Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14
Alphamale06

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

10,149 posts in this topic

ancient soot zoser.. why would it be anything but?

More recent visitors. Tomb robbers et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true, given that the language itwas written it was a living language it would have evolved reatly since the days of the pramid builder, but reading the ancient texts was an impotant part of the culture, which suggests that someone - a great number of someones probably - could read the language in which those texts were written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More recent visitors. Tomb robbers et al.

considering most tomb robbing in ancient egypt happened not long after a tomb was sealed.. so where is the rest of the artifacts? the equipment that used the power that was generated?

stone carvings showing the machines?

so far the only thing you can come up with is the dendra light..

so was the GP only for powering lights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

considering most tomb robbing in ancient egypt happened not long after a tomb was sealed.. so where is the rest of the artifacts? the equipment that used the power that was generated?

stone carvings showing the machines?

so far the only thing you can come up with is the dendra light..

so was the GP only for powering lights?

It's all though the artwork if one cares to look. The Dendera images only happen to be the most popularised:

142.jpg

What happened to the artefacts? Good question? Buried deep within the hills of Giza is my guess along with Khufu, Chephren, Zoser, and all the other famous Kings.

What happened to the visitors who built the GP is a better question though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "Hundreds of years of Soot", do they mean it had been there for hundreds of Years, or it was the accumulated Soot from hundreds of years of burning things? Where would the Soot have come from? from the builders' torches that they used for Illumination, is that the argument we're proceeding wth? Just wanted to make clear exactly what it is people are arguing about. :santa:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all though the artwork if one cares to look. The Dendera images only happen to be the most popularised:

142.jpg

What happened to the artefacts? Good question? Buried deep within the hills of Giza is my guess along with Khufu, Chephren, Zoser, and all the other famous Kings.

What happened to the visitors who built the GP is a better question though.

ok.. so you have what.. 4 things down.. the dendra light.. and those 3.. where are the others.. where are the descriptions on what they do? why are their no writings telling about them?

egyptians liked to write down everything.. and there is nothing about these.. and please do not use the 'forbidden knowledge.. priests only' since we have a lot of the forbidden knowledge that only priests knew..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "Hundreds of years of Soot", do they mean it had been there for hundreds of Years, or it was the accumulated Soot from hundreds of years of burning things? Where would the Soot have come from? from the builders' torches that they used for Illumination, is that the argument we're proceeding wth? Just wanted to make clear exactly what it is people are arguing about. :santa:

pretty much.. as soon as the levels built up and cover over the passage ways.. they had to light it.. so yup.. that is what I am arguing about..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all though the artwork if one cares to look. The Dendera images only happen to be the most popularised:

142.jpg

What happened to the artefacts? Good question? Buried deep within the hills of Giza is my guess along with Khufu, Chephren, Zoser, and all the other famous Kings.

What happened to the visitors who built the GP is a better question though.

Google "Djed". Although if you were objective you would already know what they were. They had nothing to do with technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "Hundreds of years of Soot", do they mean it had been there for hundreds of Years, or it was the accumulated Soot from hundreds of years of burning things? Where would the Soot have come from? from the builders' torches that they used for Illumination, is that the argument we're proceeding wth? Just wanted to make clear exactly what it is people are arguing about. :santa:

Don't get technical LV; you will really confuse them.

Soot is soot and that means no aliens period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google "Djed". Although if you were objective you would already know what they were. They had nothing to do with technology.

According to who? Egyptologists? Not good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get technical LV; you will really confuse them.

Soot is soot and that means no aliens period.

it also means no GP as a generator :D

According to who? Egyptologists? Not good enough.

but its good enough from the AA .. Power generator crowd.. ?

no zoser.. that is not good enough..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty much.. as soon as the levels built up and cover over the passage ways.. they had to light it.. so yup.. that is what I am arguing about..

So where do you suppose the claim that there is no layer upon layer of soot came from? Someone is not telling the truth somewhere? Either there are layers and layers of ancient soot, or there isn't.

Why the uncertainty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to who? Egyptologists? Not good enough.

Zoser, if you're going to start with the blanket rejection of theories because of the profession of the people suggesting them, this debate's goig to grind to halt when the rest of us blanket refuse to listen to any theories put forwars by the sausage makers, convicted frauds and lonesome Centauri of the world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where do you suppose the claim that there is no layer upon layer of soot came from? Someone is not telling the truth somewhere? Either there are layers and layers of ancient soot, or there isn't.

Why the uncertainty?

the claim for no layers of soot came from the AA crowd..

AA: “According to most mainstream archaeologists torches were used by the ancient Egyptians to light the pitch black chambers of tombs and temples, yet nowhere on the ceilings it there even the slightest evidence of soot or smoke residue.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, if you're going to start with the blanket rejection of theories because of the profession of the people suggesting them, this debate's goig to grind to halt when the rest of us blanket refuse to listen to any theories put forwars by the sausage makers, convicted frauds and lonesome Centauri of the world.

The Egyptologists claim that the GP was a tomb for a dead King. For hundreds of years there has been doubt about that claim and zero supporting evidence. Recent research suggests that it was built for a very different purpose by different people.

If Egyptologists have universal credibility then why the controversy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to who? Egyptologists? Not good enough.

