There are several people on the DR who know absolutely everything about everything. I would be interested in their views on what happened to that mountain.

Here is a closer picture, but it doesn't show the whole mountain. The link didn't work to the larger picture--you have to pick it out from some other pictures, but it is the one that looks like a flat top mountain--I think you can figure it out.

no pictures of any mountain at your link, bb.

perhaps egyptians are building pyramids somewhere in the world today - what you should be asking is, "where are all the hebrew slaves?".

is this the photo to which you are referring?:

I'd say they built a pyramid out of it.

Or maybe some smokestacks.

Von Daniken has a history of altering photos. "Chariots of the Gods?" was full of them. He had a "UFO landing strip" photograph that was actually a walkway the size of a garden path.
He was a crank.

Diablo

Link?

VonDanikan is still alive. I doubt he faked a missing mountaintop, but whatever let's you get through the night. He faked a mountain? Interesting.

#5 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-08 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

When you have nothing to say, don't use so many words.

"VonDanikan"

Whoever that is.

Perhaps da BoOb meant Erich Anton Paul von Daniken, the well-known fraud.

#4 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-08 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's a better picture of the link in post #2--thanks. It is still only half the mountain shown.

Do you think we could level off the top of a mountain like that and have no debris?

Von Daniken's run-ins with the law started at an early age. In the 1960s, Von Daniken worked in hotels and restaurants across Switzerland, and then he was convicted of fraud, serving a prison sentence for defrauding his boss at one hotel. In 1967, soon after Chariots of the Gods was published he was arrested and charged by Interpol with fraud and tax evasion for non-payment of $14,000.00. On behalf of the prosecution, he was ordered by the Court to undergo psychological examinations. During the investigation, authorities uncovered a large personal debt totaling about $700,000. Von Daniken was found guilty of embezzlement, and he served more than three years in Swiss prisons.[5] Von Daniken stated in the preface of his book Return to the Stars that it was written while he was "in prison on remand". In 1982, that conviction was overturned by the Graubnden cantonal court.[citation needed] During his prison term, Von Daniken wrote his second book: Return to the Stars. His criminal convictions dogged von Daniken, who was at times not permitted visas to enter the United States, or some other countries. That caused him to become a no-show at several speaking engagements, including a so-called "Legendary Times" San Francisco, Calif. seminar in May 2004.

By 1982, after further controversies, Von Daniken could not find a British or American publisher for his 10th book. His books have continued to be published in the German language and are best sellers. In the 1990s and 2000s newer books were published in English. Although in the past several years his theories have made a modest resurgence, a multi-million dollar theme park based on von Daniken's ideas and persona was a financial disappointment, and it was closed in November 2006 due to poor attendance.

Perhaps da BoOb meant Erich Anton Paul von Daniken, the well-known fraud.

#9 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-08 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is the mountain a fraud? Is the picture a fake? If he's a fraud---does the mountain disappear--is that how it works in your world Zitboy? Why not deflect to Michael Jackson---maybe that will make the mountain disappear.

Clearly an alien did it.

"Clearly an alien did it."

Posted by JOE at 2009-07-08 02:23 PM

It wasn't us Vogons.

I honestly can't see what Bob is talking about in any of the pictures posted on this thread.

Can someone explain?

#15 | Posted by Sully at 2009-07-08 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag

The mountains are table top flat on top---there is no debris from the missing mountain tops in the valleys, or anyplace to be found. Why were you confused---the concept isn't that tough.

Missing mountain top--no debris.

"Why were you confused---the concept isn't that tough."

Because the first picture you posted is the size of a postage stamp. The 2nd link you posted doesn't have a picture of a mountain. And Nanc's picture isn't big enough or close enough to tell how flat the mountain is or whether or not there is debris.... So how was I supposed to know what the hell you're talking about?

How long has the mountain been "table top flat" anyway? Debris can move over thousands of years, you know.....

How long has the mountain been "table top flat" anyway? Debris can move over thousands of years, you know.....

#17 | Posted by Sully at 2009-07-08 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one knows how long the mountain has been that way. It could have been as old as 17,000 years.

"Can someone explain?"

"A mountain of debris doesn't move away from the mountain. It stays in the valley where gravity keeps it stationary."

Isn't the entire area covered in little rocks?

Could a glacier have ground the debris into gravel? Or could an ancient river have washed it away to another location?

Wait, wait, wait.

Bob,

What do YOU think happened? Let's cut to the chase.

