It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:18 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
08? Actually I'll be back in the US at that time-well I think I will. What about 07?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
my wife and i go to a local "burn" in austin every may & she has no interest in spending a week in the black rock desert in august with me...so i had to pick a year to go to burning man. she allowed me '08. ;)

sounds great, PP! yours is off to college? i have about 12 years 'till my oldest heads out! lol ...and 14 till the boy goes. 'course if any of the doomsday 2012 crew are right... ;)

check the sitchin section on my shelf and apparently "stairway" is among those that i've given away. i'm on my 3rd copy of 12th planet. i enjoy the range of reaction from people i share with! i had a good buddy stop after 3-4 chapters because even entertaining sitchins' human-creation hypothesis disturbed him. i appreciated that he knew how thin and fragile the walls of belief he had built around himself were. even if he was unwilling to confront that fact...yet. i'll try to hit B&N this afternoon & see if stairway is on the shelf.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Thanks Reverend

Hopefully you can one can find a copyin the local used books area. I use to find them at garage sales. Not sure if local libraries would stock such materials. Depends on the Librarian I guess


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Hmmmm the thread seems to be lacking in input from the supporters of ZS. Not having his books available I have found one source of pure ZS. At his website. On his website he puts out some "interesting" stuff.

Quote:

The Colossal Stone Blocks

The most important section of that ancient Landing Place was its northwestern corner, where the remains of the Jupiter temple are located.

Lune: Landing place? Yep I'd want to land a hundreds/thousands of tons of space ship on a honey comb structure made of masonry. Yep! One must note that men would consider this complete folly - but the advance aliens - according to ZS this was engineering progress! Why land so far from Mesopotamia where you could set down on a nice flat piece of terrain - why land in wooded hills?

Its ruins stand atop a platform that rose even higher by rows of perfectly shaped stone blocks weighing some 600 tons each.

Lune: They are not perfectly shaped, they are well shaped but nothing extraordinary, nor does the temple of Jupiter sit on atop a platform, it is part of that same platform.

(Fig. 3); this is a weight that no existing modern equipment can lift.

Lune: False statement, modern cranes can easily lift in excess of 5000 tons. One has to wonder why he makes such a silly claim?

(By comparison, the stone blocks of the Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt, weigh about 25 tons each).

Lune: Wrong again, the average weight is estimated at 2.5 tons - seems he doesn't check his facts very well.

These are far from being the largest stone blocks there. As described in my latest illustrated book The Earth Chronicles Expeditions, the ever-rising layers of these stone blocks form, in the northwestern corner, a funnel-like stone tower.

Lune: Actually they do not, it would seem he is making stuff up the structure is a platform made in typical Roman fashion but modified by having a heavy retaining wall on the down slope side - a sensible engineering detail.

The western wall of that towerlike structure has been reinforced with rows (“courses”) of stone blocks weighing 900 tons each.

Lune: Estimates are 450-600 tons

On top of them, another higher course is made up of three unique stone blocks weighing 1,100 tons each.

Lune: Nope he seems to be confusing these with the two stones that were left in the quarries.

Known as the Trilithon, these are the largest cut and shaped construction stone blocks in the world! (Fig. 4).

Lune: Dang wrong again - this guy claims to have researched this? It has been common knowledge for decades if not a over a century that the heaviest cut and moved stone was an Egyptian statue - at 900+ tons.

Well Zecharia have confirmed to me he has painfully inept researchcapabilities and this was only on one small area. I really hate to look at what other errors he promotes as his non scientific research.

And people wonder why science looks at him as a crank?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
my heart's just not into this reply, but i feel like i shoud for some reason! lol

ok..."Why land so far from Mesopotamia where you could set down on a nice flat piece of terrain - why land in wooded hills?"

it had to do with whose (which "gods") complex it was and the power games that were afoot. it was built by a "god" who was maneuvering around behind the backs of those "gods" who were in control, thus it was in the land of the cedars...far and wee from mess-o-potamia.

also...i'd suggest that such advanced ships would be able to land and launch without the need for powerful thrusters, just cancel gravity in the immediate area (just, as in simply?!?! sure. why not?), and the supporting structure would only need to be capable of supporting the static weight of the vessel when powered down! *whew* pulled that one out of somewhere stinky.

