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.

 

Stargates are real

page: 191
634
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
well i found one interesting article on the science page of his site. it isn't related but still interesting .. here's a quote


Hong Kong 1997 Forum: PROFIT-TECHNOLOGIES Internet Hong Kong 1997 Forum "THE OSMIUM BATTERY of the future will be capable of holding a single charge up to 3,000 miles. The inlay Osmium coating of a computer chip eliminates heat (0) resistance. This elimination of heat will increase the speed of tomorrow’s computers up to a 1,000X’s over today’s computers. Osmium will be used in the future to turn ultraviolet light into electricity."


www.subtleenergies.com...


I can see it now: The New Pentium 1 Terra Core with the fastest clock speed in the universe. Now with new Quantum Resonance memory: 'it stores your document before you even write it'

I want one NOW!!!!




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ayrton
Don't be shy.
IMHO, this is one of the, if not THE most important thread on ATS.

Thanks to you & Zorgon.



This 'IS' the most important thread on ATS



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



OK. I apologize Undo...
No hard feelings. I didnt see it the way others did, but I can see why...


reply to post by undo
 




the lifespans of people back then were likely to be directly proportionate to the amount of ozone and water in the atmosphere. less uv damage to chromosomes. also, if mr. adams theory is correct and the earth was smaller, there'd be the additional perk of less gravity, which is intricately tied to time, or so says mr. einstein.


So your saying because of higher oxygen content humans were able to live hundreds and hundreds of years?

Are there any studies to corroborate this?

Wouldnt that give people in inner cities a much shorter life span than those who like to live in more seperated areas? I have never found any reports indicating such claims...


reply to post by starwarp2000
 





Actually 'Semites' are actually the descendants of 'Shem'.


This doesnt make sense to me. As anyone who moves into the asia minor can be considered semite. What evidence is there they have all decended from one lineage?




[edit on 3-8-2009 by open_eyeballs]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Well for starters, all Semites would have the A+ or A- (Rhesus Negative) blood types. Whereas, originally the Negro races had O blood types and the Asian, B types.
It is a bit hard today to use blood types, as there has been a lot of inter-racial cross breeding over the ensuing centuries.
Suffice it to say, that in those times, nobody "moved' into either Hittite or Assyrian lands without a huge whoomping from their armies.
And, it would be therefore obvious to say, that these racial strains remained pure for centuries because of their military dominance of the region. In fact, both the Assyrians and Hittites were 'over zealous' in maintaining pure racial strains and still are today. (If you know where they migrated to).



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


by this definition, it is one or the other not necessarily only Jews or the descendants from the eldest son of Noah.

Semite
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

dictionary.com

Also, to understand you correctly, you are saying all people originating in southwestern asia have the same blood type? Are you referring to a specific time? You believe all original semites are decendants from Noah? Or what do you mean by originating?

Seems to me the word is just used to describe those that dwell in this particular part of the world...at least in todays time that is.

In reference to the definition some say Akkadians were not even semitic at all..

And I thought the Phoenecians were more of a western mediterranean civilization predating the greeks...Ill need to brush up on some history...


[edit on 3-8-2009 by open_eyeballs]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


by this definition, it is one or the other not necessarily only Jews or the descendants from the eldest son of Noah.

Semite
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

dictionary.com

Also, to understand you correctly, you are saying all people originating in southwestern asia have the same blood type? Are you referring to a specific time? You believe all original semites are decendants from Noah? Or what do you mean by originating?

Seems to me the word is just used to describe those that dwell in this particular part of the world...at least in todays time that is.

In reference to the definition some say Akkadians were not even semitic at all..

And I thought the Phoenecians were more of a western mediterranean civilization predating the greeks...Ill need to brush up on some history...




Just shows you about some Internet sources of information, doesn't it!!!!

Akkadians i am happy about.
Canaanites, no i am not, they are descendants of Ham (Black).
Phoenicians well they were part of the 'Sea Peoples' that invaded Europa and Egypt about the time of Ahmosis, and later in Rameses time, they are descendants of Japeth (Asian).
Hebrews, and Arabs, yes they are both descended from Shem and later had Abraham as a common ancestor.
After this the Hebrews and Arabs split off: The Arabs descendant from Ishmael and the Hebrews from Isaac.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 



After this the Hebrews and Arabs split off: The Arabs descendant from Ishmael and the Hebrews from Isaac.


I understand that is what it says in the Bible.

There have been some claims by such authors as Ralph Nellis and others that claim the lineage of Abraham is one of the Hyksos Pharaohs. I am hoping to get someone to try and explain some of these findings. I have found them interesting and never heard anyone debunk their claims.

I am not by any means saying it is the truth (I dont have the knowlege to determine such things). I have just found them interesting , and would like to hear someones take on them (who has a decent kowledge of ancient history) as to if they are true or false or what have you.

thanks in advance to anyone willing to give it a shot...


Links here:

World Mysteries

Was Abraham a Pharoah?


It could be complete bunk for all I know. But I would definitely like to know why it is bunk with a reasonable exlpanation behind it at least as well es the reasoning in their arguments...

edit to add:
I just wanted to say I believe there absolutley is historical value in the Bible, but not everything adds up correctly. This is why I felt that these arguments by the articles above may have some precedence to them..

[edit on 3-8-2009 by open_eyeballs]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
On the subject of differences in lifespans and planetary radius deltas, the word 'ordinary' is helpful. In ordinary time, the lifespan may seem the same now and then. Actual time is a preference of perception. With the help of the Computers, that perception balances among us such that general ordinary time occurs and our brain relaxes with that conclusion of timeframe (rather than lifespan) in events that have happened.

Of another tangent subject here: Noticed that some of those images (of the egyptian 'stargates') like the wand with the rings looks more like a device to brew alcohol rather than be some capacitor for a stargate. However, alcohol can affect the perception of time such that one losses focus between the body and soul when the alcohol saturates some glands. See also the Pineal Gland.

Another tangent subject: Narcoleptics generally feel like there is no cure or are specifically told there is no cure. The truth here is within the ordinary science there is no cure. Ordinary science is centric to three dimensional space and one dimension of time. The black outs that narcoleptics experience is that what the brain relates. The actual experience of the soul and beyond that moment depend on how awakened that person is to reality. The condition is could be related as a person in a room with a door. The door opens to the view of the soul and beyond. Normally the door is locked. For those that are awakened the door is unlocked. For narcoleptics, the door is blown away so that it neither can be opened or closed. As easy it is for narcoleptics to wander out the door it is also hard for them to prevent others to stay out. Maybe a bit oversimplified in that example, yet one can see the cure to narcolepsy anything that helps one focus the body and soul together (to stay in the room and to control what else is in the room). Some of the references in the bible and in the previous tangent about alcohol seems to relate to such conditions and possible cures. We can expect that not all narcoleptics will want to know about stargates, the soul, and beyond, even if we know the cure and know the cure is not ordinary... a dilemma.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by dzonatas]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 





OK. I apologize Undo... No hard feelings. I didnt see it the way others did, but I can see why...


?? sorry, whatcha talkin' 'bout willis?

whee, smart people all over the thread. this is good exercise for ye olde brain cells



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   


So your saying because of higher oxygen content humans were able to live hundreds and hundreds of years?


erm no, it was related to the ozone layer blocking certain damaging rays from the sun. but even moreso about the possibility of there being an additional layer of atmosphere that blanketed the earth, creating a greenhouse environment.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
i was asked to name thread contributors that i felt were worthy of the star gate scholar title. seems to me zorgon fit the bill since he's been posting and contributing to this thread for 2 years! and usually really good schtuff, related to the technological side. so that was my suggestion.

so, unless the mod was just goofin' around, zorgon will soon be an ATS scholar on the subject of star gates.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 



The good news is that sometimes the Bible and archeology overlap and confirm the "history" provided by archeology; sadly at other times they are contrasted and conflict as the findings of archeology correct the "erroneous Biblical history" and simply prove it wrong.


The problem I have with this critique is he's probably basing his criticism of the biblical account on the ENGLISH TRANSLATION. The more I learn about the original languages it was written in, the more I think the English translation of the bible is a disaster area.

Therefore, I do not agree that the accounts between archaeology and the biblical texts differ to the extent he implies. Instead, I think it's a matter of how badly someone wants to know the answer... those old languages are rough sailing.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I recently saw a vid hosted by David Wilcock from one of the 2012 expo things and he touched on looking glass and stargate tech.

up until watching that footage and listening to what he had to say i did not believe in stargate's or the looking glass tech, but now i am starting to gain interest in the subject.

What put me off was initially watching an interview with a Dan Burisch? i think that's how it's spelt, well he totally put me off the subject as he seemed to cocksure and unbelievable,maybe i was to hard on the guy he just came across as cocky. Can any one vouch for Dan's credibility? And that of the camalot site too.

What David Wilcock said about 2012 and the pineal gland made a LOT of sense and now I'm just more curious.

I have not read ALL of this thread but is there any solid proof and can any expert in this field here point me to some good info or do i just read this whole thread? comments welcome.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Zorgon thought I had a chip on my shoulder with the way I posted a few pages ago.. I didnt intend to have an attitude...so I just wanted to clear it up...


anywho, any thougths on those links I posted regarding the abraham a possible pharoah? maybe it has already been covered in previous pages? if someone would post a number of a page I would be happy to read them there, as I have not gotten past the first 5 pages yet!....


The reason i posted those link, was because I dont see eye to eye with some of the suggestions about the ancient hebrews, and these people seem to play a large role in your theory...thats why I would like to see what you thought about the theory about the lineage of Abraham and the Hebrew people...

that is if you can get around to taking a gander, thanks in advance!...



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


see my post up yonder ^

also, back about a year and a half ago, i ran across a verse in the old testament which said something to the effect of
"I will destroy the images of the egyptians." (this was God speaking in the verse)
when i looked up the original word for "images" in the verse, it was MASTABAH! i had to do a double take.

so yeah, it isn't that the biblical text disagrees, it's that the english translation of the original languages of the old testament (in the pharaoh references) is not revealing enough. english does not do the hebrew language justice, first of all. and secondly, the word usage chosen was based on the understanding of 16th (?) century christians


critics of the biblical texts often are not aware of the passage of information between generations and locales. they assume that the data was understood fully and agreed upon precisely, generation after generation from the time of its writing. this is not exactly true. it's generally true, but not to the extent where pertinent details are precisely revealing and which might otherwise change the meaning of something "secondary"...such as a mastabah vs the more generic "images"

[edit on 3-8-2009 by undo]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
i read this huge thesis on the subject of world history, told from the biblical perspective. the gentleman who wrote it was completely convinced he could prove that many of the biblical figureheads were pharaohs of egypt at one time.
you can read some of his theoretical work on the subject here (note that i do not necessarily agree with all his findings, but it is an interesting read):

www.cgca.net...



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyaroura Can any one vouch for Dan's credibility? And that of the camalot site too.


Not really BUT it was from Dan that i first heard about looking glass and he provided the source

The paper was stuffed in skunkworks


Pegasus Document Release #003

Through the Looking Glass with Phase Conjugation
Fall 1982
Los Alamos National Laboratory
www.abovetopsecret.com...

People also say John Lear and Bob Lazar are nut cases... but those two I have met and gotten a lot of verifiable data from

As to Camelot... they started out with noble ideals but now are in it for the money leading a jet set life style off their donations and their 5.00 a month subscription forum Project Avalon

They are in leagues with 'Henry Deacon' who has now come out openly as 'Arthur Neumann' You can see the latest drama between them and Greer's disclosure project at the conference in Spain

Kerry and Art recently crashed another conference Bob Dean's recent exopolitics Uou can see the crash in on the youtube videos

This is Henry Deacon, aka Arthur Nuemann, aka a whole bunch of characters all over the net



Whole thing makes me sick and a lot of people are sinking their money into those two groups

Makes me think its time to go play with my swords again and leave all this behind. Soon there will be no credibilty at all

Maybe that is the plan


BTW Undo if you get another suitcase phone call, tell your hubby to call in the troops this time... nuff said

[edit on 3-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thank you ZORGON you have come to my aid yet again and i trust your word as you have led me down some wonderful avenues of research in the past.

i shall take head of what you have posted and work my way through the BS.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Originally posted by open_eyeballs


Originally posted by undo


the lifespans of people back then were likely to be directly proportionate to the amount of ozone and water in the atmosphere. less uv damage to
chromosomes. also, if mr. adams theory is correct and the earth was smaller, there'd be the additional perk of less gravity, which is intricately tied to time, or so says mr. einstein.


reply originally posted by open_eyeballs


So your saying because of higher oxygen content humans were able to live hundreds and hundreds of years?

Are there any studies to corroborate this?

Wouldn't that give people in inner cities a much shorter life span than those who like to live in more separated areas? I have never found any reports indicating such claims...


First, let me say that i am not overstepping undo. This is her thread and I have the utmost respect for her knowledge and intelligence.

When you reply to someone, make sure you 'quote' exactly what they 'did' say and not what you think they said.

In undo's quote, there is no mention of oxygen content being higher or lower, but in your reply you state:


So your saying because of higher oxygen content humans were able to live hundreds and hundreds of years?


This sort of thing throws everybody into disarray, as it sidetracks the topic discussion into a back alley of questions about language.

So, because nobody addressed your questions yet, I will attempt to reply to your probings.

There 'have' been studies on the oxygen content and it's affect on human lifespans:

ATMOSPHERIC OXYGEN Modulator of Human Life Span.

and this:

Did People in the past live longer?

So, I want you to read these, and then get back to us, with some decent questions on the subject.

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000


So when was the last time you were off planet? Or is that still classified?



new topics

top topics



 
634
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join