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

Look closely and compare with Cuzco. You could fit a cheese sandwhich in those joints, Noth the same architecture by any stretch.

:lol: Sorry mate had to laugh, the 'Cheese Sandwich' bit had me in stitches :D
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not pilot drills, pilot holes, or guides, which don't take much brains to figure out. And so what if it wanders a little before it starts to dig in? Why are you having such a hard time grasping the possibility that the surface wasn't smooth when they started drilling? In fact, the rougher the surface, the less likely the bit is to wander.

I didn't say just copper now, did I? And knowing the technology they had, we know how they could've made a drill tube, like the ones in the earlier link you neglected to comment on, just like you're keen to distract everyone from the fact the experimental drill in question actually worked.

I'm not following you? What is your hypothesis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to give the other side ammunition but one small qualifier ought to be mentioned if only to get it out of the way. In reading about Sacsayhuaman, it was noted that nearly all but the biggest stones were carried off to nearby Cuzco to build homes for the Spanish. It's not inconcievable then that the stones above are some of those stones which were removed and re-erected in their original configurations.

So neither the Spanish nor the Inca contemporary with the Spanish could have carved them. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though the title is a little presumptious Brien visits a remote ancient site that again displays evidence of precision architecture. Although damaged presumably by treasure seekers the relic is deeply mysterious and it's function completely unkown.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just an example of what the Incas made when the Spanish conquistadores were present.

OK, you won;t read the whole webpage.

The fortress-temple of Ollantaytambo is famous for its beautifully fitted great slabs of red porphyry forming a portion of what must have been intended to be its principal temple. But this complex, a work in progress when the conquistadores arrived, was never finished. A number of large cut blocks were abandoned en route to the site and remain today, known as piedras cansadas or "tired stones". Within the complex, a stone that was in the process of being maneuvered into its final position can be seen lying on its emplacement ramp:

http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html

Quite frankly Abe I give the Jack and the Beanstalk tale more credibility that that garbage.

How the Inka cut stone without iron tools is not known with any certainty, but in all likelihood stone was cut and shaped mainly with stone tools. Bronze or copper tools may also have been used, but would be of limited use with the hard varieties of igneous rock commonly used by the Inka.

Explain to me how one finishes 39 inch deep blocks that mate precisely on all surfaces using stone tools? It's wacko.

At least they partially admit that they don'y know what they are talking about!

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not following you? What is your hypothesis?

I can see we're going to need visual aids. We'll start with this:

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/30490#.UMOMNHewWSp

For the second point, let me refer you once again back to this post:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=450#entry4562200

Note how the drill sits on a rise or a small mound of abrasive. Say it's a rise for the purpose of illustration. unlike a perfectly smooth surface, any irregularity in the rock is going to keep the bit from slipping sideways.

And take this pic again:

http://www.oocities.org/unforbidden_geology/sphinx_temple_core.jpg

Notice the stone has been drilled while still in the rough stage.

For the last, refer first to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age#Ancient_Egypt

Then back to Stocks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLDuHvQODoIC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=reed+drill+egypt&source=bl&ots=Agpy-wt37V&sig=WnkovMsyFuJKGaDM7NxhztU_sx0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TEfCUN_QBOO10QH_94GgAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=reed%20drill%20egypt&f=false

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have:

1) A primitive drill (looks like a spear).

2) A badly formed hole.

3) Some granite excavation.

4) Wiki on the Bronze Age (bronze not copper?)

5) A book (presumably detailing the assumed methodology).

Ok but I still don't think that the above is congruent with the near perfect hole in my photo:

Surreal_Ancient_Technology_In_Cuzco_Peru.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So neither the Spanish nor the Inca contemporary with the Spanish could have carved them. Interesting.

Now where did I say that?

There's no way you can logically draw that conclusion from that. It's fallacious reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, YOU are the one making assumptions. I, myself have drilled tens of thousands of holes, I know how a drill acts. All the ancients would have to do is chip a depression roughly the size of their drill to get started. Once started, the bit is contained within it's own hole. IT WILL NOT WANDER ONCE THE HOLE IS STARTED, even if it is out of round. The spinning drill still has a center and an outer edge. The outer edge defines the diameter of the hole. After they drilled the hole, the surface of the rock would have been dressed and polished to below the pont where tool wander occured.

I really do not believe the stone the ancients worked with was as hard as your head.

