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

I think that's probably the key to it. I think they were probably experts in the manipulation of time and relative dimensions in space. :yes:

:)

I read somewhere that the 'ancient egyptians' believed that their dead went (returned?) to Sirius (minus the physical body, of course)

Maybe the 'field of mfkzt' was (is) Sirius.....aka the Sirius Star System

speculation

http://www.gold-eagl...bins011806.html

"Mfkzt" was listed in the Egyptian lists of precious substances, while the locality of the king in the afterlife is called the "Field of Mfkzt."

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and logic would have to ask where this weight goes to?

Anyway....

"Over the weekend I heard an acquaintance mention something called "monoatomic gold", followed by a bevy of fantastic and surprising claims about the substance, what it does, and how it was discovered".

My subsequent Google searching has returned a lot of pages with mysticism and conspiracy theories, but not much by way of solid definition. For example, my top Google hit states:

Monoatomic Gold allows subconsciously held beliefs and worries to surface and become understood... Monoatomic Gold acts upon the pituitary gland, inducing an increase in hormonal production, and is thus a rejuvenation agent. Monoatomic Gold strengthens the heart, improves the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow and increases the production of semen... It can be manufactured alchemically out of 24carat metallic gold... Monoatomic gold is not to be confused with colloidal gold either, which retains its metallic nature.

Basically there is very little real science on this topic because the whole premise seems to be based on magical thinking.

have a little read of this, sorry no vids

http://skeptics.stac...monoatomic-gold

WORD TO THE GULLIBLE PEEPS OUT THERE, DO NOT BUY IT AND DO NOT TRY IT PLEASE.

This guy tried the silver version and turned blue. (FACT)

20080219106350x263.jpg

and to reduce the wight of heavy arks? Did you know an Ark was found in Tutankhamen's tomb?

Arkofthecovenantatkingtutstomb.jpg

.

I would like to point out that the usage of this "fantasy" material does a lot worse than only turn a guy blue. See the below article, from the link Seeder provided. This is not a laughing matter, or us skeptics protesting too much. This is the harsh reality that sets in when people take advantage of the desperation of others, with horse manure like mfkzt, monoatomic gold or white gold powder, or whatever you wish to call it.

http://www.phoenixne...y-panacea/full/

Edit : maybe read this quite good link.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS#cite_note-Hudson1994-0

Edited by TheSearcher
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that the 'ancient egyptians' believed that their dead went (returned?) to Sirius (minus the physical body, of course)

Maybe the 'field of mfkzt' was (is) Sirius.....aka the Sirius Star System

speculation

http://www.gold-eagl...bins011806.html

.

Its hard trying to find a serious website on that subject isnt it? And that link goes to....another guy selling another book - (of theories), Laurence Gardner....

"Historians and scholars regard him as a conspiracy theorist, and treat his work as pseudohistory.

http://en.wikipedia...._Gardner#Career

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WORD TO THE GULLIBLE PEEPS OUT THERE, DO NOT BUY IT AND DO NOT TRY IT PLEASE.

I'm not suggesting anyone try it...but seriously lol....do you think someone will read the above and think...

'oooooooh I'm gullible, I'd better not buy it or try it'

This guy tried the silver version and turned blue. (FACT)

20080219106350x263.jpg

Isn't Osiris portrayed as blue or bluey green?

and to reduce the wight of heavy arks? Did you know an Ark was found in Tutankhamen's tomb?

Arkofthecovenantatkingtutstomb.jpg

.

yes....and your point is?

:)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard trying to find a serious website on that subject isnt it? And that link goes to....another guy selling another book - (of theories), Laurence Gardner....

you know how you frown on videos...

do you frown on books as well now

perhaps all you read are peer-reviewed papers?.... :P

"Historians and scholars regard him as a conspiracy theorist, and treat his work as pseudohistory.

of course they do...they don't agree with him. He's not in the 'backing-up-the-status-quo' club.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

re my last post...perhaps this is what all the fuss is about ...with the dedicated debunkers...

that the power of the Pyramid and the Ark could be reproduced in modern times as a wireless source of electricity

[/b]

I'm not suggesting anyone try it...but seriously lol....do you think someone will read the above and think...

'oooooooh I'm gullible, I'd better not buy it or try it'

yes....and your point is?

My point was in regard to your first post above, (it would seem the pace of posts picked up and I simply did not post it when I should have)

so hence me saying "Did you know an Ark etc etc"

And you'd be surprised what people will read and then try, especially those miserable people who just cant lose weight and will try anything they see on a website with big promises of health. Just in the same you'd be surprised by people who believe in AA theories and fairies and all that bunkum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know how you frown on videos...

do you frown on books as well now

perhaps all you read are peer-reviewed papers?....

of course they do...they don't agree with him. He's not in the 'backing-up-the-status-quo' club.

No Bee thats a sweeping statement to make. I frown on 'some' vids that are nonsense, like the AA series, and people like Dunn, or Brien Forester who has an agenda and a tour booking to fill

For your information, I watched Gardners claims on vid, years ago, and got enthused enough to look into it. Which is where the problems started, there just isn't enough serious sources or trust-able sources, to back the claims up.

But while we are on the subject...if this stuff was used in ancient Egypt, how do they know? Did the Egyptians leave records?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But while we are on the subject...if this stuff was used in ancient Egypt, how do they know? Did the Egyptians leave records?

Well, there was all those things they carved on walls... some of which do look remarkably like Spacecraft ... :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was in regard to your first post above, (it would seem the pace of posts picked up and I simply did not post it when I should have)

so hence me saying "Did you know an Ark etc etc"

oh...ok

And you'd be surprised what people will read and then try, especially those miserable people who just cant lose weight and will try anything they see on a website with big promises of health. Just in the same you'd be surprised by people who believe in AA theories and fairies and all that bunkum

re italic above...

people like to believe in things...OR explore ideas about 'things'.....including AA theories...and related subjects.

humans are a curious and creative lot....

some people like to only believe what orthodox scientists/historians tell them...

and some people want the best of both worlds and believe in God and support organised religion but insist of scientific proof of

everything else...... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting anyone try it...but seriously lol....do you think someone will read the above and think...

'oooooooh I'm gullible, I'd better not buy it or try it'

-snip-

.

Try desperate rather, because usually that's the people they prey on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But while we are on the subject...if this stuff was used in ancient Egypt, how do they know? Did the Egyptians leave records?

it's probably all there somewhere...(hieroglyphs and art)...but it will depend on interpretation.

are you waiting for me to mention the conical loaves? I expect you already have your answer at the ready.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh...ok

re italic above...

people like to believe in things...OR explore ideas about 'things'.....including AA theories...and related subjects.

humans are a curious and creative lot....

some people like to only believe what orthodox scientists/historians tell them...

and some people want the best of both worlds and believe in God and support organised religion but insist of scientific proof of

everything else...... :wacko:

You are exactltly right in that respect. I too, beleived in lots of stuff, and loved the internet when I first got on it, because it meant unlimited info/findings to suit my interests

But in wanting to know more about the subjects, and by having the info on the net waiting to be found, you suddenly realise that there is a great - shall we say - 'balance' of info out there. For and against.

Balance is whats needed if you really want to research something, isnt it?

A child in any supermarket will drag his heels down every aisle, but when you get near the tills, and the sweeties, he comes alive. He managed to fade out an entire shop full of stuff, and just comes alive when its the sweets section. Or toys for that matter.

Thats a bit like people searching anomalous stuff out isnt it? If you type your 'query' in google, what are you drawn to in the results?

The link dismissing the query, or the link promoting them?

I just REALLY WANT to know, so I look at both sides of the coin. By doing that, (for many years now), Ive grown naturally, skeptical.

A bit like 'mature' females might view the dating game :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's probably all there somewhere...(hieroglyphs and art)...but it will depend on interpretation.

are you waiting for me to mention the conical loaves? I expect you already have your answer at the ready.... :D

No not at all. I was merely asking if you knew something, if it was recorded I would be interested in it. Thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20080219106350x263.jpg

.

'monoatomic gold turns man into papa smurf' shocker-

father abraham to sue for copyright infringement.....

:-)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'monoatomic gold turns man into papa smurf' shocker-

father abraham to sue for copyright infringement.....

:-)

It's monoatomic silver that guy used, I'm unsure if monoatomic gold would turn your skin the same color.

The only reason I know this is because some blue-skinned guy in a werewolf book I read coated his body in monoatomic silver so any time a werewolf would try to bite him, it's mouth would disintegrate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this site, they explain in a quit nice way how they made the vessels in question.

http://www.geocities...ase_making.html

Thanks, great site. Will take a while reading though.

I could understand if used on alabaster or sandstone, but was that technique really applicable on granite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'monoatomic gold turns man into papa smurf' shocker-

father abraham to sue for copyright infringement.....

