UFO Photo Proves Aliens Created Nazca Lines

[Van Rijn]

I'm still trying to figure out how to post more effectively so please excuse my delays in answering questions.

If you're having trouble with the mechanics of how to post (using the quote function and so on) ask. Folks here would be happy to help you with that. By the way, I know that there is a temptation to just respond to the most recent posts, but that doesn't answer the previously posted questions.

[orreman7]

Geo Kaplan- While I may have overreacted with my conspiracy claim, Im still having a tough time believing that none of you see what I see. And I agree maybe a dispassionate third party is exactly what is required. I must admit that no expert has verbally confirmed the acorn contour. Maybe a thermal image? whatever it is I'm game

[orreman7]

I am having trouble with the quote function and need some advice so I can go back and answer questions. Thank you

[Gillianren]

Gillianren I don't think I understand your position. First of all during the enlarging process in my dark room it was essential to use a magnifying loop to focus in on the grain of the negative for maximun clarity, and thats just in developing. Second with my UFO photo it was only after the dots were blown up to grain that any accurate assumptions could be made, which I did. There was a clear acorn contour on the single crafts left side along with a projection and so much more.

The grain of the film is the absolute smallest amount it can, by definition, resolve. If it's smaller than the grain, tough noogies for your picture--it won't appear. If you look at the grain through a magnifying glass, you are getting a closer look at the grain, not at whatever it is you've photographed. It's like a pixel in digital photography. You can't resolve it any further. If your item only appeared when you blew it up to grain, the odds are very good, to the point of near-certainty, that what you've got there is just something too small to be resolved. This is basic photography. May I suggest again Blow-Up? It really is an excellent film which shows the madness a person can be driven to by trying to see more in a picture than could have been captured.

[Gillianren]

I am having trouble with the quote function and need some advice so I can go back and answer questions. Thank you

There is a button at the bottom of every post which says "quote." Click on it. It will then take you to a reply screen. The thing you're trying to quote will appear, as will everything else from the relative post. Simply delete what you don't want to respond to--assuming it isn't a direct question per forum rules--and type what you want to say after that.

[Van Rijn]

I am having trouble with the quote function and need some advice so I can go back and answer questions. Thank you

As Gillian says, use the quote function for the post you're responding to. If you want to delete part of the post, leave the "[/QUOTE]" at the end. So if I wanted to quote part of your post above, it would look like this on the edit window:



[QUOTE=orreman7;1704686]I am having trouble with the quote function[/QUOTE]



You'll notice that your name is there, and that number is a link to your post. That makes it a lot easier to figure out who a person is responding to.

[Spoons]

Please, enough of this. Answer the questions or retract your statements.

[Tedward]

In all of this many pages have I missed the film, setings and link to original unadulterated as possible image? Orreman7 post 240 says link not found. I am assuming it is on a negative not digital.

[orreman7]

Now orreman7 care to concede that it is after all possible to create such figures using nothing but purely terrestrial techniques that would have been accessible to the Nazca people?[/QUOTE]
That was a great link but in proved just how tough it was to create the real Nazca Lines and the team that attempted to do it admitted as much; "Since we could not mark the lines by clearing the ground to expose lighter colored earth, as the Nazcas did". Of course just walking on the desert floor creates a mark. So they don't duplicate the ancient technique and instead drop some lime on grass and used common tools to closely replicate the condor. Thats as bad as me photographing birds close to me but not over the spot the UFOs were hovering, and claiming a legitimate scientific experiment. They also admit that "to some extent" the images can be seen from the ground. That leaves an entire flat desert with no high vantage point to create perfect large geoglyths. Even Maria Reiche admits; "That ancient Peruvians must have had instruments and equipment which we ignore and which togeather with ancient knowledge were buried and hidden". The geoglyth team really stretched their cred when they stated " In summary we do know that it was the Nazcas who produced the drawings". Based on what? a few scattered posts, some resemblace to pottery and an lame attempt to duplicate a drawing on dissimiliar surface. I think the term is Hogwash and I stand my ground

[orreman7]

In all of this many pages have I missed the film, setings and link to original unadulterated as possible image? Orreman7 post 240 says link not found. I am assuming it is on a negative not digital.

