Egypt was a Matriarchy according to American Men Soldiers: HUMAN FLESHY QUEENS mislabeled fictitious

page: 4
73
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MapMistress
Months later I was doing a little research on Egypt, reading about alleged "brother-sister marriages". Something struck me as odd. Like a quirky feeling that something wasn't right about that assumption.


What do you find odd about it? The lineages of the kings and queens were well known, and brothers and sisters did marry (as did fathers and daughters and so on and so forth.) Some were ceremonial "god's wives" and some were true marriages with offspring.



And all I could think about was what soldier Padilla teaching the sociology class had said. He said something about the Egyptian military covering up the matriarchy of the past by lying about incest marriages.


Actually, the information ALSO comes from ancient Greek and Roman sources, among others.


Matriarchy Type #4: Egypt's type of matriarchy and others. All property is owned by women and passed down from mother to daughter, grandmother to granddaughter. All lineage is traced through the women.


I think that if you will look more deeply at the Egyptian papyri and tomb inscriptions you will find that this is not true. Women did indeed own property, but so did men. Lineage is not traced through women (sometimes it's unclear who the mother is although it's very clear who the father is.)



(this includes the position of Pharoah, who is appointed by the bloodline Queen).


Egyptian queens aren't of a single descent. A number of "foreign queens" and wives had children put on the throne.


You have no biological rights over your own offspring. They belong to the woman you impregnated and her family. However, you do have biological rights over your sister/niece's kids if you are appointed as a godfather to them.


Again, not true in ancient Egypt. There were official titles among the royals to indicate "close family members" (who could be called "son") and a different title ("son of my body") which was for direct offspring.


Similar inscriptions with Queen Nefertari calling Nefertari "Isis" or calling Nefertari "Hathor." It seemed odd and felt like perhaps it was a mistranslation. Why would these Queens claim that they were a fictitious goddess in the sky?

You're looking at it from YOUR viewpoint -- not theirs. These goddesses WERE real, and the king (or queen) was actually seen (and worshiped) as an aspect of the god... and were addressed like this. This is a common practice throughout the Levant (the rulers were seen as divine) and there's lots of letters from client kings and so forth, addressing these pharaohs as though they're real gods.



So if a person wants to trace the bloodline of Egyptian royalty down the appropriate maternal side as it is supposed to be done--then you find the 10,000 names of Asets/Isis/Queens. Those lists of names of "Isis" are the lists of names of HUMAN Egyptian Queens.


I think that if you look at the manuscripts more closely, you will find some problems with this idea.


When looking at particularly the Old Kingdom, or rather Old Queendom of Egypt, Egypt's matriarchy clearly had an animal clan system. Each maternal clan had a clan animal which denoted status in society. There was Scorpion clan which tended to be educated. Scorpion Clan usually held jobs as doctors, nurses, scribes, or other educated positions. There was Hippopotamus Clan which was also educated and held jobs like nurses or birthing midwives. There was Alligator Clan, Dog Clan, Cheetah Clan (foreign), and various other matrilineal clans.

And you'll really have problems there. There wasn't a "cheetah clan" though you may be confusing the Ahket lions with cheetahs. If you look at names, you will find that there's no such thing as a clan name among the Egyptians... and if you look at the pharaohs, you will find that they sometimes had more than five names including the Golden Horus name.


But the two main ruling clans of Egypt of the royal lines were either Lion Clan or Cow Clan. You can tell which clan they were by the crown upon the Old Queendom Queen. Did the Queen/Goddess wear a lion animal mask in statues? If so, she was a Lion Clan Queen. Did the Queen/Goddess wear cow horns on her crown? If so, she was a Cow Clan Queen.


Err... you really might want to read up more on the genealogy and look at the names on the statues. The queens were always depicted as humans. The goddess with the horns on her head isn't a queen -- it's Hathor. The lioness goddess was one of several, including Sekhmet (and occasionally Bast). But you have to read the inscriptions to find out which.


If Bastet was once a human Queen (and she was), who was her mother? To that we go to Giza, where a stela was taken that is on display in the Fitzwilliam Museum.


Oh dear. For one thing, Bast's name is Bast. The "Bastet" is an older semi-mistranslation. And Bast is the "Eye of Ra" not the "daughter of (etc)" in the inscriptions.


The "K" is actually an Old Queendom symbol for "S" and there's a "Q" sounding hieroglyph in front of the "I" hieroglyph.

Perhaps you might like to pick up some books on Hieroglyphs? I have a number in my library... the one I always recommend is this one -- Collier's book for beginners The sounds and symbols change through the centuries, but he has a good list of names and dates and sounds and is an excellent resource for beginners.

At the top of the Forum, I also listed links to some of the Gutenberg books on Egyptology. They're sadly out of date (and Budge has far too many errors) but you might like to read those to get a better idea of what the inscriptions say and what other things have been found (including legal documents, wills, and so forth.)




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Simple question here: Do you exist only to debunk?

I have yet to read anything on Egypt from you, that is not "defense". That is to say, you are fast to correct things according to your superior knowledge, and yet I never see any thesis or actual work you have done, though I know it must exist?

Byrd, Super Moderator at AboveTopSecret, the world's largest conspiracy domain, where can I read more of your thoughts and work on Egypt? Seriously, anyone with several books on hieroglyphics in their library, must have some ideas or a thesis? Sorry but the only thing I see you do is, "set people straight". But what have you contributed other than that? It is hard to get people to nail down their own beliefs, some "smart people" like to just hide in the bushes and then snipe with their "superior smartness" and I know you don't want to be perceived like that, being one who has the superior knowledge and library, and who is a Super Moderator at AboveTopSecret, the world's largest conspiracy domain, so thanks for any reply.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


This seems confusing:



Lineage is not traced through women (sometimes it's unclear who the mother is although it's very clear who the father is.)


If a woman gives birth to a child, shouldn't it be very clear who the mother is?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
reply to post by Byrd
 


Simple question here: Do you exist only to debunk?

I have yet to read anything on Egypt from you, that is not "defense". That is to say, you are fast to correct things according to your superior knowledge, and yet I never see any thesis or actual work you have done, though I know it must exist?


I'm not an Egyptologist, nor am I here to toot my own horn and tell you how wonderful my books are and how you must read my latest one.

I'm an anthropologist and I specialize in online cultures.

