Here is my understanding, now let’s get down to business:

Well if you or he are interested in the thorny issue of masonic regularity a good place to visit is recognitioncommission.org .

Originally posted by realrepublican
Researchers like Edward Griffin believe the Protocols are a forgery - but I wonder if there was an original version – may be the Talmud itself? What is your take/understanding on the Protocols? "

Every credible researcher believes the Protocols are a forgery. They simply are. Period. And no, there is no 'original version' (wouldn't really be a forgery if it was based on something else, now would it?). Just the fact that anyone even mentions the Protocols as though there is any question about their (lack of) authenticity is insulting.

And yeah, I think I'll be okay about saying alchemy is a load of bollocks. I have hundreds of years of science backing me up. Is someone going to get me in "this life or the next" for using this rational scientific mind that God gave me?

Still waiting for a response to my last post (and several other points that you dropped out of responding to). How is something really gold if it can't stay gold like real gold does? Doesn't that seem to be some sort of trickery to you? In addition to saying that your supposed gold is fake gold, I'd like to make this claim: Anyone claiming that they can turn lead into gold serves a dark master. Alchemy is just an attempt to circumvent God's natural laws of nature and amass physical wealth. May God have mercy on your soul for worshipping Satan through his evil craft of alchemy, realrepublican.




[edit on 6-10-2005 by Lexicon]

Originally posted by realrepublican
Don’t stop there; since both Lemuria and Atlantis were the worlds largest land areas in the world at that time.

Let's back up a minute. There is absolutey no evidence that either Lemuria or Atlantis ever existed. We first hear of Atlantis from Plato, but we do not know if he was just repeating an oral tradition, or if he made the story up as some sort of allegory. Madame Blavatsky first told us of Lemuria, and this story is highly suspect. When someone starts talking about Atlantis and Lemuria in this manner, it reminds me of a Mormon trying to tell me about Nephi, Lehi, and Alma, people who never really existed.

Once again, these practices came later and do not detract from my reasoning that the pyramids were not built for any other purpose other than Power centers (star gates), and healing temples.

I saw that movie too.

When Jesus was a child he used to remove these 2 tablets while he was in the Temple of the Essenes in Heliopolis. This temple was on the eastern bank of the Nile and was a square building, sixty feet by sixty feet. In the room called the holy of holies there was always 2 tablets with the 10 Commandments written on them, resting on alter. However, Maria (Mary) would come in the Temple and she would that find Jesus kept on placing the 2 tablets aside. Now what was Jesus trying to say, by removing those tablets and placing them on the side of alters? When Jesus was eleven years old, he asked Ezekiel to place the commandments to the left side of the alters and place in the center of the alter, a triangular marble tablet. Thus again the triangle is fulfilling the law, as the triangle is the trinity – father, son and Holy Spirit – not the 10 commandants.

What exactly is your source for this?



[edit on 6-10-2005 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Lexicon


Every credible researcher believes the Protocols are a forgery. They simply are. Period. And no, there is no 'original version' (wouldn't really be a forgery if it was based on something else, now would it?). Just the fact that anyone even mentions the Protocols as though there is any question about their (lack of) authenticity is insulting.

Agreed. It is the universal consensus that the Protocols were an anti-Semitic forgery. They also formed the backbone of Nazi propaganda.

And yeah, I think I'll be okay about saying alchemy is a load of bollocks. I have hundreds of years of science backing me up. Is someone going to in "this life or the next" for using this rational scientific mind that God gave me?

I agree in part. There is no question that many alchemists (probably the majority) were frauds. However, even these contributed something. They got people interested in what would eventually become metallurgy and chemistry.

The "serious" alchemists probably viewed the entire operation as allegorical (what Pike referred to as "speculative alchemists"). These considered man in his natural state to be the "base metal". According to Pike, just as operative alchemy gave birth to chemistry, speculative alchemy gave birth to psychology.

Originally posted by realrepublican
Loungerist,

Here is a link I found on the PROTOCOLS of the LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION."

...

Best!

Thanks. I'll try to get around to it.

And it looks like the thread is heading in the direction I assumed it would have long ago. I have to give you credit for somehow getting it to last as long as it did at the level it did. I would suggest the NWO board though in the future. And while I didn't agree with much of what you said I think you were dead-on correct on at least one point:Those who worship science(Man) as their religion will be forever limited in their progression. Conventional science is merely a tool and scientists are merely people. People with a lengthier track record of error and inadequacy than some seem to be aware of. And anyone that does not understand that history is revisionist by nature does not truly understand history to begin with. This is not to disparage conventional science as there is nothing inherently wrong with it and I'm as scientifically-minded as anyone. But as with anything,if exhaulted to a blind extreme it becomes more harm than good. Indistinguishible from the blind faith that it believes is it's polar opposite.

I'm at a loss when it comes to understanding the attitude expressed by many people on this board that if a presented speculation or opinion does not fit within a certain rigid framework then that means there is no value whatsoever in what is being presented and no point in discussing it. Is this a display of intellect for the purpose of enlightening others or merely an exercise of arrogance designed to tear down anything that doesn't perfectly resemble their own world view? It's like some kind of anti-learning. To constantly insist upon material evidence on every point is no way to accumulate understanding of topics that are by their nature mysteries. If you think that this is a display of the scientific method you're wrong and have been mis-educated at some point.

originally posted by Lexicon
alumnus (pl. alumni) is Latin for "nursling or pupil" and derives from the Latin alere "nourish", not illuminare.
elect does not contain a root or prefix of El but instead derives from e- "out of" and legere "pick".
elder isn’t even derived from Latin but goes back to Old English eldra and is obviously related to the word old. So anything that isn’t new must have this connection!

