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: 35
108
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





Unfortunately nobody has ever taken me up on the offer...although I could easily loose. I wonder why?


Speaking for myself, posting on a thread is one thing, but I have neither the patience, the temperament, nor the desire to participate in a debate.

Also to note, I personally couldn't debate anything with anyone who states their personal beliefs or opinions as if they were verified facts and when shown to be incorrect, quickly changes the subject and states something along the lines of, WE DON"T KNOW WHAT WILL BE FOUND IN THE FUTURE, or some such. Pass.

cormac




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Speaking for myself, posting on a thread is one thing, but I have neither the patience, the temperament, nor the desire to participate in a debate.

Also to note, I personally couldn't debate anything with anyone who states their personal beliefs or opinions as if they were verified facts and when shown to be incorrect, quickly changes the subject and states something along the lines of, WE DON"T KNOW WHAT WILL BE FOUND IN THE FUTURE, or some such. Pass.


Well, I figured all these mainstreamers thinking I am wrong about this and wrong about that and wrong about everything...

...and they are willing to put thought to it and to counter me and to debate me right here in the threads...

...but not willing to do it under the scrutiny of debate-judges in the context of hard and strict facts...

...thats rather telling.


Both sides could really look into their strong points and weaknesses.

Its true that most dont have the PATIENCE to look deeper than what school taught them.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

I personally couldn't debate anything with anyone who states their personal beliefs or opinions as if they were verified facts



The Debate judges happen to be critical-minded, not falling for BS....in fact Byrd and people like Byrd are those who judge the ATS-Matches.

In any case...up to now Marduk, KWalsky, Harte, Hanslune and cormac have refused to do to towards me in a "courtroom" what they do towards me in the threads. Thats for the record.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





...and they are willing to put thought to it and to counter me and to debate me right here in the threads...


I can only speak for myself, perhaps one of the others might be interested.




...but not willing to do it under the scrutiny of debate-judges in the context of hard and strict facts...


Actually, I don't think the debate-judges would want to know what I think of many of your opinions/facts. That's why I prefer to keep it low key and civil.




Its true that most dont have the PATIENCE to look deeper than what school taught them.


Not me. I have been questioning many things for the last 45 years. I used to believe many fringe things, until I found my beliefs to be wrong. Now it just makes me sad and angry at the same time to see others sucked into the same garbage.

cormac



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





In any case...up to now Marduk, KWalsky, Harte, Hanslune and cormac have refused to do to towards me in a "courtroom" what they do towards me in the threads. Thats for the record.


Before you go tooting your own horn, have you thought that maybe it's because nobody respects you enough to WANT to debate you. Just my opinion.

cormac



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

Not me. I have been questioning many things for the last 45 years. I used to believe many fringe things, until I found my beliefs to be wrong. Now it just makes me sad and angry at the same time to see others sucked into the same garbage.

cormac


Suckered into garbage like this?

Pre Columbus Trans-Oceanic Contact 1


Pre Columbus Trans-Oceanic Contact 2


Pre-Columbus Trans-Atlantic Contact 3 (access forbidden)


As tired as you are of our "garbage" I am tired of the garbage I was taught at school.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

Before you go tooting your own horn, have you thought that maybe it's because nobody respects you enough to WANT to debate you. Just my opinion.




Then why talk to me here? Answer please.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I am sorry your schooling was limited, not everyone's was. I tend to put things in three categories.

1. What we know based on the historical evidence.

2. Questions we have/new finds and how they fit with what we know.

3. Fringe - AAT and ancient ADVANCED civilizations, among others, evidence of which is extremely lacking.

You have a tendency of lumping the second and third together as one, they aren't, therein lies our difference.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Hi cormac,

Either way, all of those time periods still predate the conventional dates for the Giza complex by at least 500 yrs. And I think geologists generally agree that the heaviest/steadiest rainfall which would've been responsible for the severe degradation was last known to occur around 6000bc.

I agreed with you that intermittent rains occurred thru the 5th and maybe even into the 6th dynasty which would've brought us to about 2300-2200 bc. My point is that intermittent rains (even heavy episodes) wouldn't have caused the type of erosion that's seen at the Sphinx, and elsewhere. It would've taken much more in the way of sustained heavy water flow over longer periods of time, according to the experts.

On top of this there's evidence to suggest that the Sphinx was already buried in sand by this time. Hence, this would've prevented the rains which occurred during the 5th/6th dynasties from further eroding the strata.

As for the scribble inside the relieving chambers. I still don't know what to make of it all. I'm still looking into it. I've come across some other ideas about these marks and how Khufu really got his name but will reserve any further comment until I can learn more.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

2. Questions we have/new finds and how they fit with what we know.



Thanks for having the time and patience to talk to me, despite your disrespect


I bolded the part "fit with what we know" because thats where I see the core problem with it all.

NEW finds having to FIT to previously established truths. And if they dont fit, what then? Are they made to fit?

There´s the human tendency not to want to re-write a thousand books and curricula just because one itsy-bity-tiny piece was found that might contradict it.

Books are re-written eventually of course. But my observation is that it takes a hell of a long time to re-write some of the stuff.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   


Then why talk to me here? Answer please.


Sometimes I ask myself the same question. I guess maybe its because I am always hoping that you will quit presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they are fact. I find that it hurts your credibility when discussing other things. Also, I am always hoping that others will learn that there is more to the mainstream than what you present. Not everyone is an uneducated dullard who only believes what is in a school book.

cormac



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Hi PhotonEffect,

I think the problem here, and this is just my personal opinion, is that both sides have it wrong. I don't believe that Robert Schoch is the be all and end all of the Giza Plateau answers, but I also believe that the time scale for the ancient dynasties could be off as well. Not by thousands of years, but possibly by a few hundred. I don't know that we'll ever have THE answer.

cormac



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

I find that it hurts your credibility when discussing other things.



If I wanted to make a good impression or sound credible, I wouldnt be posting at ATS





Also, I am always hoping that others will learn that there is more to the mainstream than what you present.



Yes, Ive learned a lot here from you and others.

To be honest, I am even willing to be proven wrong and stupid and whatever else.

But thats not my intention when logging into ATS. My intention is not to find data on the main stream but to look at all the side streams. This is what I enjoy. It may not be what you enjoy, but its something that I actually ENJOY.




Not everyone is an uneducated dullard who only believes what is in a school book.



Of course. But not every fringe researcher is an uneducated fool either.

My main interest doesnt even lie in all the topics themselves.

It lies in the psychology and communication that starts happening when someone takes on a viewpoint outside of the mean stream.

And what happens when you leave the generally agreed on consensus is very interesting. Maybe Im only playing devils advocate...how would you know?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   


NEW finds having to FIT to previously established truths. And if they dont fit, what then? Are they made to fit?


I said HOW they fit, not HAVING to fit. There is a difference. To say this never happens would be a lie. Then again, some of the fringe are guilty of this as well, i.e. Von Daniken, Berlitz, Sitchin, et al. Any mainstream scholar worth anything would not deliberately MAKE something fit. Better to put them aside as UNKNOWN ITEMS.




There´s the human tendency not to want to re-write a thousand books and curricula just because one itsy-bity-tiny piece was found that might contradict it.


True enough, but that is also true of many other things in life. Finding the easiest way. Also, if books were rewritten every time something new came along, we would never have any books to learn from.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


And this may be one of the only things we'll ever agree upon up til now.


Check my next post though...

edit to add: I'd be curious to get your opinion...

[edit on 21-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
There's something about the pyramid of Khafre....

We've all been told for years that Khafre was the 2nd pyramid built at Giza and that it was used as the pharaoh's tomb. Well I've recently come across an interesting theory that flat out suggests that this not the case, that Khafre was in fact the 1st pyramid built, not the generally accepted pyramid of Khufu.

As the geological evidence will show, Khafre's causeway is said to have been in place prior to Khufu's quarry, and that the Sphinx enclosure, the walls of the Valley Temple, (also attributed to Khafre) and the quarries were constructed around the causeway as if it had been there first. The study, presented by Colin Reader, also goes on to date the Sphinx before Khufu, which would in turn push Khafre's causeway back, and the pyramid, and it temples and so forth....

