Alien helped build Puma Punku

page: 9
57
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
THANK YOU for posting a referesher. Saw this first on Ancient Aliens and while that show jumps the shark sometimes, stuff like this makes it worth watching, because much like the Giza Pyramids, Puma Punku was impossible, practically, to build back then and even today would be insanely difficult to construct. What gets me is not so much the weight of the stones (although that is amazing), but the stone work for that time and for thousands of years in the future is something that we haven't seen. The stone work really makes this stand out. Great thread, star and flag.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Came across this thread and i can not help to think there are places like Puma Punku in our world that are just amazing works of art.To tell me that these people that built this were right out of the stone ages. I myself find that hard to believe. I have not visited Puma Punku or TIWANAKU , i have seen the structures from both Egypt and Chichen Itza and in Turkey, These are remarkable structures but from the pictures of Puma Punku there is so much to be found and or discovered about these ruins. I do hope that the discovery of the tunnel under the Sun Pyramid can shed some light on the early people that had occupied these places. Maybe then some of the mystery can come to light.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Compelling that this became a great debate about the nature and accuracy of carbon dating when in reality one could state the carbon dating is very real and quite effective.. but also that it contains a variable margin of error. Now when dating things VERY VERY old that margin really doesn't much matter but when only a few thousand years is the determining factor.. then that margin leaves a pretty reasonable window of doubt.

All that aside you really cannot carbon date rocks.. or rather you can but the data doesn't really mean anything. If you carbon date these stones you'd probably find that they are millions of years old (yea rocks are pretty old). What was carbon dated would have certainly been tools or artifacts left behind.. and of course those will date in the accepted range. Unfortunately if I went there today and did a lot of digging.. and removed most datable materials(or buried them very deep as history often does) and then distributed materials here from my desk upon the ground... scientists 1000 years from now could go there and easily date my materials to within a reasonable proximity of our current date. Would that mean all of a sudden that the site was created in MY time? Of course not.. lmao.. of course not.

Carbon dating isn't really needed to determine that people lived there around AD 400.. I'm sure the local peoples could have easily confirmed this to be true.

When we look to other structures built long ago by tribal peoples in south america we see evidence of fairly advanced knowledge in matters of art, mathematics, astronomy, writing, social structure, and so forth. This inherently holds several pieces of evidence.

1.) Puma Punku does NOT seemingly show these types scientific and social advancements. In ruins of the many tribes spread all over the continent we find these advancements. We would believe that the maya could build something like this based on those things and thusly we are not surprised to find their great temples. They had the math, geometry, and the tools that would be required. Where are they at Puma Punku? Not more than small "carry-able" artifacts are found (something any human could bring from elsewhere.) Where are the massive fancy artworks, carvings, statues, and written histories we'd expect to see? That we DO see in other structures dated around or shortly after Puma Punku's so called carbon dating? Why no carving of great chief so and so on the wall and so forth? Why no statues of god what's his name riding the sun and moon?

2.) Humans.. particularly those of early man.. did not heedlessly settle anywhere... and yet why settle Puma Punku? Egyptians as a society (no matter when you contest that they "started") built their great empire around the Nile River. It provided food, water, transportation, irrigation and everything else needed for man to live. Why would humans take GREAT pains (by great I mean generation upon generation of people laboring literally to death to settle there?) There are more suitable locations even within (relatively) close proximity to Puma Punku's location. Even while making comparisons to the pyramids one must accept that while the Egyptians had a huge and powerful empire with millions of subjects upon (yes at very very harsh cost) such a thing could be built. Puma Punku would have been at MOST a city of thousands.. and those thousands would have been spread out.. with most certainly only a certain smaller percent living in the "city". This is also seen among the other ancient cultures of south america.

3.) If you take a conservative approach to this as science always does you still come to impossible numbers. These aren't the Egyptians.. we are talking a tribal people.. few in number. Of those FEW we'd find only likely a handful of master craftsmen capable of this level of work and even if you put 100% of them to working on nothing but this structure (ancient peoples rarely would have such a luxury) it would have taken them 20 generations to build. Maybe more. All so they could live for there for less generations than it took to build before departing?

