UFOs - Is anybody out there?

[Gibbo675]

6 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Just looked that up - doesn't sound like they defy explanation. Whilst the methods used aren't know for certain there appear to be plausible methods for the technology available of the day, at least for the large but not largest ones. The largest ones are apparently still in the quarry, so it looks like they couldn't manage to move them.

Hi Reorte,

 

What are those plausible methods ?

 

I have not yet read anything that even vaguely explains how such a stone might be moved without fracture. The only plausible explanation to me is that technologies either now forgotten or hidden were used.

 

Telekinesis would be more plausible than rolling them along on logs hauled by the usual hoards of slaves. Lets face it, a ship made from steel was stuck in the Suez Canal recently, that ships hull would be much better in resisting both tension and torsion than a huge stone and yet fracture was a primary concern in its refloating.

 

Gibbo.

[Gibbo675]

4 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

 

What is Wonkypedia? Never heard of it.

Hi Colin,

 

Google told me that it is a sort of typo that gullible people don't seem to recognise. It didn't explain why, however, I suspect that Google doesn't want you to know by way of me posting a link to a website that may contain "Alternative Truth"...... or something.

 

Gibbo.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, brossard said:

I just read several essays on Baalbek.  I do not see anything convincing about how these massive stones were moved and installed.  Wood rollers would be crushed under the weight of 1000 tons.

 

Probably why those most massive ones are still in the quarry then.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Reorte,

 

What are those plausible methods ?

 

I have not yet read anything that even vaguely explains how such a stone might be moved without fracture. The only plausible explanation to me is that technologies either now forgotten or hidden were used.

 

Telekinesis would be more plausible than rolling them along on logs hauled by the usual hoards of slaves. Lets face it, a ship made from steel was stuck in the Suez Canal recently, that ships hull would be much better in resisting both tension and torsion than a huge stone and yet fracture was a primary concern in its refloating.

The ship and the stone are two very, very different structures with very, very different forces acting on them. Completely incomparable situations.

 

The exact details of the technology used to move the largest stones they did move have been forgotten, that's true, because they weren't recorded (or at least not anywhere that's lasted until the present day) so there's no way of being 100% certain how they did it but there are possibilities. Firstly, where's the evidence that rollers wouldn't have been possible? That it couldn't have been moved without fracture? What's the terrain between the quarry and the temple site (if it's downhill for example that would make the job considerably easier)?

[Gibbo675]

20 minutes ago, Reorte said:

The ship and the stone are two very, very different structures with very, very different forces acting on them. Completely incomparable situations.

 

The exact details of the technology used to move the largest stones they did move have been forgotten, that's true, because they weren't recorded (or at least not anywhere that's lasted until the present day) so there's no way of being 100% certain how they did it but there are possibilities. Firstly, where's the evidence that rollers wouldn't have been possible? That it couldn't have been moved without fracture? What's the terrain between the quarry and the temple site (if it's downhill for example that would make the job considerably easier)?

Hi Reorte,

 

Somewhat uphill from quarry to the final site and over a rather uneven surface between the two as in no discernable roadway ever having existed.

 

As for a ship that is supported by the buoyancy of water as well as by the banks of the canal at both ends, and a stone that would not self support over any great distance you are indeed correct in that you would be dealing with two completely incomparable situations.

 

Tell me, have you ever wondered is why steel reinforced concrete has the steel situated in the under side of the beam ?

Also why these beams are cambered so that they become straight when under load due to the yield of the steel ?

Are the stones of Baalbek reinforced with longitudinal steel rods to prevent cracking as concrete beams are ?

 

Science has not yet satisfied any of the questions I have about such structures, and furthermore, nonsense for the sake of nonsense really doesn't fit into my observation of how stone self supports over long unsupported spans or uneven torsional forces may affect the integrity of materials such as stone of any type I have knowledge of.

 

Gibbo.

