It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Light of Denderah.

page: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Harte just a simple question, I personally see being corrected if I am wrong as a learning experience and you are never too old to learn but your flat our statement is itself not tenable.
Egyptology is not as scientific as it should be along with archeaology and history and like those other two subjective professions is riddled with assumption and mis categorization so if the OP is wrong please direct us to the imperical evidence that this is so and not someone else assumption or opinion.
But I believe you know that no such imperical evidence actually exist's, also the flat our denial of any potential ground breaking data about the past whatever our own preconcieved notions and whatever there purpose smacks very much of party line rather than calculated thought out debate that you are actually perfectly capable of and I dare say more than most.
So I will say that again, the OP is not wrong it is an interpetation every bit as valid as the standard egyptologist model and perhaps even less biased as seen from a modern interpretation and I know some less than reputable authors such as Mr von danikan have claimed this before but why throw the baby out with the bath water when he himself was probably quoting another source, he was a showman into making best sellers and actually faked the existance of platinum discs in a cave in one of his book's which never actually existed but this heiroglyph and several other strange UNTRANSLATED glyph's such as the heliocoptor (remember the gliding bird model found in a tomb) and indeed the enigmatic heiroglyph free osirion site are unexplained (all new kingdom sites and most old kingdom were plastered in heiroglyphs as the pharoe thought that for his KA to survive his name had to survive and told his story and exploits to the world so he would never die) and in some cases poorly dated, Egypt stood as a civilization (Or actually several) for nearly 4000 years before the roman conquest and in that time several distinct periods such as the old and new kingdoms which in many way's are better looked at as distinct cultural/civilization period's occured thus contaminating possible older site's and perhaps reusing them, the sphynx may have been recarved from a lion or jekyl and had a twin on the other side of the nile which was allegedly damaged in a nile flood then robbed out to repair cairo but sounds like it was built of blocks at a later date to match the remodelled giza sphynx.
Sorry Harte but you are not the defacto authority and are not alweys correct,.


If I don't ask it will bug me to no end........ Is the site of the second sphynx actually known , or is the whole idea some ancient urban myth ? A thought struck me that if a second one was actually legit & evidenced backed as to a precise location where she/it once stood, I wondered if any excavations were ever done to the spot between the paws? What if Casey ( ? ) was half correct with the claim of room/vault to be found there ? Might explain why it never was discovered at the existing one.




posted on May, 11 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: fotsyfots

I had exactly the same thought though I believe it was real the story is that after a devastating flood it was almost demolished and the stone's (So it was not carved but built maybe much later and possibly as late the ptolomaic or even roman rule period) where taken away to help rebuild part's of cairo which had also been devastated in the flood, this is actually plausible as Cairo was built using stone robbed out of egyptian buildings and ruin's, indeed the mosques of cairo (An arab city the copt's are the egyptians though after all this time they are the same race) where built using marble and white limestone taken from the ruins of ancient temples and palace's and even the casing stones of the great pyramid's.
So given that information it is probable that the tale is correct but that the structure was a folly built by a later pharoe and not carved from solid rock as the original or real sphynx was.

edit on 11-5-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I found this an interesting little find, slightly off topic as i don't think it relates to electricity usage, but rolled copper tubing from Catal Hoyuk some 9,000 years ago.




2008 Archive Report describes this as "a thin folded copper tube through which a fine twisted cord was emplaced. Preserved by corrosion the copper seems to be a thin rolled sheet through which the fine string was passed or the copper was rolled around." It was found near the neck of an infant burial inside Building 49


Catal Hoyuk copper tubing



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Harte just a simple question, I personally see being corrected if I am wrong as a learning experience and you are never too old to learn but your flat our statement is itself not tenable.
Egyptology is not as scientific as it should be along with archeaology and history and like those other two subjective professions is riddled with assumption and mis categorization so if the OP is wrong please direct us to the imperical evidence that this is so and not someone else assumption or opinion.

Is it your position that scholars can't read glyphs from the Ptolemaic period?

