The Real Meaning of the Statues on Easter Island

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: KKLOCO

Sorry, no funerary texts in the Giza plateau pyramids.Case close.

You are correct and the truth is kept hidden behind an information wall. Why do you think the USA runs the digs in Egypt. Its not from the kindness of heart. Its for control.

Are you aware that you completely fabricated the above statements?

Could you describe in your own words what the "information wall" is and who exactly controls it. Further more, how do they manage to maintain such a universal degree of secrecy, especially when considering the "obedience" that would have to be on display between nations who could not be less friendly towards one another on a good day, let alone on a day where they could tout an amazing breakthrough in peeking towards out own past. When you get down to brass tacks, it's an incredible amount of power. How is that maintained? I certainly haven't been receiving my 'toe the line' checks from TPTB.

What exactly lead you to the conclusion that the U.S. controls all archaeological/anthropological/paleontological etc.... digs and sites? See, if the US or any other western nation for that matter, were to find human remains, they would be sent for an osteological study. It's a standard practice world wide, except by Egyptian Egyptologist's that is. Up until 5 or 6 years ago, human remains not associated with a major find were considered trash and promptly tossed aside.

Short version of the story....Egyptian Dept. of Antiquities controls all digs and sites in Egypt. There are many foreigners running digs but they are answerable to the Egyptian government who controls all access, all permits...everything.

Not the Americans.

a reply to: peter vlar

You want to tell me I have fabricated a statement before trying to look for evidence. Its looks to me you have made you own mind up without trying to see the information on both sides. From this perspecitve it is not worth entering into a dialogue with you. Its a waste of time.

So in the politest of terminology trot on please and dont waste my time.

However for the causal reader that views these board I will elobarate a little.

Information is power and just like the money and power of the world is controled by an elite few. Information is no different.

and our true history is no different. In Egypt this is controlled like such:

“The SCA follows the orders of foreigners from whom it has received help in guarding their interests.” Indeed, though one might think that the Egyptians are in control of their own country, archaeologically speaking, that appearance can be deceptive.

www.eyeofthepsychic.com...

The “puppet master” organisation is the American Research Center in Egypt. The ARCE’s website states: “Among ARCE’s many great achievements is our relationship with the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) within the Egyptian Ministry of Culture, without whom our work would not be possible. ARCE is viewed as making important contributions that serve to help Egypt directly in its pursuit of cultural heritage preservation.”2

Further in respect to science and control the information wall is sturdy. You try and presenting archeoligcal papers that possesses ooparts. (things that dont fit in) Many have lost there careers and stature for doing so it is well documented.


This is a simple example science allows for the controling of infromation in a type of scienfic dicatoriship. It is based on unproven philliphopy. But it never use to be so buttoned up. That why if you go back in time and look at older papers there are far more anomalies. (historical for example) The standard exscuse for this is that its old science. Science is science if you stick to the methodology the results should be the same.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: peter vlar

You want to tell me I have fabricated a statement before trying to look for evidence.

You made the claims, the onus lies on you and you alone to support them. You ma de claims above without doing such because you can't find clips to support your ludicrous assertion. Furthermore, you're continuing our willful ignorance by claiming that I didn't try to look for evidence. I'm a Paleoanthropologist. I didn't get my degree at the University of Youtube like you seem to.

looks to me you have made you own mind up without trying to see the information on both sides. From this perspecitve it is not worth entering into a dialogue with you. Its a waste of time.

Of course it's not worth it for you to expose how willfully ignorant and clueless you truly are for all to see.

in the politest of terminology trot on please and dont waste my time.

no, I think I'll continue to call you out on lies and exaggerations since you wouldn't know science if it sat on your lap.

for the causal reader that views these board I will elobarate a little.

Information is power and just like the money and power of the world is controled by an elite few. Information is no different.

and our true history is no different. In Egypt this is controlled like such:

YOU claimed that the Americans controlled all archaeological sites. Does it hurt your back to carry those goal posts around because you're constantly moving them in order to avoid addressing your false claims.

in respect to science and control the information wall is sturdy. You try and presenting archeoligcal papers that possesses ooparts. (things that dont fit in) Many have lost there careers and stature for doing so it is well documented.

So document them.... support your claims. Just once.

is a simple example science allows for the controling of infromation in a type of scienfic dicatoriship. It is based on unproven philliphopy. But it never use to be so buttoned up. That why if you go back in time and look at older papers there are far more anomalies. (historical for example) The standard exscuse for this is that its old science. Science is science if you stick to the methodology the results should be the same.

the only people who believe this garbage are people who have never studied the which they loathe. If you want be so informative to you "casual readers" why do you not mention that your entire position is built entirely upon confirmation biases based on your theological proclivities?

You aren't here fr a discussion, you're here to push an anti science agenda chichis pitiful when one doesn't understand the basics of the science they loathe.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: peter vlar

........ From this perspecitve (sic) it is not worth entering into a dialogue with you. Its a waste of time.

Hey how come Peter gets this great gift and I don't? I already gifted you with my steely "you're not worth talking too" and have faithfully ignored your attempts to engage -so why haven't you returned the favor towards me?

Oh I know you're biased against Archaeologists but fall over backwards for those uppity Paleoanthropogist eh?

I demand that you ignore me the same way you SAY you will Peter.

Immediately

originally posted by: peter vlar


You aren't here fr a discussion, you're here to push an anti science agenda chichis pitiful when one doesn't understand the basics of the science they loathe.

Pretty much my same conclusion for the same reasons. I don't care much for ATS it has no 'ignore' function that I am aware of - if it does please tell me how to turn it on!

I don't know why the above posts have not been cautioned for drifting off topic...however, the Easter Island statues are a marvel of engineering, in my opinion and I'd like to know how an island race, supposedly isolated, managed to construct them and raise them into place.

What were the designs based on? Are there any other artefacts of similar or exact design on the island...on a smaller scale?

I don't advocate mainstream archaeology when it comes to megalithic structures. That is my opinion and I won't budge from it...No idea?? Then it must be religious, sacrificial, ritual...blah, blah blah! How preposterous that there could have been an advanced civilisation before ours!

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
I don't know why the above posts have not been cautioned for drifting off topic...however, the Easter Island statues are a marvel of engineering, in my opinion and I'd like to know how an island race, supposedly isolated, managed to construct them and raise them into place.

Pointless bickering is a fact of life at ATS

Soft stone easily worked and motivated folks.

What were the designs based on? Are there any other artefacts of similar or exact design on the island...on a smaller scale?

The Moai thought to be the first made was this one:



The picture above is thought to have been called Tukuturi and perhaps the first one made

Map showing where the quarry is and the location of the majority of the Ahu's and Moai.





The Rano Raraku quarry with an uncompleted Moai insitu.

I don't advocate mainstream archaeology when it comes to megalithic structures. That is my opinion and I won't budge from it...No idea?? Then it must be religious, sacrificial, ritual...blah, blah blah! How preposterous that there could have been an advanced civilisation before ours!

All the civilizations we have found have all left absolutely massive archaeological footprints why this ' Invisible Civilization' wouldn't is quite a problem for believers in them. Smaller cultures even leave archaeological evidence but not the IC....

Moai were probably made - based on what Routledge and other anthropologist and earlier explorers noted - to be statue to capture the magical aspect of chief of shaman. That would fit in with other Polynesian cultures.

BREAKING: Purpose of graveyard headstones realized, out of thin air; Headstones in American graveyards align with the Superbowl touchdowns of 96.


This is how stupid humanity seems to us.

originally posted by: AnodeOrCathode
BREAKING: Purpose of graveyard headstones realized, out of thin air; Headstones in American graveyards align with the Superbowl touchdowns of 96.


This is how stupid humanity seems to us.

It the 'Lots of dots principle'. If you get a lot of dots (which can be found by picking sites on the ground or in the heavens) you are virtually assured to find some relationship between them. The ones in the heaven move and shift constantly and they were in different location in the past and will also in the future. So a fringe buffet - you can find a connection if you just look long enough.

I use to challenge fringe believers to design a tomb or large structure that had no mathematical or astronomical 'connections' at any current, previous or future time.

Now some connections are known to be real - marking the the start of Seasons was important to HG and farmers as it gave you information on when to plant or when animal herds would migrate, breed etc.

a reply to: Hanslune

To be fair, I respect every person's beliefs and opinions on ancient archaeology and their right to hold onto that belief, as I hold onto mine. For me, there is overwhelming evidence of ancient civilisations and technologies that have been wiped out, lost to time and engulfed by rising sea levels, land shifts and ice.

What I dislike is the way mainstream, conformist archaeologists ridicule and belittle the views of the so-called 'kooks' and expect every one to believe their world view without so much as a raised eyebrow.

It's not for me and never will be.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: Hanslune

To be fair, I respect every person's beliefs and opinions on ancient archaeology and their right to hold onto that belief, as I hold onto mine. For me, there is overwhelming evidence of ancient civilisations and technologies that have been wiped out, lost to time and engulfed by rising sea levels, land shifts and ice.

How can there be 'overwhelming evidence' if you then state its all been destroyed - can you clarify this statement?

What I dislike is the way mainstream, conformist archaeologists ridicule and belittle the views of the so-called 'kooks' and expect every one to believe their world view without so much as a raised eyebrow.

99.9% of real scientists never say anything to such people. The evidence exist but how you interpret it is up to the individual but most individuals lack the knowledge to accurately understand what the evidence means. So they depend on others to tell them what they think it means. Some use scientist and some use conspiracy theorists or 'researchers' of the Alt or fringe variety many of who have biased agendas and have one common point of reference they disagree with orthodoxy but also themselves.

a reply to: purplemer

Wow.... what an embarrassing clown...
They studied these things exclusively for years on end, paid a lot of money and sacrificed a lot of time to learn and study it and get an education revolving around it, could tell you competing theories and the evidence supporting them, etc etc etc.
You, on the other hand, watched some dumb BS youtube videos and read some dumb ATS posts... And YOU are trying to accuse THEM of not bothering to look for facts/the truth, and trying to talk down to them? Do you somehow not realize what a thoroughly ignorant joke that makes you come across as? And then to top it off, your "source" is some laughably bogus BS website called 'Eye of the Psychic,' lol.

Honestly... do you have legitimately zero self-awareness? Or did you realize that you sounded dumb because you got caught spouting idiotic BS to someone who actually knows what they are talking about, but just figured that it was too late to admit you were full of.... something?
What a goon...

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: purplemer

Howdy Maroboduus

Unfortunately this sub-forum of ATS declined a few years ago due to poor moderation. I check on it every once in awhile. I rate it as C- now, which means I don't post new threads, don't defend my position, and only answer questions if the person seems interested in the subject and just ignore those who advocate ἀνοικειότης.

A number of the old sub-forums have failed but a many continued on.

If you are actually interested in archaeology and ancient mysteries send me a PM and I give you some links to where you can have a meaningful discussion obtain and real information.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: Hanslune

To be fair, I respect every person's beliefs and opinions on ancient archaeology and their right to hold onto that belief, as I hold onto mine. For me, there is overwhelming evidence of ancient civilisations and technologies that have been wiped out, lost to time and engulfed by rising sea levels, land shifts and ice.

How can there be 'overwhelming evidence' if you then state its all been destroyed - can you clarify this statement?

What I dislike is the way mainstream, conformist archaeologists ridicule and belittle the views of the so-called 'kooks' and expect every one to believe their world view without so much as a raised eyebrow.

99.9% of real scientists never say anything to such people. The evidence exist but how you interpret it is up to the individual but most individuals lack the knowledge to accurately understand what the evidence means. So they depend on others to tell them what they think it means. Some use scientist and some use conspiracy theorists or 'researchers' of the Alt or fringe variety many of who have biased agendas and have one common point of reference they disagree with orthodoxy but also themselves.

I wasn't saying the evidence has been wiped out, rather the civilisations themselves. I see what you mean though and perhaps I could have worded it better.

I think different minded people interpret evidence to their own bias and that is only natural. I really don't like the term "fringe" as it suggests that these researchers have no validity...and you may think that is the case. However, I don't agree. We are not always dealing with uneducated and unqualified researchers, they have their methods, they have their beliefs and I think they hold as much water as the so-called mainstream, legitimate researchers.

I can't find it within myself to believe our civilisation is the first and I really do not give mainstream archaeology much credence when it comes to telling the populace exactly how it was. It's always going to be a highly contentious subject but for me, the weight of evidence [subjective] is that we are not first.

a reply to: Maroboduus

Wow.... what an embarrassing clown... They studied these things exclusively for years on end, paid a lot of money and sacrificed a lot of time to learn and study it and get an education revolving around it, could tell you competing theories and the evidence supporting them, etc etc etc. You, on the other hand, watched some dumb BS youtube videos and read some dumb ATS posts

erm yes like the Harvard Uni paper I linked on it.. Suggesting more than a strong link with certain stars.

lol :-)

a reply to: Hanslune

Unfortunately this sub-forum of ATS declined a few years ago due to poor moderation. I check on it every once in awhile. I rate it as C- now, which means I don't post new threads, don't defend my position

Lol because you cannot defend your postion in the face of astro-archaeology. I tells a very different story to the one you narrate. But the answers are there all over the world and it plain to see to those who choose to look.

As above so below..

:-

a reply to: fromtheskydown

What I dislike is the way mainstream, conformist archaeologists ridicule and belittle the views of the so-called 'kooks' and expect every one to believe their world view without so much as a raised eyebrow.

The truth is kept behind an information wall. Look at the tunnels under the Sphinx for example many records spanning hundreds of years talking of people traveling into them.

Now where are these tunnels. According to AE they dont exist. There is nothing there.

It stinks and their are an army of trained AE priests to tell you what and what not you allowed to know.

:-)

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

I wasn't saying the evidence has been wiped out, rather the civilisations themselves. I see what you mean though and perhaps I could have worded it better.

Then there should be massive amounts of evidence either of their existence or of the 'x' that wiped them out. There isn't unless they remarkable small..

