Forbidden Egyptology

"In January [1997] the Discovery Channel broadcast a program stating that coc aine and tobacco had been found in Egyptian mummies known to be at least 3,000 years old. Tests used modern forensic methods and were repeated many times under carefully controlled conditions. Since coca and tobacco are not known to have grown anywhere other than the Americas, the evidence points to trade routes across the Pacific or Atlantic in those remote times. The program seemed to favor a Pacific crossing and then delivery via the Silk Route. Watch for a rebroadcast."

Tobacco and Cocaine in Ancient Egypt

Egypt and Australia

The links shows a pretty long list of ancient australian "anomalies". I dont know how many of them are genuine.

But mere term "anomaly" constantly thrown around is annoying because it presupposes a factual "the way things are" history. The very existence of "anomalies" show that we do not know "how things are".

Quick post, very late and I'm just 'brushing up' on what's been discussed so far. I can't read heiroglyphs and I apologise if this has been mentioned, but this question is to Byrd:

If heiroglyphs are written from left to right, or right to left (I don't see why they can't be read up to down or vice versa on this point as we all know how creativity works) doesn't that mean that every piece translated must be translated at least twice? depending on the writers style? I'm pretty sure that Heiroglyphs read from one direction and then read from another wouldn't have the same meaning? just a thought, I'm still going through the thread, alot has happened since I've been away!

Those who say theres no evidence to technology having been around back then, there are so many artifacts found during digs that just don't make sense to current theories and so are misidentified or ignored, you can't just say these don't exist. Fair enough we (sigh...fringe) can't prove what their purpose was, but neither can you, they don't fit into to your framework, but they shouldn't be ignored ( for examples see cogs and 'pottery' found in earlier pages, many more, but quick and easy examples).

I have also read about the convex sides of the pyramids and I find this highly interesting, this design has never been seen on any other pyramid and would have made the design of this structure stupidly difficult, especially for the 'knowledge' they supposedly had at the time.

Anyway, bed and then I'll finish reading up on this tomorrow, again, sorry if these concerns have been addressed.

thanks. EMM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Egypt and Australia

The links shows a pretty long list of ancient australian "anomalies". I dont know how many of them are genuine.

Well that's kinda important for building a rational argument isn't it? If you don't know which ones are genuine how do you know any of them are?

I've just finished reading Peter Heather's splendid alternative history of the fall of the Roman Empire - he built his new history with painstaking use of documentary and archaeological evidence - constantly weighting every source for reliability. If, on page one, he said "here are my sources, I've no idea which ones are genuine" the book would have gone out of the window as a complete waste of paper.

On a more general point: the tools that are the human brain combined with opposable thumb and forefinger have created such wonders as St Paul's Cathedral, the internet, the Stealth bomber and Shakespeare's sonnets . These tools haven't changed in the last 200, 000 years, yet for some reason you think them incapable of piling a load of rocks on top of each other in a very basic geometrical arrangement somewhere in north Africa. Why is this?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Well that's kinda important for building a rational argument isn't it? If you don't know which ones are genuine how do you know any of them are?

Some things I put out there to see if others can shed light on them. I cant know everything. Its called collaboration.

ATS allows for collaborative efforts of many smart minds from all sides of any given fence.

On a more general point: the tools that are the human brain combined with opposable thumb and forefinger have created such wonders as St Paul's Cathedral, the internet, the Stealth bomber and Shakespeare's sonnets . These tools haven't changed in the last 200, 000 years, yet for some reason you think them incapable of piling a load of rocks on top of each other in a very basic geometrical arrangement somewhere in north Africa. Why is this?

Exactly my point. Civilization didnt start 8000 years ago but before that.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Exactly my point. Civilization didnt start 8000 years ago but before that.

Yet alien help was needed to build the pyramids? I don't get your arguments - on the one hand you agree that humans have been pretty much the same as they are now for a long - capable of building "technological wonders" - be it the pyramids or a stealth bomber - for millennia. Yet on the other hand you seem to be arguing that humans weren't capable of building these wonders and that ET help is required to explain them...?

