Dumb Old Lady vs. Ancient Aliens Debunked

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

Harte has gone out of his way to explain things in this thread, yet everything he says has been ignored. Why is that?

I congratulate you on your preceptiveness!

I'm always ignored. The sparkly runs right out of their worldview if they even begin to listen to me.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
I'm always ignored. The sparkly runs right out of their worldview if they even begin to listen to me.

People don't want real explanations. They just want affirmations of their feelings. A person has to de-sparkle themselves, when they're ready, if they ever are.

the "real explanation" was derived from "who taught the inca stonemasons their skills", which didn't clarify when the quarry was for pumapunku. for example, the quarry for the puma punku H stones was 70 kilometers away, across lake titicaca, whereas the quarry photograph in the ancient aliens debunked video is for the red sandstone quarry by the subterranean temple.

these are 2 different sites, with 2 different quarries and 2 different construction techniques. so saying the red sandstone quarry was also for puma punku is not accurate, as the only part of puma punku that is red sandstone is the foundation, whereas the H stones at puma punku are from the quarry 70 kilometers across the lake which is not pictured in the "who taught the inca stonemasons their skills." so saying the photo for the red sandstone quarry with pounding stones for the subterranean temple explains puma punku H stones is simply not accurate!

a reply to: undo

ok well if you don't at least reply as to why you typed the OP the way you did, i'll do the math, send it to the mods.
i know you know what i'm talking about.

originally posted by: KAOStheory
a reply to: undo

ok well if you don't at least reply as to why you typed the OP the way you did, i'll do the math, send it to the mods.
i know you know what i'm talking about.

if you are using firefox, go to View in the menu at the top. Select Zoom, then from that menu select Reset. it should then look like double spaced paragraphs.

p.s. have you authored your own thread? if so, go try to change your op. can't do it. there's a time limit on editing your posts, even your own op. at the time when i authored the op, ats had a different forum template, and the sentences appeared normal in the default font settings, but the change of forum template since then, has changed the way the op looks. sorry about that.

brien foerster, in one of his videos, reviewed both tiwanaku and pumapunku. as he was walking through the area, he pointed out that tiwanaku pyramid and temple appeared to have benefited from scavenged cut andesite stones from the pumapunku site and used an occasional such stone in the otherwise red sandstone structures. they look really out of place as andesite weathers much better than red sandstone. so as the camera panned along the wall of the pyramid, you'd see these red sandstone blocks, clearly aged and weathered, and suddenly a near perfect, gray, andesite block stuck in the midst.

now that's an interesting question: did they scavenge andesite blocks from a destroyed pumapunku to create the pyramid and temple at tiwanaku or were both locations created simultaneously? probably the only way to find out would be to extract an andesite stone from the pyramid / temple complex and see if its a full block of andesite on all four sides, as finely cut as the front and top are, since pumapunku did not use blocks of the same size as the temple and pyramid. if the andesite stone thus extracted was a chunk of a corner or what not of the larger pumapunku stones, you'd be able to determine if it was scavenged, thus helping to further date pumapunku.

originally posted by: undo
the "real explanation" was derived from "who taught the inca stonemasons their skills", which didn't clarify when the quarry was for pumapunku. for example, the quarry for the puma punku H stones was 70 kilometers away, across lake titicaca, whereas the quarry photograph in the ancient aliens debunked video is for the red sandstone quarry by the subterranean temple.



these are 2 different sites, with 2 different quarries and 2 different construction techniques. so saying the red sandstone quarry was also for puma punku is not accurate, as the only part of puma punku that is red sandstone is the foundation, whereas the H stones at puma punku are from the quarry 70 kilometers across the lake which is not pictured in the "who taught the inca stonemasons their skills." so saying the photo for the red sandstone quarry with pounding stones for the subterranean temple explains puma punku H stones is simply not accurate!

