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.

 

Evidence Of Advanced Technology Thousands Of Years Ago In Peru (Interesting)

page: 20
139
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by andersensrm

We want to think in that way, because thats the only way we know how to move them, otherwise we wouldn't have a need for them.


Well you need to think in terms of what man would do using simple tools, and digging/moving dirt is about as simple as it gets.


So why build such complicated structures that mirror the complicated nature of our universe?


It does seem mind boggling that ancient man could build structures with such precision on such a grand scale with the knowledge, tools and techniques archeologists claim they were limited to. There is strong evidence that the entire planet was surveyed over 10,000 yrs ago. The great Giza pyramid itself is a scaled down mathematical representation of the Earth.

...but I'm still on the fence as to whether or not there were AEs providing assistance if not building those structures themselves. It's more likely and plausible that ancient man's technologies were highly advanced but somehwere along the way that knowledge was lost....




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I'd beg to differ, that it is less likely the knowledge was lost. If we met E.T.'s tomorrow, we would suddenly come to the conclusion, that hey maybe they did come here before. But because we have yet to "discover" any e.t.'s ,(as far as we know) then we rule that possibility out. We're smart, but I don't think we're that smart, I mean just look around today.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I'm not saying this is an answer, of course science answer is; they binded their heads, that is it.
But also note the skulls are far more heavy then normal skulls and of course bigger, if just binding, why more heavy?

At least from my understanding, sorry maybe a bit OT, they are doing DNA testing right now, maybe we get some anwer then. Maybe.. I don't think some people (in power&for religious ways) would like an answer anyways. At least they try to get the government out of it, so maybe some hope...

They are found in Peru, they still find new skulls today.

www.youtube.com...

& www.youtube.com...


edit on 24-2-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Flavian
 


Well, the sites in Peru, from the limited info I possess now... are mosly elevated to some high degree.

Yes, I understand we have cranes that can lift these rocks NOW. And even now, those cranes that we have today will not be making any trip to any of these places. Just not doable.

So, I still contend.. whoever build with the large blocks and items... were NOT the Inca's, Myans etc that we know today. The history just doesn't add up-yet.

I believe those peoples, just like Egyptians, came upon the sites (destroyed-such as in the OP video or mostly intact, like the GIZA structures. They then expaned or incoporated them into their life styles.


Not to mention when the first indo-european explorers visited the sites they were told at that time they were very old and that they had not built them.

So we have Egypt, where in spite of hundreds of walls covered with heiroglphics, there are not any depictions of them actually building the pyramids. I believe they simply repurposed them and did some decorating with the possible desire to use them as tombs. No mummies or funeral loot have ever been found in a pyramid. And I don't buy the grave robber explanation because the first explorers had to use dynamite and black powder just to get in. In the room now dubbed the kings chamber a 40 ton lid was in place, robbers wouldn't have replaced it, there never was a mummy in there.

Then we have South America, pyramids that the locals say they did not build. And China, same thing.

These structures are found all over the world.

Somebody built them, and it actually pisses me off that we don't know much about them.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You can beg to differ... that is your choice. I choose to believe the plausible not the improbable.

Modern human craniums have been around for at least 150,000 yrs. We only have a decent grasp of the last 5,000 yrs of that history. It's more likely and probable that many ancient civilizations have risen and fallen in that 145,000 yr span than it is to think that ETs came to visit. Regardless of how much you beg...


edit on 24-2-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You can beg to differ... that is your choice. I choose to believe the plausible not the improbable.

Modern human craniums have been around for at least 150,000 yrs. We only have a decent grasp of the last 5,000 yrs of that history. It's more likely and probable that many ancient civilizations have risen and fallen in that 145,000 yr span than it is to think that ETs came to visit. Regardless of how much you beg...


edit on 24-2-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


Why is it so improbably that ET's came here. How is it so probably that we have risen and fallen so many times, yet can't find any evidence for it? ET's have the technology to destroy or retrieve all the evidence just like we do (9/11).



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Somebody built them, and it actually pisses me off that we don't know much about them.

What do you mean, "we?" You may not know much about them, but there are plenty of people who do. And if that pisses you off, then maybe you should educate yourself.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


It's improbable for many reasons; sheer distance between stars being one, the fact that it has never been proven ETs have visited here is another, compatabilty with Earth's environment, etc...

I'm not saying that life doesn't exist on other worlds. I'm not saying that intelliegent life doesn't exist either.

The probabilty that ETs came to visit here is less than the probability that humans developed advanced technologies which enabled them to develop advanced civilizations. That's just the way it is.

You may have seen that program that was on a few years ago that delt with how long it would take for all traces of mankind to disappear if we suddenly left the planet or died off. I think the conclusion was that all traces would disappear after about 10,000 years or so. That's not very long considering the amount of time modern humans have been around.