"Lune: They are not perfectly shaped, they are well shaped but nothing extraordinary, nor does the temple of Jupiter sit on atop a platform, it is part of that same platform."

the perfectly straight line exists in theory alone. the only perfect anything, as the human brain conceives it, exists in theory only. and the temple of jupiter HAS to be atop the platform, it can't be in it. the truth of this (whichever way your particular truth lies) depends on your particular beleif as to whether or not there was something (platformish) there before the romans showed up and got to templing up the joint. so far, i suspect that there was a platform already there, thus the temple of jupiter had to be built atop it.

"Lune: False statement, modern cranes can easily lift in excess of 5000 tons. One has to wonder why he makes such a silly claim? "

easily? "Most derrick cranes can lift 5–250 tons (4.5–230 metric tons). Floating cranes, built on barges for constructing bridges or salvaging sunken objects, may be able to lift 3,000 tons (2,700 metric-tons)."
that doesn't make it sound too easy to lift 600 tonnes. and the floating cranes hardly count in this context, but i thought they were pretty impressive so i wanted to include them! now, there is this ONE land based bad-boy http://www.answers.com/topic/kockumskranen but it's so rare (one!) it gets a special name! ... and could lift 1500 tonnes. that's one.


"Lune: Wrong again, the average weight is estimated at 2.5 tons - seems he doesn't check his facts very well. "

that silly man! he needs a decent fact checker. I never would've let that decimal point slide slip past me. Zechy, give me a salary m'man and i'll read you before you publish.

"These are far from being the largest stone blocks there. As described in my latest illustrated book The Earth Chronicles Expeditions, the ever-rising layers of these stone blocks form, in the northwestern corner, a funnel-like stone tower.

Lune: Actually they do not, it would seem he is making stuff up the structure is a platform made in typical Roman fashion but modified by having a heavy retaining wall on the down slope side - a sensible engineering detail. "

i have no clue how to speak to either statemtent here. this is a visual issue & i need to see what you're both describing to tell if you're saying something truly different or saying the same thing in different ways.

"Lune: Dang wrong again - this guy claims to have researched this? It has been common knowledge for decades if not a over a century that the heaviest cut and moved stone was an Egyptian statue - at 900+ tons. "

>> A huge block, considered the largest hewn stone in the world, still sits where it was cut almost 2,000 years ago. Called the "Stone of the Pregnant Woman", it is 21.5m x 4.8m x 4.2meters in size and weighs an estimated 1,000 tons.<< from http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5.htm
AH!!! and a statue isn't "construction" stone!!! it is an end product in itself...even if the pregnant rock weren't 100 tonnes larger than that big 'ol egyptian statue.

without a doubt, lune, the more we look and the closer we look...the more errors will be found. just look at a "straight" line with a magnifying glass...then an optical microscope...then an electron microscope.

that being said...the 25 ton versus 2.5 ton was a full on screw up! nothing subjective about that.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Oh my Mr. PP The rev did try but he runs aground. The facts are, yes folks there are facts in the world:

Mr. P there are no "Apollo like vehicles installed in sub surface silos" care to point out to where those are located? Care to show us these "pre-ancient" pictorials? I hope you're not going to show that one with the Roman temple in the background....LOL

A silo would have left an enormous archaeological presence- where is it?

Sitchin said they used "rocket" ships not anti-gravity, if they did then plan ground would have been sufficient

Unfortunately as all evidence has shown (remember those archaeologists?) they dug into and thru the temple site-ROMAN down to the bedrock. You can say it was there before the Romans but that is simply wrong. So please take the two extensive reports made and write a detailed refutation of those findings. Sitchin 'saying so' doesn't erase the actual facts

Nonsense about straight lines is ignored you do realize Rev that Sitchin said they were perfect? - Go look at the existing pictures of the blocks, they are not in anyway unusual at all, commonly cut Roman stones

Oh by the way where did the people who flew these rocket ships live? All that has been found are crude stone houses? Did they live there without plumbing?

