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

Your insistence on "hundred-ton rocks" is puzzling. You still haven't told me which hundred-ton rocks you're referring to.

If you tell me how they moved any of them that will be fine. Or just how they moved twenty five or thirty ton rocks to start with, and then you can explain about the hundred ton ones later if that would be easier for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It opens the possibility, sure; it opens the same possibility that it was done with magic, with super-human leprechaun strength, etc...

Not to me. If it does to you then you're not thinking in ways that I consider to be realistic, though you may not be able to appreciate why.

Also, the Dogon, while interesting, is a controversial claim. While there is some possibility that they genuinely gained their knowledge from aliens, it is also possible they gained it from modern people; given they don't exactly have textbooks from a thousand years ago talking about Sirius as a multi-star system, we can't really know what they thought back then. We only know what they're telling us today.

They're telling us it has been their belief for hundreds of years or more. So far I'll believe them over you, since they're in a position to know a lot more about it than you are afaik. Also I was led to believe that's what they told early European explorers hundreds of years before it was learned to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you tell me how they moved any of them that will be fine. Or just how they moved twenty five or thirty ton rocks to start with, and then you can explain about the hundred ton ones later if that would be easier for you.

Okay, so you're still not going to give me any examples, eh? So be it.

739px-COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_%27Het_verslepen_van_de_steen_%27Darodaro%27_voor_de_gestorven_Saoenigeho_van_Bawamataloea_Nias_TMnr_1000095b.jpg

Villagers in Bawomataluo on Nias move a megalith for construction around 1915. Hmm... no modern technology being used... No power tools... no anti-gravity... no aliens... Just ropes and sledges... And managing to move a 70-ton stone! How impressive is that?!

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

You might also look into the Baths of Caracalla in Rome; 100-ton pillars, with thousands upon thousands of tons having been used in the construction of the place... with only the simple tool-kit of the late-era Romans (c. 210 CE).

The Parthenon is composed of 60-ton blocks, all transported using the methods used by the ancient Greeks (i.e., even more primitive than the later Romans).

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

Or the Hagia Sophia, in Istanbul, Turkey. 100-ton blocks, again, without modern-type technology of any kind.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to me. If it does to you then you're not thinking in ways that I consider to be realistic, though you may not be able to appreciate why.

You don't seem to understand how logic works. Hint: it doesn't work on a "not to me" basis...

They're telling us it has been their belief for hundreds of years or more. So far I'll believe them over you, since they're in a position to know a lot more about it than you are afaik. Also I was led to believe that's what they told early European explorers hundreds of years before it was learned to be true.

You've just demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. When, pray tell, did the Dogon first tell us about this? Hint: it wasn't even two-hundred years ago...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh huh...and how do you feel about it by this time? From my experience they welcome you in, then pelt you with all sorts of different bullsh*ts from all directions, and then get offended and insulting when you don't believe every different unlikely seeming story they try to give you to explain different things. I don't see how anyone COULD believe every different bullsh*t idea that these people have suggested, and between them they can't figure out which particular one they think a person should try to cling to. Pitiful :( at best.

Tone it down nopeda. The profanity filter is there for a reason.The expectation is that all members post in a civil manner.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans, though whether or not xts had any influence on any of it is less apparent. Do you think that using the tools they had available to them, the builders of those structures could have built the things we're discussing using hundred ton rocks?

Given that more then a dozen documentaries have examined how to move rocks of that size and weight and demonstrated how to do so using contemporaneous materials and techniques then I have to ask "why do you think ancient man was stupid?".

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere on the entire planet? Or is it one particular area in which nothing out of the ordinary will happen :unsure: and how do you know it won't?

I'll tell you what...

How about you make a concrete, definite, prediction about something that will happen on 21/12/2012 and I will predict that you will almost certainly be proven wrong...

*snip*

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons
Removed flamebait: The expectation is that all members post in a civil manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you guys did not engage this "poster" in this other ancient aliens thread?

If you had a time machine and could take him back to witness this stuff personally, he would argue that your time machine does not work properly. By far, the most vivid example of deliberate ignorance that I have ever seen in my life. No proof will be accepted, no explanation simple enough. Unless you want to say "xts" are responsible for everything you see around you today" then no other answer will do at all. There is no debate, no logic, just "xts".

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about Andesite, which is mentioned in the video?

If you're going to criticize, at least get your facts straight hacktorp. Or are you just up to your normal trolling and flame baiting like usual?

Sorry but I'll have to be brief:

Your vaunted video attempts to draw a strong correlation between intricate surface features seen on 'stone blocks' and precise copper-alloy tools found there. It notes these tools easily work the red sandstone seen at the site. It mentions, almost in passing, that any of the harder "andesite" (a basaltic lava) blocks at the site could have been "flaked" using stone pounders of a common hardness and found in throughout the area.

Here's the rub: ALL of the intricate surface features are seen in the basaltic lava (H-blocks) and NOT in the sandstone.

See what they did there? Probably not.

Let me ask you this:

Based on your video, do you believe those tight corners, small holes, and narrow channels were 'flaked' into basaltic lava by pounding them with stone balls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you guys did not engage this "poster" in this other ancient aliens thread?

If you had a time machine and could take him back to witness this stuff personally, he would argue that your time machine does not work properly. By far, the most vivid example of deliberate ignorance that I have ever seen in my life. No proof will be accepted, no explanation simple enough. Unless you want to say "xts" are responsible for everything you see around you today" then no other answer will do at all. There is no debate, no logic, just "xts".

Personally I dont see how anyone could take the ancient astronaut theory seriously after they watch the video that Boony posted a link for, I think your right psych its like banging your head against a brick wall trying to show them any different.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I'll have to be brief:

Your vaunted video attempts to draw a strong correlation between intricate surface features seen on 'stone blocks' and precise copper-alloy tools found there. It notes these tools easily work the red sandstone seen at the site. It mentions, almost in passing, that any of the harder "andesite" (a basaltic lava) blocks at the site could have been "flaked" using stone pounders of a common hardness and found in throughout the area.

Here's the rub: ALL of the intricate surface features are seen in the basaltic lava (H-blocks) and NOT in the sandstone.

See what they did there? Probably not.

Let me ask you this:

Based on your video, do you believe those tight corners, small holes, and narrow channels were 'flaked' into basaltic lava by pounding them with stone balls?

Jean-Pierre Protzen managed reasonably tight corners nicely in andesite during his experiments for NOVA. As the work got finer, he progressed to smaller and smaller tools, which weren't necessarily ball-shaped. No one ever said the channels and holes were done with pounders.

Edit to add: Just as a matter of record, Andesite and Basalt are chemical opposites, though similar in general physical properties.

Edited by Oniomancer
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I'll have to be brief:

Your vaunted video attempts to draw a strong correlation between intricate surface features seen on 'stone blocks' and precise copper-alloy tools found there. It notes these tools easily work the red sandstone seen at the site. It mentions, almost in passing, that any of the harder "andesite" (a basaltic lava) blocks at the site could have been "flaked" using stone pounders of a common hardness and found in throughout the area.

Here's the rub: ALL of the intricate surface features are seen in the basaltic lava (H-blocks) and NOT in the sandstone.

See what they did there? Probably not.

Let me ask you this:

Based on your video, do you believe those tight corners, small holes, and narrow channels were 'flaked' into basaltic lava by pounding them with stone balls?

I suggest you watch the entire section on Pumapunku which explains how the precision work done was completely within the capability of the people who built it using tools that they were more than capable of creating and which have been found right there on the site. In other words, try to actually learn something hacktorp.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you watch the entire section on Pumapunku which explains how the precision work done was completely within the capability of the people who built it using tools that they were more than capable of creating and which have been found right there on the site. In other words, try to actually learn something hacktorp.

I watched it and found no such explanation.

I'd be grateful if you could, in your own learned words, paraphrase their explanation of specifically "how the precision work done was completely within the capability of the people who built it using tools that they were more than capable of creating and which have been found right there on the site".

Specifically the andesite detail work related tools used, please. Can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it and found no such explanation.

I'd be grateful if you could, in your own learned words, paraphrase their explanation of specifically "how the precision work done was completely within the capability of the people who built it using tools that they were more than capable of creating and which have been found right there on the site".

Specifically the andesite detail work related tools used, please. Can you?

Perhaps if you had paid closer attention you would have noticed this:

It is true that stone tools would not be enough to construct Pumapunku, especially for some of the finer points. For those they would need metal chisels, and the equivalent of a carpenter’s square.[17]

Entire studies have detailed how these cuts were made, and nothing spectacular is required except some metal tools like chisels.[18] The arguments against this are usually either that a particular culture did not yet know how to cast metals, or that copper chisels would have been too weak.

On the first point, we know that the Pre-Incan Andean culture was very skilled at fashioning metals and creating metal alloys.[19]

In fact, the people who built Pumapunku were even pouring copper alloys into molds right on site,[20] showing that they had more than enough capability to form all kinds of metal tools. The question is: what about the tool’s strength?

Even if they were pouring pure copper into the mold it would still work, but it would need sharpening often but, because archeologist actually found a few of these metal cramps used by them on site,[21][22] we now know that they were using a very strong copper arsenic nickel alloy,[23] Which made a much stronger final product.

Arsenic acts as a de-oxidant preventing the metal from becoming too brittle[24], and nickel was used in copper alloys specifically to make stronger chisels.[25] Once you understand that they had the ability to make strong metal tools in a huge variety of shapes, there is no part of Pumapunku’s stone work that would have been too difficult for them.

(Full Transcript and Source Links Available Here)

Did you miss that?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if you had paid closer attention you would have noticed this:

Did you miss that?

I did see that, in fact. And I noticed they made a major omission by not referencing andesite specifically as a material "easily" carved by the copper alloy they describe.

Is that what you are saying? That basaltic lava, the hardness of andesite, is easily carved by copper-nickel alloy tools?

Help me here...you're still not providing much in the way of your own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see that, in fact. And I noticed they made a major omission by not referencing andesite specifically as a material "easily" carved by the copper alloy they describe.

Is that what you are saying? That basaltic lava, the hardness of andesite, is easily carved by copper-nickel alloy tools?

Help me here...you're still not providing much in the way of your own words.

I'm not of the opinion that any stone work should be classified as "easy," but that doesn't mean it was impossible for the human beings who did the work at Tiwanaku to accomplish what was there with the tools and technology that they had available. And that really is the main point isn't it? The Ancient Aliens (AA) series has thrown all kinds of nonsensical and false information at its viewers and this film exposes a lot of that in a very concise way for our current YouTube generation.

If you want to get more details about how exactly the precision was accomplished, I suggest that you look into the dutiful work by Jean-Pierre Protzen which forms much of the basis for this portion of the AA refutation. I'm sure there are other sources that you could look into as well if you're truly curious and still unconvinced.

It isn't my work, and I'm no expert on the subject by any means. I simply shared a video and some information for people to judge for themselves. The fact that you choose to ignore the outright blatant lies put forth in the AA series and then quibble over semantics is quite telling.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not of the opinion that any stone work should be classified as "easy," but that doesn't mean it was impossible for the human beings who did the work at Tiwanaku to accomplish what was there with the tools and technology that they had available. And that really is the main point isn't it? The Ancient Aliens (AA) series has thrown all kinds of nonsensical and false information at its viewers and this film exposes a lot of that in a very concise way for our current YouTube generation.

If you want to get more details about how exactly the precision was accomplished, I suggest that you look into the dutiful work by Jean-Pierre Protzen which forms much of the basis for this portion of the AA refutation. I'm sure there are other sources that you could look into as well if you're truly curious and still unconvinced.

It isn't my work, and I'm no expert on the subject by any means. I simply shared a video and some information for people to judge for themselves. The fact that you choose to ignore the outright blatant lies put forth in the AA series and then quibble over semantics is quite telling.

There are a number of 'experts' like Protzen willing to claim they "proved" how it was done because they were able to scratch out a crude form on a small piece of stone. Truth is, they don't know any better than the AA wingnuts.

Until someone makes an accurate, full-scale reproduction using whatever technique they are promoting, it's all wild-ass guessing.

And we're left with a mystery.

