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.

 

HC's Ancient Aliens episode "Aliens and Ancient Engineers" kicked *SS!!!

page: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gravytrain
As far as your claim that a 1500 ton stone was never moved. It is true, however:

The Unfinished Obelisk, Aswan, Egypt. - Measures 120-feet (42m) and would have weighed over 1,168 tons when complete.

The baalbak stone: Measures 20.9m x 4.8m x 4.2m = 421.344m³. The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
Therefore the approximate weight of this stone is 1158.696 tons

Not 1500 tons-true, but still extremely impressive, and I invite you to show me how exactly these stones would be moved. Please. If you are an engineer as you claim to be. I would love to see what your 'theory' is on how these stones were moved, because without mechanized machinery or even iron, It is quite simply impossible given the laws of physics and the materials available at the time.


Just to put 1168 tons into perspective; a typical fullsize American car from the 1970s weighed about 2 tons (e.g., a late 70s Chevrolet Caprice or Ford Crown Victoria; i.e. typical police cars of the era). That would be 584 of them at once, like so - Image link.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil

Originally posted by Harte
Address points?

You have presented no points.


"Points" is yet another word you don't get to redefine. Everything you dodged in my previous post was a point, and by dodging them, you conceded them, by default.


The show you use for a reference (which you still refuse to quote) is providing you with untrue information. The information is untrue on the face of it sometimes, other times it is untrue by implication - meaning they haven't told you the entire story.


Why do you need a quote? Anyone who watched the show with an understanding of what the word "evidence" means knows that there was a lot of [circumstantial] evidence presented. Hell, some parts of the video alone (without any audio) is evidence.

The video is only evidence of existence of this or that physical object. Do you believe that evidence that a thing exists is evidence of alien influence or of ancient advanced (but now lost) civilizations?

The things presented in the show are :
1) complete falsehoods
and
2) incomplete portions of known facts
and
3) mischaracterizations of known facts.

None of the above can serve as evidence of anything.

Anyone with any understanding at all of what evidence means understands that a lie is only evidence of one thing - the dishonesty of the liar.

Harte



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil

Originally posted by gravytrain
As far as your claim that a 1500 ton stone was never moved. It is true, however:

The Unfinished Obelisk, Aswan, Egypt. - Measures 120-feet (42m) and would have weighed over 1,168 tons when complete.

The baalbak stone: Measures 20.9m x 4.8m x 4.2m = 421.344m³. The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
Therefore the approximate weight of this stone is 1158.696 tons

Not 1500 tons-true, but still extremely impressive, and I invite you to show me how exactly these stones would be moved. Please. If you are an engineer as you claim to be. I would love to see what your 'theory' is on how these stones were moved, because without mechanized machinery or even iron, It is quite simply impossible given the laws of physics and the materials available at the time.


Just to put 1168 tons into perspective; a typical fullsize American car from the 1970s weighed about 2 tons (e.g., a late 70s Chevrolet Caprice or Ford Crown Victoria; i.e. typical police cars of the era). That would be 584 of them at once, like so - Image link.


The Stone of the South (aka the Stone of the Pregnant Woman) is the stone that was never placed - the largest stone associated with Baalbek.

It's estimated to weigh 1,000 tons. Not 1,168.

A fine point, I know.

If you want to know how the Romans placed the three large stones that were placed at Baalbek (aka the "Trilithon,") I suggest you use the search function. The poster Hanslune, along with other posters, addressed this in a thread about Baalbek.

Harte



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The video is only evidence of existence of this or that physical object. Do you believe that evidence that a thing exists is evidence of alien influence or of ancient advanced (but now lost) civilizations?


An image (or direct observation) of massive, irregular-shaped stones fitting together like a 3D jigsaw puzzle is evidence of various things. From a certain perspective it is circumstantial evidence pointing to alien intervention. The reason that some people believe this circumstantial evidence points in that direction is that it not publicly known to have been demonstrated that humans can do it at all, much less with primitive tools.


The things presented in the show are :
1) complete falsehoods
and
2) incomplete portions of known facts
and
3) mischaracterizations of known facts.

None of the above can serve as evidence of anything.


Oh, I see. They must have CGI'd the images, right? In reality there are no extraordinary ancient structures at all; they are just brick and mortar or something else that is equally simple to build, is that correct?

In other words, you have not established your 1, 2, and 3; and even if you do establish them, they at best will only partially apply; rather applying to everything on the show as you claim.

You've already lost this argument. Your original claim is that there is no evidence of ancient alien visitation. To debunk that claim, only one piece of evidence (of any type) needs to be shown (see above).

Again, circumstantial evidence by its very nature is not conclusive evidence, i.e., it doesn't prove anything. That's because it inherently has more than one possible explanation. That means that something can be evidence for two or more completely different conclusions at the same time. Depending on who's drawing the conclusion, the irregular stone structures can be evidence of alien intervention or evidence of human ingenuity at the same time.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil

Originally posted by Harte
The video is only evidence of existence of this or that physical object. Do you believe that evidence that a thing exists is evidence of alien influence or of ancient advanced (but now lost) civilizations?


