I was awakened just a few days ago and I was told to watch Ancient Aliens which Discovery Channel has been playing over and over. I am amazed at how this all makes so much sense from the perspective of thinking on a higher plane.Does anyone else see this?

I just got through watching three hours of it on History 2 channel. As I like to say; Ancient Alien Friday, Ancient Alien Friday, Ancient Alien Friday YEAH! If you look at a lot of the data they present as if it were people back then accessing probable future threads and then interpreting it and then representing it it as best they could it makes sense. I still am open to actual current E.T. something though but am starting to understand it better as tests as far as abductions. There are still crop circles and UFOs though.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Have you a link to this video on line? A search finds a 'teaser' readily enough but you must install their special program to watch the rest. I am always leery of what these programs open you up to in terms of spam and possibly malware. Obviously they are not necessary other than that they make them so to force you to download them. I do not have television.

Ted

Not that I can find Ted. They basically follow Sitchin's stuff. When I am able I will buy the series and you can watch it.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Various episodes: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ancient+aliens. They stretch a little information out over as many commercial-breaks as possible, with teasers before every break.

Overall, the question is, has earth been visited by aliens? They then show many of the artifacts that seem to support that.

I don't know if they show it, but I find Baalbek the most interesting: http://youtu.be/CC04CgoT7gY.

The pyramids and some of the egyptian things are in the grey, but Baalbek was definitely not built by any people we have a record of. That could mean a few things. Suggestions?

_________________
Johan

I've been considering the idea that a past race of humans might have been a lot larger and stronger than us. The large rocked sights might be from them but they lived soooo long ago there is no other record of them like bones and such. The earth has been wiped clean of humans several times possibly by natural reasons like a pocket of some highly reactive element coming into contact with another pocket of it's reactive thing like water.

The pyramid shape and sky gods coming to earth in the oldest myths around are what people saw in probable future threads of data concerning the Apollo capsule.

Ancient Alien theory data is very useful although I interpret it differently than them.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

"Ancient Aliens" does prove one thing (in MY mind) beyond a reasonable doubt, That there are a lot of gaps in our understanding.
There is so much that we do not know about the developement of "Homo sapiens" , and the history of mankind... as we were taught in school .
None of the popular, currently "accepted" theories about these ancient Pyramid cultures really do an adequate job in explaining how the megalithic structures were built by primitive peoples, and using "Bronze Age" tools.

And if the Egyptians, and the Mezoamericans DID, in fact build Pyramids, then why did they suddenly STOP? And why were they not able to duplicate their architectural brilliance in the thousands of years since?
Choosing instead to live in tents and grass huts...?


The important thing is that we keep an open mind, (and not reject any theory out of hand that doesnt fit into our crystalized belief systems) , remain skeptical, not rush to conclusions, and live gracefully with uncertainty. Its really ok if we dont have ALL the answers, as long as we keep on asking the questions.

I heard (somewhere) that the simple statement "I dont know" is the beginning of all knowledge. Once we accept that we DONT know we can say "Lets find out together"

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

I have seen demonstrations on the Internet, which I cannot find now, that demonstrated relatively easy ways to raise stone monoliths upright using nothing more sophisticated than blocks of wood and a child's teeter totter concept. Dig out from under the stone at one end and insert a support block under the balance point just to that side. Put a bunch of people as movable weights on top of the stone above the end with free space under it until it tips that way. Then put another block tight up against it on the other side of the balance point. Move the 'movable weights' back and forth from end to end, adding blocks as the monolith is tilted to raise it to the height required. Then dig out the hole on the end where the monolith is intended to stand to the depth required and remove the blocks under that side of the balance point. Then let the monolith tip into the hole. Use ropes to stand it the last amount erect and fill in the hole.

To move them along horizontally, you place tree trunks like a track in the direction of motion and place log rollers across them under the load. You pull and push on the load and keep moving rollers from the back to the front. It is hard and sweaty work but it can be done without great sophistication and modern equipment and just axes and adzes. Men sometimes do get injured and killed.

I have seen demonstrations of moving the standing sculptures on Easter Island with two gangs of men and two long ropes. They get the stone rocking slightly but not past the balance point. As the statue tips left, the men on the right hand rope pull to rotate the statue slightly and move it slightly forward. You must establish a rhythm. They work it back and forth as the statue rocks and as the people say mysteriously and without explaining, the statues 'walked' into place. Magic!

There is a lot that can be done by reasonably strong men with experience in moving heavy weights that do not require brute force lifting and equipment but rather making use of balance. When I was young, my father's crews assembled cast iron boiler sections in basements a good way from where the trucks could be unloaded. You tip the sections from side to side and 'walk' them along in the same way. They will slide down stairs. Just make sure to not break up the customer's concrete. You must make sure to not let them get away from you. I have by myself raised heavy items in similar ways.

Our ancestors did not have power equipment or things like pulleys and wheels. They were not stupid or really ignorant however. An intelligent man with insight and experience could direct a large force of 'grunt' labor and accomplish much. They had a lot more patience than we have today and no concept of labor costs and profit.

Ted

Ted, I know the demonstrated and proposed techniques, that's why I said some of them were in the grey.



Getting that rock out of that quarry is something entirely different. Given the choice, there is no reason anyone would use so large blocks, unless it wasn't fairly easy.

