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 -
Sign in to follow this  
Thanos5150

Life After Lost Civilization

Recommended Posts

 
Oniomancer

Obviously an ancient version of the mudflood coverup conspiracy.

all-of-this-has-happened-before-and-it-w

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It's not only the temples, it's also a case of where were these "ancient ones" buried. 

Here's another one for you. Only the LC could build these monuments because, of course, the AE let alone any other known ancient culture could not do such things. Namely they were unable to cut igneous rock-granite, diorite, etc. Its too hard. Harder than beating Harte in a limerick contest. Other than Darkseid's Omega Beams, there is little in the universe that could have cut granite until the invention of steel, but just as long as they didn't use it to cut massive igneous blocks like the Indians of India, then no it must have been made by the LC too. A story for another time. Anyhoo, this is fantastic because while we may not be able to find their burials at least we know what the looked like:

467px-thumbnail.jpg

em18_640.jpg

Apparently the LC is where the cankle gene comes from. 

Countless such LC statues found by the AE. The most amazing thing is how the AE were able to find a statue, many statues in the case of pharaohs, of a different LC person for each AE person. For 3,000yrs. What luck is that? 

More good news is that we can also use the statues to date the LC by the depictions of animals: 

Domesticated cow:

fb8330d08224845379cffa8f1f8fd11a.jpg

Domesticated dog:

5444849735_fd58e99da0_b.jpg

Domesticated cat:

bastet-cat-tattoo-meaning-tdp-clothing.j

Hawk humping a man in the back of the head:

c11f2feb453655112c0c715cb6134ec9.jpg

116200-004-51B73080.jpg

Uhh...

quartzite-baboon-statue.gif

So not only did the LC make all of these amazing monuments but they also domesticated cows, dogs, cats among others so we know they were around at least when that happened which excluding dogs would have been sometime after the magic date of 10,500BC.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

Onionmancer got it with the Cylon reference, which of course may not be obvious as not everybody saw or has any interest in the re-boot of Battlestar Galactica, where an "ancient civilization" rose, crashed and rose again, and just who the hell were Baltar and Caprica as I never worked it out.

But going by what the fringe says about these statues it does seem that the "Ancient Ones" fell, without leaving any trace except these statues, which were then used as a template for how the primitives who followed on should dress and what they should believe and how they should write. And on writing, I wonder if the fringe could explain why we see Old Egyptian in the PT and other places in the OK, then Middle Egyptian and then Late, yet these "ancient" statues have a mix of Old, Middle and Late Egyptian. How can the Apis Bull statue have Late Egyptian inscriptions if it was made thousands of years before even the introduction of basic hieroglyphs found at Abydos. Then there's the Serapeum sarcophagi, oh sorry, brewing vats or batteries or god knows what else is fashionable.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

But going by what the fringe says about these statues it does seem that the "Ancient Ones" fell, without leaving any trace except these statues, which were then used as a template for how the primitives who followed on should dress and what they should believe and how they should write. And on writing, I wonder if the fringe could explain why we see Old Egyptian in the PT and other places in the OK, then Middle Egyptian and then Late, yet these "ancient" statues have a mix of Old, Middle and Late Egyptian. How can the Apis Bull statue have Late Egyptian inscriptions if it was made thousands of years before even the introduction of basic hieroglyphs found at Abydos. Then there's the Serapeum sarcophagi, oh sorry, brewing vats or batteries or god knows what else is fashionable.

Part of this is also that one of the reasons the AE could not have done these things is the primitive way they dressed-how can you build a pyramid without shoes-and yet here we have proof they were just following the example set by the LC.   

It is interesting how you can have evidence of later AE on a specific LC era claimed by earlier AE, but not the other way around. Truly amazing how everything worked out.   

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Part of this is also that one of the reasons the AE could not have done these things is the primitive way they dressed-how can you build a pyramid without shoes-and yet here we have proof they were just following the example set by the LC.   

It is interesting how you can have evidence of later AE on a specific LC era claimed by earlier AE, but not the other way around. Truly amazing how everything worked out.   

