It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pyramids, Baalbek, Stonehenge, Sacsayhuamán...How was it done ? .. Answer: Alien tech

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen

What about the this-

from puma punku

"The stones in Puma Punku are made up of granite, and diorite, and the only stone that is harder that those two, is the diamond. If the people who built this place cut these stones using stone cutting techniques, then they would had to have used diamond tools. "


Your quote fails to state that most of the stones at PumaPunku are red sandstone.

Don't you wonder why they never tell you this?

Harte




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Well, since I have never been to Puma Punku - I don't know the exact make up of the stones so I went and googled "Puma Punku granite," I also did the same for "Puma Punku sandstone."

While I know the internet is not the best resource of materials to prove a point, the only other suggestion is to actually take a trip there and do some analysis of the stone types.
Anyhow...
It would appear that there is perhaps a variety of both types of stone that was used in the vicinity. So, technically you are both right in your summations. Mostly though - it is made of red sandstone (according to some links).

Even if these megalithic structures were made of the softest stones on earth - the mystery still remains how they were able to maneuver and manipulate such massive objects. These stones range in weight from 30-440 tons - a feat that we would fail at in our very own technological status.

Aliens? I don't think so... pre-historic technology? perhaps.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Well these stone structures dont rust and are earthquake resistent. Plus they dont have to bother with mining iron, smelting, casting.just saying.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by Harte
 


Well, since I have never been to Puma Punku - I don't know the exact make up of the stones so I went and googled "Puma Punku granite," I also did the same for "Puma Punku sandstone."

While I know the internet is not the best resource of materials to prove a point, the only other suggestion is to actually take a trip there and do some analysis of the stone types.

However, there are many scholarly papers about the site available online, and the information about the sandstone (which, again, is curiously never mentioned by the fringe) was actually quite readily available to you, was it not?

Can't we take the fact that the sandstone is never mentioned by pseudoarchaeologists as meaning they don't want us to know this basic and easily verifiable fact?

And if that's the case, isn't it reasonable to speculate that the reason they don't tell us this is because they want to overstate the difficulty of the carvings?

And if that's true, what else are they deliberately misleading us about?


Even if these megalithic structures were made of the softest stones on earth - the mystery still remains how they were able to maneuver and manipulate such massive objects. These stones range in weight from 30-440 tons - a feat that we would fail at in our very own technological status.

Another completely baseless (and false) claim usually made by the fringe. Such construction is easily within the capabilities of the modern age. It's the financing that won't work for us, not the stone.

Harte



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Yes .. i have heard about the red stones .. what does it mean ... they were made on Mars ?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
reply to post by Harte
 


Yes .. i have heard about the red stones .. what does it mean ... they were made on Mars ?


Sandstone is very soft, that's what it means.

Harte



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Ben81
reply to post by Harte
 


Yes .. i have heard about the red stones .. what does it mean ... they were made on Mars ?


Sandstone is very soft, that's what it means.

Harte


ok maybe some monuments were made out of these soft stone
but take a look at the Sacsayhuamán wall .. and those huge perfectly carved stone are in hard granit
you cant even fit a piece of paper in a crack

only this proof the existence of alien advanced tech



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by Harte
 


Well, since I have never been to Puma Punku - I don't know the exact make up of the stones so I went and googled "Puma Punku granite," I also did the same for "Puma Punku sandstone."

While I know the internet is not the best resource of materials to prove a point, the only other suggestion is to actually take a trip there and do some analysis of the stone types.

However, there are many scholarly papers about the site available online, and the information about the sandstone (which, again, is curiously never mentioned by the fringe) was actually quite readily available to you, was it not?

Can't we take the fact that the sandstone is never mentioned by pseudoarchaeologists as meaning they don't want us to know this basic and easily verifiable fact?


Ok, so - I noticed that you didn't state any sources. I looked and didn't find any papers detailing the composition of the stones in question, but rather little blurbs about the various aspects of it. Please do direct me, and post some links to these papers - as I really would love to read them.



Even if these megalithic structures were made of the softest stones on earth - the mystery still remains how they were able to maneuver and manipulate such massive objects. These stones range in weight from 30-440 tons - a feat that we would fail at in our very own technological status.

Another completely baseless (and false) claim usually made by the fringe. Such construction is easily within the capabilities of the modern age. It's the financing that won't work for us, not the stone.

