Forbidden Egyptology

reply to post by Harte


Wait a minute here. Ease up. As far as Im concerned whether the Pacal image is an ancient astronaut or not is a matter of interpretation. Just because you dont share Hancock/Danikens interpretation does not necessarily make them liars.

Yes, yes Im sure youve talked about Pacal on many other threads and are tired of getting back into it. But in my eyes there is nothing wrong with an alternative interpretation of things.

What is constantly being said by me however, is that some of us are sick of scientists approaching a subject with either racial, religious or darwinist glasses on and then, coming to conclusions from that limited vantage point.

How the hell are we supposed to arrive at the truth if we look at a subject with filtered priorities and prejudice

reply to post by Skyfloating

I thought that is basicly what same scientists say too

I've never had anything but the impression that we constantly discover new things and look at them from new angles, presenting new theories that doesnt always conform to commonly accepted views.

Maybe my brain live in some sort of perfect fantasy world, I dont know...

[edit on 4-3-2008 by merka]

What is constantly being said by me however, is that some of us are sick of scientists approaching a subject with either racial, religious or darwinist glasses on and then, coming to conclusions from that limited vantage point.

So basically what you are saying is that ALL scientists come to the conclusions they do because of their racial, religious or darwinistic beliefs, right? I don't believe they are always right, but that is why their findings are peer reviewed. If found incorrect, their peers won't stop in ripping them apart professionally.

How the hell are we supposed to arrive at the truth if we look at a subject with filtered priorities and prejudice.

You are accusing mainstream of that, but isn't that what the fringe is doing. Isn't the belief that ALL OF MAINSTREAM is out to lie to you, so you must come up with your own interpretation FILTERED and PREJUDICED? It works both ways.

cormac

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.

No problem at all, I wish I had more time to spend at the site.

Plus an update to the Scott Creighton Giza Pyramid apex question at this link

Giza apex

I believe somewhere you or someone else had a map that showed the Giza perimeter wall encompassing the location of the "apex", that map appears to be in error.

Back in a few days, actually I'm going off to do a tour of the ruins in the "four corners area" and then on to Guatamala for some pyramid hugging.

When I get back I'll try and read thru the entire thread. If anything worthwhile comes up take it to the Hall of Ma'at - where you can get a professional read on the idea/concept/question.

Oh and yes, Skyfloating, some scientists are bias and use "filters", however I have found that Fringe believers are by far the most bias. This can be shown by many of them, having failed to find evidence to support there beliefs, have created the excuse of a conspiracy amongst the mainstream world.

I live in that mainstream world and guess what......LOL...stop yammering and go find the evidence!

Good job Harte



[edit on 4/3/08 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

Wait a minute here. Ease up. As far as Im concerned whether the Pacal image is an ancient astronaut or not is a matter of interpretation. Just because you dont share Hancock/Danikens interpretation does not necessarily make them liars.

This I had already deduced from your posts, that these things are a "matter of interpretation."

Never mind what the Maya have to say about it, right there in the tomb in question!

Although VonDaniken is a liar himself (he actually admitted paying a potter to forge a fake "ancient" piece of art), I believe you can find where I've given him a (probably undeserved) pass on the Pacal thing since Mayan wasn't fully translated when EVD wrote C.O.T.G.

Hancock, however, merely gave the silly idea new life in F.O.G. by restating the thing a decade after Mayan was deciphered.

That's unquestionably a lie.

Has he admitted it yet?


Harte

I doubt it has been brought up here but there is a Rosicrucian volume that has been in the public for about half a century. Its by Spencer Lewis and taps ancient documents from the Essene order as well as the white brotherhood outposts in India and Tibet as well as Egypt when it was still possible and before the trust was broken. The Mystical Life of Jesus is the title and he describes in detail what is under the paws as well as some other specific locations that they traveled to and examined based on those ancient documents. I am not an adherent to the AMORC but I do pick up bound volumes that are 50yrs or older from them.


Something else that may rock a few worlds and change what people believe. The ancient scrolls of Timbuktu are being cataloged, and digitized as we speak and should start to be available on line in a translated form. Certain groups may be copies of copies from the library at Alexandria........

Another mystery, who has a solid scientific explanation for this?

The famous Piri Reis Map.
Which unknown civilization had the technology or the need to do that?

Introduction
In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin.
Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.

The Controversy
The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.

The official science has been saying all along that the ice-cap which covers the Antarctic is million years old.
The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it. That should make think it has been mapped million years ago, but that's impossible since mankind did not exist at that time.

Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. There are still doubts about the beginning of this ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC.
The question is: Who mapped the Queen Maud Land of Antarctic 6000 years ago? Which unknown civilization had the technology or the need to do that?

It is well-known that the first civilization, according to the traditional history, developed in the mid-east around year 3000 BC, soon to be followed within a millennium by the Indus valley and the Chinese ones. So, accordingly, none of the known civilizations could have done such a job. Who was here 4000 years BC, being able to do things that NOW are possible with the modern technologies?

