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......sound and water???

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Byrd I respect you and your knowledge highly, but you are 2 days and 3 pages late with these statements:



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.)


You may have interepted his disclosure of his degree, as a statement of expertise. I took it to be an attempt to stifle posts that you and especially the other 'expert' have provided. He knew what you would say, just wanted other ideas. He made another thread, because this one didn't turn out the way he wanted. So maybe you should move it now to skunkworks.




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinlineYou may have interepted his disclosure of his degree, as a statement of expertise. I took it to be an attempt to stifle posts that you and especially the other 'expert' have provided. He knew what you would say, just wanted other ideas.


If that was the reason, it was ... badly thought out. He must not hang out in the other parts of the board because if he was in science or some of the other sections he'd know that you can't just come in and pretend. There's always a real expert around and the poser always ends up looking stupid.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
It appears we now need an instigator gang, Astyanax thinks we are at war when in fact we havel u2u'd one another about the differences......Hmmmm Astyanax, there are plenty of educated discussions all over the board that are going on, I suggest you start one on instigation if you cannot contribute in any other way to the existing thread.

Thank you, Mondogiwa. No, I don't think you're at war. Re-read my earlier post and you'll find that the image I used was that of a tennis match, a strictly nonlethal form of contest.

Lots of real-world conversations take place in which some participants are mostly silent, only speaking up to express their agreement or approval (or their opposite) when they feel it is appropriate.

Consider my contribution to this thread a third-party assessment of your contribution, as well as Byrd's and Marduk's. I am entitled to do this; there are no private conversations on ATS except in the restricted forums. In my view, you and others who identify with your position have failed to provide enough evidence to make an educated person take your case seriously while Byrd and Marduk have more than made theirs.

Perhaps the comment at the end of my previous post (about knowledge and commonsense versus fancy and the need to believe) was a bit too frank for you, but it happens to express my position accurately. Tough luck.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Telos


Originally posted by Astyanax
Still watching this thread. I continue to be impressed...

As some other posters said this is not a competition or who's better and smarter...

No? If I choose to view it as such, who shall gainsay me?


...So now I hope you understand what i mean Astyanax. That's why there is no point and especialy no need to debate where marduk and Byrd come from...

This is your opinion. You are entitled to express it. I happen to think you're wrong, and that your post reveals an evident desire to live in a world of myth and maybe rather than go to the trouble and possible disappointent of finding out how things really are by means of rational, scientific enquiry. This, too, is your right, and who knows, it may serve you better in life than my love of reality serves me in mine. To paraphrase Mary Poppins, a spoonful of self-delusion often helps the medicine go down.

I notice that some participants are now down to postulating evidence that might once have existed in support of their case:


Just because it hasn't been found to be drawn on any walls, or written in any manuscripts, doesn't mean it's not there.

I find this a little telling, don't you?

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Astynax, I'm sorry but you are grossly mistaking something here. No I cannot speak for everyone, but IMO noone here has touted any particular manner of construction as being what was actually used. That's where your mistaken. Noone is trying to convince anyone of anything.

And noone wants your coaching, or side-line commentary.




There's always a real expert around and the poser always ends up looking stupid.


Who's the poser? Who pretended what? Where did you come from?

[edit on 19-1-2007 by nextguyinline]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   


No I cannot speak for everyone,

then why claim you do when you say


And noone wants your coaching, or side-line commentary.

I think hes making a far more valuable contribution than many posters in this thread so far
you just don't like being disagreed with do you



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
IMO noone here has touted any particular manner of construction as being what was actually used. That's where your mistaken.

Well, actually, Byrd and Marduk are 'touting' a particular manner of construction, the same one 'touted' by Herodotus and innumerable writers after him, the same one that is indicated by the archaeological record, the same one that is supported by the archaeological community. And me, I'm buying what they're touting.


Noone is trying to convince anyone of anything.

Ooh, I'm not so sure about that. Seems like a lot of people are trying to convince us that science and commonsense are both wrong, while others are trying to convince us that these things are right.


And noone wants your coaching, or side-line commentary.

Are you sure? Someone just sent me an appreciative U2U.



There's always a real expert around and the poser always ends up looking stupid.

Who's the poser? Who pretended what? Where did you come from?

I hope you aren't implying that I wrote the line quoted by you above, because I didn't.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   
You have a serious problem I think. Your the one looking for agreement. That's what really big egos seek. A stroker. I was trying to contribute what the OP wanted, but I got sidetracked by your 15yr old demeanor, and focused my attention on you.

Now, like on the other thread, I won't be responding to you personally here any more. Please direct any further humilating comments through the u2u avenue.


Thanks



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by nextguyinline
IMO noone here has touted any particular manner of construction as being what was actually used. That's where your mistaken.

Well, actually, Byrd and Marduk are 'touting' a particular manner of construction, the same one 'touted' by Herodotus and innumerable writers after him, the same one that is indicated by the archaeological record, the same one that is supported by the archaeological community. And me, I'm buying what they're touting.


I was speaking of the 'other' contributers. I'm trying to refrain from refrencing you three, as I'm tired of my lapse of focus. I've allowed you guys to get the best of me, but I've fixed that.




Noone is trying to convince anyone of anything.

Ooh, I'm not so sure about that. Seems like a lot of people are trying to convince us that science and commonsense are both wrong, while others are trying to convince us that these things are right.


We only need history to show how science and common sense are often wrong. Your probably young.



And noone wants your coaching, or side-line commentary.

Are you sure? Someone just sent me an appreciative U2U.


Yes I'm sure. Marduk doesn't count.




There's always a real expert around and the poser always ends up looking stupid.

Who's the poser? Who pretended what? Where did you come from?

I hope you aren't implying that I wrote the line quoted by you above, because I didn't.

Nope, I usually don't use names in the quote, as to try and not to imply that I'm responding to the poster, instead of the post.

I will not be responding to you personally here any longer. If you want to further your commentating, please direct your comments via u2u


Thanks



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   


I was speaking of the 'other' contributers. I'm trying to refrain from refrencing you three, as I'm tired of my lapse of focus. I've allowed you guys to get the best of me

well I've also been scoring this so far
hes the fourth person who's got the best of you in the last 2 days
don't you get tired of being wrong all the time



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Your probably young.

By the standards of Methuselah only, I fear.


I will not be responding to you personally here any longer.

I'm sorry to hear it. I notice you're not going to be talking to Marduk either. Which means that -- Byrd apart, for the time being -- you will only be responding to current thread participants who share your broad perspective. So that's it: no more truck with the 'hardcore archeos and anthros', no more listening to people who disagree with you for good, factual reasons. You've closed your mind to all that; you're only going to listen now to what sounds good to you.

Funny, that. Believers and lovers of the fantastic are forever accusing sceptics and empiricists of being closed-minded, just because we strain at gnats of implausibility while they swallow whales of the stuff at a gulp. In fact it's just the opposite: it's the believers and fantasists who refuse to listen to any evidence, however compelling, that their belief is false. They're the ones with the closed minds, the ones who will stick to their guns come what may.

Scientists and empirical thinkers, on the other hand, are constantly changing and updating their stories. Do you know why? It's because our minds are not closed. When new evidence appears to show that our ideas are false, we throw the old ideas out and form new ones. Some people -- yourself included, to judge by what you said in the post to which I am replying here -- regard this as a sign that science and scientists are unreliable, or untruthful, or just incompetent. In fact, it signifies the very opposite. It is precisely why a scientific approach is the only reliable one to take on matters relating to the physical world, and why those who oppose a scientifically supported premise must either find scientific support for their own opposed premise, or withdraw from the contest, as you have done.

Vale, my friend, and may you find yourself more amiable opponents than this one.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
HOw hard is it to create ROCK ??? Does anyone know ??? or Stone .. or ??? And eventually does this petrify ??? Or get harder or turn into another sort of ROCK ??? Just wondering cause I know that Wood Petrifies over time ... Wondering if Stone would ever Turn to anything else ??



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Scientists and empirical thinkers, on the other hand, are constantly changing and updating their stories. Do you know why? It's because our minds are not closed. When new evidence appears to show that our ideas are false, we throw the old ideas out and form new ones.


I don't agree with this.

Scientist today are more worried about their reputation then about truth.

Telos said this much nicer couple pages back.

[edit on 1/19/07 by vietifulJoe]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   


Scientist today are more worried about their reputation then about truth.

and you have based this on what exactly ?
your belief that osmaganic has found a 12000 year old pyramid in bosnia built by aliens and scientists are too worried about their reputations to admit it
how about
his ideas are fraudulent and you fear people who use the scientific method because they can see right through them
why dont you tell us a little more about your deeply held convictions about earths history Joe
lets see why you fear empirical data and the scientific method shall we

answer these questions
1) who built the egyptian pyramids
2) who built the mayan pyramids
3) who built sumerian ziggurats
4) which ancient cultures were in contact with aliens
5) how long has homo sapiens sapiens been around

i dare you




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Who mentioned Bosnia or Osmanagic here??


I'm referring to Dr. Steen-McIntyre who was mentioned in link to the Talos’ post.

If you like to talk about pyramids, Bosnia or Osmanagic, you’ll have to change the way you communicate. This way you can talk to your self.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
fyi
velikovsky although pilloried unfairly at the time imo has since been proven to have been wrong anyway
and I am aware who Viriginia is
I post at her forum
but you can't take one or two examples and use that to claim that it is what is happening globally anymore than you can take the acts of a group of terrorists and blame the whole religoon that they are members of

that quote from Oppenheimer is a good one



"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."

who's method do you think it most describes
mine or yours ?



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I posted this in another thread, but since they are very similar, I would like to express it here as well.

