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.

 

Forbidden Egyptology

page: 20
108
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Thanks for adding the labyrinth-mystery. Good to know that there are still things to be discovered...by digging up desert sand. Fantastic.




posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The only thing that keeps me curious about this piece is that it

a) Contains a writing that is not known and does not have any known equivalent in the world
b) There seem to be some scholars that say america had elephants afterall: Men and Elephants in America...this would coindide with the mormon belief that elephants existed in the americas...12 000 years ago.
c) As far as I can tell nobody has actually bothered to examine it.





Sky,

I can't see the photo but I believe I've seen it before. Most "elephants" found in Native artwork are not elephants but tapirs.

Also, I've seen an elephant claim that is actually a parrot.
Anyway, regarding Johnson's "Men and Elephants in America," Johnson's thesis is that Mastodons may have survived in some areas to as late as 2,000 B.C.:


In 1934, W. D. Strong published a significant article summarizing
numerous North American Indian traditions suggesting historical
knowledge of the mammoth.⁴² Strong divided these traditions into
two groups: (1) “ ‘myths of observation,’ ” so called because they were
based upon “the observation of fossil bones, objects which would appear
to have always excited human interest,” and (2) actual “ ‘historical
traditions,’ [which] seem to embody a former knowledge of the living
animals in question, perhaps grown hazy through long oral transmission.”

⁴³ It is this later group of traditions that tends to support the
idea of late survival of the mammoth or mastodon. These traditions,
which can be found among Native Americans from the Great Lakes
region to the Gulf of Mexico, led Ludwell H. Johnson to conclude not
only that man and elephant had coexisted, but that the mammoth and
the mastodon may have survived until as late as 2000 bc in certain
regions of North America.⁴⁴

Other scholars have discussed pictographic evidence of trunked
animals found at several sites in North America and also in Mayan
codices and other artistic representations found in Mesoamerica and
Central America. Zoologist W. Stempel claimed on the basis of such
a representation at Copan that these could not be tapirs, but that the
images must represent mammoths.⁴⁵ No less an authority than Eric
Thompson found some of these elephantine-like representations to be
“a difficult thing to be explained away by non-believers.”⁴⁶ In 1930,
an “elephant-like” stone statue was discovered near the Tonolá River
on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.⁴⁷ Although certainly not definitive,
such evidence may be suggestive of the late survival of mammoths
or mastodons into this tropical region of southern Mexico, for which
Sorenson and others have suggested links between the Olmec cultural
tradition and the Jaredites.

Source
farms.byu.edu... ==&type=cmV2aWV3The subject usually comes up in a discussion of Mormonism, which faith (apparently) claims that the LDS were here when the Mastodons were. Thus the BYU link to the pdf above.
More from that link:


In 1993, three Russian archaeologists announced the discovery
that a species of dwarf mammoth had survived until as recently as
two thousand years ago on Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic.⁴⁸
Oddly, Larson feels that this remarkable discovery has no relevance
to the question of the elephant in the Book of Mormon. Instead, he
writes that “the evidence that neither the mammoth nor the mastodon
of North America survived the last Ice Age is strong” (p. 188). But his
statement misses the mark on several counts. Mammoths were not
supposed to have survived so late anywhere, yet a minority of scholars
have suggested that some few species of elephant may have survived
in scattered or isolated regions into relatively recent historical times.
As the Russian archaeologists noted in one report, “hardly anyone has
doubted that mammoths had become extinct everywhere by around
9,500 years before present”; however, these new discoveries “force this
view to be revised.”⁴⁹ And if the mastodon did survive into recent historical
times in one place, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it might
have survived, in at least limited numbers, in other regions as well.

(same source)

As you can see, it's not exactly a stretch to think there may have been some Mastodons around back then.

I'm very interested in cryptozoology myself, a field I believe this sort of thing should be filed under.

At any rate, even if these things are elephantine, that is no reason to suppose any precolumbian contact, as you can surmise from the above information.

All the "conspiracy" proponents need to take a deep breath and realize that the info above comes from scientific journals where scientists publish their findings. These people are not "fringe" and they were not "disappeared" or shouted down.

IOW, nothing about this has ever been "hidden" from anyone.

Harte

EDIT - For whatever reason, my link didn't work, so I'm linking to the page that got me there: Link

About halfway down you'll find this entry -


"T
region to the Gulf of Mexico, led Ludwell H. Johnson to conclude not ... 44. Ludwell H. Johnson III, "Men and Elephants in America," Scientific Monthly 75 ...
farms.byu.edu...


Click on the "T (whatever that means) and it will take you to the pdf file I quoted from.

H.

[edit on 2/22/2008 by Harte]

[edit on 2/22/2008 by Harte]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
On the subject of Egypt, more needs to be realized about its ancient history than is commonly known. Egyptians didn't always live around the Nile, as evidenced by the following:

www.livescience.com...

And the associated map.

www.livescience.com... pancy+in+the+Sahara+Desert.+Credit%3A+%A9+Science

I believe more emphasis should be given to the post glacial migrations of what was to become the Ancient Egyptians.

cormac



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Hi Harte, I see your a maths teacher, knew you reminded me of someone


I'd like to hear your thoughts on Egyptian 'math'. I say Egyptian, but i doubt it.

There use of advanced Pythagorean calculations, there 'detailed' mapping over large distances, such as the 'golden spiral' shown earlier, Im guessing you are far superior than me, so I would like to hear your thoughts.


From what I see, it is an incredible feat in itself, and is only mirrored in the finished product.

thanks. EMM



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I agree with sky also, it is his interpretations that he has drawn from, I mentioned this earlier, but he claimed they referred to Baalbek as 'the land of the fiery rocketships' as from when he 'began' writing, it was around the 70's, space race et al. Rockets were all over media, linked with space travel etc, so he attributed this too the travel he believed they may have used.

What few realise now, and what many WILL realise soon, is that the distance/speeds needed can never be reached with combustion technology (rockets ^^). This does not mean he is wrong, but the word he chose to translate, he associated with the wrong object, just like 'flying chariots' from the time of old, He couldn't comprehend anything else it could've been.

Thats one of the main problems I have with Sitchin, but I feel content of his theory is sound, and the research he shows, his conclusions are just as substantiated as any mainstream theory I have seen.

Alot of people still believe GOD created the earth in 6 days an rested on the 7th, why would an almighty omnipotent being need a rest?
This isn't a stab at anyones belief, but an example of something which is less substantiated(or not at all), but widely believed.

He's worth a read if your interested.

thanks. EMM



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Originally posted by Harte
I defy anyone to show me where any "million pound" stone has been "dragged for miles" over rugged terrain.


Hi Harte , it is not my intension to argue with you about this, but it must be happened by Baalbek in Lebanon as you also know I think.
I can in a way even believe that these massive blocks where cut out by the people in that timeframe, but it is impossible for me to accept that these people where also capable of "dragging them for miles" with whatever human tool they had in that timeframe over rugged terrain, and put them together as shown in the pictures.






These three stone blocks are the largest building blocks ever used by any human beings anywhere in the world. Each one is 70 feet long, 14 feet high, 10 feet thick, and weigh around 800 tons. This is larger than the incredible columns created for the Temple of Jupiter, which are also 70 feet tall but measure a mere 7 feet -- and they weren't constructed from single pieces of stone. In each of the above two images, you can see people standing by the trilithon to provide reference for how large they are: in the top image a person is standing to the far left and in the bottom image a person is sitting on a stone about in the middle.





As impressive as these three stone blocks are, though, there is a fourth block still in the quarry which is three feet longer than the blocks in the trilithon and which is estimated to weigh 1,200 tons.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I can in a way even believe that these massive blocks where cut out by the people in that timeframe, but it is impossible for me to accept that these people where also capable of "dragging them for miles" with whatever human tool they had in that timeframe over rugged terrain, and put them together as shown in the pictures.

Timeframe being the keyword.

I've searched on Baalbek and nowhere do I see a timeframe for the temple construction (except that the Roman temples was built over a period of 200 years).

I dont really see it as impossible: they obviously did it, the stones are the proof. How? No idea. How long did it take? I'm guessing quite many years.

Its only if you claim that it took them like 20 minutes to move the stones into position I'd agree that its impossible.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


I found this info about the timeframe when the temple was build.


The temple was begun in the last quarter of the 1rst century B.C., and was nearing completion in the final years of Nero's reign (37-68 A.D.). the Great Court Complex of the temple of Jupiter, with its porticoes, exedrae, altars and basins, was built in the 2nd century A.D. Construction of the so-called temple of Bacchus was also started about this time.
The Propylaea and the Hexagonal Court of the Jupiter temple were added in the 3rd century under the Severan Dynasty (193-235 A.D.) and work was presumably completed in the mid-3rd century. The small circular structure known as the Temple of Venus, was probably finished at this time as well.


www.world-mysteries.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



BEST PICTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN FOR THE SCALE OF THESE BLOCKS!!!

