It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by newkids123
When you think of widespread technology can it be possible that the people itself part of that government during that era was using cult methods to eliminate spread of information and used it was disguise for "magic" purposes.
Originally posted by ZetaGundam007
You cant just judge something from a single picture
take our penny
if we knew little about US history, (as many of you know little of Egyption history, no offence but think about how much you really know), then we might jump to the conclusion that the man pictured on the penny is "God"
mainly because it says "In god we trust" about him.
We may also think that the building on the back is where "God" lives, because thats logical.
you see where i'm going, no?
Originally posted by ledbedder20
Looking at Stonehenge, the Giza pyramids, Easter island, the Parthenon, the Temple of Bacchus in Baalbek, Lebanon, we see ancient civilizations accomplishing engineering feats which rival those of our own engineers today.
Many past civilizations focussed on spirituality or family or worshipping their leader, etc. They did not share the same lust for money and material objects which is now an almost universal interest behind everything in present day society. Today, everything has to be done faster, better, cheaper, easier.
I do believe that is the case here, I'm sure we weren't the first civilization to have technology, especially if you believe in the whole "aliens created us/aided us" doctrine. Even if you don't, it's still arrogant to believe that the societies that created the strucutres I listed above were too ignorant or primitive to make a battery or light bulb or any other convenience. Maybe these technologies have been invented and etched into our timeline, only in a form which we are unfamiliar with.
Originally posted by Yorick
In terms of grandiosity or sheer scale, perhaps. Even if you limit your definition of "engineering" to architecture, stuff like Taiwan 101 or the Chunnel surpasses the ancient structures in terms of pure technical merit. When you include the staggering quantity of all of the products of engineering, ancient structures out of context aren't really that impressive.
It's pretty much unprecedented in the history of mankind for a society to remain entirely static when they have the means and ability to refine their materials and methods. This process is entirely unconnected to their ulterior (or at least stated) motives. These ancient societies weren't as simple and hive-minded as people seem to think. While they did derive a spiritual/communal benefit from monumental projects like the pyramids (and don't think we don't -- Mount Rushmore, the Eiffel Tower, and St. Peter's Basilica, for instance), they were still a conglomeration of individuals and that's where technological progress is made.
How is it arrogant? What's arrogant is assuming that they could not achieve without technology, aliens, or the occult. A lack of technology (as we think of it in 2005) does not imply a lack of intellectual ability or dexterity. If you go to a "primitive" society today and really observe them closely, you'll see that they're really not so primitive at all. They do what works for them within their means, and they constantly improve on that. When you apply your own cultural context to a completely different society, you're crippling your ability to analyze your observations.
In a thousand years, there will probably be people in a group similar to ATS sitting around and trying to figure out how we bumpkins in A.D. 2000 managed to create a worldwide network using wires made of glass. "Surely they didn't just stick giant reels on boats (you know, those floating things archaeologists want us to believe they had?) and string 'em out over the ocean. No, they must have had nanobots build them as they went, and our arrogent academics are just too blind to see it!"
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Found the link I was originally referring to....got some good arguements on the technical arguments and other technological aspirations(i.e. metallurgy, etc.)
This image implies that something poured into the planet could cause spontaneous growth. The "pouring of water or an offering" and the outlandish angles at which it is being done tends to make it one of countless scenes reinforcing the idea that such scenes are instead showing the migration or transmission of electromagnetic forces. Every sacred symbol - linked to the gods - had a scientific as well as an esoteric purpose
The ancient Egyptians believed that the sun originally came out of the first hill coming out of the flood of creation (the crypts in Dendera were accurately under this place, so was believed). One version of this was that the sun child (usually Nefertem) climbed out from a lotus flower - the same thing Harsomtus does in form of a snake in the Dendera pictures.
Originally posted by Vesuvius 13Hmmm, by the way, how are you so sure that the link you posted with a how-to in reading hieroglyphics, is correct!?!? What if it's translations are wrong too!!!
By the way what does that guy's book say he thinks the true purpose of the great pyrmids is?? I really want to know. Thanks...
Originally posted by Byrd
For the Great Pyramid (and the whole complex of nine pyramids and the temples associated with them and all the workmen's quarters and the necropolis and all (it's a HUGE site) and all the writings -- basically the "main line" is exactly what they found. Pyramids are tombs (this has been proven by all the other pyramid tombs around, and there are a lot) and by paintings in the chapels that are in front of the tombs(lots of these) and other artifacts. And the writing as well.