The nearest planet discovered which might be capable of supporting life is 22 light years away. Travelling at the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second it would take 22 years to get here from there. Our fastest space vehicle travels at about 36,373 mph. Which brings to mind another improbabilty; any ET civilization capable of travelling at those speeds would hardly be interested in us....



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Somebody built them, and it actually pisses me off that we don't know much about them.

What do you mean, "we?" You may not know much about them, but there are plenty of people who do. And if that pisses you off, then maybe you should educate yourself.


So tell me, since you think you know, who built them?

And not just the Giza pyramids, the rest too.
edit on 24-2-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 



I get it, but I also see the similarities in argument. We can't comprehend how ET's would have gotten here or why so they must not have come. Its the same as how I can't comprehend how humans did it, so they must not have done it. If all traces are eradicated after 10,000 years, then why are we seeing these structures. As we have advanced we have found easier and less expensive ways to construct, and as a result, the buildings don't last as long. These structures on the otherhand have lasted, and don't seem to match up with our timeline. We're smarter and have advanced technology but we're still playing with stones? Makes more sense to me, that the "tool' were kind of just dropped off, and we played with them a bit.


 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link
edit on Fri Feb 24 2012 by Jbird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
It looks like to me that the people we know who lived there came upon the ruins of a great building/city.

The finders appeared to have built on and around the left over/remains. Hence the small bricks/stones etc.

I can't wait to go there and see for myself..


Its very possible that these stones were re - used from a much older abandoned structure , that makes it an even more fascinating theory that ancient egyptians were recycling building blocks that have tooling marks that we can now only replicate today with computerised machinery.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
I'm not saying this is an answer, of course science answer is; they binded their heads, that is it.
But also note the skulls are far more heavy then normal skulls and of course bigger, if just binding, why more heavy?

At least from my understanding, sorry maybe a bit OT, they are doing DNA testing right now, maybe we get some anwer then. Maybe.. I don't think some people (in power&for religious ways) would like an answer anyways. At least they try to get the government out of it, so maybe some hope...

They are found in Peru, they still find new skulls today.

www.youtube.com...

& www.youtube.com...


edit on 24-2-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)


Yes they used to bind their heads, to elongate their skulls. As in the example of those red headed skulls above in youtube.

And that began with the Olmecs.

BUT! Who were they trying to imitate?

And so that was what I asked my friends in the galactic mainframe, and they got back to me with this...
www.imagebam.com...

So that is as seen from space in Bolivia or Peru, I can't remember exactly where I found it.
Its not important, thats how I get my messages from the mainframe. Matrix and all that.

So anyways I asked them, what is up with those elongated skulls and that was what they said.

And well that doesn't explain anything, except, that is Gazoo there with the cone head.

And you might remember Gazoo, from the Flintstones. Well he is an actual person too, and he is in the galactic mainframe, but most people think he is a Martian right? Right.
And they think also that he has a big roundish head like a Martian.
And well he said, they got a new head style, because it was too difficult to have babies, with those gigantic heads. Makes sense to me. But they still needed room for their GIGANTIC bwain, (well, I may be a dum dum so I wouldn't understand about things like gigantic bwains)

But! When my grandmother sent me an email, a few years back, I dated these so thats how i know, rather than just save the flashearth link, so I have the date i got the email, but can't remember where it is in flashearth.

But this is somewhere around Ica Peru that I found this...
www.imagebam.com...

So thats Zeus' mom, my Grandmother, and she is royalty, so she has what looks like might be a smallish cone head, but in fact, I think it is just a hat kind of thing, which is more symbolic.
So the quote unquote brainiac wise men, like Gazoo, had the big heads.

And they date way back of course, and so in this Narmer Palette, look on the right, you will see there are two priests in that palette...
upload.wikimedia.org...

So looking on the right palette, on the band with the people marching, you will see there are two priests. One on the far left, he has the missile above his head, and he is a sandal bearer for the water bringer Gods.
So that dates back 2 million years, but the right palette has an even older priesthood, and he is following those Olmecs there, and he has what some might think is a cat of 3 tails, but it could be any ceremonial thing but he has the droopy head.
And if you look at pictures of Nefertiti and Akhenaten, they are depicted as having the elongated heads as well.

As a sign of divine rulership.

And that's not really what it is about, it is not about royalty, it is about the wise ones, and recognizing their wisdom and their intelligence. And their antiquity as a race.

So if you look at modern shows like Reboot! The TV show, they depict the old wise one as having that type of elongated head. So people know already what that is about.

But it is curious. And well they would be alien, if it isn't a recessive gene. Which means at any time someone could be born like that.