What I don't like is the contempt that they hold the AE in, yet they know hardly anything about them. Bring up the ostraca from Deir el-Medina and there are the equivalent of blank stares. Discuss  the evolution of burial practices and coffins and you may as well be discussing avian neurobiology or the workings of 15th Century Florentine society. Discuss what was happening in the Thinite/Abydos area and it's the same blank stares, except some gibberish about the Osireion because they know nothing and understand nothing. There are certainly mysteries and things to discuss, and disagree on, but with Ancient Egypt there is the continous sound of the marching band of clowns with trumpets blaring, horns honking, whistles whistling and manical laughter. I guess I'm being arrogant and should pity them, but, nah.

Edited by Wepwawet
typo
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What I don't like is the contempt that they hold the AE in, yet they know hardly anything about them. Bring up the ostraca from Deir el-Medina and there are the equivalent of blank stares. Discuss  the evolution of burial practices and coffins and you may as well be discussing avian neurobiology or the workings of 15th Century Florentine society. Discuss what was happening in the Thinite/Abydos area and it's the same blank stares, except some gibberish about the Osireion because they know nothing and understand nothing. There are certainly mysteries and things to discuss, and disagree on, but with Ancient Egypt there is the continous sound of the marching band of clowns with trumpets blaring, horns honking, whistles whistling and manical laughter. I guess I'm being arrogant and should pity them, but, nah.

You are correct and I have found that by simply acknowledging that they believe the GP to function as [place favorite pyramid theory here]. I love to ask them what its near twin G2 is? I get some very fun responses to that one!

its a spare  [place favorite pyramid theory here] is a not unusual one.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What I don't like is the contempt that they hold the AE in, yet they know hardly anything about them. Bring up the ostraca from Deir el-Medina and there are the equivalent of blank stares. Discuss  the evolution of burial practices and coffins and you may as well be discussing avian neurobiology or the workings of 15th Century Florentine society. Discuss what was happening in the Thinite/Abydos area and it's the same blank stares, except some gibberish about the Osireion because they know nothing and understand nothing.

If you know the AE had nothing to do with these things then what is the point of getting to know them? Do the Deir el-Medina ostraca mention the Ancient Ones or describe how to build a pyramid? Do any of these burials and/or coffins contain Ancient Ones and/or have evidence of LC advanced technology?  

Isn't it weird though that the LC stone sarcophagi first found in the OK emulate the palace facade Serekh building design of their early Dynastic wooden counterparts and yet there are no stone sarcophagi found in these earlier times? So the AE of the 2nd Dynasty, for example, saw these LC stone sarcophagi and made wood sarcophagi in homage, but it never occurred to them until the OK to just go ahead and use them instead. Or mention this fact or incorporate it into their religion. Or better yet, being granite these OK Serekh building sarcophagi could only be built by the LC meaning the Serekh building itself must belong to the LC. Where are they? And the examples of the Serekh building, the 1st Dynasty mastabas, are made of mud brick-were these made by the LC too? Palace façade mud brick architecture is first found in Mesopotamia some 7,000yrs ago, but if this is modeling after things the LC built then where are they? Or wait a minute-is it possible the Mesopotamians are the LC? Nah.  

Quote

There are certainly mysteries and things to discuss, and disagree on, but with Ancient Egypt there is the continous sound of the marching band of clowns with trumpets blaring, horns honking, whistles whistling and manical laughter. I guess I'm being arrogant and should pity them, but, nah. 

Ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance not so much. Ancient history is complex and requires effort, i.e. lots of reading, to understand beyond the level of popular consumption media. This holds true for both sides of the isle. I get it that this level of commitment and/or wherewithal is not for everyone nor is it required to participate in these discussions. Not the point. The problem, on both sides of the isle, because for many this is not a search for truth but rather a mission to protect one's ideological "truth", is when information that contradicts one's beliefs is provided it is ignored and/or argued against for merely the purpose of creating doubt for doubts sake to protect one's bias and/or not have to acquiesce to the opposition which by default is viewed as admission their own beliefs may be wrong which apparently is bad.

 

       

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

It's the lack of breadth of knowledge that weighs heavily against the bulk of the fringe. Some do know more than that this big pile of stones exists at Giza, but many cannot go beyond that. It sounds arrogant I know, but it doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to see the severe limitations of fringe discussions. Why an archbishop should be brainy I don't know, it's just a saying.

