Forbidden Egyptology

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Hanslune

Yet you misquoted me

You said "a large percentage are not egyptian or muslim", yes. But it still means the same thing, namely that a large percentage are not muslim. This I refuted by pointing out that 86% of of the population of egypt muslim.

Period.

Skyfloating,
If you believe that in Hanslune's post:

Originally posted by Hanslune
Unitl the mid 20th century almost all Egyptogists were not Egyptian nor Muslim

Even today a large percentage are not Egyptian or Muslim.

he is saying that most Egyptians are not muslim, then you shouldn't be a moderator here (or anywhere else.)
You don't have the reading skills.

If, on the other hand, you simply refuse to admit that you misquoted him by accident, you shouldn't be a moderator here or anywhere else. You lack the requisite demeanor.

If, lastly, you know what Hanslune meant but persist in trying to twist what he said to fit some strange vendetta against people that know more than you in a subject about which you started a thread, then you shouldn't be a moderator here (or anywhere else.)
You don't have the proper integrity for it.

You should correct this asap. You are in the wrong.

Hanslune is correct that most Egyptologists were neither Egyptian nor Muslim during the time period he mentions.

"Period."

Harte

reply to post by Harte


ooops...egyptologists. That was indeed a misread. I always read "egyptians". You know why? Because that was my original premise. I said "Most egyptians are", so I never expected someone to counter with "most egyptologists are".

If you think I should not be a moderator, feel free to use the complaints/suggestion forum and propose just that

Hanslune & Harte:

Sorry for the aggravation folks. It was indeed a complete misread. I was thinking "What the hell is he so angry about?". My apologies.

Skyfloating- you've done a great job here, and I think you're a great addition to the ATS moderating staff. Keep up the good work and thanks for this thread.

In addition:

Harte,

You seemingly asked to be challenged back on page 18. So I thought that I took you up on your request back on page 22( posts directed to you) on a few occasions but you've chosen not answer me directly. MAybe you missed my posts. I love challenges and am ready to engage in one with you about this here topic if you're up for it.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Skyfloating- you've done a great job here, and I think you're a great addition to the ATS moderating staff. Keep up the good work and thanks for this thread.

I'll definitely second that

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Hanslune & Harte:

Sorry for the aggravation folks. It was indeed a complete misread. I was thinking "What the hell is he so angry about?". My apologies.

It takes a big person to apologize Skyfloating, so kudos to you for doing so.

Definitely makes you Moderator material in my eyes.... period

Be well

reply to post by spacevisitor


Totally understand and agree with what you're saying.

Alot of Egyptology is based on assumption simply because there isn't enough evidence or information to back certain things up, and that part is fine. I understand that. I just don't like being force fed "facts" or assumptions that are being disguised as facts that I know don't hold any water.

There is a lot that just doesn't add up.

More on the book "The Stargate Conspiracy"


In the last link I provided ("Interesting Read") you can read about the premise of the book "The Stargate Conspiracy".

The authors of the book, themselves skeptics, make a pretty good case in showing that people surrounding the CIA, the Stanford Research Institute, A.R.E have been actively promoting the belief-systsem of a Giza-Mars connection. In fact, this is pretty well documented in the book.

Its only the conclusions of the authors that I differ with. The authors take their evidence to be indicative of the CIA staging a psychological warfare operation in trying to promote these fringe beliefs.

I on the other hand, think they are pushing the Mars-Giza connection (among other things) not to misinform, but to re-engineer social beliefs in a direction more open to extraterrestrial contact.

"The Stargate Conspiracy" is a compelling read because it neither caters to fringe-believers and "alternative-egyptologists" NOR to mainstream egyptologists and skeptics.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Skyfloating- you've done a great job here, and I think you're a great addition to the ATS moderating staff. Keep up the good work and thanks for this thread.

PhotonEffect, I absolute agree with what you saying here.
So Skyfloating, know that your overall work on ATS, as also in this indeed interesting tread, is very respected by this Spacevisitor.

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


Well, what I know is that these tablets in their original form are hidden away. I've read that they were buried or hidden somewhere in the Giza desert by priests who were trying to protect them from being destroyed in the fires that took place at The Great Library of Alexandria. Who knows what sacred texts may have been lost in these fires but apparently the emerald tablets or some of them survived.