Alot easier said than done, several thousand years after the fact....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not following you? What is your hypothesis?

I can see we're going to need visual aids. We'll start with this:

wz50ae3be5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wz50ae3be5.gif

Typical; the argument's now lost and the only intelligent reaction is to resort to ridicule. Speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deny & Ridicule is the approved tactic, the only tactic for a losing argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have:

1) A primitive drill (looks like a spear).

2) A badly formed hole.

3) Some granite excavation.

4) Wiki on the Bronze Age (bronze not copper?)

5) A book (presumably detailing the assumed methodology).

Ok but I still don't think that the above is congruent with the near perfect hole in my photo:

Surreal_Ancient_Technology_In_Cuzco_Peru.jpg

Let me show you something. There's your hole up above. Take a close look at the left hand side. Now lets take another look highlighting a couple features.

Kind of a coincidence those lines seem to go right through the rest of the block, don't you think?

post-75688-0-58274500-1354995835_thumb.p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly Abe I give the Jack and the Beanstalk tale more credibility that that garbage.

How the Inka cut stone without iron tools is not known with any certainty, but in all likelihood stone was cut and shaped mainly with stone tools. Bronze or copper tools may also have been used, but would be of limited use with the hard varieties of igneous rock commonly used by the Inka.

Explain to me how one finishes 39 inch deep blocks that mate precisely on all surfaces using stone tools? It's wacko.

At least they partially admit that they don'y know what they are talking about!

Whatever method the Incas used, it was apparently not special enough for the Spaniards to report.

There were no aliens walking around (apart from the Spaniards themselves), there were no giants, there was no fancy technology, the technology you also have no idea off but keep pushing anyway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me show you something. There's your hole up above. Take a close look at the left hand side. Now lets take another look highlighting a couple features.

Kind of a coincidence those lines seem to go right through the rest of the block, don't you think?

The lines indicate to me a high degree of abrasion. I made the point earlier that a copper or soft metal tool would have shredded under that degree of abrasion. It points to high feed rate drilling; exactly what Chris Dunn deduced with the Egyptian relics.

He makes his living from precision engineering. He should know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever method the Incas used, it was apparently not special enough for the Spaniards to report.

There were no aliens walking around (apart from the Spaniards themselves), there were no giants, there was no fancy technology, the technology you also have no idea off but keep pushing anyway.

I know there were no visitors around when the Spanish arrived. They had probably departed thousands of years before. You are making the very point that I'm making; that had the Inca have made the precision relics they would have told the Spanish about it surely? It would be part of their established culture and architectural method.

Yet the Spanish reported no such thing. All they got from the Inca was denial. The deduction from this is that the Inca were the inheritors of the megalithic relics. It's clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lines indicate to me a high degree of abrasion.

...Or low to moderate abrasion in stone with weak spots, as indicated by the fact that the lines continue on the outside of the rock at right angles to the direction of drilling.

I made the point earlier that a copper or soft metal tool would have shredded under that degree of abrasion.

Correction, you made the assumption, an assumption based both on the prior assumption of the feed rate and the false belief that softer metals are incapable of cutting hard stone despite evidence to the contrary.

It points to high feed rate drilling; exactly what Chris Dunn deduced with the Egyptian relics.

He makes his living from precision engineering. He should know.

I imagine dunn is reasonably competent within the confines of his field of mechanical engineering but he has demonstrated an extreme level of incompetence when venturing outside of it, as shown by his incredibly daffy opinions regarding piezoelectricity and sculpture to name just two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there were no visitors around when the Spanish arrived. They had probably departed thousands of years before. You are making the very point that I'm making; that had the Inca have made the precision relics they would have told the Spanish about it surely? It would be part of their established culture and architectural method.

Yet the Spanish reported no such thing. All they got from the Inca was denial. The deduction from this is that the Inca were the inheritors of the megalithic relics. It's clear.

Christ, I think you have some reading problem: the Spaniards were there when the Incas were still busy building Ollantaytambo, they used Inca stone workers to construct many of what modern tourists consider to be 'ancient pre-colonial walls' in Cusco.

No visitors departed thousands of years ago, the only 'visitors' were the Spaniards.

They didn't have to tell the Spaniards about anything, because the Spaniards saw them do it, and that is why the Spaniards used their expertise to erect new buildings in their typical Inca style.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Or low to moderate abrasion in stone with weak spots, as indicated by the fact that the lines continue on the outside of the rock at right angles to the direction of drilling.

Correction, you made the assumption, an assumption based both on the prior assumption of the feed rate and the false belief that softer metals are incapable of cutting hard stone despite evidence to the contrary.

I imagine dunn is reasonably competent within the confines of his field of mechanical engineering but he has demonstrated an extreme level of incompetence when venturing outside of it, as shown by his incredibly daffy opinions regarding piezoelectricity and sculpture to name just two.

No I have to disagree with you again Mr O. How can you assume that stone as hard as that has weak spots? I can see what you are getting at but I feel you have made a big assumption with the lines.

Can't you imagine the time taken to drill a hole that deep (the commentator estimated several feet) in hard rock with a bow and the effort and skill needed? How come we don't see examples as precise this today if the process is that easy? There are plenty of primitive cultures around still or there certainly were in the last century that have had no access to modern power tools.

The answer has to be that whoever is responsible for this example had the means to do it easily. The same with the walls of Cuzco and SacsayHuaman. Whoever did it, managed the task easily and so they were able to replicate it on a vast scale. Several hundred tonne blocks 15-20 feet high.

sacsayhuaman4.jpg?w=510&h=340

0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ, I think you have some reading problem: the Spaniards were there when the Incas were still busy building Ollantaytambo, they used Inca stone workers to construct many of what modern tourists consider to be 'ancient pre-colonial walls' in Cusco.

No visitors departed thousands of years ago, the only 'visitors' were the Spaniards.

And the stone quality demonstrated to the Spanish was not megalithic for a guess?

The visitors were from elsewhere. :alien:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tools:

Garcilaso de la Vega is the only chronicler who says something about the tools Incas used to carve the stones. He mentions a kind of iron called hihuana.

“Los canteros no tuvieron más instrumentos para labrar las piedras que unos guijarros negros que llamaban hihuana, con que las labran machucando más que no cortando”.

Furthermore, archaeologists have found around the quarries tools such as hammers made of stone, metal bars, chisels and plumbs made of metal and stone:

metal-bar.jpg

How the Walls were Built:

In order to put a stone on another, the Incas built slants and then pulled rocks using ropes and logs. This is according to Bernabé Cobo and Cieza de León.

However, the best explanation I found comes from Gutiérrez de Santa Clara in his book Historia de las Guerras Civiles del Perú (1590) in which states soil was put until the level of the wall and then stones were pulled:

“…cuando estos indios labraban edificios soberbios, para poner una piedra grande sobre otra labrábanla primero, i antes de subir la piedra ponían primero mucha tierra al pie de la primera piedra asentándola hasta que emparejaba con ella. I luego ponían unos morrillos largos i gordos de pino sobre la tierra pisada i por allí subían la otra a fuerza de brazos. I de esta manera, estando arriba, la encajaban muy bien en la otra de abajo…i después quitaban las vigas i toda la tierra”

[...]

Garcilaso de la Vega says Sacsayhuaman was built by Inka Yupanki around 1400 AD.

Juan de Betanzos has the same opinion. In his book “Suma y Narración de los Incas“, he mentions Topa Ynga Yupangue as well as the name of the mountain where the site was and the quarry where the rocks were carried from.

“…salió Topa Ynga Yupangue…y parescióle que era bien que se edificase en un cerro que se dice Xacxahuaman Urco y luego por él fue hecha la traza…”

“…mandó el Ynga que acarreasen los cimientos della y acarreasen de todas las canteras de Oma y Salu y de Guairanga pueblos entorno desta ciudad el más lejano a cinco leguas…”

Even though he says the site was completed in six years, he does not mention when it was started.

Six years seem to be a short time for a site like Sacsayhuaman to be completed. Some scholars claim Sacsayhuaman was not completed when Spanish arrived here.

This could be true because Pedro Cieza de Leon says “this fortress had been begun in the days of Pachacuti; his son Topa Inca and Huayna Capac and Huascar added greatly to it”.

http://peruenroute.wordpress.com/tag/inca-garcilaso-de-la-vega/

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, you are not giving the Peruvian people credit for what they and their ancestors were capable of.

We now may not know exactly how they did it, but the Spanish conquistadores knew and were present when these Incas were on the job.

