Elongated skulls of Paracas Peru

[gendao]

Great pics. Wouldn't it be great to live in Ireland and check them out for a while.

 

But nothing in those pics suggests stone masonry or ET's to me . Its quiet simple to get a giant rock like that (which is 'unmasoned') poised on top of the little ones (well, simple compared to what would be involved in developing an alien culture, them travelling here and somehow 'doing it' with some type of 'stonemason' technique (even though none is evident ) ... but anyway ... yes, a relatively simple exercise for smart thinking 'primitive' people.

The construction is cruder than at some other sites, but the basic technology required still seems to be the same - in both Ireland & New England shown above. How and why did they build these structures using such ridiculously large, heavy (& hard) stones during this ancient period?

 

If you watch the video, there's more details on the immense size and construction of these stone chambers. They weren't simply mounds made from piles of small rocks.

chambers, intricately built

there are 15 & 20-ton stones embedded in the structure

the

the largest stone in the Great Pyramid of Giza is 70 tons also

there's no quarry marks on any of these structures

there were

That Easter Island walking test used a 4.4 ton statue, for comparison..

Edited March 28, 2014 by vortex

[themiddleway]

The construction is cruder than at some other sites, but the basic technology required still seems to be the same - in both Ireland & New England shown above. How and why did they build these structures using such ridiculously large, heavy (& hard) stones during this ancient period?

 

If you watch the video, there's more details on the immense size and construction of these stone chambers. They weren't simply mounds made from piles of small rocks.

That Easter Island walking test used a 4.4 ton statue, for comparison..

When ever I have visited sites like stone henge I am reminded of :

 

" Simplicity is the the ultimate sophistication" da Vinci, another way of saying clarity of thought.

 

Why bother building with such heavy stones only for the purpose of marking an equinox or moon cycles ?

 

When your dealing with structures that can be classified by the tonnage, the effort that would of gone into building them seems redundant. None of the above is consistent with what we know of North American Indian culture or colonial settlers. At what point were the first settlers capable of handling stones weighing in the tonnes anyway ?

Edited March 28, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

 

These artifacts need to be thoroughly mapped and inspected with the following tools.

 

1. A laser interferometer with surface flatness checking capabilities

2. An ultrasonic thickness gage to check the thickness of the walls to determine their consistency to uniform thickness.

3. An optical flat with monochromatic light source. Are the surfaces really finished to optical precision?

 

The precision in these artifacts is irrefutable. Even if we ignore the question of how they were produced, we are still faced with the question of why such precision was needed. The implications of this question is just as profound.

 

Chris.Dunn

Edited March 28, 2014 by themiddleway

[gendao]

^ That is AMAZING!!! Also compare those giant stone boxes with this one in Cuzco, Peru:

The "Atlantean/alien" theory speculates that most of these various stone megalith structures were built around 12,000 years ago and later inherited by the subsequent Celtics, Egyptians, Incas, Mound Builders, etc.

Like, the Sphinx may have originally had a lion's head, before it got replaced with a disproportionally smaller pharaoh's face - possibly thousands of years later...

Considering the usage of massive quartz-bearing stone often then transported from miles away, perhaps all these various giant monuments served as "psychic cell towers," capacitors, generators, ley line regulators/harnessers/earthquake vents, stargate portals, who knows?

 

And compare this (pre-Incan) Tiwanaku craftsman

in Bolivia with this actual

in Peru.

Now, this "doorway" doesn't physically open into anything any further within this sheer rock face. Yet, clearly it was extremely important to the lost civilization who built them... So, what was it for and what did it do?

Edited March 28, 2014 by vortex

[joeblast]

read a certain way, supposedly the heiroglyphs around certain borders dictated what was required for passage...

 

(need a better pic I dont even see that marking on that one)

 

apparently it doesnt want to be found

Edited March 28, 2014 by joeblast

[Aetherous]

Like, the Sphinx may have originally had a lion's head, before it got replaced with a disproportionally smaller pharaoh's face - possibly thousands of years later...

