Three Good Arguments For A Different Story of Ancient Egypt

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
Apparently the "flowers scent" is so heavy that it needs 2 arms to hold up the big end.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's more than likely the aroma of some magical flower.

MOTF!

Your point actually made me laugh out loud!

The overall issue here is that there will always be people who can't think outside the box and consider alternative theories regarding a civilisation from so long ago, that we actually know very little about them. Their origins are a mystery, the language is still not fully known, and their writings continue to reveal new secrets.

It is widely understood that the Egyptians were a very clever people. They had a lot of skill when it came to manipulating and working the world around them. I very much doubt that we will ever fully know who they were, where they came from, and why it was they faded away over time.

I for one believe that these people had access to technology that was lost over time. Technology that would be of benefit today (the ability to built mega-structures like the Great Pyramid in just twenty years, for example). All the evidence I have seen suggests that there was a world in pre-history that was very enlightened, very advanced, and had links with distant cultures (such as those in South America).

I would be foolish to think that this is the only possible version of events, because of the fact that there is still so much we do not know. The idea that it is aliens that are responsible for it all, sometimes amuses me, and I think about it, but ultimately dismiss it, because as a species humanity has always had a great capacity to do wonderful things, but then there are those among us who are corrupt and destroy the world through their greed - if we look around us, it's happening now. Will we be a forgotten civilisation in three thousand years time? Will archaeologists of the future dig up the skyscrapers of a city and wonder what gods these mega-structures had been dedicated to, or will they correctly identify that these structures are simply work spaces, homes, and so on?

It's an interesting thought process, regardless of our standpoint.

As far as the "light bulb" goes, I'm very open to the possibility that it was exactly that. Reason being that just because none have been found in tact doesn't mean it wasn't made in a prototype sense, and the idea scrapped, and material recycled in to other things. We know they were making glass back in the day, we know they bought glass from elsewhere & know they reworked it. Who's to say that the purported bulb wasn't exactly that, a bulb. Who's to say it wasn't a nifty invention that didn't have all the kinks worked out, and was scrapped? Modern humans do this all. the. time with inventions. We create something, have the schematics, maybe photograph it & show it off a little, and a lot of these inventions are abandoned to the annals of time. Scrapped, dismantled, recycled, poof, gone. Does that mean that invention never really existed because future humans will never find one intact, but rather might find a schematic or a few photos of some odd, confusing item? Think about that before you call it bunk.

The Sphinx, now, I'm very intrigued by it. I think the erosion ate a lot of (potential) decorations off it that may have been able to help us better understand it's history. I think it's very probable that it's a lot older than we think, but then again, environmental erosion can make things look a lot older than they are.

Something to think about in regards to water erosion on the Sphinx enclosure:

When it rained on the Giza necropolis which was paved, (yes it rains in Misr), where does the collective water run off go?

Hint: It went into a wadi

What is the elevation of the Giza plateau versus the Sphinx enclosure?

Where does that wadi lead to?

Think sand, water rushing down a wadi......

--------------------

Glass: could the AE make blown hollow transparent glass?

Could they create a vacuum?

Could they generate electricity?

Etc, etc......believe what the AE wrote

-----------------------

AE could work granite the same way others early civilizations could - unless you think they also had 'magical' abilities.

I had read somewhere that in the tombs where it was dark and no outside light could reach, they found no sign of carbon or soot on the ceilings. If they were not burning torches or using some sort of fire for light then they had to use something. Maybe they did have lights or some sort of light bulbs..

Originally posted by coop039

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by jeep3r

 

In regard to number 1, it's a visual representation of the flower's scent:

As to the other two, there may be some possible merit to some of these investigations, though there's some large hurdles in academia that will contest these.
Out of the two others, I personally favor the Sphinx weathering and evidence collected indicating a greater age than commonly accepted as the stronger of the two alternative arguments.

Everyone needs to watch this video. It explains the carvings and disproves other things. They do not depict the scent of the flower. A good video.

I just love how there is an explanation that is satisfactory of NUN holding up the universe that looks like a woman goddess but ZERO explanation of the THING depicted holding up What a second Universe? That looks suspiciously like a High Voltage Insulator.