Did you read the info (four pages of it or so) at the link I provided, or did you just decide to wave it away?



originally posted by: LABTECH767
So I will say that again, the OP is not wrong it is an interpetation every bit as valid as the standard egyptologist model and perhaps even less biased as seen from a modern interpretation and I know some less than reputable authors such as Mr von danikan have claimed this before but why throw the baby out with the bath water when he himself was probably quoting another source, he was a showman into making best sellers and actually faked the existance of platinum discs in a cave in one of his book's which never actually existed

Right about EVD, wrong about there being a baby in this bathwater.


originally posted by: LABTECH767 but this heiroglyph and several other strange UNTRANSLATED glyph's such as the heliocoptor

Definitely NOT "untranslated" and definitively explained many, many times by me and others right here at ATS. Here's one of the older ones.


originally posted by: LABTECH767 (remember the gliding bird model found in a tomb)

Similar bird shapes are shown on some Egyptian artwork as barge decorations. Likely functioned as a weathervane.


originally posted by: LABTECH767 and indeed the enigmatic heiroglyph free osirion site are unexplained

Can anyone makes sense of the above?


originally posted by: LABTECH767(all new kingdom sites and most old kingdom were plastered in heiroglyphs as the pharoe thought that for his KA to survive his name had to survive and told his story and exploits to the world so he would never die) and in some cases poorly dated, Egypt stood as a civilization (Or actually several) for nearly 4000 years before the roman conquest and in that time several distinct periods such as the old and new kingdoms which in many way's are better looked at as distinct cultural/civilization period's occured thus contaminating possible older site's and perhaps reusing them, the sphynx may have been recarved from a lion or jekyl and had a twin on the other side of the nile which was allegedly damaged in a nile flood then robbed out to repair cairo but sounds like it was built of blocks at a later date to match the remodelled giza sphynx.

A second sphinx is certainly a possibility, but it is unlikely in the extreme that there was ever a larger head on the sphinx body. The layer of limestone in the neck of the sphinx is particularly soft. It barely holds up the head it's got.

Understand that the bedrock in the area is layer after layer of limestone, with a wide variation in properties for each layer.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Sorry Harte but you are not the defacto authority and are not alweys correct,.

I don't claim to be the de facto authority. Nor do I claim to be always correct. However, unlike you, if a view I espouse is not correct, I don't post post it.

Harte



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Much better, Now as for the sphynx You do know that the assumption the head would not be held is without taking into account that the neck thickness was also probably reduces and the mane carved away so it would not be so much held up as slightly overhanging the paw's with the bulk on the forward third of the back.
Of course we where not there so we can only draw potential hypothesis still I am afraid we shall have to continue to disagree on several point's.
But can you imagine if the second sphynx was built during the early late kingdom or late early standing on a royal barge looking at the most spectacular gateway to a necropolis anywhere with it's gleaming white pyramid's and two giant sphynx acting like guard's to either side of the river, of course if this was the case I wonder what other structure's now lost such as pylons and pharonic temples may have existed to accompany the newer sphynx and of course much later the Ptolemaic dynasty's and even the roman's built and rebuild many site's throughout egypt, Ptolomeic egyptian is well understood as you know but the record's even for the most recent period are woefully incomplete and let's not forget the burning of the library of alexandria but the Ptolemaic dynasty also built to try to legitimize there place as pharoe's over the conquered country and portray themselves as living god's.
Though I would assume it was probably built by the pharoe whom renovated the giza necropolis and the sphynx, Thutmose though there is not suggestion of such on his dream stalae or possible indeed Khafre whom is accepted in orthodox egyptology as it's original builder (but not universally).

edit on 11-5-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767



Much better, Now as for the sphynx You do know that the assumption the head would not be held is without taking into account that the neck thickness was also probably reduces and the mane carved away so it would not be so much held up as slightly overhanging the paw's with the bulk on the forward third of the back.

Jackals don't have manes


originally posted by: LABTECH767
Ptolomeic egyptian is well understood as you know but the record's even for the most recent period are woefully incomplete

Again, the ceremony, with actual words explaining thoroughly what the artwork depicts, is carved right there on the walls of the same chamber as the artwork.

