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 sympathise with the frustration. It takes some appreciating I agree.

Yet the artefacts are there.

We know what was achieved in classical times and it wasn't wafer thin granite cutting.

It had to happen in very ancient times for all record to be lost. Bearing in mind this happened all over the ancient world. Some record would exist if it were only classical times.

It's plainly obvious.

so rocks were cut with lasers in straight lines. OK so now show me the rocks with straight lines in buildings in PP? No point cutting them unless they were used right? Show me where they were used? I want to see the finished products, not the left behind rubbish cuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither do lasers or any other kind of directed energy device produce cuts like that. The cut would be the same width as the beam all the way through. Vibratory cutters would have both the same problem and the opposite. Used by itself, the cut would again be only as wide as the cutter. With the addition of abrasive, we would probably see a widening of the cut producing a taper, as we see in the AE cores. This would be a gradual continuous taper though along the entire depth of the cut. In neither case would you expect a sudden transition to a thinner cut extending several inches, unless they inexplicably switched to a thinner blade.

Btw, who put those arrows on there, you? I notice they appear to be still frames from the video. If so, then I'm not entirely convinced they are what you say they are. At no time do we see a dead-on close-up of the bottom of the cut. All the close-ups shown are at an angle and the cut transitions right at that point from deep to shallow due to the contour of the stone, effecting how much it stands out. We do not therefor have proof that the cut, if that's what it is,

actually does change in width.

Let's say it does though. What hasn't been mentioned yet, though third eye touched on it, is a combination of cut and natural crack. Obviously if it's a cut, it couldn't've been pre-cracked because all they'd had to've done was split it off. We can say however that it's at least 500 years old. That's plenty of time for a crack to develop at the bottom of any cut. Much younger constructions have deteriorated or entirely failed in this way.

There are marks were the cutting suddenly stopped:

Look at the bottom of the cut.

SC8_zps52b961b9.jpg

No natural phenomena can do that to granite.

Some high frequency vibratory device did that. I wouldn't rule out wire even at ultra high frequency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so rocks were cut with lasers in straight lines. OK so now show me the rocks with straight lines in buildings in PP? No point cutting them unless they were used right? Show me where they were used? I want to see the finished products, not the left behind rubbish cuts

No ultra sonics. See Dunn above.

No rubbish cuts here:

800px-Puma_Punku7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No ultra sonics. See Dunn above.

No rubbish cuts here:

800px-Puma_Punku7.jpg

why the little holes sitting in a chiseled channel, to the right of the pic if they used lasers?

maybe the lazer ran out of power... and they resorted to traditional methods eh?

Try again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the other end of the cut. Evidence of tool marks near the every bottom of the cut.

SC9_zpsf743d95b.jpg

and the top:

SC7_zpsd1ed81e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why the little holes sitting in a chiseled channel, to the right of the pic if they used lasers?

maybe the lazer ran out of power... and they resorted to traditional methods eh?

Try again

answer my question zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why the little holes sitting in a chiseled channel, to the right of the pic if they used lasers?

maybe the lazer ran out of power... and they resorted to traditional methods eh?

Try again

Easy. Cut the slot with an ultra sonic tool first then drill the holes.

Could be done either way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between 2:24 and 2:45 is a very good example of an extremely flat surface.

Cut in the same way using ultra sonics would be my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy is nothing but a place to hide.

Not philosophy, logic:

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

"Logic refers to both the study of modes ofreasoning (which are valid, and which are fallacious)[2][3] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense, is primarily studied in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. "

logic is used in philosophy but it is not exclusively of it. It is a means to an end, as a system for reasoning correctly. Every time you talk about reason, that's what you're attempting to describe. I say attempting because the majority of your arguments are dead in the water without even taking the so-called evidence into account because most of your reasoning is inherently logically incorrect. You call it hiding but if you were ever in a formal debate, this is the language it would be coached in and you would barely be able to take a step without getting called out on it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between 2:24 and 2:45 is a very good example of an extremely flat surface.

