Forbidden Egyptology

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

I highly doubt you are in any position to say what the ancient astronaut theory IS or IS NOT.

Having read close to 50 books on the subject I would guess I am entitled to make a statement on that.

EDIT to add: Especially since Im a defendant of it.



[edit on 28-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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?

The General Theory of Relativity indicates otherwise. I'm a firm believer in it.

It looks linear from our perspective. I don't see how stepping outside our own perspective will change anything unless we could stayout there.

Doesn't mean it islinear though.

Harte

Originally posted by Skyfloating
EDIT to add: Especially since Im a defendant of it.

He's got you there, Mac!

If someone's willing to defend it, they should get to say what angle on it they are defending, right?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Alright...then, in this context: What do you make of the theory of evolution?


(Concerning those UFO-Photos or ancient astronaut theory, in regards to non-linear time, you probably know what Im getting at)

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

Well I looked at tons of pictures of these now. They are depicted, around several other items as can be seen here, and appear to be just what I had suspected capacitance weapons, of both short and long handled varieties and were used in larger pillar formats to guard objects much like a tesla coil.

closer examination of the carved smaller ones reveal a short portion where there was no carving in the middle of each trumpet shape. The place for the windings.

Who else but a God would strike another down with lightening. The carvings and pictures all add up. More so with the one under the light bulb. This device with its tuned output would be much the same as a modern flouresent bulb?

The newest form of light bulb today has no wiring and is energized from within an electrical field.

Its all adding up when you examine these pictures. The last page I was going to skip and then decided to look at.....

www.crystalinks.com...

reply to post by Harte

If someone's willing to defend it, they should get to say what angle on it they are defending, right?

Hi Harte,

I would agree that Skyfloating has every right to defend HIS interpretation of what the Ancient Astronaut Theory is. But that's just it, it's HIS interpretation. Doesn't necessarily agree with Von Daniken, Berliltz, Sitchin or others. He didn't say he was making clear what HIS interpretation was, but what AAT WAS or WAS NOT. That's where I see the distinction.

cormac



[edit on 28-3-2008 by cormac mac airt]

reply to post by spacevisitor


Please accept my well-meant apologize lovely young Lady Byrd, it was definitely not my intention of course.
It was indeed as Harte says your avatar that fooled me.

Thanks for correcting me Harte.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hello

would you be able to give me a link to these photos? i'm new to all this.

much appreciated

david

reply to post by drevill


Links to a thread containing these photos were posted by Harte before my post.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Please accept my well-meant apologize lovely young Lady Byrd, it was definitely not my intention of course.

It was indeed as Harte says your avatar that fooled me.

Thanks for correcting me Harte.

No offense taken, of course. My word usage is more masculine than feminine (though I am EXTREMELY heterosexual.) And anyway, don't you assume most of the folks with cute girl avatars are guys?

Why should THEY have all the fun?

(the actor in my avatar played an anthropologist on a tv series, and I liked the character's approach to other cultures and people.)

Originally posted by spacevisitor

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.

Actually, I was aware that he did catch some of the hoaxes (like the Soviet scifi cover), but he operated from the premise that all the unknowns were UFOs and were meant to represent UFOs. This colored his identification. Further, he never bothered to explain why (for a holy scene that depicts a specific event) someone would put in a UFO which would essentially profane and confuse the meaning for the (usually illiterate) churchgoer.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

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.

Actually, I was aware that he did catch some of the hoaxes (like the Soviet scifi cover), but he operated from the premise that all the unknowns were UFOs and were meant to represent UFOs. This colored his identification. Further, he never bothered to explain why (for a holy scene that depicts a specific event) someone would put in a UFO which would essentially profane and confuse the meaning for the (usually illiterate) churchgoer.

Originally posted by Illahee
Well I looked at tons of pictures of these now. They are depicted, around several other items as can be seen here, and appear to be just what I had suspected capacitance weapons, of both short and long handled varieties and were used in larger pillar formats to guard objects much like a tesla coil.

This is where many armchair researchers go astray. They make an assumption about what's depicted and don't read the writing on the walls or look at other examples and their writing (and find out what the writing meant.)

In order to prove your theory, you need to prove that they had the materials possible for these, that they had a sustainable power source (not a theoretical one; find the power plants) and transmission method and that it actually represents a real technology rather than a hypothetical overlay of an idea.

Do archaeologists pay any attention to ancient texts?

Is that part of the job description?

It's been said, even a few times right here in this thread, that there was never a great flood in ancient times. That there's no evidence for one having ever occurred...

What would be the evidence for a great flood that took place many thousands of years ago? How can it be said for certain that there never was one?

So if we go ahead and ignore what ancient civilizations wrote about referring to a great flood...

What's the physical evidence either way?




[edit on 30-3-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

The earth is made up of horizontal layers you know. Its easy to see if a giant flood happened if you dig in the ground.

A similar way is how the layers of ice indicate volcanic eruptions (for example we have different datings of Thera, but we KNOW that a massive eruption happened near that time), or tree rings showing drought.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Do archaeologists pay any attention to ancient texts?

For general and background purposes yes, but NOT for the purposes of proving ancient texts right.

It's been said, even a few times right here in this thread, that there was never a great flood in ancient times. That there's no evidence for one having ever occurred...

Correct. A great flood, as in ALL ENCOMPASSING, WORLDWIDE FLOOD, has never been shown to have happened. Extremely large, regional floods do occur.

What would be the evidence for a great flood that took place many thousands of years ago? How can it be said for certain that there never was one?

All floods leave a layer of sedimentation behind.

Many use the Biblical Flood when they ask about great floods so I'll use that example. If you believe that the story of the Biblical Flood is true then you also have to take into account the chronology of the people telling the story.

The Hebrews believed Adam was created in 3761/3760 BC and start their calendar from that time. Remember, their story begins in Iraq. According to the Bible, the Flood would have happened around 2104 BC. There is no contemporary record from any of the known civilizations of the world of a GLOBAL flood at that time. There is also no archaeological evidence.

There are, however, records of a large, regional flood originating in or around Shuruppak, Iraq dated to between 2750 BC and 2900 BC. This is the only significant flood within the time frame of the Hebrew calendar in ancient times. In the various accounts, Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Utnapishtim were told by their respective gods to build an ark. All three written versions of this story ARE OLDER than the written biblical account.

So if we go ahead and ignore what ancient civilizations wrote about referring to a great flood...

In the case of the above mentioned flood, which was probably the basis for the Biblical Flood, these stories were written nearly 1000 years after the event, by people who wouldn't have known its extent.

Each story should be taken in the context of what each civilization knew as THE WHOLE WORLD, not what we know.

What's the physical evidence either way?

Flood sedimentation of several feet, with indications of Ubaidian artifacts below that layer.

cormac

Originally posted by Byrd
And anyway, don't you assume most of the folks with cute girl avatars are guys?
Why should THEY have all the fun?

That would be absolute unfair indeed.
And yes, for most I assume that also, but it isn’t always a guarantee, and it is even more difficult when there is no cute girl or sturdy man in it at all.
Perhaps it is an idea that it can be indicated in the form with an F or M or a cute small drawing of a lady or mans head in the profile page on the avatar below the point list?


[edit on 30/3/08 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Do archaeologists pay any attention to ancient texts?

Is that part of the job description?

Ive offered a few excerpts of ancient text in this thread, but they are not given much meaning by those who have made up their mind on what history looks like.

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte
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.

I have taken a look to that thread too if you don’t mind and this is my take on two examples.
But it is a matter of interpretation in my opinion.

Originally posted by Cicada
Next we'll deal with image 1 and 1b of the above post, Carlo Crivelli's "Annunciation". The reasons why some would feel this image depicts UFO contact is obvious but once again most of this confusion lies in poor, blurry reproductions. It is in no way uncommon for Annunciation scenes to feature a ray of light descending from the sky to contact the Madonna.

Originally posted by Cicada
What appears here to be a flying saucer is in fact an illuminated cloud within which are two rings of golden angels.

Cicada is absolute right with this remark.
It looks indeed an illuminated cloud within which are two perfect round rings of golden angels, with a corona of lights at the outside ring that shines in all directions, and a very strong pencil like beam of light that is pointed strait down on “Madonna”.
But ask yourself the question, how realistic is it that real clouds look like that, even then.

So is it not absolute possible that the artist painted such an image because he new of the existence of such strange and unknown flying/floating light emitting objects or crafts of some kind.
And because he absolute don’t understand, and had no idea of what those strange crafts are, he painted it like an illuminated cloud within which are two perfect round rings of golden angels [crew?], with a corona of lights at the outside ring that shines in all directions, and a very strong pencil like beam of light, because that is acceptable in his view?
There is in my opinion nothing wrong with that possibility, and there is absolute evidence of trustworthy witnesses that speak of that reality, if you good accept that as evidence of course.

Originally posted by Cicada
Essentially the same can be said of the Aert DeGelder's (a rather obscure artist) "Baptism of Christ". The image as provided in the above post is extremely poor. In a better version the circular field in the sky is obviously occupied by a white dove, a standard symbol of the Holy Spirit. As an aspect of the Holy Trinity it is wholly normal that it is depicted within a luminous circle. Representing divine entities with radiant disks or halos is common in iconography of many cultures and religions. A clearer image again makes this easy to see:

Again, how realistic is it that you get the change to see a cloud such like this one too, I never have seen clouds like those, do you?
So, is it not realistic to ask why and for what reason is it so common in iconography of many cultures and religions to make images like that?
Is it not possible that they in fact did that because they see also in their timeframe these real extraterrestrial light emitting crafts of some sort, and what we today call Ufo’s?




[edit on 30/3/08 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by spacevisitor

Hm, you seem to put great effort into saying that these are not "realistic" clouds. Do you really think the artist intended it to be realistic?

It COULD be the artists interpretation of God and his angels looking down upon them from the sky and giving them their blessing...