Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Pyramid Texts for Astral Travel


  • Please log in to reply
254 replies to this topic

#31    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 May 2010 - 03:50 PM

View Postcladking, on 11 May 2010 - 04:57 AM, said:

Yes.  Exactly.  

I meant that anyone who wants to prove ramps and tombs can
get any sort of funding and testing he wants.  Everyone else
is considered a nutcase and kept far away.

That would be true only to an extremely limited extent. More important is that you have a proper education and belong to a recognized institution equipped to carry out proper scientific examination. If you honestly believe the SCA should just allow anyone access to the monuments, be that person fact-based or fringe-minded, you're fooling yourself. The SCA tightly regulates scientific examination of all of its historical sites and probably turns down more requests than it allows. Fringe-minded people like to cry conspiracy and cover-up and other juvenile and inane claims, but fringe-minded people tend to have little grounding in reality to begin with. The SCA is simply protecting its monuments, which is its first and perhaps most important responsibility. And the SCA does a very good job at this.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#32    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 03:50 PM

I think I'm getting closer and closer to lift-off here;

http://chicagoist.co...p?gallery0Pic=2

Ripped from today's news.

"The home, which also features a three-pyramid garage, sits on a natural spring, which forms a moat around the domicile. The water from the spring was reportedly so pure that Jim Onan was permitted to bottle and sell it."

Maybe Kmt_Sesh can believe now. ;)

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#33    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 03:54 PM

[quote name='The Puzzler' date='10 May 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1273453532' post='3408601']
This is not based in anything sci-fi or Sitchin-like, it is based in what seems like an obvious answer (to me).

The Great Pyramid was built to be able to be a vehicle for the body to astral travel or astral project, that is have an out of body exprience (OOBE) that took one to the stars and Heavens for a journey and back again.


[size="4"]Actually it wasn't.  The GP was built as a device capable of generating by principles of fusion, an electrically charged ecology to compensate for the gradual deterioration of the planet's own natural electrically charged atmosphere that existed at that time.

The 'Egyptians' that lived in those very ancient times were used to a very different planetry atmosphere that exists today.  This electrical ecology increases and decreases in a cycle over time.  The GP was an attempt to store the planets energy and then discharge it.  Chris Dunn is nearer to the truth than most of you realise.
[/size]

Posted Image


#34    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 May 2010 - 03:59 PM

View Postcladking, on 11 May 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

I think I'm getting closer and closer to lift-off here;

http://chicagoist.co...p?gallery0Pic=2

Ripped from today's news.

"The home, which also features a three-pyramid garage, sits on a natural spring, which forms a moat around the domicile. The water from the spring was reportedly so pure that Jim Onan was permitted to bottle and sell it."

Maybe Kmt_Sesh can believe now. ;)

As a resident of Chicago I have heard of Onan's creations and have seen photographs. I've always wanted to meet him and tour his property, just for the hell of it. It's always nice to meet a fellow Egyptophile. :)

That said, I hope you don't think that a spring in the state of Illinois supports your theory. Nor do Mr.Onan impressive modern creations. Nor does a University of Wisconsin study that suggests the "pyramids generate energy," a study about which that university should be embarrassed.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#35    Qwasz

Qwasz

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2010

Posted 11 May 2010 - 07:18 PM

Electrical Ecology?  Did you make up that term, does it come from fringe authors, or is it used in scientific literature?

Outrageous claims require outrageous proof, right?  I have not read Mr. Dunn's theories but I would be very surprised to find his work backed full of citations into geochemistry, physics, biochemistry, atmospheric science, and so on.

Could you post the bibliography of one of Mr. Dunn's better works on the subject?

EDIT
I just read the bib on Dunn's site.  It's just a bunch of commercial authors, not a single scientific paper in the list, although it was a brief list:
Dunn's Bib

Even if, hypothetically, he's right, he's clearly not interested in real science or he would be doing real science.  He's not.  Good science is built on hard evidence and experimental data from prior works and in related fields.  Dunn shows none of that.  He shows no scientific research what-so-ever as any basis for anything he says.

He's talking about the GP being some kind of huge nuclear reactor.  Well, then you need to collaborate with serious chemists and nuclear physicists to provide a scientific basis for your theory.

Instead of doing research into the real scientific publications on subjects like nuclear physics, he's just got a web site full of his theories, some pictures of Giza, and some little drawings he made in a paint program.  And of course, he's selling books.


If you want to propose the theory that GP is a nuclear reactor you do the following:
1. spend years reading the publications about chemestry and physics so you understand it (talking peer reviewed scientific journals, not books from Amazon)
2. assemble a bibliography of sources from the litrature which can form the scientific basis for your theory (the "it's actually physically possible" part)
3. propose your hypothesis/theory
4. design experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis

And the "truth" is that steps 1 and 2 are the most important ones.  Dunn skipped ahead to part 3, put it in a book, threw it on Amazon.  parts 1, 2, and 4 are not part of his "promotion" at all.

This is "pseudo-science" because it does not establish a scientific basis for the theory in the first place.  It's just wild speculation.

Edited by Qwasz, 11 May 2010 - 08:00 PM.


#36    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 May 2010 - 08:43 PM

View PostQwasz, on 11 May 2010 - 07:18 PM, said:

...

Outrageous claims require outrageous proof, right?  I have not read Mr. Dunn's theories but I would be very surprised to find his work backed full of citations into geochemistry, physics, biochemistry, atmospheric science, and so on.

...

I'm quite familiar with Dunn's ideas, myself. They're all on his website. I think this is perhaps zoser's single-favorite source for his own ideas about the Great Pyramid.

To be quite frank, Dunn has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. I'm not saying the man is stupid and in fact he's probably quite intelligent, but he has no tangible grasp of ancient Egyptian history or the technological capabilities of a Bronze Age people. Almost every point Dunn tries to make can be explained in more logical terms by a careful analysis of the science used and applied by orthodox historical researchers and scientists. In other words, there is simply no reason to take Dunn seriously. He's just another fringe author with his head in the vapors.

The bibliography you share in your link is quite telling, in fact. I'm not familiar with every writer on the page, but I noted that the only modern Egyptologist and pyramid specialist is Mark Lehner. Now, he is one of the leading experts, but the book Dunn references is only a general, layman's reference. There are a couple of books by Flinders Petrie but, despite the work Petrie conducted at Giza, he was never an expert on pyramids nor did he claim to be; he extensively surveyed the site but never professionally excavated at the Great Pyramid. Moreover, as important as Petrie was in the founding of the field of Egyptology, he was incorrect on many issues and merely guessed at a lot of things concerning the building of pyramids.

Surprising to me is Lucas and Harris's Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, which is arguably the most professional reference in the entire list. This book is more or less the seminal text on ancient Egyptian industries. I can only surmise that Christopher Dunn actually never read the book or at most perused a few pages of it, because this excellent work shows in no uncertain terms how far from reality Dunn really is.

Much of the rest of the list, containing such names as Cayce and Bauval and Smyth and Hancock, is of no useful or relevant bearing when trying to conduct legitimate research, so if Dunn wants to be taken seriously, he really ought to know better. But he doesn't, of course. One more fringe writer who's destined to disappear into the foggy mists of fringe nonsense.

I'm editing to add at least one kind word for Dunn: at least he shares this bibliography with his readers. It's something many fringe writers tend to avoid doing because they know anyone with an education in science and history will laugh at it. Well, anyone with an education in science and history will laugh at most of Dunn's bibliography, too, but I give him credit for including it. ;)

Edited by kmt_sesh, 11 May 2010 - 08:50 PM.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#37    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 11 May 2010 - 08:53 PM

Yes, I'm somewhat confused as to what the spring has to do with anything in that story. Is it somehow made more pure by the pyramid? Which means that grounding in reality is fading...

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher

#38    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 09:18 PM

View PostQwasz, on 11 May 2010 - 07:18 PM, said:


If you want to propose the theory that GP is a nuclear reactor you do the following:
1. spend years reading the publications about chemestry and physics so you understand it (talking peer reviewed scientific journals, not books from Amazon)
2. assemble a bibliography of sources from the litrature which can form the scientific basis for your theory (the "it's actually physically possible" part)
3. propose your hypothesis/theory
4. design experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis


One would think that since this is one of the best such lists I've ever
seen that I wouldn';t find fault in it.  

