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

Originally posted by kroms33
You did prove my point though - and the reason that I asked you (if you can remember) is to prove my point that I originally made: That both sandstone carvings AND granite carvings exist at Puma Punku.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.

Then I guess we're even, as you proved my point about the sandstone (most of the stone is sandstone) never being mentioned by fringe authors/sites. BTW, your point needed no proof. Nobody has said that all the stones are sandstone.

Now, I did say that is was odd that many cultures around the world used ridiculously large stones with which to build. Will you now say it is odd that fringers never mention that the site is primarily sandstone?

Not odd, really. I guess what I mean is suspicious.

Re the scholarly papers. I don't think one exists online that lists every stone and what it's made of. You might find such a thing if you look at the hundreds of bibliographies online and then look up the papers at a library (or a university library.)

Of course, you should have already done this, considering your 20 years of research, assuming you were actually interested.

But, wait. That's right. In spite of 20 years, you didn't know about the sandstone until today.

Harte

Edited to add: You might find some of what you are looking for here. H.

it is a natural phenomenon on earth caused by wind and water erosion.

reply to post by TomJoad


and why are there ancient pyramids scattered across the planet? it would seem as though that part of history has been hidden or eliminated.

Originally posted by Harte

Then I guess we're even, as you proved my point about the sandstone (most of the stone is sandstone) never being mentioned by fringe authors/sites. BTW, your point needed no proof. Nobody has said that all the stones are sandstone.

Now, I did say that is was odd that many cultures around the world used ridiculously large stones with which to build. Will you now say it is odd that fringers never mention that the site is primarily sandstone?

The problem is this: I think we are on the same side - and you are looking for minuscule things in which to debate. Of course it is odd that the fringe pseudo scientists never point out the sandstone sculptures! Everyone has an agenda within this type of research it seems, including you. Pseudo scientists want to drive their point by not including many facts about what is being represented. Skeptics only seem to rely on information handed down to them from skeptical scientific sources. On both sides of the spectrum we are missing details. Many discount the cultures buried deep within these lost civilizations - or even further discount the fact that the cultures that still live in the area (or lived in the area) claim they never built the place - but yet gods of long ago did.

I have been reading a very interesting theory about "ancient concrete" which really speaks volumes. Some scientists are actually in lock step with believing that perhaps the great pyramid could have been built with it; the only thing stopping them from proving it is the bureaucracy of the Egyptian government who won't let them take a core sample of a pyramid block. So again, the hardliners stall progressive thought - which in my opinion should never happen in science.

While I DO NOT BELIEVE ALIENS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT - This video shows how ancient concrete could have been made:



REMEMBER - I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE ALIENS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!
So don't get all crazy and make some off the wall comments that are not true like you have been.

Re the scholarly papers. I don't think one exists online that lists every stone and what it's made of. You might find such a thing if you look at the hundreds of bibliographies online and then look up the papers at a library (or a university library.)

Of course, you should have already done this, considering your 20 years of research, assuming you were actually interested.

But, wait. That's right. In spite of 20 years, you didn't know about the sandstone until today.

Harte

You keep focusing on this. I knew there was limestone carvings there and it seems you are just trying to provoke me. Isn't your argument a bit off base since I originally told both of you that there was both limestone and granite structures in that area? So yes - I pointed out to you and the guy you were arguing with that sandstone and granite exists - but to better understand what is there you should go and look for yourself.
The debate has come full circle... starting back from whence it began...

So much for me trying to give some info to the both of you, which turned out with having you actually look up the information that I was right about in the first place.



Thanks for the book info though, I have been reading some of it.

Originally posted by kroms33
The problem is this: I think we are on the same side - and you are looking for minuscule things in which to debate. Of course it is odd that the fringe pseudo scientists never point out the sandstone sculptures! Everyone has an agenda within this type of research it seems, including you.

Absolutely true. My own agenda involves exposing the misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies that fringe authors have published about every topic they pontificate on, and this is one of those topics. Hence, what I know about this site lies primarily in that realm of "exposure," because there is really too much of this prevaricating going on about practically every ancient era and culture for me to be able to focus enough on one particular claim in order to become as well versed as the professionals on that one site.

