Shane sorry, but the name Adam doesn't mean what you said.

Adam: אָדָם in standard Hebrew, actually translates as: Earth, Man, Soil or Light Brown. The idea that it began to mean something else as in "to blush" is from a much later date. In fact, the term in Ancient Hebrew was: ha adamah which means the ground or earth. Then the term "man" was added due to God creating man from the ground.

The first posters questions, are very much valid.

Shane

You once said "ask" if I had anymore questions...

Well I do actually...

Years ago I found a reference to Jesus that indicated he said once he was gone they would misunderstand his teachings.

It was over 20 years ago and I was sure it was in one of the gospels but don't know where to look. Any clues?

Where do you think the Sumerians come from? They are decendants of Noah

you seem to be confused
Noah is a Hebrew name
the hebrew language didn't exist until 1200BCE at which point the sumerian civilisation had been dead and buried for over 1500 years
and Marduk is a babylonian name
Bel Marduk is a babylonian god

i expect that you think every kid in mexico called Jesus is the messiah as well ?

try and get a stronger grip on reality
your last post could well be entered in the A.M.A journal as evidence that psycological damage is a result of listening to too many priests


oh and in case you didnt realise it the sumerian version of Noah (i.e. the original) Ziusudra didn't have any children


[edit on 18-8-2006 by Marduk]

Alright enough is enough...

Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.

So of you read some material and think you know the truth of the matter, but you really don't. Just because an Egyptologist says soemthing is true doesn't mean that it is. Just because these 'experts' are the only show in town doesn't make them right.

Its amazing how little we know about ancient times, and even more amazing how much we claim to know based on conjecture, situation and circumstance.

For instance, a geologist says the Sphinx was made in 7,000bc or before, yet nobody will accept that because of the history current day man has laid out...doesnt matter if the history is accurate, it would be too much to switch things around and recognize the truth. Historians don't want history re-written, especially the dawn of civilization becuase it would ruin all the work they have done.

holla if ya hear me

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Alright enough is enough...

Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.

So of you read some material and think you know the truth of the matter, but you really don't. Just because an Egyptologist says soemthing is true doesn't mean that it is. Just because these 'experts' are the only show in town doesn't make them right.

Pardon me?

Please, Outerspacewhatever, "experts" are called "experts" for a reason. And though you're right that it "doesn't make them right," at least not all the time, it most certainly doesn't make them wrong.

It seems clear to me that the longer a person looks into a thing, the more that person has a chance to learn something about that thing. Now, looking deeply into Hancock's, Cremo's, vonDaniken's, Hapgood's, or Sitchen's books, will give you the opportunity to learn something alright. You'll have an opportunity to learn something about Hancock, Cremo vonDaniken, Hapgood and Sitchen.

It's the people that actually take the time to achieve the necessary goals that allow them to actually examine the artifacts, and hunt (and find) more artifacts, that are in the best position to theorize.

Anyone on Earth that disagrees with that logic is just blowing smoke.

Byrd has shown herself to be extremely well informed on the subject of ancient civilizations. What, beyond your own ignorance, have you shown?

If you joined ATS "...in the interest of learning and talking and things...", then you've accomplished the last parts first. Please begin work toward accomplishing the first part.

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMasterIts amazing how little we know about ancient times, and even more amazing how much we claim to know based on conjecture, situation and circumstance.

What's amazing is that so many people that know so little about ancient times get so huffy when their parrotings of the pseudoscientific "theories" of admitted liars and con men are shot down by people that actually know a thing or two here on ATS.

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMasterFor instance, a geologist says the Sphinx was made in 7,000bc or before, yet nobody will accept that because of the history current day man has laid out...doesnt matter if the history is accurate, it would be too much to switch things around and recognize the truth. Historians don't want history re-written, especially the dawn of civilization becuase it would ruin all the work they have done.

Schoch's estimate of the age of the Sphinx, which only applies to the front of the monument, incidentally, has other explanations. Are we to ignore these other explanations? Why? Because you like freckles?

What makes you say here that "nobody will accept that..."? Who is "nobody" and why do you believe this?

Historians have yet to write the history of Man. They have only written what has been deduced. But this is true of all history, even modern history. Besides, if "historians don't want history rewritten...." then why are historians still, to this day, rewriting history? What is the use of even being a historian if you don't want history rewritten? That's all historians do!

Maybe you should scout around this section of the site before you wade in shooting from the lip at an acknowledged expert in residence here. Think of it this way, you (or somebody) should come up with ideas that are not so easily disproven. Then perhaps the ideas won't be so quicklly dismissed.

Harte

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.

It's known as the Scientific Method. Archeology fits within this method. Basically, the idea is you set down a hypothesis and this is then tested. The weight of the evidence for and against it is then taken, so a conclusion can be gained from them.

If someone is constantly trying to disprove something then maybe it is because, their evidence is greater than the evidence you've given? If you believe Byrd to be wrong, show us why and do not make such posts which do nothing more than to de-rail a thread.

If Byrd is wrong, show us. The burden of proof is on the accuser. This is you, not Byrd. The burden of proof in this thread, falls on those who disagree with main-stream archeology and to some extent anthropology. You can say, Byrd is wrong all you like but show us.

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Alright enough is enough...

Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.

