zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3701 Share Posted December 31, 2012 What I noticed is that you never gave a real comment (if you even did) on what that specialist had to say about the 'cone heads'. What I've noticed is that Mr O is busy denying the vitrification phenomena while Abe accepts it but attributes it to acid brews rather than heat. Maybe the two of you need to get together and agree a common hypothesis? In answer to your question: Specialists? No carbon dating or DNA has been done on them. So who is a specialist? Please tell me about them and from what authority they speak. The only specialist on the 'Cone Head' is Foerster because he is researching full time and has commissioned tests. He is looking at all the samples. Is anyone else, or are your 'specialists' just hypothesising from a distance without 'hands on' information? Any way if I recall the issue was on inter-breeding causing genetic aberrations. Correct me if I'm wrong. Let me ask you this: Why is there no precedent for this over the last 5000 years? Plenty of tribes and societies have lived undisturbed in so called isolation yet we see nothing of the sort. Other examples are: 1) Pre-dynastic Egypt 2) Malta. 3) Omsk Russia. See my earlier post: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=3060&p=4595791entry4595791 These do show very enigmatic skulls but nothing like the cone heads. So why in Paracas? What evidence is there of intense inter-breeding there compared to anywhere else in ancient time? What about the remote island communities? Again it's all so easily refuted Abe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 31, 2012 #3702 Share Posted December 31, 2012 And that's all Zoser had to offer as proof aliens were present. We all rack our brains to come up with something not from born in la-la-land, think Occam's Razor - and all Zoser does is quote from the same sites over and over again to prove his point. I find that kind of annoying: I do not just gobble up what I read, I think about it, and ... give my own idea about it, and then I combine with what I know, experienced or read elsewhere. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 31, 2012 #3703 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Thanks to this thread, I've learned more about Congenital hydrocephalus than I ever wanted to know. But then you also know the cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 31, 2012 #3704 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Refutation: Vitrification is the result of intense heat. It is a side effect of the cutting method. Nothing more. Inca artefacts show no sign of vitrification. Only precision cut artefacts show it. No vitrification has ever been found on these artefacts. It's very very easy to refute your theory. You don't take note of all of the evidence. No disrepect intended. These are common buildings. Like I have told you now a dozen times before, the Incas built like we do: we create master pieces when we build a cathedral or some other special building, and then we use bricks and cement and concrete for common houses. They were humans,just like we are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 31, 2012 #3705 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Zoser, I'd like to read your response to this post of mine: Congenital hydrocephalus may happen because of: * Bleeding in the fetus before birth. * Certain infections in the mother, such as toxoplasmosis or syphilis. * Other birth defects, like spina bifida. * A genetic defect. http://www.webmd.com...-topic-overview How much does it happen in a normal population? Not that often. But in an isolated population where the chance at inbreeding is much higher, or intentional like many ruling families did, it will also show up much more. OK, now suppose this inbreeding was intentional amongst leaders of certain tribes in Peru and Bolivia (and elsewhere), then forms of hydrocephalus may have been considered to be a sign of 'royalty' and thus became something other and healthy members of the tribe wanted for their children. So then you get two types of elongated skulls: the very large ones who were the result of a treatment of hydrocephalus using binding, and the smaller ones (like in your post with the African examples) that resulted from binding healthy skulls. Genetics of human hydrocephalus Abstract Human hydrocephalus is a common medical condition that is characterized by abnormalities in the flow or resorption of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), resulting in ventricular dilatation. Human hydrocephalus can be classified into two clinical forms, congenital and acquired. Hydrocephalus is one of the complex and multifactorial neurological disorders. A growing body of evidence indicates that genetic factors play a major role in the pathogenesis of hydrocephalus. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1705504/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 31, 2012 #3706 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Not vitrified eh? Oh yes it is. I wonder who really is holding their hands over their ears (and eyes). [...] Show analysis of vitrification, not just bogus claims "I touched it, and it felt good".Abramelin posted several times about use of chemicals (oxalic acid in particular) on the stones. Now, use of certain plants altogether with the sand may make grinding easier, and producing, as you say, "vitrified" surface. Plausible? Guess so. [...]See here: http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/ Shatters the fairy tale mainstream theories in a single stroke. Makes my job much easier I suppose. I'm too tired to bang my head into the keyboard/wall/panel, let A. Rimmer do it for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3707 Share Posted December 31, 2012 These are common buildings. Like I have told you now a dozen times before, the Incas built like we do: we create master pieces when we build a cathedral or some other special building, and then we use bricks and cement and concrete for common houses. They were humans,just like we are now. Then what about the caves? Who were they for? Commoners or royals? What about the mountain out crops that show signs of vitrification? Again only for important folk? They saved the vitrification for the special folk? Hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted December 31, 2012 #3708 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Jgirl is more interested in changing her avatar than she is the actual topic. I'm looking forward to seeing her make a technical contribution one day! C'mon, You know how it is with girls and clothes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3709 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) nm LOL By the way BF is a fellow Canadian. Or at least he lived there for many years. Edited December 31, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3710 Share Posted December 31, 2012 - post removed - A bit violent JS. Try putting together some evidence of AA from the video that you posted earlier or others like it. Try Brien (that's with an 'e' not an 'a') Foerster's channel on youtube as well. Look up Chris Dunn and check out his contributions. Better than getting annoyed. Good luck. If you want to check out my summaries of precision artefacts and skulls let me know. Zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 31, 2012 #3711 Share Posted December 31, 2012 - post removed - Are you really that uninformed. For example, Alexander Column (~600 tonnes) was erected in less than 2 hours using only man power. Did alienz helped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 31, 2012 #3712 Share Posted December 31, 2012 LOL By the way BF is a fellow Canadian. Or at least he lived there for many years. Say, what?! If he is Canadian, JGirl has to believe him?!Ok, your posts from silly turned to outright stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3713 Share Posted December 31, 2012 These are common buildings. Like I have told you now a dozen times before, the Incas built like we do: we create master pieces when we build a cathedral or some other special building, and then we use bricks and cement and concrete for common houses. They were humans,just like we are now. So have you ditched the desert varnish theory now? That was why I posted the picture of the Inca 'commoners' building. Are you saying the vitrification is all acid brew now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted December 31, 2012 #3714 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) Well in that case why not go and check out more down to earth artefacts because obviously you are much too sophisticated for this thread. Obviously nothing here for you. Try this: http://asorblog.org/...y-in-the-news-2 Or maybe you are all just hanging around just in case? This claim of debunking is totally in your mind. (This is not about you specifically WoH but if the cap fits.........) Nobody has the slightest idea of how vitrification occurs on the precision artefacts. No, they don't, do they? The only way it can be explained is with an intense directed heat source I'm just going to leave this here... http://en.wikipedia....Sodium_silicate Here is the detailed study.Read it and see for yourself. http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/ I read it, especially this part: Whilst the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified, the composition is that of a glaze. Some say desert varnish - fail.Some say polishing - fail. Some say acid - fail. Some say love, it is a river, that drowns the tender reed. Still waiting on definitive statements that these cannot produce differing surface layers. It's really extremely easy to fail every one of these desperate explanations for the simple reason that none of you are really looking at all of the evidence.The last video I posted in 3618 hasn't even been commented on never mind about debunked. Neither has may last summary by the way. So all I hear is a lot of hot air from people and nothing else. Abe is trying to make a go of it and do his best with contributions from Mr O, but all the rest seem to be offering nothing. If you are going to debunk these ideas you will have to do better than that. Just claiming that you have will not do. Maybe if some of you demonstrated more of a keen desire for the subject instead instead of flashing your ego's then you would be able to see more clearly what is being presented. Cheers. "Oh kettle, thou are black!" Exclaimed the pot. Edited December 31, 2012 by Oniomancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3715 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Say, what?! If he is Canadian, JGirl has to believe him?! Ok, your posts from silly turned to outright stupid. Now your getting angry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 