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.

 

For those who continue to believe nobody knows why the pyramids were built

page: 15
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
A researcher continually updates his research - I have no anxiety over mistakes..it is how we learn,
nor am I egotistical enough not to say when I am wrong..but that is where humbling comes in.

My past assumptions now refined will not derail the Nazca Lines Blueprint presentation.




posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: Marduk
A researcher continually updates his research -

But you are not a researcher, you are a fringe author who cherry picks evidence, ignores the facts and forces conclusions


I have no anxiety over mistakes..it is how we learn,
nor am I egotistical enough not to say when I am wrong..but that is where humbling comes in.


I don't see you admitting you were wrong when I served you over your lack of Egyptological knowledge, so this is just another false claim of yours


My past assumptions now refined will not derail the Nazca Lines Blueprint presentation.


I don't think anything will derail the presentation, but that doesn't mean that the presentation is even slightly valid...
When you start with a false premise and then cherry pick only that evidence that supports it and in doing so ignore a vast amount of already proven factual evidence which refutes it, you aren't doing history, you are just writing fiction.

You claimed somewhere that you have been studying this for 40 years, but as I have already shown you were believing Sitchin only 6 years ago, you have to discount the first 34 years as a complete waste of time.


Your stuff rates a class 4.

edit on 15-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
That was written from 6 years ago..but if you were trying to discredit me then why didn't you post what I had originally written on the 1st page of that thread???

Hmmm...go ahead and believe I have cherry picked Nazca
to revel the Great Pyramid blueprints, but unfortunately -
blueprints reveal too much detail to be a hoax..as we shall see
in the near future.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: Marduk
That was written from 6 years ago..but if you were trying to discredit me then why didn't you post what I had originally written on the 1st page of that thread???

Hmmm...go ahead and believe I have cherry picked Nazca
to revel the Great Pyramid blueprints, but unfortunately -
blueprints reveal too much detail to be a hoax..as we shall see
in the near future.




Dudebro, I already posted your youtube video,
It clearly demonstrates that you are cherry picking what evidence to use, for instance, you don't use more than a handful of the Nazca images, was that because none of the others were relevant to your preconceived idea.

As well as the fact that your video was posted to Youtube on 1 Apr 2015 and three months later a Japanese team made this announcement


Peru's Nazca Lines Reveal Mysterious New Animal Images

news.discovery.com...

So you are attempting math with half the numbers and as we have already seen with your Geodesic centre for the pyramids claim, you aren't very good at math



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
well after reading this line, it triggered a response from me, but I feel this will bite me back in the ass : )



But you are not a researcher, you are a fringe author who cherry picks evidence, ignores the facts and forces conclusions


hahah that is funny. Do you apply your famous marduk scale to yourself also sometimes?

There is so much inconsistencies with mainstream history as there are holes in cheese.

Why are you so hardcore about mainstream? From your extensive knowledge on the subject you should know there are mysteries which are not explained.

- star forts all over the planet
- nazca lines
- other lay lines on all continents
- swastika symbols all over the planet
- fact that pyramids are all over the earth
- megalithic structures made by unknown civs
- old statues which are made with delicate precision, which we have trouble making even today and they did it with chisels and hammer.
- symbols of christianity and islam joined together as one religion in some old churches or pictures
- underwater cities or other structures
- ...

yes all that is coincidence and we came from monkeys. Right? Well we certainly did if we are so stupid to believe mainstream explanations.

People who are most educated are often most arrogant and blind to the most obvious illusions. You say fringe authors. But who is indeed "fringe" here going by the list? I would say western books are fringe, they cherry pick also just as the one who you accused of this label - Sitchin.

Why are the numbers of russian archaeologists growing who are supporting the theory that we had advanced past civilization and west don't want to even hear about it? Why are your sources the one with truth and all others are put into trash bin without even considering different options which makes more sense and are supported with evidence.

yes, you are in my opinion, doing great on the marduk scale : )



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I really do hate the way 'aliens' has come to be regarded as a 'silly' and unintelligent term to use. When did this happen?