I'm sure Qwasz is aware of this but while steps one and two are quite of-
ten the more important parts of the process the fact is that revolutionary
ideas and concepts do tend to arise from outside the field.  

I think I'd insert another step between #2 and #3; "be very very lucky".  

It does seem pretty unlikely that an individual who isn't extremely fami-
liar with nuclear science would encounter such luck but I believe Mr Dunn
is an engineer.  We have a most limited number of means to create nuclear
fission or fusion but there's no proof this applied to the ancients.  At
least in theory there might be a virtually unlimited number of ways to split
and rearrange atoms.  

Of course one needs more than a mere hypothesis to convince anyone the pyr-
amid was a reactor.  

I tend to rate hypotheses about one whole point superior to assumptions
though no matter how crazy the hypothesis nor obvious the assumption.  As-
sumptions have a way of always biting you in the end.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#39    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 09:24 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 11 May 2010 - 03:59 PM, said:


That said, I hope you don't think that a spring in the state of Illinois supports your theory. Nor do Mr.Onan impressive modern creations. Nor does a University of Wisconsin study that suggests the "pyramids generate energy," a study about which that university should be embarrassed.


No, of course not.  I really believe that if carbonated water physically
started spraying out the top of G1 today most people would chalk it up to
mere coincidence.  

A lot of ideas should be most embarrassing.  But the most embarrassing idea
of all is one most people share; that we know everything.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#40    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 09:41 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 11 May 2010 - 08:53 PM, said:

Yes, I'm somewhat confused as to what the spring has to do with anything in that story. Is it somehow made more pure by the pyramid? Which means that grounding in reality is fading...


Maybe if the Egyptians could project themselves in space they could
in time as well.  What better way to communicate to everyone that they
weren't truly mad than to drop hints by getting people to build pyramids
and cities over streams?  ;)  

Or perhaps it's just humorous that a pyramid might still be built over
very high quality water.   :)

Jung believed in a collective unconscious.  He could have been right.  
Maybe monkeys really did smash bones around ben ben stones after the
phoenix was chased off and were then forced to evolve enough to build a
pyramid in its place.  

I'm not restrained by knowing everything so can speculate on the un-
knowable like how did they build the pyramids and were the pyramids built
for astral or temporal travel.  

There's evidence for everything and what we believe is normally determin-
ed by the preponderance of the eviodence.  At least this is what I believ-
ed up until four years ago.  Now it looks a lot more like people have
faith in what they know.  The status quo might not be caused as much by
inertia and fear of change as by faith.  We rush headlong into a future
which relies on an unsustainable status quo because we have faith that
the somehow the impossible will happen.  

Jeesh...

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#41    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 09:48 PM

And I might point out that google is getting mighty damn smart.

Nobody used the words "time travel" on this page yet one of the
ads came up "Time Travel Secrets".  It apparently got thgis from
my phrase "project themselves in time".  

I'll check out the link and report back if there's anything inter-
esting.


Edited to add.  I don't find it extremely interesting but it is
tangentially relevent to the topic so here's a link anyway;

http://blog.learnremoteviewing.com/

Edited by cladking, 11 May 2010 - 09:53 PM.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#42    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 11 May 2010 - 09:52 PM

Yay, irrelevant coincidence! And besides, first we have to assume that the Egyptians could project themselves in space, which is a stretch anyway. A veritable leap in logic, as it were.

   I'm indeed glad that you're not held back by your lack of knowledge. There is a line though, between groundless speculation, and logical guesswork.

   We're not talking about a civil law case here, with the "preponderance of the the evidence." That would imply that scientific results only need be accurate 51 percent of the time, which is completely unacceptable. A more desirable consummation would be a criminal burden of proof, such that we'd need beyond a reasonable doubt. Which would be closer to 99 percent, and much more accurate.

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher

#43    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 10:05 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 11 May 2010 - 09:52 PM, said:

Yay, irrelevant coincidence! And besides, first we have to assume that the Egyptians could project themselves in space, which is a stretch anyway. A veritable leap in logic, as it were.