So much so I would say they designed it (a high voltage insulator) after that design! LOL




So why no mention why NUN looks like a goddess in one part and like a Metallic or Ceramic object on the other? Or why 2 so-called universes are depicted?

Originally posted by ironjello
I had read somewhere that in the tombs where it was dark and no outside light could reach, they found no sign of carbon or soot on the ceilings. If they were not burning torches or using some sort of fire for light then they had to use something. Maybe they did have lights or some sort of light bulbs..

Good question:

They often coated ceilings and walls with mud, cloth or rushes and removed it when done, they also used a low- smoke oil from sesame seeds, other seeds and castor oil. A few sites have been found with soot damage but the age of it is unknown.

Most sites seen today were also cleaned.

reply to post by Hanslune


Love how all the sceptics here jump on Occam’s razor when it suits.
When it doesn’t however, out come all the outrageous excuses.
Looks like a bulb of some sort but is obviously the scent of a flower. Lol. Ok then whatever you say.


Oh and how convient all the evidence "cleaned" away. Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by Hanslune

 

Something to think about in regards to water erosion on the Sphinx enclosure: When it rained on the Giza necropolis which was paved, (yes it rains in Misr), where does the collective water run off go?

Hint: It went into a wadi. What is the elevation of the Giza plateau versus the Sphinx enclosure? Where does that wadi lead to? Think sand, water rushing down a wadi......

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Hanslune ...

Schoch had been challenged regarding those arguments by Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald (Authors of "Giza: The Truth", 1999). Here goes an excerpt of his comment:

Wadis and other depressions commonly found in arid regions do have tremendous potential to move loose debris and even cause serious erosion. However, in my opinion as a geologist, the nature and especially degree of weathering seen in the Sphinx enclosure and on the body of the Sphinx itself, is incompatible with sporadic flash floods since dynastic times.

I do not believe that there has been enough rainfall in the area over the last 5000 years to account for the tremendous degradation of the actual limestone bedrock as seen on the western end of the Sphinx enclosure, much less to account for the extreme weathering and erosion seen on the core body of the Sphinx itself.

Source

Don't know about your opinion, but his explanation does make sense to me. Yet, it's still just one source and so it's his word against theirs, I guess. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think there have been any other major objections against that theory since the publication of his article (apart from Hawass/Lehner and the likes).

Glass: could the AE make blown hollow transparent glass? Could they create a vacuum? Could they generate electricity?

We don't know, probably they couldn't. Is it therefore inconceivable that an earlier/other civilization could have achieved some level of technology enabling them to do just that? We have no evidence for that, yet, but I wouldn't want to dismiss the possibility of such a scenario.

believe what the AE wrote

I'm not even sure whether AE culture as such is in question. Probably it's rather the roots & origins of their metaphysical concepts that we can't interpret correctly in these days. What if the metaphors & terms they used related to something they couldn't understand themselves but considered to be important?

As long as we have pyramids, the function & design of which are unclear, as well as depictions strongly resembling technical devices and some open questions regarding the true age of what we see, I'd rather not draw any final conclusions yet. Just my 2 cents ...

Originally posted by Tiste Andii
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Love how all the sceptics here jump on Occam’s razor when it suits.
When it doesn’t however, out come all the outrageous excuses.
Looks like a bulb of some sort but is obviously the scent of a flower. Lol. Ok then whatever you say.

Tiste what is the context of where the carving is? Do you know? What is to the right and left of it?

.......Religious stuff from the classical period of Egypt... What is in the rest of the building? Right.. Religious stuff, well known to those who actually know about Egypt's religion and culture.

Oh and how convient all the evidence "cleaned" away. Nothing to see by

? You may want to read what I wrote not what you imagined i wrote, lol

reply to post by Hanslune


Not going to argue. Just wanted to point out the illogical thinking process. Many seem to have it on this forum.

reply to post by jeep3r


Schoch is a geologist and not an archaeologist I suspect he had no idea what the necropolis looked liked 4,500 years ago. I've seen it rain at Giza.

At best the geos are still discussing this issue and will be for sometime.

