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.

 

Egyptian temples followed heavenly plans

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by third_eye
 


what do you do to the whole "authorised" and study syllabus in all the top Universities and sacred cows of the fields involved

Hans: You then re-write the syllabus – which is why higher education institutions have curriculum coordinators who have their staff and those designated faculty to re-write stuff. However in this case. Such materials (about archaeo-astronomy)have been in use since the 1960's and most all text books cover the materials. The importance of this study was to show its use in a larger number of places and over a range of time.

... do they get to give the funding money back if they openly debunks their early studies

Hans: Nope they get MORE funding. People who do grants and the like understand that new learning will often replace or modify existing work. It is the nature of academia and science. Remember the money follows those who find new stuff.

This also leads to new text books most of which are now re-written no less than every 18 months- often earlier now. For which .....wait for it....academia gets paid for...so they like changes.




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Greetings Hans,

I find that many times the pictures of the hieroglyphs presented that show the light bulbs, Helicopters, and various other things are usually cropped, and not shown in full, which seem to present a skewed view on these inscriptions and drawings. Once you see the entire picture, it changes the view on what is really being depicted.

It is hard to fault the believers of these things when they are only looking at skewed images; I myself was compelled by some of what I saw till I literally saw the bigger picture.

As far as the pyramids go and the many stones involved, wasn’t it discovered back in 2006 that some of the blocks may have been in fact a type of concrete block, or was that found not to be the case?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Howdy AC




It is hard to fault the believers of these things when they are only looking at skewed images; I myself was compelled by some of what I saw till I literally saw the bigger picture.


Hans: one can only fault their lack of curiosity and failure to look at the question from both sides




As far as the pyramids go and the many stones involved, wasn’t it discovered back in 2006 that some of the blocks may have been in fact a type of concrete block, or was that found not to be the case?


Hans: There have been several theories on it but so far they have all failed to gain acceptance. The last was by a gentleman with the thought provoking name of Barsoom. Breaking up limestone to make concrete – then form it back into blocks isn’t the best idea in the world plus close to the pyramids is the waste dump for the construction there. It is full of limestone shards and chunks-if they were using concrete it would have made sense to use that rubble for the concrete....they didn’t it would appear.

There is one ancient pyramid made almost entirely of concrete- I’ll let you guess where its at.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


thanks Hans .... on paper (screen) it seems so simple ....

reputation is a big thing among the top scholars and "authorised" and recognised academicians ....

but from what I gathered from the works of Robert Bauval , Graham Hancock et all .... Santillana's (sp?) Hamlets Mill .... the main problem seems to be most of the contents or studies is missed because it falls OUTSIDE of their field of expertise .... guess we cant fault them can we ?

but not recognising that some things out of their field of expertise is irrelevant and therefore not worth a consideration is unforgivable don't you think ?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by third_eye
 


Howdy TE



reputation is a big thing among the top scholars and "authorised" and recognised academicians ....


Hans: What do you mean by "authorized" do you think there is some monolithic organization controlling the academics in Iran, France, China, Isreal and Argentina that causes them all to come out with basically the same concensus? You do realize that famous scientists are the ones who discover new things, not the status quo?




but from what I gathered from the works of Robert Bauval , Graham Hancock et all .... Santillana's (sp?) Hamlets Mill .... the main problem seems to be most of the contents or studies is missed because it falls OUTSIDE of their field of expertise .... guess we cant fault them can we ?


Hans: That is (again) why they publish so those outside the immediate field can obtain the data. - yet it never seems to fall outside the expertise of fringe writers- gasp! how come that happens?

There are scientists who look at the big picture. Carl Sagan was one, Dawkins, etc. They exist. One myth that the fringe likes to push is that scientists are all myoptic morons who hate knowledge. Needless to say that is incorrect.




but not recognising that some things out of their field of expertise is irrelevant and therefore not worth a consideration is unforgivable don't you think ?


Hans: I think you meant to write that a different way. Read what you wrote and confirm what you meant before I comment.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I am not that educated and much of what I know is from the fringe authors.

Much of what i read is about the Giza Pyramids ....



