Ancient Civilizations and Current Concieved Notions of those Civilizations

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: Byrd
But as it has been noted, there are many examples of curious materials that go much further than what I c remarked upon in the opening example, which some, such as Marduk has addressed with excellent clarification, along with others.

If you browse the pinned topics at the top of this forum, you can see things like "has this been answered before" and resource links. I think that you might find that almost all the material you've been shown is simply new to you.

P.S. Harte? Really? Well he's been fortunate, if that's the case.

Not so much fortune (there's precious little of that) but very hard work and a lot of "proving himself" in the field and elsewhere -- showing he can do the physical work, showing he can identify things, showing he understands the culture, showing that he can sit in the hot sun for hours and work... and showing that he can haul LOTS of dirt in wheelbarrows and sift it, too! Lots and lots of dirt.

originally posted by: Shane
And then there's this, in Egypt.

I have never seen anything that answers this, directly, apposed to suggestive maybes.

Ah. That was all over the Internet about... 20 years ago.

So - perhaps you may remember that I said it was important to see the WHOLE object in its context? Here it is, in context:


It's on a lintel in a doorway (as you can see) and there's a lot of text around it. There should be a matching mirror image text to the right of it (because that's how they liked to present things... and ancient Egyptian was read both right to left and left to right.)

So that's writing (like we have in, say, the Lincoln Memorial here in the US). Temples were basically a place where the kings celebrated significant deities (not going into detail here but I can if you like.) What's written on the temple wall is honorific praise to the deities AND a lot of bragging (yeah, propaganda) that the king who built or repaired the temple is doing.

In this photograph, you can see a the painted bottom of the lintel... those hieroglyphs (which are read right to left) say "nswt bty" (king of upper and lower Egypt) "neb tawy" (Lord of the Two Lands (i.e. Upper and Lower Egypt)), "Woser-maat-re-mery-amun" (Ramses II') and then "di ankh" (given life).

Now look at the square top of the column to the right of that painted inscription. It also reads right to left and says "nefer netjer" (great god) "Woser-maatere-mery-amun" (Ramses II) and the "di" part of "di ankh" (given life.) (the decoration around the top of the column is the cobra goddess Wadjet, repeated a dozen times)

If you look just above it, you will see another set of hieroglyphs and THESE are running left to right. The first two are damaged, but after that we have a cobra and a vulture on baskets - "nebty" (which means Upper and Lower Egypt for reasons that I won't go into at the moment) ...and then the picture is cut off.

So we have a title that's reflected on both sides of the column. (the "basket" is the bottom half of a circle that gods sit on.)

Let me repeat the same picture again and let's look at "helicopter."


It's going to be the inverse of the title that went left to right on the right hand side of the picture.

Now look at the parts they crop out of the "helicopter" picture. Focus on the area just to the left of the break. Do you see the "nebty" (cobra on basket and vulture on basket) sign there, half carved over? What we have is the start of a title with a "Two Ladies" formula. Look at the left end - see his name in the cartouche? (Woser-maat-re-mery-amun)

The "helicopter" part, now stripped of the unfortunate enhancing, is very clearly part of a title. It reads "who defends the land from the nine foreign nations (enemies)" ... and you can read more detail over at the Catchpenny site

Finally, think about this in context.
Suppose this was the Lincoln Memorial en.wikipedia.org...
The Temple of Seti, like the Lincoln memorial, has significant texts in it. Both monuments contain the names of men.
And let's say that Lincoln had seen or been visited by a helicopter and... the space shuttle.

Would they show it by going into the Gettysburg Address and changing the sentence "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought" to "Four (outline space shuttle) (outline helicopter) ... ago, our fathers brought"?

No. It would look silly and everyone, from the contractor to the visitors, would have complained and told the sculptor to fix it or be fined for damages and then we'll get someone to fix it. If they wanted to commemorate Lincoln seeing a UFO, they would have carved/drawn a picture of it and then placed text next to it.

Same with that temple doorway in Egypt. If Seti had seen a UFO or helicopter, it would be commemorated by a panel and some sort of text either talking about his powerful new allies or how he went out with his chariot and armed with the power of the gods (Set, in the case of Seti) he drove away this terror from the land and how it fled from him. It might also be recounted as a prophetic dream (again with an illustration) or interpreted as a miracle-sign (again with an illustration.) There's a number of cases where prophecies are recorded on the walls of temples and any endless number of ones where Pharaoh (all of them) chase off some threat to the land.

However, if you don't know much about hieroglyphs or Egypt or temples and they cheat and only show you a tiny bit of the whole decoration and inscription, then you might be persuaded that it's a "helicopter."

Yeah I'm not convinced Byrd, sometimes you can be too technical


Shane, as you've been told, these are like, the junior level bs alien mysteries, that are only mysteries to people who haven't studied the cultures they come from, which is what the fringe relies on, the ignorance of its readers. I will be back at work in a few hours so I'll try to show you why these are nonsense in layman's terms then.
With big pictures

originally posted by: Marduk

take a good long look at it, it might seem familiar to you

There are distinct differences Marduk.

Pakal is encased, per se, by arms both above and below his body. They appear to be riveted
The Tree presented is lacking any of these features

The base, in your Panel Picture, seems to have 5 wheels under the "tree" and showing ground
While the base on the Lid, appears to be aflamed, with billowing smoke at the rear of the machine

The Top of the Panel Head seems depicted with ceremonial attachments
when the Top of the Machine seems to have a Helmeted head, minus the flourish

On the lid, I do not see the Outstreched heads being "held" by the limbs of the "tree" as on your panel,
but see a more defined and uniformed pattern that appears as fabricated limbs with supportive reinforcement along those "limbs"

And then there is Pakal, himself. You do not see it appears as if Pakal is "Operating Equipment". I don't know how else to describe this, but i looks like he is functionally operating something from a seat position.

I do see some similarities.

Such as the Figure atop both depictions. Would that be Quetzalcoatl?

I also see the "item" currently up the nose of Pakal in the Lid, shown in your Picture presented on those outstreched Limbs holding the Severed Heads aloft.

Thanks for your view and assistance Marduk.

Ciao

Shane

P.S. After reading the "Sitchen" ramblings, I was convinced of two things. He was presenting Lies, that simply veiled what little truth the Anunnaki there was in the Sumerian Accounts, and people would eat that crap up, hook, line and sinker.

originally posted by: Shane
And then there this, in the new world

Did you notice that they didn't dare show the whole picture and that it was reeeeeeeeally carefully cropped so you don't see all of the earth monster?

The reason is, if you had looked at the temples and so forth around there, you would have immediately recognized a lot of the elements there, both in and on the world tree.

They also don't show you what's in and around that sarcophagus (the rest of it and the tomb itself.)

And despite what is said, it is clear, what is shown

These sorts of items, seem out of place for those which suggest our simple ancestors accomplished this alone.

Anything seems really out of place if you are shown only a tiny part of it.

Like this artifact (very few can identify this one -- see if your family can identify these) :

What if I told you that it was an algae that's at a research station that extracts oxygen from water?


Or this one:

What if I told you that this was the eggs of genetically modified salmon, ready to be dumped into a brood tank?


In fact, those "identifications" I just gave you were total lies. The answer is that this is cropped macro photography of a feather and a starfish.

Beware of accepting interpretations of artifacts based on seeing only part of them and not seeing their surroundings.

originally posted by: Shane

There are distinct differences Marduk.

Of course there are, these artistic renderings were drawn by different artists at different times, what I'd hope you'd do, is google "Mayan world tree" yourself and then you'd see loads of different examples all kind of similar, but slightly different.
What you seem to be expecting, is exact reproduction from different artists across hundreds of years of time.

Do you think you are being a little bit unrealistic in expecting to see exact replicas, remember, nothing was mass produced in those days

It is a tree, when you look at it expecting to see Aliens, you have already biased your imagination...
There are plenty of different examples here
www.google.co.uk... take a look

edit on 7-2-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

Ok then, The Abydos helicopter.

