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.

 

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 14
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Pay no attn Quo, flat earthers can't disprove what they mock.




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Sword
Pay no attn Quo, flat earthers can't disprove what they mock.


LOL! Anyway Marduk's wrong - the Moon is made of Cheddar and Gorgonzola (if it was green cheese, why does it look yellow?
).

As to Eguyptians being Atlaneans or whatever - yeah we can';t dispprove that. In the same way we can't disprove that they weren't shap-shifting gerbils from planet Xxerovv



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I thought they were shape shifting gerbils from planet Xxerovv
thats why they can't be Atlanteans
well
that and the fact that the Egyptians D.N.A. is local



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
The problem is, the Osirieon doesn't have a roof nor sandstone walls. What they are doing is attributing work in the tunnel that connected the Osirieon to Seti I's temple, to be part of the Osirieon. But it isn't, wasn't, never was.

You simply have no way of knowing this. It is mere speculation.

I prefer to have evidence before I adopt a belief. You'll note that I haven't precluded any possibility in this thread (though I'm certainly willing to preclude the existence of Plato's Atlantis, for example), just pointed out what is actually known and why certain theories are held in higher regard than others.


Originally posted by undoIn addition, the pharaohs before Seti I were also looking for the burial chamber of Osiris in Abydos. They knew it was there, but couldn't find it. The clues were on the Shabaka Stone, which was purported to have been copied from information that pre-dated the Pyramid texts. The stone describes Osiris burial chamber at Abydos, as being in the north of the land to which he came -- which was Abydos (Egyptian Abdju pronounced "Abzu") - et.al, the Osirieon was a copy of the sumerian Enki's subterranean "Abzu" chamber and had been built in the North of Abydos (Abydos is the greek word for egyptian Abdju, which is pronounced "Abzu", the "dj" having the "Z" sound, like Djoser is pronounced "Zoser").

The Shabaka Stone does indeed lay out the pantheon of ancient Egypt, and describes many things about Osiris beyond his burial chamber. The stone was commissioned to preserve these texts. But that in no way implies anything about the Osireion itself. After all, Seti I knew the story as well, not to mention the other Pharoahs that constructed other "Osireions" in other locations around Egypt.


Originally posted by undo


I'd certainly be happy to hear of any of these so called "archaeological facts" that have been "ignored" out of some namby-pamby sensitivity toward some nationalistic self image.


Naqada. The Falcon Tribe was from Shinar (mesopotamia), and they were the predynastic progenitors of the whole Osiris movement in the first place.


Naqada? They are still digging there. Here is a short list of the archaeological activity conducted in the area in the last 100 years or so. Doesn't look like it's being "ignored" for the sake of Egyptian nationalism to me.

BTW, findings at Naqada indicate a Nubian origin for the peoples that eventually became Dynastic Egypt. There is very good reason to believe this - similarities in pottery and building techniques, as well as clear evidence of migration northward out of Nubia with the desertification of the Sahara.

Regarding early Egyptian ties with Mesopotamia, I have never heard otherwise. If this were to be swept under the rug, so to speak, then why did I already know of it? I'm no Egyptologist, having for my entire life been far more interested in Homo Habilis than Sapiens.

I'm not aware of any serious Egyptologist that is willing to state that all things Egyptian arose in Egypt alone. Why do you believe it matters to, say, Zahi Hawass exactly where the Osiris cult arose?

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Harte,

You said:

Pharoahs that constructed other "Osireions" in other locations around Egypt.

My response:

Like the Abydos Osirieon? Underground out of solid, undecorated, red aswan granite blocks of megalithic size?

As far as the Naqada site is concerned.... actually, the morphological studies from Naqada clearly indicate a difference between Naqada royals and the indigenous population. Anthropologist Douglas Derry:



"The predynastic people are seen to have had narrow skulls with a height measurement exceeding the breadth, a condition common also in negroes. The reverse is the case in the Dynastic Race, who not only had broader skulls but the height of these skulls, while exceeding that in the Predynastic Race, is still less than the breadth."


Derry was wrong on a few of his premises regarding intelligence and cranial size, but he definitely wasn't wrong on the origin of the Falcon Tribe.

The materials they had with them, including their lapis lazuli jewelry, square ships, sumerian pottery styles, the pear-shaped mace, the cylinder seal, niched façades, Naqada II burial pits lined with mudbricks, are all of mesopotamian origin.

