Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Pyramids built by aliens


cladking

Recommended Posts

There'd be evidence for it if that was the case. Mining, plastics and ceramics, would leave behind evidence to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know about aliens building the Pyramids but I often wonder that humans were more advanced then given credit.

Could it be possible that some catastrophe happened like a meteor struck the earth and wiped out a lot of the worlds

population and humankind had to start all over. Most was lost in that catastrophe. Could it be possible that humans

thrived tens of thousands of years ago and not just a few thousand years like traditionally thought.

It seems to me that the Egyptian civilization and pyramids are proof of just that unless there really were aliens.

Maybe the event that wiped out ancient civilization came AFTER the great pyramids were built (whenever that was 2471 BC, 2750 BC, or 10,000 BC).

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There'd be evidence for it if that was the case. Mining, plastics and ceramics, would leave behind evidence to be found.

Not if they had alien technology or if we don't understand the nature of the cataclysmic event.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the egyptians said it was aliens then i would believe them. But this is a pretty huge assumption to just throw around. Why aliens? Does one have to come from another planet just to have any brains? Why assume that any intelligent arrivals even came from another planet?

Here in chico it can get a little crazy on the weekends n cars have often been overturned in the crowd. I find it pretty reasonable that a massive workforce could crowdsurf a giant stone.

Because he said if he was an ancient Egyptian he would have preferred to believe that aliens built the pyramids ... I mean , no one can dispute the logic of that :whistle:

One doesnt even need a crowd ... one person can move around, lift and adjust a large stone quiet easily with the tech and materials available to the Egyptians ... its rather simple ... one just has to think outside the box

here are just 2 examples ;

Edited by back to earth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch them run from this question.

...and watch ignore post #2240.

There is no cultural context whatsoever except orthodox interpretation of the PT that

they themselves admit isn't understood. There are many suggestions of how the pyramid

was actually built in the PT though, but these are invisible to those who believe the ancients

believed in gods who believed is squishing their toes in corpse dripppings.

But the actual references in the PT to building pyramids except those which suggest alien

involvement are, unfortunately, off topic in this thread.

Some other time maybe.

I think you meant to write that the actual evidence you are claiming to prove the topic of this thread is off topic :D

watch him politely back out, as Cladking always sticks to the thread topic and never strays from it

Laughing-2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...

I said that it has been disproven that they could only have used ramps and that they

could only have used ramps is the chief argument for the unsubstantiated and unevidenced

claim that the pyramid was built with ramps.

The ramp argument is circular and laid bare as such. The evidence clearly states there

are many ways they could have been built and that stones were pulled straight up the side

one step at a time. Ramps were not used and are debunbed and the chief argument for them

is disproven.

Ramps are hollow and couldn't support the straw that broke the camel's back. They are founded

on air and the assumption that they are the only thing that could have existed. They aren't real

and there's no evidence to support them. They did not need to use ramps but more importantly

they did not use ramps and evidence and logic supports this.

This thread is literally a better and better supported argument for pyramid building. At least it doesn't

beg the conclusion. The pyramids exist and since ramps weren't used then maybe it was aliens just

like much of the evidence suggests.

No , the problem here is that ramps are not debunked ... you havent done that, and you havent validly proven anything ... you just say stuff, totally ignore valid questions and criticisms - especially when they are too hard to answer - and then insits you are right.

and not one person agrees or supports you ... maybe at first they are curious, but the more you open your mouth, the more you yourself dispel the idea as being anything other than total pyramidiocy .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooo... your best guess is flying alien slugs for lack of other interpretations? I think people with hands had better odds moving the rocks...

Thats the least of it ! You have never entered the wonderful world of Cladkings imaginings before ?

Oooo ... there are cold water geysers sprouting in the desert inside pyramids that work all the internal machinery .. and at the same time, magic spells written on paper that make stone blocks fly, and lifting devices ( I know, .... why a lifting device when all you need is a magic stick-it-note ) , now we got slug baby Horus ... giants, Upper Egypt being a higher altitude .... ohhhh ... you name it :whistle:

Aside from the fact he named this thread

Pyramids built by aliens

Let's face it, there's plenty of evidence.

and then said he didnt think aliens built them ,,, but now he seems to be saying they did :-*

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PT isn't consistent about anything at all. Despite horus' congenital lack of legs and

arms they also said he had 100 legs. He wasn't a thalidomyde baby or an alien probably

but it's quite apparent that if the translation is correct than the authors had no idea what they

were saying. Someone mustta been very very very confused.

yes .... someone must be :-*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People want to believe I can make this all up.

According to them saying "to say" before a spell makes it effective. Where is this written? Why do some "in-

cantations" start with "to say; now be still men listen..."? How can this be magic? All the

words of religion are missing. There's no "sin", no "redemption", no "cannon", no nothing.

There are no religious words other than "neter" mistakingly translated as god, and heka as

"magic". Everything else is woven of thin cloth.

What is there are all scientific words like "helmet", "dorsal carapace", "effervescense", "il-

luminate", "light scatterer", and "equipment". This list goes on and on.

1) Because you do. Repeatedly. And without substantive credible support.

2) You are, yet again, applying your own conceptualizations of a belief system(s) upon cultural elements whose perspective is demonstrably different than your own personal conceptualizations. Such concepts as "sin", "redemption", and "cannon" are hardly universal in even a somewhat more contemporary context. Your admitted lack of "fluency" with the textual/cultural data does not constitute an even remotely accurate understanding of the topic(s). Thus, your "critique" of qualified understandings is of remarkably little value.