Essentially, it means something not of 'us', or rather, a being or society that we do not understand or consider to be from 'earth'. BUT...that can also be interpreted many other ways.

I think it's a bit of an injustice to try and blanket all pyramids as 'easily' defined. They simply aren't. That is why there is so much debate, study, and speculation surrounding them.

As a writer...I LOVE that. (to see my own fun theory, you should read my trilogy, The Forgotten Origins. The link is in my sig)


edit on 15-12-2015 by westcoast because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Marduk
well after reading this line, it triggered a response from me, but I feel this will bite me back in the ass : )



hahah that is funny. Do you apply your famous marduk scale to yourself also sometimes?


Researcher definition - A researcher is someone who conducts research, i.e., an organized and systematic investigation into something
There is nothing organised or systematic about ignoring the evidence that doesn't agree with you, a hypothesis can be built from a few facts, but a theory needs to explain all of them




There is so much inconsistencies with mainstream history as there are holes in cheese.

If that is your opinion then you are entitled to it, I agree to a certain extent, but when you put academic history knowledge alongside fringe knowledge, the fringe has so many holes that there is not enough material to support them.


Why are you so hardcore about mainstream? From your extensive knowledge on the subject you should know there are mysteries which are not explained.

Your following list isn't a good example of that.
But I'll answer the question. I started reading Sitchin when I was about 13 years old, it both fascinated and terrified me. It motivated me to look for more information, the only other books available were written by Sir Leonard Woolley and Samuel Noah Kramer
When you read their books, you soon see that Sitchin is simply lying for profit. I encourage you to get hold of either of their books and read them, you really have no excuse, you can pick up paper back versions these days for a few dollars,


- star forts all over the planet.

Wiki has a pretty good explanation of why they exist,
en.wikipedia.org...

- nazca lines.

The Nazca Indians claim they are ritual pathways, they still use them as ritual pathways, the westerner who spent her entire life studying them Maria Reiche claimed they were ritual pathways. You want to believe EVD who claimed they were Alien landing sites, that's fine, do you have any evidence.

- other lay lines on all continents.

That's Ley lines, I take it you are not an expert, you want to know why they actually exist between ancient sites, its because ancient peoples used them to travel from one site to another. The idea was invented in 1921 by the amateur archaeologist Alfred Watkins, Academia has no problem accepting that view. However, the concept that they have some mystical power was invented in 1969 by a fringe author who claimed they were used by flying saucers, his name was John Michell and he took a lot of drugs.

- swastika symbols all over the planet.

The Swastika is an ancient sun symbol, its been in use for tens of thousands of years, the oldest examples appear in central Europe, where pretty much every culture on earth either developed or passed through. What is odd about that exactly ?

- fact that pyramids are all over the earth.

Lol, no they aren't, the only true pyramids are in Egypt. The rest of them serve many different functions and the dates range from around 3000 BCE to the modern day. So if you're going to claim, lost race/aliens, then you also have to explain time travel. The fact is that until iron reinforced concrete became widespread, the only way to build a tall structure was to have it get progressively narrower as it went up. Again, this may be astounding to you, but its well understood by orthodoxy.


- megalithic structures made by unknown civs.

Convenient that to you they are unknown, but I've never come across any megalithic structure who's builders haven't been identified. Can you link ?


- old statues which are made with delicate precision, which we have trouble making even today and they did it with chisels and hammer. .

Again, this is your claim, link to a statue to support it


- symbols of christianity and islam joined together as one religion in some old churches or pictures.

Yup again, any evidence, I've not heard of this, but considering that all religions borrow from one another, why is this so important ?

- underwater cities or other structures.

Oh, there you go, off the deep end, do you mean Yonaguni, which was sunk by progressive sea rise, or Cambray, which was sunk by volcanic activity, neither of which are a mystery, both of which have been widely publicised by the fringe while at the same time, ignoring the facts. You should take a look off the coast of Greece, there's a load of them.
wiki even lists most of them
wiki sunken cities
None of which are mysterious




- yes all that is coincidence and we came from monkeys. Right? Well we certainly did if we are so stupid to believe mainstream explanations..

