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.

 

Serapeum of Saqqara. Alternative theory for the site

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Oh yeah, I stopped reading his books after that Antarctic one when he thought the Piri Reis map showed Antarctica. (it was that book 'fingerprints' right?)

Yeah. That was his second fringe history book, his third overall.

You didn't quit too soon.

Harte


I remember thinking what a waste he was. He's a journalist and good writer who could have put out a fairly good alt-history/sci-fi fantasy story using his imagination but no he has to pretend he's relating 'science'. Tsk tsk.

His first book was about world hunger and the politics involved. Ho Hum.

The fringe books have put him at a net worth of over 2 million bucks.

Harte




posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Oh yeah, I stopped reading his books after that Antarctic one when he thought the Piri Reis map showed Antarctica. (it was that book 'fingerprints' right?)

Yeah. That was his second fringe history book, his third overall.

You didn't quit too soon.

Harte


I remember thinking what a waste he was. He's a journalist and good writer who could have put out a fairly good alt-history/sci-fi fantasy story using his imagination but no he has to pretend he's relating 'science'. Tsk tsk.

His first book was about world hunger and the politics involved. Ho Hum.

The fringe books have put him at a net worth of over 2 million bucks.

Harte


Nah never ever saw that in the bargain bins. When I was reading fringe I made it a point to only buy them second hand.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kborissov




posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kborissov


A well done video but hampered and ultimately led astray by belief in non-factual material. Thanks for putting that up thou.

As the fellow says, 'maybe', or perhaps more suiting maybe not.

I am particularly amused by his passing on the belief of the stones being 'pre-dynastic' with a not a bit of evidence to support it.


edit on 7/8/18 by Hanslune because: removed video



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kborissov


A well done video but hampered and ultimately led astray by belief in non-factual material. Thanks for putting that up thou.

As the fellow says, 'maybe', or perhaps more suiting maybe not.

I am particularly amused by his passing on the belief of the stones being 'pre-dynastic' with a not a bit of evidence to support it.

You didn't know?
They obviously built the temple around the existing sarcophagi.

Harte



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Its one of the hallmarks of good fringe to make a new claim 'about biological pressure lights or some such' then throw in another unproven idea as if it is proven or even has any evidence to support it - in this case that the Pre-dynastic folks were doing hard stone work and that some super advanced civilization existed then when the archaeology record shows agricultural cultures just coming into the dawn of civilization.....just for your friend Lieutenant Obvious at another site....lol

By the way there science guy. In the studies with earthquake created light how many tons of rock were they considering to have been needed provide the energy for those lights?



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Its one of the hallmarks of good fringe to make a new claim 'about biological pressure lights or some such' then throw in another unproven idea as if it is proven or even has any evidence to support it - in this case that the Pre-dynastic folks were doing hard stone work and that some super advanced civilization existed then when the archaeology record shows agricultural cultures just coming into the dawn of civilization.....just for your friend Lieutenant Obvious at another site....lol

By the way there science guy. In the studies with earthquake created light how many tons of rock were they considering to have been needed provide the energy for those lights?

I have no idea.
I just know it's an accepted phenomenon.

Harte



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I do appreciate that guy's videos, because even though he has a passion for "fringe" beliefs about certain topics, he does always present them as "maybe" scenarios, even if you can tell that he's bought completely into the theory that he's proposing.


originally posted by: Harte
You didn't know?
They obviously built the temple around the existing sarcophagi.

Harte

Just out of curiosity, if the belief is that they moved the sarcophagi into place from where they were constructed, who's to say that the boxes didn't already exist and they just build a temple for them?

That's a serious question--often time, people say that there's no evidence for something, but that doesn't mean that the lack of evidence confirms the current theory.

I find them fascinating, as I do the Osirion and the Sphinx Temple, along with a few other places in Egypt where the construction methods just don't quite seem to fit perfectly with everything else.

But that's the difficult thing about stones--they're damn near impossible to pinpoint when they were originally carved, so we must base it on circumstantial evidence that may be present instead (which could have happened at any amount of time after the stones were originally carved and shaped).

Don't get me wrong--I'm not buying into the beer-brewed light show theory, but there are still plenty of holes in theories about the origins of SOME of the buildings and objects in Egypt to keep one wondering.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Hanslune

But that's the difficult thing about stones--they're damn near impossible to pinpoint when they were originally carved, so we must base it on circumstantial evidence that may be present instead (which could have happened at any amount of time after the stones were originally carved and shaped).

Don't get me wrong--I'm not buying into the beer-brewed light show theory, but there are still plenty of holes in theories about the origins of SOME of the buildings and objects in Egypt to keep one wondering.


Howdy

Yep stones don't speak something that has annoyed me for many years!

Artistic style points to when they made some have inscription on them (and I have been unable to find translations for them). One can then say they were re purposed but then one runs into a problem. Pre-dynastic and earlier folks didn't make sitems like this nothing remotely resembling such has been found in the thousand of pre-dynastic tombs excavated so far.



Large tombs of pharaohs at Abydos and Naqada, in addition to cemeteries at Saqqara and Helwan near Memphis, reveal structures built largely of wood and mud bricks, with some small use of stone for walls and floors. Stone was used in quantity for the manufacture of ornaments, vessels, and occasionally, for statues. Tamarix - tamarisk, salt cedar was used to build boats such as the Abydos Boats. One of the most important indigenous woodworking techniques was the fixed Mortise and tenon joint. A fixed tenon was made by shaping the end of one timber to fit into a mortise (hole) that is cut into a second timber. A variation of this joint using a free tenon eventually became one of the most important features in Mediterranean and Egyptian shipbuilding. I creates a union between two planks or other components by inserting a separate tenon into a cavity (mortise) of the corresponding size cut into each component."


In the early years they were into wood stone came later. So if a culture or civilization was making large granite containers where is it?

That is a valid question not just skeptical rhetoric we can see the cultures that led up to the AE and they have left a vast archaeological record going back tens of thousands of years - so from an archaeology point of view where is this missing group and how are they hiding from us - while leaving large stone items all over the countryside but no other evidence, no tombs, habitations or work sites or just anything but at the same time the precursors of AE and the AE leaving stuff all over the place.

Real civilizations leave massive amounts of evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

Artistic style points to when they made some have inscription on them (and I have been unable to find translations for them). One can then say they were re purposed but then one runs into a problem. Pre-dynastic and earlier folks didn't make sitems like this nothing remotely resembling such has been found in the thousand of pre-dynastic tombs excavated so far.

While I agree that inscriptions can help date the time that the inscriptions happened, it is illogical to assume that the inscriptions indicate the date of the stone itself, or the construction--rational, maybe, but a logical fallacy nonetheless.


But "nothing" (meaning "very little") has been found after that resembles the construction of the items and structures that I noted, too, unless I'm missing something. And I'm talking relative to the number of constructions that are obvious contemporaries to the styles and inscriptions/reliefs on them.

The lack of style before the date subscribed is just as big a problem as to the lack of similar style after, IMO.


Real civilizations leave massive amounts of evidence.

Only when they are found. Until they are found, we can easily say that there is not evidence...

...until there is. Maybe one day we'll be able to say that we've uncovered all evidence of past "real civilizations," but we're not even close yet.

Maybe one day we'll be able to say that we have our suppositions and assumptions about past civilizations 100% accurate, but we're not even close yet, IMO.

Like I said, there are plenty of holes in current theories on some things that makes it appropriate to keep wondering and researching new theories. The items that I noted fall into that category for me.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

While I agree that inscriptions can help date the time that the inscriptions happened, it is illogical to assume that the inscriptions indicate the date of the stone itself, or the construction--rational, maybe, but a logical fallacy nonetheless.


You can suggest that they were added later but you cannot prove it.



But "nothing" (meaning "very little") has been found after that resembles the construction of the items and structures that I noted, too, unless I'm missing something. And I'm talking relative to the number of constructions that are obvious contemporaries to the styles and inscriptions/reliefs on them.


I don't quite understand what you mean here are you talking about the sarcophagi or the vaults themselves?



Only when they are found. Until they are found, we can easily say that there is not evidence......until there is. Maybe one day we'll be able to say that we've uncovered all evidence of past "real civilizations," but we're not even close yet.


So you are stating that in Egypt a civilization has just not been found? I worked the ME for 2+ decades sherds and other material are everywhere there are millions and millions of pieces of evidence all over Egypt - everywhere - now you are suggesting that a civilization capable of granite stone work would leave no evidence of its existence except some large rocks.

At the same time plentiful evidence of other cultures and civilization in Egypt is everywhere prevalent and pervasive.




Maybe one day we'll be able to say that we have our suppositions and assumptions about past civilizations 100% accurate, but we're not even close yet, IMO.