As can be seen below, an azimuthal projection ( looking at the globe from a point above the globe), from the point above Cairo, Africa (Egypt) shows that the Piri Reis map corresponds more or less with the lower right quarter of this map if one rotates it some 20 degrees counter clockwise.

It looks definitely to me as it is taken from a viewpoint from space, but how is that possible then?

Source; www.world-mysteries.com...


[edit on 4/3/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 5/3/08 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by spacevisitor

The claim that Piri Reis map depict an ice free antarctica and that it match a top-down world map doesnt make sense you know. It can only do one of these things.

reply to post by spacevisitor

Again, please every now and then use the search function here.

The Piri Reis map is a compilation of maps that was drawn after the coast of South America had al;ready been mapped.

It shows absolutely nothing of Antarctica. The portion at the bottom is a continuation of South America. It matches as well with S. America's coastline as any part of the map matches with anything else that is drawn on it.

It does not, however, match with any part of Antarctica, ice-free or otherwise.

The map contains notes that indicate clearly that the area people claim is Antarctica is part of South America.

All of the above is available on at least three other threads here at ATS. As well as several other conclusive arguments against this idea.

Harte

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

You are accusing mainstream of that, but isn't that what the fringe is doing. Isn't the belief that ALL OF MAINSTREAM is out to lie to you, so you must come up with your own interpretation FILTERED and PREJUDICED? It works both ways.

Well of course it works both ways. And of course we should first look at mainstream egyptology.

Why? Because these folks have dedicated decades of deductive study.

After that, I must look beyond that, because I dont trust in the darwinist idea of evolution without outside intervention.

Originally posted by Hanslune

No problem at all, I wish I had more time to spend at the site.

Plus an update to the Scott Creighton Giza Pyramid apex question at this link

Giza apex

I believe somewhere you or someone else had a map that showed the Giza perimeter wall encompassing the location of the "apex", that map appears to be in error.

Back in a few days, actually I'm going off to do a tour of the ruins in the "four corners area" and then on to Guatamala for some pyramid hugging.

When I get back I'll try and read thru the entire thread. If anything worthwhile comes up take it to the Hall of Ma'at - where you can get a professional read on the idea/concept/question.

[edit on 4/3/08 by Hanslune]

Interesting. Creighton opened a new thread announcing he would travel to egypt shortly and check out the site himself.

My post concerning the apex coinciding with the wall appears on page 1 or 2 of the thread.

Have fun in Guatemala and let us know how it was.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Harte


By the way...your assertion that Hawass had "no idea at all" of Bayuks extraterrestrial-channeling activities cant be true...unless you are saying that people can hold seminars in the Pyramids without Hawass consent or knowledge.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

By the way...your assertion that Hawass had "no idea at all" of Bayuks extraterrestrial-channeling activities cant be true...unless you are saying that people can hold seminars in the Pyramids without Hawass consent or knowledge.

It is the assertion of a person that was there at the time.

I only reported it to you.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Again, please every now and then use the search function here.

All of the above is available on at least three other threads here at ATS. As well as several other conclusive arguments against this idea.

Harte

You are right, I mostly don’t do that [search function ], but I go check that out.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

Wait a minute here. Ease up. As far as Im concerned whether the Pacal image is an ancient astronaut or not is a matter of interpretation.

Actually, no. The symbols that he deliberately clips out of the image is Mayan writing. So you have the tomb and the tomb inscription... and believe me, it says nothing about outer space, astronauts, or anything like that. It's about Pacal and his death and includes some prayers.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
[You are right, I mostly don’t do that [search function ], but I go check that out.

Well, maybe I'm missing something but the search function here seems like it used to be much more useful.

The "google search" thing we have now is much harder to find things with, IMO.

You might do better just to wade through the lists of old threads available when you load this section of the forum. Look for Old Maps or Piri Reis in the titles.

Harte

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

Wait a minute here. Ease up. As far as Im concerned whether the Pacal image is an ancient astronaut or not is a matter of interpretation.

Actually, no. The symbols that he deliberately clips out of the image is Mayan writing. So you have the tomb and the tomb inscription... and believe me, it says nothing about outer space, astronauts, or anything like that. It's about Pacal and his death and includes some prayers.

Ah - HAH!!!

Byrd, scroll up and you'll see I finally beat you to the punch!

Getting rusty from disuse, I presume!

Glad to see you in this thread, buddy.

Harte

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, no. The symbols that he deliberately clips out of the image is Mayan writing. So you have the tomb and the tomb inscription... and believe me, it says nothing about outer space, astronauts, or anything like that. It's about Pacal and his death and includes some prayers.

Is it about his death or is it about his ascension?

Really...there is an alternative interpretation to all these "ascension" myths.

Check out this Scott Creighton thread people:

New Info on Giza-Orion