The mainstream claims that we and monkeys developed from an apelike ancestor around 8 million years ago. The fact that you are dismissing a mainstream claim while at the same time, not even knowing what the claim is speaks volumes


- People who are most educated are often most arrogant and blind to the most obvious illusions. You say fringe authors. But who is indeed "fringe" here going by the list? I would say western books are fringe, they cherry pick also just as the one who you accused of this label - Sitchin...

Lol, no they don't, Sitchin wrote fiction. Western books is not even a valid description of what you are tying to describe. Try harder. As Fringe is applied to things on the edge of something, its quite clear where the description should be applied. How many fringe universities have you heard of, none right ?
Why do you think it is, that not a single qualified Sumerologist/Assyriologist/Linguist agreed with anything Sitchin ever claimed from his translations. You think they are all in it to cover up the truth, while he was the lone candle in the wind. Don't you think that's a little unlikely Can you list for me the books written by people qualified on Mesopotamian history you've read, can you name even a single qualified Sumerologist, or any of the people who have excavated in Mesopotamia. Can you tell me how many excavation reports you've read ?
Have you actually read Sitchins work yourself ?
When you're ill, do you go to the doctor who's qualified to practice medicine, or someone who isn't.


- Why are the numbers of Russian archaeologists growing who are supporting the theory that we had advanced past civilization and west don't want to even hear about it? Why are your sources the one with truth and all others are put into trash bin without even considering different options which makes more sense and are supported with evidence...

I've not heard this at all, what I heard was that there are just as many pseudo historians in Russia as everywhere else.

That was pretty piss poor. Want to try for double jeopardy ?

edit on 15-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
your bamboo technology "expert" never compared any symmetries nor consistency of tolerances. they never prove that's how it was done. it's like taking somebody's fingerprints without comparing them with the known killer. yer done buddy all you got left is ad hominems.

a reply to: Marduk



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Yer goin off the rails again buddy. It does not matter what I know or what I don't know, what matters is whether or not your "expert" compared his results with what we find at Giza. He did not do that so he is a failure and did not prove anything. Call me names (which I think is funny and only mentioned because you said you didn't like the lying, water muddiing person you are) it doesn't matter because you have no other argument against what I am pointing out. How can you prove what you are saying without comparing the results to what is there? You say I didn't compare anything, well hey Einstein neither did yer boy what's his name.

you a reply to: Marduk


edit on 15-12-2015 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
your bamboo technology "expert" never compared any symmetries nor consistency of tolerances. they never prove that's how it was done. it's like taking somebody's fingerprints without comparing them with the known killer. yer done buddy all you got left is ad hominems.

a reply to: Marduk


You continue to post about "symmetries and tolerances" without providing anything for us to look at regarding symmetry or tolerance.

Do you know anything about ancient symmetry or tolerance in hole cutting, or are those just two of your favorite words?

Harte



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
your bamboo technology "expert" never compared any symmetries nor consistency of tolerances. they never prove that's how it was done. it's like taking somebody's fingerprints without comparing them with the known killer. yer done buddy all you got left is ad hominems.

a reply to: Marduk


Still got diddley squat then. Did you do any comparison yet ?
you've seen our evidence, like it or not, nothing you can say is valid until we've seen yours
Your repeated posts of nonsense and credulity are really showing everyone here, just how poor the fringe really is
I'm laughing at you along with the rest
keep up the good work, you are actually making academia and orthodoxy look so well founded that I'm starting to think you've been paid to make your claims look as ridiculous as possible.