Okay, alot in this topic I can't follow. I'm not a pyramidologist (although I am fascinated by them), I have absolutely no knowledge of the ancient Hebrews....however I do know that Sumer was nothing but dust on the wind by the time Judaism was blossoming.

If Byrd hadn't challenged this everyone here who didn't know would have been misinformed and so would be replying in ignorance of the truth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ATS about "Denying Ignorance"?

If wrong claims aren't challenged then we would still think the world was flat, we would still think enslaving others because of their ethnic origin was fine, we would still think that everything in the entire universe revolves around us.

And Byrd isn't the subject matter expert for nothing.

The Sumerians, who didn't think they were descended from Ham or Shemp or even Curly (but were made by the council of gods) were around before Noah. They were leaving each other little love notes in Akkadian for centuries before Noah got caught in the river

the sumerians used the sumerian language
the akkadians used the akkadian language
the babylonians used the babylonian language
in that order
they all used the same alphabet but they were seperate from each other in the same way that english french and spanish use the same alphabet but are different

all three mesopotamians languages are older than Hebrew
all three languages have stories about a hero who survived a flood
Ziusudra, Upnapishtim and Atrahasis respectively

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster

So of you read some material and think you know the truth of the matter, but you really don't. Just because an Egyptologist says soemthing is true doesn't mean that it is. Just because these 'experts' are the only show in town doesn't make them right.

If a doctor tells you you;re seriously ill and need an urgent operation, do you believe him? Or do you dismiss his prognosis because he's only an expert and that doesn't make him right?

For instance, a geologist says the Sphinx was made in 7,000bc or before, yet nobody will accept that because of the history current day man has laid out...

No, but other geologists dispute the interpretation of the evidence. So who's right? In any case, Schoch's argument still only places the Sphinx around 4-5,000BC

Originally posted by Essan

If a doctor tells you you;re seriously ill and need an urgent operation, do you believe him? Or do you dismiss his prognosis because he's only an expert and that doesn't make him right?

Usually I would go for a second opinion first before letting him put the knife to me. I could tell you stories like the one in Florida where they cut off a man's good leg not the gangreen one by mistake...but thats for another room

Don't forget that doctors only "practice" medicine...

No, but other geologists dispute the interpretation of the evidence. So who's right? In any case, Schoch's argument still only places the Sphinx around 4-5,000BC

Most likely the first one because he must have found something to make him think it IS 7,000 years old. The only way to disprove current thinking is to gather new evidence and challenge what is considered accepted fact. There are hundreds of examples in history in many fields of study where our accepted concepts have been thrown out the window by some radical idea.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Scolecite

6. The Great Pyramid is the most accuratly aligned structure in existence.

I have not read through the entire thread, and not sure if this has been addressed, but i would like to say that it is not that hard to determine which way is north, and they most certainly had the technological advancements to put a stick in the ground and follow its shadow throughout the day, showing them which way was north.

1. My proposed 2/3 Ramp / 1/3 Lever/Jack-up combination, methods.
( Lever-ing revamped and expanded. )




Quote's used from the above essay written by Dori Freeman, who studied the pyramid theories and calculations from the australian engineer, mr Prevos :

page 4/16 : Prevos prefers the use of levers for vertical and even horizontal transport while constructing the courses of the pyramid. He refers to vertical transport as “jacking-up” and elects Hodges’ “paddling” method for horizontal transport. Prevos uses levers made completely out of wood, which make more sense than the levers with metal feet that Hodges proposed.
I feel that he used the wooden levers without the feet because the only known metal used by the ancient Egyptians was copper—a very soft metal . This would obviously not hold up against a 2.6+ ton limestone mass.
The length of the levers is 2 meters, the size of the fulcrum is 10 centimeters by 10 centimeters and, the wood was tapered so that the men “jacking-up” the stones would have an easier grip.
“When assuming that the leverage point is at 0.1 meters from the end, and the maximum downward force to be applied by one person is 600 N, the upward force on the other end is 1.9 * 600 / 0.1 = 11,400 N ."

1 Newton (N) = 0.09806 kgf (kilogram-force).
That's at the most 58.8 kgf, applied in a downwards arc by an ancient egyptian leverer, by hanging/leaning with all his weight on the end of his 2 meter long lever-handle, while the tip of the other, 11 cm long, short end, is slid under a 2.600 kg limestone block, enabling him to apply an upward force of 1117.9 kgf to the underside of the block and thus lift it up 10 cm.
Four leverers could thus lift a block of about 4 ton easily 10 cm above floor level. And then two of them then shove each a 10 cm thick, 120 cm long plank under the elevated block with one of their feet, and all four released then their lever handles again, so the block sunk on the 2 planks and stood now 10 cm higher as before.

Still one question stands. Where did they found the space needed under a block which stood on any of the pyramids course floors, to slide their lever tips in? The first one of a 8 time repeated jack-up procedure is meant here. The 7 next jack-ups have lever tip sliding space enough.
They needed to rise the block at least 73 cm higher, to start then the block sliding procedure onto the next course floor level.
After 8 jack-ups their blocks stood 80 cm higher.

Did any Great Pyramid researcher ever find 2 or more pre-carved short slits on any side of any or all of the building blocks?
Slits carved in blocks especially, to slide a lever's lifting tip in, and the lever's fulcrum (leverage point) could then rest in front of the slit, on the course ridge floor, while the leverer applied his body weight on the end of the handle.