any standard I can concieve of you using, the Parthenon is a "precision stone" edifice.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I missed the last two. Must have missed him when I was at the British museum last time. It was 2 years ago if I'm not mistaken, for the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" expo.

maybe you didnt miss him, hes the retard retired ex math teacher and engineer who now rubs shoulders with Britains finest archeological scholars on ancient relics and ancient things in general. Who, despite all the studies...and archeological facts... just chooses to paste an endless amount of tom-tit from only 2 very dubious sources

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously claiming that the Baalbek stones were lifted by crude hauling? Pull the other one mate.

You must be absolutely joking.

Architects and construction engineers, however, not having any preconceived ideas of ancient history to uphold, will frankly state that there are no known lifting technologies even in current times that could raise and position the Baalbek stones given the amount of working space. The massive stones of the Grand Terrace of Baalbek are simply beyond the engineering abilities of any recognized ancient or contemporary builders.

There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archaeologists and conventional theories of prehistoric civilization. There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age. ..........

http://www.alien-ufo...ion-stones.html

Let me put it another way. If you think the Baalbek trilithons were the work of the Romans then prove it. Evidence suggests otherwise.

Try again.

As I said, I am just a guy not an engineer or scholar but I found this interesting and completely possible as opposed to otherworldly help of any kind. Of course I am sure you have read it and completely destroyed the information but we can dream can't we?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cant wait till 6 am to read Psyches replies... but Im signing off now as i need to do my crochet pattern workbook

Polygonal knitting with such precision

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I asked a dozen pages back was what are these strange marks on the stones on the wall that Brien is walking past.

I remarked that they are totally consistent with moulding soft material.

Since then there has been nothing but shouting and ranting.

No convincing argument has been put forward to say otherwise.

Abe's chemical theory is the most convincing but has more holes in it than a string vest.

No chemical has ever been known to soften quartz based rock to allow it to be stamped, scraped, trimmed and pointed.

So looks like we have moulded stone that was softened by some unknown technology.

That explains the precision, the mould marks externally and the step sinking in effect observable from the dismantled walls.

Gemara found something unique. Just because no machinery has been found that does not mean that the theory is not sound. The evidence still fits regardless.

Strange.. and we have been asking the same thing.. where is the proof that alien tech was used to 'soften stone' (still waiting for your next zoserism to come up again.. vitrifaction

Yes so what looks like molded stone.. just looks like it.. does not mean it was.. no matter how much you argue against it.. there is no proof of alien and plenty of proof it was man made..

Then your alternative argument is eagerly awaited.

Until then; the AA hypothesis cannot be argued against.

The only objections are philosophical. There is no evidence against.

Man has not replicated the precision. Gamarra's hypothesis fits all the pictorial evidence.

Looks pretty strong I would say.

Yes it can be argued against.. because its basically well to put it bluntly.. absolute total and utter crap.. there is plenty of evidence against it. .that has been posted time and time and time again but either your

A - to stupid to see it..

B - unable to comprehend it..

C - Have a complete lack of faith in the cleverness of man .. or my personal favorite

D - some poor guy sitting in his room bored with his life and must troll to be amused.. me.. I think you fall into option D

Aliens.

Show me the precision to rival the ancient work in Peru.

That's all I ask. Mud bricks ain't gonna do it and you know it.

been done so many times but yet again.. you cant see it because it goes against what you believe in..

I thought the idea of the thread was an exchange of views either in support or against a hypothesis.?

Yes it is.. but when you constantly say 'irrelevant or.. I am not watching that because.. or the academic's are just part of the cover up' kinda blows the whole exchange of views.. you ask us to watch your vids.. which a lot of us have done.. or have already seen.. but you cant do the same.. kinda a one sided exchange of views on your part dont you think..

To put it in perspective here is the basis of the argument of the AA proponent.

Modern man is capable of constructing the buildings that Abe has posted.

However it is highly question even with modern machine tooling that this could be done.

Inca_wall_1_-_Coricancha_Peru.jpg

or this

4935387330_4f1a24c46d_z.jpg

That is what the skeptics of the AA hypothesis would have to prove.

That man could do it. Without advanced tools.

There is no precedent for this anywhere in classic architecture and we don't attempt it today (only unsuccessfully - Protzen et al).

That's the argument right there.

No posting of ornate Roman relics will do it; unless we can see replicated megalithic precision.

again has been explained to you.. and again.. you cannot grasp the difference between modern age and ancient.. and yet you were in a museum..

just on a side note 1344401528BD8Jh0.jpg

quite precise since its done with diamond saws etc to cut the blocks out.. ok before you say. .but they are using mortar.. of course.. building codes today you have to.. being a engineer I thought you might understand that..

I have made it quite plain what the difference is between Roman and Peruvian construction that makes the latter interesting to AA proponents and the former not.

All you seem to be doing is making us aware of the artistic achievements of the Romans and that they had millions of slaves to man haul with.

Precision work however to match Peruvian quality has not so far been proven.

I share your appreciation of the Roman artefacts.

That is not however what the debate is about.

yes there is a difference.. a whole different view to building.. the only reason why the AA proponents find it interesting is because they think that the peruvian were stone aged primatives who could not build anything

oh as for the romans having millions of slaves.. yup that is true.. but then you cannot seem to get your head around how much in the inca and peruvian life was ruled by the priest hood and their kings.. if a priest or the king said.. you must build a wall in your garden.. it must be 20 feet high with a hole in the middle.. once built you must sacrifice your children on top of it the gods have spoken.. you would do it.. you would not say no.. you just did..

I think someone said you were a teacher at one time.. is this correct..

because if it is.. I can now understand why they have had to dumb down the test and exams to get into uni over there..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember folks. Zoser's authoritative masonry knowledge proves with absolute certainty that this was built by aliens (please ignore the gap under the third top stone; even aliens aren't perfect!):

4935387330_4f1a24c46d_z.jpg

However this trash was obviously built by stupid primitive humans:

richard-i-anson-section-of-an-ancient-rock-wall-showing-the-inca-s-incredible-skills-at-stone-masonry-peru.jpg

Edited by scowl
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.