Hidden Records

reply to post by Britman


i just added this book to my "to get" list last week, and the site seems to have lots of info on it, too!

is there a big difference from the book and the site? or are they the same, except the book just has more information and references?

i'm curious, because i don't want to buy the book if i can get all the info from the site...

thanks for clarifying!

Originally posted by Lunica
These are pritty credible, hard facts, as simple as that.

Dont forget these sites where created a long time ago... Seems our history is a little different then we are learned in schools.

Firstly, you should add a link to his site for referencing his images. Herschell is quite strict about his copyright.

Cydonia and the Face on Mars don't exist so all the geometry in the world and arrows pointing at it won't make it so. If he is so definitively mistaken about the Mars images; can you trust his interpretation of anything else? A large part of his 'star map' theory is absent without Cydonia.

You are then left (if you choose to cling to the ideas) with Tikal, Stonehenge and the Pyramids. In terms of Orion's Belt and the pyramids, they may share a similar pattern,, but aren't aligned at all. The image comparisons of structures and stars are very inaccurate. If the 'ancients' were trying to embed a 'star map' it would indicate some advanced geometrical and astronomical knowledge. Why then would they create such poor translations in their earthly monuments?

Only Herschel seems to believe that Stonehenge represents the Pleidies. Evidence points to it being focused on the winter solstice sun. No evidence indicates constellations. Furthermore, we don't know what 'constellations' were recognized by the early Britons. We know little about the activities of the builders of Stonehenge. What we do know is informed by archaeological evidence and inferences based on activities at other megalithic sites. The absence of information doesn't then mean that 'ancients' were creating star maps and human gene codes into monuments.

I could throw in phrases like 'peer review', 'haplogroup differences', 'archaeological evidence', 'astronomical flaws' but it won't matter to Herschel. He puts his ideas through the eye of a needle and threads it through Holy grails, Jesus, ancient cultures, misidentified Martian geology and cherry picks ancient texts. He presents a tapestry that is superficially fascinating and plausible to a point. Unfortunately, each thread of his evidence unravels quickly if you do a little investigation.

I'm not trying to be hostile or dismissive of your beliefs. I used to be fascinated by the same things and believed the evidence. A science and humanities degree dispelled the remnants of those beliefs through critical reading. Pick a point of his evidence and look for an alternative explanation...you might be surprised by what you find

Howdy Kandisky

He presents a tapestry that is superficially fascinating and plausible to a point. Unfortunately, each thread of his evidence unravels quickly if you do a little investigation.

And let me add, these types of ideas sound great to someone who has little or no knowledge of actual cultures. That is not to belittle anyone but to point out that o'Wayne can prove about anything he wants to by cherry picking data and hoping the person has no knowledge of the underlying culture.

Lunica you bypast my comments and questions - what consitutes "long ago"?

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Britman
He's decipherd a lot of the egyptian hyroglyphs and glyphs from other ancient civilizations

This ought to make you suspicious right there. There's a lot of hieroglyphics online (pictures of temples and things like this) and glyphs as well. Thanks to the Rosetta Stone, we do know how to read hieroglyphics. You should take the book and look for those signs in other places and see if his interpretation then makes sense. I'm betting that it doesn't.

Most of the time, people ignore what we already know and start to make up new things.

I can agree, but if all we do is "interpret" things how would we know if the widely accepted interpretation is the correct one and can be applied to everything?

Just because someone said so? Because it makes sense? A Rosetta stone?

Glyphs can be just like alchemical images, they mean one thing for the dummies and a completely different thing for those who really know their true meanings and context, which nowadays would be no one. I think we will never know anything for sure, most people just like to think that they do so that the digestive period is shorter, easier to deal with and allows that felling that we're moving forward.

Even today if I draw something on a piece of paper and send it to you, you'll probably have a completely different interpretation than mine. Which one would be the correct one?

Yours or mine who draw the picture?

Maybe both since my context isn't yours.

So I would say it's a bit subjective and completely context (reality, environment) dependent. At least more than most people like to accept.

