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

You know, Zoser, I am almost on your side.... but not quite, heh. (miles away)

If you love to continue the bickering, be my guest, but I won't be part of it. I have had more than enough of that,.

You are someone who is able to fabricate something you like from what I posted just now.

I challenge you, Try it.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he was not check consistency.. he was describing the precise 90 degree angles of the stones while he was doing that ...

ahh.. if only that were true.. your really talking about the 21 century education system :)

no common sense, no intuition, no reasoning, no wisdom, no respect, that is a AA believe right down to their soul.. you have just summed it up so perfectly..

so.. they didnt need right angles.. but layed out their buildings to right angels like everyone does....

Apparently he doesn't watch his own videos.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me any building anywhere throughout history that has a foundation crafted with attention to detail and craftsmanship mirroring the building above it and maybe you will have a point.

I'm just so gob smacked with nonsense in here.

a.Inca_wall_Cuzco_Peru.jpg

I think you are referring to modern analogies or from classic times.

The problem is that unless some of these ancient precision sites are unearthed it is extremely difficult to tell.

I think it is absurd to explain ancient standard by using modern ones.

To believe that they produced precisely cut andesite blocks and then rested them on that jumbled mess is just absurd.

Sorry.

But then I'm talking to archaeologist types I suppose.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, Zoser, I am almost on your side.... but not quite, heh. (miles away)

If you love to continue the bickering, be my guest, but I won't be part of it. I have had more than enough of that,.

You are someone who is able to fabricate something you like from what I posted just now.

I challenge you, Try it.

.

No bickering Abe, just gob smacked by the immaturity.

Again does it look as if the ancients needed right angles?

oliviero-olivieri-man-walking-alongside-inca-wall-cuzco-unesco-world-heritage-site-peru-south-america_i-G-26-2613-28RVD00Z.jpg

You only need them if you need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just so gob smacked with nonsense in here.

I think you are referring to modern analogies or from classic times.

The problem is that unless some of these ancient precision sites are unearthed it is extremely difficult to tell.

I think it is absurd to explain ancient standard by using modern ones.

To believe that they produced precisely cut andesite blocks and then rested them on that jumbled mess is just absurd.

Sorry.

But then I'm talking to archaeologist types I suppose.

you know.. I think he is trying to argue his point.. from our point of view.. this is the 2nd time he has basically used one of our arguments...

yet zoser mate.. isnt that what the AA are doing.. every expert they have used.. has been a expert using modern day tech..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bring up the earthquake that hit the St. Louis area (south of it) 200 years ago. No-one remembers it except through the internet.

Here we go again.

The St Louis people are tribal are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway guys time for me to head to the airport.. we have been given the all clear to fly back to site.. off to a new mine today.. so not sure if I am going to have net coverage at all.. if ya dont see me post for a few days.. you'll know I dont have net coverage :D

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know.. I think he is trying to argue his point.. from our point of view.. this is the 2nd time he has basically used one of our arguments...

yet zoser mate.. isnt that what the AA are doing.. every expert they have used.. has been a expert using modern day tech..

Not a chance mate.

You were trying to argue that they were trying to achieve right angles.

I say they didn't need them.

Anything they wanted to do in stone they could have because they had the technology to do so .

Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

The St Louis people are tribal are they?

damn second time in a day I am going to agree with you on something zoser

myles .. stories.. art etc.. to throw in a modern day vernacular was their kind of internet..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a chance mate.

You were trying to argue that they were trying to achieve right angles.

I say they didn't need them.

Anything they wanted to do in stone they could have because they had the technology to do so .

Simple.

ok we are agreeing on something here again.. maybe not the method on how it was made.. yes they had the tech and the know how to do it with the tools they had on hand..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least some of you seem to be using some common sense.

There may be some hope yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least some of you seem to be using some common sense.

There may be some hope yet.

I'm feeling the same thing regarding you as well..

I will try to get online at the airport while I wait for my flight :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

The St Louis people are tribal are they?

Ethnographically speaking, yes. Either way, it's a perfect model for cultural information transmission over time. I'll wager there're quite a few people in the region who've never heard of New Madrid, and don't realize it's still a ticking timebomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No bickering Abe, just gob smacked by the immaturity.

Again does it look as if the ancients needed right angles?

You only need them if you need them.

Nope, looks like they needed a protractor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just so gob smacked with nonsense in here.

a.Inca_wall_Cuzco_Peru.jpg

I think you are referring to modern analogies or from classic times.

The problem is that unless some of these ancient precision sites are unearthed it is extremely difficult to tell.

I think it is absurd to explain ancient standard by using modern ones.

To believe that they produced precisely cut andesite blocks and then rested them on that jumbled mess is just absurd.

Sorry.

But then I'm talking to archaeologist types I suppose.

That 'jumbled mess' served it's purpose did it not? The aesthetic quality of it has nothing to do with it's ability to perform as intended. Why would the ancients do more than what was necessary for a support structure that likely wasn't ever meant to be seen?

As far as modern analogies, nope. I specifically mentioned a time frame of all throughout history, that gives you free reign to supply whatever example you can find. Any restriction lies squarely with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point that is clear from this picture:

Puma-Punku-Ruins-Ancient-Mystery.jpeg

Anyone doing trying to do serious dating work on the foundation wall shown in this picture is doomed to criticism.

There is little evidence that this foundation wall is anything to do with the precision cut andesite relics.

This is the kind of thing that makes archaeology look stupid, unreliable and amateurish.

That wall could well have been done by indians.

The precision cut relics were clearly not.

If that's the mound mentioned in the report, then there may be a bit more too it than what you think you see.

They mentioned the construction resting on a platform, implying a solid pavement of blocks, which means it was built on top of them.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another childish comment.

Does it look like the ancient builders needed right angles when they had the technology to do this?

5088801e747n500o2.jpg

You only need right angles if you need them.

They clearly didn't.

And frankly they could have done with them. What a dog's dinner that is. :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what's the matter with this site, hardly anything seems to post first time and you nearly always have to copy what you've said and reload it or keep hittining 'post.' It really is immensely annoying, but no one ever seems to do anything about it

Edited by Lord Vetinari
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm feeling the same thing regarding you as well..

I will try to get online at the airport while I wait for my flight :)

Here's a good example of precision foundation work.

Notice how amazed Foerster becomes as he surveys the whole artefact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very possibly the legends, which many countries of course have, including Greece (Deucalion) and Uruk (Gilgamesh) may have been based on either a series of events that happened over a period of time in that region, due to rising sea levels*, or something like the indundation of the Mediterannean basin, seen from various vantage points, I do think might be quite possible.

Around the end of the last Ice Age there were many glacial outburst floods, all over the northern hemisphere (southern too, for all I know.

There's a list of several at the above link.

Of particular interest to me is the Altai flood, it being near to the region under discussion. Possibly, oral histories of this series of floods account for some flood myths.

The flood in Sumer was a river flood, originally, as I understand it. The Hebrew flood is essentially a rewrite of the Babylonian legend that originates in this Sumerian river flood.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three ressons given by scientist give for the destruction Puma Punku, 1. A meteor, there is no crater. 2. A war, again no crater nor are the stones scorched. 3. A loclized flood, I don't think the nearby lake is large enough.

The above is simply not the case.

Anthropology knows for a fact that the site was "mined" for stone in subesquent years after it was abandoned.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, looks like they needed a protractor

Only fools of modern times need them.

As I said you only need them if you need them.

They clearly didn't.

They were able to create precision both with and without right angles. Total virtuosity in stonework.

andes6%20cusco2.jpg

Notice the moulding marks in the above picture?

Inca_wall_1_-_Coricancha_Peru.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So zoser, let me see if I have this right. You propose that the builders of the foundation could not be the same as the builders of the intricate stonework above it because the foundation is not of the same quality (quality being subjective as it appears the foundation was actually of a higher quality as it is still there, unmoved)? And furthermore you propose such without ever seeing an example of such building techniques anywhere else at any other time? Is that the gist of it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and another childish comment.

Are you sure he was not checking consistency?

Absolute childish it really is.

No common sense, no intuition, no reasoning, no wisdom, no respect, just pure products of a 20th century education system.

Just believe what you are told and don't think for yourselves.

Eeeeh, kids these days, no respect for their Ancient Elders.

4 people like 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.