I think different minded people interpret evidence to their own bias and that is only natural.

Nope if I bring up a mastodon's leg bone from an excavation and someone says it belongs to a human giant - it doesn't become a human leg, it still remains a mastodon's leg bone.

I really don't like the term "fringe" as it suggests that these researchers have no validity...and you may think that is the case. However, I don't agree. We are not always dealing with uneducated and unqualified researchers, they have their methods, they have their beliefs and I think they hold as much water as the so-called mainstream, legitimate researchers.

Science: Publication of ALL evidence, peer review, constant review of theories to see if the facts fit

Alternative Science same procedures above but use innovative and unproven/non consensus interpretations of the same evidence

Fringe: Selected use of evidence, evidence made up, no review poor procedures no proper publication

Fantasy: Just made up stuff often in contradiction to known facts.

I can't find it within myself to believe our civilisation is the first and I really do not give mainstream archaeology much credence when it comes to telling the populace exactly how it was.

It doesn't 'tell the populace exactly how it was', it notes the existing theory, shows the evidence and relates what the current consensus is and any notable objections. As new evidence is found theories change. They change all the time. Note how Gobekli Tepe and Catalhuyuck were found reported and incorporated into the existing mainstream narrative.

[quote]It's always going to be a highly contentious subject but for me, the weight of evidence [subjective] is that we are not first.

You can surely believe that but currently the evidence points away from earlier civilizations.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Science: Publication of ALL evidence, peer review, constant review of theories to see if the facts fit

Only partial publication of some evidence. If the evidence, say, disproved Darwinism, the editor would not risk losing his job by publishing such paradigm-shattering data. Peer review is not always by unbiassed peers. If it refutes their life-long research, don't expect them to be fair and impartial! Scientists are also human.

Alternative Science same procedures above but use innovative and unproven/non consensus interpretations of the same evidence

But the interpretations of the evidence published in academic journals are also unproven, otherwise those in alternative science would not bother offering different ones. Alternative Science research is "non-consensus" because mainstream science deliberately excludes theories and research challenging orthodox views, so that it has no chance of becoming accepted by the majority of scientists.

Fringe: Selected use of evidence, evidence made up, no review poor procedures no proper publication

"No review" is the result of deliberate exclusion by academic journals and the refusal of scientists to comment on highly unorthodox ideas. "Selected use of evidence" is not unusual to find in academic journal papers, either! "Evidence made up" is rare and often exposed by fellow fringe researchers. Of course, evidence is fabricated as well in mainstream research - there are many notorious cases. It is just not so easy to spot, as it usually requires specialised knowledge, a Ph.D, etc. Well, of course there is no "proper publication". Academic publishers wanting not to ruin their reputations or to rock the boat by publishing controversial research like homeopathy make sure of that.

Fantasy: Just made up stuff often in contradiction to known facts.

If it is fantasy, it usually ventures where there are no known facts. This criticism seems to be self-contradictory.

I can't find it within myself to believe our civilisation is the first and I really do not give mainstream archaeology much credence when it comes to telling the populace exactly how it was.

It doesn't 'tell the populace exactly how it was',

Nonsense. The population is brainwashed regularly by the Carl Sagans and the Sir David Attenboroughs to believe in the official scientific scenario or paradigm.

it notes the existing theory, shows the evidence and relates what the current consensus is and any notable objections. As new evidence is found theories change. They change all the time. Note how Gobekli Tepe and Catalhuyuck were found reported and incorporated into the existing mainstream narrative.

But these did not destroy any scientific paradigm. They merely pushed back the date of civilised man a few thousand years. Big deal!

You can surely believe that but currently the evidence points away from earlier civilizations.

Ony if you ignore the evidence of alternative, non-mainstream research that suggests a different, ancient scenario. As you obviously do, your appraisal is worthles because it is based upon cherry-picking of evidence. There is MUCH persuasive evidence of ancient, high civilisation. You just choose to ignore it all because it does not fit the presupposition of orthodox science that scientific and technological progress always increases with time. This is wrong, wrong, wrong! That's why scientists ignore Ooparts and dishonestly explain the anomalies of engineering and building found in megalithic, archaeological sites. We can now expose their deceptions and shallow explanations. The problem, however, is: we are not allowed to do so by publishing our exposures of their inadequate work in scientific journals. So we have to write and self-publish our own books. As the reward for exposing their shortcomings, we are delegated to the "Alternative science" - or even worse - the "Lunatic fringe"!

So stop white-washing scientists as though they are not responsible for the existence of an alternative science. It is the inadequacies of THEIR theories or explanations and the unfairness of the peer-review process stifling radical thinking which gave birth to an opposing and alternative view. It is only "alternative science " because it contradicts mainstream science.