Because it is important to establish a paradigm first, then find evidence to support it.
So you think that the research will be done, but it hasn’t been, and no one has a workable paradigm.
And you’ve admitted you’re not an expert.
:rolleyes:
I stand by my Post #236.
It contains a stone box. We call it a “sarcophagus”.
It might be mentioned that when this box was opened there was no body in it. The lid quite possibly was taken out a tunnel (Al Mamuum’s tunnel) dug expressly for this purpose. The lid quite possibly contained the “emerald tablets of hermes” which is a perfect description of building with geysers.
The ancient language was metaphysical. It contained all human knowledge and the natural logic through which it was gained. As human knowledge increased arithmatically the complexity of the language increased geometrically. The language became so complex the average man couldn’t communicate in court or other formal proceedings. It became unfair to the average man and it simply continued to get worse. The language collapsed.
I would speculate that scientists continued to use the language for centuries. It was the only way to do science and science was still important. Attempts were made to preserve the science but it can’t exist in confused language so these attempts failed. I believe the scientists eventually bevcame known as “the Nephilim” and appear in the Bible by this name. There’s not enough information to confirm it.
Eventually the language became too complex for everyone and it failed again leaving no trace that survives today other than hints in the hermetic texts, the Bible, and, of course, the Pyramid Texts.
After the collapse of science all the technology survived. I Corinthians 14 might suggest that scientists even helped the new language speakers. The technology survived as craft passed down from father to son. New language was still understandable enough to show how things were done. People still had two eyes so could make improvements in processes and techniques. This flourished in eras where people were free such as in ancient Rome. It fell back away with the loss of freedom because it wasn’t based on true science. Science requires a metaphysics. True human progress (thot) didn’t revive until the invention of modern science and a metaphysics founded on experiment rather than logic. The strenght of experimental science isn’t understanding but technology. Modern science casts off technology in vast amounts. Understanding is poor but modern science is significantly more advanced in most areas than ancient science.
Of course if I’m right there are no experts.
I think I see your point but this is a semantical issue.
Modern science does a poor job of explaining reality through experimental results but users don’t notice it. We “fill in the blanks”. We extrapolate experimental results to apply to all of reality and never notice reality doesn’t bend to our will. This forces us to see reality in terms of constructs and models which become paradigmatical.
This won’t change just because we find an ancient science/ language that works differently. We will simply build a new model with wise and intelligent scientists as the builders and we will think in terms of this new paradigm. The collapse of the tower of babel was a one way street for human beings. We can’t go back even if we wanted to. Perhaps a computer could incorporate everything that’s known without models but this is neither here nor there either.
We build models to think and this won’t change. The models are based on current understanding whether that understanding is ramps or geysers. It will require evince and logic to establish that there were geysers and the paradigm can’t change without this evidence. Ironically even with the evidence the change will probably be demographic since many people alive today will never accept an ancient language even with proof. They will die off and a new generation will accept it.
You can’t accept a statement as fact unless you see it at a reliable source!!
Does this mean all unreliable sources are always wrong?
I provided a link with some of the meat from the last few years. Have at it. If you have SPECIFIC questions or objectrions I will try to answer them.
You wanted one best piece of evidence but I prefer to provide two because people actually doubt their own eyes if they don’t like the source.
“The bizarre red, white, and yellow mineral encrustations here are puzzling, and I cannot explain them. I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers.”
The other is a simple fact. The great pyramids were built on top of a water collection device. This was a glass smooth and level area between the pyramid and an outer dam. Saqqara actually has an overflow that protects this outer wall. This is then surrounded by a huge moat. These water collection devices were necessarily built before the pyramid because they are underneath the pyramid stones and they define the height of the pyramid.
You are showing us pictures from a book by Robert Temple, the wackjob that thought the Dogon tribe had once had been contacted by intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system.
Oh, joy! Here comes Atlantis! Or a forgery from about 1000CE–it’s hard to keep them straight. :rolleyes: Here’s one old alchemist’s translation of it:
Class, your assignment is to find where this says anything about geysers.
No, the language was the same gibberish some people have fallen for for centuries, convinced that because it sounds profound it is profound. Let’s try one translated to Arabic and retranslated into English by someone who could spell:
Both quotations from Emerald Tablet of Hermes
What part of the picture don’t you believe? :smack:
I believe that those are certainly pictures, and I believe that you’ve made a shitload of claims without providing one single, solitary valid cite to back up any of them.
I don’t know what has been the experience of Telemark, but in my case when I deal with conspiracy theorists and pseudo scientists is that yes, they are always wrong. But is not usually the cites the sources use, what usually happens is that the sources end up not supporting what the unreliable sites are posting.
I already had it, and I already found that the writer was not an expert and missed a lot of the most recent evidence.
So, he admits he does not know, and that is supposed to demonstrate… That you are correct about the moving huge stones with water. :rolleyes:
It does not work that way, what we have so far is just a guess.
And of course we find example # one million of why many times the followers of pseudo-science do not like to link to their sources, Robert Temple is a crank.
And yes, Robert Temple was also one of the contributors to the many times debunked “Ancient Aliens” trash from the History Channel.
As pointed before on the other cite made by cladking this source does not help much about the idea that stones were moved with water, the focus Temple has is to demonstrate that the Pyramids are older than what the consensus claims and that there are many tombs ready to be discovered of the real kings that made them.
Even Egyptians are not impressed.
Small world when the source we are pointed at ends up coming from the debunked brigade of the Ancient Aliens proponents.
So, the debating tactic seems to be"I’m not saying it’s aliens…but it’s totally aliens." 
