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

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.

Not monatomic, colloidal, which just means in solution. The "monatomic" supposedly changes into a completely new substance. I don't have to tell you what I think that substance largely consists of. :rolleyes:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try:

Read this:

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

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

This guy's research however looks much more detailed than any other I have read and as I deduced fairly quickly the Trilithon's pre-date the Romans.

They were just not capable of that type of construction and it was not even their style.

Give this a read and let me know what you think:

http://vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

A few snippits:

It then follows that by the apparent rate of aging, the heavily eroded blocks should be at least several millenia older than the newer blocks. Ergo, the older part of the wall cannot be Roman.

Orthodox scholars of today scoff at all suggestions that Romans had not brought the great blocks to the temple site, despite the fact that building with megalithic blocks was not at all in the Roman style, and was no longer practised in those days.Romans knew and used concrete. The Colosseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.

The sad truth is that regarding the Trilithon, some scholars have mental blocks its own size. Admissions that blocks weighing over a 1000 metric tons were quarried and transported in prehistoric times would invite uncomfortable questions on what technology had made it all possible. Regardless of such touchy issues, I have several personal observations, which support dating of Baalbek's megalithic walls to the megalithic era. Have a look at this nice northwestern view of the wall as it was circa 1870.

The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue really seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks (see below) when it is almost like new after having been recently sanded. However, sanding did not get rid of the deep pits, signs of either considerable previous erosion, or the product of drilling, if not both.

This guy really has done his research. He has examined the layers in detail, looked at the erosion, the construction method that was not typical Roman, and puts together a very strong case.

Again the material evidence points to unknown builders using unknown technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

This guy's research however looks much more detailed than any other I have read and as I deduced fairly quickly the Trilithon's pre-date the Romans.

They were just not capable of that type of construction and it was not even their style.

Give this a read and let me know what you think:

http://vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

WHOOPS?

Didn't check his sources YET again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we going to get your definition of 'precision' any time soon zoser? Because I'm willing to wager that there is no way you can define it that it won't also include other ancient sites that are proven to be made by man alone. I'm sure that is why you insist on the term remaining ambiguous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please not the "Z" name ! :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

Ahh how often have we heard this..

then he comes back with a link to a guy who apparently is a expert and has done good research..

rolls eyes

Proof is something that has been in pitiful supply from the skeptics end.

I haven't seen any :blush:

Yes you have but you kind of just ignore it..

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...

there is a difference in exploring idea's and those who basically have read a book.. website.. or watched a show and say 'its the truth' without actually looking into it themselves.. then try to convince others that 'its the truth you must believe'

kinda like the religious door knockers in a way..

Yes.. Humans are a curious and creative lot.. look at what they have built over the years for us today to look at and go wow.. not for us to say 'oh they couldnt have built that it must be aliens' ..

mainly us skeptics believe in the orthodox scientists because we have looked at what they say.. and what the other says.. and joined the dots so to speak.. afterall this is something they have trained.. and studied to do..

they are not armchair Chronologists.. Archeologists.. Cultural Experts.. so on and so forth that the AA crowd.. ie Dunn.. Danikin and that ilk are..

On the whole Hutchinson effect.. I'll leave that alone.. I know seeder etc loves this kind of thing..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole Hutchinson effect.. I'll leave that alone.. I know seeder etc loves this kind of thing..

The Hutchison effect is pure bunk front to back. I usually steer clear of it as well as there is no amount of logic that can breach the mindset of a believer. They will dismiss logic and evidence (or lack thereof) and plead excuses and cover ups....you know, the usual.

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?

Mistake.

To save time, you should have asked what she didn't believe in.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOOPS?

Didn't check his sources YET again

Here's a lie from his source:

Elsewhere in the Roman empire, just a little over 300 metric tons seemed to be the limit for the transport of big blocks, achievable only with the greatest difficulty. Transport of the 323 ton Laterano obelisk to Rome spanned the reigns of three emperors. Clearly, the record setting engineers from Baalbek, had they existed, could have also managed the task of transporting the relatively light Lateran Obelisk.

The fact that they were nowhere to be found, no matter, how crucial the task, indicates that they simply did not exist.

See, similarly sized stones were used in similar retaining walls built by Herod just down the road in Jerusalem, around the same time Romans were erecting Baalbek. Somehow I doubt that he had help from Jesus to levitate them.

The above lie illustrates the utter cynicism of the author at that site regarding the intelligence of his readership. I.e., comparing transporting obelisks overland, across the sea and uphill to sliding some admittedly large stones downhill a mile or two is a bit much.

Bee,

I'd stay away from the white powder gold scam.