The biggest issue I see with Puma Punku is not the fact that humans absolutely couldn't have built it. From a scientific/structural perspective it would have been (literally) the first wonder of the world.. but they could have done it (albeit for the life of me I can't suggest how tribesmen move a 150 ton piece of stone without a river/boats/simple machines/beasts of burden/ect (all things the Egyptians had)). But that they wouldn't do so b/c the lowlands offer much greater protection from the elements, farming possibilities, development possibilities, chances for trade, ect. That there is no modern city there is yet another piece of evidence. Here and now our ability to put a city there is greater.. the need for space greater.. and in fact cities have been built in the general area. But not there.. b/c it's a terrible place to put one even if you aren't stuck using stone age equipment to put it there.

We must use wisdom and ground level human logic to puzzle out these sorts of things.. which is why carbon dating hasn't replaced archaeology... and yet there is not ONE logical thing about Puma Punku.

If you want me to come out and speculate on how it got there.. well.. my best guess would be that it WAS built by humans.. but possibly well before the folks we credit with it's creation. My thought there is that the people who did build it had access to the types of science, tools, and equipment that would be needed to build it. We know that within a couple thousand years pretty much everything goes away except the good hard stone that now remains.

When it comes to our history we like to do exactly like physicists do.. justify one theory based on the fact that if it's true it would justify another theory which would be "close enough" to yet another theory.. and therefore all three become "fact". This is in my opinion.. utter foolery. For all we know humans as a people HAVE been on this planet for at least 100k years. If we made much advancement in the first 90k how would be even know? Literally EVERYTHING but very hard stone's like these would be dust.

We find cavemen that are frozen or petrified and date to what we feel is the beginning and then go hey.. that was the time of the cave people. Not always a solid assumption in my idea of logic. Just because a caveman was frozen sometime prior to X and WE don't see advancement Y until year Z doesn't conclusively state that man was a caveman until date Z. It just means that any who weren't are now dust.

If it doesn't hit close enough to get.. think about it like this.. if it rains Nukes tomorrow and all but the smallest pockets of humans are destroyed.. in as little as 5000 years pretty much all trace of our "grand" human existence would be gone. The achievements, knowledge, possessions, and stories of our time.. would be gone. If our few surviving descendants are as good at failing to remember the past as we are today then literally nothing would remain of our time. People would have rebooted completely save for possibly a handful of very curious relics that they simply would not be able to explain (much like us with Puma Punka.. or even the various so called antediluvian artifacts we ourselves have found upon and within.. the earth.)

To me I don't think aliens when I watch some "ancient aliens" stuff about sites like this.. I think people.. come.. and gone again. I'd say that's my 2 cents.. but it's probably closer to 20 bucks..hehe



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by madtitan

Compelling that this became a great debate about the nature and accuracy of carbon dating when in reality one could state the carbon dating is very real and quite effective.. but also that it contains a variable margin of error. Now when dating things VERY VERY old that margin really doesn't much matter but when only a few thousand years is the determining factor.. then that margin leaves a pretty reasonable window of doubt.

The margin isn't all that great. It's tiny for anything within the last 10,000 years or so. It increases for older samples.


Originally posted by madtitanAll that aside you really cannot carbon date rocks.. or rather you can but the data doesn't really mean anything. If you carbon date these stones you'd probably find that they are millions of years old (yea rocks are pretty old). What was carbon dated would have certainly been tools or artifacts left behind and of course those will date in the accepted range.

Only materials that are organic can be carbon dated. There are other dating methods for other types of samples. Thermoluminescence, for example. Stone cannot be dated by C14 analysis. Organic material under stone can be and has been at Puma Punku.


Originally posted by madtitan1.) Puma Punku does NOT seemingly show these types scientific and social advancements. In ruins of the many tribes spread all over the continent we find these advancements. We would believe that the maya could build something like this based on those things and thusly we are not surprised to find their great temples. They had the math, geometry, and the tools that would be required. Where are they at Puma Punku?

The capabilities of the people that built the site can be seen in the site itself. We know they had these capabilities for the same reasons we know the capabilities of the Maya. We see it in their architecture.