_________________
Johan

It doesn't show that well in this picture but it clearly still appears that the far end of that block had been squared up and cleaned and was being further cut down into much smaller pieces, judging by the cutting lines visible. And does a larger view or being there show where the actual large block originated and how far it has been moved already? Those smaller blocks could have been much easier moved. From what I have seen of methods of removing stone from a quarry, it is frequently a matter of cutting out a big block which is fortuitously placed and then cutting it up into the wanted pieces. As I remember, they drilled down vertically or used naturally existing cracks and drove in wooden wedges which were then wetted down so swelling of the wood, plus the driving in, could crack the stone block out. Possibly you used freezing weather and the expansion of freezing water to do the work for you. It took patience and a long time. You never knew how the 'cookie would crumble' so you did this along natural faults, weak places appearing in the original stone. Then you further cut down your removed block into what you really wanted. It was just more efficient to cut out a big block and cut it down than to cut out so many small blocks. Keep in mind also that that quarry area could have been much different when the block was being mined. There have been how many centuries of erosion and dirt and rubble movement burying the large stone and making access and movement so much more apparently difficult.

Ted

its possible that the pyramids are intergalactic traffic signage and humans were seeded here as "highway" workers, now gone feral

or the whole simulation was cranked up 5 minutes ago with simulated memories - if you are really open, you start to wonder even about the plausibility of creationism.

I am quite sure that the truth of such things is way beyond our capacity to imagine, though it is fun to try to connect the dots - Joe vs the Volcano comes to mind, the reference to being one of few who are aware of how astonishing and amazing earth existence is, even from a little science POV.

we are like ants an anthill beside a highway, trying to figure out why there are gusts of wind every few seconds.

there was that Vonnegut novel where the purpose of human existence was to get to a point that they could produce a can opener, which needed to be delivered to a broken down spaceship on Mars, and the aliens had determined it would take less time to telekinetically evolve earth civilization than send a repair ship

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Yes, very perceptive. The cutting on far end was done by the romans, who built the present temple from smaller blocks over the pre-existing base, which is consists of these giant blocks. I think this conclusion (the marks on the quarry-stone) is based on erosion patterns.

Here is an image of the stones in place:

_________________
Johan

From the pictures provided, I suspect that the reason that large blocks were used, mixed with smaller blocks in layers, was that this produces a structure that is more stable. There was no mortar nor reinforcing steel to provide structural integrity. You had only the property of gravity, the weight and configuration of the stones, to keep things together and they were building for the ages. A few layers of small blocks on the bottom, being relatively flexible, permits adjustment to the variations, both initial and including with time, of the substrate. Then a few layers of much larger or longer blocks with joints offset, spanning multiple smaller blocks, provides a relatively rigid layer in combination with the relatively flexible buffer layers below. Then you can build on up with relatively smaller blocks which can have the dependence on the relatively rigid and stable layer below while keeping your block size reasonable for handling. The only other way that I can see to create this stability is to be able to clear away to whatever base rock existed and level that as a building platform for your structure which seem to represent much more labor as an approach. This is not my technical field but this is my intuitive impression. It makes sense to me.

Ted

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built using over 2 MILLION stones (2.3 million by most estimates)

and once you see the level of exact precision (that would be difficult for us to match using todays technology) that these stones are both cut and placed (according to experts in the field), you may begin to apreciate how inadequate the currently accepted theories are in explaining the building of these megalithic structures (being barely out of the stone age)

In order for the great pyramid to have been built in the 20 year time frame (according to the literature) ... stones would have to have been cut (to exact precision) transported ( without damaging them) and set 1 stone every 3 minutes



It is highly unlikely that any of the stones in Puma Punku were cut using ancient stone cutting techniques, at least not those that we are aware of.

The stones in Puma Punku are made up of granite, and diorite, and the only stone that is harder that those two, is the diamond. If the people who built this place cut these stones using stone cutting techniques, then they would had to have used diamond tools.

If they didn't use diamonds to cut these stones, then what did they use?

Not only were these stones really hard to cut, but they are also extremely heavy. One of these stone ruins weighs in at about 800 tons! These are big stones, and they are really heavy. The nearest quarry is at least 10 miles away from the site of the ruins. How in the world did these people move these blocks that weighed many tons, and how were they able to form a structure with them?

With the technology that we currently have today, it would be extremely difficult to recreate the site of these ruins, if possible at all. If we can't do it, then how did these ancient people accomplish this task? This could have taken place anywhere from 500 b.c. all the way back to the Ice Age.

These ancient people had to have been very sophisticated, knowing astronomy, geomancy, and mathematics. However, there are no records of this work. To build a place like Puma Punku, there must have been significant planning, and writing involved, but there is no record of any of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AABPXvwevVA


Again, if these ancient people were able to build with such astonishing precision and skill, then why did they suddenly stop. And why did they seem to lose all of their advanced architectural and stone cutting abilities?

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

Ted: the same thing can be accomplished with flat blocks that are easier to move.

Puma Punko is insane as well. We can build these things now but we would never find a reason to. Too expensive for something that has no use.

Egypt/Lebanon/etc were never under the perma-ice, and were inhabited by "humans" between and through the ice ages.

_________________
Johan