Yes I took the photo with my Canon EOS 650 using 100asa 35mm film and a 50-150 zoom lens. The best copies were made recently by Chrome Digital Photography for the "Aliens" exhibit at the Air & Space Museum. They were one of the professionals on air to declare that after examinating the objects that they appeared to be flying and were unidentifiable. I believe they would know the difference if the objects were birds or planes. Either way they printed an extra set for me which I would be delighted to have a third party examine to settle my claims.

[orreman7]

Please, enough of this. Answer the questions or retract your statements.

Spoons, I need a reason to retract my statements. All I've seen so far is just confirmation that new ideas are hard to accept. A mass hysteria has gripped members of this forum who can't seem to see the forest because all those trees are in the way. JayUtah won't even let me subtract my UFO photo from the mix which is critical to confirm that other UFOs have the same pattern which matches geogyths at Nazca. Isn't the hallmark of scientific discovery the ability to reproduce a theory or hypothesis?.

[Spoons]

The geoglyth team really stretched their cred when they stated " In summary we do know that it was the Nazcas who produced the drawings". Based on what? a few scattered posts, some resemblace to pottery and an lame attempt to duplicate a drawing on dissimiliar surface. I think the term is Hogwash and I stand my ground

No, you're right - it's much more reasonable and sensible to assume creatures we do not have any evidence of even existing must have done it rather than the people of that land. Good call.

[Spoons]

The reason for a retraction would be that you clearly have either a lack of will or ability to present any credible evidence.

Presenting a really poor photo is not evidence of anything. I could say it is proof of Bill Murray owning advanced aircraft because look, you can clearly see his cheeky grin poking out the window.

What? You can't see it? Well you're not trying hard enough. There, proof.

See - that seems silly doesn't it? Well, it's not any different from what you have been doing, claiming it's a clearly defined acorn shaped alien craft and from the photo we can tell they are here to save our planet from magnetic pole shift. (BTW - I can clearly see the person at the next desk, and even then I cannot know their intention. What makes you think you can tell the aliens' intentions?)

If you refuse to retract your statements then you are going to have to answer the big list of questions, or state you do not know, or request more time to formulate answers.

[PetersCreek]

A mass hysteria has gripped members of this forum who can't seem to see the forest because all those trees are in the way.

orreman7,

I've warned you once about this sort of behavior, so this instance gets you an infraction. If you cannot provide meaningful support for your claims, perhaps you should withdraw them, rather than take swipes at other members.

[Geo Kaplan]

Spoons, I need a reason to retract my statements. All I've seen so far is just confirmation that new ideas are hard to accept. A mass hysteria has gripped members of this forum who can't seem to see the forest because all those trees are in the way. JayUtah won't even let me subtract my UFO photo from the mix which is critical to confirm that other UFOs have the same pattern which matches geogyths at Nazca. Isn't the hallmark of scientific discovery the ability to reproduce a theory or hypothesis?.

You're continuing to behave like an infant. No one said that the Nazca lines would have been trivial to produce. You have been asserting that they could ONLY have been made by ETs, or with the guidance of ETs and their "lazers." Now put on your thinking cap: Which is more likely to be true:

1) ETs (whose existence has not been established) did it, or
2) Humans, with a lot of free time (remember, no TV and cellphones to distract them back then) did it?

You are using one set of standards to judge your ideas (aka fantasy), and a quite different one to judge the mainstream (aka reality). If you are at all intellectually honest, you will see this to be obviously true.

You are committing the common fallacy of thinking that, just because you don't know how to do something, no one could have done it. Stop underestimating our ancestors. Some of them were brilliant. And again, they had lots of time.