 

[adb968008]

So now weve progressed to Alien builders turning up and making primitive buildings from local stone without the aid of superior Alien technology…

 

Which brings me to one of my favourite stories, is a bridge in Knysna South Africa…

It took 5 years to build this unimposing iron rivetted bridge over a river 100+ years back, but the local guide told me the story… a designer was comissioned from London, sailed to South Africa, designed it, returned to London, spec’ed it, issued contracts for each individual of thousands of parts to be made, sized and shipped to South Africa in batches.

 

Upon delivery, one piece was lost overboard, and despite searching, it could not be retrieved off the sea bed, but which piece was it ?

 

The result meant a very long delay as each piece arrived had to be signed off, Unpacked and laid out until the lost piece of the puzzle was identified, reordered, shipped and delivered to South Africa…5+ years to build a bridge.

 

British engineering projects, managed by British skill, sourced from Britain.. we came, we saw, we went back, made it and brought it back.. as we knew the skills available at home, and had limited idea of resources available at the destination.

 

Today, Americans can fly pre-built bridges by air and assemble them in an afternoon on the otherside of the world, in WW2 we built piers, bridges, pipes everything we needed to support an invasion in Normany in days, including flatpack bailey bridges.

 

How ancients moved 1000 ton pieces of rock is a mystery, if logs wont cut it, maybe they carved rollers out of stone too ? Its lost to history, but i’m sure an Alien stonemason wasnt involved, as for millimeter precision.. hundreds of years gravity, ground settlement could naturally bed stones in.

 

so my question is why on earth would a bunch of Alien builders fly across the galaxy, and set about carving 1000 ton stone pillars using locally hand made hammers and tools, drag them about with animals, slaves etc, and leave their superior tools, resources, skills behind… at very least the spaceship should have an alien engineer with a toolbox for its own spacecraft maintenance ?.. i’m just not buying it...

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by adb968008

[Crisis Rail]

9 hours ago, brossard said:

 

I agree with you.  There are ancient structures that defy explanation.  The temple complex at Baalbek Leb. (some stones weigh more than 1000 tons - we have trouble with those today) some of the buildings in S. America incl Puma Punku.  The Pyramids have been puzzled over for centuries.

 

Not just buildings.  The map produced by Piri Reis (and there are others) in the early part of the 16th century (just a few years after Columbus landed) shows remarkable accuracy.  It also shows Antarctica correctly (and it wasn't discovered until about 1830).  What is really astounding is that it shows the continent ice free!  The depiction has been corroborated by USN surveys.  Antarctica was last ice free some 7000 years ago.

 

Graham Hancock's book "Fingerprints of the Gods" is a fascinating journey around the world documenting high technology in ancient times.  His follow on book "Magicians of the Gods" gives a plausible explanation for the causes of the great flood in 11,000 BCE.

 

John

 

Was “God” a Spaceman? was the question. 

We’re entering classic Von Daniken territory. I have quite a few views that crossover into the deity side of things that make seem to make sense but I’ve stopped discussing religion. 

[rob D2]

I’m very much doubt the alien designers of spacecraft have a GCSE in “ our “ physics.

 

Some of these craft are pulling tremendous G so are either unmanned or they’ve found a way to cancel it out 

[PatB]

Whilst it's not 1000T, this might be a good demonstration of moving heavy loads with limited gear.

 

 

Maybe we just need to recognise that ancient peoples were very smart jackleg engineers, capable of doing quite remarkable things with the tools, materials and equipment at their disposal. And a good understanding of the basic machines (lever, inclined plane, wheel/roller), and the principles of friction and lubrication.

 

And time, of course. If you've multiple generations to work in, you don't need to do a big lift in one go. If it takes you 10 years of jacking and packing, so what? Your successors will take it from where you left off.

[tomparryharry]

My spanners are mythical creatures. Every time I use one, it disappears..... It's the same with screwdrivers as well......

 

"OI!  Come back....."

[jonny777]

This site ought to give some people a few hours worth of relevant reading matter. 

 

They do try and dismiss the more outlandish descriptions, but I suppose the whole point of UFOs is that they cannot be identified. 

 

http://www.project1947.com/index.html

 

 

As for God being a spaceman, well the book of Genesis does say that he made Adam in his own image, so he must have looked very similar to humans. 

 

Genesis also states that the first woman was formed from one of Adam's ribs, which ought to be the first known occasion of DNA cloning on the planet. 

 

However, if God is/was a spaceman; then who made God? Surely he couldn't have manufactured himself? And if he really did 'make' the solar system, he did a pretty poor job. There is no point at all in Mercury for a variety of reasons; unless that is where Satan lives.

 

Venus and Mars are relatively sensible, but he just let both planets go to ruin. And I see little point in creating the vastnesses of Jupiter and Saturn if they are not going to be able to support life. What a waste of time and energy. He could have made Earth, Venus and Mars each twice the size they are and took more care of them, so that once we had hunted most of our animals to extinction, we could go to Venus and repeat the process there. 

 

Neptune and Uranus are just a joke (well to certain people Uranus will always be a 'joke'). So D Minus for the solar system mr god-man, whoever you are. You must try harder. 

[APOLLO]

I can't see the point of any Alien craft showing themselves by zipping past airliners / jet fighters etc. Why would they do this over many years, or are they just interstellar BMW drivers ??

 

The Universe is so vast that perhaps we will never know.

 

And this won't help

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9749081/Experts-say-Hubble-repair-despite-NASA-insisting-multiple-options-fix.html

 

Brit15

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by APOLLO
typo

[Reorte]

9 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Reorte,

 

Somewhat uphill from quarry to the final site and over a rather uneven surface between the two as in no discernable roadway ever having existed.

Hmm, one bit I saw said downhill from the quarry, and is there any reason temporary earthworks couldn't have been created that were removed afterwards as the whole temple area was landscaped and developed?

 

Quote

As for a ship that is supported by the buoyancy of water as well as by the banks of the canal at both ends, and a stone that would not self support over any great distance you are indeed correct in that you would be dealing with two completely incomparable situations.

Hollow steel structure, steel is a malleable and ductile material, and with large leverage forces going on. You've got this one very backwards.

Quote

 

Tell me, have you ever wondered is why steel reinforced concrete has the steel situated in the under side of the beam ?

Also why these beams are cambered so that they become straight when under load due to the yield of the steel ?

Are the stones of Baalbek reinforced with longitudinal steel rods to prevent cracking as concrete beams are ?

 

Why do they have to be? You're saying "That's how we'd make such a large rock-like thing now." That doesn't mean anything else is impossible; we also don't know how much wastage there was (any that did crack could've still been used for smaller stones). We can do similar things more easily and reliably now, that's all. Anyway concrete and natural stone have different properties.

 

Quote

Science has not yet satisfied any of the questions I have about such structures, and furthermore, nonsense for the sake of nonsense really doesn't fit into my observation of how stone self supports over long unsupported spans or uneven torsional forces may affect the integrity of materials such as stone of any type I have knowledge of.

Nonsense for the sake of nonsense is "science has not yet satisfied any of the questions I have about such structures" and proposing outlandish explanations.  You appear to be taking various objections you've got as cold, hard fact with no way around them, on the basis of nothing much AFAICT.

 

It wouldn't have been easy for the Romans and would probably have stretched their technology and engineering to the limits but there's no basis for claims of impossibility. A rather larger stone was moved in the 18th century by muscle power, and that's well documented.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Reorte

[jonny777]

32 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I can't see the point of any Alien craft showing themselves by zipping past airliners / jet fighters etc. Why would they do this over many years, or are they just interstellar BMW drivers ??

 

The Universe is so vast that perhaps we will never know.

 

And this won't help

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9749081/Experts-say-Hubble-repair-despite-NASA-insisting-multiple-options-fix.html

 

Brit15

 

 

Don't worry. The Chinese will have a bigger and better one in a few years time - especially now they have their new manned space station up and running. 