Allow me to provide an admittedly simplistic analogy: My personal/professional background includes the study and application of four languages. Amongst these languages is a subset of the Algonquian language group. Within this language subset, there is a very commonly utilized term for "thank you". There is not, however, any form of distinct term for "you are welcome". The traditional response to "thank you" is verbally represented by what could roughly described as a low-keyed "grunt". Nothing more. Understood? Not every (or in your case, potentially any) culture utilizes or requires your "standard" of linguistic communication. Nor are (to repeat) belief systems composed of a universal set of values and components.

Point being that your endlessly confused conceptualizations of language and belief systems simply demonstrate your lack of understandings of such.

3) As per the above, making up "interpretations" of culturally tied linguistic/cultural factors that you demonstrably do not understand does not constitute any semblance of a worthwhile argument. Nor do such ramblings contribute to further worthwhile understandings of the complexities of the cultural/temporal/technological elements under discussion.

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you meant to write that the actual evidence you are claiming to prove the topic of this thread is off topic

No, not exactly.

I'm saying only the extensive parts of the PT and CT as well as the art of the period

that supports aliens is relevant. I'm certainly not saying that all of the PT, CT and art

support aliens. When the words "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" is carved

in stone from the approximate era then it is most assuredly evidence for aliens. Saying

osiris was an effervescent column of water might not be relevant to aliens.

watch him politely back out, as Cladking always sticks to the thread topic and never strays from it

Indeed. I have no choice. Any deviation from the topic and people go ballistic.

128b. just as at the same time Set shrinks from these two companions who voyage over the sky.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entertainment value of this thread is rapidly diminishing. Unless someone can provide anything of substance, other than the claims Cladking's been making for the past 8 years, and refusing to discuss, I am having a hard time seeing any reason to keep this thread open.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are, yet again, applying your own conceptualizations of a belief system(s) upon cultural elements whose perspective is demonstrably different than your own personal conceptualizations.

You're now intimating that you understand a perspective of a corpus that isn't even understood!!!

Seeing someone else's poerspective is the hardest thing there is and a translator should understand

this. It necessarily comes AFTER understanding and not before.

Such concepts as "sin", "redemption", and "cannon" are hardly universal in even a somewhat more contemporary context.

Sure, of course, I agree. The problem here is that there are no religious words at all. In other words

the translators couldn't find any religious concepts to translate into English. Sure there are some words

like "worship" but these are more along the line Paris worshipping Helen of Troy and not men worshipping

Gods. Indeed men hardly even get a mention in the PT and women even less.

What is in the PT are lots of scientific terms that would make an ancient nerd very happy.

Your admitted lack of "fluency" with the textual/cultural data does not constitute an even remotely accurate understanding of the topic(s). Thus, your "critique" of qualified understandings is of remarkably little value.

I can read English.

If you have a problem with the very limited Egyptian vocabulary then take it up with the trans-

lators.

Allow me to provide an admittedly simplistic analogy: My personal/professional background includes the study and application of four languages. Amongst these languages is a subset of the Algonquian language group. Within this language subset, there is a very commonly utilized term for "thank you". There is not, however, any form of distinct term for "you are welcome". The traditional response to "thank you" is verbally represented by what could roughly described as a low-keyed "grunt". Nothing more.

Hey, that sounds like me when someone says "God bless you".

Point being that your endlessly confused conceptualizations of language and belief systems simply demonstrate your lack of understandings of such.

This isn't conceptualization but what the translators actually wrote. What the translators actuall

wrote in English is supposed to match what they meant as closely as possible. Translators each

admit they don't understand the meaning. Well, guess what, the vocabulary is "scientific" and it is

not "religious". Again, you'l need to take it up with the translators.

As per the above, making up "interpretations" of culturally tied linguistic/cultural factors that you demonstrably do not understand does not constitute any semblance of a worthwhile argument.

And again, this is translated into a language I can read. By definition of "translation" I should

be able to understand it as well as Allen, Faulfner, Mercer, et al (and et al's brother). If they

all failed to capture the meaning it doesn't really matter since the vocabulary is scientific in na-

ture.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The entertainment value of this thread is rapidly diminishing. Unless someone can provide anything of substance, other than the claims Cladking's been making for the past 8 years, and refusing to discuss, I am having a hard time seeing any reason to keep this thread open.

I'll discuss ANYTHING in this thread with your permission.

I've been merely trying to stay on topic!

But I will want to bring it back to aliens after any off topic comments.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, answer this "why?"

You see, the much derided (by you) "pyramids as tombs" people can point to the fact the Pharaoh wanted to be buried under a Mountain, bu there wasn't one big enough for his ego, therefore he had one made as an answer to "why?".

Can you point to a "why?" for aliens having done it? Without a "why" answer the entire theory is meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you point to a "why?" for aliens having done it? Without a "why" answer the entire theory is meaningless.

Why just, 'why'? There hasn't been anything concrete regarding the Who?, When? and How? yet.

(The What?, everyone can probably agree on.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll discuss ANYTHING in this thread with your permission.

I've been merely trying to stay on topic!

But I will want to bring it back to aliens after any off topic comments.

You discuss?

I suppose you could argue that.

The problem, however, is after you have made that token effort, you COMPLETELY and TOTALLY ignore the things you discussed previously.

And then, again COMPLETELY and TOTALLY pretend the discussion never happened.

And frankly, if anything, that is worse than not discussing, because at that point, you are merely willfully wasting other people's time, while deceptively pretending that you are acting reasonably.

You have shown yourself incapable of balanced discussion. Repeatedly. Consistently. As a defining characteristic of your post history.

And since this thread is now getting too cumbersome for the system and it is time to renew it, I am not seeing any reason for a renewal, as this is nothing more than repetition of the same thing over and over again, something that you have shown yourself incapable of stopping on your own without a direct order to do so.

You've had your say. 150 pages of it. Enough is enough.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.