Ancient Aliens Debunked?

Originally posted by paranoidNcurious

these are my favorite points made by the show...
-why did ppl throught the ancient world all have similar believes, mythology, and architecture.mayan and egymtian pyrimids? for what reason would they build mass temples quite similar with no knowledge of each other. and same styles.

Whilst an interesting observation........I don't think ET need be involved.

The ancient Egyptians,Mayans and Chinese......all built pyramids, and all these were advanced civilisations for their time........so it is not so surprising that they all build structures of some sort.
Why pyramids.......well they do point skywards so it fits in with structures of worship or burial ceremonies.......and these ancient cultures could be simply replicating what they saw in nature.ie mountains.
So in my opinion ET need not be responsible.

If you say it's true, I'll take your word for it, I guess.
What I mean is, I've read the same things you've posted, but I've never seen any quotes of people "ridiculing" Schliemann.

Well, it's settled then :-). - Yes, it's a shame I couldn't upload the scans, some of them are actually quite funny, especially the caricatures in Kladderadatsch (a satirical paper, sort of "The Onion" of its time) and undoubtedly he deserved some of the ridicule, especially after the "It's King Priam's Treasure" gaffe and having his wife wear the jewels and referring to her as "Helen of Troy". Kladderadatsch also published a fake telegram, claiming it was sent by Schliemann from Athens, announcing he dug up Achilles' heel :-)

I mean, after all, he was digging at a known archaeological site. It's not as if he made a claim that he could "find Troy" using Homer, then went out and did so.

That of course is pretty much exactly what he did. Calvert was already excavating in the vicinity but he was pretty much broke and could not afford to continue his work. So when Schliemann arrived, he not only identified the correct site, but more importantly also had the "dough" to fund the work. Fair? No, but that's life, I suppose.

But enough with Schliemann now, I didn't want to hijack your thread with a discussion on the merits of Schliemann's contribution to Archaeology.

But the fact that an individual doesn't know that, for example, the Temple of Hathor in Dendera was erected by Greek Rulers of Egypt and is hardly "ancient" says nothing at all about what Archaeology itself "knows" about the ancient past.

I think it can well be considered "ancient" as it dates to around the late Ptolemaic period and "Ancient History" covering the time period from about 3100 BC to when it transitioned into the "Late Antiquity" period in around 300 AD. I would agree however that it is often funny (sometimes just sad) when in a debate people make (false) claims about Egyptian ancient history but are blissfully unaware of its Hellenistic period and that i.e. Cleopatra was actually Greek :-) BTW, since you mention Dendera - No, I don't think that's a light bulb ;-)

The truth is, we today know far more about the ancient past than the ancients themselves knew. If you read Herodotus or Josepus, this becomes abundantly clear.

Yes, I read Herodotus - Eons ago and in a particularly difficult to read translation, so I'm not sure anything became "abundantly clear", and I'm afraid my teachers back then would have agreed ;-)

Regarding Alexandria, it's unlikely that there was very much there that would tell us anything we don't already know about the past. There are older libraries still extant today, and Alexandria, a Greek city, originated after 300BC or so. The books there were confiscated - that's how they were collected - but copies were made and returned to the owners of the originals at the time.
Of course, some books (obviously) were written during the time the library existed. But again, it simply wasn't that long ago.

I think you're making a logical mistake here. The age of the library (the building itself) and the age of the copies of the books it contained is irrevelant. The question is how old was the knowledge the papyrii contained. In other words, if I build a library today and fill it with newly printed copies of classical and ancient works (anything from Newtons Principia Mathematica to copies of the Red Sea Scrolls) and the whole thing burns down - then the knowledge of 2000 years is destroyed, even though the actual books were only a few months old. Since not even an inventory list exists, we can only wonder what has been lost. Further, it is believed (but it might just have been Ptolemaic propaganda) that the original scripts of Sophokles, Euripides and Aeschylus had been stored there, so the loss is indeed invaluable. Not to mention the scripts of visiting scholars to the library such as Eratosthenes, Archimedes, Euclid and so many others.

In what way would you "investigate" this possibility? By finding and digging up ancient sites/artifacts? My assertion is this is currently being done.

