Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True


Alphamale06

Recommended Posts

nopeda, on 08 January 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

I'm asking you to explain why anyone should put their faith in the possibility that it's impossible for beings from other star systems to travel to this one. If you can't do that, then you're not in any position to be critical of considering the possibility that they have, or even that they still do. Were you unaware of that?

I've never ruled out the possibility at all.

. . .

I've never said there's no intelligent life out there. Only an ignoramus would make such a claim. However, given that there's no evidence for any ancient visitation (at all,) then it follows that postulating that there has been none is perfectly logical. Not that I expect you to recognize this basic and absolutely undeniable fact.

If you believe it IS possible for beings from other star systems to travel to this one then please say so specifically because there are people who believe it's not possible, and you ACT LIKE you're one of them. That being the case I'd like to have a quote of you saying otherwise in your own words.

IMO the majority of what is discussed in this thread IS evidence that xts have been here, whether they have been or not. That being the case, your claim that there is no evidence tells me you're either completely clueless and unable to think about this topic in a realistic way, or you're dishonestly claiming you can't recognise any of the evidence that's being discussed right in front of you and sometimes BY YOU. Not know which is actually the true situation it makes a person in my position wonder whether you're more clueless or dishonest, and of course it makes me wonder which would be worse? Would it be worse if you really are that clueless :huh: or if you're being deliberately dishonest. Most likely the truth is the latter imo btw, whether it's better or worse.

Edited by nopeda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"you are ignorant of all aspects of real space travel" - you

"you know nothing of the world around you" - you

"lives with his head in the clouds and thinks movies are fact" - you

"your deliberate ignorance" - you

"Your are an embarrassment to yourself" - you

"You are a troll" - you

"you know I do not like you " - you

"You are a forum joke" - you

"You are a joke, a living one " - you

"I find you just a horrible person" - you

:lol:

I find you to be a horrible person too :yes: bullshiit dude. You bullshiit and you think very very small. You insult people, and then try to pretend you don't.

What's not to think is horrible about you? Nothing :no: afaik

Well I can add to that without upsetting the moderators or using offensive language.

If you look carefully, psyche never quotes anything technical. He specialises in defaming forum users instead.

Last time I checked he didn't know Sacsayhuaman from down town Sydney.

He thought that Puma Punku was an 80's pop band.

To be quite honest I haven't responded to him for months.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If one accepts"

"looks like"

"as if"

"almost looks like"

That's an uncommon number of qualifiers for a supposedly factual "conclusion"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at it logically, there is no other satisfactory explanation to explain these mould marks. They are occur with such regularity and size at Sacsayhuaman that they are clearly not natural, and too deep to be caused by anything other than some object that pushed into the stones while they were soft.

Click to zoom.

as was mentioned in the video clip you obviously didnt watch or didnt listen too, molds were not used, if they were used, youd see the same shape and same sized rocks everywhere. Thats what happens with molds...everything looks the same...

but in all these pics, every stone is a different size and shape... meaning... if molds were used, they made a new one for each stone...looking at it logically of course..

which didnt happen., as rocks cannot be melted

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are all things that you have posted in this thread. (Newcomers, this is no joke. Zoser actually used these to plead his case).

It never freezes in Peru.

What? Where? When did he say this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember these ancients were supposed never to even have the wheel.

No wheels, no pulleys, no steel tools, and most likely no furnaces hot enough to melt steel or anything else requiring that much heat. It's amazing things like that don't matter to these people who try to act as if they're really thinking about it. They're not :no: and can't. Maybe that's the whole problem? If those rocks were softened up in place as it appears, then they had to have something that could penetrate. IF they used some sort of chemical which seems unlikely they would have to have made it penetrate very deeply in order to produce the end result. But how could they, and then how could they remove it before it caused TOO MUCH melting? How could they transport a chemical that melts rock IF they could manage somehow to produce it? How can people insist ancient humans with no wheels or pulleys or steel or high heat furnaces managed to do all that, without having any clue at all how they possibly could have? While at the same time totally rejecting the possibility that the beings ancient humans TELL US came around during that time, helped people with projects it seems impossible they could have done on their own?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But whatever wall you and I post, Zoser, you will have noticed that on many stones in those walls you'll see (at least) two protuberances near the bottom edge.

That you don't see them on all stones is because after placing the stones, using the levers I mentioned earlier, they chopped off those things.

You can't move these with levers Abe. Think of the height problem. Utterly impossible.

3690246-massive-stones-in-inca-fortress-walls--sacsayhuaman--cusco-peru-south-america.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't move these with levers Abe. Think of the height problem. Utterly impossible.

further proof you didnt watch the video clip..which shows...RAMPS... still in place leading to the top of the structures...RAMPS! PROOF!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Where? When did he say this?

Prove that they hauled the blocks over ice in Peru. If you can I'll listen

Otherwise your just trying to discredit again which is all the skeptics here do when they lose an argument. That is all seeders video clip is as well by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing you skeptics have had on your side all through this debate is sheer weight of numbers. There have been dozens and dozens of you, sometimes rotating in shifts to maintain not a valid counter argument but denial.

The only slightly credible counter argument was Abe's chemical theory. Some of you even deny that! That no melting took place at all. At least Abe acknowledges the melting evidence.

Never can denial compete with solid visual evidence and established physical principles. I'm amazed that you thought it would.

:lol: Much of what they do is amazing in its absurdity. Some would even deny there's any evidence of xt influence at all, when the majority of what's discussed in this thread IS the very evidence they're denying. Really for some people acknowledging the evidence they're arguing about would be a starting line for them, as pathetic as that fact is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

further proof you didnt watch the video clip..which shows...RAMPS... still in place leading to the top of the structures...RAMPS! PROOF!

No way Jose.

