Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 27
139
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
[
Well that is perhaps a matter of opinion, allot of those structures in Peru for example looks destroyed, we don't know how they looked right after building.


Perhaps but we could build a pyramid they couldn't even begin to comprehend how to build a cathedral; remember they had no arch and no viable concrete

Also even the Pyramid looked much better just after the construction, the top stones for example (on the big pyramdid(s) - (which made the sides flat), where removed by arabians or persians. And most of it was burried in sand:

We're talking useable space, much of the space inside a cathedral can be used, only a tiny portion of a pyramid can be, most none-Egyptian pyramids could only be used externally if at all




Our Cathedrals/churches are more easy to build (little stones), then a Pyramid I'm sure and they need allot of maintance, if you wouldn't maintain it at all, it would be just ruins by now where the Pyramids still stands as 1 piece today (at least the big ones)


Big piles of stones do last longer but can they do anything but sit there? A Cathedral can be used for something, pyramids have grave limitations!.


Anyways ask an engineer and construction workers what would be more easy for him to design&build, my bet is that it would be an Europain Cathedral


Nope the AE couldn't build nor did they understand what an vault is (they had corbel arches thou), a flying buttress or any of the more advanced building techniques, they were blunt, basic and solid. You might want to take a look at what is need for the construction of a cathedral.


The Romans were able to put up a pyramid, of course they built a pyramid out of concrete and they did so in 330 days

Cestius





posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Hmmm. Looks like that member had something to say....

Forgot to mention. Be sure to watch that video I post a couple post back.

Remember... Brass chissel and a rock....



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I just saw this, my bad for not seeing earlier.




The Romans were able to put up a pyramid, of course they built a pyramid out of concrete and they did so in 330 days


Okay. A "tad" smaller than Giza. Now.

Putting up a pyramid... okay but they didn't make shafts into it that cut at sharp angles, that had some type of door way up in it. or any of the other things.

And, I got to thinking about something else you said, I believe. About the Romans dismantling items and taking them to Rome etc. For me, moving the stones is far different then cutting them etc-hence the reason for this thread.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
I just saw this, my bad for not seeing earlier.


The Romans were able to put up a pyramid, of course they built a pyramid out of concrete and they did so in 330 days


Okay. A "tad" smaller than Giza. Now.


Definitely smaller but using the same shape nor did you mention size, sure people can build pyramids


Putting up a pyramid... okay but they didn't make shafts into it that cut at sharp angles, that had some type of door way up in it. or any of the other things.


The AE did a nice job but no one has seen a point or wished to use the resources for such a construction, people have built large mausoleums but they used different designs, such as the Mausoleum of Hadrian


And, I got to thinking about something else you said, I believe. About the Romans dismantling items and taking them to Rome etc. For me, moving the stones is far different then cutting them etc-hence the reason for this thread.


The Roman's had a number of obelisks built during their control of Egypt, which were then shipped to Rome - how was that done? I presume you have granted the Romans the ability to cut stone or did they still need aliens to do it?

We already covered that I gave you an image of a obelisk in situ



Note the size of the surrounding pit, needed to allow the masons to bash out the stone with harder diorite stones

Below images of the quarries at Giza, the same thing, the limestone was bashed out, laborious work but it did work and they did it en masse. Later the AE learned to lever and break off stone - it was easier





edit on 1/3/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


My friend. You are simply amazing. I stive to be where you are in knowledge of the past. Thank you.

Now. Enough of A.E.


Getting back to Peru.

I still content that the stones/rock there are more dense and harder to cut like the Giza stones etc. & the cut line in the OP Thread video is hard to explain... as no one has.

Time will tell-maybe.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


The ancients Egyptian could cut diorite and granite, not fast but they could.

The Incan's could as their predecessors could, cut or split granite, andesite and they did excellent work in sandstone, in some places they were better than the ancient Egyptians

I suspect that rocks are the same world wide.....

The cut cannot be evaluated because we don't know where the rock is. It would take a skilled person a short time to determine what the rock is (if it already hasn't been noted in the literature, and what might have cut it.

1. Aliens with a Vectron ray
2. Advanced humans with x or y
3. Incans or an earlier group using methods similar to the what the AE used
4. Cut in modern times during reconstruction
5. Other

We do have evidence that the Incan's and friends were there and had been there for centuries, no sign of anybody else



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
If anyone ever visits York, i would suggest a trip to Minster Stonemasons. If you ask nicely, there is a good chance they will let you watch stone cutting in action. York Minster is the largest Gothic Cathedral in Northern Europe and the stonemasons use many old school techniques in cutting and working the rocks. Obviously, a high level of skill is required but when you watch them working it is rather fascinating how easily they can cut and shape stone.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
What about the rain erosion of the Great Sphinx.



This theory has been rejected by Egyptologists in general as it would otherwise suggest that the Sphinx was built long before the era of the First Dynasty (3000 BCE). Egypt (the Sahara) experienced significant rainfalls up to about 6000 BCE, so the Sphinx would have had to be constructed prior to or during this time frame. Every conceivable alternative form of weathering has been proposed, but even to the layman it should be obvious that this type of corrosion could only have been caused by significant rainfall.








More to read about it here: www.robertschoch.com...




edit on 1-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)
edit on Fri Mar 2 2012 by Jbird because: Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


Off topic, if the Sphinx is older (and it may well be) it has no affect on the OP. There may have been a pre-dynastic rock sticking up there that was venerated, which the AE then carved into shape we see today (or a series of remakings).