Now that's a valid question. My gripe is more with the refusal to reinterpret ancient myths and mythology, so the metaphysical aspect of my interest is much greater than finding a freakin' 5000 year old warp drive. Finding something tangible to point to would be nice of course, to back up my hypothesis. Is that proper scientific inquiry? Probably not, but (and now really for the last time) Troy was found because of Schliemann's audacity to reinterpret and challenge conventional wisdom. Maybe Troy was just an incredible stroke of luck and such literal belief in any other ancient myth is thoroughly misguided. Perhaps I just have it in for "religion" and sooo want to turn their God into Jahwe from Beta-Centauri...yeah, spiteful, I know.

Originally posted by RazielRabencuuk
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

Ancient aliens debunked ay? no way =P XD a small measure of it is plausible at least i think, even if they had the right ideas in the wrong places =P

edit on 20-10-2011 by RazielRabencuuk because: (no reason given)

The right idea cannot be the right idea if in the wrong place, that will make it a wrong idea.

Right Idea: "Build House", Wrong Place: "Quicksand" = Wrong Idea

reply to post by nv4711


Too funny!

Could you post some translations (with references)? Like I said, I've never seen them.

I'd like to have this information, for future reference.

And you're right. the word "ancient" typically means before the fall of Rome.

But the Dendera temple (which is why I used that example) supposedly shows "light bulbs" in "Ancient Egypt." If a person doesn't know the (relatively) recent date for these depictions, then that stupid, stupid claim becomes slightly more believeable.

As far as the Library is concerned, do you really think that there would have been truly ancient papyri stored there? I find that highly unlikely. That's what I said. Not "impossible," but "unlikely."

We have "histories" that far predate that library, and we know these to be erroneous.

Also, like I said, there are older libraries that were never burned. We have some books from them.

My own opinion is that there may have been some lost works of Greek authors, like Plato, there. Philosophical works. Herodotus' works were probably there. Works of Greek drama and tragedy, possibly Homeric tales. There was a lot of research done there, and during that time, so those results were likely there as well. But anything about previous history? Not likely. Where would these papyri have come from?

They weren't in the habit of digging up sites that were thousands of years old by the time the library was built.

And anyway, much of Egyptian history is carved on temple (and mausoleum) walls. We know about them because of this. So, I doubt some "unknown" era of ancient Egypt was recorded at Alexandria.

Harte

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


well put together. this show use to make me angry at how ignorant and un-scientific. Im not saying i buy main stream history eathier but the truth is always stranger than anything anyone could come up with. god read at the moutains of madness By HP lovcraft. hallow earth theory and ancient aliens theory came from works wirtten by HP lovecraft, Poe and other i cant remember who else but i have a book about this. and how the ancient aliens theory came into the main stream. interesteing read.

My questions are: Where are the dead bodies? The skeletons? Why haven't the elongagted skulls been DNA tested? Why did the aliens leave? Do they have any answers to these questions? Do you think most UFOs are drones?

Originally posted by frugal
My questions are: Where are the dead bodies? The skeletons? Why haven't the elongagted skulls been DNA tested? Why did the aliens leave? Do they have any answers to these questions? Do you think most UFOs are drones?

Which dead bodies?

Elongated skulls seems to be a common worldwide practise so no real need for DNA testing.

Why did the aliens leave?.........well they probably weren't here in the first place.

Most UFOs can be simply identified.,......if you ask the right expert.........others not so simple to identify may well be little understood natural phenomena........or secret military aircraft.

Originally posted by frugal
My questions are: Where are the dead bodies? The skeletons? Why haven't the elongagted skulls been DNA tested? Why did the aliens leave? Do they have any answers to these questions? Do you think most UFOs are drones?

You're assuming that if aliens have visited Earth, they also died here. If none of them died here, then you can't find any remains. Even if one had died, that doesn't mean they left the body behind. If those aliens are not of a humanoid species, their bodies might also decay differently from a human body and leave very little, if anything to find.

Skulls don't lend themselves easily to DNA testing. The most suitable part of a skull for DNA tests are the jawbones and teeth, but you would need teeth with the root still attached. Even if you have that, you need to be able to extract enough genetic material form the bone, very rare and difficult with material of this age. Conclusive DNA tests on Neanderthal remains could only be performed a few years ago, when scientists were lucky enough to extract a sufficient amount of preserved genetic material. And they had complete skeletons, not just skulls. If the aliens are humanoid and, as brought forward on the AA show, have intermingled with the human race, then a DNA test would likely have the result "humanoid" as we'd share the same DNA - hence the test would at best be inconclusive, depending on what side of the fence you are.