 

Some think that the Sphinx was originally Anubis.

 

Cool thread. However, some of this stuff is really impossible to know either way with certainty. Unless you want to play

 

[joeblast]

just so long as one is realistic about uncertainties, of course that's why possibilities need evidence, and when evidence doesnt line up, no matter how beautiful and picturesque, a theory that relies primarily on such must be discarded.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

I like the go wild option.

 

Can I play with madness?

 

Sure kid, knock yerself out!

 

Ancient monument energies activate stargate consciousness failsafe device.

...

[gendao]

Agreed, much of these theories are all speculation. But, the evidence itself is what's undeniably genuinely intriguing..

 

Check out these ancient Peruvian stone "water fountains" (or maybe bloodbaths?) that can be turned on or off with a simple finger swipe!

&

Who was able to build such stonework with such fine, artistic craftsmanship and elegant, precision function???

 

And here again is that mysterious, recessed doorway into the mountain next to the 2nd "fountain" near Cusco, Peru:

Seriously...WTF is all this enigmatic sh*t, people??!!!

Edited March 28, 2014 by vortex

[themiddleway]

 

Some think that the Sphinx was originally Anubis.

 

Cool thread. However, some of this stuff is really impossible to know either way with certainty. Unless you want to play

 

Don't you mean Foregone conclusion...?http://youtu.be/qnLKC7UrT4I Edited March 29, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

just so long as one is realistic about uncertainties, of course that's why possibilities need evidence, and when evidence doesnt line up, no matter how beautiful and picturesque, a theory that relies primarily on such must be discarded.

Of cource but..

 

The problem isn't the lack of evidence it's the lack of collective investigation by scientists or people trained in the scientific method.

Very few qualified inderviduals have done research, like materials engineer Michel Barsoum who used scanning and transmission electron microscopy, and found that pyramid samples had mineral ratios that did not exist in any known limestone sources. Which supports the geopolymer theory of Joseph Davidovits

See below:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209122918.htm

 

The head of Egypts Antiquities Department, Zahi Hawass, dismissed the study as plain stupid, idiotic and insulting .

 

There simply isn't enough money and interest for the proper research to occur therefore a priori assumptions and foregone conclusions are made on both sides.

Edited March 29, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

Another perspective : http://min-eng.blogspot.de/2010/12/geopolymerisation-and-pyramids.html?m=1

 

>>>>The problem of there not existing a universally accepted theory to explain the construction of the pyramids is easy to clarify: - up to now civil engineers, which have the knowledge to explain and discuss the possible methods of construction, were not consulted or involved in the discussions. Egyptologists, like archeologists, are very aware of their science and nobody wants to invade their dominions, but what do they know about construction methods? The closest approach was involving architects, but as far as I know from 35 years of engineering practice (buildins, dams, walls and big infra and superstructures) they know very little about constructing simply because it is not within their academic background. Architects design, architects discuss the space, the color, the shadow, but they do not build or define engineering methods for erecting a huge building or other type of constructions. What do they know about concrete technology, about concrete placing and cure, about formwork or scaffolding? I do not want to be rude neither to offend the very few architects that are familiar with construction methods.

If you place the Davidovits theory to a group of Civil Engineers I would say that 99% of them would agree with it, because it is very simple, possible, repeatable with very easy tools and explains everything.

Try for example to look at the pyramids from the apex, by a satellite image or simply by the Google Earth. You should note a very peculiar characteristic of all of them (not with the same intensity, anyway): - the entasis. This means that the sides of the pyramids are concave, which is consistent with the indications of Heron of Alexandria (10-70 BC that entasis had been invented by the Egyptians to disguise the optical illusion that gives curvature to large flat surfaces. What a surprise indeed.

How is it possible to explain this construction feature? They had no surveying equipment, theodolites, total stations and levels. How were they able to carve and place a layer of stones in such a way to favor the entasis?

Look at the pyramid steps, they are perfectly leveled? How?

Look at the convergence of the four edges of each pyramid, they cross one another at the apex without deviation. They could only see 3 at a time, but not from above, only from below. They were not able by sight to detect any imperfection.

How could they did it?

The answer is very simple to civil engineers and very easy to do: using a wire, as even today is used to score alignments or deploying curved surfaces (marking at regular spacements on the wire, distances to the final position of formwork).

This can lead us to a very big discussion. To finalize: - In terms of Science nobody knows how the Pyramids were built. Davidovits theory anyhow is the closest, simplest and most supported theory to explain that mystery. It is supported by Egyptian documents and stelae. It is time for the Egyptologist to open their minds and try to translate from the old egyptian language the same documents he is presenting in his books. Is that so difficult? What is behind that apparent lack of interest? The well-known obstinacy of the Egyptian authorities, they do not want to counter? Or are they afraid to discover how wrong they are? <<<<: A.Teixeira-Pinto

Edited March 29, 2014 by themiddleway

[Nungali]

Well when I was younger I lapped up Davidovitts like Sugar Frosties because it was so appealing to me AND it could explain many of the mysteries. It is certainly going to be easier to have guys carrying loads of slurry up a ramp and dump them in a mould than it is carving a block in a quarry and somehow dragging it all the way 'up' there and fitting it precisely . If one block is cast with the one next to it as a form it will abut it very accurately.

 

and also the examination of some blocks seems to support his theory ... but what am I to make of the others; the quarry with half removed blocks still there, giant blocks insitu with faint chisel marks from their carving, the paintings and reliefs showing men carving and truing the blocks, the hammerstone marks.

 

Is not to ignore all this just as bad as being blind to the evidence in the Davidovitts stones?

 

And what about Ireland ... that giant stone on top of the other vertical standing stone, that stone is not quarried, , carved, masoned our poured .... people could still do things without dissolving and recasting stone, (no one has offered a solution to that big rock being up there yet, as I said before, it is very simple and obvious.

 

I have a few books on pyramid construction written from the engineers perspective, they were not that rare in the past. They are all declared to be 'theories' and IMO none of them, including Davidovitts have ticked all the boxes..

Edited March 29, 2014 by Nungali

[themiddleway]

I have a few books on pyramid construction written from the engineers perspective, they were not that rare in the past. They are all declared to be 'theories' and IMO none of them, including Davidovitts have ticked all the boxes..

I don´t believe that Davidovitts theory is the correct one either but the research of Michel Barsoum supports that it may have been one of the methods used. The granite beams in the Kings Chambers, weighing as much as 70 tonnes each ,have so far confounded every ´expert´. The question of how the pyramid builders had the knowledge to reconstitute limestone that can outlast Portland cement goes begging aswell. Geopolymer is relatively easy to explain in comparision to the giant granite boxes found in the Serapeum at Saqqarra, perfectly flat with perfect 90 degree corners. As Chris.Dunn said if we ignore how they did it, the need for presion is just as loaded with implications. The Egyptians had no wheels, no iron tools, and were just out of stone age. Yet were about as accurate as we are today and had complete mastery over working with granite - there are a lot of other ´theories´ that need revising too.

Edited March 29, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

And what about Ireland ... that giant stone on top of the other vertical standing stone, that stone is not quarried, , carved, masoned our poured .... people could still do things without dissolving and recasting stone, (no one has offered a solution to that big rock being up there yet, as I said before, it is very simple and obvious.

You still have to explain how a 23 (?)tonn stone was moved to the site

( unless it was built where the stone was found..?) some of the quarries for the Dolmens were up to 5k away or more. The simplest solution I can see was that it was dug out with the vertical standing stones placed underneath as they were going.The Kilclooney Dolmen was aligned to a winter solstice sunrise, why bother to use a 23 tonn stone for this ? Its remarkable, for such simple structures, we still don´t have a coherent theory about how or why neolithic people built them and why they were spread over most Europe and parts of North America.