Originally posted by madtitan Not more than small "carry-able" artifacts are found (something any human could bring from elsewhere.) Where are the massive fancy artworks, carvings, statues, and written histories we'd expect to see?

As far as is known, there was no written language there. So, we see no writings.
Regarding the rest of what you consider to be missing, Puma Punku and Tiahuanaco were both robbed over centuries by natives as well as explorers. We cannot speculate as to what was once there because of this.

BTW, that is why both ruins are in such terrible shape. Stone was taken for other uses and, of course, anything valuable was stolen and sold.


Originally posted by madtitan That we DO see in other structures dated around or shortly after Puma Punku's so called carbon dating? Why no carving of great chief so and so on the wall and so forth? Why no statues of god what's his name riding the sun and moon?

Apparently, you are unaware that Viracocha appears there. You do know that Tiahuanaco and Puma Punka are at the same location, right?
Here's a link to a site with some pics of the artwork to be found at the site. It's a fringe website that is full of garbage about the dating of the site, but the (limited number) of pics are real enough.

Originally posted by madtitan
2.) Humans.. particularly those of early man.. did not heedlessly settle anywhere... and yet why settle Puma Punku? Egyptians as a society (no matter when you contest that they "started") built their great empire around the Nile River. It provided food, water, transportation, irrigation and everything else needed for man to live. Why would humans take GREAT pains (by great I mean generation upon generation of people laboring literally to death to settle there?) There are more suitable locations even within (relatively) close proximity to Puma Punku's location. Even while making comparisons to the pyramids one must accept that while the Egyptians had a huge and powerful empire with millions of subjects upon (yes at very very harsh cost) such a thing could be built. Puma Punku would have been at MOST a city of thousands.. and those thousands would have been spread out.. with most certainly only a certain smaller percent living in the "city". This is also seen among the other ancient cultures of south america.

Maybe you're unaware that the entire area around the city, for miles around, in fact, was occupied at the time.

The C14 information concerning the site includes hundreds of C14 dates for artifacts and burials found all over the entire area.

Originally posted by madtitan
3.) If you take a conservative approach to this as science always does you still come to impossible numbers. These aren't the Egyptians.. we are talking a tribal people.. few in number. Of those FEW we'd find only likely a handful of master craftsmen capable of this level of work and even if you put 100% of them to working on nothing but this structure (ancient peoples rarely would have such a luxury) it would have taken them 20 generations to build. Maybe more. All so they could live for there for less generations than it took to build before departing?

The culture that built the site lived there for more than a few generations. The site itself was only occupied for around 500 years though. It is thought that environmental changes caused the desertion. The culture had developed quite a bit - we have found an irrigation system encompassing 30 square miles in the area - indicating extensive agricultural activity


Originally posted by madtitanThe biggest issue I see with Puma Punku is not the fact that humans absolutely couldn't have built it.

This is an argument from incredulity - a logical fallacy we see all over this forum.


Originally posted by madtitan From a scientific/structural perspective it would have been (literally) the first wonder of the world.. but they could have done it (albeit for the life of me I can't suggest how tribesmen move a 150 ton piece of stone without a river/boats/simple machines/beasts of burden/ect (all things the Egyptians had)).

How is it you assume these people had no boats? They lived right on Lake Titicaca. You should also be aware that "simple machines" include ramps and levers, both of which they no doubt possessed knowledge of.


Originally posted by madtitan
If you want me to come out and speculate on how it got there.. well.. my best guess would be that it WAS built by humans.. but possibly well before the folks we credit with it's creation. My thought there is that the people who did build it had access to the types of science, tools, and equipment that would be needed to build it. We know that within a couple thousand years pretty much everything goes away except the good hard stone that now remains.

The problem is, this is a scientific impossibility given the extensive C14 information available concerning the site and the surrounding area.

Originally posted by madtitan
When it comes to our history we like to do exactly like physicists do.. justify one theory based on the fact that if it's true it would justify another theory which would be "close enough" to yet another theory.. and therefore all three become "fact". This is in my opinion.. utter foolery. For all we know humans as a people HAVE been on this planet for at least 100k years. If we made much advancement in the first 90k how would be even know? Literally EVERYTHING but very hard stone's like these would be dust.

