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 6
dreamland

Secret Caves under the Pyramids

969 posts in this topic

It appears that, in the absence of evdence for "secret caves," all the fringies can do is point and yell "Christian!!!"

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but I do not want to read all the post that criticize the notion of alien intervention. It would be fun to discuss this topic without the critics. Might there be away to make that possible?

Anyway we know the people in Peru deformed the heads of their children and that these are human skulls, but I think we can question what lead these people to do this? Why would they even think of doing such a thing to their babies? Hum, the images will not post, so I hope you follow the link, but only if you enjoy the fun to wondering. Please, ignore my post if all you want to do is attack and tear apart people who enjoy speculating.

https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=859

You may want to start with a post by Zoser in another thread in another forum on UM, and then read onwards:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=237842&st=2820#entry4593074

Or you start with an entry in my blog:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=2684&showentry=25938#commentsStart

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but I do not want to read all the post that criticize the notion of alien intervention. It would be fun to discuss this topic without the critics. Might there be away to make that possible?

Anyway we know the people in Peru deformed the heads of their children and that these are human skulls, but I think we can question what lead these people to do this? Why would they even think of doing such a thing to their babies? Hum, the images will not post, so I hope you follow the link, but only if you enjoy the fun to wondering. Please, ignore my post if all you want to do is attack and tear apart people who enjoy speculating.

Cranial deformation like you mention occurs since quite a long time and was practiced all over the world. For example, early examples of intentional human cranial deformation predate written history and date back to 45,000 BC in Neanderthal skulls, and to the Proto-Neolithic Homo sapiens. (ref. here) The earliest written record of cranial deformation, that I am aware of, dates to 400 BC in Hippocrates' description of the Macrocephali or Long-heads, who were named for their practice of cranial modification (ref. : Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation: upon Epidemical Diseases).

As to the why of Cranial deformation, well it was probably performed to signify group affiliation, or to demonstrate social status. It could also be aimed at creating a skull shape, which is aesthetically more pleasing or has more desirable attributes that way (ref. Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995)

For example, if memory serves, in the Nahai-speaking area of Tomman Island and the south south-western Malakulan (Australasia), a person with an elongated head is thought to be more intelligent, of higher status and closer to the world of the spirits. In Mayan society it was a matter of social status as well.

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cranial deformation like you mention occurs since quite a long time and was practiced all over the world. For example, early examples of intentional human cranial deformation predate written history and date back to 45,000 BC in Neanderthal skulls, and to the Proto-Neolithic Homo sapiens. (ref. here) The earliest written record of cranial deformation, that I am aware of, dates to 400 BC in Hippocrates' description of the Macrocephali or Long-heads, who were named for their practice of cranial modification (ref. : Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation: upon Epidemical Diseases).

As to the why of Cranial deformation, well it was probably performed to signify group affiliation, or to demonstrate social status. It could also be aimed at creating a skull shape, which is aesthetically more pleasing or has more desirable attributes that way (ref. Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995)

For example, if memory serves, in the Nahai-speaking area of Tomman Island and the south south-western Malakulan (Australasia), a person with an elongated head is thought to be more intelligent, of higher status and closer to the world of the spirits. In Mayan society it was a matter of social status as well.

not to mention that there are a series of medical conditions (cradleboard deformity, plagicephali, foramen magnum, and morbus chiari) that to this day spontaneously appear in a number of infants. Some of these deformities, especially the plagicephali, set a fashion trend among some tribes after which children, especially women, were purposely deformed to match the new trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to mention that there are a series of medical conditions (cradleboard deformity, plagicephali, foramen magnum, and morbus chiari) that to this day spontaneously appear in a number of infants. Some of these deformities, especially the plagicephali, set a fashion trend among some tribes after which children, especially women, were purposely deformed to match the new trend.

Quite correct. Also there is the widespread scope of the practice itself. In the Old World, Huns are known to have practiced similar cranial deformation. In Late Antiquity, the East Germanic tribes who were ruled by the Huns, adopted this custom. In western Germanic tribes on the other hand, artificial skull deformations have rarely been found.

