Full Version: Creative Question
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
for those here who think that the Egyptans came up with airplane designs, electricty bulbs, and whatever else first.. (or they had help with it from another species which i belive), but anyways.... do you think these ancient civilizations came up with these ideas and built them already and then these creations such as what i noted earlier got lost through time, then people like Einstien, Bell, Edison, ect.. came along and "re invented" these items, not knowing they exsisted in the past.. and totally thought they invented them thereselves? you now what im sayin guys? hope to here back from ya guys... THANKS UM!
lol how is know one replying to this, i thought it was rather creative? any takers!?
I think that the Egyptians saw farther bacause they stood on the shoulders of giants.
If you look at their pyramid building, the earliest pyramids were the most technologically advanced. Also, there is the mysterious sphynx.
Egyptian science and technology seemed to spring from nowhere, and declined rather than developed.
This indicates that it was a legacy, left from an earlier, more advanced source.
If you look at their pyramid building, the earliest pyramids were the most technologically advanced. Also, there is the mysterious sphynx.
Egyptian science and technology seemed to spring from nowhere, and declined rather than developed.
This indicates that it was a legacy, left from an earlier, more advanced source.
QUOTE(DJ_Quinn @ May 13 2005, 11:09 AM)
I think that the Egyptians saw farther bacause they stood on the shoulders of giants.
If you look at their pyramid building, the earliest pyramids were the most technologically advanced. Also, there is the mysterious sphynx.
Egyptian science and technology seemed to spring from nowhere, and declined rather than developed.
This indicates that it was a legacy, left from an earlier, more advanced source.
[right][snapback]619882[/snapback][/right]
If you look at their pyramid building, the earliest pyramids were the most technologically advanced. Also, there is the mysterious sphynx.
Egyptian science and technology seemed to spring from nowhere, and declined rather than developed.
This indicates that it was a legacy, left from an earlier, more advanced source.
[right][snapback]619882[/snapback][/right]
you're saying that the pyramid at saqquara is the most advanced here dj
that kinda shows just how much you really know about egypt doesn't it
fyi heres a picture of what you're claiming as the most advanced pyramid in egypt
so you might want to rethink your last statement
marduk, I'm new around here, so how about lightening up on the request for back-up data?
There are so many theories on most of these subjects, and can I prove my theory?
Proof comprises completing all steps of the following pattern in any order.
A hypothesis must be conceived.
Evidence must be available to support it.
All opposing hypotheses must be excluded.
It must be demonstrated.
At the pyramids, however, there are many hypotheses that can complete steps 1, 2, and 4. Automatic exclusion is impossible. In a case like this, the means to complete step 3 is to unbalance step 2. The correct hypothesis must present substantial amounts of high quality evidence that overwhelms the evidence of all opposing false hypotheses, and it must be a judgment made by a jury as to what comprises overwhelming evidence. Everyone is on the jury for pyramid construction.
The Great Pyramid was constructed during the 4th dynasty in the reign of Pharaoh Khufu circa 2,500 BC (almost 4,000 years ago!) in the era known as the "Old Kingdom"
Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Egyptology knows that during the Middle Kingdom, architecture and art styles first continued or imitated older styles, from the Old Kingdom.
During the New Kingdom interest in the past was again widespread, but now the past was seen as much more distant than before and more effort was needed to regain it.
The Egyptian Late Period knew again many archaistic tendencies and other references to the past, especially to the Old Kingdom which was perceived as part of a mythical prehistory.
There is no doubt that with experience, the skills of stone working and engineering progressed, but that the technologicy did not.
There are so many theories on most of these subjects, and can I prove my theory?
Proof comprises completing all steps of the following pattern in any order.
A hypothesis must be conceived.
Evidence must be available to support it.
All opposing hypotheses must be excluded.
It must be demonstrated.
At the pyramids, however, there are many hypotheses that can complete steps 1, 2, and 4. Automatic exclusion is impossible. In a case like this, the means to complete step 3 is to unbalance step 2. The correct hypothesis must present substantial amounts of high quality evidence that overwhelms the evidence of all opposing false hypotheses, and it must be a judgment made by a jury as to what comprises overwhelming evidence. Everyone is on the jury for pyramid construction.
The Great Pyramid was constructed during the 4th dynasty in the reign of Pharaoh Khufu circa 2,500 BC (almost 4,000 years ago!) in the era known as the "Old Kingdom"
Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Egyptology knows that during the Middle Kingdom, architecture and art styles first continued or imitated older styles, from the Old Kingdom.
During the New Kingdom interest in the past was again widespread, but now the past was seen as much more distant than before and more effort was needed to regain it.
The Egyptian Late Period knew again many archaistic tendencies and other references to the past, especially to the Old Kingdom which was perceived as part of a mythical prehistory.
There is no doubt that with experience, the skills of stone working and engineering progressed, but that the technologicy did not.
QUOTE(DJ_Quinn @ May 13 2005, 11:52 AM)
marduk, I'm new around here, so how about lightening up on the request for back-up data?
There are so many theories on most of these subjects, and can I prove my theory?
Proof comprises completing all steps of the following pattern in any order.
A hypothesis must be conceived.
Evidence must be available to support it.
All opposing hypotheses must be excluded.
It must be demonstrated.
At the pyramids, however, there are many hypotheses that can complete steps 1, 2, and 4. Automatic exclusion is impossible. In a case like this, the means to complete step 3 is to unbalance step 2. The correct hypothesis must present substantial amounts of high quality evidence that overwhelms the evidence of all opposing false hypotheses, and it must be a judgment made by a jury as to what comprises overwhelming evidence. Everyone is on the jury for pyramid construction.
The Great Pyramid was constructed during the 4th dynasty in the reign of Pharaoh Khufu circa 2,500 BC (almost 4,000 years ago!) in the era known as the "Old Kingdom"
Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Egyptology knows that during the Middle Kingdom, architecture and art styles first continued or imitated older styles, from the Old Kingdom.
During the New Kingdom interest in the past was again widespread, but now the past was seen as much more distant than before and more effort was needed to regain it.
The Egyptian Late Period knew again many archaistic tendencies and other references to the past, especially to the Old Kingdom which was perceived as part of a mythical prehistory.
There is no doubt that with experience, the skills of stone working and engineering progressed, but that the technologicy did not.
[right][snapback]619911[/snapback][/right]
There are so many theories on most of these subjects, and can I prove my theory?
Proof comprises completing all steps of the following pattern in any order.
A hypothesis must be conceived.
Evidence must be available to support it.
All opposing hypotheses must be excluded.
It must be demonstrated.
At the pyramids, however, there are many hypotheses that can complete steps 1, 2, and 4. Automatic exclusion is impossible. In a case like this, the means to complete step 3 is to unbalance step 2. The correct hypothesis must present substantial amounts of high quality evidence that overwhelms the evidence of all opposing false hypotheses, and it must be a judgment made by a jury as to what comprises overwhelming evidence. Everyone is on the jury for pyramid construction.
The Great Pyramid was constructed during the 4th dynasty in the reign of Pharaoh Khufu circa 2,500 BC (almost 4,000 years ago!) in the era known as the "Old Kingdom"
Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Egyptology knows that during the Middle Kingdom, architecture and art styles first continued or imitated older styles, from the Old Kingdom.
During the New Kingdom interest in the past was again widespread, but now the past was seen as much more distant than before and more effort was needed to regain it.
The Egyptian Late Period knew again many archaistic tendencies and other references to the past, especially to the Old Kingdom which was perceived as part of a mythical prehistory.
There is no doubt that with experience, the skills of stone working and engineering progressed, but that the technologicy did not.
[right][snapback]619911[/snapback][/right]
I see the problem here DJ
you're starting with a hypothesis
thats very fallible
why not try starting with the facts and then reach a hypothesis. Thats the way regular archaeologists do it. You're method is more akin to that of Erich Von Daniken, Zechariah Sitchen and Graham Hancock
of course if you don't have all the facts then your hypothesis will always be flawed
the facts in the cases of the pyramids are known to all and sundry
one other thing
making out you know more than you actually do by cutting and pasteing an answer from another site is also doomed to failure
see people notice that
and then show you up by printing your source
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NalrESV...gain+it.+&hl=en
p.s. "marduk, I'm new around here, so how about lightening up on the request for back-up data?"
i have done no such thing
Its unbelieveable that another speices came to help a civilzation... No scentific proof.
>one other thing
making out you know more than you actually do by cutting and pasteing an answer from another site is also doomed to failure
see people notice that
and then show you up by printing your source
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NalrESV...+it.+&hl=en<
Merely research. I'm not concerned with making out that I know more than I actually do. Many of the facts that I have read and assimialted are from books or articles that I've read years ago, and cannot recollect the source or exact content.
If everyone on these boards listed site references for all of their posts, I would be surprised.
I am well able to support my own arguments, I just wanted data to support.
The argument/ hypothesis as I outline it in my reply, is my own.
And I'm not being defensive, I actaully enjoy your posts marduk. I don't mind being challenged to defend a hypothesis or argument.
making out you know more than you actually do by cutting and pasteing an answer from another site is also doomed to failure
see people notice that
and then show you up by printing your source
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NalrESV...+it.+&hl=en<
Merely research. I'm not concerned with making out that I know more than I actually do. Many of the facts that I have read and assimialted are from books or articles that I've read years ago, and cannot recollect the source or exact content.
If everyone on these boards listed site references for all of their posts, I would be surprised.
I am well able to support my own arguments, I just wanted data to support.
The argument/ hypothesis as I outline it in my reply, is my own.
And I'm not being defensive, I actaully enjoy your posts marduk. I don't mind being challenged to defend a hypothesis or argument.
QUOTE(DJ_Quinn @ May 13 2005, 01:29 PM)
>one other thing
making out you know more than you actually do by cutting and pasteing an answer from another site is also doomed to failure
see people notice that
and then show you up by printing your source
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NalrESV...+it.+&hl=en<
Merely research. I'm not concerned with making out that I know more than I actually do. Many of the facts that I have read and assimialted are from books or articles that I've read years ago, and cannot recollect the source or exact content.
If everyone on these boards listed site references for all of their posts, I would be surprised.
I am well able to support my own arguments, I just wanted data to support.
The argument/ hypothesis as I outline it in my reply, is my own.
And I'm not being defensive, I actaully enjoy your posts marduk. I don't mind being challenged to defend a hypothesis or argument.
[right][snapback]620007[/snapback][/right]
making out you know more than you actually do by cutting and pasteing an answer from another site is also doomed to failure
see people notice that
and then show you up by printing your source
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:NalrESV...+it.+&hl=en<
Merely research. I'm not concerned with making out that I know more than I actually do. Many of the facts that I have read and assimialted are from books or articles that I've read years ago, and cannot recollect the source or exact content.
If everyone on these boards listed site references for all of their posts, I would be surprised.
I am well able to support my own arguments, I just wanted data to support.
The argument/ hypothesis as I outline it in my reply, is my own.
And I'm not being defensive, I actaully enjoy your posts marduk. I don't mind being challenged to defend a hypothesis or argument.
[right][snapback]620007[/snapback][/right]
I'm glad,
everything i do in here is in humour or seriously tongue in cheek
i never set out to offend anyone who hasn't already insulted me
The problem with facts repeated from old books and other miscellaneous sources is that the world moves on.
twenty years ago people thought that king tut was murdered by a bash on the skull
thirty years ago people believed Von Daniken's explanation for Nazca for lack of a better alternative.
Fourty years ago emmanuel velikovsky put forward the idea that egyptian chronology was out of date.
lol ok so maybe velikovsky isnt such a good example but you get my drift here
if you're into egyptology or any kind of ology you're education continues by the day and you constantly have to re theorize.
When you consider that most of what we thought we knew up until very recently was wrong then theres plenty of room for people to have their own theories
but they have to be irrefutably supported by the facts to get any recognition.
Thats IRREFUTABLY,
because otherwise you're just repeating verbatim a personal belief, and personal beleifs don't have a very good basis in fact, just ask lucid element for his evidence that the egyptians had help and you'll see what i mean.
Your OK DJ welcome to the forum BOSS!!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.