Ancient Alien Failures...

I just cant see some kind of knucle dragger creating a place like Puma Punku.Those H blocks looked machined,not carved.I just saw a doc.where using a scale model shows those giant blocks actually inter-lock and COULD have been the hinges to 2 HUGE doors.And when coupled together even forms a kind of carrying handle.They say they can only be cut using a diamond saw.Im not trying to under estimate our ancesters as they may have had knowledge we have long forgotten.But considering the complexity id guess they had some very adanced help.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


here is a good cross section of photographic examples. i believe there was a recent thread on here that illustrated some of the structural anomalies, will look for it unless someone can kindly beat me to it.

it has been established that these skulls are real, though 'respectable' paleontologists are constrained to ignore their existence. some dna testing should be available soon, if not already revealed. i did read that the 'star child' skull was maternally human in dna while the paternal analysis matched nothing scientists recognize.

Originally posted by AgentX09
I just cant see some kind of knucle dragger creating a place like Puma Punku.Those H blocks looked machined,not carved.I just saw a doc.where using a scale model shows those giant blocks actually inter-lock and COULD have been the hinges to 2 HUGE doors.And when coupled together even forms a kind of carrying handle.They say they can only be cut using a diamond saw.Im not trying to under estimate our ancesters as they may have had knowledge we have long forgotten.But considering the complexity id guess they had some very adanced help.

First, no they are not machined. A documentary of fantasy and what COULD be. It COULD be the leftovers of intergalactic time travelers from another dimension that were assimilated by the Borg in a land far far away. Please stick with actual evidence. The fact the blocks interlock is meaningless as no advanced technology is required, only a working mind to conceptualize the idea, which they had. Who is "they" that say it could only be done with diamonds? Red sandstone is not that hard, in fact it is fairly soft, and many stones found in South America would have been adequate.

Because no one likes to do any research I googled quickly and came up with a discussion here ....
www.sciforums.com...

Originally posted by ouvertaverite
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

here is a good cross section of photographic examples. i believe there was a recent thread on here that illustrated some of the structural anomalies, will look for it unless someone can kindly beat me to it.

it has been established that these skulls are real, though 'respectable' paleontologists are constrained to ignore their existence. some dna testing should be available soon, if not already revealed. i did read that the 'star child' skull was maternally human in dna while the paternal analysis matched nothing scientists recognize.

First, where is the cross section of examples? I see none listed. Second, you freely admit no one respectable says anything about these being abnormal, yet a finding of that sort would put someone in the history books for life. As to the Star Child, DNA testing shows the mother is human. There is no other evidence, he took about 1% of the DNA and then multiplied by 100 to say the DNA has too many mutations to be human. All he had to do was find 1 mutation and he automatically is able to make that conclusion based on his methodology. He does not even allow independent analysis, he has his own lackey do the work. Do you not see the problem there?

David H Childress refrained himself from his usual AA stuff with that particular video
Slayer.
To a logical minded person, it's clear that different technology was used to get such fine precision results with stonework. I'm not saying hitech, but other methods which mainstream archaeologists do need to acknowledge.

Originally posted by crackerjack
David H Childress refrained himself from his usual AA stuff with that particular video
Slayer.
To a logical minded person, it's clear that different technology was used to get such fine precision results with stonework. I'm not saying hitech, but other methods which mainstream archaeologists do need to acknowledge.

edit on 10-12-2012 by crackerjack because: (no reason given)

What method was used? How can you ask them to acknowledge a method you yourself can not state what it is? Sandstone is soft. It is known that harder materials are found in the area which would allow someone to create the holes. Master craftsmen with time and patience can do it. Please tell me what methodology was used. Please tell me exactly why my method would not work.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


those are photos of real skulls, just for examples.

here are star child guy's lackeys:

Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S (c)

Specialists who examined the skull and associated X-rays and CAT scans were:

Dr. Fred Smith, Head of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, New Orleans, La.

Dr. David Hodges, Radiologist, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. John Bachynsky, Radiologist, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. Ken Poskitt, Pediatric Neuroradiologist, Vancouver Children’s Hospital

Dr. Ian Jackson, (formerly of Mayo Clinic), Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Michigan

Dr. John McNicoll, Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Seattle

Dr. Mike Kaburda, Oral Surgeon, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. Tony Townsend, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

Dr. Hugh Parsons, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

Dr David Sweet, Forensic Odontologist, Vancouver

would it be the easiest explanation that stone age people who gained advanced scientific knowledge might be telling the truth when they invariably explain that sky gods instructed them? or were they liars and hallucinators that somehow nonetheless miraculously constructed things we can't match (or even move such monoliths as used) today and invented calendars that have only been rivalled for accuracy by computers?

you're not one of those pro 'skeptics' who has all the answers before the questions, are you?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by DaRAGE
I dont know about the supposed ancient aliens.

Sure I believe in aliens and they could be around back then, no doubt. But I also beleve in many world wide, advanced human civilizations, that have been destroyed through natural disasters.

Advanced man could do this too.

Just think on it.

Show me archaelogical evidence to support this please.

Show me archaelogical evidence to support ancient aliens please.

Why can the big blocks be "made by ancient aliens" but cant be "made by ancient advanced man"?

Which is the more plausible theory?

A. Aliens travel light years to earth to build Obelisk in quarry.

B. Man becomes learned, travels to quarry in backyard, builds obelisk.

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by DaRAGE
I dont know about the supposed ancient aliens.

Sure I believe in aliens and they could be around back then, no doubt. But I also beleve in many world wide, advanced human civilizations, that have been destroyed through natural disasters.

Advanced man could do this too.

Just think on it.

Show me archaelogical evidence to support this please.

Show me archaelogical evidence to support ancient aliens please.

Why can the big blocks be "made by ancient aliens" but cant be "made by ancient advanced man"?

We are in agreement then. Both ideas have zero evidence, are fun to think about, and should be discounted. The only idea supported by enough evidence to consider is that ancient man was intelligent and found ways to create wondrous achievements.

reply to post by DaRAGE





there are many examples. the above is dated to 10,000 b.c.

Originally posted by crackerjack
David H Childress refrained himself from his usual AA stuff with that particular video
Slayer.
To a logical minded person, it's clear that different technology was used to get such fine precision results with stonework. I'm not saying hitech, but other methods which mainstream archaeologists do need to acknowledge.

I was kind of surprised about his restraint too.
I also agree with your assessment on the stone work as well.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by crackerjack
David H Childress refrained himself from his usual AA stuff with that particular video
Slayer.
To a logical minded person, it's clear that different technology was used to get such fine precision results with stonework. I'm not saying hitech, but other methods which mainstream archaeologists do need to acknowledge.

I was kind of surprised about his restraint too.
I also agree with your assessment on the stone work as well.

While I would not rule it out, I really don't see anything that necessitates it. I would be curious what exactly makes you think it's necessary.

reply to post by SLAYER69


that video in your op was FANTASTIC!
they visited tons of megalithic sites and went over all the different types of building techniques.
really good.

I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to their opinions, which make debates great for those who know how to listen.

Having said that, the fact that we found those megaliths and megalithic structures "stuck" on the ground is further evidence that after the ones responsible for them have left, the people left there didn't have the means to get rid of them... or move them, or restore them to their original position.

1- To use trees and ropes to move those mega stones means that the trees were made of the same material of the stones, or close to it, not to be crushed under such a massive weight, and the ropes made of some super dense material not to snap from the pressure of pulling such massive weight. (I've seen with my own eyes how ropes and chains have given up when trying to pull and drag heavy rocks from the ground without using wheels, something the ancients didn't have, and those rocks/ bowlders were not near as heavy as those stones).

2- ( I actually had to edit this part because I meant to say diorite, what the blocks in Puma Punku are made of and are considered grade 8 in hardness in the Mohs scale, third to diamonds which are considered grade 10); and we all know that diamonds are the hardest minerals found on earth. This only means that to cut and make those incisions in those stones, the tools used had to be as strong or stronger than the stones. I have yet to see evidence of such tools. (If you are going to say that you don't see evidence of Aliens leaving tools either, when we buy a house or go to a building, we don't find any tools used in their constructions. The architects take their tools with them)

3- I'm open to the idea of very advanced humans creating them, and then leaving. Even today we have stone age people living in such advance world. Stone age does not necessarily refers to an epoch in time, but to a way of living (not using metal but only stones and woods as tools) and we can see that in tribes around the world living in such conditions. I have a problem with time travel, which would require a whole post for me to explain why, but even if it did happen, those human were "aliens" to that time and space.

4- Most people forget, avoid, or classify as myth the best evidence we have for alien visitation. Every ancient culture in the world talks about "people" that came from the stars and created humans, and taught them about agriculture, language, reading... etc. No ancient culture takes credit for building those monuments nor describe in their documents how they built them, or were built. But what we have is ancient documents describing those "gods"; describing their machines and aircraft (associating what they saw with what they knew, like clouds, birds and so, except for the Hindu Vedas texts which gave names to their space crafts).

5- I wonder what type of wood and rope did the ancients use to observe the stars and give location to stars so far from here that, as far as I know, can't be seen with the naked eye. I wonder what type of tool they used to discover that the earth was round and went around the sun( when not too long ago the contrary was believed). I wonder what kind of hallucinations they had, to be able to describe the earth from miles above, as you would when looking down from a plane and, even, much further above.

When we believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, the scientific community at the time thought that we were at the pinnacle of our technology and knowledge. But now we know better. But still we behave the same way we did back then, without killing people, when it comes to new ideas and new lines of thought. We still have the mind set of trying to explain away what we don't know, instead of admitting that we don't know. we don't have to believe in aliens, but we should not make poor excuses to try to explain what happened in ancient times. A simple " we don't understand it yet" would suffice. We know that science is always evolving, changing, and what we though to be truth 50 years ago have been proven false.

We need to change our believes, or at least be open minded, when looking at history, instead of changing history to fit it into our believes!

Interesting OP, thanks for the thoughts..

As for the validity of ancient aliens - I always think to myself this -

"If we hadn't discovered any ancient civilizations/writings/buildings until after science had developed to the point we're at now where ETs are perfectly possible scientifically, would we have translated things as 'gods' 'spirits' 'coming from the heavens'?"

It seems strange that we believe supernatural polytheistic/semi-theistic beliefs unlike anything we have today are more likely than a rational explanation, despite the fact that our brains have not changed much over all this time. The general tendancy for explaining the unknown is to attribute it all to one god, not to many gods who have little power and fight between each other. Not saying this is an impossible idea to come up with, it just seems we would have translated things differently if we hadnt discovered them until today.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
What method was used? How can you ask them to acknowledge a method you yourself can not state what it is? Sandstone is soft. It is known that harder materials are found in the area which would allow someone to create the holes. Master craftsmen with time and patience can do it. Please tell me what methodology was used. Please tell me exactly why my method would not work.

It's granite, a simple google search is all you need

Granite becomes Sandstone when water erodes the Granite on Earths surface, and then deposits the sediment.

wiki.answers.com...

All I'm saying is stonework knowledge back then was at it's peak, they worked with the stuff everyday it was all around them and it was the only viable material for their constructions, so maybe they knew something we don't.

I'm no expert on stones but Engineer, Christopher Dunn I think can tell the difference, which he states granite several times.
Did you even watch the documentary ???

Regards.
Crackerjack.

Originally posted by crackerjack

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
What method was used? How can you ask them to acknowledge a method you yourself can not state what it is? Sandstone is soft. It is known that harder materials are found in the area which would allow someone to create the holes. Master craftsmen with time and patience can do it. Please tell me what methodology was used. Please tell me exactly why my method would not work.

It's granite, a simple google search is all you need

Granite becomes Sandstone when water erodes the Granite on Earths surface, and then deposits the sediment.

wiki.answers.com...

All I'm saying is stonework knowledge back then was at it's peak, they worked with the stuff everyday it was all around them and it was the only viable material for their constructions, so maybe they knew something we don't.

I'm no expert on stones but Engineer, Christopher Dunn I think can tell the difference, which he states granite several times.
Did you even watch the documentary ???

Regards.
Crackerjack.

edit on 10-12-2012 by crackerjack because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2012 by crackerjack because: (no reason given)

No, it's red sandstone. It's a relatively soft rock. Christopher Dunn has a steak in this as he is an ancient technology proponent. Please show me an official source stating it is NOT sandstone.

Based upon the specific gravity of the red sandstone from which it was carved, this stone slab has been estimated to weigh 131 metric tons.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ponce Sanginés, C. and G. M. Terrazas, 1970, Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia

The accepted estimate of this piece of red sandstone's weight is 131 metric tons, equal to 144 US tons. The second largest block is only 85 metric tons, and the rest go down sharply from there.

skeptoid.com...

This is not a guess, the stones have been thoroughly examined for their specific gravity. It is 100% red sandstone. Stop believing the fringe and things may become clearer.

I am not saying these people were not experts, I am not saying they did not have methods we have not thought of. I am saying those methods are not REQUIRED. Advanced technology (rivaling todays or beyond) is most certainly not required. As I have already stated, people are capable of amazing feats, and it is quite possible they came up with an ingenious solution to their problems in building Pumapunku (such as the stones locking into place). None of this requires advanced technology though. They did not do it because of very advanced technology, they did it in SPITE of it!!!! That is why this is all so wondrous and amazing, almost magical.

None of this requires advanced technology though. They did not do it because of very advanced technology, they did it in SPITE of it!!!! That is why this is all so wondrous and amazing, almost magical.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


With all due respect, but for you to say that you are implying that to build a plane, to go to the moon, to build a submarine, computer, cellphone and the likes we don't need technology at all. Every time period in Human history had/have their technology; Stone age people didn't have the technology that the Iron age people had. 200 years ago they didn't have the technology we have today. Advance technology refers to a technology that a time period had but was not supposed to have, or wasn't discovered until hundreds of years later. For example, Alexander the Great is the only person known that at that time went under water in some type of craft. Because at the time he lived, and before him, we don't know of people doing that, it is considered that he had advanced technology or knowledge, or was given to him.

If advanced technology wasn't required to build what was built back then, please explain to us how they did it, how can we do it today without the technology we have? Keep in mind those people were stone age people. That doesn't meant that they were expert on how to cut and lift stone, but that the tools they used were mostly made of stones, no iron, steel and such materials used and use after them!

Ok guys what about the science and mathematics of what goes into making such enormous structures such as the great pyramid of Giza for example. A cool fact well that i have accepted as fact and I'm not sure if it has been debunked is the location at where the great pyramid of Giza is located at the supposed exact center of all the land mass on earth i mean how could have ancient man known this .When they started the construction i mean even before they started the construction someone had to plan this there is no way they could have made something like this without a plan, there had to be an advanced overseer someone to guide this sort of construction this knowledge i dont care how advanced ancient man would have been there is no possible way they could have known the exact center of all the land mass on earth right ? unless there is something that we are missing or dont know yet about ancient man.

Originally posted by thegrayone
Advance technology refers to a technology that a time period had but was not supposed to have, or wasn't discovered until hundreds of years later.

That is the definition you apply to it. I have in past posts stated by advanced technology I mean that rivaling our own today. By your definition, we could have a wonderful debate and I would love to hear what technology you believe they used. I am intrigued. Unfortunately that is not what people here on ATS typically mean. Many here believe there have been many 'Advanced Civilizations' (such as Atlantis) that surpassed our level of technology, and these civilizations have come and gone through the history of the Earth. We are currently on a rebuilding period and not at the level of technology we have been at in the distant past. Many here also believe Pumapunku is far older than the 1500~ or so years old that it is, thus the fascination with it.

Refer to this post.

Originally posted by ouvertaverite
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

would it be the easiest explanation that stone age people who gained advanced scientific knowledge might be telling the truth when they invariably explain that sky gods instructed them? or were they liars and hallucinators that somehow nonetheless miraculously constructed things we can't match (or even move such monoliths as used) today and invented calendars that have only been rivalled for accuracy by computers?

you're not one of those pro 'skeptics' who has all the answers before the questions, are you?