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

Couldn't the shine of those stones be caused by simple weathering?

How come it's not on the cruder (Inca) walls? I saw a comparison clip earlier and the cruder walls don't have it.

Check out 4:00 here:

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About those plants (know that some contain oxalic acid) :

In general, acids are very poor agents for stone polishing. This is because decorative stones such as granite, marble and limestone consist primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which readily dissolves in acid to form carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H20) and a calcium salt. Worse still, the acid doesn't eat away at the stone uniformly; rather, it leaves surface with a swath of microscopic pockets. This process of altering the surface of a stone with acid is known as "etching".

However, there is one commercially-acid available that is useful in polishing stone: oxalic acid. When applied to the CaCO3, the result is CO2, H20, a calcium salt and thousands of microscopic pockets. The difference is that the calcium salt formed, calcium oxalate, happens to be a strong yet extremely fine-grained abrasive. Once this abrasive salt has been formed, simply polish with a camel hair pad, either by hand or SLOWLY and GENTLY by machine. The fine grains of calcium oxalate will wear down the edges of the acid-etched micropockets, resulting in an excellent surface shine.

http://www.ehow.com/...lish-stone.html

Chemical composition of granite:

http://en.wikipedia....cal_composition

Granite consist for 1.82% of CaO.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About those plants (know that some contain oxalic acid) :

In general, acids are very poor agents for stone polishing. This is because decorative stones such as granite, marble and limestone consist primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which readily dissolves in acid to form carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H20) and a calcium salt. Worse still, the acid doesn't eat away at the stone uniformly; rather, it leaves surface with a swath of microscopic pockets. This process of altering the surface of a stone with acid is known as "etching".

However, there is one commercially-acid available that is useful in polishing stone: oxalic acid. When applied to the CaCO3, the result is CO2, H20, a calcium salt and thousands of microscopic pockets. The difference is that the calcium salt formed, calcium oxalate, happens to be a strong yet extremely fine-grained abrasive. Once this abrasive salt has been formed, simply polish with a camel hair pad, either by hand or SLOWLY and GENTLY by machine. The fine grains of calcium oxalate will wear down the edges of the acid-etched micropockets, resulting in an excellent surface shine.

http://www.ehow.com/...lish-stone.html

Chemical composition of granite:

http://en.wikipedia....cal_composition

A long shot Abe imho. What about the obvious vitrification throughout the Sacsayhuaman tunnel in PdJ's clip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long shot Abe imho. What about the obvious vitrification throughout the Sacsayhuaman tunnel in PdJ's clip?

Why would that be a long shot? If they can apply that plant juice (or a concentrated brew) to other stones, why can they not smear it on the surface of the tunnel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would that be a long shot? If they can apply that plant juice (or a concentrated brew) to other stones, why can they not smear it on the surface of the tunnel?

The entrance to the tunnel looks as if it has been severley melted; ok it could conceivably be traces of some volcanic formation, but it's a bit of a coincidence to me.

Zoser75_zps049d873f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entrance to the tunnel looks as if it has been severley melted; ok it could conceivably be traces of some volcanic formation, but it's a bit of a coincidence to me.

Zoser75_zps049d873f.jpg

Have they ever chemically analyzed the 'polished' surface that you know of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also have to say that the burning theory accounts for more of the mystery.

I would recommend taking a look at post 2252. Heat would account for why they were able to fit together so precisely and yet retain oddities such as 'pimples' and 'steps' in the borders of the stone at the joins.

Also it would account for the initial cutting too. It's more of a complete theory.

On the other hand, how could stone be manually worked under intense heat? How would they get close to the block if it was semi-molten?

Have they ever chemically analyzed the 'polished' surface that you know of?

BRB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also have to say that the burning theory accounts for more of the mystery.

I would recommend taking a look at post 2252. Heat would account for why they were able to fit together so precisely and yet retain oddities such as 'pimples' and 'steps' in the borders of the stone at the joins.

