An Extremely High Tech Civilization Definitely Existed In The Distant Past Of Our Planet

reply to post by VeritasAequitas



This is where i thought you were going with this. Yes, I think you are correct. The number 3 was very significant to the mystical minds of ancient man (and is still so now to those who care to study such things).

There is a definite art to building/creating. Our ancestors took this art to a degree that we still do not really understand on a general level.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Do you think that the Mayans saw the Egyptian triptych?

Highly unlikely when the Maya were about the AE were long gone and much of their work covered in sand - and their successors might have noticed them

Why is the triptych found in all pyramid building societies?

I'm sure if you cherry pick the data enough you'll find the use of three entrances in all societies, why is this signitificant? As noted to you before the Djoser pyramid has no triptych.....

Regardless of the age difference in the ones built, there are others that were built in the same time frame as the Egyptian ones.

Such as?

It does nothing to explain WHY they all used them, or where they got the idea to all build triptychs.

It looks nice, seriously you are reading why to much into it

Examine the last supper from Leonardo da Vinci, it's a triptych

See my comment just above

In Medieval cathedrals one reason I know of for three doors was to allow for the entrance of people based on the prevailing social structure of the time, the clergy, the nobles and the commoners

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

This is where i thought you were going with this. Yes, I think you are correct. The number 3 was very significant to the mystical minds of ancient man (and is still so now to those who care to study such things).

There is a definite art to building/creating. Our ancestors took this art to a degree that we still do not really understand on a general level.

It is a nice number and depending on the culture may have a religious or magical connotation

reply to post by Hanslune


Any culture that had a mystical priest class generally saw the number 3 as something of extreme significance. Particularly those with religious proclivities stemming from the Hermetic traditions.

Some archaeologists are masons/Rosicrucians, etc. Those that are not do not see the hidden significance in some of the items they catalog. I would bet that most of the Masons see the significance, but do not really point it out.

MOst of the time I challenge you, and I do it mostly to play devils advocate and get your thoughts on specific things. In this case, I am not challenging you in the slightest. Just stating the facts as I see them based on my training/study in the mystical arts. To someone familiar, you can spot a construct of a mystics mind with relative ease.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Any culture that had a mystical priest class generally saw the number 3 as something of extreme significance. Particularly those with religious proclivities stemming from the Hermetic traditions.

Some archaeologists are masons/Rosicrucians, etc. Those that are not do not see the hidden significance in some of the items they catalog. I would bet that most of the Masons see the significance, but do not really point it out.

MOst of the time I challenge you, and I do it mostly to play devils advocate and get your thoughts on specific things. In this case, I am not challenging you in the slightest. Just stating the facts as I see them based on my training/study in the mystical arts. To someone familiar, you can spot a construct of a mystics mind with relative ease.

I agree, someone with a modern bias will see something in an ancient culture and apply that bias to its.intrepretation - its a very old problem in archaeology and anthropology. What the reason was for doing 'x' to ancient culture may not be understood today. '3' may have been thought to have a religious or magicial value - or as I noted, it does look nice.

reply to post by Hanslune


My bias comes from writings that could only be considered "modern" to someone in the 1500's (or older).

The number 3, alone, means little. However, when you see the number 3 referenced in the highest part of whatever it is attached to, it is a clue that it may mean "something". When you add in the number 3 being highlighted on top of something with the ratio of 8:6:12, it is another indication that you may be seeing something.

Numbers have meaning. Maybe not to modern man, but back in the time when man's consciousness was burgeoning the relationships of these numbers were mind blowing revelations.

Eventually, they came to be used as a "code speak" to indicate that the builder was an initiate.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
.

Such as?

reply to post by Hanslune


Such as what? I just provided an example of how the harmonic mean (derived from Plato's description of the human soul) when combined with the number 3 (the number of God) can come to mean something of significance to someone who understands what these numbers indicate to the "initiates" of ancient times.

I am nowhere near as versed in you in manners of acrhaology, etc. However, my credentials on religious beliefs are not quite the same.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


a quote:

"We shall therefore borrow all our Rules for the Finishing our Proportions, from the Musicians, who are the greatest Masters of this Sort of Numbers, and from those Things wherein Nature shows herself most excellent and compleat." Leon Battista Alberti (1407-1472)

Alberti was best known as an architect, but seemed to be (in the spirit of DaVinci) a real Renaissance man. If you are an architect, you have studied this man in school as a prerequisite for your degree.

I do not expect an archaologist to understand architecture. You shouldn't either.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I will difer to your greater knowledge then. 'As such' I was referring to 'revelations' comment above

reply to post by Hanslune

Originally posted by Hanslune
Highly unlikely when the Maya were about the AE were long gone and much of their work covered in sand - and their successors might have noticed them.

So if the Mayans didn't see the Ancient Egyptians triptychs, where did they get the idea?

Originally posted by Hanslune
I'm sure if you cherry pick the data enough you'll find the use of three entrances in all societies, why is this signitificant? As noted to you before the Djoser pyramid has no triptych.....

I'm not cherry picking data. Yes, they all used the same architectural constructs.. I am asking why and from where they got it. It is significant. As noted before, I said the triptychs are not the entrances to the pyramids, merely built by the same society. However a Pyramid at Chichen Itza indeed has a Triptych entrance.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Such as?

newsflavor.com...

Indonesia..Don't attempt to attack the source, because I simply won't respond to that. It is not the only source however of that hypothesis.

Or some of the first pyramids in the Americas and Mexico were only about 800 years after the pyramid of Khufu..

Asians built pyramids..

Originally posted by Hanslune
It looks nice, seriously you are reading why to much into it

Or perhaps you aren't reading far enough...







Or even how about this one?



