Ancient Knowledge Pt.5 - Energy, Coral Castle, Tablet of Shamash, Saturn, Magnetism & Mythology IS H

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by Byrd
 


Here's the problem I have with ALWAYS taking the experts at their word... some are wrong and wrong often. Do I know cuneiform, no, but I have to accept the fact that there is a good possibility of some information being lost in translation.

Which is why I posted the link to the transliteration (changing the cuneiform symbols to letters) and then suggested looking at cuneiform dictionaries so you could do some random checking of the translation. That way you could tell if it was talking about "sound waves" or something similar or "restoring a temple."

You can even check the words to see what other texts they're found in (this prevents someone from faking a translation...because the words aren't unique. If they translate them wrong in one place, it shows up as a glaring error in other documents.)


And that's one of the points of the series is that 'conventional wisdom' and 'mainstream science' cannot fully be trusted and has hole and its own agenda. Science has to be updated all the time and even experts contradict other experts.

That's because we as humans have to discover knowledge, and that's a process that never ends (and will never end.) If it wasn't being updated, you should start being suspicious that someone's controlling the agenda.


So its easy for me to keep an open mind with that in mind.

Yeah...but the originator of those videos didn't bother to actually check any facts. He just assumed that nothing is known about any of those things and goes on to tell you HIS interpretation. He looks for pretty pictures that go along with the theme of his ideas and ignores the labels that are clearly put on the pictures and the writing below that refers to the pictures above.

That's like randomly grabbing pictures off Facebook, ignoring what the tags and messages are, and constructing a story about physicists changing people into insects using Facebook pictures.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


To say there is no fact checking in the series is quite a statement to say the least. Though I appreciate your input (and this is much bigger than translating a tablet), we're viewing this concept from two different angles. I wonder what it would take, given what one"knows", to accept a fundamental change in the way we perceive our world in terms of science and laws. Time? The right person delivering the message?

I'll leave with circular reasoning


Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".[6]


Whatever you are familiar with regarding Egyptian and Ed's building methods, they are only theories. Its funny that you say 'its like taking pictures off of facebook and making your own story and ignoring the tags and messages' and then you say there are pictures of Ed and his tripod and wench and leap to that is all he had to build Coral Castle. It seems as though you have only watched part 5, and not the whole series... even though I'm sure nothing will matter.
Actually, just watch part 3. I would like to know your thoughts.


wiki
edit on 4-1-2013 by six67seven because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-1-2013 by six67seven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Well, done watching and I must say that I am a bit disappointed. The earlier versions have in one or the other way made me wanna see more. They lit a spark. This one didn't' ad much at least for me. Hoping for the next one to deliver!



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I have been waiting for this part!!

Thank you for posting! Can't believe it took me two days to find this!

I'll watch it tonight and comment in the morning.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

....and (in case you're wondering), the "limestone" the video talks about is actually coral, which is different than limestone.


You Sir have no clue what you're talking about and it seems like that you didnt even watch part 5, and if you did then you should listen more carefully, because the video itself tells you why coral and limestone are the same or lets say share internal similarities. Even though they're given different names they both share the same internal crystal structure. That's the point here and you seem to have missed it even though the video clearly tells you so. You can research this for yourself, its a fact. I just thik people should pay more attention, because comments like yours can shoo people away and this video, damn this whole series deserves MORE attention. That's what i think. I've been paying attention for months now and usually im not the type to register anywhere, but this time i had to, because i think its unfair to discredit this video in such an ignorant manor. And this is in no way meant to be offensive. Just saying.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
video of Cymatic frequency experiment




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by unique777
 

Thank you unique, my thoughts also. I know a nuclear engineer which I had this same discussion with and no result at all. his arguement was along the lines of humans not able to handle the db, I tried to explain ultraphonics and wave control along with magnetic manipulation, got the huh?... My theory is based on the higher frequency ranges, above(maybe eons above) 40khz, that we cannot hear due to limits on our ears. Take low frequency and the wave patterns are pronounced, high sine wave movement, like a rolling hill, high hz makes the wavepattern much less pronounced, the higher you go the less pronounced the sinewave, all due to time measurements. Now find where one low hz and one very high hz work together to be utilized as energy dissipation. just a theory....



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by Byrd
 


To say there is no fact checking in the series is quite a statement to say the least. Though I appreciate your input (and this is much bigger than translating a tablet), we're viewing this concept from two different angles. I wonder what it would take, given what one"knows", to accept a fundamental change in the way we perceive our world in terms of science and laws. Time? The right person delivering the message?


Actually, you may not be aware of how I think about the world.



I'll leave with circular reasoning


Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning".


The scientific method is not the ONLY method by which science is done, nor is it the only way that the scientific method is evaluated.


Whatever you are familiar with regarding Egyptian and Ed's building methods, they are only theories.

Actually, I am familiar with the writing and pictures and photographs. There's photographs of Ed and his construction and gear, and I can safely say the Egyptians didn't use those (there's drawings and notes of some of their techniques that was done by the ancient Egyptians themselves.)


Its funny that you say 'its like taking pictures off of facebook and making your own story and ignoring the tags and messages' and then you say there are pictures of Ed and his tripod and wench and leap to that is all he had to build Coral Castle.

There are a number of photos of him (including the one posted in this thread which shows a transmission gear being used) and his tools (including crowbars and hammers. Coral Castle itself has some of his construction gear there. The Egyptians didn't use iron tools, or truck winches. They didn't use pulleys, though they did use levers and ropes.


It seems as though you have only watched part 5, and not the whole series... even though I'm sure nothing will matter.
Actually, just watch part 3. I would like to know your thoughts.


My views on part 3 (actually on the whole series) are not kind. There's nothing new there, nothing revolutionary, it's just put together in a Youtube video and wrapped up with a bit of marketing. This material has been out there for years, and as with the stela, it's a mix of misunderstood science and lazy research (because it would have taken time to look up what was on the stela in the British Museum and confirm the translation. It's not impossible, but it would have taken half a day to do some basic checking.)

However, lest you think I'm cranky, I do invite you to check up on the material. Look for the ORIGINAL sources (museums, document archives, etc) and look at the full objects. For the physics part, go look up the papers (and not the pictures) and look at the conditions and limitations -- ORIGINAL material (not news stories or third or fifth hand websites.)

When I see a strange picture, I find out "where's the original" and "who says what about it" and "what does the whole object look like" and "where is it from" and "how old is it" and "what else do we know."

I learn a lot that way. For instance, I hadn't seen the cuneiform tablet we were discussing before this week, but it's a really nice one and beautifully preserved, so I took the time to look it up and read about it instead of (as the author did) looking at it and making whatever associations I could make from modern things that interested me.

So I invite you and others to look up the ORIGINAL material for yourself. Including the physics and math (or especially that) because there's a lot of people who look at pictures and think they know what's going on with the physics and math (and if they READ the research, they'd find out how wrong their intuition was.)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by unique777

....and (in case you're wondering), the "limestone" the video talks about is actually coral, which is different than limestone.


You Sir have no clue what you're talking about and it seems like that you didnt even watch part 5, and if you did then you should listen more carefully, because the video itself tells you why coral and limestone are the same or lets say share internal similarities.


There's multiple types of limestone (see Wikipedia article) and they're all very very different in strength and composition.

I'd like to suggest something fun to you -- go look up a geologic map of your area and find out how many different limestones there are (I'm assuming you live near some), and then go on a delightful afternoon field trip and go look at some up close. Take along a hand lens and some vinegar, look at how fast (or slow) they dissolve, how their hardness is different, how different they sound when you tap them with a hammer.

...and when you see how different they are (and you should try it with the coral limestones in Florida (which the videographer didn't do... he was just copying images and videos from wherever he found them)), perhaps you'll see why it really IS that bad.

But... don't just rely on my saying it -- go out and look at the limestone for yourself! Tap the rocks and hear the sounds! Even within one area, the unevenness of the composition means that a chunk from one section of limestone can sound very different from another chunk of that same limestone that was 20 feet away (it can sound the same, of course, but if you've tapped many rocks (which you do when you're looking for fossils, I should add) you can sure tell a difference in the tone.)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by unique777

....and (in case you're wondering), the "limestone" the video talks about is actually coral, which is different than limestone.


You Sir have no clue what you're talking about and it seems like that you didnt even watch part 5, and if you did then you should listen more carefully, because the video itself tells you why coral and limestone are the same or lets say share internal similarities.


There's multiple types of limestone (see Wikipedia article) and they're all very very different in strength and composition.


I'd like to point out that you didn't deny not having actually watched the video you're commenting on.

I'm surprised that you seem to have figured out just from a few photos how Ed L. moved all those blocks. The reason I say that is because after reading reviews by professional stone movers and builders they don't know how he did it. Particularly the heavy gate you said is SO easy to do. It's not easy today with the most advanced equipment. We don't know how the few other examples around the world were done either.

I'm curious too why a moderator on a board like this would be so quick to dismiss the possibility of any mystery around the building of Coral Castle. Being able to look at a few pictures and recognizing some familiar equipment and making a guess as to how it was used is not the same thing as ACTUALLY knowing specifically how to rig something up so one man could move those blocks.

I personally try to never deny my own profound ignorance about many things. This usually keeps me from confusing having a theory about how something might have been done with KNOWING how it was done.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Dude, what the heck are you talking about? You STILL don't get it. It's about CRYSTAL STRUCTURES and you did not watch part 5, thats for sure and if you did you failed at comprehending and listening. And after all these errors in understanding and confusing / misleading talk of yours you go on to say that there is nothing new in this video? Are you kidding me? I don't expect you to believe me but i actually know killuminati personally and his crystallographic space group discovery is 4 months old, there's alot of information coming that you will hardly find anywhere else. And why the heck are you talking about the british museum? you call that a reliable source? Seriously? It's not even about the inscription, you have basicly confused everything and you failed at comprehending big time, no offense but it is what it is. If killuminati wasn't so busy and would know about people like you talking utter nonsense about his videos he would crush you immediately in a few comments, take it easy.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by unique777

....and (in case you're wondering), the "limestone" the video talks about is actually coral, which is different than limestone.


You Sir have no clue what you're talking about and it seems like that you didnt even watch part 5, and if you did then you should listen more carefully, because the video itself tells you why coral and limestone are the same or lets say share internal similarities.


There's multiple types of limestone (see Wikipedia article) and they're all very very different in strength and composition.

I'd like to suggest something fun to you -- go look up a geologic map of your area and find out how many different limestones there are (I'm assuming you live near some), and then go on a delightful afternoon field trip and go look at some up close. Take along a hand lens and some vinegar, look at how fast (or slow) they dissolve, how their hardness is different, how different they sound when you tap them with a hammer.

...and when you see how different they are (and you should try it with the coral limestones in Florida (which the videographer didn't do... he was just copying images and videos from wherever he found them)), perhaps you'll see why it really IS that bad.

But... don't just rely on my saying it -- go out and look at the limestone for yourself! Tap the rocks and hear the sounds! Even within one area, the unevenness of the composition means that a chunk from one section of limestone can sound very different from another chunk of that same limestone that was 20 feet away (it can sound the same, of course, but if you've tapped many rocks (which you do when you're looking for fossils, I should add) you can sure tell a difference in the tone.)


Your last post is beyond ridiculous, what's got all that to do with anything? Tapping stones, are you serious? Of course every single rock will sound different when you tap it, that's just plain logical. ITS ABOUT CRYSTAL STRUCTURES dude. Seems like you really dont get it. There's something very special about crystal structures, that's all im gonna say since im not even sure if you would be able to comprehend this stuff, and before my post is taken out of context, its in no way meant to attack you or offend you, but your comments make absolutely no sense, you couldnt even comprehend the video and your comments might scare others off when this video deserves way more attention. Take it easy tho.
edit on 5-1-2013 by unique777 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2013 by unique777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by unique777
Of course every single rock will sound different when you tap it, that's just plain logical. ITS ABOUT CRYSTAL STRUCTURES dude.

And crystals resonate to a certain frequency depending on size and internal impurities.

Limestone may have crystals in it, but it's not a crystal. Matrix surrounding a crystal affects its vibration.


Seems like you really dont get it.