[Weltraum]

My personal 'theory' about the Nazca Lines is very different. I think, they were scratched into muddy ground, while this area was a lake, that was drying out. This is my assumption, because I assume those flat planes to be generated in a process similar to the Atacama desert, that raised the area above the mean see level long ago, together with the raising of the Andes. Than the area fell dry and left shallow muddy areas, that were easy to draw in.
The interesting problem, though, is the timing, because e.g. the Atacama Desert is supposed to be dry for 15 million years. So some advanced ancestors of us have to have lived that long ago.

Or the time estimates are way off. Personally, I'm no big fan of the universal assumptions regarding ages of prehistoric things.

[orreman7]

[
Earth's precessional "wobble" has nothing to do with magnetism. Precession is a purely gyroscopic phenomenon, assisted in Earth's case by gravity owing to its presence in a complex gravitational environment. Spinning objects are subject to precession, regardless of whether such objects also exhibit any sort of magnetic behavior.

So JayUtah 'm wondering Jay what does effect the precessional wobble? the spin of the earth slowing down? the weight of the continents shifting? or is the ebb and flow of our earths fluid core. From the book "The Earth Past & Present" by Ojakangas & Darby "Why reversals? we think that the earths magnetic field is generated by eddies in the fluid outer core. Changes in the flow pattern could cause reversals". They also state: "There have been 171 reversals of the polarity in the past 76 m.y." They go on to say that we are "overdue" for a reversal and that "the strength of the field has decreased perhaps 50% in the last 2500 years". Now lets see what Channeler Jane Roberts says about the same phenomenon "The poles were reversed-as they were, incidentally for three long periods of your planets history. These civilizations were highly technological; the second one being, in fact, far superior to your own along these lines". So myth meets methodically again. I don't understand how earths magnetism could not help but effect the wobble.

[Spoons]

That doesn't seem much like an answer to any of the questions that have been asked of you, nor like a retraction, an "I don't know" admission or a request for more time.

Please don't ignore our requests - that would be rude.

[RobDog]

...The best copies were made recently by Chrome Digital Photography for the "Aliens" exhibit at the Air & Space Museum. They were one of the professionals on air to declare that after examinating the objects that they appeared to be flying and were unidentifiable...

orreman7,

Let's say you are in court, and stand accused of burglary. The only evidence the prosecution can produce is some very grainy CCTV footage, which experts have described as showing a figure that "appeared to be running" and was "unidentifiable".

Question: would you feel justice was done if the court accepted this evidence that it was you on the CCTV footage and you were found guilty on this evidence alone?

[Weltraum]

[
Earth's precessional "wobble" has nothing to do with magnetism. Precession is a purely gyroscopic phenomenon, assisted in Earth's case by gravity owing to its presence in a complex gravitational environment. Spinning objects are subject to precession, regardless of whether such objects also exhibit any sort of magnetic behavior.

So JayUtah 'm wondering Jay what does effect the precessional wobble? the spin of the earth slowing down? the weight of the continents shifting? or is the ebb and flow of our earths fluid core. From the book "The Earth Past & Present" by Ojakangas & Darby "Why reversals? we think that the earths magnetic field is generated by eddies in the fluid outer core. Changes in the flow pattern could cause reversals". They also state: "There have been 171 reversals of the polarity in the past 76 m.y." They go on to say that we are "overdue" for a reversal and that "the strength of the field has decreased perhaps 50% in the last 2500 years". Now lets see what Channeler Jane Roberts says about the same phenomenon "The poles were reversed-as they were, incidentally for three long periods of your planets history. These civilizations were highly technological; the second one being, in fact, far superior to your own along these lines". So myth meets methodically again. I don't understand how earths magnetism could not help but effect the wobble.

You're quoting who now, a "channeler"? Why should this information even be taken into consideration?

As for what you've said about what causes the Earth to have a magnetic field, what this demonstrates is that Earth's various movements affect the magnetic field, but not vice versa. Movement as cause, magnetic field as effect. Can you quote any source (preferably a creditable, scientific one) which states that Earth's magnetic field will have any impact whatsoever on how the Earth rotates or wobbles, or any such thing?

