902 replies to this topic

[designer]

To the idea of caves under the pyramids, I just saw a map of the hollow earth and it showed an entrance to one of the inner earth realms coming from Giza. That would be hidden caves.

[Harte]

Yeah.  No doubt about it.

We do need us some "advanced races."

Harte

[LRW]

cladking, on 23 December 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

there's better evidence for the existence of aliens than there is for most
of the quaint Egyptological assumptions.  "The past" is a very long time and suggesting there
couldn't have been any alien contact during those tens of thousands of years is pretty presump-
tuous.

Yes it is presumptous, and also quite ignorant. They don't seem to understand what extraterrestrial activity implies.   

Think of the earth and its universe as a radio station being set on a certain frequency, then think of other frequencies and other radio stations that don't exist on the same plane that earth exists on and the universe that earth resides in. Think of the other radio stations (universes, dimensions etc) on different frequencies as being entirely different universes to the one that earth is on. Think of them as being different branches on the same tree, but in entirely different places (different spheres of existence). Think of the other frequencies or branches as being different planes of existence, with beings that are entirely more advanced than humanity, both in a technological sense and a spiritual sense. Their technology is not of machines as you know them to be, their technology leaves no traces. Think of the beings that inhabit the other frequencies or other branches as being able to easily tune in to earths frequency or and the universe it resides in. Since they can easily tune in, then think of them being observers of humanity, think of them as watchers, some good, some bad.

Think of the good ones as being friendly to humanity, think of the good ones as wanting to progress humanities potential and spirituality, so they can exist on higher planes of existence, so their souls can connect with other planes and exist on them. The ancients tried to achieve that on earth in the past through ritual and ceremony and astounding monuments of stone connected with the cosmos deliberately. They knew more about the universe than modern masses know about it. Think of the good watchers transmitting signals to those ancients brains, think of the signals as being forms of electrical energy that can be converted into knowledge and spirituality. Think of a time where those electrical signals were thriving in the ancient world, think of those signals being broadcasted. Then think of what the accomplishments were through connecting with those signals, think of all the new advanced technology that man learned about, thinking of the mathematical excellence they recieved from those signals through the connection they opened. Then think of how they achieved astounding feats of architecture of which there is no real true genuine explanation for. Think of the good watchers as getting fulfillment and nourishment through advancing humanities potential.

Then think of the bad watchers/observers, and their utter disgust for humanity, their utter hatred for them, think of the bad ones as wanting to consistently deride humanities attempts of achieving higher spirituaity and knowledge. Think of the bad ones as wanting to destroy humanity and any efforts for them to exist on a higher more spiritual form of existence, think of them sending the most horrible of electric signals from other frequencies that influenced humanity to resort to committing great atrocity and suppression of knowledge and spirituality, if it meant they could keep it all for themselves whilst under the control of dark forces. Think of the dark forces as getting their nourishment and fullfillment through atrocity and destruction of humanity and the planet they exist on.

Think of humanity being on earth in a universe on one of those planes seen in the picture. Then think of higher beings existing on higher planes in different universes, think of them as being higher forms of conciousness than humanity. Think of those beings that can transcend the boundaries of their own planes spiritually, and enter the plane that humanity exists on, they can interfere with earths fauna both positively or negatively. They don't possess a physical body as you know it, say flesh and blood, those beings are made up of something else, they are made of different energy, they will sometimes appear as a shining white light. When you hear of the "Shining Ones" from history, thats them. The higher forms of conciousness existing on different planes of existence to humanity.

cladking, on 23 December 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Why do people jump all over orthodox assumptions as givens even when they're illogical
but dismiss everything else even when evidence exists?

All the orthodox can do is assume and make assumptions, the same as anyone else, but given the enormous monopoly they hold over museums and public insititutions, then its not surprising to expect enormous support for their ridiculous theories.

They still can not accurately translate the hieroglpyhics in my opinion, all they can do is assume and misinterpret. Take for instance the rosetta stone, in my opinion it looks like an absolute fake. The same stone is regarded as being a gateway to understanding the so called ancient egyptian hieroglyphics, it bizarrely was a convenient find that popped out of nowhere and looks dodgy to say the least.

