Thread: Atlantis and Lumeria - Ancient and advanced civilization

The precision of those sort of things are not anything special. If you just put a ruler across two blocks you can make sure they are even in size with each other. It doesn't take any advanced technology what so ever. It just takes some guy with a ruler.

Also, cutting stone doesn't require advanced tools. You could carve pretty much anything out of stone, using just a rock as a tool. It would take forever, but it is entirely possible. The problem with early tools is that they are slower than power tools, and are often made out of softer metals that need to be resharped often. There wasn't any issue with a lack of precision.

In the end attention to detail, is simply attention to detail. None of those things are beyond humans with the most simple of tools. You don't need advanced tools to make straight lines, and the length and size doesn't matter in the slightest. If you can make a straight even block two inches long then you can do it 1000 miles long. All it takes is you doing it two inches at a time.

Also all the talk of stuff lining up is just gibberish. People like to draw lines all over maps and try to connect points but they don't actually line up in meaningful ways. It is just a trick to use lines in fancy patterns that mimic meaning when there is none.

Shadowofwind - I never did say aliens were necessary to explain this. Not once. The link debunks aliens, which is a hypothesis I never brought up. This is something I'm having a problem with. My position is being made for me by virtue of the fact that I bring up these questions. If I were to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Would it be considered feasible to respond "Not because of aliens?" This is not a thread where I try to prove a claim, the intention was made very clearly that this thread is here in order to discuss ancient mysteries, not argue whether or not they came from aliens. If someone wants to provide evidence they came from aliens and another person wants to then respond why it's improbable that falls in line with the thread, but StephL's link was non-sequitur.

Their structures follow the electro-magnetic field in the sense that ancient ruins fall into the gridlines I've laid out in the OP. Furthermore, when they attempted to build the whitehouse so the sides matched up perfectly with directions, they failed to come close to the pyramid's precision in this endeavor. Through their harmonization with the EM field, they've got healing properties (which I also believe I've linked)

When I said originally that we couldn't recreate these structure with modern technology I was mirroring this claim as laid out by many of the sources I'm picking this information from. I agree that this is not provable based on one failed attempt. However, there is a very short timeline Egyptologists argue that the Pyramid of Khufu was erected in, and I remain very doubtful even with today's tools we could accomplish that level of precision in such a short time. Even if you agree that it was erected less around the era it's assumed, you still seem to have as much trouble with the proposed timeline that I do. And even Alric, apparently.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

...
But you find theories about aliens being involved with man's technological development to be credible, that is a relevant aspect of where you are truly coming from. And the underlying psychology, logic, and worldview is very much connected.
Unless the goal is to play games on the surface while avoiding the heart of things, I think she was on topic. (Though I didn't follow the link, so I'm just guessing from your response.)
....

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Shadowofwind - I never did say aliens were necessary to explain this. Not once.
The link debunks aliens, which is a hypothesis I never brought up.

This is something I'm having a problem with. My position is being made for me by virtue of the fact that I bring up these questions.


If I were to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Would it be considered feasible to respond "Not because of aliens?" This is not a thread where I try to prove a claim, the intention was made very clearly that this thread is here in order to discuss ancient mysteries, not argue whether or not they came from aliens.


If someone wants to provide evidence they came from aliens and another person wants to then respond why it's improbable that falls in line with the thread, but StephL's link was non-sequitur.

You are not entirely correct here - this is how the article starts:

Today we're going to climb high into the Andes and take a look at an ancient structure that has been cloaked with as much pop-culture mystery as just about any other on Earth: Pumapunku, a stone structure that's part of the larger Tiwanaku. Pumapunku, which translates to the Doorway of the Puma, is best known for its massive stones and for the extraordinary precision of their cutting and placement. It's one of those places where you've heard, probably many times, that the stones are so closely fitted that a knife blade cannot be inserted between them. Due to these features,
Pumapunku is often cited as evidence that Earth was visited by aliens, Atlanteans, or some other mythical people who are presumably better at stonemasonry than humans.

By asking your questions, you basically deny "normal" human development of skills, and natural means standing behind certain monuments.
In especially when it comes to them supposedly being arranged in a global pattern
There is no meaning in invoking normal humans, who used to be more advanced in regular arts than those humans, to whom the monuments are usually ascribed to, if you don't want to invoke the supernatural.
We have the evidence of most wonderful and precise building activities of our ancestors - so why would it be more exciting, if it were a bit older?
And what shadowofwind said confirms it.
You can't expect to open a thread like this, and do as if that aspect of the whole topic wouldn't exist.
Or how do you account for the presumed miraculous abilities of these ancient people in actual fact?
What's the point of the argumentation?

I was about to just cite the last passage, but was curious as to what would happen, were I to throw it in without comment.
He does discuss the precision work by the way - basically in the same way as in here.


If you don't mention, where you believe this supposed superiority came from, it really looks like wanting to play games on the surface.
This "non-sequitur" of mine has pointed directly at the heart of the issue.



Just an aside:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

When I said originally that we couldn't recreate these structure with modern technology I was mirroring this claim as laid out by many of the sources I'm picking this information from. I agree that this is not provable based on one failed attempt. However, there is a very short timeline Egyptologists argue that the Pyramid of Khufu was erected in, and I remain very doubtful even with today's tools we could accomplish that level of precision in such a short time. Even if you agree that it was erected less around the era it's assumed, you still seem to have as much trouble with the proposed timeline that I do. And even Alric, apparently.

What exact time-frame are you talking about?
I can't see a time-line or Alric and shadowofwind having trouble explaining one.

Originally Posted by Alric

If you can make a straight even block two inches long then you can do it 1000 miles long. All it takes is you doing it two inches at a time.

The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources.

In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help."

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources.

In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help."

However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night. Now that doesn't seem like that much of a problem if you have a good schedule. But, there seems to be loads of room for human error using this method. Constant rechecking and adjusting the angle because it eclipses the light does not seem like a viable working method to me.

If they cut the stones it seems likely to me that they cut the stones after they arrived on their assigned spot. It just seems like a good method. And i can see how they did this at night using light. As a layman ofcourse this makes sense.

Then we still have the issue of how they got the stones there in the first place. I used to like the idea that the stones have been liquidified for transport solidified at the spot. They could have maybe somehow floated them from all over egypt to the river nile and then placed a construct to transport them to the pyramid in their liquid form.. (the biggest hole in my theory is probably my ignorance in geography and pretty much everything else ^^)

I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza, atleast. I believe it was Nikola Tesla who proposed (or maybe even just explained) how the form of pyramids and material they used (Granite? Shadow, you work with Granite. I heared it has oscillating properties or something) causes weather changes in the surrounding area by changing the Ions in the atmosphere to change the Weather to more favorable conditions. (No drought in that part of Egypt). I believe it was this realization that spurred Tesla to make a weather control device and work with oscillating towers.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night.

The light is used to assist with the placement of stones, not with the cutting of them. So although the placement would have to be refined at night, almost all of the work and placement would be done during the day.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza

I think that if we dig down through this structure of beliefs, we find that these kinds of arguments about stone placement are not driving it. You have the belief mostly for other reasons, and fit the arguments around the belief. Otherwise you'd understand ideas like the lamp suggestion better before deciding why they can't work. Likewise for Original Poster. Sorry for leaving this statement hanging without better justification. I must work, more on this later.