Manypaths

I don't know. Surprising how many people can't say that. What I know is that it shouldn't be like that. A mountaintop shouldn't just disappear leaving no debris. Just like that smokestack on the moon---I don't know what that is either, but it shouldn't be there. Just like that blue blob at the gas station--I don't know what that was either--the effect was never duplicated by any of the people who claimed to have solved the riddle.

Could a glacier have ground the debris into gravel?

There weren't any glaciers in Bolivia in the last 17,000 years

Or could an ancient river have washed it away to another location?

It would seem to take a river on each side of the mountain to get it all, but this is the top of a huge mountain--some of the larger boulders should have been able to be found somewhere

#21 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-07-08 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag

Well I know you don't like the obvious answer but here it goes.

The debris was moved away by humans.

Isn't the entire area covered in little rocks?

#20 | Posted by Sully at 2009-07-08 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag

Probably, but this is a missing mountaintop. I'm sure that when they say there was no debris, they took the little rocks into account and tested their source.

Well I know you don't like the obvious answer but here it goes.

The debris was moved away by humans.

#25 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-08 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag

I love the obvious. It would seem that you overlook the obvious. That possibility was one of the first options they checked. Two things---none of the debris was ever found--and motivation. If humans carried it off, they would likely have a use for it, and considering the massive amount of tonnage, such a usage by humans would have left some evidence even if what it was used for was destroyed the stone would still be there--no stone was found. If you can think a motivation for removing the massive amount of stone from the area, and a destination for it, I would be impressed. That's what the thread is about. What happened to the mountain.

I think this was the reason behind Barbara Olson's phone call...

What I know is that it shouldn't be like that. A mountaintop shouldn't just disappear leaving no debris.

Have you ever heard of a "plateau?" Where does the debris go when you see a plateau? Are they all surrounded by debris?

I think you need to worry more about your picture than the mountain at this point.

Are they all surrounded by debris?

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2009-07-08 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you know the difference between a mountain and a plateau? Do you think a plateau is just a mountain that has eroded? This is a mountain. This mountain is surrounded by other mountains that all have normal peaks.

I know the pictures are small, but check out Nancs link in post #4 for the best close up view. This isn't a plateau. The smaller pic in my #2 post shows the length--third row down--third pic in.

BBob: You should not have posted this thread without a link to a useful photograph which illustrates the issue at hand. Postage stamp sized photos, and partial photos don't really help. Please either find a good picture, or take down the thread until you do. Because until we can understand what it is you are really describing based on visual evidence, any discussion is pretty pointless.

Sorry. There are formations like the one you post all over central and west Texas. The geology is well understood.

"Do you know the difference between a mountain and a plateau? Do you think a plateau is just a mountain that has eroded?"

Yes.

Sorry. There are formations like the one you post all over central and west Texas. The geology is well understood.

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag

Really? How about a link. There has to be a picture. You aren't talking about these are you?

A mountain with a peak does not erode into a flat top mountain. Plateaus that are caused by erosion have evidence of it at its base. Calling a plateau a flat top mountain doesn't make it a mountain.

This is a mountain--not a plateau. This mountain is surrounded by other similar mountains that haven't lost their peak.

This mountain shows evidence that the top was not formed in a natural manner.

Mountains are often formed by erosion, Bob. We made a National Park out of one such place in Texas. Once you get to the top, most of it is pretty flat.

Mountains are formed by uplift.
Hills are formed by erosion.

"Mountains are formed by uplift..."

Volcanoes?

"This mountain is surrounded by other similar mountains that haven't lost their peak"

Says who? So far the pictures you've posted look like someone drew them with a crayon. There's no proof of anything you're saying.

Mountains are often formed by erosion, Bob. We made a National Park out of one such place in Texas. Once you get to the top, most of it is pretty flat.

#37 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mountains are never formed by erosion. Mountains are formed by techtonic plates crunching together. Erosion has an effect on mountains, but never forms mountains.

"Mountains are formed by tectonic plates..."

Volcanoes?

A "mountain" is any point whose height is at least two thousand feet above surrounding territory.

Just check out Guadalupe Mountains National Park for some nice mountains created by:

A) Fossil accumulation.
B) Erosion.

Joe

As stated in the header---there was a program on the History channel. The program showed the mountain from a plane, and showed the surrounding mountains. You'll just have to believe it or not. Why would I lie---they'll probably show it again sometime. At any rate--if this were a natural formation, there wouldn't be anything made of it if the same thing were common in many places.

Facts are, it's a mountain with a top that has been removed and flattened, and none of the debris from the mountain top has been found. A huge amount of material is simply missing.

"As stated in the header---there was a program on the History channel."

Then link to a transcript. Nobody has to believe your bullshit ramblings and fuzzy pictures.

Just check out Guadalupe Mountains National Park for some nice mountains created by:

A) Fossil accumulation.
B) Erosion.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2009-07-08 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag

Erosion carves a mountain, has effects on mountains, and wear mountains down---but erosion never creates a mountain.

Volcanoes are on Tectonic edges.

Please post your link to how mountains are formed by erosion.

"Erosion carves a mountain, has effects on mountains, and wear mountains down"

Except mountains that I link crayon pictures to.

-Bob

"Volcanoes are on tectonic edges...."

Intra-plate volcanoes, such as Hawaii, are not. Did you look at the Guadalupe Mountains yet, Bob?

What you see is El Capitan, over 8,000 feet high. It fell from the main mountain range at some point. The peaks in back of it belie the presence of a relatively flat expanse of high country in back of them.

No, an alien spaceship flattened it and vacuumed up the debris.

I really would like to know where to get that video. I saw the show couple nights ago on the tube and had no blank tapes.

BuffaloBob

Speaking of the History Channel (one of my favorites) --

I watched a couple episodes of "Ancient Aliens" on the History Channel last night. It was pretty cool. Talked a lot about how ancients aliens would have had to have been here in order to do the architecture required for the pyramids and pointed out how the Egyptians could not have fitted the stones, etc. with such precise measurements with only the knowledged they had at that time.

Fit in with a number of similarities and points being made in "The 12th Planet."

The "mountain" should be correctly stated as the Nazca Plateau.
The region is formed through plate tectonics and this plate is the Nazca Plate.
The description below should answer why.

----------------------

The absolute motion of the Nazca Plate has been calibrated at 3.7 cm/yr east motion (88), some of the fastest absolute motion of any tectonic plate. The subducting Nazca Plate, which exhibits unusual flat-slab subduction, is tearing as well as deforming as it is subducted (Barzangi and Isacks). The subduction has formed, and continues to form the volcanic.....
----------------------

The first thing I thought when I read this is what is the geology of the area and how was it formed.
Simple.
Check the link.
Subduction is when one plate moves under another.
The Nazca plate rose vertically forming the unique formation of the Nazca Plateau,while mountains rose around it

rwd

Nah, the obvious answer is phony journalism or photoshop.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2009-07-08 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag

I apologize for talking to you. My mistake. I'll be more careful in the future. You fooled me for a minute by being almost coherent. Back to the loony bin for you.

The "mountain" should be correctly stated as the Nazca Plateau.

#54 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2009-07-08 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

What about the "mountains" that surround this mountain? What plateau do they belong to?

This mountain is not the Nazca plateau. The Nazca plateau is a large area that has lots of pictographs you can only see from the air. No animal pictures on the MOUNTAIN. Learn the difference between a mountain and a plateau. They called this a mountain because it is a mountain. If it were a plateau, they would have called it a plateau.

Still and all, it was interesting to watch.

#53 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-07-08 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag

The Baghdad battery isn't that hard to make. I have some copper tubing left over from some plumbing, and an iron bar, a clay pot and some orange juice isn't too hard to get together.

The part I found interesting was the electric lights proposed for the ancient egyptians, and that they showed that some artificial lights had to be used in the construction of many of the tombs since there was no soot found on the walls or ceilings anyplace. In addition, one of the speakers said while in the Great Pyramid that he tried to light a lighter when they turned out the lights to show how totally dark it was----and the lighter wouldn't work. Not enough oxygen for the flame. They tried reflecting sunlight off of reflective copper shields, but after a few turns, the light failed. They must have had some sort of artificial light.

Nah, the obvious answer is phony journalism or photoshop.

#55 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2009-07-08 11:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

To what end would people lie about a mountain? Do you think no one in that country or other scholars don't know whether the mountain exists or not?

I understand your logic---anything that doesn't fit your vision of reality must be photoshopped.

The part I found interesting was the electric lights proposed for the ancient egyptians, and that they showed that some artificial lights had to be used in the construction of many of the tombs since there was no soot found on the walls or ceilings anyplace....

58 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-09 12:13 AM

I wondered the same thing as to how they could get any source of light down in the tombs. It had to have been pitch black deep down inside the pyramids. No oxygen -- no fire torches. The light had to come from somewhere.

I may have this next part from last night's show a bit confused (as the show moves rather quickly from one theory to the next).

Didn't they have one scene where inside the tomb they theorized/experimented by using one source of light (coming in from the outside into the tomb) and then tried to direct that one beam of light so it seemingly bounced from one plate/disc to another (which they had placed on the walls) as a possible way to light up the entire room? Thought they may have mentioned using copper plates? Like I said, I may not be remembering it correctly,

Well, glad you saw it. As soon as I saw this thread I planned on bringing up last night's History Channel episodes.

