Mysterious Origins of Man - Forbidden Archeology

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


what i don't understand is how they can keep repeating the mantra that the old texts are mythological on one hand, while their colleagues are digging up the old cities and other evidence, mentioned in those texts, on the other hand. the fact the cities and artifacts were not immediately visible was initially a major reason for discounting the texts in which they were first mentioned. and they didn't go looking for them, either. it was considered folly, since it would be backwards science. a handful of archaeologists, however, started paying attention. good thing too, or we would still be totally in the dark about much of the ancient world outside egypt.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR Apparently calling someone out on the meat of an issue is enough to turn them away from the subject.
No wonder I disdain "academia" in regards to these subjects.
Yeah, I won't be picking up any of the canuck's texts any time soon and I'll be looking forward to HIS publishings otherwise.

Please continue on your voyage of discovery, and let me know how it goes.

My publishing? Thanks for asking...it goes out for review shortly. Stay in touch and I'll send you a copy.

p.s. if you're an avid researcher of the old texts, remember, when it comes to ancient egypt, the words we have been familarized with as regards egypt, are not egyptian words! they're greek. alot of data relevant to your research can be found by simply finding out what the original egyptian words were for these things, and then following the etymological trail wherever it may lead. for example:

abydos is a greek word. in the original egyptian language it was abdju (pronounced ABZU, a "mesopotamian word").

osiris is a greek word. in the original egyptian language it is Asar, Aser, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, or Ausare

little things such as this, may in fact be covering up a plethora of related research data but is masked by the popularization of greek words to describe egyptian things




[edit on 31-3-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
p.s. if you're an avid researcher of the old texts, remember, when it comes to ancient egypt, the words we have been familarized with as regards egypt, are not egyptian words! they're greek. alot of data relevant to your research can be found by simply finding out what the original egyptian words were for these things, and then following the etymological trail wherever it may lead. for example:

abydos is a greek word. in the original egyptian language it was abdju (pronounced ABZU, a "mesopotamian word").

osiris is a greek word. in the original egyptian language it is Asar, Aser, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, or Ausare

little things such as this, may in fact be covering up a plethora of related research data but is masked by the popularization of greek words to describe egyptian things




[edit on 31-3-2009 by undo]

You bring up a good point, one should be aware that a little something always get lost in the translation.

reply to post by DisgustedOne


precisely! but we don't stop doing the diligent research simply because we find somethings are "masked" or "altered" by language variation. especially since there is more archaeological proof that the ancient texts are generally telling the truth, than there is for evolution theory. alot more. the only reason they don't consider the ancient texts in their deliberations is because they've been taught to believe that what are clearly historical texts are in fact just mythology. it's funny how mythology just keeps getting dug up from the earth, doncha think?

[edit on 31-3-2009 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Well, I don't think you can say that all archeologists, or archeology in general, think that ancient tales are all mythology. If they did, then why would they be searching for these ancient cities in clues past down from tales of ancient times. The problem with interpreting ancient tales is that they can have numerous meanings. so applying scientific research, logic, reason, and probability are the tools necessary to attempt to uncover the truth.

I imagine any good archeologist tries to identify the original language on which any writing was based. The problem is that languages change over time, and they also tend to develop numerous dialects. In addition, early writing symbols could very well be interpreted in many different ways. One scribe in one city could interpret a symbol one way, and another scribe in another city, in the same nation/empire, at the same general time frame, could easily interpret the same symbol very differently. It wasn't like they could create a dictionary, and print off several copies so that everyone was using the exact same symbols for the exact same purpose, with the exact same meaning. Heck, even with today's modern dictionaries, we often have disagreements on what definition of a word is being used, and what the proper definition of the word was when a document was written.

Have you ever read Robert Graves "The White Goddess", which explores the development of the alphabet. Essentially, Graves explains that the letters we use today to write all evolved from symbols that had a wide variety of meanings. The meanings of these symbols changed from city to city, nation to nation, culture to culture, and of course through time. They were usually associated with a god or goddess, a tree or bush, and numerous other things.

Even today nations, corporations, political parties, religions, fraternities, and various other groups are constantly creating symbols to represent themselves to the masses. Then there is quite a bit of difference between what an individual would write, and what a scribe working in the government would write in stone for future generations to see.

There was a thread a while back on ATS about tales of flying serpents, which exist in all societies around the planet. To me, a jet or rocket flying through the air looks like a giant flying serpent. Supposedly these serpents would be seen as a sign that the gods were arriving in the area. Now, maybe these flying serpents were really meteors falling to earth, as they would also look like a flying serpent, but not so much, they would move more on a straight trajectory, and look more like a ball of fire than a serpent. A craft, with a body, changing directions would look much more like a serpent.

All the evidence that has been found points to stone age civilizations, with amazing abilities in architecture, and a profound knowledge of the movement of the stars, as well as amazing knowledge of the Earth that seems to have came from beyond where it is reasonable to believe these civilizations were capable of exploring. I wonder, have they uncovered the symbols of mathematics in these ancient civilizations that enabled them to do such amazing calculations that must have been necessary for their achievements. Then again, how often does our civilization carve design specs and calculations into stone.

If some metal age civilization existed on Earth sometime in the distant past, or some extra-terrestrial visitors interacted with ancient civilizations on Earth, where is the proof of metallurgy. Any technology that allowed jets or rockets to fly through the air would have required advanced capabilities in metallurgy, or some other material beyond our current capabilities. Proof of these advanced materials would have to be found to conclude that any civilization with our current level of technology ever existed on Earth before us. This leads us back to ET visitors.

If Homo Sapiens have been around for millions of years, you would think that we would find somewhere a great deal of evidence of massive global civilizations having been in existence in the past in the form of giant metal structures as we have today, or the remains of these giant metal structures. If we can recover the bones of dinosaurs, you would think we could identify the skeletal remains of skyscrapers from ancient cities.

Could our timeline for the development of civilization be off by tens of thousands of years? I think this is quite possible. When I think about Tiahuanaco, virtually on the other side of the planet from Egypt, it seems very possible that stone age civilizations could have started far earlier than we currently think. Then I wonder what took us so long to move out of the stone age, into an age of metals.

reply to post by poet1b


well that's not exactly accurate. the etymological trail can be followed, it's just that some of what it revealed later, was not cohesive with the timeline they had constructed, which was based on dynastic egypt. the only solution they were willing to entertain was to suggest the symbols were unrelated.

there ARE archaeologists today, and they were some in the past, who took clues from the ancient texts to make their discoveries. however, for a very long time, this was heavily frowned upon, primarily because it doesn't follow empirical procedure to use a "myth" to discover a reality.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by undo]

reply to post by Lasheic


Right on Lasheic!

OK...the pro's talk about huge ramps, and sleds being lubricated with dribbles of water etc..never mind that the ramps themselves would be at least TWICE the volume of the pyramid itself!

Ask yourself, what is the greatest natural resource ancient egyptians had?
Sand? Water? Grain?

The answer is obviously people.

When trying to explain the building of the pyramids, people ( the labourers) are always portrayed as lugging and dragging these 2 - 4 tonne blocks (the vast majority only weight this much, only a small amount are much larger), grunting and heaving against the weight. Nonsense.

In fact NO ONE had to manually lift or drag anything!

If we say the average (guestimate) weight of an ancient Egyptian labourer was 150lbs, and a single block weighed 2 tonnes, you would need approximately 28 adult labourers to match the blocks weight, right?

OK, now we have equilibrium. Add 1 or 2 more people, and you have a 'human gravity engine' that will gently and effortlesly lift the block onto the level being built.

All that is required is for the labourers to attach ropes to the block, route the blocks through a capstan or similar on the level being built, run the ropes to the opposite side of the level, fastened to a platform. The labourers step onto the platform and hey presto, the block rises gently onto the required level!

The only effort required from the labourers, is that they are continually climbing up the completed levels, to again descend on the platform acting as a counterweight to the next block. Multiply this 'human gravity engine' a few hundred times, and the levels would have been built in a LOT less time than is previously thought.

No grunting or sweating involved, certainly no sleds. Possibly a system of cantelever type cranes, to keep the block away from the sides on the way up, but this would not be bearing any weight, just guiding the blocks.

My feeling is that most of the so called 'impossible' monuments around the world, were built using similar methods.

Now, if i can think this up in 10 minutes over morning coffee, why haven't all the professionals too? That's the real mystery.

spikey.

reply to post by serenityone


Look at my post above Serenityone.

Maybe it's the same as yours.

Not really a theory though..just logical.

spikey.

I would like to make a public apology to JohnnyCanuck.

I was a little harsh last night. I just don't like how you try to discredit the material with dishonest tactics.
It would be nice to see someone, especially someone studied in the field, talk about the subject in a more intellectually honest manner.

reply to post by undo


Undo, you are probably the most intelligent, level headed poster i've ever read on here!

Right on!

And of course, everything you said in your post is spot on.

We are talking about professional arogance, plain and simple.

It's this folly, that has held humanity back for at least centuries, probably for thousands of years.

It is probably THE single most infuriating thing about humanity i can imagine.

We would have nirvana, heaven on earth, right now but for these flawed, conceited individuals and organisations throughout history.

It's just so...pathetic and sad.

Keep on doing what you do eh.

spikey.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Hey Jay-in-AR,

I've been reading your 'exchange' with our Canadian friend, and i could see the way it was heading looong before you said your goodbyes. I've a feeling you did too.

He/she (in my opinion) is simply an antagonist.

It beats me how some get pleasure from it, but they obviously do.

Regardless of what you say, how you say it, however much diplomacy is woven into your writing, the end result is invariably the same - frustration.

That, i'm sure you'll know is the ultimate goal for people who like to 'get you at it'. IOW, you can't win.

Amazed you kept your cool for as long as you did - congrats!

spikey.

Originally posted by spikeyI've been reading your 'exchange' with our Canadian friend, and i could see the way it was heading looong before you said your goodbyes. He/she (in my opinion) is simply an antagonist.

I'm signing outta this discussion because you can't push a rope. As to my being an antagonist, you'll note that I've expended a whole bunch of time trying to point interested souls towards a worthwhile application of their pastime. If you follow the thread, I've gone from being a devotee of the Graham Hancocks and Barry Fells to somebody who walks the sites in question...if I can...and who studies the material that has been published by scientists who must report to their peers.

You'll note I've discussed paradigm changes, I've tracked where science has determined the evidence was eloquent enough to change the 'facts' as we know them. I've provided examples...like Monte Verde. L'ans aux Meadows marks another one, and I'm going there this summer.

I don't believe I've been arrogant in trying to share the results of my 'conversion'. Like I said, it's tough to argue the mystic nature of the pyramids' masonary when you talk to somebody who has excavated the tools and blocks in situ. I challenge y'all to talk to an expert and run your theories past them. Audit a university lecture. Talk to a prof.

But I sure as hell am not about to insult somebody else on the basis of what I read by some guy on the internet...no matter how cool it sounds. Cuz at the end of the day, all you're left with is more of the same.

That, my friends, is what I consider to be the height of arrogance.

reply to post by undo


The thing is, that the etymological trail isn't any more clear than the evidence we get from sifting through the layers of the Earth. I think how much weight ancient tales are given in developing main stream theories on history is something that is highly debated among the inner circles of archeological academics.

Still, lack of evidence of metal structures still makes it very difficult to claim that some ancient civilization once existed on Earth anywhere near the level of our current achievement. It is possible that such evidence is too deep for us to have found, and that such evidence may eventually be unearthed, maybe in Antarctica.

reply to post by poet1b


i've considered also, the possibility that advanced tech may be sufficiently advanced as to not look artificial. we're currently tinkering with nanotech, which is so small, the eye can't see it. we could have advanced, ancient technology, right under our noses, embedded in mundane structures, and not even know it.



if it doesn't show up the first time, reload the thread and try again because it does work. youtube gets fussy but the video is still there and you can watch it, you just have to reload it and retry. by the way, that video will freak you out if you haven't seen anything like it before

[edit on 1-4-2009 by undo]

reply to post by spikey


eek, well thank you. but i'm not smart, just obsessive-compulsive when i get on a topic i want to investigate.

reply to post by undo


Maybe off topic but another thing that has always puzzled me is the same people that proclaim the veracity of some ancient texts (Sumerian = proof of Reptilians) yet will discredit and disclaim ancient historical Hebrew texts because many of those writers were religious as well (well, except the part about the "reptilian" in the "garden").

I dunno, maybe I just don't get it...

reply to post by DisgustedOne


i don't discredit them, if you mean me i think all the old texts have extremely valuable information in them. i'm especially fond of the biblical texts.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by spikey

 

eek, well thank you. but i'm not smart, just obsessive-compulsive when i get on a topic i want to investigate.

No worries!

Well, you come across as smart, hows that.

It's not that, it's more the way you write. Kind of...calmly, you know?

(Don't get me wrong, i'm in a happy 20 year marriage, so i've no ulterior motive!) ;-)

spikey.

reply to post by undo


Oh, well, no, I don't think I meant you, unless, of course, that shoe fits your foot. It was directed at the more rabid posters I have noticed on the forum, that tend to take a hypocritical stand about these things i.e. "Ancient text A is ok, but Ancient text B is not because it is also a religious text". I think those that do so are dismissing a huge amount of valuable information and guidance because of unreasonable prejudice. I am certainly no expert on any of the texts, this is merely an observation. I agree with Spikey, you do come across as reasonable, IMO.