They assume the ancient symbols was a written language that they can decipher. They decipher it wrong, because they try to match up the symbols to conveniently suit their own modern languages and ideology. Its not a language that can be accurately deciphered by them, based on a fake stone i.e. the rosetta stone. The hieroglyphic language was a symbolic language that uses symbols for communication and created for the purpose of achieving greater accuracy and understanding of the culture. Since modern "egyptologists" were never initiated into such a culture, they could not possibly fully understand it or even begin to comprehend what the symbols really mean. Their so called translations of the hieroglyphs is comedy gold.

Egyptology is based heavily around christianity, therefore everything the "egyptologists" say about it is based on micky mouse and his adventures in wonderland, it is epically wrong, because all the mainstream leading museums and institutions related to the study of the culture, have been heavily indoctrinated through the teachings of monotheist religons like christianity, their mind was closed minded since the start of their so called studies.

Its all wrong, the translations, the theory on how it was built, the theory the pyramids were tombs etc, its all epically wrong.  

Everything they say, should be disregarded and thrown in the garbage can, because its wrong, just like christianity is wrong.

There are no answers to be found in egyptology, by listening to them, you will never get the answers you seek.

[kmt_sesh]

LRW, on 03 January 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

...

Egyptology is based heavily around christianity...

This is the one statement on which I care to comment for the moment. Stop a moment and think about it carefully. Do you not see the obvious error in this statement?

By the time Christianity was starting to emerge in the late first century CE, easily 99.99% of ancient Egyptian history had already transpired. Egypt was just another vassal state of Rome. Nearly all of the monuments for which Egypt is famous had already been built many centuries before. Nearly all of the historical events that have come down to us from the time of the pharaohs had occurred many centuries before. All of the great kings for whom Egypt is known had been dead for many centuries. Even the hieroglyphic script was dying out by the time Christianity was emerging.

Christianity, in other words, is not even relevant to 99.99% of the history of ancient Egypt.

Egyptology is about ancient Egypt. That much is obvious to even the most novice of students.

Think about it. Enough said.

[TheSearcher]

And of course you have proof, in order to back all that little story you just gave us up, right LRW?  Cladking, as misguided as he may be, at least tries to give us something he considers evidence (and I use the term loosely).


Edit : PS : Hey Clad, still up to your old stories I see?

Edited by TheSearcher, 03 January 2013 - 05:32 PM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

LRW, on 03 January 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

Egyptology is based heavily around christianity

I noticed that it is not unusual here for the real meaning and sense of what is written to be lost in translation.....
However, does this quote say that it is not Ancient Egypt that is based heavily around Christianity, which is clearly 100% incorrect, but it is egyptologists misinterpreting AE because they are viewing AE through a mind that is "contaminated" by 2 000 years of Christianity?. I have high regard for John Romer, though he does see the past through the lens of his Christian faith, though he does not hide this. Is this what you mean to say? that AE is seen through eyes clouded by Christianity and not a product of Christianity?

[LRW]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 03 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I noticed that it is not unusual here for the real meaning and sense of what is written to be lost in translation.....
they are viewing AE through a mind that is "contaminated" by 2 000 years of Christianity?. I have high regard for John Romer, though he does see the past through the lens of his Christian faith, though he does not hide this. Is this what you mean to say? that AE is seen through eyes clouded by Christianity and not a product of Christianity?

When the ancient world is seen through the eyes of people whose society and education platform has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by christianity and islam, then you will get pretty much a fictitious rendition on the past, mainly due to indoctrinated christian eyes trying to percieve a culture they could not possibly understand or even begin to comprehend, unless they sever all ties with christian colleges and institutions promoting history and a chronology extremely and heavily based around monotheist religon and its dogma around the bible and the ancient world in general. AD/BC, BCE/CE, they are all chistian inventions. Even another term that CE is known as is "Christian Era". Roman catholicism is only a recent invention, perhaps around 1000 to 1500 years old.      