In the Americas the Maya, Inca, and certain tribes of North American natives performed the custom. In North America the practice was especially known among the Chinookan tribes and the Choctaw tribes. The Native American group known as the Flathead however, did not in fact practice head flattening at all, they were named as such in contrast to other Salishan people, who used skull modification to make the head appear rounder.

The Lucayan people of the Bahamas practiced it and the practice was also known among the Australian Aborigines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite correct. Also there is the widespread scope of the practice itself. In the Old World, Huns are known to have practiced similar cranial deformation. In Late Antiquity, the East Germanic tribes who were ruled by the Huns, adopted this custom. In western Germanic tribes on the other hand, artificial skull deformations have rarely been found.

In the Americas the Maya, Inca, and certain tribes of North American natives performed the custom. In North America the practice was especially known among the Chinookan tribes and the Choctaw tribes. The Native American group known as the Flathead however, did not in fact practice head flattening at all, they were named as such in contrast to other Salishan people, who used skull modification to make the head appear rounder.

The Lucayan people of the Bahamas practiced it and the practice was also known among the Australian Aborigines.

where we have to add that the custom is separated not only by geography but also by timelines. Not everywhere did the custom appear, or disappear at the same time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where we have to add that the custom is separated not only by geography but also by timelines. Not everywhere did the custom appear, or disappear at the same time.

I figured that was a given....however you are correct, it's better to add that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with research is this: if you really want to know, you will have to work.

You will have to read books and papers and all that. Also those that contradict your favorite fantasy.

You must look at both sides of the coin, and not just the 'shiny' side (aka the Hancock, Von Däniken, Sitchin, Cayce, Blavatsky, Churchward, Charroux and so on side).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(aka the Hancock, Von Däniken, Sitchin, Cayce, Blavatsky, Churchward, Charroux and so on side).

And that side (mainstream built on christendom) is any better? Most of the the links you cite to make arguments revolve around christendom. Hancock and Sitchin and all them even use a calendar based on christendom. I don't agree with a lot of the things they say. Hancock for instance thinks christ was real lol.

Giuseppe-Caspar-Mezzofanti.jpg

However, Hancock at least admits there is potential for other epochs not recorded in the churches chronological calendar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if people just want to have fun? Science has its place, and I am strong supporter of science, verses religion. Science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy, and my life is devoted to promoting democracy. However, today I realized how anti social the science standard can be. We might even say science is the anti Christ, because those who use the science standard are ignoring the importance of good manners and consideration and being respectful. A mod came down on me for saying we have become as NAZI Germany, but replacing our liberal education with Germany's education for technology, has had this effect on our culture. Today, I got the reality of this on a deeper conscious level. We are no longer being as nice to each other as we once were. We have become beligerant and intolerant, and this science standard is ruining the fun that some of us came to have. We use to have a standard based on these 3 social rules....

We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

We protect the dignity of others.

We do everything with integrity.

I don't know if I am communicating this clearly, but we once a had standard based on good human relationships, and that has been destroyed by a science standard that makes our relationships psychologically and emotionally unsafe. We fear each other, because we can not trust each other and this is manifesting a very ugly reality. Our reality is what we make it, and some people are using science as a weapon, and they are ruining our fun and our world, by being mean and not stopping when they are asked to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that side (mainstream built on christendom) is any better? Most of the the links you cite to make arguments revolve around christendom. Hancock and Sitchin and all them even use a calendar based on christendom. I don't agree with a lot of the things they say. Hancock for instance thinks christ was real lol.

Giuseppe-Caspar-Mezzofanti.jpg

However, Hancock at least admits there is potential for other epochs not recorded in the churches chronological calendar.

Hancock has been proven wrong many times. And you know what? He had the balls to publicly admit he was.

He's an exception to the rule.

I don't know why you keep on bringing Christendom into the picture. I could show you Islamic or Hindu people who have more brains and expertise than you are able to show us here.

And my links revolve around Christendom? I don't know why I even respond to your weird ideas, but I think Christendom has influenced you much more than it did me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hancock has been proven wrong many times. And you know what? He had the balls to publicly admit he was.

He's an exception to the rule.

I don't know why you keep on bringing Christendom into the picture. I could show you Islamic or Hindu people who have more brains and expertise than you are able to show us here.

And my links revolve around Christendom? I don't know why I even respond to your weird ideas, but I think Christendom has influenced you much more than it did me.

Islam was invented by the church. Hinduism was not, although they might have hijacked it.

Islam = christendom, people of the book they call themselves.

Hancocks opinions i like, because he is open minded, however, i hate when he uses BC/AD chronology in his books.

Yes your links revolve around christendom, when you talk history you use their calendar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have nothing of any importance or insight to offer.

At all.

You have nothing to offer only conjecture built on christendom culture.

Remember what world you are in, billions have been indoctrinated by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam was invented by the church. Hinduism was not, although they might have hijacked it.

Islam = christendom, people of the book they call themselves.

Hancocks opinions i like, because he is open minded, however, i hate when he uses BC/AD chronology in his books.

Yes your links revolve around christendom, when you talk history you use their calendar.

And what links are you talking about?

Would you call a Blavatsky a Christian? She will turn in her grave, lol.

And the chronology used in science nowadays is called BP, or Before Present.

I think you missed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, there is an army of skeptics who think they are debunkers that crawl around this section of the forum 24/7. There would never be a debate without them. They stick their noses in all the debates that would be considered fringe by them.

They jump on anything, anti-mainstream or alternative-mainstream. They use the mainstream model as leverage in debates a model built around christendom.

A new thread about a DNA helix shaped cloud is doing very well without any attacking or insulting. It is just something that caught people's interest, and fortunately someone looked into the science of what could cause the cloud and posted that. Another found another science related article and posted it. The thread has been friendly and fun.

I appreciate the importance of arguments. Many of my threads die, because they are ignored. But an argument does not have to be insulting and derogatory of someone who has a childlike curiousity and just wants to explore possibilities. Just because there is not unquestioned proof of something, it does not mean something could not be or did not happen, and those who attack and insult are not being scientific, but are being as dogmatic and inhumane as the church of old, that also tried to control what people think and talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have nothing to offer only conjecture built on christendom culture.

Remember what world you are in, billions have been indoctrinated by them.

I am not a Christian, so please stop saying I base my opinions on the Christian faith.

The fact that you continue bringing it up proves you are much more influenced by Christianity than anyone else here.

It's called "projection".

Google that, if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what links are you talking about?

Would you call a Blavatsky a Christian? She will turn in her grave, lol.

And the chronology used in science nowadays is called BP, or Before Present.

I think you missed that.

BP? so what? the history system is still based on christendom, they all are especially in the mainstream. Before present to them is still measured by christian calendar. Their date is 1 January 1950 as the origin of the age scale of the BP system. Anything before 1950 is considered BP to them.

1950? that still is christendom calendar.

Balavatsky was a gnostic. She knew the esoteric nature of christianity and its dogma.

I'll ask you a question? when were the great pyramids built? you would probably answer with the chronology invented by christendom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- post removed -

That's the first bit of truth I've ever seen you post.

Fact is, there can be no debate without at least two perspectives. All else is just like a collection of bobble-head dolls during an earthquake.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- post removed -

So what calendar do you want to follow? You haven't shown us any alternative yet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if people just want to have fun? Science has its place, and I am strong supporter of science, verses religion. Science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy, and my life is devoted to promoting democracy. However, today I realized how anti social the science standard can be. We might even say science is the anti Christ, because those who use the science standard are ignoring the importance of good manners and consideration and being respectful. A mod came down on me for saying we have become as NAZI Germany, but replacing our liberal education with Germany's education for technology, has had this effect on our culture. Today, I got the reality of this on a deeper conscious level. We are no longer being as nice to each other as we once were. We have become beligerant and intolerant, and this science standard is ruining the fun that some of us came to have. We use to have a standard based on these 3 social rules....

We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

We protect the dignity of others.

We do everything with integrity.

I don't know if I am communicating this clearly, but we once a had standard based on good human relationships, and that has been destroyed by a science standard that makes our relationships psychologically and emotionally unsafe. We fear each other, because we can not trust each other and this is manifesting a very ugly reality. Our reality is what we make it, and some people are using science as a weapon, and they are ruining our fun and our world, by being mean and not stopping when they are asked to stop.