The red headed giants in Peru, well the people who were there long before the natives of America moved south to inhabit that lost world, they were blond and had red hair and were more like Vikings.

But you see if they mated with the natives, and they might have 13 or more thousand years ago, then some of those genes would be in the native population. So if you were born with red or blond hair then they would see that as a sign. And those people might be picked for royalty. To try to gain the favor of the Gods.

And the Olmecs and other people in the region were always trying to gain favor of the Gods.
In various ways.
Like this for instance...
upload.wikimedia.org...

So the people knew they looked different from the Gods. And in this case the Olmecs, who I believe later became the Chinese, wanted to look more like the Gods. So they tried different things including mating with animals, to try to look different.

But yeah, coneheads? Definitely alien.
But then so are we.

edit on 24-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by Plugin
I'm not saying this is an answer, of course science answer is; they binded their heads, that is it.
But also note the skulls are far more heavy then normal skulls and of course bigger, if just binding, why more heavy?

At least from my understanding, sorry maybe a bit OT, they are doing DNA testing right now, maybe we get some anwer then. Maybe.. I don't think some people (in power&for religious ways) would like an answer anyways. At least they try to get the government out of it, so maybe some hope...

They are found in Peru, they still find new skulls today.

www.youtube.com...

& www.youtube.com...


edit on 24-2-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

And the Olmecs and other people in the region were always trying to gain favor of the Gods.
In various ways.
Like this for instance...
upload.wikimedia.org...

So the people knew they looked different from the Gods. And in this case the Olmecs, who I believe later became the Chinese, wanted to look more like the Gods. So they tried different things including mating with animals, to try to look different.
[quote]


But yeah you don't have to be a genius to piece together this puzzle. Clearly Martian men, were mating with earth girls, and they had a big head, and the earth gilrs had a small birthing canal, so the heads got elongated.
Since the babies skull was not as robust as the loins of them earth girls.

Which makes you wonder just how gigantic the birthing canal of martian girls might be.
(oh the horror)

I don't think that is why God destroyed the earth in a flood though, it is written that it was because the giants were doing it.
Well earth girls are hot, so that figures. But not Olmec woman. You would be hard pressed to find anyone, anywhere, who would not pick and animal from the zoo, rather than an Olmec woman.
So thats why they were left feeling left out.

And if you don't believe me, just google Olmec woman artifact.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by andersensrm
 


It's improbable for many reasons; sheer distance between stars being one, the fact that it has never been proven ETs have visited here is another, compatabilty with Earth's environment, etc...

I'm not saying that life doesn't exist on other worlds. I'm not saying that intelliegent life doesn't exist either.

The probabilty that ETs came to visit here is less than the probability that humans developed advanced technologies which enabled them to develop advanced civilizations. That's just the way it is.

You may have seen that program that was on a few years ago that delt with how long it would take for all traces of mankind to disappear if we suddenly left the planet or died off. I think the conclusion was that all traces would disappear after about 10,000 years or so. That's not very long considering the amount of time modern humans have been around.

The nearest planet discovered which might be capable of supporting life is 22 light years away. Travelling at the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second it would take 22 years to get here from there. Our fastest space vehicle travels at about 36,373 mph. Which brings to mind another improbabilty; any ET civilization capable of travelling at those speeds would hardly be interested in us....



I get it, but I also see the similarities in argument. We can't comprehend how ET's would have gotten here or why so they must not have come. Its the same as how I can't comprehend how humans did it, so they must not have done it. If all traces are eradicated after 10,000 years, then why are we seeing these structures. As we have advanced we have found easier and less expensive ways to construct, and as a result, the buildings don't last as long. These structures on the otherhand have lasted, and don't seem to match up with our timeline. We're smarter and have advanced technology but we're still playing with stones? Makes more sense to me, that the "tool' were kind of just dropped off, and we played with them a bit.


Well.. not to be argumentative but I never said they "must not have come". I choose my words carefully... "the probabilty is less than..." Occams Razor and all that jazz you know.

Honestly... it wouldn't surprise if ET had a hand in our development but for now I'm sticking with good old human ingenuity as the source. And my "romantic" side likes to think that ancient humans rose to great heights and descended again in great cyclical time scales.

I'll never completely rule out anything...