However, given the many examples in Anthropology of cultures that artificially create elongated heads through binding, I think it's safe to say the elongated heads are perfectly (no pun intended) human.

Why the aliens left? Hmm.. Mission completed? (whatever mission that was), Mission abandoned? No more funding from Congress (Congress of Betelgeuze that is, of course ;-)).

I think most (if not all) UFOs are BS, - could they be drones? Yes, sure, as I stated in an earlier post, we're sending probes into space, why not another civilization? If they are or were drones, then of course by definition, there are no Ancient Alien Astronauts. A drone that runs completely autonomously completes a specific mission (like our various space probes) and then it would just "be" here (and eventually be found), just like our Mars rover "Spirit" is sitting on Mars now forever, doing nothing. Remote controlled drones are also unlikely because: A "Mothership" would need to be very close to Earth to be able to exercise sufficient control over the drone and receive the data the drone is collecting. Such signals would very likely be detected by SETI, NASA, NORAD, NSA..and maybe every ham radio operator in the country.

I personally believe that no physical visitation has happened (that's why I also don't believe that aliens gave Humanity any technology etc or that (so far) any of the artifacts presented are extraterrestrial). I think there is room in myths and mythology to allow for the interpretation of past alien contact, but I don't believe aliens have been physically on Earth.

Too funny!

Could you post some translations (with references)? Like I said, I've never seen them.

I'd like to have this information, for future reference.

Sure, my pleasure, here you go:

"Kladderadatsch" March 29, 1874:

A drawing, depicting Schliemann and his wife on the streets of Berlin. Schliemann walking swiftly, reading a journal with a headline "Nibelung Saga". His wife on his arm, but 2 steps behind, obviously having trouble to follow his fast pace. Her (now infamous) shawl which was used as Schliemann claimed to carry away and hide Priam's treasure, filled with artifacts and tied around her waist.
The caption reads:
"After Mr. Schliemann in the course of Homeric studies discovered the trojan treasure, by pure chance reads the Nibelung Saga and immediately he, his wife and the shawl set out to search for the Rhinegold."

Kladderadatsch, November 1876: (Fake telegram printed)

"Cable From Argos: Mr. Schliemann, reports from Argos the discovery of the body of Agamemnon. He reports he is most impressed with his discovery and more so by Agamemnons 32 nice white teeth, round head and big eyes." We are inclined to believe him, especially the part about the big eyes. Why wouldn't Agamemnon make big eyes when he's dug up by Mr. Schliemann?"
(In German, the phrase "making big eyes" refers to being greatly astonished, extremely surprised...)

Kladderadatsch, May 4 1879: (Fake telegram printed)

"Cable From Troy! Found Achilles' Grave-STOP-Virchow identified the ankle bone-STOP-Achilles body missing, except for ankle bone-STOP-Put Achilles in my pocket-STOP-All well-STOP - Schliemann"

Kladderadatsch, December 1876: (Fake Telegram printed)

"Cable from Mykene! December 16, 1h 25minutes, TRIUMPH! We finally found the horns which Helen gave her husband Menelaus and which his brother kept for him during the war."
(In German, a woman giving her husband horns (like Antlers) means she is having an affair with another man (in this case of course Paris))

and finally... (you owe me a beer on this one, translating this was worse than having a paper due in biology ;-) :

Kladderadatsch, March 8, 1874: A 15 verse poem, covering half a page. The paper prints this poem in "homeric style" tearing apart Schliemann's knack for grandiosity and misidentifying and misrepresenting artifacts. The story is about a pair of toads, that live under the ruins of Troy for over 3000 years...that is, until Schliemann shows up...
Please forgive the rather crude attempt at a translation...in German, of course it rhymes perfectly...and I only translated 4 verses ;-)

"Wie Herr Heinrich Schliemann die letzten Zeitgenossen des Priamus fand"
"How Mr.Heinrich Schliemann found the last contemporaries of Priamus"

