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.

 

Codex Orionis: Giza's Monuments Speak

page: 2
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddhablack
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet

Star and flag for this, great work! Anticipating the rest.


Thank you very much.

I truly hoped you enjoyed the lengthy read.

@ trifecta - thank you also!

Be well

edit on 26-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: fun




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
So you're completely ignoring the tombs of the nobles, the workmen, the satellite pyramids, the ostrika, the record (later) of lands set aside for priests, the history of the priests who offered there for Khufu and so forth?

And claiming a type of math that they didn't do?
edit on 26-12-2015 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
@Marduk - the Marduk Scale again; you have no idea how much I enjoy that scale!


@Peter V - you have your belief - I have mine and yes,
we both showed each other why we think each is wrong.

@123143 - correct: you can't please everyone.

@Blackmarketeer - of course new age..this discoveries is a few years old
but just released to the public almost a year ago.
However they (yes I have decoded many monuments from antiquity) have made
their way to different sites across the web.

Be well all

edit on 26-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: fun



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
So you're completely ignoring the tombs of the nobles, the workmen, the satellite pyramids, the ostrika, the record (later) of lands set aside for priests, the history of the priests who offered there for Khufu and so forth?

And claiming a type of math that they didn't do?


He's pretty much ignoring everything and using imperial measurements to support his baloney.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet

I'm so very proud of my self. I red the entire thing.


One One thing i dont like is the math...st of the time you can use 3 basic numbers and by using math calculations and some leeway in application and get any number desired.

To get 13...you are simply not consistent enough to be indisputable. In some places you used simple addition, then some rounding and some ignoring...to get the desired result.

Such methodology can be used to get practically any number.
quote]

Thank you for your kind words MarionOnTheFly -

In the above article when it starts to allocate the numbers..it says first -
This is a sample of the numbers

I have amassed nearly an entire chapter in regards to fully explaining Giza's numbers -
this article was extremely long so I submitted the jest of the understanding.

This Codex Giza shows is a Geometric expression in the monuments regarding geometry as their shape implies,
dual mathematics of Imperial and Metric are use to teach us advanced Astronomy.
This way we can precisely understand the message left behind,

If there is anything you wish more detail to, please ask.

Be well

edit on 26-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: fun



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: NewsWorthy

Thank you Newsworthy -

Yes we'll agree to disagree..much more civil this way


My thread details that I see this as only one explanation of the Great Pyramids secrets.
I as you and others believe the Giza pyramids hold more than one function..
..a vast wealth of knowledge we are just beginning to understand. IMO

Be well



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
So you're completely ignoring the tombs of the nobles, the workmen, the satellite pyramids, the ostrika, the record (later) of lands set aside for priests, the history of the priests who offered there for Khufu and so forth?

And claiming a type of math that they didn't do?


Hello Byrd..much respect to you!
Few on this site hold my attention, you are one.

Yes it would seem I am blatantly completely ignoring what doesn't fit this hypothesis;
however I have read enough from history to see what is made up and what is fact.
Also there is the issue of 'intrusive burials' - which is placing a body in a monument
long after it was built and much later found, then claimed.
History also likes to dictate any monument we don't understand as a religious significance.
If we can't understand it, automatically it is a religious monument.
This is part of our mistaken history.

As for the math - you believe the AE created these monuments and yes - this math
they did not know.
I am showing the monument came from technological civilization no longer registered in our history books.

The advanced society whom I believe left these monuments encoded simple geometry and math so we could
understand the message of astronomy they are sending.

I hope I explained that easily for your understanding???

Be well - thank you for your excellent threads and academic explanation over the years


Be well



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
I am blatantly completely ignoring what doesn't fit this hypothesis;


You have confirmation bias, you know that right ?



Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.


You came up with the hypothesis first didn't you and then looked for facts which fit. Lets remember, that it was only six years ago that you believed in Sitchin

edit on 26-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I'll throw you a star or two for the fantastic presentation, but due to the numerous glaring factual errors, I'm keeping my flag.


I haven't had a chance to read the entire thing yet, but just in the part I've read so far, I've seen several factual errors, some of which have already been shown to you elsewhere (along with detailed explanations as to why they're wrong and supporting evidence). It's a shame that you ignored all that.

Nice work on the presentation, though. Despite the questionable and inaccurate content, it's clear that a lot of time went into this. I wish all threads here had as much effort put into them.

I'll give a more thorough reply after I get off work tomorrow and have had time to read through everything.


Thank you Admire for your ascertation -

Yes I still hold my arguments as to academians..time will tell.

As you know this is only one monument I have decoded and shared.
There are two other videos released showing two other mysterious monuments
explaining my belief as to what they represent.

These three are only the beginning..as I have uncovered many more which all holds this simple Codex
and will be released and shown during 2016.

Many do not like what I show and they will certainly not like how these monuments joined together from
all four corners of Earth explain a powerful story.

2016 shall be an exciting year for the world of history.


Be well and thank you Admire



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Marduk - you can insult me all you want; this is much bigger
than you can imagine.
Laugh all you want but in truth, my work is spreading across the Internet
like wildfire by those in search of the answers academics covers up.

You've seen a glimpse of the Great Pyramid Blueprints - how long do you
think it will be after it's discovered that the blueprints show unknown cavaties
within the Great Pyramid that have yet to be found? This alone proves my thesis correct.

When that day comes into fruition - you will need to burn your Marduk scale.

Be well Marduk



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: Marduk

Laugh all you want but in truth, my work is spreading across the Internet
like wildfire by those in search of the answers academics covers up.:




Uhuh, you mean you have been posting it on fringe websites.
Noone is accepting this except other fringe believers, that amounts to nothing in the real world.
Do you really think that the Egyptian antiquities commission is going to read this and then start excavating
If that's the case, your hypothesis isn't just suffering from confirmation bias, it also has Megalomania

Which is a condition that is quite common on internet message boards, usually on the fringe side and always from people who are ignoring facts that they aren't even aware of. Of course, those affected can never admit it, or even the possibility of it, because

Especially when the person fooling them is themselves
We have already seen you discount Carbon dating, without any evidence, because it doesn't fit your theory, despite the fact that you had to go back to the 1950s in a vain attempt to claim that its error prone. Despite the evidence that modern carbon dating is extremely accurate and has proven accurate many thousands of times. You discounted that, because with it being there, your hypothesis falls apart. I have a newsflash for you buddy, people who discount science are not scientific. And something that isn't scientific is garbage

For instance, your claim that the dates are off is based on a fringe claim that nuclear weapons or flooding added more carbon to the samples, now lets accept that as valid for just a minute, that means that the samples would come back as younger than they actually were. So we would be seeing dates from the samples at Giza more recent than 2500BCE, not thousands of years older as you require at Nazca. You have it backwards. The less carbon 14, the older it is.

I mean, fair call on the rest, you may be right, you may be wrong, but ignoring actual science because it doesn't agree with you is why this hypothesis will never reach the theory stage and without becoming a theory, its just an opinion.
Opinions are worthless, everyone has one and most of the time they are wrong



originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
When that day comes into fruition


And when is that going to be happening, can you give me an estimate ?
Are we talking next week or five hundred years from now when the aliens finally land

edit on 26-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet

@Peter V - you have your belief - I have mine and yes,
we both showed each other why we think each is wrong.



not quite... you have beliefs, I have facts. You keep repeating things that aren't based in reality or fact. Don't get me wrong, it's an impressive display that you've presented here. It just happens to be based far more in confirmation biases than it does facts.

Your claims regarding 14C dating are incorrect and unsupported.

All of your measurements are based on modern mathematical standards and not the standards utilized in AE which makes all of those calculations meaningless. And that doesn't even touch on the lack of consistency used in the calculations and figures you provide. which is terribly ironic considering you say this...



Giza tells a huge story, only we haven't been reading the monuments correctly.


Geodesics? not pertinent at all to anything going on at the Giza plateau and I'm not quite sure it means what you are attempting to use the terminology for.

The salt residue inside the GP has been shown to definitively be a result of people visiting the GP and is from condensate after exhalation. Nothing terribly mysterious there at all.

The etymology you refer to for the word pyramid is again, incorrect.

You make a claim regarding Lemuria/Mu as an ancient civilization yet Lemuria/Mu didn't exist prior to the mid 19th century. It's a recent invention.

I can't even get into the supposed astronomical alignments that don't exist

and then you throw in a biblical flood for which there is absolutely zero evidence for as well.

