Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by undo
Is this Mr. White a Jesus freak trying to save Christianity from the Ancient Aliens taking away their Yahweh?
Well he's definitely a christian (so am I) and so is Dr. Heiser. The issue at hand is, researchers and scholars of all stripes have witnessed the
spate of questionable material coming out of ufology, such as Sitchin's contention that the star chart in the now infamous "nibiru" cylinder seal,
depicted our solar system with an additional planet (nibiru). This is easily proven to be untrue. It's more than likely depicting the Pleaides,
with one star in particular being showcased, as the glyph for the sun was different than the glyph for a star and the central glyph on the cylinder
seal is the glyph for a star not for the sun (even though we know the sun is a star, the sumerians used different glyphs for them). therefore, the
cylinder seal is not depicting the solar system, but rather a group of stars with one star being prominent from the others. (although the dots are not
glyphs for stars, i'm assuming here that the artist wanted to call attention to a particular star in a cluster of stars, such as the pleaides).
HOWEVER, people have begun to over-react to the data, taking extreme positions, pro or con, of anything sumerian
, as a result. This is just as
evident in the christian scholarly community as it is in any other group of scholars. My position in the thread is, if you're gonna debunk it, your
debunking has to be better than the original thing you debunked, otherwise you're wasting people's brainspace.
for example, Mr. White used a photograph of a stone that had mortar applied to a surface, to suggest it was evidence of having been drug to the site.
That's not what the photo shows at all. I even prove it using the same resource he was using, which I got from Dr. Heiser's website. All I had to do
was read it to learn why the stone looked as it did. I have no idea why White decided to use it in the section of the video where he proclaims that
there's evidence of drag marks on the stones, other than he appears to be an example of reverse-Sitchin/reverse-Ancient Aliens. Why does there have
to be a reverse? Can we not just look at what the material actually says and what the evidence suggests and draw reasoned conclusions? Do we have to
throw out everything Sitchin/Ancient Aliens said, because he (or they) wasn't completely right? If science operated in such a manner, we'd still be
in the dark ages.
Who taught the Inca ...
in the pdf linked above, the archaeologist describes the inca (who were not the tiahuancans) as having drug their stones to their building site. then
he goes on to describe large surfaces on the stones showing evidence of drag marks at tiwanaku as well. the issue i have with that is, it doesn't
stipulate what part of tiwanaku. as i've already mentioned, puma punku is a mile away and very different from the main buildings at tiwanaku. also,
the inset picture that supposedly shows drag marks, according to White's suggestion, would then have to be suggested to have been drug to the site on
the upper edge, which is not a large surface face but an edge. why would they do that? the white appearance of the surface, is the mortar, not
wearing of the stone. i don't think the archaeologist would've used that picture to suggest it was evidence of drag marks on large surface faces of
stones at puma punku, since that's not a large surface area and if it were evidence of a drag mark, would be even more ludicrous as dragging a heavy
stone on its edge, would cause it to make a deep groove in the soil, eventually making it impossible to move. simple physics. (not to mention, the
balancing act that would be necessary to keep it on its edge thru the whole dragging process). it's worn, yes, or smoothed, perhaps, but the white
appearance is mortar, not evidence of wear and tear from dragging.
lack of clarification is what keeps the whole topic less than revealing
edit on 29-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)