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

hmm, reminds me of Ellis and Cassaday's comic series "Planetary", basically life is interconnected with the informational substructure of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure some of you are sitting there laughing, thinking how crazy this is. Feeling like youre so certain of your opinions and beliefs.

Yet, from another perspective I see a small blue planet among a mass of solar systems spreading throughout a universe that cannot be measured, and the planets with-in cannot be assigned a number by our mathematical system because a number so close to infinity does not exist.

I sit here laughing at the fact that people in this day and age could possibly still think we are alone in the universe and have not been visited. In fact from a psychological standpoint I would say the very thought borderlines on insanity, and if not, in the very least, proof of social brainwashing.

We are like the very first people on a small island that have never left, and know nothing beyond what our eyes can see across the vast ocean. Yet for some reason we believe our island is all there is and nothing else exists... It's quite sad to think a race with such great potential can acutally produce people that still think like this.

Sometimes it's frustrating, even angering, but I cannot help but look back upon my religious and social brainwashing as child and feel pity and despair instead. I realize that my IQ borderlines geniuis, there for it could explain why I have been able to break away and free my mind. It shows me how weak and impressionable our brains are and how enough "brainwashing" can eventually take an almost permanent effect. So instead of showing anger, I feel the need to show compassion and do my very best to show people the truth, as not only does it free your mind but gives you a perspective on our world and the universe that humbles a person in a way that cannot be explained with words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sirs, I laugh at the thought of supernatural dieties, a place where we go when we die, and the wildly ignorant assumption that we are special enough to be alone in our universe.

What you show me is the weakness of man and what will most likely be our downfall as a species.

This whole arguement reminds me of the "humans killing the planet" arguement. Some people just don't want to believe it because its too frightening and will change their way of life so fear, selfishness and arrogance take control of their way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient Aliens... hey, were these guys still around in the 6th century AD??

ravenna2.jpg

The Mausoleum of Theodoric (Italian: Mausoleo di Teodorico) is an ancient monument just outside Ravenna, Italy. It was built in 520 AD by Theodoric the Great as his future tomb.

The current structure of the mausoleum is divided into two decagonal orders, one above the other; both are made of Istria stone. Its roof is a single 300–ton Istrian stone, 10 meters in diameter.

http://en.wikipedia....um_of_Theodoric

Successor to Odoacer, the Goth king Theodoric (493-526) ruled over Ravenna and contributed to the embellishment of the city. His mausoleum, built in 520, is a curious building, built from stones of enormous size and crowned with an astonishing monolithic dome 11m in diameter in Istrian stone. The very sober interior has a Romanesque porphyry basin converted into sarcophagus.

http://travel.michel...delle_Industrie

tomb of Theodoric (Sta. Maria della Rotonda, a decagonal two-storied mausoleum, with a low dome cut from a single stone 36 feet in diameter), 530–540.

http://www.bookiejar...-h@arch1-2.html

The roof is composed of one enormous block of Istrian marble 33 feet in diameter, 3 feet in height, and weighing, it is said, nearly 300 tons. It is a marvel and a mystery how, with the comparatively rude engineering appliances of that age, so ponderous a mass can have been transported from such a distance and raised to such a height. At equal intervals round the outside of this shallow, dome-like roof, twelve stone brackets are attached to it. They are now marked with the names of eight Apostles and of the four Evangelists. One conjecture as to their destination is that they were originally crowned with statues, perhaps of these Apostles and Evangelists; another, to me not very probable, is, that the ropes used (if any were used) in lifting the mighty monolith to its place were passed through these, which would thus be the handles of the dome.

http://www.third-mil...EODORIC/14.html

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quest, I'm sure it hasn't missed the notice of your borderline genius mind, but noone here is actully suggesting we're alone in the cosmos. Many have suggested we're the only higher sentience who've graced this blue-green sphere with our presence though, but that's hardly the same thing as aying we're alone in the universe. And it doesn't take a borderline genius to think we've been visited by aliens, just an imagination and glib tongue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure some of you are sitting there laughing, thinking how crazy this is. Feeling like youre so certain of your opinions and beliefs.