Cut in the same way using ultra sonics would be my guess.

[media=]

[/media]

Or using the equivalent of sand paper...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not philosophy, logic:

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

"Logic refers to both the study of modes ofreasoning (which are valid, and which are fallacious)[2][3] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense, is primarily studied in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. "

logic is used in philosophy but it is not exclusively of it. It is a means to an end, as a system for reasoning correctly. Every time you talk about reason, that's what you're attempting to describe. I say attempting because the majority of your arguments are dead in the water without even taking the so-called evidence into account because most of your reasoning is inherently logically incorrect. You call it hiding but if you were ever in a formal debate, this is the language it would be coached in and you would barely be able to take a step without getting called out on it.

How does philosophy explain this?

SC5_zpsa1c58331.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or using the equivalent of sand paper...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Yes maybe they nipped down to Wall Mart and while they were there returned the diamond tipped cutting tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are marks were the cutting suddenly stopped:

Look at the bottom of the cut.

No natural phenomena can do that to granite.

Some high frequency vibratory device did that. I wouldn't rule out wire even at ultra high frequency.

You keep saying it but you're not proving it. I'm not seeing a cut, I'm seeing a nick at most, if even. And what if the blade itself was tapered, hmm?

Here is the other end of the cut. Evidence of tool marks near the every bottom of the cut.

According to whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does philosophy explain this?

SC5_zpsa1c58331.jpg

Philosophy is mum, not having a horse in this race. Logic says look at the amount of light hitting the two separate areas of stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy is mum, not having a horse in this race. Logic says look at the amount of light hitting the two separate areas of stone.

Those two areas display different cut widths. It's no trickery.

Look at the original clip above if you don't believe me.

Both thicknesses however are far too narrow for a soft metal saw.

It would shred after only a few cycles. The teeth would flatten in seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those two areas display different cut widths. It's no trickery.

Look at the original clip above if you don't believe me.

0:50, try again. 1:05, the lower portion doesn't even go through the rock. It's a surface cut and it's the same width as the upper cut.

Both thicknesses however are far too narrow for a soft metal saw.

It would shred after only a few cycles. The teeth would flatten in seconds.

And you know this how? And who said anything about teeth?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0:50, try again. 1:05, the lower portion doesn't even go through the rock. It's a surface cut and it's the same width as the upper cut.

And you know this how? And who said anything about teeth?

Check out the very beginning of the video.

It shows the LH side of the block.

SC4_zps382164f7.jpg

Now check out the RH side of the block at the end of the footage on this stone:

SC8_zps52b961b9.jpg

Definitely wider on the RH side.

Your second point.

No teeth no cut.

Obvious isn't it?

Anything abrasive such as sand is only going to shred the material. Soft doesn't cut hard unless vast quantities are thrown at it resulting in a ridiculous usage rate. Basic law of physics.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the very beginning of the video.

It shows the LH side of the block.

Now check out the RH side of the block at the end of the footage on this stone:

Definitely wider on the RH side.

0:34, what does he say? "it's even all the way through"

Your second point.

No teeth no cut.

Obvious isn't it?

Anything abrasive such as sand is only going to shred the material. Soft doesn't cut hard unless vast quantities are thrown at it resulting in a ridiculous usage rate. Basic law of physics.

Trolling, or more of that famous short attention span of yours? Stocks' saw did not have teeth. Stocks' saw did not "shred". The usage ratio was 1-3 mm.

Hardly rediculous. All old, old news for this thread.

Now we know that other means than cutting were used to shape rocks, so how much cutting was actually done? I'm betting it was no where near enough to bankrupt their copper supply. Not to mention they also had bronze besides the copper. Those figures are just for stocks' method too. How do we know the AE didn't have a more efficient method?

Oh, and zoser? The copper is not doing the cutting! Get that through your head!

There, I said it. I feel better.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever tried to get pitch, tar or old glue off from something? it's next to impossible without solvents.

