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

Are you a "strong atheist"? If not, who are you to know what they belief or disbelieve?

I'm a weak agnostic. I know what strong atheism is by looking up the distinction between strong and weak atheism. I know that most people who act like strong atheists seem to be ashamed of the very faith that's necessary in order to be one :lol: to the hilarious point that some try to refer to their faith as "knowledge".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 11 December 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Only if you can explain how any being could travel through space and have influence in the development of star systems etc WITHOUT being technologically advanced. When you can't give any sort of realistic explanation of how they could, we'll STILL be left to believe God would have to have the use of advanced technology.

Astral Projection, which as a myriad of posters here will tell you is genuine, could account for it.

:no: Not without some being behind it, and the being would have to be an alien. He also would be technologically advanced way more than we are in order to be able to obtain the ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given they won't stop with their nonsense, people need to offer an opposition anyway just in case someone with a genuinely open mind comes and just sees the gibberish and thinks "hey, noone is saying "that's nonsense" so it must be true!" case in point Ancient Aliens on TV.

:lol: To think that someone who has put their faith in the one possibility that no beings from another star system have ever been to this planet, is more open minded than someone who can conceive of the possibility that they have :lol: is hilarious from my pov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so here goes. I'm far from convinced that you got the point of my last post but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood rather than pretended it wasn't there.

Look at the thickness of the penetration cut:

zoser53-1.jpg

My estimation is that the wall thickness of the tool that did that is in the order of 2mm at the most. Two problems now exist:

1) The wall thickness is too narrow for stone age copper technology.

2) A 2 mm copper pipe would be shredded if it attacked granite to bore a hole like that.

The burden is on you as the proponent of the bow and tube theory to say exactly how that cut was achieved in the manner that you propose.

If you cannot do it satisfactorily then that is ok. I will not think lesser of you.

Are you clear about the question? If not I will explain it more fully; I really don't mind.

But be honest that's all I ask.

My Opinion

The above photo places orthodox theories on extremely shaky ground. The uploader of these still photos is yet another advocate of the advanced technology theory. Not necessarily the AA hypothesis because I have not investigated him. He may or may not be an AA advocate. Yet he has clearly investigated the evidence in a lot of detail and reached a conclusion which is against the orthodox explanations.

The detailed analysis seems to have been done well by the advanced technology advocates. They have done their homework. Yet I can find no such detailed analysis from the archaeologists. In one of my last clips (posted again below) Dunn examines in fine detail the nature of the cuts using microscope and software technology. Have the archaeologists done this? If they have where is it? How does it address this kind of evidence. We need to know,

The above cut could only have been achieved with a very thin walled tool. Either some special hardened metallic diamond cutter or sound or laser. In one of his later examinations Dunn tries to replicate the cuts using a specific type of laser but the microscope match is negative. Could it have been done using another type? I don't know. I know however that it was nothing crude as Mr O is advocating.

Here is Dunn again.

If a bow and pipe did not produce this, then I'm sorry but the only conclusion is advanced technology and that could only have come from elsewhere.

I would appreciate it if you could you reply clearly and address the specific point and not talk around it.

All that proves though is that whoever dug the hole was more advanced then the Stone/Bronze Age people we've accredited the building to.

There needn't be aliens popping down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that proves though is that whoever dug the hole was more advanced then the Stone/Bronze Age people we've accredited the building to.

There needn't be aliens popping down.

I don't approve of your language "dug the hole". Are you referring to someone digging up the road with a pneumatic drill?

This is a high precision cut in solid granite for goodness sake!

At least you have admitted something rational; which I acknowledge and thank you for.

However we still need to come to terms with how they came to acquire high precision cutting technology in ancient times. The elephant is still in the room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: To think that someone who has put their faith in the one possibility that no beings from another star system have ever been to this planet, is more open minded than someone who can conceive of the possibility that they have :lol: is hilarious from my pov.

Who here has done that?

We've all said SHOW US EVIDENCE. Now evidence is something that needs to be interpreted, you and Zoser have shown evidence and to a piece of evidence we've interpreted it.

Strange looking statues? Either that was the pinnacle of their stoneworking skills or they're representations of their gods.

Modern looking hieroglyphs? Damaged hieroglyphs.

Incredibly accurate and precise holes? Still under discussion but nothing that concretely says "aliens", but rather "more advanced then we're told".

Myths and legends of sky gods? Taken at face value - they're myths and legends of sky gods.

The trick with being open minded to not being so open minded your brain falls out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck are nopeda's posts not hidden when I have him on ignore I wonder???

It shows lameness that you would even ask the question. I can still point out some of your bullsh*t even when you're not trying to bullsh*t me personally though, and it's I who should put you on ignore not the other way around. But I'm not afraid of what other people have to say so far, so I wouldn't do that. I've never done it to anyone in fact, or even tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't approve of your language "dug the hole". Are you referring to someone digging up the road with a pneumatic drill?