The evidence presented in this paper goes into far more greater detail and depth (with pics and maps) than what I have outlined above, while also including other very surprising pieces of evidence which further substantiate the theory.

I will also link another paper that seems corroborate Colin's hypothesis.

I invite anyone who is interested to read this paper, which is very well presented and may be the best that I've come across so far. However I'd love to get other's opinions on the theory and leave it open to discussion. I have my own observations re: G2 which I will reserve for a later time, if and when discussion gets going over this.

I'm not sure if there have been any responses from Lehner or Hawass regarding this, but I will look into it and if there are I will post.

These are lengthy reads, but gripping none-the-less. Enjoy.

Colin Reader's study: www.hallofmaat.com...

Second study: arxiv.org...

[edit on 21-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
I assume the technique you mention is of the concavities seen on G1 and G3. Do you know where else(or if) this technique was used prior to Giza?


The pyramids (all 100 of them) have been damaged by 4,000 years or so of erosion, human theivery, sandstorms, and so forth. None have an original facing. I haven't looked at the photos of all the other pyramids, so I can't say. I will look.


My issue with the wood is the scarcity of it. How is it even possible that these ancient people could've constructed these huge pyramids over a period of 70 yrs with a limited energy source?


Wood isn't THAT scarce in Egypt. They've got forests, although the amount of work needed to cut a tree down with their tools meant that they didn't cut down many trees: www.reshafim.org.il...

Egypt supported a much larger population after the time of the pharaohs than it did when they were pyramid building -- and they didn't run out of fuel at any time. Among the things they burned were straw (they burned that in large ovens to make faience (glass) ornaments), reeds, small bushes, animal dung, and oil.

Egypt had established quite a system of trade in the predynastic times (actually from neolithic times) www.touregypt.net...

Most of the early trade was up and down the river, but by the time of the Early Dynastic period (when the pyramids were being built) the Egyptians had a military presence in Nubia, which has lots of trees:
www.ancient-egypt.org...



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee
Quick question. Why do we always assume the stones for the pyramids were quarried? I know this sounds dumb because I jump to that same assumption with no answer other than I learned they were so I built on the work of others. Now what if there were many many stones already being used in buildings and the builders reused them and started quarrying for the rest? Recycling didn't start with weed and the WV van, its always been.


Because of the writing in the workers' village talking about getting stone from those quarries, because of evidence including half-finished blocks of rock being quarried there, and because the well-used quarries are located right in the middle of the whole shebang.

Why import the stone (and they were big blocks) or go miles and miles to tear something down when they had all the rock they needed within a mile of the site?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Hi PhotonEffect,

Didn't read your second link. Have never been interested much in why anything was aligned a certain way on the Giza Plateau.

The first link I did find interesting. Especially since it seems to agree with what I told you last, that is that the timeframe as given by the writer, isn't outside the bounds of what is known of the Ancient Egyptians. No advanced pre-egyptian civilization, that left no other trace, needed.

cormac



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
To catch up:

Cormac said to Skyfloating:



Before you go tooting your own horn, have you thought that maybe it's because nobody respects you enough to WANT to debate you.


Most correct, not only is the subject (opinions on a mythical civilization) of little interest. I've observed the person who wants to be debated and have found him wanting. His actions and position over Abydos and the Pacal issue show clearly that you are closed minded and not a serious scholar or or avid amateur.

Now I might reconsider if the subject was of interest to me. Like the rise of weapons technology in bronze age Cyprus.

Skyfloating/Cormac said:



There´s the human tendency not to want to re-write a thousand books and curricula just because one itsy-bity-tiny piece was found that might contradict it.


People love to rewrite text books (they get paid to do it), many universities change text books on a 2-3 year cycle. I've made it a habit to re-read a standard university archaeology "101" introductory text book every two years. The amout of change from the first one I read (1967 to the last 2006) has been substantial. When this phrase is used by the fringe it usually means that the mainstream hasn't except one or many alternative explanations for x, y or z.

My 2008 one to read will probably be a British one by Colin Renfrew.




top topics



 
108
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join