Utter garbage and fairy tale nonsense. Show me the ramps the Peruvians used at Sacsayhuaman.

How does a ramp work up a mountain?

Explain that one.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If one accepts"

"looks like"

"as if"

"almost looks like"

That's an uncommon number of qualifiers for a supposedly factual "conclusion"

Despite the language, all he's done is used simple observations. I have to say they are totally correct. Those stones are definitely moulded. How can it be otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wheels, no pulleys, no steel tools, and most likely no furnaces hot enough to melt steel or anything else requiring that much heat. It's amazing things like that don't matter to these people who try to act as if they're really thinking about it. They're not :no: and can't. Maybe that's the whole problem? If those rocks were softened up in place as it appears, then they had to have something that could penetrate. IF they used some sort of chemical which seems unlikely they would have to have made it penetrate very deeply in order to produce the end result. But how could they, and then how could they remove it before it caused TOO MUCH melting? How could they transport a chemical that melts rock IF they could manage somehow to produce it? How can people insist ancient humans with no wheels or pulleys or steel or high heat furnaces managed to do all that, without having any clue at all how they possibly could have? While at the same time totally rejecting the possibility that the beings ancient humans TELL US came around during that time, helped people with projects it seems impossible they could have done on their own?

Totally agree Mr N.

Yet it appears some here have a selective blindness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at it logically, there is no other satisfactory explanation to explain these mould marks. They are occur with such regularity and size at Sacsayhuaman that they are clearly not natural, and too deep to be caused by anything other than some object that pushed into the stones while they were soft.

Click to zoom.

3690246-massive-stones-in-inca-fortress-walls--sacsayhuaman--cusco-peru-south-america.jpg

Nonsense. They're all shallow enough to be made by a stone chisel or hammerstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zoser, you have completely failed at every debate you've had in this thread. You have been shown to be lacking education time and time again. When real evidence is given, you just skip over it and refuse to comment on it.

You'll never win the debate with rhetoric. I told you that. I'm totally immune to discrediting attempts.

Either face the argument on the basis of the evidence I will assume that you have nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense. They're all shallow enough to be made by a stone chisel or hammerstone.

And why would they go around making pock marks in stones? More nonsense Mr O. They were clearly accidental not deliberate. Pock marks that deep and regular are not accidental sledge hammer marks. Plus the ridges, and grooves tell the same tale not just the pock marks.

Oh I forgot they never had sledge hammers anyway did they?

:blush:

Look again.

They were stamped in soft material. Look closely.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the language, all he's done is used simple observations. I have to say they are totally correct. Those stones are definitely moulded. How can it be otherwise?

Observations predicated on two biased assumptions, that they look like they could've been molded and that conventional handwork is "unreasonable", that last compounded by an apparent misconception or misrepresentation as indicated by the use of the word hacking.

You have been shown alternate methodologies, one in action, and offered nothing in return except argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove that they hauled the blocks over ice in Peru. If you can I'll listen

Otherwise your just trying to discredit again which is all the skeptics here do when they lose an argument. That is all seeders video clip is as well by the way.

Not ice, think frost weathering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way Jose.

Utter garbage and fairy tale nonsense. Show me the ramps the Peruvians used at Sacsayhuaman.

How does a ramp work up a mountain?

Explain that one.

How does a ramp work up a mountain? I think you'll find most buildings are built on FLAT land... and even up mountains there are flat plains.. look at your own pics ..grr

ramps:

post-135078-0-39132300-1357847264_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1000 YEARS before PumaPunku...

a thousand years before....think about it... and yet no-one thinks...ALIENS!

A much better structure showing MUCH MORE advanced stone work than anything in peru!!

post-135078-0-84360600-1357847713_thumb.

Edited by seeder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why would they go around making pock marks in stones?

Same reason they left the lugs. What's the difference between an inny and an outy? They're in exactly the same place on the bottom and sides, with almost exactly the same spacing.

More nonsense Mr O. They were clearly accidental not deliberate. Pock marks that deep and regular are not accidental sledge hammer marks. Plus the ridges, and grooves tell the same tale not just the pock marks.

Oh I forgot they never had sledge hammers anyway did they?

:blush:

They were stamped in soft material. Look closely.

Really. Over and over again exactly the same way in exactly the same spots from block to block, right where a levering point would be. Another one of these amazing coincidences you guys are so fond of.

Bring 'em on. You'll just prove the point for me yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words and I have certainly found that to be true.

In Clay:

zoser47_zpseb30e77c.jpg

zoser48-1_zps2e0037c2.jpg

In stone:

zoser49-1_zps4698625b.jpg

In Clay:

zoser52-1_zpsd1a42090.jpg

In stone:

zoser53-2_zpsded11c91.jpg

In clay:

zoser54-2_zps6fe30827.jpg

In Stone:

zoser55_zpsec8a9a80.jpg

In clay:

zoser56_zpsc3b69deb.jpg

zoser57_zpsa10cd38d.jpg

In stone:

zoser58_zpsf6439cc1.jpg

Irrefutable proof of moulding.

Not hammer or pounding marks.

Heat.

How does a ramp work up a mountain? I think you'll find most buildings are built on FLAT land... and even up mountains there are flat plains.. look at your own pics ..grr

ramps:

post-135078-0-39132300-1357847264_thumb.

And Ollyantaytambo? Check it out.

Remember my advice was for you to look at all the evidence. Not selected pieces.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1000 YEARS before PumaPunku...

a thousand years before....think about it... and yet no-one thinks...ALIENS!

A much better structure showing MUCH MORE advanced stone work than anything in peru!!

post-135078-0-84360600-1357847713_thumb.

Reason that no one is interested in Greece?

No precision architecture to compare with Peru or Egypt. Very simple. Show me how the Greeks did a Cuzco wall?

:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.