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: 39
108
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Perhaps this is interesting in relation with your reply Skyfloating?
Because Matthew Hurley had once a very interesting site.
www.ufoartwork.com...

But it doesn’t work anymore, and I could not find it in the web archive in tact also.
He said on his homepage the following.


For a number of years I have been intrigued by old artwork that appears to depict UFOs. The artwork in my collection consists of frescos, tapestries, illustrations, oil paintings and early photographs.
Although some of the artwork represents actual sightings, others feature UFOs in a religious context.

One can only guess at why these artists chose to insert UFOs into their artwork. Did they have UFO sightings in their day and decide to add them in ? Perhaps they had an inner urge to insert them. Maybe they had some arcane knowledge about the relationship between UFOs and certain religious events.

Whatever the truth is, there are UFOs in these artworks...

I hope this collection, and my book The Alien Chronicles, will give gravitas to the idea that we have been visited by UFOs for thousands of years and whose occupants may have had an effect on our own genesis & evolution.


web.archive.org...://www.ufoartwork.com/

I found after some searching a link with most of on his then site showed frescos, tapestries, illustrations, oil paintings.
I don’t know if you have seen it already, but I post it anyway to be shore.

www.geocities.com...




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quiintus
I think that every book I have ever read points out scholarly quotes and they usually refer to these peoples as people that should have been primitive but knew a lot about things they shouldn't have.

Are the quotes genuine, and who did them? We've seen a lot of cases where quotes seem to be made up.

Scholars and archaeologists usually don't refer to people who "know things they shouldn't have" because they rejected the "cultural evolution" theory of the late 1800's that says cultures go through certain phases as they become more modern. I can't remember if the Nazi or Stalinist scientists were the very last holdouts on this, but speaking as an anthropologist I do know that this idea (called "unilineal cultural evolution)was initially rejected about 100 years ago and has been thoroughly dismissed.

While there are a number of contemporary sources that talk about culture as though everyone goes through the same stages and are astonished that a culture might develop a certain technology, these are not people who have actually gone to the places where those cultures were found and conducted digs (for many years) and identified artifacts and so on and so forth. Generally they're "armchair explorers" who have only read a few things about the culture and believe they know everything there is to know.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I found after some searching a link with most of on his then site showed frescos, tapestries, illustrations, oil paintings.
I don’t know if you have seen it already, but I post it anyway to be shore.


Hurley's a pretty good example of what I talked about before. He appears to be a very nice man who has no real knowledge about art history and who can't tell a fake from a real piece. There were a number of fakes on the site, including a "Chinese painting" which very clearly wasn't drawn by anyone from the Orient and which wasn't more than 10 years old. His site consistantly identifies "glories" as UFOs, even when there are texts in the painting that talk about the thing being a "glory."

(...yes, I also studied art history...)



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Yes. Some ancient artwork is genuine, some is hoaxed.

The point I was making is that I dont mind people not agreeing with the ancient astronaut theory. But its important to at least make clear what the theory IS and IS NOT, what it suggests and what it does not suggest.

One thing I keep hearing is that believing in the ancient astronaut theory also means that I believe the ancients were stupid.

This I dont believe, have never believed and will never believe. Why do I keep hearing it?

Because when people tend to read books or sites debunking the theory they also take on that specific debunkers INTERPRETATION of the ancient astronaut theory.

But thats interpretation only.

You will find a lot of people disagreeing with me on things I never said I believed. A few dozen or so pages ago "WalkingFox" came in here and said that my judgement is clouded by me being christian or something similar (her response implied I am christian). She didnt know that I am quite anti-christian.

A few pages further on someone debunked the book "The Stargate Conspiracy" without knowing that it actually argued IN FAVOUR of mainstream archaeology.

The person in question debunked it only because of the title and because it was ME who recommended it ("Since Skyfloating recommended the book, it must be wrong" - Guilt by association).

So...with these examples in mind, we can see that "mainstreamers" are just as guilty of prejudice and distortion...unwittingly...because of what they think or expect us fringe researchers to believe.