It appears, looking in from the outside, that you began with an answer and worked your way backwards attempting to fill in the blanks with anything and everything you could. throw enough spaghetti at the wall and something's got to stick right? At the end of the day, I appreciate ther amount of time and effort you clearly put into this but there are a lot of claims here without much supporting tyhem beyond overwhelming sensory overload.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
For understanding

Lemuria was a term invented in 1864 by the zoologist Philip Sclater in an article that he wrote called "The Mammals of Madagascar" in The Quarterly Journal of Science



The anomalies of the Mammal fauna of Madagascar can best be explained by supposing that ... a large continent occupied parts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans ... that this continent was broken up into islands, of which some have become amalgamated with ... Africa, some ... with what is now Asia; and that in Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands we have existing relics of this great continent, for which ... I should propose the name Lemuria


This was about 100 years before the modern theory of plate tectonics explained the distribution of similar animals across Africa and Madagascar.
Lemuria as a lost continent isn't credible

Plato's Atlantis was not an advanced civilisation, the Greeks defeated them using bronze age warfare.
And again, I have already posted you the original Akkadian narrative, which the babel story is derived from. There is nothing in it suggesting anything past a bronze age technology. They were building a ziggurat out of mud brick, what about that suggests advanced culture to you

The problem with your hypothesis, is that you know next to nothing about ancient history and are making so many factual errors that it damages your credibility.


You expected to post this and have everyone agree with you didn't you, you should probably examine why you thought that.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

All apologies Peter - I did miss a post in posting this thesis:

Addendum: Radio Carbon Dating
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).


en.wikipedia.org... see CALIBRATION
================================

We argue the validity of RCD - that is the basic issue here. Interesting to me that yourself
and Robert. E. Lee from the above article are both anthroplogists.

I am not a creationist..so the Flood story - no conclusive geological records to provide that as proof - AGREED!
As for the AE not knowing these mathematical procedures - agreed again!
So how come 13 is written all over Giza dictated in G1's heighth alone?
Many simple mathematical equations at Giza that are just a coincidence wouldn't you say?
And I have catalogued many more I did not use in this explanation.

Once it is understood the 3 Giza monuments are primarily geometric squares
(as seen from directly above) by understanding this and correlating the numbers
supplied at Giza with Mr.Bauval's find - by deciphering the different maths of Imperial and Metric
we begin to understand the simple message Giza relays of teaching math and geometry which is what
is needed to understand astronomy and calculate the movement of the moon and stars, and the reason
behind the message of Giza's megalithic monuments.

Diagram showing Giza from directly above allowing the perspective of a geometric square split into quadrants.

This easiest understandable examples (to name a few) are through oral traditions, scripture, mythology
and petroglyphs known as rock art.
The ancients worshiped the Heavens and saw planets as Heavenly bodies in motion and why they are in present day
mistook for Aliens and UFO's; they are NOT! They are in fact depictions of 'Heavenly Bodies in Motion'.

Mankind is a product of Earth - so we use Imperial math for simple mathematical understanding.
Advanced academia uses a higher calculative of Metric and above (Pi) for sciences and astronomy practices.
What Giza is numerically saying is that Imperial math is the math of Earth and simple earthlings
while Metric is the beginning to the math of the God's (sciences) - the Heavenly Bodies of Motion.

That is my personal belief from my own (and others) research.
I hope I explained it properly without supplying
dozens of links of mythology etc. to correlate this understanding.

My claims come from scripture/mythology/oral traditions have nothing to do with dates
but everything to do with world wide myths of a past advanced civilization.

Yes I may have overlooked the salt residue of the Queen's Chamber - I have read where it was there when G1 was
first inspected. Please provide a link to your claim so I may view it.

I know it's not the answer your looking for, or many want to hear - and I'm sure I don't have all the answers
and that would be if I have any correct answers!
However, fully stand behind ALL my discoveries.
Previously I had mentioned the constant doubt I myself had over these discoveries because it
goes against everything academia has taught - and yet these discoveries appear carrying a significant
simple numerical message.

We will see with the release of these other discoveries what he future brings.

Thank you for your reply Peter.
edit on 26-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: insert picture



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
a reply to: peter vlar

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).



Noone is denying the truth of that article, as it came out 34 years ago. As has already been stated several times and completely ignored by you, modern radiocarbon dating is accurate to + - 50 years, over thousands of years. Uses different methods of measurement which are unaffected by atmospheric changes. You've been told this and linked to the truth of it. Do you really think linking to outdated articles is relevant or helping your case ?