Also it would account for the initial cutting too. It's more of a complete theory.

On the other hand, how could stone be manually worked under intense heat? How would they get close to the block if it was semi-molten?

BRB

That's why chemically altering the surface of the stones sounds a bit more plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vitrified Surface of the stone shows a very different spectrum of elements to the limestone body. The glaring difference is that Silicon is the predominant component with much higher concentrations. The trace elements of Aluminum and Magnesium are also significantly higher than the body of the stone. Oxygen is also present in double the quantities found in the body. The quantities of Calcium and Carbon are much lower than the body sample.

The Silicon, Aluminium and Magnesium seem to indicate that a material was added to the surface of the stone. The oxygen may have been part of this matter or it may have been introduced as part of oxidation during an aerobic heating process. This could have been during the formation of silicate, SiO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue this one Mr O. So convincing are the microscopic tests and the analysis on the vitrified skin layers that the evidence is overwhelming. Abe's theory on chemical treatment also has some merit but I find it just a little less convincing. I wouldn't reject it totally though.

Reread the portion on Beilby layers.

Far too much correlation with burning resulting in the glazing prism effect that it;s indisputable. Just review the evidence in my last half a dozen posts. If you really believe that the effect is lens flare then what say you of the effect being observed with the naked eye?

Respectfully I say your on the wrong track.

So you're asking me to be amazed that shiny things reflect pretty colors. I'm not convinced either that the effect along the stepped niches in the first video is naked-eye visible.

This is not to say there don't appear to be a few genuine burned spots, but only here and there. It should be noted however that Cuzco was burned during an Inca revolt in 1535. Further, if most of the rock is andesite, that rock type is often noted for having a high glass content.

Edited by Oniomancer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reread the portion on Beilby layers.

So you're asking me to be amazed that shiny things reflect pretty colors. I'm not convinced either that the effect along the stepped niches in the first video is naked-eye visible.

This is not to say there don't appear to be a few genuine burned spots, but only here and there. It should be noted however that Cuzco was burned during an Inca revolt in 1535. Further, if most of the rock is andesite, that rock type is often noted for having a high glass content.

Mr O the glazing is everywhere in Peru where precision architecture is to be seen. Nothing whatsoever to do with a fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best analysis I have found so far.....

http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/

These are some quotes from that article:

THE PERUVIAN CASE STUDY

The vitrified examples under study for this paper come from famous Peruvian sites, considered to belong to the Incas, in South America. To the author’s knowledge, there have been no scientific tests made on these stones. This has left the debate open to claims of unusual polishing techniques, natural degradation, lava flows and many other odd explanations.

=

Composition of the Surface Layer (click to enlarge the image below):

The main body of the stone shows the spectral composition for limestone. High levels of calcium, carbon, oxygen and minor trace elements are the constituents of limestone. This is not unusual since the University of Cusco recognize the Sacsayahuaman archaeological park as being a karst landscape. Many cave systems are made in limestone bedrock and the sample was from this sort of cave. However, this cave was worked on by people in the past as is clear by the photos above.

=

Whilst the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified, the composition is that of a glaze. It has a different makeup to the limestone body. This means it is very likely that the glaze was made from a ceramic paste applied to the limestone surface. This is clear from the comparison with the ancient glazed ceramic pottery shards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting tired; if anyone makes any progress with the analysis in the link in post 2284 I will pick it up at around 14:00 GMT.

See you later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are some quotes from that article:

THE PERUVIAN CASE STUDY

The vitrified examples under study for this paper come from famous Peruvian sites, considered to belong to the Incas, in South America. To the author’s knowledge, there have been no scientific tests made on these stones. This has left the debate open to claims of unusual polishing techniques, natural degradation, lava flows and many other odd explanations.

=

Composition of the Surface Layer (click to enlarge the image below):

The main body of the stone shows the spectral composition for limestone. High levels of calcium, carbon, oxygen and minor trace elements are the constituents of limestone. This is not unusual since the University of Cusco recognize the Sacsayahuaman archaeological park as being a karst landscape. Many cave systems are made in limestone bedrock and the sample was from this sort of cave. However, this cave was worked on by people in the past as is clear by the photos above.