2j. Drug references: Do not post content describing or advocating personal drug use. This includes vitamin mega dosing, human growth hormones, prescription drug abuse, white powder of gold, psychic experience inducing drugs or any other illegal or mind-altering substances.

from the Rules.

Harte

Edited by Harte
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

This guy's research however looks much more detailed than any other I have read and as I deduced fairly quickly the Trilithon's pre-date the Romans.

They were just not capable of that type of construction and it was not even their style.

Give this a read and let me know what you think:

http://vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

A few snippits:

It then follows that by the apparent rate of aging, the heavily eroded blocks should be at least several millenia older than the newer blocks. Ergo, the older part of the wall cannot be Roman.

Orthodox scholars of today scoff at all suggestions that Romans had not brought the great blocks to the temple site, despite the fact that building with megalithic blocks was not at all in the Roman style, and was no longer practised in those days.Romans knew and used concrete. The Colosseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.

The sad truth is that regarding the Trilithon, some scholars have mental blocks its own size. Admissions that blocks weighing over a 1000 metric tons were quarried and transported in prehistoric times would invite uncomfortable questions on what technology had made it all possible. Regardless of such touchy issues, I have several personal observations, which support dating of Baalbek's megalithic walls to the megalithic era. Have a look at this nice northwestern view of the wall as it was circa 1870.

The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue really seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks (see below) when it is almost like new after having been recently sanded. However, sanding did not get rid of the deep pits, signs of either considerable previous erosion, or the product of drilling, if not both.

This guy really has done his research. He has examined the layers in detail, looked at the erosion, the construction method that was not typical Roman, and puts together a very strong case.

Again the material evidence points to unknown builders using unknown technology.

I have read it, and it didn't convince me.

1 person likes this

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

You have not been correct yet.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then he comes back with a link to a guy who apparently is a expert and has done good research..

rolls eyes

..

Dingo by name dingo by nature

You have not been correct yet.

And you think that you have ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read it, and it didn't convince me.

Lots more where that came from.

The Baalbek Trilithon's are a hotly disputed issue just like virtually everything else in archaeology beyond a certain time frame.

These cyclopean stones are certainly not Roman. The square cut Roman stones are heaped on top of them by the Arabs or Crusaders, whoever turned the ruins into a medieval fortress. Look at how small the two men are compared to the cyclopean stonework, let alone the megaliths upon which they are built.

The Funerary Temple of Kafre at Giza, 4th dynasty (about 2500 BC). Similar to the stonework seen above, noteworthy for economical cutting and fitting of imprecise angles in the blocks, unlike the precision seen in great megaliths here.

Left, the excavated walls of Kafre’s (Chefren) temple. It stands in the shadow of no less than the 2nd great pyramid at Giza, Egypt. Even this very ancient monumental wall seems later than the megaliths at Baalbek. They match some of the unascribed stones built thereon, however, possibly by later peoples or early Canaanites.

Their style is identical to the earliest cultures of monumental stone we know of like the Egyptian and the Pre-Incan Peru cultures, like those on Malta and, frankly, like those being encountered on the Bahamas Banks within the Triangle.

So it's no good at all claiming with any certainty that the Trilithon's are Roman. The evidence suggest that again they belonged to an earlier culture and archaeology instead of addressing the problem just sweeps it under the rug and pretends it's Roman.

Despite the fact that it wasn't the Roman style doesn't seem to bother anyone. Just a tiny trivial detail.

So where are we now?

Back to my assertion that the following precision was never replicated in classical architecture. Why not? The technology had long departed.

Inca_wall_1_-_Coricancha_Peru.jpg

4935387330_4f1a24c46d_z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be of interest to people here.

It certainly is relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.facebook....&type=1

Take a look at the whole collection.

They make close comparisons between this stonework and Peru.

Also more evidence of ancient machining.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots more where that came from.

The Baalbek Trilithon's are a hotly disputed issue just like virtually everything else in archaeology beyond a certain time frame.

These cyclopean stones are certainly not Roman. The square cut Roman stones are heaped on top of them by the Arabs or Crusaders, whoever turned the ruins into a medieval fortress. Look at how small the two men are compared to the cyclopean stonework, let alone the megaliths upon which they are built.

The Funerary Temple of Kafre at Giza, 4th dynasty (about 2500 BC). Similar to the stonework seen above, noteworthy for economical cutting and fitting of imprecise angles in the blocks, unlike the precision seen in great megaliths here.

Left, the excavated walls of Kafre’s (Chefren) temple. It stands in the shadow of no less than the 2nd great pyramid at Giza, Egypt. Even this very ancient monumental wall seems later than the megaliths at Baalbek. They match some of the unascribed stones built thereon, however, possibly by later peoples or early Canaanites.