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The pyramids represent star constelations. Check it out.

www.thehiddenrecords.com... (Photos of pyramid ruins etc)



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Sargoth
 


Howdy Sargoth

The problem with such theories is you run up against the reality that any bunch of dots can usually be found (if you fudge a bit) to match up with a much larger random set of dots (the sky).

The Egyptian might have done this but it seem highly unlikely (IMHO)



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by third_eye

but from what I gathered from the works of Robert Bauval , Graham Hancock et all .... Santillana's (sp?) Hamlets Mill .... the main problem seems to be most of the contents or studies is missed because it falls OUTSIDE of their field of expertise .... guess we cant fault them can we ?


They're scorned because they cherry pick a few examples and don't know much about the culture -- and can't actually read the writing. It's sort of like someone telling you all about the Japanese and their food and their culture... but the only thing this person ever studied was the Hello Kitty toys.


but not recognising that some things out of their field of expertise is irrelevant and therefore not worth a consideration is unforgivable don't you think ?


There has been (for at least 25 years) advanced degrees in "interdisciplinary studies.) I hold 1 1/2 degrees (currently finishing one) in interdisciplinary studies.

It is a less forgiving field than you're assuming because in order to evaluate my dissertation, I need to have an expert in medical anthropology review my work as well as a mathemetician and a linguist (all with PhD's) and an Information Scientist (PhD.) I have to be able to provide references such that I can satisfy deep questions from all of the above people and each aspect of my research has to satisfy all of them. In other words, the anthropologist and info scientist and linguists might miss a sloppy job on my work with Fuzzy Sets, but the mathemetician is going to hop all over me the minute I try to make any stupid conclusions with stupid math.

So you have to be able to prove your contention NOT to experts in a single field but multiple experts in multiple fields.

The "concrete" idea might pass muster with a few archaeologists who don't know much about the pyramids, but would fail mightily with most engineers and be laughed out of the building by any geologist with a specialty in Egyptian rock formations who actually examined samples of the material. It'll also fail with paleontologists who examine the microstructures. And it's a major "fail" for Egyptologists for many reasons.

It's like watching a miniature horse being entered in the Kentucky Derby and being told that the animal is worthy of racing against thoroughbreds and that the animal can win in spite of the fact that it's actually a dwarf.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargoth
The pyramids represent star constelations. Check it out.

www.thehiddenrecords.com... (Photos of pyramid ruins etc)


It rather conveniently ignores all the minor stars and all the other features on the Giza plateau (including the Sphynx.)



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I don't know how many don't fit, but it's obvious dozens do. I find it fascinating.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by Sargoth]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I read an article once that argued that our ancestors were at least as intelligent as we are, albeit without our technology.

If they were brilliant observers of the universe and put their best minds and resources on it, then it seems possible.

Personally I don't find it coincidental that everything lines up as perfectly as it does in Giza.

I visited and climbed Chichen Itza a few years back and the precision and accuracy of those structures was mind-boggling.

I believe the ancients in Egypt possessed knowledge that may have been more advanced than we realize, and that said knowledge has been covered up and hidden over centuries. Notice how many esoteric and mystic societies trace their origins back to ancient Egypt.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Yeah well anyone that has actuality been to Egypt will tell you they were more advanced than us today, far surpassing modern science.

I see a few misinformed people here thinking we figured them out easily already when in fact we haven't.

People think they just built temples and Pyramids to match with simple star constellations when actuality its a lot more than just that,
Temples they built mathematically mapping out the Human Brain, Body and Chakras.
Even made many items that can't be made by anyone today such as pots made out of solid stone that not even modern tools can cut

You people should watch Magical Egypt 8 part series and have your minds blown out. Thats 8 hours of Egyptian info and not just the basic crap from your geography school book.

They were more than just people laying in sand marking simple lights in the sky, thats rather insulting to think that.

Here I'll link the first video part for you, the rest can be easily found on youtube, I recommend anyone to watch this that has even the slightest interest in Egypt.




Here you go, all episodes for the believers and non-believers
www.pacman.myfirehost.com...

P.S. Yes the Egyptians had electricity and microscopes it's been proven in this series.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by buds84]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join