The list of credible scholars, archaeologists and anthropologists that believe these things to be of mesopotamian origin is long and impressive, starting with the original contemporary discoverers of the Osirieon at Abydos - Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray and going right on up to today, many of which are NOT what you would define as fringers. For example, Helene Kantor had this to say about the pottery found there:

"Among the decorated pot shapes are relatively large jars with three or four triangular lug handles on the shoulder. These lugs are reminiscent of those which were already in use on Mesopotamian pottery in the Ubaid Period and which became particularly typical and frequent on protoliterate pottery."

"More convincing are the vessels with tilted spouts... Although made in the old, indigenous polished red ware, the spouts are completely un-Egyptian; as a whole these jugs resemble Mesopotamian ones of the earlier part of the Protoliterate Period."



[edit on 5-9-2006 by undo]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Having evidence before one adopts a belief is a fair pathway, but to discount what one does not have any evidence to disprove is foolish. Speed of sound for some was a belief, they ended up being right before conclusive evidence was gathered.

There is a middle ground that is perhaps wiser than the green cheese closed minded pathway, which is, perhaps to be objective & not make hasty conclusions in the absolute when one can ( & in the case of science often is the case), be proved wrong. Flat earth, speed of sound on & on were all the views of the "credible" scientists of the day.

Water dating showed Sphynx to be much older than the "credible" experts said it was for many decades. Classic example of arrogant scientists suffering from wanting to be right-itis.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Black Sword]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I can't help to recall also the passage in the Book of the Dead in which the newly expired is said to be asking for protection from the Watchers of Shinar (Sumer/Mesopotamia):

"In the Egyptian Book of the Dead there are prayers for deliverance from the Watchers (Tchatcha, the princes of Osiris) , who came from Ta-Ur, the "Far Away Land."


Ta-Ur is Ur in Mesopotamia!

So, yeah, there does appear to be a kind of collective and selective amnesia about the origins of Dynastic Egypt.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by undo]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Ta Ur is not in Sumeria
and Shinar is not referenced at all in the egyptian book of the dead
nice spin you tried to put on that Beth but it doesn't float on water

Ta Ur is reference to the sun rising in the east and isn't a specific location
besides which the city of Ur could hardly be called a faraway land

in Egyptian Ur means great

you got that from Thomas Horn didn't you
he's a complete crank you know

and Harte is quite right
no one is hiding that Sumeria influenced early Egypt
its well known and to be expected from two neighbouring cultures

no ones hiding the mesopotamian influence all the way through egyptian history either. It just seems to come as a revelation to people who don't know anything about it. but then it would wouldn't it
its quite common knowledge that akkadian cuneiform was used as a diplomatic language last time i checked

Osiris was originally Dumuzid though
the meso underworld god with the stick on lapis beard predates the Egyptian repro with his stick on beard by 2000 years

especially if you know what Osiris actual egyptian name was
www.answers.com...
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
psd.museum.upenn.edu...




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Ta Ur is not in Sumeria
and Shinar is not referenced at all in the egyptian book of the dead
nice spin you tried to put on that Beth but it doesn't float on water

Ta Ur is reference to the sun rising in the east and isn't a specific location
besides which the city of Ur could hardly be called a faraway land

in Egyptian Ur means great

you got that from Thomas Horn didn't you
he's a complete crank you know

and Harte is quite right
no one is hiding that Sumeria influenced early Egypt
its well known and to be expected from two neighbouring cultures

no ones hiding the mesopotamian influence all the way through egyptian history either. It just seems to come as a revelation to people who don't know anything about it. but then it would wouldn't it
its quite common knowledge that akkadian cuneiform was used as a diplomatic language last time i checked

Osiris was originally Dumuzid though
the meso underworld god with the stick on lapis beard predates the Egyptian repro with his stick on beard by 2000 years

especially if you know what Osiris actual egyptian name was
www.answers.com...
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
psd.museum.upenn.edu...



Glad to know you agree. You realize, of course, what I was saying was that the Akkadians were the progenitors of the Osiris cult and Dynastic Egypt and that they were the ones in the Naqada II mud brick burial pits and the same ones who built the Osirieon in Abydos?
(Nimrod=Enmerkar=Narmer=Osiris. He was busy!)



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Glad to know you agree. You realize, of course, what I was saying was that the Akkadians were the progenitors of the Osiris cult and Dynastic Egypt and that they were the ones in the Naqada II mud brick burial pits and the same ones who built the Osirieon in Abydos?
(Nimrod=Enmerkar=Narmer=Osiris. He was busy!)


Do you perhaps have your dates badly scrambled?

Osiris as a diety doesn't show up to any degree until the 5th dynasty, around 2400 BC. The Akkadians don't show up until 2300 BC... a hundred years and more after the rise of the Osiris cult.
www.rom.on.ca...

