Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

HC's Ancient Aliens last episode "The Mystery of Puma Punku" DEVASTATED the show haters.

page: 3
150
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Alright dont send me packing just yet but I appreciate the links. Deep breath for deep dive and under I go.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
But you have to admit unable to deny, Puma Punku is evidence of cutting diorite at the very least 12,000 yrs ago.
It's not, it's evidence of cutting diorite, that 12,000 years date is pure speculation. From what I have seen, the only dating done (Carbon 14, from the ground just below some of the stones) points to the 5th or 6th century.


But if man didn't possess the means to do this. How can mainstream archeology suggest that he did ?
What does mainstream archaeology suggest?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by colin42
 


I agree Colin. You're nit picking. The evidence shows cuts and drilled holes and diorite blocks of stone cut from a quarry 60 miles away. No evidence of pour rock. Perhaps the show would be better under your direction but it seems to me the Pros did professional work.
So in that case why did they not visit the quarry site as this would help discover how these blocks were prefabricated?

They instead made pretty CGI clips of space craft that not only could not stop a meteor, or take of without a launch ramp. Claimed stones had right angles that did not.

They claimed a statue with a beard and moustache and within a few short minutes showed another with very similar features that were ceremonial jewellery but made no comment.

Sorry if you don’t like someone questioning the shows production values



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So in that case why did they not visit the quarry site as this would help discover how these blocks were prefabricated?


As I remember it was visited in an earlier episode. I agree if you are going to say such a powerful peace of evidence should be more exploited.

Phage
I also agree that this show is of only what these authors are proposing. So maybe I would be smart to at least retract my earlier statement of archeology trying to" cover up the truth." I wasn't really comfortable with such a bold and sweeping statement anyway. I do get carried away sometimes.

Still believe there is a lot to show validity. And even the skepto admited they know not. Along with no evidence of pour rock.
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Now what about what destroyed the place as I refered to in my first few posts ? That for me is evidence of a lot more than mainstream is willing to endeavor and is evidence of the Biblical record. IMO.
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 
That is my point. There is no evidence on how the stones were produced at all so why were lasers and aliens considered but concrete not considered or at least given a scant explanation of why not.

Also the egyptians were using concrete and the show made referances to contacts with other civilisations of the time. Is that not more probable than an alien go between?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


OK, today we'd use precast concrete blocks and we'd lift them into place with a crane.

They look exactly like precast blocks.

They have alignment holes & guides.

Where stones appear to be in the process of 'cutting', there are grooves and regularly placed drilled holes. At the height if the quarry, I would imagine that water would freeze overnight. Water, when it freezes, expands. So you fill the slots & holes with water, leave them overnight to freeze & expand and in the morning have a chunk of stone easily cleaved off.

You can then finish the task with stone cutting/polishing tools which would be mostly a soft metal (bronze?) with exceptionally hard crystal grit embedded surfaces (diamond or carborundum).

None of this exceeds the technology of a society whose "big thing" is their capability to work stone.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by randyvs
 
That is my point. There is no evidence on how the stones were produced at all so why were lasers and aliens considered but concrete not considered or at least given a scant explanation of why not.

Also the egyptians were using concrete and the show made referances to contacts with other civilisations of the time. Is that not more probable than an alien go between?



You are referring to concrete in the pyramids of Giza, though the Egypt and Middle East as well have plenty of megalithic buildings carved STRAIGHT in mountains with SAME laser precision found in the Andes. I would say it's the same crafting but more sophisticated, for luxury appreciation. The buildings in the Andes are more logistically functional.





Anyone who saw these monuments close enough, reported marks of machinery, drilling holes, diamond cut and other marks that only power tools could make.

Mainstream archaeologists are either stupid or liars by keeping repeating that malnourished slaves using chisels, obsidian blades, stone-hammers, wooden cranes, bamboo scaffolding and liana ropes, built these things.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


OK, today we'd use precast concrete blocks and we'd lift them into place with a crane.

They look exactly like precast blocks.

They have alignment holes & guides.

Where stones appear to be in the process of 'cutting', there are grooves and regularly placed drilled holes. At the height if the quarry, I would imagine that water would freeze overnight. Water, when it freezes, expands. So you fill the slots & holes with water, leave them overnight to freeze & expand and in the morning have a chunk of stone easily cleaved off.

You can then finish the task with stone cutting/polishing tools which would be mostly a soft metal (bronze?) with exceptionally hard crystal grit embedded surfaces (diamond or carborundum).

None of this exceeds the technology of a society whose "big thing" is their capability to work stone.


Puma Punku and all Meso American megalithic buildings in the Andes, are NOT made of concrete. You still don't know that?? Those are massive blocks of solid granite. And there are NO ancient roads in the Andes for explain their logistical transport. And there are NO quarries around, so that those blocks were transported from somewhere else. There are NO excuses, I don't know why people still argue about those constructions...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Now what about what destroyed the place as I refered to in my first few posts ? That for me is evidence of a lot more than mainstream is willing to endeavor and is evidence of the Biblical record. IMO.
Are there other evidences of flooding on the rest of that region or is that localized?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


That second picture is stunning .
Why do we have to degrade the achievements of our ancestors by attributing great work like the building in that second picture to extraterrestrials instead of giving credit where credits due .

Just because we in our modern greatness don't know how they did certain things doesn't mean that they didn't or couldn't or that ET did it .

edit on 17-3-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





That is my point. There is no evidence on how the stones were produced at all so why were lasers and aliens considered but concrete not considered or at least given a scant explanation of why not.


If the stones were poured ? Having an extensive background in construction. I do suggest to you there most certainly would be evidence of the blocks having been poured. That doesn't mean there isn't any and they quite possibly may not be showing that evidence. But then again, I have never seen any hint of evidence of it anywhere. Which does lead one to believe that if there were any said evidence ? It would have most certainly been exploited before now..
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


We can even switch the coordinates for other places less known and less exposed by Western media, such as the Ellora caves aka Ajanta caves in India, a whole city ENTIRELY carved from a SINGLE piece of rock out of a mountain. Same laser precision, same perfection seen in the Andes and Abu Simbel.







Interesting that ancient Hindu scriptures ALSO report that this city was built the overnight, by "stargods", exactly like the Aimaras of Peru.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Human enginuity ?...maybe if those humans were from somewhere else and came here more advanced than who they found here if anyone other than monkeys.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


Blown away. Where did you ? Slayyyyyyyyer !


OP you're absolutely brutal ! I knew nothing of this. Lets all go get our copper chissels and start carving exquisite
stone work on that mountainous piece of rock because were not busy enough trying to survive in this ancient time already. Hunting and farming and fishing and gathering just don't fill the day.
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


The ancient alien theory isn't really a theory. It's a fact. Aliens were here. They greatly influenced ancient civilizations and may have had a hand in the genetic restructuring of the human race. This is what all the evidence points to. This is our history as a people.

Willful ignorance is now the only way to deny what is staring us all in the face. The fact of alien interaction with ancient civilizations is not even debatable at this point. The true debate is now this: What were they doing here? Who are they? Where are they from? Where are they now?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Puma Punku and all Meso American megalithic buildings in the Andes, are NOT made of concrete. You still don't know that?? Those are massive blocks of solid granite. And there are NO ancient roads in the Andes for explain their logistical transport. And there are NO quarries around, so that those blocks were transported from somewhere else. There are NO excuses, I don't know why people still argue about those constructions...


So are you saying Aliens helped them? Don't we need to prove that aliens exist first? I say they were fairies, and I'm as right as saying aliens.

One thing people forget....We are talking stone work here, and stone work has been around since, I don't know, since man has been around here. One might come to the conclusion that we got pretty good at it all by ourselves.

What drives me crazy is when people suggest advance tool, Aliens etc and once again we are talking stone work and people who except for their alien lasers lived a primitive lifestyle.

Show me some doors made out of Titanium or carbon fiber and I might be more incline to believe, but stone....lol Alien technology 1000, 10,000, 1000,000 years advance to us and we use it to only make/move stones.

Am I the only one that sees the humor in all this?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna


The ancient alien theory isn't really a theory. It's a fact. Aliens were here.


I think we need an actual alien before we can use the word "fact".

Or how about alien technology well advance than anything we can do...I'll take that too, but we have neither, but hey we do have high tech stone...geez



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard


I never saw those with my own eyes, but I don't see any sign of "laser precision" in either of those images.


Mainstream archaeologists are either stupid or liars by keeping repeating that malnourished slaves using chisels, obsidian blades, stone-hammers, wooden cranes, bamboo scaffolding and liana ropes, built these things.
Are you sure that that's what they say? From what I have seen, the malnourished slaves version is not being considered as the most likely for some decades.

PS: I suppose you know that the first photo you posted shows a monument that was moved from it's original place, piece by piece, and reconstructed some 200 metres away from where it was originally built. That was done in the 1960s.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
reply to post by chr0naut
 


We can even switch the coordinates for other places less known and less exposed by Western media, such as the Ellora caves aka Ajanta caves in India, a whole city ENTIRELY carved from a SINGLE piece of rock out of a mountain. Same laser precision, same perfection seen in the Andes and Abu Simbel.


The difference between using advance equipment to do all this and simple tools is only time and energy. Advance equipment needs very little time and energy...simple tools needs a lot of both, but the end results are the same.



edit on 17-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 
Looking at pictures is never going to compare with touching a witnessing it first hand.

From that program and a few other pictures I have seen it looks like what I have touched witnessed, made and inspected myself.

I also have an extensive background in construction and part of that has been inspection of victorian structures on the rail. Some of the stones show the exact same spalling I see on those structures.

The voids in the otherwise flat surfaces are very simular to those you get from a hand agitated cast in situ concrete construction. These also often need finishing with hand tools.

That in no way means I am convinced they are some form concrete just that I would like to have seen an argument against it as well as examples of lasers and diamond stone cutters that the later would not have been able to cut the what appear to be mouldings in those stones which are easily achieved with cast concrete.





new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join