Do you know what that picture is on the left? It's the masonic tracing board. Notice between the two pillars, the three candles aligned just like a triptych entrance? Two even sized on the outer, and a bigger one in the middle, just like all of the ancient cultures did in their triptychs. The middle entrance is always bigger. Do you know what they call the towers on cathedrals? Towers of the Sun and Moon. Even in Notre Dame it follows the tracing board to a T. Even has a steeple in between the two towers denoting the Third eye.

Now look at Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper...



Yup the middle entrance is the biggest, just like all the others. I could get putting three doorways, but why the middle one always the biggest? I guess so it could accommodate more people, huh? Well, why not just all built them gigantically tall, so you can just let the whole barefoot town in??

reply to post by Blue Shift


But of course certain technologies could have existed intermittently and independently in an ancient setting, without the so called infrastructure of linear technological advancement. I think it's important to realize that human intuition, curiosity, and need (and maybe even luck) could have produced instances of considerably profound technological applications. In this way, these applications would very much be without precedent and therefor without what we would consider a "technologically advanced ancient civilization." It might even be better to classify it as a technologically augmented civilization.

If this were the case, I can only draw from placing myself in such setting because I believe humanity has always been more or less the same, regardless of setting. That being what it is, I would anticipate great disparities in building techniques and engineering achievements dotting the ancient globe, which there was. Certain techniques, perhaps creating brief controlled explosions to remove or shape the earth, would obviously lead to examples, which things like pyramids could very well be.

In our modern world, these brief explosions would automatically have a military application. In fact, the military use would probably drive the science before it was used for peaceful purposes. But that doesn't automatically make it so back then. We can suppose maybe that setting up the explosion charge might have required hours of preparation, or maybe they required the sacrifice of someone to detonate the thing. Slaves would be sacrificed, but maybe not military soldiers. My point is, Humanity has always been more or less what we still are today. Technology, and its place in the world would be completely up to its master. It could have existed in many different ways. It probably did.

first post. hopefully I didn't embarrass myself.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


My personal belief is that ancient trade networks were much more extensive than we have evidence for. I fully believe that sea journeys between the continents were possible. However, i do not think they were necessarily "regular".

This will only be a hypothesis though until actual evidence is found to corroborate it. The thing is, if we could find evidence to back this up, it would help erase some of the queries about our ancestors - like, for example, similarities between pyramids in different parts of the world.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Great, great post.

The Notre Dame image is beautiful. I have never really looked at the Notre Dame cathedral before. But you are right...it is the tracing board.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Now where do we go from there?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Dont worry about what Han said. He doesnt understand this stuff. He doesnt have the ability to do so either.

Very nice thread and information.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

My personal belief is that ancient trade networks were much more extensive than we have evidence for. I fully believe that sea journeys between the continents were possible. However, i do not think they were necessarily "regular".

This will only be a hypothesis though until actual evidence is found to corroborate it. The thing is, if we could find evidence to back this up, it would help erase some of the queries about our ancestors - like, for example, similarities between pyramids in different parts of the world.

Yes this is very true but some of the "experts" who I might add are not experts in anything but ignorance state that no wooden or reed ship has ever been found from beyond 2000 b.c intact so therefore they must have not sailed the ocean. Yet evidence from the mediterranean has proven that man was navigating the ocean and seas much earlier than believed.

Food for thought: Garbage, debris and a barge floated to the west coast of North America from the Japan tsuanmi. This garbage had no navigation skills or the ability to navigate yet made it to the 'new world'.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

So if the Mayans didn't see the Ancient Egyptians triptychs, where did they get the idea?

Maya were reasonable intelligent they probably came up with themselves, or are you going the hyperdiffusionism route?

I'm not cherry picking data.

Actually you are to make a significant comparative study of architectural styles you cannot pick out a few examples you must survey the entire output of the cultures architecture - have you done so? Nope

Yes, they all used the same architectural constructs.. I am asking why and from where they got it. It is significant. As noted before, I said the triptychs are not the entrances to the pyramids, merely built by the same society. However a Pyramid at Chichen Itza indeed has a Triptych entrance.

So then what is the point? Why don't you study how many times they used a single entrance?

Or some of the first pyramids in the Americas and Mexico were only about 800 years after the pyramid of Khufu..

Those are from south America and do date from around the time of the Giza pyramids- they are also only 17 meters high and no sign of your three doors (AFAWK), most if not all cutlures used raised platforms

Yup the middle entrance is the biggest, just like all the others. I could get putting three doorways, but why the middle one always the biggest?

Because it looks nice or has a meaning to that specific culture, what is your point? That 'masons' wandered around the world giving lessons in architecture?

I would also note that you are using cherry picked data....in 46 seconds using google I found these





I too can pick cherries when I want too, lol

I guess so it could accommodate more people, huh? Well, why not just all built them gigantically tall, so you can just let the whole barefoot town in??

You may wish to learn about social stratification, I see you are using more stuff from Richard Cassaro, yet you've stated he is irrelevant, is this all part of mason hidden culture thingy?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


At certain points on the continents, it is impossible to leave land and not end up on a different continent - it is simply the way ocean currents work.

Projections have shown that a boat / raft could leave Europe and drift to America in no more than 5 weeks. Obviously, they would have to have found some way to feed themselves on the journey and violent seas would have swamped them - nevertheless, science shows it is possible.

Regarding boat finds, maritime archeologists dream of finding Bronze Age or earlier shipwrecks - it is their equivalent of opening Tutankhamun's burial chamber.

Whilst several aeons after this period, we now know the Romans traded with India and had outposts there, for ship bound trade. Obviously, as until very recently, this involved no travel around the monsoon as the seas would have been too violent for ships of that era - so while the did indeed hug the coast, they did so in extremely difficult seas to navigate.

However, i have to stress again, this is my personal belief. At present, there is little to no evidence to support this.