 

This is the main reason why the USA want us all to hate the Chinese. They are about to take charge, and if we refuse to let them, they will stop all containers coming our way - and see how long it takes for our economies to seize up. 

 

 

[APOLLO]

8 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

Don't worry. The Chinese will have a bigger and better one in a few years time - especially now they have their new manned space station up and running. 

 

This is the main reason why the USA want us all to hate the Chinese. They are about to take charge, and if we refuse to let them, they will stop all containers coming our way - and see how long it takes for our economies to seize up. 

 

 

 

Sad but true - and it is our own (the west's) fault. Not only did we let them do it, we paved the way for them.

 

They are "getting away" with Covid (in my opinion).

 

I wonder what else they have in store for the west in the Great Leap Forward to world domination ?

 

Brit15

[Gibbo675]

17 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Hmm, one bit I saw said downhill from the quarry, and is there any reason temporary earthworks couldn't have been created that were removed afterwards as the whole temple area was landscaped and developed?

 

Hollow steel structure, steel is a malleable and ductile material, and with large leverage forces going on. You've got this one very backwards.

Why do they have to be? You're saying "That's how we'd make such a large rock-like thing now." That doesn't mean anything else is impossible; we also don't know how much wastage there was (any that did crack could've still been used for smaller stones). We can do similar things more easily and reliably now, that's all. Anyway concrete and natural stone have different properties.

 

Nonsense for the sake of nonsense is "science has not yet satisfied any of the questions I have about such structures" and proposing outlandish explanations.  You appear to be taking various objections you've got as cold, hard fact with no way around them, on the basis of nothing much AFAICT.

 

It wouldn't have been easy for the Romans and would probably have stretched their technology and engineering to the limits but there's no basis for claims of impossibility. A rather larger stone was moved in the 18th century by muscle power, and that's well documented.

Hi Reorte,

 

You have not actually answered any of my questions so I'm not sure who you are trying to convince. Anyway, as for steel beams I used to work as a welding engineer at Watson Steel, do you know them ? They built the Olympic Stadium in London, mainly from great big steel beams, some reinforced concrete ones as well.

 

As for this great big stone you allude to which might that be for it is as yet unknown to me and I would be interested to know all about it, do tell.

 

Gibbo.

[Reorte]

24 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Reorte,

 

You have not actually answered any of my questions so I'm not sure who you are trying to convince. Anyway, as for steel beams I used to work as a welding engineer at Watson Steel, do you know them ? They built the Olympic Stadium in London, mainly from great big steel beams, some reinforced concrete ones as well.

That's because you're not persuasive that they're relevant, meaningful questions. Steel's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Quote

As for this great big stone you allude to which might that be for it is as yet unknown to me and I would be interested to know all about it, do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Horseman#Thunder_Stone

 

[Gibbo675]

42 minutes ago, Reorte said:

That's because you're not persuasive that they're relevant, meaningful questions. Steel's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Horseman#Thunder_Stone

 

Hi Reorte,

 

Alternatively your mind is closed to thinking about other possibilities than those presented by authorities such as Wikipedia.

 

Tell me has Snopes, whoever they might be, fact checked the Wikipedia article so that I can trust the internet link implicitly?

 

Gibbo.

[Reorte]

Just now, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Reorte,

 

Alternatively your mind is closed to thinking about other possibilities than those presented by authorities such as Wikipedia.

 

Tell me has Snopes, whoever they might be, fact checked the Wikipedia article so that I can trust the internet link implicitly?

 

You're in to barrel-scraping territory there.

[adb968008]

I wonder if Men In Black’s closing scene has it covered…

 

we are but living in goldfish bowl in someones lounge, and there is a being or beings that we are entertaining each day by showing how our planet civilisation evolves, every now and again they turn up the curtains, turn on the lights and we pick that up and think its a ufo, every now and again we manage to chuck a goldfish out of our bowl into space and tomorrow a mother will come in, clean up the toys and put them back in the goldfish bowl, surprising us all, as we see it a meteorite crashing back onto earth.