And the AA theory is backed by who? Some barely educated half-wits who have zero formal training or education to be able to substantiate their ideas that border on the illogical ramblings of lunatics? Is it any wonder that those who make history their life's work won't give this garbage the time of day? You can be angry that thousands of historians, archaeologists and scientists over the course of hundreds of years don't agree with you but it changes absolutely nothing. Neither will the repetition of unsubstantiated and unproven gibberish. You are charging the enemy while shooting blanks. Mostly just a lot of noise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Egyptologists claim that the GP was a tomb for a dead King. For hundreds of years there has been doubt about that claim and zero supporting evidence. Recent research suggests that it was built for a very different purpose by different people.

If Egyptologists have universal credibility then why the controversy?

because it makes money

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the claim for no layers of soot came from the AA crowd..

AA: “According to most mainstream archaeologists torches were used by the ancient Egyptians to light the pitch black chambers of tombs and temples, yet nowhere on the ceilings it there even the slightest evidence of soot or smoke residue.”

So do we have layers and layers of ancient soot in all of the tombs and temples or don't we? Because if they used torches to assist them in their considerable artistic efforts there should be.

Yet some claim there is no such thing to be found. A little soot residue could have been caused by anyone.

It's so simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because it makes money

I think that's a cop out. Plenty of people researching it now who have never appeared on the History Channel.

All over the internet, and in all good bookshops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the AA theory is backed by who? Some barely educated half-wits who have zero formal training or education to be able to substantiate their ideas that border on the illogical ramblings of lunatics? Is it any wonder that those who make history their life's work won't give this garbage the time of day? You can be angry that thousands of historians, archaeologists and scientists over the course of hundreds of years don't agree with you but it changes absolutely nothing. Neither will the repetition of unsubstantiated and unproven gibberish. You are charging the enemy while shooting blanks. Mostly just a lot of noise.

Shooting blanks?

Granite stacks for no reason, acoustic tuning and partial isolation of granite stacks, major differences in limestone composition for no reason, accuracy of construction unachievable by modern standards, copper electrodes in shafts...............

To deny is your privilage if counter argument fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Egyptologists claim that the GP was a tomb for a dead King. For hundreds of years there has been doubt about that claim and zero supporting evidence. Recent research suggests that it was built for a very different purpose by different people.

If Egyptologists have universal credibility then why the controversy?

academia moves glacially slowly.

it's a holdover from the days whe it toook months for discoveries to filter back to a cental point, furthwe months for it to be debated by the intrested/knowledgable across the globe and so on and so forth.

it also serves to ensure the dreck is filtered out through rigourous testing.

the downside is that even the teuth may take years to be acknowledged as such, especially in this/day and age of both intellectual and monetary investment in theories.

the fact that "it's a tomb" is now viewed, at least by the "common man's archaelogists", the documentary makers of this world' as just one explanation is testament to how ideas are changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

academia moves glacially slowly.

it's a holdover from the days whe it toook months for discoveries to filter back to a cental point, furthwe months for it to be debated by the intrested/knowledgable across the globe and so on and so forth.

it also serves to ensure the dreck is filtered out through rigourous testing.

the downside is that even the teuth may take years to be acknowledged as such, especially in this/day and age of both intellectual and monetary investment in theories.

the fact that "it's a tomb" is now viewed, at least by the "common man's archaelogists", the documentary makers of this world' as just one explanation is testament to how ideas are changing.

People agree that a Roman Amphitheatre was just that. Never any argument or controversy.

Not so with the GP. People smell a rat. A great big one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, as I said - we are culturally connected to the Romans. We're not connected - nor are there people who are cpnnected coutresy of the aforementioned Sultan and the phrase "if it's already in the Quran, it's supurfluous, if it's not in the Quran it's heretical" destroying everything - to the Egyptians.

Nturally ee know our ampitheatres from our baths, but not our pyramids from our temples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, if you're going to start with the blanket rejection of theories because of the profession of the people suggesting them, this debate's goig to grind to halt when the rest of us blanket refuse to listen to any theories put forwars by the sausage makers, convicted frauds and lonesome Centauri of the world.

lets just do it anyway, the convo has regressed 300 pages to when we last talked about pyramids etc, in great detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent research suggests that it was built for a very different purpose by different people.

No it does NOT suggest that. The only people saying that are those who want to create enough mystery to sell their books and to retire happily ever after. The only people saying that - are fringe. so be a good lad, compile your list of ' recent researchers' and post them here. I can guarantee Id know most of them in advance and their levels of credibility.

Recent research (which will include at least the last 20 years) is mostly done by Zawhi Hawass team of experts. Not just any mug can go wandering around the mids/site you know, only the tourist parts and I think a lot them have been closed for years, (but, this last statement needs checking to see what was closed, why etc)

You need to remember something zoser, everything you say is influenced from a fictional book, listed under 'fiction' written by a non expert with no background worthy of making such claims. This really does make you look rather silly, doesn't it?

so compile your list of recent researchers, and try to get some who sit on the fence, ie: dont wholeheartedly believe the AA theory. If you can. Then I will do a credibility check on every one of them, (for you), for even you should know, if the source is unreliable it should be taken with a very big pinch of salt. But likewise credit will be given where its due. And only if its due. I will look forwards to your list of recent researchers, (you know, boots on the sand type researchers).... asap thanks

remember what Ive said about confirmation bias when you do it tho....

[media=]

[/media]

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.