How did they managed to not drop a single piece of plastic or refined metal? In 450,000 years? Hey they didn't even spill any fuel (that leaves an archaeological mark too)

Ah we have a tale of of sneaky gods - okay please reference the Sumerian tablet that says this. I can tell you already that SITCHIN MADE IT UP. LOL

Cranes, sorry dead wrong - I went to the google, and took the first entry.

Hydraulic and lattice boom truck cranes from 15-650 ton capacity
• Crawler cranes to 600 ton capacity with jib, luffer boom, and traveling counterweights

Get over it modern man can move heavy weights, Sitchin is lying.

25 vs 2.5 - he has been informed of that and has not (in several years) made the change - I suggest you contact the website and point out the error. Sitchin's viewpoint is very clear - "I don't make mistakes". Good luck in getting that changed. LOL

The pregnant stone is one of two of that size. It never MOVED, as a matter of fact it is still attached to the bedrock. It is that stone that Sitchin mixes up and thinks is on the second tier.

So in summary

The stones are nothing special - no one but a few fringe writers (copying one another) have said so - there evidence is....well there is none they just made it up.

Stones can easily be lifted by modern cranes (on land) or if we wanted to we could move them - very slowly and with a great deal of danger, using ancient methods, Roman method or medieval methods.

The heaviest stone cut and moved was an Egyptian statue of 900+ that was late immortalized as Ozymandius.

It must be hard to see someone you consider a 'prophet" shown to be a uncommonly poor researcher and unfortunately a liar.

I'll take a look at the rest of his website later.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
lune, your not even checking yourself for inconsistencies in driving forward your point and i have no interest in doing it for you, because i'm not doing battle with you. i do enjoy the discourse, but all my experiences with discussion boards is that most dialogues devolve into point by point attacks which yield to lawyerly hawking of individual words or phrases and end in personal attacks. i responded to you, and continue to, becasue i think you expect it...and i love giving myself and others good dinner conversation! lol
we differ. i know you're not wrong just as strongly as you know you're not wrong. but...i know i'm not wrong either.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Howdy Rev

I know it's very new age for everyone to be right but in this case some things are wrong and some things are right. In the cases above Mr. Sitchin is not only wrong he is laughably wrong. I sometimes think he does it deliberately, he knows anyone with even the slightest knowledge or ability to look up anything will detect he is full of it so he does just that. I believe he is looking for people who are pliable, such strong believers, that they will believe anything he says - a useful trait when wanting to believe his unbelievable theory.

With respect


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
Cool, lune. Well, i'm certainly not a lock-step sitchinite. I'm not a lock-step anything...except maybe a subjectivist. in my eyes, EVERYTHING has an aire of "truthiness" (thank you stephen colbert!)

Long days and pleasant nights, may it do ya fine.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
So many words wasted over whether or not modern man could move one of those big stones. We could, barely. We can't move them with precision, carefully lining them up.

That said, the point is, how did the ancients move them? Oh, the Romans tied a rope and a piece of wood to it and said "Slaves, I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is, double rations for everyone. The bad news is, we are going to move a stone." No way. Even if they could move them in a single direction, they couldn't carefully adjust them. Every culture that found them left detritus, the Roman's were just the last.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Howdy Arnik

Yep lots of wasted words

"We could, barely. We can't move them with precision, carefully lining them up."

Incorrect we can move them easily, spin them 360 degress and place them within millimeters of one another. Why this obcession to agree with Sitchin? He was just plain wrong. Move on, this has to be one of his weakest arguments but people go on and on about it. Your opinion is noted, however can you show evidence that they couldn't?

Nope? The Romans probably used sleds and winches, probably moving them several meters a day. Difficult, slow but doable (obviously they were able to do it as the stones are there, part of a undeniablly Roman structure)In your world view if the Romans couldn't do it and we're helpless how did the "ancients" do it? Unless you think the spacemen built a retaining wall in the middle of nowhere - built nothing else and the Romans incorporated it into their structure. Why would an advance culture use iron tools to cut huge blocks instead of just using concrete or reinforced masonry?

We have lots of examples of large weights being moved by ancients. Obviously they could as they did and in some cases documented and left descriptions of it. We've been over this before Arnik. Here is a challenge for you, Explain why no one who is knowledgeable about ancient engineering sees this as a problem and why the only people who do have a problem with it have no knowledge of engineering? Why is that?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
Well we can't spin them 360 degrees and place them with precision as you suggest. The only current machines capable of moving these blocks can barely do it at that and yet you give them amazing manipulative abilities in the field. That is outright falsehood.

