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

Debunked?

Just like the AA hypothesis eh?

Except it hasn't has it?

I've heard it all before. When the debunking claims are investigated they prove to be false. The result of either poorly misunderstood information or just purely unsubstantiated claims.

No debunk here.

No, it hasn't, because there's absolutely no substance to it to debunk. You can't debunk something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and this argument entirely hinges in "it must have been", "what else could it have been". "it must have been" is not a Scientific hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Well, we have finally limped as far as page 666. And that, I think, seems an appropriate place to leave it, don't you think. :yes:

:santa:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Well, we have finally limped as far as page 666. And that, I think, seems an appropriate place to leave it, don't you think. :yes:

:santa:

Let me summarise the situation for you LV.

At the start of this thread the usual skeptic suspects waded in full of confidence. Quoting the flamboyance of Giorgio Tsoukalos and seemingly outrageous claims of David Hatcher Childress. Lots of smirks, dismissiveness, and cynicism. You know what they are like because you do it albeit to a lesser extent yourself.

Then I came along and the thread became a little more serious. I looked at it from a different point of view by gathering evidence from hundreds of videos and images, and doing some reading and detective work.

I raised issues that had not really been raised on UM before in any detail, namely the work of Gamarra ad his claims regarding vitrification and moulding.

At that point several of the skeptics raised their game. Some like Abe and Mr O took it seriously and realised that they were dealing with some genuine unexplained phenomena and put up quite serious counter arguments. Examples are that Mr O tabled the work of Stocks and Protzen and he also proposed polishing as the answer to vitrification. When looked at in detail, none of Mr O's points could really explain the phenomena. For a start people do not polish quarries and neither do they polish inside of holes. Protzen could not replicate the precision and when Stocks' work was examined there were also serious shortcomings namely far too much material consumption for too little result, and the final nail in the coffin were the spiral grooves on Petrie's core 7 which according to Stocks' evidence should not occur by conventional drilling methods.

Then Abe spent weeks on the chemical theory. Plausible at first since there is some folkore concerning this idea. On deeper examination however he could find no definite source for the chemical. A wider examination of the artefacts by myself also revealed that no chemical available could have treated the enormous volumes of stone or millions of tonnes of artefacts and neither would any chemical penetrate huge stones sufficiently to soften them.

The problem being with any counter theory that it has to deal with moulding and vitrification which I have claimed all along are related to the same technology. To account for vitrification as a glazed surface layer is one thing; to appreciate that the entire stone was softened to produce the clear moulding marks and extra-ordinary fitting precision is another.

So here now we have definite unarguable and unexplainable effects attributable to ancient high technology.

At this point some left the thread and never came back. Others stayed and maintained a fierce sense of denial to the point of trolling and extreme cynicism following all kinds of weird tactics. In the face of this I stayed on the thread and reposted combination of old images and new in an attempt to remind them that the phenomena had in no way been explained.

That Abe and Mr O both dug deep to find counter arguments should tell you something. That is that certain people here perhaps for the first time in their lives have come face to face with the fact that the ancient stonework in Peru and Egypt is unexplainable, involves exotic even high technology and needs to be taken seriously. Also that modern understanding of how stone is cut and shaped is not applicable when looking in detail at these artefacts. In short it needs much more than a 20th Century education.

Others maintained their stubborn denial. One person to the point of taking on another UM identity in an attempt to discredit the thread and when that failed started up a new thread.

What is going on on that thread now? Well just a few people engaging in some self-opinionated religious philosophy. That's ok and I'm not judging it. Each to their own. Their are aspects of philosophy that I enjoy but for now I will wait until that subsides before I make my own contribution to the other thread.

I know and everyone should really know that philosophy is not going to make any dent on the AA hypothesis whatsoever. It looks to me more like a morale boosting exercise. But that's ok.

So the vitriolic reaction has occurred in response to unexplainable evidence tabled here. It's been more than some can handle. We have seen all kinds of crazy responses such as people posting Greek and Roman temples claiming that this is equivalent precision work in granite when it clearly is no such thing and claims that hydracephalus caused the skull elongation. Totally crazy and bizarre.

So that's where we are. I have more to do here with investigating the technology side and this thread is not about to close just yet. For now we have ample evidence of ancient high technology pointing strongly in support of the hypothesis and without any credible counter theories.

That's where we stand.

Sorry for the long post if some of this bites deep.

Zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others maintained their stubborn denial. One person to the point of taking on another UM identity in an attempt to discredit the thread and when that failed started up a new thread.

Zoser

If you have any concerns on this, all you have to do is notify a member of Staff (using the button provided on the armrest), who will be able to verify whether or not this is the case, by... however they do it. I think it's ESP.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have any concerns on this, all you have to do is notify a member of Staff (using the button provided on the armrest), who will be able to verify whether or not this is the case, by... however they do it. I think it's ESP.

That's for the moderators to investigate not me. Quite frankly I'm not that interested.

I can table the evidence if required. For now I am busy looking into the technology side of the whole phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's for the moderators to investigate not me. Quite frankly I'm not that interested.

I can table the evidence if required. For now I am busy looking into the technology side of the whole phenomena.

if you're going to make these claims, you should be able to substantiate them, should you not?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following this thread, so don't know which names you are referring too. If you think someone has more then one name then feel free to PM me the names and I can check, or another Mod if you don't want to PM me. Don't post the names on here though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then Abe spent weeks on the chemical theory. Plausible at first since there is some folkore concerning this idea. On deeper examination however he could find no definite source for the chemical. A wider examination of the artefacts by myself also revealed that no chemical available could have treated the enormous volumes of stone or millions of tonnes of artefacts and neither would any chemical penetrate huge stones sufficiently to soften them.

What you forgot to mention is that I tried to find some sort of jungle plant of which a description was given. Maybe I should go to Peru, the Perené River, and look for myself.

In the meantime you go find proof of alien technology, ok?

+++

EDIT:

Hiram Bingham le contraron sobre la existencia de una planta con cuyos jugos los incas ablandaron las piedras para que pudieran encajar perfectamente. Hay registros oficiales sobre esta planta, que incluye a los primeros Cronistas españoles. Después comprobaria tal versión: Un dia, mientra acampaba por un rio rocoso, él observó un påjaro parado sobre una roca que tenía una hoja en su pico, vio come al ave depositó la hoja sobre la piedra y la picoteó. El påjaro volvió dia siguente. Para entonces se habia formado una concavidad donde antes estaba la hoja. Como este método, el ave creó una "taza" para coger y beber las aguas que salpicaban del rio. Teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que el liquen ablanda la piedra para atar sus raíces bajo terra, y quizås considerando la extinción continuada de especies de esta planta, esta noción no es mås que improbable.

~ Richard Nisbet (1)

Hiram Bingham found the existence of a plant of which the Incas used the juices of for softening the stones so they could fit perfectly. There are official records of this plant, including the early Spanish chroniclers. Then check this version: One day, while camping near a rocky river, he saw a bird perched on a rock that had a leaf in its beak, then the bird deposited the leaf on the stone and pecked at it. The bird returned the following day. By then a concavity had formed where once the leaf was. By this method, the bird created a "cup" to catch and drink the water that dotted the river. Considering the fact that lichen softens the stone to tie their roots in the ground, and perhaps considering the ongoing extinction of plant species, this isn't such a far-fetched notion.

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4606008

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=3855#entry4604819

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you're going to make these claims, you should be able to substantiate them, should you not?

Zoser substantiate a claim?

What were you thinking?

Harte

Edited by Harte
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you forgot to mention is that I tried to find some sort of jungle plant of which a description was given. Maybe I should go to Peru, the Perené River, and look for myself.

In the meantime you go find proof of alien technology, ok?

+++

EDIT:

Hiram Bingham le contraron sobre la existencia de una planta con cuyos jugos los incas ablandaron las piedras para que pudieran encajar perfectamente. Hay registros oficiales sobre esta planta, que incluye a los primeros Cronistas españoles. Después comprobaria tal versión: Un dia, mientra acampaba por un rio rocoso, él observó un påjaro parado sobre una roca que tenía una hoja en su pico, vio come al ave depositó la hoja sobre la piedra y la picoteó. El påjaro volvió dia siguente. Para entonces se habia formado una concavidad donde antes estaba la hoja. Como este método, el ave creó una "taza" para coger y beber las aguas que salpicaban del rio. Teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que el liquen ablanda la piedra para atar sus raíces bajo terra, y quizås considerando la extinción continuada de especies de esta planta, esta noción no es mås que improbable.

~ Richard Nisbet (1)

Hiram Bingham found the existence of a plant of which the Incas used the juices of for softening the stones so they could fit perfectly. There are official records of this plant, including the early Spanish chroniclers. Then check this version: One day, while camping near a rocky river, he saw a bird perched on a rock that had a leaf in its beak, then the bird deposited the leaf on the stone and pecked at it. The bird returned the following day. By then a concavity had formed where once the leaf was. By this method, the bird created a "cup" to catch and drink the water that dotted the river. Considering the fact that lichen softens the stone to tie their roots in the ground, and perhaps considering the ongoing extinction of plant species, this isn't such a far-fetched notion.

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4606008

http://www.unexplain...55#entry4604819

.

Myths and legends is all that it is. Chemical treatment as was speculated earlier in the thread could account for how they sculpted the statues by softening a surface layer. Even that is unproven but not beyond the bounds of possibility.

It cannot explain how multi tonne blocks were softened and whole bedrock outcrops were moulded. No chemical can do that.

Further no one will ever provide convincing evidence that they chemically treated quarry walls; after the stone was removed.

Then there is the volume needed. The argument is just too weak.

Zoser substatiate a claim?

What were you thinking?

Harte

Done it over and over again. A picture is worth a thousand words. or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I missed:

The main body of the stone shows the spectral composition for limestone. High levels of calcium, carbon, oxygen and minor trace elements are the constituents of limestone. This is not unusual since the University of Cusco recognize the Sacsayahuaman archaeological park as being a karst landscape. Many cave systems are made in limestone bedrock and the sample was from this sort of cave. However, this cave was worked on by people in the past as is clear by the photos above.

The Vitrified Surface of the stone shows a very different spectrum of elements to the limestone body. The glaring difference is that Silicon is the predominant component with much higher concentrations. The trace elements of Aluminum and Magnesium are also significantly higher than the body of the stone. Oxygen is also present in double the quantities found in the body. The quantities of Calcium and Carbon are much lower than the body sample.

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/evidence-of-vitrified-stonework-in-the-inca-vestiges-of-peru/

Btw: "vitrified" doesn't necessarily mean "extreme heat": It has to do with crystallization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I missed:

The main body of the stone shows the spectral composition for limestone. High levels of calcium, carbon, oxygen and minor trace elements are the constituents of limestone. This is not unusual since the University of Cusco recognize the Sacsayahuaman archaeological park as being a karst landscape. Many cave systems are made in limestone bedrock and the sample was from this sort of cave. However, this cave was worked on by people in the past as is clear by the photos above.

The Vitrified Surface of the stone shows a very different spectrum of elements to the limestone body. The glaring difference is that Silicon is the predominant component with much higher concentrations. The trace elements of Aluminum and Magnesium are also significantly higher than the body of the stone. Oxygen is also present in double the quantities found in the body. The quantities of Calcium and Carbon are much lower than the body sample.

http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/

Btw: "vitrified" doesn't necessarily mean "extreme heat": It has to do with crystallization.

But crystalisation of what? By what means and what technology?

Don't forget also that the sample examined in the report is limestone however the majority of vitrified artefacts that I have seen are andesite.

The report does in several places identify heat as the most likely source of the vitrification and this was the direction of my thinking a while back.

Now I think differently and that is that the vitrification was a side effect of the moulding or softening technology. That they employed enormous amounts of heat to do this to mountainsides and bedrock is something I find difficult.

The key to it must be the sort of technology that we saw Hutchinson demonstrate many years ago. I still haven't had time to fully investigate this area yet, however early findings indicate that his early work was witnessed and verified. Also it appears that later he was not able to replicate the work and neither has anyone else.

Was this deliberate to keep the technology out of the public domain? Did he genuinely forget his method? I have no idea but the whole thing smacks to be of Leedskalnin. I am sure that he wanted to keep his methods secret. So perhaps did Tesla.

So in short the technology used in the stone softening utilised sound frequencies that could disrupt matter and not as I originally thought; heat.

I propose to review this when I get a chance later. It looks like a fairly comprehensive review of Hutchinson's work.

http://www.rexresearch.com/hutchisn/hutchisn.htm

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"however the majority of vitrified artefacts that I have seen are andesite."

How do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following this thread, so don't know which names you are referring too. If you think someone has more then one name then feel free to PM me the names and I can check, or another Mod if you don't want to PM me. Don't post the names on here though.

Kindly do investigate and also post your findings here. He is trying to discredit me, and its 'me' he is referring to. Utterly pathetic, miserable jealous snidy back stabbing attack on me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kindly do investigate and also post your findings here. He is trying to discredit me, and its 'me' he is referring to. Utterly pathetic, miserable jealous snidy back stabbing attack on me

Here's an interesting clip:

Arefacts from Mexico depicting convincing representations of ET's and UFO's.

Apparently the artefacts are still being discovered. Genuine or not?

You decide:

[media=]

[/media] Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

duplicated deleted

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following this thread, so don't know which names you are referring too. If you think someone has more then one name then feel free to PM me the names and I can check, or another Mod if you don't want to PM me. Don't post the names on here though.

Kindly do investigate and also post your findings here. PUBLICLY seeing as thats how the accusation was made. He is trying to discredit me, and its 'me' he is referring to. Utterly pathetic, miserable jealous snidy back stabbing attack on me

Posted 21 March 2013 - 05:11 PM

snapback.pngMonkeyOrchid, on 20 March 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

Looking forward to part two. I once beieved in AA but then you realize everyone lies and when money is to be made people will add a little spice to sell more copies. I still have a copy of Chariots of the Gods but now smile when I come across it on my bookshelf.

Why don't you post under your real name seeder? Why have two ID's? Isn't that deceptive?

post 30 here, then 31, and 33 & 35, you will soon get the picture and while we are on it, I want to make a complaint about it

http://www.unexplain...ic=244935&st=15

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting clip:

Arefacts from Mexico depicting convincing representations of ET's and UFO's.

Apparently the artefacts are still being discovered. Genuine or not?

You decide:

he's talking about your accusations of his setting up other accounts in order to troll, something which you seem to now be keen to avoid addressing. Backtracking now are we?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's talking about your accusations of his setting up other accounts in order to troll, something which you seem to now be keen to avoid addressing. Backtracking now are we?

Looks like the final proof may not be far away:

A team of scientists and researchers have just returned from an expedition in Siberia and the Valley of the Dead and are claiming they have found proof of at least five of the legendary cauldrons that ancient aliens supposedly built.

A team of Russian scientists and researchers have just returned from the “Valley of Death” region in Siberia with startling claims. Lead scientist Michale Visok had this to say in an interview with a Russian newspaper on what they had found:

“We went out into the Valley of Death to really see and investigate the metal cauldrons that people claim exist there and we actually found five metallic objects buried in marsh like swamps”

Michale gave the following details about these metal objects:

They are each submerged in small pools of swamp like water that is anywhere from 2-3 feet deep.

They are definitely metallic. The scientists entered each swamp and walked on top of the objects and heard metallic sounds when striking the objects.

The tops of the objects are very smooth to the touch but there are sharp points along the outer edges.

2 of the team members got ill during the investigation.

The team consisted of 3 geologists, 1 astrophysicist, 1 mechanical engineer and 3 research assistants.

Read more: http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/geology/scientists-prove-ancient-alien-cauldrons-in-siberia-are-real/#ixzz2ONr12BVp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"however the majority of vitrified artefacts that I have seen are andesite."

How do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget I've studied over 600 video clips of Peruvian artefacts made by Foerster, Jan Peter de Jong and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are totally useless, arent you mate? Not only is this an old story from last year at least, it was debunked too. Anything to keep this miserable thread going eh? Scraping the barrel more and more - if not with character attacks then with Pravda news stories...

this threads about ancient aliens or should be, not Micky mouse crap fringe news stories, ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's talking about your accusations of his setting up other accounts in order to troll, something which you seem to now be keen to avoid addressing. Backtracking now are we?

thats zoser, backtracking and swerving all over the place, as usual... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the final proof may not be far away:

I'll take that as a yes, then, I suppose, since you seem to be anxious to avoid repeating those accusations.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are totally useless, arent you mate? Not only is this an old story from last year at least, it was debunked too. Anything to keep this miserable thread going eh? Scraping the barrel more and more - if not with character attacks then with Pravda news stories...

this threads about ancient aliens or should be, not Micky mouse crap fringe news stories, ...

Show us the evidence of the debunking.

If it's anything like the 'debunking' you have done so far I'm not holding my breath.

I'll take that as a yes, then, I suppose, since you seem to be anxious to avoid repeating those accusations.

It's been reported to the moderators. It's in their hands not mine.

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.