Harte


I am absolutely astonished. I am not working with the fringe, but I do work in the construction field. Our cranes that we use to build the skyscrapers and the cities we live have a weight limit well below 30 tons.
Ground cranes (not tower cranes) can only lift about 18 metric tons (39690 pounds), and that is well out of the safety boundaries allowed. Tower cranes (attached to the physical structure of the building) can lift even less because of the counter weight ratio compared to lift weight ratio. Funny thing is, we use powered machinery for their operation - not manpower.

What are you basing your arguments off of?

Show me a building in which we have used anything near the weight of these Puma Punku stones - this of course being once single solid piece of material either metal or stone. You won't find it. Tell me, since you believe that we are well within the capabilities of building a megalithic structure how we would lift a 100+ ton stone and use it in the mechanics of a building.

The more I read what you type - it seems that you are not speaking from any type of experience or knowledge but rather follow the guidelines of baseless skepticism.

What I have stated is fact - I have worked in the construction field for 10 years - I have been on sky scrapers and even have been in parks down town installing granite and marble slabs for fountains. What we work with today is very much more minuscule than our ancestors worked with. Figure in the transportation of the ginormous stones that weigh 340 or more tons and their placement (or even 30 tons!) - we as a civilization do not have the capability to lift and transport it even if a billionaire was funding the project. The technology just isn't there.

So, yeah - I am calling you out, please inform us all how we would be able to accomplish such feats? (and don't forget about those scholarly papers about the make up of the stones)

Thanks!
Kroms33



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 


What about the big Baalbek stone LOL twelves hundred tons




look the diagonal position .. this thing was lifted to fit in a wall or was ready to fit but something stoped it
maybe a was break out before they could finish the wall




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


I know about all of these stones, what I am trying to convey is that even the smallest megaliths have some engineering features that we can not replicate. According to the academics many people choose to use for drowning out other theories - humanity was in the stone age 12,000 years ago and could not have the knowledge to build such structures because there was no wheel, mathematics, nothing... just stone tools. Well, the megalithic compound of Gobekli Tepe throws all of that out the window now doesn't it? Why would people still believe the same aspect applies to other massive megalithic structures?

So, the arguments that are being pushed at us that we could achieve such feats as Baalbek are so unfounded it is ridiculous.

We just don't have the technological know how.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
"Calling me out?" LOL

Look, this is a wall, not a skyscraper.

Neither the stones in South America nor the ones in Lebanon had to be "lifted" in the way a crane lifts.

Both are examples of stones being moved uphill, not straight up into the sky. Where's the hill? It was artificially created and then removed.

Except, the Baalbek stones were actually moved downhill by the Romans and put in place. Not a single one had to be "lifted" at all, though they likely had to be moved up and down over some terrain along roads built by the Romans to smooth the path.

The size is not the thing at many Mesoamerican constructs. It's the way the stones were fitted that's amazing.

Harte



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


moving a 1200 tons granit block would destroy every roads lol and will keep going though the ground
what is incredible is the perfection of the carved stone
2 different incredible things we have here

to move it
and the cutting part

its insane



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
So, the arguments that are being pushed at us that we could achieve such feats as Baalbek are so unfounded it is ridiculous.

We just don't have the technological know how.

You are absurd.



It is sometimes claimed that the Thunder Stone is the "largest stone ever moved by man." This stone was not only tremendously large, but was also effectively moved 6 km (4 miles) overland to the Gulf of Finland by manpower alone; no animals or machines were used.

SNIP

Its dimensions before being cut, according to the fall 1882 edition of La Nature were 7 x 14 x 9 m. Based on the density of granite, its mass was determined to be around 1500 tonnes.[8]

SNIP

The Roman Stone of the Pregnant Woman in Baalbek is measured at around 20.5 m x 4–5.3 m x 4.2 m high, putting its mass at ca. 1,000 t.[9] Unlike the unfinished obelisk, it was taken out of its quarry, but still sits on an angle not far from the site of its extraction.[citation needed] Once again, this is smaller than the initial mass of the Thunder Stone.

Source

A stone 150% the size of the one that wasn't put in place at Baalbek was dragged four miles overland in 1768, but "we can't do this today?" LOL.

Foot in mouth.

Harte



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I think you are just behind in your research, just read up. Those things were man made no aliens involved. The problem has been is that the mystery of egypt has been marketed more that the history of egypt, just go get a modern book. Jut like easter island was a mystery for a loooong time until latter they found out that easter island used to be forrested so they would have been able to make all types of things to move the statues.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Look, this is a wall, not a skyscraper.