The first thing you need to understand is "what is a titulary"
"A titulary" can be basically translated into English as "a title"
So its not the name of someone, but more like his epithet, such as "King of the upper and lower" or "king of the four quarters"

Titularies can be found all over Egypt. Its a kings ego, to want not just his name, but also his title stamped on anything he owns. So when Seti the first built the Abydos temple, he stamped his titulary on the wall.
it looks like this


Now when Ramses took over as King, he also took over as temple owner, so he wanted to stamp his titulary on the wall
it looks like this

So he had his scribes carve his name over the top, Ramses in case you didn't know had a famously large ego

So today the Titulary looks like this


Which is admittedly a total mess. But you need to understand, that one thing you would never see in a titulary, is abstract images, all the signs there are recognised hieroglyphs, but as you aren't very aware of those signs, it'd be pretty pointless trying to teach you them to get you over this
But its a fact, as Byrd mentioned earlier, that if there was a helicopter and a tank and a submarine flying around Ancient Egypt, the last place on Earth any ethnic Egyptian would detail them, would be inside a well known kings name.

In the same way that you wouldn't expect to see "HRH Queen Helicopter tank submarine Elizabeth" on any official notice in the UK.

Now imagine we are three thousand years in the future and I am showing you a detail on the Washington monument which states "Abaraham Spaceship, interstellar craft lasers Lincoln", you would know better, that the words which don't belong there clearly stand out as erroneous. Well that is the same position that Egyptologists are in today with fringe claims that its a helicopter at Abydos. Now it doesn't matter how many times the Egyptologists try to explain hieroglyph recarving to the fringe believers, because they have a belief, without credible evidence, which is better sounding than the truth

Shane,

Your photo:


Part of Seti 1's Nebty name:


Need I say more?

Harte

originally posted by: Byrd

That is a very fine Image Byrd. Better than most I have seen over time. Thanks

What if I told you that it was an algae that's at a research station that extracts oxygen from water?

I would say your a Nutter, lol

What if I told you that this was the eggs of genetically modified salmon, ready to be dumped into a brood tank?

I would have echoed the above, but suggested something more Coral. The Starfish was not my first impression.

I hope the topic isn't getting lost though. I know your professional opinions and wish more people could utilize such efforts in presenting material to support their views. I hope we all can learn from your example as well as from the materials offered.

And that was excellent news about your work and studies. I take it, the learned student seeking knowledge was somehow addictive in your case. Kudos and much success in those endeavors.

Ciao

Shane

originally posted by: Marduk

It is a tree, when you look at it expecting to see Aliens, you have already biased your imagination...

There are plenty of different examples here

I openly apologize Marduk. I must have suggested something in error here. I wasn't suggesting in any way, Pakal was an Alien. I was openly expressing a curiosity, where as when looking at the Lid it appears that Pakal is within a device and manipulating the "vessel" taking him to his Celestial Abode in the Heavens. A depiction of what they had "MAYBE" been accustomed to have seen or was part of their traditional lore and legends.

And WOW, your link provided details out the Ying Yang.

I reviewed eight or nine sites and volumes of details about the Tree of Life are evident. And the aspect that became clear, was this was centric to the realm of the gods. Here, I am questioning whether there is any possibility that Alien entities had assisted in the construction of some of the megalithic and beautiful structures developed in an age we general ascribe to have been somewhat primitive, and the source of the concept is not only gods, which as clarified in the beginning as to what is covered by this term Alien, but it is also specific to those deities specific to the Middle East.

Now, we are in the Quetzalcoatl - Jesus topic, indicating cultural interaction between the Old World and the New World some 3000 BCE.

But I was surprised about Inanna and her antiquity, when compared to many such as Enki, and Anu. I was never really aware of her specific association to the Mother Goddess nor the Serpent.

Thanks

Shane

a reply to: Marduk
My post was better.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Marduk
My post was better.