The age of the area that was quarried out to create the body of the sphinx remains in debate in the geological and archaeological world.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune




Perhaps but we could build a pyramid they couldn't even begin to comprehend how to build a cathedral; remember they had no arch and no viable concrete


Somehow they liked building buildings which where far stronger and which would last forever. Perhaps in their eyes, our building looked rather cheap? And even when they did build buildings with concrete not much if at all would be seen today if build for example 3000 years ago? Maybe they did that as well?



We're talking useable space, much of the space inside a cathedral can be used, only a tiny portion of a pyramid can be, most none-Egyptian pyramids could only be used externally if at all


The problem perhaps we are not sure for what they where used. I'm not trying to guess, sure it's fun but probaly I have it wrong anyways.
For example, how could they know what's North?


The Great Pyramid of Giza, among the seven wonders of the ancient world, points towards the celestial north pole with a margin of error of only a tiny fraction of one degree.




Big piles of stones do last longer but can they do anything but sit there? A Cathedral can be used for something, pyramids have grave limitations!.


Except at least, to stand the test of time.


Nope the AE couldn't build nor did they understand what an vault is (they had corbel arches thou), a flying buttress or any of the more advanced building techniques, they were blunt, basic and solid. You might want to take a look at what is need for the construction of a cathedral.


Blunt, basic and solid?
Well the inside chamber surely doesn't look like that, let alone some statues (ramesses ii and so on) and the massive pilars in some temples.
Or for example the ancient granite pottery, how the heck did they make that with blunt&basic tools?:
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...



The Romans were able to put up a pyramid, of course they built a pyramid out of concrete and they did so in 330 days


Cestius

Well first off, they got the size wrong, if you would make that pyramid really big it wouldn't stand.
And surely it's not even comparable to the pyramids of Gaza.

But yes perhaps this goes a bit OT. sorry.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


What do you mean they left no traces?

They left the stones !

Are you blind ? Did you not watch the video.

That is like saying the Egyptians never left any evidence behind, while ignoring the pyramids.

Or once we are gone that i like ignoring our buildings.

Just because you refuse to look at the truth, and identify it as such, does not mean that it isn't there.


People who think they already know everything will fail to see the real truth, because they have blocked it out, because according to them, they already know everything.

Proof isn't going to happen how your mind thinks they will.

Remember ..we are young and stupid still as a species.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


k now do that a thousand times over within 200 years and have them be 20X the size.

Nice try.

IT's one thing to show a sculpture that took one person 4 years to do. No multiply that based on what we are actually talking about.

The stuff you posted has KNOWN ways of achieving what you posted. we've known of these ways.

learn more.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
What about the rain erosion of the Great Sphinx.



This theory has been rejected by Egyptologists in general as it would otherwise suggest that the Sphinx was built long before the era of the First Dynasty (3000 BCE). Egypt (the Sahara) experienced significant rainfalls up to about 6000 BCE, so the Sphinx would have had to be constructed prior to or during this time frame. Every conceivable alternative form of weathering has been proposed, but even to the layman it should be obvious that this type of corrosion could only have been caused by significant rainfall.








More to read about it here: www.robertschoch.com...




edit on 1-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)




your post is completely off topic. It seems that the speculative posters here tend to post their stuff nearly everywhere..please make your own thread about the pyramid or the sphinx. thanks.

the erosion of the sphinx is of other nature than you show. Actually it is eroded very much from bottom to top, due to the high water levels at the plateau, even today.
edit on 1-3-2012 by anti72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by Hanslune
 


What do you mean they left no traces?

They left the stones !


Which are easily accounted for by the locals stone working ability, there is no evidence it was done in some unknown manner, your un-evidenced opinion doesn't really count


That is like saying the Egyptians never left any evidence behind, while ignoring the pyramids.


Oh my, so you have proof that the stone in question was cut by aliens? At best we have a baseless suggestion that it was cut by non-natives, there is no evidence of which of the five possibilities above is the answer, there is however ample evidence that the locals were in the vicinity and could cut rocks



Just because you refuse to look at the truth, and identify it as such, does not mean that it isn't there.


As noted earlier you don't have 'truth' you have speculation, intelligent people know the difference


People who think they already know everything will fail to see the real truth, because they have blocked it out, because according to them, they already know everything.


Yes you do seem to be doing that, but the question is why?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by Hanslune
 


k now do that a thousand times over within 200 years and have them be 20X the size.

Nice try.

IT's one thing to show a sculpture that took one person 4 years to do. No multiply that based on what we are actually talking about.

The stuff you posted has KNOWN ways of achieving what you posted. we've known of these ways.

learn more.


Nice try in writing an incoherent sentence. So how did the artist make that statue? With craftsmanship and time, just like others do, some with better tools than others

Not really sure what the rest of your stuff is about, learn more about writing a coherent sentence or paragraph and I'll try to address whatever it is you were trying to say



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I think you have misunderstood my post, as I agree with you 100%. Just because they knew of a way to cut and move rock with their primitive tools does not imply aliens, or magic, or lost civilizations. My entire post was pointing out that with the primitive lives they lived if they had grasped a simple concept of a water saw powered by a water tank on the hill side above the quarry they could have cut any stone they desired. It was just a matter of how long it took, and how bad they wanted it done.

People confuse human ingenuity with magic or alien technology all the time. Even today people have new ideas and come up with things that if you do not know how they did it, you see magic. That is how modern day magicians make their living. It is all a product of human intelligence and human determination. There is no reason to jump to aliens or lost civilizations. It is just a matter of giving credit to ancient peoples that understood some aspect of physics or chemistry better than most people today give them credit for. The people who go on about how we can’t duplicate it with today’s technology are delusional. We “can” do it, we just “choose not to,” as there is no reason to do it. Or the cost would be too high when cheaper methods exist, or whatever. But there has yet to be any ancient structure or artifact discovered that modern man “Can’t Duplicate.”



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join