Some of the textbooks I wrote chapters for are out of print, however this scholarly book is still in print and a chapter In this book on World of Warcraft I wrote a couple of chapters in a history textbook that's out of print.

I have an early research publication on physician mortality statistics (only available in microfiche) in the Texas Journal of Epidemiology from 1982, an upcoming one on shamanism (publishing date in 2012), and papers (read and distributed at conferences) -- last one was on mapping spaces and Google Earth at an information sciences conference last year. Other conference paper topics have included one on how users search for "unknowns" presented at the Texas Library Association Annual Conference, one on how to code for the Google private search engines to only return results from certain places (like search all the government sites across the world for certain information and not be swamped by 7 million people trying to sell you stupid information) for the NCNMLG-MLGSCA conference, one on feminism and science fiction for the International Conference on the Fantastic in Arts, and a paper on a mathematically based metamodel of conversation flow and user reputation on internet boards for at the American Anthropological Association when I was getting my Masters'.


But what have you contributed other than that?


I'm currently modeling (using math and doing a species survey by hand (i.e., hiking out in the heat and hunting down bugs, mammals, reptiles) heat island effects and plants on the verges of ponds as part of some research on drought here in Texas -- I'll be supplementing this with some game cameras at my research site next week and the data will also continue to document what happens to species when the drought ends (we're in the worst drought in history right now.)

This fall, I'll be defending my dissertation proposal at the University of North Texas. If you're truly interested, you can come -- however I'll be discussing metamodels and N-P complete information networks and information grounds. Nonfiction includes a series of over 100 articles on wildscaping (done in the 1990's, which will be republished as a book when I get time to go back and scan them in and edit them

In addition, I'm doing insect surveys for several Audubon properties (adding data to a site that's concerned for the decline in numbers of monarch butterflies) and working with an international group to get Chalk Mountain designated as an Important Birding Area (which will prevent a contractor from basically blasting away a limestone mountain into a gravel pit.) My GPS data and information mapping is part of the presentation -- the landowners have been fighting this gravel company for well over 10 years, and an IBA designation (it's habitat for endangered species) will enable them to keep the gravel pit guys off their land. I will also be working with Audubon to map the "spoil islands" on the coast.

My findings as a fossil preparator for the Alamosaurus Sanjuanensis are going to be presented in a paper after we get the darn thing finished. The bones I worked on will become part of the first full-scale model of this dinosaur. I also teach classes in ecology and have taught human anatomy (at the university.) Research done for the Dallas Museum of Nature and Science included cultural attitudes toward certain display types as well as documenting the ways that doctors and nurses interacted with the specimens at the "Body Worlds" exhibit. But that was done for the museums, and not published.

Oh. I'm a moderator at Hall of Ma'at, so I have contact with several real Egyptologists and always ask them for recommendations for further reading.


It is hard to get people to nail down their own beliefs, some "smart people" like to just hide in the bushes and then snipe with their "superior smartness" and I know you don't want to be perceived like that, being one who has the superior knowledge and library, and who is a Super Moderator at AboveTopSecret, the world's largest conspiracy domain, so thanks for any reply.


...which is why I'm limiting my reply to "what have you done in the past 10 years."

I could list digs, tours, and a lot of other things (I'm a published science fiction author) but that's long and boring and not relevant.

And for the rest of you, sorry for the info dump. I really tried to keep it short.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jest3r
reply to post by Byrd
 


This seems confusing:



Lineage is not traced through women (sometimes it's unclear who the mother is although it's very clear who the father is.)


If a woman gives birth to a child, shouldn't it be very clear who the mother is?


Except that they weren't always considered important enough to list. For instance, they're not sure who Tut's mom was -- we've never found any funerary inscriptions (which would be "an offering given by the king for the ka of someone") for his mother, and there are no monuments where he's shown as a child with a specific mother. As far as is known, it's one of Ahkenaten's sisters (Ahkenaten is his father) -- but there are no inscriptions saying which one (he had five wives, including Nefertiti and quite a few consorts.)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I bet that felt good.


OP - I think your ideas are very interesting. Perhaps you could try the same thing as Byrd has for her work, and develop those ideas.

You could also do what I do, and go find people who are more interested in developing the idea. I find people like Byrd, who is a bit bored, and I drop an idea in their ear and if they are interested I later get to read about it.

The problem here is that you may be presenting your idea as an either-or idea. And in isolation, or as a mutually exclusive concept, your idea really doesn't fit all the facts that are known. You can't exclude known facts to make your ideas work.

Now sometimes this same effect surely happens in academia. If this is frustrating to the non-academic in these fields, imagine what it must be like to ram your head up against it when you are challenging lovingly held theories.

Anyways - that's my two cents.
edit on 2011/8/5 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by awareness10
 


I know that this idea that Tut is Western European is very popular here right now.

DNA is suggestive of common ancestry and not conclusive as to what ethnicity you are.

Lines sometimes die out in areas too. There are samples on record in Europe from ancient times, and no one in Europe seems to match them anymore. Applying your modern findings to assume that a group with that line NEVER lived at any time in an area is illogical.

Please let me give you a personal example. I'm a white, freckled, red-brown haired caucasian of mixed European ancestry. However, if you were to go by my somewhat unique mtDNA line in a general manner....you'd probably be claiming I was Chinese. Maybe Mongolian. If you went very general, and based it on the last ancestor we can trace on that line, you might even think I was Native American.

However, I'm just part of a small group that seems to be unique in Europe, and then ended up over in North America in the very early diaspora by some happenstance. I'm not Chinese. No one in my family has been related to someone who might have a common ancestor with the closely related line for possibly thousands of years.

People are reading more into finding of common genetic lines than is really there.