An image (or direct observation) of massive, irregular-shaped stones fitting together like a 3D jigsaw puzzle is evidence of various things. From a certain perspective it is circumstantial evidence pointing to alien intervention. The reason that some people believe this circumstantial evidence points in that direction is that it not publicly known to have been demonstrated that humans can do it at all, much less with primitive tools.

Not recently, no.

But the Spanish observed it being done when they came to the New World, or so they said.


The things presented in the show are :
1) complete falsehoods
and
2) incomplete portions of known facts
and
3) mischaracterizations of known facts.

None of the above can serve as evidence of anything.



Oh, I see. They must have CGI'd the images, right? In reality there are no extraordinary ancient structures at all; they are just brick and mortar or something else that is equally simple to build, is that correct?

The fact that an observer doesn't have the knowledge base to understand how a thing was constructed (or simply refuses to entertain any mundane idea of how the thing was constructed) is evidence of the attitude taken by the observer. It says nothing about the thing itself.


In other words, you have not established your 1, 2, and 3; and even if you do establish them, they at best will only partially apply; rather applying to everything on the show as you claim.

I will establish all three the instant you post what it is in the the show that you believe to be evidence.


Your original claim is that there is no evidence of ancient alien visitation. To debunk that claim, only one piece of evidence (of any type) needs to be shown (see above).

This is correct. However, this evidence has yet to be posted.

I'm not talking to Giorgio here. I'm talking to you.


Again, circumstantial evidence by its very nature is not conclusive evidence, i.e., it doesn't prove anything. That's because it inherently has more than one possible explanation. That means that something can be evidence for two or more completely different conclusions at the same time. Depending on who's drawing the conclusion, the irregular stone structures can be evidence of alien intervention or evidence of human ingenuity at the same time.

No evidence proves anything. Evidence can only indicate, not prove.
This is why in criminal court the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" for conviction.

The fact that humans can make irregularly shaped stones is well established. However, the "fact" that aliens can do so is unestablished.

By your logic, one could just as easily claim that irregularly shaped stones in walls are evidence that unicorns used their horns to shape stone.

What your claim in the last quote above actually means is that everything is evidence for an infinite number of theories.

Harte



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
But the Spanish observed it being done when they came to the New World, or so they said.


What did they say, exactly?


The fact that an observer doesn't have the knowledge base to understand how a thing was constructed (or simply refuses to entertain any mundane idea of how the thing was constructed) is evidence of the attitude taken by the observer. It says nothing about the thing itself.


No one has the "knowledge base to understand how [the] thing was constructed". The best that anyone can do is look at the evidence and draw a conclusion. No one is alive today that built the thing or saw it being built; they would be the only ones who could know how it was built.

Many people have looked at the evidence and have come to a different conclusion than you. Your disagreement with their conclusion does not magically render the evidence non-evidence.


I will establish all three the instant you post what it is in the the show that you believe to be evidence.


There's no need for you to establish them, because I have already established that those three things you listed at best can only partially apply (they most certainly don't apply to the various images of the structures). A single image of an extraordinary structure can be used as evidence to draw various conclusions, including ancient alien intervention; and that alone refutes your "no evidence" claim.


This is correct. However, this evidence has yet to be posted.


I've already posted it, multiple times now. For example:

"A single image of an extraordinary structure can be used as evidence to draw various conclusions, including ancient alien intervention; and that alone refutes your "no evidence" claim."


I'm not talking to Giorgio here. I'm talking to you.


How's the weather out there in left field?


No evidence proves anything. Evidence can only indicate, not prove.
This is why in criminal court the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" for conviction.


Conclusive evidence does in fact prove:

"conclusive evidence

Definition

Preponderant evidence that may not be disputed and must be accepted by a court as a definitive proof of a fact."

However, with regard to the question of who built the things and how, there is no conclusive evidence to prove any conclusion.

The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard is something that was simply decided upon by the government. They could have just as easily required conclusive evidence to secure a conviction, but then there would be far less convictions.


The fact that humans can make irregularly shaped stones is well established. However, the "fact" that aliens can do so is unestablished.


Except there is far more to building such structures than simply making irregularly shaped stones. If that was all there was to it, then nature could build such structures, since it has made countless irregularly shaped stones, though I'd be willing to bet that it has never made two or more of them of megalith proportions that have been lifted into place and fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Show me a demonstration that establishes that humans can do such a thing with primitive tools.

It could be done today if you had a 3D scanner big enough to scan an irregularly shaped megalith, and CAD machinery big enough to cut another megalith to the forty-eleven thousand dimensions needed to recreate the inverse of the irregular shape of the first megalith so that it mated with it like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.


By your logic, one could just as easily claim that irregularly shaped stones in walls are evidence that unicorns used their horns to shape stone.


No, because there are other factors that come into play for the alien conclusion. A big arrow that points in the direction of aliens (rather than something random like unicorns) is that so many ancient cultures flat out claimed that aliens were here. Additionally, significant intelligence is required, and many people believe that technology far beyond what was available at the time was also required.


What your claim in the last quote above actually means is that everything is evidence for an [unknown] number of [possible] theories.


Fixed. As I've said before, circumstantial evidence inherently has more than one possible explanation. The number is not infinite because there is inherently a limit to the number of theories that are possible given the evidence.
edit on 9/8/2011 by MaximRecoil because: ETA



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil

Originally posted by Harte
But the Spanish observed it being done when they came to the New World, or so they said.


