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: 57
108
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by legionromanes
well they are named after the constellation lyra, (their original home) which in turn is named after the latin name of the musical instrument known as the lyre (which is the shape of the constellation)
so unless they first travelled forwards in time and spoke to some romans (for which they would need latin) or came further forwards and spoke to someone english (for which they would need english) they would not be calling themselves lyran would they.
seems quite obvious to me.


I must admit an interesting theory.
So, when they had called themselves Leiers, they must have spoken to someone German.
I see no contradiction, it is however a funny coincidence of course.




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
perhaps what they were trying to say was "we are liars"





posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by legionromanes
perhaps what they were trying to say was "we are liars"

How could anyone believe such a statement?


Harte



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Harte, I still wait for your reaction on this post, or do you have no solid AE explanation for it.


reply to post by spacevisitor
 



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
your post seems to be basing its credibility on your belief that the egyptians couldn't move the blocks used in the GP

you realise of course that they left murals of themselves moving far bigger objects and of course that if they didn't build the GP then they didn't build anything else in Egypt because most of the religious structures in the country contain blocks larger than that.

mot of the blocks in the GP weigh less than 2 tons, are you seriously claiming that they couldn't lift that. thats plainly ridiculous. There are examples from all over the world of ancient peoples moving blocks way bigger than that, even documented in the modern era. so you're really saying that any structure that contains a part that weighs more than 2 tons must have been built by some lost advanced race arent you

did you never hear of the thunder stone ?

was that moved by a lost advanced race too, it is after all the largest stone ever moved by mankind.
en.wikipedia.org...
it weighed 1500 tonnes, thats slighty larger than what you are claiming couldn't be moved in Egypt. I guess the Russians must be the lost race you are looking for. lol




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by legionromanes
your post seems to be basing its credibility on your belief that the egyptians couldn't move the blocks used in the GP


It is based on several things, where under the lack of solid evidence from the ME themselves.
They believe/claim for instance that the AE must have used those clamps, because all those blocks must be dragged upwards.
Will you give me your personal view on that, and do you really think that it is possible that way?


Originally posted by legionromanes
did you never hear of the thunder stone ?
was that moved by a lost advanced race too, it is after all the largest stone ever moved by mankind.

en.wikipedia.org...

it weighed 1500 tonnes, thats slighty larger than what you are claiming couldn't be moved in Egypt. I guess the Russians must be the lost race you are looking for.


No, I really didn’t, very interesting and thanks for that info.
But with the thunder stone, you forget some important things in my opinion, look closely to the picture and look to the tools they use.
And don't forget the very convenient circumstances too.




Moving the Thunder Stone
After waiting for winter, when the ground was frozen, it was then dragged across the countryside. This was done by means of a metallic sledge which slid over bronze spheres about 13.5 cm (6 inches) in diameter, over a track, a process similar to the later invention of ball bearings. Making the feat even more impressive was that the labour was done entirely by humans; no animals or machines were used in bringing it from the original site to the Senate Square.[7] Once a method to move it was devised, it took 400 men 9 months to move the stone, during which time master stonecutters continuously shaped the enormous granite monolith.[2] Catherine periodically visited the effort to oversee their progress. The larger capstans took 32 men at once to turn, this just barely moving the rock. Further complicating the issue was the availability of only 100 m of track, which had to be constantly relaid.[7] Nevertheless, the workers made over 150 m of progress a day while on level ground.


en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 23/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 23/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 23/4/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by isaeyeallseeing
 


Thanks. I had already read your material earlier but had not posted. I´ll give you credit for posting something new rather than doing a rehash of the same ol same old.


Thank you for you comment.

What are your thoughts on the actual material and if you have the time I would really love the input of a moderator on the thread itself as it could incourage further discussion by your readers.

ISA



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Some of the People we have been talking about in this thread


These are Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner the two top egyptologists.

















posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   
And these are some of the people called "Pyramidiots", "Frauds", "Cranks" by Hawass, Lehner, etc.


Graham Hanckock:






Robert Bauval:







E.v. Daniken:







posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Why post these pictures?

Because a "picture says more than thousand words".

From a psychological viewpoint anyone is able to "read" things out of faces to make an educated guess as to a persons intelligence and integrity.

I originally browsed through google to find these images because I was curious to get another look at the people we keep talking about in this thread.

But as I started looking it occured to me that the so-called "quacks" and "cranks" dont necessarily look more dishonest and stupid as those who call them these names.

Of course this doesnt have to mean a thing but it is an interesting side-note.

Look closely at the fringe-researchers: Do they look deluded?

Look closely at Hawass: Doesnt he look stressed out most of the time?

If there really is any cover-up happening it would indeed be stressful to uphold it.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Ok this is bizarre, because you cherry picked one picture of Hawass looking stressed it means hes hiding something ?


best watch out, the pope must also be up to something

uh oh Dubyas hiding something too

Cheney must be hiding loads of things

they must be in league with Castro then

this type of selective evidence is quite typical of people who don't have any real evidence to post.

you missed these

the friendly uncle

the friendly tour guide (or is it Abanazar welcoming Aladdin haha )

I call this one the friendly school teacher because hes obviously teaching someone to count to two

the happy investigator ?

clearly as you actually got that Zahi picture from a pseudo historic website namely this one
www.opencheops.org...
then its quite easy to see why he's angry, someone probably just asked him for the thousandth time where hes hiding the mother ship




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by legionromanes
 


I thought you put me on ignore recently


Anyway, your rebuttal is not too bad actually.

Still I´d prefer sharing a dinner table with those "cranks"


They certainly dont look crazy to me.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by legionromanes
 


I thought you put me on ignore recently


Anyway, your rebuttal is not too bad actually.

Still I´d prefer sharing a dinner table with those "cranks"


They certainly dont look crazy to me.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Skyfloating]


I was going to but you can't put mods on ignore for obvious reasons.

but I agree with you, I would much rather have dinner with the cranks than the genuine archaeolgists.
the cranks earn more and rarely leave their palatial mansions in the english countryside and so would have a better supplied table.
as opposed to the genuine guys who on the whole live in tents on site and eat their dinner out of big saucepans



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by legionromanes
I was going to but you can't put mods on ignore for obvious reasons.

but I agree with you, I would much rather have dinner with the cranks than the genuine archaeolgists.
the cranks earn more and rarely leave their palatial mansions in the english countryside and so would have a better supplied table.
as opposed to the genuine guys who on the whole live in tents on site and eat their dinner out of big saucepans




Very true.







(On the other hand: Some believe that good work is what is rewarded with money ; )



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Harte, I still wait for your reaction on this post, or do you have no solid AE explanation for it.


reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Spacevisitor,
Sorry, I didn't realize.

I find two things odd about your post. One is that your links support the use of ramps, and two that none of your links mention the actual remains of these ramps that have been found beside the Great Pyramid.

Given these two indisputable facts, I can't see how anything in your post could indicate anything other than the use of ramps. So, though I agree that you are welcome to whatever belief you prefer, I don't see from that post what you are trying to get at.

Also, you said:


Harte, do you really think that this portion is enough "wealth of ... evidence" to proof the G.P. was built by (or for) Khufu?

Please note that I didn't say anything was "proven."

Harte



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Its no problem Harte, you did it now.


Originally posted by Harte
I find two things odd about your post. One is that your links support the use of ramps, and two that none of your links mention the actual remains of these ramps that have been found beside the Great Pyramid.


Well I thought that this link shows a picture of a ramp at the top, so I didn’t search for more.
I thought it was more important to show a few type of possible used ramps and that in relation with my description.

www.touregypt.net...


Originally posted by Harte
So, though I agree that you are welcome to whatever belief you prefer, I don't see from that post what you are trying to get at.


As you good see, I make a short description of what must be done in my opinion during those manoeuvring with the blocks, so my question to you is, do you really think personally that those blocks can be dragged and manoeuvred that way on such type of ramps?


Originally posted by Harte
Also, you said:
Harte, do you really think that this portion is enough "wealth of ... evidence" to proof the G.P. was built by (or for) Khufu?
Please note that I didn't say anything was "proven."
Harte


Well, during the ongoing discussions about that all you give me the impression that you are personally convinced that Khufu or the AE build the great pyramid.
And that means that you believe and accept the provided evidence by the ME as proof in my opinion.
But correct me if I am wrong.


[edit on 23/4/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
you are wrong I can categorically deny that Khufu built the GP.

its just waaay too much work for one man to do even if he was the living embodiment of Khnum



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Why post these pictures?

cos you can?



Because a "picture says more than thousand words".

It certainly doesn't.



From a psychological viewpoint anyone is able to "read" things out of faces to make an educated guess as to a persons intelligence and integrity.

No you can't. By that standard you would trust the lovely friendly face of Uncle Jo Stalin over the slighty shifty looking Ghandi.

Anyway, E.v. Daniken looks like a moron in the photo you posted.



But as I started looking it occured to me that the so-called "quacks" and "cranks" dont necessarily look more dishonest and stupid as those who call them these names.

Really, is this what you are reduced to?



Look closely at Hawass: Doesnt he look stressed out most of the time?

People who work hard look stressed. People, like Hancock, who can earn a living tapping out made up crap onto a computer in their bedroom don't.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
People who work hard look stressed. People, like Hancock, who can earn a living tapping out made up crap onto a computer in their bedroom don't.


Sour grapes.

You always hear how these people are idiots and crooks and all but they neither look, nor talk nor earn like idiots.

You know what this is all about? Envy.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
People who work hard look stressed. People, like Hancock, who can earn a living tapping out made up crap onto a computer in their bedroom don't.


Sour grapes.

You've said this several times. I wonder if you realize you're using this phrase incorrectly?


Originally posted by SkyfloatingYou always hear how these people are idiots and crooks and all but they neither look, nor talk nor earn like idiots.

You got that last part right, for sure.

"These people" put forth idiotic premises, which does not make them idiots. It means they take you for an idiot.

Maybe they're right.


No question they are crooks. They take your money under false pretenses, claiming (okay, sometimes they use the phrase "some reasearchers say..." or "some people think...") to have found relationships that can, in reality, be shown not to exist. And charging you money for the privilege of being suckered in.

Do you care to discuss this easily demonstrable fact? Want to go back to Pacal's tomb? Want to know about the "flash frozen mammoths?" Care to discuss, once again, the fact that VonDaniken admitted fabricating evidence (pottery) and pretending it was ancient, admitting this fraud once he was caught red-handed?

What would you call "people like these?"


Originally posted by SkyfloatingYou know what this is all about? Envy.

I wonder what you think he is envious of? Their money? If so, you are making an assumption about the level of greed that exists in Father Luke Duke's psyche.

Perhaps you should examine your own motivations, reserving judgement on the motivations of others until you have resolved from whence your own arise. "The mote in your neighbor's eye" vs. "the beam in your own," right?

Harte

[edit on 4/23/2008 by Harte]



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join