Abramelin Posted December 22, 2012 #2601 Share Posted December 22, 2012 From what we know about the Romans they recruited slave power by the millions. Did they also not have access to the wheel? These facts cannot be said for the ancients with any certainty. How do you know that the Inca built the precision Cuzco wall and the other megalithic precision artefacts? You cannot jump in to an argument with that kind of assumption. I have repeatedly said that the Inca built much more inferior constructions. The megalithic sites pre-date the Inca, Finally the building you showed me with the 300 tonne dome was a one off construction. I don't see evidence that they achieved it on the scale that we see in Peru and Bolivia. A one off construction will never evoke the same degree of mystery. Surely you can appreciate that. PS I have said all this before?????? And I have said that the Incas built in two ways: one was a precision way of building ( for temples and such), the other was more crude, for common housing. Just like you see in Machu Picchu. Just like was done in the European middle ages. - About Romans using slave power: what do you think the Incas did?? And Garcilaso de la Vega mentions thousands moving a heavy stone. Was he lying or what? - The building I showed was just one. But you still have not explained to me how they moved a 300 tons stone from Istria to Ravenna. They did it, and maybe only once, but they did it. It's like showing a single white crow to those who believe crows are black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 22, 2012 #2602 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Fruit juice melting andesite. Come Abe your a clever guy you can do better than that. So what are you proposing? You are lying, I never said that, I have never mentionded ''fruit juice'. All I said was that the Incas split stones, and chemically altered the surfaces of those stones. Give them a 'shine' if you want. I have been talking about acidic brews, concentrated brews containing a high amount of oxalic acid and other organic acids. Zoser, I have been a lab assistent for more than 10 years. I happen to know a bit about acids and what they can do to your body and to stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2603 Share Posted December 22, 2012 About Romans using slave power: what do you think the Incas did?? The question is what did their predecessors do? That's the really interesting question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2604 Share Posted December 22, 2012 You are lying, I never said that, I have never mentionded ''fruit juice'. All I said was that the Incas split stones, and chemically altered the surfaces of those stones. Give them a 'shine' if you want. I have been talking about acidic brews, concentrated brews containing a high amount of oxalic acid and other organic acids. Zoser, I have been a lab assistent for more than 10 years. I happen to know a bit about acids and what they can do to your body and to stones. You gave a long list of food stuffs produced in Inca time and speculated that that this is where the acids came from. What you have is a theory. I'm not convinced by it and for the very very good reason that if the Inca were able to produce great stonework by applying an acid cocktail then why in modern times do we need diamond and high speed steel cutters? Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2605 Share Posted December 22, 2012 A good clip summarising Foerster's 6 years of work into the subject: Haven;t watched it all myself yet, so will refrain from commenting for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted December 22, 2012 #2606 Share Posted December 22, 2012 He used the words: "the Romans were never associated with any 'aliens', ie, as opposed to the AA brigade who believe aliens helped humans with lazer beams and gravity defying whatnots.... Aliens built Rome too eh? and on that link is this... "Embedded in the mass of relatively explicable ancient reports, is a small set of unexplained (or at least not wholly explained) reports from presumably credible witnesses names pls? And who is making the 'presumption'? I think perhaps people are taking things too seriously again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2607 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) From what we know about the Romans they recruited slave power by the millions. Did they also not have access to the wheel? These facts cannot be said for the ancients with any certainty. So it cannot rule it out then can it? And again you cant prove it either.... now didnt the stonemason or whoever, when asked how he thought the blocks were moved...state simply...rollers...you know, things that go round and round... like wheels do funny enough.. oh and Rameses 11, the most famous pharaoh of them all...is often shown in his chariot, you know the one with spoked wheels.. so a combo of rollers and sleds were used most likely, rollers...rolling.. if they can cut and place huge blocks, invent circular saws....who knows what they had in reality? Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2608 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) I think perhaps people are taking things too seriously again. well its not 'really on' to paste a select paragraph of text, then not be able to back it up is it? too many websites on the net were born by copying lots of dubious text without research to back it up with, and if nothing backs it up, its basically a pile of BS Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2609 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) wheres the aliens in this pic? and the levitating machines? quote: "The following is an almost 3,900 year old wall painting from the tomb of Djehutihotep which displays the method they used to move a 57 ton statue: The statue is sitting on a wooden sled, which is probably being pulled along wooden runners. 