The reality is that not all fringe researchers have the same sort of viewpoint.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


jbmitch,

"I can't say for certain what your are referring to here, however it did immediately conjur up the image of the ankh in my mind. "

I agree that this quoted statement was a tad bit ambiqious. I think that Y and ankh was a copy/paster error.

I meant to draw a correlation between "Y" chromosone coming from a woman to decide the sex of a child. This makes me think of the female annunki who I believed used some of her DNA " in the likness of God was A.DAM made" Its a stretch.. but then again this is a "on the fringe" site hehe.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

The argument that I as an ancient-astronaut-theorist, believe ancient humans to be primitive, is not valid.

Why? Because ancient-astronaut-theory says that the "Gods" were either extraterrestrials and humans created in their LIKENESS or the "Gods/Angels" were advanced human beings.

While I can't speak for your interpretation of the AA theory, I can certainly know what VonDaniken and Sitchen say about it, and both of those guys point out things from the past that those "poor primitives couldn't possibly have done without ET's help."

Are you going to deny this easily demonstrable fact?

Harte

[edit on 3/28/2008 by Harte]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


A typical Djed;

Can I ask what material the object is made from? Do you own that one?

Thks.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

While I can't speak for [your interpretation of the AA theory, I can certainly know what VonDaniken and Sitchen say about it, and both of those guys point out things from the past that those "poor primitives couldn't possibly have done wiothout ET's help."

Are you going to deny this easily demonstrable fact?

Harte


No...I agree thats what they say...Sitchin even more so. Daniken has been using this sentiment to parrot the mainstream view of hunter-gatherers, as in "Are we to believe that hunter-gatherers built these monuments?"

But whatever their interpretation it doesnt mean I have to be put into the same boat.

Its funny how I have to defend this point again and again. People will automatically associate and assume.

The general ancient astronaut theory says advanced extraterrestrials OR advanced humans were involved.

Maybe discernment is asking too much


[edit on 28-3-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I found after some searching a link with most of on his then site showed frescos, tapestries, illustrations, oil paintings.
I don’t know if you have seen it already, but I post it anyway to be shore.


Hurley's a pretty good example of what I talked about before. He appears to be a very nice man who has no real knowledge about art history and who can't tell a fake from a real piece. There were a number of fakes on the site, including a "Chinese painting" which very clearly wasn't drawn by anyone from the Orient and which wasn't more than 10 years old. His site consistantly identifies "glories" as UFOs, even when there are texts in the painting that talk about the thing being a "glory."

(...yes, I also studied art history...)


You are no doubt a very educate man Byrd, and I am not, but you draw in my opinion your conclusions a bit to fast I must say, because on his original site he also had already a link to those things, and what he called,

Hoaxes & Misinterpretation

You find info about that here if you want to take a look at it, even about items from the AE.

www.hiddenmysteries.org...

He himself said there,


During the course of my research numerous people have given me valuable information concerning the artwork on my site. Several of the images have turned out to be hoaxes or from works of fiction, others have been cases of misinterpretation. I feel it is only right to point this out to you all. Therefore I have set up this page to separate the wheat from the chaff.


So, when he was told by others that there was a hoax or misinterpretation discovered on his site he mentioned and corrected that.

But for the record, hoaxes and fakes you find almost every where, make by others for the sake of fun but also make by others to bring a specific subject as much as possible in discredit.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


The point I was making is that I dont mind people not agreeing with the ancient astronaut theory. But its important to at least make clear what the theory IS and IS NOT, what it suggests and what it does not suggest.

One thing I keep hearing is that believing in the ancient astronaut theory also means that I believe the ancients were stupid.

This I dont believe, have never believed and will never believe. Why do I keep hearing it?


No offence Skyfloating , but I find it very unpleasant for myself to see all too often, that I obvious don’t understand exactly or misinterpreted what someone said and mean in his/her reply.
I had no intention to give you the idea that I think what you said here above, no way.
It is definitely my conviction also that the ancients weren’t stupid, absolute not.

But that is the unpleasant difficulty for me what I have obviously with the English language.
I know it is not an excuse, but sometimes I really wander honestly if it is wise to continue to debating here on ATS.


[edit on 28/3/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Your English is fine. Just replace the word "wander" with "wonder"



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jbmitch
 


By all means fire away with your ideas...
It's an interesting theory which I think I've heard before. You should check out undo's thread "stargates are real" I think she goes into it a little bit. It's a doozy of a thread though, some 100 pages long...

As for the Anuannaki, I haven't delved too deep into them, so I can't comment on it just yet. But I am intrigued by who they were and what their history is. My research will be heading into that direction very soon I think.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


A typical Djed;

Can I ask what material the object is made from? Do you own that one?

Thks.


Hi Illahee,

I can't say for sure what those particular pieces were carved from, although I could venture a guess. I'd say they were carved out of different types of rocks or stones, and maybe even ivory or bones. But again I'm not sure.

And no, I do not own one. Although I might buy one just to have it. I do like their meanings and mysterious origin.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I was just curious. I don't know, so it doesn't hurt to ask. It looks like the core of a crude capacitance weapon. How do I say it? an old time stun gun, or lightening bolt thrower.

These days we use things like 'ghetto lightening' but if it was large enough it could suck the juice out of a fairly large vinegar battery or three or four and let out a heart stopper of a lightening bolt. Used that way would be like we used to do with the old car condensers, charge them up and toss them to folks as a joke.

The Ankh looks like it has coils or windings

Just thinking.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Illahee]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


In general, when they see an artifact or a picture thats outside of what the new inquisition says is "history" they will say one of the following things:

1. Its a hoax/fake
2. It means something different / doesnt mean anything
3. Its not from back then / Its been dated earlier
4. That may be the case, but its not enough evidence.

And if they cant disprove it, they wont comment on it at all but move on.
If you take a look around the ATS Archive you will notice how not once do they say "Hm....that points to the possibility of history being different than we were taught".



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


First, thanks for your “wander”“wonder” advice.

I wonder how much times I used the word wander already.


You are in my opinion absolute right by what you are saying here, and that reminds me of what also happens in relation to the ongoing discussions about the yes or no existence of “free energy” or “over-unity” apparatus.
See the interesting remarks about that made by Arthur C. Clarke [now deceased].


On Sunday, 17 December 1995, viewers in U.K. saw an hour-long T V. program which, at long last, puts across the clear message that "free energy" is on the way. In our New Energy News forum we already know much of the substance of what was covered, but it may be of interest to have this report.

The program was featured in the EQUINOX series which appears periodically on our T.V. Channel 4, its title being "It Runs On Water."
In the opening stages Arthur C. Clarke [now deceased] explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature.

"Free energy" was now working its way through these four stages of reaction, which were:

a) "It's nonsense,"
b) "It is not important,"
c) "I always said it was a good idea," and
d) "I thought of it first."



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Good one, thanks.

Yes, you´ve been using "wander" in many posts


Arthur C. Clarke will be missed.

And...

its amazing how many people still think stuff like what we talk about is "science-fiction". Its like they´re stuck in the 18th century or something.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


In general, when they see an artifact or a picture thats outside of what the new inquisition says is "history" they will say one of the following things:

1. Its a hoax/fake
2. It means something different / doesnt mean anything
3. Its not from back then / Its been dated earlier
4. That may be the case, but its not enough evidence.

And if they cant disprove it, they wont comment on it at all but move on.
If you take a look around the ATS Archive you will notice how not once do they say "Hm....that points to the possibility of history being different than we were taught".

Skyfloating,

This makes me wonder if you've ever read this thread here at ATS - which I consider one of the best all-around threads in this genre:
Cicada's excellent thread on UFOs in Artwork

You should read that thread before your foot gets any further in.


Originally posted by spacevisitor

You are no doubt a very educate man Byrd...

Hee hee hee


Dude..., Byrd's a lovely young lady. She uses that avatar to fool us.

Everyone falls for it. Don't feel bad.

Harte



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Let me ask you one thing which, at first, may seem to be off-topic:

Do you believe that time is linear?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   


The general ancient astronaut theory says advanced extraterrestrials OR advanced humans were involved.


It may have started out that way, but I have seen it go off on tangents that would leave even you dumbfounded. I highly doubt you are in any position to say what the ancient astronaut theory IS or IS NOT.

You are, however, entitled to your beliefs.

cormac



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join