Besides subliminal language will always be a filter which divides the dumb from the rest. And since they knew that by that time pretty well I don't find a single bit hard that they've used it widely by then.

If all of this boils down to interpretation then all of this is just like reading the old testament.

By the letter it's a pretty story about a GOD, a boy, a girl that came from one of his hips, and a serpent under a tree. But is that what the writers did really meant to pass on? What that does it really mean?

It's up for interpretation and it will change according to each individual and context it's applied. Some think it's aliens, others that is true and some think it's just plain Sci-Fi. The only thing we know is that no one knows for sure it's true meaning.







[edit on 1-4-2009 by thomas_]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Firstly, you should add a link to his site for referencing his images. Herschell is quite strict about his copyright.

His site is revered to in the image itself and by the topic title.

Cydonia and the Face on Mars don't exist so all the geometry in the world and arrows pointing at it won't make it so. If he is so definitively mistaken about the Mars images; can you trust his interpretation of anything else? A large part of his 'star map' theory is absent without Cydonia.

Cydonia and the face do exist. So he is very credible in his interpretations. The cydonia part is not missing.

You are then left (if you choose to cling to the ideas) with Tikal, Stonehenge and the Pyramids. In terms of Orion's Belt and the pyramids, they may share a similar pattern,, but aren't aligned at all. The image comparisons of structures and stars are very inaccurate. If the 'ancients' were trying to embed a 'star map' it would indicate some advanced geometrical and astronomical knowledge. Why then would they create such poor translations in their earthly monuments?

I think they are aligned very accurate. Some error is there, but not enough to say the allignment isnt present. It would be a To Great coincidence if this was not made with a purpose.

Only Herschel seems to believe that Stonehenge represents the Pleidies. Evidence points to it being focused on the winter solstice sun. No evidence indicates constellations. Furthermore, we don't know what 'constellations' were recognized by the early Britons. We know little about the activities of the builders of Stonehenge. What we do know is informed by archaeological evidence and inferences based on activities at other megalithic sites. The absence of information doesn't then mean that 'ancients' were creating star maps and human gene codes into monuments.

The absence of information does mean we dont know anything for sure. I like to see investigations to connect the alligments and allready known archaeological evidence. The complete picture is not yet written down. btw: I dont think only Herchel believes it. Yes, he found it. A lot of people also believe it.

I could throw in phrases like 'peer review', 'haplogroup differences', 'archaeological evidence', 'astronomical flaws' but it won't matter to Herschel. He puts his ideas through the eye of a needle and threads it through Holy grails, Jesus, ancient cultures, misidentified Martian geology and cherry picks ancient texts. He presents a tapestry that is superficially fascinating and plausible to a point. Unfortunately, each thread of his evidence unravels quickly if you do a little investigation.

I am the first to agree Herchel does not present the complete picture. I also think some interpretations will not be mine (I have to read the book first). I do not agree in your unravel oppinion. He is more plausible then debunked. He gives more leads to knew knowledge of the past then the opposite.

I'm not trying to be hostile or dismissive of your beliefs. I used to be fascinated by the same things and believed the evidence. A science and humanities degree dispelled the remnants of those beliefs through critical reading. Pick a point of his evidence and look for an alternative explanation...you might be surprised by what you find

I dont think your are hostile or anything else. You have another oppinion then me. I always look for further evidence and other explanations, I connect different research by other people to get my personal big picture. The difference is made by what research you take as truth.

Greetings lunica

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by merka

 

Yep they could see the stars and as far as we know for the AE and the Mesoamericans they arranged them into constellations that have nothing to do with the ones the modern world adapted from prevous creators (Bablyonians, Greeks etc)

A quick look shows that Tikal (Tikal the city of stone we see now was built between during the classical period 200-800 AD) and Angkor Wat (AW was built in the 12th century so I don't get the ancient connection!)

So Lunica define "long ago". The Pyramids at Giza date to around 4,500 years ago while AW is 800 years ago, and Tikal at best maybe 1,800 years.

Why is the AW map cut so you don't see the ruins to the north? I've been to AW there are ruins EVERYWHERE, why pick and choose? Ah to support by cherry picking data a previously determined outcome?