Edited March 30, 2014 by themiddleway

[MooNiNite]

they had magic people who understood gravity. weight can become weightless.

[Green Tiger]

 

You're right, no human being could stack rocks like this.

[Nungali]

they had magic people who understood gravity. weight can become weightless.

 

 

Ooooh! That's how they did it. Quick! Someone call Zahi Hawass !

[themiddleway]

they had magic people who understood gravity. weight can become weightless.

For a speculative insight into what might have been Irish myth is interesting, the Tuatha Dé Danann were one of the early ruling tribes of Irleand:

 

King Nuada lost his arm in battle so his brother Dian Cecht and the wright Creidhne crafted a beautiful silver arm for him..

 

Or the four magical items which the mythological Tuatha Dé Danann are supposed to have brought with them from the four island cities Murias, Falias, Gorias and Findias, when they arrived in Ireland :

 

Four presents (were fetched) with them hither,

By the nobles of the Tuatha De Danann:

A sword, a stone, a caldron of worth,

(And) a spear for the death of great champions.

 

From Failias (came) hither the Lia Fail,

Which shouted under the kings of Ireland.

The sword in the hand of the nimble Lug

From Gorias (it was procured), - a choice of vast riches.

 

From far-away Findias over the sea

Was brought the deadly spear of Nuada.

From Murias (was conveyed) a huge and mighty treasure,

The caldron of the Dagda of lofty deeds.

Edited April 2, 2014 by themiddleway

[Brian]

Oooo... Now I'll be learning about the Tuatha Dé for a while.

 

 

Thanks, themiddleway!

[Nungali]

Oooo... Now I'll be learning about the Tuatha Dé for a while.

 

 

Thanks, themiddleway!

 

And wont you be surprised when you find out it was made out of an elongated Peruvian skull cap .

[gendao]

And compare this (pre-Incan) Tiwanaku craftsman

in Bolivia with this actual

in Peru.

Now, this "doorway" doesn't physically open into anything any further within this sheer rock face. Yet, clearly it was extremely important to the lost civilization who built them... So, what was it for and what did it do?

Seriously...WTF is all this enigmatic sh*t, people??!!!

Wow, so these recessed "phantom" doors are also known as niche or fake doors in "mastabas" in modern Arabic in Egypt!

Mastaba, was a house structure in Ancient Egypt, with similar funerary deeds like to nowadays mausoleum, but were built with the idea give to their Ka or Spirits a contact Sky-Earth in afterlife, in other word, an imaginary mean to perform a links between the two worlds Hear and Hear-after.

They were essentially located on the outside of tombs to allow contact after death with the buried person... And this similar motif has been found in Latin America, Egypt & Malta!!!

 

Mesa Verde (CO)

Peru

Turkey

Malta

Atlantean diaspora, perhaps?

Ancient Chinese tradition records a global deluge as having occurred around 2300 B.C. This is consistent with ancient Hebrew records which give a date of 2348 B.C. Interestingly, the akashic Records of Thoth give the date as 2345 B.C.

Edited January 11, 2015 by gendao

[Nungali]

Its one of the oldest ideas in the world .... an entry point into ..... or where things come out of ;

 

 

[BrianTheLion]

I've been to the doorway of the amaru meru near lake titcaca, in Peru. The locals who reside next to it won't go near it, they call it the Devils doorway, but of course anything that has devil behind it in Latin america is probably very interesting and divine even.

[redcairo]

My former husband did some photography on some skulls from that region. This scoffer-dismissal with the 'assumption' that they are all merely wrapped heads is incorrect; the actual space in the skull is dramatically larger. Binding reshapes bone, but it doesn't give the skull dramatically more volume. And it is not unreasonable to think that tradition may have stemmed from trying to 'be like' some people with that particular look, at some point in time.