Like I said I see almost all alien evidence as completely silly, with little credibility and until recently never gave the theory too much serious thought. Lights and sounds and questionable characters being 'beamed up' all sound like fantasy and misinterpretation.
Then one day I saw the inexplicable and no it wasn't a light in the sky :p
It was on an episode of Ancient Aliens and at the time I didn't take to be as inexplicable as they made it sound, because they hype everything so much it makes one wary. It became inexplicable when I went to study it as personal interest to try and explain it. I can't in any reasonable manner and the archeological explanations seem maybe even more far fetched than it being aliens.
This inexplicable place is Puma Punku which is a ruin in the high Andes mountains of Bolivia. Now the first odd thing is about PP is that it is a total ruin with large stones partially buried in what looks like dried mud, but right next to it is a complete well preserved city of a completely different architectural style and different stone type called Tiwanaku. Its obvious there is no way Tiwanaku could of survived what ever destroyed Puma Punku. It is a later site built right next to this ruin for a reason.
Now I am not going to go into a whole diatribe on why I see this as such amazing possible evidence, because it took me quite a bit of time for it to actually dawn on me. Look at the archeological explanation and then study the amazing attributes of Puma Punka. The one that is most striking is a line of ornately carved large blocks with interlocking prefab design. This is completely unheard of anywhere on earth until modern times and given the stone type and interlocking design the ruin should be a lot less of a ruin. This is what got me to really analyze the site closely and begin to see the precision of much of the work, all done in a very hard type of stone, far more difficult to work with than most rock types.
Now I don't know if aliens made it but saying aliens made it sounds at least as credible as the archeological explanations. There are perfectly round holes straight through a few feet of rock and they say it was done by bouncing stones on it. There is just no way that could be. Take a look at that first picture on the Wikipedia page, click on it to enlarge.
Now a warning the Wiki article confuses the two sites a little and if you look at the two places separately you will see there is nothing but superficial resemblance, likely done as a form of imitation by the later civilization. Now saying I find this place inexplicable doesn't mean I believe aliens are visiting us now or in the past, but that I see the idea of alien construction as credible a theory as any other explanation I've seen. You can see in Tinwanaku each stone was cut and shaped to fit as needed there is no 'prefab'.
The idea of designing and creating a whole structure from a pre cut interlocking repeated piece design is just alien to ANY ancient culture. You get pillars in Greece formed in two halves and then crimped together and stacked, but that doesn't even begin to touch the complexity of Puma Punka. Drill holes millimeters in diameter, grooves with drains, thin deep groves running 5 feet perfectly straight and just too many other amazing engineering feats to ignore.
Now it could be perfectly mundane and built by people, but I need a better explanation than "they bounced rocks" to explain perfectly round holes a centimeter or less in diameter, deeper than they are wide, drilled into a very hard stone type.
Thanks for reading my random fun thoughts on a Friday night! :)
Fri May 23, 2014 at 11:49 PM PT: The negative emotional response this topic generates is pretty silly. I have made it clear I am not saying aliens built it, only that I have seen no theory any more credible.
That is a difference anyone truly interested in intelligent conversation should be able to distinguish.
7:42 AM PT: I created this diary last night to have interesting discussion on this topic and though a few people did discuss it seriously most just randomly tried to deny it.
Many linked to this site, but obviously didn't read it themselves.
Now had people did read it they would see the 'debunking' is bogus. the first point they make is Puma Punka is 'red sandstone' Look at the ruins they are neither red nor sandstone. The debunk site just makes false claims and makes the whole discussion absurd.
If you look at the rock you can see its grey and crystalline with very sharp edges after all these years. A sand stone is sedimentary and would wear and round over time.
I would love to have a serious discussion on this topic, but this diary proved this is not the place. When a dozen people link to a site as a 'debunk' and don't even bother to read what they are linking and see if it even makes sense, there is little reason to bother discussing.
Comments are closed on this story.