Since that time there have been many hand written copies and translations passed down thru the years. I haven't read them all yet but what I have so far makes me wonder...






[edit on 29-2-2008 by PhotonEffect]

Have somebody ever heard of this before, I don’t heard of it myself until I found it when I was searching further on this site yesterday.

The Rosicrucian View.

In his book The Symbolic Prophecy of the Great Pyramid (Rosicrucian Press, 1936), H. Spencer Lewis included drawings "made from secret manuscripts possessed by archivists of the mystery schools of Egypt and the Orient and are part of secret manuscripts telling of the ancient forms of initiations held in the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid." The existence of the halls and passages are, of course, "denied repeatedly by Egyptian and other authorities and even by eminent archaeologists and investigators from various parts of Europe." (p. 181) The elevation and plan reproduced below is based on this secret information.

The article focuses on the excavations made by Dr. Salim Hassan of the University of Cairo. "We have discovered a subway," Hassan is quoted as saying, "used by the ancient Egyptians of 5,000 years ago. It passes beneath the causeway leading between the second pyramid and the Sphinx." The subway is some 72 feet wide and more than 1,400 feet long. In addition to the subway, there are a number of subterranean chambers and temples, including a "Chapel of Offerings" that has three pillars in the center. On the west side of this chapel is a "room of initiation and reception" in which was found a "large white sarcophagus of white Turah limestone" and "excellent examples of alabaster vessels." Lewis describes the walls as being "beautifully painted and sculptured with scenes and inscriptions" and adds that "there are many magnificently carved figures in these various underground rooms and chapels, temples, and hallways, also many beautifully colored friezes." (pp. 189-190) Spence assures the readers that all of these details, complete with photographs, are included in Hassan's report.

The factual evidence of Hassan's report, writes Spence, "verify at least in part the things indicated on the two diagrams ... and undoubtedly the passing of time will verify other parts of these diagrams." (p. 190)

www.catchpenny.org...

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Harte,

You seemingly asked to be challenged back on page 18. So I thought that I took you up on your request back on page 22( posts directed to you) on a few occasions but you've chosen not answer me directly. MAybe you missed my posts. I love challenges and am ready to engage in one with you about this here topic if you're up for it.

Photon,

If you mean the link to youtube, I can't run their videos here at work and my home PC has been destroyed by my son.

If you could just tell me, I'll look into this giant stone "dragged for miles over rough terrain."

Got a name, date, civilization, reference?

If you mean Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods is so full of lies and deceptions I hardly know where to start.

How about Pacal's tomb? Haven't I gone into that here recently? How Hancock basically co-opt's VonDaniken's "He's an astronaut" nonsense re the carving on the sarcophagus lid, almost a decade after Mayan was deciphered? It says there in the tomb that it is Pacal falling down through the branches of the tree of life.

How about "tropical" foliage found in the bellies of "quick frozen" Mammoths?
Neither is true.

Hancock is in with Bauval as well on the "Orion alignment" of the three Giza pyramids. Neither tells you that they had to turn their photo of Orion upside down to make this alignment, reversing North and South for the constellation.

Not exactly forthcoming.

Hancock is on about some "Ancient city" in the Gulf of Cambay in India as well. Never mentions that there are no ancient "artifacts" from there, just some old pieces of wood. Imagine that. Wood! On the bottom of a Bay! A bay that is the end destination for a couple of rivers that drain the entire northwestern part of India!

Having dredged up the remains of mudworm's holes, that's right, mudworm's holes, he calls them pottery shards and pretends that important people in India agree with him (in agreement, for a while, was the head of ocean tourism in India. I wonder why he would agree?)

Multiple multiple other lies, half truths and downright ripoffs come from this guy every day.

Some links for you to read about what Hancock says vs. reality:
www.theos-talk.com...

csicop.org...

www.hallofmaat.com...[/ur l]
[url=http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=19]http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=19[/ url]

[url=http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=11]http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=11[/ url]

[url=http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=18]http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=18[/ url]

[url=http://www.antiquityofman.com/fairall_response.html]http://www.antiquityofman.com/fairall_response.html

www.antiquityofman.com...

www.antiquityofman.com...

If you want some more, I can write some myself or direct you to other websites.

Sorry about that. If you meant the youtube thing I prolly just wasted several minutes of your life.

Harte

EDIT - no idea what happened to make the links come out like that.

H.

[edit on 2/29/2008 by Harte]

[edit on 2/29/2008 by Harte]

reply to post by Harte


Harte,
Thanks for the clarifications and the bit about Hancock. I've known about him and his fringe beliefs in the Ancient Civilizations. I'm actually reading Fingerprints of the Gods now, but will proceed with a few grains of salt after reading your thoughts about it.

I was trying to get you to comment on the huge stones that make up the fortress (or whats left of it) of Sacsayhuaman near Crusco Peru, a mountainous area. Some of the stones are huge (upto 350tons) and they are all perfectly (and I mean perfectly)cut to fit and interlock with each other- basically earthquake proof.

It is generally believed that the Incas built the structure because they were found to have inhabited it when the Spaniards came, but even early Spanish accounts of it suggest that the Incas with their primitive tools could not have done it. I too belive that they moved in, like I belive with the AE's and the Gizamids.

Anyway, heres a few links:
www.world-mysteries.com...
crypto.stanford.edu...
www.rediscovermachupicchu.com...
www.andeantravelweb.com...

Your site states that these are 'undeniable" works of the locals and that there is nothing remaining of any stones that were moved from distant locales. Hence, no one can really say how large they were.

Also, the largest stone mentioned, a limestone boulder from (apparently) a nearby quarry, is said to weigh 140 metric tons.

Not saying that's small, but it's not what I asked for as an example, is it?

Got anything on how these local stones were moved there? Could've been by raft for all it says at the world-mysteries site.

Harte

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
I too belive that they moved in, like I belive with the AE's and the Gizamids.

Ancient Egyptians never moved into the Giza pyramids

The thing is here, there is a whole world of difference when you look at it on the whole. If only the Giza pyramids would exist and NO other pyramids/temples/Egyptian cities but instead just wooden huts, then I can understand the argument: it doesnt match the rest. No doubt the Spaniards would think the same if they find a big stone fortress inhabited by "primitive" people.

So the question is, what did the Incas build in their entire empire? Something that can match this particular site perhaps?

I know this is me repeating myself for like the umptieleventh time, but people always seem to forget it and go for the specific "issues" they have.

How some egyptologists turn lies into facts


Some of you are quick to call fringe researchers liars and wronging them for everything they say.

In this context Im glad that I picked up an issue of "National Geographic" (how much more mainstream-conservative can I get?) at the airport yesterday and read it in the plane. The frontpage lead article was entitled "The Black Pharaos". The article details about half a dozen outright lies and fabrications that have been taught as "the truth" by mainstream egyptologists. Some of which were: "There is nothing at all to be found in Sudan. Its a waste of time to be looking in Sudan for remains of ancient egypt". Once that was discovered the lie taught in schools was: "Black people could not have possibly built those pyramids and structures in Sudan". These and other claims have meanwhile been disproven.

You can imagine the delight at reading of the cowards and liars within mainstrem egyptology and archaeology...especially after reading Hartes posts about Hancock.


A sad side-story of the National Geographic article is that they are now apparently building a hydroelectric damn in Sudan which will wash away many potential archaeological sites before they can be discovered.



[edit on 4-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
How some egyptologists turn lies into facts
Some of you are quick to call fringe researchers liars and wronging them for everything they say.

In this context Im glad that I picked up an issue of "National Geographic" (how much more mainstream-conservative can I get?) at the airport yesterday and read it in the plane. The frontpage lead article was entitled "The Black Pharaos". The article details about half a dozen outright lies and fabrications that have been taught as "the truth" by mainstream egyptologists.

Let me do this for you then:
Link to the article he's ranting about:
Nat. Geographic

No "fringe researchers" were, or are today, involved in this research.
From the article you read:

Even famed Harvard Egyptologist George Reisner—whose discoveries between 1916 and 1919 offered the first archaeological evidence of Nubian kings who ruled over Egypt—besmirched his own findings by insisting that black Africans could not possibly have constructed the monuments he was excavating. He believed that Nubia’s leaders, including Piye, were light-skinned Egypto-Libyans who ruled over the primitive Africans. That their moment of greatness was so fleeting, he suggested, must be a consequence of the same leaders intermarrying with the “negroid elements.”