=

Whilst the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified, the composition is that of a glaze. It has a different makeup to the limestone body. This means it is very likely that the glaze was made from a ceramic paste applied to the limestone surface. This is clear from the comparison with the ancient glazed ceramic pottery shards.

Yes I read about the added material; this was from a limestone sample within the cave if I read it correctly. They did say that the artefacts outside the cave (presumably harder stone) may have needed a slightly different treatment.

This is definitely the direction that needs to be pursued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr O the glazing is everywhere in Peru where precision architecture is to be seen. Nothing whatsoever to do with a fire.

There's glazing and then there's some isolated areas of what appears to be noticeable vitrification. Two different things. Even your guys are only pointing to specific spots.

And from the link provided:

"Mr. Bielby postulated that what happens is that the top layer becomes glassy, losing its crystalline properties and has flowed over the surface filling in these irregularities. In other words, the polishing powder tears off the surface of the calcium carbonate atoms and for an instant melts as is smoothed over by surface tension. This surface layer that is formed is called the “Beilby Layer”.

It was also discovered that the relative melting point of the polishing powder and the stone

influenced this flow. If the powder has a higher melting point than the stone, it will produce a

polish. If the powder has a lower melting point than the stone, it will not polish."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For about a hundred and ninety thousand years those apes lived like apes and didn't progress enough to be very significant. Then in the past ten thousand years something changed the apes. We don't know what it was, so outside influence IS something to be taken into consideration. That doesn't mean everyone is mentally capable of considering the possibility in a realistic way. The shame of it is that those who are not able to, don't want anyone else doing it either. Pitiful, but that's the way it is around here for sure. :lol: And since the vast majority of posters in this forum don't seem able to comprehend how a single bit of evidence that xts have been here exists, even though practically all we discuss are things that are evidence, this is nothing but a few people considering possibilities and a group of other people saying no and making childish insults about considering the possibilities.

Actually, it was about 2 million years ago that changes began to occur that led to modern man and we're pretty sure it had a lot to do with environmental changes. That's what ALL of the evidence says, at least. Of course, not everybody is mentally capable of following the evidence where it takes them and instead make up unsubstantiated and unprovable claims.

Those are evidence. Saying there is none and then referring to a couple of examples immediately afterward isn't very persuasive. Since the evidence is discussed constantly in this forum, saying there is none really works against the insistance that no beings from any other star system have ever been to this one, from my pov. Also, claiming there is no evidence puts a person in the position of not being able to make any sort of distinction between what is significant evidence and what's not.

Saying that ancient people would probably react in a certain way is not evidence. It is my educated opinion. Nothing more.

:lol: No others have language, and none of them make tools or weapons that are worthy of taking into consideration as comparison with human ability. That's the way it is and will remain unless all of a sudden some animals develop language and start making significant tools and weapons...and even if the start to at some point in the future they're still not :no: doing it NOW. Even though they're not doing anything significant as I pointed out to begin with, what little they are doing is impressive just because it's impressive that that other animals are doing anything at all:

"The new observations are "stunning," said Craig Stanford, a primatologist and professor of anthropology at the University of Southern California. "Really fashioning a weapon to get food -- I'd say that's a first for any nonhuman animal.""

So what I pointed out still stands and I don't need any "next criteria" even though what you shared does support my position.

What I posted simply proves that you do not understand what constitutes language and complex tool usage.

I didn't assign anything. I told you the difference between weak and strong atheism. You can learn it or not, but that's the way it is and I'm not the one who assigned it that way. Just because I understand it doesn't mean I "assigned" it, nor does the fact that I point out specific details about it like the faith required in order to be a strong atheist. It takes as much or more "blind" faith to believe God does not exist, than it does to believe God does exist. Having no belief is not the same as believing something does not exist btw. You may not be able to appreciate that fact like you can't appreciate the distinction between different types of atheism and can't think realistically about the possibility of God's or xts' existence and whatever all else you can't appreciated, but it is one and always will be none the less.