Yet, from another perspective I see a small blue planet among a mass of solar systems spreading throughout a universe that cannot be measured, and the planets with-in cannot be assigned a number by our mathematical system because a number so close to infinity does not exist.

I sit here laughing at the fact that people in this day and age could possibly still think we are alone in the universe and have not been visited. In fact from a psychological standpoint I would say the very thought borderlines on insanity, and if not, in the very least, proof of social brainwashing.

We are like the very first people on a small island that have never left, and know nothing beyond what our eyes can see across the vast ocean. Yet for some reason we believe our island is all there is and nothing else exists... It's quite sad to think a race with such great potential can acutally produce people that still think like this.

Sometimes it's frustrating, even angering, but I cannot help but look back upon my religious and social brainwashing as child and feel pity and despair instead. I realize that my IQ borderlines geniuis, there for it could explain why I have been able to break away and free my mind. It shows me how weak and impressionable our brains are and how enough "brainwashing" can eventually take an almost permanent effect. So instead of showing anger, I feel the need to show compassion and do my very best to show people the truth, as not only does it free your mind but gives you a perspective on our world and the universe that humbles a person in a way that cannot be explained with words.

To flaunt your so called 'borderline genius IQ' and speak of humility in the same breath is no small contradiction that leaves both in question.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

OK. I checked out what I believe to be the 'evidence' you refer to. It appears to be some tests done in Manchester. Here is the link to the 'evidence' so that you may confirm if this is the info you refer to.

http://chronologia.o...om=11717&omm=15

Quite frankly if it were me I would be embarrassed to table it as evidence. The site does indeed refer to a 1.4 mm wall thickness copper tube found in a 5th Dynasty pyramid. A number of points worry me though.

First I can find no picture of it. Second there is no write up about it. So one has to ask was it even an Egyptian artefact? Could it have been contemporary material left behind by someone, Egyptian or even British? I'm not saying it was not a real artefact, but I couldn't find anything about it and it seems to be a little too anecdotal to take seriously.

Then there is the question of not where is it, but where are they? These precision holes are to be found all over the place in different parts of the world. They must have been made in mass production to have produced the relics found. Where are they? What is the specification of the artefact? Was it 1.4 mm consistent or did it vary?

The mass production hypothesis is further born out by this from the above website:

zoser60_zps5cbd3da2.jpg

Look at the paltry hole depth achieved! Look at the tube length lost to achieve it and the time taken! For every cm of hole bored there is 1.5 cm of copper tube lost! Is this really sustainable considering the number of holes found? Could the ancients have kept pace with this material loss? These questions need to be asked. Here is a quote from the above website:

The reed drill-tube used with wet sand abrasive soon softened and spread outward and inward, thus completely filling the originally hollow interior with softened stem material. Despite this alteration to the tube's configuration, it performed useful work upon the soft limestone, but performed poorly upon the hard limestone and the calcite. However, because the drill had assumed the shape of a solid stalk, instead of a tube, penetration into the soft limestone was reduced, even though the volumetric rate of drilling remained similar to that of the tube in use with dry sand. The use of the reed tubes upon the coarse-grained hard sandstone and granite, utilizing wet or dry sand abrasive, so badly damaged them that no useful cutting could be achieved .

So what can one conclude from this? You decide.

If the lost tubes can be found in AE then maybe the investigators can find them in Peru and Bolivia too. Good luck with that. In Bolivia at PP there are literally hundreds of holes requiring an enormous amount of copper.

It doesn't say what diameter of hole this refers to either which is also disappointing.

So is this 'evidence' satisfactory to disprove the advanced technology hypothesis? I'll let you decide. One pipe found in a pyramid that nobody knows anything about. A test done in Manchester where a hole was bored to a paltry depth and an unsustainable amount of copper lost in the process.

No analysis done on the cutting marks to verify that the method was the same as the AE aretfacts. Chris Dunn has done this and has already proved that it wasn't.

So just in case there are those who think that what Mr O posts is rational. Consider the above and decide if it actually is.

