Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Mysterious Coral Castle

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
sorry and for the hanslune, sigh, not you again. Egyptians were some of the most sophisticated and technological civs of their time. The people before them were even more mystical and powerful. They were so powerful, they could destroy millions of armies with a box, and later on when they were asked by higher powers to move the box, They did so, but they were so intelligent they made an exact replica made of lesser materials, and we all know clones arent as powerful...but yeah!
Getting beat to a pulp, stop reading the books out of the junior high section out of the library, or stop using wiki, and google
lol
Real history is hard to swallow sometimes. Other times "it is sweet to the tongue, but bitter to the stomach"

no offense btw.
--peace-love--




posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Yeah, we might be reffering to the same thing. They are across the world but there are few in North America right, 2 or something like that. Supposedly there is a map. Have you ever heard of that?



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
 


You mean 'ley' lines?
I looked for a good map, but, no.
Supposedly at Blowing Rock, you can stand a broom on it's handle because of the gravity vortex.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The map I saw show weird lines that were significant but the "points"they lead up to were the power zones. I do believe we are speaking of similiar things though.



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
 


Unfortunately Akinofthefirststars, my information is based on facts and yours appear to be pure fantasy.



Egyptians were some of the most sophisticated and technological civs of their time


Yes so why not respect them for what we know they could do and what they probably knew, instead of distorting their memory to support our (your) own picture of reality? Respect for cultures means understanding them. Not distorting them.

Not that there is anything wrong with fantasy....

[edit on 20/11/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I am not distorting or disrupting anything. Im not like most people, I understand egypt for more than they get credit for. I have been studying Egypt for about all of my life. There are alot of things that are out of place, some of us scoot those facts to the side and dwell on others. The fact remains....
Egypt in a 'traditional' 'historical' sense was even far ahead of its time. They were the first to introduce the world to mobile warfare, amongst many other things. So maybe you should reresearch and do little more digging. If they werent the greatest of their time then who was? They mastered and understood things in a totally different way no other civ has . People modeled sciences off of their everyday life. They would practice things the whole world would later adopt. Chemistry the word or the idea wouldnt exist if it werent for Kemet/Egypt. Can you imagine a modern world without chemistry.?Can you imagine a 'primitive' world with it.?
Egypt is great I will personaly give them all the credit. I do not seek your approval or acceptance for that matter. Thanx for your opinion though.

--peace-love--



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
 



Dont worry, Hansulane really has a hard time thinking for himself. It is quite possible he is an older gent with 1960's information. Some dogs cant learn new tricks.


What is interesting about coral castle is the math and leverages he used. He claims to have used the technology from the ancients. This is really cool becuase it offers up an idea as to how some of the megalithic structures were moved and built in Peru, Bolivia, Baalbek, and of course egypt.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARSEgypt in a 'traditional' 'historical' sense was even far ahead of its time. They were the first to introduce the world to mobile warfare, amongst many other things.


Uhm... they were?

How so? They didn't fight with big navies, and they got the chariots from the Persians (and didn't get them until around 1800 BC, long after they'd been developed in Babylon.) What am I missing, here? As far as I know they always marched into battle like most of everyone else. They didn't have horses that early, and camels were introduced about 800 BC.


Chemistry the word or the idea wouldnt exist if it werent for Kemet/Egypt.


Well... it would. They weren't much with chemistry. Chemistry comes from "alchemistry". There's a rather questionable Wikipedia article about it coming from Egypt (they get the timelines wrong, which is why I question it), but there's reason to suspect the information there (some of the stuff is not right.)

But the use of the word, "Chemistry" can be traced in written texts, and it comes from the word, "alchemistry" www.etymonline.com...

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Byrd]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
 


So AKOTFS

Can you give us some examples of this technology that you seem to think is so superior. Everyone who has studied Egypt knows they were advanced. But the word advanced needs to be defined. As Byrd has pointed out a few previous misperceptions. I get the 'hint' that you believe they had powers or abilities beyond our own technology? If so can you give us some examples of what you believe.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
"Dont worry, Hansulane really has a hard time thinking for himself. It is quite possible he is an older gent with 1960's information. Some dogs cant learn new tricks. "

Still making personal attacks Ivanzana? Still attacking the messenger it would seem. I'll recommend for the last time that you take a more productive stance and discuss the evidence. Any further personal attacks will be forwarded to the moderators.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I really appreciate how we can disagree in a civil manner, I have a hard time dealing with that here. Thanks alot.