What did they say, exactly?

I'll find this for you sometime. As soon as you give me specific evidence.


The fact that an observer doesn't have the knowledge base to understand how a thing was constructed (or simply refuses to entertain any mundane idea of how the thing was constructed) is evidence of the attitude taken by the observer. It says nothing about the thing itself.



Originally posted by MaximRecoil
No one has the "knowledge base to understand how [the] thing was constructed".

As I said, the Spanish observed some of this type of construction taking place. They conscripted the masons for some of their own construction because of it.


Originally posted by MaximRecoil
Many people have looked at the evidence and have come to a different conclusion than you. Your disagreement with their conclusion does not magically render the evidence non-evidence.

So, you think speculation = evidence?


I will establish all three the instant you post what it is in the the show that you believe to be evidence.


Originally posted by MaximRecoil
There's no need for you to establish them, because I have already established that those three things you listed at best can only partially apply (they most certainly don't apply to the various images of the structures). A single image of an extraordinary structure can be used as evidence to draw various conclusions, including ancient alien intervention; and that alone refutes your "no evidence" claim.

Again, speculation, not evidence.


This is correct. However, this evidence has yet to be posted.


Originally posted by MaximRecoilI've already posted it, multiple times now. For example:
"A single image of an extraordinary structure can be used as evidence to draw various conclusions, including ancient alien intervention; and that alone refutes your "no evidence" claim."

Which "extraordinary structure are you referring to? The existence of construction that the observer has no knowledge to explain can be used as the springboard for speculation. Not evidence.


Originally posted by MaximRecoil

I'm not talking to Giorgio here. I'm talking to you.

How's the weather out there in left field?

Giorgio has presented what he thinks is evidence. You have not.
You are dodging my question - what do you consider to be evidence of alien intervention? Please be specific.


Originally posted by MaximRecoil

No evidence proves anything. Evidence can only indicate, not prove.
This is why in criminal court the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" for conviction.

Conclusive evidence does in fact prove:
"conclusive evidence
Definition
Preponderant evidence that may not be disputed and must be accepted by a court as a definitive proof of a fact."

"By a court," meaning "beyond reasonable doubt." Again.


Originally posted by MaximRecoil

By your logic, one could just as easily claim that irregularly shaped stones in walls are evidence that unicorns used their horns to shape stone.


No, because there are other factors that come into play for the alien conclusion. A big arrow that points in the direction of aliens (rather than something random like unicorns) is that so many ancient cultures flat out claimed that aliens were here.

Which ones claim aliens have been here? How many "ancient" cultures claimed unicorns exist?
There is far more "evidence" (the way you use the word) for unicorns in the past that aliens in the past.

Harte



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I'll find this for you sometime. As soon as you give me specific evidence.


I already did. The structures themselves are evidence, as I've said multiple times now.


As I said, the Spanish observed some of this type of construction taking place. They conscripted the masons for some of their own construction because of it.


You still haven't provided a source for that claim so I can see what was actually said by the Spanish. Also, where are the Spanish structures built by the conscripted masons that are comparable to e.g. Sacsayhuamán?


So, you think speculation = evidence?


It is incredible that you still don't know what the word evidence means. Theories, hypotheses, speculation, etc., may proceed forth from evidence; they are not the evidence itself.


Again, speculation, not evidence.


Again, you're confused with regard to the meaning of the word "evidence".


Which "extraordinary structure are you referring to?


Did you forget that we have been talking about irregularly shaped stones, some of megalith proportions, fitted together like a 3D jigsaw puzzle?


The existence of construction that the observer has no knowledge to explain can be used as the springboard for speculation. Not evidence.


Speculation proceeds from inconclusive evidence. Circumstantial evidence is an example of inconclusive evidence.

Speculation: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

Also, I'll repeat that it is clear that you still don't know what the word evidence means, since you are still using the word incorrectly (see above).


Giorgio has presented what he thinks is evidence.


I don't know who "Giorgio" is or why you are mentioning him. Like I said, how's the weather out there in left field?


You have not.


That's demonstrably false. Here it is once again:

"A single image of an extraordinary structure can be used as evidence to draw various conclusions, including ancient alien intervention; and that alone refutes your "no evidence" claim."


You are dodging my question


False (see above).


- what do you consider to be evidence of alien intervention? Please be specific.


And for about the dozenth time:

"A single image of an extraordinary structure can be used as evidence to draw various conclusions, including ancient alien intervention; and that alone refutes your "no evidence" claim."


"By a court," meaning "beyond reasonable doubt." Again.


(lol) Yes, "proof of a fact" is indeed beyond reasonable doubt; well beyond reasonable doubt; to the point of zero doubt in fact.

By the way, "conclusive evidence" is not solely a legal term, and even as a legal term it does not only apply to criminal cases where "beyond reasonable doubt" is in effect. It applies to e.g. contract law.


Which ones claim aliens have been here?


Nearly all of them (e.g. "gods from the sky").


How many "ancient" cultures claimed unicorns exist?


You tell me.


There is far more "evidence" (the way you use the word) for unicorns in the past that aliens in the past.


Or so you say. Of course, unicorns don't fit, due to their lack of opposable thumbs, much less advanced technology and intelligence. Aliens fit because they are often described as human-like in appearance, and they are often said to have created things, as well as taught man various things (metallurgy is one example off the top of my head).

