10148 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

I think I'd like to join a religious Community. I haven't decided which, though. I'll think about it and let you know what I decide.

seeder, on 24 January 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

And why the hell would UFOs navigate by stones? Its outrageous to even think that they traverse tremendous distances in space, (with no direction signs), they make it here, plus they naturally have a birds eye view of the lie of the land/continents....but have to swoop down low enough to look for stone navigation beacons?

Are you a raving lunatic?

Ah, no, the idea I think, as perpetrated by some people in the "Earth energies" field, is that they act as kind of focuses, or is it foci, for the energy lines that, as is well known, criss-cross the planet. (and quite possibly the universe as a whole, on a larger scale). The theory is that UFos navigate, and/or perhaps use for propulsion, by means of this energy grid, and they might use them much like radio beacons, in order to navigate to points of interest. That might similarly be how they traverse tremendous distances in space, (with no direction signs), by using this energy grid as 'highways', and the points whetre they cross as beacons. As it is on the large scale, it might be repeated in a smaller scale on a planetary basis. It's an interesting theory, I feel, even though, of course, conventional Science would deny it utterly, just because they haven't found it yet (have they even tried)?

[seeder]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

It's an interesting theory, I feel, even though, of course, conventional Science would deny it utterly, just because they haven't found it yet (have they even tried)?

have you looked into whether its been studied or not? Its just a hypothetical idea.But this wasnt an ancient belief at all. The origin of the idea came into being with a book written by Alfred Watkins in 1921... hardly an ancient belief....

More to the point tho, is that the original meaning of the ley line was simply a path for navigation, with the theory being that ancient man, much as we do today, looked for points of reference in the landscape simply to navigate by. and the landscape at that time was mostly wooded. And we all know the shortest or best line between 2 points is a straight -ish line isn't it?

Ive not looked into this before as it never crossed my mind, but heres what I found on wiki, following on from mention of the original book from 1921

"In 1969, the British author John Michell, who had previously written on the subject of UFOs, published The View Over Atlantis, in which he revived Watkins' ley line theories and linked them with the Chinese concept of feng shui.[2] The book, published by Sago Press, proved popular and was reprinted in Great Britain by Garnstone Press in 1972 and Abacus in 1973, and in the United States by Ballantine Books in 1972. Gary Lachman states that The View Over Atlantis "put Glastonbury on the counter-cultural map."[21] Ronald Hutton described it as "almost the founding document of the modern earth mysteries movement".[22]

Michell's mingling Watkins' amateur archaeology with Chinese spiritual concepts of land-forms led to many new theories about the alignments of monuments and natural landscape features. Writers made use of Watkins' terminology in service of concepts related to dowsing and New Age beliefs, including the ideas that ley lines have spiritual power [23] or resonate a special psychic or mystical energy.[24][25] Ascribing such characteristics to ley lines has led to the term being classified as pseudoscience.[26]

In 2004, John Bruno Hare wrote:

Watkins never attributed any supernatural significance to leys; he believed that they were simply pathways that had been used for trade or ceremonial purposes, very ancient in origin, possibly dating back to the Neolithic, certainly pre-Roman. His obsession with leys was a natural outgrowth of his interest in landscape photography and love of the British countryside. He was an intensely rational person with an active intellect, and I think he would be a bit disappointed with some of the fringe aspects of ley lines today".[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_line

So..it would seem then once again, a book was written, then reinterpreted by another author with fanciful notions, and the subject of leys/energy lines was developed.

So its just another Eric Von Daniken  type scenario once again isn't it?

Well Im glad I spent  2 mins looking into this concept, but its just a load of modern age mumbo jumbo, based on a book written by a  probable stoner, which in turn was based on a book written by a guy who just wrote about pathways....that somehow has got its foot into modern beliefs. Well, some believers anyway.

The bottom line is tho....its not an ancient principle/belief, at all.   So bang goes another theory! Plus a bigger bang to the theory of  ufos needing them for whatever....

Edited by seeder, 24 January 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Ley lines could not, perhaps, be a modern name (and interpretation) for something that's been there all along? So you assume that it's all a load of mumbo Jumbo because a source online (i.e. Wikky Pedia) suits the conclusion that you have already arrived at, and refers to a couple of boooks that agree with that preconception? That doesn't seem very open minded. See, that's the trouble with this forum; if anyone even mentions anything outside of what mainstream convention agrees on, then instantly it's rubbished (complete with quotes from Wookie Pedia) as a load of mumbo Jumbo.
Anyway, did I say it was my theory? Just that is what the theory basically seems to say, and however much people may wish to rubbish it I still think it's interesting.

