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: 71
108
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Hi spacevisitor,

The parts in () are mine.




Resomtus (the personification of the sun, especially the new, rising sun, this form was preferred in Dendera, he often is shown as a snake) is alive with gloss (radiance) in the sky and lives at the day of the New Year celebration. He lights up in its house in the night of the child in his nest, by donating the light to the country from the birth bricks. (the sun is reborn each morning after Re undertakes an arduous journey at night from west to east to start the next day) The sky is jubilant, the earth is pleased and the God chapels is (temples are) glad, when he appears in his chamber in his procession barge at his beautiful celebration of the New Year.


So basically a celebration of the Sun as personified by Re, after his nightly disappearance, as the sun prepares to make yet another journey across the sky. This time for the New Year.

cormac




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Howdy Cormac

I see you beat me to it. I had the same source also detailed for this discussion.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


You asked about:



Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Really wouldn't want to be around should anything have gone wrong.


If you read the full article you will come upon the "explosive" nature of why it would be a problem.

cormac


I will read it as promised and I'll get back to you, but I need some time.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Thanks for your translation and additional notes Cormac.
I did the following to make it easy for myself to compare it, so your translation is in yellow.

Resomtus is alive with gloss in the sky (and) lives at the day of the New Year celebration.

Resomtus (the personification of the sun, especially the new, rising sun, this form was preferred in Dendera, he often is shown as a snake) is alive with gloss (radiance) in the sky and lives at the day of the New Year celebration.

He lights up in its house in the night of the child in his nest, by donating the light to the country from the birth bricks.

He lights up in its house in the night of the child in his nest, by donating the light to the country from the birth bricks. (the sun is reborn each morning after Re undertakes an arduous journey at night from west to east to start the next day)

The sky is jubilant, the earth is pleased and the God chapels is glad, when he appears in his chamber in his procession barge at his beautiful celebration of the New Year.

The sky is jubilant, the earth is pleased and the God chapels is (temples are) glad, when he appears in his chamber in his procession barge at his beautiful celebration of the New Year.

So far exactly the same, but if I am not mistaken why do I miss two lines, are those not in the original text?

The God with his disk has come to see him. Nehebkau gives him reputation, and the goddess with her disk, with godly body, rejuvenates him in his sanctuary. Tchnt tpjt jnr is content because of her majesty.

???

She praises Re because of him with praise for his Ka, with wine from schfjt and meat bits on the altar before him. The "land-of-Atum" is prepared with his most distinguished plan, as Hu and Sia are subordinated to him. He may protect the son of Re, forever.

So basically a celebration of the Sun as personified by Re, after his nightly disappearance, as the sun prepares to make yet another journey across the sky. This time for the New Year.



[edit on 30/5/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 





So far exactly the same, but if I am not mistaken why do I miss two lines, are those not in the original text?


Not exactly the same if you are trying to use them as an explaination for "light bulbs". The remaining lines just tell of some other gods helping Resomtus, the Sun, prepare for his next journey across the sky. Which is why I said:




So basically a celebration of the Sun as personified by Re, after his nightly disappearance, as the sun prepares to make yet another journey across the sky. This time for the New Year.


cormac



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Opinion:

The ancient egyptians used a little bit of technology but even in their time much of it was already lost...even to the ruling elite. So some of it are depictions of misunderstood technology.

Example:

The Atlanteans had a process whereby they would re-animate the dead. Before they could reanimate them they´d be in suspended animation and wrapped in cloths ("mummified"). The egyptians knew a little bit about this but had lost the art of actually re-animating dead bodies. They thought if they just warp them up, that would be enough.

Likewise, many depictions such as the lightbulbs are an attempt to copy lost technology. This was sometimes done succesfully, most often not.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The Atlanteans had a process whereby they would re-animate the dead. Before they could reanimate them they´d be in suspended animation and wrapped in cloths ("mummified"). The egyptians knew a little bit about this but had lost the art of actually re-animating dead bodies. They thought if they just warp them up, that would be enough.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
Likewise, many depictions such as the lightbulbs are an attempt to copy lost technology. This was sometimes done succesfully, most often not.


I must admit that those lines of thought are really interesting, but are very difficult if not impossible to proof don’t you think.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I must admit that those lines of thought are really interesting, but are very difficult if not impossible to proof don’t you think.


yes...nice to hear YOU talk about proof finally.


The reason Ive changed tone to the "extremely speculative" is because even the mildly speculative is debunked here, so it doesnt make a difference.

So instead of pretending to be moderate and "maybe believing in the possibility of ET life" blablabla, I´ll just share what I think Ive found out.

I could be wrong of course. But how much longer do we want to discuss base 1 kindergarden stuff like "ETs exist", "No they dont!" "ETs exist" "No they dont!" It gets boring.


Still its important to adress more realistic levels of research and Im sure we´ll contribute some more stuff on that when we find some.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Not exactly the same if you are trying to use them as an explaination for "light bulbs".
The remaining lines just tell of some other gods helping Resomtus, the Sun, prepare for his next journey across the sky. Which is why I said:



So basically a celebration of the Sun as personified by Re, after his nightly disappearance, as the sun prepares to make yet another journey across the sky. This time for the New Year.

cormac


Hi cormac, I don’t wanted use them as a possible explanation for the "light bulbs", even I found those also very compelling.
It was the lines with the disks that crabbed my immediate attention.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Just a few notes

Note the date of when this temple was made. It's [ ] Egyptian not Ancient Egyptian.

Yep Skyfloating make up even more wild stuff - that is probably the best thing to do, LOL. Research and study is obviously the wrong answer.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
But how much longer do we want to discuss base 1 kindergarden stuff like "ETs exist", "No they dont!" "ETs exist" "No they dont!" It gets boring.


Personally I don’t find it boring; I only find it absolute unbelievable that so many people think and are convinced even today that it isn’t real.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Still its important to adress more realistic levels of research and Im sure we´ll contribute some more stuff on that when we find some.


That is important of course but don’t you think it will end in the same sort of discussion.
Because even realistic levels of research are no guarantying that it is or good be accepted by everyone.

For instance,
"Some Ancient Egypt facts are no facts at all", "Yes they are, "No they aren’t!" "Yes they are", "No they aren’t!"

And this counts for so many other things as well.

Look for instance to the “very different opinions about what really happened on 9/11?
One example,
"A Boeing 757 hit the pentagon", "No it hasn’t, "Yes it has!" "No it hasn’t ", "Yes it has!"
Just a remark and absolute no subject to discus it here of course.

Exactly the same endless discussion, so what counts as 100% proof for this person isn’t any proof at all for that person.
I hope you understand my saying?


[edit on 31/5/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 31/5/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 31/5/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Yes, I understand.

ATS is a supermarket of ideas and concepts, a relfection of mass-consciousness.
You go into a supermarket and expect the widest variety of products but you dont expect to buy every product.

Much less will you listen to two salespeople fighting over a product: "You need to buy these bananas, they´re great!" - "No, you dont. They´re terrible". You move on to find what is tasty to you.

The main "war" fought on these boards is a war of "what is reality?". If I buy into the reality that 9/11 was not done by who the news and my government say it was...

...this has a domino-effect of implications down a road I might not want to go at the moment. It would mean that maybe I cant trust other things as well.

Same goes for AE. I love to think in scales. Here´s a scale from supposed "sanity" to "insanity":

1. AE is exactly what school and mainstream scholars say it is.
2. AE is exactly what mainstream scholars say it is, but they dont know everything about it yet. New things yet to be discovered.
3. AE is somewhat what mainstream says it is but many puzzle pieces are missing and mysteries / unexplained remain. The intentions are mostly good, some of them are misguided.
4. A lot has been forgotten and misunderstood and misinterpreted on AE over time.
5. In addition to forgetfulness there is a deliberate cover-up in order to protect secret knowledge (=power), religions, governments.
6. There is evidence for AE being something very different than proposed by mainstream. Did Atlantis exist? Did ancient ETs exist? What are we not being told?
7. Everything is so much different. AE is connected to Atlantis, ETs, advanced technology. Mainstream scholars are either stupid or evil (in their deception)

I love scales because they allow me to move up and down the scale in my thinking and occupy each level for a time to "check" for myself what it feels like to be there. For me, once I have "the whole picture" I then decide which "level" I feel the most comfortable on and which level seems the most correct to me.

I for example find level 6 "Did Atlantis exist?" a bit better than level 7 "Yes it did exist!".

But in my last few posts I spoke from and explored a level 7 viewpoint.

In my opinion people who cannot move on a scale, move in their mind, are mentally ill, stupid or very afraid.

Thats right, many of those who are "always believers" and "always debunkers" (no names), are, imo, psychologically unfit to find out any truth about anything.

Why? Because you always find out new angles, depending on where on the scale you are. On Level 5 I can see and perceive different data than on level 1.

Does that mean Im always changing my opinion on any subject?

No. With most topics in life I have already defined what I believe and think to be true.

I come to ATS to post on subjects that are undecided for me, subjects I therefore move up and down the scale until I have found what seems right and therefore feel some sense of achievement or relief or a new aspect of reality making sense to me.

This is why you will hear from me and a few others posting on ATS, views that seem to contradict priorly held views. On certain topics, nothing is fixed yet and different views are "tried on" as one might try on a piece of clothing.

Make sense?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


To continue with the scales example:

An idea me and many others are pretty fixed on is "The Earth is Round". One could say Im a level-2-fixed on that. But still even then, I wouldnt consider myself totally unmoving. We recently had a "Earth is Flat" Thread on ATS where I temporarily entertained the notion...and it was fun too! Nevertheless, thats fixed for me...and I dont really care what others say about it. Although, since nothing is ever totally fixed, I will at least listen to it.