Not an expert - just an interested bystander, suggesting that you might want to dial it back and take a better look at what you are looking at. I like taking big ideas and making them into understandable stories. I hope my story helps illuminate why cherishing this idea of Tut as Western European is an over reaction even if your data were perfect.
edit on 2011/8/6 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 

Thanks for this, dynamite stuff and very well presented! It's funny because I was just reading something odd which this seems to illuminate. (Can't remember where exactly but I think maybe one of Joyce Tyldesley's books.)
Basically the "missing princes" problem... Apparently for large chunks of Egyptian history it is impossible to locate any names or images of the princes that the Pharaoh as supposed king would supposedly be having with his supposed queen and harem (also, ancient Egypt didn't have "harems," that is a concept imported from the later Turkish harems, the "women's house" in Egypt was something completely different) ... But it seems this may be one of those "problems" that's actually telling you you have a mistaken understanding of the overall situation. The "princes" can't be found in the record, because they never even existed!
edit on 9-8-2011 by ScoobyNubis because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-8-2011 by ScoobyNubis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
My guess of how patriarchy became dominant in European "civilization", based on what I know of ancient History is this:

The Cretan civilization is of direct descent from ancient Egypt, and had an influence on the Spartan society, Both were mostly female predominant in terms of politics and general civilian affairs, since3 they recognized somewhat equal rights between men and women, and had queens as rulers, at times. The male-dominating influence rather seems to be coming from the Eastern/Persian influence on Greece, but that's just a guess, since the power structure in ancient Middle-East seemed to be more male-centered.


I gave you a star just because you gave it some thought on how a matriarchy could turn into a patriachy.

Crete was actually inhabited and civilized (with agriculture) thousands of years before Egypt. A lot of people forget that at each glacial maximum, the Nile River delta dries up and the Sahara desert doubles in size. It became sand dunes at the LGM. People couldn't grow anything there--conditions too extreme. Those that were living there before the LGM had to move either further south into Africa or into the Palestine region. So while Mesopotamia and many regions in the Aegean had agriculture, people just couldn't grow anything in the Nile Delta yet. Not until c. 5000 BCE was anyone able to sustain agriculture in the Delta region of the Nile. Further south along the Nile--there was more moisture and groups living there. But the delta was uninhabitable by humans until after 7000-6500 BCE.

Crete had agriculture when they were colonized in the middle of the 8th millenium BCE. (8500 BCE) The group who colonized the island by boat was already civilized with agriculture and they had domestic livestock (imported). So their culture comes long before the delta region could be inhabited by humans. I would guess it happened the other way around. It might be possible that a group from Crete and other nearby Aegean islands like Rhodes or the Dodecanese might have migrated to the coastal Nile Delta as one of MANY different groups that colonized the coastal delta after it became fertile for agriculture. There could be dozens of different boat groups of different origins that colonized the Nile delta after it became fertile. The most obvious would be Cyprus and we know they colonized coastal delta Egypt because the plant papyrus was indigenous to the island of Cyprus which was brought by a boat group into Egypt. The domestic cat was also in Cyprus thousands of years before Egypt had domestic cats.



Republic of Athens was the first real patriarchy in the Egypt-based Ancient Greece (during the era of athenian domination), with women reduced to a mere slave/breeder role, and men taking over all aspects of politics. Under the early Roman empire, since Athens lost its influence over other Greek cities/colonies, women seemed tp have taken back some of their dignity, since they were allowed to practice science and philosophy, the most well-known example being Hypathia, of the Egyptian Roman city conclave Alexandria.


Athens most likely began as a matriarchy that was conquered by a patriarchy. The city of Athens was named for Athina, not Ares. Athina wears a soldiers helmet, because Athina used to be a goddess of war which is indicative of a female army-military. It was LATER in patriarchical Athens that the soldier qualities of Athina were reduced to the mere "goddess of wisdom"-- but be it known-- Athina was a female soldier. Which means Athens used to have a female military at some point in the past. Had Athens been founded by a patriarchy-- the city would have been named for the male god Ares. But the city wasn't named for Ares. It was named for female soldier goddess Athina with her soldier's helmet.

Old Athina-Athens is underwater and all that's left is mountainside Athens-Athina.



My take is pretty simple. Ancient Greece was a group of unified tribes of different origins. Clearly a patriarchical tribe conquered the female army of Athens which at some point was a matriarchy tribe. I often wonder if matriarchical Athina-Athens might have been conquered at some point by their exiled criminals. I know it was a practice of many matriarchies (whether Mesopotamia, Greece-Turkey, or Italy) to exile their sex offenders (their pedophiles and rapists were exiled into the mountains or deserts). And sometimes the exiled sex offenders (pedophiles and rapists) banded together into a new tribe and reconquered the groups that exiled them. Prime example would be Romulus and Remus uniting the exiled sex offenders in the mountains of Italy-to reconquer the groups that exiled them. Exiling criminal sex offenders (pedophiles & rapists) never worked as a punishment. They'd simply live in the mountains or deserts that they were exiled into and steal or kidnap women and children--then breed with them--forming new tribes.

Not sure if this is the case with Athens-Athina, but when patriarchical Athens came into existence--they sure were fond of the crimes of rape and pedophilia-- making the rapists and pedophiles the alleged "heroes", even in cases of necrophilia rape. I think the true Amazons had the right idea about how to handle rapists and pedophiles on their island. True Amazons would castrate the rapist or pedophile-- then they'd poke out their eyes to make them blind (so they could never see a woman or child again). AND THEN they'd put the sex offender on a boat and exile the blind and castrated sex offender into the mountains of Greece. Of course, even the island of the Amazons was conquered by a patriarchy and the "hero" was said to have killed the Amazon Queen then raped her dead corpse. Obviously we know that the "hero" who conquered the Amazons was a group of exiled sex offenders who banded together to conquer a matriarchy island. Wonder if the same might be true of Athina-Athens.



Through the Roman Empire and especially the later Roman Church, and the Greek-based Orthodox church, patriarchy was ENFORCED on all pagan/proto-christian societies all across Europe, as one of the main basis of the new Latin/Christian civilization.


Agreed. But Romulus and Remus united the exiled criminals living in the mountains east of present day Rome and they invaded the groups that exiled them and conquered them. Part of erasing every other groups' histories in Italy was erasing their criminality--the history of them being exiled criminals to begin with. In each Romans rewrite of histories of other groups they tried to claim the other groups were living in caves. When in reality--the other groups in Italy had been living there civilized with agriculture for thousands of years before the existence of Romulus, Remus and their united band of exiled criminal invaders.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by justanotherhuman
Great post ! You've inspired me to become a member, after reading the ATS forums for about a month.
A previous topic posted somewhere here raised the question of what the head of the sphinx could have been... maybe you have the answer - a woman.
Another one spoke of a revelation this year which would upset a large number of people but would show us what we really are.
Lastly I read, last week I think, about the Egyptian military sealing off the area around the chamber found beneath the sphinx and the removal Dr Hawass from his position ... don't know whether any of this true but it would make a great TV show !


Welcome to ATS! Never thought about the sphinx being a possible female pharoah. I just always assumed it was a man. However, I do think that Giza pyramid 2 belonged to a woman/Queen and that her pharoah may have had a mastaba outside of the pyramid. There's lots of larger pyramids that most likely belonged to Queens and not pharoahs. Pharoahs may have built the pyramids for some of the Queens, but the architect is not necessarily the owner of the pyramid.

Prime two examples would be BOTH step pyramids: the one at Meidum and the one at Saqqara. The step pyramid at Meidum only had ONE burial chamber. There was a hip-bone left in the cedar coffin inside the sole burial chamber of the pyramid. Upon DNA testing of the hip bone-- it was female. Which meant that the Step Pyramid of Meidum and its sole burial chamber housed a woman-- probably a very important Queen. And the large mastaba outside (one of the largest mastabas in Egypt): Mastaba 17 was most likely her Pharoah. (with a mummy inside with a severed-separately mummified phalice).

Same is true of the Step Pyramid of Saqqara: only one burial chamber. A foot bone was recovered from the sole burial chamber and upon DNA testing--It's a woman's! Now it may be that Pharoah Netjerikhet built the pyramid, but its not where he was buried. Pharoah Netjerikhet's Queen was buried in the Step Pyramid, not him so it should be named for her.

After all, if a Queen is buried in a tomb-- you don't name the tomb for the architect. You don't name the tomb for the man who built it. You don't name the tomb for the man who engraved the stone. You name the tomb for the person buried there: no matter who the architect was. Same is true of the two Step Pyramids-- each with only one burial chamber. Hip-bone DNA in one indicates a Queen's pyramid. Foot bone DNA in the other indicates a Queen's pyramid. They both need to be named for their Queens, not their Pharoahs.

(note on the Step Pyramid of Saqqara that every nationality has repeated the DNA test and come to the conclusion it was a woman's foot bone. The Germans, the Japanese, the Americans, the Italians, the British, the French, even Egyptian DNA tests -- it's a womans! But they still refuse to name the appropriate Queen buried in the sole chamber and keep calling it for the pharoah who built it. Who cares who the architect was? The importance is the NAME OF THE QUEEN buried there!!!!!)

Glad Hawass is gone. He was part of covering up so much stuff about who was buried where and their DNA.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1

First things first
! You have done one hell of a job. I thought I was the only one that noticed this. I visited Egypt back in June of 2001 and was there for two months. I have seen a great deal in Egypt, I was given access to certain places only a handful of people ever get to see. I came to the same conclusion you did, somethings just not right. There's a ton of stuff that's "just not right" about Ancient Egypt.

This is definitely something that should be addressed by the Egyptian Government (although I highly doubt anything will ever happen). One thing however, I hope that you understand this misrepresentation isn't anything new and was started over two thousand years ago and has only progressed since then. Once the Arabs gained complete control of Egypt, history was changed forever. I don't know who caused more damage the Church or the Arabs.


It's not just the Muslims. Part of the problem was the aristocracy (British and French) doing the "archeology" in the 1800s. They just assumed that it was men in control. Even though DNA suggests that some of these pyramid tombs, sarcophagi and coffins belonged to women-- it was British aristocracy and French aristocrats who named those burial sites for men. They didn't have DNA tests in the 1800s. And in cases where only part of the bones (not even a full skeleton-mummy) was left, those British and French aristocrats automatically named those pyramid tombs for men.

Since some of them held the title of "Sir"-- that meant/means funding (money). People don't want to admit that the aristocratic "archeologists" were wrong even in blatant cases of modern DNA proving some of them wrong. I guess they think they'll lose funding if they tell the truth.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 






I'm a moderator at Hall of Ma'at,


Boy it's is a small web, I sure would like to read that book on Shamanism.
edit on 023131p://bSunday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
Great thought provoking post! I'll have this hypothesis on the top of my mind for a while!

The only thing I am truly perplexed about is what the significance is of a bunch of soldiers saying this???

Not trying to irritate you but I can't stop wondering why everyone (because I guess I am the only one on this thread who doesn't get it) looks to military soldiers as the holders of wisdom on history, archeology, sociology, etc.!
Maybe someone could explain to me what I am missing here??


It is the job of the American military and their soldiers to know everything that the Egyptian military and other Middle East militaries are hiding in the event of war. Whether the first Gulf War or the second Gulf War.

The number one thing that the Egyptian military hides is their matriarchical history. What the soldiers had said was that the Egyptian military was trying to hide and bury modern DNA tests from different pyramids. Because some of those pyramids belonged to female Queens and not men at all.

When it comes to hiding DNA, the Egyptian military can't hide or bury DNA tests done on any mummy that is in a museum outside of Egypt. However, they can stop the publication of any DNA tests done on mummies in their own country. A prime example (not so much military but the Egyptian Board of Antiquities) would be the Japanese DNA tests in the mid-1990s. A group of Japanese scientists went into Egypt to collect DNA from every member of the 18th dynasty to determine lineage. To do so, they had to sign a contract with the Board of Antiquities. That contract stated that the Board of Antiquities had rights to stop publication. The Japanese completed their DNA tests of the entire 18th dynasty, but because of that contract they have never been able to publish the results. The Board won't let them. They gave the Japanese team the opportunity to "alter" their publication, but Japanese won't and don't do that. Japanese won't and don't alter DNA results. So they've never been able to publish. The only DNA tests that have been published on the 18th dynasty are those obtained from mummies in museums OUTSIDE of Egypt. Egypt can't stop publication in other countries when the DNA was gathered in other countries. But they can stop publication of DNA tests if a science team wants to gather DNA from mummies inside Egypt. Then each science team has to sign a contract in order to get the rights to get the DNA to begin with. And if the Board of Antiquities doesn't like your DNA results: they'll ask you to alter it or they won't let you publish.

Another thing that the Egyptian military hides is "lost cities", such as Sais. Sais was the military center of Egypt for thousands of years up through Cleopatra--the last General of Sais' army. When Romans invaded, they dammed up the Sebennytic and Saitic branches of the delta, poured oil into the river water of the braches, poured oil into water wells and they salted all the agriculural fields of the region. Then Sais was "levelled" to the ground.

What a few archeologists call "Sais" today is not Sais. Sa el Hagar is not Sais. Sa el Hagar sits on the Canobic branch of the delta. All historical records say that Sais sat between the Sebennytic and Saitic branches of the delta and the Sebennytic branch was its own branch separate from Canobic branch. (according to historian Herodotus who visited Sais many times thus he would know where it was).

On satellite, where the Sebennytic branch was it is still blocked off. And you can see on satellite that water is diverted around the oiled section by later canals. If you want to have a look you can go to Google Maps and keep zooming into the satellite image of the delta until 200 meter resolution. At that point you can see every canal built to re-divert water back into the Sebennytic branch through the center of the delta.



Most maps of the delta only show 2 branches: The Pelusian and the Canobic. Rarely do you see any online maps showing the 3rd branch through the center. MOST OF IT IS MILITARY LAND! The military has no intention of ceding the land where Sais was and a military base sits on top of it.

Sais was a military portal for thousands of years. And it still sits on military land today. No archeologist will be given permission to excavate!

There's all kinds of dirty little secrets that the Egyptian military has. And it's the job of American soldiers to know those military secrets: whether first Gulf war or second Gulf war.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
reply to post by Byrd
 


Simple question here: Do you exist only to debunk?

I have yet to read anything on Egypt from you, that is not "defense". That is to say, you are fast to correct things according to your superior knowledge, and yet I never see any thesis or actual work you have done, though I know it must exist?


You know, when I first read Byrd's post I took it that way too. And then I re-read it a few times and realized that I was mis-reading her tone in her post. For example, in her last paragraph-- at first I read it and I thought that she was 'belittling' me. And then when I went back and re-read it a few times-- I realized that she wasn't belittling me-- she was genuinely trying to be helpful.

Maybe you are making the same mistake that I made on first read of Byrd. Look at it as her trying to be helpful rather than belittling. Not sure why I misread her post that way at first, but I did.

Byrd probably just got heavy into studying the "official" publications and assumptions about Egypt and she probably feels that she is helping people with her knowledge. And I'm going to try and help her think about things...maybe things she never thought of before. Don't know if it will work. But I sure am going to try.


Originally posted by Byrd
What do you find odd about it? The lineages of the kings and queens were well known, and brothers and sisters did marry (as did fathers and daughters and so on and so forth.) Some were ceremonial "god's wives" and some were true marriages with offspring.


A Pharoah really is not the equivalent of a "King".

THE DEFINITION OF A KING is a man who rules by divine right (no matter what religion), born into the position, who's eldest male offsping inherits the throne.

That's just not the definition of a Pharoah. Whenever someone claims that the Pharoahs of Egypt had to "marry" their sisters to keep the throne...that's NOT a king. The throne in Egypt was determined by the female lineage. It was the Queens eldest daughter who became the next Queen. Whether or not the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah is irrelevant. A Queen could appoint anyone she wanted to be Pharoah. A Queen could appoint her brother, her uncle, HER SISTER, her lover. A Queen could even appoint a foreigner as Pharoah. And if the Queen wanted to, she could appoint herself Pharoah while still being the Queen.

Therefore, Pharoahs are not and never have been "kings" by the standard definition of a king. The Pharoahs position is appointed by the FEMALE BLOODLINE, not necessarily his own bloodline. Technically a Pharoah would be the equivalent of a judge--but less than the position of a US Supreme Court Justice. A Supreme Court Justice is appointed like a Pharoah, but a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life. If a Queen and her Pharoah did not get along or if the Queen felt that a Pharoah was damaging Egypt--she could strip the Pharoah of his title and appoint a new and different Pharoah. In otherwords--a Pharoah didn't have the position for life. That's less power than a Supreme Court Justice.

You can't argue with this. After all, if you claim that the Pharoahs were "marrying their sisters" to keep the throne--to keep with the bloodline--THEN YOU ADMIT THE POSITION OF PHAROAH IS DETERMINED BY THE FEMALE BLOODLINE. A Pharoah isn't necessarily born into the position, like a king would be. A Pharoah's eldest son doesn't necessarily become the next Pharoah. The next Queen appoints whomever she sees fit as best for the job. A Pharoah just doesn't fit the western idea of what a king is.

As for brothers and sisters allegedly having sex if the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah--by all means...COUGH UP SOME DNA EVIDENCE. If it allegedly happened all the time...then it should be easy for you to produce some DNA evidence to back your statement. But you won't find such DNA evidence. What you will find is all kinds of DNA evidence that Pharoahs named as suceeding Pharoahs weren't father-and-son. That when a Queen's brother is named Pharoah (allegedly a brother-sister marriage), that the succeeding Pharoah who was claimed to be the son of the Queen was not the offspring of the Pharoah.

If these alleged brother-sister marriages occured with incest children--then you should have no problem coughing up DNA evidence to back your statement. There's plenty of Pharoahs accused of marrying their sisters...plenty of brothers-sister Queens and Pharoahs accused of having incest children...so this shouldn't be a problem for you. Link to some DNA evidence if it's allegedly true.


Originally posted by Byrd
You're looking at it from YOUR viewpoint -- not theirs. These goddesses WERE real, and the king (or queen) was actually seen (and worshiped) as an aspect of the god... and were addressed like this. This is a common practice throughout the Levant (the rulers were seen as divine) and there's lots of letters from client kings and so forth, addressing these pharaohs as though they're real gods.


I guess you aren't following my logic about how humans examining an ancient civilization could make some very big mistakes about ideas of another's religion. I'll help you understand what I'm trying to illustrate in some examples.

A theorectical example of how archeologists could misinterpet ancient religion would be Abraham Lincoln. Imagine that the year is 5697 and future archeologists don't understand and can't read early 2000's English--they only know bits, pieces and fragments of early 2000s English. They are examining America and all its statues of Abraham Lincoln, Mount Rushmore, monuments, how Lincoln's face is on every penny. And how those statues and pennies have the word "god" in it. The future archeologists understand that the word "god" means some deity. So they come to the conclusion that Ancient Americans worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Each penny with Lincoln's face says "In God We Trust". And the future archeologists give as proof a bunch of pennies with Lincoln's face stamped with "In God We Trust". It's his face with the words.

