zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1001 Share Posted December 8, 2012 "Mysteriously formed tube of copper" was my favorite part, too. :lol: Good stuff. Clay, wax, moulds producing copper tubes :no: pure fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1002 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Clay, wax, moulds producing copper tubes :no: pure fantasy. Hahahha. So now you're saying that the "lost-wax" method of casting is fantasy? Man, this just gets better and better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted December 8, 2012 #1003 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I know how it wasn't done though and that's the important thing. Really? wow never realized you were a expert in primitive drilling.. I'm impressed.. where did you get your degree from? Clay, wax, moulds producing copper tubes :no: pure fantasy. at a guess you have never done metal casting then? go visit a blacksmith.. and ask them how they would make a copper tube from a copper ingot without using a form roller.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1004 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) I know how it wasn't done though and that's the important thing. Again, you not knowing how something was done does not mean that others do not know how it was done. Edited December 8, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted December 8, 2012 #1005 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Hahahha. So now you're saying that the "lost-wax" method of casting is fantasy? Man, this just gets better and better. actually its not a lost wax method.. it is still used today.. recreation blacksmiths use it.. it is also still used in jewelery making.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1006 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) actually its not a lost wax method.. it is still used today.. recreation blacksmiths use it.. it is also still used in jewelery making.. He made reference to wax and clay molds, so I figured he was referring to the lost wax method that the Egyptians (among others) were noted for discovering. Not lost as in forgotten, but lost during the process. Not sure if that part was misunderstood or not. Edited December 8, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted December 8, 2012 #1007 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Ahh got you 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1008 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Ahh got you Regardless, he has NO idea what he's talking about and it just keeps getting funnier! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted December 8, 2012 #1009 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Regardless, he has NO idea what he's talking about and it just keeps getting funnier! I agree.. it still makes me chuckle that the AA crowd say the art work is aliens.. I have really got to get my son in law on this forum.. he is aboriginal .. who actually believes in aliens.. but laughs at the AA'ers.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1010 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I agree.. it still makes me chuckle that the AA crowd say the art work is aliens.. I have really got to get my son in law on this forum.. he is aboriginal .. who actually believes in aliens.. but laughs at the AA'ers.. You should show him this thread. I do a lot of anthropological work and as I believed you mentioned, various native peoples have a good laugh at those who think all those various pieces of art are aliens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted December 8, 2012 #1011 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) On the other hand there is this: Now look how perfect it is and tell me in all honesty if that could have been done by spinning a copper tube back and forth with a bow using sand while some poor soul holds it erect while applying weight. I tell you know way. The final smoking gun is if you look carefully inside the hole there are two score marks. This hole was cut with extreme abrasion to have left this behind. The copper would have totally shredded experiencing that level of abrasion. The edges are perfect. There has been zero tool wander. You keep saying "perfect". There must be some "out of round" tolerance. I would think if it were off by 1/16", it would be difficult to see with the naked eye. Perhaps the score marks occurred during a polishing phase after drilling. Maybe a ramrod of some sort was pushed back and forth thru the hole? Also, since no one seems to know the purpose of the holes, maybe the scoring is an artifact of whatever the holes were used for. Maybe guides of some sort for other drilling or sawing. Maybe the stones we are seeing here are the remnants of a stonemasons quarry "machinery". Again, I am bewildered that since the methods used to create the holes and their purpose remains unclear, you leap to the conclusion that aliens did this? Edited December 8, 2012 by synchronomy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 You keep saying "perfect". There must be some "out of round" tolerance. I would think if it were off by 1/16", it would be difficult to see with the naked eye. Perhaps the score marks occurred during a polishing phase after drilling. Maybe a ramrod of some sort was pushed back and forth thru the hole? Also, since no one seems to know the purpose of the holes, maybe the scoring is an artifact of whatever the holes were used for. Maybe guides of some sort for other drilling or sawing. Maybe the stones we are seeing here are the remnants of a stonemasons quarry "machinery". Again, I am bewildered that since the methods used to create the holes and their purpose remains unclear, you leap to the conclusion that aliens did this? The first principle has to be that indiginous people did not create this. Nor did they create PP, Cuzco, Sacsayhuaman and other megalithic sites. They had absolutely no means to do it. We know what they did create; check out my last few movie clips. Listen to Brien Foerster is my recommendation. He has visited Cuzco 24 times and now lives there! Here is one of his clips below where he compares Spanish, Inca and the megalithic constructions not of Inca origin, so by definition unknown. Then read the accounts of what the Inca themselves said. I have posted links where this can be read. Then it's a question of putting it together. In terms of a hole being exactly circular; well what is there in life that is exactly mathematically perfect? Remember geometric maths is an idealism, not to be found in the physical world. The hole in the picture is pretty damn perfect to me. The wall at Cuzco is 39 inches thick! Engineers cannot explain it. This is a superb clip. Regardless, he has NO idea what he's talking about and it just keeps getting funnier! Prove me wrong. I'm still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted December 8, 2012 #1013 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) In terms of a hole being exactly circular; well what is there in life that is exactly mathematically perfect? Remember geometric maths is an idealism, not to be found in