Youy didn't read the link.

The "record" of what this (lightbulb) artwork shows is the opposite of "incomplete.

Harte



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Thank you for the leads to that story above and beyond the call of duty




posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Harte think, you are often fast enough to critiscize others but think, the idea is that the giza platau was not alway's the nice flat place it is today and had a little help by the pyramid builders and there is ample evidence of such as well as a possible fourth large pyramid which though smaller then the three great ones and maybe newer was later robbed out by the contemporary egyptians themselve's, the sphynx itself may very well be much older and was probably originally a large stone that was leomorphic in appearance, this may have been a cult site like possibly for thousand's of years before the egyptian culture's we are familiar with and maybe even as far back as the pleistocene when the sahara was a savana, later it was probably carved to look even more lion like and then someone decided to carve out it's body overlooking the nile as well as removing any obstacle's which obstructed it's view of the nile.
Now as you know Bauval and company have proven that in 10600 BC the statue which was know as hor em ahkti or horus of the horizon looked directly at it's counterpart once a year called oddly Hor Em Ahkti or horus of the horizon and today the constellation Leo and despite your interpretation even if you decide it merely coincidental and that a later culture, one whom regared there god Osiris as living in the duat or constellation of Orion (The sword of Orion is the ladder to the Duat) and specifically the belt of orion, for the egyptians this being the egyptian afterworld (They called the heavens the underworld) and they were a culure which was heavily into astralogical and solar allignment's so why would they have carved the statue with it's deliberate missallignemt to Leo unless it was originally built 12600 years ago as the astralogical evidence and water erosion proove.
The main was most likely far larger and in it's first recarving left easily enough stone to become an inpau then later recarves probably after the ears fell away into a nemes' head dress and anthropomorphic face which a former new york detective tried to match up with a statue of the supposed pharoe and found absolutely no correlation too.
Harte I believe you know when there is a mystery and there is truth in something and there is definitly truth to this.
Have you notices just how flat the back of the spynx is, when carved it most likely stood well above the surrounding cleared platau and that too has probably been recarved down. Look at the behaviour of medievil bishop's where money was concerned and the importance of cult site's, this was definitely a cult site and had pilgrims from as far afield as persia so if the priesthood made money from it and it was important to the egyptians of the time then odd's on that the site was renovated far more then is generally acknowledged today.

edit on 13-5-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Certianly is easy to say "ample evidence," isn't it?

Especially when you don't (or can't) provide a single whit of evidence.

Harte



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

If you are referring to the geologist brought in the Egyptian antiquity's department and his counter proof then you are very mistaken as he was well paid to make up a load of bull about the various density's of the limestone and sandstone layers and so created a thoroughly convoluted and twisted explantaion of how the weathering patterns were only 4000 years old and he was paid very well to do so, If you read his report he says that the other geologists many of whom had years of field and oil experience so very well knew what they were doing indeed far better than that academic desk jockey, had made mistakes and so actually was attacking there careers and credential's in a manner which could harm there reputation's.
In order to support the untenable and corrupt position of Zawas and his cronies there allies stooped to the very worst level of character assasination and so showed a level of downright dirty tactics that would not look out of place coming out of the mouth of a shop floor bully, in other word's they lied, not through data but deliberate interpretation.
Harte there is evidence why don't you look and try for once to be unbiased in your interpretation of the subjective matter at hand.
Is it so far from your acceptable level of belief there there could have been a civilization or at least culture in egypt before the accepted and faulty time scale based on using the book of genesis as a base line for all civilizations, or did you conveniently forget that fact, egyptology is or was a european endeavour of the napoleonic and victorian eras which means the foundation of that subject is still heavily based on the bias and belief prevalent in thost periods.
By the way I am a chritian and thoroughly believe in God but I also believe the world is a lot older and do not see any conflict unlike many fundamentalists.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

If you are referring to the geologist brought in the Egyptian antiquity's department and his counter proof then you are very mistaken as he was well paid to make up a load of bull about the various density's of the limestone and sandstone layers and so created a thoroughly convoluted and twisted explantaion of how the weathering patterns were only 4000 years old and he was paid very well to do so, If you read his report he says that the other geologists many of whom had years of field and oil experience so very well knew what they were doing indeed far better than that academic desk jockey, had made mistakes and so actually was attacking there careers and credential's in a manner which could harm there reputation's.


