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: 33
3
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
the Hebrews don't know their own history because they don't have one
they didn't exist as a group much before the 12th century
they certainly weren't around to faithfully record anything down in the bible
most of its content is derived from mesopotamian stories as you very well know so why attempt to deny it
so these Hebrews who lived there might have at least known that its impossible to get to nineveh from the coast in 24 hours (Jonah) or that it doesnt take 40 years to cross the sinai (exodus)
or that the city of On (Heliopolis) which they claimed to have built while in egypt is actually a pre dynastic city
the bible is full of errors that only someone who was a very poor historical scholar reading texts at a fairly late date could have made.
much like your own work
your german high critic excuse is just that
and its getting boring because it doesnt explain anything and never has
the history that I have learnt is from verifiable sources and not from religious mythology
thats why I find it very easy to point out the obvious flaw in all your unproven hypothesis
because your UH aren't based on anything solid
like your claim that upper egypt was in Ethiopia when Ethiopia is the name of a modern country that didn't exist until the 1950s
so you can't move its borders because you want to because its borders didn't exist in ancient times

like your claim that Nimrod is a sumerian when he only appears in hebrew texts
or like your claim that Enmerkar is a sumerian when he only appears in akkadian texts
or like your claim that the sumerians were almost wiped out by the great deluge it just doesnt hold water
all the texts that mention it are akkadian. and they are all set at the beginning of time when man is first created. How many of them have you read where it even mentions the name of a city that is inundated. I'll tell you the answer. It doesn't
there were no Sumerian cities inundated by the great deluge because they didn't exist then.
you saved that link to "timeline" didn't you ?

or like your claim that the gate of god (babylon) was a star gate
if you knew anything about the etymology of the name itself you'd realise how stupid that sounds
Babylon if you didn't know is actually a greek name
and its not what the Babylonians called it themselves
so the idea that they had a star gate there that the babylonians didn't know about and certainly didn't mention but the greeks did falls flat at the first hurdle
actually if you researched the name Babylon you'd probably find a city that most modern scholars have been searching for but ultimately regard as lost under the sands somewhere which if anything goes to show that etymology is always very important even when YOU think it isn't
I can hear Sargon laughing from here

you go on and on about religious crap like babel which isn't accounted in any original ancient contemporary credible source in some mad foaming at the mouth style because you think it means something
It doesn't beth
its an allegory and the bible is full of them
all it does is shows that you really haven't a clue about real history
I've said this before and you know that you get me really annoyed sometimes at the crap you come out with because I recognise that you have a real passion for this civilisation between the two rivers and if you applied yourself properly you could really do something wonderful. but you don't and that is such a pitiful waste.
as it is you could probably write a good script for a sci fi show


btw "piesta resistance" is actually spelled "pièce de résistance"
a piesta is a latvian word that means morter and pestle



and if you check you will find that we ended up at this point discussing this off topic subject because you started talking absolute off topic rubbish about China and the tower of Babel at the top of page 32
like always you attempt to derail a thread that was going nowhere anyway with something which you think is good research and revelatory to people ignorant of the facts
when in fact it isn't
as I have proved with every response to your posts in which I have proven quite clearly that your information is totally and terminally fallacious



Then Enki and Co. were authorized to use the nam-shub (a device to confuse speech and potentially the visual cortex) and the rest is history.

Nam Sub is not a device to confuse anything
it translates as "perfect thought" which in modern english we call POETRY
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
Enkis nam shub was Enkis poem
his was perfect
yours isn't even close




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
You said:

the city of On (Heliopolis) which they claimed to have built while in egypt is actually a pre dynastic city

My response:

Woot. Thanks.