(post by bottleslingguy removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
Oh I bet you wanna see mine lol. Keep avoiding my point you just continue to show how ignorant you are about what I am saying and it's only the most important aspect of proving something. You or anybody making such claims has got to compare the control findings with the known works in question. That is never done by anybody so how can you guys claim you proved how something was done? Yer living in a fantasy world and the more you go off the rails the more I enjoy watching you squirm. stop avoiding my point and acting like what I am saying doesn't matter or else the only thing you will prove is willful ignorance #1 on yer stupid scale.


a reply to: Marduk



Yup, I've asked for your evidence repeatedly and you don't have any. You've made that clear, thanks
So here you go again, talking off topic crap because you don't have anything, if you post another load of waffle without evidence I will ask the moderators to step in. You are so off topic that you don't even know it.
This thread is about the development of true pyramids from stepped mastabas, do you have anything to say about that at all...



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I keep pointing them out because unless you compare the bamboo tech symmetries and consistency of tolerances with what is found at Giza yer just talkin out yer ash. My main point is that the so called expert never did this so how in the hell can he or any of you say it is undeniable proof?

Nobody is claiming undeniable proof. I already told you that Stocks gives us proof of concept.

Besides, how do you know Stocks hasn't compared his work with the "symmetries and tolerances" of ancient Egyptian work?

After all, you still refuse to provide us with any evidence of these ancient symmetries and tolerances you claim exist.


originally posted by: bottleslingguyThere are huge holes in your evidence that you guys just keep ignoring and it's amazing how silly yer acting by ignoring this issue. You guys act like yer experts yet you ignore the most important part of what needs to be done before you can claim yer right. it's simple and you and Turd-duck just don't get it.

We aren't the ones ignoring evidence. We are the ones asking that you provide it.

If anyone is ignoring anything, it's you ignoring these requests.
How are we supposed to "get it" when we are not provided anything to "get" in the first place?

Harte



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: peter vlar



www.aip.org...

The radioactive isotope carbon-14 is created in the

upper atmosphere

when cosmic-ray particles from outer space strike nitrogen atoms and
transform them into radioactive carbon.


So yes - atmospheric pressure does indeed play a part.


Does it now? Please elaborate on this and explain precisely what role atmospheric pressure plays while I go warm up the popcorn maker.



Now contamination issues...
Any type of contamination entered into the carbon dating process causes
issues in exacting information.


I guess you cherry picked what part of my reply you read just as heavily as you did your "quotes" which in full context don't actually support your supposition.



Any contamination of a sample by outside carbon (even from the researcher's fingerprints) had to be fanatically excluded, of course, but that was only the beginning. Delicate operations were needed to extract a microscopic sample and process it.


As Marduk points out, this is such outdated data it's laughable at best. Your quoting information that existed between 1948 and 1952ish. If these issues hadn't been worked out, Libby wouldn't have received a Nobel in 1960. Furthermore, you completely ignore the reality that any 14C date is cross referenced with other methodologies. It's intellectually dishonest to continue harping on a nonexistent point simply because it is easier than conceding you might not actually know what you're talking about. Which in regards to 14C dating, you don't. We have accurate organic samples based on dendrochronology that are dated to~11.5KA and used for cross referencing 14C results. If you wish to argue the efficacy of a 30KA date, have at it. But even older dates(I'm not a fan of using 14C for anything beyond 40-45KA but that's neither here nor there) are very clear within a limited margin of error thanks to the invention of mass spectroscopy in the early 40's. Unfortunately for those wallowing in disbelief, the GP is only 4560 years old and the organic samples retrieved from the GP and corresponding complex are correctly calibrated and cross referenced. Even ignoring any written records, there is no argument as to when the GP was built.


I have not thrown my hands in the air, I have studied Egyptian history and they are as confused as those whom make outlandish claims regarding the Great Pyramid as a funerary chamber. Petrie's composite detailing of mathematical calculations are in direct conflict with the accepted mathematical prowess of said AE...and of course - there are many more calculations at Giza unexplainable for the era given including it's precise cardinal alignment and it's geodesic location to the center of our planet. These facts are often conveniently over looked by the Egyptologist's supporters
for they are simply without explanation.