That's all well and good and I’m not arguing your assessment but I think it should be observed that Latin and Old English, Anglo-Saxon, are both branches of the Indo-European language groups. What languages developed into Latin? What influenced the meanings of the core sounds that came to be symbolized by glyphs, letters and runes? How do we conclusively account for the etymology of words before the preliterate era? How are we to equate and account for the origin and history of an oral tradition? The only reasonable ways are through observation and the recognition of pattern.

originally posted by Lexicon
there is no evidence at all to support the assertion that there are only four elements. The idea that there are four elements comes from a time when we did not understand chemistry the way we do now. We soon found out that there are many elements—ask any chemist to point out a periodic table of the elements to you.

Obviously the concept underlying the ancient notion of four elements is dealing with a different concept then the modern periodic table of elements. If the word element is confusing you then try to understand that earth equals matter in a solid state, water matter in a liquid state, air is matter in a gaseous state and fire is energy, the four states of being composing the material world.

realrepublican,

I had planned on writing a more detail oriented reply but circumstances prevented me from returning to the conversation in a timely manner. I'm afraid I'd seem quite out of the loop at this point. Personally I find there is very little understanding in the modern era of mythology as a system of metaphor and allegory. Many who believe they do grasp the concept are still only at best half applying the understanding. I believe, for example, that the concept of a physical New Jerusalem stems from the description of a certain cosmological position of visible celestial bodies marking not just the shift of one zodiacal age to another, but the transition between an Iron Age to a Golden Age, the start of a new cycle. Regardless of the source there is a commonality of core beliefs observable in all of the IE mythologies, which are also found in Oriental systems and the aboriginal Americans. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all as polytheistic as any other belief system. All have a singularity that is compartmentalized into separate functions. The operative difference between the so-called monotheistic faiths seems to me to be the insistence upon reading allegory as the literal truth. This is an act of political mind-control, a tool for the homogenization of thought.

Due to the constraints of my own limited education or understanding I can not speak on this matter using anything more than general terms with perhaps some examples to illustrate my points. I believe that there was an Ur-culture, in legends referred to as Atlantis, which possessed advanced astronomy, mathematics and other sciences. The knowledge of these sciences was encoded in language that operated as symbolic allegories, an idea that may at first seem fantastical but in actuality would allow for a system of complex cross-associations, as well as a built in mechanism to obscure the information and protect the knowledge from open dissemination and consumption.
As this culture obviously predated the known literal age, the history of human society has always on some level involved the transmission of this knowledge, both above and below ground. Gnosticism and hermetecism/alchemy contain the same core principles, and both developed and evolved in the Egyptian era. It is observable that the rose cross evolved from the Ankh, and that they symbolize similar concepts.

It's interesting to note that the descriptors mystery cult, occult order and secret society all mean the same thing and that apocalypse means nothing more then "unveiling". If at no other level these organizations relate through a similarity of practice, the transmission of elite knowledge to candidates who prove their worthiness by engaging in complex initiation ceremonies. These initiations were based upon the mythological allegories, the enacting of which demonstrates the underlying principles of the myth. The initiation rites in turn altered the shape of the mythologies. Over time and space languages and cultures developed, appellations of certain figures in the myths were added and adopted as new names until there were a multiplicity of legends telling the same stories of the same characters under many different names. Political issues and other cultural factors led to many instances of repression of certain traditions and belief systems. Part of this process involved the conversion of groups of people to new theologies in part through the appropriation of symbols, characters and concepts.

That organizations continue to this day to transmit a stream of information is easily believable, and there is no reason to believe that all of these groups would be homogenous in belief, orientation or objective. Freemasonry was likely both a vehicle and a tool to the transmission of traditions and possibly long-range agendas. While I could be wrong it seems to me that modern day masonry is a dead branch on the esoteric tree and that the dynamic principles that once animated the movement have reorganized and operate under different names. While some may take offense at the concept of an Atlantian War that has persisted through all ages, I find the image resonant on at least a poetic level. To understand the esoteric, the secret history of the world, the ability to comprehend poetry is vital.

There is much left to discuss and learn about here and I hope the conversation continues and does not get mired down in petty nit picking. I do not agree with everything presented, mostly because I have not had first hand experience of it, but the presentation of the material in your posts is rich and provided me with several insights I didn't previously possess, some of which now seem quite obvious, and I thank you for that. I hope you continue to post on this board as I see that you have much to contribute. For example:

originally posted by realrepublican
Following the clock of the zodiac is also mimicking the energy centers or sacred disks. The counter clockwise rotations of both are a sign of our return home.

This seems to me to be quite profound and I'm still meditating on what this implies.

Originally posted by Cicada
Is this a display of intellect for the purpose of enlightening others or merely an exercise of arrogance designed to tear down anything that doesn't perfectly resemble their own world view? It's like some kind of anti-learning. To constantly insist upon material evidence on every point is no way to accumulate understanding of topics that are by their nature mysteries. If you think that this is a display of the scientific method you're wrong and have been mis-educated at some point.

Agreed. As a good scientist will be the first to tell you that knowledge is not set in stone and the field in general is theory that can be altered at any time when new information comes to light. For that matter,even the material evidence exists for much of what's being discussed here. Certain damning bits of information that threaten current paradigm are often ignored or covered-up so as,amongst other reasons,not to wipeout years of previous work even if that previous work is wrong. But while covered-up this scientific information is still there and available to anyone. You can't speak scientifically without actually knowing the extent of science's discoveries.


[edit on 7-10-2005 by Loungerist]

Originally posted by Cicada
That's all well and good and I’m not arguing your assessment but I think it should be observed that Latin and Old English, Anglo-Saxon, are both branches of the Indo-European language groups. What languages developed into Latin? What influenced the meanings of the core sounds that came to be symbolized by glyphs, letters and runes? How do we conclusively account for the etymology of words before the preliterate era? How are we to equate and account for the origin and history of an oral tradition? The only reasonable ways are through observation and the recognition of pattern.

Well, first, realrepublican was talking about words derived from the Latin (at least it seemed like it), and second, I find it unlikely that the words are related, but not having much training in that field I cannot be certain. However, whether or not they are related further back than the events that were spoken of is unimportant. It's like claiming that the Buddhist use of the swastika is an expression of anti-Semitism.

Originally posted by Lexicon
It's like claiming that the Buddhist use of the swastika is an expression of anti-Semitism.

It's more like the Nazi occultists appropriating a Hindu symbol as a component of their self-aggrandizing propaganda. One could wonder, with all the lavish, gory detail paid to the Second World War, why the symbolism of the swastika is given such fleeting attention in general education. The wikipedia entry on the swastika is fascinating:

Wikipedia-Swastika

For an atypical example of discussion on this subject. The IDEAS were discussed which apparently works when everything isn't just dissected and compartmentalized and opinionated into oblivian. My hat is off.

Haven't read everything yet. That'll be tommorrow's education.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

Originally posted by Lexicon
The cold hard facts of the matter is that if there were great advanced civilizations out there before us, they would have left something more than just stone and people like you who reject the scientific view of things.

The cold hard facts of the matter is that these advanced civilizations did leave more than just stone. I already gave you one example earlier and that was that they left exploding weapons. Stone does not produce mushroom clouds as were drawn to depict the explosions of missles. They left metallurgy and even knew how to process metals into monoatomic form. They left electroplated batteries. These are all the scientific view of things. And science is finding more all the time.

And that's not even going into the recorded cases of findings being suppressed.

Originally posted by Loungerist
I already gave you one example earlier and that was that they left exploding weapons. Stone does not produce mushroom clouds as were drawn to depict the explosions of missles.

Provide references and I'll look into them.

They left metallurgy and even knew how to process metals into monoatomic form.

The people who discovered metallurgy left metallurgy, indeed. In the correct time and place. As for monoatomic metals, again, evidence.

They left electroplated batteries.

I believe you mean electroplating batteries (actually just single cells--batteries contain several cells in series), as that's what they are hypothesized by some to have been used for. Even this use requires the cells to be connected in series (making a battery) to raise the voltage, and no wires have yet been discovered. They're quite primitive. A weak vinegar-based electrolyte solution. Not enough to run any electric devices--plus, no devices have been found, of course. They were also found at only one site near Baghdad from around 200 B.C.E. Nothing like a ten thousand year old advanced civilization. Those investigating the cells generally hypothesize that they were accidents of discovery--that those producing the cells were unaware of the science behind them, in the same way that the Chinese did not understand the science behind gunpowder when they invented it, and just like many other discoveries throughout history.

And that's not even going into the recorded cases of findings being suppressed.

How do you know that anything has been suppressed, if it's being suppressed? Let me guess, the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark with the big warehouse?

Originally posted by Cicada
It's more like the Nazi occultists appropriating a Hindu symbol as a component of their self-aggrandizing propaganda. One could wonder, with all the lavish, gory detail paid to the Second World War, why the symbolism of the swastika is given such fleeting attention in general education.

That's exactly what I was trying to get across, Cicada--that what you're saying is how it actually is, but to retroactively connect things, like the origins of words prior to the time when the supposed link is made, is like attributing Nazi ideology to those who had the swastika before the Nazis. You ken?

Originally posted by Lexicon

Originally posted by Loungerist
I already gave you one example earlier and that was that they left exploding weapons. Stone does not produce mushroom clouds as were drawn to depict the explosions of missles.

Provide references and I'll look into them.

I did provide a referrence. Mohenjo-Daro is one city where it was found.
The ancient Takauti documents of Japan also describe great wars with drawings of mushrooms clouds as illustration.

metallurgy left metallurgy, indeed. In the correct time and place. As for monoatomic metals, again, evidence.

The metallurgy was certainly the incorrect time to the archeologists who discovered it. And the evidence of monoatamonic metals is the prepared containers of monoatomic metal that's been found in ancient chambers. As well as numerous texts believed in retrospect to be mentioning it now that we know what it is.

I believe you mean electroplating batteries (actually just single cells--batteries contain several cells in series),

I mean electroplated. Silver electroplated onto a copper base.

as that's what they are hypothesized by some to have been used for. Even this use requires the cells to be connected in series (making a battery) to raise the voltage, and no wires have yet been discovered. They're quite primitive. A weak vinegar-based electrolyte solution. Not enough to run any electric devices--plus, no devices have been found, of course. They were also found at only one site near Baghdad from around 200 B.C.E. Nothing like a ten thousand year old advanced civilization.

I'm referring to the Sumerian batteries found and dated to be at least 4,500 years old.

Those investigating the cells generally hypothesize that they were accidents of discovery--that those producing the cells were unaware of the science behind them, in the same way that the Chinese did not understand the science behind gunpowder when they invented it, and just like many other discoveries throughout history.

One doesn't accidentally smelt a copper cylinder,place it in a base,solder it onto tin,cap the bottom of the base with a conductive disk sealed with bitumen,add an acidic agent,insert an iron rod,then insulate and seal the project with asphalt. I don't know what investigators you're referring to but I've never heard of any such accident theory. And you'd win the lottery every day for a week before you created something as complex as that by accident. It's an especially bad investigation considering the batteries you're referring to are well pre-dated.

How do you know that anything has been suppressed, if it's being suppressed? Let me guess, the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark with the big warehouse?

Firstly,we know they're suppressed because scientists who've had their work supprressed have spoken out about it. Secondly,"suppressed" does not mean completely wiped from consciousness,as that's impossible. It simply means findings that were buried and/or not given the circulation of other findings of their magnitude.

Originally posted by Loungerist
I did provide a referrence. Mohenjo-Daro is one city where it was found.
The ancient Takauti documents of Japan also describe great wars with drawings of mushrooms clouds as illustration.

Sorry, I must have missed the post where you mentioned Mohenjo Daro and Japan. I’ll see what I can pull up on pictures from Japan, but the Mohenjo-Daro thing is easy to answer. I assume you’re referring to the claims that can be found here . The problem is that all the references to this radioactive and glass layer and all the claims relating to it all come from one original source from a conspiracy website. And the archaeologist named in that original article didn’t even exist. I've even heard that the purported verses from the Hindu writings which supposedly document the incident do not, in fact, exist--although I'm willing to concede that they do, although it would still be nice to see. Either way, the whole thing is a hoax. The only truth is that the city’s fall is unexplained--but that’s true of many ancient cities.

The metallurgy was certainly the incorrect time to the archeologists who discovered it. And the evidence of monoatamonic metals is the prepared containers of monoatomic metal that's been found in ancient chambers. As well as numerous texts believed in retrospect to be mentioning it now that we know what it is.

Can you give me a reference to this so that I may research it?

I mean electroplated. Silver electroplated onto a copper base. I'm referring to the Sumerian batteries found and dated to be at least 4,500 years old.

Actually, the batteries are not electroplated—you’re reading the information wrong. The claim is that supposedly silver-plated vases 2000 years older than the batteries found are evidence that there were similar batteries in existence 4500 years ago (and were used to electroplate those vases). But no batteries from that earlier date have been discovered. The claim that the vases were electroplated is also not verified. Even if they are electroplated, it is again an example of a discovery without the underlying understanding of the science. On point here is that the ectroplated material is supposedly silver, not gold (which one would think is more likely). This is because one needs a material like hydrochloric acid as the bath the items to be electroplated must be put in. Since the ancients did not have hydrochloric acid, they could not electroplate gold. But any advanced civlization like the one that supposedly existed before us (you know, massive power stations, atomic bombs, helicopters) would have been able to make hydrochloric acid (and batteries more advanced than a weak vinegar-based electrolyte solution in a breakable clay pot).

One doesn't accidentally smelt a copper cylinder,place it in a base,solder it onto tin,cap the bottom of the base with a conductive disk sealed with bitumen,add an acidic agent,insert an iron rod,then insulate and seal the project with asphalt. I don't know what investigators you're referring to but I've never heard of any such accident theory. And you'd win the lottery every day for a week before you created something as complex as that by accident. It's an especially bad investigation considering the batteries you're referring to are well pre-dated.

Obviously the batteries that were found are not the form of the accidental first discovery. That discovery would have been far simpler--two rods of differing metal in a pot of vinegar, perhaps. You've made a potato battery before, right? Like the accident of the discovery of gunpowder, or that of cheese, or the brewing of beer, people improved on the first accident by trial and error even while unaware of the science behind how it works. This kind of discovery has happened many times in history.

Firstly,we know they're suppressed because scientists who've had their work supprressed have spoken out about it. Secondly,"suppressed" does not mean completely wiped from consciousness,as that's impossible. It simply means findings that were buried and/or not given the circulation of other findings of their magnitude.

What work, what scientists? Specific verifiable examples will be most helpful in our search for the truth.

Originally posted by Lexicon
Sorry, I must have missed the post where you mentioned Mohenjo Daro and Japan. I’ll see what I can pull up on pictures from Japan, but the Mohenjo-Daro thing is easy to answer. I assume you’re referring to the claims that can be found here.
The problem is that all the references to this radioactive and glass layer and all the claims relating to it all come from one original source from a conspiracy website.

If by "glass layer" you mean the fusion,then that's untrue. Also,coming from a conspiracy website doesn't mean anything as anyone one,conspiracy tracker or not,can cite a work. And thirdly how can you possibly discern the original source of every referrence on that site?

And the archaeologist named in that original article didn’t even exist. I've even heard that the purported verses from the Hindu writings which supposedly document the incident do not, in fact, exist--although I'm willing to concede that they do, although it would still be nice to see. Either way, the whole thing is a hoax.

You'll have to explain this claim. What archeologist are you talking about? What tells you he didn't exist? I don't even see the name of the researcher who I myself heard of this from so obviously there is more than one source. And I'm not seeing anything here or elsewhere showing a hoax of any kind. And I don't know why one would make up Hindu verses as you've heard when there are already similar verses in other texts.

The metallurgy was certainly the incorrect time to the archeologists who discovered it. And the evidence of monoatamonic metals is the prepared containers of monoatomic metal that's been found in ancient chambers. As well as numerous texts believed in retrospect to be mentioning it now that we know what it is.

Can you give me a reference to this so that I may research it?

The monoatomic metal was found in Africa and possibly Sumer as well. That should give you the referrences necessary to do an accurate search.

The claim is that supposedly silver-plated vases 2000 years older than the batteries found are evidence that there were similar batteries in existence 4500 years ago (and were used to electroplate those vases). But no batteries from that earlier date have been discovered. The claim that the vases were electroplated is also not verified.

It is as much so as any other conclusion of this era. Very little of science is officially verified when dealing with this distant a past actually. It's almost all officially theory. But that they were electroplated is the accepted stance based on the analysis.

Even if they are electroplated, it is again an example of a discovery without the underlying understanding of the science.

Or more accurately,it is an example of you assuming it came from a lack of understanding. Apparently based on a preconception of ancient knowledge that is currently outdated.

On point here is that the ectroplated material is supposedly silver, not gold (which one would think is more likely). This is because one needs a material like hydrochloric acid as the bath the items to be electroplated must be put in.

No,you're only assuming that's the reason why. I can immediately think of several other reasons,one of which I'll give below.

Since the ancients did not have hydrochloric acid, they could not electroplate gold.

The ancients didn't have batteries either. Until we discovered that they did. The scientific fact of the matter is we don't know what these people didn't have. But we do know some of what they had. For that matter,gold was electroplated using replicas of the battery found.

"In 1970s, German Egyptologist, Arne Eggebrecht built a replica of the Baghdad battery and filled it with freshly pressed grape juice, as he speculated the ancients might have done. The replica generated 0.87V. He used current from the battery to electroplate a silver statuette with gold."

www.world-mysteries.com...

So I'm not sure why you feel electroplating gold wasn't possible.

But any advanced civlization like the one that supposedly existed before us (you know, massive power stations, atomic bombs, helicopters) would have been able to make hydrochloric acid (and batteries more advanced than a weak vinegar-based electrolyte solution in a breakable clay pot).

You are working on two very faulty assumptions:

1)that this battery is the only type of battery that there were just because that's all we've found to date

2)that the ancients actually used vinegar because that's what the scientists in the 40s did(based on the assumption at the time that that's all the "primitive" people could have used) well before we knew what we know now about how advanced these people were

Based on the ancient's writing,they were likely not allowed to electroplate gold as gold belonged to the beings that gave them their technology. If there is any electroplated gold in Sumer it would likely be very rare as gold had a distinct status to them.

Obviously the batteries that were found are not the form of the accidental first discovery. That discovery would have been far simpler--two rods of differing metal in a pot of vinegar, perhaps. You've made a potato battery before, right?

As is the case with virtually all forms of technology. If that's your point,I'm not sure why you're making it. Obviously it all had to start somewhere. The pertinent point is that Sumer was using it(and a number of other things) thousands of years before the rest of the world was. And maybe even more importantly,thousands of years before when science at the time told us they should have been.

Like the accident of the discovery of gunpowder, or that of cheese, or the brewing of beer, people improved on the first accident by trial and error even while unaware of the science behind how it works. This kind of discovery has happened many times in history.

And yet all three of your examples are from different times and different places. The single society of the Sumerians sprouted all of this knowledge and technology all in the same place at roughly the same time. That completely alters the probabilities from one of accident to one of design.

What work, what scientists? Specific verifiable examples will be most helpful in our search for the truth.

You would do best to do an independent search so it will be broader as opposed to me giving you specific cases. Because the more you read the better scope you'll have of how often and why this suppression occurs. The very fact that you even have doubt that it occurs indicates that you should probably take a look at the bigger picture than a specific case.



[edit on 9-10-2005 by Loungerist]

Loungerist:

I have every intention of replying to your post. However, I feel it needs a thoroughly researched and thought-out response which my scholastic responsibilities currently prevent me from being able to provide. I will try to get on it as soon as I have the time. If you don't hear from me within the next two weeks please send me a U2U to make sure I haven't forgotten about it. Law school tends to make one forget anything that doesn't have a case citation.

Loungerist:
I changed my mind, I'm not going to do much research for this response, since I really do have to budget my time for other things. However, I do have some things to say, and they follow.

If by "glass layer" you mean the fusion,then that's untrue. Also,coming from a conspiracy website doesn't mean anything as anyone one,conspiracy tracker or not,can cite a work.

No, there is no “fusion,” if by fusion you mean the layer mentioned in this article. I have perused through six books on the Indus Valley Civilization that are available at my university’s library, none of which mention any such layer that I can discover. They are (minus one I lost the cite for):

Datta, Rama D., The Indus Valley Civilization (New Delhi: Oxford & IBH, 1979).
McIntosh, Jane, A Peaceful Realm: The Rise and Fall of the Indus Civilization (Boulder: Westview, 2002).
Possehl, Gregory L., ed., Harappan Civilization: A Recent Perspective (New Delhi: Oxford & IBH, 1993).
Possehl, Gregory L., ed., Ancient Cities of the Indus (New Delhi, Vikas, 1979).
Possehl, Gregory L., The Indus Civilization (Lanham: Altamira, 2002).

There are certain vitrified remains, such as those of kilns (which generally vitrify without exposure to nuclear war). There are also bound to be remains of burned items as pretty much all ancient cities were burned at one point or another. In fact, one of the reasons we have such mountains of information from Sumer, Akkad, and Babylon is because when cities in those empires burned, the unbaked clay tablets were fired into rock-hard tablets that then survived the ages! However, that’s pretty much it from what I can find. I still have two of the above books on my person, so if you don’t feel like checking them out for yourself and reading a bit of what those who actually spend their lives investigating ancient civilizations have to say about them, I’m willing to see what I can pull out of them for you.

You'll have to explain this claim. What archeologist are you talking about? What tells you he didn't exist? I don't even see the name of the researcher who I myself heard of this from so obviously there is more than one source. And I'm not seeing anything here or elsewhere showing a hoax of any kind. And I don't know why one would make up Hindu verses as you've heard when there are already similar verses in other texts.

The verses in question, found at this site (which also quickly discusses the missing archaeologist—and is a pro-atomic weaponry site, actually) and again discussed in the debate between MemoryShock and Off_the_Street right here on ATS are as follows:

... (it was) a single projectile
Charged with all the power of the Universe.
An incandescent column of smoke and flame
As bright as the thousand suns
Rose in all its splendour...
...it was an unknown weapon,
An iron thunderbolt,
A gigantic messenger of death,
Which reduced to ashes
The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.
...The corpses were so burned
As to be unrecognisable.
The hair and nails fell out;
Pottery broke without apparent cause,
And the birds turned white.
After a few hours
All foodstuffs were infected...
....to escape from this fire
The soldiers threw themselves in streams
To wash themselves and their equipment.

A link to the Mahabharata, where the supposed verses can be found is here. Neither I, nor Off_the_Street, found a match, although we admittedly both did just cursory examinations. Perhaps you can find the verse. And why, you ask, would someone fake a claim like that if there is so much that fits within ancient Hindu texts? The answer is simple—there’s nothing that fits so perfectly with a crackpot theory than an invented story (and most people won't do the research to check the facts).

It is as much so as any other conclusion of this era. Very little of science is officially verified when dealing with this distant a past actually. It's almost all officially theory. But that they were electroplated is the accepted stance based on the analysis. The ancients didn't have batteries either. Until we discovered that they did. The scientific fact of the matter is we don't know what these people didn't have. But we do know some of what they had. For that matter,gold was electroplated using replicas of the battery found.

The only claim I can find about electroplated vases comes from the exact same threadbare stories which speak of the batteries. If you could direct me to the studies of the vases it would be much appreciated.

So I'm not sure why you feel electroplating gold wasn't possible.

As I said, electroplating of gold is possible when one has the correct bath to put the items to be electroplated in. This is unrelated to the electrolyte material used in the battery itself.

1)that this battery is the only type of battery that there were just because that's all we've found to date

I do make that assumption, but I fail to see how it is “very faulty”. I make arguments based on what we know. To make arguments based on imagined facts is of little use. I could make up plenty of ‘facts’ in order to argue my point—however, I like to stick to what we know.

Based on the ancient's writing,they were likely not allowed to electroplate gold as gold belonged to the beings that gave them their technology. If there is any electroplated gold in Sumer it would likely be very rare as gold had a distinct status to them.

Wait--are you now making the claim that the civilization with batteries was given that technology from aliens? I hope not. It’s one thing to claim that humankind had greater technology than we currently recognize. It’s another entirely to claim that E.T. gave it to them. But let’s say they did—why are they clay pots? Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but I don’t think aliens are toting around clay-pot batteries in their flying saucers. And where are these writings you speak of?

As is the case with virtually all forms of technology.

No, not with virtually all forms of technology at all. Do you think that when Leonardo Da Vinci invented a helicopter (one without a power source, unfortunately) he did it by accident? He understood how air works, and if he had had an acceptable engine provided to him, he’d likely have made the damn thing work!

And yet all three of your examples are from different times and different places. The single society of the Sumerians sprouted all of this knowledge and technology all in the same place at roughly the same time. That completely alters the probabilities from one of accident to one of design.

Firstly, you haven’t even proved that the batteries originated in Sumer. Secondly, I am fully aware that the ancient Sumerians invented many a thing—it is, in fact, where human civilization first began. Why you claim, however, that one invention through intention automatically means another invention could not have come about by accident, I do not know.

You would do best to do an independent search so it will be broader as opposed to me giving you specific cases. Because the more you read the better scope you'll have of how often and why this suppression occurs. The very fact that you even have doubt that it occurs indicates that you should probably take a look at the bigger picture than a specific case.

No, I think I’d rather you provide me with a few choice instances.

Originally posted by Lexicon


No, there is no “fusion,” if by fusion you mean the layer mentioned in this article. I have perused through six books on the Indus Valley Civilization that are available at my university’s library, none of which mention any such layer that I can discover.

You've also seen direct reports of the fusion as opposed to merely lack of mention. This to my knowledge has never been refuted in any subsequent reports. Citing it we have researchers directly and any number of science sites on the web. If you have a later report actually refuting this as opposed to simply not mentioning it(which could be due to any number of factors) that would help. The closest that I can gather for refutation is the proposed doubt of the existence of some archaeolgist. Of which I see no significant method of deduction. But aside from the fact that this archeologist isn't even used as a source for anything we're discussing anyway,we know the others mentioned exist since they've written books on the subject.

The verses in question, found at this site (which also quickly discusses the missing archaeologist—and is a pro-atomic weaponry site, actually) and again discussed in the debate between MemoryShock and Off_the_Street right here on ATS are as follows:

...

A link to the Mahabharata, where the supposed verses can be found is here. Neither I, nor Off_the_Street, found a match, although we admittedly both did just cursory examinations. Perhaps you can find the verse.

The verses will vary upon the translator so if you're looking for that exact verbage you'd have to find who translated specifically. I've not read the Mahabharata and have no intentions to,so I'll rely on those who have instead of those who haven't. The verse you're citing appears to come from Protap Chandra Roy's translation of the Mahabharata which can be found compiled in 100 separate publications.

And why, you ask, would someone fake a claim like that if there is so much that fits within ancient Hindu texts? The answer is simple—there’s nothing that fits so perfectly with a crackpot theory than an invented story (and most people won't do the research to check the facts).

Yes,but as there are already such texts elsewhere it doesn't make much sense to do it. It would be like hoaxing Great Flood verses. I mean,someone could do it. But I don't know why they'd go through the trouble.

The only claim I can find about electroplated vases comes from the exact same threadbare stories which speak of the batteries. If you could direct me to the studies of the vases it would be much appreciated.

You've been given the citation,at least two of the scientists by name,and even the experiments performed. If you can dismiss that as"threadbare" then there's not much point in presenting much of anything.

So I'm not sure why you feel electroplating gold wasn't possible.

As I said, electroplating of gold is possible when one has the correct bath to put the items to be electroplated in. This is unrelated to the electrolyte material used in the battery itself.

And as the article said,it was done using a replica of the battery and a simulation of the assumed materials and conditions of the time that you're saying couldn't do this. So I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

1)that this battery is the only type of battery that there were just because that's all we've found to date

I do make that assumption, but I fail to see how it is “very faulty”. I make arguments based on what we know. To make arguments based on imagined facts is of little use. I could make up plenty of ‘facts’ in order to argue my point—however, I like to stick to what we know.

And what we know is that there is alot we don't know. In 1937 we "knew" that the ancients didn't have batteries at all. But they did. That we are far from having a complete picture of the distant past is not imagined,it is the logical and prevalent conclusion based on the fact that we find something new all the time. To assume that what we've found so far is all there is is to ignore every pattern of discovery since the start of the modern age.

Wait--are you now making the claim that the civilization with batteries was given that technology from aliens? I hope not. It’s one thing to claim that humankind had greater technology than we currently recognize. It’s another entirely to claim that E.T. gave it to them. But let’s say they did—why are they clay pots? Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but I don’t think aliens are toting around clay-pot batteries in their flying saucers. And where are these writings you speak of?

Which would be a fair point if the clay pot was found on a flying saucer,but it wasn't. It was found in a town. The writings say the people did not have the same technology that the heavenly beings did. They had what they were given. The writings are the Mesopotamian,Egyptian,and Akkadian history and they can be found in nearly any bookstore or major library. If you really want to go in-depth you can read some of these ancient texts and then compare for yourself how well your primitive society theory stacks up to the actual evidence of the matter. For that matter,compare how many of the current mysteries are explained by these writings to that of the number of "we don't presently understand/know"s of science at large.

No, not with virtually all forms of technology at all. Do you think that when Leonardo Da Vinci invented a helicopter (one without a power source, unfortunately) he did it by accident? He understood how air works, and if he had had an acceptable engine provided to him, he’d likely have made the damn thing work!

I don't believe Da Vinci attempted to build a helicopter by accident. But the knowledge he used can be traced back to much lesser understanding if one uses the same reasoning you're applying to the ancients. And near as I can tell you're taking a highly contradictory stance to do so. On the one hand,you're saying that the ancients accidently discovered electric principles and built whole batteries with all the proper parts somehow with no knowledge of how it worked. But on the other hand you say Da Vinci created a helicopter model but that was on purpose and he knew how air worked. You'll have to explain to me how these two ideas mesh because the only difference I'm seeing is one occured in a timeframe you more freely associate with technical knowledge. Whereas the other timeframe you're associating incorrectly as primitive.

In science current belief changes to fit the evidence. Evidence is not changed to fit the current belief. In theory at least.

Secondly, I am fully aware that the ancient Sumerians invented many a thing—it is, in fact, where human civilization first began. Why you claim, however, that one invention through intention automatically means another invention could not have come about by accident, I do not know.

What I said was that the probability of the technological,astronomical,and mathematical advancement of these ancient civilizations points to design. Rather than them somehow creating batteries,charting the solar system,and teaching each other sexigesimal math in school all by an odds-shattering series of "accidents".

No, I think I’d rather you provide me with a few choice instances.

Then I'll save the energy. Because you need enough of them to see the purposes and patterns behind it,not individual cases.

Originally posted by Loungerist
You've also seen direct reports of the fusion as opposed to merely lack of mention. This to my knowledge has never been refuted in any subsequent reports. Citing it we have researchers directly and any number of science sites on the web. If you have a later report actually refuting this as opposed to simply not mentioning it(which could be due to any number of factors) that would help.

Unfortunately, respected archaeologists generally don’t spend their time refuting crackpot theories. They may not even be aware of them. But they do present their findings, especially ones as important as the one in question, in scholarly articles and books. I have yet to find anything academic which mentions this fusion.

As for seeing ‘reports,’ no I haven’t. I’ve seen an article from Pravda--a not very respectable Russian newspaper--and websites that anyone and their grandmother could put up. And I don’t think any of the sites I’ve seen were ‘science sites.’ If you’d direct me to some scholarly report that gives documented evidence for this fusion I would be more than willing to entertain the idea.

The verses will vary upon the translator so if you're looking for that exact verbage you'd have to find who translated specifically. I've not read the Mahabharata and have no intentions to,so I'll rely on those who have instead of those who haven't. The verse you're citing appears to come from Protap Chandra Roy's translation of the Mahabharata which can be found compiled in 100 separate publications.

I searched for various words and found none in ‘verses’ with the same meaning as those claimed—I didn’t search for entire sentences. It’s unfortunate that you don’t intend on proving for yourself whether or not a claim is true, especially when it’s not that difficult to do so—it’s the attitude the hoaxers expected of you. I will continue to search through the Mahabharata and keep you posted.

Yes,but as there are already such texts elsewhere it doesn't make much sense to do it.

As I said, nothing fits like an invented story. And if you’re going to invent a fused layer, you might as well invent a story about how it got there.

You've been given the citation,at least two of the scientists by name,and even the experiments performed. If you can dismiss that as"threadbare" then there's not much point in presenting much of anything.

I haven’t been given a citation, if by citation you mean a journal name, volume and page number, which would be the proper way to find a scholarly report. The internet is a nice place to find general information, but it’s not going to answer everything for you. I have access to a good (although not perfect) university library, and I’m willing to use that library to educate myself if only you would point me towards the information.

And as the article said,it was done using a replica of the battery and a simulation of the assumed materials and conditions of the time that you're saying couldn't do this. So I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

The article did not mention what material was used for the bath, at least the one I read. The mention of electroplating was a few sentences long, I believe. Even the shortest academic articles go into more detail than that. In addition, you even mistook it (or another website, earlier in this discussion) as making the claim that 4500-year old electroplated batteries were actually discovered, so it must have been badly written or something. As I said, I have access to a university library and I know how to use it. Take advantage of that and give me something to do.

And what we know is that there is alot we don't know. In 1937 we "knew" that the ancients didn't have batteries at all. But they did. That we are far from having a complete picture of the distant past is not imagined,it is the logical and prevalent conclusion based on the fact that we find something new all the time. To assume that what we've found so far is all there is is to ignore every pattern of discovery since the start of the modern age.

We must ignore all we don’t know, because we don’t know it. We search to find out more, but until then we work on what we know is generally correct. If we are to presuppose things about ancient civilizations for which we do not have proof, we would be introducing countless numbers of new variables into our calculations. We would be inventing new theories left, right and centre to explain everything in the archaeological record. We would be making a mockery of science. We don’t suppose that the Egyptians had giant power stations. We don’t suppose that aliens interacted with humankind. We don’t suppose what we don’t have reason to suppose.

Which would be a fair point if the clay pot was found on a flying saucer,but it wasn't. It was found in a town. The writings say the people did not have the same technology that the heavenly beings did. They had what they were given. The writings are the Mesopotamian,Egyptian,and Akkadian history and they can be found in nearly any bookstore or major library. If you really want to go in-depth you can read some of these ancient texts and then compare for yourself how well your primitive society theory stacks up to the actual evidence of the matter. For that matter,compare how many of the current mysteries are explained by these writings to that of the number of "we don't presently understand/know"s of science at large.

Could you give me a particular title or two so that I might find them? Also, have you ever heard of this thing called fiction? We have a lot of it, you know.

I don't believe Da Vinci attempted to build a helicopter by accident. But the knowledge he used can be traced back to much lesser understanding if one uses the same reasoning you're applying to the ancients. And near as I can tell you're taking a highly contradictory stance to do so. On the one hand,you're saying that the ancients accidently discovered electric principles and built whole batteries with all the proper parts somehow with no knowledge of how it worked. But on the other hand you say Da Vinci created a helicopter model but that was on purpose and he knew how air worked. You'll have to explain to me how these two ideas mesh because the only difference I'm seeing is one occured in a timeframe you more freely associate with technical knowledge. Whereas the other timeframe you're associating incorrectly as primitive.

Okay, before I go any further, the time was primitive. Apparently, you’re claiming that technology was given to Sumerians, Akkadians, and Egyptians (and Harappans?) from aliens and this technology was used in such a way that the Sumerians would have a battery, but would have it in a clay pot—this suggests that the knowledge among the human half of this culture was, indeed, primitive. So primitive that aliens felt they had to give them technology. It is only the fact that a few choice bits of technology have been discovered that you claim an advanced civilization. We have a civilization with a few advanced items given to it by the ‘heavenly beings’ and this makes it an advanced civilization?

Now, those who discovered the battery did not, in fact, discover the principles of electricity. They discovered that if they put metal A and metal B into liquid C, something happens. Heck, even your claim that aliens gave the technology to humans precludes them from having discovered it, so I don’t know what you’re trying to do, saying that humans discovered all this stuff with their sharp minds. You see, when Volta reinvented the battery thousands of years later, he understood a thing or two about electricity before making the battery. Those bits of knowledge about electricity came from repeated observations over the years. So, yes, when Da Vinci invented the countless inventions he did, he did it with knowledge that society had (although with his own insight). It took many years for the knowledge to have accumulated to the point where it was of use to one who wanted to go about and use that knowledge purposefully.

What I said was that the probability of the technological,astronomical,and mathematical advancement of these ancient civilizations points to design. Rather than them somehow creating batteries,charting the solar system,and teaching each other sexigesimal math in school all by an odds-shattering series of "accidents".

I’m pretty sure math was no accident, but what do you mean by ‘charting the solar system’? If you’re about to claim that they knew the relative distances of the planets from the sun, I would like you to provide the evidence up front.

Then I'll save the energy. Because you need enough of them to see the purposes and patterns behind it,not individual cases.

I’d think that someone who defends these theories like you should have some examples at your fingertips. Or are you really just going on a ‘feeling’ that things are being covered up without anything to back it up? That’s what it seems like, to me.

P.S. - One is supposed to put spaces after commas.