Also, "the way I use the word" is according to its definition. The way you use the word is apparently according to some private mystery definition that only you are privy to.
edit on 9/9/2011 by MaximRecoil because: typo



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil
You still haven't provided a source for that claim so I can see what was actually said by the Spanish. Also, where are the Spanish structures built by the conscripted masons that are comparable to e.g. Sacsayhuamán?

No source?

Please. Your source is a bogus crockumentary and you want a source from me?

You won't even provide this "evidence" you've been squawking about.

Whether you know it or not, rather whether you want to know it or not, much is known about how the Inca built their masonry. Tiahuanaco and Pumapunku as well.



So, you think speculation = evidence?


It is incredible that you still don't know what the word evidence means. Theories, hypotheses, speculation, etc., may proceed forth from evidence; they are not the evidence itself.

This:

A single image of an extraordinary structure can be used as evidence to draw various conclusions, including ancient alien intervention; and that alone refutes your "no evidence" claim

describes speculation upon observing a thing the observer knows little about. No evidence is involved when one speculates about how a thing was constructed without even examining the thing itself.


Which "extraordinary structure are you referring to?



Originally posted by MaximRecoil
Did you forget that we have been talking about irregularly shaped stones, some of megalith proportions, fitted together like a 3D jigsaw puzzle?

You mean the walls at several Incan sites?
Here's a nice pdf with a few details about Incan construction, comparing it to that found at Tiahuanaco.

"Construction techniques" appears on page 11

Note the evidence of the use of pounding stones at both sites, and chisels at Tiahuanaco.

Alien chisels, I suppose.


The existence of construction that the observer has no knowledge to explain can be used as the springboard for speculation. Not evidence.



Speculation proceeds from inconclusive evidence. Circumstantial evidence is an example of inconclusive evidence.

Speculation: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

Also, I'll repeat that it is clear that you still don't know what the word evidence means, since you are still using the word incorrectly (see above).

If you want to know what evidence actually is, read the suggested portion of the PDF.


Giorgio has presented what he thinks is evidence.



Originally posted by MaximRecoil
I don't know who "Giorgio" is or why you are mentioning him. Like I said, how's the weather out there in left field?

Giorgio is the wild-haired wonder that told you about how the aliens built these things. He's a former sports journalist who has worked for Erik VonDaniken for the last several decades.


Which ones claim aliens have been here?


Nearly all of them (e.g. "gods from the sky").

Please list some cultures that you believe claimed that their gods "came from the sky."
The Incans had no such belief.

There is far more "evidence" (the way you use the word) for unicorns in the past that aliens in the past.


Or so you say. Of course, unicorns don't fit, due to their lack of opposable thumbs, much less advanced technology and intelligence. Aliens fit because they are often described as human-like in appearance, and they are often said to have created things, as well as taught man various things (metallurgy is one example off the top of my head).

Where's your source - I mean original source - describing how aliens looked to these people from our past?
Aliens are often "said to have created things, as well as taught man various things?" And this is said by whom?

Humans have opposable thumbs, right? How do you know that aliens do? More of your "evidence?"


Also, "the way I use the word" is according to its definition. The way you use the word is apparently according to some private mystery definition that only you are privy to.

See the evidence before you claim to have seen evidence.

Harte



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

No source?

Please. Your source is a bogus crockumentary and you want a source from me?


So you think my source for the existence of these ancient structures is a documentary? Is that a joke? Are you seriously trying to dispute that the structures exist?


You won't even provide this "evidence" you've been squawking about.


You've made this claim enough times, and I've corrected you enough times, that at this point it is clear that you are simply being disingenuous.


Whether you know it or not, rather whether you want to know it or not, much is known about how the Inca built their masonry.


Nothing is known about how the Inca built their masonry. There is a lot that is believed however.


This describes speculation upon observing a thing the observer knows little about. No evidence is involved when one speculates about how a thing was constructed without even examining the thing itself.


Your problem is still that you don't know what the word evidence means, which has been your problem since your post that I originally replied to. You also don't seem to have much of a grasp on the word "speculation". Once again:

Speculation: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

As far as examining the thing goes, it has already been examined and the information is readily available; not to mention that you can see most of what you need to know from pictures.


You mean the walls at several Incan sites?


I've already given the example of Sacsayhuamán. Speaking of which:

"The Incas told the Spaniards that they weren't the ones who built Sacsayhuamán, but "the giants". In their mythology there were huge people living in the Cuzco area and they carried the huge stone blocks and put them together."

Also:

"The Tiwanaku believed that Viracocha created giants to move the massive stones that comprise much of their archaeology, but then grew unhappy with the giants and created a flood to destroy them"

If that is true, then that is another piece of evidence (i.e., testimony) that non-humans built those structures.


Note the evidence of the use of pounding stones at both sites, and chisels at Tiahuanaco.

Alien chisels, I suppose.


What of it? Is anyone claiming that humans didn't do any stone work themselves at all?


The existence of construction that the observer has no knowledge to explain can be used as the springboard for speculation. Not evidence. If you want to know what evidence actually is, read the suggested portion of the PDF.


I already know what evidence is. You are the one who has misused the term several times (which I've pointed out, see above in various places).