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


The secret to gravity is this; In order to stop magnetism from affecting you, you would have to completely block it out. So the real question is how do you block all magnetism from affecting your surroundings? If someone can figure that out, they figured out anti-gravity. So far we know that Gold and other few materials posses the ability to block out magnetism, but the earth still produces what they call magnetism on non-ferrous metals. So GOLD is still affected. That brings back how do you stop all magnetism from affecting your surroundings? So far no one has been able to do it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by zarp3333
 


The secret to gravity is this; In order to stop magnetism from affecting you, you would have to completely block it out. So the real question is how do you block all magnetism from affecting your surroundings? If someone can figure that out, they figured out anti-gravity. So far we know that Gold and other few materials posses the ability to block out magnetism, but the earth still produces what they call magnetism on non-ferrous metals. So GOLD is still affected. That brings back how do you stop all magnetism from affecting your surroundings? So far no one has been able to do it.


So we would need something like a fermi cage that blocks magnetism instead of electricity.

Interesting.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I have a pondering question for the OP and this board on the laser theory. If the ancient Egyptians had so much advanced technology including lasers, then how is they were conquered from such a primitive race the Romans? Surely, if the Egyptians were so advanced there would have been no way the Roman empire would have conquered them and even if the Romans were capable of, why didn't the Romans end up with the technology themselves and why is it there is not one single document about it?
Hmmmnn...

This would be like the Untied States being conquered and no history book telling about it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   





You know with the information we possess, with our modern technology we can easily look back and say, well we would have done it THIS way. And just get 30,000 people to drag it.

And thats true, the Egyptian civilization did that. What is not true, is that they did everything that is there.

And that is where people start to lie their faces off, when they try to hide the pre existing civilization that was there.

For instance, the Osireon. Clearly South American architecture, dating back at least 18,000 years, but archeologists refuse to even admit, that it was not made by Seti I.

When anyone can see he did not build it, its 50 feet below what he was building, they found it, when he was building, and they claimed it as their own, even though, they built around it to avoid bad karma of damaging it.

It is so old, that it didn't flood when it was built.

It would have flooded in the time of Seti I.

So you want to call people dumbasses, like in your link above, don't forget to mention the ass hats who refuse to admit when they are clearly wrong.

www.belovedegypt.com...

thelighthouseonline.com...


edit on 24-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Sorry I skipped to the end of the thread to post this while it was fresh on my mind, so if it has been talked about already forgive me.

People always talk about cutting stone needing diamond saws etc. This is 100% false. The tool needed to cut the stone does not need to be harder than the stone itself. It only needs to be harder to do it quickly.

To illustrate this point…
What is the hardness of water? What stone can withstand hundreds of years of a simple water drip? If the ancient peoples saw and understood the process of water erosion they easily could have developed a hydraulic saw. Set a tank of water up on a hill and run it down a small pipe to the bottom and the water pressure at the end will be a primitive water saw. Modern CNC machines use this high pressure water to cut steel etcetera every day.

It may be hard to imagine them understanding this concept but we have no idea what they knew and understood. People today look back on ancient civilizations and try to compare them to today’s world where speed and efficiency are the name of the game, rather that craftsmanship and determination. With very primitive tools like a water tank and a small pipe, a workable water saw could indeed have cut the stones for any of the ancient cultures, be it Egypt, Peru, China, whatever. It may not have cut it in a day, but it could have cut it none the less. All it takes is a little imagination and time. And a determined group of humans can accomplish most anything. We have no idea how long it took to build a temple or pyramid. We can look at it and try to guess, but when modern day man says it took 20 years to build the great pyramid I do not take it as fact. I do not necessarily doubt it, but there is no way to know how long it took. It may have taken them 50 or more and we have no way to know for sure. And with enough time their primitive tools could indeed have made any of the ancient structures. Their construction is not proof of high technology, but rather proof of high intelligence. Modern day people assume that without steel, diamond saws, and laser levels there is no way to make these monuments. They totally discount the magnitude of human intellect and imagination. It in no way proves alien input, just human imagination.

I know the OP was not about aliens, but this is where the thread will go no matter what he was thinking.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   




Well you know thats great until you actually study what we are talking about, and you find out that even today, with our space age technology, we can't make things that they made.

We cannot make these stone ware items that were found in the first Egyptian pyramid.
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

We can't. Simple as that. And they were found in and around the first pyramid, a step pyramid.

At Saqqarra.

So then why were they put in there? Because the people who built the pyramid, considered them sacred objects.

That they found. Not made. Since even today, we cannot reproduce them.

As high as we are on ourselves and even though the last thing we want to admit, is that we can't do it, we really cannot do it.

One reason we cannot do it, is because they used mortar, and it was so long ago, it is now diorite. Their cement has turned to stone.
Most people can figure that part out about the ancient buildings with giant rocks, because it looks saggy like cement.
Or it looks like it was poured into a mold, like in Puma Punka.

People have religious ideas that keep them from accepting a pre-civilization and well, its there.
You just have to look.
The fact that people let their religious beliefs get in the way of scientific study is most unfortunate.



new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join