The evidence shows that the existence for extraterrestrial life is very probable, almost a certainty somewhere else in the universe. I concur with this idea. However, there is still NO evidence AT ALL that aliens have ever been to Earth.

By the way, your semantical arguments about belief, no belief, etc have no bearing on me what so ever. Take it to the religious forums or start another thread.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought ? What if E.T came helped build,work out a few million DNA strands of Hight tech tune ups on man,then Before They left after who knows how long being here. They just flew around the planet and vacuumed up all the hardware they used . Just knowing that at a later time there would be too many answers to plead !Or Bleed !

Anywho ! My slant is that E.T has a realy-REALLY BIG Space sign out beound the outter Planets that read "Stay the HE$$ away from the Third Rock from the SUN " ITs got Idiots on it were very sorry for the inconviencance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's glazing and then there's some isolated areas of what appears to be noticeable vitrification. Two different things. Even your guys are only pointing to specific spots.

And from the link provided:

"Mr. Bielby postulated that what happens is that the top layer becomes glassy, losing its crystalline properties and has flowed over the surface filling in these irregularities. In other words, the polishing powder tears off the surface of the calcium carbonate atoms and for an instant melts as is smoothed over by surface tension. This surface layer that is formed is called the “Beilby Layer”.

It was also discovered that the relative melting point of the polishing powder and the stone

influenced this flow. If the powder has a higher melting point than the stone, it will produce a

polish. If the powder has a lower melting point than the stone, it will not polish."

What polishing powder? Are you seriously trying to advocate that the ancients polished every bit of precision stonework that they cut? Even steps, ledges, and stonework not even directly noticeable? Really? Polishing to the point of actually wearing down the stone? That's what you are inferring. They polished the inside of a tunnel?

Your completely on the wrong track Mr O, and I worry about the others encouraging you in this desperate fantasy idea. Look at the analysis; it's burning by direct intense heat source or chemical. Polishing is just bananas.

The experts disagree with you Mr O.

Mr. Bielby postulated that what happens is that the top layer becomes glassy

Here is something much better than postulation:

The microscope photos above of the surface do not show the amorphous state of the layer. This can be shown explicitly by electron microscopic analysis. Further analysis needs to be carried out to confirm the state of the layer. The different chemical composition makes it very unlikely that these surfaces were created by polishing. The layer has the composition, sheen, hardness and glassy texture of a glaze.

The results strongly indicate that heat was used to produce the surface, which raises several questions. Even if a layer of a ceramic paste was applied, how was the whole heated to the requisite temperatures without cracking the limestone? It tends to shatter at these sorts of heats.

http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/

I'm sorry Mr O but this analysis is a lot more scientific than postulation. I recommend with respect that you read through this link and try and update yourself in the more recent findings and analysis rather than stubbornly sticking to old ideas that are just no longer valid.

Do a search and look for vitrified rock samples in Peru and Bolivia and satisfy yourself that the phenomena is not just local to a wall or two, but it's everywhere that precision relics are to be found; i.e very widespread.

It would be really good to talk again when you have done this.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there coming to save us from our own insanity what are we doing but leavin gno mark. If there signs from the heaven leave your mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there coming to save us from our own insanity what are we doing but leavin gno mark. If there signs from the heaven leave your mark.

That's all well and good but what do you think about the vitrification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a fairly realistic and acceptable possibility that our ancient civilizations got a gift from the skies that we are not responsible to have. I believe the archeological evidence shows this to be true. MOSTLY through pectroglyphs (you know what I mean) amnd I believe things like the ancient mesoamerican skull modifications that at some point we were coexisting with a extraterrestial race. I have no idea how many or for how long but the persistent timeline across the globe of pyramid building is a very strong indicator of a global EVENT. They had no comntact that we know of. So pyramid building by meso cultures is good evidence of something. Stonehenge also appeared at the same time frame although more crude. It has similiar stellar effects as all the meso pyramids.