Care to actually cite this alleged Petrie quote? I'm finding it difficult to believe that the namesake of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology in London made such statements and especially in the context you attempt to ascribe. And again... There are no cardinal point alignments, nor is it located at the geodesic "center" of our planet.


In reality, I have not left myself a convenient out so much as I have offered a way in to the same old business as usual debating a misunderstood monument of antiquity still not quite understood by the advanced civilization of todays technological era.
.


You keep telling yourself that. Give yourself a pat on the back while you're at it too. Or maybe instead, enroll in an accredited institution and see what you might learn. I think you'd be surprised at how many people on ATS started out buying into much crazier things than what you are spouting before they attempted to educate themselves. I will straight out admit that I was fascinated with Michael Cremo 20 odd years ago which made me want to study anthropology. The flip side to that is that sometimes, even in Academia, what got you laughed at when beginning grad school 18 years ago, sometimes becomes scientific fact. The real issue is having the appropriate investigative tools at your disposal and proper avenues of research. Just food for thought.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
I think you'd be surprised at how many people on ATS started out buying into much crazier things than what you are spouting before they attempted to educate themselves.

THIS


edit on 15-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Hi Marduk and PV

Yes, Petrie can be found in books for free on the web - great source for ancient advanced knowledge BEFORE what nonsense is taught. See Formation of the Alphabet.

See American Research Center in Egypt taking all sorts of dirt from inside the King's Chamber to Accelerated Mass Spectrometers in Zurich - no human remains.

Many kinds of construction approaches were used and Pliny explained the poured in place, Dunn is good for the fine tolerances, forget the levitation crap of Gardner - modern high-spin atomics researchers he ripped off took him to court.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

www.nytimes.com...
New York Times - Errors are feared in carbon dating


www.allaboutarchaeology.org...
Carbon Dating - What Is It And How Does It Work?
This is how carbon dating works: Carbon is a naturally abundant element found in the atmosphere, in the earth, in the oceans, and in every living creature. C-12 is by far the most common isotope, while only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is C-14. C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen-14 (N-14) is altered through the effects of cosmic radiation bombardment (a proton is displaced by a neutron effectively changing the nitrogen atom into a carbon isotope). The new isotope is called "radiocarbon" because it is radioactive, though it is not dangerous.

Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).
***
And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)


en.wikipedia.org... see CALIBRATION
Over the next thirty years many calibration curves were published using a variety of methods and statistical approaches.[28] These were superseded by the INTCAL series of curves, beginning with INTCAL98, published in 1998, and updated in 2004, 2009, and 2013.

Peter V - Not sure how you missed the information I posted earlier, but here it is with more detail. You will notice the Wikipedia article defines the last update to recalibrating Radiocarbon dating is 2013. So how does atmospheric pressure play a part in radio carbon dating..


THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD
"A major force altering the formation rate of C14 is the earth's magnetic field.
This field has a dramatic effect on cosmic radiation heading towards the earth. The magnetic field works like a huge bumper-bar. When the radiation strikes the field, it is bent towards the earth's polar regions. Some radiation is deflected so much that it totally misses the earth. Much of the remaining radiation is channelled into the relatively unoccupied polar regions. As the magnetic field extends far beyond the earth's atmosphere, some cosmic radiation never gets a chance to produce C14. Increasing the strength of the magnetic field will increase the shielding effect, reducing the amount of C14 produced.
It is an accepted fact that the measurements of the Earth's magnetic field strength show that the field is rapidly growing weaker. Professor Thomas G. Barnes, who has studied the earth's magnetic field, says that the magnetic field is declining in strength exponentially. Prof. Barnes, who has developed the earlier work of Horace Lamb, demonstrates mathematically that the observed exponential decline in the strength of the earth's magnetic field is exactly what one would expect if the earth's magnetic field is generated by an enormous electric current flowing in the earth's iron core. The decline is due to a continuous loss of electrical energy caused by electrical resistance in the core.
If this type of decline has been occurring in the past, the field loses half of its strength every 1400 years. Scientific research suggests that an increase in the earth's magnetic field to 100 times its present strength would result in complete shielding from cosmic radiation." www.chcpublications.net...
Nuclear weapons testing is also a cause of radiocarbon dating interference. "