For decades, many historians flip-flopped: Either the Ku#e pharaohs were actually “white,” or they were bumblers, their civilization a derivative offshoot of true Egyptian culture. In their 1942 history, When Egypt Ruled the East, highly regarded Egyptologists Keith Seele and George Steindorff summarized the Nubian pharaonic dynasty and Piye’s triumphs in all of three sentences—the last one reading: “But his dominion was not for long.”

The above was from a time only shortly after science finally admitted that stones can fall from the sky (meteors.) Also, at that time, it was thought that a person's personality (among many other characteristics) could be determined by noting the bumps on his head.

Yes, racism was more widespread in the beginning of the 20th century.

Some of which were: "There is nothing at all to be found in Sudan. Its a waste of time to be looking in Sudan for remains of ancient egypt". Once that was discovered the lie taught in schools was: "Black people could not have possibly built those pyramids and structures in Sudan". These and other claims have meanwhile been disproven.

Perhaps you can clarify or point out where this claim is made in the article because I don't see it.

AFAIK, the Nubians were always given credit for copying the Egyptian pyramids in their own territory.

Originally posted by SkyfloatingYou can imagine the delight at reading of the cowards and liars within mainstrem egyptology and archaeology...especially after reading Hartes posts.

Science reflects what is "known" at the time. In the early 20th century, very little was known about Egypt and it's (former) neighboring civilizations.

And pardon me if I point out that the only reason you know anything at all about the Nubian kings of Egypt is because of the work of those you refer to as "cowards and liars."

Originally posted by SkyfloatingA sad side-story of the National Geographic article is that they are now apparently building a hydroelectric damn in Sudan which will wash away many potential archaeological sites before they can be discovered.

Similar to what happened when the Aswan dam was built. But, on the bright side, much has been learned because of the time-sensitive rush of funding for research there.

Harte

[edit on 3/4/2008 by Harte]

Originally posted by Harte
No "fringe researchers" were, or are today, involved in this research.

I never said they were. Not once.

Yes, racism was more widespread in the beginning of the 20th century.

Bottom line: Perceptions will be distorted to whatever the current worldview dictates.

It is very well known that the nubian influence was deliberately downplayed, suppressed, scoffed at for the longest time.

Denying this does not reflect well on you.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Harte
No "fringe researchers" were, or are today, involved in this research.

I never said they were. Not once.

In a way you did

Some of you are quick to call fringe researchers liars and wronging them for everything they say.

In this context Im glad that I picked up an issue of "National Geographic"

What context in relation to National Geographics are you refering to if not the fringe researchers?

Words are dangerous. I usually need like 4 or 5 posts just to make people understand what I say and they can still twist it into something else

reply to post by merka


After Harte had called an esteemed fringe researcher (Hancock) a liar (and he´s called him that several times), I recalled instances in which mainstream-scientists had gotten it all wrong because they were prejudiced.

Thats all really. No big deal.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by merka

 

After Harte had called an esteemed fringe researcher (Hancock) a liar (and he´s called him that several times), I recalled instances in which mainstream-scientists had gotten it all wrong because they were prejudiced.

Thats all really. No big deal.

Is it also "no big deal" that scientists not only admit when they are wrong, but also that many scientific reputations are made by actually proving that earlier scientists were wrong, while Hancock, who is a liar, has yet to admit that he was wrong, for example, in perpetrating the myth of "flash frozen mammoths" or the myth of Pacal as an ancient astronaut by writing about these things as if scientists are still "scratching their heads" about them?

Hancock is a liar. Pardon me for (once again) stating the obvious.

Also - "esteemed?" "Esteemed?"

Please. You're talking about a former journalist that does none of his own research - he looks at decades-old stuff and pretends it's still valid.

Hancock is no researcher, much less an "esteemed" researcher.

No big deal for one man to lie, be shown to have lied, and pretend that he hasn't where the so-called (by you) "lies" of researchers from almost a hundred years ago have been disputed and mostly completely refuted by their own subsequent disciples?

Hardly "no big deal." Not as far as I can see, anyway.

Harte

[edit on 3/4/2008 by Harte]