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: 61
108
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jbmitch
 


Thanks jbmitch for your honest opinions and this attitude you have is what its all about with ATSers, intitled to your own opinion in a humanistic manner, able to take constructive criticism and build on it, there have been many a times I changed my opinion on things, I have traveled to many places in the world and seen things that caused me to believe in other theories than what I was taught to believe in.

Did you know that in the Cairo museum there are over 244,000 pieces of artifacts on display in a rather hodge podge manner and in their basements there are over 266,000 pieces waiting to be catagorized, what a mountain of a task they have, so much history, wow.

They planned on building the road system around the pyramids as a ring road around the greater part of Cairo but it was stopped due to the chance of more destruction to the pyramids and the sphynx from the pollution, this was the reason for a wall, but its all been put on hold for further studies.

There is so much in the world that would amaze you from from the ancients way of constructing that I think we are just scratching the surface on the subject.

Keep looking for the answers and the truth will come,
gwhint




posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwhint

Did you know that in the Cairo museum there are over 244,000 pieces of artifacts on display in a rather hodge podge manner and in their basements there are over 266,000 pieces waiting to be catagorized, what a mountain of a task they have, so much history, wow.



This is something that I found not only disrespectful towards scientists and the ancient culture but also an obstruction to finding out more. I hope they get their act together sometime soon.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
How much do you think the Egyptians would care about the AE if they couldn't make money out of it.

that answer your question about the artifacts in museums ?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by gwhint
 



"Thanks jbmitch for your honest opinions and this attitude you have is what its all about with ATSers, intitled to your own opinion in a humanistic manner, able to take constructive criticism and build on it, there have been many a times I changed my opinion on things, I have traveled to many places in the world and seen things that caused me to believe in other theories than what I was taught to believe in. "

Kind words and I thank yee gwint, actually I'm an Expat also. I'm in Bagdad, Iraq. My travels have brought me to every state in the U.S. and every major continent/lass mass on the globe to include both poles and the equatorial area's of South America and out on the seas.
What it has taught me is; there are no absolutes or predictable probabilities, if you keep your eyes and mind open,, there are always new things to learn, lastly being wrong or right is only a state of being,,growing and developing awarness,, no need to be ugly about something whether you the one thats right or wrong. And bashing someone serves no purpose but your own esteem.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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.


What are you implying here?

If you'll notice, I merely said I find it unlikely.

Still waiting for your sources on the claim.


Originally posted by PhotonEffect

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...


Post some sample quotes of us three behaving in this manner, if you will.


Originally posted by jbmitch
-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.

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"


In science, a fact is not a thing that is "accepted." A fact is observed data.

Your statement above about we three is inflammatory and insulting. You betray here a complete lack of knowledge concerning the subject upon which you are pontificating, said subject being science itself.


Originally posted by jbmitch
? 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.

The fact that Khufu's cartouche appears in the relieving chamber over the King's Chamber cannot be denied.

You wish to read it? There are at least two free online sites that will teach you to read hieroglyphics.

There is no question it is Khufu's cartouche. That is evidence for the approximate date of the construction of the G.P. Nobody has claimed that it is a scientific certainty. Certainty, in science, requires observation. Barring time travel, observation in this case is impossible.



Originally posted by jbmitchAll 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.

When has anyone stated that all pyramids were made the same way by the same people? I know this not to be so. It is an observed fact that all pyramids were not built the same way by the same people.


Originally posted by jbmitch
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?

I reject the work of many authors that many here (such as yourself) depend on for your information. I do so because I have found facts that show these authors have purposefully written lies in their best-sellers.

I am not an Egyptologist. Just a math teacher with a somewhat logical bent and harboring resentment for having been lied to and ripped off by people that many here consider to be valid "sources" on this subject.


Originally posted by gwhint
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.


here's a "fact."

The Egyptians were Persian long before they ever met the Greeks. Pyramids were built when the Egyptians were Egyptian.

Harte

[edit on 4/28/2008 by Harte]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Still waiting for your sources on the claim.


See my post on french engineer Jean Kerisel.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

In science, a fact is not a thing that is "accepted." A fact is observed data.

Your statement above about we three is inflammatory and insulting. You betray here a complete lack of knowledge concerning the subject upon which you are pontificating, said subject being science itself.
- And so as a math teacher,,and formly educated I ask , do you know the theory around "Schoeder's Cat" anything that exists in its natural state will be changed by observation.

"Observed Data" is a sequence of events that tend to repeat itself often enough to assume its a constant,, there fore a "fact" .

I repeat myself once again only for those who might not find this inflamatory,,,,Nothing in science exists as 100% reliablity egro ,,observated "facts" are only facts until the one time that the observed action ,,, doesnt repeat itself exactly like the 10,000 times before. As it is I have a Master's in Science.. but I have many more life experiences,,,one on one observations that defy "facts" as they are accepted today by main stream science. Put your faith where you will,,



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbmitch
reply to post by Harte
 


In science, a fact is not a thing that is "accepted." A fact is observed data.

Your statement above about we three is inflammatory and insulting. You betray here a complete lack of knowledge concerning the subject upon which you are pontificating, said subject being science itself.

- And so as a math teacher,,and formly educated I ask , do you know the theory around "Schoeder's Cat" anything that exists in its natural state will be changed by observation

No, but I do know of the scenario laid out by Schrödinger called "Schrödinger's cat."

It is a thought experiment along the same lines as what Einstein used to refer to as a "Gedankenexperiment."

I also know that you certainly know nothing of it, if you think that it implies that "anything that exists in its natural state will be changed by observation." That is not the case and both Schrödinger and his cat would agree with me on this.



"Observed Data" is a sequence of events that tend to repeat itself often enough to assume its a constant,, there fore a "fact".

These observed data are what are referred to as facts. They do not vary unless the method of observation varies. For example, until our methods of observation improved, observed data indicated that velocities could be summed as if they were represented by elements of the set of real numbers.

Subsequent improvements in our ability to observe and measure velocities, in particular the velocity of light, resulted in the realization that velocities cannot be summed in this way. However, at lower velocities, a "normal" sum can be computed and will be correct to within ten or twelve decimal places.

We know today, and measure it to be so all the time, that the faster you go, the slower time runs for you and the shorter lengths become for you. This is another observed fact.

It's possible that with better measument technology, further refinements will have to be made to make this fact slightly more accurate in the same way that previous refinements required us to adjust the observed data from Newton's day.


Originally posted by jbmitchI repeat myself once again only for those who might not find this inflamatory,,,,Nothing in science exists as 100% reliablity egro ,,observated "facts" are only facts until the one time that the observed action ,,, doesnt repeat itself exactly like the 10,000 times before. As it is I have a Master's in Science.. but I have many more life experiences,,,one on one observations that defy "facts" as they are accepted today by main stream science. Put your faith where you will,,

No matter how many times you "observe" the Khufu cartouche in the relieving chamber in the G.P., it will never morph into a picture of E.T.

Harte

[edit on 4/28/2008 by Harte]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
A news item on the issue of the pyramids being packed with seashells:


Pyramids packed with seashells


Interesting to have seashells in the desert. The Pyramids must have been flooded.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Dont use the word "facts" too generously here. This is not as straightforward as math or physics.

They keep changing their story on how the Pyramids were built

...and it will go on like this for some time I think.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Skyfloating,

It might be more interesting if your first post didn't contradict your second.

From Professor Ioannis Liritzis:




"The observed random emplacement and strictly homogenous distribution of the fossil shells within the whole rock is in harmony with their initial in situ setting in a fluidal sea bottom environment,".


As to the nummulites in the limestone:




Nummulites that lived during the Eocene period around 55.8-33.9 million years ago are most commonly found in Egyptian limestone.



So are you claiming that the pyramids are a minimum of 33.9 million years old?

Your second title is midleading:


They keep changing their story on how the Pyramids were built


There is no indication that these people have changed any story. There have been many people, over time, that have wondered if the pyramids could have been created with concrete. Just nobody so far to show it to be true.

Your second article even says:




It's a theory that gives indigestion to mainstream archeologists. Namely, that some of the immense blocks of Egypt's Great Pyramids might have been cast from synthetic material - the world's first concrete - not just carved whole from quarries and lugged into place by armies of toilers.



Emphasis mine. Again, nothing to show it to be true.

cormac



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
The Egyptians did use cement in other areas and at other times, mainly as a fill.

At present there is no evidence that they used concrete on the pyramids.

Harte, Cormac and Essan please carry on as you are much to confront and explain.

I've only read page 61 of this thread, as I've just returned today -considering the tone of page 61.....

My full response to this will be in my next post.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
By the way you guys...


any plausible explanation yet of the coc aine traces on mummies?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Just a thought You dont suppose the use of coc aine had anything to do with the egyptian Mystery schools do you ? Would make sence that they achieved a state of higher conciousness using stimulants all cultures have a long history of doing that dont they ?

ISA



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by isaeyeallseeing
 


Yes, there might be a connection there.

The reason I ask though, is because nicotine and coc aine (both of which traces were found on mummies) originate in South America...

but according to egyptology they never travelled to the other side of the ocean.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
As you read in my posts My belief that I am sure is shared by others is that the atlanteans/Egyptians could fly The spaceship in my post on Atlantis Painted by Leonardo for me proves that, plus leonardos obsession with flying machines .
If the Atlanteans could fly my guess is Bismuth comes into the equation and before china AWOKE (the sleeping dragon) Peru and Mexico were the largest producers of the Diamagnetic Metal. Maybe thats why they went there plus like a trip to amsterdam nowadays means you just have to sample the local fare
But maybe its better than that maybe we can levitate ourselves ?

ISA



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
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...


Post some sample quotes of us three behaving in this manner, if you will.


Harte,

Quotes will be difficult as this is a long thread, but I owe you that. Off the top of my head though, one occurrence that prompted my comment had to do with something one of you guys posted (Hanslune I think it was) in response to a point I was making regarding the C14 dating of the GP. A chart was posted showing a plotting of the supposed results of the dating which didn't include everything (the anomalous dates were missing), and I challenged that, and received no response. I brought it up again and again I got nothing...

With you it only took a couple of times of asking to get you to respond on a couple of issues
, but you did... See the stones of Sacsayhuaman and Hancock...

But basically my response was in defense of the 'fringe', who are posting here (myself included), who are being generalized and cast in a negative light in such a way that says "we don't know what we're talking about, move on." See cormac's statement that I responded to.

My apologies if I offended anyone.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by isaeyeallseeing
 


Yes, there might be a connection there.

The reason I ask though, is because nicotine and coc aine (both of which traces were found on mummies) originate in South America...

but according to egyptology they never travelled to the other side of the ocean.


The article HERE
goes into it in great detail, and contains excerpts from interviews with the original discoverers of these traces.

In fact, here's a quote from Prof. Wolfgang Pirsig, one of the authors of the original paper (Balabanova, S., Parsche, F. and Pirsig, W. (1992) "First Identification of Drugs in Egyptian Mummies" Naturwissenschaften 79: 358.)



Do these results support an established trans-Atlantic trading route between Egypt and South America that predates Columbus (1492AD)?

WP: No, this conclusion cannot be made from the Ulm findings.


The source is the linked paper.

Generally speaking, the nicotine found on a handful of mummies has been explained in the past through the use of a nicotine-based pesticide that was in use for decades in the museum where these few mummies were stored.

I've seen the coc aine and nicotine also explained by the fact that the mummies involved were in private hands for decades as well, during a period when (rich) people once had "mummy unwrapping" parties and when coc aine was in widespread use among this same group.

It's important to realize that the coc aine in particular has been found in only a couple of mummies.

Both compounds might also be explained by other plants indigenous to the Old World.

Harte



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Ameneter
 


Please,
Let me khow where can I find the book " Forbidden Egyptology", or it could be " Forbidden Archeology" by Erdogan Ercivan in English.
I have a copy of it translated from German to Bulgarian, so I am guessing the title, but the translation is not very good, so I need it in English.

Thanks
Tsaneto



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Ameneter
 


Please,
Let me khow where can I find the book " Forbidden Egyptology", or it could be " Forbidden Archeology" by Erdogan Ercivan in English.
I have a copy of it translated from German to Bulgarian, so I am guessing the title, but the translation is not very good, so I need it in English.

Thanks
Tsaneto



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join