[seeder]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Anyway, did I say it was my theory? Just that is what the theory basically seems to say, and however much people may wish to rubbish it I still think it's interesting.

No you didnt  say it was 'your' theory but you posed the question and I'll quote you:

"conventional Science would deny it utterly, just because they haven't found it yet (have they even tried)? "

So in order to answer the question I looked it up for you and hence discovered what I posted. And no the ley line theory didnt exist before the books. Find a shred of evidence they did and I will sing your praises all day long. With a cherry on top.

Then you say:

"See, that's the trouble with this forum; if anyone even mentions anything outside of what mainstream convention agrees on, then instantly it's rubbished"

Thats not entirely true of all subjects posted. But this particular subject on ley lines would certainly appear to be rubbish. And what kind of a forum would it be if only the fairy minded believers who never looked for facts, and just wanted to chat about mystical places and ufos and little green men were the only people who posted?

I will make myself as clear as I can. I love a mystery like any-other does, but I also like to get into a subject and discover more of the mystery, rather than just see/hear/read something and then believe it.

I actively search for the truth/facts of a mystery, of ufo's, of ancient structures...because  I TOO WANT TO BELIEVE IN LOTS OF STUFF.

It just seems to be the case tho... that usually - there isnt any truth/facts to be found.

Sorry to burst peoples bubbles.

[Myles]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Ley lines could not, perhaps, be a modern name (and interpretation) for something that's been there all along? So you assume that it's all a load of mumbo Jumbo because a source online (i.e. Wikky Pedia) suits the conclusion that you have already arrived at, and refers to a couple of boooks that agree with that preconception? That doesn't seem very open minded. See, that's the trouble with this forum; if anyone even mentions anything outside of what mainstream convention agrees on, then instantly it's rubbished (complete with quotes from Wookie Pedia) as a load of mumbo Jumbo.
Anyway, did I say it was my theory? Just that is what the theory basically seems to say, and however much people may wish to rubbish it I still think it's interesting.

You must understand that Seeder did present some facts.   To rebut, you must do the same.  
I see you like to bash Wikipedia.   Although there are accuracy issues here and there, it is correct nearly all of the time.  After looking into it, I found that there are 20 universities that do nothing but check new enteries for accuracy.

[zoser]

Published on Oct 23, 2012

Ian illustrates the striking difference in architectural styles on one archaeological site alone. The examples in Peru are endless, and there are countless ways to demonstrate that the megalithic architecture of Peru was not built by the Inca, who used small, rough blocks, sometimes held together by almost as much mortar as the Spanish used in their cathedrals. The Inca attempted to ape the ancient architecture which they found on site, and that much is clear from this video.

[seeder]

zoser, on 24 January 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Published on Oct 23, 2012

Ian illustrates the striking difference in architectural styles on one archaeological site alone. The examples in Peru are endless, and there are countless ways to demonstrate that the megalithic architecture of Peru was not built by the Inca, who used small, rough blocks, sometimes held together by almost as much mortar as the Spanish used in their cathedrals. The Inca attempted to ape the ancient architecture which they found on site, and that much is clear from this video.

the penny hasnt dropped yet has it? You can keep on posting vids, keep on watching vids, but no matter what you do, the PP claims - that try to insinuate man was just barely stone aged.. and so couldn't have cut or shifted stones.... -.is so 70's.  As I have posted about the history of mans tech achievements LONG before PP was built...why do you keep banging the same drum? Man was piping gas, creating wheelbarrows, making street lights, playing chess..inventing compasses...BEFORE pp was even built..

when will you get up to date?

[zoser]

seeder, on 24 January 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

the penny hasnt dropped yet has it? You can keep on posting vids, keep on watching vids, but no matter what you do, the PP claims - that try to insinuate man was just barely stone aged.. and so couldn't have cut or shifted stones.... -.is so 70's.  As I have posted about the history of mans tech achievements LONG before PP was built...why do you keep banging the same drum? Man was piping gas, creating wheelbarrows, making street lights, playing chess..inventing compasses...BEFORE pp was even built..

when will you get up to date?

Another way to look at it is the more one sees the more one learns.  This is a brilliant clip showing close up images of PP.  Listen the author as he describes his amazement at seeing the precision artefacts.

Enjoy:

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Myles, on 24 January 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

You must understand that Seeder did present some facts.   To rebut, you must do the same.  
I see you like to bash Wikipedia.   Although there are accuracy issues here and there, it is correct nearly all of the time.  After looking into it, I found that there are 20 universities that do nothing but check new enteries for accuracy.

