Forbidden Egyptology

Originally posted by Hanslune
At some point the logic should kick in.

something being "unknown" neednt only be the result of a "cover-up" but could also very well be due to lack of knowledge.

My skepticism towards the official version of history is born from a substantial amount of incongruency and bias in assembling that version of history.

I was assuming the work was original.

Where do you think Monty got the name from? Once again demonstrating the human trait of claiming others work to be one's own.

Why is it so hard to believe this was not the case with the Pyramids?

reply to post by Skyfloating

something being "unknown" neednt only be the result of a "cover-up" but could also very well be due to lack of knowledge.

True, but this site being what it is, many seem to think that EVERYTHING IS A COVER-UP.

What both sides need to do is find the missing pieces and the context into which they belong. One OOPart doesn't necessitate a rewrite of what we know until we can find out for sure what it is, where and how it fits into the big picture. Until then, it's just an oddity.

cormac

My skepticism towards the official version of history is born from a substantial amount of incongruency and bias in assembling that version of history.

The main part of the problem is your belief that there is an "official version of history", there isn't. Consensus is not an "official version".

If there is an official version of history, who is coordinating what this line of thinking is?

Why is it so hard to believe this was not the case with the Pyramids?

The weight of all the evidence pointing to the Egyptians and the lack of evidence pointing to somebody else.

reply to post by win 52

Where do you think Monty got the name from?

From the people themselves, per wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

Why is it so hard to believe this was not the case with the Pyramids?

Lack of definitive evidence that it was the case.

cormac

reply to post by Hanslune


*sigh*

Alright then. Lets start with the very beginnings, shall we?

According to religion we were created by God.

According to science we originate from a "singularity".

Does any of this sound satisfying to you?

[edit on 14-5-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Harte


Harte thanks for clearing that up!

You went into quite a lot of detail there, but i appreciate it. I don't think we have talked much. i just joined ATS a few weeks ago but i have been on UM for about 2 years now and i always enjoy reading what you have to say. even though i always hope your wrong!


Thanks again!

[edit on 14-5-2008 by midtown5dw]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Hanslune

 

*sigh*

Alright then. Lets start with the very beginnings, shall we?

According to religion we were created by God.

According to science we originate from a "singularity".

Does any of this sound satisfying to you?

[edit on 14-5-2008 by Skyfloating]

The former is not good enough, while the latter is not really what science says.

The singularity (I suppose you mean Big Bang) is just the current theory that explains the most of what we observe.

Science will drop it like a hot potato if something truly better comes along.

On the other hand, the religious view cannot be dropped, regardless of what else comes along, without risking endless suffering and torment in the afterlife.

So, I'll be satisfied with the latter for now, and probably fall back on the former on my deathbed, like any other thinking sinner that still craves a sin or two on occasion!

Harte

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hi Skyfloating,

To me the jury is still out. However, you do realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, don't you.

I know you have a tendency to pull out many an ancient text and read/present them as actual fact. Have you ever taken a look at the Book of Enoch? I'm not saying it to be true, but a case could be made that the part about creation could be interpreted, however loosely, as THE BIG BANG.

To me, in this case, science and religion are two sides of the same coin. One tries to explain things through observation, the other through faith. Neither having all the evidence or the full story.

cormac

Originally posted by midtown5dw
reply to post by Harte

 

Harte thanks for clearing that up!

You went into quite a lot of detail there, but i appreciate it. I don't think we have talked much. i just joined ATS a few weeks ago but i have been on UM for about 2 years now and i always enjoy reading what you have to say. even though i always hope your wrong!

Thanks again!

No problem.

I'd like to be wrong as well, about some of this stuff.

However, I feel I serve an important function on boards like this - there are so few of us willing to come forward on sites like this with what Skyfloating calls the "mainstream" view.

I mean, if not for me, Hans, Cormac, (these days, anyway - used to be a lot more around here - (Nygdan, Byrd, I'm forgetting several talented and significant voices here), the place would look like a bobblehead warehouse - everyone nodding enthusiastically in agreement with each other.

At any rate, you surely understand that, if I didn't hold out some hope of something amazing turning up, I wouldn't frequent these boards nearly as much as I do, if at all.

Harte

Obviously Monty is an old name.

Egypt is an old civilization. Where did Egyptians come from? An older civilization? Monkeys? Where is the proof, other than consensus?

I need some hard verifiable evidence, the Thomas I am. I see human nature being the smoke in front of the mirror.

Taking other sites around the Globe as reference, it becomes painfully clear history books are written on speculation. The correct information is out there, still preserved.

The bottom line is we don't know the factual event sequence. I do not trust much these days. The more I research the more I see, we really don't have a clue as to our origin. Much less, what the Mayans were trying to tell us.

I do not have a High School Diploma, that makes me trust less of what I am told to believe.

The two largest streams of thought are the religious and the scientific. Certainly they are not exclusive of each other.

Those grossly unsatisfied with both turn to side-streams and sub-streams of thought. My side-stream of choice from which I derive satisfying answers is that which is labelled as "gnostic, metaphysical, spiritual".

reply to post by win 52


Hi win,

There is nothing wrong with an inquisitive mind, High School Diploma or no. I believe that Harte and Hanslune would agree with me that science doesn't have all the answers. I personally do believe that science does have a better foundation for what is known than the fringe side. Without us the fringe side would cease to exist.

The Egyptians as a unified people along the Nile have existed since around 3200 BC. However, many of their ancestors lived in what is now the Western Desert before then when it was wetter and more of a savannah than now. As the desert encroached upon them many moved east to the Nile becoming the Badarian and Naqadian Cultures. The Egyptians didn't appear out of a vacuum.

cormac

reply to post by Skyfloating

Those grossly unsatisfied with both turn to side-streams and sub-streams of thought. My side-stream of choice from which I derive satisfying answers is that which is labelled as "gnostic, metaphysical, spiritual".

I may not share your beliefs, but I can respect them.

On a side note, did the link I posted the other day on the subject of the Tomb of Osiris help you any?

cormac

Being vague again.

What I eluded to is that those scavenging tribes of nomads could have stumbled upon a group of ruins at Giza and decided to settle there.

It would be relatively simple for them to restructure things a bit, making them look like they made the structures. The possibilities are endless.

I am thinking those pyramids are linked to other structures around the Globe, which were not found and renovated by nomadic tribes. Possibly, remnants of a once great civilization. Much greater than history recognises.



[edit on 14-5-2008 by win 52]

Originally posted by win 52
Being vague again.

What I eluded to is that those scavenging tribes of nomads could have stumbled upon a group of ruins at Giza and decided to settle there.

It would be relatively simple for them to restructure things a bit, making them look like they made the structures. The possibilities are endless.

I am thinking those pyramids are linked to other structures around the Globe, which were not found and renovated by nomadic tribes. Possibly, remnants of a once great civilization. Much greater than history recognises.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by win 52]

Although that is an entertaining idea it has no basis in fact. If there was in fact a civilization in Egypt before the Egyptians - it left no trace - which is unlikely given the going over that Egypt has been given by Archaeologists and looters.

Oh and Win a HS diploma is just a step, some of the brightest people I ever worked for and with were illiterate. Keep on the search but remember that the web is full of false leads and bad data.

For Sky, why the sigh Sky?

There is no "official history", I know you want there to be one so you can be the struggling hero against the monolith but in fact no such monolith exists. The amount of disagreement among historians and archaeologists on so many areas always makes me wonder why believers believe there is such a thing. Being outside of it, it might so appear, if you are inside it's very obvious it is not.

Satisfication is not an aspect of science.

As the smart Cormac said, the present Galaxy view will probably change, religion is more resistence to change but it evolves too.

What I eluded to is that those scavenging tribes of nomads could have stumbled upon a group of ruins at Giza and decided to settle there.

Where is the evidence?

It would be relatively simple for them to restructure things a bit, making them look like they made the structures. The possibilities are endless.

Scavenging tribes of nomads restructuring the ruins at Giza? That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, no evidence. Also, nomads by their very nature keep anything they construct simple due to their mobilility. If they attempted to "restructure" anything, it would be evident.

I am thinking those pyramids are linked to other structures around the Globe, which were not found and renovated by nomadic tribes.

But again, there is no evidence.

I commend your inquisitiveness, but "could have", "it's possible" and "you are thinking" are not very strong arguments in your favor.

cormac

I commend your inquisitiveness, but "could have", "it's possible" and "you are thinking" are not very strong arguments in your favor.

+3 points for speculation but no point for supporting evidence. Those are powerful words.

It "could have" been that the Spanish won the Spanish-American war and "it's possible" that Shakespeare wrote Henry the Second and "you are thinking" inside the outside box which is sixth dimensional.

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks for your response Hanslune.

Hans: I'm not an Egyptologist PE. No one dates the pyramids. The acceptance is based on consensus.

PE: Archaeologist then? just curious ( you don't have to tell of course)

Right, so the C14 dates them then; by way of organic matter found embedded on the outside of the pyramids? Do you know off the top of your head if any organic material from inside was tested?

Hans: The studies were paid for and done to prove that the pyramids were dated around 10,000 BC, they weren't. The second study was done to show the first study was wrong. It wasn't.

PE: Right the 1984 test wasn't wrong. What I don't know for sure yet is if the same samples that were tested in 1984 were tested again in 1995. Would you know?

Hans:
Lets say it again
Without the moderation from tree ring knowledge the SW dates from C-14 would ALSO BE TO OLD. Don't believe me? Look up a chart in the reference above, page 7 of 33.

PE: I'd be lying if I said I knew what you were talking about here. But I will be sure to read everyone of those 33 pages. Thank you for the reference.

I plotted the date of 3809 bc (a c14 result from a test on the GP) on that chart and it hits the curve at about 4000 bc on the dendro-age axis? Am I reading that right?

Also could you tell me if this is a conversion chart of some sort? And how to read it correctly?
depts.washington.edu...