Are you able to support you seemingly rather untenable thesis with links, citations, anything? otherwise it would appear
you are simply parroting the same tripe I've seen from von Daniken, Hancock, Buval, etc...
The most fascinating thing I see when people make statements such as above is that they seem to be holding onto Robert Schock for dear life while completely ignoring that even Schock managed to come up with conflicting ages and dates during his own study of the plateau. Making unsubstantiated claims isn't science, its conjecture, hyperbole or at best brainstorming and thinking outside the box. No matter how you paint it up though its still not science.



In order to support the untenable and corrupt position of Zawas and his cronies there allies stooped to the very worst level of character assasination and so showed a level of downright dirty tactics that would not look out of place coming out of the mouth of a shop floor bully, in other word's they lied, not through data but deliberate interpretation.

I'm no fan of Dr. Hawass but I find it rather ironic that you claim he was a character assassin while assassinating HIS character with once again, totally unsubstantiated claims. The onus is upon you to provide evidence to the contrary, not just make a statement and get flustered when others don't ask how high when you say to jump.


Harte there is evidence why don't you look and try for once to be unbiased in your interpretation of the subjective matter at hand.

there is a huge difference between having an unbiased interpretation and going where the evidence leads.


Is it so far from your acceptable level of belief there there could have been a civilization or at least culture in egypt before the accepted and faulty time scale based on using the book of genesis as a base line for all civilizations, or did you conveniently forget that fact, egyptology is or was a european endeavour of the napoleonic and victorian eras which means the foundation of that subject is still heavily based on the bias and belief prevalent in thost periods.

again, nothing wrong with postulating any number of things that derivate from mainstream thought but science is still an evidence based system. if you want to counter the prevailing theories and hypothesis the burden then shifts to you to provide something credible to support your position. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why is it so far from YOUR acceptable level of belief to consider that while your own version of the past may be intriguing, that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support the hypothesis? Could it not just be that you're way off base or is it really easier to simply accept that there is an international, multi disciplinary conspiracy amongst multiple scientists of different professions and backgrounds who meet in their secret temple to decide just how to screw with peoples heads year after year? yeah... that makes way more sense.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte



If you are referring to the geologist brought in the Egyptian antiquity's department and his counter proof then you are very mistaken as he was well paid to make up a load of bull about the various density's of the limestone and sandstone layers and so created a thoroughly convoluted and twisted explantaion of how the weathering patterns were only 4000 years old and he was paid very well to do so, If you read his report he says that the other geologists many of whom had years of field and oil experience so very well knew what they were doing indeed far better than that academic desk jockey, had made mistakes and so actually was attacking there careers and credential's in a manner which could harm there reputation's.

I'm referring to your claim that there is "ample evidence" that Giza was "not always a nice flat place."

Obviously, the Egyptians levelled the bedrock foundations of their pyramids there. Also, they paved the entire complex. Egyptians leveled the ground for ALL their constructions, many of which involve far larger stones than anything you can find in any pyramid.
But the plateau was a plateau before the Egyptian culture arrived. Indeed, before humans evolved.


originally posted by: LABTECH767
In order to support the untenable and corrupt position of Zawas and his cronies there allies stooped to the very worst level of character assasination and so showed a level of downright dirty tactics that would not look out of place coming out of the mouth of a shop floor bully, in other word's they lied, not through data but deliberate interpretation.

Harte there is evidence why don't you look and try for once to be unbiased in your interpretation of the subjective matter at hand.

There is a certain amount of irony, albeit sad and sickening, in a post exhorting me to "look and try" coming from someone who doesn't even know the name of the devil they like to blame for everything, not to mention someone apparently doesn't even realize that Hawass has not been in charge for years.