Oh, I do. I've worked with crystals and gemstones (as a jeweler and rockhound) and had to learn the properties of many kinds of rock as well as the types of crystals (cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, etc.) I've looked at them under microscopes and dissolved limestone in vinegar to see the microfossils. I used them in crystal healing ceremonies, and have used them for dowsing. I have a small collection of amethyst, feldspar, gypsum, and quartz crystals that I picked up in the field. I've made a crystal radio. I taught geology in junior high school.

This is more "hands on" experience than the videomaker has. I don't think he's made a crystal radio -- though I have. Have you tried it? It's fun, quick, and cheap to build one for yourself

Here is a very EASLY (and cheap) way to check the electrical (resonating) properties of ANY substance:

I encourage you to test what I'm saying by trying it for yourself and measuring the power.

Then calculate the dimensions of a setup that would run my laptop (19 volts, 2.3 amps.)
edit on 5-1-2013 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AussieAmandaC
Thanks for posting this op
I'm going to have to watch the other eps now for sure.

A way to check dates

Info and Saturn i was looking at the other day

Now add this
link

Now go to my first link with the solar system and go foward to 27 October 2020, I wonder what they think they will do will all that directed energy?


Awesome links! Thanks for sharing AussieAmandaC! I definitely see the alignment in Oct. of 2020, but check out 2014. Sorry if this is off topic a little bit but take a look on your first link at next New Years Eve (2013) - January 3, 2014. Could it be the end of the world....... Again? Probably not, but with that kind of planetary line up let the fear mongering begin....... Again!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Byrd, understanding your chemical reactive point, and your tapping of the various rocks, are you trying to say, and unsuccessfully to some, that with composition and density as a guide, that each "stone" has a point that is is manipulative by frequency and or magnetics? therefore the device, theoretically, would have to have variable ranges in Hz and wavepatterns and strength? Undertood we are talking about Coral here, but this may have connections as it answers the question of few doing the absolute impossible...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by unique777
Of course every single rock will sound different when you tap it, that's just plain logical. ITS ABOUT CRYSTAL STRUCTURES dude.


This is more "hands on" experience than the videomaker has.


That's a very arrogant thing to say, you know that right? How could you possibly know how deep KTM's knowledge goes? But well, if it feeds your ego and makes you feel good, then go for it, you are still wrong though, take it easy friend.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by teslahowitzer
reply to post by Byrd
 

Byrd, understanding your chemical reactive point, and your tapping of the various rocks, are you trying to say, and unsuccessfully to some, that with composition and density as a guide, that each "stone" has a point that is is manipulative by frequency and or magnetics?


Yes, each one has unique frequency properties. Limestone in general does not have magnetic properties, though you can have iron nodules in it (in which case, a section of it might have magnetic properties.)



therefore the device, theoretically, would have to have variable ranges in Hz and wavepatterns and strength?

Yep. As any sculptor or stonemason can tell you.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


gotcha, now that being said, take an element or stone and encase or frame it in an element that is magetic manipulative (it could even be as simple as an ice handle) and you can levitate or move it, This is my take on this, and I think it could be related to answering the unbelieveable. Your stones are the structure, but they can be moved by other means if they have no iron, am I making any sense?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by teslahowitzer
reply to post by Byrd
 


gotcha, now that being said, take an element or stone and encase or frame it in an element that is magetic manipulative (it could even be as simple as an ice handle) and you can levitate or move it,


At a rather huge cost of energy because then you have to move the material AND the stone it's enclosing. So, basically, you could move a block more quickly with some winches and a lever rather than encasing it somehow in enough magnetic material and hauling it onto something like a maglev device. Furthermore, given the limitations of any electromagnetic energy (the power drops by the square of the distance... so whatever amount of energy it took to raise it one foot off the ground, you need 4 times that amount of power to raise it 2 feet and 16 times that power to raise it 3 feet (whether you're doing it by sound or magnetics or whatever. This is the "inverse square law.")

Compare that energy expenditure to using a pulley, where you can raise a device using 60% LESS energy (or even less) -- the method used by Leeskin, by the way.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


certainly mechanical movement is basicall plausable, my point is, using complex placement, what extent would be required to say, finish the last 10% of a pyramid?, extreme ramps, frames, pullies,manpower, etc.. with our level of technology, limited to what we know, these builders could have energy levels and manipulations technology that could do these tasks with very minimal output from a device. Like comparing a nuclear reactor to an equallivent campfire.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join