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.

 

Ancient Civilizations and Current Concieved Notions of those Civilizations

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Any idiot with two eyes can see the technological feats of the past surpass what we are capable of today....

Wow, how credulous, we built a pyramid out of glass, The Egyptians couldn't have done that, we built Gothic cathedrals, no ancient culture could do that


get a grip in reality....
Perhaps you never heard of the horrible # that has been heaped upon reputable scientists for speaking against the paradigm


No, and neither have you outside of a conspiracy theorists website, sure there's been a few occasions when what one scientist was saying seemed mad, but those scientists are now lauded as genius's for busting the paradigm. Science is all about breaking the paradigm. its how it operates.


There sure weren't slaves with copper chisels boring accurate holes in granite back then....explain those holes ...
Or a thousand other pieces of stone work that even we cannot accomplish without technology of the first order....


Those holes have already been explained in numerous threads, numerous times and the Egyptians didn't use slaves for construction, have you been basing your belief on the Bible, haha

Carbon dating has its own problems..


Actually it doesn't, back in the 1950s it had problems, but they were overcome, its clear that you have been reading too many pseudo historian websites if you think there's anything problematic with it. Pseudo historians often make that claim, in order to create a god of the gaps argument, but anyone who spends about ten minutes reading about how radiocarbon dating works, soon sees that they're talking crap in order to sell their books to the gullible.



Smirk all you want.....Archaelogy is a game of fools, when it comes to anything they cant fit into their world view.....

Archaeology is a science, anyone disputing that is a credulous fool


Let me ask you, what academic history books have you read, what academic archaeology books have you read, in fact, you don't need to answer that, because its clear you don't have the first clue what you are talking about, you are to all effects intellectually redundant, thanks for playing

edit on 6-2-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: bandersnatch
In 4 billion years im sure there were other races of beings, or civilisations of high technology that came before us....
Evidence is mounting....
We will see Archaeology discredited as a science eventually....and exposed for what they made it into....


Spoken like a true tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist
Add any other science into that sentence and you can clearly see how laughable it is
"We will see Medicine discredited as a science eventually....and exposed for what they made it into"
"We will see Physics discredited as a science eventually....and exposed for what they made it into"
"We will see Chemistry discredited as a science eventually....and exposed for what they made it into"
"We will see Geology discredited as a science eventually....and exposed for what they made it into"

So your anti science bias is clearly showing, what you don't seem to understand, is that unlike "belief" science builds on itself, so is in fact, impossible to ever discredit, You seem to think that Archaeology is just one thing (because you know nothing about it), but its made up of many different disciplines, an equitable example would be, discrediting Chemistry, you can start by discrediting Carbon molecules, see how you get on...


Hmm, where exactly is bandersnatch displaying an 'anti science bias' ? You are taking his/her words completely
out of context and filling in your own. saying Archaeology 'will be discredited as a science' isn't saying they are
anti science. I have read similar posts from you before where you put words in others mouths so to speak, and think you need calling out on it.
If you going to debate with someone its always best to go on the facts of what they have actually said, and not whatever you imagine them to be saying. You say 'science builds on its belief system so it is impossible to ever discredit' wrong, science doesn't have a belief system, thats the whole point. Also when it is a scientific theory it
is just that, a THEORY. Not proven science. Speaking of science you should also know that it is an essential tenet of science to get your figures and facts right otherwise there's no point. So going by your previous post you might want to work on that in future.

originally posted by: Marduk
...this is from a 5th Century tomb, about 1800 years after the last pyramid was built..



5th dynasty, actually, and about 100 years or so after the Giza.

Hmm, just a little off then?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
Hmm, where exactly is bandersnatch displaying an 'anti science bias' ? You are taking his/her words completely
out of context and filling in your own. saying Archaeology 'will be discredited as a science' isn't saying they are
anti science.

Uh, yeah, it pretty much is.

Also when it is a scientific theory it
is just that, a THEORY. Not proven science.

You don't seem to understand what 'scientific theory' means.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul


Hmm, where exactly is bandersnatch displaying an 'anti science bias' ? You are taking his/her words completely
out of context


He's anti archaeology, archaeology is a science
wow, did you miss that ?
Laughable, anything to defend someone with a belief like yours, like here where you aren't even addressing the subject. Just attacking my posts.




edit on 6-2-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

What makes you think I share the same beliefs as someone else here? Again you are doing what I was calling you out for in the first place. Putting words in peoples mouths! But obviously you don't get that do you?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: surfer_soul
Hmm, where exactly is bandersnatch displaying an 'anti science bias' ? You are taking his/her words completely
out of context and filling in your own. saying Archaeology 'will be discredited as a science' isn't saying they are
anti science.

Uh, yeah, it pretty much is.

Also when it is a scientific theory it
is just that, a THEORY. Not proven science.

You don't seem to understand what 'scientific theory' means.


No it pretty much isn't, what he's actually saying is 'their' understanding of Archaeology will be discredited as a science, get it?
They wasn't knocking science as whole though like Marduk had it.

I hear you about scientific theory, but it is still a proposition at the end of the day, while based on facts, not necessarily scientific undisputed 'law'



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Marduk

What makes you think I share the same beliefs as someone else here?


Because I have checked out your previous posts and you are both credulous,
Some of your previous attempts at logic are so bad they are actually funny because they are so full of ignorance
Same with bandersnatch





I hear you about scientific theory, but it is still a proposition at the end of the day, while based on facts, not necessarily scientific undisputed 'law'


Like the man said, you don't know what a scientific theory is do you



Now would you care to actually address the topic of this thread, because your credulity isn't cutting it and of course, because not addressing the topic of the thread will get all your posts deleted by the mod team

While I have your attention, I wanted to thank you for the huge laugh one of your quotes gave me
it was this

originally posted by: surfer_soul
god is enternal


Yes, he is, isn't he, totally enternal

edit on 6-2-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bandersnatch
There sure weren't slaves with copper chisels boring accurate holes in granite back then....explain those holes ...

Well, here we go again.

Harte



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte
So what? What were they boring them with exactly? Oh yeah sand at the end of a stick, that makes sense, it would only take about a century to bore a small hole in some of the hardest stones they carved, and how the exact straight edges to them, or the seamless joints?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Harte
So what? What were they boring them with exactly? Oh yeah sand at the end of a stick, that makes sense, it would only take about a century to bore a small hole in some of the hardest stones they carved, and how the exact straight edges to them,




Lol, yup here we go again, completely off topic and attacking another poster


You can be as credulous as you like, in light of evidence like this
www.sciencechannel.com...
then its clear that you don't know anything about masonry work, so why bother to pretend that someone who did and does couldn't do something which you know nothing about. But just for your information, sand is harder than the mica and feldspar components of granite, so if you rub sand onto granite, it will mark the granite, in the same way that you've probably heard a diamond will mark glass, now you easily accept the diamond marking glass, but this which is exactly the same principle and an easy experiment which you could do for yourself, but no, just credulity, ignorance and denial, that's all you have. All you need to do to cut a hole, is to use a circular motion to rub the sand against the granite, this is accomplished by a copper tube (not a stick). This is so simple, that you claiming the Egyptians couldn't do it is cultural racism...


originally posted by: surfer_soul
or the seamless joints?





Laughable, you haven't exactly studied this subject have you,
what is it that you do know to an expert level ?

edit on 6-2-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Shane

Rule of thumb when looking for the rise of civilization in any geographical area look to the very ones toting your bags and pitching you tent, then look at their neighbors and then their neighbors and so on, till you reach the conclusion that non of humanity was involved then and only then you look to the stars for E.T



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Going forward....


Discuss the topic, and quit bickering with each other.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.....so know that after this message...such off topic material will be removed in an appropriate manner.

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
originally posted by: Marduk



"originally posted by: surfer_soul
or the seamless joints? "




"Laughable, you haven't exactly studied this subject have you,
what is it that you do know to an expert level ? "



I don't have a dog in this fight but. You and I both know the smooth tightly fitting outer casing stones were stripped away centuries ago leaving us with the exposed blocks weathered and worn. Nowhere near what a marvel of Ancient Engineering it once was in it's original condition.

It's disingenuous to imply otherwise.
edit on 6-2-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
I don't have a dog in this fight but. You and I both know the smooth tightly fitting outer casing stones were stripped away centuries ago leaving us with the exposed blocks weathered and worn. Nowhere near what a marvel of Ancient Engineering it once was in it's original condition.

It's disingenuous to imply otherwise.


yup, no, the interior of the pyramid was never seamless, to imply otherwise is disingenuous, take a close look at the blocks

See all the gaps, they are not the fault of erosion
And here's some quotes from tour Egypt
www.touregypt.net...




