The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

[S2F]

You must've missed where I quoted the part about steel, brass and copper used in conjunction with abrasive. Non-sintered core drills are made from ordinary steel. The type of abrasive makes little difference either. Quartz (IE: sand) is mohs 8. It'll cut anything mohs 8 or below, including itself.

I've only made it half way through the second one as yet and so far all I'm hearing is dunn droning on about stuff totally outside his experience along with that other machinist and trading straw man assumptions with childress, who has no experience at all and can't even pronounce basalt right.

I've known a 14 year machinist that couldn't use hand tools to save his life. Expertise in one area doesn't infer expertise in the other. The end results are similar yet the methods are different. If I were looking to gain insight into a hand tooled work I wouldn't ask a machinist, that's for sure.

[bmk1245]

Show me someone cutting 2 inch dia holes 2 feet deep in a solid granite granite block with a bow and I'll be convinced. [...]

How it can be done.

[...] As I said in post 430 the smoking gun is that the spiral cutting marks on the samples that Chris Dunn analysed (and shown in the Inca Relic video) are only in one direction.

And as was already pointed out - so much for "laser cutting precision"

Edited December 1, 2012 by bmk1245

[zoser]

Yeah, even IF hunter gathers could make such drills, what is going to stabilize those drills/tool as they work on stone? That is machine work. If they could cut the stone, then they have to move the tool in a perfectly straight line? How can that be?

That's right; Dunn refers to it as 'tool wander'. It's obvious that this will happen in a rotating unstabilised tool that is guided only by hand.

[zoser]

Core-drilling - There is plenty of evidence that core-drills were used at Giza. The classic example being the tool-marks found inside the sarcophagus of the Great pyramid. As the stone that was being cut is granite, the surface of the drill-tip would have had to have included a material of equal or greater hardness in order to cut through the stone.

In itself, this is an amazing achievement, but when we look closer at the remaining drill marks, it is evident that a great amount of downwards pressure was applied to the drills as well, more than can be explained by conventional theory. The distance between the grooves created by core-drilling can be use as a measure of how much force was applied as drilling was in process.

Dunn said of this

'On the granite core, No 7, the spiral of the cut sinks 0.1 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing'. The feed-rate of modern drills, Dunn calculates to be 0.0002 inch per revolution, indicating that the Egyptians drilled into granite with a feed-rate that was five hundred ties greater or deeper per revolution of the drill than modern drills. (1)

Read more

http://www.ancient-w...xtremasonry.htm

The saw marks on the basalt blocks are also an enigma. Take a look at them at the above link.

Or if you prefer a short clip; the same information can be found below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=uCdDHtLnldI

Edited December 1, 2012 by zoser

[DONTEATUS]

There seems to be a seat empty on the Short buss today?

[zoser]

More evidence of machined artefacts:

http://www.gizapyramid.com/mehler%20new%20article.htm

[synchronomy]

Only an idiot would attempt it. Either the copper is going to rapidly erode on the granite or it will rapidly erode on the sand. It's a practical and physical non-starter.

Water under high pressure is used to cut steel, concrete, marble, granite in industry today. Do you believe that?

Water is not as hard as sand, nor steel, nor concrete etc

If you don't believe in the ability of sand to cut hard materials, then go throw a handful of sand on the windshield of your car, then take a cloth and polish it into the glass.

I bet you'll have to replace your windshield.

Why don't you Google "sand" and read what it consists of?

[S2F]

That's right; Dunn refers to it as 'tool wander'. It's obvious that this will happen in a rotating unstabilised tool that is guided only by hand.

I'll say it again, guide blocks. Sorry, drill jig is the more correct term.

If Dunn doesn't know what they are or how easy they are to make then he has no business even talking about any of this.

A drill jig is a type of jig that expedites repetitive hole center location on multiple interchangeable parts by acting as a template to guide the twist drill or other boring device into the precise location of each intended hole center.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jig_(tool)

They are simple to make, just drill holes in a template material and place it over the object to be drilled.In this case could even be made out of wood, although stone is another possibility. It would aid greatly in precision and stability.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Slave2Fate

[Questfortruth]

The evidence need not be physical, as the skeptic with ones head buried in the sand will force their mind to see and believe whatever they want it to, it is one of the greatest weaknesses of mankind.

The evidence surrounding the ancient astronaut theory is very simple and inarguable. Most believers make the mistake of making the arguement too complicated and fantastic, much like religion.

When in reality to simplistic evidence is all that is needed to assure the BASIC accuracy of the theory; Every single civilization since the beginning of time has documentation of humaniod beings coming from the skies and meddling in the affairs of man, posing as Gods. Their fantastic abilities easily explained by todays technology and that which is imminent in the future.

When one hears of a God described as a bronze bird spitting fire that blocked out the sun and shook the ground, not making the connection can only be explained by denial, and fear. The so called "theory" is so simple compared to every other explaination that has been offered to us, our minds have simply been trained since birth to reject such things.

To delve deeper, I challenge anyone on this earth to explain how we evolved into intelligent creatures overnight in terms of evolution. Where as every other thing takes hundreds of millions of years to make the slightest change our evolution occured at a literal magical rate.

[S2F]

The evidence need not be physical, as the skeptic with ones head buried in the sand will force their mind to see and believe whatever they want it to, it is one of the greatest weaknesses of mankind.

The evidence surrounding the ancient astronaut theory is very simple and inarguable. Most believers make the mistake of making the arguement too complicated and fantastic, much like religion.

When in reality to simplistic evidence is all that is needed to assure the BASIC accuracy of the theory; Every single civilization since the beginning of time has documentation of humaniod beings coming from the skies and meddling in the affairs of man, posing as Gods. Their fantastic abilities easily explained by todays technology and that which is imminent in the future.

When one hears of a God described as a bronze bird spitting fire that blocked out the sun and shook the ground, not making the connection can only be explained by denial, and fear. The so called "theory" is so simple compared to every other explaination that has been offered to us, our minds have simply been trained since birth to reject such things.

To delve deeper, I challenge anyone on this earth to explain how we evolved into intelligent creatures overnight in terms of evolution. Where as every other thing takes hundreds of millions of years to make the slightest change our evolution occured at a literal magical rate.

Seriously?

You know what? Never mind, you don't seem like the type to listen and my patience is threadbare already.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Slave2Fate

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Questfortruth - are all stories true? The Republican seemingly every day are telling us the Obama is an evil Kenyan Muslim Atheist socialist hell bent on dooming Merica. Adoolph Hitler was a vegetarian, Catholic puppet according to some stories. God is a dragon who eats supplicants. The world is flat. Kenedy was assassinated by the CIA. Australia is actuall home to a gateway to another dimension.... there are literlly tones of stories out there, and how many are true?

[zoser]

Water under high pressure is used to cut steel, concrete, marble, granite in industry today. Do you believe that?

Water is not as hard as sand, nor steel, nor concrete etc

If you don't believe in the ability of sand to cut hard materials, then go throw a handful of sand on the windshield of your car, then take a cloth and polish it into the glass.

I bet you'll have to replace your windshield.

Why don't you Google "sand" and read what it consists of?

Analogies will not solve this one. You can't cut large deep holes in granite with stone age tools without making an awful mess. The evidence in the above photos suggests that the feed rate was fast. Far too fast for a bow and string and faster even than we could do (see Dunn's analysis).

Further a close up of the Inca relics reveals to be that the stone has somehow been burned; inside is a darker colour that then outside if you look closely.

I was tempted to think along the lines of either light or sound as the cutting medium; however that does not account for the cutting marks. It's a mystery.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Thank God for Von Daniken, Dunn, Hancock, Bauval, Tsoukalos, Childress, and all the modern thinking men that have successfully challenged the dinosaur half brains of the past few hundred years and who have helped make the truth available to thinking world.