  Rebutting? Why should I want to Rebut? it's just an interesting idea, which may have no Scientific basis to it all, but that doesn't really matter.

Heavens sake, will people stop taking everything so seriously and be prepared to entertain a few interesting ideas from time to time without always insisting that they have to be backed up by Scientific fact. No wonder that people are reluctant to open their mouths if any ideas at all (that aren't backed up by Scientific fact) are always instantly leapt on by people who seem to constantly want to be so adversarial.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

seeder, on 24 January 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

No you didnt say it was 'your' theory but you posed the question and I'll quote you:

"conventional Science would deny it utterly, just because they haven't found it yet (have they even tried)? "

So in order to answer the question I looked it up for you and hence discovered what I posted. And no the ley line theory didnt exist before the books. Find a shred of evidence they did and I will sing your praises all day long. With a cherry on top.

Then you say:

"See, that's the trouble with this forum; if anyone even mentions anything outside of what mainstream convention agrees on, then instantly it's rubbished"

Thats not entirely true of all subjects posted. But this particular subject on ley lines would certainly appear to be rubbish. And what kind of a forum would it be if only the fairy minded believers who never looked for facts, and just wanted to chat about mystical places and ufos and little green men were the only people who posted?

I will make myself as clear as I can. I love a mystery like any-other does, but I also like to get into a subject and discover more of the mystery, rather than just see/hear/read something and then believe it.

I actively search for the truth/facts of a mystery, of ufo's, of ancient structures...because I TOO WANT TO BELIEVE IN LOTS OF STUFF.

It just seems to be the case tho... that usually - there isnt any truth/facts to be found.

Sorry to burst peoples bubbles.

See? classic example of what I was talking about. Why so adversarial? Why should I want my praises singed? I'm not even trying to promote the idea (or want my praises sung), just that this was an idea that has been floated by some people, and this was possibly what the notion of UFOs being interested in Megaliths may be to do with. it's not my idea, and whether people like it or not is not my concern.

[seeder]

zoser, on 24 January 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Another way to look at it is the more one sees the more one learns.  This is a brilliant clip showing close up images of PP.  Listen the author as he describes his amazement at seeing the precision artefacts.

Enjoy:

who is the author? what are his credentials?  why has he/she convinced you? Clearly I didn't watch your vid I just read the comments under it

[zoser]

Last one for this evening.

Another detailed look at the breathtaking precision in the Coricancha.

At 8:00 Foerster gives his opinion on the metal clamps.  The reason for posting this is that this is the first time I have heard him confirm what I already concluded.

That the clamps were not mechanical connectors but electrical.  I came to this conclusion after seeing the ridiculously small metal clamp moulds in the blocks at Ollyantaytambo that in no way would provide mechanical strength for blocks weighing tens of tonnes.

[seeder]

zoser, on 24 January 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Last one for this evening.

Another detailed look at the breathtaking precision in the Coricancha.

At 8:00 Foerster gives his opinion on the metal clamps.  The reason for posting this is that this is the first time I have heard him confirm what I already concluded.

That the clamps were not mechanical connectors but electrical.  I came to this conclusion after seeing the ridiculously small metal clamp moulds in the blocks at Ollyantaytambo that in no way would provide mechanical strength for blocks weighing tens of tonnes.

Brien said so - its true?  Ok we can play along. did you know, ONE SPOT of weld, about size of a large match head, will hold ONE Ton of weight?

My brother is a welder BTW

what was the purpose of electrical connectors? They didnt have hi-fi back then so why need electric?

Edited by seeder, 24 January 2013 - 08:49 PM.

[zoser]

seeder, on 24 January 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

Brien said so - its true?  Ok we can play along. did you know, ONE SPOT of weld, about size of a match head, will hold ONE Ton of weight?

My brother is a welder BTW

Depends on the size of the shear force applied to the blocks rather than the weight of the blocks per se.  Those links at Ollyantaytambo would simply shear at the first sign of any respectable shock.

[seeder]

zoser, on 24 January 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

Depends on the size of the shear force applied to the blocks rather than the weight of the blocks per se.  Those links at Ollyantaytambo would simply shear at the first sign of any respectable shock.

get real zoser, you've lost this argument long ago, and if all you can do, as a self quoted intelligent person, is NOT think for yourself but be swayed by Brien, then  thats a prime reason he's making money out of mugs

be a smart guy - email Brien on YT and invite him to this discussion? If not, why not? If so...I'm waiting!!  But I bet he wont come where there are no  bum kissers

Edited by seeder, 24 January 2013 - 08:55 PM.