176 men are pulling the statue, and there's a man on the sled pouring lubricant down onto the tracks to ease the passage of the sled. Archaeologists have discovered these ancient sleds, and we have testimony from the ancient Egyptians themselves that this is how they did it. Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2610 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Rameses 11... on a spoked wheel chariot anyway, since zoser is trying tactfully to switch subjects AGAIN, - by now harping on about cone heads, when there is already a thread on that...Its an indication of a losing argument, which Im bored stupid with I joined this post when it was about vitrification, then its was about lazer melted/polished/set stones, then the pyramids, then holes in stones... he claimed two staunch (anti alien) blokes as his witnesses and proof, coz they were in his AA vids.. then he got seriously owned when it turns out they are NOT into what he first thought... so then he twists it around and now quotes them as his backup anyway....weird.. then its about slabs that its IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT AND SHAPE....so I showed him vases made from this impossibly hard stuff.....and as has been mentioned, the goal posts always shift... and now its cone heads.. jeez... get a life! Get off the PC, breathe some fresh air you lot can carry on.... my advice will be let him talk to himself and don't post anything further.. because that's all hes doing anyway...talking to himself, without listening... especially when wrong.... Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2611 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Rameses 11... on a spoked wheel chariot anyway, since zoser is trying tactfully to switch subjects AGAIN, - by now harping on about cone heads, when there is already a thread on that...Its an indication of a losing argument, which Im bored stupid with I did say that I would be looking into another topic yesterday did I not? I'm more than happy to continue with the debate on architecture in the meantime. Instead of thinking in terms of winning and losing why not get involved in subject? Just a suggestion. I can't see the relevance of the Rameses chariot or the slave depiction by the way. You'll have to explain that one. Edited December 22, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2612 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I did say that I would be looking into another topic yesterday did I not? Instead of thinking in terms of winning and losing why not get involved in subject? Talk to the HAND zoser, or go down the pub and spread your theories among the locals...hehe... its well known that "you cannot reason with unreasonable people".......... and why dont YOU go to the other thread on cone heads and respect the OP's thread and converse there, rather than diversify here? Talk yourself blue in the face....type away like a demented person with your ever changing understandings... you've bored me silly. Have you any idea how excruciating it is trying to share info with persons like yourself? If I knew how to set up a poll page I would, and Im sure more will vote against you than for you, well your loony tune postings that is Ive come up with the facts many times, you, however just post vids... youre boring frankly.. and a waste of my precious surfing time... yawn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2613 Share Posted December 22, 2012 A major part of his research has been of the Paracus people who lived on the Peruvian coast: What he has discovered is a large number of elongated skulls were found in burial places in this area. The Paracus people however did not build precision architecture. They tended to build pyramids out of clay and sandstone. On examination of these skulls, he found that whereas we have three main skull plates (viewed from the front), called the frontal plate and left and right pareital plates seperated by bone fissures called 'suture' these elongated skulls have only two cranial plates with one suture line from left to right. The video explains: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2614 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Talk to the HAND zoser, or go down the pub and spread your theories among the locals...hehe... its well known that "you cannot reason with unreasonable people".......... and why dont YOU go to the other thread on cone heads and respect the OP's thread and converse there, rather than diversify here? Talk yourself blue in the face....type away like a demented person with your ever changing understandings... you've bored me silly. Have you any idea how excruciating it is trying to share info with persons like yourself? If I knew how to set up a poll page I would, and Im sure more will vote against you than for you, well your loony tune postings that is Ive come up with the facts many times, you, however just post vids... youre boring frankly.. and a waste of my precious surfing time... yawn... Yet your still here. I wonder who should really go to the pub? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2615 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Still on the topic of the Paracas skulls, Foerster has also noticed another anomaly which is that the elongated skulls have pronounced pareital foramen which are two holes in the back of the skull. Foerster conjectures that this has the same type of function as the jaw foramen in that it provides circulation and nerve functions to remote parts of the skull which would be needed in the case of an elongated cranium. Further supporting his conjecture that these skulls were not deformed but were the result of natural birth. I downloaded the complete footage of his seminar on skulls and some interesting facts have come to light; I recommend watching it. It's not free by the way. The displays of elongated skulls in Malta and Puma Punku have apparently been removed from public display. One wonders why. Also what caught my attention was that the 1920's archaeologist called Julio Tello who wrote much on the Paracas people failed to explore the mystery of the elongated skulls. Again one wonders why. Here is an example of a Paracas skull: Was this really the result of deformation? I cannot see how. The curvatures suggests that it wasn't achieved by prolonged pressure in one place. Edited December 22, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted December 22, 2012 #2616 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Andesite is a hard stone; and impossible to shape to that precision nursing stone age tools. Granite and diorite was done elsewhere. You're getting better with your qualifiers, I'll give you that. Protzen has demonstrated precision working including a tight joint in andesite using stone-ages tools, as you've seen with your own eyes and Stocks has done fine carving in granite with just a flint chisel. The distance from that to pumma punku's level is academic. It should be added though that both the it's culture and the Inca were chalcolithic. To clarify for all concerned for the dozenth time, andesite and diorite are chemically the same rock but differ in geological origin and thus texture, the former being extremely fine-grained and similar to basalt, the latter courser and more analogous to granite. They both work quite differently, with the finer grades of andesite being flakeable into fine points and other tools, like the basalt cobble previously shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted December 22, 2012 #2617 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Still on the topic of the Paracas skulls, Foerster has also noticed another anomaly which is that the elongated skulls have pronounced pareital foramen which are two holes in the back of the skull. Foerster conjectures that this has the same type of function as the jaw foramen in that it provides circulation and nerve functions to remote parts of the skull which would be needed in the case of an elongated cranium. Further supporting his conjecture that these skulls were not deformed but were the result of natural birth. I downloaded the complete footage of his seminar on skulls and some interesting facts have come to light; I recommend watching it. It's not free by the way. The displays of elongated skulls in Malta and Puma Punku have apparently been removed from public display. One wonders why. Also what caught my attention was that the 1920's archaeologist called who wrote much on the Paracas people failed to explore the mystery of the elongated skulls. Again one wonders why. Here is an example of a Paracas skull: Was this really the result of deformation? I cannot see how. The curvatures suggests that it wasn't achieved by prolonged pressure in one place. it is incredibly easy to manipulate the shape of a skull from infancy. merely laying a baby on its back all the time will flatten the skull with no wrapping needed. because the bone is so soft and pliable there is no reason to think that it was done any other way than by humans wrapping or otherwise restricting the skull so it grows in the shape desired. "First, many ancient societies practiced rather severe forms of cranial manipulation, mostly absent from contemporary societies. So much for ancient societies as a natural baseline! Interestingly, neurosurgeons report “there does not seem to be any obvious evidence of negative [cognitive] effect on the societies that have practiced even very severe forms of intentional cranial deformation” (Lekovic et al. 2007:1137). Second, in contemporary societies with cribs and a back-to-sleep campaign, there are infants going through “helmet treatment” to keep their heads round. Excessive use of cribs, bouncy chairs, and carseats can result in flat-headed folk. We now have to educate parents to teach their infants how to turn their heads. In other words, infants allowed to follow their natural path can end up with quite unnatural head shape." http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-skulls-boas-head-shape/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2618 Share Posted December 22, 2012 You're getting better with your qualifiers, I'll give you that. I'll take that as a compliment Mr O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2619 Share Posted December 22, 2012 To clarify for all concerned for the dozenth time, andesite and diorite are chemically the same rock but differ in geological origin and thus texture, the former being extremely fine-grained and similar to basalt, the latter courser and more analogous to granite. They both work quite differently, with the finer grades of andesite being flakeable into fine points and other tools, like the basalt cobble previously shown. That's noted and useful. Thanks. What's your background Mr O? Protzen has demonstrated precision working including a tight joint in andesite using stone-ages tools, as you've seen with your own eyes and Stocks has done fine carving in granite with just a flint chisel. The distance from that to pumma