The problem with either argument: that there was civilisation

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Yet alien help was needed to build the pyramids?

Not necessarily. I have been arguing in this thread that advanced humans and aliens have existed since billions of years.

I have also been arguing that at some point in history, all evidence of an advanced civilization was destroyed and deliberately removed in order to give humanity a "fresh start".

I am also arguing that history has been distorted by ideologies such as religion and darwinism.

The problem with either argument: that there was civilisation

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Not necessarily. I have been arguing in this thread that advanced humans and aliens have existed since billions of years.

It's not always clear what particular argument you are making - much of it seems to be based on innuendo.

However to accept your core argument about humanity being billions of years old I would first of all have to discard just about everything we know about science and history - hard won knowledge made by millions over hundreds of years vs "some guy on the internet"...

I have also been arguing that at some point in history, all evidence of an advanced civilization was destroyed and deliberately removed in order to give humanity a "fresh start".

Including the entire fossil record presumably? You're going to have trouble cutting this one with Occam's Razor.

I am also arguing that history has been distorted by ideologies such as religion and darwinism.

Darwinian evolution is a branch of science, constantly evolving itself, not an ideology.

There´s no lack of evidence at all. Ancient accounts describe in detail how advanced beings (humans and ET, Gods and Sons of Gods) roamed the earth and then at one point destroyed and removed all signs of their stay and left.

Expect they didn't describe them as ETs - but as gods. Yeah, yeah they might have looked at ETs as "gods" - do you apply this to more recent religions such as Christianity and Islam?

Despite the attempted removal of evidence we still have plenty left to piece together our history.

No we don't - there is nothing. If you want to start counting religious stories/metaphors and folk tales as documentary evidence then you can pretty much argue for anything you want - the human imagination is a wondrous thing.

No, not many people would be happy with this...much less historians. Admitting to only a few pieces of evidence woud lead to the destruction of both religion and darwinism...two pillars on which regularly organized society stands.

Darwinism is one of the 2 pillars that support society? Yeah, right. It doesn't even make any sense as an argument, as darwinian explanations of life on the planet and religious ones are often mutually exclusive - so how can they go together to form the pillars of our society? Nonsense.

Some of the most important pillars that support current Western civilization are: democracy, rule of law, property rights, national identity and capitalism. None of these has anything to do with the age of humanity or visiting little green men. You could push back the age of humanity by a million years and society would be the same the next day as it was the one before.

Also, how can any new version of the history of humanity undermine religion more than the current version? The current version has nothing at all to do with the Christian version of humanity, which says that the humanity is around 6000 years old and created by god in a garden. None of the evidence supports this, but I don't see religion (or society) crashing and burning yet.

Lastly: do you seriously think that all the hundreds of thousands of people who seriously study the history of humanity all conspire to suppress alternative evidence for the cohesion of society? It's a ridiculous argument frankly.

[edit on 20/4/08 by FatherLukeDuke]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

However to accept your core argument about humanity being billions of years old I would first of all have to discard just about everything we know about science and history - hard won knowledge made by millions over hundreds of years vs "some guy on the internet"...

So because millions of people believe something, it must be right? Something like: "Because the whole world believed the earth was flat..."

Including the entire fossil record presumably? You're going to have trouble cutting this one with Occam's Razor.

No, only high technology was removed/destroyed. Example: Yaweh has gone on record in the old testament saying that he killed 50 000 people for them taking a peek at the ark of the covenant, which was said to have "floated in the air". Why kill so many people over looking at an airship? Because the knowledge is "forbidden". Forbidden by who? By those humans and ETs who pose as Gods.

Darwinian evolution is a branch of science, constantly evolving itself, not an ideology.

The idea of life being a coincidence is not really a hard science. But thats for another thread.

Expect they didn't describe them as ETs - but as gods. Yeah, yeah they might have looked at ETs as "gods" - do you apply this to more recent religions such as Christianity and Islam?

All abrahamic religions refer to some kind of superiour beings. But taken litererally, they dont refer to the non-physical-SUPREME-BEING but to lesser beings that that. Beings with chariots, jealousy, human hands, wars against other Gods, Sons of Gods, sexual relationships with humans.

Religions have more or less managed to re-focus attention on a SUPREME BEING, not because of ancient scripture but despite of them.

No we don't - there is nothing. If you want to start counting religious stories/metaphors and folk tales as documentary evidence then you can pretty much argue for anything you want - the human imagination is a wondrous thing.

Yes, the human imagination is a wonderous thing. Which is why our ancestors, with the imaginative abilities they have, wouldnt keep repeating the same story no matter from which part of the globe they come from.

Example: One or two pages ago I quoted the ancient egyptian text "The Shipwrecked Sailor"...which sounds very similar to the Garden of Eden Tale. Now, "historians" tell me: "That similarity is a coincidence". But I dont buy into all the "its a coincidence" stuff.

Darwinism is one of the 2 pillars that support society? Yeah, right.

It doesn't even make any sense as an argument, as darwinian explanations of life on the planet and religious ones are often mutually exclusive - so how can they go together to form the pillars of our society? Nonsense.

By two pillars I mean two sides of a building, two sides we are given to choose from. At the expense of thrid, fourth, fifth and sixth and seventh sides. OK, my way of expressing it was wrong. Fact is, Evolution Theory and Religion are the two main systems of thought on the ORIGINS of humanity. And both are wrong, imo.

Also, how can any new version of the history of humanity undermine religion more than the current version? The current version has nothing at all to do with the Christian version of humanity, which says that the humanity is around 6000 years old and created by god in a garden. None of the evidence supports this, but I don't see religion (or society) crashing and burning yet.

First it was religion that distorted history...now its a new religion called "evolution theory".

"Evolution Theory" is not a science for me because I neither observe things being based on coincidence nor do I acknowledge linear time.

Nor do I acknowledge the strange notion of us being isolated in an empty universe void of any intelligence

Lastly: do you seriously think that all the hundreds of thousands of people who seriously study the history of humanity all conspire to suppress alternative evidence for the cohesion of society? It's a ridiculous argument frankly.

I dont think they conspire. I think they have been brainwashed or brainwashed themselves into believing whatever the schoolteacher says.
And then there are those who dont just nod but who look elsewhere.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So because millions of people believe something, it must be right? Something like: "Because the whole world believed the earth was flat..."

*sigh* - come one man, you can do better than that tired cliché. I was referring to our scientific understanding of the universe - science has never claimed the world was flat as the evidence doesn't support it.

Including the entire fossil record presumably? You're going to have trouble cutting this one with Occam's Razor.

No, only high technology was removed/destroyed. Example: Yaweh has gone on record in the old testament saying that he killed 50 000 people for taking a peek at the ark of the covenant, which was said to have "floated in the air". Why kill so many people over looking at an airship?

He didn't - there is no reason to think this story is accurate.

Even even if you take it literally then it's a story about gods and religious artefacts - not "airships".

All abrahamic religions refer to some kind of suoeriour beings. But taken litererally, the dont refer to the non-physical-SUPREME-BEING but to lesser beings that that. Beings with chariots, jealousy, human hands, wars against other Gods, Sons of Gods, sexual relationships with humans.

Religions have more or less managed to re-focus attention on a SUPREME BEING, not because of ancient scripture but despite of them.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

Yes, the human imagination is a wondrous thing. Which is why our ancestors, with the imaginative abilities they have, wouldnt keep repeating the same story no matter from which part of the globe they come from.

Creation myths are wildly different - apart from the fact that they are all about creation - something you seem to find surprising.

"Evolution Theory" is not a science for me because I neither observe things being based on coincidence nor do I acknowledge linear time.

You don't acknowledge linear time? Presumably you don't have a very good punctuation record wherever you work.

Nor do I acknowledge the strange notion of us being isolated in an empty universe void of any intelligence

Strawman. Who said it was empty? I think there is probably all sorts of life out there - probably the majority view amongst scientists.

I dont think they conspire. I think they have been brainwashed or brainwashed themselves into believing whatever the schoolteacher says.
And then there are those who dont just nod but who look elsewhere.

Either that or they are just going by what the evidence tells them.....

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
*sigh* - come one man, you can do better than that tired cliché. I was referring to our scientific understanding of the universe - science has never claimed the world was flat as the evidence doesn't support it.

*sigh*...you know very well that there are millions of people today believing certain things that are not true.

*double sigh* The mass of people thinking something is no measure of truth.

He didn't - there is no reason to think this story is accurate.
Even even if you take it literally then it's a story about gods and religious artefacts - not "airships".

And thats where the entire debate keeps coming to a halt. Ancient texts describe floating devices and we arrogantly say "They were making it up" or "its only science-fiction".

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

What I am saying here is that the "Gods" described in ancient accounts have very human qualities as opposed to the qualities of a supreme being.

Creation myths are wildly different - apart from the fact that they are all about creation - something you seem to find surprising.

No, they´re not too different. You can find the "flying serpent" theme across the globe.

You don't acknowledge linear time? Presumably you don't have a very good punctuation record wherever you work.

Linear time is an artificial construct made for exactly that...being able to use clocks and work in an orderly manner.

Who said it was empty? I think there is probably all sorts of life out there - probably the majority view amongst scientists.

Those who assume nothing much intelligent or civilized has happened here in billions of years most also assume that the universe is relatively empty.

If you go by the idea that the universe is teeming with intelligent life (like I do), then what follows is that this life has been off and on earth many, many times.

Either that or they are just going by what the evidence tells them.....

We´ve already seen in this thread how "going by what the evidence tells them" includes circular reasoning such as

"Since civilized people didnt exist back then, there can be no evidence, therefore there is no evidence".

The amount of evidence, not only the ancient accounts but in everything from precision-drilling holes to depictions of flying discs is overwhelming..




[edit on 20-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

I think it isn't so much a conspiracy to suppress knowledge, rather than an unwillingness to deviate from accepted history, because it neatly explains how society got where it is today.

"We lived in caves - we were barbarians - Europe figured things out like "morality" and "civilization" - we became modern man". It paints a nice easy picture where a race of men did not dominate all others under the guise of religion, where they did not begin terrible and destructive wars, and did not eradicate themselves through hubris, leaving their poor slaves to try and pick up the pieces.

This gives us quite a nice, pompous feeling because we are the only ones throughout the course of human history to have figured any of this stuff out. It gives us a satisfying sense of superiority, and acknowledgement that there may have been someone greater than ourselves takes that away.

There are plenty of ancient tales to suggest that a long time ago, not all people were equal.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


Yes, I very much a agree that its less a conspiracy and more psychology.

And thats where the entire debate keeps coming to a halt. Ancient texts describe floating devices and we arrogantly say "They were making it up" or "its only science-fiction".

Religious-fiction, not science-fiction.

What I am saying here is that the "Gods" described in ancient accounts have very human qualities as opposed to the qualities of a supreme being.

Could that be because they were all written by humans?

Creation myths are wildly different - apart from the fact that they are all about creation - something you seem to find surprising.

No, they´re not too different. You can find the "flying serpent" theme across the globe.

Where is the flying serpent in the Abrahamic religions? There's one in a tree for the hebrews - I suppose it could have flown there

Who said it was empty? I think there is probably all sorts of life out there - probably the majority view amongst scientists.

Those who assume nothing much intelligent or civilized has happened here in billions of years most also assume that the universe is relatively empty.

Rubbish - they, like me, don't see any evidence of aliens visiting and interfering with humanity. That doesn't mean that they don't think life is out there.

If you go by the idea that the universe is teeming with intelligent life (like I do), then what follows is that this life has been off and on earth many, many times.

It certainly doesn't follow.

Either that or they are just going by what the evidence tells them.....

We´ve already seen in this thread how "going by what the evidence tells them" includes circular reasoning such as

"Since civilized people didnt exist back then, there can be no evidence, therefore there is no evidence".

That's your circular argument, not mine. My argument is that there is no evidence of civilisation before 8000 years, and plently of evidence to the contrary, therefore I will assume that no civilisation existed before the last ice age. This isn't circular.

The amount of evidence, not only the ancient accounts but in everything from precision-drilling holes to depictions of flying discs is overwhelming..

Precision-drilling can only have been done by aliens? You're back on the "useless humans" argument again.

[edit on 20/4/08 by FatherLukeDuke]

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

"We lived in caves - we were barbarians - Europe figured things out like "morality" and "civilization" - we became modern man". It paints a nice easy picture where a race of men did not dominate all others under the guise of religion, where they did not begin terrible and destructive wars, and did not eradicate themselves through hubris, leaving their poor slaves to try and pick up the pieces.
.

Ridiculous strawman. What version of history have you been looking at exactly? One that doesn't include destructive wars??!!??

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Where is the flying serpent in the Abrahamic religions? There's one in a tree for the hebrews - I suppose it could have flown there

Serpents, talking serpents, flying serpents, flying dragons, non-flying serpents, whatever. Skip one or two pages back and tell me that ancient egyptian "golden-serpent in a beautiful garden" story is not similar to the biblical one...like some hobby-historian tried telling me on a related thread.

Rubbish - they, like me, don't see any evidence of aliens visiting and interfering with humanity. That doesn't mean that they don't think life is out there.

Evidence has been deliberately removed in connection to the "non-interference-act" applied by a galactic court of law 10 000 B.C.

But seriously: If ancient scripture explicitly tells of removed evidence and "forbidden technology", I'll take the hint and consider it.

Precision-drilling can only have been done by aliens? You're back on the "useless humans" argument again.

*Sigh* Is that what I said? No.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

"Thou shall not make any pictures of me"

Doesnt sound like they were eager to leave a trail of evidence, does it?

Hi FatherLukeDuke, if you don’t mind, I have some questions I like to ask you.

I am just curious.
Do you find the available evidence provided by mainstream Egyptologists that pharaoh Khufu builds the Great Pyramid disputable or indisputable?

Do you find the available evidence provide by so many witnesses that Earth is being visited now and therefore possible for a very long time by Extraterrestrials disputable or indisputable?

Thanks in advance.


[edit on 20/4/08 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Precision-drilling can only have been done by aliens? You're back on the "useless humans" argument again.

*Sigh* Is that what I said? No.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

Sorry, I genuinely thought that's what you were saying - what was your point about precision drilling then?

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I am just curious.
Do you find the available evidence provided by mainstream Egyptologists that pharaoh Khufu builds the Great Pyramid disputable or indisputable?

Hi spacevisitor,

I don't have enough knowledge on that specific point to comment - people like Hanslune have.

Do you find the available evidence provide by so many witnesses that Earth is being visited now and therefore possible for a very long time by Extraterrestrials disputable or indisputable?

Tales of alien visitors are a fairly new phenomena - only really decades old. Of course some of these could be true, but there are certainly no indisputable cases, as they are based on eye-witness accounts which are by their nature very fallible (look how descriptions of aliens changed so much in reaction to popular culture such as Encounters of the Third Kind).

Find me an artefact or material that could not possibly be terrestrial and I will go for it. Some wobbly lights in the sky, a tale of been kidnapped from your bed by aliens or of flying serpents isn't going to cut it for me.

Personally I would love for alien contact to happen in my life time - I'm a big sci-fi fan and it would realise a lot of dreams. Though it is of course as scary prospect as it is exciting.

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


Being a Douglas Adams fan you`ll at least be able to consider the possibility of a vast billion year-spanning earth history mixed with conspiracies to hide that history, etc.

The precision drilling is first and foremost evidence of craftsmanship not done by simple-minded hunter-gatherers. This can but doesnt have to refer to extraterrestrials. It can also refer to advanced humans.

For me there´s no difference between the two anyway, so the often heard argument "you think humans are too stupid to..." doesnt count for me.