Edited by hacktorp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Exactly 19 huh? :lol:

You're still the bullsh*t dude, no doubt. :lol:

At least 19, no I never said exactly, but you are good at putting words in peoples mouths. I see you are still the clueless one. Not one of them originates from Nazareth either.

come-on-baby.jpeg

LINK TO TOAST

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be grateful if you could, in your own learned words, paraphrase their explanation of specifically "how the precision work done was completely within the capability of the people who built it using tools that they were more than capable of creating and which have been found right there on the site".

Specifically the andesite detail work related tools used, please. Can you?

Well this seems, to me, to answer your question...

Jean-Pierre Protzen managed reasonably tight corners nicely in andesite during his experiments for NOVA. As the work got finer, he progressed to smaller and smaller tools,

How did they do something so detailed? The same way people since time immemorial have - they've used smaller and smaller tools.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of 'experts' like Protzen willing to claim they "proved" how it was done because they were able to scratch out a crude form on a small piece of stone. Truth is, they don't know any better than the AA wingnuts.

I'll take the legitimate work and verifiable results of 'experts' like Protzen over the AA wingnuts any day of the week. But maybe that's just me.

In addition, the truth actually is, they know a hell of a lot better than the AA wingnuts.

Until someone makes an accurate, full-scale reproduction using whatever technique they are promoting, it's all wild-ass guessing.

Really? You expect someone to completely re-create the entire thing before you'll accept that it could have been done by human beings? Do you have that same ridiculous expectation for the pyramids at Giza too?

And we're left with a mystery.

You are left with a mystery perhaps, and probably several other people too, but that doesn't mean that the answer is actually all that mysterious. Give our ancestors some credit. They accomplished some incredible things.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of 'experts' like Protzen willing to claim they "proved" how it was done because they were able to scratch out a crude form on a small piece of stone. Truth is, they don't know any better than the AA wingnuts.

Until someone makes an accurate, full-scale reproduction using whatever technique they are promoting, it's all wild-ass guessing.

And we're left with a mystery.

No that is not true. This is not wild assed guessing, that is the realm of those wingnuts you referred to. It's called process of elimination and scale. If the carving can be done on a small scale, how does that negate the large scale? Why is a full sized model necessary?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until someone makes an accurate, full-scale reproduction using whatever technique they are promoting, it's all wild-ass guessing.

You are absolutely right. We're just spitballing and guessing and estimating.

However, some people have tried to duplicate the results, gotten pretty close and not a once did Elvis turn up with his alien mates to do the work for them.

The ability to duplicate something with a fair degree of accuracy using the tools of the time is, IMO, a good indicator that that is how it was done. But then, I'm open enough minded to think "if it was aliens ... why?" and you know, I don't get an answer I'm happy with with that one.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be quite honest. I think nobody really knows the full story about human kind's past and probably will never know. Not the Ancient Alien Theory, Religion or even Science.

There is a lot of speculation and theories from all sides. It all boils down to which Fraternity (so to speak) one chooses to put there trust in.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be quite honest. I think nobody really knows the full story about human kind's past and probably will never know. Not the Ancient Alien Theory, Religion or even Science.

There is a lot of speculation and theories from all sides. It all boils down to which Fraternity (so to speak) one chooses to put there trust in.

I would not consider science religion and AA Theory to be on the same playing field to be quite honest. As WOH said early in the piece, why do you lot throw God out and replace with Alien? What justifies that, and how does it help the problem? Do people feel intellectual choosing an Alien over God because space is sciencey stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of 'experts' like Protzen willing to claim they "proved" how it was done because they were able to scratch out a crude form on a small piece of stone. Truth is, they don't know any better than the AA wingnuts.

Which still amounts to a proof of concept. If they can approximate it even to that degree through trial and error, just think what they could with a lifetime of experience and technical refinement. And Protzen didn't "scratch out a crude form", he shaped a squared-off block of stone using nothing but other stones.

Until someone makes an accurate, full-scale reproduction using whatever technique they are promoting, it's all wild-ass guessing.

And we're left with a mystery.

That works in both directions. Unless you're bringing the same full resources to bear, you can't reasonably shoot down an idea based on a small-scale effort.

2 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.