   I'm indeed glad that you're not held back by your lack of knowledge. There is a line though, between groundless speculation, and logical guesswork.

   We're not talking about a civil law case here, with the "preponderance of the the evidence." That would imply that scientific results only need be accurate 51 percent of the time, which is completely unacceptable. A more desirable consummation would be a criminal burden of proof, such that we'd need beyond a reasonable doubt. Which would be closer to 99 percent, and much more accurate.


I agree.

But I rate all knowledge (including science) on its ability
to make accurate predictions.  From this perspective almost
everything we know is really groundless speculation.  Our
knowledge only works under controlled conditions.  Technol-
ogy is a manifestation of these controlled condition.  A wheel
goes round because it's made that way.  It just happens to
make about one revolution for each 3.14 diameters.  The fact
that it converts direction of movement  to rotation is lost on
most all observers.  Yet everyone has utter faith in his abil-
ity to drive to the store and that this ability proves not only
his intelligence but the fact that he knows everything.  

This allows us to simply see what we expect to see and believe
as we choose.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#44    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 11 May 2010 - 10:26 PM

I think you're rating most people's opinion of their own store of knowledge a little highly. And even if they do have unfounded faith in their own intellect, it doesn't matter anwyay lol.

   If you're interested in accurate, verifiable-beyond-any-doubt-at-all predictions, I don't think ancient history is the right field haha.

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher

#45    Qwasz

Qwasz

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2010

Posted 11 May 2010 - 11:10 PM

View Postcladking, on 11 May 2010 - 09:18 PM, said:

One would think that since this is one of the best such lists I've ever
seen that I wouldn';t find fault in it.  


I think I'd insert another step between #2 and #3; "be very very lucky".  

It does seem pretty unlikely that an individual who isn't extremely fami-
liar with nuclear science would encounter such luck but I believe Mr Dunn
is an engineer.
My point is that, as an engineer, he should be familiar with scientific method and should be approaching this problem as such.  I dont care if he's the world's leading nuclear physicist, without a scientific foundation for a claim, it's meaningless. (the leading nuclear physicist would know this of course)

Quote

  We have a most limited number of means to create nuclear
fission or fusion but there's no proof this applied to the ancients.  At
least in theory there might be a virtually unlimited number of ways to split
and rearrange atoms.  

"there may exist some technology which makes something we think is impossible, possible" is an argument you can make for any theory, hypothesis, or claim that you can imagine.  And it's a baseless argument.  It might be true, but without evidence and scientific method behind it, it's meaningless speculation.

Theory: "Ancient people actually created the planet earth from a can of playdoe".
Response: "That's physically impossible"
Baseless Argument: "Well they might have had a technology we dont understand"

Point is, to "believe" something, you should want some hard science behind it.  You want to be able to predict the behavior of things, using your "belief", and have it match the experimental result.

Personally I try very hard to remain in the "I have no idea" box on anything with limited evidence or limited experimental possibilities.

That's where I'm at with Giza.  I have no freaking idea what that thing is.  I'm pretty sure every theory I've ever heard is crap, and therefore, I have no idea.

Of course the problem is that we can really do much experimentation.  We need to dig and dismantle and reverse engineer the entire site, the entire country!  Without that, anything more than wild speculation is all we have, be it "tombs and spells", "nibblers", or "atomic reactors".


To properly test a theory like "atomic reactor" you would want to do a bunch of "it is physically possible" science with leaders in those fields and assemble first a scientific basis for your theory.  Then using that science you construct your DETAILED theory, exactly how is this nuclear reaction happening?  What would be the resulting changes to the structure itself?   Now perhaps you can ask some questions like "if it was a reactor, what would we expect to see if we test the rocks and dig into things and start really digging around in there?  Then you dig around, and see what you find.

Bottom line:  Dunn is not trying to prove a theory, he's trying to sell books.

Of course, the "experts" are trying to keep their careers and keep the grant money flowing, so they're not exactly doing real science either.

And that's pretty much why it's a mystery.

Edited by Qwasz, 11 May 2010 - 11:17 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users