SHaYap Posted March 11, 2013 #8651 Share Posted March 11, 2013 The questions keep coming........... How do you suppose the square hole was achieved? ~SNIP No Indians wielding copper tools were ever going to achieve that. sanded in one small level at a time .... see the inner level caused problems in keeping the edges razor lined, limitations of the tools, first clue to what the tool would look like, but you're not looking for tools, you're looking for evidence of tools from the diggers of graves and tombs If they can handle their glyphs with the same detail and meticulous craftsmanship ... that crucifix hole is a piece of cake ... just takes more time and care copper or bronze tools regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted March 11, 2013 #8652 Share Posted March 11, 2013 its a video so it must be true.. this one shows how the ancients smoothed stone http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/what-the-ancients-knew/videos/what-the-ancients-knew-i-shorts-stone-cutting-tools.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted March 11, 2013 #8653 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Not liquid poured into a wooden or stone mould. More like clay moulding where pieces are removed with sharp implements, and impressions made. at last he has seen the light!! hallelujah! I must have said that a dozen times now about clay, and even found a wiki on it. But Im glad you say clay. Which totally rules out any advanced aliens doesnt it? "Another building method was called “pillow-faced” architecture. Pillow faced building was achieved by using fired adobe bricks and mud mortar. The Incas would then sand large, finely shaped stones coated in mud and clay. Then they would fit the bricks and stones together using the mud mortar into jigsaw like patterns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_architecture#Masonry_and_construction_methods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted March 11, 2013 #8654 Share Posted March 11, 2013 See above. Also see Hopkins' statements. It's over Dingo. yes.. its over zoser.. see my last post of the video link.. it kind of explains how they got the surfaces so flat.. oh what a shame that your AA theory has just been shot down once again.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8655 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) at last he has seen the light!! hallelujah! I must have said that a dozen times now about clay, and even found a wiki on it. But Im glad you say clay. Which totally rules out any advanced aliens doesnt it? "Another building method was called “pillow-faced” architecture. Pillow faced building was achieved by using fired adobe bricks and mud mortar. The Incas would then sand large, finely shaped stones coated in mud and clay. Then they would fit the bricks and stones together using the mud mortar into jigsaw like patterns. http://en.wikipedia....ruction_methods You misunderstand seeder. The stones were softened by some technology that altered their molecular state. Then pressed together to achieve the high precise fitting. That also explains perfectly the moulding marks (pock marks, trowel marks, pointing marks etc). How else is a perfect fit like this to be explained? Edited March 11, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8656 Share Posted March 11, 2013 yes.. its over zoser.. see my last post of the video link.. it kind of explains how they got the surfaces so flat.. oh what a shame that your AA theory has just been shot down once again.. What's your explanation then? Either you have one or you don't. I've provided dozens of images and explanations. Where are yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted March 11, 2013 #8657 Share Posted March 11, 2013 It's time Zoser.............................................SHUT UP!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted March 11, 2013 #8658 Share Posted March 11, 2013 What's your explanation then? Either you have one or you don't. I've provided dozens of images and explanations. Where are yours? did you bother to look at the link and watch the video? it explains it quite nicely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8659 Share Posted March 11, 2013 sanded in one small level at a time .... see the inner level caused problems in keeping the edges razor lined, limitations of the tools, first clue to what the tool would look like, but you're not looking for tools, you're looking for evidence of tools from the diggers of graves and tombs If they can handle their glyphs with the same detail and meticulous craftsmanship ... that crucifix hole is a piece of cake ... just takes more time and care copper or bronze tools regardless With what tools? All you offer is generalised guesswork. Copper would make very little impression on andesite and would fail to achieve that accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted March 11, 2013 #8660 Share Posted March 11, 2013 The stones were softened by some technology that altered their molecular state. UNBELIEVEABLE! You are a total lunatic zoser, you really are. altered their molecular state...FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8661 Share Posted March 11, 2013 It's time Zoser.............................................SHUT UP!!! It's here: What's your explanation? Do you have one? Saws? Pounders? Please state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted March 11, 2013 #8662 Share Posted March 11, 2013 It's time Zoser.............................................SHUT UP!!! I second that: SHUT UP! ANYONE GONNA THIRD IT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8663 Share Posted March 11, 2013 UNBELIEVEABLE! You are a total lunatic zoser, you really are. altered their molecular state...FFS Your alternative theory that matches the evidence is where? I have stated the only plausible theory that matches the evidence. Where is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted March 11, 2013 #8664 Share Posted March 11, 2013 did you bother to look at the link and watch the video? it explains it quite nicely Come on Dingo, you know he goes deaf and dumb if the vids are not from Forester or Dunn or the History Chanel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8665 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I second that: SHUT UP! ANYONE GONNA THIRD IT? You mean this: So you have no explanation then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted March 11, 2013 #8666 Share Posted March 11, 2013 It's here: What's your explanation? Do you have one? Saws? Pounders? Please state. drills.. chisels and bounders.. then sanding.. using a string line to check the level to make sure its perfectly flat.. there you go.. we have time and again shown proof they had those tools in those times.. where is your proof that it was not done by that? where is your proof of the tools used to do it.. oh yeah.. I forgot.. you dont have any proof.. my bad.. I keep forgetting you dont have any proof at all.