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

What Badeskov said about The Hutchinson Effect 7 years ago still stands today,...

If there was any truth to this "effect", dont you think it would be common knowledge after all this time?

Think about it.

What we now have is more information and verification. You just have to look for it.

DYOR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what a phenocryst is. I have some dandy specimens of porphyry kicking around. The question again is crystals of what, and so what? Saying rocks are full of crystals is like saying people are full of meat. It's not a useful observation. Plagioclase is feldspar. It has no unusual properties. Nor does hornblende, which doesn't even seem to have the few industrial uses that feldspar does. Andesite then is the proverbial button that does nothing.

The examples presented here by the others are more than enough to show hutchinson's claims as highly suspect. Even if they weren',t as I said before, there's nothing there a reasonably skilled illusionist couldn't create, so seeing is most definitely not believing.

As also stated, one cannot debunk something which has never been proven in the first place and all I need to do is establish reasonable doubt, which I have more than done.

The crystal content of andesite is high. What purpose they served and why they chose to work with such a very hard stone instead of softer stone (that the Inca worked with!) is the key to the mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A superb specimen showing both vitrification and moulding.

Also what looks like rotary saw marks. As the LAH team observed almost as if a welder was trying out his equipment on a bit of scrap metal first. Looks like a random cut:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I realized no such thing. I put up the counterarguments because they were clearly and plainly there to be put up, despite cries of "unexplainable."

One may not polish quarries but neither does one cut them into neat symmetrical shapes or refer to them as temples. It is quite obvious them that they are not quarries. One may not deliberately polish a hole, though then again one might, but, a hole might surely become polished through use or while being made, especially in the process as described elsewhere in this thread.

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.

Poppycock. If we've gone to any effort, it's only because you've shown yourself to be thoroughly impervious to logic and reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.../#ixzz2ONr12BVp

Ah, yes, Russian scientists. No doubt this should be in keeping with the results of all the other paranormal subjects they've investigated which promised immediately forthcoming proof.

What were those results again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a low energy means of softening materials has been demonstrated.

This makes a lot of sense in relation to the stone softening phenomena mentioned on this thread many times and first mooted by Gamarra.

The pieces of the jigsaw are coming together nicely.

Has it? How do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crystal content of andesite is high. What purpose they served and why they chose to work with such a very hard stone instead of softer stone (that the Inca worked with!) is the key to the mystery.

The crystal content of all rocks is high. It's what they're made of.

Ask yourself, why do we use such rocks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crystal content of all rocks is high. It's what they're made of.

Ask yourself, why do we use such rocks?

Does it make sense to bash and pound much harder rock when softer alternatives are available. That's the argument you need to consider. I don't agree for one minute that Sacsayhuman was built as a fortification. It could have been used as one much later. Why go to that enormous trouble with a stone that is almost impossible to work with?

Answer - the crystal content was important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crystal content of all rocks is high. It's what they're made of.

Ask yourself, why do we use such rocks?

well, ancient stone age man had a think about it, and came up with this answer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it? How do you know?

Ancient Peru - stone softening with heat (vitrification) as a side effect.

Hutchinson - applies low power resonance techniques to soften iron with heat as an unexplained side effect.

Think it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, Russian scientists. No doubt this should be in keeping with the results of all the other paranormal subjects they've investigated which promised immediately forthcoming proof.

What were those results again?

I think they just write things as they are. No political secrecy to protect the status quo.

Good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized no such thing. I put up the counterarguments because they were clearly and plainly there to be put up, despite cries of "unexplainable."

One may not polish quarries but neither does one cut them into neat symmetrical shapes or refer to them as temples. It is quite obvious them that they are not quarries. One may not deliberately polish a hole, though then again one might, but, a hole might surely become polished through use or while being made, especially in the process as described elsewhere in this thread.

Poppycock. If we've gone to any effort, it's only because you've shown yourself to be thoroughly impervious to logic and reason.

The polishing argument doesn't stand Mr O whichever way you look at it.

The Wall of the Living Rock is a quarry by the way. Stocks has nothing to offer; Dunn shattered his core drilling theory by proving that Petrie was correct with his original assertion that the grooves in core 7 were spiral.

Protzen is still working out how they did it. Good for him.

Here are some more 'temples':

Fancy worshipping the Gods here?