I have seen many, but these, by far, exceed all I have seen. The shear size of these stones in comparison to the person. I have read that some of these stones weigh in excess of 1500 tons!! that is incredible, to further find out that they had to be lifted between 50-100ft led me to question methods used and the people that supposedly incorporated them into there design. If they wanted to achieve this effect, why not many of smaller blocks and then mortared over them to create this effect? Why go through all the 'supposed' hastle of moving these blocks for miles from the quarrying site when, according to some, they had the ability to achieve the effect, without the cause of consequence? In mainstream anything, not just archeology, the answers seem, to me, to be too simplified, even if it is 1000's of people draggin one, OF MANY, stones, maybe the logs theory?, how about pushing this up a 5 degree incline, let alone the 20-30 degrees proposed? doesn't sit right with me, sorry.


thanks. EMM

[edit on 23-2-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
In mainstream anything, not just archeology, the answers seem, to me, to be too simplified, even if it is 1000's of people draggin one, OF MANY, stones, maybe the logs theory?, how about pushing this up a 5 degree incline, let alone the 20-30 degrees proposed? doesn't sit right with me, sorry.



You´d be surprised by the flights of imagination mainstream has to take because they cant and wont accept ancient high-tech. Earlier on we had someone suggesting that those holes were drilled moving dozens of bulls around some device



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Whats more: How many buildings that stable and massive to we build nowdays?

Our most impressive and expensive buildings fall with the crash of an airplane. I dont know if 9/11 wouldnt have destroyed those huge blocks of stone.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Whats more: How many buildings that stable and massive to we build nowdays?

Our most impressive and expensive buildings fall with the crash of an airplane.
I don’t know if 9/11 wouldn’t have destroyed those huge blocks of stone.


No offence Skyfloating,
I think we have a different opinion here, but that is entirely another discussion of course.


[edit on 24/2/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 

Yeah it says when the Roman temples where built.

The big stones are part of an older complex (probably Phoenician?) and as far as I can see, we dont even know when they where built. What if it took 100 years? 200 years? Even more? This is compared to the Great Pyramid which took 25-ish years if I remember correctly.

That's why one can never say "impossible" when it comes to the effort put into ancient constructions, unless the timeframe is shockingly short.

Sidenote: I havent read up on Baalbek all that in detail, so if I'm wrong someone need to correct me lol.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


You think the buildings in NYC (such as WTC) are similarily stable to this?



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


You think the buildings in NYC (such as WTC) are similarily stable to this?


No, it is my personal opinion, after studying a very great amount of the available information in the form of articles, interviews, pictures and videos, that I don’t believe that the real reason why the WTC buildings one and two collapsed in the way it happened, was due by the crash of those airplanes only.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
This is compared to the Great Pyramid which took 25-ish years if I remember correctly.


The Great Pyramid is in my opinion not build by the pharaoh Kufhu as the Egyptologists claim.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


We are both of the same mind I see, on the cause of the WTC and Khufu sticking his flag were it ain't wanted. Baalbek was apparently the space port of the gods, and I have no idea how long it was said to have been built in. The pyramids were said to be Control, as well as a landmark to line up a flight path.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
,
No, it is my personal opinion, after studying a very great amount of the available information in the form of articles, interviews, pictures and videos, that I don’t believe that the real reason why the WTC buildings one and two collapsed in the way it happened, was due by the crash of those airplanes only.


Yes of course. Controlled Demolition. But thats not the issue here. The issue is: Buildings are not as massive nowdays. In comparison they are weak.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Sky if this hasnt been posted in the past 20 pages please read, it make good reading about our good friend the caretaker of Egyptian antiquities in Ciro

www.lyghtforce.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I agree, but I feel this is due to 'conservation' of space, rather than structural design. The pyramids are...well pyramids, strongest shape, as the weight is dispersed through the wider point at the bottom, bu this takes up alot of space, for the height of th building, not to mention not economical for space on the inside. There is a purpose for the use of that shape, and so far i have seen many reasons, ranging from harmonic resonation to the guiding of souls to the sky, but my jury is still out to be honest.

slightly off the Egyptian topic but again, some background research on forbidden archeology, I saw this ages ago on the internet, and I haven't been able to find it since, until now


z.about.com...

I'm not sure if this has been proven a hoax or not, and if it is I'm sorry, but I find this highly interesting, especially since I have never seen this on any news program or documentary.

thanks. EMM



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join