punku's level is academic. It should be added though that both the it's culture and the Inca were chalcolithic. The difference I think and what leaves investigators stunned is the mathematical precision at PP over such a vast scale. On one of his clips Foerster measures the distance between the stitch drilled holes with a vernier gauge and the tolerances are amazing. The corners are sharp, the right angles are precise, and the inlaid designs are stunning. All done over a large number of samples. Don't forget Hopkin's comments on the Puma Punku photographs. Again I have to take his work as the expert, though I do have an engineering background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2620 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) it is incredibly easy to manipulate the shape of a skull from infancy. merely laying a baby on its back all the time will flatten the skull with no wrapping needed. because the bone is so soft and pliable there is no reason to think that it was done any other way than by humans wrapping or otherwise restricting the skull so it grows in the shape desired. "First, many ancient societies practiced rather severe forms of cranial manipulation, mostly absent from contemporary societies. So much for ancient societies as a natural baseline! Interestingly, neurosurgeons report “there does not seem to be any obvious evidence of negative [cognitive] effect on the societies that have practiced even very severe forms of intentional cranial deformation” (Lekovic et al. 2007:1137). Second, in contemporary societies with cribs and a back-to-sleep campaign, there are infants going through “helmet treatment” to keep their heads round. Excessive use of cribs, bouncy chairs, and carseats can result in flat-headed folk. We now have to educate parents to teach their infants how to turn their heads. In other words, infants allowed to follow their natural path can end up with quite unnatural head shape." http://www.livingant...oas-head-shape/ That's the archaeological party line. Now what's the truth? The information you have quoted has been around for decades. Have you looked at the recent findings of Foerster? Also look at the first paragraph of post 2615. These things could well be very significant. If you can't find a picture of the pareital foramen I can find you one from Foersters clip. Edited December 22, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted December 22, 2012 #2621 Share Posted December 22, 2012 That's the archaeological party line. Now what's the truth? The information you have quoted has been around for decades. Have you looked at the recent findings of Foerster? not sure what you're saying here. what i quoted are facts that are well known about cranial manipulation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2622 Share Posted December 22, 2012 not sure what you're saying here. what i quoted are facts that are well known about cranial manipulation. Facts until about five years ago were the only ones we had. Now take a look at someone who has researched it for the last 6 years (Foerster): http://www.youtube.com/user/brienfoerster He has made quite a few clips but they are relatively short. So quick to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 22, 2012 #2623 Share Posted December 22, 2012 You gave a long list of food stuffs produced in Inca time and speculated that that this is where the acids came from. What you have is a theory. I'm not convinced by it and for the very very good reason that if the Inca were able to produce great stonework by applying an acid cocktail then why in modern times do we need diamond and high speed steel cutters? Think about it. Zooser, you are twisting my words. I have said they must have used acids to give these stones their shine, or what you think is the result of vitrification. I have explained in DETAIL how that could have been done, knowing almost 2 percent of granite consists of CaO. I even give you the fkg chemical equations. I NEVER said that they used acids to cut stones from rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted December 22, 2012 #2624 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Facts until about five years ago were the only ones we had. Now take a look at someone who has researched it for the last 6 years (Foerster): [media=] [/media]http://www.youtube.c...r/brienfoerster He has made quite a few clips but they are relatively short. So quick to watch. i watched the video. i saw a guy with a camera go into a little village 'museum' to film a skull and partial body that was found somewhere (but we can't know where - it's a secret) and this specimen has not been analysed by any experts in the field to determine anything about it. it will not be seen by any professionals because this guy knows damned well it won't hold up to the story he poses about it. sorry zoser but if you want to deny scientific findings on cranial manipulation you'll have to do better than an AA enthusiast going to some remote village which features 'finds' that are kept from mainstream science. it only adds to your noncredibility 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2625 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Zooser, you are twisting my words. I have said they must have used acids to give these stones their shine, or what you think is the result of vitrification. I have explained in DETAIL how that could have been done, knowing almost 2 percent of granite consists of CaO. I even give you the fkg chemical equations. I NEVER said that they used acids to cut stones from rock. Go and try it. Report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts