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: 59
108
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
On the flipside, as Harte indicated, Cairo wasn't founded until 969 AD. It wasn't built on a pre-existing village or city.


Talk is not about a pre-existing village but about tunnel-systems way below. Ive been looking at the tunnel-issue since a few weeks and I´ll post as soon as I find anything conclusive that wont immediatly be ripped apart by you and harte




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





Talk is not about a pre-existing village but about tunnel-systems way below.


True enough, but if Cairo was built over a tunnel system, then it would be expected that engineers at some point would have to know about them, possibly shoring up any potentially dangerous areas. There is no indication that this has ever been the case.

My interest was that you claimed there were "various sources" to indicate the stories of tunnels were true. Should I take it you have no actual sources?

cormac



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Yes, there are two sources referring to this. But I want to verify it before posting. You know how it is...if its not verified then people like cormac pounce all over me. Give it another day or so.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Guess I assumed by your original claim that you had already done your homework, but I can wait to see if there is any "meat" to your claims.

cormac



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Hey ATSers, Its been awhile since I was chatting with all of you, so I see your looking into Egypt again, good luck with your searches.
I have lived on and off in Egypt for the past 24 yrs and I feel as though I know alittle about Egypt more so than most, I lived it, ok.
Yes, they did find antiquities digging the underground and it was Roman but this was found near the bazaar called Kan El Kalili, not that far down but basically scratching the surface. Theres no underground world in Cairo, much too hard a ground to do anything.
I will try to read more on what all of you have been writing but wish me well to be back with you, I just returned from another OCONUS field trip.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by gwhint
 


Thanks for the info gwhint, interesting read. I'm not sure what an OCONUS field trip is, but it sounds like fun.

Welcome back.

cormac



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Hey cormac mac airt,
Its a term we in the expat world use to say when living or travelling Outside Continental United States, (OCONUS) my life has been more out than in, ok.
Whats the beef here with this posting, if you can give it to me in a short paragreaph, I may be able to add or dismiss the theories,
thanks for responding, gwhint



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
but I can wait to see if there is any "meat" to your claims.



Well it seems that both you and Harte have already made that decision (that there is no meat to it) before I even posted the data.

Interesting to see.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by gwhint
 


In a nutshell, some people present "what if's", "maybe's" and "might have been's" as if they were documented facts. Hanslune, Harte and myself, amongst others, present what is actually known of these topics. The other side doesn't want to be bothered by facts getting in the way of their opinions. At least that's my take.

cormac



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

In a nutshell, some people present "what if's", "maybe's" and "might have been's" as if they were documented facts. Hanslune, Harte and myself, amongst others, present what is actually known of these topics. The other side doesn't want to be bothered by facts getting in the way of their opinions. At least that's my take.



When I post on other websites I usually go with parroting what is already known about a subject. But the purpose of this website is far-out speculation. Have you noticed?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Gotcha cormac mac airt,

I can honestly say I am among your bunch of believers, as I said, I lived it and I really think I could add a dose of reality to this subject. I started into the posting and it seems like alot of drifting off the central theme.
Mr Hawas is a very nice gentleman, I met him and he truly believes in his theories of Egyptology.
He never goes astray into the unknown and I think its because he really has no time for anything else to think about, like aliens and such, other than eating and drinking all that is on his plate with the antiquities.
I learned over the years living among the egyptians, the number one thing on their minds is feeding their families and also who is going to attack them today with war, they live in fear, not like us living in paradise.
I searched for years for more but to no avail came up empty with the supernatural thoughts and aliens, there's nothing there, you should live it, then you can pass judgement.
Stick to your guns, I am with you, gwhint



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Speculation:

Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.

A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.

Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or
supposition.

Fact:

The quality of being actual

Something that has actual existence

An actual occurrence

A piece of information presented as having objective reality

Because you seem to have a hard time telling the difference between the two. Speculate to your hearts content, but if you present it as fact then don't expect it to go unchallenged.

cormac



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by gwhint
 



Originally posted by cormac mac airt
In a nutshell, some people present "what if's", "maybe's" and "might have been's" as if they were documented facts. Hanslune, Harte and myself, amongst others, present what is actually known of these topics. The other side doesn't want to be bothered by facts getting in the way of their opinions. At least that's my take.


I wouldn't take cormacs word for it though, read it thru yourself...
thats a 2 way street, that statement of his there.
I mean of course he'd say something like that
, as if we haven't researched our end of the arguments before presenting them.

There have been challenges (based on strong evidence) presented (to the mainstream group) in this thread that neither he, nor Harte, nor Hanslune et al could address or would address. And sure, as much as they're all well read and even a few experienced in this field, there are some things (important things) they can't (won't) answer. It seems they 'cherry pick' their arguments and go after the ones they've always gone after, conveniently ignoring the ones they can't...of course this is my take based on what I've experienced here... But don't take my word for it either...read thru it yourself.

And as far as the maybe's, what if's, and could have been's...yep that's the way the fringe have presented things here. We take a piece of evidence and postulate a theory based on that evidence because the mainstream can't otherwise explain it; or their explanations aren't satisfactory enough, as it's typically just speculation guised (and presented) as fact which usually seems based on circumstantial evidence.

Of course I could be wrong...



[edit on 26-4-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Speculation:

Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.

A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.

Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or
supposition.

Fact:

The quality of being actual

Something that has actual existence

An actual occurrence

A piece of information presented as having objective reality

-So tell me what piece of knowledge do we have today that was not entertained as "speculation" by someone prior it to it becoming "accepted"
fact.
- How many accepted "facts" in our body of knowledge from beginning of recorded history til today has been proven wrong.
-How governments and personalities over the years have with held or knowingly mis-interpeted "facts" to serve either their own personal or their country's or governments interest.

Give it a rest,,,, facts are what we are willing to accept as probable,,,there are no absolutes,,,
The fact that a apple will fall from a tree at the same rate as a food gatherer who was trying to pick the apple has been "common knowledge " since man has being picking apples.

Our world of scientific knowledge would not exist if you Cormac..Hanslume or Harte were the progenators of said sciences,,,

So spare us your self rightous pontifications about "facts"

Of course this isnt the last word,, I know that ,,, lets start with the Giza Pryamid. And a pro and con presentation:
? FAct its was constructured by Khufu because: his cartouche was found inside the structure. Or because he claimed that he had it build?
-Who claims its the cartouche of Khufu and what does he have to present, and I'm sure there are counter points,,,The final say,, its Khufu's cartouche because someone wants to believe stronger that some else ,, there is no coclusive evidence.
All the pryamids where made the same way by the same people,
-Giza is unique and there have been many attempts ending in failure to copy it.
I've stated this before and neither of the decending 3 have countered that.
You also refuse to recognise the work of other "fringe" Egyptologist because to dont accept them as scholars,,,well are either of the three of you Cormac, Hanslume or Harte,, Trained, Certified, Degree carring Egyptologist?

All in all back off and give us room to express what we speculate about ,, its allowed here and you may learn something,...about Egypt...maybe,,,



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
reply to post by gwhint
 


In a nutshell, some people present "what if's", "maybe's" and "might have been's" as if they were documented facts. Hanslune, Harte and myself, amongst others, present what is actually known of these topics. The other side doesn't want to be bothered by facts getting in the way of their opinions. At least that's my take. cormac


Well cormac mac airt, that is your opinion and takes on it.
This is mine.
In a nutshell, people like you amongst others present here also what is actually “known” of these topics, but you and those others present those so to speak as if they are documented “facts” or “indisputable evidence”, despite you all must be aware of the fact that many of those documented “facts” are largely based on lots of assuming and guessing, and correct me if I am wrong.
And therefore doesn't want to be getting in the way of their opinions by those who challenge them with very realistic arguments.
At least that's my take.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Its like jbmitch and photon effect say it is.

The basic understanding is that new information will not be arrived at by looking at what is already known but by expanding ones mind to reach for the unknown.

By this process many mistakes occur, and much nonsense is written. But that mustnt discourage from "keep on looking" or incite harsh judgements of the mistakes made.

I assume that your basic beef with this is that there are people "looking" that are not educated and approved-by-university to do so.

For all the disadvantages our non-expertise has, it also has one major advantage: Our perceptions are not limited by pre-conceived notions learned by only looking at one area of specialty.

Yes, you´re right: There are many hard-working and honest archaeologists out there and our wild musings tend to lessen the value of that work. In this sense, all the posts I made that refer to the mainstream as "stupid", "unable", "part of an evil cover-up" are the wrong approach (including the pictures recently posted). Us "fringers" need to learn to focus soley on presenting alternative ideas and pieces of evidence, without putting down and slandering the work of the experts.

This is a weakness many fringe-authors reguarly fall into...out of frustration of being ridiculed every step of the way.

So, on my part, there is a basic understanding that what mainstream archaeology and history does is of great value.

But on your part there must be a basic understanding of peoples motivations visiting websites such as ATS. The motivation is to actively search out oddities, ínconsistencies, incongruencies, weirdness, possible hidden-information and things that question our entire base of knowledge.

Without your basic understanding of what drives us to frequent this website, you will keep running up against people who seem to test your tolerance.

And if you admit it, some of the posts here (such as those made by photon effect), have inspired you to take a deeper look at the subject, have they not?

All and all, I think both sides could get more out of this by collaboration than insulting each other. But then you might say "Why would an expert who has studied this for years, collaborate with someone who hasnt?". And this would be true...if we werent at a website visited by people who have studied conspiracy-theory and alternative-history for years.

My hope for future posts is that those who normally ridicule us to provide some unsolved issues themselves as to educate us in accordance with the thread topic of unresolved mysteries. This was done only once up to now, when Harte drew our attention to the yet-to-be-discovered egyptian labyrinth as recorded by some historians. So there you go...if everything we say is unreal, then what issues are there that are still mysterious?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jbmitch
 


Hello jbmitch,

Please let me point out, there is documented proof of the bloodline of the pharoahs in many hyroglyphs and the making of the pyramids, was over many centuries or dynasties to get it right.

www.nemo.nu...

You can see the changes as well as the flaws in the pre-periods from the first step pyramid using hand carried rocks to the final Giza efforts, so there's nothing there, but real blood sweat and tears for the builders. They loved their Pharoahs and sacrificed their lives to honoring their rulers, because to get to heaven they had to worship the pharoahs- this was the only path for the commoner.

Did you know there are many pyramids in Sudan similar to Egypt:

www.crystalinks.com...

Just look at their construction, very similar but on a much smaller scale, so all these people over the dynasties had years to perfect pyramid building, as you can see.

I think the reason that we do not see more and newer dynasty pyramids was the Greek influx and eventual takeover of the dynasties, maybe if the greeks would have left them alone, so you see the Egyptians have lived in fear from as far back as the 18th dynasty.

My question is where did the designers go after the greek takeover, where did the 19th dynasty bloodline of the pharoahs and builders go, or the real thinkers, the designers?

Anyone care to comment!!!!
gwhint



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Originally posted by gwhint
reply to post by jbmitch
 


Hi gwhint,

If I may...


They loved their Pharoahs and sacrificed their lives to honoring their rulers, because to get to heaven they had to worship the pharoahs- this was the only path for the commoner.


Did they really love their Pharaohs though? Aren't there reports that Khufu and Khafre were not very well liked and were seen as cruel rulers?



I think the reason that we do not see more and newer dynasty pyramids was the Greek influx and eventual takeover of the dynasties, maybe if the greeks would have left them alone, so you see the Egyptians have lived in fear from as far back as the 18th dynasty.


I'm not sure I follow as this is the first time I've read that the Greeks may have been the cause for fewer pyramids (interesting idea however). Referring back to my last question, the Egyptians could have also been living in fear while under the reign of Khufu, being that he was said to be a cruel ruler, and even still a Great Pyramid was supposedly built under these conditions. So fear in my estimation had nothing to do with it.

Also, quality pyramid building began to rapidly (and I mean rapidly) decline right after the 4th/5th dynasty; this was well before the Greek influx, no? IOW the art of pyramid building would've been long gone before the Greeks arrived to "takeover", along with the designers and builders, thus not necessarily having anything to do with its disappearance. Just a thought...


My question is where did the designers go after the greek takeover, where did the 19th dynasty bloodline of the pharoahs and builders go, or the real thinkers, the designers?


My question is, where did the original designers come from?


[edit on 26-4-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Thanks PhotonEffect for your comments,

Maybe the reasons for not having any true designers after each of the pyramids were built, was because they were sacrificed along with the death of the pharoah, it was an honor to be part of the inner circle to serve the pharoah, so maybe some premature deaths of pharoahs caused the design techniques to not be passed on correctly to the next generation of designers.

But the Temples of Luxor and Karnak as well as Memphis the first capitol were turning points in the construction to what I see as Greek touches or maybe the Greeks were touched by these Egyptian designers, I dont know.

I believe they had a love/hate relationship with their rulers regardless of the rulers beasty character, because to get to heaven was only thru the pharoah. They were a very religious civilization and I believe it was based on trust as well.

I toured a cave where some of the builders lived or commoners and there was graffity on the walls talking about some of the higher ups and who was doing what to who? It reminded me of our modern graffity on walls but not in a real cruel sense of the matter, just jokes, so they had the same feelings as we do now, love/hate but if war broke out, we would be fighting side by side with our tormentors, right, do you see my point.

But you are definitely right as to where did these extremely bright individuals come from and why there is so very little known about them, maybe this was alienistic, who knows?
Thanks, gwhint



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by gwhint
 


I believe they had a love/hate relationship with their rulers regardless of the rulers beasty character, because to get to heaven was only thru the pharoah. They were a very religious civilization and I believe it was based on trust as well.

-Organized religion,,some sort of comfort knowing somethings havent changed,, throughout the years!



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join