I am now convinced that you are nothing but a troll.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Analogies will not solve this one. You can't cut large deep holes in granite with stone age tools without making an awful mess. The evidence in the above photos suggests that the feed rate was fast. Far too fast for a bow and string and faster even than we could do (see Dunn's analysis).

Further a close up of the Inca relics reveals to be that the stone has somehow been burned; inside is a darker colour that then outside if you look closely.

I was tempted to think along the lines of either light or sound as the cutting medium; however that does not account for the cutting marks. It's a mystery.

the old adage "keep it simple" leaps to mind.

Simple in this case is drills similar in deisgn to what we have now - presuming of course it's not done in the way others insist it was - but I don't question the what, and we'll probably never agree on the how, so I have to ask "why?".

why was it built? Lets assume aliens - why did they do it?

Lets assume people? Why sid they do it?

the later is answered by "religion" the former "...".

[bmk1245]

Analogies will not solve this one. You can't cut large deep holes in granite with stone age tools without making an awful mess. The evidence in the above photos suggests that the feed rate was fast. Far too fast for a bow and string and faster even than we could do (see Dunn's analysis).

[...]

Hogwash.

Three men (two pushing/pulling bow at the rate of 120 revolutions/min, and one holding 2.5 kg capstone)

(Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Denys A. Stocks, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004, page 132)

in 20 hours drilled 6 cm deep hole in red granite using copper tube 8 cm in diameter, and 1 mm thick walls (it is argued, that more experienced workers could drill that hole in 10 hours)

(Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Denys A. Stocks, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004, page 133)

And similar "grooves", or striations, you mentioned, were seen on the hole wall (as well on the column wall) after drilling.

[...]Further a close up of the Inca relics reveals to be that the stone has somehow been burned; inside is a darker colour that then outside if you look closely.

Hmmm... As far as I know, Incas knew fire.

[synchronomy]

The evidence need not be physical, as the skeptic with ones head buried in the sand will force their mind to see and believe whatever they want it to, it is one of the greatest weaknesses of mankind.

The evidence surrounding the ancient astronaut theory is very simple and inarguable. Most believers make the mistake of making the arguement too complicated and fantastic, much like religion.

When in reality to simplistic evidence is all that is needed to assure the BASIC accuracy of the theory; Every single civilization since the beginning of time has documentation of humaniod beings coming from the skies and meddling in the affairs of man, posing as Gods. Their fantastic abilities easily explained by todays technology and that which is imminent in the future.

When one hears of a God described as a bronze bird spitting fire that blocked out the sun and shook the ground, not making the connection can only be explained by denial, and fear. The so called "theory" is so simple compared to every other explaination that has been offered to us, our minds have simply been trained since birth to reject such things.

To delve deeper, I challenge anyone on this earth to explain how we evolved into intelligent creatures overnight in terms of evolution. Where as every other thing takes hundreds of millions of years to make the slightest change our evolution occured at a literal magical rate.

Thanks for explaining.

I always wondered how religion was able to convince the masses for centuries that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

BTW, although you might find it difficult to accept, there's a world of wonder and reality awaiting you if you dare to set foot in the non-fiction section of your local library.

[Babe Ruth]

You're making the same mistake as all of the other AA proponents. You are assuming that primitive equals stupid. Hardly the case as the Natives at Pumu Punku had the same cognitive abilities as you or I. We only have the advantage of having access to more knowledge. They could solve problems as well (or better) than their modern day counterparts...us.

Perhaps you are making the same mistake as other self-described skeptics. It is not a matter of intelligence.

It is a matter of tools. And knowledge, which is not the same as intelligence.

[zoser]

Hogwash.