From the credible source:


Our thinking on pyramids has evolved considerably over the years. Many of us who are a bit older were taught that the pyramids were built using Jewish slave labor, which is a fabrication of immense proportions. Most of the pyramids were built long before the Jews made their appearance historically and currently, many if not most scholars believe they were not built using slave labor at all (or perhaps a nominal number of slaves).

Otherwise, we can also dismiss offhand alternative theories related to aliens or some lost culture being responsible for pyramid building. There is just far too much evidence, including tools, drawings, evolutionary changes, and even worker villages that rule these farfetched ideas obsolete.

However, some mysteries remain, even in some of the best well known Pyramids. The most famous of them all, the Great Pyramid of Khufu, continues, year after year, to give up a few more secrets, and there doubtless remains much to learn from these Egyptian treasures. There may even be one or more pyramids yet to be discovered



Now that's the attitude I would expect from a expert Egyptologist.

The first paragraph reinforces the 'fact' that theories change, and this paragraph is specifically speaking of Egyptology.

The second parapgraph only dismisses aliens and lost cultures, which are clearly not being argued here. It doesn't say anthing about alternate methods of construction.

The third paragraph should humble everyone. It DIRECTLY says that mysteries remain, escpecially in the great pyramid. My favorite... "..and there doubtless remains much to learn..."



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   


There is just far too much evidence, including tools, drawings, evolutionary changes, and even worker villages that rule these farfetched ideas obsolete.

I would read this bit again if i were you and then look to what you have been claiming so far

also you are deliberately misquoting
the quote which you clkaim as your favourite actually says


there doubtless remains much to learn from these Egyptian treasures

note it says "from these egyptian treasures"
in other words from the data we already have
not from data we arrived at via imagination


[edit on 19-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Why do people spend so much time and even go to college to study pyramid which has nothing special at all.

It is so man made, it has nothing to do with E.T. , it has no secret and no mystics.
We don't even know how our neighbor built their houses, why should we worry how Egyptian built pyramid?

It is really a pity that someone keep on talking about pyramid and telling people pyramid is actually nothing than a building built by primitive Egyptian tribe. And he/she actually spent lots of time studying it. A waste of time.

Is it just because pyramid is so famous, so it must be something promising or money in it. As the matter of fact, British were and are not much but a thief, they stole so many things from pyramid and now they try to be smart and talk about pyramid which has nothing special at all, it is just something made by primitive tribe. But, beside that there are many pseudo scientists made lots of money from pyramid.

Whichever one, they are thieves.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
fyi
velikovsky although pilloried unfairly at the time imo has since been proven to have been wrong anyway
and I am aware who Viriginia is
I post at her forum
but you can't take one or two examples and use that to claim that it is what is happening globally anymore than you can take the acts of a group of terrorists and blame the whole religoon that they are members of

that quote from Oppenheimer is a good one



"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."

who's method do you think it most describes
mine or yours ?


To begin with is nice seeing you posting without the usual irony and attack against whoever doesn't think the same as you. At the end we're just exchanging ideas and opinions and there is no point to bash each other.
Now let me get to the post. Velokofsky not only has been pilloried unfairly. He has been totally ignored and abbandoned by mainstream science for his ideas. As for proving him wrong trust me, I know his work perfectly coz as I said I studied phsychology and he is one of the giants. There is people who think he was wrong and people who recently started taking his work in consideration and expanded his theories. The reason why I mentioned Velikofsy and MacIntyre was just for example but I can garantie you that numbers are to high. And in all the fields.

I have a material that I'm posting here. Is not from internet otherwise I would have provided the link. So i'm posting it here as it is.



Archaeological Cover-ups


"THE BRAIN POLICE" AND "THE BIG LIE"

Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very sceptical about conspiracies--unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind the alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much of it is in plain view.

The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber's unit and a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.

The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects: scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is "The Big Lie"--and the bigger and more widely publicised, the better. They rely on invoking their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the presumption is that no one has the right to question their authoritarian pronouncements that:
1. there is no mystery about who built the Great Pyramid or what the methods of construction were, and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage;
2. there were no humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC;
3. the first civilisation dates back no further than 6000 BC;
4. there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to take into account;
5. there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilisations.
Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!
Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid

In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known as the "water erosion controversy". An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.

Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's preliminary conclusion and they announced their findings.

Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive". That was a curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.

But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist's assessment would hold more weight on this particular point.)

A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate the issue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West was not allowed to participate because he lacked the required credentials.

This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment's arsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science. Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have number one.

Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them, especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process.

Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have been batted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.

This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted for generations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the Great Pyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled if Egyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be designed and arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or disprove their longstanding disputed theory--that it was built using the primitive tools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.

Why hasn't this been done? The answer is so obvious, it seems impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly educated scientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by primitive methods? That seems improbable, though they have no compunction against lying to the public, writing textbooks and defending this theory against alternative theories. However, we must note that they will not subject themselves to the bottom-line test.

We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with bending the rules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is bat down alternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to insist that they prove their own proposals.




[edit on 19-1-2007 by Telos]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join