The VAST majority of the stone at Pumapunku is the red sandstone. Only the H-blocks are diorite. These are MUCH smaller stones and there are only a few scores of them.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte


The VAST majority of the stone at Pumapunku is the red sandstone. Only the H-blocks are diorite. These are MUCH smaller stones and there are only a few scores of them.

Harte

are they diorite or andecite? or both? and the h blocks are the ones being focused on in the ancient aliens show, and they are not small.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Harte


The VAST majority of the stone at Pumapunku is the red sandstone. Only the H-blocks are diorite. These are MUCH smaller stones and there are only a few scores of them.

Harte

are they diorite or andecite? or both? and the h blocks are the ones being focused on in the ancient aliens show, and they are not small.

It's all sandstone and andesite, there's no diorite at all.

However, andesite is very similar to diorite. In fact, unless I misremember, andesite is the extrusive form of what would have become a type of diorite, had it remained underground.

The use of the term diorite for this andesite - usually arising from the fringe but very often repeated by people that don't know better - is testimony to either the laziness or the purposeful mendacity of "professional" fringe proponents, i.e. the people that make a living making unfounded claims.

Much like the people featured in your video above I'd say, had I bothered to watch it.

Harte

Edited to add: The stones shown in the cover frame of your embedded video are all red sandstone.

H.

a reply to: Harte

this is what you said:

The VAST majority of the stone at Pumapunku is the red sandstone. Only the H-blocks are diorite.

which is why i asked, because that's part of the issue i bring up in the video. the authors of the ancient aliens debunked video, said giorgio is just copying whatever daniken says, but i think the tour guides are telling people that some of the stones are diorite, as i have watched videos people have made while touring the place, and they say it's diorite as well. so while it may seem lazy, i think it's more like expecting the tour guides to know what the stuff is. i don't think that qualifies for saying daniken and giorgio are being deliberately deceitful.

Edited to add: The stones shown in the cover frame of your embedded video are all red sandstone.

the h stone in the pic is not red sandstone.

just in case you missed it. this is my refutation of the ancient aliens debunked video:

1. the h stones are not from the quarry pictured in the video, so neither the quarry nor its pounding stones, verify that the h stones were made with pounding stones.

2. since that time, somebody got the less than brilliant idea to contaminate the actual andesite quarry the h stones were presumably made from, 70 kilometers away, across lake titicaca, by staging their own version of how it may have been done right in the quarry itself, complete with using pounding stones. we have no way to verify at this juncture, if the pounding stones were insitu from the actual creators of the h stones, or if the experimenters created them for the experiment. doesn't seem likely that they would've used the original tools, if they even found them there, as they would be considered ancient artifacts.

3. the tour guides are likely telling tourists that the stones are granite and diorite, as many tourist films include the tourists saying as much, while on the site with tour guides in tow.

4. leaving out references of ancient flying vehicles in older texts, like mahabharata, and pointing almost exclusively to vimanas in newer channeled texts, is less than revealing on the subject. the older texts verify earlier, non-channeled references to flying vehicles, regardless of whether the vimana texts are newer or channeled or not.

5. the ezekiel 1 vehicle is a vehicle, whether it's in some spiritual dimension or not, it's still a vehicle, and the information is pretty intense, most of which has to be ignored to stick to the idea that it's a mundane artistic reference to jehovah's mastery over the heavens and the passage of time.

6. "the anunna whom an conceived in the sky," does not translate to princely blood conceived on the earth. it translates to - an conceived the anunna in the sky, not on the earth. in the sky, means in the sky, not on the earth.

Great thread Undo!

Thank you! Thank you!

You bring up some amazingly interesting points and counters to the debunkers.

originally posted by: amazing
Great thread Undo!

Thank you! Thank you!

You bring up some amazingly interesting points and counters to the debunkers.

you're welcome.

also, consider the video from brien foerster i linked above. in it, he shows a pretty shoddy wall of stones, presumably added after the older, megalithic stones. these may have been from the red sandstone quarry, using pounding stones. the original tools used to build both pumapunku and tiwanaku subterranean temple and pyramid, could've been taken away and used for who knows what, long before the spanish even found the inca inhabiting the area (who said they didn't build it either! gosh, who knows how old that place actually is)

here's another interesting video on the subject..

a reply to: undo

no worries, and right you are. i did try to edit a post, too late.

very interesting post, thanks

a reply to: undo

Great Video. Thanks!

originally posted by: undo
just in case you missed it. this is my refutation of the ancient aliens debunked video:



1. the h stones are not from the quarry pictured in the video, so neither the quarry nor its pounding stones, verify that the h stones were made with pounding stones.

The argument is not that the H-stones were made with pounders. It is that andesite was quarried with pounders.

the H-stones were obviously shaped with pounders, then with chisels and then rubbing stones to finish.

originally posted by: undo
2. since that time, somebody got the less than brilliant idea to contaminate the actual andesite quarry the h stones were presumably made from, 70 kilometers away, across lake titicaca, by staging their own version of how it may have been done right in the quarry itself, complete with using pounding stones. we have no way to verify at this juncture, if the pounding stones were insitu from the actual creators of the h stones, or if the experimenters created them for the experiment. doesn't seem likely that they would've used the original tools, if they even found them there, as they would be considered ancient artifacts.

See, the h-stones (and the sand stone) still show typical "pecking" marks left by the pounders used to form them into semi-regular cubes (prior to cutting out the inset openings with chisels.)

The fact that "we" can't tell if the experimenters left their pounders in the quarry (so we can't really tell if that's how they did it) is silly.

If you're willing to go that far, then "we" can also say that "we" can't tell if the place wasn't built in the 1920" since "we" weren't there to see it erected.

originally posted by: undo

3. the tour guides are likely telling tourists that the stones are granite and diorite, as many tourist films include the tourists saying as much, while on the site with tour guides in tow.

Tour guides are not particularly well known as geologists.

originally posted by: undo

4. leaving out references of ancient flying vehicles in older texts, like mahabharata, and pointing almost exclusively to vimanas in newer channeled texts, is less than revealing on the subject. the older texts verify earlier, non-channeled references to flying vehicles, regardless of whether the vimana texts are newer or channeled or not.

That's true. Ancient contraptions pulled through the sky by flying elephants (among other flying animals.)

originally posted by: undo

5. the ezekiel 1 vehicle is a vehicle, whether it's in some spiritual dimension or not, it's still a vehicle, and the information is pretty intense, most of which has to be ignored to stick to the idea that it's a mundane artistic reference to jehovah's mastery over the heavens and the passage of time.

Referred to in several other books of the Bible as the Throne of God. Ezekiel was aware of the description for that throne.

originally posted by: undo

6. "the anunna whom an conceived in the sky," does not translate to princely blood conceived on the earth. it translates to - an conceived the anunna in the sky, not on the earth. in the sky, means in the sky, not on the earth.

It also translates to "The anunna, whom An thought of in the sky."

Besides, it is the the term "anunnaki" that translates to "of princely blood," not the phrase you mention, which is, in fact, already translated - you just gave the translation yourself.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

got a pic that shows this pecking on the h stones?

i dunno if you are aware or not, but my refutation is not aimed at harte, it's aimed at ancient aliens debunked video. you're giving me your argument which is often not the same argument the people in the video are making. i think you need to watch that video again or for the first time

here's the video i am disagreeing with (not always, just in specific spots)


and my response video (which is nowhere as nice as mr. white's but i didn't think my opinion of a few points, qualified for a big production)

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Harte

got a pic that shows this pecking on the h stones?

No. Would you know it if you saw it?
Pics might be out there. Haver you looked?
I've just got the Protzen paper "Who taught the Inca stonemasons their skills?" link to pdf

I'm sure you've seen it at Heiser's site, but I linked it for others.

It's in there, though the paper doesn't address itself toward Tiahuanaco entirely.

Harte