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8667 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Protzen didn't manage anything like this did he? Even with steel tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted March 11, 2013 #8668 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Your alternative theory that matches the evidence is where? I have stated the only plausible theory that matches the evidence. Where is yours? our evidence is spread back through all 570 odd pages.. wheres yours.. ohh yeah.. sorry.. again.. I forgot.. like proof you dont have any evidence either.. damn I am sorry mate.. I keep forgetting I need to dumb myself down to a AA'ers level of intelligence to see what your talking about.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted March 11, 2013 #8669 Share Posted March 11, 2013 With what tools? All you offer is generalised guesswork. Copper would make very little impression on andesite and would fail to achieve that accuracy. okay now your game ... your rules YOurs is not generalised guesswork ... here If the space technology can 'easily' make these stones, that would make thousands of temples and strong home living structures every month .... where are there ? Press a button you melt the stones ... use a gadget the stones stack into a temple, wave a contraption you get 'impossible' designs cut into stones what ? a week to finish PP ? Where are the rest .... ? Should be dotting the landscape every where you care to look .... what the tools have a warranty on how many stone structures it can be used on ? Or is the 'stupid and lazy and backward' indians too backward to accept them and kept using 'primitive' tools, seeing those space tools would you even consider going back to using the tools we have today ? It was the blood and sweat and tears of the ancients ... you show much disrespect .... accuracy is not due to tools .... it is due to the man holding the tools 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8670 Share Posted March 11, 2013 drills.. chisels and bounders.. then sanding.. using a string line to check the level to make sure its perfectly flat.. there you go.. we have time and again shown proof they had those tools in those times.. where is your proof that it was not done by that? where is your proof of the tools used to do it.. oh yeah.. I forgot.. you dont have any proof.. my bad.. I keep forgetting you dont have any proof at all.. Utter garbage. Has anyone verified that by copying the claimed method. Ah yes Protzen tried didn't he. So wait: You have No proof of tooling. No proof of replication in modern or classical time. So basically if challenged nothing supports the claim that it was all the result of pounding. Even skilled engineers and stonemasons claim it was not possible. I call fail on that one for reasons above. Do you have any other theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted March 11, 2013 #8671 Share Posted March 11, 2013 accuracy is not due to tools .... it is due to the man holding the tools Sure. Here they are. Here are the builders. I give you the Aymara. Expert stonemasons from generation to generation. our evidence is spread back through all 570 odd pages.. wheres yours.. ohh yeah.. sorry.. again.. I forgot.. like proof you dont have any evidence either.. damn I am sorry mate.. I keep forgetting I need to dumb myself down to a AA'ers level of intelligence to see what your talking about.. Care to show me or just more unsubstantiated claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted March 11, 2013 #8672 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Utter garbage. Has anyone verified that by copying the claimed method. Ah yes Protzen tried didn't he. So wait: You have No proof of tooling. No proof of replication in modern or classical time. So basically if challenged nothing supports the claim that it was all the result of pounding. Even skilled engineers and stonemasons claim it was not possible. I call fail on that one for reasons above. Do you have any other theories. wrong.. wrong and wrong.. the only *cough* skilled engineers and stonemasons that claim it is not possible. .are AA believers.. strange how any group can get a 'expert' in the end that will say what they want yes we have tools.. it has been shown.. yes we have techniques.. yes it has been shown what do you have to show zoser? a picture.. thats it.. modern or classical time? ok.. how about that sarcophagus that was posted up hmmm? there is far more precise work in that then the one you keep going on.. and that was made in classical times.. we call fail on you with everything you post.. because you cant give any proof at all.. none.. you have not posted one bit of proof in all these pages on here.. as I have said.. go play with your toy cars.. watching your fantasy you tube videos.. and come back when you have actual proof and evidence.. until then.. your nothing but a sad sad person who has a very minor grip on reality.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted March 11, 2013 #8673 Share Posted March 11, 2013 never mind zoser I found it Note the shape of the brick on the left, (looks like stairs) Now why does that look like it could have come out of a mould like this edit, sorry forgot the source of the big pic above http://pumapunkutheo...hiseledrock.htm you see how he quickly swerves from challenging posts like this? How he just posts a load more - unrelated pics of different parts of the sites? he said it himself. CLAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted March 11, 2013 #8674 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Sure. Here they are. Here are the builders. I give you the Aymara. Expert stonemasons from generation to generation. Care to show me or just more unsubstantiated claims? said it before.. go back through all the pages.. its all there.. Hmm someone needs to write a Debunking Ancient Aliens Guide for Dummies.. it might make it easier for you to understand.. I think big words catch your eye.. but the meanings go right above your head.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted March 11, 2013 #8675 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Sure. Here they are. Here are the builders. I give you the Aymara. Care to show me or just more unsubstantiated claims? The Aymara, in their turn, overran and displaced Uru an older population from the Lake Titicaca and Lake Poopó regions, even as recently as the 1930s link of wikiWant to meet the rest of the family ? edit : missing link Edited March 11, 2013 by third_eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts