How to build Puma Punka and the Pyramids in 21.7 years using only the tech of Ancient Man?

Originally posted by Bilk22
Someone posted this theory in another forum last month.

www.godlikeproductions.com...

That was probably me.

I don't think you're theory is that far out of the realm of possibilities. I never could picture them moving the stones on logs anyway.
But your theory definitely fills in a lot of missing pieces, so to speak.

Yet - are there no - as in none - depictions of how they did it ? why so secretive ? perhaps the 'light bulb' is not a bulb at all, but a hydrogen filler-upper, or a magnetic device ?

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by bearwithredhat

 

Your post confuses me could you re word it? Are you saying leavers are advanced tech? can you not comprehend scale?

Levers would not work. An alternative is using Zeppelins. This would negate any need for levers.

Originally posted by kman420

Click here for more information.

WHilst I did not agree with Kwan's comment, I had no issue with it and felt that he was entitled to his view. The deletion of his comment is no result of my action. I did not complain.

Originally posted by bearwithredhat

Firstly, how to engineer perfectly the stones of puma punka.

It has been FALSELY assumed that machines were used. But there is another way. What no-one ever points out is that Puma Punka is a stones throw away from vast amounts of igneous basalt called fluorite. From fluorite it is easy to produce HYDROFLUORIC ACID, an acid so vicious that you can't even keep it in a bottle as it will eat straight through it in seconds.

If you check out the stones of Puma Punka, they have flat flanges at the edges and are welded together. With HF acid this is easy. Hydrofluoric acid leaves many types of clay alone, so one creates a rim around the stone of clay and then fill it to create a level, shallow pool of Hydrofluoric Acid on the surface. This will eat into the stonwe to dissolve and soften it. Now gently lower the stone above onto the one below. Result? One stone will weld ontot the other just like sticking two bars of wet soap together. Once welded adequately, release the clay wall to allow the acid to run out, maybe down a little spout. Then remove the clay.

And, viola! Two multi-tin blocks of stone welded together chemically!

If you're so sure it was done that way ,why don't you do it yourself and thereby prove it?

reply to post by votan


Why does some stupid little wh0re have to come in with their stupid internet funny pic, when real, interesting information is being passed around.

reply to post by bearwithredhat


Thanks for the response, I do appreciate your input because I do see the validity of your case here. In saying that, can you expand a little on your acid theory (I did read your OP quite thoroughly by the way) regarding this pic:



It is the Terrace wall of the ancient Inca fortress, Sacsayhuaman, so your knowledge about chemical elements and their geographical locations would need to be considered as well when and if you respond.

How, for example, did the stones on the corners obtain their cylindrical shape using the acid? and if you look closely these same corner stones lock into their respective courses with fine precision - in effect there are probably 10 separate planes of surface on some of them.

How does a Zeppelin stay stationary and aligned in such an inhospitable and windy environment at such altitude?

What means, do you think, were used to control the climb and descent of the Zeppelins when traversing between sea level and mountain tops?

Hope to hear back from you soon

Originally posted by kidtwist
reply to post by bearwithredhat

 

How do you know they preferred to use large stones?

Puma Punku is clearly made from large stones. Check out the base of Baalbeck and Temple Mount in Jerusalem, again, almost solely from large stones.

Why do you say they preferred to build on mountain tops? Surely they did it for a significant reason, not just out of preference?

Puma Punku - 13,200 feet above sea level.
Delphi - high up in the mountains of Peleponesia. Ask any builder where it would be easiest to build a large structure... on the prairies or at the top of the Rocky Mountains...which do you think he would normally choose? There has to be a REASON fo rthis choice and delivering by Zeppelin WOULD change thwe easiest place to build to the mountain top FROM the Prairies.

Stone circles are not always found in the close presence of the sea!

Really? Find me a Stone Circles that is not either near a corrupted river, a salt water marsh or the sea....

I would expect that it's horses that are found in close presence and not the other way around.

I would also expect that pigs were found in close presence of pyramids, and not the opther way round.

If you know Relativity, you should know my answer. The whole concept is not that the horses or pigs are there NECESSARILY because the Pyramids are there, it is just that it would facilitate Zeppelins.

Incidentally, this was about the only point that Lloyd Pye tried in any to argue, claiming that lumber in the Amazon is not an approximation of infinite and that it would have run out. This is absurd.

You have many of your own questions here you have not answered, there are many posed by members you have skipped past.

Schedule which one I might not have answered and I shall. My apologies fi I have skipped any by accident.

if you are going to ignore the people replying to you, and not expalin the things you bring up.

I have been trying to reply to people's thoughts but stuff has been pouring in so far in replies that I am finding difficulty in keeping up with this. Please accept my apologies.

One more thing, why on earth would you make calculations, then post them on a website, and not have a back-up of the calculations?

I did have a copy on my computer, but my girlfriend deleted them by accident and I was banned so out-of-the-blue from Giorgio's site that I was taken by surprise.

Seems a bit careless, especially if you put time into those calculations.

Yes, you are correct. I spent a lot of time with a pocket calculator and looking up all the dimensions of the Hindenburg. It is not hard to imagine my vocal response to being suddenly banned from access to my own work on Giorgio's site out-of-the-blue as a result. Indeed, the :"Manners And Decorum" rules on this site make it impossible for me to recount my initial verbal response to that surpirse banning in this thread.

Again I apologise for my carelessness.

reply to post by bearwithredhat


I'm betting you've never worked with stone in your life.... or HF.

Honestly... your "theory" is just an idea until you prove the concept.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Pyramid building civilizations had slave labor, time, money, and drive along with basic lever and pulley tech and log rollers. Not sure what is so mysterious about it. No aliens needed. The pyramid shape was simply the easiest way to build a tall structure to reach for their gods.

To lonewolf...just where are the bodies of these 450' giant men? And whatever would such a large omnivore eat?

edit on 26-6-2012 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

Whatever floats your boat I guess. I thought it was evident by now that slaves were not used in ancient Egypt, archeological finds show that workers lived good lives, were well fed and most likely weren't abused either. Can you imagine how impossible it would be to control all those slaves? I'm to believe some force outnumbered by 1 to 10-100, perhaps even more, managed to control the slaves with whips? On top of that, the workers were underfed and slept in horrible conditions? Find that hard to believe, they would take forever to get the job done in that condition, if, of course, they didn't just revolt against the few slave drivers.

Workers were used, obviously, in either case, but I'm pretty sure they understood they were part of a greater good, you're not convinced of that when you get beatings for not working hard enough and end up hungry every evening.


Besides, there is much more left to explain with the typical idea that you present, sure, it COULD be possible, but it's highly unlikely that it was that simple, archeologists still offer no solution as to how they lit the insides of the pyramids (no scorching from supposed torches), pictograms still depict things that don't fit in or need further explanation, the fact that (according to them) things came from the sky,... Unless you're happy with "it's just symbolism" that's fine, I'm not, there are theories out there that explain things better than "yeah they just worshipped Gods so they built some temples with simplistic tools in order to reach for them", to me it's obvious they were built to last, as a message to further generations.

Made it through the first page of posts. It was tedious, but here I am, at the bottom of the page. I read there is four pages total. I'm interested in the thread, but not enough to put up with your giddy pied piper approach to story telling. If you want your writing technique graded or read professionally; get it done, elsewhere. If you have an idea: present it. If you enjoy being quirky...go hang with the hair guy. I'm outta here.

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
reply to post by bearwithredhat

 

Thanks for the response, I do appreciate your input because I do see the validity of your case here. In saying that, can you expand a little on your acid theory (I did read your OP quite thoroughly by the way) regarding this pic:

I am not sayig that this was the only technique, only that it would answer the key quesiot on how the blocks were fused together with perfectly geometric lines. Even so, I would point out that if you put a complex chunk of metal into an acid bath, it fades down into being a featureless blob. Maybe this is on possible way to get a cylindrical shape. As I say, I do not rule out some poor pion being handed a piece of sand paper and being told to rub a piece of stone for the next 20 years if he wants to eat.

It is the Terrace wall of the ancient Inca fortress, Sacsayhuaman, so your knowledge about chemical elements and their geographical locations would need to be considered as well when and if you respond.

OK, you have me baffled about what you are saying there.

How, for example, did the stones on the corners obtain their cylindrical shape using the acid? and if you look closely these same corner stones lock into their respective courses with fine precision - in effect there are probably 10 separate planes of surface on some of them.

Although each plane could have been done one at a time. I do not rule out other possibilities, not least the idea of bringing stone that has dissolved into HF acid back out by getting it to recystalise in a shaped clay mold...or just seeing it given back to the same sad pion with the sandpaper and his long suffering wife with the very burnt dinner again.

How does a Zeppelin stay stationary and aligned in such an inhospitable and windy environment at such altitude?

Is it actually windy there? It is interesting to note that there seems to be a noticible lack of Stone Circles and pyramids in places like Chicago, the Windy City, "Tornado Valley" across the US mid-West, the route of the "MIstral" in France and other places with variable winds, but a clear presence where the trade winds stop.

What means, do you think, were used to control the climb and descent of the Zeppelins when traversing between sea level and mountain tops?

Firstly, as pointed out before, Ley Lines actually seem to direct through mountain passes and through the Alps. Secondly, rising and falling could be done the same way that balloons do it, by dumpng ballast or releasing hydrogen. For this reason, reaching Britain would give them an extreme need to restock on ballast and hydrogen before attempting to cross the Alps, hence the need for the Stone Cirles, whilst, the Trade Winds to Central AMerica come out AT the destination and not at a similar set of mountains. Likewise, it would expain why, in a crisis, a Zeppelin might have had to ditch its load leaving a vast several hundred ton block stranded half way up a mountain side with no way apparently to be there or get there when analysed by modern day archaeologists.

reply to post by JabbaClease


Hello all,

These stones at Pumu Punku ARE granite or dolerite the next hardest stone....I dont think they have shown to be poured or formed, but actual normal hard rock...

Good amount of thought went into the OP though...lol.. although, there are areas where answers still needed, etc.

If I ever get rich enough to give it all a go..would love to visit these oddball places myself and see for myself...

Have done it on a couple places, prior to the lovely depression we are in... makes a BIG difference to see it with your own eyes, do the measuring yourself, or examine the holes and grooves in the rock, etc.

The "mystery" remains in my book, and although the OP has an intriguing idea... I dont think this is how it was done.. and I realize the OP was just saying, there were other ways it could have been done.. not THIS IS HOW it was done..so...

TOO bad... a bunch of people cant use as much brain work to fix the world we live in eh??? lol..

Interesting thread, not too hostile which is good to see,

Pravdaseeker

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by bearwithredhat

 

I'm betting you've never worked with stone in your life.... or HF.

Honestly... your "theory" is just an idea until you prove the concept.

edit on 26-6-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

I accept your point ALTHOUGH my original point is not to suggest that this is exactly how it was done, just the point that it is absurd to suggest that it was impossible for anicent man to have done this without advanced technology.

The one point that I do grant to those suggesting alien involvement is this, that there is one elementin my theory that DOES suggest Alien involvement...MANAGEMENT. To have organizsed such projects does suggest a knowledge and ability in terms of management skills that might not have been amingst ancient man.

Originally posted by dondrews
Made it through the first page of posts. It was tedious, but here I am, at the bottom of the page. I read there is four pages total. I'm interested in the thread, but not enough to put up with your giddy pied piper approach to story telling. If you want your writing technique graded or read professionally; get it done, elsewhere. If you have an idea: present it. If you enjoy being quirky...go hang with the hair guy. I'm outta here.

Please accept my apologies for this, but the rate at which I have to reply to emails meant that I had to go in slow detail, rather than getting bogged down on the first point.

Originally posted by ThisIsNotReality
archeologists still offer no solution as to how they lit the insides of the pyramids (no scorching from supposed torches), .

Incidentally, suppose that they burned surplus hydrogen to light the inside of the passages... When hydrogen burns it does not produce soot... it produces WATER and so by burning hydrogen, there would be no mark left regarding lighting.

Originally posted by bearwithredhat
Originally posted by kidtwist
reply to post by bearwithredhat

Puma Punku is clearly made from large stones. Check out the base of Baalbeck and Temple Mount in Jerusalem, again, almost solely from large stones.

I appreciate there were large stones at Puma Punku, but you were specifically saying why did they prefer to use them, not that they did use them. It's clear that they did use them, but we can never really know if they preferred to use them because you do not know enough about it to have definite answers.

Puma Punku - 13,200 feet above sea level.
Delphi - high up in the mountains of Peleponesia. Ask any builder where it would be easiest to build a large structure... on the prairies or at the top of the Rocky Mountains...which do you think he would normally choose? There has to be a REASON fo rthis choice and delivering by Zeppelin WOULD change thwe easiest place to build to the mountain top FROM the Prairies.

Yes, I'm quite aware that one would logically build at the bottom of a mountain, that is fairly obvious to work out, but they may no have preferred to build at the top of a mountain at all, but the significance of why they did build at the top will be the reason. For example, I go to work to earn money to live, I'd prefer to stay at home, but whatever the reason behind them building where they did, may not have been preferred due to the work involved, but maybe had to be done regardless of the work involved because of the meaning it meant to them?

Really? Find me a Stone Circles that is not either near a corrupted river, a salt water marsh or the sea....

You said the sea, you never mentioned a 'corrupted river' I live close to Stonehenge, so I know it's nowhere near the sea! Now if you had said initially 'corrupted river' in you OP question then I would not have brought up the sea question. Maybe be more thorough in your questions to save people asking unnecessary questions.

If you know Relativity, you should know my answer. The whole concept is not that the horses or pigs are there NECESSARILY because the Pyramids are there, it is just that it would facilitate Zeppelins.

Incidentally, this was about the only point that Lloyd Pye tried in any to argue, claiming that lumber in the Amazon is not an approximation of infinite and that it would have run out. This is absurd.

I was just saying that I would have thought they moved pigs and horses to the site and not built the site near to animals specifically? BTW, I have no idea what a Zeppelin is! An airship is all I know of!

I have no idea who Lloyd Pye is, or how his claim about lumber in the Amazon remotely relates to my question? Maybe you should make a thread about Lloyd Pye, so that you can keep those opinions separate?

Schedule which one I might not have answered and I shall. My apologies fi I have skipped any by accident.

No problem, was just pointing out you seemed to have missed some people's questions in the first few pages, maybe you have addressed them now?

I have been trying to reply to people's thoughts but stuff has been pouring in so far in replies that I am finding difficulty in keeping up with this. Please accept my apologies.

Again, no problem, was just poinitng it out because I see many threads here where people start a debate but selectively answer questions. Cheers

I did have a copy on my computer, but my girlfriend deleted them by accident and I was banned so out-of-the-blue from Giorgio's site that I was taken by surprise.
Yes, you are correct. I spent a lot of time with a pocket calculator and looking up all the dimensions of the Hindenburg. It is not hard to imagine my vocal response to being suddenly banned from access to my own work on Giorgio's site out-of-the-blue as a result. Indeed, the :"Manners And Decorum" rules on this site make it impossible for me to recount my initial verbal response to that surpirse banning in this thread.

Again I apologise for my carelessness.

Darn girlfriends eh, I hope she is good at re-calculating!

I do not know that site you speak of, but it does seem odd you would get banned for making an honest contribution. Maybe what you wrote went against the beliefs they have already formed in their mind? Or maybe it threatens their work somehow?

Anyway, there are still a lot of questions on how they did this, and how other sites were built.

One thing that truly puzzles me, and must be one of the most important factors is the fact that many monuments align with each other, in a precise manner. Now I personally have not measured anything, and so have not done my own verification, and I'm not entirely sure how I could measure this without some kind of satellite technology.

Originally posted by Mystic Technician

If you're so sure it was done that way ,why don't you do it yourself and thereby prove it?

...Give me a few hundred million and I shall indeed do this...honest.... and I'll even send you a postcard from the beach inRio when I get there.

I ran out of word space in my previous post just above this one, and meant to put this at the end of my post....


Do we know if anyone has officially measured these alignments, and if they are officially confirmed then surely that is something that is an even bigger part of the puzzle?

I know they could use stars to align to a certain rough point, but apparently the alignments are mathematically perfect, and that was just not possible way back then!

Cheers

reply to post by bearwithredhat


To clarify my previous statement -

Chemical elements: Salts / hydrogen generation. Although these elements are abundant in certain areas, these structures are spread all over the planet (geographical location) but follow a fairly consistent construction pattern (massive stones not native to the area, precise cuts, high altitude)

Once again, thanks for your time on this.