Giorgio is the wild-haired wonder that told you about how the aliens built these things.


It is nice that you're on a first name basis with him, but he didn't tell me anything. I've been skeptical that humans could build such structures with primitive tools from the first time I saw pictures of them ages ago. I've yet to see it proven that it can be done by humans with primitive tools (a simple demonstration would do).


Please list some cultures that you believe claimed that their gods "came from the sky."
The Incans had no such belief.


Regardless of where the Incas thought their gods came from, they were not believed to be Earth-born humans, thus, aliens. For example, they believed that Viracocha was the creator of the universe, thus, an alien by default. There are also accounts of deities teaching things to the Incas, such as Mama Ocllo teaching Inca women to spin thread.


Where's your source - I mean original source - describing how aliens looked to these people from our past?


I said, "they are often described as human-like in appearance". There are countless examples, and I wasn't referring to any one of them in particular, which is why I worded it the way I did. As far as a few examples go, Mama Quilla (Incan) "was envisaged in the form of a beautiful woman". There are also examples in the Bible, such as the angels that could pass for humans in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and that the elohim created man in their own image.


Aliens are often "said to have created things, as well as taught man various things?" And this is said by whom?


Nearly all ancient cultures had a creator god(s), and I've already given an example of a deity teaching man something. Other examples can be found in the book of Enoch (the "watchers" taught men metallurgy, among other things), or the Bible itself (God taught Noah to build the ark, taught the Israelites to build the Ark of the Covenant, among other things).


Humans have opposable thumbs, right? How do you know that aliens do? More of your "evidence?"


Is that another joke? I've already stated, "they are often described as human-like in appearance".
edit on 9/10/2011 by MaximRecoil because: ETA



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 

Ancient Aliens is the most moronic show on Earth. Theres a simple 3 point formula to making a AA episode:

1. Find some ingenuity on the part of ancient man and claim man was too stupid to do it.
2. Misinterpret some ancient artwork in modern contexts involving aliens
3. Boom! Aliens did it.
It's sad to see the number of people who believe it.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil

No source?

Please. Your source is a bogus crockumentary and you want a source from me?


So you think my source for the existence of these ancient structures is a documentary? Is that a joke? Are you seriously trying to dispute that the structures exist?

Not at all. Just saying your source is a jokey, lying entertainment program with no credibility whatsoever.
Well, that and an uncited wiki quote you "forgot" to link to.


The Tiwanaku believed that Viracocha created giants to move the massive stones that comprise much of their archaeology, but then grew unhappy with the giants and created a flood to destroy them[citation needed].

Source

Problem is, you've been misled by your own desitre to believe, since the above quote is in fact not talking about the stones in the structures, but the stones found lying around the area by the natives, which they then used in their structures:


According to the myth recorded by Juan de Betanzos,[3] Viracocha rose from Lake Titicaca (or sometimes the cave of Pacaritambo) during the time of darkness to bring forth light.[4] He made the sun, moon, and the stars. He made mankind by breathing into stones, but his first creation were brainless giants that displeased him. So he destroyed it with a flood and made a new, better one from smaller stones.[5]

The footnote [5] from the above quote:

"Viracocha". Bloomsbury Dictionary of Myth. Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd., London. 1996. www.credoreference.com... Retrieved 2009-02-10.

Source


Nothing is known about how the Inca built their masonry. There is a lot that is believed however.

As far as examining the thing goes, it has already been examined and the information is readily available; not to mention that you can see most of what you need to know from pictures.

So, decided not to read the pdf then?


Also:

"The Incas told the Spaniards that they weren't the ones who built Sacsayhuamán, but "the giants". In their mythology there were huge people living in the Cuzco area and they carried the huge stone blocks and put them together."

If that is true, then that is another piece of evidence (i.e., testimony) that non-humans built those structures.

Now you're coming to realize it, I see.

You should have said "If that is true" before all your fringy claims.

It is, of course, not true.


I have heard Indians state that the Incas made the great buildings of Cuzco in the form they had seen in the rampart or wall one can see in this village [of Tiaguanaco].2

That's from the chronicler Pedro de Cieza de Leon, from 1553, only 26 years after the fist contact between the Spanish and the Incans and only 20 years after the Spanish captured Cuzco.

Pretty much shows what the Incans said to the Spanish, anyway.
plus:

Sacsayhuaman was built in the 15th century during Pachacutec and Tupac Yupanqui’s ruling. Its construction lasted over a decade.

Source
And:

Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (or Pachacutec) was the ninth Sapa Inca (1438-1471/1472) of the Kingdom of Cusco

Source

The Inca, then, actually indicated to the Spanish that the site had been constructed only around seventy to eighty years prior to the Spanish arrival at Cuzco.


Note the evidence of the use of pounding stones at both sites, and chisels at Tiahuanaco.
Alien chisels, I suppose.


What of it? Is anyone claiming that humans didn't do any stone work themselves at all?

So, the aliens left the most delicate and difficult work to the humans? The very work that you and your ilk claim the natives were incapable of?

Or do you merely insist that humans couldn't have moved the stones?