One last point from me.

The archaeological and orthodox science world does this kind of thing a lot. Performs some half baked testing, and finds a relic that kind of matches what they think satisfies the evidence and then it makes sweeping outlandish claims to put the matter to rest.

My advice to those doing a similar exercise would be that if the skeptics post a link to some claimed evidence then follow it up. I did it with Abe and nor Mr O and found serious flaws. I bet you will too.

I object to that. It's not Mr O's or Abe's fault and I'm in no way having a go at them. I object to the outlandish assumptions based on the most paltry of analysis.

This has robbed the human race of it's right to the truth.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not be a borderline genius, but at least I can spell it.

:innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not be a borderline genius, but at least I can spell it.

:innocent:

I can vouch for you Mr Omsk. Your avatar doesn't do you justice though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, my only fault is that I showed you that Spanish chroniclers were present when the Incas were still busy building their structures.

Whatever technology they used, there were no aliens involved, and that is what this thread is originally all about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To flaunt your so called 'borderline genius IQ' and speak of humility in the same breath is no small contradiction that leaves both in question.

Funny thing about humility, once you realise you're being humble, you're no longer humble.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, my only fault is that I showed you that Spanish chroniclers were present when the Incas were still busy building their structures.

Whatever technology they used, there were no aliens involved, and that is what this thread is originally all about.

No worries Abe; I'm enjoying the thread anyway. I can't believe there is another site where the subject is being debated as intensely as this. See you soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no question we probably been visited in the past, but there is no evidence that they have contacted us or even meddle with our internal politics or our course in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Abe; I'm enjoying the thread anyway. I can't believe there is another site where the subject is being debated as intensely as this. See you soon.

I enjoy it too. It one of the best going right now IMHO.

If fact I enjoy UM more than any other.

Sure beats the heck out of that ATS forum afaic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I checked out what I believe to be the 'evidence' you refer to. It appears to be some tests done in Manchester. Here is the link to the 'evidence' so that you may confirm if this is the info you refer to.

http://chronologia.o...om=11717&omm=15

Quite frankly if it were me I would be embarrassed to table it as evidence. The site does indeed refer to a 1.4 mm wall thickness copper tube found in a 5th Dynasty pyramid. A number of points worry me though.

First I can find no picture of it. Second there is no write up about it. So one has to ask was it even an Egyptian artefact? Could it have been contemporary material left behind by someone, Egyptian or even British? I'm not saying it was not a real artefact, but I couldn't find anything about it and it seems to be a little too anecdotal to take seriously.

Try here instead (page 113):

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLDuHvQODoIC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=denys+stocks+tube+drill&source=bl&ots=AgpzVBm5fW&sig=GYG2gE3Z9aPzSFZkWVNeU739uLw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3QrJUJHhIOqw0AHguYDQBg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=denys%20stocks%20tube%20drill&f=true

Those little numbers are footnotes in the complete text to the original reports whose absence has you so worried. Note too the reference to in situ sockets I omitted.

Then there is the question of not where is it, but where are they? These precision holes are to be found all over the place in different parts of the world. They must have been made in mass production to have produced the relics found. Where are they? What is the specification of the artefact? Was it 1.4 mm consistent or did it vary?

Seriously? Where are the all the advanced machines that are supposed to've been in use? No evidence exists of even the capacity to create one unlike copper and bronze, of which innumerable examples have been found. And then there's the traces of verdigris found in some of these holes. But more on that later.

A simple tube is not contructionally equivalent to an ultrasonic drill. Attempting to infer that such a thing was beyond their abilities only serves to weaken your argument.

The mass production hypothesis is further born out by this from the above website:

zoser60_zps5cbd3da2.jpg

Look at the paltry hole depth achieved! Look at the tube length lost to achieve it and the time taken! For every cm of hole bored there is 1.5 cm of copper tube lost! Is this really sustainable considering the number of holes found? Could the ancients have kept pace with this material loss?

And there's where your drills went. And here's your sign.

These questions need to be asked.