As far as the rest of your post, you are STILL basing your knowledge on what the German Higher Critics decided history looked like once they removed any ancient texts that had any mention of a supernatural or hyper-natural event. they were out-of-the-gate prejudice against anything supernatural, which in some cases, may have been completely defineable with science which they would not have recognized because of their limited understanding of science. They rewrote the history books, spread them to the universities of their day, and today, archaeologists and historians all over the world, base their understanding of the past on the limited scope of German Higher Criticism (GHC, for the sake of brevity). If it's boring you, that's not my fault. You, personally, need to go back to their original writings and sift threw them. You will find much of what the mainstream holds as gospel is actually nothing more than the guesswork of GHC, which has already been proven wrong so many times, it'll make your head spin.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Beth
German Higher Criticism is a relic of the mid 19th century
all the sources that I study history through either predate that by millenia (i.e. ancient texts) or post date it by decades (archaeological reports)
when german higher criticism was the rage Sumer was still completely unknown
en.wikipedia.org...
when you consider that the german higher critics worked only on the bible and I continuously tell you that the bible is a badly plaguirised piece of cition then your german higher critics are not relevant
they are just an excuse
and people like you need excuses because as I said you haven't studied the actual details of real history
so fine
if you need an excuse as to why the unsupported stuff/crap you come out with doesn't seem to be true then thats fine
but I don't need excuses to prove that my facts are true
because my facts are already known to be so
so really
why bother to continue with this diatribe of yours
you arent fooling anyone
especially not me



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Beth
German Higher Criticism is a relic of the mid 19th century
all the sources that I study history through either predate that by millenia (i.e. ancient texts) or post date it by decades (archaeological reports)
when german higher criticism was the rage Sumer was still completely unknown
en.wikipedia.org...
when you consider that the german higher critics worked only on the bible and I continuously tell you that the bible is a badly plaguirised piece of cition then your german higher critics are not relevant
they are just an excuse
and people like you need excuses because as I said you haven't studied the actual details of real history
so fine
if you need an excuse as to why the unsupported stuff/crap you come out with doesn't seem to be true then thats fine
but I don't need excuses to prove that my facts are true
because my facts are already known to be so
so really
why bother to continue with this diatribe of yours
you arent fooling anyone
especially not me


the "unsupported" part, let me tell you about unsupported. archaeology (which you've listed as one of your resources for the truth "trademark, copyright by marduk"), bases their current understanding of the past on the historical texts hand selected by GHC historians. the selection criteria were the lack of supernatural or hypernatural events. they would've considered the computer you're using, as fairy tale. they would've considered space travel, a fairy tale. they would've considered solar energy, quantum physics, cordless anything, a fairy tale. so just like with the case of carbon dating an artifact, if it doesn't fit the paradigm designed by the GHC all those years ago, it isn't useful in dating artifacts, digs or anything else. the results are tossed out if they don't match the established criterion of GHC. please, do the research you will see I am telling you the truth.


[edit on 23-10-2006 by undo]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
oh i see
with you it is an inability to face the possibility that you are wrong that drives your demented hypothesis
for your information Beth your german higher critics did not rewrite the bible in line with their thinking and they did not affect western civilisation as we know it like you seem to think
the whole movement collapsed over 100 years ago and hasn't been seen since.
it was an attempt to rationalise the more fabulous parts of the bible with scientific truth and therefore make it more real but it soon died out when people began to realise that YWHW/Jehova is not the best thing since sliced bread so doesn't need a group of dead germans to make excuses for his book
if you can't see that then you really are in trouble

you use it like a shield behind which all your secets are rational
when in reality its just a very very very very poor excuse
Hancock has his "global orthodox conxipracy club" to make his rubbish seem real and you have your long dead german higher critics
his excuse for failure is by far more believable than yours

I'd love to know in what way your german higher critics affected Sumerian texts that were written over 4000 years before they existed
oh i forgot you can't read them in their original format like I can
trust me Beth
it doesnt mention high technology in a single one of them
you're wrong
and I think you know it because your posts have been getting more desperate and more ridiculous each time
give up now while you still appear only mildly insane

carry on and you run the risk of being just another nut on the only forum on the net that regularly bans people for being just that



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
So, back then to the topic of the GP. As far as I'm concerned, it's older than the mainstream version claims. It's at least 2800 BC or older.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Nubia and Cush were the same banana back then and Cush was Ethiopia. Nubia not only abutted the Egyptian border, many of the Nubians were Pharaohs.

Nubian Pharoahs were during the 15th Dynasty & were kicked out by the Egyptians of the 26th Dynasty...After which, the Persians moved in. This is still way after the Giza Pyramids.


Originally posted by undo
Oh I have as much proof as any of the other theorists.

But your "proof" has yet to be revealed as real, physical evidence which contradicts the hundred years or so of the real, physical evidence that has been unearthed by archeologists in & around Egypt. You seem pretty consistent at making links between entirely different cultures when no such links have been proven to support your theories. Even a theory requires some facts...Facts being defined as incontrovertable truth, of which you haven't really displayed any.

How about staying on topic with the Giza Pyramids? If you want to discuss your "theories", then make another thread.

Originally posted by Marduk
carry on and you run the risk of being just another nut on the only forum on the net that regularly bans people for being just that

Which is why I now suggest to Undo that you take your unsubstantiated "theories" to a new thread in Below Top Secret...Before it comes down to getting yourself banned for constantly derailing a topic.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by undo
Nubia and Cush were the same banana back then and Cush was Ethiopia. Nubia not only abutted the Egyptian border, many of the Nubians were Pharaohs.

Nubian Pharoahs were during the 15th Dynasty & were kicked out by the Egyptians of the 26th Dynasty...After which, the Persians moved in. This is still way after the Giza Pyramids.


Originally posted by undo
Oh I have as much proof as any of the other theorists.

But your "proof" has yet to be revealed as real, physical evidence which contradicts the hundred years or so of the real, physical evidence that has been unearthed by archeologists in & around Egypt. You seem pretty consistent at making links between entirely different cultures when no such links have been proven to support your theories. Even a theory requires some facts...Facts being defined as incontrovertable truth, of which you haven't really displayed any.

How about staying on topic with the Giza Pyramids? If you want to discuss your "theories", then make another thread.

Originally posted by Marduk
carry on and you run the risk of being just another nut on the only forum on the net that regularly bans people for being just that

Which is why I now suggest to Undo that you take your unsubstantiated "theories" to a new thread in Below Top Secret...Before it comes down to getting yourself banned for constantly derailing a topic.



Have you read David Rohl's work on the subject? If not, I highly recommend it. I think the guy is a blooming genius. Also, "The Giza Discovery", written by Peter Goodgame, is a good book. He wrote it back when the Head of Egyptian Antiquities decided Osiris was really buried on the Giza plateau and had the whole world tuned in as they opened a chamber a few hundred feet away from the GP. I'm sure you're familar with the event. Anyway, Peter Goodgame decided this must have some kind of special meaning because Hawass is just not that much of a speculator, and yet here he was claiming Osiris was real and buried in a chamber at Giza. Anyway, "The Giza Discovery" is free and on the net, if you want to read it. It contains several quotes from David Rohl.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   


Peter Goodgame decided this must have some kind of special meaning because Hawass is just not that much of a speculator

Media interest = Tourism = Money
Hawass is not a speculator
he is heavily involved in making money though. He doesn't care if the money comes from people who know anything about the subject
just like David Rohl who has been declared a nut by just about everyone qualified to make such a judgement
like the guy thinks the great deluge took place in 3113bce. thats laughable and proves he doesnt know anything at all about anything
pseudo pseudo pseudo nutjob




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Marduk, if you don't mind, I'm going to avoid answering your comments from now on. Not because I can't handle it, just don't want to be evicted for going off topic while defending myself or David Rohl, for example.

The topic of this thread is about the Great Pyramid being older than currently stated by mainstream egyptology. I suggest allowing alternative theories to be posted and argued to their fullest dimension. However, if the only way you can win the debate is to have people banned because they answered your accusations and brought the thread off topic, you must not have much confidence in your position. From the beginning, this thread has been about an alternative approach to the subject. You can't just trounce in here and tell everyone who has a different opinion than yours that they are in danger of being banned when they attempt to defend their own position, unless of course, you know something I don't?