You must remember who are the institutions and museums, what society do they come from? they come from a modern society where billions of the worlds population have been indoctrinated by monotheist religons like christianity and islam etc. The indoctrination starts quite young, and it will remain part of the society that "egyptologists" spring from, thus in effect what you are dealing with is people who have been influenced and educated by colleges, schools etc with an inherent christian bias, also many of those colleges were founded on core christian ethos especially in the west. What you are getting is a christian monotheist bias. It clouds their judgement, it makes them less aware of other cultures who did not place such an emphasis on christianity. You can notice it in their speech, Hawass for instance, is one such example where you can hear the monotheist bias stemming from his beliefs, he says the word "God a lot implying he has been indoctrinated by monotheist institutions. He just seems like a stooge for them. He recieved a PhD degree from the university of pennsylvania.

Look at the symbol for the university of pennsylvania. Again, blatant latin, and blatant glorification of roman catholicism. Its a christian institution.




A lot of Christian teachings and other monotheist teachings, say islam aswell, sever the connections to the ancient world, because modern mainstream history is built and established by christian institutions and colleges and their students that eventually become the so called leaders in the academia surrounding the ancient world. They have the monopoly over the information being pumped out to their very own colleges and institutions, a lot of the leading ones are christian in their ethos. The religons of the ancient world were a rival to the founders of christianity, so they wanted them destroyed.  

Does their vast wealth make them the most credible on the topic? if anything it would make you think otherwise.

Consider the sources who pump out the so called information.

As the old saying goes "You Will Know Them by Their Fruits"

Their fruits are their symbols and latin inscriptions seen on their colleges, latin comes from chistendom. "Egyptologists" come from chistendom, the bias is already there from the very beginning of their so called research. If they go against the grain, they would be scorned as outcasts, fringe, pseudo archaeologists etc.

Edited by LRW, 03 January 2013 - 07:05 PM.

[cladking]

I agree that this bias heavily influences everything today but even more pernicious
is the influence of science and technology.  Christian/ Muslem influence is heaviest
in the soft "sciences" like Egyptology  but what Egyptologists don't understand in terms
of monotheism they tend to understand in terms of science which givesa the illusion of
complete knowledge by means of technology.  This illusion is so strong that we can't
even see the results of the tiny amount of scientific testing that has actually been com-
pleted.  If C14 readings don't match accepted dogma then invent excuses.  If real science
shows a five step pyramid then interpret the evidence for immediate needs.

Certainly the effects of religions is impeding progress but so too the modern day religion
of  Science.  Science pronounces us the pinnacle of creation and technology the proof
so it simplyu follows people who lived in the past mustta been superstitious bumpkins.
Case closed!  This means anything that doesn't have direct evidence to support it is  cast
aside as nonsense despite the fact that all the Egypytological assumptions are essentially
founded and the result of religious belief of one sort or another.  The attitude has become,
"do as I say not as I do".

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

LRW
Your post will be seen as attack on innocent people going about their work in the way they have been taught. However, I see beyond the broad brushstroke you have used and am in general agreement with what you have written. It is a matter of casting off shackles that should have rusted away a long time ago. It is not a matter of being against facts, but of interpretation, of trying see through eyes of the ancients.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 03 January 2013 - 07:07 PM.

[cladking]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 03 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I noticed that it is not unusual here for the real meaning and sense of what is written to be lost in translation.....
However, does this quote say that it is not Ancient Egypt that is based heavily around Christianity, which is clearly 100% incorrect, but it is egyptologists misinterpreting AE because they are viewing AE through a mind that is "contaminated" by 2 000 years of Christianity?. I have high regard for John Romer, though he does see the past through the lens of his Christian faith, though he does not hide this. Is this what you mean to say? that AE is seen through eyes clouded by Christianity and not a product of Christianity?

I don't disagree but the way I see it is that every individual is unique to his time and place. No
ancient Egyptian was ever born in Kansas and never will be.  Much of what makes up the indi-
viduals born in Kansas today are religious ideas from Christianity.  Even athiests in Topeka all
share many of these ideas, traits, and beliefs because they saturate society. The church accepts
science now days which is even more dangerous in practice than religion since it has no moral
code.  It affects more minds with more superstitions than religion. Of course this isn't so much a
fault of science as it is the means by which it is taught.

