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: 55
108
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   


Double standards. At the end of the day, some modern and some ancient thought are accurate.


Please state the criteria you use to differentiate between what is accurate and what is not in ancient writing?

I'd used supporting evidence, but you say you don't so what do you do?

Since you won't provide a link to the claim of god directed destruction of all archaeological data - I'll consider it nothing of importance.




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Yeah, they don't seem that similar to me and they were both written by humans - therefore share common traits.


Ah...I see. The good ol "coincidence" card pulled.



As has been pointed out "uncivilised" has negative connotations that are not appropriate. The concept of "civilisation" is a 18th century French one and biased in itself. However going by that concept the culture that produced those temples was not a civilisation.


OK.



With a cursory glance at the site some of them are clearly laughable - which ones do you want us to debate?


Im not sure about these myself. Am I correct in assuming that it is still widely believed that trans-oceanic travel only exists since the 14th-16th Century?

(If that is still widely believed, how does coc aine get to the ancient egyptians?)



Yes. Are we to believe in electricity without wires or power stations?


Apparently. Another poster earlier suggested that these wholes were drilled by bulls running in a circle. Im not satisfied with explanations like that.



Are we to believe that in 200,000 years of being human civilisation as only been around for a few thousand? Yes - that's what the evidence says.


No, thats what current day status quo says, based on having scratched the surface.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Please state the criteria you use to differentiate between what is accurate and what is not in ancient writing?


Yes sir. Accounts from one source matching other accounts from other sources sometimes thousands of miles apart, sometimes hundreds of years apart make something more believable. If a third, fourth and fifth source can be found stating the same thing, then I term it more accurate than if only one source says something.

In any case, if there is ancient talk of a cosmic opera, wars of the worlds, wars of Gods etc. I will consider this.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Since you won't provide a link to the claim of god directed destruction of all archaeological data - I'll consider it nothing of importance.


Seems you are misrepresenting others, not me. I did not say that the Gods ordered the destruction of all archaeological data, I said that the Gods hid, forbid and destroyed evidence of high technology.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
"I said that the Gods hid, forbid and destroyed evidence of high technology. "

how do you equate that with reality

in one breath you're telling us the Gods were aliens who were really advanced who hid that from us and in the next claiming that theres loads of evidence that tells us that.

fyi Gods do not hide evidence of their superiority, it is what their divinity is actually based on. the failure in your logic is quite awful



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by legionromanes
 


The "Gods" Im talking about are not supreme beings but very human.

By asking humans not to depict them, by punishing and killing them if they gained too much knowledge the hid the fact that they are not supreme beings but mere mortals.

Humans tried building a tower too high? Tower destroyed, languages mixed.

Humans ate from the fruit of knowledge? Forbidden.

Plus a few hundred more examples of this behaviour in religious texts.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by legionromanes
 


The "Gods" Im talking about are not supreme beings but very human.

By asking humans not to depict them, by punishing and killing them if they gained too much knowledge the hid the fact that they are not supreme beings but mere mortals.

Humans tried building a tower too high? Tower destroyed, languages mixed.

Humans ate from the fruit of knowledge? Forbidden.

Plus a few hundred more examples of this behaviour in religious texts.

all your examples are from the fictional bible, many times you've posted that the Gods were responsible for creating humanity and yet you are now attempting to use a book of faith which postdates that event by hundreds of millenia as evidence

as I said your logic is seriously faulty. Most of the stories I have read which contain God and human interaction seem to indicate that the gods were able to impregnate human women by having intercourse with them. the result is a normal looking human child. this LOGICALLy would seem to indicate that the Gods were fully human

an obscure Italian Philosopher called Giambattista Vico worked out several hundred years ago how gods were created. they are the elevated heroes of a former age.
that would be humans then
en.wikipedia.org...

your arguments were at first mildly entertaining. Now they are just ludicrous, you are seemingly flip flopping from one illogical answer to the next to bolster your belief. You may at some point need to consider that it is your belief that is incorrect and not human history



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by legionromanes

many times you've posted that the Gods were responsible for creating humanity


Not once in this thread have I stated that.



this LOGICALLy would seem to indicate that the Gods were fully human


Yes, I agree. This I have hinted at a few times within this thread.

I think you are...like many others here unfortunately, guessing what I believe based upon what popular authors of the subject like Hancock and Sitchin believe rather than reading any of my posts.

Its forgiven...I wouldnt have the patience to read the thread either.





your arguments were at first mildly entertaining. Now they are just ludicrous, you are seemingly flip flopping from one illogical answer to the next to bolster your belief. You may at some point need to consider that it is your belief that is incorrect and not human history


Considering you have misrepresented my claims I dont think you are in a position to judge that.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
when it comes to judging it seems the far more knowledgable posters in this thread have time and again proved you insufficient. All you've answered with has been hyperbole, bad logic and ad hominem attacks. Now I just noticed you are a moderator in a forum which has "deny ignorance" as a motto

gotta love the irony really



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   




No, no, it is a real bible. I've read it myself. Bit long-winded and unrealistic towards the end (four beasts, sat around God's throne, covered in eyes, even under their wings, chanting "holy is the lord" for all time...erm, what?), but otherwise it's a good yarn...

I think you have hit the basis of it though - the gods were obviously human, but I don't think they were kings elevated to divine status. They were humans who had learned more than others. It appears they then imposed a nasty regime of "do as we say, not as we do" tyranny, and the rest is..."history".

Genetic engineering is the key to why the gods were so bloody great, and why when they got down to it with "mortal" women, they produced great heroic sons or giants. Of course they were of great stature, strength, speed and intellect. As if you'd engineer anything less!

Either that, or they were a separate race of "supermen" that evolved naturally...but I find that to be a less-likely option than genetic engineering.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by legionromanes
 


apart from misrepresenting my claims and providing false accounts of what I said, do you have anything to contribute to this thread?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by legionromanes
 


And you wouldnt happen to be one of those other "knowledgable posters" under another screenname, would you?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by legionromanes
 


apart from misrepresenting my claims and providing false accounts of what I said, do you have anything to contribute to this thread?


claiming that I have nothing to offer is derogatory and a personal attack under the rules of this forum. this is typically how you deal with people who raise a valid point isn't it ?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by legionromanes
 


And you wouldnt happen to be one of those other "knowledgable posters" under another screenname, would you?


ok so now you're claiming I'm an imposter and so anything I say is invalid. this is also derogatory and a personal attack under the rules of this forum. Its also a method you seem to have used before when confronted by questions you cannot answer



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by legionromanes
 


You´ve misrepresented my views twice in your short stay here.

An apology would suffice.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
you haven't answered a single one of my questions, have deliberately insulted me twice and you want an apology ?

thats enough. I am complaining to admin about your behaviour

you are now on ignore, thankyou for proving what I suspected.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by legionromanes]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by legionromanes
you haven't answered a single one of my questions, have deliberately insulted me twice and you want an apology ?

thats enough. I am complaining to admin about your behaviour

you are now on ignore, thankyou for proving what I suspected.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by legionromanes]


Fine. Be well.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by azzllin
...

My wife dispises Hawass for what she said he did to Dr Joanne Fletcher when she tried to convince the world that the Mummy of Nefertiti had been found, using talents of some of the gratest scientists in their field she had the Mummy X-rayed and scanned, she had a very convincing argument only to have Hawass completley put her down on TV.

My wife said he has no interest in revealing the truth he always tries to wriggle his way to all the great discoveries by controling everything.


He did the same to John West, Graham Hancock and many others. Personally I feel that West did a magnificent job concerning his study of the weathering on the Sphinx. His research placed the origin of the Sphinx near the end of the last ice age when there was frequent rain in the Giza area.

I, too, have always despised Hawass. The main problem with him and other Egyptologists is that to admit any of the work of these other scientists and researchers is correct, is to admit that that were wrong in so many ways and would make them look foolish. They don't have any desire to know the full truth, only the "truths" that they have written.

I also believe that Hawass is hiding things and preventing others from getting too close to what he may know is there or may want to discover himself. Remember the robot in the shafts of the Great Pyramid? A second door was found and exploration was stopped and has not resumed....



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by greywolfe1960


He did the same to John West, Graham Hancock and many others. Personally I feel that West did a magnificent job concerning his study of the weathering on the Sphinx. His research placed the origin of the Sphinx near the end of the last ice age when there was frequent rain in the Giza area.

to be fair Graham Hancock and the others were only briefly banned from the Giza plateau. the reasoning behind this was because Hancock for example had bribed guards to let him climb the Great pyramid at night which he then relayed to the public in his books. Had he fallen to his death Hawass would have been ultimately responsible. what would you do in that situation

as for schoch, he has since changed his mind about the dating and now places it much nearer the time of the Giza construction. it should also be added that no other geologist has backed his original claim with many in fact submitting articles that completely destroy his hypothesis.

Originally posted by greywolfe1960
I also believe that Hawass is hiding things and preventing others from getting too close to what he may know is there or may want to discover himself. Remember the robot in the shafts of the Great Pyramid? A second door was found and exploration was stopped and has not resumed....


Hawass is known for closing excavations by foreign teams and then reopening them himself and having them carried out to his methods. But then he is in charge of Egyptian history. He didn't get in that position because he was unfair but he may have gotten it because he was biased in favour of Egypt. All of the people you have mentioned in your post have the highest regards for the man himself. perhaps they know something you don't. like maybe, don't believe everything you read on conspiracy forums. A lot of the information posted in from a personal belief standpoint.
your submittance of your wifes opinion is a case in point. Unless she actually knows Hawass it is just her opinion.

Hawass himself actually believes that the hidden burial chamber of Khufu is behind the door and has stated such on a number of occaisons


From the 'Notebook of Dr. Hawass: June 2006':

"The most exciting discovery I ever made was that of the secret doors deep inside the Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza. The story goes back to 1993...I do believe that Khufu still hides in his burial chamber inside the Great Pyramid....I believe that the doors are hiding real secrets, including Khufu’s chamber.

On the same day that Gantenbrink found this door, the followers of the god Seth appeared, as did the head of the antiquities authority at that time. This man was so jealous of my success that he began to attack me, even making the decision that I would be removed from Giza. I resigned my position and left Egypt for Los Angeles and took up residence at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), to do research. While I was there, that same head of antiquities was fired, so I returned to my job again, always dreaming of how I could uncover the true secrets of the Pyramids.

Last month, I met a young man from Singapore University, and he showed us all the steps we could follow to reveal the secrets behind the doors... I believe that 2006 will be the year that what is hidden in the chambers of the Pyramids will be revealed."




[edit on 20-4-2008 by legionromanes]



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

Originally posted by legionromanes


Hawass is known for closing excavations by foreign teams and then reopening them himself and having them carried out to his methods. But then he is in charge of Egyptian history. He didn't get in that position because he was unfair but he may have gotten it because he was biased in favour of Egypt. All of the people you have mentioned in your post have the highest regards for the man himself. perhaps they know something you don't. like maybe, don't believe everything you read on conspiracy forums. A lot of the information posted in from a personal belief standpoint.
your submittance of your wifes opinion is a case in point. Unless she actually knows Hawass it is just her opinion.


He is extremely biased in favor of Egypt, but letting national pride interfere in science is wrong. If you had read any of my other posts on these forums you would know that I believe very little of what is posted in any conspiracy forum. I also believe I stated very clearly that what I wrote was my beliefs and I did not submit any opinions of my wife or of anyone else.

I understand that the job Hawass has must, by definition, be extremely difficult, but that is no excuse for letting national pride interfere in the search for scientific truth. I am the type of person that will stand up and state what I believe in even if I do get ridiculed for it, and I find those that will not to be two-faced and untrustworthy. Again, MY OPINION and no one else's.





[edit on 4/20/2008 by greywolfe1960]



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join