And then there's Dildo, NF. Not shaped like a dildo but offers a whole religious experience for the uninitiated.
Tihuanaco and Mars
- Thread starter Skweek
- Start date
Even the ancients wondered what was out there...Had no t.v..Only stars!..lol...another great thread...Fun stuff
Over and out there from here
Over and out there from here
They may have had TV, they certainly had very good stone working tools and heavy equipment. All it takes to drive us modern people back to step one again is a bigger than usual incoming chunk, we really don't have much of an idea about the past, even events a couple of hundred years back aren't well recorded, if at all. This may not be the first time arround for TV or high grade steel chisels and stone saws.
Last edited:
You assume a great deal if, as you imply, you've read only two of my almost 4500 posts. You're claiming there's a connection between an eroded landform on Mars that at low resolution resembles a human face, and a face on an ancient stone gateway here on earth built by people who couldn't possibly have seen that Martian landform with the technology archeology indicates was available to them. Any sensible person would be skeptical of that claim. If you think you can establish a reasonable probability that it's correct, let's see your evidence. The implications would indeed be profound, but there's no point in punting them into play, as you put it, until you've established the claim itself.
Just for your personal edification, there's a vast gulf between authority--by which in this context I presume you mean the authority of the scientific consensus--and popular belief. As H. L. Mencken put it,"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." Most people are scientifically illiterate and don't know how to think critically.
Dexter is 100% correct. At low resolution it appears to have a human face but when it is cleared up it looks nothing like a face. Nothing at all.
YouTube - Cydonia 'Face On Mars'
Cutting, sawing and 'dressing' of blocks was usually unnecessary in the building of cyclopean architecture - largely they were created using geopolymers, or stone concrete (as common-sense should tell us).
“ Pyramids ” directory at the Geopolymer Institutehttp://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/pyramids
The evidence for that's not really very good. It does appear, for instance, that some of the casing stones of the pyramids at Giza may have been cast, but I've been at that site, and it's quite obvious that the major structural blocks are quarried stone. There are bedding planes visible in them, they contain fossils, and there are tool marks on them. The quarries they came from are known, the natural stone there exactly matches the pyramid blocks, and there are several examples of partially dressed blocks still sitting there. There are also huge, 70 ton granite beams in the pyramids, and if the ancient Egyptians had the means to prepare and move those things around, obviously they could have prepared and moved the smaller blocks that make up the bulk of the structures.
human drawing of face on mars?
View attachment 1111
Common let's go!...Time to put a human face on mars...
Easier to get there than to get back.W.I.P.(work in progress)....Who wants to go 1st..?
View attachment 1111
Common let's go!...Time to put a human face on mars...
Easier to get there than to get back.W.I.P.(work in progress)....Who wants to go 1st..?
As a Moderator here, I have to ask, "What are you talking about?"
I see nothing that is waiting to be approved, etc...Have you found
the Wall posting in your own profile yet?
Big stones like 1000 ton and up can be quarried and moved a bit these days they say it's expensive. Poured or cut a thousand ton nicely made building block even if it's made of clay, the good old days of the stoned age.