In any event, you're gonna end up talking to yourselves if no alternative theories or their support structures, are allowed to be added to the thread. Perhaps this is how our history books got into such a place to begin with - intimidation tactics and silencing the opposition.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
undo, I am very impressed with your knowledge on the subject and many thanks for the information (links, recommendations of books) you provided. It is a great help for my future research.
Looking forward to learn more about the alternative approach to this very interesting topic.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   


undo, I am very impressed with your knowledge on the subject and many thanks for the information (links, recommendations of books) you provided. It is a great help for my future research.

see now that was funny,
you haven't noticed that Undo has not posted any links
not recomended any books
and not provided any information that is based on events that happened on this planet
I'd love to know what research you are doing but unless its into abnormal psycology I'm afraid I probably wouldn't be very imprerssed
please try to get a life in future
or at least
read the content of the posts and then respond to them properly without making yourself look uninformed and stupid
thanks





you're gonna end up talking to yourselves

ooh now see thats a little worrying
I'm going to end up talking to myselves am I
is this classic transference (sounds like it to me steve)

fyi theres only one of me here Beth whos apparently knowledgable to be able to disintegrate your rubbish without even needing to look it up because I know more about it in every area than you do
if you can't handle that then I suggest that you either stop posting crap or start learning the truth
clearly your current brand of alien sci fih history rubbish isn't cutting it
but then considering that I have the ability to do the same to the grand negus Sitchin you will never be able to get away with posting rubbish about this subject
so don't bother
because I will always respond to posts that are full of rubbish in order to educate people who don't know who may possibly buy into it
admit it Pseudo or alternative historians are going the way of the dodo
and I'm the one of the people making them extinct

tough isn't it




[edit on 24-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I've seen enough sniping in this thread.

Let's keep the comments on the topic and away from member 'personalities'.

Fair warning...the topic of this thread is whether the pyramids on the Giza Plateau were built by a civilization other than Egyptian.

If you haven't anything good to say about fellow members, say nothing at all and present only facts to bolster your argument in the discussion.

Please...no more off-topic accusations...it's getting tiresome.

Fair warning.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patrick_D It is a great help for my future research.


Oh really? And what research might that be? Sounds interesting...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Thank you Masqua!! The original topic has probably been exhausted at any rate. While most of those posting have exchanged ideas respectfully and freely a minority have only sought mostly to argue.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patrick_D
undo, I am very impressed with your knowledge on the subject and many thanks for the information (links, recommendations of books) you provided. It is a great help for my future research.
Looking forward to learn more about the alternative approach to this very interesting topic.



Zorgon has a ton of info on his site you might find interesting as well. I agree with him on this, what are you researching, sounds interesting ?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Thank you Masqua!! The original topic has probably been exhausted at any rate. While most of those posting have exchanged ideas respectfully and freely a minority have only sought mostly to argue.


Well it hasn't been exhausted, just beat to death.
There's alot of additional speculation, of course.

So they didn't use a lamellar surface on the pyramid? How did they polish the main surfaces of the cruder blocks?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
I've seen enough sniping in this thread.

Let's keep the comments on the topic and away from member 'personalities'.

Fair warning...the topic of this thread is whether the pyramids on the Giza Plateau were built by a civilization other than Egyptian.

If you haven't anything good to say about fellow members, say nothing at all and present only facts to bolster your argument in the discussion.

Please...no more off-topic accusations...it's getting tiresome.

Fair warning.



I promise to ignore Marduk unless he says something constructive about the topic. That-a-way the topic will stay on topic as far as my part in it is concerned. I apologize for taking it off topic. He's just so, so confrontational, I can't help myself! A fault. Will fix it pronto.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I was just providing the proven theories where you just supplied unproven hypothesis
if you don't like that then do some proper research before claiming you know things that are blatantly false and based on your personal belief.
it not only derails the thread but wastes the time of anyone reading it

this thread has been dead for a while now
I propose its locked
its been proven many times already in the last 33 odd pages that the Pyramids at Giza were NOT there BEFORE the Egyptians got there
case closed





He's just so, so confrontational

admit it
you like me really




[edit on 24-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
I was just providing the proven theories where you just supplied unproven hypothesis
if you don't like that then do some proper research before claiming you know things that are blatantly false and based on your personal belief.
it not only derails the thread but wastes the time of anyone reading it

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Marduk]


Uh 'proven theories?' That does not compute.



Back to speculation and probable realities for the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join