There are thousands of artifacts dating to 100k years (and earlier) that we have found. They all indicate exactly what you've heard - stone tools and hunter-gatherer societies.

There is no assumption made about early humans concerning these things. All theories regarding early human cultures are based on artifacts found.


Originally posted by madtitanWe find cavemen that are frozen or petrified and date to what we feel is the beginning and then go hey.. that was the time of the cave people. Not always a solid assumption in my idea of logic. Just because a caveman was frozen sometime prior to X and WE don't see advancement Y until year Z doesn't conclusively state that man was a caveman until date Z. It just means that any who weren't are now dust.

You might have a point if human remains were all that we had to go on. However, there are a thousand times as many artifacts found than human remains. If we were so advanced, why were we using hammer stones to pound things?


Originally posted by madtitanIf it doesn't hit close enough to get.. think about it like this.. if it rains Nukes tomorrow and all but the smallest pockets of humans are destroyed.. in as little as 5000 years pretty much all trace of our "grand" human existence would be gone. The achievements, knowledge, possessions, and stories of our time.. would be gone. If our few surviving descendants are as good at failing to remember the past as we are today then literally nothing would remain of our time. People would have rebooted completely save for possibly a handful of very curious relics that they simply would not be able to explain (much like us with Puma Punka.. or even the various so called antediluvian artifacts we ourselves have found upon and within.. the earth.)

While you might be right about what would happen to the people, evidence of our current civilization would never, never disappear. We have found remains of huts built on beaches tens of thousands of years old. Huts. Imagine how easily we could find the remains of a roadway bed, or a foundation of a skyscraper that extends forty or fifty feet below the ground.

Harte



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Much of what you just posted is in fact theory predicated by the scientific community at large.. whom despite their "best" efforts always tend to see only the most obvious of answers. They postulate a theory and then if enough circumstantial evidence exists they consider the matter closed. This wouldn't fly in a court of law.. I assure you of that.

Your style of thought would go back 50 years and ridicule a scientist who suggests reality could be composed of more than 3 dimensions (a concept accepted as possible 100 years ago.. and then shot into foolery by Einsteins early work.) And yet we'd find the same possibility later ratified by completely different theories that are in fact extensions of Einsteins later work. How quickly fiction becomes fact and vice verse to a scientist. Now we are up to 9 dimensions.. oh wait.. 10.. ah.. sorry 11.. hmmmmm... One circumstantial theory cannot possibly ratify another and we see this time and again in the scientific community.

I'm aware of what HAS been found there.. and it's exactly what you might assume would be found given that people DID live there in more recent times. We know this already. The point is determining if those people had the means to create such a set of structures and also I suppose to muse if they would have had the desire to do so at all.

Your reasoning and those who follow the same line of thought is flawed. B/c in theory I could go there and leave enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that I personally built it... then wait 1k years or 2k.. and even more evidence of its true builders would fade while mine would remain. Scientists with no predetermined notion of where it actually came from could come to the site and apply scientific method.. postulate their theories based on said circumstantial evidence and before you know it.. I'm the builder.

I'm not saying for fact that a prehistoric culture built it.. nor am I saying that aliens helped tribals build it. Perhaps their is circumstantial evidence to support that as well.. but that's not the point. I was simply attempting to look at the situation in a logical fashion and that is the most likely scenario that I came to. I like to avoid circumstance as part of my logical process b/c logic is based on facts and circumstance changes with the wind. I simply look to other cultures of the time and attempt to ask the how and why of them.. and apply it to what we do know for certain about Puma Punka.. which is very little.

Huts? Ok so we found huts.. frozen and/or petrified cave people and some of their simple tools in various places around the world.. I'm aware. But finding someone at point A.. frozen.. then jumping fwd 90,000 years and finding another dude using similarly simple tools in some other part of the world.. and then suggesting that as evidence that no one during that time made any more progress is very full of assumption. For one even in very near to modern times we've seen divergent cultures.. where 2 peoples who've been around for the same or similar amount of time are at extreme distance from each other in cultural, artistic, and scientific development. We've also seen time and again that man does not walk the earth passing the gifts of knowledge onto other cultures freely.. but will in fact allow another race, country, culture, ect to stagnate for as long as they please.