Now back to the lecture at hand...
Grand navies does not make a civilization great in a militirstic sense. I would like to introduce to you an excerpt, from one of my fav songs((I think it applies)
no idea is original,/ theres is nothing new under the sun/, its never what you do but how its done/
They were not the first archers, chariot riders, or anything like that. But they did it very different from anyone else. They didnt march like everyone else! The pharoah was in front which is rare, slaying hundreds and walking away unmarked. They used braided leather for vest, a technique that was taught from more southern tribes that is like none other on the planet. Nothing can penetrate it and the one 'they' or 'we' found, the pattern couldnt be duplicated. They could also navigate in a remarkable way. King Tut was known for being a great general. From my understanding he never lost a battle. There are even (your favorite)heiroglyphs of battles of him being a full grown man. Scholars are confused because they know when he died, yet these are his heiros..? I personally never understood that one. When you were 13 or even younger could you have led thousands upon thousands of noble warriors home from a victorious battle? IDK..? Him and Ramesess ....
If one really wants to measure how 'great' they were lets converse about their everyday social life. It seems we(america) our obsessed with them. Even how they rule (minus our other influences) even with the obelisk in our capitol. We our one of the greatest nations ever like kemet/egypt and it is not a coincidence that we have all of these kemetic/egyptian symbols everywhere in our history.
The greeks arent known for having this grand navy but they did have this technology that allowed them to "pour fire" and "reach out with fire" and they used it on ships. They didnt have grand navies, but that would make them superior in my eyes, because noone used those methods.


As for chemistry, break the word down in its entirety. Chem-Kem, chemistry or alchemistry both derives from the old anciet Kemetic way of life. Is this the one you disagreed with. You disagree with it because it doesnt support "your" personal view, but it supports "The View" and the out-of-placeness that they represent.



In the history of science, the etymology of the word chemistry is a debatable issue.[1] It is agreed that the word “alchemy” is a European one, derived from Arabic, but the origin of the root word, chem, is uncertain.[2] Words similar to it have been found in most ancient languages, with different meanings, but conceivably somehow related to alchemy. In fact, the Persians, Greeks, Chinese, and Indians usually referred to what Westerners call alchemy as “The Art,” or by terms denoting change or transmutation. Most historians, however, agree that the ancient Egyptians were the first chemists. French chemist Antoine Fourcroy, for example, in his 1782 Leçons élémentaires d’histoire naturelle et de chemie, divides the early history of chemistry into four epochs: Egypt, the Arabs, alchemy, and the pharmaceutical chemistry begun by Paracelsus.[3]




The majority of authors agreed that the word "chemistry" has an Egyptian origin, based on the ancient Egyptian word kēme (chem), which stands for earth. [4] [5] [6] In short, most agree that alchemy was born in ancient Egypt, where the word “Khem” was used in reference to the fertility of the flood plains around the Nile.[



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
As for the evidence or examples... Look at all of the smoking guns. They moved these grand blocks, not from a local quarry, stacked them with 'ultra precision'. The cut is said to be so precise is equal to the modern laser, nothing less. The heaviest blocks could not be lifted by strongest nuclear-powered crane, or anything else(the weight exceeds our maximum lift limit) Lets say they used pulleys and ropes. They should still be honored because we cant figure out a system that would cancel weight/gravity out to achieve these incredible feats. But we all know they did not because they would need more people than we know they really had. They were able to mark the celestial ages with a more in depth map of the cosmos than we use today. How? Observation, lets be a little more realistic. European nations and civilizations are excellent observers.Yet they did not understand the significance of the mind boggling value of the Sirius' groups or even their existence. The ark, the mirroring story of the 'trinity'. I point to all of the smoke,but I cant provide evidence that doesnt exist. They made sure they removed every little hair of everything and covered it with beautiful paintings. Have you heard of the native american stone with kemetic/egyptian glyphs, and a libyan language on it? An egyptian presence in america doesnt and cannot literally fit into anyones text books, but none the less it is a fact that we must include when we discuss these things.

--PEACE-LOVE--



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
 


I agree with you that it seems if there is a disagreement in observation or personal viewpoint, many seem to want to be little the one they disagree with. Im in agreement with what you have to say...I think the ancients knew many things for their time, I think we have yet to understand some of their knowledge on energies and how to allow these energies to benefit us. If there is civilizations that go back thousands of yrs. and we still cant explain in detail how they performed their greatest works, then they should be considered great and given credit.

I stared you for being civil even when others arent so...

Peace,
LV



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I have read through the references and the clues and solutions to the "mysteries of the universe". But after working through the clues and solutions it seems we have just solved a pretty cool mathematical puzzle. The keys to the universe remain out there in the twilight zone along with time travel, interstellar travel, lifting 50 ton stones and on and on.

I was thinking that since he left us the wheel with the permanent magnets more or less rusted but intact, all we need to do is replicate the little wheel, find a place on a cool lay line or wherever the device works the best and maybe, just maybe we could levitate incredibly heavy stones.

Surely someone has tried this? It doesn't look like brain science to me!
If not let's give it a try! If we can lift a 10 ton stone without buying a $150,000 machine from Caterpillar or whomever, why not?



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The Coral Castle was built using block and tackle, probably with motorised pulleys. There are photos of Leedskalnin doing it here:

www.crystalinks.com...

There are also photos there of him with the generator he constructed - hardly something he would need if his machines had "no plugs" as suggested by a previous poster.

Even Crystal Links, hardly a sceptics site, doesn't buy the old levitation thing.



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


Hello Father,

I read the crystal links, and to me, they are letting the reader decide for themselves how Edward did this. That is the way a good researcher will leave a unprovable act...showing both sides of the argument. I did not feel that crystal links was debunking the theory that Edward understood something about how to move large objects outside of pulleys or electricity. I think they laid out both sides of the story and allow the reader to decide for themselves.

It was not a clear sided stance. Actually, to me, it seemed that crystal links saw it plausible that he did understand something modern day man doesn't. But without proof, no source can write a sound or valid one way stance on the matter.

Peace,
LV



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
They were not the first archers, chariot riders, or anything like that. But they did it very different from anyone else. They didnt march like everyone else! The pharoah was in front which is rare, slaying hundreds and walking away unmarked.


Uhm... do you have some sources for this? The kings' monuments show them trampling hundreds of enemies underfoot, but there's no evidence they did it personally.


They used braided leather for vest, a technique that was taught from more southern tribes that is like none other on the planet. Nothing can penetrate it and the one 'they' or 'we' found, the pattern couldnt be duplicated.


Do you have a source for this pattern being non-duplicateable?



King Tut was known for being a great general. From my understanding he never lost a battle. There are even (your favorite)heiroglyphs of battles of him being a full grown man. Scholars are confused because they know when he died, yet these are his heiros..?


Actually, he wasn't known much for his generalship. He was born into a fairly turbulent time, but his conquests weren't that unusual. Narmer was far better, as was Ramses the Great, Seti I, Ahmose (who drove the Hittites out) and many others.

Don't go by his funeary monuments... they talk about him being great in battle and killing hundreds of enemies, but this is simply a formula that they used for every king. Honest. He didn't win any great battles (check it out.)


The greeks arent known for having this grand navy but they did have this technology that allowed them to "pour fire" and "reach out with fire" and they used it on ships. They didnt have grand navies, but that would make them superior in my eyes, because noone used those methods.


Actually, certain of the city states were well known for having superior naval warfare and a large navy.


As for chemistry, break the word down in its entirety. Chem-Kem, chemistry or alchemistry both derives from the old anciet Kemetic way of life. Is this the one you disagreed with. You disagree with it because it doesnt support "your" personal view, but it supports "The View" and the out-of-placeness that they represent.


I just looked for the text... who was writing it down and when? If it had been gotten from Egypt, then it would have been referred to by the Greeks in some manner or another... and likewise the Romans.

I did see the source you quoted ... and then I looked for who the "majority of scholars" were. I couldn't find any, ancient or modern... but I'm willing to be convinced by better evidence. I did find sources for the chemistry/alchemy link, though.



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
The Coral Castle was built using block and tackle, probably with motorised pulleys. There are photos of Leedskalnin doing it here:


That was something that occurred to me later (after previous post.) There's no reason that he couldn't have used generators and other lifting equipment.



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
The Coral Castle was built using block and tackle, probably with motorised pulleys. There are photos of Leedskalnin doing it here:


That was something that occurred to me later (after previous post.) There's no reason that he couldn't have used generators and other lifting equipment.


"Give me a lever long enough and I could move the world." from Archimedes.

Whats really cool is he claimed to do this all by himself. Now I think about an army of peruvians or egyptians and what they could and would of been capable of. The megalithic structures and their contruction is becoming less of a mystery. The main mystery is why did they build them and why so strong?
[edit on 23-11-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 23-11-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Sure, I have resources, I can list a couple of books and authors if you want. Im not really into net research. So.... sorry, no wiki links, or anything like that.

I believe I saw the vest on Nat-Geo(I think).
I dont mean to offend you when I say this,but, I bet I could list all the sites, answers and everything and you will still say, "its possible that this is false, so its validity is questionable". Which is true to a small extent but at some point how much evidence can you provide? We can debate about the Ark of the covenant(for ex.), lets just say you disbelieve it exist, the only way I bet I can convince you,is if I pull it out of my basement. I have read alot of books. Most of the time my point of view isnt personal, its factual. I dont have pin-point souces, its just my grand understanding from many books, pamplets, and alot of personal research.

Motors, pulleys, and all of that junk required to much energy and its simply not very logical to assume this. When we open our minds, we will understand. ***pun intended
peace-love
im sorry for typos and errors I cut it short, for sleep..






top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join