The same comments can be made for Tikal.

Giza tons of ruins are left off, why is that?

long time ago: from know to 10.000 dc. On mars? older...

Not every ruin can be put into the story "yet" or has another purpose or ... I dont know, he doenst seem to know. All I know is the ones he picked, and not that randomly as you presume, make a hell of nice starmap!

I think the pyramids are older and have another purpose then common egyptiology state. But thats a totally different discussion I am not going to discuss. Even if the pyramids are 500 years old. Question stays: Why the connection with the stars, why the effort.

Greetings Lunica

reply to post by thomas_
Hiya Thomas, you raise some intelligent points, but seem to underestimate the importance of the Rosetta Stone. It provided the means of understanding hieroglyphics through the Greek version of the decree. It wasn't equivalent to a Greek/Egyptian dictionary. It was more like a partially completed crossword puzzle that enabled archaeologists to 'fill in the blanks' of other hieroglyphs.

A 'dictionary' of the meanings each symbol represented was then developed. If a stele like the Palermo Stone was discovered in Saqarra and its glyphs distributed, translations would be fairly uniform. The agreement in translation removes the idea that hieroglyphs are simply abstract values open to subjective interpretation.

Glyphs can be just like alchemical images, they mean one thing for the dummies and a completely different thing for those who really know their true meanings and context, which nowadays would be no one.

I think we will never know anything for sure, most people just like to think that they do so that the digestive period is shorter, easier to deal with and allows that felling that we're moving forward. Even today if I draw something on a piece of paper and send it to you, you'll probably have a completely different interpretation than mine. Which one would be the correct one?

If you drew a picture of a cloud with lightning we would all recognize it as representing a thundercloud. The hieroglyphs represented abstract values that were understood by the literate. They conveyed statements, decrees, messages, lineages etc that were meant to be understood.

Other members are far more qualified to explain these points than I am. Archaeology is subject to interpretation, nevertheless a large part of it is 'hard science' and testable.

reply to post by Lunica
Hiya Lunica,

Cydonia and the face do exist. So he is very credible in his interpretations. The cydonia part is not missing.

Look again, there is nothing more than geological features. No face or city remnants.

I think they are aligned very accurate. Some error is there, but not enough to say the allignment isnt present. It would be a To Great coincidence if this was not made with a purpose.

Again, there isn't anything in the Mars images to suggest any other process than that of geology. The structures of 'Cydonia' are 'made' like the Pyrenees have been made...geological processes.

The absence of information does mean we dont know anything for sure. I like to see investigations to connect the alligments and allready known archaeological evidence. The complete picture is not yet written down. btw: I dont think only Herchel believes it. Yes, he found it. A lot of people also believe it.

I don't think that many people understand Stonehenge to be a terrestrial rendering of the Pleiades. It's fairly unique to Herschel. We don't know a lot 'for sure' about Stonehenge. We also don't have evidence that the Pleiades were of interest to North Europeans in 4000BC. We do have evidence that they were aware of lunar cycles and the sun.

I am the first to agree Herchel does not present the complete picture. I also think some interpretations will not be mine (I have to read the book first). I do not agree in your unravel oppinion. He is more plausible then debunked. He gives more leads to knew knowledge of the past then the opposite.

The primary point I'm trying to make is that Herschel isn't plausible. Each strand of his theory is unsupported by evidence. He gives 'more leads to new knowledge' purely through looking to corroborate his assertions. Check his facts and you'll gain more new knowledge.

I think he's a man with enthusiasm for his subject and has somehow overlooked the contradictory facts and evidence that outweighs his theory. Book sales and tours could be an incentive towards his unawareness of accepted (substantiated) alternative explanations for his claims.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Why is the AW map cut so you don't see the ruins to the north? I've been to AW there are ruins EVERYWHERE, why pick and choose? Ah to support by cherry picking data a previously determined outcome?

Well, Hans, of course that's why!

And the alignments aren't even close, even though the ruins have been cherry-picked to make them as close as possible.