If we look at native americans we find a hunter/gatherer/nomadic people using simple tools of wood, stone, bone, ect.. as nearly as 200 years ago. And yet we know we can jump thousands of years into ancient china and we'll find written record of advanced (nearly) modern medical practices, writing, arts, and advanced philosophical concepts. Seemingly in your way of thinking if we froze a native american for a few thousand years and someone later found him.. thawed him.. and examined his possessions.. they could scientifically postulate that only small amounts of progress had been made since caveman times. Which we know is obviously not the truth.

To be honest.. again.. I don't really know the truth. When I suggest that the site was in my opinion built by a more advanced culture prior to the squatters we are later all to aware of.. .. I suggest it b/c I thought long and hard about it and drew common conclusion to other cultures.. using both ancient and modern comparison. It was the most obvious possibility.

I will however leave you with a bit of homework. An engineer could probably help out a bit.. calculate the number of people it would take to lift a 150 ton piece of rock up the side of a mountain.. when each can lift roughly their own weight. (hint 5% of that amount cannot physically hold onto the stone at once as there is not nearly the room to grasp so we'll need rope or something.) Now calculate the the number of lamas that would have to be killed to make lama rope (such a humorous notion) in the order of giving each of those people 10 feet of rope that would be strong enough (uh.. better tribraid the stuff into huge 8-12 inch thick braids since we are literally pulling a battleship up the side of the mountain.) Now that you did that.. start over for the remaining hundreds/thousands of blocks. Ok since our math now reaches utterly foolish proportions and we haven't even reached a state where we know we can achieve it for sure.. why not consider how the math would have went for the tribals. Oh wait.... no calculators.. or paper.. I guess maybe they had an abacus with 50 million beads on it... ..or do you assume they did this without so much as planning or calculation?


edit on 9-3-2011 by madtitan because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-3-2011 by madtitan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madtitan
Much of what you just posted is in fact theory predicated by the scientific community at large.. whom despite their "best" efforts always tend to see only the most obvious of answers. They postulate a theory and then if enough circumstantial evidence exists they consider the matter closed. This wouldn't fly in a court of law.. I assure you of that.

I see.

And your claims would?


Originally posted by madtitan
Your style of thought would go back 50 years and ridicule a scientist who suggests reality could be composed of more than 3 dimensions (a concept accepted as possible 100 years ago.. and then shot into foolery by Einsteins early work.) And yet we'd find the same possibility later ratified by completely different theories that are in fact extensions of Einsteins later work. How quickly fiction becomes fact and vice verse to a scientist. Now we are up to 9 dimensions.. oh wait.. 10.. ah.. sorry 11.. hmmmmm... One circumstantial theory cannot possibly ratify another and we see this time and again in the scientific community.

What you wrote here makes no sense. Is there a typo in there?

All I did was state facts. If that upsets you, sorry.


Originally posted by madtitan
I'm aware of what HAS been found there.. and it's exactly what you might assume would be found given that people DID live there in more recent times. We know this already. The point is determining if those people had the means to create such a set of structures and also I suppose to muse if they would have had the desire to do so at all.

Your reasoning and those who follow the same line of thought is flawed. B/c in theory I could go there and leave enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that I personally built it... then wait 1k years or 2k.. and even more evidence of its true builders would fade while mine would remain. Scientists with no predetermined notion of where it actually came from could come to the site and apply scientific method.. postulate their theories based on said circumstantial evidence and before you know it.. I'm the builder.

You need to look up the C14 dates and where the samples were taken. You also need to look up C14 dating before you even mention another physicist because apparently you don't even know what it is.


Originally posted by madtitan
I'm not saying for fact that a prehistoric culture built it.. nor am I saying that aliens helped tribals build it. Perhaps their is circumstantial evidence to support that as well.. but that's not the point. I was simply attempting to look at the situation in a logical fashion and that is the most likely scenario that I came to. I like to avoid circumstance as part of my logical process b/c logic is based on facts and circumstance changes with the wind. I simply look to other cultures of the time and attempt to ask the how and why of them.. and apply it to what we do know for certain about Puma Punka.. which is very little.