Many questions indeed. And these bring up questions of their own, Such as exactly how many holes have actually been found in granite specifically and to what depth? And so many variables. What difference would it make if bronze were used? What if the abrasives were adhered to the tube as in most such tools?

However, this continues to dance around the main point again that Stocks produced actual results, and in-arguably demonstrated the feasibility of the method.

Here is a quote from the above website:

The reed drill-tube used with wet sand abrasive soon softened and spread outward and inward, thus completely filling the originally hollow interior with softened stem material. Despite this alteration to the tube's configuration, it performed useful work upon the soft limestone, but performed poorly upon the hard limestone and the calcite. However, because the drill had assumed the shape of a solid stalk, instead of a tube, penetration into the soft limestone was reduced, even though the volumetric rate of drilling remained similar to that of the tube in use with dry sand. The use of the reed tubes upon the coarse-grained hard sandstone and granite, utilizing wet or dry sand abrasive, so badly damaged them that no useful cutting could be achieved .

So what can one conclude from this? You decide.

I conclude that all but the last sentence doesn't exactly help your case, and that for the last, the same arguements for copper apply.

I have seen reports of primitive living enthusiasts drilling holes in granite using cane so a question arises as to the efficiency of Stocks' chosen technique.

If the lost tubes can be found in AE then maybe the investigators can find them in Peru and Bolivia too. Good luck with that. In Bolivia at PP there are literally hundreds of holes requiring an enormous amount of copper.

See above, although it should be pointed out that they had access to several native species of bamboo, (from the same source as the timber that's a lot closer than claimed.) which the chinese have successfully used for drilling hard stones like jade for thousands of years, so they must know something Stocks doesn't.

It doesn't say what diameter of hole this refers to either which is also disappointing.

Yes, it's a pain finding proper references. I had the full text bookmarked on scribd once but it got taken down.

So is this 'evidence' satisfactory to disprove the advanced technology hypothesis? I'll let you decide. One pipe found in a pyramid that nobody knows anything about. A test done in Manchester where a hole was bored to a paltry depth and an unsustainable amount of copper lost in the process.

Proof of concept trumps speculation every time.

No analysis done on the cutting marks to verify that the method was the same as the AE aretfacts. Chris Dunn has done this and has already proved that it wasn't.

He has done no such thing, as to date, to my knowledge he has only examined one mark on one core (With string. How's that for, paltry analysis?) and did we not establish above that one example is insufficient evidence? Well, one of us did anyway.

So just in case there are those who think that what Mr O posts is rational. Consider the above and decide if it actually is.

One last point from me.

The archaeological and orthodox science world does this kind of thing a lot. Performs some half baked testing, and finds a relic that kind of matches what they think satisfies the evidence and then it makes sweeping outlandish claims to put the matter to rest.

My advice to those doing a similar exercise would be that if the skeptics post a link to some claimed evidence then follow it up. I did it with Abe and nor Mr O and found serious flaws. I bet you will too.

I object to that. It's not Mr O's or Abe's fault and I'm in no way having a go at them. I object to the outlandish assumptions based on the most paltry of analysis.

This has robbed the human race of it's right to the truth.

Ditto. Only the names have changed, and it's not the innocent that are being protected.

The Truth? I think it's safe to say that you literally can't handle the truth.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Abe; I'm enjoying the thread anyway. I can't believe there is another site where the subject is being debated as intensely as this. See you soon.

You should try ATS sometime. Or talk.origins and alt.Archaeology on usenet. That last is unmoderated, though it's kind of quiet nowdays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient Aliens... hey, were these guys still around in the 6th century AD??

ravenna2.jpg

The Mausoleum of Theodoric (Italian: Mausoleo di Teodorico) is an ancient monument just outside Ravenna, Italy. It was built in 520 AD by Theodoric the Great as his future tomb.

