Aliens made Pumapunku? (CampKill)

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: conundrummer

Megalithic structures are not said to be easy to build, just possible using simple tools and lots of manual labor. In fact, the point of them is usually that they're NOT easy to build, so they convey a sense of wonder.

Umm, perfectly straight lines, right angles and structures that fit perfectly with no gaps, cutting very hard/dense stones perfectly that modern tools cannot replicate etc. has not been replicated.

Unless there is a video showing how these primitive tools did such things.

There are countless descriptions that show how it was done. In fact, the Egyptians who predated Pumapunku by over 2000 years, left detailed images showing how it is done.

MM

What are your sources?

Where are the videos replicating these feats using primitive tools?

Also. . . no, I will not do your homework for you. Your claim your homework.

originally posted by: Mr Mask

Firstly, all the angels are not perfect. The thumbnail image of that video shows the lie they are telling perfectly. Notice how the square is off. He is saying the angels are perfect, yet the square is showing it is greatly off from perfect.

MM

yes ah that's the point.

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: conundrummer

Megalithic structures are not said to be easy to build, just possible using simple tools and lots of manual labor. In fact, the point of them is usually that they're NOT easy to build, so they convey a sense of wonder.

Umm, perfectly straight lines, right angles and structures that fit perfectly with no gaps, cutting very hard/dense stones perfectly that modern tools cannot replicate etc. has not been replicated.

Unless there is a video showing how these primitive tools did such things.

There are countless descriptions that show how it was done. In fact, the Egyptians who predated Pumapunku by over 2000 years, left detailed images showing how it is done.

MM

I don't believe there are any showing how the Pyramids were built as it remains a mystery - as does their purpose, but the theory set out by Jean-Piere Houdin of an interior ramp seems the most plausible but further investigation was cut short with the political upheaval and Dr Zahi Hawass given the Khyber.
I have seen the commendable video on the bloke in his back yard moving huge blocks but this theory falls down when you try to move blocks weighing over a thousand tons as the structure to lift them would collapse under such weight. The Japanese found that using modern day cranes was also out of the question as the counterbalance would also cause the crane to collapse. I believe (though I cannot find it on the internet where I remember reading about it) that the Japanese also decided to prove that they could replicate the Great Pyramid but gave up after 6 months saying that it was impossible.
It is nice to read logical arguments from both camps on this subject without taking to name calling and being offensive especially those from the venerable 'harte' who I have long since come to regard as someone who has a very in-depth knowledge of our ancient history.
I have many queries which are left unanswered. We appear to have crawled (literally) through our first 4 million years on this planet and then became 'hunter gatherers' about 240,000 years ago and did very little about anything during this time. Experts on the Sumerian Tablets say that these were written about 3200BC yet Gobekli Tepe is dated at about 12,000BC (for what, why and by whom we don't know) so surely we must have had some sort of communication prior to this (as well as the ability to work stone) but again there is no evidence. The advent of the building (and the preciseness) of the Pyramids is truly amazing and continues to baffle experts despite computer generated attempts to solve the problem.
There is no hard and fast evidence supporting the 'Ancient Alien' theory but I cannot come to terms with the fact that we mastered the art of architecture, agriculture, astronomy and mathematics so quickly without some 'outside' help. That is just my gut feeling and many will differ.
It is yet another version of the old poser - "What came first"? "The Chicken or the Egg"?

Puma Punku is one of the oldest, most fascinating ancient sites in all the world. The precision, intricate and complex nature, and carved faces really leads to many questions.

Is it possible that ancient humans were somehow "in tune" with knowledge of this caliber, without actually writing down all the equations and chugging the math? Perhaps.

Is it possible aliens from space "projected" ideas and concepts into the minds of ancients to encourage them to build these? Perhaps, and perhaps they even came down to the surface and revealed themselves.

We live in interesting times.

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: Mr Mask

More chics than I will ever guess? LOLOL 10-4 big buddy

Well, if it's so easy for a primitive people to quarry 150 ton+ stones and move them miles to their destination, then carve them with primitive tools to very good precision, and then build a temple - then why doesn't a lot of people do it now, or since then??? Why build a home or building the way we do??? Modern things decay very fast but the ancient structures still stand. If it were that easy everybody would've been doin' it throughout history.

I would like to see somebody go cut a 150 ton stone with primitive tools. Then, move it 50 miles. Then, carve it to precision with primitive tools and make it fit together with many other stones and stack them. Replicate what's been built and I will believe it. Until then, No. Not buying it.

Ok...so now I'm gunna show you this...and I guess it will mean nothing.

One man (an old man) making stonehenge in his backyard, with no metal tools. Now I know you will probably say "that's not carvings like Pumpamunku" but the fact remains, it is one older man making Stonehenge in his backyard.

The reason people don't do it today is because its not practical. Invoking aliens to answer simple questions about ancient stonework is just not logical. Even less so when you use the fabricated money-making lies of intentionally dishonest people who have been debunked and exposed for decades selling lies.

i've seen that.

did he move them on dirt? or sand?

no, a cement base.

it means nothing.

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Fylgje

you're on the right track. It really is as simple as that. They want us to believe these people were so primitive and ignorant that they believed in people from other worlds yet they were so skilled manually they could manipulate mega ton blocks and cut them very slowly with ropes sand and copper saws without making one mistake. Not one degree off? Not to mention, you can only do so much with ropes and logs over uneven terrain within a short timeframe. The skeptics just get slack jawed when you ask if it was so simple why not do it today? like how did they forget something so simple? if it only took basic tools then why do we struggle with such precision today?

First off, the AA hoax only works on people who "assume ancient people were ignorant and primitive". The AA lie preys on people who refuse to spend time learning about history, culture and details of the past.

You have taken the lies of these people and incorporated them into your misunderstandings of cultures.

The makers of Pumapunku never left evidence claiming aliens helped them. In fact, none of the cultures AA claim did, actually did.

Above I linked to a video showing an old man who made Stonehenge in his back yard with no metal tools or help.

Pumpapunku is littered with blocks half formed, showing the techniques the makers used. There is no secret to the construction here. Its nonsense to say they created something that scholars can not figure out. Skeptics are not lost on this subject because its been fully documented for decades.

If you want to support lies that are easily dismantled by facts and archeology, that's on you. But don't say that people have no answer to questions you have, because the answers are present and have been for many many years.

MM

oh yeah, some people have said, they didn't build that. (lol)

they didn't know who did, it was just there.

if it was so easy, why was it lost?

there is no evidence the romans moved the stones of baalbek.

originally posted by: conundrummer

originally posted by: Fylgje
Well, if it's so easy for a primitive people to quarry 150 ton+ stones and move them miles to their destination, then carve them with primitive tools to very good precision, and then build a temple - then why doesn't a lot of people do it now, or since then???

Why are there so few people good at swordfighting these days? I mean, they were good at it in the past, after all.

Why build a home or building the way we do??? Modern things decay very fast but the ancient structures still stand. If it were that easy everybody would've been doin' it throughout history.

Megalithic structures are not said to be easy to build, just possible using simple tools and lots of manual labor. In fact, the point of them is usually that they're NOT easy to build, so they convey a sense of wonder.

I would like to see somebody go cut a 150 ton stone with primitive tools. Then, move it 50 miles. Then, carve it to precision with primitive tools and make it fit together with many other stones and stack them. Replicate what's been built and I will believe it. Until then, No. Not buying it.

You should check out the Nova episode about Easter Island.

there are people very good at it. it's not a lost art. (sword play)

then there is Damascus steel. old katana's. whatever. flying carpets and stuff.

i'd like to see them do that myself.
where is cecil b. demile when you need him!!

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: conundrummer

Megalithic structures are not said to be easy to build, just possible using simple tools and lots of manual labor. In fact, the point of them is usually that they're NOT easy to build, so they convey a sense of wonder.

Umm, perfectly straight lines, right angles and structures that fit perfectly with no gaps, cutting very hard/dense stones perfectly that modern tools cannot replicate etc. has not been replicated.

Unless there is a video showing how these primitive tools did such things.

There are countless descriptions that show how it was done. In fact, the Egyptians who predated Pumapunku by over 2000 years, left detailed images showing how it is done.

MM

would you show that please? detailed image? how detailed? countless descriptions? I think you're full of yourself

a reply to: OzTiger

this image was made prior to the Egyptians even thinking about carving a face in stone and by the way the skeptics like to ignore no one's image is plastered all over anywhere on the pyramids

1.bp.blogspot.com...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

sure it may not be a right angle but the important thing to remember is that the block next to it would've had the opposite angle in order to fit perfectly. in order to have that consistent symmetry they would've at least needed a perfectly stable jig set-up and doing that with ropes and sticks without a constant cutting speed is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I don't care what those around here who have never held a hand tool in their lives say they think they know. not yelling at you lol it's just that these guys think you can casually do these things and then they say "well experts say it's possible and anyone else who says it is not possible can't be an expert" as if they've shown it being replicated. And when they attempt to show how things like this were done with bamboo technology they don't even come close yet they rave that it was proven. It's insane behavior and they will just put the mantra on a loop and then people go on to other topics. Bottom line is you can not do anything close to what we see and within the timeframes they say they were done with primitive low speed tools of questionable hardness. And it's not only precision and symmetry; you also need to create high pressures, intense friction, massive torque and these things produce heat and crushing forces way beyond what logs can withstand. It's just all around not feasible with primitive tools.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

sure it may not be a right angle but the important thing to remember is that the block next to it would've had the opposite angle in order to fit perfectly.

Then that needs to be shown. And then why is the AA expert going around with a square? Its not the important thing to "remember", its the important thing to "imagine".

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: OzTiger

this image was made prior to the Egyptians even thinking about carving a face in stone and by the way the skeptics like to ignore no one's image is plastered all over anywhere on the pyramids

1.bp.blogspot.com...

This is true. Unfortunately the hieroglyphs that were all over the facing stones (which may have told us what the Pyramids were for) were destroyed forever when an earthquake (I believe) shook them loose and the rest (all but a few at the top which reveal nothing - were stripped of and used on buildings in surrounding areas. Strangely, I have found no 'close-up' pictures whatsoever of the remaining facing stones. I find this odd really as I am given to understand that the 'glue' binding them to each other (which has lasted some 4,000 years) was analyzed and found to have ingredients not known to man.
Have you noticed that many of the beautifully colored and meticulously depicted relief pictographs of the Egyptians have left hands on right arms???!!! I find this strange also. (They weren't 'aliens' were they? Joking! Joking!)

originally posted by: 1Providence1
Puma Punku is one of the oldest, most fascinating ancient sites in all the world. The precision, intricate and complex nature, and carved faces really leads to many questions.

Since PP dates to the common era, it isn't even proper to call it "ancient," much less "one of the oldest..."

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte

Good book I just started on about 'Ancient Tiwanaku; case studies in early socieites, by John Janusek, 978-0-521-01662-9

Interestingly I agree that the term ancient shouldn't be used, classical maybe if comparing it to a similar time frame in the Med. However this guy uses the term Ancient - I'll let you know his reasoning once I finish it.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: bottleslingguy

sure it may not be a right angle but the important thing to remember is that the block next to it would've had the opposite angle in order to fit perfectly.

Then that needs to be shown. And then why is the AA expert going around with a square? Its not the important thing to "remember", its the important thing to "imagine".

www.phouka.com...

a reply to: OzTiger

yes it's true and the important part is not the lack of facing stones it is the fact that it was depicted thousands of years before the Egyptians. it's pretty clear they are pyramids made from blocks with a facing stone.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte

Good book I just started on about 'Ancient Tiwanaku; case studies in early socieites, by John Janusek, 978-0-521-01662-9

Interestingly I agree that the term ancient shouldn't be used, classical maybe if comparing it to a similar time frame in the Med. However this guy uses the term Ancient - I'll let you know his reasoning once I finish it.

Not really a problem, you know.

I've been called "ancient" myself.

However, my understanding is that the term "ancient" is more properly applied to Early Roman and times prior to then.

Harte

a reply to: bottleslingguy

sure it may not be a right angle but the important thing to remember is that the block next to it would've had the opposite angle in order to fit perfectly.

Then that needs to be shown. And then why is the AA expert going around with a square?

OK. That is quite impressive stone work. But then am I being misled by someone walking around with a square? Someone is misleading me.

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: conundrummer

Megalithic structures are not said to be easy to build, just possible using simple tools and lots of manual labor. In fact, the point of them is usually that they're NOT easy to build, so they convey a sense of wonder.

Umm, perfectly straight lines, right angles and structures that fit perfectly with no gaps, cutting very hard/dense stones perfectly that modern tools cannot replicate etc. has not been replicated.

Unless there is a video showing how these primitive tools did such things.

There are countless descriptions that show how it was done. In fact, the Egyptians who predated Pumapunku by over 2000 years, left detailed images showing how it is done.

MM

What are your sources?

Where are the videos replicating these feats using primitive tools?

Also. . . no, I will not do your homework for you. Your claim your homework.

Even tho I already left this information in this thread, I can understand not reading every post. So once again, instead of taking the lies of Daniken and friend's as fact, I follow the facts and research presented by the world's experts on these subjects. here are my sources for you (I truly hope you take these sources a bit more serious than those presented in AA that have been debunked time and time again by real archeologists and scientists for decades now).

"The Encyclopedia of Anthropology."

"Interpreting the Meaning of Ritual Spaces: The Temple Complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia." Doctoral Dissertation, from The University of Pennsylvania.

"The Construction and Reconstruction of Ritual Space at Tiwanaku, Bolivia: A.D. 500-1000". Journal of Field Archaeology.

"On Reconstructing Tiwanaku Architecture" The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. vol. 59 (this one explains completely how Pumapunku is easily replicated with stone and metal tools and stands as a respected authority on the subject in the field)

"Urban Structure at Tiwanaku" Geophysical Investigations in the Andean Altiplano.

"Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry" The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. vol. 56

"Tiwanaku: Ancestors of the Inca" Denver Museum of Art.

"Architectural cramps at Tiwanaku: copper-arsenic-nickel bronze.' In Metallurgica Andina"

"The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization."

"Ancient Tiwanaku Cambridge University Press"

Now, don't you worry about doing my homework, you obviously have a lot to do on your own. If you argue these sources you are basically admitting that you take crank-information from idiot con-men over the standing prestigious literature that has been complied using science for decades.

THERE IS NOT ONE historian or archeologist (or creditable scientist of any kind) that has EVER EVER EVVVVVVER claimed that Pumpapunku couldn't have been created with basic stone and metal tools.

AND AGAIN there are dozens and dozens and dozens of stones at Pumapunku that were left half finished, showing exactly how the blocks were formed and carved. That is just a fact you need to grasp before you start talking about "homework people need to do".

I took the time to hand you the info...I can only show you the door. You need to be the big boy and turn away from nonsense and learn real science if you want to understand Pumapunku and how AA profits off intentional lies that have no factual evidence or support in real science or history. Unless you enjoy being mislead and used by sneaky folks who get paid to fool you. I know I wouldn't enjoy that.

Thanks for the comment...good luck on your homework.

MM

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: conundrummer

Megalithic structures are not said to be easy to build, just possible using simple tools and lots of manual labor. In fact, the point of them is usually that they're NOT easy to build, so they convey a sense of wonder.

Umm, perfectly straight lines, right angles and structures that fit perfectly with no gaps, cutting very hard/dense stones perfectly that modern tools cannot replicate etc. has not been replicated.

Unless there is a video showing how these primitive tools did such things.

There are countless descriptions that show how it was done. In fact, the Egyptians who predated Pumapunku by over 2000 years, left detailed images showing how it is done.

MM

would you show that please? detailed image? how detailed? countless descriptions? I think you're full of yourself

Like I said above- You will keep ignoring proof I show you and bring up another question that I will answer and you will again ignore.

Here...everything you need to know about Egyptians doing the same work, but better, thousands of years prior to Pumapunku, while leaving detailed evidence in images of how it was done...and scientific explanations on how it is achieved.

Enjoy ignoring this before you ask another nonsensical question in the face of all the evidence everyone is BASICALLY WORKING TO HAND YOU while you casually dismiss it for your next nonsensical question.

www.oocities.org...