This is a high precision cut in solid granite for goodness sake!

Excavated then?

Cut seems too vague IMO.

At least you have admitted something rational; which I acknowledge and thank you for.

However we still need to come to terms with how they came to acquire high precision cutting technology in ancient times. The elephant is still in the room

Well, IMO Nelly could just as easily be from Atlantis as she could from Telos.

In fact, given the amount of evidence point to some sort of pre-Sumerian/pre-Babylonian culture I'm prepared to say "this ur-culture were master masons and seafarers, they did it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser, on 11 December 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

No one has provided satisfactory explanations as to how such massive blocks can be placed together as if they are tightly fused across large depths.

Yes they have answered each and every one.

Then tell us how it was done, and in which particular cases the method you describe was used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excavated then?

Cut seems too vague IMO.

Well, IMO Nelly could just as easily be from Atlantis as she could from Telos.

In fact, given the amount of evidence point to some sort of pre-Sumerian/pre-Babylonian culture I'm prepared to say "this ur-culture were master masons and seafarers, they did it".

It's not so much a question as who, but how in the first instance surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To nopedia:

Is this thread becoming another religious thread or what?

You people are like hyenas, When you think someone is vulnerable, attack and devour.

By this time it's all the same and tied together between God, gods, ufos and xts from my pov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 11 December 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Maybe for the same reason they didn't show kings helping either.

Because the Kings had nothing at all to do with the building of the pyramids and left it all up to the poor sods labouring away in the hot sun, excavating and working big heavy stones, carrying them up ramps to make the pyramids?

They had plenty to do with it. But they didn't get their hands dirty and neither would xts imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By this time it's all the same and tied together between God, gods, ufos and xts from my pov.

I'd be intrigued to see what the denizens of the Spirituality and Scepticism wing of this forum would have to say, there's scant little crossover between here and there, fancy a trip into the bowls of existentialist torment Nopeda?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whales, dolphins, meercats, ants, bees, dogs, cats, frogs, birds ... language as a method of conveying information is fairly common.

. . .

Termite mounds. Ant nests.

. . .

I have a lovely mane of fur on my head.

. . .

imagination. And sadly some humans don't have that, and others let theirs run away with them.

NO other creatures on this planet have language besides humans. They make signals but have no language. That's a basic you should learn to appreciate. The same is true of building complex tools and buildings. You should get used to that too. You don't have fur. You should get used to that one too. And if you think it requires too much imagination to consider the possibility that beings from another star system have been to this one then you're not thinking realistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had plenty to do with it. But they didn't get their hands dirty and neither would xts imo.

the King's job was to fund the building and then to die and be interred in the pyramid (for whatever period of time he was interred there for).

The fact that there ARE stela showing Pharaoh overseeing the construction of his pyramid/statutes/whatevers and not a one of Fnarg the Great Architect of Telos V is somewhat telling, as the bloody Egyptians put everything in ink, papyrus and on the walls of their tombs - if they worked closely with Fnarg, then there'd be a representation of him on the walls of the tomb because the illustrations on tombs are meant to represent all the important events of their lives.

No Fnarg on the walls anywhere suggests to me that Fnarg wasn't there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO other creatures on this planet have language besides humans. They make signals but have no language. That's a basic you should learn to appreciate. The same is true of building complex tools and buildings. You should get used to that too. You don't have fur. You should get used to that one too. And if you think it requires too much imagination to consider the possibility that beings from another star system have been to this one then you're not thinking realistically.

I have more then enough imagination to fill this cosmos of ours with all sorts of delights.

I also have a critical enough mind to sadly have to keep poor old Fnarg off of Earth, or at least out of our temples and monuments.

Ohh and I've heard of biologists and linguists trying to understand animal calls, given that whales vary their song depending upon to whom they're singing, or Meercats having different calls for different predators suggests to them that what they have is a basic language. In fact as crows in Australia have been teaching other crows how to kill and eat cane toads safely that suggests to me that they can communicate complex information when necessary.

Edited by Wearer of Hats
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read your posts, you say that if Moses spoke to a burning bush, then ancient aliens are validated. That is pure poppycock. It does not even make sense. Where do the aliens come from??????

From what I've heard about most the more human like ones come from the Sirius system and the more reptilian from around Orion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard about most the more human like ones come from the Sirius system and the more reptilian from around Orion.

I wouldn't trust the ones from Sirus, especially the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation - first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard about most the more human like ones come from the Sirius system and the more reptilian from around Orion.

and most of the so called evidence of their existance is straight out of uranus.

:whistle:

Edited by JGirl
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so here goes. I'm far from convinced that you got the point of my last post but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood rather than pretended it wasn't there.

Look at the thickness of the penetration cut:

zoser53-1.jpg

My estimation is that the wall thickness of the tool that did that is in the order of 2mm at the most. Two problems now exist:

1) The wall thickness is too narrow for stone age copper technology.

2) A 2 mm copper pipe would be shredded if it attacked granite to bore a hole like that.

The burden is on you as the proponent of the bow and tube theory to say exactly how that cut was achieved in the manner that you propose.

If you cannot do it satisfactorily then that is ok. I will not think lesser of you.

Are you clear about the question? If not I will explain it more fully; I really don't mind.

But be honest that's all I ask.

My Opinion

The above photo places orthodox theories on extremely shaky ground. The uploader of these still photos is yet another advocate of the advanced technology theory. Not necessarily the AA hypothesis because I have not investigated him. He may or may not be an AA advocate. Yet he has clearly investigated the evidence in a lot of detail and reached a conclusion which is against the orthodox explanations.

The detailed analysis seems to have been done well by the advanced technology advocates. They have done their homework. Yet I can find no such detailed analysis from the archaeologists. In one of my last clips (posted again below) Dunn examines in fine detail the nature of the cuts using microscope and software technology. Have the archaeologists done this? If they have where is it? How does it address this kind of evidence. We need to know,

The above cut could only have been achieved with a very thin walled tool. Either some special hardened metallic diamond cutter or sound or laser. In one of his later examinations Dunn tries to replicate the cuts using a specific type of laser but the microscope match is negative. Could it have been done using another type? I don't know. I know however that it was nothing crude as Mr O is advocating.

Here is Dunn again.

If a bow and pipe did not produce this, then I'm sorry but the only conclusion is advanced technology and that could only have come from elsewhere.

I would appreciate it if you could you reply clearly and address the specific point and not talk around it.

I understand that you didn't do any of the reading assignments you were given earlier in the thread.

From Stocks, per the first round of tests :

"Each test utilized a 1 cm-diameter reed tube which possessed 2 mm-thick walls"

Per copper:

"A piece of water pipe, 102 cm in length, 4.7 cm in diameter and with a wall thickness of 1.4 mm was found at the fifth dynasty pyramid complex at Sahure."

Can't find the dimensions for the copper tube he used but since the drill shaft he used is 2 cm, from the photos, the wall thickness must be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2mm.

(I was mistaken about the completeness of linked material. I also mistakenly used the term saws twice in the last post when I meant drills.)

I would add that since many of the cores found are tapered, it's also conceivable that thickness of the tube correspondingly decreased toward the leading edge for strength..

I did not talk around the point in question, but called you out specifically on it along the your general claim about copper. You are again assuming both that copper can't be used in the manner described and actually demonstrated by stocks and that thin walled copper tubing must be too fragile to use. I'm seeing nothing to back up these claims and plenty to refute them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe too that an open tube resists compression lengthwise better relative to it's width compression, and since all of what little force being used on a tube drill besides torgue is being directed down...

From what you say, dunn might as well be measuring the effects of using zucchini for all the relevance lasers have in direct comparison to copper tubing.

Edit to add: The AE's capacity to make copper tubing at all has also been called into question. I believe the above quote coupled with further references from Stocks, et al, dispenses with that.

Edited by Oniomancer
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really? Could not get here? The rules of physics rule that out? Even if they had to stick to plain old STL, it would still be possible to get here from anywhere, it would just take a very, very long time. Anyway, who says that they'd have to come from many light years away?

How close is the nearest planet that would support life? The AA hypothesis states that aliens came here to build things, so one has to assume they could survive in our atmosphere.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and most of the so called evidence of their existance is straight out of uranus.

:whistle:

I am so glad I didn't have a mouth full of something when I read that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO other creatures on this planet have language besides humans. They make signals but have no language. That's a basic you should learn to appreciate. The same is true of building complex tools and buildings. You should get used to that too. You don't have fur. You should get used to that one too. And if you think it requires too much imagination to consider the possibility that beings from another star system have been to this one then you're not thinking realistically.

You obviously have no biological education. Other animals do have forms of language. Both vocal and body. That's basic. You should learn to appreciate it.

The same is true of complex tools and buildings. I'm sure Abe can tell you all about avian tool usage. Not to mention tool usage by primates, otters, beavers, wasps, elephants, dolphins, octopi, ants, squid, crabs, hell, even some fish use tools.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a weak agnostic. I know what strong atheism is by looking up the distinction between strong and weak atheism. I know that most people who act like strong atheists seem to be ashamed of the very faith that's necessary in order to be one :lol: to the hilarious point that some try to refer to their faith as "knowledge".

Do you even know what atheism is? Clearly not if you insinuate that their is 'faith' of any sort involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that proves though is that whoever dug the hole was more advanced then the Stone/Bronze Age people we've accredited the building to.

There needn't be aliens popping down.

Not really.

The kerf on that saw was easily 5 mm. Look closely. The biottom of the cut is a flat surface at least 5 mm in height (from that angle.)

Harte

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.