In Egypt we can say that if such a civilization existed it was very small, very isolated and produced no hard evidence of its existence other that craving rocks in Egypt.....this would make a very unique situation in that evidence exists and is placed in such a way that is readily associated with another civilization/culture by ANOTHER culture/civilization that itself is completely undetectable except for this specific evidence which in style, utility and method of construction is associated with the first easily found civilization. That would be remarkable to say the least. Even Harte would be astonished at that.

That is highly unlikely. Let me ask a question which or how many of the world's 'rock cut items' do you believe were made by this mysterious group?


Like I said, there are plenty of holes in current theories on some things that makes it appropriate to keep wondering and researching new theories. The items that I noted fall into that category for me.


So be it. Belief trumps reality whenever it is applied with aplomb.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

You can suggest that they were added later but you cannot prove it.

Right...and that works both ways, which was my whole point.

I'm not dismissing circumstantial evidence as it exists, but again, circumstantial evidence almost always exists to show that the official theory has holes, too. An open mind is a beautiful thing.



I don't quite understand what you mean here are you talking about the sarcophagi or the vaults themselves?

I'm talking about the things that I mentioned before (the sarcophagi only, the Osirion, the Sphinx Temple).



So you are stating that in Egypt a civilization has just not been found? I worked the ME for 2+ decades sherds and other material are everywhere there are millions and millions of pieces of evidence all over Egypt - everywhere - now you are suggesting that a civilization capable of granite stone work would leave no evidence of its existence except some large rocks.

At the same time plentiful evidence of other cultures and civilization in Egypt is everywhere prevalent and pervasive.

No, I didn't say that. You literally quoted me...you should know that I didn't say that.

What I DID say is that you cannot dismiss unique things as being from a separate and possibly earlier culture (no matter how much earlier) just because not enough evidence has been found yet to alter the accepted theory.

There's not much that I don't entertain enough to at least research it and use my own critical thinking skills to determine if the theory could have legs. I get that you and others don't necessarily do that or see a ton of worth in it, or dismiss other's ideas who may not have been in the ME for 2+ decades working the profession, or however you may approach the topic, but it doesn't change the reality that a absence of evidence at this stage in the game is not evidence of absence.


In Egypt we can say that if such a civilization existed it was very small, very isolated and produced no hard evidence of its existence other that craving rocks in Egypt.....this would make a very unique situation in that evidence exists and is placed in such a way that is readily associated with another civilization/culture by ANOTHER culture/civilization that itself is completely undetectable except for this specific evidence which in style, utility and method of construction is associated with the first easily found civilization. That would be remarkable to say the least. Even Harte would be astonished at that.


What are your thoughts on Gobekli Tepe, for example? Do you think that we have enough information to attribute its supposed stages of building/use to certain cultures without doubt? Does the fact that less that 5% of the site having been excavated give cause to keep an open mind that other evidences may change the "known" information about the site at this point?

Does it bother you that an archaeologist made assumptions about the site in 1963, assuming that the stones were grave markers from the Byzantine era, and it wasn't until 1994 that Klaus Schmidt felt that it was worth reinvestigating? Do we have a large amount of examples of similar sites throughout the area, or if not, does that mean that this wasn't a "real civilization" or culture? Does the fact that burials haven't been found, yet Schmidt believes them to be there as a part of his claimed "cult of the dead" mean that this part of his interpretation of the site should be rejected due to lack of evidence?

What about places like Derinkuyu (also in Turkey), where we don't know (but suspect) when it was originally built? It is a place that seems to have had plenty of habitation within it over the years, but in the span of 40 years in the mid-1900s, the place was basically lost to memory. Now it is "rediscovered" and is a large mystery that has yet to be solved. It even has a 5-mile tunnel connecting it to another underground "city" in Turkey (Kaymakli) which has a story that mirrors Derinkuyu's.

Now, I don't know how you feel about Sarah Parcak and her type of archaeology, but she is quoted as saying, "Less than 1 percent of ancient Egypt has been discovered and excavated."

Now, you'll have to excuse me when I read things like this from archaeologists, even if she's off by 10%, and think, "Hmmm, if 90+% of Egypt remains to be discovered and excavated, maybe the puzzle forms a bigger picture than is currently accepted."

This is my point, and why I stated exactly what I said--if you choose to read into it more than I said, that's your right, I suppose.


That is highly unlikely. Let me ask a question which or how many of the world's 'rock cut items' do you believe were made by this mysterious group?