The current structure of the mausoleum is divided into two decagonal orders, one above the other; both are made of Istria stone. Its roof is a single 300–ton Istrian stone, 10 meters in diameter.

http://en.wikipedia....um_of_Theodoric

Successor to Odoacer, the Goth king Theodoric (493-526) ruled over Ravenna and contributed to the embellishment of the city. His mausoleum, built in 520, is a curious building, built from stones of enormous size and crowned with an astonishing monolithic dome 11m in diameter in Istrian stone. The very sober interior has a Romanesque porphyry basin converted into sarcophagus.

http://travel.michel...delle_Industrie

tomb of Theodoric (Sta. Maria della Rotonda, a decagonal two-storied mausoleum, with a low dome cut from a single stone 36 feet in diameter), 530–540.

http://www.bookiejar...-h@arch1-2.html

The roof is composed of one enormous block of Istrian marble 33 feet in diameter, 3 feet in height, and weighing, it is said, nearly 300 tons. It is a marvel and a mystery how, with the comparatively rude engineering appliances of that age, so ponderous a mass can have been transported from such a distance and raised to such a height. At equal intervals round the outside of this shallow, dome-like roof, twelve stone brackets are attached to it. They are now marked with the names of eight Apostles and of the four Evangelists. One conjecture as to their destination is that they were originally crowned with statues, perhaps of these Apostles and Evangelists; another, to me not very probable, is, that the ropes used (if any were used) in lifting the mighty monolith to its place were passed through these, which would thus be the handles of the dome.

http://www.third-mil...EODORIC/14.html

.

Zoser (or anyone supporting the AA story), you have an explanation for how they built that thing?

A block of stone weighing almost 300 tons... as a roof.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy it too. It one of the best going right now IMHO.

If fact I enjoy UM more than any other.

Sure beats the heck out of that ATS forum afaic.

I dont like that ATS site at all. Design is horrible. My head hurts me when I went there so I stop going there. Maybe they change it?...Okay I checked it. No they didnt. :wacko:

In fact I dont know any forum good as UM for this kind of threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9:47 is interesting imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'd be interested in knowing how contemporary native accounts of the arrival of the Spanish in South America, or the British/French in North America or the British in Australia described the Spanish/Ritish/French.

I know there was the description L used as part of his thought experiment dozens of pagesago, but was that either genuine or an isolated account? We've been told the various South American tribed thought the Spanish were gods, but is there ny firsthand evidence of that?

I ask because I'm wondering how precise the locals would be transcribing the account of visitors from other worlds - would they plump for "space gods" or would they say "space gods from Zeta Ridiculi"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we can do thermoluminescence dating, which is as I understand that atomic level of stones changes when sun first time heat stone when have been cut from mountain or being shaped into final form. Question is why we dont do it on some archaeological sites and artifacts? :tu:

It's used whenever it can be used.

The type of dating you're talking about can tell when the last time was that the sun shone on an object, not how old it is, usually.

A similar form - the earliest form IIRC - of thermolumenescent dating can tell how long ago a clay object was fired, assuming it was fired.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reed drill-tube used with wet sand abrasive soon softened and spread outward and inward, thus completely filling the originally hollow interior with softened stem material. Despite this alteration to the tube's configuration, it performed useful work upon the soft limestone, but performed poorly upon the hard limestone and the calcite. However, because the drill had assumed the shape of a solid stalk, instead of a tube, penetration into the soft limestone was reduced, even though the volumetric rate of drilling remained similar to that of the tube in use with dry sand. The use of the reed tubes upon the coarse-grained hard sandstone and granite, utilizing wet or dry sand abrasive, so badly damaged them that no useful cutting could be achieved .

So what can one conclude from this? You decide.

How about we decide to conclude what the author of the text you quoted concluded?

copper drills wear out much more slowly than reed drills (compare Table 4.1 with Tables 4.2 and 4.3).

Source: your own reference.

Harte

Edited by Harte
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy it too. It one of the best going right now IMHO.

If fact I enjoy UM more than any other.

Sure beats the heck out of that ATS forum afaic.

Sure does. Here in UM, I can take a break from a thread, and come back in a week and pick up with the last post I read.

It's a pleasure to navigate...and although we joke about trolls here, they are few and far between in comparison.

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.