Three men (two pushing/pulling bow at the rate of 120 revolutions/min, and one holding 2.5 kg capstone)

(Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Denys A. Stocks, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004, page 132)

in 20 hours drilled 6 cm deep hole in red granite using copper tube 8 cm in diameter, and 1 mm thick walls (it is argued, that more experienced workers could drill that hole in 10 hours)

(Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Denys A. Stocks, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004, page 133)

And similar "grooves", or striations, you mentioned, were seen on the hole wall (as well on the column wall) after drilling.

Hmmm... As far as I know, Incas knew fire.

The hole is a mess! Just like people here have been saying! Proves the point very well.

[CloudSix]

The problem is assuming the Biblical stories are correct.

I suggest to the O.P to go get some Burn Aid cus' that was fiery hot

[bmk1245]

The hole is a mess! Just like people here have been saying! Proves the point very well.

What point? Where do you see mess? Nicely cut hole, thats it.

Ah... I see... Shadows on irregular surface make your decision "mess". Isn't it?

[Just Dave]

This is alien to us how they did it ! But were they alien or alien? Word alien doesn't nessearly mean little green men.

[zoser]

What point? Where do you see mess? Nicely cut hole, thats it.

Ah... I see... Shadows on irregular surface make your decision "mess". Isn't it?

Let me clarify Mr B. No amount of pictures showing arabs brandishing 6 foot poles is going to do it. I can tell that hole in your picture isn't the same thing as shown in the Egyptian and Mayan photos. I wouldn't expect it to be.

For a start how is he going to be able hold the pole steady?

The nail in the coffin for your theory lies in the evidence that the cutting marks in the ancient holes are one directional.

That's it. It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).

Your theory may be excellent to demonstrate how arabs produce an oval or irregular hole after hours of painstaking work. However it's not how the ancients did it.

Just one more thing you may wish to research; did the ancients have 6 foot long tubular copper pipes to play around with?

Edited December 2, 2012 by zoser

[zoser]

This is alien to us how they did it ! But were they alien or alien? Word alien doesn't nessearly mean little green men.

I agree. I don't think our extra terrestrial ancestors were little green men either. In fact they were quite humanoid in appearance by all accounts.

Edited December 2, 2012 by zoser

[bmk1245]

Let me clarify Mr B. No amount of pictures showing arabs brandishing 6 foot poles is going to do it. I can tell that hole in your picture isn't the same thing as shown in the Egyptian and Mayan photos. I wouldn't expect it to be.

For a start how is he going to be able hold the pole steady?

The nail in the coffin for your theory lies in the evidence that the cutting marks in the ancient holes are one directional.

That's it. It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).

Your theory may be excellent to demonstrate how arabs produce an oval or irregular hole after hours of painstaking work. However it's not how the ancients did it.

Just one more thing you may wish to research; did the ancients have 6 foot long tubular copper pipes to play around with?

Boy, you're top banana...

Ancients could have pipes as long as they could wish, and in drilling process they could exchange pipes on their experience.

[bmk1245]

Let me clarify Mr B. No amount of pictures showing arabs brandishing 6 foot poles is going to do it. I can tell that hole in your picture isn't the same thing as shown in the Egyptian and Mayan photos. I wouldn't expect it to be[...]

But you swallow any crap from AA without any doubt.

[...]

[...]For a start how is he going to be able hold the pole steady?

The nail in the coffin for your theory lies in the evidence that the cutting marks in the ancient holes are one directional.

That's it. It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).

[,,,]

[...]

At some extent pole could be held steadily.Whats your point? And who said one directional? Dunn? Can he produce prints of the one-directonal cutting marks?

[...]That's it. It kills off your theory stone dead (no pun intended).

[...]

On the contrary, It doesn't.

[...]

Your theory may be excellent to demonstrate how arabs produce an oval or irregular hole after hours of painstaking work. [...]

What do you see when looking at circle in slant angle?

[...]

did the ancients have 6 foot long tubular copper pipes to play around with?

Thats the question. I don't know, and I'm sure no one else know. Nevertheless experiments were performed, which show earthly origin.