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.

 

could the pyramids of egypt be a door to the center of the earth?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
you missed off the authors summary of these ideas and the people who came up with them and for some reason only posted the section where he was putting the idea from Halleys point of view
the author (Donald E. Simanek) wrote it like that to allow the reader a glimpse into the mind of someone who in some areas was quite brilliant but in others was a hopeless case
Dr Simaneks entire website devoted to bashing pseudoscience is available here
www.lhup.edu...
here is his summary



Like pseudoscientists of all varieties, they carefully select those aspects of experience they wish to incorporate into their model, ignoring the vast amount of other scientific phenomena that conventional science has already successfully dealt with. They cite old, discredited, or poorly documented, observations, experiments and theories as supportive of their views. Often they wage a guerrila war against "conventional science", and characterize scientists as imperceptive or even stupid for not acknowledging their cleverness and the truth of their alternative models. They take pride in being a member of a select few, the elite, who can see things clearly.

nuff said


Marduk, thank you, I was seriously just coming back here to paste that in as well.

Spaceman, do you really read these articles you link to? Halley's paper was from 1681. Simanek (again, the author of the article you cited) also specifically notes of Halley, Euler, and Leslie's theories: "A profound misunderstanding of gravity is present in all of these models."

I think you're pretty much taking the piss... or you're a very energetic and curious ten-year-old. I agree that this is a very fun subject, but mainly as a historical look at old, provocative theories.

[edit on 12/20/06 by skip_brilliantine]




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
So……. Simanek’s view on these three men is right because……….? See I did a little background information research on this one named Donald E. Simanek. Simanek has not been trained in psychology or cognitive science. As stated by himself here

www.lhup.edu...

The site has nothing to do with the pyramids just that he himself states that he is not a scientist. He has no doctor’s degree in these fields. He simply is a critic who happens to enjoy the unexplained. He merely takes past articles sums them up and throw his opinion in there. So once again I will ask you. Why is Simanek’s opinion (which is all that it is) correct?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   


He has no doctor’s degree in these fields. He simply is a critic who happens to enjoy the unexplained. He merely takes past articles sums them up and throw his opinion in there. So once again I will ask you. Why is Simanek’s opinion (which is all that it is) correct

so you want to know if hes qualifed to comment on a hollow earth
hes a physics professor dude
heres his curriculum vitae
www.lhup.edu...

now I have a question for you
why is it that when you first posted to this website of Mr Simanek you deliberately posted in such a way that made it look as if Mr Simanek agreed with the idea that you were putting forwards
and now
when it has been shown that you had posted his statement out of context are you trying to discredit him

got an agenda have you
newsflash
you got busted



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I never mentioned his name. He has nothing to do with what I quoted from that site. It just happens to be the site that the information I was seeking was on. This isn’t a debate about Mr. Simanek. It’s about the pyramids. I was just merely using the site to get the words of Halley and others from it. The purpose of using the site was to bring forth the words of the astronomers and scientist that original purposed the theory of a hollow earth. Not to talk about what Mr. Simanek thinks. Now if you want to bring Mr. Simanek into the equation and use his words and his research on the theory to either disprove it or prove it, by all means do so. But if your just going to argue with me about whether or not Mr. Simanek agrees with the metal state and thinking of astronomers and scientists then your in the wrong thread.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Why do people think the earth is hollow? I must be missing something here. I beleive in UFOs and ghosts and bigfoot, but the earths not hollow. thats a retarded thaught to have. oh and neither is mars. or venus. or the moon.

[edit on 1/5/2007 by Schmidt1989]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   


I never mentioned his name. He has nothing to do with what I quoted from that site. It just happens to be the site that the information I was seeking was on.

the information you provided was written by Dr Simanek
you posted it out of context and made it look as if Edmund Halley was credible when clearly he wasn't
you then attempted to debunk the man who wrote the information you posted

let me ask you this spaceman

do you believe the earth is hollow or not
if so then I'm sure you'll soon become a great figure of fun for other posters to laugh at

if not, why bother trying to prove that other people in the past did believe it
theyre wrong
do you enjoy being hypocritical about the evidence ?




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
You ever thought that the three great pyramids where intended for just one king?

It seems as though that the large tomb (king's chamber) in the Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) is the center piece of all three pyramids. The four, so called, air shafts in Khufu's pyramid align to certain stars in the sky of his time and also the three great pyramids align to the three brilliant stars in Orion's Belt. The tombs in the pyramids of Khafre and Mankaure seem too small to be of any significance to be a king's tomb. They're underground mind you.

Were all these stars aligned in his day to these pyramids or was this King planning on travelling to these heavenly bodies in the afterlife?