[LRW]

cladking, on 03 January 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

I agree that this bias heavily influences everything today but even more pernicious
is the influence of science and technology.  Christian/ Muslem influence is heaviest
in the soft "sciences" like Egyptology  but what Egyptologists don't understand in terms
of monotheism they tend to understand in terms of science which givesa the illusion of
complete knowledge by means of technology.  This illusion is so strong that we can't
even see the results of the tiny amount of scientific testing that has actually been com-
pleted.  If C14 readings don't match accepted dogma then invent excuses.  If real science
shows a five step pyramid then interpret the evidence for immediate needs.

Certainly the effects of religions is impeding progress but so too the modern day religion
of  Science. This means anything that doesn't have direct evidence to support it is  cast
aside as nonsense despite the fact that all the Egypytological assumptions are essentially
founded and the result of religious belief of one sort or another.  The attitude has become,
"do as I say not as I do".

Who has the monopoly of the study of mainstream science in general? again, christian institutions especially in the west, they have their noses in everything. What credence should be granted to the technology being produced by their science? It is harmful to the environment, take for instance industrialism, look at the pollution and widescale environmental damage that ensued from raping the earths resources, drilling for fossil fuels, destroying whole habitats with a blatant disregard for any potential damage. With powerful technology comes great responsibility.

Their science seems to be in conflict with nature, whereas the ancients and their nature-based beliefs and science was in harmony with not only the earth, but also the cosmos and the patterns of its stars like the sun etc. It was beautiful, their religon played a part in that.  Since christianity reared its ugly head, all that has seem to have been lost for the most part.

Imagine if the ancients seen their beautiful environment degenerated, all because the new science is given credence and priority.

Great atrocity has been committed in the name of modern science.

They call that progress? oil spills destroying the habitat. So people can pump fuels raped from the earth into their automobiles. At least a good old chariot only required the fuel of a healthy well looked after horse. A lot of the technologies used by modern science leave great side-effects on nature.  




Modern science has created monsters that are in conflict with the natural environment.





Modern science is pure butchery, it seems to have no respect at all for the planet.

[Quaentum]

LRW, on 03 January 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

Yes it is presumptous, and also quite ignorant. They don't seem to understand what extraterrestrial activity implies.   

Think of the earth and its universe as a radio station being set on a certain frequency, then think of other frequencies and other radio stations that don't exist on the same plane that earth exists on and the universe that earth resides in. Think of the other radio stations (universes, dimensions etc) on different frequencies as being entirely different universes to the one that earth is on. Think of them as being different branches on the same tree, but in entirely different places (different spheres of existence). Think of the other frequencies or branches as being different planes of existence, with beings that are entirely more advanced than humanity, both in a technological sense and a spiritual sense. Their technology is not of machines as you know them to be, their technology leaves no traces. Think of the beings that inhabit the other frequencies or other branches as being able to easily tune in to earths frequency or and the universe it resides in. Since they can easily tune in, then think of them being observers of humanity, think of them as watchers, some good, some bad.

Think of the lack of evidence to support the existence of other dimensions, planes and universes, just think of it.

[cladking]

Not to get sidetracked here but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with
modern technology necessarily merely the way it is used, but far more importantly,
the way it is understood.  We have a culture founded on waste with no regard to the
future and little concern about despoiling and possibly changing nature; changing the
nature of some fundamental process required for life (especially human life) on earth.

People take the existence of technology as proof of human omniscience and evidence
of our position at the very crown of creation.  Metaphysics; the reason, logic, and defin-
itions that form the basis of science, is no longer even studied by the majority of scien-
tists much less the general population.  Technology is misapprehended and its impli-
cations misunderstood. We then adapt them to the idea that natural resources are limit-
less and taking more than we need from the earth is more evidence of omniscience and
perfection. Lack of individual responsibility then ensures numerous accidents and spills.
All human knowledge is now broken into countless specialties yet there are no trained
generalists anywhere in the entire world to knit one specialty to another.  All humans have
difficulty distinguishing the forest from the trees but this blindness of the forest can be to-
tal for the majority of specialists and this problem increases dramatically with age.  Most
people are taught by modern schools to hate learning so very few of those not trained as
specialists have a "scientific bent".

People today are very highly superstitious.  We are frightened of change and will follow
like lemmings to the cliffs rather than make a change which might end badly. They think
that taking far less from the earth as each inhabitant has more wealth might result in bad
consequences as some industries might gain or lose relative to one another.  So we march
to the cliffs rewarding waste and punishing productivity through income taxes. The wealthy
never had it so good and the poor all know they might always be allowed less for their out-
put.

Today most all people are "enlightened" and see nothing wrong with our ancestors having
tended toward being superstitious bumpkins.  We have removed all personal responsibility
so anything is of equal value (not that there's anything wrong with that).  Ideas have been
cheapened to the point that they are simply stolen by anyone who wants them.  We see our-
selves as the perfected human.  Most of us have numerous superstitions but they are difficult
to see in this light.  It's not just the rabbits feet or good luck charms but our belief in religions
and "science".  It is our kowtowing to  the latest pronouncements and our certainty that science
can always get us out of anything it gets us into no matter how badly we abuse its usage or
misapprehend its nature.

We've lost much of our humanity and have becomes virtual cogs in a machine.  It's a deter-
ministic universe controled by odds or forces beyond our knowledge.

There's no real "solution" to any of these issues beyond people looking from outside of their
place and time.  If people did this they'd see it's a big world out there with room even for aliens.
They might see how we are so misguided in so many ways and be more open to understanding
other cultures and other times.  People need to be taught to be careful what they believe because
they become those beliefs.  If the entire culture shares the belief then the entire culture is that
belief.  Children need to be taught metaphysics from kindergarten.  People need to start holding
people responsible for their actions and the results of those actions.  Instead people fixate on
intentions and beliefs when things go wrong.  The actions, means, and results are what can be
controlled.

As things decay the people who cause it make ever more money and have ever lower taxes.

[kmt_sesh]

LRW, on 03 January 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

...

AD/BC, BCE/CE, they are all chistian inventions. Even another term that CE is known as is "Christian Era"...

Modern historical research has moved away from BC/AD (Before Christ/Anno Domini) because that system was based on a clear Christian bias. No one can even say exactly when the historical Jesus was born, so the system was not fully reliable to begin with.

However, BCE and CE are a departure from that bias. They are neutral as far as religion is concerned and have no connection to any religious calendar system or tradition. BCE stands for "Before the Common Era" and CE "Common Era," not "Christian Era."

Please review the basics before making such pronouncements.

Editing to add: You seem to have an odd and misplaced disdain for modern science. Were it not for scientific advances, it would take us weeks to travel distances that we can now travel in hours, our correspondence would take days or weeks instead of seconds (the forum in which we're participating right now wouldn't even exist), few people would be literate, most of us would live little more than 35 years or so, women would often live less and many would die in childbirth, almost all of us would be sick on and off our entire brief lives, and at least 30% of our children would be dead before the age of five. Something on the order of 20% of all babies would be miscarriages or stillborns.

Those are just the highlights. I'll take scientific advances, thank you. Science has done far more good than bad.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 03 January 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[LRW]

BCE/CE is still an invention of the christians and still based on anno domini calendars. CE, is sometimes called "Christian Era" because the whole chronology is biased towards christian institutions that invented it. It is a ridiculous chronology. Changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE does not make any difference at all, both chronologies were developed by christians, therefore are biased.  

Reference: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Common_Era

Common Era (also Current Era^[1] or Christian Era^[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini (abbreviated AD).^[3] BCE is the abbreviation forBefore the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC). The CE/BCE designation uses the year-numbering system introduced by the 6th-century Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who started the Anno Domini designation, intending the beginning of the life of Jesus to be the reference date.^[4][5] Neither notation includes a year zero,^[6] and the two notations (CE/BCE and AD/BC) are numerically equivalent; thus "2013 CE" corresponds to "AD 2013" and "399 BCE" corresponds to "399 BC".

The character "Jesus Christ" never existed in my opinion, the character is blatant fiction, the character is simply a metaphor and allegory for the sun. Christianity is nothing more than a sun worshipping cult. Their main day of prayer and celebration is on what day? Ah yes "SUN-DAY" the suns day, since christ is only a metaphor for sun worship.  

Edited by LRW, 03 January 2013 - 10:49 PM.