As an example of fringe limitations, I have seen a "discussion" where it is proposed that KV62 in it's entirety is a sort of fake, including the mummy of Tutankhamun. This is not a modern fake, as some of the fringe believe, but that it is a "diversion" pointing to the "true location" of the "real" Tut, I think, but it's not so easy to grasp what exactly is being proposed as it changes on a regular basis. The reason for the changes is that the author of this nonsense knew that KV62 existed and that Tutankhamun was buried there, but knew nothing of the rest of the Amarna saga. Crucially he had no idea of the DNA testing that links Tut by blood to the KV55, KV35, KV21 and KV46 mummies. He had proposed that the KV62 mummy was not Tut, but was completely nonplussed when shown that if KV62 was not Tut, then who were the occupants of the other tombs. He even admitted that he knew nothing of those tombs and relevant mummies, but then decided that they were all "fakes", five generation of fakes back to Yuya and Thuya buried to make it seem that Tut's mummy was real. Madness, and there are other aspects where he obviously knew nothing of the gods or burial customs. Tight focus on something he knew a tiny bit about, and the rest just made up ad hoc as reality was presented to him, to no avail. But this is no different to how it goes with G1, the Great Sphinx, Serapeum and Osireion.

So, I know you put the origins of the AE, or at least the "dynastic overlords", I think, as being from Mesopotamia, but I don't view that as particularly fringe, after all, the Egyptians' domestic cattle and date palms came from Mesopotamia. There's more work to be done, mostly contentious of course, such as an explanation of "Ginger" and kin, who don't seem particularly Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or even Semitic. A DNA test would be helpful, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

Ignorance can of course be overcome, and when younger I read Daniken and others and thought they were onto something, and only later realized it was money. I read a book by an author I cannot now remember the name of, who postulated, very well I thought at the time, that the Grand Gallery was some sort of record of events, but it was all twaddle. It would be great if everubody who was interested in the AE would read decent books dealing with the reality, but if they do, it's often just a coffe table book on Tut or G1, lots of nice pictures and a bit skimpy on fact. The internet, which could be a good means of education, and in some places it is, has in fact made it easy to be lazy and just watch a video on youtube, and hey presto you are an instant "expert", and of course wiki with it's odd editing, which we saw some months back.

I don't have a position to defend, only in that the obvious nonsense is obvious. It's fine to argue if a pyramid was a tomb or not, or who KV55 and otgers are by name, but it's not okay to engage publicly, without being confronted, in nonsense about "helicopters" at Abydos, "Crookes tubes" at Dendera, "brewing vats" at the Serapeum, "seed vaults" or "power plants" at G1, or the mummy of Tutankhamun being a fake. IMO, these are fake positions to take, and to confront them is not defending a position, with the implication it could be right or wrong, but of confronting, in some cases, lunacy totaly divorced from reality. Whether or not the AE originate in Mesopotamia is a subject that can be argued coherently for or against, as is the identity of KV55, but to argue about G1 being a power plant is utterly futile as there is no rational argument for it.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It's the lack of breadth of knowledge that weighs heavily against the bulk of the fringe. Some do know more than that this big pile of stones exists at Giza, but many cannot go beyond that. It sounds arrogant I know, but it doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to see the severe limitations of fringe discussions. Why an archbishop should be brainy I don't know, it's just a saying.

For those who participate in these forums, say here and GHMB as the examples I know of, while it is understandable some may start ignorant it is inexplicable to remain so.  

Quote

So, I know you put the origins of the AE, or at least the "dynastic overlords", I think, as being from Mesopotamia, but I don't view that as particularly fringe, after all, the Egyptians' domestic cattle and date palms came from Mesopotamia. 

I have not made either claim per se', the story is a lot more nuanced than that, but have noted for context the two specific punctuated periods of Mesopotamian influence, which do appear to have directly affected the formation of the Dynastic state, as well as earlier migrations and continuing contacts from the Levant. This is hardly "fringe" but rather part and parcel of Egyptology and our understanding of predynastic (and continuing) populations of Egypt and the formation of the Dynastic state. Regarding Mesopotamia, there is no debate over whether this influence occurred with the question being how direct and to what extent it was which the evidence to me seems quite clear both periods included Mesopotamians being physically present in Egypt comprising an integral part of the formation of the Dynastic state. 

For convenience:

Population History of Egypt

Prehistoric Egypt

Egypt–Mesopotamia relations

Quote

Whether or not the AE originate in Mesopotamia is a subject that can be argued coherently for or against, as is the identity of KV55, but to argue about G1 being a power plant is utterly futile as there is no rational argument for it.

I would stress that I, nor any Egyptologist, characterize their origins as being "Mesopotamian", but rather "Ancient Near Eastern" which should be understood is separate from the later finite periods of pre/early Dynastic Mesopotamian influence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
19 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

For those who participate in these forums, say here and GHMB as the examples I know of, while it is understandable some may start ignorant it is inexplicable to remain so.  

I have not made either claim per se', the story is a lot more nuanced than that, but have noted for context the two specific punctuated periods of Mesopotamian influence, which do appear to have directly affected the formation of the Dynastic state, as well as earlier migrations and continuing contacts from the Levant. This is hardly "fringe" but rather part and parcel of Egyptology and our understanding of predynastic (and continuing) populations of Egypt and the formation of the Dynastic state. Regarding Mesopotamia, there is no debate over whether this influence occurred with the question being how direct and to what extent it was which the evidence to me seems quite clear both periods included Mesopotamians being physically present in Egypt comprising an integral part of the formation of the Dynastic state. 

For convenience:

Population History of Egypt

Prehistoric Egypt

Egypt–Mesopotamia relations

I would stress that I, nor any Egyptologist, characterize their origins as being "Mesopotamian", but rather "Ancient Near Eastern" which should be understood is separate from the later finite periods of pre/early Dynastic Mesopotamian influence. 

A somewhat nuanced reply, but I won't quibble over anything, except that I only mentioned Mesopotamia because you do, quite a lot at times, and the pros and cons of their influence are not something that I feel I should be detained by, at least not at this time, another, maybe.

Edited by Wepwawet
nuance
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Thanos5150
3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

A somewhat nuanced reply, but I won't quibble over anything, except that I only mentioned Mesopotamia because you do, quite a lot at times, and the pros and cons of their influence are not something that I feel I should be detained by, at least not at this time, another, maybe.

Sorry? It was you who "detained" me by bringing it up in the first place attributing a position to me and a characterization of the state of Mesopotamian influence at large that was not accurate obligating me to respond.  Yet somehow it is I who is transgressing on you? Strange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

Oh for gods sake lighten up and try to stop your own threads dissolving into sourness, as they all do. You get the wrong end of the stick by failing to understand the sense of posts, and don't seem to have a sense of humour. I really don't understand why you took my post with such po-faced seriousness. Anyhoo, I tried, maybe someone else might try to engage with you, but who will want to knowing how it will end. A pity, as I and others have pointed out, your threads are good, you make good posts, until you get hold of the wrong end of the stick and take offense where none is given, and then go off on one and the thread falls apart. You'll probably go off on one over this post, fine, knock yourself out.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

What do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
24 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Oh for gods sake lighten up and try to stop your own threads dissolving into sourness, as they all do. You get the wrong end of the stick by failing to understand the sense of posts, and don't seem to have a sense of humour. I really don't understand why you took my post with such po-faced seriousness. Anyhoo, I tried, maybe someone else might try to engage with you, but who will want to knowing how it will end. A pity, as I and others have pointed out, your threads are good, you make good posts, until you get hold of the wrong end of the stick and take offense where none is given, and then go off on one and the thread falls apart. You'll probably go off on one over this post, fine, knock yourself out.

 

Good grief. WTF are you talking about man? I gave a you a respectful and measured reply to something that you brought up which your response is this bizarre turd:

Quote

A somewhat nuanced reply, but I won't quibble over anything, except that I only mentioned Mesopotamia because you do, quite a lot at times, and the pros and cons of their influence are not something that I feel I should be detained by, at least not at this time, another, maybe.

Seriously-where I am missing the "humor" here? Explain yourself. 

As anyone following along can see the only one making a mess of things here is you which once again to avoid taking responsibility for yourself you of course go off on one of your weird hysterical rants blaming me for what it is you are doing yourself.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150

Karnak: 

f103.highres

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • justin3651