No where did I state that Petrie quoted a mathematical assumption - that was my own answer from reading Flinder's works and also reading Egyptian history plus correlating my own mathematical finding at Giza that others have overlooked.



edit on 15-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: fun



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

shall we start from the top? You accused me of not reading the OP's thread but had you read the post you made a reference to on page 14, you would have read the opening statement I wrote - "S&F OP...good old fashioned research on your part to create this thread accurately depicting what academics has taught over the past years." I guess the sarcasm went unnoticed.

The Great Pyramid doesn't align to the Cardinal points exactly but is off miniscule in comparison of it's size - however before the advent of GPS, the Great Pyramid was the closest cardinally aligned building than anything the world had yet to establish. (go ahead - nit pick GMT)

Is it or isn't it centered at the globe's geodesic center - the Google Earth picture I posted shows it is. This is also represented by the Nazca/Pampa Mandala geoglyph which explains this in explicit detail, had you watched the full video..of course if you had watched the entire video you would of known it was a visual explanation and that this was the first of a two part video; as Nazca is a vast area of diagrams to explain that do not just cover the Nazca and Pampa regions but a much larger area. The Google Earth decoding of the Nazca Lines as the Great Pyramid Blueprints - or NazCAD as I refer to them, is hardly cherry picked. If you don't need a visual of the Great Pyramid and it's internal design, the NazCAD schematics clearly show it to be the Great Pyramid. This decoding does make use of all of Nazca and not just the lines but including the geodesic trapezoid designs and the geolgyphs themselves to show it is in fact a blueprint. You are correct that I have not decoded all the geoglyphs as I have not yet recreated in color all of the lines, at last count only just over 8 thousand lines (with geometric shapes included) - but what is shown is correlated to the complex design of the Great Pyramid...however you and others may not enjoy this truth as it upsets your established belief system in which you regurgitate your forced curriculum knowledge.

As you stated that you read somewhere, I have studied history for nearly 40 years mostly from books that were either purchased or library borrowed. Due to the many inadequacies in Egyptology and Archaeology, I gave up my belief in academics when technology and science showed a different language...then I began my own search in the late 1990's but my fascination with the Nazca desert started when I was a mid teenager.

Although since it's acclaimed discovery in the 1920's, thousands of ariel photographs and even land survey maps have been created of Nazca but it could not fully be deciphered until the advent of GPS, PC's and the Internet. Two certified architects have been presented my decoding for their review which both have agreed they are viewing collosal blueprints of what we know about the Great Pyramid..and also what we don't know for blueprints show every detail of a constructed building - but the real challenge is to have science and academia view and challenge this hypothesis, which of course I won't hold my breath on for we know it would change everything our history has taught in regards to Egyptology, Archaeology, Academia, Science and Religions in showing an advanced race now not answered for in our history books...or damn it - you guessed it - Sitchin was right..frickin damn Aliens! muhahaha

Nazca is not the only monument of antiquity I have decoded, for you see Marduk - the ancients whom bestowed this generous gift to our civilization left a coded message. They knew language was a continually changing process but that math, geometry and astronomy were the main tools of a technological civilization so they coded this message in this language, a language we all know, for when we are ready and had advanced enough to discover and decipher this clue to our lost history.

Now you have every right to question my findings, as I continually question these findings myself to as whether or not this is real - what you don't have the right to do is sling insults like a bully in the Giza sandbox adding a constant reference to people as Sitchinite's - which is laughable at best. I believe Tesla's work, does that make me a Teslaite? or in the Theory of Relativity, which would make me an Einsteinite. Well I am none of those, just someone who didn't buy into what is being sold and went on a truth search.







edit on 15-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: fun



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join