If you examine the known facts concerning the site, you'll arrive at a different "logical" position.


Originally posted by madtitan
Huts? Ok so we found huts.. frozen and/or petrified cave people and some of their simple tools in various places around the world.. I'm aware. But finding someone at point A.. frozen.. then jumping fwd 90,000 years and finding another dude using similarly simple tools in some other part of the world.. and then suggesting that as evidence that no one during that time made any more progress is very full of assumption.

What's with your "frozen cavemen?"
Who's talking about that? My point was that we can find traces of some of the most flimsy human abodes, which flies in the face of your claim about all traces vanishing.


Originally posted by madtitan
To be honest.. again.. I don't really know the truth.

Well, it is obvious that at least you don't know the truth, though I've tried telling some of it to you. What is also (now) obvious is that you don't actually want to.

Harte



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Harte,

As a kind favor, please show restraint. I want to hear what YOU have to say, but your acidic tongue makes it difficult. You are well-informed. As such, you might want to become more tolerant.

The intelligent-sounding guy you most recently insulted has some excellent points and writes in a sympathetic voice. He deserves accolades for humility, not insult.

I, on the other hand, deserve insult for having nothing to say that's relevant to the topic. Let's see if you can refrain from belittling me.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by cytopath
Harte,

As a kind favor, please show restraint. I want to hear what YOU have to say, but your acidic tongue makes it difficult. You are well-informed. As such, you might want to become more tolerant.

I used to be. In fact, I the first post I made in reply was quite reasonable and tolerant.

However, the reply to that ignored the facts I provided and continued with the utter nonsense (see frozen cave men.)
In the past, I would have replied with somewhat less vitriol to this sort of situation. Not anymore. I've found that it doesn't help.



The intelligent-sounding guy you most recently insulted has some excellent points and writes in a sympathetic voice. He deserves accolades for humility, not insult.

"Insult?" No, I merely pointed out the poster's refusal to even try to understand radiocarbon dating (again, see his argument about leaving recent material at an archaeological site.) I tried to tell him but he closed his eyes and ears to the facts. Yet he continued to opine about dating a site and (in his mind) the possible errors that could ensue - not taking into account the very real C14 dates that have beern established there and in the surrounding several square miles.



I, on the other hand, deserve insult for having nothing to say that's relevant to the topic. Let's see if you can refrain from belittling me.

I wouldn't "belittle" you. I would, however, react rather strongly if you were to post a reply to one of my posts that completely ignores the established facts that I provided in the post you replied to.

Am I chastised enough, or do you feel the need to control my behavior further? LOL

Harte



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by madtitan
 


Well put my friend. I like your way of thinking. The math question goes always unanswered. And don't be discouraged by the self called debunkers.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telos
The math question goes always unanswered.

What "math question"?

Harte



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


I always hear people say this and it just does not fit. If they were more advanced then where is all of their technology ? A space ship, a cell phone anything... there are no documented finds of ancient computers.
Until there is some found then I wont believe.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Puma puncu is without a doubt the pinnacle of human civilization. However, throughout this forum there have been several inaccuracies that I would like to address.
Puma punku:
• Age: 12500 – 17000 years old
• Avg. stone weight 800 – 1800 lbs
• Location – 12900 ft. above sea level
There have been a numerous theories as to the significance of these findings; from aliens to indigenous cultures, as the creators of these ruins. There is another theory that has been proposed due to the preponderance of circumstantial evidence that has been found. Due to the numerous anomalies, and the reason that they are called anomalies is because they do not conform to the accepted current scientific dogma, is the reality of data presented by astronomers, mathematicians, electrical engineers, as well as pseudo scientist that propose that human civilization dates back to remote antiquity. The fact that the oldest structures known to man demonstrate that the “ancients” had advance knowledge comparable to anything known today, clearly detonates that human civilization dates farther back in time that what is currently known and accepted. The theory is as follows: Humanity achieved an advance state of civilization, as it is stated by the ancient Veda manuscripts in India. They had the ability of flight, space travel within the planets, as well as architectural sophistication as seen in the great pyramids of Egypt, Puma punku, Aztec pyramids, as well as other structures through the world. As a result of, perhaps, the last ice age or war as depicted in the Vedic manuscripts, human civilization came to near extinction. Remnants of people simply started over. This is the time-line currently understood by historians, archeologists, anthropologist, etc. The subsequent generations and the civilizations that came after spoke about the ancient-ones in terms of mythological characters and in their state of ignorance claim ancient stories passed down by word of mouth as their own. All the ancient knowledge was lost. All we have is the water-down stories like Plato’s Atlantis, Vedic stories etc. Monuments like the pyramids claimed by the Egyptians and incorporated in their culture depict a false human history which is promulgated by us today. There are numerous examples that may be given but I just wanted to explain the theory in a nutshell.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Sorry but I might have missed something in this thread, because I didn't really have time to read every post, but does anyone have links to precise measurements of the modular blocks scattered around the pumapunku site?
If these blocks were really created by some advanced technology I would guess the size differences between them would be minimal.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
If you've never heard of it, check out Coral Castle

It was built by one man and boasts some very heavy monolithic structures, including one of about 30 tons. It's not impossible, nor does it require "alien technology" to do so.

edit to add: the large workforce available to construct the ancient site of pumapunka would have made the task reasonably accomplishable, even if they had to transport the blocks.

A2D
edit on 2-5-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Is Viracocha and Kukulcan the same dude?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Not so sure about some of your numbers there.

First, most scientists believe that the site is 1400-1500 years old. There have been a few people who have suggested other dates (ex. Posnansky) but those have been widely rejected. Posnansky's date relies upon the exact alignment of particular statues. The problem is that these statues were moved before he examined them from when the Spanish raided the place. Some of the statues were hidden with dirt at the time that he examined them as well. Basically, his date is mostly a guess. The site has been carbon dated at 500-600 A.D. This is probably much more accurate than Posnansky's date.

Second, the largest stone is 131 tons. The second is 82 tons and the rest are much smaller. It's hard to calculate the exact weight of a stone, so there were a few previous estimates that were way off (anywhere from 400-800 tons!).

Third, yes, the stones were cut very precisely (though not perfectly...see my video down below for that), but there are several sites from that time that have similar quality stonework (the Incas, the Parthenon, Persepolis, etc). No alien theorist believes these were made by extraterrestrials.

Fourth, you can cut the andesite blocks (hardness of 7) with other things than diamonds: en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I think it is possible for humans to do this. The Tiahuanaco civilization probably had around 400,000 people at it's peak. They could have used sleds, llama skin ropes or even rolled some of the blocks on round stones and pushed them up the hill with wood as Arthur Posnansky suggested (it's interesting that one of the largest blocks there has large grooves that would be perfect for pushing with wood).

Here's a couple sources for my claims:

en.wikipedia.org...
books.google.com...=onepage&q=arthur%20posnansky&f=false
www.hallofmaat.com...

And here's the video that I made about this subject: www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
Please... if a highly advanced species decided to build something for us then why would they use rocks. I am sure they would be able to do a lot better. This is just reaching and that is all it is.


Because they last maybe?

Have you ever considered that everything we build today will eventually vanish from the face of the Earth while these temples will still be there, stating "we were here".

Also why using natural resources/elements to build stuff be considered less advanced? That makes no sense for me. They might not be practical to construct using the tech and processes we have now, but that doesn't mean it was for them. After all, we know practically nothing about how these things were built, at best we theorize.

But do you really think that building homes using nails and wood and building using concrete is more advanced? That's how most edifications are built today, and yet none of them will be here 1000 years from now if not maintained properly.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by shinydarkrai94
 


Everything is possible. But one thing always bothered me. Time.

How long would take to build a simple block like that even with thousands of people?

Would you spend your life building a block of stone that you'll never see in place as you envisioned?

I accept that humans built it, but I really think that these people knew how to make stone out of a natural mix of elements. Using molds and a mix that when dry, heated or trough some other chemical reaction would turn into stone. This would explain the perfection, the amount of detailing and would put the time factor into a plausible timeframe for a human.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
Everything is possible. But one thing always bothered me. Time.

How long would take to build a simple block like that even with thousands of people?


With a couple of good, experienced stoneworkers, about two days maybe.

Harte





top topics
 
57
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join