It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Good read undo.
Come to think of it: Should civilzation be wiped out again, where will all the data be that has accumulated in the internet? Probably gone as it is not carved into rocks.
The biggest libraries today are probably the Vatican Library and the Library of Congress. How easy would it be to destroy all of it? Very easy. A single bomb could be enough.
One more note on the abydos-picture:
Originally posted by Hanslune
Skyfloating you refuse point blank to acknowledge that the inscription is an inscription or that it is a repaired and damaged inscription, since you cannot read Egyptian writing it appears to you as "pictures" to those who can read the H know you are mistaken - its as simple as that.
You refuse to see reality for what it is. Egyptologists cant even translate it because its not a language at all. You repeating "its an inscription, its an inscription!" will not make it go away.
The text is part of the titulary of Ramesses II and can be translated as "The one of the Two Ladies, who suppresses the nine foreign countries." This replaces the royal titulary of Seti I that was originally carved into the stone. More technically, the actual "helicopter" seems to be a portion of the psd.t sign and the X3s.t sign on top of each other, with portions missing. An apparent change in scale also mucks things up.
FRANCIS CRICK, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of '___' when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.”
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
An enduring controversy has been generated by Watson and Crick's use of DNA X-ray diffraction data collected by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling. The controversy arose from the fact that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge, by her estranged colleague, Maurice Wilkins, and by Max Perutz.[39] Her experimental results provided estimates of water content of DNA crystals and these results were most consistent with the three[40] sugar-phosphate backbones being on the outside of the molecule. Franklin personally told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside. Her identification of the space group for DNA crystals revealed to Crick that the DNA strands were antiparallel, which helped Watson and Crick decide to look for DNA models with two polynucleotide strands. The X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin provided the best evidence for the helical nature of DNA. Franklin's superb experimental work thus proved crucial in Watson and Crick's discovery.
Prior to publication of the double helix structure, Watson and Crick had little interaction with Franklin. Crick and Watson felt that they had benefited from collaborating with Maurice Wilkins. They offered him a co-authorship on the article that first described the double helix structure of DNA. Wilkins turned down the offer and was in part responsible for the terse character of the acknowledgment of experimental work done at King's College. Rather than make any of the DNA researchers at King's College co-authors on the Watson and Crick double helix article, the solution that was arrived at was to publish two additional papers from King's College along with the helix paper. Brenda Maddox suggested that because of the importance of her work to Watson and Crick's model building, Franklin should have had her name on the original Watson and Crick paper in Nature.[41] Watson and Crick offered joint authorship to Wilkins which he turned down at the time, but which he may have subsequently regretted. (Franklin and Ray Gosling submitted their own joint 'second' paper to Nature at the same time as Wilkins, Stokes and Wilson submitted theirs, i.e., the 'third' paper on DNA.)
Gurkha, flying a swift and powerful vimana
hurled a single projectile charged with the power
of the Universe. An incandescent column of
smoke and flame, as bright as ten thousand suns, rose with
all its splendor.
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 unrecognizable.
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."
Dense arrows of flame, like a great shower, issued
forth upon creation, encompassing the enemy...
A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts.
All points of the compass were lost in darkness.
Fierce wind began to blow upward, showering dust and gravel.
Birds croaked madly... the very elements seemed disturbed.
The earth shook, scorched by the terrible violent heat of this
weapon.
Elephants burst into flame and ran to and fro in a frenzy...
over a vast area, other animals crumpled to the ground and died.
From all points of the compass the arrows of flame rained
continuously and fiercely. "
Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
yes, we´ve already established that, using occams razor, we dont buy the explanation of "glyphs overlapping" on the abydos picture. Lets keep it simple and take it as what it is. There is no "hoax" here either as the pictures simply show what they show. There is no "photoshopped manipulation" necessary either as the original picture shoes pretty much the same. Why put so much effort in trying to disprove the obvious? Dont waste your time on that, me and other people with eyes to see are not buying it.
Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
Francis crick does not support the ancient astronaut hypothesis so you got that wrong too
Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
btw Francis crick does not support the ancient astronaut hypothesis so you got that wrong too