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   


It seems as though that the large tomb (king's chamber) in the Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) is the center piece of all three pyramids

actually the great pyramid is the one on the east side not the middle



The four, so called, air shafts in Khufu's pyramid align to certain stars in the sky of his time

no they don't


the three great pyramids align to the three brilliant stars in Orion's Belt.

no they don't
lol
you've been reading the pseudo websites havent you



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Center piece=main attraction

Don't like the works of Graham Hancock, aye?

The air shafts must of been the hook up portals for the egyptian astronaut suits.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   


Don't like the works of Graham Hancock

It was Robert Bauval who came up with the OCT
you're mixing up your pseudohistorians



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
And who are you? Are you a expert on hollow earth theories and pyramids? Did you get a doctors or masters degree in hollow earthology? This is the part your missing. You see we are all just guessing here. My theory and my beliefs have just as much a possiblilty to be real as your do.

Just a few questions is all i have to ask you.

Have you or anyone on this planet been under the earths crust? and im not talking a mile or two im talking all the way to the center. Hell i dont care; has any robot ever been down there? untill you or anyone else has been there no one will know. So i wanna ask you Mr. Marduk. Why do you think your theory is right and mine wrong. You know what lets play a little game. Instead of me defending my theory why dont you defend yours. And i dont want any of this bull# about thats the way its been for centuries and so its right. Assumed science (which is all it is) is most of the time wrong.

So pretty much what im trying to get at here is that untill you have SOLID evidence that the earth is solid, you have no right to say im a fool for beliving the earth to be hollow.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
oh boy
I was going to retort in a scathing attack about your intelligence and lack of knowledge on the simplest of geologic presepts
but you seem to be doing a good enough job on destroying your credibility on your own
please carry on



[edit on 9-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
And what is your credibility.

I don't see any of your posts are credible. It is all your theory, and the problem is that you think yours are correct.
And the worse you think you are credible.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
yeah so me agreeing with modern geologic theory is incredible to you
so i will now allow you to carry on and tell us all why the world is hollow and how that works

go for it



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
oo. nice i love the way you guys assume that modern science is right.

And your missing the point of my posts. im not saying im credible.... im saying we both arent credible. im saying that we are both complete morons in the subject who are arguing over things we have no clue about.

and i still dont think your getting this point either so let me make it clear

YOUR "FACTS" ARE ONLY THEORIES

was that big enough for your tiny brain to understand?

Just please tell me why do you assume your theory is correct and mine not?

Thats all im asking.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by spaceman16]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
oh boy
I was going to retort in a scathing attack about your intelligence and lack of knowledge on the simplest of geologic presepts
but you seem to be doing a good enough job on destroying your credibility on your own
please carry on



[edit on 9-1-2007 by Marduk]


So geologic presepts are that simple? so why dont you expain to me the science behind proving the earths core is a giant ball of iron.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
1. Recordings of seismic waves from earthquakes gave the first clue. Seismic waves will bend and reflect at the interfaces between different materials
in the case of the core they bend at an interface that indicates a large mass of iron
seismic waves do not travel through air
so there is no large mass of air in the earths core
2. A compass magnet aligns with the magnetic field anywhere on the Earth. The earth cannot be a large permanent magnet, since magnetic minerals lose their magnetism when they are hotter than about 500 degrees C. Almost all of the earth is hotter, and the only other way to make a magnetic field is with a circulating electric current. Circulation and convection of electrically conductive molten iron in the Earth's outer core produces the magnetic field

thats the two simplest scientific reasons
you may have to go to school for a while to understand the others
seeing as you seem to think that the earth is hollow because you read it in a book that was never more than an unproven hypothesis over 200 years ago
theres this thing called modern science
go look it up



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Absolutely right, Marduk. We know from seismic observations, such as readings after earthquakes, that the Earth is very solid and not at all hollow.
It's always baffled me why people think it is hollow in the first place. What about simple gravity?



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
……… Have anyone of you actually read the entire thread? These arguments have already been presented and have already had their time in the lime light. This means nothing to me and doesn’t really help to move this thread forward. So if you could bring new arguments to the table I would greatly appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
wh is it that you seem to think this forum is for discussing pseudoscience
it isn't
what part of "deny ignorance" do you not understand exactly ?
this is what Byrd(moderator) posted about this forum in another trhead



byrd
This section tends to focus on well rounded arguments from evidence.

Arguments from the "let's do a thought experiment" are shuffled off to Skunk Works. We don't discourage these, but this section is for discussing known history (and therefore the links.)

I can, of course, move it to Skunk Works (where I actually do NOT participate) and folks can theorize without being bothered by historical evidence to their hearts' content.

Just like the Science forum, this is the section for discusssing evidence and not speculation
So........ What's the call, folks?

Do you want to discuss evidence here in the Ancient Civ culture (which means you have to post links and discuss evidence) or do you want me to move it to Skunk Works so that you can discuss speculation?


kapeesh




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join