I've not seen you personally attacked here for speculating. When a poster comes on here and claims "facts" such as Peruvians vitrified their stones, Peruvians melted huge stones then shaped them, copper can't be used to shape limestone, or Nibiru is real, then you will see the debunking begin.

Many people have knowledge in these areas. Not many here are experts per se, but they know enough to smell crap when they read it.

I suggest that perhaps you invest too much of your own self-worth in your opinion. Then, when your opinion is shown to be verifiably false, you take it personally.

As for wanting to be able to speculate, can it not be possible that others also want to speculate, but prefer to do so within the boundaries of what is known to be factual? What makes your desire to speculate the way you want to more important than others' desires to speculate the way they want to?

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I am leaving. In the forum there are some places where people are being much nicer, than in the threads where science can be helpful to our understanding of things. Sticking around and endure abusiveness in hopes of enjoying the exploration of mysteries that attract us, is like drinking something that makes a person sick, or swimming in river filled with pollution. We need to get the pollution out, before this is safe and enjoyable place to be.

You want to know, then stick around.

We humans are survivors, despite trolls who need their daily dose of attention.

If you want to experience 'truth', stick around.

If you want people hugging you and calling you great and lovely, then you should indeed visit the more 'spiritual' inclined forums here.

You know, where the likes of us skeptics are hardly allowed to post one sentence that is somewhat critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- post removed -

By the way, I am not Christian. However, the symbolism of Christianity and other myths as well, are helpful to our understanding of reality. The manner of folks in threads that are made better with an understanding of science, tends to be anti social. While Christ is the symbolism of love and good relationships. One does not need to be Christian to appreciate this symbolism, but perhaps one needs to be well educated to understanding it? What is good about this forum is, more people in the unexplained mystery forum, understand this, than forums that are strictly focused on science. Those who are closed to all spirituality and are strictly materialistic tend to be close minded and unpleasant people. Anti Christ. They manifest an unpleasant reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to know, then stick around.

We humans are survivors, despite trolls who need their daily dose of attention.

<snip>

Good riddance, and thank you moderator/admin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not seen you personally attacked here for speculating. When a poster comes on here and claims "facts" such as Peruvians vitrified their stones, Peruvians melted huge stones then shaped them, copper can't be used to shape limestone, or Nibiru is real, then you will see the debunking begin.

Many people have knowledge in these areas. Not many here are experts per se, but they know enough to smell crap when they read it.

I suggest that perhaps you invest too much of your own self-worth in your opinion. Then, when your opinion is shown to be verifiably false, you take it personally.

As for wanting to be able to speculate, can it not be possible that others also want to speculate, but prefer to do so within the boundaries of what is known to be factual? What makes your desire to speculate the way you want to more important than others' desires to speculate the way they want to?

Harte

No I was not personally attacked. It is the manner of some posters I am objecting to. I am blown away by the mentally that thinks of everything on a personal level, instead of being aware of the bigger picture. This thread is unpleasant because of some people's bad manners.

You want to be in the boundaries of what is known and factual? Fine, there is no such thing as germs. No one has ever seen a germ, and the bible tells us it is demons who make people sick, and we all know the bible is God's truth. So let us just forget the non sense about the importance of sanitation. This message is saying, being too sure of what you think you know, is very foolish. Being as dogmatic as the church, is not being scientific. It is being foolish. Science is not limited to what we know, but a process for discovering what we do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I was not personally attacked. It is the manner of some posters I am objecting to. I am blown away by the mentally that thinks of everything on a personal level, instead of being aware of the bigger picture. This thread is unpleasant because of some people's bad manners.

You want to be in the boundaries of what is known and factual? Fine, there is no such thing as germs. No one has ever seen a germ, and the bible tells us it is demons who make people sick, and we all know the bible is God's truth. So let us just forget the non sense about the importance of sanitation. This message is saying, being too sure of what you think you know, is very foolish. Being as dogmatic as the church, is not being scientific. It is being foolish. Science is not limited to what we know, but a process for discovering what we do not know.

The Bible was written by mere humans.

And we DID see germs, with the use of a microscope.

Science evolves, based on the latest findings.

Religion never evolves.

" I am blown away by the mentally that thinks of everything on a personal level, instead of being aware of the bigger picture. This thread is unpleasant because of some people's bad manners."

You contradict yourself here.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.