[chrlzs]

Geo Kaplan- While I may have overreacted with my conspiracy claim, Im still having a tough time believing that none of you see what I see. And I agree maybe a dispassionate third party is exactly what is required. I must admit that no expert has verbally confirmed the acorn contour. Maybe a thermal image? whatever it is I'm game

I've only seen a link to what is a scan of a print, and that certainly does not show anything useful about the shapes.

Is there a properly scanned (preferably drum-scanned, but at the very least film-scanned at 4000 ppi or greater) version somewhere, preferably in 16-bit?
Sorry if I've missed it somewhere in the thread.

I'd be most happy to apply genuine (and *reasonable*) post-processing techniques to it, in a documented and repeatable way, to see if there is anything useful to be gleaned.

Why did you suggest a thermal image? Did you think that would reveal anything in a piece of plastic film?

And how many experts will you require before you concede that the shapes are indistinct and they could just be birds.. or will you just keep going until you find one you like?


PS - I just have to ask. Orreman, if YOU were tasked with creating a huge, accurate line drawing on a plain, can you seriously not conceive of any way to do it, given long timeframes and a large supply of personpower? Would you just give in, if you weren't allowed your gps and laser sight?

[orreman7]

You're continuing to behave like an infant. No one said that the Nazca lines would have been trivial to produce. You have been asserting that they could ONLY have been made by ETs, or with the guidance of ETs and their "lazers." Now put on your thinking cap: Which is more likely to be true:

1) ETs (whose existence has not been established) did it, or
2) Humans, with a lot of free time (remember, no TV and cellphones to distract them back then) did it?

You are using one set of standards to judge your ideas (aka fantasy), and a quite different one to judge the mainstream (aka reality). If you are at all intellectually honest, you will see this to be obviously true.

You are committing the common fallacy of thinking that, just because you don't know how to do something, no one could have done it. Stop underestimating our ancestors. Some of them were brilliant. And again, they had lots of time.

Geo, just because the conclusive evidence for the existence of UFOs hasn't been clarified, dosent mean you can so easily dismiss them as a factor in creating the Nazca Lines. After all if just one of the many thousands of photos or eye witness accounts is true, then the whole phenomena is true. The odds are good that they exist. What I captured on film for instance in 1990 is not fantasy and their not birds, planes or a negative glitch. A third party will hopefully confirm this fact. I would also like to mention that I never declared that the native Nazcas did not create some lines. Marilyn Bridges book "Markings" captures the obviously imperfect zigzag lines in tight rectangle boxs that were probably used for ceremonial purposes. Having lots of time dosen't explain the precision and extrordinary calculations required to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Nazca Lines that were created by humans thousands of years ago. So how were the megalithic blue stones at Stonehenge carried 200 miles to their current location. Metaphysics says they moved mass with sound. That is more plausible that any other idea even though we don't have their evidence of their technology.

[Spoons]

So how were the megalithic blue stones at Stonehenge carried 200 miles to their current location. Metaphysics says they moved mass with sound. That is more plausible that any other idea even though we don't have their evidence of their technology.

It most certainly is not more plausible than the other possibilities that have been suggested, such as rolling them on logs.

While placing logs underneath and rolling it along would certainly be difficult, basic examples of the process have been undertaken and the process has been proven to be possible, however difficult and time-consuming. This would be used along with other techniques. There are documentaries that have explored the possibilities. Do some research.

The same cannot be said for your "moving it with sound" idea which, quite frankly, is ridiculous.

That said, this is yet another new claim, and you should be busily addressing the questions regarding your initial claims. Why are you not doing this? This is getting quite rude for you to continually ignore this.

[Weltraum]

Geo, just because the conclusive evidence for the existence of UFOs hasn't been clarified, dosent mean you can so easily dismiss them as a factor in creating the Nazca Lines. After all if just one of the many thousands of photos or eye witness accounts is true, then the whole phenomena is true. The odds are good that they exist. What I captured on film for instance in 1990 is not fantasy and their not birds, planes or a negative glitch. A third party will hopefully confirm this fact. I would also like to mention that I never declared that the native Nazcas did not create some lines. Marilyn Bridges book "Markings" captures the obviously imperfect zigzag lines in tight rectangle boxs that were probably used for ceremonial purposes. Having lots of time dosen't explain the precision and extrordinary calculations required to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Nazca Lines that were created by humans thousands of years ago. So how were the megalithic blue stones at Stonehenge carried 200 miles to their current location. Metaphysics says they moved mass with sound. That is more plausible that any other idea even though we don't have their evidence of their technology.