Do you really believe that I've posted all the information I've provided over the last 8 years and have never "looked" or "tried?"
You are a real piece of work.


originally posted by: LABTECH767

Is it so far from your acceptable level of belief there there could have been a civilization or at least culture in egypt before the accepted and faulty time scale based on using the book of genesis as a base line for all civilizations, or did you conveniently forget that fact, egyptology is or was a european endeavour of the napoleonic and victorian eras which means the foundation of that subject is still heavily based on the bias and belief prevalent in thost periods.

There was, of course, a culture there before a civilization. There were hunter-gatherers there before there was a culture too. But neither had anything to do with Genesis, which was written at least 12000 years after the Egyptians became a civilization.

Harte



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

It takes two to tango harte and as we say in britain it takes one to know one, if you would like to start direct attack's ok but be aware I fully capable of rebutting you on them, from before I joined I have watched as you belittled and derided so many poster's, at first I took you to be a man on a mission with good intent even if I disagree'd at times but of late I have seen a bitter and cynical attitude more befitting a depressive self superiority and self righteous attitude, No harte I feel sorry for you as you are painting yourself as a grumpy auld fart, Zawi may not be in charge now since he retired but he virtually lives in the department and his word still carries great weight, personally I am sorry for being so negative to the guy but he was annoying, ok so he was an administrator more than an archeologist but as far as ORTHODOX egyptology was concerned he certainly did know his stuff, rumours of corruption aside that is.
I only wanted to point out the fact's but you have started down the path of calling me and OTHERS wrong based on your own ENTRENCHED position, one can only wonder if you get a kick out of it and perhaps some form of psychological self reinforcement or empowerment at trying to humiliate other's, it will not work here harte as I will simply laugh at you, not the often valid point's you can make but your attitude in your post which is caustic.
One thing that annoy's me harte is you are aware of data and have knowledge on many of these subject's but choose to take that KIND of stance.
Harte I will walk away when I am wrong and even apologize indeed I feel sorry for bringing mister zawas into my argument as he is not here to defend himself and that was patently unfair, I do not get a kick out of winning an argument but if I think I am right I will stand by my point and I do so now.
I will also say this you have been right many time's but equally you have been wrong, I know the feeling when you know you are wrong and feel a fool and it is not pleasent but it is a reprogramming of the neural data set which enables us to better adapt to the same or related argument's in the future.
You know my point about the sphynx is valid and even though the Inpau point is up there in the cloud's with no real positive proof I for one believe egypt not only to be one of the oldest cultural sites' on the planet with continuous unbroken habitation but to be a lot older than current model's suggest, I actually do beleive it reached it's greatest age under the new pharoe's but also that there may have been an unknown culture there, possibly not unrelated prior to the old kingdom which was also a builder culture, the paucity of artifact's and ruins can be put down not only to erosion but indeed to the continuous habitation of the areaa and the regular nile flooding with it's sedimentation, we are even today finding new site's there especially since the use of satellite imagery and though most are classical egypt it is not inconcievable that some of those sites exist were earlier sites had also been such as high ground free of flooding and near enough to the river for agriculture, this is very exciting and also I believe animal domestication and agriculture go further back than the fertile crescent civilizations, the native american people are supposed to have been isolated yet produced all these trait's independantly, indeed the meso american cultures were better farmers than the european's according to the tonnage of produce and it's nutritional value as well as in some cases being superior as far as irrigation technology was concerned in there use of cannal's, especially the use of rounded boulders in the arm's of the canal were it turned to slow and control the flow and limit erosion of the canal wall's.
Even if we come at this from NOW diametrically opposed angle's you must admit there is a hell of a lot we simply do not know about the past and what little we do is used in poorly fitting historical hypothesis based jigsaw's which no detective could get a conviction on if it was a crime scene.
Peace.

edit on 15-5-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I had too many zeroes when I said "at least 12000 years." Should have been 1200

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte



It takes two to tango harte and as we say in britain it takes one to know one, if you would like to start direct attack's ok but be aware I fully capable of rebutting you on them, from before I joined I have watched as you belittled and derided so many poster's, at first I took you to be a man on a mission with good intent even if I disagree'd at times but of late I have seen a bitter and cynical attitude more befitting a depressive self superiority and self righteous attitude, No harte I feel sorry for you as you are painting yourself as a grumpy auld fart, Zawi may not be in charge now since he retired but he virtually lives in the department and his word still carries great weight, personally I am sorry for being so negative to the guy but he was annoying, ok so he was an administrator more than an archeologist but as far as ORTHODOX egyptology was concerned he certainly did know his stuff, rumours of corruption aside that is.