Harte

No, that's just your ego

originally posted by: Shane
Now, we are in the Quetzalcoatl - Jesus topic, indicating cultural interaction between the Old World and the New World some 3000 BCE.

Except...there wasn't.

Okay... think about this scenario. You're outside your house, mowing your lawn, and a group of 30 goofy looking humans (that's all the boat held back then... and probably less) show up. They wave and start blabbering in a language that you don't understand. They gesture, but you don't know what those gestures mean. They offer you something that you've never seen before and you don't know if you are to eat it or smoke it or give it back.

When they go home after six months, what's the odds that these people who showed up on your lawn will give and take back your religious symbols as theirs?

Or if you want to be REAL specific to the modern world: What's the odds that the Syrian refugees coming to Canada will persuade all the churches to adopt the Moon as the symbol of the Christian god? What's the odds that the Syrians (when they go home) will announce that the cross is a symbol of the Muslim religion?

People don't just adopt and share symbols like some sort of flu or other infectious disease. While individuals are open to adding new symbols to their lives, governments and religions aren't UNLESS they're using it as conquerors (forcing everyone to become Christian, etc.)

And in this case, if the Egyptians had been conquered, they would be dead. But I don't see 30 Egyptians conquering all of South America and MesoAmerica. Nor do I see how 30 Egyptians sent several times a year for hundreds of years could have that much impact.

And finally, if the trip were real, why didn't the Egyptians document it? They documented voyages to Punt and many other places.

a reply to: Byrd

It's not exactly what I was implying here, but understand how that looked in retrospect.

Look, here, we are discussing specifically, the Tree of Life. Marduk did offer a link depicting various artistic impressions of that Tree, since it is the position that the lid depicting King Pakal in a craft/vessel is really a Tree of Life impressionistic relief.

Not a exactly what I see with any of the material presented, BUT, I don't fear books and research either.

With that said, I looked at the evidence offered on the Tree of Life, and reviewed several of the associated materials (8 or 9 links) and each flowed back into the Cradle of Civilization and Pre-Sumerian practises and beliefs, with a strong affiliation with Ancient Gaia/Mother Earth worship, which surprised me.

After all, the Tree of Life is centric to my faith and the premise of Original Sin, seeing that it is an Eden/Edin habitant.

Live and learn.

Anyways the material presented is riff with gods and deities. Enki, Anu, Inanna and the Pantheon of the Anunnaki.

This is the problem here. That's what we are discussing. That's the implication of this post. Did Alien interaction with Mankind occur, and could that assistance have included construction and/or assistance of some of the most impressive works of stone masonry on this planet.

Now I get your, and Marduk's position, and see others express similar views that no, man alone did build all of these structures, but the source materials offered is often embracing views contrary to that position.

It's just my observation.

As for the remark about interaction between the Old and New World, which would be dating to about 3000 BCE due to the Tree of Life associations within Central America, that must be a consideration. After all, gods/dieties/aliens have no part in our past, correct?

Ciao

Shane

P.S. Unlike our friend, I have to go to work, but I don't have the luxury of posting all day, which to some here, may seem beneficial.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Marduk
My post was better.

Harte

No, that's just your ego

My ego is better.

Harte

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: Byrd
Look, here, we are discussing specifically, the Tree of Life. Marduk did offer a link depicting various artistic impressions of that Tree, since it is the position that the lid depicting King Pakal in a craft/vessel is really a Tree of Life impressionistic relief.

Their concept of a tree of life is probably not the same as your concept.

With that said, I looked at the evidence offered on the Tree of Life, and reviewed several of the associated materials (8 or 9 links) and each flowed back into the Cradle of Civilization and Pre-Sumerian practises and beliefs, with a strong affiliation with Ancient Gaia/Mother Earth worship, which surprised me.

In fact, I'm pretty sure of it... and pretty sure the links you found are to very old and outdated material.

Now I get your, and Marduk's position, and see others express similar views that no, man alone did build all of these structures, but the source materials offered is often embracing views contrary to that position.