That tells you how "aligned' these things really are, doesn't it?

Look at the supposed Orion alignment with the the main Giza pyramids. Had to come up with some excuse for this, didn't he?

The Egyptians diodn't even recognize the constellation this pickpocket is trying to force their monuments into, for God's sake!

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I was just looking at these pics on the site and I must say they are amazing. They do seem to match up very well.

Well, I must say that they don't appear to match at all.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I am going to have to order this book.

You sound like you've been hypnotized.
Of course you don't "have to order this book."
You have free will, I presume.

You are about to hand your money over to a sorry, lying, cheating, subversive, ignorant con man.

But, hey, it's your money.

At least try to find a used version of check it out at the library. You might also want to check into what constellations these cultures recognized before you bite wholly down on the baited hook.

Harte

reply to post by Kandinsky


Hi Kandinsky,

I see, but It's not that I underestimate the importance of the Rosetta stone. I do recognize it's importance. And I'm not saying that the translations are wrong, simply that the interpretation of their meanings might be off since we don't know who or in which context they were wrote. We just guess based on what we take for granted. Which in my opinion is not enough to block people from viewing the same things from a different angle.

Even today we have our own ways of encrypting subliminal messages within texts that if read by the letter (literally) mean a completely different thing. Just like those jokes in children movies that mean one thing for adults and a completely different things for children's.

Thousands of years from now someone might find the Rosetta stone for our language and start reading texts that were supposed to be cryptic by their literal interpretation applied to the context that they think was ours. Something that would yield something way different than what the original text was meant to incite.

If you drew a picture of a cloud with lightning we would all recognize it as representing a thundercloud. The hieroglyphs represented abstract values that were understood by the literate. They conveyed statements, decrees, messages, lineages etc that were meant to be understood.

I see, but you have to take into consideration what a thundercloud would mean for me. And without knowing me, what I'm involved in, my beliefs, etc it would be impossible. So for you it might be a thundercloud and have the meaning of a thundercloud but I can very well attach a different meaning to it that is only valid for my self or for a group of people.

You see that happening a lot with color interpretation between different cultures. Purple in England represents royalty, while the very same color in other parts of the world represent prostitution, and have negative meaning attached to it. Of course that with what we're talking about here it isn't the same thing, but the concept applies.

A picture of an eye for you may mean vision while for a member of the masonry it would have other underlaying meanings that are not suppose to be explicit to people outside their circle.

Artists with alchemical backgrounds did this all the time. The catholic church would ask them for a picture of a garden and they would paint a garden that was a just a garden for most and a formula for a few.

Since in Egypt we see a clear division between classes, there was probably a difference in the literacy of both classes which makes easy to believe that not every glyph was meant to be interpreted by the same way by everyone.

Now I ask you what makes us think that we are so smart to the point of being pretentious and dismissing alternatives and new angles?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to justify nor dismiss someone else's book, theory or point of view. It's a known fact that there are people that write anything so they are able to profit on other's ignorance. But as usual there is also the other side of the same coin where basing yourselves ideas purely in known accepted facts can also lead to ignorance in a way.

I agree with the "Deny Ignorance" motto, but I would also add ", but embrace it and accept that what you may know might be nothing in the end".

Howdy Lunica

Thanks for the reply, ah I see I had replied to Merka instead of yourself, my error.

long time ago: from know to 10.000 dc.

Hans: Ah none of the stuff was built then. The evidence for their construction and in particular for their supporting cultures don't go back that far.

Now people were making stuff back near that period of time. Any correlations with Catalhuyuk, Gobeki Tepe or the Jomon potters? Its easy to throw that date of 10k BC around its harder to get it past the evidence against it.

I think the pyramids are older and have another purpose then common egyptiology state.

Hans: All of them? I presume you mean the Giza, so how do you account for the evidence for their orthodox dating versus the lack of evidence for an earlier date?

Why the connection with the stars, why the effort.

Hans: I think the question here is why do you think there are connections?

Why do you think that Angkor Wat built in the 12th century is "connected"?