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I applaud him for the effort.

As for the mathematical formula within the pyramid. I tend to lean more towards our ancestors knowing more then we "assume". But I do agree that there was a lot of "insertion" of the dead into pre-existing monuments as a mean to claim them in the past.

I also believe that there were area's of the globe that were more civilized then we had thought.

The ancient city of Dwarka is one, recently re-discovered. Some initial claims place this city at 24,000 years old.

news.bbc.co.uk...

It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Triton1128I do agree that there was a lot of "insertion" of the dead into pre-existing monuments as a mean to claim them in the past.


I can think of only one example, can you link me to "a lot"



originally posted by: Triton1128
The ancient city of Dwarka is one, recently re-discovered. Some initial claims place this city at 24,000 years old.


I'm curious if you know why there has been no follow up to this 13 year old news report
and also why the claim was not made by an archaeological organisation, but by Murli Manohar Joshi the minister for marine tourism ?

edit on 26-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

The article was an indepth in length so I understand certain areas people have missed or glossed over.
Lemuria is one of only many stories from the past claiming a sunken Island/continent or world disrupted by catastrophe..yes I know you know this and as mentioned in my article no official name has been given due to it's mythology.
This Mayan stele captures in relief this mythology.


Plato's story can be argued whether or not it was an advanced technological civilization or not, not really a bearing on this as these names are examples of a misplaced civilization stating in my article no real name has been given to this not remembered society. I explained to you my interpretation of scripture but you went with academics description and not scripture itself: then there is what we didn't discuss of mythology such as the mythology of the Hindu Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita claiming an advanced race including aircraft.

Your claim to my meglomanical side is quite ridiculous such as your previous statement in another thread regarding my lunacy. I'll have you know I went to my phsyce to ask him if I was crazy, he replied - you don't have phsyce.

As for the Egyptian Minister of Antiquities, you would be surprised at who I am working with regarding the Great Pyramids blueprints now located (to be revealed in another thread & part of this Codex) who may just be able to get them front and center. The blueprints don't just reveal where the cavaties are, but also how to retrieve these locations...so we will see in the future, and yes - maybe not in my lifetime and that is why I created my videos the way I did. It's my belief the open minds of the younger generation whom feel in their souls something about our history isn't being told properly and justifyingly (try talking with the younger generation sometime) will understand this Codex and correct what academics has conveniently overlooked.

Absolutely I did not expect everyone to believe me with this one example: that will happen as I explain the rest of the monuments across the globe which carry this simple codex show-casing a detailed Codex from antiquity and also my interpretation of what that specific monument(s) is/are speaking.

Claiming 'fringe site' while posting on ATS: interesting observation - enough said! Partially you are correct, I did post this on 3 websites..Graham Hancock's - Above Top Secret..and my own. Previously I mentioned the other offers I have past entertained and turned down however my Copyrighted material I have allowed free for educational purposes only and CAN NOT be altered or used for profit as I also will be showing this Codex is written on the face of our planet and therefore as a Humanitarian -I gift it back to mankind for FREE for I do not believe another human should charge another a monetary sum for what was their birth right - to know the truth to their questionable history. It's time the bullsh*t stops and we get off the religious/Alien false history merry-go round and we get the correct answers. Time to awaken Marduk.

Stay tuned my friend - we've only just begun.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Triton1128

Thank you for your gracious reply.

There is indeed a long Code list of monuments to explain..and I promise it will be fun!

For you Triton..and others thinking outside the box.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet

As Marduk points out, the article you reference is antiquated by most standards. The fact of the matter is, and I have seen such first hand, that dendrochronology completely substantiates 14C dating to within an extremely negligible margin of error. With samples from California that are ~6500 years old via dendrochronology(tree ring counts) and cross referenced with 14C, the dates line up. Every time. Nobody in related fields debates that the efficacy of this method diminishes after 45-50KA and is useless for dates older than 60KA. As the samples from the base of GP have been dated to the time frame attributed to the building of the GP to within a couple of hundred years(with the margin of error) there simply isn't a question as to the age attributed to this grand monument at Giza. I'm not sure where you obtain your sources, but I subscribe to journals such as AJA, AAA's American Anthropology and UC's Current Anthropology, I tend to keep up to date on what is going on despite not working in this field any longer. 14C is extremely reliable, especially when dealing with a date of 4500 years BP.




top topics



 
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join