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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Harte
But the Spanish observed it being done when they came to the New World, or so they said.
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.
I will establish all three the instant you post what it is in the the show that you believe to be evidence.
This is correct. However, this evidence has yet to be posted.
I'm not talking to Giorgio here. I'm talking to you.
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 [unknown] number of [possible] theories.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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."
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?
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."
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.
Originally posted by Harte
I'll find this for you sometime. As soon as you give me specific evidence.
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.
So, you think speculation = evidence?
Again, speculation, not evidence.
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.
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.
"By a court," meaning "beyond reasonable doubt." Again.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
Which ones claim aliens have been here?
Nearly all of them (e.g. "gods from the sky").
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.
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.
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.
You mean the walls at several Incan sites?
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. If you want to know what evidence actually is, read the suggested portion of the PDF.
Giorgio is the wild-haired wonder that told you about how the aliens built these things.
Please list some cultures that you believe claimed that their gods "came from the sky."
The Incans had no such belief.
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?"
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?
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].
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]
"Viracocha". Bloomsbury Dictionary of Myth. Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd., London. 1996. www.credoreference.com... Retrieved 2009-02-10.
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.
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.
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
Sacsayhuaman was built in the 15th century during Pachacutec and Tupac Yupanqui’s ruling. Its construction lasted over a decade.
Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (or Pachacutec) was the ninth Sapa Inca (1438-1471/1472) of the Kingdom of Cusco
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 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.
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.
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:
So, decided not to read the pdf then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
Did you forget that we have been talking about irregularly shaped stones, some of megalith proportions, fitted together like a 3D jigsaw puzzle?
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
What is known is that pounding stones and chisels were used to shape the stone.
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.
There are other knowns, such a the sources of the various stones, etc.
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
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?
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.
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.
"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