Does the evidence of seeing Lincoln's face with the words "In God We Trust"--does that mean that Americans worshipped Abraham Lincoln as a god? No. He was just a beloved forefather-- a beloved leader. And shrines everywhere, Mount Rushmore, monuments for Lincoln don't mean that Americans worshipped him as a god. Americans holding pennies with Lincoln's face saying the words "In God We Trust"-- their religions would be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and some could be Deists, Atheists, and Agnostics. What it says on a penny with Lincoln's face doesn't mean that Americans worshipped him nor the religion stamped on the coin. And if a penny were found in the coffin of an Ancient American-- that doesn't indicate what religion they are at all. It could be the coffin of an Ancient Atheist-American. To say that the Atheist in the coffin worshipped the Ancient American god Abraham Lincoln because of the penny-artifact found in his burial suit--that could be a big mistake.

Another theoretical example of how archeologists could misinterpret the religious beliefs of an ancient civilization. Imagine the year is 3468 and archeologists come across the "ancient city of Memphis, Tennessee". They find museums and statues of musicians. And they keep finding all these statues/manikins, books, records of Elvis Presley. So these future archeologists seeing all these Elvis-shrines everywhere assume that there was a religion and Elvis was a god worshipped by the Ancient Americans of Memphis.

Many people who "immortalize" Elvis-- they are Christian. They worship God and Jesus. Christianity is their religion. So seeing Elvis memorabilia everywhere doesn't mean that Elvis was a religion equivalent to Christianity, nor does it mean that Elvis memorabilia is evidence that those collectors worshipped Elvis as a god and weren't Christian.Their religion would be Christianity, irregardless of Elvis-shrines The absence of Christian-god statues and the absence of Jesus-statues doesn't mean that Elvis collectors worshipped Elvis instead of God/Jesus. Elvis would be something they collect. A shrine to a loved one--not a religion.

And the same would be true of Egypt. To put out shrines for ancient and beloved Queens and Pharoahs doesn't mean that the ancient people of Egypt worshipped them anymore than Americans viewing statues of Lincoln and holding Lincoln pennies alleged worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Not even the words "In God We Trust" on the face of each coin--that doesn't indicate the personal religious beliefs of each American holding those pennies. Shrines for Egyptian leaders, Queens, Pharoahs, or other important ruling positions--doesn't necessarily mean those Egyptians worshipped those leaders.

Since each Egyptian Queen would have on some stela, some scroll, some sculpture/statute--either the word for Aset/Iset/Isis and/or the word Ht-Hr/Hathor--it's far more plausable that they were additional titles of the Queen. It would be illogical to conclude that each Queen claimed to be the "goddess Isis herself" or the "goddess Hathor herself." It is illogical to assume that each Queen would claim to be the very goddesses that they were said to have worshipped themselves. Either those Queens didn't worship Isis and Hathor and they were arrogant women claiming to be goddesses themselves...or...those words were additional titles to each Queen...or...words legitimizing those Queen's rule. Which is it? They can't worship a deity and then claim to be the very deity that they are said to worship.


Originally posted by Byrd
Err... you really might want to read up more on the genealogy and look at the names on the statues. The queens were always depicted as humans. The goddess with the horns on her head isn't a queen -- it's Hathor.

{snip to shorten}

Perhaps you might like to pick up some books on Hieroglyphs? I have a number in my library... the one I always recommend is this one -- Collier's book for beginners The sounds and symbols change through the centuries, but he has a good list of names and dates and sounds and is an excellent resource for beginners.


I ask you to think about something simple about human behavior: Do MEN in ruling positions order a bunch of statues to be made of themselves and ask the sculptor to put a fictitious FEMALE floating-spirit deity in every statue of themself?

Has this ever been something indicative of behavior of any RULING MAN, any country, any timeframe--anywhere? (other than allegedly Egypt) ? Do ruling MEN (such as Kings) order a sculptor to make a bunch of statues of them and tell the sculptor to put a FEMALE floating deity in every statue with them? There's kings in France-- did any of them make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating female goddesses? No. Did any king of England ever make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating FEMALE deities in each statue? No. How about Ancient Greece? Did any king of any tribe anywhere in Ancient Greece make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating female deities in each statue with them? No. How about anywhere in the Mesopotamia region or even China? Did any king of any group of people make a bunch of statues of themselves and in each statue they put fictitious FEMALE deity in each statue with them? No.

Ruling Men don't do that. Kings don't do that. Pharoahs don't do it either. It is not the behavior of any ruling MAN of any time frame to order a sculptor to make a bunch of statues of himself and order the sculptor to put a fictitious floating FEMALE deity in each statue with him. That means the woman in each statue isn't some fictitious floating goddess. She's a real and fleshy human being wearing a crown--a Queen. And each Queen has a name.



In the case of Pharoah Menkaure, the Queens name is at her feet in each of the three statues. If she is on the left of the statue, her name is below her feet.



When she is seated on the throne, her name is at the base of the statue just to the right of her feet.



All 3 Statues at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

Nowhere on that statue does it say "King/Pharoah Menkaure with the fictitious goddess Hathor". It just doesn't say that at all. Take a good look at the clearly visible hieroglyphs on all three statues. And anyone is welcome to google hieroglyphic alphabet charts online to take a stab and translating themselves. (The only argument I would expect is the Old Kingdom "S" symbol which is translated into the "K" symbol in the 12th dynasty) It's not difficult to read these statues. ANYONE CAN DO IT. Google a hieroglyph chart...take a stab at it..



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I apologize.. I had a much longer response written and the Internet burped and lost it all. Right now I don't have time to rewrite the whole thing, so let me address a few points and come back later on.


A Pharoah really is not the equivalent of a "King".


I'm not sure we agree on this. The dictionary definition of king is someone who is the authoritative ruler over a large area of land. Nothing is in there about oldest male offspring and divine right of rule.

Pharonic rulers are different than Chinese rulers, European rulers, rulers of the Aztecs, etc, etc. Each culture has its own differences. "King" is sort of a common lump term (as used by the dictionary, in standard American English only. My idioms, alas, are American because... that's my culture.)


Whenever someone claims that the Pharoahs of Egypt had to "marry" their sisters to keep the throne...that's NOT a king.

To the best of my knowledge they had to "seal" their position by marrying a woman of Egypt of royal blood. This limited them to their sisters and cousins for their first wife -- other wives could come from elsewhere or even be non-royals. There were, I believe, several pharaohs who had non-royal mothers.


And if the Queen wanted to, she could appoint herself Pharoah while still being the Queen.

The only ancient cases I know of this was where the queen (like Hatshepsut) was a co-regent. Cleopatra also did this. I know of only one case (Berenice IV) who had the pharaoh strangled shortly after her marriage to him and acquired a new husband/pharaoh. If you have other examples, I'd be interested to read them.


As for brothers and sisters allegedly having sex if the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah--by all means...COUGH UP SOME DNA EVIDENCE.


Tut's lineage (most accessible example online.) Great-grandparents on left, see brother-sister marriage in the middle. article and images here


And the same would be true of Egypt. To put out shrines for ancient and beloved Queens and Pharoahs doesn't mean that the ancient people of Egypt worshipped them anymore than Americans viewing statues of Lincoln and holding Lincoln pennies alleged worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Not even the words "In God We Trust" on the face of each coin--that doesn't indicate the personal religious beliefs of each American holding those pennies.

Each of those shrines had priests (heb priests and wab priests (offeratory and purification priests) just like temples to the gods, the dead pharaoh was referred to as "the Osiris" and his name was preceded by the formulaic words "the beautiful god." There's an image of a ring of the high priest of the cult of Tutankhamen around the boards somewhere which clearly show "beautiful god Tutankhamen" on the seal.

This is just one item of many similar ones involving many pharaohs.


Since each Egyptian Queen would have on some stela, some scroll, some sculpture/statute--either the word for Aset/Iset/Isis and/or the word Ht-Hr/Hathor--it's far more plausable that they were additional titles of the Queen. It would be illogical to conclude that each Queen claimed to be the "goddess Isis herself" or the "goddess Hathor herself."

Actually, we know the names and titles of the goddesses AND the titles of the queens. Cleopatra (as pharaoh) claimed to be Isis but other queens did not claim to be deities -- exactly as you say here.


Either those Queens didn't worship Isis and Hathor and they were arrogant women claiming to be goddesses themselves...or...those words were additional titles to each Queen...or...words legitimizing those Queen's rule. Which is it?


There's a third option -- you were given pictures with what you were told were translations. The pictures don't show the WHOLE inscription and one of the images has the name of a queen that is not on any queen's list (this is because whoever did this knew how to read letters but did NOT know how to read hieroglyphs and has taken letters from three different words and created a name.)



I ask you to think about something simple about human behavior: Do MEN in ruling positions order a bunch of statues to be made of themselves and ask the sculptor to put a fictitious FEMALE floating-spirit deity in every statue of themself?


Speaking as a cultural anthropologist, I can say that you would be darned surprised at some of the things the rulers do and symbols they use to legitimize themselves. And, by the way, it's not "every statue." The three examples you give were commemorative statues showing that the nome had given tributes to the Pharaoh and to Isis -- they're not portrait statues. They had a political agenda.



In the case of Pharoah Menkaure, the Queens name is at her feet in each of the three statues. If she is on the left of the statue, her name is below her feet. Nowhere on that statue does it say "King/Pharoah Menkaure with the fictitious goddess Hathor". It just doesn't say that at all.


It says (under his feet) King of upper and lower Egypt Menkaure, Horus name Kakahet (his full name)
Next to his name (in the center) is the Hathor inscription which starts at the right and runs left (and down in columns)... without my books at hand I can't translate further except to note that the names of both Horus and Osiris appear. To the right of Menkaure's name is a set of columns that start at the left and run right (so we have mirror writing. Very common in Egyptian art) The goddess with the headdress is Bat, chief goddess of an important nome (district) -- again, without my books all I can tell is that I see the inscription of the king's name but no titles in this inscription and that an offering is being given (the pyramid shaped thing means "offering" -- it's the shape of the offeratory bread loaves.) Menkaure is referred to on this side as "The Horus, King of upper and Lower Egypt"

...and I hope you'll forgive the poor translation. I'm away from my house and my books.
en.wikipedia.org...:Menkaura.jpg



Take a good look at the clearly visible hieroglyphs on all three statues. And anyone is welcome to google hieroglyphic alphabet charts online to take a stab and translating themselves. (The only argument I would expect is the Old Kingdom "S" symbol which is translated into the "K" symbol in the 12th dynasty) It's not difficult to read these statues. ANYONE CAN DO IT. Google a hieroglyph chart...take a stab at it..


The person who did this gave only a part of the evidence (like reaching into a newspaper, pinching a piece of the paper between thumb and finger and tearing out that small section and handing it to you as evidence.) The statues can be seen here on the Wikipedia articles, so a better view of some of the inscriptions is possible.

Here's the full one: from wikipedia and you can see that much of the inscription is left off. It's similar to the other one, with Menukaure's name and his Horus name there, and Hathor and her titles ("Beautiful" is one of them) and the nome goddess. Again, we see that an offering is being given to the king and I'm sure it records what was being given somewhere.

I'll write more later.

The "female lineage" had been considered a viable one for many years -- until the 1980's, when more evidence of family links and relationships moved it out of favor.
edit on 15-8-2011 by Byrd because: (stupid formatting)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
UPDATE...


hint.. it wasn't Obama ..
edit on 24-8-2011 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply's?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by awareness10
reply's?


Well, I can't view the video to really respond to it. It takes long enough for me just to view the main topics page with all the ad servers bogging it down. It takes 14 minutes (1.1MB) just to view the 2nd set of topics starting with the Bully Pulpit. Then not until 21 minutes (1.74MB) on the main topics page can I view the 3rd set of topics starting with General Chit Chat. That's just to see the topic forums, meanwhile the ad servers have switched ads about a dozen times. So...I turn video off or it would take forever just to view the topics and forums.

Byrd, I guess wants the thread dead. It doesn't conform to standard Egyptology in Byrd's eyes. When in reality, there's not a single Archeologist and not a single Forensics Expert that considers Egyptology a "real" science.
1. They claim to have "translated" the Egyptian language from a cattle census--the Rosetta Stone and thought it was a list of "kings" when it was a list of cattle owners and how many cattle they owned.
2. Egyptologists made up a lineage that doesn't conform to DNA evidence and rather than accept that they were wrong and properly assign lineage on DNA-they'd rather make up stories about switching bodies or lie about DNA or Egypt refuses to allow those with proper DNA testing facilities to take DNA samples out of the country.
3. Egyptologists made up assigned "king" dates that do not conform to carbon dating samples. And rather than correct the dates and lineage, they just make up their own.
4. Egyptologists gender structure doesn't add up to the bodies in each tomb or pyramid and rather than accept that they got the gender wrong they make up stories about bodies/mummies being switched all the time, even if a sarcophagus was never opened in the past until present.
5. Primarily Christian European archeologists created a fictitious idea of Egyptian religion based off Christian Bible references of polytheism. Unfortunately..they went overboard. Some Egyptologists find a shrine for a mere human midwife and they claim that it was a shrine for an Egyptian goddess. Thus what's called Egyptian religion has about a 90% chance of having no resemblance to their real religion. And someone in the present swearing up and down that they know for certain what people worshipped 2000 years ago (when they weren't around to witness their religious beliefs) look all the more hoakie.

So the rest of Archeologists deem "Egyptology" a joke since it doesn't conform to archeological standards...Egyptologists jump in swearing up and down that they are right, even though it doesn't conform to archeological standards. And if a Criminal Forensics Expert were to comment on "Egyptology"...they'd know that the claims made by Egyptologists could never be used in a court of law. It's that hoakie.

Geez...you'd think that since this is an ATS forum that some would be more open to alternate translations of hieroglyphs...alternate DNA evidence...alternate explanations of Egyptian lineage...especially since most people in the forum already disagree with the standard Egyptology explanation of everything. But I guess Byrd wants to claim the standard Egyptology explanation as valid--so why bother to be on ATS?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   


When in reality, there's not a single Archeologist and not a single Forensics Expert that considers Egyptology a "real" science.


I did when I was an Archaeologist - so that false claim collapses, LOL care to provide evidence for that statement...not a single one? You sure about that? LOL



They claim to have "translated" the Egyptian language from a cattle census--the Rosetta Stone and thought it was a list of "kings" when it was a list of cattle owners and how many cattle they owned.


Ah, no they translated the Rosetta stone using a language they already knew, ancient Greek - and its a royal decree

Rosetta Stone translation

No idea where you're getting this 'cattle owners' idea from......but you may be confusing the RS with some other document



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 
I am Mohawk, a woman, a Matriarch, and shocked by most people’s blanket interpretations of our Matriarchal tribes and societies. If you want to know the true meaning of Matriarchy, how Patriarchy makes people crazy, how hieroglyphs turned into the written word, why Hindu's revere cows, and how humanity went from 'farmer' to 'hunter/gatherer'--then keep reading.

Unfortunately many natives are no longer familiar with their true roots because they're tainted by the 'white man'--even if they don't believe they are. If you've "read" about native culture, it's tainted.

Women earned their high position of authority because: women are right brained, men are left. After studying neurology, organic chemistry, microbiology, parasitology, and both modern and ancient medicines, I've been able to unearth some fairly interesting truths regarding the human brain and body 'modern science' has miraculously kept secret for thousands of years--facts many Matriarchal societies knew about, especially Egyptians:

1. Right brain is female in humans because it has more Estrogen receptors.
---->Right Brain finds and stores every pattern you encounter through ALL senses.
---->Right Brain is the 'spiritual' area of the brain
---->Right Brain is where human "instincts" are--your instincts are subconscious pattern recognition Left brain can't/isn't acknowledging.
---->Right Brain houses the majority of your memory.
---->Your Right Brain works much like a computer provided Left Brain or Limbic doesn't take over.
---->Right Brain is the NON-SPEAKING side of the brain
---->Right Brain is passive, non-aggressive and 'weaker' than the left

2. Left Brain is male in humans because it has more Androgen receptors.
---->Left Brain is logical, creating 'sequences' out of borrowed patterns from Right Brain--making Left Brain the creator of art, science, etc NOT the other way around where Right Brain is assumed to "create."
---->Left Brain is the “religious” side of the brain
---->Left Brain is the SPEAKING side of the brain
---->Left Brain is where the Ego is housed
---->Left Brain is stronger than the right.

This is why Matriarchal Right Brain societies used pictures to communicate -- 'whole pattern' designs. Patriarchal people are detail oriented, ego-centric, valuing sequence -- why lettering, hierarchy, power & politics rule. In order for a pattern to exist, reality must repeat itself again and again. Therefore, your Right Brain is your truth. Logic without Truth = LIES. In Left Brain Patriarchal societies Right Brain activities are disregarded, therefore: lies, manipulation, and secrecy dominate in their Governments and social structure. Right Brain Matriarchal societies are Spiritual, peaceful people with balance among the sexes. There is only 1 reason Matriarchal groups become domineering or violent....

Stories on the Pyramid walls depict 'Adam & Eve.' Instead of holding an apple, Eve should be holding a piece of cow's meat.

All meat, especially cow's meat--has parasites the worst of which is the Toxoplasma Gondii. According to an NIH study: "Latent Toxoplasmosis and Humans" linked to BiPolar, Schizophrenia, Depression, OCD, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Epilepsy, headache/migraines, mental retardation/low I.Q., suicide, risk of traffic accidents, sexual dysfunction/perversion, etc. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

Parasites became known as the source of all disease in the 1880's by Dr. Theobald Smith. Much of his research is referenced in The Manual of the International List of Causes of Death. (1929 Edition pg 285 -- books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false).

When a human brain becomes infected with parasites, chemical imbalances occur: parasites chew through brain cells, urinate/defecate inside us creating an anaerobic (acidic), ‘diseased’ environment. This creates mental instability, disorder and (painful) death. This happened during ancient Egypt and is still happening today. After extensive research into ancient cultures and medicine: Hinduism worshiped cows because as soon as people started eating them, they went crazy--and became violent or "evil." Parasites compel humans to keep eating meat creating more hunters than farmers; parasites change your brain chemistry compelling you to crave the foods THEY desire like meat and Sugar. Eating meat means adding to their numbers.

Many Matriarchal societies became domineering or violent because they ate meat—this allowed the segue into Patriarchy. Real Matriarchal societies are always spiritual/peaceful. When Right Brain is weak or diseased Left Brain (Patriarchy) takes over. The real power lies in developing our whole brains, from Right to Left; but that means Matriarchy ~ True Matriarchy. Not the interpreted version of written text.





new topics
top topics
 
73
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join