In the Valley of Scamander
Where the spear hit on the shield
Where not even fair Cassandra
Could have foretold the Obotrite Schliemann
(Obotrites=band of early medieval east german tribes that fought
with Charlesmagne. Bear in mind that this is 1874 and the french/german war
ended only 3 years earlier, so any hint at "french connections" was derogatory in itself and Schliemann was from
rural east Germany)

After now 3000 years
went by above them
They can feel how from a pick axe
one morning they are pierced

A mild summer breeze
soon comes gently down the shaft
Again they see Homer's skies
and a smiling Schliemann's eyes

They survived the fall of Troy
but the sheer greatness of this moment
they cannot bear
its their demise

Schliemann's eyes filled with tears
In pain exclaims: "They're gone"
And the bodies covered crying
the well known head scarf of his wife

Also, in a letter on December 13, 1873 to Brockhaus, his publisher, discussing who should receive a courtesy copy of his just released book "Trojan Antiquities", Schliemann bitterly complains:
"Under no circumstance shall you send a copy to Ernst Curtius, because he and Dr. Hirschfeldt are the true authors of those articles against me in Kladderadatsch, these two want to crucify and roast me out of spite and pure envy."

I hope you enjoyed this little excursion.... now back to the real world of Ancient Aliens and prehistoric fighter jets ... haha :-))

Cheers

THANK YOU OP! This needed to be made. I have many problems with the ancient alien "theory", but my biggest are the lack of concrete evidence and the complete disregard of human ingenuity. It's always, "Modern man doesn't know how it's done, and obviously since our ancestors were so much more stupid than us, it must be aliens". How arrogant have can these people get?

So again, thank you for not being sucked into this, and having the patience (and guts) to point out what's wrong with this.

Originally posted by Loligag
THANK YOU OP! This needed to be made. I have many problems with the ancient alien "theory", but my biggest are the lack of concrete evidence and the complete disregard of human ingenuity. It's always, "Modern man doesn't know how it's done, and obviously since our ancestors were so much more stupid than us, it must be aliens". How arrogant have can these people get?

So again, thank you for not being sucked into this, and having the patience (and guts) to point out what's wrong with this.

To what extent does it take "guts" to reiterate the commonly accepted viewpoint on a dopey (no offense, ATS) website? If anything, it takes guts to challenge conventional wisdom (Galileo...now he had guts). It takes time, but "guts"..no. Also, I must say I didn't see any new, original thought from the OP.

I do agree that ancient people were just as smart as "we" are, especially ancient Greece in its heyday. But allow me an example here. Eratosthenes figured out the circumference of the Earth in about 200 BC , with nothing but a wooden stick and his brilliant mind...AND, 3 bold assumptions (at the time), which he had no way to provide any, let alone conclusive, evidence these assumptions were correct. Those were a) the Earth is a sphere, b) the Sun is infinitely far away from Earth or at least so far away that its actual distance doesn't matter and c) Sun rays (or as we would say light waves) travel in parallel. Anyways, he calculated Earth's circumference to be ca. 24,400 mls and today we know it to be approx 24,800 mls.

The point is that yes, that was a brilliant achievement. His calculation was widely accepted at his time and for many centuries to follow (until the flat earthers came to power, shamefully)..but it would have been impossible without the acceptance of his assumptions, which where only based on observation and thought experiments, for the correctness of either he couldn't provide any proof whatsoever. What would the OP have posted about Eratosthenes and this "baseless" theory without any proof?

Let's take the infamous Dendera "light bulb" - which I DON'T think to be a light bulb - but I can demonstrate that it could be a light bulb. The Hathor temple was built during the late Ptolemain period so ca. 40 BC. For a light bulb, I need a) Glass, b) a metal for the filament, c) electricity and d) create a vacuum in the bulb.
At the time when the "light bulb" relief was created:
a) Egypt had almost 3000 yrs of glass making experience, In nearby Syria, the technique of blown glass was known since at least 100 AD.
b) Egypt knew and used Platinum, not an optimal metal to use as a filament but even our earliest light bulbs used platinum for this purpose.
c) The (in)famous "Baghdad Battery". Re-creations usually produce a voltage of around 4 Volts. Certainly not enough current and therefore electrical work, can be produced to "light" a bulb of the depicted size in Dendera. However, it is not a big leap to make and create a serial or parallel connection of a bunch of batteries and achieve voltages of prob. 50 to 100 volts and a high enough electrical current.
d) Dual action suction pumps have been found in Pompeii, so was known to the Romans and it is not too far fetched to think that this technology could have made its way to Egypt. This pump makes creating a vacuum in the "light bulb" a snap.