Skyscrapers use walls and deep foundations, same building concept. The 'wall' at Baalbek is part of a larger construct is it not? The walls of Baalbek were used to construct temples on top of them. The same usage of technology applies. Archeologists also state that the temples at Baalbek were built on top of much older ruins:
Wikipedia states:
"The history settlement in the area of Baalbek dates back about 9000 years, with almost continual settlement of the tell under the Temple of Jupiter."

This is where much of the large stone blocks that we can not lift (nor could the Romans lift/move) are at.
If you look at the Roman construction, you will notice they use much more smaller blocks for their building - looking at the base of the structure - the foundation of the temple, we see these massive 300 ton blocks that were there from the previous peoples. These foundation structures were even in place when Alexander arrived in 334 BC, and named the place "Heliopolis from helios, Greek for sun, and polis, Greek for city."



Neither the stones in South America nor the ones in Lebanon had to be "lifted" in the way a crane lifts.

Both are examples of stones being moved uphill, not straight up into the sky. Where's the hill? It was artificially created and then removed.

Except, the Baalbek stones were actually moved downhill by the Romans and put in place. Not a single one had to be "lifted" at all, though they likely had to be moved up and down over some terrain along roads built by the Romans to smooth the path.

The size is not the thing at many Mesoamerican constructs. It's the way the stones were fitted that's amazing.

Harte


So, archeologically we would see this site taking hundreds of years to build - and we just don't. What we do see on an archeological level is this: 9,000 years of a human population in the same place and structures that have been build up on top of and used as a foundation for both the Romans and Greeks.

You speak of these roads built by the Romans to transport these 300 ton blocks - yet that again is speculation because there is no data that can support that claim. Funny thing: we see no evidence that there was a road from the quarry to the temple at all. I have been researching and writing about this subject matter for about 20 years now (yeah, no joke). Perhaps I am missing something - but from all my research all that turns up is again this mystery of there being no quarry road.

There is also no data to support the massive amounts (megatons) of earth that would have been needed to accomplish what your theory is stating. We would see dig sites for the transportation of this dirt - because, well that is a heck of a lot of dirt! Funny thing: we see no evidence that there was a road from the quarry to the temple at all.

Lets just say your theory about the Romans constructing it is correct - why did the Greeks put so much reverence into this place also? It has been there a very long time, there is no disputing that. People and their civilizations just built on top of the massive megaliths that already existed... if you look at the pictures you can see where the megalithic culture built, and the Greeks/Romans built - you don't have to be an architect or engineer to see it.

Also, about the Meso-American enigma that we see: Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that this megalithic building capability is global? According to you and some scholars people just decided out of the blue to build things out of massive stones. Even though I am an American citizen, I was actually *interviewed by Italian TV about the site of Chichen Itza - I told them that the society was mathematically ahead of Europe, and the construction technology involved was beyond what the Europeans were building in that time period.

*No, I am not a expert that was intentionally interviewed, I was at the site the day they were filming and they approached me. They did use my interview though


I have been to Mexico, seen the wonders of their ancients and I am completely convinced that ancient human ingenuity surpassed ours in our pre-historic past.

I do find it very humorous that people use the scientific methods only if it conveniences their beliefs, other than that they throw it out the window. In most sciences a+b = c, except archeology. We have stories of ancient cities that were told by our ancestors that have been used as a guide to find obscure sites, but yet the stories they tell are dismissed. Why? It is my belief that what the ancients (Egyptians for example) are telling us is something completely different from what we are interpreting. We are discounting their beliefs but focusing on their writings with a western approach. That would be like me handing you the directions to build a car engine in Arabic with no schematics and expecting superb results.

I don't believe it was AA's that gave us any of this technology of the past, nor do I believe in these New Age prophecies or beliefs. I am looking at it from the perspective of applied science, but taking a step back and analyzing the culture and technology that was left for us to see. Using these methods shows without a doubt that we have no clue on how they built these massive structures since we have no clue on how to build them ourselves.

BTW, I am still waiting on those scholarly papers that discuss the stone composition at Puma Punku.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


See, you are just being argumentative for no reason. I never said we couldn't move them - I said we couldn't build buildings with them. Moving them is another story. I don't have to insert my foot in my mouth because you still haven't come to a viable conclusion on how exactly you would build such a megalithic structure with such precision using our current equipment.

You are seriously stretching your arguments to match your beliefs. Sad really.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


why did you post that? You know by the end of the week there will be a thread about how the ancient aliens injected men with super powers to give them the strength to move giant rocks for their personal amusement.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by Harte
 


why did you post that? You know by the end of the week there will be a thread about how the ancient aliens injected men with super powers to give them the strength to move giant rocks for their personal amusement.


lol

i think a device was used to manipulate gravity around the rocks
and a special beam to cut the rocks

humans with superpowers ?

i know only those 2


Messmer and Gary Kurtz ... Masters of the brain .... how can that be possible ? REAL POWERS



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
There is also no data to support the massive amounts (megatons) of earth that would have been needed to accomplish what your theory is stating. We would see dig sites for the transportation of this dirt - because, well that is a heck of a lot of dirt! Funny thing: we see no evidence that there was a road from the quarry to the temple at all.

The earth moving I mentioned is a way to "lift" large stones, a method known to be used by the Egyptians as well with their obelisks. Please note, no such earthworks would be necessary for the Baabek site because the stones were lowered, not lifted, and arrived on-site at or above their present elevation.


Also, about the Meso-American enigma that we see: Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that this megalithic building capability is global?

Yes.



BTW, I am still waiting on those scholarly papers that discuss the stone composition at Puma Punku.

A few:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 4 (not scholarly, from NOVA)
Source 5
Source 6

I realize some of these are abstracts only, and you might have to pay (or at a minimum, register) for the full paper, but many are there in full.

There are a great many bibliographies online that list titles you can find at various libraries (usually in scientific journals) or on JStor. With JStor, you have to be affiliated with an institution or on a computer at an institution (or library) that is affiliated in order to download the complete paper.

If, as you say, you've been researching this for twenty years, it is absolutely amazing that you need me to give you these well-known resources.

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by Harte
 

why did you post that? You know by the end of the week there will be a thread about how the ancient aliens injected men with super powers to give them the strength to move giant rocks for their personal amusement.


So true! LOL

Hope I'm not making things worse!

1500 tons moved by 400 men and these people wonder how Mesoamericans moved stones weighing a third of this with the VAST majority of stones less than a tenth of this weight?

Harte



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   


The earth moving I mentioned is a way to "lift" large stones, a method known to be used by the Egyptians as well with their obelisks. Please note, no such earthworks would be necessary for the Baabek site because the stones were lowered, not lifted, and arrived on-site at or above their present elevation.


I understand what you are saying in the regards to using the earth - and that is why I am saying it would have taken megatons of earth to accomplish, and we just don't see the areas used for digging and transporting these massive amounts of dirt to the site.

Also - the method used by the Egyptians to erect their obelisks is actually theory as they never wrote or explained how they put them up. I do believe that they did build mounds of dirt and used leverage in the way that you are saying - but it has never been proven as the exact method they used.

This is kind of my point. If we were architecturally on par with the Egyptians or the megalith builders - we wouldn't have to question and test their methods of building since we would already know exactly how they did it.




A few:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 4 (not scholarly, from NOVA)
Source 5
Source 6

I realize some of these are abstracts only, and you might have to pay (or at a minimum, register) for the full paper, but many are there in full.

There are a great many bibliographies online that list titles you can find at various libraries (usually in scientific journals) or on JStor. With JStor, you have to be affiliated with an institution or on a computer at an institution (or library) that is affiliated in order to download the complete paper.

If, as you say, you've been researching this for twenty years, it is absolutely amazing that you need me to give you these well-known resources.


I went through each and every link that you gave me, and let me congratulate you for completely wasting my time. My original argument was that the some of the stones were made of granite and some of sandstone - go back and look what I wrote. I than stated that the only way you would know with 100% accuracy is to check it out for yourselves.

The only article discussing the stone make up was a PDF that brushed on exactly what I have said sandstone and granite were used:
"Substantial cramps of various shapes once pieced together
the enormous sandstone slabs used in the construction of the
four platforms at Pumapunku"
and
"composed of large dressed granite stones engraved with basreliefs"

and that is it.... nothing else.

You did prove my point though - and the reason that I asked you (if you can remember) is to prove my point that I originally made: That both sandstone carvings AND granite carvings exist at Puma Punku. You did exactly that.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join