So, basically, you are simply waving your hands and claiming “they said it,” and if I go out and dig up citations that say nothing like what you are claiming, you are simply going to say “those aren’t the ones I meant”?
Nah. I am just going to presume that you are creating straw men to attack out of the writings of a few wingnuts and, as your attacks are against straw men, I can just ignore the rest of your self-serving and unsupported claims.
*::: shrug ::: *
- When I entered into the cave, I received the tablet zaradi, which was inscribed, from between the hands of Hermes, in which I discovered these words:
Hermes was born in a cave so that makes this a later rendition.
- True, without falsehood, certain, most certain.
The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (but this will be succinct)
- What is above is like what is below, and what is below is like that which is above. To make the miracle of the one thing.
The water comes from below and has the same amount of energy above and below.
- And as all things were made from contemplation of one, so all things were born from one adaptation.
All things are made by using water. Reality is one or zero. Things are one and revert to zero eventually.
- Its father is the Sun, its mother is the Moon.
CO2 is a solar element because it makes things rise. It was called “rising begetter” because it made bread, cake, beer, and geysers to rise.
Water is the feminine concept of a geyser. CO2 is masculine because it drives the process. Water is feminine because it follows the proces. It responds to the CO2. Water is a lunar element.
- The wind carried it in its womb, the earth breast fed it.
CO2 is bourne on the wind but the water is carbonated under the earth.
- It is the father of all ‘works of wonder’ (Telesmi) in the world.
It is the father of alkl works of wonder in the world.
6a) Its power is complete (integra).
Its power is complete and it needs no outside force.
- If cast to (turned towards- versa fuerit) earth,
7a) it will separate earth from fire, the subtile from the gross.
When the water falls to earth it warms and degasses. It separates the calcium carbonate dissolved by carbonic acid from the “fire” of CO2. The calcium carbonate forms earth; the primeval mound and ben ben. The subtle CO2 simply disperses in the wind or accumulates in low lying areas and kills those who don’t tip toe.
- With great capacity it ascends from earth to heaven. Again it descends to earth, and takes back the power of the above and the below.
The geyser ascends to heaven gaining potential energy through conversion of its inertia. When it comes back down in the counterweight (or out) it’s kinetic energy is exactly equal to its potential energy at the top which is like that which was below (see #2 above)
- Thus you will receive the glory of the distinctiveness of the world. All obscurity will flee from you.
The energy must be captured and controlled by means of a counterweight.
- This is the whole most strong strength of all strength, for it overcomes all subtle things, and penetrates all solid things.
Given sufficient water all things become possible. (even G1)
11a) Thus was the world created.
…and G1
- From this comes marvelous adaptions of which this is the proceedure.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
- Therefore I am called Hermes, because I have three parts of the wisdom of the whole world.
I have some guesses on thrice wise but amn not ready to venture them.
- And complete is what I had to say about the work of the Sun, from the book of Galieni Alfachimi.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don’t what to add.
This is a little disjointed and confused because the original was probably in the ancient language. It does appear to be what it says it is; the means to build pyramids. Lest you doubt my "interpretation of #8 one version includes the phrase “and orders the lights above”. This is an obvious reference to a rainbow. It takes back the power of the above and below while ordering the lights above.
What did they have to do to get us to understand; draw us a picture? There are pictures but we misinterpret them as well because we don’t think like they did.
By the way “emerald” probably derives from the turquoise color of copper hydroixide produced from the chemical reaction of sodium decahydrate in the natron used to force eruptions and copper sufate that was in the geyser.
“The young lion, shall overcome the older
On the field of battle, by singular duel;
Through armor of gold, his eye will be pierced,
Two wounds in one, then to die a cruel death.”
In this famous quatrain, we see clearly that Nostradamus predicted the opening weekend box office tally for Pacific Rim.
How can I cite sources when this theory is all new. Nobody out there thought of it before so I can’t link to a site that shows people lifting stones with water. I can back up important claims like they had water filled counterweights and then it will be studiousaly ignored;
But some damn off hand comment about Obama visiting and someone wants me to track down details. Do your own details. Why am I going to make up things like the tomb of the birds cave and Zahi being led into it? Look it up. It was Chasing Mummies and that’s about all I remember right now. Is everyone’s finger broken. I’ve never had everything I say put under a microscope. When I come up with a brand new idea I don’t record everything i was thinking and the site I was viewing. I do try to leave a trail of bread crumbs in case anyone ever cares how I goit here but I don’t keep detailed lists or thousands of indexed favorites. I need spoecific questions.
Here’s a specific question. Where is there any direct evidence of any type whatsoever that any great pyramid was ever intended or used as a tomb? There isn’t any. It’s all circumstantial. It’s the same with ramps but there’s almost no circumnstantial evidence for ramps.
I will not respond to any more general requests for links. I might not respond to specific requests if they are irrelevant to my point. Don’t expect me to do all the work.
Do you think his beliefs affected his camera?
I doubt his beliefs affected anything except the direction he pointed it. The camera probably did its job independently of alien interference.
Hoo boy. Well, thanks for answering. I’ll leave you to your business.
Yeah, things really went off the rails on the woo express. :eek:
Called it.
And Peter Hadfiled was correct indeed, one of his lessons (that you should had found already if you had looked at the videos I linked) was that many times flawed information is disseminated with no sources attached, and this is because the nanosecond a source is pointed at it demonstrates were a meme is coming from, and sadly the sources usually do not support what the proponents of something strange did say. Many times I have seen people misinterpreting what the cite is reporting or sometimes the source is a crank, but I have never seen before a cite like the ones posted recently were there is both a misinterpretation of the cite and that the cite is a crank also.
Have the Bangles been consulted?