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.
originally posted by: buddhablack
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet
Star and flag for this, great work! Anticipating the rest.
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?
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 welledit on 26-12-2015 by AquarianTrumpet because: fun
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?
originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
I am blatantly completely ignoring what doesn't fit this hypothesis;
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.
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.
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.:
originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet
When that day comes into fruition
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.
Giza tells a huge story, only we haven't been reading the monuments correctly.
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
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).
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.
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.