You state the Roman's moved the stones and your argument is, "If not the Roman's, then who?" That is an extraordinarily weak argument.

I find it outstanding how you attempt to put the onus of proof on me. You prove your point. Your proof consists of you saying the Roman's built it. There is no proof whatsoever except for garbage, showing the Roman's built Baalbek. No records, no notes, no nothing except they used the platform. You prove your point. You can't. But you do lie well. You do make unsupported statements well. You do challenge others to prove their points while leaving yours on the table with no proof well. Why are you even bothering? What would cause you to spend so much time on a BBS using disinformation arguments about big stones? Why do you want to stop speculation?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Well gee Arnik

We all know that anyone who talks about reality is trying to suppress talking about big stones moved by aliens. LOL

I guess Arnik you will remain mired in ignorance. Yes we can pick up to 5,000 tons and move it with ease. Happens all the time. Why don't you get in contact with one of the companies that does that and tell them they are all liars? LOL. Seriously contact a company or consultant who does this for a living and have a heart to heart. You might learn something.

I would recomend you read the two reports by the Germans who spent decades at Baalbek (you haven't read them have you?). They have put out two impressive reports. Their conclusion is Roman. They have evidence to back them up. Mountains of it based on the appendixes of the first report I read.

What evidence do you have to refute it?

Oh that right you have Sitchin telling you to believe what he says, blindly and without evidence - besides that crank do you have a shred of evidence in support of his thoughts?

If you disagree with the published reports then show the evidence of why they are wrong.

Why do I spend so much time on BBSs talking about this stuff? Well to make a fool out of you of course, I thought you knew that? Gosh don't you know that the powers that be consider you a prime threat to their dominance of the world.? You've been targeted my friend to be exposure as a light weight and Sitchin sock puppet.

Just kidding Arnik, back to reality - ya got any evidence?

If ya did ya woulda showed it years ago, all you have is bluster and the inability to admit you're wrong.

Regards


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
ok..i'm looking and looking. (getting tired of it and about done) i've found nothing to even imply that moving 5000 tons is either common or easy. that it is done, yes. but at great effort and expense. i have several emails out to several companies who specialize in lifting and placing large equiplent. i await their answers and will share them.

there is ONE boat lock with the capacity to lift a 5000 ton ship, using a lock / water system. i've posted earlier about other cranes and whatnot.

lune, if you're sticking with it being common and easy to move 5000 tons, please substantiate that. ...even 1000 tons

here are some google results for 1000ton, and none of them make it look easy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lifting+1000+tons


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
ok, marduk-uk. looking at the site you provided (dry docking lift capacity? c'mon.)
"Cranage to 85 tonnes - [floating dry dock system]
Cranage to 150 tonnes - [graving dock system]"
and lastly "1,200 tonne lift capacity " using a "syncrolift", which is using more than one mechanism to lift said weight.

dude, read the whole page! at the second link you provided...the CRANE weighs 7560 tonnes! it lifts ...well...here, directly from the site:
"The 7,560 tonne world’s largest gantry crane at Kockums AB shipyard in Malmö, Sweden also has the world’s largest lifting capacity of 1,500 tonnes. "


AND this is a crane i had already referenced...here, wikipedia: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kockumskranen

...and]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kockumskranen

...and[/url] marduk-uk writes: "so really
talking out of his ass is an expression that springs readily to mind
Love to know why you thought it neccesary to e mail companies which will more than likely laugh at your question as the information is readily available after a cursory examination of the facts "

i emailed them because they have an economic interest in an optimistic response to my question. they have nothing to prove nor an axe to grind.

(Edited by ThaRevrendAl at 10:07 am on Feb. 19, 2007)


and in the name of link-flinging:
[url=http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/PICTURES_World_s_Biggest_Floating_Crane

floating]http://www.digg.com/offbeat....loating[/url] crane with a LIFTING capacity of 3700 tonnes.

(Edited by ThaRevrendAl at 10:13 am on Feb. 19, 2007)


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron