Proof of Where GOD Came From

fitzgib

fitzgib

Well-Known Member
pyramids!! u put thousands of slaves under the whip and they'll build what ever the fuck u tell em too. America is a recent example x
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Chief Walkin Eagle said:
we have no idea how this can possibly be done with simple tools and know-how
Click to expand...
We have many ideas how the pyramids were built. The evidence is all over, including the quarries where they got the stone, the graffiti that could have only been left by the workers, papyrus that teaches math skills that a pyramid architect would use, the name of the Egyptian kings for who the pyramids were built engraved inside, excavated grave sites of workers, including some that have injuries consistent with being a stone worker, copper tools that were used to quarry and form the blocks, sites of failed pyramids experiments demonstrating a clearly evolving and improving knowledge base, and on and on.

A claim that the pyramids could not have been built by ancient Egyptians is one that needs support and evidence. So far, the only thing you have ever presented is circular arguments from authority. Someone that you believe has authoritative knowledge says that they couldn't have been built, and you repeat this claim as if it were fact. Not good enough. When evidence showing that the pyramids actually could have been built using ancient tech, you shift the goalposts, "well what about Puma Punku?" Everyone is on to your game. You dismiss the arguments of actual Egyptologists while preferentially choosing to cite people that have made a living out of promoting New Age pseudoscience.

No one has a problem saying that we don't know how they could have accomplished x,y and z, but it does not follow that you can then claim that they could not have done x, y and z. Your logic is flawed and belies your entire thought process. Magic seems to be the best answer for everything you find unexplained yet cannot provide any reasons that a rational person should accept your magical way of thinking.

Once I was actually asked in all seriousness for my professional opinion on whether alien build the pyramids. The man said: ‘There’s so much discussion of the alien theory that there must be something to it, right?’. Well, my short answer would be, ‘No. There isn’t anything to it at all.’ My longer answer will follow, with a thorough dissection of the central arguments of the alien theory and why they are wrong. I think the main reason the theory is so popular is that people like to believe in things, things that are much bigger than themselves, whether it’s god or aliens. But often people also want proof and they seek to find it in the pyramids and other ancient monuments. It’s no wonder that the pyramids are incredible enough that they inspire people to believe the unbelievable. I myself don’t think there’s anything wrong with postulating that there might be other life out there in the universe, but I also don’t believe in robbing humanity of pride in its achievements.
I think it’s rather more inspiring to think that human beings, our own ancestors, created such spectacular monumental achievements. However, some people see the concept of civilization as progressive, that humans only continue to improve upon the past, so they think that just because we are uncertain about how the pyramids were built and we ourselves would struggle to replicate their achievement, it is impossible that humans of the past could have done it.
They say that since the pyramids of Giza were built about 4500 years ago, people back then couldn’t have been skilled enough to do it. However, we’re ignoring that numerous remarkable developments were happening all those millennia ago. There are many things that were discovered in the distant past that still serve us today. The Egyptians made many brilliant innovations (something I will have to write more about in another post)—simple things that we still use today, which have barely changed over the millennia since they first conceived, from the earliest forms of paper and ink, to the 24 hour day.
People say that since we wouldn’t be able to build pyramids today, that the Egyptians couldn’t have done it, but it’s not just building of the pyramids that couldn’t be replicated today. It’s hard to imagine ever being able to pull together the resources, power, money, skilled craftsmen, and architects needed to build one of the great gothic cathedrals in this day and age. It just couldn’t happen. This isn’t something to be ashamed of though, we simply use different technologies and have different priorities these days. While we couldn’t build another Notre Dame Cathedral or Great Pyramid, modern structures like the Eiffel Tower or the Gherkin wouldn’t have been possible back then either. Pyramids were possible simply because the entire economy, resources, and population of the Egyptian civilization was under the control of a single omnipotent ruler, who could mobilize them all into a monumental building project.
Click to expand...
And the rest of the article, he goes on to provide the evidence for his claim http://www.eloquentpeasant.com/2007/08/24/why-the-aliens-did-not-build-the-pyramids/
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"we don't know, so aliens" is not proof. Do you understand that? That is all you are saying. How do you go from "we don't know" to "aliens"? Where is the connection to link the two together?

We have detailed accounts of how Egyptians moved the blocks, they weren't simply dragged by a "handful" of people. It took Thousands of people DECADES to create the pyramids. They used trees under the blocks to roll them and sophisticated mathematics in their design, none of which wasn't available at the time of their creation.
Click to expand...
Chief Walkin Eagle said:
*sigh*... I know Pad, I know...
Click to expand...
So you know that
1) saying I can't understand this, therefore aliens,= bad logic. Good enough for you maybe, but you can't hold us to your standard.
2) Plausible explanations exist involving our ancestors and ingenuity.

None of us are saying humans did it, we are saying it's very likely and possible humans did it, and we have no reason to suspect otherwise, because as #1 points out, saying you can't understand it does not indicate aliens. This isn't good enough for you? You need for us to agree with your alien theory? We have problems with the alien theory and we vocalize them. You then get inexplicably mad and accuse us of intellectual superiority. How intellectually superior does a person have to be to say 'I don't know" or "aliens doesn't make sense". You have to accuse us of being uncomfortable with the idea, and opposing you only because we like to rep each other. It never occurs to you that we criticize because it's warranted? For some reason, you have to invent boogiemen...
 
Chief Walkin Eagle

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
So you know that
1) saying I can't understand this, therefore aliens,= bad logic. Good enough for you maybe, but you can't hold us to your standard.
2) Plausible explanations exist involving our ancestors and ingenuity.

None of us are saying humans did it, we are saying it's very likely and possible humans did it, and we have no reason to suspect otherwise, because as #1 points out, saying you can't understand it does not indicate aliens. This isn't good enough for you? You need for us to agree with your alien theory? We have problems with the alien theory and we vocalize them. You then get inexplicably mad and accuse us of intellectual superiority. How intellectually superior does a person have to be to say 'I don't know" or "aliens doesn't make sense". You have to accuse us of being uncomfortable with the idea, and opposing you only because we like to rep each other. It never occurs to you that we criticize because it's warranted? For some reason, you have to invent boogiemen...
Click to expand...
I like soup.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
With millions of slaves, and thousands of years, how could an ancient civilization ever create a large pile of rocks? They can't, it's clearly aliens.

My head is going to explode with how stupid some people are.
 
ganja man23

ganja man23

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
With millions of slaves, and thousands of years, how could an ancient civilization ever create a large pile of rocks? They can't, it's clearly aliens.

My head is going to explode with how stupid some people are.
Click to expand...
At least there's some activity going on in their heads. They're asking questions. Thinking! If you understood how complex the pyramids truly were in their design you would question how such primitive people built such advanced structures with so many different properties. Did you know there has been traces of acidic and basic compounds found in two tunnels leading into one chamber. This suggests they were essentially a giant power plant due to the release of H2 during an acid base reaction between the two compounds.

Did you know the three pyramids were lined up with orion's belt perfectly? Did you know that the other structures around Giza are lined up with the orion constellation as well? Did you know that if you trace back the position of the stars it suggest that the pyramids must have been built over 10,000 years ago? Did you know the egyptians never said they built them, we can merely trace that they once inhabited the land about 5000 year ago? Did you know that the number pi and the golden ratio constant are incorporated in dimension ratios in most if not all chambers and also the outer pyramid? I bet you didn't because most people simply know what they've been taught, whether right or wrong.

My next point: we are trained. We're trained to think bullshit when we hear the word 'alien'. That word is so controversial people almost lose their shit over it as easy as they do about god and jesus. You want my opinion; I don't think it was aliens but I sure as fuck know it wasn't them egyptians.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ganja man23 said:
~snip~

Did you know the three pyramids were lined up with orion's belt perfectly? Did you know that the other structures around Giza are lined up with the orion constellation as well? Did you know that if you trace back the position of the stars it suggest that the pyramids must have been built over 10,000 years ago? Did you know the egyptians never said they built them, we can merely trace that they once inhabited the land about 5000 year ago? Did you know that the number pi and the golden ratio constant are incorporated in dimension ratios in most if not all chambers and also the outer pyramid? I bet you didn't because most people simply know what they've been taught, whether right or wrong.

~snip~
Click to expand...
As far as I know, only Graham Hancock believes those things. Others have shown that the supposedly perfect correspondence of the Pyramid's placement ... isn't.

The Egyptians were superior surveyors and draftsmen. To argue that the following misalignment was mistake or random error doesn't cut it imo.
cn

 
ganja man23

ganja man23

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
As far as I know, only Graham Hancock believes those things. Others have shown that the supposedly perfect correspondence of the Pyramid's placement ... isn't.

The Egyptians were superior surveyors and draftsmen. To argue that the following misalignment was mistake or random error doesn't cut it imo.
cn

Click to expand...
Constellations change over time like i mentioned. You can't just measure orion today and line it up with the pyramids because even if they were built only 5000 years ago they still wouldn't line up. Your drawing is also missing the other structures of the giza complex

and this one supposed proof of engineering does not disvalue everything else i said.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ganja man23 said:
Constellations change over time like i mentioned. You can't just measure orion today and line it up with the pyramids because even if they were built only 5000 years ago they still wouldn't line up. Your drawing is also missing the other structures of the giza complex
Click to expand...
They've done the planetarium regression. At no time, even the extremely early times favored by some of the Orionists, did the stars and the pyramids properly align.