Moulding2_zpsd1fb58a9.jpg

Vitrification17_zps37b352d0.jpg

zoser80_zps07bac2c7.jpg

zoser49-1_zps4698625b.jpg

Sorry again Mr O.

These don't look anything like temples to me.

They are quarries. Straight and simple. Vitrified too.

I'm not impervious to reason. Just impervious to nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DYOR.

BYOB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BYOB?

It would be great to see you make a contribution LV instead of the glib one liner all the time.

Do some investigation, find some information, pictures and content of your own.

I would love to see you rise to that.

You can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One may not polish quarries but neither does one cut them into neat symmetrical shapes or refer to them as temples.

That's precisely what they did do.

And that's precisely why there is an unexplainable mystery.

Sacsayhuaman13_zps424e0740.jpg

Sacsayhuaman11_zpscb4bec77.jpg

zoser66_zpsf1ec72f9-1_zps80f1ff14.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One may not polish quarries but neither does one cut them into neat symmetrical shapes or refer to them as temples.

Known as Naupa Iglesia (Church of the Ancients) this is more like an temple in style and character:

DSCF0320.JPG

Interesting that next to it is a precision cut out in the mountain serving no known purpose:

DSCF7971e.jpg

6F+3a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that next to it is a precision cut out in the mountain serving no known purpose:

DSCF7971e.jpg

i don't know, therefore a quarry, moulded by precision cutting using hutchison's stone softening tech... aka ancient aliens bs...

hypothesis proved... qed

o proof? a picture speaks a thousand words... repeat ad nauseam

:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great to see you make a contribution LV instead of the glib one liner all the time.

Do some investigation, find some information, pictures and content of your own.

I would love to see you rise to that.

You can do it.

Gosh, thanks for the encouragement. However, since one can only offer information, pictures and content if there is anything to base a theory on, and since this entire theory (to dignify it with the term) is based on complete imagination, I'm afraid nothing can be offered. I'm very sorry about this. :geek:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know, therefore a quarry, moulded by precision cutting using hutchison's stone softening tech... aka ancient aliens bs...

hypothesis proved... qed

o proof? a picture speaks a thousand words... repeat ad nauseam

:sleepy:

You have an incredible amount of work to do to convince anyone that this was done with stone pounders and copper chisels.

Just more frothing at the mouth. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, thanks for the encouragement. However, since one can only offer information, pictures and content if there is anything to base a theory on, and since this entire theory (to dignify it with the term) is based on complete imagination, I'm afraid nothing can be offered. I'm very sorry about this. :geek:

Try and get interested in something.

Here is a great clip to get you started. It shows caves with vitrified walls and bedrock with precision cuts.

Try and work out how and why it was done. Don't rush to give an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try and get interested in something.

Fnark! The irony there! From someone whose sole interest in life seems to be Soft Stone and Vitrification.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fnark! The irony there! From someone whose sole interest in life seems to be Soft Stone and Vitrification.

It's only one of many things that I'm into at the moment.

I'm just saying that you will only be able to make a contribution if you investigate these things for yourself.

Trying to act as judge and jury all the time will just be met with rebuttal.

The choice is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know, therefore a quarry, moulded by precision cutting using hutchison's stone softening tech... aka ancient aliens bs...

hypothesis proved... qed

o proof? a picture speaks a thousand words... repeat ad nauseam

Same goes for you Mr M. Do some investigation work and see how you get on. You may surprise yourself!

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we now have is more information and verification. You just have to look for it.

DYOR.

It would behoove you to stand in front of the mirror and repeat that to yourself. What I wrote some 7 years ago still stands (I can't believe you dug that quote up, Hazz, you bugger ;)). The Hutchinson effect was a scam, pure and simple, and there is nothing showing otherwise. He was never able to reproduce the effect in a setting that would satisfy a scientist or even someone with just a remote knowledge of technology.

That you keep promoting him speaks volumes, although surprising it is not given what else you have been promoting over the course of various threads. Frankly, if you want to be taken seriously you need to find documents with data you can reference page and paragraph in so we can look at the pertinent parts and skip the youtube fest.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it make sense to bash and pound much harder rock when softer alternatives are available. That's the argument you need to consider. I don't agree for one minute that Sacsayhuman was built as a fortification. It could have been used as one much later. Why go to that enormous trouble with a stone that is almost impossible to work with?

Answer - the crystal content was important.

You know what the question was. I'm not going to repeat it.

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.