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.

 

Bruce Bedlams Stonehenge

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I haven't seen this video presented here yet, so I'd like to get some opinions on whether or not, with this mans theory, this would designate Stonehenge as a pyramid. If so, what would be the further opinion of the implications this might have on the Atlantis/UFO/AncientAstronaut theories and whatever other synchronicities people have discovered?

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-1-2009 by speakerforthedead]




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Interesting theory but in it I failed to hear any mention of pyramids. It can be added to the legion of other Stonehenge theories.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


At no point in the video presentation is the word pyramid used. However, looking at the 3D rendering, it strongly resembles a conical pyramid.

Also, the relative significance of refracted light at the apex, to me, jumps out and says, "This appears to follow global pyramid anomalies."



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Here's another of these videos. It is similar, but more detailed.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 


Howdy Speaker



resembles a conical pyramid.


One or the other actually. Difficult for it to be both.



"This appears to follow global pyramid anomalies."


Such as? The proposed conical structure was empty inside how does this apply to pyramid made of mud brick or stone?



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
As far as pyramids go, just because the structure is not the same, does not mean that it is not the same expression of the same idea. The engineering principles upon which this structure would have been built are in essence the same as with other pyramids: being distribution of surface area from the top down to support the overall structure.

Also, in the realm of the metaphysical and spiritual, this structure would now appear to share similar esoteric properties as other known pyramids, in that:

a) The proposed structure is a temple of sorts.
b) There does appear to be precision engineering involved, especially in regards to astrological alignment and geographical placement.
c) As with other pyramids, the relevance of the apex having a sunlight capturing element present (not unlike the luminescent properties seen in the original gold capping of Great Pyramid of Giza.)
d) There is evidence to suggest that Stonehenge is, like it's foreign cousins, located on specific ley lines, possible at crossing hubs known as vortexes.

I'm not assuming I'm correct on this one, just that synchronicities are there.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by speakerforthedead]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 


Howdy Speaker



The engineering principles upon which this structure would have been built are in essence the same as with other pyramids: being distribution of surface area from the top down to support the overall structure.


Hans: I'd disagree, pyramids relied on the weight going straight down, the propsed idea for Stonehenge uses the stones to take the weight assisted by a type of flying buttress, similar in ways to the later Gothic cathederals



a) The proposed structure is a temple of sorts.


Hans: Yes Stonehenge was a temple and probably an astronomical/season calculator, other pyramids were tombs and some like the mesoamerican ones a mixture of both.



b) There does appear to be precision engineering involved, especially in regards to astrological alignment and geographical placement.


Hans: Yep Stonehenge appears to have been set up to detect the information needed for planting. Other pyramids were oriented for seasonal and directional reasons. Giza was built on the plateau probably because the Sphinx was there and there was lots of limestone available for building and assessability to the Nile.



c) As with other pyramids, the relevance of the apex having a sunlight capturing element present (not unlike the luminescent properties seen in the original gold capping of Great Pyramid of Giza.)


Hans: The tops of the pyramids in Egypt allegedly had refective capstone and an association with the benben. Mesoamerican pyramids did not.



d) There is evidence to suggest that Stonehenge is, like it's foreign cousins, located on specific ley lines, possible at crossing hubs known as vortexes.


Hans: This popular theory has no basis in fact.



[edit on 14/1/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
This so-called "theory" has more holes than an Aero Chocolate Bar!

As the gentleman at the end so well puts it - Stonehenge was used to track the sun and stars, which is a bit hard to do with a roof on it...



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by WatchNLearn
 


Hey he didn't say it was a GOOD theory now did he?

His counter to that was that it used an occularium like the pantheon- I find the theory interesting but farfetched. I do remember a 1940's theory that had an arena build up around the outer stone circle, ie a semi-circular of seats.

[edit on 15/1/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 





d) There is evidence to suggest that Stonehenge is, like it's foreign cousins, located on specific ley lines, possible at crossing hubs known as vortexes.


Hans: This popular theory has no basis in fact.



We're talking speculative here... facts are wonderful and all, and I, of all people, know how nice it can be when all of the facts support an idea. However, facts are also the fuel on which great lies run. Truth and fact are often confused with each other. In my inner intuition, I know that the realm of "fact" is based on the paradigm of "science" vs. "pseudo-science". The problem with "science" (which I have of late come to call "corporate science", is that consciousness is apparently left at the door.

The location of these structures are unique. The precision with which they were placed in regards to astrological alignments speaks volumes as to an understanding of a force we still today cannot fully comprehend or map. These structures are similar in age and they all perform the same essential functions. Lastly, seeing as these monuments are considered "pre-historic", I find it hard to believe that societies of illiterates and cave-men, with no means of record, could have mastered the mathematics skills required in engineering feats like the one discussed. Thus, I believe this new theory on the construction of Stonehenge puts this mystery further in the corner of some kind of evident "world-wide knowledge".



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by WatchNLearn
 


Yes, however the crystallized structure at the top serves as a point of refraction, and thus the prism effect works as long as rays of light are there to touch it. This suggests that the WAY Stonehenge interprets light is different than originally suspected. In fact, this appears to be far more advanced than I think anyone has dreamed. I believe this is possible, and I don't yet feel anyone has changed my feelings on the matter. Time will tell if that changes.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by speakerforthedead

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 







Lastly, seeing as these monuments are considered "pre-historic",


I'd like to correct my wording on this one:

Seeing as how this monument is considered "prehistoric",

Sorry the context changes when you mistype. I don't want my words to be misinterpreted.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 


Howdy Speaker




We're talking speculative here... facts are wonderful and all, and I, of all people, know how nice it can be when all of the facts support an idea.


Hans: and if not, one can ignore them




However, facts are also the fuel on which great lies run. Truth and fact are often confused with each other. In my inner intuition, I know that the realm of "fact" is based on the paradigm of "science" vs. "pseudo-science". The problem with "science" (which I have of late come to call "corporate science", is that consciousness is apparently left at the door.



Hans: An interesting thought which you didn't finish, "the problem with pseudo science is that evidence and logic is apparently left at the door"



The location of these structures are unique.


Hans: Really what is the relationship between the 'unique' placement of the Red pyramid, Piramide Cestia, Pirámide de Adivino and pyramid #8 at Meroe?



The precision with which they were placed in regards to astrological alignments speaks volumes as to an understanding of a force we still today cannot fully comprehend or map.


Hans: They were pointed at easily observed astronomical events - that isn't particularly hard to do, you just have to mark on the horizon/false horizon where it rises and falls. The accuracy of the great pyramid is that of the diameter of a piece of string - which is properly what they used to mark the star they may have used.




These structures are similar in age and they all perform the same essential functions.


Hans: Not really from around 2,600 BC to 800 AD, different functions for different cultures.



Lastly, seeing as these monuments are considered "pre-historic", I find it hard to believe that societies of illiterates and cave-men, with no means of record, could have mastered the mathematics skills required in engineering feats like the one discussed.


Hans: I've worked with illiterates in Nepal, Honduras and Mexico - they are fully as intelligent as other men they just lack a certain skill - which they make up in other areas. I would recommend you take a look at the mathematical skills of the Sumerians and the Rhind papyrus. As for other skills look at the cave art of the period before that era and the art found in and around the balkans or the Jomon pottery.




Thus, I believe this new theory on the construction of Stonehenge puts this mystery further in the corner of some kind of evident "world-wide knowledge".


Hans: Yes if you discount all counter-evidence and believe very, very hard!
If not you end up with no evidence of a "world-wide knowledge" just common solutions to the local challenges.

[edit on 15/1/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 





Yes, however the crystallized structure at the top serves as a point of refraction, and thus the prism effect works as long as rays of light are there to touch it.


Hans: What cyrstal structure?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


that's the whole point of the thing. Did you not watch the second video?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 


Yes there was glass making - but not in the UK and not in large plates or structures. nor was it opaque. It is thought that the first glass was made in Syria as a by product of making vitreous faisence.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
You call these common solutions to local problems. When did YOU ever make a fully functioning astrological calculator of those proportions? Don't downplay the significance of the implications of how advanced these civilizations were in their understanding of time and the cosmos. I'm not saying these pyramids are connected at the hip, but there is a connection to these things in ways we do not understand. I am at least willing to admit the possibility that the is no connection whatsoever, but it appears that some of these recent comments have down-right come across as soft-peddled, debunking agenda.

This is my issue: I see rebuttals almost immediately when I post an idea, a few of which have been valid, but also, a few of which have certainly come across as bias and slanted. It reminds me of the know-it-all kid who's ego is deeply dependent on his perceived "superior-intelligence" and thus when confronted with opposing ways of perceiving something not understood, feels the need to make it a pissing match over who can spew more erroneous fact onto the other.

I've stated what my views were on the subject, and seeing as how I'm less interested in debating anyone who does not share in my view, than I am in hearing all peoples views on this, skeptics and believers alike, I will no longer be responding to this post, but rather watching to see what the rest of the community thinks of this.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Hey Speaker good post I found the videos interesting.
Do you have any other links that supports this theory?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by speakerforthedead
 


Howdy Speaker




You call these common solutions to local problems.


Hans: What does a tomb made in 2600 BC in Egypt have to do with a pyramid made in 500 AD for ceremonial purposes in Mexico?



When did YOU ever make a fully functioning astrological calculator of those proportions? Don't downplay the significance of the implications of how advanced these civilizations were in their understanding of time and the cosmos.


Hans: Tuesday.... wait now you are touting there intelligence where earlier you were saying they were illiterate??



I'm not saying these pyramids are connected at the hip, but there is a connection to these things in ways we do not understand.


Hans: yes there is a connection but it is hidden in full view before you ..... its called people.




I am at least willing to admit the possibility that the is no connection whatsoever, but it appears that some of these recent comments have down-right come across as soft-peddled, debunking agenda.


Hans: Is that fringe speak for evidence dispersing a well loved theory which is un-evidenced?



This is my issue: I see rebuttals almost immediately when I post an idea, a few of which have been valid, but also, a few of which have certainly come across as bias and slanted.


Hans: Nothing personal Speaker but I've seen these same ideas dozens of times over the last forty years. The timber structure is a new idea, your attempt to bloister old new age ideas with that theory are 'old hat'.



It reminds me of the know-it-all kid who's ego is deeply dependent on his perceived "superior-intelligence" and thus when confronted with opposing ways of perceiving something not understood, feels the need to make it a pissing match over who can spew more erroneous fact onto the other.


Hans: Not really I just know the evidence that counters your arguments- and I've had similar discussions repeatedly.



I've stated what my views were on the subject, and seeing as how I'm less interested in debating anyone who does not share in my view, than I am in hearing all peoples views on this, skeptics and believers alike, I will no longer be responding to this post, but rather watching to see what the rest of the community thinks of this.


Hans: Yep evidence does have the effect - you know no one ever tries to answer the one on the pyramids. It does have an answer by the way...they were all made by men, but for different reasons. Using different construction techniques and spread over 3,000 years of time.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


yea, check out www.stonehenge.tv

there's a lot of interesting info to be found within this site regarding the subject, but otherwise i have found no other information. This appears to be fairly new info.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join