The rise of the Osiris myth also occurs nearly 600 years AFTER Narmer died. That's kinda long for an association of "Narmer=Osiris." And none of the details seem to match between the two other than they were rulers, Egyptian, and male.

There's a similar set of problems with the Nimrod-Emmerkar-Narmer connection, but I'm too tired to go into it now.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by undo
Glad to know you agree. You realize, of course, what I was saying was that the Akkadians were the progenitors of the Osiris cult and Dynastic Egypt and that they were the ones in the Naqada II mud brick burial pits and the same ones who built the Osirieon in Abydos?
(Nimrod=Enmerkar=Narmer=Osiris. He was busy!)


Do you perhaps have your dates badly scrambled?

Osiris as a diety doesn't show up to any degree until the 5th dynasty, around 2400 BC. The Akkadians don't show up until 2300 BC... a hundred years and more after the rise of the Osiris cult.
www.rom.on.ca...

The rise of the Osiris myth also occurs nearly 600 years AFTER Narmer died. That's kinda long for an association of "Narmer=Osiris." And none of the details seem to match between the two other than they were rulers, Egyptian, and male.

There's a similar set of problems with the Nimrod-Emmerkar-Narmer connection, but I'm too tired to go into it now.


I consider everything between Sumer and Babylon as Akkadia. Actually Narmer as the Scorpion King fits in very well with the arrival of the Falcon Tribe and Nimrod/Osiris. It fits the Naqada and Abydos timeframes, as well. Can you point me to the references to Narmer dying 600 years after the rise of Osiris? And Osiris is not a myth. He was a civilizer, and an invader from Mesopotamia, one of the original members of the Falcon Tribes.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
www.hallofmaat.com...,412093,412093#msg-412093
www.hallofmaat.com...,412093,412635#msg-412635



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
www.hallofmaat.com...,412093,412093#msg-412093
www.hallofmaat.com...,412093,412635#msg-412635


Interesting conversation!

Anyway, if the people at Naqada are any indication, egyptian predynastic people, before the pyramid texts, were typical tribal africans. I think the link you posted is trying to suggest that the predynastic africans worshipped K and he was different than O, and from what I can tell, that is kinda stretching it. What are they basing this on? What artwork, writing, pottery, anything? Primarily because there are no egyptian artforms, to my knowledge, that predate the Narmer Pallete and other Naqada and Abydos finds, which I've already seen, the bulk of which are of mesopotamian origin (as far as the ruling class is concerned). I mean, going down to Ethiopia to get information about the beginning of Egypt, is a confusing approach to the topic. There does seem to be some affiliation, such as the cu s h ites, but even Cush was originally mesopotamian.

Probably the more logical approach would be to study the same timeframe in mesopotamia and see if there's a correlation between the godforms - the bandaged god and the jackal-headed god. Probably all the same banana.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by undo]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
the Jackal headed God
you mean ANUbis
the bandaged god is pretty obvious to anyone who's read
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
and compared it to the story of Set and Osiris and the river

and the colour of Osiris skin is usually described as green which is where the sumerian word SISSI makes you think when you compare Osiris colouring with that of his brother Set
psd.museum.upenn.edu...




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
the Jackal headed God
you mean ANUbis
the bandaged god is pretty obvious to anyone who's read
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
and compared it to the story of Set and Osiris and the river

and the colour of Osiris skin is usually described as green which is where the sumerian word SISSI makes you think when you compare Osiris colouring with that of his brother Set
psd.museum.upenn.edu...



No, not Anubis. Remember the argument about a page long, all over the diff between a wolf and a jackal?
Wasn't that Wepwe-whatever?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Oooo, Inana is Isis, yes, that makes sense. Thanks for that one as well. Got any more goodies lurking about? Wonder what was going on when she got the "me" (it was Inana right, that got the "me" from Enki?) and just who does Enki represent in Egyptian culture? I'm guessing "Ra" or "Re", just based on the information in the Legend of Ra and Hathor.




[edit on 7-9-2006 by undo]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarteHere's the silly statement he was responding to:

Can you show me a picture that there are no UFO's?


What sort of "picture" can show "that there are no ufos..."?

The entire premise of this absurd question is itself completely beneath comment but, of course, I couldn't help myself!

Harte


LOL Of course its a silly statement as its obvious you can't prove non existance in a photo... BTW a blank photo would NOT be proof of anything... except there was no UFO there that day or you are a really bad photographer...

But thank you... I knew you couldn't resist



To Midnight Destroyer...

Wow Impressive... I go away for a few days and come back to this. I have no doubt you have extensive knowledge and its your favorite passion... [it shows] I did read ALL of it... has some useful leads actually... thanks


But Undo, myself and many others are on a quest to try to find evidence of another possibility... and the concept in general is gaining support rapidly. Are we right? There is no way at this point to tell, or to prove it... we can provide evidence and show how it may be interpreted differently...

This has nothing to do with ignorance, nor ignoring "facts"... it is merely exploring another point of view... who knows where it wil take us...Its a theory at this point nothing more and as such is as valid as any other alternate research. If in the end we are proven wrong, so be it... but that has not happened yet...quite the contrary I have found many examples of mainstream academics begining to explore these possibilities...

Believe me when that stargate is uncovered you will be the first to know.... ummmm no not THE first... I am sure the media will get ahead of you...but we will sure point it out...


Now on the other hand I here a lot of talk about subject experts here on ATS. Please understand that I am in no way meaning any disrespect... and I enjoy a good debate... but other than having been on ATS a long time discussing a favorite subject, what makes one an "Subject Expert" here at ATS? And that label does not specify WHICH subject the holder of the tag is expert on. Are there any actual credentials? PhD, Profesor etc?

I think its a fair question, as we are asked to assume that the names you mention are experts. We make no such claims, merely present our views as best as we can. Perhaps you might enlighten me as to your qualifications?

I myself am a Security specialist with high Military clearance, but I am not a prof. of Egyptology, nor am I an author or a sholar

Many others who share our view are scholars and have been published.

Anyway thats just my pet pieve... claiming expert status without documentation



The Bible was based on the word of one man... then testified to by a few witnesses as "I heard this and this is the Gospel Truth" We have believed that for 2000 years.



[edit on 7-9-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

How about "The Spaceships of Ezekiel"? Authored by an Aeronautics Engineer from NASA who studied Ezekiel's writings with a mind to debunk them & found out he couldn't? Of course, Ezekiel wrote his texts with a "religious spin" on them & originally thought that they were gods or angels (in his later writings, he seems to be "cooling down" from his initial awe from the experience & seemed more reluctant to think of them as "divine"), but his descriptions of their aircrafts fit in so well with what the author knew of aerodymics.
I suggest you pick up a copy...I find that book to be much better written than any of von Dankien's "work" (I use that term loosely).


I have that book actually and it and the theory is covered in one of my pages that isn't complete yet...

But I must express a little confusion at your selective quote of Authors...

Erik von Danekin is not an engineer and he says "ancient spaceship" and you treat him as a nut and a buffoon... [the dislike in your statement almost seems personal as you literaly insult the man in your reference to his "work"] yet he has always maintained a "here is what I think, you decide yourself" position..

Josef F. Blumrich IS an engineer at NASA and he says "ancient spaceship" and you use him as a reference to back our theory...

Very professional of you




Edit to add....

Its particularly strange because on the book inscription from the publisher it says this...



Bantam, NY, 1974; paperback; 179p; out of print; Inspired by von Daniken, the author, a NASA engineer, set out to show the book of Ezekiel describes a spaceship. Includes drawings, diagrams, formulas, charts and photos.


And in his own words...


With these conclusions, I had to declare defeat; I wrote to Eric von Daniken, explaining that my attempt to refute his theory had resulted in a structural and analytical conformation of a major part of his hypothesis.
Determining the form, dimensions and functional capabilities of what Ezekiel saw makes understanadable a number of passages in his text that are otherwise meaningless; it also aids considerably in separating the prophetic or visionary parts of Ezekiel's book from those concerning encounters with spaceships. (I confined my study to the latter.) Being an engineer, I am not qualified to investigate the non-engineering portions. - Josef F. Blumrich


Not only that...


Until recently the author was chief of the Systems Layout Branch at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. In earlier years, he devoloped the structural design of the Saturn V booster and participated in the design of Skylab. He has left NASA in order to spend his full time on research concerning extraterrestrial visitors in ancient times.


He also has a patent on file sponsored by NASA for an "Omnidirectional Wheel" based on what he found



[edit on 7-9-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace

20. Snefru (Nofru) NOAH
21. Khufu (Chamu Chufu) HAM

The list goes on to list up to the 76th Pharaoh:

76. Men-maat-re (Seti I)


[edit on 16-4-2006 by lostinspace]


Maybe Noah is more like this guy: Utnapishtim.

Do a search and see how far back this goes. I think your link has very generous translations of egyptological symbology which cannot be supported.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Maybe Noah is more like this guy: Utnapishtim.

Noah is based on Atrahasis
Atrahasis is based on Upnapishtim
Upnapishtim is based in Ziusudra

iirc

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Marduk]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join