I'm therefore inclined to believe the people that have spent decades on-site studying the ruins and the former occupants regarding the history of any ancient site. This is also because, every time I look, I find enough evidence of misrepresentation by the fringers to dismiss pretty much everything they've claimed.

The site of Tiahuanaco, which includes Puma Punku, has been claimed to have been as much as 14,000 years old. I know what this claim is based on, I know who originally made it (Posnansky) and how he arrived at the age. I also know how today it is known to be untrue. Lastly, I know that everytime a fringer mentions the ruins, that invalidated claim is made once again.

Obviously, the same sort of thing happens for all sorts of other fringe claims, from Vyse's "forgery" in the Great Pyramid to the "Egyptian" hieroglyphs in Australia.

Originally posted by kroms33
I have been reading a very interesting theory about "ancient concrete" which really speaks volumes. Some scientists are actually in lock step with believing that perhaps the great pyramid could have been built with it; the only thing stopping them from proving it is the bureaucracy of the Egyptian government who won't let them take a core sample of a pyramid block. So again, the hardliners stall progressive thought - which in my opinion should never happen in science.

In fact, samples have been taken and the theory has, by Geologists, been declared spurious. This is because of the layering of microfossils in the limestone.

That particular claim always seemed a little out there to me, given that such methods would have been obvious because there would be no discerning between one layer of molded concrete and the previous. No bottoms could have been on the molds, if the concrete was poured in place. How could they be removed once the concrete had solidified? If not poured in place, then what labor have the Egyptians saved or simplified by dragging concrete blocks up a ramp vs. solid limestone blocks? Also, one would reasonably expect that if blocks were poured, then there wouldn't be such variation in block size in the G.P.

Lastly, people that support the concrete theory seem not to consider the work it would take to reduce the limestone to powder and/or chips. That would cause more work than using solid limestone would.

Concrete was made by the Romans. No doubt it could have been made by the Egyptians. But I have no doubt it wasn't made by the Egyptians. At least, not for any of the pyramids. Mortar, yes. Concrete, no.

But anyway, that's off topic and I won't do that anymore.

While I DO NOT BELIEVE ALIENS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT - This video shows how ancient concrete could have been made:

REMEMBER - I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE ALIENS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!
So don't get all crazy and make some off the wall comments that are not true like you have been.

Maybe you've confused me with another. Have I claimed anything about your opinion regarding aliens?

I admit, in my initial response to you, I had you confused with the other guy who does make this claim. Sorry about that.

So much for me trying to give some info to the both of you, which turned out with having you actually look up the information that I was right about in the first place.

My point was that the info about the sandstone is always left out by the fringe. I wasn't trying to imply there was no limestone or diorite (more correctly, andesite) used at the site. How these harder stones were carved is not really as mysterious as it is made out to be, though the exact method will probably never be known.

See, diorite has been carved by people since prehistory. Did you know that Hammurabi's Code is carved on a diorite slab? The Egyptians, even in Predynastic times, made beautiful and surprisingly delicate vases out of carved diorite 4,000 years before Tiahuanaco was erected.

Moh's hardness scale is not the be-all and end-all of stonecarving. There is such a thing as "cleavage," especially in igneous stone like diorite, granite and and basalt (which was also used at Tiahuanaco.) Cleavage can be utilized by good stonecarvers. Also, the grooves on the stones there that everyone is "puzzled" about could be made with a saw, in the same way the Egyptians cut granite with a copper saw.

Harte

It is so easy, so easy to say that aliens did it. There are some definite mysteries here, but aliens do not need to be brought into it. In the case of the pyramids of Giza, most of the stone blocks are actually geopolymeric concrete, as proved by Davidovits. The remaining Tura limestone could have been worked with copper tools. The big mystery lies in how the ancient, and we have to wonder just how ancient, Egyptians cut and shaped the granite, or for that matter diorite, basalt and other hard stones which copper can not do. Christopher Dunn has proved that it MUST have been done with machine tools, but the said tools have not been discovered.