So, I have just layed out that the Egypts of the time of the Dendera relief in fact had all technology at their disposal to build and operate a light bulb. The question therefore is not did they have the technology (a thought that is dismissed by all "debunkers"), but could they have put all of it together to actually make a working light bulb? So, if you like ancient aliens, you'll say no and think ET gave them a hint, or you would consider it as unlikely but possible. The explanation of the Dendera "light bulb" as a stylized lotus flower is also no more than a guess or hypothesis - it might be the most likely, but not more.

So, and here's why I don;t think it's a "light bulb" in the relief: Pharaoh Cleopatra, which is also depicted on the temple walls, would 100% have had her whole damn palace lighted with this technology instead of stinkin torches and candles. It is inconceivable that neither Julius Cesar or Marc Antony wouldn't have ever mentioned this, or Virgil (even though he hated Cleo..) or any of the other Roman visitors to Egypt at the time, or Octavian after his victory over Cleopatra and Marc Antony. Not to even mention that, given that the Ptolemaens were Greek and with the many Greek scholars being in Alexandria (they had a free library card) that this high tech invention would not have made it to Greece.
That's why it's not a light bulb, not because all AA proponents are ignorants, lack of technology or because it is "proven" to depict a lotus flower, because nothing is proven.

Peace

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

Blah blah blah

Dismissing facts with speculation is a very amateur manner to act as a historian. You need to do your homework better.

This is weird.... but I'd have to agree on some points. If you're digging through evidence with a goal in what you want to find, you probably will. But has anyone ever thought, is there some sort of particle changer that could possibly have turned these ancient monuments and all that into degrading stone? Theres been speculation the pyramids used to be made of gold. :s no source but you'd have to DYOR on that one.

Originally posted by nv4711

Let's take the infamous Dendera "light bulb" - which I DON'T think to be a light bulb - but I can demonstrate that it could be a light bulb. The Hathor temple was built during the late Ptolemain period so ca. 40 BC. For a light bulb, I need a) Glass, b) a metal for the filament, c) electricity and d) create a vacuum in the bulb.
At the time when the "light bulb" relief was created:
a) Egypt had almost 3000 yrs of glass making experience, In nearby Syria, the technique of blown glass was known since at least 100 AD.
b) Egypt knew and used Platinum, not an optimal metal to use as a filament but even our earliest light bulbs used platinum for this purpose.
c) The (in)famous "Baghdad Battery". Re-creations usually produce a voltage of around 4 Volts. Certainly not enough current and therefore electrical work, can be produced to "light" a bulb of the depicted size in Dendera. However, it is not a big leap to make and create a serial or parallel connection of a bunch of batteries and achieve voltages of prob. 50 to 100 volts and a high enough electrical current.
d) Dual action suction pumps have been found in Pompeii, so was known to the Romans and it is not too far fetched to think that this technology could have made its way to Egypt. This pump makes creating a vacuum in the "light bulb" a snap.

So, I have just layed out that the Egypts of the time of the Dendera relief in fact had all technology at their disposal to build and operate a light bulb. The question therefore is not did they have the technology (a thought that is dismissed by all "debunkers"), but could they have put all of it together to actually make a working light bulb? So, if you like ancient aliens, you'll say no and think ET gave them a hint, or you would consider it as unlikely but possible. The explanation of the Dendera "light bulb" as a stylized lotus flower is also no more than a guess or hypothesis - it might be the most likely, but not more.

So, and here's why I don;t think it's a "light bulb" in the relief: Pharaoh Cleopatra, which is also depicted on the temple walls, would 100% have had her whole damn palace lighted with this technology instead of stinkin torches and candles. It is inconceivable that neither Julius Cesar or Marc Antony wouldn't have ever mentioned this, or Virgil (even though he hated Cleo..) or any of the other Roman visitors to Egypt at the time, or Octavian after his victory over Cleopatra and Marc Antony. Not to even mention that, given that the Ptolemaens were Greek and with the many Greek scholars being in Alexandria (they had a free library card) that this high tech invention would not have made it to Greece.
That's why it's not a light bulb, not because all AA proponents are ignorants, lack of technology or because it is "proven" to depict a lotus flower, because nothing is proven.

The above is mostly true, except that's not why it's not a light bulb.

The panel depicts a very old belief about Horus. The panel is accompanied by actual writing, describing what the panel shows.

The story is depicted in other, much, MUCH earlier artwork, but in a different way.

So the contemporary technology at the time of the temple's construction can't be postulated, since the story (and other artwork) is far older.

And the writing tells us what it is. Horus coming out odf a lotus blossom is what it actually says.

Since it's an Egyptian belief, and since the Egyptians wrote that, I'd say it's pretty much proven it's a lotus blossom.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

The above is mostly true, except that's not why it's not a light bulb.

I was trying to show a reasonable alternative as to why it's not a light bulb, given that the "Lotus Flower Explanation" is either widely ignored and the claim it "clearly" shows "technology", not a "flower", is made. Hence, my reference to available technology at the time and my conclusion why the availability of the required pieces doesn't proof anything.

The panel depicts a very old belief about Horus. The panel is accompanied by actual writing, describing what the panel shows.

The story is depicted in other, much, MUCH earlier artwork, but in a different way.

So the contemporary technology at the time of the temple's construction can't be postulated, since the story (and other artwork) is far older.

And the writing tells us what it is. Horus coming out odf a lotus blossom is what it actually says.

If much older reliefs show the very same thing, then my argument is moot. I wasn't aware of much older reliefs, with identical iconography. If the panel ( I don't know that for a fact, but trust your statement ) indeed says "This is Horus, born from (or coming out of) a lotus blossom", then I don't know why the whole thing is even discussed and AA proponents are out of gas. I personally thought the myths to say that Horus' four sons were born from a lotus flower, but Horus himself being either the husband or son of Hathor (not sure now). I wasn't aware that the lotus flower birth would also apply to Horus.

Since it's an Egyptian belief, and since the Egyptians wrote that, I'd say it's pretty much proven it's a lotus blossom.

Again, I did this little exercise to demonstrate another way that the light bulb claim is false, without referring to mythology. If the most powerful and knowledgeable people of the time made no mention of this (a light bulb) in any of their voluminous works, then it is inconceivable such a thing ever existed, regardless of whether "Aliens" gave it to the Egyptians, or the Egyptians themselves would have understood that putting all the pieces together makes a nifty light bulb.

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by Harte

The above is mostly true, except that's not why it's not a light bulb.

I was trying to show a reasonable alternative as to why it's not a light bulb, given that the "Lotus Flower Explanation" is either widely ignored and the claim it "clearly" shows "technology", not a "flower", is made. Hence, my reference to available technology at the time and my conclusion why the availability of the required pieces doesn't proof anything.

Don't get me wrong, I get your point and it was well made.

Originally posted by nv4711

The panel depicts a very old belief about Horus. The panel is accompanied by actual writing, describing what the panel shows.

The story is depicted in other, much, MUCH earlier artwork, but in a different way.

So the contemporary technology at the time of the temple's construction can't be postulated, since the story (and other artwork) is far older.

And the writing tells us what it is. Horus coming out of a lotus blossom is what it actually says.

If much older reliefs show the very same thing, then my argument is moot. I wasn't aware of much older reliefs, with identical iconography. If the panel ( I don't know that for a fact, but trust your statement ) indeed says "This is Horus, born from (or coming out of) a lotus blossom", then I don't know why the whole thing is even discussed and AA proponents are out of gas. I personally thought the myths to say that Horus' four sons were born from a lotus flower, but Horus himself being either the husband or son of Hathor (not sure now). I wasn't aware that the lotus flower birth would also apply to Horus.[

A full explanation can be found here
There are several consecutive pages at that site about this.

One note: on that page, the name "Harsomtus" is used. That is the Greek form of one of Horus' names (in case anyone wondered.)

As far as older iconography, there's a pic somewhere on that site, I couldn't find it quickly, but I'd posted it on another site so I can link it here:



The Dendera panels are of a different style, but I'm sure you can see the similarity - the snake coming out of the lotus blossom.

Originally posted by nv4711

Since it's an Egyptian belief, and since the Egyptians wrote that, I'd say it's pretty much proven it's a lotus blossom.

Again, I did this little exercise to demonstrate another way that the light bulb claim is false, without referring to mythology. If the most powerful and knowledgeable people of the time made no mention of this (a light bulb) in any of their voluminous works, then it is inconceivable such a thing ever existed, regardless of whether "Aliens" gave it to the Egyptians, or the Egyptians themselves would have understood that putting all the pieces together makes a nifty light bulb.

I appreciate your effort. Obviously, the Egyptians didn't have light bulbs. But, as you pointed out, given the technology of the Ptolemaic period, it was barely possible.

Harte

The real mystery to me is what the hell is up with giorgio's hair?

reply to post by nv4711


But what is being made fun of here. Nowhere in these is Schliemann being ridiculed for claims he could find Troy using the Iliad. Rather, these were made after he announced his findings. And they almost seem to not being ridiculing him for his beliefs about Troy but his behaviors in regards to that.

And, in the end, his critics were right. He didn't find Troy, at least not the Troy he thought to find nor was King Priam's treasure even from the same period.

Originally posted by WingedBull
reply to post by nv4711

 

But what is being made fun of here. Nowhere in these is Schliemann being ridiculed for claims he could find Troy using the Iliad. Rather, these were made after he announced his findings. And they almost seem to not being ridiculing him for his beliefs about Troy but his behaviors in regards to that.

And, in the end, his critics were right. He didn't find Troy, at least not the Troy he thought to find nor was King Priam's treasure even from the same period.

I really don't want to go back trying to document the level of ridicule Schliemann had to endure as this would really unduly test the patience of the other posters in this thread which, after all, is about the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis resp. the TV show Ancient Aliens - not "Satire in 19th century Europe". I've made the claim of ridicule and the comparison to Schliemann to make a point. It was rather a side note and not even that important. So, Harte and I got into a bit of a p*****ng contest about it, where I think he was somewhat overly critical of my claim, given its relative unimportance, and I wanted to overly demonstrate my knowledge of the matter. I thought it sufficient to quote some literature confirming my claim, but Harte apparently had an interest in the matter and asked me to put up some translations, which I did. It seems he was satisfied with the material.

Yes, the examples I have posted are dated from after his dig at Hisarlik and except for the "Nibelung" cartoon (if you "get" the joke), may not be about the Iliad claim. If you have any interest in the subject, I can guarantee you that you will find troves of contemporary evidence for it. There is even a whole book just about Schliemann's portrayal in satire and humorous publications covering 1870 to 1890. I saw it once at a friends house, but can't remember the title. I seem to remember that he told me that it was available from the Heinrich-Schliemann Museum in Germany, but I'm not positive (the book was in German, too).

And yes, I know he dug too deep - which doesn't mean he didn't find Troy VI, since he actually dug through it. Schliemann just didn't recognize it, because he didn't understand stratigraphy, a fact I had mentioned earlier in the thread. And yes, I'm also aware it wasn't Priam's Treasure, as is everybody since at least the year 1874, yet I repeat (since I also said that earlier) it is still widely called King Priam's treasure, purely to identify the treasure discovered by Schliemann - and by the way - it is called King Priam's Treasure (with an explanation) at its current home, the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. So, there.

Can we move on now?

Originally posted by Harte
A full explanation can be found here
There are several consecutive pages at that site about this.

One note: on that page, the name "Harsomtus" is used. That is the Greek form of one of Horus' names (in case anyone wondered.)

As far as older iconography, there's a pic somewhere on that site, I couldn't find it quickly, but I'd posted it on another site so I can link it here:



The Dendera panels are of a different style, but I'm sure you can see the similarity - the snake coming out of the lotus blossom.

Thanks for the link, Harte! This guy really did his homework, that is very convincing and makes my post seem pretty amateurish. I was quite impressed actually by the math he did on the Dendera "light bulb", especially on the vacuum and resulting pressure on the glass, given the sheer size of the "lamp". Since I said that (albeit with quite a bit of a stretch) the roman pumps could have been known in Egypt and therefore evacuation of the lamp could have been possible, his math blows my argument pretty much out of the water.