I recently bought the "Hidden Records" off of Ebay and I have to say I was really impressed with it. The connections are overwhelming. I have no doubt that our ancestors are/were from an Earth like star somewhere in the Pleadies system. Riddle me this:

Why would all the ancient pyramid civilizations worship "animal" gods that came from the stars? (The "animal" masks were really breathing apparatuses that made them look god-like to primitive people. Read the book for the concrete evidence.)

Why would they all create huge labor intensive structures that represent star maps of the Pleadaies constellation? (ultimately pointing to the same mystery star where the alien gods reside)

And how would these ancient civilizations share this same knowledge and religious belief when they were oceans apart? Because they were all visited by the same ancient astronauts

Coincidence? I think not. No point arguing with skeptics that haven't actually read the book.

Originally posted by genma
Riddle me this:

Why would all the ancient pyramid civilizations worship "animal" gods that came from the stars? (The "animal" masks were really breathing apparatuses that made them look god-like to primitive people. Read the book for the concrete evidence.)

Answer: They did not.

Originally posted by genmaWhy would they all create huge labor intensive structures that represent star maps of the Pleadaies constellation? (ultimately pointing to the same mystery star where the alien gods reside)

Answer: Same as above.

Originally posted by genmaAnd how would these ancient civilizations share this same knowledge and religious belief when they were oceans apart?

Answer: Same as above.

Originally posted by genmaCoincidence? I think not.

Coincidence? No.
Contrivance to sell books? Yes.

Originally posted by genmaNo point arguing with skeptics that haven't actually read the book.

Translation: No point arguing with people that know what they are talking about when your source is a feeble attempt to link a bunch of unrelated stuff through lying about it's origins in order to make a buck off the ignorant masses.

Harte

reply to post by Lunica


I think everyone here should watch this series, BBC's "Atlantis Reborn Again" and pay special attention to what Graham Hancock's critics have to say:

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


"He sure sells a lot of books!"

The last bit of Part 3 and first bit of Part 4 is about Angkor and depicts the "cherry-picking" someone else mentioned here. I hope people didn't spend too much on those books!

Gee Harte thanks for providing all that hard hitting contrary evidence such as "They did not". You're a true thinker man. I especially like how you repeat the same sentence over and over and then mirror the last paragraph w/o any backup. Good stuff

I've loved Wayne's book and info. for a long time. His book is worth the money for the photos alone. But since I'm not a scientist or psyphic I can't say I know his info. and all his conclusions are 100% accurate. All I can do is give my opinion. I think he's definitely on to something and is worth investigating. I'm absolutely in the Richard Hoagland, David Wilcock, Graham Hancock, Sheldan Nidle camp as you orthodox guys like Hans, Harte, and Kandinsky know. I've heard them speak and talked to them at conventions. So I agree with their believes that NASA hides their discoveries of ETs and ancient artifacts to keep the public in the dark, to maintain their power and superior knowledge. I suggest anyone call your local Barnes and Nobel to see if they have the book, so you can look at it first before buying.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by Sargoth]

I've read the book too and its all extremely fascinating. He uses unorthodox methods to explain the alignments of the Giza plateau, Tikal. etc, but thats what people have the hardest time with. He thinks outside the box, his way of thinking is different than most. I for one believe most of what he's talked about as far as alignments go but when it comes to another planet like mars, we have NO Proof whatsoever either way as if to say its real or not.
I dont believe this planet has been visited by ET's, I believe that some ancient humans were way smarter and had technology that rivals even todays.
Now theres alot of crazy and misguided archaeologists and scientists out there that write some insane things but I dont believe Mr. Herschel is one of them for the most part he backs up most of his theories with solid evidence and the rest relies on your belief.

reply to post by Sargoth




By your own admission you are unable to verify the information 'theories' of Wayne Herschel

from a science or psyphics point of view............but then neither can Wayne, he at best is a

keen amateur who does a LOT of googling (check out his fb) He has no actual qualifactions

or degrees in ANY of these sciences and has only been to Egypt twice i believe, and then only

as a tourist ..........So it appears you have spent a lot of $$$$$$$ for a book of coloured

illustrations