Physical Evidence of Prehistoric Cultures – The Throw Down Thread

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
For the topic it would seem the atlantis related artifact would be one in the other topic as would the bell that was just posted about there.

When we look at the pictures posted here in this topic, it would seem these stones were subsurface to when the Egyptians showed up. I have put forth the hypothesis that the settlers in Egypt merely found the great buildings either bare or carved from another race and either carved, or shaved and carved them as they took over the sites.

When we look at the illumined history, there is one specific tool that has been used from the beginning of time and that is to....rewrite history, in the manner that puts the people in power into a positive light. There is no doubt the Egyptians built some structures, but one should not believe everything written on the subway wall, and that is exactly what modern archeology does and accepts as fact.

We will see many more ancient discoveries as we go along, and people slowly become conditioned to the truth. That what they know and were taught is a hand me down lie, and there is more.....




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Since this is a throw down thread I assume we need to keep at least 50% of the usual civility and decorum, and any subtopic goes?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
LOL, well, anyway you spell it, it spells "built in Egypt by Egyptians!"

Your scoring is similar to that of Russians in the Moscow Olympics - basically meaningless unless you can address the presence of Seti's cartouche behind the crumbled sandstone wall and within the actual dovetail joint, found only after the joint broke.

Harte


Out of curiousity, is there a photo of this wall, or of the Seti symbol?

I am not much of an Egyptologist. I really prefer Amerind culture much more. But how can we be sure that the cartouche was not usurped by Seti as a "power symbol"?

I would like to put my own eyes on it before making much judgement.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Its not too difficult to see that the Osirion is totally different in style, construction, purpose and size from other Egyptian works.

But "since it was found in Egypt it must have been built by Egyptians" say the simple-minded.

Whats more....its more impressive than the later structures built on top of it, which again points to a higher level of development in earlier days (I say again because this is also the case with the Pyramids).

The huge stone blocks have more in common with Megaliths than with AE-style.

In short: We dont believe what scholars tell us about the Osirion. We want answers and we want them now.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


From a thread on the site by Katherine Reese at the Hall of Ma'at



The Osirion has also been attributed to the Middle Kingdom, but judging by its style, the method of building, the material used, and its original stark simplicity, it seems much more likely to be a product of the early IVth dynasty although the level at which it lies might tempt one to think of a much earlier date. That it was not built by Sety I may be deduced from the following facts:

a. When any king built a monument, he always put an inscription saying, “He made it as his monument for his father, Osiris (or whatever was the name of the god to whom it was dedicated). This formula, which is repeated over and over again in temples, is not found anywhere here.

b. The entrance to the building lies outside the northern Temenos Wall of the temple. If Sety had build it, we should expect to find it inside the Temenos.

c. It is obvious, as we shall see, that it was the presence of this building which forced the architects to change the plan of Sety’s temple. A certain amount of “holiness” seemed to be attached to the building since part of Sety’s temple is actually constructed over the ruins of an older temple, but the architect found it imperative to avoid building in any way over the Osirion itself.

d. The inner corners of the walls of the halls and chambers are cut in one block of stone thus avoiding a vertical joint. This is a characteristic of IVth Dynasty architecture and may also be seen in the Valley Temple Of Khafra beside the Great Sphinx of Giza.

e. The massive granite pillars are all monolithic, another Old Kingdom characteristic, whereas the pillars and columns of the temple are all built up in sections. Also, no granite was used in the temple.

f. The Entrance Passage and two of the chambers have saddle roofs, another Old Kingdom characteristic. All of the roofs in the temple are flat or vaulted.

g. This is no connection at all between this building and the temple.

h. Frankfort made sondage pits down the outside walls of the main hall. At the bottom he found pottery of the Archaic Period and early Old Kingdom. There was no more pottery until very near the present ground level when pots of the XXXth dynasty were found.

These suggest that in the period between these dates, the monument was buried in the sand and was inaccessible. Perhaps the structure was built during the early IVth dynasty (maybe by Khufu himself), became neglected and buried under the sand after the downfall of the Old Kingdom and was rediscovered when Sety’s men were digging the foundations of his temple, and so forced them to change the plan of the latter, as we shall see later.

It is certain however, that Sety made some repairs to the Osirion. He certainly had the ceiling of one of the chambers sculptured; again we must stress that he made no claim whatsoever to having built the monument.



The Hall of Ma'at

Remember guys sand piles up fast in Egypt



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Would you care to show me a similar site (to the Osirion) in Ancient Egypt?

Thanks in advance



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Ya Mon.I love this stuff.Makes my mind go ga ga for history.I really do not know if we will ever get to the bottom of this.Probably not,until something irrefutable comes out that the Egyptologists do not have time to cover up.Starred and flagged.will keep checking for more info.


[edit on 103030p://4317 by daeoeste]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

It is certain however, that Sety made some repairs to the Osirion. He certainly had the ceiling of one of the chambers sculptured; again we must stress that he made no claim whatsoever to having built the monument.

The Hall of Ma'at

Remember guys sand piles up fast in Egypt



Uhhh, Hans you do realize that you just made my case, right?

Harte has been citing how the building was constructed in the New Kingdom and Seti built it. And since my whole point with The Osirion is to demonstrate how the Establishment cannot agree on the dating, as a matter of fact most now say it is New Kingdom, I am thrilled with your position. Thanks for that!

Now that we have established that the Orthodoxy has no infallible credibility when it comes to dating megalithic structures
- WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER EXAMPLES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF PREHISTORIC CULTURES WITHOUT GETTING DROWN OUT WITH THE OLD SKEPTICAL SAW OF ESTABLISHMENT DATING SHUTTING US DOWN!

Thanks again, Hans!

GO TEAM!

edit: for bb error and mistatement in second sentence

[edit on 27-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Illahee
 



ILAHEE SAID - Since this is a throw down thread I assume we need to keep at least 50% of the usual civility and decorum, and any subtopic goes?


Right on! Although the 50% decorum does not allow for the use of the word 'copulation' with the word word 'face' followed behind it. I got my first 'snip' over that one wrangling with Harte.

Since Hanslune so kindly made my point and case -- SEE ABOVE POSTS -- we can now move on to new examples of physical evidence of prehistoric cultures with a legitimate precedent established for defense when they try to beat us with their 'dating' sticks. At least as far as orthodox dating of megalithic structures goes.

If you go beyond that, you'll have get your 'dukes up'. But, I, for one am happy to help anywhere I can.

Good luck, Godspeed and GO TEAM!

BTW, the score now stands at:

Curious Out Of the box Thinkers - 3
Pseudo-Wizened Sages - 0


PS - My next post will be on Tiahunaco, but it is going to take me a bit to get it together. And there are a couple of other skirmishes around here I want to go check out before I get down to that business. So, have at it!



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


Your basic dispute, then, is whether it's Old Kingdom vs. New Kingdom? You're not one of those "Alien nazis from Atlantis in the zork dimension traveled back in time through the hollow earth and built this" types?



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
"It is certain however, that Sety made some repairs to the Osirion. He certainly had the ceiling of one of the chambers sculptured; again we must stress that he made no claim whatsoever to having built the monument."

I think this is what I just replied above. They decorated, and didn't build. Kids decorate easter eggs but they don't squat down like chickens and lay them.

Seems like we are getting down to the damaging part of what they are always trying to hide. They sold academia a bill of goods and now they have to keep it going without letting the cat out of the bag.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


Your basic dispute, then, is whether it's Old Kingdom vs. New Kingdom? You're not one of those "Alien nazis from Atlantis in the zork dimension traveled back in time through the hollow earth and built this" types?


That would seem to be a fair assessment of at least my views.

If we are going to discuss Atlantis, it must be admitted that there is precious little in the way of evidence and frame of reference with which to judge said evidence. So we are left with pure speculation.

However, what TWISI presents here is less speculative and more related to the interpretation of evidence. I believe that what we have on the part of orthodoxy is the fixation of facts to support a theory, rather than the opposite.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
However, what TWISI presents here is less speculative and more related to the interpretation of evidence. I believe that what we have on the part of orthodoxy is the fixation of facts to support a theory, rather than the opposite.


I always get a chuckle out of people complaining about "the orthodoxy" because I've seen more "orthodox" people change their outlook in the face of evidence than I have seen from the self-described "free thinkers" - who's arguments always hinge on arguing from silence.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Hey Hans...you forgot to show me where in Egypt similar structures to the Osirion can be found.

Looking forward to it



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



TWF said - Your basic dispute, then, is whether it's Old Kingdom vs. New Kingdom?


No, and I'm tired of repeating myself but feel free to read the thread and its title for further illumination.



TWF said - You're not one of those "Alien nazis from Atlantis in the zork dimension traveled back in time through the hollow earth and built this" types?


Why? Are you afraind of them? I can see why you might be, they do sound crazy. I mean, what kind of person would talk about a zork dimension ?



TWF said - I always get a chuckle out of people complaining about "the orthodoxy" because I've seen more "orthodox" people change their outlook in the face of evidence than I have seen from the self-described "free thinkers" - who's arguments always hinge on arguing from silence.


Really you've seen orthodox people regularly changing their postions? Because they're pretty rare in these parts; do us all a favor and point one out the next time you see one. And let me assure you that I, a "free thinker" (who notes the opposite of that would be an "imprisoned thinker"), will do many things, but arguing from silence won't be one of them. So don't you worry about that...

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
No, and I'm tired of repeating myself but feel free to read the thread and its title for further illumination.


Oh, I did. It just keeps going back and forth so much that my simple brain gets confused. How prehistoric is "prehistoric" to you?



Why? Are you afraind of them? I can see why you might be, they do sound crazy. I mean, what kind of person would talk about a zork dimension ?


Well, I see so many people who are utterly desperate to believe anyone, and I do mean anyone other than Egyptians built everything in Egypt. It's not so much scared of them, as it is my head-slapping-hand gets tired.



Really you've seen orthodox people regularly changing their postions? Because they're pretty rare in these parts; do us all a favor and point one out the next time you see one. And let me assure you that I, a "free thinker" (who notes the opposite of that would be an "imprisoned thinker"), will do many things, but arguing from silence won't be one of them. So don't you worry about that...

Cheers!


You are, actually. Your entire point is "We don't know where these came from or who made them, so they MUST have come from (time, place, people)" That's arguing from silence.

And yes, when presented with verifiable fact, minds change. Granted, some might cling to their previous notions - such as Ales Hrdlicka's reaction to the discovery of Clovis - but that's because they've invested so much time and energy in their own presumptions that they can't bear the thought of letting go. Sort of like how some people simply can't bear the thought that brown people might be capable of stacking rocks into a pyramid.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I have no issue at all believing brown people stacked the pyramid.
Any of them. Of course, having so many hispanics in my family (my beautiful wife and 2 sons, namely) might just skew my opinion.

What I have a hard time believing is that the Egyptians built the pyramids. I have my reasons (it would derail this thread to discuss it).

I would certainly hope that your reference to "brown people" wasn't an allusion to some possible latent racism? At least, among those here.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Among those here? I have no idea. But the origins of a lot of these "theories" come from the high time of eugenics and racial nationalism, in the years between 1870 and 1930. A huge amount of it really is revisionism to posit that ancient achievements were achieved by some mysterious white race - usually the Atlanteans. In the decades since, it's lost a lot of the overt racism, but the idea remains the same - "The people who live here could not possibly have ever been smart enough to do any of this, it must have been someone else." And it keeps getting recycled by quacks like Hancock and Sitchen, and people keep buying into it... And yes, I would speculate that people keep buying into the quackery because of some racist ideas. There really are a lot of people out there who just refuse to accept that "backwards savages" could have built the Inka empire, and never stop to consider that maybe those people weren't backwards savages at all.

Are the great pyramids the result of what we recognize as "Classical" Egyptian culture? Maybe, maybe not. But similar structures all along the Nile in various stages of advancement does point to these buildings being made by the locals of the area, even if the culture wasn't the same.

Think of it this way - The Colosseum wasn't built by Italians. it was built by Romans. Two different cultures, but the same people. Nobody would argue that the Italians are too dumb to possibly have done this, though.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

In reply to TheWalkingFox


Okay, smart guy, let's start here:

pre·his·tor·ic (prh-stôrk, -str-) also pre·his·tor·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or belonging to the era before recorded history.

Hence my not taking a position on who built them because it is not known. The position I am taking -- and I don't see anyone else around here struggling to understand it -- is that various anomalous - Oops!Hang on a second and let me incl. the definition of that word, in case you find yourself struggling again --

a·nom·a·lous (-nm-ls)
adj.
1. Deviating from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

- my position is that these anomalous megalithic structures are physical evidence of earlier civilizations we have lost record of. Given that the vast majority of the Establishment tries to now insist that Seti I built the Osirion, in the face of all physical evidence and logic pointing away from that, I say the Establishment has lost its credibility when trying to date megaliths in order to fit their dating agendas.

Almost all of the known megaliths are not easily explained by the narrow-focus thought of modern archaeology as it is always trying to date everything inside of the parameters of recorded history. To suggest anything before that is heresy in the field and you know it.

In order to do that modern archaeology has to overlook, look away from and furiously, narrow-focusedly 'date' these megaliths to fit their agenda. While they are also unable to come to any kind of final consensus on how exactly they were buiilt and how exactly the cultures they assign them to could no longer keep building in that fashion.



TWF - Sort of like how some people simply can't bear the thought that brown people might be capable of stacking rocks into a pyramid.


You don't know me, and you surely don't know my color or views on race. So I suggest you seriously consider treading a little more lightly before you go throwing feces like that around again...


1st edit: bb
2-3 did not want to double post.


[edit on 27-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


That is fair enough.


I hadn't considered the well known racism of early archaeological science.


Here is where my thinking lies: Schoch is fairly well known, and somewhat well reputed. When discussing Yonaguni, a skeptic will happily cite Schoch when trying to dismiss the potential site.

So, why the double edged sword? Why does Schoch's dating of the Sphynx get ignored almost wholesale? If it wasn't the status quo, what could it be?

Let's not mention the vested interest that the Egyptians have in keeping their monuments as theirs, and the constant obfuscation by Zahi Hawass.

I am always amused when, on TV, Hawass is revered as the authority on Egyptology. Yet, among most who are "non-academic", he is seen as an obfuscating shill for the status quo.





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join