Your opinion of me, my motives, my style and my knowledge is of absolutely zero consequence.

I argue facts. Facts are actual things. Things that can't be made up.

You argue from a position of ignorance of the pertinant facts.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

I only wanted to point out the fact's but you have started down the path of calling me and OTHERS wrong based on your own ENTRENCHED position, one can only wonder if you get a kick out of it and perhaps some form of psychological self reinforcement or empowerment at trying to humiliate other's, it will not work here harte as I will simply laugh at you, not the often valid point's you can make but your attitude in your post which is caustic.

I post here for my own pleasure, not yours.

You call my position "entrenched." My position is "entrenched" in established facts. It is not my problem if what is actually known about a thing does not fit into your fantasy about that thing.


originally posted by: LABTECH767
One thing that annoy's me harte is you are aware of data and have knowledge on many of these subject's but choose to take that KIND of stance.

The you will have to be annoyed.


originally posted by: LABTECH767
Harte I will walk away when I am wrong and even apologize indeed I feel sorry for bringing mister zawas into my argument as he is not here to defend himself and that was patently unfair, I do not get a kick out of winning an argument but if I think I am right I will stand by my point and I do so now.

You have no facts at all to back up your "point." Because of this, you have no point.


originally posted by: LABTECH767
I will also say this you have been right many time's but equally you have been wrong, I know the feeling when you know you are wrong and feel a fool and it is not pleasent but it is a reprogramming of the neural data set which enables us to better adapt to the same or related argument's in the future.

While I'm absolutely certain that you know how it feels to be wrong, given the frequency of such occurences in the body of your posts here, I assure you that when I am wrong it either involves typos (like the one I corrected above) or speculation (which, unlike you, I always label as my own opinion and not necessarily fact based.) I'll add that memory loss can have the same effect in my posts.



originally posted by: LABTECH767
You know my point about the sphynx is valid

I know that your point about the sphinx is actually invalid.

The sphinx might be a few centuries older than we think, not a thousand or more years. Schoch's ideas about the age of the sphinx, which (the age itself) is based entirely on subsurface weathering of the bedrock beneath the enclosure, is actually invalidated by his own data - he claims the front was carved first, perhaps 6,000 years ago, and the rear was carved out during the Old Kingdom. His data, using his own methods, indicates that the sides of the enclosure far predate the front and the rear.

This indicates that his method (measuring the depth of weathering in bedrock as an indicator of the legth of time of exposure to air) is invalid - which is not surprising at all, given the large variations in the properties of the different layers of bedrock limestone at Giza.

You can verify this claim yourself by looking at the data Schoch provided.


originally posted by: LABTECH767
I for one believe egypt not only to be one of the oldest cultural sites' on the planet with continuous unbroken habitation but to be a lot older than current model's suggest, I actually do beleive it reached it's greatest age under the new pharoe's but also that there may have been an unknown culture there, possibly not unrelated prior to the old kingdom which was also a builder culture, the paucity of artifact's and ruins can be put down not only to erosion but indeed to the continuous habitation of the areaa and the regular nile flooding with it's sedimentation, we are even today finding new site's there especially since the use of satellite imagery and though most are classical egypt it is not inconcievable that some of those sites exist were earlier sites had also been such as high ground free of flooding and near enough to the river for agriculture, this is very exciting and also I believe animal domestication and agriculture go further back than the fertile crescent civilizations, the native american people are supposed to have been isolated yet produced all these trait's independantly, indeed the meso american cultures were better farmers than the european's according to the tonnage of produce and it's nutritional value as well as in some cases being superior as far as irrigation technology was concerned in there use of cannal's, especially the use of rounded boulders in the arm's of the canal were it turned to slow and control the flow and limit erosion of the canal wall's.