:-)

hehe :clap: (but is was the silver stuff)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's monoatomic silver that guy used, I'm unsure if monoatomic gold would turn your skin the same color.

The only reason I know this is because some blue-skinned guy in a werewolf book I read coated his body in monoatomic silver so any time a werewolf would try to bite him, it's mouth would disintegrate.

useful tip. B)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

useful tip. B)

:w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite welcome to.

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.

It's up to you to argue against it.

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.

This is about how the ancients did it, and because we have no idea how they did it, it must have been aliens.

You still have not explained to me how people were able to transport a 300 tonnes weighing stone over a great distance, and then put it on top of a church.

You still have not posted a reply to how these Romans were able to transport many 60 tonnes weighing, and smoothly carved huge granite pillars over a long distance from Egypt to Rome..

Have you ever in your life watched those domes they created?

Why is THAT not a mystery to you?

Because you think the Romans were a lot more clever than those 'injuns'??

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.

I will try:

Read this:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html

Hi!

I don't know what your sources are, but they are crap. This time, your Baalbek-claims.

First: The three blocks used weight about 800 tons each, the heavy, unmoved block weights about 1200 tons.

Second: The quarry for the blocks lies higher then the temple, about 15 meters. Distance to the platform: about 600 meters, but to get round a ditch the way had to be about 1100 meters long.

Third: A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.

Fourth: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.

Read some real literature about the things you are phantasizing about.

Bye,

FD

And another article

Frank_Doernenburg@do2.maus.ruhr.de

(edited) says:

The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors. The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons.

The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim.

As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul.

They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.

But its irrelevant, because they needed only three weeks per block, and that's OK. Oh by the way, the Romans worked a few hundred years on the temple, until the project was finally canceled.

Bye,

FD

And a more recent post:

Subject: Re: Stone of Baalbek

From: fdoernen@ruhrgebiet.net (Frank Dörnenburg)

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology

Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 23:16:04 GMT

Dear ...

This is no flame but a rational post to explain some things to you :-)

It would be nice if you would read just some of the basic stuff about antique transporting techniques before arguing about "I don't know how to do it, and therefore anciens certainly didn't know it". From Roman times, and the trilithon was built in Roman times, we have full documentations about the methods they used. For example, the transport of a 900 t block at the time of Thedosius (compareable to the Bal Bekaa blocks) was accomplished with 12 winches manned with 24 men each - or only 264 men!!!

The romans developed a system of continous winch movement, called in German a "Göpelwinde". With this system, winches are placed on poles dugged into the ground besides the transport way. In the example listed above 2 parallel rows with 6 winches on each side, between them the weight was moved. Each winch had a distance of about 5 m to the next. All 6 winches on each side had a different repe angle to the weight to pull. The lower, the smaller the transport force afflicted to the block. When the angle ot the two winches most behind got unpracticable, the winches were removed from the pole and moved to the frontmost position and the ropes got new connected. And so on. The blocks were transported on sleds. The transport of the Byzanz-Obelisk eg. took about 2 weeks for 3 kilometers from waterfront to 300 m height. The Trilithon-blocks were transported only 600 meters to a lower position!!

When the work was finished, the poles were pulled out and the holes filled.

Next point: How were the blocks in Bal Bekaa lifted? Answer: They werent lifted. The quarry was slightly higher than the platform of the forum, so the Romans only had to fill a small trench with rubble to bull the blocks horizontally to their places.

Next point: Why do I write Bal Bekaa instead of Baalbek? Because this is the original name of the settlement after roman times: Bal Bekaa means "Valley of the Bekaa" and has nothing to do with the old god Baal (you notice the similarity between "Valley of Bekaa" and the famous "Bekaa-plateau" in Lebanon??? Yeah, right, they both mean the same location.) . "Bal Bekaa" was the official name up to the 19th century, and the French use this writing (or the shortened form Bal Bek) until today.

In fact, the whole settlement is of Roman origin, first mentioned in about 20 AD as "Colonia Iulia Felix Helipolitania", named not after the Greek sun god Helios (as Sitchin proposes), but after a local Roman hero, Iuppiter Heliopolitanus. The city lay in the center of several trade routes and therefore flourished after it had to be abandoned because of the onrush of the Arabs.

Next: Why is it no ancient spaceship landing platform? Because of its construction. Its a typical Roman honeycomb-brick-construction. Underneath the forum is a labyrinth of brick walls and chambers, filled to support the weight with shards and other compact trash. All of roman origin. Only beneath the temples on top of the forum are fundaments to the bedrock to support their weight. And in typical roman fashoin, to conceal the flimsy inner construction an outer wall of monoliths between 50 and 800 tons each was placed around the construction so that it lookes massive. But this is only an outer appearance, the whole construction is so unstable, that any decent space ferry would simply break through the ceiling and land in a heap of roman shards.

All these things are known since the publishing of the Wiegand- Baalbek-report between 1921-1925. Z. Sitchin (from where you as I believe you got the "facts") is or was in posession of these reports (because he uses pictures from these books, without mentioning their origins). He publishes the pictures, but doesn't mention the other facts published in the three volumes - so I think I can say, he is a fraud. Once I believed in these people, too. Because I thought "When they publish such things they must be true, because nobody can publish lies as facts". Silly me. When you care to take a look at my home page, you can find some of these silly old believes right there. And I only can say: Think before you flame against "schoolbook science". There is a reason because we have to go to school ;-)

Literature: Wiegand, TH; Baalbek 1-3; Berlin/Leipzig 1921-1925 (the original digging report)

Bruns, G. "Der Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel", Istanbuler Forschungen Bd. 7

Bye,

FD

Visit http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FDoernenburg

Message-ID: <364766ed.14717168@news.nacamar.de>

Return to Doug's archaeology page

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are exactltly right in that respect. I too, beleived in lots of stuff, and loved the internet when I first got on it, because it meant unlimited info/findings to suit my interests

but the thing is....I don't and didn't believe in 'lots of stuff'.....contrary to popular belief, I'm quite fussy about what I will

consider to be true. (possibly true or probably true).. So I must be different to you.... :)

But in wanting to know more about the subjects, and by having the info on the net waiting to be found, you suddenly realise that there is a great - shall we say - 'balance' of info out there. For and against.

Balance is whats needed if you really want to research something, isnt it?

Balance is good....

I just REALLY WANT to know, so I look at both sides of the coin.

I REALLY WANT to know as well.

By doing that, (for many years now), Ive grown naturally, skeptical.

Fair enough...I can see how it can happen. But just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Please

:tu:

'monoatomic gold turns man into papa smurf' shocker-

father abraham to sue for copyright infringement.....

:-)

:lol:

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the thing is....I don't and didn't believe in 'lots of stuff'.....contrary to popular belief, I'm quite fussy about what I will

consider to be true. (possibly true or probably true).. So I must be different to you...

.

Well then the question begs, what do you believe in? A list if you will pls?

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

(snip)

or this

(snip)

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.

Precision stonework?

http://www.stoneworld.com/ext/resources/SW/Home/Images/SW0311_Cribbs01LG.jpg

http://www.cec-waterjet.com/Articles/Landscape-Architect-1.html

Brooklyn Bridge- stone detail

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2771661

And the piece de resistance,

http://hamiltonstoneworks.com/index.html

in particular, see sculpture: studio work.

Stones not big enough? try these:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5100/5419744062_15fce85e34_z.jpg

http://denverpost.slideshowpro.com/albums/001/496/album-276531/cache/liberty96.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG?1320096066

http://stock.irablock.com/media/04d52fc8-e3d1-11e0-9040-8960996d1a8c-statue-of-liberty

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Pedestal-of-Statue-of-Liberty.png

http://www.bcausa.com/slideshow/images/brooklynbridge.jpg

This one's interesting. Apparently our pre-incan stone masters visited early 19th century dartmoor: (about 19 and 20 down)

http://www.dartmoorcam.co.uk/CAM/previouswalks/2009-9-23_Shapley/shapley.htm

Now I know what you're going to say, but if they can do one and do the other, there's no reason they can't do both together.

If we don't do it that way, it's only because we use this instead:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1382&bih=884&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=interlocking+concrete+block&oq=interlocking+concrete+block&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l9.13630.48810.0.49228.36.30.0.6.6.0.139.2479.24j6.30.0...0.0...1c.1.4.img.85z_DodjBVA

There is absolutely nothing about those stones that couldn't be done by hand sculpting, given time. Go google stone sculpture. You are completely ignorent of the subject, even of how ignorant you are about it. Ignore the fact that protzen squared off the test rock completely. Ignore the fact that he replicated the shallowest of your indentations as well as the chamfered edges and achieved a tolerence within half a cm. without even really trying.

It'll do you no good in the end.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then the question begs, what do you believe in? A list if you will pls?

that would be completely off topic wouldn't it.... :innocent:

but in all honesty I can't be bothered, sorry...

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.