Oy! Where have we heard that one before? You know, Orreman, even if there were some evidence of, well, whatever it is you're hoping exists here - aliens with spaceships, I guess - that would still not prove that your photo happens to show alien craft, and neither would it in any way prove that any kind of alien was involved in creating the Nazca lines! At best, you'd have an isolated piece of evidence, but then, even that much is purely hypothetical at this point, since there is no conclusive evidence for aliens - only an ever-growing collection of stories and uncertain photos and videos.

Furthermore, if you think building the Great Pyramid or Stonehenge was impossible for human beings, I have to wonder what you think of everything man has accomplished just in the 20th century! Who would have thought that computers could exist? Cripes, these things are intricate and highly sophisticated, and I sure wouldn't know how to build one from scratch. Does that make it alien in origin? No, it means there are people who understand the art and science behind computer design, and there are tools available to aid in designing and manufacturing the things. And computers or, say, sending human beings to the moon and getting them back alive, are far greater things (at least in my opinion) than drawing some straight lines on the ground! *The Great Pyramid (being rather unique among all the pyramids) features a lot of careful design and crafting, but there is no reason to call it an impossible task for people determined to build the thing. Or as faith may demand I say, people gifted with the knowledge and ability to accomplish the task. And as for Stonehenge, I've seen people building that type of structure on TV using primitive machinery. Your lack of understanding how something works will not serve as evidence for a belief - not on this forum, at any rate.

[Torsten]

Still waiting for my questions to be answered, and now I have another.

So orreman7, am I correct in concluding that if you were standing where this photo was taken (it's not Nazca, but an example of a desert plain), and you were tasked with laying out a straight line to any point at the foot of the mountain range, you'd be unable to do it? And because you can't figure out how to do it, no one else is able to either?

And another point. You keep bringing up this bogus argument about being unable to do this work without leaving footprints or other unintended disturbance on the desert. Take a look at the materials:
(clickable)
(source: none other than "Chariots of the Gods")

Yep, I see that unintended disturbance could be a real problem

[Strange]

I'm still trying to figure out how to post more effectively so please excuse my delays in answering questions.

Another tip: after you post, you will see there is an "Edit" button. You can use this to fix up any errors you might have made (such as missing the square brackets '[' off the QUTOE tage, for example). You can also use this to fix any spelling errors or add clarifications to what you meant. However, not that it is generally considered bad form to make major revisions to your post after posting.

JayUtah, I just showed my girlfriend the same image on the computer of the photocopy of the single crafts left contour and she saw it almost immediately and was curious when I showed her your posts where you and others claim not to see it.

I'm afraid your girlfriend doesn't really count as an independent expert. You previously said that others couldn't see what you see either:

In one of my early presentations to a group of Mufon investigators, they also failed to draw on paper the same acorn shape that I saw in the enlargement.

So it isn't just the blindness or alleged conspiracy of people here.

One small problem is that you only have the photo on your website with the shape drawn on it. It would be much more useful to show the picture both with and without to allow others to draw their own conclusions.

The problem here is you claim to "have formal training in photographic analysis and interpretation" and yet you claim that "They are not very indistinct dots" and that "nobody can see it and everyone agrees that your outline is pure fiction"

If you rely on subjective impressions (on either side) then you will have these differences of opinion. This is why proper image analysis would use mathematical algorithms such as edge detection to identify shapes.

I refuse to believe that you dont see that contour and know deep down that the photo is real

And I find it hard to believe that you can't see that a few fuzzy blobs are not convincing to anyone who hasn't already made their mind up about what they want to see.

and that I am being as honest as I possible can

I don't doubt it. Unfortunately I think you have fooled yourself into believeing you can see something and have built a whole house of cards of beliefs (Nazca, pyramids, aliens, Stonehenge...) based on this.