It's not about believing one thing or another, it's about keeping an open mind to the possibility. I have never once stated absolutely, nor would I ever, that Egyptologists are wrong. I will say, though, that I suspect that they don't have the complete picture yet, and that many are too rigid to accept other possibilities.


So be it. Belief trumps reality whenever it is applied with aplomb.

So, I'll flip the script and do what you did to me: Are you saying that it's not healthy to have skeptical mind when it comes to scientific pursuits? Are you saying that we already have everything figured out perfectly and that there's no room for, as I put it, continued "wondering and researching new theories" when someone feels like there are missing pieces to the puzzle?

So be it, but that would be absurd to claim, if you in fact are doing so.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

I'm talking about the things that I mentioned before (the sarcophagi only, the Osirion, the Sphinx Temple).

What do you find so mysterious about the other two?
Should that be a subject of another thread?

Harte



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkeyWhat about places like Derinkuyu (also in Turkey), where we don't know (but suspect) when it was originally built? It is a place that seems to have had plenty of habitation within it over the years, but in the span of 40 years in the mid-1900s, the place was basically lost to memory. Now it is "rediscovered" and is a large mystery that has yet to be solved. It even has a 5-mile tunnel connecting it to another underground "city" in Turkey (Kaymakli) which has a story that mirrors Derinkuyu's.

Can you provide any reliable citation for this?
I've never been able to find one.

Harte



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Right...and that works both ways, which was my whole point.


No I take your point to be 'we have no real evidence therefore we have no reason to not believe in x AND that all the people who study this are in some way in error or incompetent.

My position is the evidence we have now show the AE did it and there was no earlier civilization. Now does that eliminate the possibility of said earlier civilization? Nope because in science everything is a theory and subject to being replaced or modified based on new evidence or new ways to evaluate existing evidence. The major of experts in the various fields know what they are doing.


Osirion, the Sphinx Temple


As Harte noted perhaps another thread


What I DID say is that you cannot dismiss unique things as being from a separate and possibly earlier culture (no matter how much earlier) just because not enough evidence has been found yet to alter the accepted theory.


Actually we can that beast call consensus has done just that - now again if new evidence is found or a way to re-interpret comes about this may change.


There's not much that I don't entertain enough to at least research it and use my own critical thinking skills to determine if the theory could have legs. I get that you and others don't necessarily do that or see a ton of worth in it, or dismiss other's ideas who may not have been in the ME for 2+ decades working the profession, or however you may approach the topic, but it doesn't change the reality that a absence of evidence at this stage in the game is not evidence of absence


Absence of evidence means you don't have anything to base a theory on but you can speculate all ya want.

I have been looking for an earlier civilization since the mid 1960's - a partial realization of that came with Catalhuyuck and GT. However evidence for a post ice age civilization we don't know about - zip. I also hold that a culture might have arisen after the previous ice age cycle 130-80,000 years ago but again zip on evidence.


What are your thoughts on Gobekli Tepe, for example? Do you think that we have enough information to attribute its supposed stages of building/use to certain cultures without doubt? Does the fact that less that 5% of the site having been excavated give cause to keep an open mind that other evidences may change the "known" information about the site at this point?


Nope we haven't found or more exactly cannot associate x culture with that site - yes we know three things; someone somebody made it, two we may never find sufficient evidence to associate it with x culture, three we might be able to. Until that evidence is found it remains unknown - however we have found enough evidence so far to dismiss - based on the current evidence - the idea that some advanced civilization made it - that might change but at present that is the current theory. It was created by an unknown culture.


Does it bother you that an archaeologist made assumptions about the site in 1963, assuming that the stones were grave markers from the Byzantine era, and it wasn't until 1994 that Klaus Schmidt felt that it was worth reinvestigating? Do we have a large amount of examples of similar sites throughout the area, or if not, does that mean that this wasn't a "real civilization" or culture? Does the fact that burials haven't been found, yet Schmidt believes them to be there as a part of his claimed "cult of the dead" mean that this part of his interpretation of the site should be rejected due to lack of evidence?


Actually drove by that site in 1983 - errors will always happen which is why you always re look the data. I use to do survey's in Cyprus and on a number of occasions found sites that had been previously missed or labelled sites that were nothing more than natural rock formations. You will have to wait until the site if complete evaluated at the end the consensus may change - that is normal. What would not be normal would have been the late Schmidt stating that GT is the mother culture of all cultures or some other theory without evidence.