Because you and I are no stone workers, that doesn't mean aliens were needed using 'advanced technology' to construct those buildings.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tools:

Garcilaso de la Vega is the only chronicler who says something about the tools Incas used to carve the stones. He mentions a kind of iron called hihuana.

“Los canteros no tuvieron más instrumentos para labrar las piedras que unos guijarros negros que llamaban hihuana, con que las labran machucando más que no cortando”.

Furthermore, archaeologists have found around the quarries tools such as hammers made of stone, metal bars, chisels and plumbs made of metal and stone:

metal-bar.jpg

How the Walls were Built:

In order to put a stone on another, the Incas built slants and then pulled rocks using ropes and logs. This is according to Bernabé Cobo and Cieza de León.

However, the best explanation I found comes from Gutiérrez de Santa Clara in his book Historia de las Guerras Civiles del Perú (1590) in which states soil was put until the level of the wall and then stones were pulled:

“…cuando estos indios labraban edificios soberbios, para poner una piedra grande sobre otra labrábanla primero, i antes de subir la piedra ponían primero mucha tierra al pie de la primera piedra asentándola hasta que emparejaba con ella. I luego ponían unos morrillos largos i gordos de pino sobre la tierra pisada i por allí subían la otra a fuerza de brazos. I de esta manera, estando arriba, la encajaban muy bien en la otra de abajo…i después quitaban las vigas i toda la tierra”

[...]

Garcilaso de la Vega says Sacsayhuaman was built by Inka Yupanki around 1400 AD.

Juan de Betanzos has the same opinion. In his book “Suma y Narración de los Incas“, he mentions Topa Ynga Yupangue as well as the name of the mountain where the site was and the quarry where the rocks were carried from.

“…salió Topa Ynga Yupangue…y parescióle que era bien que se edificase en un cerro que se dice Xacxahuaman Urco y luego por él fue hecha la traza…”

“…mandó el Ynga que acarreasen los cimientos della y acarreasen de todas las canteras de Oma y Salu y de Guairanga pueblos entorno desta ciudad el más lejano a cinco leguas…”

Even though he says the site was completed in six years, he does not mention when it was started.

Six years seem to be a short time for a site like Sacsayhuaman to be completed. Some scholars claim Sacsayhuaman was not completed when Spanish arrived here.

This could be true because Pedro Cieza de Leon says “this fortress had been begun in the days of Pachacuti; his son Topa Inca and Huayna Capac and Huascar added greatly to it”.

http://peruenroute.w...aso-de-la-vega/

How do bars and axes make the precision joints in the above post? What were the means of achieving perfectly flat surfaces in walls all over 3 feet deep? How many of these bars and axes have been found? They would have needed literally thousands and thousands to be manufactured in a production line fashion.

It's a brave try Abe but it's just not going to work. The means to do this was just not naturally around on the planet.

Can I also trouble you to say how you believe they moved blocks weighing hundreds of tonnes? How were they quarried, excavated, lifted and positioned?

I'm sorry but these questions have to be asked. Otherwise the AA hypothesis stands as proud as the 12 angled stone.

12-angle-stone.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what we could put forward as proof zoser and the rest of the AA club have already got it in their heads that it's only aliens.. You could have them standing right in fron of you while you actually show them how it was done and they would find a reason why it was not possible and only aliens could have done it..

Yet none of the can actually prove what they are saying.. None.. Not one shred of credible evidence can be forwarded to show they are right..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, you are not giving the Peruvian people credit for what they and their ancestors were capable of.

We now may not know exactly how they did it, but the Spanish conquistadores knew and were present when these Incas were on the job.

Because you and I are no stone workers, that doesn't mean aliens were needed using 'advanced technology' to construct those buildings.

I'm sure they were bright people; believe me I'm not being dismissive. I know you are being sincere and you are a genuinely decent guy. The AA hypothesis has evolved for good reasons, and the awareness of such ideas have been long overdue. There is no evidence that pre-industrial revolution cultures ever achieved feats like this. If they did how did the skills and technology become lost? Why isn't it still being replicated in such cultures in the last century? Where did it all go?

No one in these old cultures has any recollection of how it was all achieved. That strikes me as highly suspicious. Nothing passed down. Absolutely nothing.

What has been passed down is folklore. 'Stones moving through the air to the sound of trumpets' and similar incredible tales. All hinting at some previous unknown culture. Got to go now. See you tomorrow everyone. :tu:

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.