Thats where I go ET....and go on on and on

Im not gonna poo poo the doubters as some of the physiocs involved certainly bring question. My personal response to the physics stuff is it is all man made at this time. A ET could be dealing with propereties we dont even know about.

So Im happy with my hypothesis, objective evidence and conclusin. Sadly I feel we as the caretakers of Earth have failed the higher plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient Aliens is the easy way out. When one doesn't want to do the research, they can cry "Aliens did it!".

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About those plants (know that some contain oxalic acid) :

In general, acids are very poor agents for stone polishing. This is because decorative stones such as granite, marble and limestone consist primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which readily dissolves in acid to form carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H20) and a calcium salt. Worse still, the acid doesn't eat away at the stone uniformly; rather, it leaves surface with a swath of microscopic pockets. This process of altering the surface of a stone with acid is known as "etching".

However, there is one commercially-acid available that is useful in polishing stone: oxalic acid. When applied to the CaCO3, the result is CO2, H20, a calcium salt and thousands of microscopic pockets. The difference is that the calcium salt formed, calcium oxalate, happens to be a strong yet extremely fine-grained abrasive. Once this abrasive salt has been formed, simply polish with a camel hair pad, either by hand or SLOWLY and GENTLY by machine. The fine grains of calcium oxalate will wear down the edges of the acid-etched micropockets, resulting in an excellent surface shine.

http://www.ehow.com/...lish-stone.html

Chemical composition of granite:

http://en.wikipedia....cal_composition

Granite consist for 1.82% of CaO.

.

I assume many here will be acquainted with the work and theories of Joseph Davidovits, which are quite disputed, btw.

But instead of - like he did - suggesting that complete stones were shaped from some sort of cement, I think it's possible stones were split, moved, and that before they were put into place the sides of the stones were chemically altered using organic acids extracted from plants, more or less as was suggested by Fawcett, Bingham and others.

Fabrication of stone objects, by geopolymeric synthesis, in the pre-incan Huanka civilization (Peru)

Joseph DAVIDOVITS and Francisco ALIAGA

http://www.geopolymer.org/library/archaeological-papers/c-making-cements-with-plant-extracts

http://www.geopolymer.org/fichiers_pdf/CemPlant.pdf

The starting stone material (silicate or silico-aluminate) is dissolved by the organic extracts,

and the viscous slurry is then poured into a mould where it hardens. This technique, when

mastered, allows a sort of cement to be made by dissolving rocks; statues which could have been

made by the technique of the pre-incan HUANKA, by dissolution followed by geopolymeric

agglomeration, are found to contain Ca-oxalate in the stone.

-

We present here the first results on plant extracts on the dissolution or dis-aggregation of

calcium carbonate containing rocks (Bio-tooling action). The feasibility of chemically working

calcium carbonate with various carboxylic acids found in plants (acetic, oxalic and citric acid)

has been studied. Maximum bio-tooling action is obtained with a solution containing:

Vinegar (1 M) (acetic acid)

Oxalic acid (0.9 M)

Citric acid (0.78 M)

The great surprise was actually to discover very ancient references to their use since Neolithic

times for working materials which are very hard but easily attacked by acids, such as chalk.

Thus, a bas-relief from the tomb of Mera, at SAQQARAH (VI dynasty, 3Millenium B.C., Egypt)

shows the hollowing out of "Egyptian alabaster" (CaCO3) vases by a liquid contained in a water

skin or bladder. An experiment of interest was to compare the "bio-tooling" technique with the

shaping of a hole using a steel tool and the quartz sand technique recommended by prehistorians.

The hole resulting from sand abrasion has rough walls, whereas bio-tooling gives a

smooth finish.

