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.

 

Zecharia Sitchin says he's willing to stake everything he's written

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


not all the skulls have been proved to be forgeries and if you believe they have then we'll end discussion here cause i'm not budging and you prolly wont neither




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


tell you the truth idc what u say about the fourth kind and what i stated what i do know is that psychiatrist is real you should go talk to her get it from the horses mouth

oh and blue ray is just a way to make mor emoney dont believe me well lets say u had a movie on vhs dvd come out so u bought it again then blue ray comes and now u've bought the same g/d movie 3 times when dvd was good enough in the first place kinda like buying 3 cds for 2 songs! if your that incapable of not recognizing captialism when its thrown in your face leave me alone

[edit on 16-6-2010 by metalholic]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i woulda threw the guy down in florida at him! you know the coral castle that still is a "mystery"



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I read the book the 12th planet when I was 20, I am now 25 yrs old, and that book had me thinking for days! It connected alot of dots for me, and was very intresting. From the text of the sumarians along with stories from the bible it all made sense... so what if some things were exactly on point? Most of it is and thats was what kept me reading. I finished that book in less then a month, if it wasnt for work and sleep and hanging out with friends once in awhile i would of finished it in 2 weeks!



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
still how did they move that 2000 ton from where it was to where it is BC ?


They didn't. The Stone of the Pregnant Woman (again, based on current estimates it is only 1000 tons, not 2000) is still in the quarry where it was carved, never separated from the underlying bedrock.

However, the trilithon stones at the Temple of Jupiter Baal at Baalbek weigh 800 tons and were moved by the Romans. Not only moved, but lifted. The Roman polyspastos cranes could lift extraordinary amounts, up to a ton and a half per person working the winches. Of course, one polyspastos could not lift the trilithon stones alone; multiple cranes were needed and it was a very delicate process.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by StarrGazer25
 


i started out with lost realms you shoudl check it out if you havent yet! i think everyone shoudl start out with lost realms and then read the others just b/c lost realms starts you off on the right foot and everything else falls into place...Sitchin like i said before is 100% no can be but he's deff on it!!

once everyone reaches my level which no one on here knows what that is they can only speculate b/c obviously you aint gonna know me through posts on here as each thread requires a different way to look at things..then people will understand what it's about! but i'm on a level right now that interests the gods to say it humbly



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


like i said i chose a poor example ther is a lot of controversy regarding these stones

where are your links

www.pacal.de...
The largest stone (the largest building block of the world) is about 21.36m long,
4.33m high, 4.6m wide and weighs about 1200 and 2000 tons. It was transported up the terrace
of Baalbek and has the name 'Hajar el Gouble' (Stone of the South) or 'Hajar el Hibla'
(Stone of the Pregnant Woman). This stone and the other cuboids of the terrace of Baalback give the
archeologists and other scientists and engineers big mysteries. It is unclear how such huge
stones were broken, transported and placed exactly in the foundations. This also applies for the technical
possibilities in the ancient world as well as for today's modern methods. Known displays from
Egypt and Mesopotamia show how stone blocks were transported by thousands of workers with the help of
ropes and wooden rolls. But these stones only have a tenth of the mass of the stones from Baalbek.
Moreover, the smaller stones were transproted over a flat route with enough movement space

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Questions constantly crop up concerning these blocks. Baalbek may become a focal point for the dichotomy being uncovered throughout the world today between the prehistoric past we assume existed and our earliest cultures of history.

The massive and elegant Roman stonework and columns pale by comparison to the megaliths they were built upon. The temple very visibly incorporates into its foundation, stones of some 1,500 tons. They are some 68 x 14 x 14 feet! They are the largest worked stones on earth! It is a mystery how such stones could have been moved into place, even according to our science and engineering knowledge of today. It is also a fact the Romans did not use this type of stonework.

www.world-mysteries.com...

At the southern entrance of Baalbeck is a quarry where the stones used in the temples were cut. A huge block, considered the largest hewn stone in the world, still sits where it was cut almost 2,000 years ago. Called the "Stone of the Pregnant Woman", it is 21.5m x 4.8m x 4.2meters in size and weighs an estimated 1,000 tons.




[edit on 16-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Ok... and why my friend did the ancient civilizations do this? What would shaping thier skulls do for them? Were they perhaps mimicking something or someone? Were they under the assumption that their heads must look like the heads of the gods to prove their devotion? We all know that the ancients did these things the question is why?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by The_Seeker
 


oh GOD so it only took you one person? LMFAO


It seems that if anybody mentions "aliens" in their work it automatically becomes a hoax to them. You can even tell in the last indiana jones movie and the fourth kind. It seems people just hates aliens.