At first glance, the sides of the Giza Pyramids, stripped of most of their smooth outer casing during the Middle Ages, look like regular steps. These are actually the courses of backing stones, so called because they once filled in the space between the pyramid core and outer casing. However, a closer examination reveals that the steps are not at all regular. In fact, rather than regular, modular, squared blocks of stone neatly stocked, there is considerable "slop factor", even in the Great Pyramid of Khufu.

Not only are the backing stones irregular, they are also progressively smaller toward the top. Behind the backing stones, the core stones are actually even more irregular. We know this because, in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks.


I'll take that apology whenever you're ready



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

I'll take that apology whenever you're ready


I was referring to the smooth outer casing stones. Didn't you read the first sentence of your own source?



At first glance, the sides of the Giza Pyramids, stripped of most of their smooth outer casing during the Middle Ages



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69


I'll take that apology whenever you're ready


I was referring to the smooth outer casing stones. Didn't you read the first sentence of your own source?


1. Neither surfer_soul or me were talking about the casing stones
2. I posted the source because it talks about the backing stones and the core
3. The casing stones are still in evidence like the ones here at the base

They are not seamless

I really don't see how you are going to wriggle out of this, you're wrong on every count. Not only are you talking about something that wasn't in the earlier discussion, but even the stones you are talking about do not match your claim.



p.s. I was joking about the apology



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk


They are not seamless



4,600+ years worth of Earthquakes, Wind, Rain weathering, floods, not to mention, people monkeying around with the site and you think that they would still be as perfectly in place as they once were when a "Pharaoh" Kafre for example, demanded perfection for his supposed tomb?

The Washington Monument in DC, Has joints that are almost seamless yet after the fairly recent earthquake they had to close it down and refurbish the monument. Nobody has refurbished the Great Pyramid in oh, I dunno, in a couple of thousand years I'd say.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Marduk


They are not seamless



4,600+ years worth of Earthquakes, Wind, Rain weathering, floods, not to mention, people monkeying around with the site and you think that they would still be as perfectly in place as they once were when a "Pharaoh" Kafre for example, demanded perfection for his supposed tomb?

The Washington Monument in DC, Has joints that are almost seamless yet after the fairly recent earthquake they had to close it down and refurbish the monument. Nobody has refurbished the Great Pyramid in oh, I dunno, in a couple of thousand years I'd say.



oh whatever, I think anyone reading this can see that you are now just bullcrapping your way out of being wrong
You responded to a quote from me, I wasn't talking about the casing stones I was talking about the backing stones, which was why I included a picture of the backing stones. The backing stones and the inner core of the Great pyramid is famously sloppy, with some void spaces even being filled with sand.

You seem to know so little about this subject that you aren't even aware that the entire pyramid was restored in 1999. So no, not 4600 years, but 17 years

Now do you want to respond to my post with more wrong baloney, be my guest.
But I'd like to point out here, that you are already ignoring evidence which I posted



in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks.


So it was seamless huh
laughable.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   


in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks.


I'm sorry, but dumping a bunch of crap in between the stones is not refurbishing, it's dumping a bunch of crap in between stones. If the "Entire" Pyramid was "Refurbished" it would be completely smooth on all four/eight sides.

And no offense, none really meant, But I'd put the workmanship and craftsmanship of those 4,600+ year old stone masons who built the pyramid originally against the quality of those workers back in 1999 any day of the week.

edit on 6-2-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Marduk


They are not seamless



4,600+ years worth of Earthquakes, Wind, Rain weathering, floods, not to mention, people monkeying around with the site and you think that they would still be as perfectly in place as they once were when a "Pharaoh" Kafre for example, demanded perfection for his supposed tomb?

The Washington Monument in DC, Has joints that are almost seamless yet after the fairly recent earthquake they had to close it down and refurbish the monument. Nobody has refurbished the Great Pyramid in oh, I dunno, in a couple of thousand years I'd say.



And how did they fix the Washington monument to remove the gaps?? Give you a clue cement how did the Egyptians do it yes you guessed it a cement that bonded to the limestone. In fact its stronger then the limestone itself. So how did they get that perfection you were talking about same way we make a wall level today using spackle and a trowel. In the liquid form you can smooth and remove gaps then wait for it to harden.when don't polish tr outside edge and then you can see the shoddy construction underneath.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join