Had a long day today. I'm calling it a night for now.

See ya.

bb - step away from the bong.

What happened to the mountain?

It apparently went to Mohammad.

FF for Grendel. I wish I could FF that twice.

Tell me what you think
About your friends at the top
Now who d'you think besides yourself
Was the pick of the crop?
Buddah was he where it's at?
Is he where you are?
Could Muhammmed move a mountain
Or was that just PR?

JC Superstar

Doncha get me wrong...
Doncha get me wrong now.
Doncha get me wrong...
Doncha get me me wrong.
Only want to know...
Only want to know.
Only want to know.
I only wanted to know!

Could Muhammmed move a mountain
Or was that just PR?

yeah them Puerto Ricans are pretty industrious.

#60 | Posted by CalifChris

I think they did the light thing in a Indiana Jones movie?

Aren't there flouresent plants that glow in the dark?

lol

Or maybe it was The Mummy movie with the plates making light in a cave?

Or maybe it was The Mummy movie with the plates making light in a cave?

#68 | Posted by MURPHY

I wonder if that would work in real life. And also didn't people manage to light their houses without getting soot everywhere before electricity?

I've climbed it and so no sign of debris, aliens must have made it too.

#61 | Posted by astrobuckeye at 2009-07-09 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag

Too bad it looks nothing like the mountain in the picture. At least yoiu linked to a piece of earth, and not a cat.

I wonder if that would work in real life. And also didn't people manage to light their houses without getting soot everywhere before electricity?

#69 | Posted by astrobuckeye at 2009-07-09 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag

They tried it in the program. They set up copper reflectors and tried to reflect the light down some of the corridors of a tomb. The light failed after about three turns.

A house is different from a tomb, but all the houses who used kerosene lamps had some indication left on the walls and ceilings. The program stated there wasn't enough oxygen in the tombs to keepa fire lit--not even a cigarette lighter. At least as reported by someone on the program who said he tried to light a lighter in the Great Pyramid's King Chamber. There isn't a lot of airflow in those tombs--very few windows.

At least as reported by someone on the program who said he tried to light a lighter in the Great Pyramid's King Chamber. There isn't a lot of airflow in those tombs--very few windows.

#71 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

So did people wear oxygen tanks into the tombs then? Because if there isn't enough oxygen to light a lighter, I doubt a person is going to hold up very long.

So did people wear oxygen tanks into the tombs then? Because if there isn't enough oxygen to light a lighter, I doubt a person is going to hold up very long.

#72 | Posted by astrobuckeye at 2009-07-09 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag

People can breath very well when the air does not have enough oxygen to support a flame. When a tomb is open and people are walking in and out during the day, there is an exchange of air--in addition, hot air rises, and is replaced by cooler air. At night, when a tomb is open, the air from the tombs would probably rise and be replaced by cooler fresh air.

In the Great Pyramid, there were no heiroglyphs, not much carving at all. Most of the work was probably done in the open air, and the rooms closed off the higher they went.

"where are all the hebrew slaves?".

#3 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-08 11:51 AM | Reply |

New findings on social dynamics in Egypt are now saying that they were not slaves:

- skeleton crew 12 months of the year
- volunteers for a few months while the nile was high for wage and food (and of course, eternal life by helping their living god achieve immortality).

The Great Pyramid was never a tomb. No Book of the Dead heiroglyphs for telling the Pharoah how to get to Paradise. The Pharoahs name is no where to be found--except a questionable Heiroglyph for the Pharoah supposedly left by a workman in one of the relieving chambers above the Kings Chamber. A Pharoah goes to all the trouble of building the Great Pyramid, and doesn't put his name on it someplace? Come on.

Besides---the Great Pyramid was supposed to have been looted of its Treasures long ago. But no way has been found for any looters to have gotten into the Pyramid---or any way for them to have removed any treasures.

No name

No Heiroglyphs

No way for tomb robbers to get in

No way for tomb robbers to get stuff out

No Tomb.

"Too bad it looks nothing like the mountain in the picture."

Too bad for you. It is a mountain.

Gee--Joe found a picture of a mountain--what a good boy. Here's a cookie, now go watch some TV.

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

-- Zen koan

I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you.

I have no idea what this site is about, but it makes about as much sense as this "alien geology" thread.

That's why we pay geologists the big bucks.

#78 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2009-07-09 10:44 PM | Reply | Flag

But you don't listen to them.