Their style is identical to the earliest cultures of monumental stone we know of like the Egyptian and the Pre-Incan Peru cultures, like those on Malta and, frankly, like those being encountered on the Bahamas Banks within the Triangle.

So it's no good at all claiming with any certainty that the Trilithon's are Roman. The evidence suggest that again they belonged to an earlier culture and archaeology instead of addressing the problem just sweeps it under the rug and pretends it's Roman.

Despite the fact that it wasn't the Roman style doesn't seem to bother anyone. Just a tiny trivial detail.

So where are we now?

Back to my assertion that the following precision was never replicated in classical architecture. Why not? The technology had long departed.

Inca_wall_1_-_Coricancha_Peru.jpg

4935387330_4f1a24c46d_z.jpg

Is it possible that with the emergence of newer, REAL technologies in Europe and the rest of the world it was no longer trendy nor intelligent to have overly complicated fortifications because weapons of war made stone walls a useless defense?

I am certain there were very stylish walls in Europe built to look at but made with more practical materials. Why build a bridge out of titanium when steel will do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that with the emergence of newer, REAL technologies in Europe and the rest of the world it was no longer trendy nor intelligent to have overly complicated fortifications because weapons of war made stone walls a useless defense?

I am certain there were very stylish walls in Europe built to look at but made with more practical materials. Why build a bridge out of titanium when steel will do?

If people were able to replicate that they would. Think about the religious ferver that builds Cathedrals for example and how long they took.

If the Pope could have had his churches built as precise as the Peruvian walls and out of granite he would have.

They last longer.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you really think that a bodged wall is more impressive than any cathedral that you care to name? If that really is the case, I really can only conclude, having tried very hard to be as fair as I possibly can, that you just don't actually mean seriously what you say, or that you really are completely deluded. I'm really sorry about this, I have tried to be fair, but your arguments are just... silly.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dingo by name dingo by nature

And you think that you have ?

LoL ZR.. that actually made me chuckle ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be of interest to people here.

It certainly is relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.facebook....&type=1

Take a look at the whole collection.

They make close comparisons between this stonework and Peru.

Also more evidence of ancient machining.

did .. done.. and I do not see the evidence of ancient machining.. I see the evidence of ancient stone working techniques..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you really think that a bodged wall is more impressive than any cathedral that you care to name? If that really is the case, I really can only conclude, having tried very hard to be as fair as I possibly can, that you just don't actually mean seriously what you say, or that you really are completely deluded. I'm really sorry about this, I have tried to be fair, but your arguments are just... silly.

Doesn't looked bodged to me. It looks and is extremely precise.

The problem you are having as I see it is that you have been educated to appreciate modern styles or styles over the last thousand years (namely Renaissence building and art).

What you are looking at with the polygonal wall is from another time and if the AA proponents are correct then nothing to do with the imagination of mankind.

That's why you cannot appreciate it. The Peruvian consructions probably had no artistic value or purpose whatsoever. The cathedrals obviously did.

The precision is still undeniable regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did .. done.. and I do not see the evidence of ancient machining.. I see the evidence of ancient stone working techniques..

Care to elaborate on how these 'well known stone working techniques' could have produced such an effect?

No on has done that successfully so far here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem you are having as I see it is that you have been educated to appreciate modern styles or styles over the last thousand years (namely Renaissence building and art).

Hmm.. the problem you are having as I see it is that you have educated brainwashed to believe that anything the AA crowd says as truth.. and do not appreciate that ancient man could actually build stuff by themselves without any outside influence..

you know.. you never did answer.. why are their not monoliths all over the world? (like the AA crowd says)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to elaborate on how these 'well known stone working techniques' could have produced such an effect?

No on has done that successfully so far here.

They have.. you dont believe it because Danikin.. Dunn etc. .says its not true.. so for you.. its not true..

and you have not successfully explained how the 'aliens' would have done it.. I see a lot of .. maybe.. possibilities.. speculations.. but no real proof..

if its not softening.. its cutting with lasers.. or sound.. so on and so forth..

you see.. you say its up to us to prove its not aliens.. well.. its up to you to prove it was.. so far.. you really have not done a good job at that..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All complete misinformation and lack of thorough research.

.

Then what is your explanation for this:

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.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you really think that a bodged wall is more impressive than any cathedral that you care to name? If that really is the case, I really can only conclude, having tried very hard to be as fair as I possibly can, that you just don't actually mean seriously what you say, or that you really are completely deluded. I'm really sorry about this, I have tried to be fair, but your arguments are just... silly.

You may be aware but I came to that conclusion(s) quite a while ago. I think he is just yanking everybody's chains, giving the mean ol' skeptics a taste of their own medicine (however poorly). I've noticed that he likes to use similar vocabulary and argumentation as the skeptics. Unfortunately the facts are not on his side here, they never were.

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.