You are, of course, welcome to speculate all you want and to believe whatever it is that makes you feel good. However, when your speculation runs up against established facts, you can expect me (or someone else here) to point this out. Ergo, you will have to be "annoyed."

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Even if we come at this from NOW diametrically opposed angle's you must admit there is a hell of a lot we simply do not know about the past and what little we do is used in poorly fitting historical hypothesis based jigsaw's which no detective could get a conviction on if it was a crime scene.

Peace.


It's true that there is much about the past we don't (and never will) know. Your analogy of a "jigsaw," on the other hand, is quite ridiculous coming from someone with so little knowledge of the field. That is, since you are utterly unqualified to judge the matter you mention, your opinion is laughable on this.

Harte



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I have said it before and will say it again that sure looks like a ceramic insulator...



Now Dear Kantz I could have sworn you sat on the other side of the fence on this one what with the birth of Nun and lotus blossoms and other Zahi Hawass approved responses...

Or are you seeing the light?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: abeverage


Generally when it comes to Egyptology my opinions are quite orthodox, and even with this i don't see the Denderah anomalies as evidence for an Atlantis or earlier advanced and lost civilization which alternative opinion tends to veer toward, only for clever and devious Greeks of the Late Period, and they're very well evidenced.

I don't have any issue for the standard explanations of the elements involved, only the particular arrangements and over emphasis on certain of those which shouldn't be expected, thus indicating to me a certain manipulation and distortion of aspects of Egyptian mythology toward ulterior purpose.

I observed the same when it came to the Labyrinth of the Fayum, and what the Greeks made of that and the Neith of Sais mythos, which did give rise to the Atlantean tradition, but it's a question of how they were relating this to their own natural philosophies and interest in deriving scientific applications from them.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: abeverage
Generally when it comes to Egyptology my opinions are quite orthodox, and even with this i don't see the Denderah anomalies as evidence for an Atlantis or earlier advanced and lost civilization which alternative opinion tends to veer toward, only for clever and devious Greeks of the Late Period, and they're very well evidenced.

I don't have any issue for the standard explanations of the elements involved, only the particular arrangements and over emphasis on certain of those which shouldn't be expected, thus indicating to me a certain manipulation and distortion of aspects of Egyptian mythology toward ulterior purpose.

I observed the same when it came to the Labyrinth of the Fayum, and what the Greeks made of that and the Neith of Sais mythos, which did give rise to the Atlantean tradition, but it's a question of how they were relating this to their own natural philosophies and interest in deriving scientific applications from them.


Not all talk veers toward Atlantis only that the Ancients were more advanced then we are led to believe. Of course every Civilization must proclaim they are the pinnacle of human achievement in a hang-over from the Roman Empire I assume.

What ulterior motive do you think they had?

Perhaps you talk less like June or riddles from the moon. You let me know about the ancient way when drop back into the Atmosphere from your trip to the MilkyWay....

edit on 16-5-2014 by abeverage because: of a better video for Kantz...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: abeverage


They would have considered this power to be the underlying energy that created the Universe, potentially extremely destructive and thus not to be openly shared or discussed. The energy understood as a natural flood that can be potentially channeled and harnessed.

The potential was based in understanding the ancient creation mythos, were the natural symbols involved such as serpent and hawk can simply stand for themselves, take can on symbolic and metaphorical meaning, or can be translated into mathamatical and scientific natural philosophies with potential application, this is what the Greeks were always looking to realize.

Given the mania for Greek mystery schools that developed in Egypt they could have gained new potential insights and developments there regarding manifestation of the light during the Late Period, this is what the 'subliminals' are suggesting here with Anthony and Caesar from the HBO Rome series, and a Hathor Queen/Princess.




Secrets and Synchronicites

Long live the Helium light bulb!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join