The Thunder Stone is sometimes claimed to be the "largest stone ever moved by man". This stone was large and heavy; it was effectively moved 6 km (4 miles) overland to the Gulf of Finland by manpower alone; no animals or machines were used. Transported by barge up the Neva River, it reached St. Petersburg. The entire effort is considered an historic engineering feat.

snip

Based on the density of granite, its mass was determined to be around 1500 tonnes.

source
As I said, a great deal is known about the Inca and their construction methods, as well as Tiahuanaco.

Of course, you don't want to know this. But that doesn't make it unknown.

Harte



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Not at all. Just saying your source [which is the existence of certain structures] is a jokey, lying entertainment program with no credibility whatsoever.


Fixed, and yeah, that makes sense (lol). Since you still aren't getting it, my "source" is not the TV show, given that I haven't quoted anything they said. My source is the evidence, i.e., the tangible structures that they happened to film and discuss. Is that clear?


Problem is, you've been misled by your own desitre to believe,


Consider your laughable psychobabble / crystal ball-reading attemp to be dismissed, for obvious reasons.


since the above quote is in fact not talking about the stones in the structures, but the stones found lying around the area by the natives, which they then used in their structures:


Irrelevant, given that it is still evidence (in the form of testimony) of ancient alien visititation, which refutes your claim that there is none. This is one of many pieces of evidence.


So, decided not to read the pdf then?


Consider your second crystal ball-reading attempt dismissed, for obvious reasons. Also, you should familiarize yourself with the definition of the word "known". There are few events from ancient history that are known to be true.


Now you're coming to realize it, I see.


Say what?


You should have said "If that is true" before all your fringy claims.


I haven't made any "fringy" claims.


It is, of course, not true.


Nothing that you quoted establishes that no Incan ever told a Spaniard that Sacsayhuamán was built by "giants". Either way, it doesn't matter, because there are countless testimonies (testimonies are in fact evidence) of ancient alien visitation. You can find a lot of them in the Bible alone. Each and every one of those testimonies refutes your claim that there is "no evidence" of ancient alien visitation.



So, the aliens left the most delicate and difficult work to the humans? The very work that you and your ilk claim the natives were incapable of?


Given that I never claimed nor implied any such thing; nor would that logically follow from anything I said; consider your strawman dismissed.


Or do you merely insist that humans couldn't have moved the stones?


I am skeptical of the idea that anyone could mate irregularly shaped megaliths together precisely with primitive tools. None of the explanations I've seen impress me because they don't account for how the irregularity of the surface of the third dimension of one stone is precisely duplicated in the stone that has to mate with it. This is the part that you can't e.g. trace onto the other stone in order to have a guide for cutting. If the walls were paper thin (making the individual pieces 2D for all intents and purposes), then it would be relatively easy to do.


The Thunder Stone is sometimes claimed to be the "largest stone ever moved by man". This stone was large and heavy; it was effectively moved 6 km (4 miles) overland to the Gulf of Finland by manpower alone; no animals or machines were used. Transported by barge up the Neva River, it reached St. Petersburg. The entire effort is considered an historic engineering feat.

snip

Based on the density of granite, its mass was determined to be around 1500 tonnes.


That is rather different than an irregularly shaped stone that has to be lifted into place, and also has to have its irregular dimensions somehow documented so that the inverse of them can then be somehow be applied to another big stone that has to mate precisely with it.


As I said, a great deal is known about the Inca and their construction methods, as well as Tiahuanaco.


Nothing is known about their construction methods aside from the end results that still exist to be viewed today (pay close attention to the bolded word, and think about what it means).


Of course, you don't want to know this.


You can consider your third crystal ball-reading attempt to be dismissed.


But that doesn't make it unknown.


It is unknown because there is no conclusive evidence for how the walls were built.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil

Nothing that you quoted establishes that no Incan ever told a Spaniard that Sacsayhuamán was built by "giants". Either way, it doesn't matter, because there are countless testimonies (testimonies are in fact evidence) of ancient alien visitation. You can find a lot of them in the Bible alone. Each and every one of those testimonies refutes your claim that there is "no evidence" of ancient alien visitation.

Here's what you stated:


"The Incas told the Spaniards that they weren't the ones who built Sacsayhuamán, but "the giants". In their mythology there were huge people living in the Cuzco area and they carried the huge stone blocks and put them together."


I showed you exactly what the Incas told the Spaniards, and it completely conflicts with the above.

In addition, there was no Incan belief that the "giants" built anything.

Obviously, you don't care to find out the truth of this matter. I mean, it's easily verifiable. Yet you continue to insist.

The above quote about the Incas is simply not true, i.e. it's a lie.

Yet you still consider it evidence.

You are a very sad case.




So, the aliens left the most delicate and difficult work to the humans? The very work that you and your ilk claim the natives were incapable of?


Given that I never claimed nor implied any such thing; nor would that logically follow from anything I said; consider your strawman dismissed.

Your statement:


Did you forget that we have been talking about irregularly shaped stones, some of megalith proportions, fitted together like a 3D jigsaw puzzle?

Tiahuanaco is one such "3-d" puzzle, albeit only a portion of it (including some of Pumapunku.)

I showed you these stones were carved by human beings.

So, where is the evidence of alien intervention? Are you saying humans can carve them and place them but can't understand an interlocking series of stones?



Or do you merely insist that humans couldn't have moved the stones?