Earthquakes are caused, by the cleaner moving our goldfish bowl, and the moon.. thats just a bedside table lamp.

 

its all explained, i’m going to send a signal to those beings and ask for something better than chicken, its getting boring after decades.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by adb968008

[Gibbo675]

30 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

You're in to barrel-scraping territory there.

Not really, but this is,

 

Which one is you and which one is me ?

 

 

 

Ahh Bless !!!

 

Gibbo.

[jonny777]

I don't know if ghosts are aliens playing tricks, but I don't believe sound recordist Peter Handford was prone to making up stories. 

 

[brossard]

Wow, quite a discussion going on.  The cat really did get thrown among the pigeons.

 

The verse in Genesis about Adam's rib being used to create Eve bothered me when I was in my teens and it occurred to me then that genetic engineering might have been at play.  It is interesting to note that the word for rib in the original text language is "Ti".  As in English though, there are are words in the language that are spelled the same but have different meanings depending on context.  An alternate meaning for "Ti" is "that which gives life".

 

As to the emergence of H*mo Sapiens, this also fascinates me.  The conventional wisdom is that HS evolved from earlier hominids.  H*mo Habilis from 6M years ago and H*mo Erectus from 2M years.  The thing about these species is that in the intervening 4M years not a lot changed and in particular their brains stayed 2/3 the size of HS.

 

It is now known that HS dates back 300,000 years.

 

Another interesting thing is that a couple of years I watched  a Nova episode that followed a team from Witwatersrand U as it recovered hominid remains from a deep cave in S. Africa.  These hominids did have arms that resembled HS but their brains were still 2/3 the size of HS.  The punch line came at the end of the episode where it said that the remains were dated to 300,000 years.

 

So, how can HS and HS hominid ancestors both exist at the same time?  Alas I am not trained in the field so I really can't say.  Something to think about.

 

In a mere 300,000 years HS has transformed the planet which is pretty amazing.  All this is down to our brains.  HS is also the dominant species on Earth.  This breaks the rules of natural selection which says that evolution improves the survivability of a species but never makes it dominant.

 

John

 

I'm laughing to myself because there is a filter on H*mo.

Edited July 6, 2021 by brossard

[woodenhead]

10 minutes ago, brossard said:

In a mere 300,000 years HS has transformed the planet which is pretty amazing.  All this is down to our brains.  HS is also the dominant species on Earth.  This breaks the rules of natural selection which says that evolution improves the survivability of a species but never makes it dominant.

 

Who says we are dominant, that's a rather human centric approach to make - there are plenty of smaller organisms that live among and within us that vastly outnumber us in numbers.

 

And war, disease, global warming, damage to habitats and simply not being able to produce enough food to feed us all if numbers grow too great cut our numbers fairly regularly.

 

We just think we are too clever to die back to smaller numbers - a bit like those early builders in South America perhaps, arrogance/pride before a fall.

 

Your Adam and Eve reference is interesting, it's been made into a film at least once.  But you could imagine a single alien crashing to Earth, finding it habitable and it having technology sufficient to copy itself.  However, that wouldn't explain evolution of the human species unless said alien spliced it's genes with the existing H*mo species to make H*mo Erectus and kickstarting the human race.

[brossard]

Well, the dinosaurs were dominant for more than 200 M years yet they never built a bridge or a Wankel rotary engine.  HS is the one changing the planet and not necessarily for the better.  Other organisms are along for the ride it seems to me.

 

To your last point that is extremely controversial and probably breaks forum rules.  I will say that if you want to follow up on that you should read Zecharia Sitchen's "12th Planet".  It is the first of the 7 volume "Earth Chronicles" set.  Another book in the same vein is Alan Alford's "Gods of the New Millenium".  A third example of the genre is Mike Tellinger's "Slave Species of the Gods".   Whether or not you accept the claims in these books they are fascinating and do make you think.

 

John