What about places like Derinkuyu (also in Turkey), where we don't know (but suspect) when it was originally built? It is a place that seems to have had plenty of habitation within it over the years, but in the span of 40 years in the mid-1900s, the place was basically lost to memory. Now it is "rediscovered" and is a large mystery that has yet to be solved. It even has a 5-mile tunnel connecting it to another underground "city" in Turkey (Kaymakli) which has a story that mirrors Derinkuyu's.


An interesting site but I don't know enough about it to comment.


Now, I don't know how you feel about Sarah Parcak and her type of archaeology, but she is quoted as saying, "Less than 1 percent of ancient Egypt has been discovered and excavated."


If based on land size she is optimistic full blown excavation are few and far in between which is why they use sampling techniques which have done about 15% percent. Now is it your idea that in that 85% the other civilization is hiding? Highly unlikely, civilization locate themselves next to water and resources of stone and other items.

Let me restate this - civilizations leave MASSIVE archaeological footprints - they aren't hard to find. You could magically delete all known AE artifacts, everything they created or modified and guess what in a few minutes with sight of the Nile start finding more stuff from that civilization you could do so anywhere in Nile Valley.

No evidence of this other civilization have been found yet millions again MILLIONS of items clearly identifying the AE and earlier sites have been located - items for the other civilization not one single item......


I have never once stated absolutely, nor would I ever, that Egyptologists are wrong.... and that many are too rigid to accept other possibilities.


Being 'too rigid to accept other possibilities is being wrong - I can assure you that doing that isn't part of your initial Archaeology 101 class and that you are taught ways to avoid making that mistake - by publishing your data so everyone can see it.


So, I'll flip the script and do what you did to me: Are you saying that it's not healthy to have skeptical mind when it comes to scientific pursuits? Are you saying that we already have everything figured out perfectly and that there's no room for, as I put it, continued "wondering and researching new theories" when someone feels like there are missing pieces to the puzzle?


Its better to be skeptical and build your present theory on what is known not on what you think might be missing. At the present time with the evidence we have the AE built and utilized the site in consideration in this thread.

You can speculate otherwise and blame Egyptologist for not looking at other possibilities but the facts remains and at this time they point to the AE and not some unknown civilization - that might change and guess what Egyptology will be the folks who find that and tell you about it.

Good talking to you.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Probably, if I ever find time to put a good one together.

a reply to: Harte

I'll have to look deeper, as it's something that I recall reading, but from where, I do not know (although I don't recall it being a fringy site). Right now, though, I don't have a link for you.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: SlapMonkeyWhat about places like Derinkuyu (also in Turkey), where we don't know (but suspect) when it was originally built? It is a place that seems to have had plenty of habitation within it over the years, but in the span of 40 years in the mid-1900s, the place was basically lost to memory. Now it is "rediscovered" and is a large mystery that has yet to be solved. It even has a 5-mile tunnel connecting it to another underground "city" in Turkey (Kaymakli) which has a story that mirrors Derinkuyu's.

Can you provide any reliable citation for this?
I've never been able to find one.

Harte


I've only heard of that also. I visited one of the underground cities in 1990's quite impressive I forget which one near Goreme but as a tourist.



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Harte

Probably, if I ever find time to put a good one together.

a reply to: Harte

I'll have to look deeper, as it's something that I recall reading, but from where, I do not know (although I don't recall it being a fringy site). Right now, though, I don't have a link for you.


I've found lots of sites that state it. Even wikipedia. But no citations (unusual for wiki.) Not even the name of any researcher that said it.
I've read on other sites that it is a commonly held "belief" and a rumor.

Harte



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

There's not much that I don't entertain enough to at least research it and use my own critical thinking skills to determine if the theory could have legs. I get that you and others don't necessarily do that or see a ton of worth in it, or dismiss other's ideas who may not have been in the ME for 2+ decades working the profession, or however you may approach the topic, but it doesn't change the reality that a absence of evidence at this stage in the game is not evidence of absence.

Can there be such a thing as evidence of absence then?
Read my signature for the answer.

Harte



posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

There's not much that I don't entertain enough to at least research it and use my own critical thinking skills to determine if the theory could have legs. I get that you and others don't necessarily do that or see a ton of worth in it, or dismiss other's ideas who may not have been in the ME for 2+ decades working the profession, or however you may approach the topic, but it doesn't change the reality that a absence of evidence at this stage in the game is not evidence of absence.

Can there be such a thing as evidence of absence then?
Read my signature for the answer.


Harte


The tyranny of possibility
edit on 8/8/18 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join