Actually I am a firm believer of Aliens, so that is not really what is in question. The question is whether or not Sitchin is a reliable source. And from what I can see, he is not. He wont answer questions posed to him by those that are researching his work, that to me just smells foul.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by The_Seeker]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by dragonridr
 


not all the skulls have been proved to be forgeries and if you believe they have then we'll end discussion here cause i'm not budging and you prolly wont neither


I was fascinated by crystal skulls come on who wouldnt be. But everyone one in the museums have been shown to be fake if you know of one that isnt by all means share. Im not trying to be factious id really love to know if the Aztec indeed carved any. They made some fascinating jewelry in some respects cooler then the skulls if it wasnt for there macabre nature.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarrGazer25
Ok... and why my friend did the ancient civilizations do this? What would shaping thier skulls do for them?


It depended on the civilization. Some did it to differentiate themselves from others, be it other peoples or show social status, or for aesthetic reasons.


Originally posted by StarrGazer25
Were they perhaps mimicking something or someone?


Perhaps. It does not mean they were mimicking aliens. Infants can have malformed skulls from birth, or the skull can grow to an unusual shape by accident. All you need is one such person to grow to adulthood, become king and superstitious people will try to mimic his appearance.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
as i said earlier
one has to cross check his info
my info
and everyone elses info

which is why i admit when i have made a mistake
post links
and expect others to due the same
and i say thank you for making me smarter or wiser

show me the man who never made a mistake
and I'll show you a man who never did anything

if that isn't good enough
there is always TV



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


they've already explained on the history channel that the ones that havent been proved to be forged...are made in a way that if we tried to replicate it they would shatter its made out a crstal quartz crstal and there are only 2 or 3 marks that can be explained but the rest remains a mystery to how it was made!

they've said for how old it is it couldnt have been made by man...just watch the damn ancient astronauts the mission on youtube then watch ancient astronauts close encounters...interesting # none the least!



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


again where are your links
with out them people will say i made a mistake
and you did disinfo
which would be worse than Sitchin



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
like i said i chose a poor example ther is a lot of controversy regarding these stones


What is the controversy?


Originally posted by Danbones
where are your links


I posted links in my other post. For a more accessible article about Roman cranes and construction techniques, read here.

Now, tell us why it would have been impossible for the Romans to move these stones. We have ancient sources describing construction methods and we know the techniques used. All you have is the assumption that it would have been impossible.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
[and you did disinfo
which would be worse than Sitchin


Excuse me?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


your answers are based on speculation.....so my question remains... why did they do this? We will never know...



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by StarrGazer25
 


everything is theory until proven when you got a friends house and some ahole that your buddy hangs with starts boasting how bad he is until its proven until you seen it all he is speaking is theories!



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


your description of the stones of Balbek
is off
I was hoping you would provide links backing up your version of weights and placements
they were either moved back then which is something
or they were not, which would make them insignificant

Sitchin merely refered to their existance which is an example of why they are ineresting
you are argueing against sitchin's accuracy by saying they were not

The stones in question were there BEFORE the romans
unless you have links that say other wise
you would have posted specific links if you had them wouldn't you?

that would be a comment on your writing not Sitchin's

edit to add
if romans didn't move that stone into place
then Sitchin wrote somthing worth looking into


[edit on 16-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
your description of the stones of Balbek
is off


Demonstrate that the my description and my links are wrong.


Originally posted by DanbonesI was hoping you would provide links backing up your version of weights and placements


I did. In an earlier post. You have ignored this.


Originally posted by Danbones
they were either moved back then which is something
or they were not, which would make them insignificant


What? You're not making any sense.


Originally posted by Danbones
Sitchin merely refered to their existance which is an example of why they are ineresting
you are argueing against sitchin's accuracy by saying they were not


What? You're not making any sense.


Originally posted by Danbones
The stones in question were there BEFORE the romans


Rome did indeed build on an earlier structure at Heliopolis. But these were not 1500 ton stones as you have claimed. Current estimates are they were 350 tons.


Originally posted by Danbones
unless you have links that say other wise
you would have posted specific links if you had them wouldn't you?


I have posted links. You have ignored them.


Originally posted by Danbones
that would be a comment on your writing not Sitchin's


I would learn proper capitalization, sentence structure and to be cogent before criticizing anyone's writing.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join