-

The precolumbian farmers were quite capable of producing large quantities of acids from such common plants in their region as:

fruits, potatoes, maize, rhubarb, rumex, agave americana, opuntia, ficus indica, oxalis pubescens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume many here will be acquainted with the work and theories of Joseph Davidovits, which are quite disputed, btw.

But instead of - like he did - suggesting that complete stones were shaped from some sort of cement, I think it's possible stones were split, moved, and that before they were put into place the sides of the stones were chemically altered using organic acids extracted from plants, more or less as was suggested by Fawcett, Bingham and others.

Fabrication of stone objects, by geopolymeric synthesis, in the pre-incan Huanka civilization (Peru)

Joseph DAVIDOVITS and Francisco ALIAGA

http://www.geopolyme...-plant-extracts

http://www.geopolyme...df/CemPlant.pdf

The starting stone material (silicate or silico-aluminate) is dissolved by the organic extracts,

and the viscous slurry is then poured into a mould where it hardens. This technique, when

mastered, allows a sort of cement to be made by dissolving rocks; statues which could have been

made by the technique of the pre-incan HUANKA, by dissolution followed by geopolymeric

agglomeration, are found to contain Ca-oxalate in the stone.

-

We present here the first results on plant extracts on the dissolution or dis-aggregation of

calcium carbonate containing rocks (Bio-tooling action). The feasibility of chemically working

calcium carbonate with various carboxylic acids found in plants (acetic, oxalic and citric acid)

has been studied. Maximum bio-tooling action is obtained with a solution containing:

Vinegar (1 M) (acetic acid)

Oxalic acid (0.9 M)

Citric acid (0.78 M)

The great surprise was actually to discover very ancient references to their use since Neolithic

times for working materials which are very hard but easily attacked by acids, such as chalk.

Thus, a bas-relief from the tomb of Mera, at SAQQARAH (VI dynasty, 3Millenium B.C., Egypt)

shows the hollowing out of "Egyptian alabaster" (CaCO3) vases by a liquid contained in a water

skin or bladder. An experiment of interest was to compare the "bio-tooling" technique with the

shaping of a hole using a steel tool and the quartz sand technique recommended by prehistorians.

The hole resulting from sand abrasion has rough walls, whereas bio-tooling gives a

smooth finish.

-

The precolumbian farmers were quite capable of producing large quantities of acids from such common plants in their region as:

fruits, potatoes, maize, rhubarb, rumex, agave americana, opuntia, ficus indica, oxalis pubescens

The only problem I have with the chemical theory is the fact that the artefacts displaying vitrification are very widespread across Peru and Bolivia. The shear size and number of blocks concerned and also where carvings have been made in tunnels, rock outcrops, and even mountain sides, the shear volume of chemical needed would be enormous.

Then the question has to be asked why have we not rediscovered this secret cocktail? It's one thing to produce a list of acid bearing chemicals and foods it's quite another to verify that they are capable of eating hard rock to allow it to be worked like butter.

Didn't the above write up mention calcium carbonate rocks? Isn't that chalk? How would these cocktails work on diorite, andesite, and granite?

I think if it is part of the story it's only a very small part. To think that pouring some fruit juice on some diorite is going to allow it to be worked to precision fits is stretching the imagination just a little to far imho.

Don't forget that the above description mentions steel tools so that immediately relegates the theory to a non-credible explanation.

Then consider where I live herein Jersey. We see a lot of churches, walls and residential houses built out of local red granite and in the neighbouring island of Guernsey it's grey in colour.

A lot of time and effort obviously goes into cutting this material suitable to form building blocks. If it was a straightforward as applying a chemical cocktail to avoid expensive diamond cutting equipment do you really think someone would have rediscovered the technique by now?

I think a dose of solid reason is called for here.

Plus the analysis looked at earlier was very detailed, and categorically implicating intense heat as the main force responsible for the vitrification. The truth is we just don't know how they did this and I would want to avoid attempts to wrap it up with some partial or improbable theory. I know it's tempting to do this but I think it should be resisted.

Edited by zoser

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.