And we'll be glad to discuss it. As you may be starting to suspect, the origins of some of the things you've seen were not by people who knew those cultures.

As for the remark about interaction between the Old and New World, which would be dating to about 3000 BCE

Nobody had ocean navigating or ocean worthy boats back then. There's all sorts of archaeological records about these boats - they lack the sails you need (moveable) among other things. I'll have to research more, because boats are NOT my forte!

due to the Tree of Life associations within Central America

The European-centric "Tree of Life" actually ... arises at many different times and locations and each version is unique in some way: en.wikipedia.org... The Biblical version is much newer than 3000 BC: en.wikipedia.org...(biblical)

P.S. Unlike our friend, I have to go to work, but I don't have the luxury of posting all day, which to some here, may seem beneficial.

I done paid my dues. I'm retired except for a small part-time teaching job.

OH! There's a pretty good paper on the Assyrian Tree of Life right here - the body of the work is very readable, but the footnotes (amusingly) will kill ya with the tiny type and lots and lots of discussion!

a reply to: Marduk

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...

Hmm, firstly I wasn't attacking anyone, I was merely pointing out that it is a marvel how the ancients, with such supposedly primitive tools, created what they did.
I checked out the link you posted and while I've not seen that particular study before, it still (excuse the pun) doesn't quite cut it.
Speaking from an engineers POV the copper tube would wear out before the granite did, as he points out in the video, granite has a hardness of about 7 on the Mohs scale, the same as Steel. Perhaps that is why he points out you would need a nice long copper pipe? A very long one, or better yet a whole series of them in my estimation, oh and a hell of a lot of time too...yes it would cut the granite, but it would only be "scratching the surface" the copper will wear out quicker than the granite will. Notice how they didn't show you the results of their short efforts?
Also it doesn't explain how they cut the perfectly flat and square edges into such stones, this is far more difficult than most would imagine, and with nothing but hand tools and primitive ones at that?
I think the video assumes that they cut out most of the blocks using this drilling technique? But how did they then chisel away (as was done in the building of the Gothic cathedrals for example) the remaining material to get those nice defined edges? Because, from an Engineers perspective, it is difficult and laborious with our best know how and machines of today, and much more so with the techniques used by the Gothic masons.
Let alone with copper pipes, some sand and a primitive Lathe!

P.s By claiming I'm being a cultural racist is going beyond the pail! I admire deeply who ever built those ancient relics that we try to study and wonder at in this day and age.

PP.s Also I don't claim to know anything to an expert level, and if you do you should stay within it.
Nice picture you posted there of what looks to be the great pyramid, despite the current and sorry state its in, the weathering, quarrying, earthquakes and vandalism it has survived. It still details wonderfully the perfect scale and geometry that was designed into the building, you have to give credit where its due, who ever built that was as skilled in masonry as we've ever been...
That's all for now

a reply to: surfer_soul
The quartz in granite ranks fairly high on Moh's scale.

But the other components, the stuff between the crystals and contaminating the crystals, does not.

Granite is given an overall 7 on Moh's scale because of the quartz crystals (quarts is also a 7.)
Moh's scale is for minerals. Granite is a mixture of different minerals, as the most casual glance at any piece of granite shows.

You might also note that you have already been told that the copper itself does not cut the granite.

It's the abrasive the copper is moving that does the cutting.

Also, this idea of copper being removed faster than stone has been studied. By the guy (Stocks) that we're talking about.

His basic method removes granite at about twice the rate of tool wear, and he just made the method up.

Imagine what people that were sawing stone by hand for centuries were able to come up with.

Stocks doesn't even use a jig.

Harte

originally posted by: surfer_soul
P.s By claiming I'm being a cultural racist is going beyond the pail! I admire deeply who ever built those ancient relics that we try to study and wonder at in this day and age.

You should be admiring the Ancient Egyptians, its racist for you to say they weren't capable, you do it all the time.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

you have to give credit where its due, who ever built that was as skilled in masonry as we've ever been...
That's all for now

The Egyptians were the builders, there you go again...