As for the cyclopean stone walls in Peru and Bolivia, I have my own theory: they were LAPPED into place, using water and abrasives. If you look at the photo on page one of this thread, and think about lapping technology, you can see just which stone was set first, which stone was lapped into it, what stone was lapped third, and so on. The only mystery, as in the missing machine tools, is in what was used to move those stone blocks forward and back to lap them into place.

As for humanity's history beginning on Mars, I have another theory: We have Earth, which always had water, but if we are to believe the very numerous deluge myths, it received, in the not-too-distant past, a lot more water. On the other hand, we have Mars, a planet which used to have water, but lost it at some point in the past. Now if we are to believe Velikovsky in that Mars and Earth came very close to one another, is it too much to assume that the Earth's gravity pulled off most of Mars' water? Do we really know what planet Noah began from??

Laz

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Christopher Dunn has proved that it MUST have been done with machine tools, but the said tools have not been discovered.

Nobody prooved anything on this line. Machine tools for the most part just speed up a job they usually do not do anything that hand tools did not do at one point. They just used coper tools and sand to cut and shape those rocks. You must remember then it was not like todays standards. If it took a month to get a 10 inch deep cut in a stone that was okay. The egytians had a large pool of laborers and a TON of time on their hands.

reply to post by Ben81


First of all, well done for putting forth an "understandable" reasoning behind these great pyramids. I would like to state one of you're quotes;

"THEY HAD A GRAVITY AND A LASER DEVICE .. its the only explanation ".

Now where is you're solid evidence to suggest that events like this such, actually occured. Well, quite plainly, there is none. Are the people on ATS meant to take you're word for it? Im not buying this. Although, if this was backed up with sufficient evidence to suggest a "device" of some kind was given to humans as a "tool" of construction, i would re-consider my thoughts.

Im also going to back up the third reply which states, quite logically, "If they had this GREAT "device" in order to immaculately carve/cut 2.6Tonn stones, then why were'nt they carved in a more "accurate" way?" Well, that would explain how this "theory" of you'res has been blown out of proportion.

I think most onliners nowadays think too hard on subjects like the great pyramids and such. I believe we will never know their "true" understanding/meaning and purpose of why they were situated. Just like most things that keep well "hidden" from the public.

Thanks,
UA

reply to post by Unstable Affliction

Im also going to back up the third reply which states, quite logically, "If they had this GREAT "device" in order to immaculately carve/cut 2.6Tonn stones, then why were'nt they carved in a more "accurate" way?" Well, that would explain how this "theory" of you'res has been blown out of proportion.

I think a better question is, if they had all of these super magic laser anti-gravity magic beams then why do we only find tools that fit the more conventional viewpoint of them being made by man with technology fitting of the time period?
Just like if you go to an auto dealership you find cars. You are not going to find horses and carriages and if you went to best buy you will find modern computers not old ENIACs.

I think most onliners nowadays think too hard on subjects like the great pyramids and such.

All the ancient alien stuff is meant to grab attention. Which one do you think is more likley to be read by the layman.
"The Hieroglyphic Alphabet"
or
"Ancient Hieroglyphic Alphabet PROOF OF ALINES"

reply to post by tonypazzohome


The same size stones would cause weaknesses along the seams. The genius in this method is what makes them almost eternal.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


But will these monuments to "modern" man still be around 5,000 years from now?

Ok just read this post then walked past the television--my son is watching Modern Marvels on the History Channel- to see NASA lifting a rocket onto the launch pad using, what I am assuming, to be hydrolics?? Not sure what the average weight is of one of these monsters, though I do know that the average weight of a Space Shuttle is 250,000 pounds. Couldn't some kind of hydrolics have been used to move some of these stones? Obviously no proof has been found of such a thing, but thought I'd throw it out there. Please don't bash me and say this is really stupid, I admit freely I have no knowledge of how things like this work, but now I am curious. Just a thought......

reply to post by Ben81


I agree that to produce these massive megalithic constructs it had to have been with the use of technology other than rope and vine and copper tools. Was it alien I don't know, was it an ancient society that was world spanning and had help maybe. I will tell you that Sacsayhuam points to some type of laser and/or heat device along with anti-gravity (or possibly mechanical devices will explain latter). Its real easy to tell, because of one thing the way the walls where put together. If you had the ability to cut rocks and move them, why cut and place in such a way as they did. I mean logic says that it would have been easier to just tell the quaryman that you need 40 blocks 10 feet by 10 feet and have him cut them and move them. What these walls look like is that someone was either in a hurry to build a fortification and/or they didn't have the full support of the civilization they lived in anymore to help in making blocks and moving them. Almost as if survivors had a few machines and was able to construct a rudimentary plasma projector and did the best they could. If you don't believe me look at a person or small group that have to build a house. If you have an infrastructure of people who know how to build a house and all the tools and supplies needed you will have a nice looking home. But if you have a few people or and not all the supplies and tools, you build as best as you can. The people who built as I said before either was in a hurry and needed a fortification asap, or they where survivors and only had enough to allow them to move and cut/melt.

I wanted to go back to the mechanical means because someone on this forum almost 2 years ago made comment about the Incas or Mayans in their legend talking about the Walking Trees. Now that could be one of two things, either they saw these beings in machines that where essentially mechs and they moved around lifting these boulders and placing them and essentially using a tool to melt the blocks the way they want. Or the people who came where giant individuals or really giants (we are hearing so much from all societies about giants this or that, there may have been giants on this planet hell the bible said that the flood wiped out a bunch of them).

Our leaders know the truth about this planet and are keeping it away from us. It's a shame, a truly big shame for them to do this. We have so much evidence that they just straight up lie and say don't believe your lying eyes. The best hiding spot for something is in plain sight, so they lie and obfuscate these structures and monuments with outlandish theories and ridicule the ones that say different. Whats the secret that they are keeping from us? Where we slaves to giants that ruled the planet and then where almost destroyed? Or is it something real simple, like humans like us aren't from this planets and we came after our planet in this system became inhospitable or was destroyed. Maybe this planet was the property of the neanderthals and other hominids and they and not us built many of these ruins and we had to scrub the fact that we are survivors who came to a strange planet and took it over.

The problem with claiming lasers is that lasers melt stone.

The faces of the stones show no melting at all.

Not only that, but the heat differential when using a laser would result in cracks in the stone which would not be conducive to construction applicaltions.

Quarrying was no doubt done by the means already explained.

Harte

Originally posted by Kadmiel
what is Stoneedge... where is this located i have never heard of it before

Been living under a rock? Looky here:
www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
and here:
www.christiaan.com...

well someone must have a sense of humour all of those years ago.
at Candi Sukuh there is a headless life size replica of a male figure holding his penis.

picture here




I wonder if the life like figure had a grin on his face !

Originally posted by diddy1234
well someone must have a sense of humour all of those years ago.
at Candi Sukuh there is a headless life size replica of a male figure holding his penis.

picture here




I wonder if the life like figure had a grin on his face !

edit on 27-1-2011 by diddy1234 because: (no reason given)

LOL... im sure in the past humans were obsessed with their reproductive organ to
and this represent a popular tradition

other sculpture are animals ... others are woman with huge breasts.. like what they do in Africa

A previous poster stated that the OP underestimated human ingenuity, i totally agree with this statement combined with the ability to harness the energy required for such feats using the black arts, so much power and so underestimated!

Is it true that after the Romans the simple technology of concrete was lost for 13 centuries? Then maybe it is possible that there are other examples of lost info through the span of human civilizations. We will feel silly when we find the simple answer right under our noses.

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

Christopher Dunn has proved that it MUST have been done with machine tools, but the said tools have not been discovered.

Nobody prooved anything on this line. Machine tools for the most part just speed up a job they usually do not do anything that hand tools did not do at one point. They just used coper tools and sand to cut and shape those rocks. You must remember then it was not like todays standards. If it took a month to get a 10 inch deep cut in a stone that was okay. The egytians had a large pool of laborers and a TON of time on their hands.

I disagree - copper tools and all the time in the world still would not leave behind stones cut to tolerances best understood by a machinist (i.e. Dunn). Dunn points out that machine tools leave a different imprint than does hand working. We know they had core drills, for instance, because of the regular shape of the cores and webs left behind, and the tool marks indicate that the feed rate was higher than modern technology can currently achieve. There is no explaining it away.