31, 2012 #3716 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) Now your getting angry! Nope, just squirted a hole glass of the fine wine through my nose...Edit: did J Sands just got banned? Edit 2: BTW, zoser, can you comment on handling 600 tonnes monument? Edited December 31, 2012 by bmk1245 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3717 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Show analysis of vitrification, not just bogus claims "I touched it, and it felt good". Abramelin posted several times about use of chemicals (oxalic acid in particular) on the stones. Now, use of certain plants altogether with the sand may make grinding easier, and producing, as you say, "vitrified" surface. Plausible? Guess so. I'm too tired to bang my head into the keyboard/wall/panel, let A. Rimmer do it for me Sure. I love it when people ask me questions like that: http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/evidence-of-vitrified-stonework-in-the-inca-vestiges-of-peru/ Have a look at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 31, 2012 #3718 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) So have you ditched the desert varnish theory now? That was why I posted the picture of the Inca 'commoners' building. Are you saying the vitrification is all acid brew now? I haven't 'ditched' anything. There are a multiple processes going on here, but you failed to read up on them. The Incas used different techniques and a different accuracy to build temples and houses for the commoners, people like you and me. Zoser, I don't think you are a troll, but I DO think you are intentionally ignoring what I have posted before. I have responded to all your posts and requests, but you failed to respond to all of mine. Now why is that, eh? . Edited December 31, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3719 Share Posted December 31, 2012 No, they don't, do they? I'm just going to leave this here... http://en.wikipedia....Sodium_silicate I read it, especially this part: Whilst the spectra do not show explicitly that the surface is vitrified, the composition is that of a glaze. Some say love, it is a river, that drowns the tender reed. Still waiting on definitive statements that these cannot produce differing surface layers. "Oh kettle, thou are black!" Exclaimed the pot. And what causes a 'glaze'. Indeed what could cause the effect? Theory is still strong and holding......... Love the poetry btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 31, 2012 #3720 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Sure. I love it when people ask me questions like that: http://blog.world-my...stiges-of-peru/ Have a look at that. And the stone body is limestone. Does it have anything to do with granite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 31, 2012 #3721 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Then what about the caves? Who were they for? Commoners or royals? What about the mountain out crops that show signs of vitrification? Again only for important folk? They saved the vitrification for the special folk? Hmm That shoulld give you a hint natural processes were at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3722 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I haven't 'ditched' anything. There are a multiple processes going on here, but you failed to read up on them. The Incas used different techniques and a different accuracy to build temples and houses for the commoners, people like you and me. Zoser, I don't think you are a troll, but I DO think you are intentionally ignoring what I have posted before. No I'm not ignoring anything. I've followed you all the way. It's that nothing is very convincing and what you are doing is 'bolting' on add on theories every time I reveal some new key piece of evidence. So we now have: Some aretfacts vitrified through desert varnish; not the cruder stones because the microbes don't like that stone. Neither were these treated with acid brew because these buildings were not for special people. What about the wall at 4:55 in this clip? Looks pretty special to me yet no vitrification. Sorry I'm on the Toshiba P4 so no snapshot software so I will have to post video. Mr O; you might find this interesting too. And the stone body is limestone. Does it have anything to do with granite? Take a look at the clip above. Lots of relics there for you to check oot (sorry there goes the Canadian in me again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 31, 2012 #3723 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Zoser, please answer this post of mine: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=3690#entry4602845 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 31, 2012 #3724 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Zoser, I don't think you are a troll, but I DO think you are intentionally ignoring what I have posted before. . It's about giving enough evidence so that people just can't deny the truth any longer. Nothing to do with trolling or anything like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 31, 2012 #3725 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Take a look at the clip above. Lots of relics there for you to check oot (sorry there goes the Canadian in me again). Stop jumping from subject to subject like an ODed aardwark. Show analysis of vitrification on granite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts