HC's Ancient Aliens last episode "The Mystery of Puma Punku" DEVASTATED the show haters.

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by shushu

 

can you post a pic of what u mean?
theres nothing I can find..

I don't post pics anymore. Everytime I've done so in the past... I've gotten banned. Apparently it passes along information they need to verify who I am... and as someone they want silenced.

Want me to post a photo and prove my point? Better yet... maybe I should start a thread AND post a photo... then watch how fast I get banned.

Originally posted by shushu
Want me to post a photo and prove my point?

You could at least post the right coordinates instead of posting some coordinates and then saying confusing things like "South of the highway is the Tiwanaku archeological site.", when that site, as far as I can see, it's north of the road.

As far as being banned for posting photos, that should only happen if the photos are against the Terms & Conditions of use.

reply to post by ArMaP


Sorry... I posted the coordinates for KALASASAYA... 16.555°S 68.6736°W which is where the grid is north of. The coordinates were correct... it was the name I had wrong. Once again... sorry for the confusion.

Look north about a mile just on the other side of the highway. There is a huge grid. Just curious if anyone knows how it got there or what it's purpose might be.

reply to post by ArMaP

As far as being banned for posting photos, that should only happen if the photos are against the Terms & Conditions of use.

Kinda hard to prove you wrong when all traces of my usernames were deleted after being banned. Not a trace to be found.

so whats the prob with posting just a foto of this ´strange grid´...I cant find it.

you wont be banned for this. I bet.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Xtrozero


Here is a stone 2x larger than the monolith. This one was cut on all 4 sides and moved, but discarded for some reason..

There are a lot of these around, which I insist suggest one thing ... the earth changed, and these stones were suddenly to heavy to transport.

Consider these stones, at one point being "more like sandstone", and at this time actually "lighter". Many of these stones (if not all), show magnetic anomaly, that I consider suggest this.

So how does the earth "change"? You are suggesting that the gravity of the earth was much less, like the moon and I just do not see it. Since the earth's gravity is based on its mass then you are saying somehow the earth GAINED in mass and that gain prevented ancients from moving big stones anymore.
OK...

You are going to need show the physic on this one, and how did the earth gain mass?

Even today one man can move and raise a 20,000 monolith all by himself using basic wood rope and no metal, so why could not a large group move something bigger with a constant gravity we have today?

reply to post by Ixtab
Another pencil pusher that best get out my way.You know nothing about construction,Boy!Why would you even open your pie hole.I have worked with marble,travertine,whetstone,onyx,and granite half my life.As well as the extremely hard man made products.If it is so easy,why don't you show us amateurs how to do it?I suggest going down to Home Depot and buying a 12" x 12"piece of Granite(any color) and shape it a bit.Ask your Home Depot Pro for tips,of course.

Where the hell is the new ancient aliens? ive checked tv.yahoo and the history channel site and they both say it was today. Thier hiding all that bigfoot knowledge!

So does any skeptics feel "DEVASTATED" yet?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

You are going to need show the physic on this one, and how did the earth gain mass?

Even today one man can move and raise a 20,000 monolith all by himself using basic wood rope and no metal, so why could not a large group move something bigger with a constant gravity we have today?

Well, I'll revert to math for this one and use NASA's own numbers. They say the earth does not exceed the growth of one hair, each year. Well, if you do that math over 2.5 billion years, you get that the earth has enlarged about several moon sizes, literally.

Case in point? NASA just "proved" that the earth DOES change.

Now we go to the physics part, and ignore NASA's stupidity on the matter. Why do I say stupid, well they just proved the earth DOES change, but toally ignore any and all of it's ramifications. Now that isn't very scientific, is it?

Gravity changes of up to 1.2 ± 0.1 mgal (1 standard deviation) were measured at three points within 400 m of an active vent on Pacaya volcano, Guatemala during eleven days of January, 1975. For five continuous days gravity varied inversely with the average muzzle velocity of ejecta, the frequency of volcanic explosions, and the frequency of volcanic earthquakes

What does the above mean? It means, that during volcanic activity, the gravity changes in a very significant manner.

And here is another quote

Large changes of the earth's magnetic fields in historical times

By measuring the magnetic properties of bricks and other accurately dated human artifacts, geophysicists can reconstruct the history of the local magnetic field. Near Loyang, China, the field was as much as 54% higher in 300 A.D. than it is now. It was 15% higher in 1500 A.D. In 1000, it was less than today's value.

And what I am saying, is that even if we DIDN'T have earth expansion, you STILL have the above anomalies.

And finally, I can prove to you, physically, that the earth DOES grow, without any addition of matter. And more over, as I've already shown, gravity HAS changed, locally and DOES change globally WITHOUT additional matter.

Inside the earth is plasma, commonly known as MAGMA. To understand the behaviour of this magma, you need to imagine yeast in bread. Inside the earth this magma is concentrated to such levels, that it is solid, while the natural state of plasma is gas. Pretty much similar to the sun, except the SUN is an extremely hot plasma core, and it is the heat that maintain its state. While the earth is not so hot in the core, much cooler, but the plasma is kept "locked" inside by means of the earths crust. When this magma escapes, it enlarges ... to quote en.wikipedia.org...

Volcanic eruptions arise through three main mechanisms:

Gas release under decompression causing magmatic eruptions.

What does that tell you? that inside the earth, is concentrated gas, called plasma, that is seeking to escape and it WILL and DOES cause the earth to expand without the addition of any materia.

Another thing, gravity is a function of radius. As shown above, the gravity of the earth is concentrated inside the earth ... in the earths core. As the earth expands, so does the radius from this core ... and so does the gravity decrease.

There is no magic involved, never was.

But the main point I am making, is the fact that the magnetic field has changed enormously in past decades. And there are enormous movement of MAGMA inside the earth. There is one thing I didn't mention about magma, and that is that the magma is magnetic. Now, you can imagine a rock that has engraved in it a certain magnetic field lines, through say strong magma activity beneath. Then suddenly becoming exposed to opposing magnetic field lines ... now, what would occur when a rock with N-S field lines, suddenly is exposed to a S-N magnetic field?

It would become lighter, would it not?

This is not a mistery, never was.

I think the episode and series is great in the sense that I get to view areas and gain some history from them. Aliens or not, the History channel gets some nice views into numerous sites.

Hello everyone!

I would just like to say that I'm a big fan of History Channel's Ancient Aliens series and that Giorgio's hair is awesome and is technologically advanced enough in itself to explain everything from the Pyramids of Egypt to Puma Punku.

On a more serious note, I would just like to suggest the idea that...IF HISTORIANS DATED THE HUMAN RACE'S EXISTENCE A BIT OLDER THAN THE COMMONLY HELD KNOWLEDGE (is it 400,000 years?) WOULDN'T THAT EXPLAIN ALL THIS "TECHNOLOGICAL ANOMALIES?"

Because to me the recurring excuse for A.A. followers is that humankind was still figuring out how to start a fire when they discover these evidences of technological advancements like perfectly chiseled stones or mathematically equal measurements and shapes etc.

I mean what if humankind was much older that we really think? Say a million years older...lol

Just a thought. Thanks!

reply to post by bjarneorn

Inside the earth is plasma, commonly known as MAGMA.

Nope. Plasma is ionized matter. Magma is the term used for lava when it is underground. Magma is molten rock.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

There is one thing I didn't mention about magma, and that is that the magma is magnetic.

Nope. Magma is at temperatures above the curie point. It is not magnetic.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by bjarneorn


Well, I'll revert to math for this one and use NASA's own numbers. They say the earth does not exceed the growth of one hair, each year. Well, if you do that math over 2.5 billion years, you get that the earth has enlarged about several moon sizes, literally.

Case in point? NASA just "proved" that the earth DOES change.

Earth may be expanding at a very small rate but its mass remains constant, or if anything is reduced. How far back are we talking that the gravity was much less where large monoliths were move with much less weight to them? What caused this less gravity? Somewhere we needed to have gained mass for gravity to increase to where it is today, but I think it is safe to say that the earth's mass has been pretty much a constant since the moon was ripped from it 4 billion or so years ago, or somehow the earth was much larger in the resent past so that the farther distance from the core would create less gravity.

If the earth is expanding one hair width per year (which I would like to see the NASA link to this) then one meter is about 10,000 years, so a million years would be 100 meters, and though I think this has all been debunked, I do not see any changes in the mass if it was true. If anything the gravity would be less on earth's surface today than anytime in the past the bigger it got.

Gravity changes of up to 1.2 ± 0.1 mgal (1 standard deviation) were measured at three points within 400 m of an active vent on Pacaya volcano, Guatemala during eleven days of January, 1975. For five continuous days gravity varied inversely with the average muzzle velocity of ejecta, the frequency of volcanic explosions, and the frequency of volcanic earthquakes

This was due to localized elevation changes (getting farther from the core, or closer) Once again mass is constant we are just moving closer or farther from the core, so how did they have less gravity to move the monoliths again?

What does the above mean? It means, that during volcanic activity, the gravity changes in a very significant manner.

Well actually no.... and "significant" is rather strong word to use. What is happening is the ground where the measuring tool is sitting is being push up or down by the volcanic activity. In other words the mass is not changing but the distance is. Very very slight changes in gravity.
Mars has a gravity of .38 that of earth and so the feel of 2000 tons here would feel like 650 tons there. Now that is what I would call significant for your theory to work.

now, what would occur when a rock with N-S field lines, suddenly is exposed to a S-N magnetic field?

It would become lighter, would it not?

How does poleshifting change gravity? Also magnetism does not play into gravity at all and is not part of the formula to calculate gravity where mass and distance is. So if that 2000 ton monolith was 1/2 its weight when it was cut and moved then the earth would needed to have been 50% larger than it is now in a somewhat resent past, and your argument is saying the earth was actually smaller in the past... MORE gravity

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Well, I'll revert to math for this one and use NASA's own numbers. They say the earth does not exceed the growth of one hair, each year. Well, if you do that math over 2.5 billion years, you get that the earth has enlarged about several moon sizes, literally.

What "growth" is that, diameter? Circumference?

Let me try my math:
from what I could find in the Internet, a hair is, on average, 0.1 millimetres wide. If we multiply that by 2.5 billion (that I suppose means 2,500,000,000) we get 250,000,000 millimetres, or 250 kilometres. Now, if we are talking about diameter, that would mean that the Earth had a diameter of 12,500 kilometres instead of the 12,750 it has now, so it was only 2% smaller than now.

But if we are talking about circumference, that would mean a change of 250 kilometres in a total of 40,075, so the Earth had a diameter of "only" 39,825 kilometres instead of 40,075, and since then it had an increase of just 1%.

If my calculations are wrong please correct me, I have made several mistakes on previous occasions.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Well, I'll revert to math for this one and use NASA's own numbers. They say the earth does not exceed the growth of one hair, each year. Well, if you do that math over 2.5 billion years, you get that the earth has enlarged about several moon sizes, literally.

What "growth" is that, diameter? Circumference?

Let me try my math:
from what I could find in the Internet, a hair is, on average, 0.1 millimetres wide. If we multiply that by 2.5 billion (that I suppose means 2,500,000,000) we get 250,000,000 millimetres, or 250 kilometres. Now, if we are talking about diameter, that would mean that the Earth had a diameter of 12,500 kilometres instead of the 12,750 it has now, so it was only 2% smaller than now.

But if we are talking about circumference, that would mean a change of 250 kilometres in a total of 40,075, so the Earth had a diameter of "only" 39,825 kilometres instead of 40,075, and since then it had an increase of just 1%.

If my calculations are wrong please correct me, I have made several mistakes on previous occasions.

edit on 24/3/2012 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

You are correct, but the problem is he suggested gravity was less, and so 2000 ton monoliths weighed a lot less, but his argument is based on a small growth in the earth that would represent more gravity in the pass...we are talking very small numbers here in these changes though.

So what was it that allowed for a extremely reduced gravity force so that rocks were easier to move..
I just hate it when basic physics and know how adds up to nothing with many of these guys...why are these so hard to swallow and aliens are not.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
So apparently you have done some research for yourself of which the results refute these claims? Perhaps you could post your findings that show how this could have been done by primitive humans?

-Alien

They were not "primitive"; that is a lie perpetuated by the ancient alien proponents.

Yes they were in fact primitive technologically. Could you explain how we could even do this with today's technology which is thousands of years more advanced?

This has yet to be adequately explained and I have read the links that people here posted in an attempt to explain but those fail.

-Alien

reply to post by Xtrozero

that damp wood in carved out holes idea is a fantasy. there's not one shred of proof. Now if they said they did it with ice, I might give it some credibility but the water would squeeze out of the wood before it could build enough pressure to crack it loose from the bottom. the ice thing could work but how did they make ice back then?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

that damp wood in carved out holes idea is a fantasy. there's not one shred of proof. Now if they said they did it with ice, I might give it some credibility but the water would squeeze out of the wood before it could build enough pressure to crack it loose from the bottom. the ice thing could work but how did they make ice back then?

It depends on how much pressure is needed. From what I have seen, stone cracks much like grass does with a glass cutter.

Hell they might just dig under it 3/4s of the way and let the weight crack the rest of it. I'm no expert but stone is much easier to split once it is scratched. The fact is they COULD cut the stone, now we are just dickering over how.

You agree they could cut stone, so do you agree they could tunnel into it too? Why not tunnel underneath the monolith smoothing it as they cut it out using a trench like cut underneath it. Then they put logs under the cut part and when they reach the end the whole thing is already on logs that they can then cut their ramp and roll it out. I'm sure their primitive technique that they spent 100s or 1000s of years getting it down was better than this one I just pulled out of my head...hehe