[captain swoop]

A full size concrete replica of one of the 'Blue Stones' from Stonehenge was moved from where they were likely quarried in Wales to the site for a BBC Documentary. No 'sound' involved other than some 'cuss' words and shouting.

[Strange]

Having lots of time dosen't explain the precision and extrordinary calculations required to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Nazca Lines that were created by humans thousands of years ago.

We have documentary evidence about how many ancient structures were built - including some of the pyramids and later Greek and Roman temples of impressive size.

The Romans built aqueducts that had to transport water for tens of miles over varied terrain with a carefull controlled gradient; in one example of only 17m vertically in its entire length of 50 km (31 miles). These were built without cranes and modern surveying instruments. And certainly not by aliens.
http://www.wayfaring.info/images/The...Roman_Aque.gif

So how were the megalithic blue stones at Stonehenge carried 200 miles to their current location. Metaphysics says they moved mass with sound. That is more plausible that any other idea even though we don't have their evidence of their technology.

How can something that (a) we have no evidence for and (b) has no explanation/meaning (what does "moved with sound" even mean?) possibly be more plausible than methods that (a) we have evidence for the use of elsewhere and (b) we know how they works.

That is simply not logical and makes no kind of sense at all.

[Strange]

That was a great link but in proved just how tough it was to create the real Nazca Lines and the team that attempted to do it admitted as much; "Since we could not mark the lines by clearing the ground to expose lighter colored earth, as the Nazcas did".

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read the page hurriedly and are not deliberately misrepresenting what it says.

The reason they could not "clear the ground to expose lighter colored earth" is not because that was too difficult, but because it was a different terrain; i.e. there was no lighter colored earth underneath.

It was hard work but as he says:

As figure 2 shows, our work was a success. In fact, the results were so accurate that we were convinced that we could have easily produced a more symmetrical figure by this method.

[my bold]

Of course just walking on the desert floor creates a mark.

1) Is this true of the ground where the Nazca figures are?
2) Would these footprints last for hundreds of years?

So they don't duplicate the ancient technique and instead drop some lime on grass and used common tools to closely replicate the condor.

They replicated one of the complex figures using only rope and a wooden T shape. You claimed this was impossible to make except using "lazers" and alien technology.

Yet you criticize them because they did it in a different location and had to use a different method to actually draw the shape - rtaher than digging a shallow groove.

(edit) Just to be clear: are you changing your claim from "it would be impossible to produce the shape without alien help" to "it would be impossible to dig a shallow groove without alien help"? Because, I'm sorry, that sounds even less sustainable.

Apart from the difference in the earth, they also only had a few hours to complete this. Whereas the Nazca may have taken days, week, months, or even years to dig out the entire shape.

They also admit that "to some extent" the images can be seen from the ground. That leaves an entire flat desert with no high vantage point to create perfect large geoglyths.

The whole point of the exercise was to show that you don't need a hgh vantage point to create the image.

The geoglyth team really stretched their cred when they stated " In summary we do know that it was the Nazcas who produced the drawings". Based on what? a few scattered posts, some resemblace to pottery and an lame attempt to duplicate a drawing on dissimiliar surface. I think the term is Hogwash and I stand my ground

So they have some physical evidence and you have none. Hmm... Sorry, I'm going to have to go with the evidence on this one, even if it is slightly less than 100% convincing. It is better than nothing.

I thought the fact that the figures are the same as traditional Nazca art was pretty damning for your case. Why on earth would aliens come and draw local birds like the condor in the local artistic style? Why wouldn't they draw the Grbltx from their home world in the highly-regarded X'blk style?

[ineluki]

Geo Kaplan- While I may have overreacted with my conspiracy claim, Im still having a tough time believing that none of you see what I see. And I agree maybe a dispassionate third party is exactly what is required.

Who would that be? What if they don't see what you want to see?
Just because we disagree with you, we must be biased?

Your whole point so far seems to be "I WANT TO BELIEVE"