I am skeptical of the idea that anyone could mate irregularly shaped megaliths together precisely with primitive tools. None of the explanations I've seen impress me because they don't account for how the irregularity of the surface of the third dimension of one stone is precisely duplicated in the stone that has to mate with it. This is the part that you can't e.g. trace onto the other stone in order to have a guide for cutting. If the walls were paper thin (making the individual pieces 2D for all intents and purposes), then it would be relatively easy to do.

Other than, of course, the marks left behind by the pounding stones and chisels the humans used to create these very shapes you find so mysterious.



The Thunder Stone is sometimes claimed to be the "largest stone ever moved by man". This stone was large and heavy; it was effectively moved 6 km (4 miles) overland to the Gulf of Finland by manpower alone; no animals or machines were used. Transported by barge up the Neva River, it reached St. Petersburg. The entire effort is considered an historic engineering feat.

snip

Based on the density of granite, its mass was determined to be around 1500 tonnes.


That is rather different than an irregularly shaped stone that has to be lifted into place, and also has to have its irregular dimensions somehow documented so that the inverse of them can then be somehow be applied to another big stone that has to mate precisely with it.

Very different indeed, considering it started out weighing in a 1500 tons, far far larger than any stone ever moved in the ancient past.



As I said, a great deal is known about the Inca and their construction methods, as well as Tiahuanaco.


Nothing is known about their construction methods aside from the end results that still exist to be viewed today (pay close attention to the bolded word, and think about what it means).

What is known is that pounding stones and chisels were used to shape the stone.
What is also known is what the Incas said about their construction.

There are other knowns, such a the sources of the various stones, etc.

Harte



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Here's what you stated:


"The Incas told the Spaniards that they weren't the ones who built Sacsayhuamán, but "the giants". In their mythology there were huge people living in the Cuzco area and they carried the huge stone blocks and put them together."


I showed you exactly what the Incas told the Spaniards, and it completely conflicts with the above.

In addition, there was no Incan belief that the "giants" built anything.

Obviously, you don't care to find out the truth of this matter. I mean, it's easily verifiable. Yet you continue to insist.


You're right, I don't care. Once again:

"Nothing that you quoted establishes that no Incan ever told a Spaniard that Sacsayhuamán was built by "giants". Either way, it doesn't matter, because there are countless testimonies (testimonies are in fact evidence) of ancient alien visitation. You can find a lot of them in the Bible alone. Each and every one of those testimonies refutes your claim that there is "no evidence" of ancient alien visitation."

Does the bolding help? Why should I care about something that doesn't matter?


The above quote about the Incas is simply not true, i.e. it's a lie.


1. You have yet to establish that.
2. It doesn't matter anyway (see above).


Yet you still consider it evidence.


LOL @ you making stuff up. I said it is evidence if it is true. Does the bolding help?


You are a very sad case.


What does it mean when someone who has already lost the argument, tells someone that they are a "very sad case"?


Tiahuanaco is one such "3-d" puzzle, albeit only a portion of it (including some of Pumapunku.)

I showed you these stones were carved by human beings.


No you didn't. You linked to a PDF which contained some beliefs (along with a few "we have no idea" type statements).


So, where is the evidence of alien intervention?


I've already answered this, more than once.


Are you saying humans can carve them and place them but can't understand an interlocking series of stones?


See above. You first need to establish that humans can do what you and others believe they did (a demonstration will do; and only a demonstration will do) before that question is valid.


Other than, of course, the marks left behind by the pounding stones and chisels the humans used to create these very shapes you find so mysterious.


I don't find the shapes mysterious at all. Also, you're begging the question, and as such, your fallacy is dismissed.


What is known is that pounding stones and chisels were used to shape the stone.


No, that isn't known. That is believed by some people.

BTW, it is not quite that simple even according to the theorists that wrote the PDF you linked to:


But to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to techniques unknown to the Incas and to us at this time.

link



What is also known is what the Incas said about their construction.


Again, you're playing fast and loose with the word "known".



There are other knowns, such a the sources of the various stones, etc.


I said:

"Nothing is known about their construction methods aside from the end results that still exist to be viewed today."

Where they got the raw stones has nothing to do with construction method, no more than where you happen to buy your 2x4s has anything to do with the construction method of a house.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


The number of people who believe it is so because they make a lot of logical connections. Exactly because they could be wrong this does not come up as some fact. But it's not as unrealistic as you think.

You are only coming from the perspective of AAT being wrong because Pyramids and such could've been constructed by people. Ok what if they are constructed by people, and I actually think they ARE constructed by men. According to lots of sources humans are the working force of the supposed ETs, so of course Humans built those, is this even questionable?

But the astronomical knowledge, the accuracy, the orientation towards some constellations, how some monuments server as ancient observatories, where the knowledge? Wasn't before that man just a neanderthal wearing animal skin?

And the reason to not dismiss AAT is that there are also pictures and notes of events, not just misinterpreted pictures. Like the event at Nurnberg, Germany. Why are cylinders, orbs described when today also some UFOs are cigar shaped and looking like the picture from Nurnberg?

And of course, AAT is the only option of the Bible to be true but firstly there needs to be proof that Noah and other stories of that kind were true. If they are, I think you may reconsider this not being misinterpreted ships etc. Because those stories there clearly dont sound natural event.

Buit there have been other stories from Asia about humanoid creature visitations, so unless they are just tales which some claim, are not, then there you have them.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   



Tiahuanaco is one such "3-d" puzzle, albeit only a portion of it (including some of Pumapunku.)

I showed you these stones were carved by human beings.

So, where is the evidence of alien intervention? Are you saying humans can carve them and place them but can't understand an interlocking series of stones?



The Thunder Stone is sometimes claimed to be the "largest stone ever moved by man". This stone was large and heavy; it was effectively moved 6 km (4 miles) overland to the Gulf of Finland by manpower alone; no animals or machines were used. Transported by barge up the Neva River, it reached St. Petersburg. The entire effort is considered an historic engineering feat.

snip

Based on the density of granite, its mass was determined to be around 1500 tonnes.


That is rather different than an irregularly shaped stone that has to be lifted into place, and also has to have its irregular dimensions somehow documented so that the inverse of them can then be somehow be applied to another big stone that has to mate precisely with it.

Very different indeed, considering it started out weighing in a 1500 tons, far far larger than any stone ever moved in the ancient past.



As I said, a great deal is known about the Inca and their construction methods, as well as Tiahuanaco.


Nothing is known about their construction methods aside from the end results that still exist to be viewed today (pay close attention to the bolded word, and think about what it means).

What is known is that pounding stones and chisels were used to shape the stone.
What is also known is what the Incas said about their construction.

There are other knowns, such a the sources of the various stones, etc.

Harte


Harte, your unwillingness to admit that we simply do not know for certain how these structures came to be is rather depressing. The ancient alien theory is simply a theory. It is based on evidence, and it makes sense, but it does require a stretch of the imagination. That does not make it any less of a theory than conventional theories.

Those stones MAY have been carved by human beings, but again, where is the evidence of how they did it? Where did that knowledge disappear to? So you think that ancient man used chisels and hammers made from stone to create these huge structures with amazing precision? Prove it. Do not show me the structures as I know what they are, show me the evidence that Man kind had the know-how to do it. WHY do we have stories written down in our ancient past talking about giants building things and gods creating things? You are taking only the facts that support your theory and disregarding the facts that do not. That is shoddy science and you have lost all credibility.

I admit that we simply do not know for certain, and that the ancient alien theory is possible. Not plausible, not likely, but simply possible. Prove me wrong.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravytrain
Harte, your unwillingness to admit that we simply do not know for certain how these structures came to be is rather depressing. The ancient alien theory is simply a theory. It is based on evidence, and it makes sense, but it does require a stretch of the imagination. That does not make it any less of a theory than conventional theories

Those stones MAY have been carved by human beings, but again, where is the evidence of how they did it? Where did that knowledge disappear to?

Well, other than actually meeting Incan stonemasons, observing some of their methods, finding marks left by pounding stones and chisels on masonry older than the Incas, you're almost right.


So you think that ancient man used chisels and hammers made from stone to create these huge structures with amazing precision? Prove it. Do not show me the structures as I know what they are, show me the evidence that Man kind had the know-how to do it.

"Ancient man?" What's that supposed to mean?
I've shown you reports of the finding of pounding stone marks and chisel marks on stones in Tiahuanaco, which predate the Incas.

Since you turn a blind eye to actual evidence, yet insist that the mere presence of a carved stone is "evidence" of alien intervention, exactly how do you propose I "prove" anything at all to anyone with your dewy-eyed, blinkered world view?

Harte



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Well, other than actually meeting Incan stonemasons, observing some of their methods, finding marks left by pounding stones and chisels on masonry older than the Incas, you're almost right.


I have no doubt that many if not all of the ancient structures were created by man with stone hammers and chisels. However all I am stating is that we do not know for certain. Take Easter island for instance, their is no trees there to be used as rollers to roll the massive statues in place. Not to mention the huge amount of work this would require for a people who need to spend the majority of their time on basic survival needs. Interestingly the elders on the island have said that they have stories of the statues "walking" into their place and no stories of laboring and toiling to get them into place. We simply do not know for certain how or why people would construct such things. All we can do is speculate. By saying that you know it only does a disservice to those who are still studying and finding evidence.



"Ancient man?" What's that supposed to mean?
I've shown you reports of the finding of pounding stone marks and chisel marks on stones in Tiahuanaco, which predate the Incas.

Since you turn a blind eye to actual evidence, yet insist that the mere presence of a carved stone is "evidence" of alien intervention, exactly how do you propose I "prove" anything at all to anyone with your dewy-eyed, blinkered world view?

Harte


By saying Ancient man I am referring to things 1000+ years before the present time of 2011. I have seen the reports that you have shown, and to me they show evidence that Teahuanaco was undoubtedly made by man. Unfortunately these marks are not always present on all structures of antiquity around the world. I never have said that mere presence of a carved stone is "evidence" of alien intervention. I have only stated that the presence of such structures is evidence that much of our history is still very much a mystery, and we simply do not know for certain what took place back then. The ancient alien theory attempts to explain all the great mysteries of antiquity, but it is only a speculative theory. Just because you do not agree with it does not mean that it is not true, or that it is a faulty theory.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Great thread! I will just mention that I do believe in the Ancient Astronaut Theory.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join