Usually I just burn them off over a hot fire ...

You realize you're pulling a zoser here and arguing against something that's already been demonstrated?

tar, pitch and natural glues won't help the saw blade move any easier or even hold any abrasives well enough to be useful, the bind is just not effective enough on stone. Can't see that happening, that's usually the problem with sawing or chopping down trees or shrubs, the sap dries on the blade making it unusable, should apply to stone too I expect.

Jadeite, mohs 6.5-7. That puts it in quartz range.

These are shoestring operations. If they're using a hand saw instead of a power saw, they're probably just using the cheapest basic abrasive available and whatever oil they've got handy.

If the stone is of value, using power saws is too costly in terms of waste from the heavy grind width cut, just even a half inch width of a cut on a big stone equals a lot of loss. Better slow and gently to minimize loss. The bigger the piece intact the higher the value too, and power tools are too harsh, the risks of compromising the end quality thus again reducing value.

Not pulling a zoser, I know for sure no aliens did do it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, you found anything, yet?

You still have not posted a shred of evidence of alien involvement.

When did you plan to post about that? We have been waiting for hundreds of pages.

Experiments involving bronze tools have been done. Check.

Experiments involving pounding rock with rock have been done. Check.

Drilling with 'primitive tools' have been done. Check.

Experiments with chemical molding have been done. Check.

Now finally show us and experiment involving your 'alien technology'.

You can't because you have not the faintest clue, like your guru, the tour guide who is wandering around like Alice in Wonderland..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you find the location of that rock yet?

You need to show us the location of that rock, relative to its environment.

And the first photo shows the hole for a wedge.

Coincidence??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic law of physics.

I would say you should not have thrown away your textbooks. What are you doing with such heresy.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser is having us on.

My English is lacking here, so maybe I used a wrong expression.

I want him to show a YouTube video (his kind of proof) showing us alien tools, and aliens at work in South America.

If not, I have nothing to add to this thread anymore.

We all have shown him how things could have been done, but he has never shown us how aliens could have done it.

Maybe our ideas, theories, and videos were not to his liking and didn't explain things in the way he preferred, but at least we tried.

He never did, not one single time in this thread.

We may not yet understand how the ancients built what they built, but that is NO proof of alien intervention.

That is merely proof of not yet knowing how it was done, but not proof of aliens.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually I just burn them off over a hot fire ...

o_O You must have tough hands. Remind me never to hire you to refinish furniture either.

tar, pitch and natural glues won't help the saw blade move any easier or even hold any abrasives well enough to be useful, the bind is just not effective enough on stone. Can't see that happening, that's usually the problem with sawing or chopping down trees or shrubs, the sap dries on the blade making it unusable, should apply to stone too I expect.

They're strong enough that they were used to secure spear heads and drill points, etc. I would think cutting stone would be different than cutting wood. The biggest problem with wood saws is it gums up the cutting edge. I found too a fine coat of dirt blocks any residual stickiness.

I was referring to copper and grit alone BTW, which has been demonstrated by stocks.

If the stone is of value, using power saws is too costly in terms of waste from the heavy grind width cut, just even a half inch width of a cut on a big stone equals a lot of loss. Better slow and gently to minimize loss. The bigger the piece intact the higher the value too, and power tools are too harsh, the risks of compromising the end quality thus again reducing value.

Power saws are the way it's normally cut in the rest of the world. The blade can be quite thin and the saws are water lubricated. They give pretty fine cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaketh Wiki about sandpaper: The first recorded instance of sandpaper was in 13th century China when crushed shells, seeds, and sand were bonded to parchment using natural gum.

Shark skin was also used as a sandpaper. The rough scales of the living fossil Coelacanth are used by the natives of Comoros as sandpaper.[2]

Boiled and dried, the rough horsetail is used in Japan as a traditional polishing material, finer than sandpaper.

So has anyone tried to sand a stone using a shark? How hard is it?

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.