One can speculate all one wants but when you present a SCIENTIFIC theory you are restricted to what is actually known.

Look at the context of where the image is and apply egyptian R & C before modern interps

Originally posted by Tiste Andii
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Not going to argue. Just wanted to point out the illogical thinking process. Many seem to have it on this forum.

What like knowledge and evidence versus making stuff up?

reply to post by Hanslune


I agree you have knowledge about the mainstream views on these subjects. Problem is that the mainstream has an agenda which is distorting your vision and you need to resort to outrageous theories to explain simple concepts. But that’s alright some can read between the lines.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Schoch is a geologist and not an archaeologist I suspect he had no idea what the necropolis looked liked 4,500 years ago. I've seen it rain at Giza.

And if I were to receive an expert SCIENTIFIC opinion on the weathering erosion of limestones of the Eocene Mokattam Formation I would definitely want that opinion coming from an historian, or an archaeologist, or a sociologist, or a minister of antiquity. Definitely not a geologist.

right?

Originally posted by Tiste Andii
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Love how all the sceptics here jump on Occam’s razor when it suits.
When it doesn’t however, out come all the outrageous excuses.
Looks like a bulb of some sort but is obviously the scent of a flower. Lol. Ok then whatever you say.

It's neither. The depictions are accompanied by hieroglyphs that explain the entire scene. I've quoted and linked the translations several times over right here at ATS and elsewhere. Have a look - Doernenburg

Short version of what you're seeing is the annual rebirth of Iha, who was Horus as a child and whose father was also Horus. Horus was his own father several times over:

Sylvie Caulville worked extensively on the inscriptions in the temple. She suggested that in the carvings, Hor-sema-tawy (or Harsomptus "Horus the uniter of the two lands") is depicted as a serpent, a falcon and as a child (Ihy the son of Hathor and Horus of Behedet). According to one myth, Ihy sprung into existence out of a lotus flower which blossomed in the watery abyss of Nun at dawn at the beginning of every year. It is therefore suggested by some that the "light-bulbs" are in fact lotus flower bulbs, mythologically giving birth to the god. Another panel shows the bulb opening into a lotus blossom and the snake standing erect in the centre as a representation of the god Ihy. On the southern wall of the last room, a falcon, preceded by a snake emerges from a lotus blossom within a boat.

Different Source

It should be noted (for the hundredth time) that the carving shown is in a temple dating to the Ptolemaic period. It is a Greek depiction of an Egyptian myth, using the Greek names for the Egyptian gods involved (Harsomptus instead of Horus, for example.)

The myth far predates this carving and has been depicted elswhere. Here's an example from the first source I linked above:

Originally posted by Tiste Andii
Oh and how convient all the evidence "cleaned" away. Nothing to see here.

Are you implying that some nefarious group would scrub away soot, an easily explained contaminant, but leave undisturbed pics of light bulbs and aircraft for all to see?

I wonder if lithium will help.

Harte

reply to post by buster2010

I hate to break this to you but granite is far harder than jade. The main reason why some people claim aliens is because the Egyptians claim the great pyramid was built in 20 years. For them to have built this in that amount of time they had to cut, move and set one block every two and a half minutes. So it is impossible to have built it in that time frame.

Yeah, it's what people say they claim. I'm more of the opinion, they were a tad mistaken and it took longer than 20 years. It took Solomon 40 years to build the Temple in Jerusalem. I don't believe for a minute the great pyramid was built in 20 years.

Shhhh you say too much.

The real question should be and have always been; why are we being lied to? And just how bad is it really?

As Fuse8 stated that he thinks something went Wiley Coyote Acme tactical nuke in the past (paraphrasing ) was it us doing it to ourselves?

Or was it against us? Is it still happening?

reply to post by Rosinitiate


If you're referring to me, I don't think I've said too much, probably not enough (especially to prove these things). Not really sure I would like to these days.

Personally, I think they suffered from the same human frailties (sp?) we do today. Knowledge can set one free, but it could destroy an entire nation(s) .

reply to post by ironjello




You read wrong. There was tons of soot in every temple/pyramid. Watch Ancient Aliens debunked.

reply to post by Tiste Andii




What agenda is that?