the physical world. The hole in the picture is pretty damn perfect to me. The wall at Cuzco is 39 inches thick! Engineers cannot explain it. Prove me wrong. I'm still here. I've viewed all those videos and many more. Engineering analysis consists of more than a penlight and a camera. "Pretty damn perfect to me" is not engineering analysis. "Prove me wrong. I'm still here." You're still getting this backwards. You are the one presenting a hypothesis based on the sole fact that YOU don't believe conventional theories on how these structures were built. It's up to YOU to present some FACTS that support your hypothesis...and it has to be more than your own highly subjective view that you don't accept current theories because you are immersed in a mindlock of confirmation bias. Edited December 8, 2012 by synchronomy 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1014 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Here is another serious full time researcher who refutes the orthodox theories. I have read none of his books so I cannot say that he is an AA advocate but what he does say is that the megalithic relics were built with unknown technology by unknown people and far older than the history books suggest. I'll settle for that. http://brienfoerster.com/ Edited December 8, 2012 by zoser 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1015 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Engineering analysis consists of more than a penlight and a camera. "Pretty damn perfect to me" is not engineering analysis. "Prove me wrong. I'm still here." You're still getting this backwards. You are the one presenting a hypothesis based on the sole fact that YOU don't believe conventional theories on how these structures were built. It's up to YOU to present some FACTS that support your hypothesis...and it has to be more than your own highly subjective view that you don't accept current theories because you are immersed in a mindlock of confirmation bias. The skeptics need to validate their claims to prove their hypothesis. So far they have proved groundless, and banal. It's not acceptable to have that nonsense as a default hypothesis. The video clips, images, testimonies are my proof. Where's the skeptics proof? Edited December 8, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1016 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Prove me wrong. I'm still here. I already have. I showed you that we have first hand accounts of Sacsayhuaman's construction and you just ignored it. Just like the AA believers. You've repeatedly been shown how such holes were created, but you just plug your ears and insist that if you can't understand it, no one can. You are inept when it comes to history. By all means, keep rambling on. Calling the lost-wax method a fantasy was the best part so far. Bravo! I'm awaiting a few more gems from your great breadth of knowledge. Edited December 8, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1017 Share Posted December 8, 2012 The skeptics need to validate their claims to prove their hypothesis. So far they have proved groundless, and banal. It's not acceptable to have that nonsense as a default hypothesis. What you fail to undertand is that the widely accepted theories are theories precisly because they have evidence to support them, unlike your quackery of "lasers, or ultra sound, or something." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1018 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Engineering analysis consists of more than a penlight and a camera. "Pretty damn perfect to me" is not engineering analysis. I never claimed it was mathematically perfect. It is however significantly better than the other picture showing the Arab's creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1019 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I already have. I showed you that we have first hand accounts of Sacsayhuaman's construction and you just ignored it. Just like the AA believers. You've repeatedly been shown how such holes were created, but you just plug your ears and insist that if you can't understand it, no one can. You are inept when it comes to history. By all means, keep rambling on. Calling the lost-wax method a fantasy was the best part so far. Bravo! I'm awaiting a few more gems from your great breadth of knowledge. Listen to Brien Foerster. He's done far more research than you or I. Listen to what he has to say. Otherwise your theories are just another of Tommy Cooper's famous tricks gone wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1020 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Listen to Brien Foerster. He's done far more research than you or I. Listen to what he has to say. From your link: Other projects, which will result in published books, include one about the ancient history of Hawaii, the mysterious stone monuments of Peru that predate the Inca, and the search for the lost continent of Mu. I'm supposed to listen to a guy that doesn't understand plate tectonics? No thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1021 Share Posted December 8, 2012 What you fail to undertand is that the widely accepted theories are theories precisly because they have evidence to support them, unlike your quackery of "lasers, or ultra sound, or something." How about the quackery of copper tubes and bows? That's far worse; at least we know that lasers and ultra sound can produce precise effects on hard rock. That's more that your conjecture proves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 8, 2012 #1022 Share Posted December 8, 2012 From your link: I'm supposed to listen to a guy that doesn't understand plate tectonics? No thanks. Brien's the man. Give it a try. Listen to his clips and hear what he has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 8, 2012 #1023 Share Posted December 8, 2012 How about the quackery of copper tubes and bows? That's far worse; at least we know that lasers and ultra sound can produce precise effects on hard rock. That's more that your conjecture proves. Brien's the man. Give it a try. Listen to his clips and hear what he has to say. Keep living in your fantasy world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted December 8, 2012 #1024 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Egads! Is that the pot calling the kettle black? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 8, 2012 #1025 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Here is another serious full time researcher who refutes the orthodox theories. I have read none of his books so I cannot say that he is an AA advocate but what he does say is that the megalithic relics were built with unknown technology by unknown people and far older than the history books suggest. I'll settle for that. http://brienfoerster.com/ The conquistadores admired Inka stonework sufficiently to employ Inka stonecutters and techniques in colonial buildings, and many of the "ancient Inka" walls in Cusco belong to the colonial period, such as this wall with carved snakes and stones in non-Incaic shapes: http://www.rutahsa.com/incaarch.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts