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: 9
108
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Thanks for the research. I didnt actually find any more evidence of it on the internet, but thats changed now.




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


If you liked that, revisit my post - I edited it to put you (or other interested parties) in touch with Bayuk.

Harte



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
If you liked that, revisit my post - I edited it to put you (or other interested parties) in touch with Bayuk.

Harte


That I do not like. The reason I dont post more names and connections on ATS is because it can easily turn into a witch-hunt in which the privacy of named people is invaded with hoards of internet-users.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Harte
If you liked that, revisit my post - I edited it to put you (or other interested parties) in touch with Bayuk.

Harte


That I do not like. The reason I dont post more names and connections on ATS is because it can easily turn into a witch-hunt in which the privacy of named people is invaded with hoards of internet-users.


While I understand what you are saying, you should understand that these are messaging services at these websites, like the "U2U" system avaliable here.

Bayuk has registered at these sites and has his own pages there. He mentions both his music and his egyptological interests. Moreover, he invites readers to email him at his Guardians website but no longer has a "mailbox under that name" there.

I found those sites on page one of a google search of Bayuk's name, only because I couldn't contact him (though he begs us to) at the Guardian email address.

I really don't see the conflict, and he may not answer there either.

Of course, one should be polite when one puts any relavent questions to him.

Harte



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Ok, fair enough Harte



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Thanks for your explanation.

What I'm trying to work out is how much of that is probability and how much is factuality.

And how much room is there for speculation?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

From your pictures you have posted on page 7 brings me to the image and most likely conclusion, that these stones were cut this way after they were set in place....probably from some type of laser? many artifacts suggest some type of laser, especially, those with perfect dimensions that can't typically be done with hand tools.

Anyone who has used wood cutting tools such as a router might also see this similarity.

The alleged granite sarcophagus has also been suggested to be cut with typical precision of some type of advanced machinery.The one stone that goes around the corner may have originally been a beam from corner to corner for squaring the structure.

The city of Petra is another example of possible laser cutting technology.

As for hand tools, we typically use tools with hardened carbide tips soldered on them. It wouldn't be too far fetched to believe these may have been use back then as well, even though there isn't any known evidence.

I don't doubt that there are highly classified museums somewhere within Egypt, just as there were those also mentioned in Iraq and other parts of the world.

Hawas really does seem (to me) to be a typical government disinformation puppet. It would be interesting to get this guy on a polygraph or similar, to see if he's being deceptive.

Does anyone know of any videos showing these various structures and artifacts, (such as the vase) mapped with lasers?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Hi.

Interesting thread.

A thought just occurred to me.
Does anyone know of any analysis that has been done on the surfaces of the stone blocks, especially those that have been shielded from the elements?
Surely there would be traces of any substance used in the tools for the purpose of cutting the stone.

Just my two penn'rth.

I.A.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Photon Effect:


I find the jointed-corners picture absolutely amazing. This would fall into the category of "evidence they forgot to hide".

Any idea how egyptologists explains this?



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Here´s an interesting article on the archaeological conspiracy:


Plot to Control History


An excerpt:


Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go to guard orthodox tenets.

McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist's finding was 250,000 years or more.

The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait "crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist's tossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the circular file and asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when dates match the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories.

Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but she refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and she lost a teaching job at an American university.



To quote Orwell: "If you can control the past, you can control the present and the future".



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


There's always room for speculation. So long as it's realized that it's only speculation.

As for their methods... well, we have the tools. The ones I described as well as many others - grit saws, surveying tools, levels, adzes, angles, awls, etc. it stands to reason that if they made all these tools, they used them, too. I have yet to see any bit of construction from the Egyptians that defies explanation with these tools they had. Right angles are hardly a challenge. It might be time-consuming, but a combination of drilling and precise chiseling (yes, the Egyptians had shaped heads on their chisels) will produce a right angle, and you can bet your butt that the kings who commissioned these construction projects hired masters of the trade to oversee and perform the fine details, maybe even going so far as to hire foreigners from Crete and Greece, the Near East, and Kush.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
An excerpt:


Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go to guard orthodox tenets.

McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist's finding was 250,000 years or more.

The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait "crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist's tossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the circular file and asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when dates match the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories.

Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but she refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and she lost a teaching job at an American university.


There's a good reason: 250,000 years ago, Homo sapiens did not exist. And contrary to the argument presented here, 25,000 years is way before the Bering Strait migration - fifteen thousand years in fact.

Here's some other things I've noticed from the page:


Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair), originally obtained from a rock shelter near Watakere, that were on display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many years?


They probably got chucked once someone realized two things:
1) Maori (and Polynesians at large) often have wavy reddish-brown hair. Black or dark brown is more common, but a rusty red or chestnut color isn't exactly rare
and...
2) Human hair turns reddish as it decomposes and oxidizes.

and...

The case of the Takla Makan Desert mummies in western China is another example of this phenomenon. In the 1970s and 1980s, an unaccounted-for Caucasian culture was suddenly unearthed in China. The arid environment preserved the remains of a blond-haired, blue-eyed people who lived in pre-dynastic China. They wore colourful robes, boots, stockings and hats. The Chinese were not happy about this revelation and they have downplayed the enigmatic find, even though Asians were found buried alongside the Caucasian mummies.

Er, this culture was pretty well-known. We even have their language recorded and translated. The Chinese, Tibetans, and Persians dealt with them often enough. They were called the Tocharian culture. By the by, the Persians and Chinese also included these interactions in art - the Tochar people were Turkic or Siberian people (Caucasoid, but not Caucasian.) who tended towards dark brown to reddish hair, with blue eyes being common, though with the "typical" eyelid shape of east asian people. No blonde mummies have been found - much less mummies with intact eyes.

and..

Recently a Mexican archaeologist solved the problem by making a fantastic claim: that the Olmec heads--which generations of people of all ethnic groups have agreed bear a striking resemblance to Africans--were really representations of the local tribe.

The only reason the heads resemble Africans is because of the helmets giving the impression of the typical hairstyles seen among African people. Put a long wig on an Olmec head and you've got yourself a Yucatan native.


Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons?

Straw man. Governments create nuclear and biological weapons.

Is this really what you use as source material?

[edit on 13-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

[edit on 13-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

There's a good reason: 250,000 years ago, Homo sapiens did not exist.


Circular Reasoning. "There cant be evidence because back then humans didnt exist". I recommend studying logic before participating in further discussion.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
uhhh. well regarding olmec heads, i've seen them, touched them.
take the helmet off and they look west african. nothing else.
there are also artifacts undoubtedly african.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by last time here
uhhh. well regarding olmec heads, i've seen them, touched them.
take the helmet off and they look west african. nothing else.
there are also artifacts undoubtedly african.



yeah...and you know whats beautiful? There´s absolutely nothing brainwashed "mainstream science" can do about it.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

There's a good reason: 250,000 years ago, Homo sapiens did not exist.


Circular Reasoning. "There cant be evidence because back then humans didnt exist". I recommend studying logic before participating in further discussion.




Wait wait wait. You cite a source that is a textbook example of every logical fallacy there is, from begging the question to straw men to appeal to outrage... and you tell me to "study logic?" Because I note that the earliest remains of H. Sapiens are from roughly 115,000 years ago?

Hey, maybe Homo erectus migrated to Mexico, made these artifacts, and then went extinct without leaving a single trace at all of their having been there aside from this singular case - no bones, no other sites, just this one. It's possible!

It's also possible that the tests were done wrong, or the samples were messed up somehow, resulting in a very inaccurate reading of their age.

Both possible. Which one is more probable?

Way to not address any other points I made though.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Alright. In all fairness: You did a good job of replying to the rest. I rest my case in that case but not in the rest


There is somewhat of an archaeological cover-up though. I dont know if its intentional or just based on limited-perception as in "it cant be true so its not true".

You´ve been trying to suggest there is no such cover-up happening, havent you.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That's just sad. "Random guy on the internet agrees with me. Take THAT, decades of research, piles of evidence, and actual appearance of the local people!"

I've been to the Empire State building. Know what? Totally built by the Atlanteans as a monument to their Nibiruean overlords. All the documentation otherwise is just "mainstream history" BRAINWASHING YOU! OMG WAKE UP PEPOEL!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!! oner~~! I said it on the internat it MUST BE TRUE!!!!

[edit on 13-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


First things first...take note of my reply above.

And PS: Empire state was not built by the atlanteans, it was built by fishermen from sirius. It was actually the atlanteans who then decided to rent some office space in it.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
TheWalkingFox touched on this briefly, but I was also wondering. What evidence is there that the artifacts, however old, were created by Homo Sapiens? Homo Erectus, Heidelbergensis and the Neanderthals were also around in that general time frame.

Edit to note:

I have a friend from Guatemala with the same features of some of the Olmec heads mentioned before. There is nothing African about him or his looks. Mayan descent.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by cormac mac airt]



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join