Aliens made Pumapunku? (CampKill)

a reply to: Mr Mask

So I can't address what you brought up in the first place? Nice avoidance technique.

#1 you sure did avoid the subject of joints between the limestone blocks though. how do you account for them if they are made from poured aggregate? do you support the idea of them being made individually in forms and then moved into place? see you gotta have some details alongwith your big talk.

#2 can you just highlight where they explain how there are joints in the GP blocks but not in the French guy's experiment? you guys like to post rambling nonsense without addressing the important details.

#3 again you brought it up that's why I'm asking for details. do you know why there are no joints in the video or are you just going to use diversions? it's not too far out of the context of including details and not just videos of parlor tricks with levers and pebbles on cement slabs that answer nothing. smoke and mirrors. typical.

#4 you haven't "warned" me about anything. YOU got shut down for swerving off topic by the mods lol. all you did was have a hissy fit and said you were done talking to me. that's when your buddy Zetarediculousness took up the charge as if he mattered.

#5 Sitchin and VonDaniken have nothing to do with joints between the GP blocks (Harte noticed them and agrees they are VERY important to the subject) let's focus on that. I know you want to keep beating that dead horse. we're not talking about them right now but I'm sure you want to because you got nowhere to hide now that you brought up the subject of poured blocks. lol

a reply to: Harte

the joints are "perfect" in the sense they match the corresponding angle of the next block. top bottom sides.

www.bradshawfoundation.com...

what's the significance of that random photo? what is that proof of a quarry? so what? I didn't invent the "aggregate" idea, I simply said that "if it turns out to be true it will trend more toward aliens". If you guys can't understand why then you are showing your deficiencies in engineering and construction.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

love Feynman another great non-linear thinker.

the poured in place theory has been aimed at the Giza Pyramids, in particular the very heavy limestone blocks. Like Harte mentioned, how is there a joint between the bottoms of the blocks? much different scale compared to what you do when making a sculpture. we're talking tons here. not so easy to manipulate.

there is a video where a French scientist tried to recreate what we see at Giza but all he did was make a solid mass of limestone aggregate and it looked nothing like what we see at Giza. I haven't heard anything new regarding the structure of the limestone blocks at Giza. whether or not they've been conclusively determined to have been made artificially.

PP stones are cut from diorite granite.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

the joints are "perfect" in the sense they match the corresponding angle of the next block. top bottom sides.

www.bradshawfoundation.com...

Except, they don't.
picture - great pyramid
Also from the G.P.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
what's the significance of that random photo? what is that proof of a quarry? so what? I didn't invent the "aggregate" idea, I simply said that "if it turns out to be true it will trend more toward aliens". If you guys can't understand why then you are showing your deficiencies in engineering and construction.

The photo is of the Giza quarry where pyramid stones were quarried (limestone.) Only a "nonlinear thinker" would consider that a "random" photo, given the current discussion.

Point being, if stone was crushed then mixed into some sort of concrete, why cut it into huge rectangular shapes first? After all, it would be far faster just to break it out and crush it.

Take note
- there are large rectangular stones making up the expanse of all four exterior sides of each Giza pyramid.
- there are large rectangulr shapes missing from the Giza quarries.

So, to you this adds up to mixed concrete?


Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
PP stones are cut from diorite granite.

There are exactly zero diorite stones at PP.

There are exactly zero granite stones at PP.

Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Mr Mask

Funny though how Einstein was a non-linear thinker. www.ehow.com...

according to "eHow"? So you equate your thought process to Einstein? Do you have attention deficit disorder also?

Einstein's math and science abilities were fueled by his ability to think in the abstract, which is a major part of being a nonlinear thinker. Nonlinear thinkers can often be seen as having an attention deficit, even to the point of having attention deficit disorder.

Read more: www.ehow.com...

a reply to: Harte

Well they sure did in the picture I provided. So we have both situations. Keep in mind I didn't invent the poured in place theory and am not defending it. Why don't you address that point to Masky?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! still aiming your point at insulting me and making jokes I see. linear doesn't have to mean flying off on a tangent lol

a reply to: Harte

Ok so what are they and why wouldn't you include that information or source?

a reply to: bottleslingguy

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! still aiming your point at insulting me and making jokes I see. linear doesn't have to mean flying off on a tangent lol

I'm not following. You keep saying you think nonlinearly. You pointed out and linked to an article on "eHow" about how Einstein was a nonlinear thinker. The next sentence is; "Nonlinear thinkers can often be seen as having an attention deficit, even to the point of having attention deficit disorder." How is that making a joke and insulting you? You provided the context and the link. ADD is no big deal.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Oh so now you're going to say you haven't been making "non-linear " jokes all this time? And the whole non-linear point came up when I brought up the point that linear thinkers most likely will never be able to comprehend an irrational subject such as aliens.

I would suspect there is a spectrum between linear and non-linear thought processes. The big question would be how do you test people in order to place them on that spectrum. There is no need to assign values to it such as good or bad, what is important is simply that things get done one way or another. I am not equating my mind with Einstein's either, so there's no reason to jump on that bandwagon.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Mr Mask

Funny though how Einstein was a non-linear thinker. www.ehow.com...

Are you seriously using a link from a "Ehow" page to show evidence that Einstein was a nonlinear thinker? Hhahaahah. This is rich. So, you use Daniken and Sitchin for your historic facts, and Ehow to define Albert Einstein's mind...

And- from your little funny page that has no merit in any real world argument or factual debate-

"The term "nonlinear" means that something is not in a straight line, and this concept can be applied to a person's method of thought. A person who thinks nonlinearly often makes connections among unrelated concepts. A nonlinear thinker will jump from idea to idea, unlike a logical, linear thinker."

Oh yaaa...Albert sure was nonlinear in his thinking. No really. lol.

Sigh sir, you crack me up with the nonsense you continue to share in this thread. There really is no way of showing you facts since you gravitate towards hoaxes and user submitted blogs for your facts.

MM

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Oh so now you're going to say you haven't been making "non-linear " jokes all this time? And the whole non-linear point came up when I brought up the point that linear thinkers most likely will never be able to comprehend an irrational subject such as aliens.

First off...aliens are not a nonlinear subject.

Secondly you have thrown this "nonlinear" word around as your key mechanism of defense each time you have been shown to be overly wrong and easily corrected.

You keep showing nonsense sources, nonsense hoaxes and nonsense "nonlinear" connections between the two.

Its just gotten out of hand. You can't even stay on topic. Please...show me some evidence that Pumapunku was created by (or had contact with) aliens. Please...

I am waiting.

MM

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
PP stones are cut from diorite granite.

There are exactly zero diorite stones at PP.

There are exactly zero granite stones at PP.

Harte

THE FUNNY part is that the video in the OP of this thread and at least 20 posts in this thread all make that very clear.

Yet this guy will continue to return to the blatant lie of the stones being granite and diorite. Along with the other lies.

No stones at Pumapunku are granite or diorite indeed.

Anyone saying otherwise is quoting an intentional lie.

MM

originally posted by: bottleslingguy


PP stones are cut from diorite granite.

You have been told many times in this thread that there is no diorite or granite at Pumapunku. This was one of the first things we talked about pages ago. It is also in the video this thread is about. It is also in the material you have been linked to.

This is what I mean by you being too uneducated to serve as a functional voice on this subject.

You do not even know about Pumapunku. Alls you know is the lies Daniken invented. Daniken is the man who created the diorite and granite myth of Pumapunku. Anyone in the world quoting the lie is aware it is not true and gamboling on your gullibility to make a buck.

Its sad that you side with the folks who think you are stupid and unable to learn facts so they can gain wealth from lies, while you argue and fight with strangers trying to educate you for free and out of the kindness of their own hearts.

Yknow what? I think you deserve to live this life in oblivious fantasy...you just are too lazy to do simple leg work to even gather the smallest known facts that can not be disputed. Like what rocks are at Pumapunku.

MM

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Mr Mask


#4 you haven't "warned" me about anything. YOU got shut down for swerving off topic by the mods lol. all you did was have a hissy fit and said you were done talking to me. that's when your buddy Zetarediculousness took up the charge as if he mattered.

Hissy fit? Mods? What??? I have no idea what you mean. Nor do I even care. It is clear you can't remain on topic, present facts or even make sense.

Now what is this about joints? I have no idea what you mean? Joints where? What site are you jumping to now? The Statue of Liberty? Mount Rushmore? Atlantis?

What?

Let me guess...some joints on something old makes you think its a smoking gun for aliens? Please explain so I can show you that you are wrong. Thanks.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Hey newsflash your buddy kept harping on the linear subject. I keep asking you to explain how the poured in forms theory accounts for the joints between the blocks but you ignore that until you find something else to cling to. Ok now I don't think you are a linear thinker. Now I believe you are bipolar lol

The evidence at PP is found in the rocks themselves with forensic evidence such as someone cut a one cm groove into andesite stone and drilled small holes inside the groove. No one can show how that is done with bamboo technology leading a rational person to think whomever did it must have had higher technology and because the ancient people claim they had contact with aliens one could rationally conclude the aliens either did it or gave the humans the technology and then took it away because you don't just forget that kind of stuff offhandedly. And don't use that old standby excuse "well they must've been really innovative in order to get precision like that with rocks by hand." That kind of thinking is ridiculous.

a reply to: Mr Mask

Ok so why is it any different that they are andesite like it's not just about as hard as diorite? How bout those joints at Giza? Still avoiding that one? See that's what I'm talking about, I make one little slip and you are all over it, I ask you something hard and you ignore it and get all indignant that I'm getting off topic. You brought up the poured in forms idea concerning Giza and haven't said another word about it.

a reply to: Mr Mask

Back around page 21 you got a comment flagged as off topic.

Ok so now you are asking questions that pertain to Giza now so I'm going to talk about that. I am talking about the joints (I guess you haven't been paying attention) between the supposedly poured in place aggregate blocks of limestone. If they were made in forms like the French guy's experiment there wouldn't be any joints between the blocks and it would be a solid mass which is obvious from the result of his experiment. You support that theory so explain why you think that is how they did it.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

Well they sure did in the picture I provided. So we have both situations. Keep in mind I didn't invent the poured in place theory and am not defending it. Why don't you address that point to Masky?

Andesite (some) and red sandstone (a lot.)

That's the only stone found at PP.

I've had my time arguing with the "Concrete Pyramid" believers.

Even Davidovits says maybe some stones are artificial, and his claims have been countered by other specialists with similar backgrounds.

Harte