What I am no longer keen on listening to is the repetitive level-1 debunkers chant of "no evidece! no extraterrestrials!"...

...not so much because I cant entertain that viewpoint or see it from that side but because the people voicing it are trapped/fixed on that position. If the idea of "no evidence! no extraterrestrials!" would come from SOMEONE ELSE, someone I have seen to also consider other ideas, Id be much more willing to listen.

Ive looked at different positions on the scale as they refer to AE for a long time now and have to conclude that "level 1" is highly unlikely.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Thanks for your thoughts and clear explanation Skyfloating, it makes a lot of sense to me.

You said, “I for example find level 6 "Did Atlantis exist?" a bit better than level 7 "Yes it did exist!".

That is in my opinion a very sensible way to deal with matters like that.

You say, “In my opinion people who cannot move on a scale, move in their mind, are mentally ill, stupid or very afraid.”

I will add this possibility, or they cannot move on a scale or move in their mind, because they are in way total blinded by their own beliefs in realities that aren’t realities at all.

For example, you said, ” The main "war" fought on these boards is a war of "what is reality?". If I buy into the reality that 9/11 was not done by who the news and my government say it was...

This is what I mean by being blinded; people who trust their own government 100% will and can’t believe or accept that parts of that same government are nevertheless capable of doing terrible bad things.
The same counts even for trusting your best friends or family 100%, despite that believe it is always possible that they deceive or lie to you, and because you are blinded you don’t see it coming.


[edit on 31/5/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Yes. Very much.

And to add:

When you are blamed of being distrustful by a skeptic, remember that "scientific skepticism" is also a form of distrust...distrust in and fear of the unknown.

...and that being a "believer" is also being a skeptic...skeptical of the official version.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Nice scale skyfloating but a few problems




1. AE is exactly what school and mainstream scholars say it is.


Only an outsider with no knowledge of the subject would say this, its a strawman position no scholar takes.



2. AE is exactly what mainstream scholars say it is, but they dont know everything about it yet. New things yet to be discovered.


Only an outsider with no knowledge of the subject would say this, its a strawman position no scholar takes. "AE is exactly what mainstream scholars say it is" you fail to take into account the amount of disagreement between the "mainstream"



3. AE is somewhat what mainstream says it is but many puzzle pieces are missing and mysteries / unexplained remain. The intentions are mostly good, some of them are misguided.


Well geting closer Skyfloating to actual reality



4. A lot has been forgotten and misunderstood and misinterpreted on AE over time.


Ah well you were getting close but then jumped over it, you need a few more steps in here



5. In addition to forgetfulness there is a deliberate cover-up in order to protect secret knowledge (=power), religions, governments.


Going off the track I see



6. There is evidence for AE being something very different than proposed by mainstream. Did Atlantis exist? Did ancient ETs exist? What are we not being told?


You left out "AE is exactly what and alternative scholars say it is"



7. Everything is so much different. AE is connected to Atlantis, ETs, advanced technology. Mainstream scholars are either stupid or evil (in their deception)


This one seems out of place, and might need to be earlier

It might be a useful exercise to expand on this scale. It is presently unbalanced and unrealistic. Remember it must be balanced on both sides to be useful



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
You might do better limiting the scope of the scale

Say to the pyramids on a 10 point scale

1. The pyramids were made by the Egyptians, using quarried stone, lead by [pharoahs] on or about 2500 BC as a tomb

5. We don't know who built the pyramids, with what, by who or when nor for what reason

10. The pyramids were built by aliens, using concrete and mind power, in 10,500 BC as a base for projecting vectron rays

Consistent use of variables- the old classic who what when where how why

You might try it for other Egyptianological points



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
You might do better limiting the scope of the scale

Say to the pyramids on a 10 point scale

1. The pyramids were made by the Egyptians, using quarried stone, lead by [pharoahs] on or about 2500 BC as a tomb

5. We don't know who built the pyramids, with what, by who or when nor for what reason

10. The pyramids were built by aliens, using concrete and mind power, in 10,500 BC as a base for projecting vectron rays

Consistent use of variables- the old classic who what when where how why

You might try it for other Egyptianological points






Good one. I´ll be thinking about the points in between.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
It might prove to be useful



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Well, I guess there are other areas in life's experiences, dealing with people and hands on physical work, which would give someone doing that type of work a bit of credibility with regards to construction.

Taking all things into perspective, the construction of the pyramids would be monumental even using today's technology. It is not possible for people using bare hands, quarrying the stones, rope, and logs to construct that type of structure. It would have taken several lifetimes, hundreds of years just to build one.

Look at what it took to build the great wall. We do have records of those hardships, a work which remains unfinished.

I truly believe the pyramids were built using lost technology. This means we were more advanced than we are today, once upon a time.

That is the beauty of not being brainwashed, you can observe without preconceived notions. Merely use logic and life's lessons to differentiate between factual, impossible, and open for more thought on the subject. I find myself open to thought on other possibilities. This is a much more peaceful place to be.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by win 52]



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join