As for the rest of the Giza complex, that only makes things worse. The Sphinx, for example, is in the wrong place to denote its obvious inspiration, Leo.

A hypothesis that relies on cherry-picking facts that fit and discarding those that don't ... has no staying power. Jmo. cn
 
ganja man23

ganja man23

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
They've done the planetarium regression. At no time, even the extremely early times favored by some of the Orionists, did the stars and the pyramids properly align.

As for the rest of the Giza complex, that only makes things worse. The Sphinx, for example, is in the wrong place to denote its obvious inspiration, Leo.

A hypothesis that relies on cherry-picking facts that fit and discarding those that don't ... has no staying power. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...
With concern to your digression method you're dealing with 3 dimensional space in which the planets are not linearly aligned on any plane, they are in different x y and z coordinates. I doubt we have taken into account the different masses of the suns, the planets orbiting them, mass of solar system (including debris), distance relative to each other, etc. It's most likely an estimation of how they are supposed to move. This method doesn't take into account any external forces acting on any of 3 orion belt stars as well.

I give up anyway. they just had a weird fascination for the number 3.1459 and decided to make that number present throughout the chambers for fun. They made the pyramids to bury their kings and just never ended up doing it for whatever reason.

As for the giza complex and leo, i have yet to research that but i never did claim anything special with the sphinx.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ganja man23 said:
With concern to your digression method you're dealing with 3 dimensional space in which the planets are not linearly aligned on any plane, they are in different x y and z coordinates. I doubt we have taken into account the different masses of the suns, the planets orbiting them, mass of solar system (including debris), distance relative to each other, etc. It's most likely an estimation of how they are supposed to move. This method doesn't take into account any external forces acting on any of 3 orion belt stars as well.

I give up anyway. they just had a weird fascination for the number 3.1459 and decided to make that number present throughout the chambers for fun. They made the pyramids to bury their kings and just never ended up doing it for whatever reason.

As for the giza complex and leo, i have yet to research that but i never did claim anything special with the sphinx.
Click to expand...
The third dimension is unlikely to be relevant, as when we look into the sky, we see a plane projection of a 3-D cosmos. The ancients all thought that the stars were applied or attached to a sphere or bowl of sky. The objections to the pyramid/Orion alignment hypthesis stick to the planar, as does the original claim.

But I have claimed that the alignment was never perfect, and you're tiptoeing around that. If you simply stop participating in (an element of) a discussion, is it reasonable to interpret that as a concession? cn
 
ganja man23

ganja man23

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The third dimension is unlikely to be relevant, as when we look into the sky, we see a plane projection of a 3-D cosmos. The ancients all thought that the stars were applied or attached to a sphere or bowl of sky. The objections to the pyramid/Orion alignment hypthesis stick to the planar, as does the original claim.

But I have claimed that the alignment was never perfect, and you're tiptoeing around that. If you simply stop participating in (an element of) a discussion, is it reasonable to interpret that as a concession? cn
Click to expand...
My point is you can only assume a path through a virtual computer since we weren't there 10 000 years ago. The computer only take into account a 2 dimensional image projection to estimate the most likely path whereas we are dealing with 3 dimensional vectors. Tis causes horrible misauracies as you can imagine since the whole concept of adding an extra dimension complicates things infinitely more.

You're going to forget a third dimension? You can't do that. The solar systems are in different x y and z coordinates and they move in what can be measured in short amount of time as linear projections using a combination of x y and z components. They are also moving in different magnitudes in different x,y,z coordinates as well. I highly doubt the virtual simulator took into account all of those things.

If you're taking someone's word for this then this is highly illogical. Unless you yourself has the mathematical vector knowledge of the distance between these planets, their masses and their individual speed and you can calculate their distance relative to us now and ten thousand years ago, you're not going to convince me anything. scientists aren't like a universal brotherhood of truth seekers, they often choose the data most relevant to the findings they wish to prove.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ganja man23 said:
My point is you can only assume a path through a virtual computer since we weren't there 10 000 years ago. The computer only take into account a 2 dimensional image projection to estimate the most likely path whereas we are dealing with 3 dimensional vectors. Tis causes horrible misauracies as you can imagine since the whole concept of adding an extra dimension complicates things infinitely more.

You're going to forget a third dimension? You can't do that. The solar systems are in different x y and z coordinates and they move in what can be measured in short amount of time as linear projections using a combination of x y and z components. They are also moving in different magnitudes in different x,y,z coordinates as well. I highly doubt the virtual simulator took into account all of those things.

If you're taking someone's word for this then this is highly illogical. Unless you yourself has the mathematical vector knowledge of the distance between these planets, their masses and their individual speed and you can calculate their distance relative to us now and ten thousand years ago, you're not going to convince me anything. scientists aren't like a universal brotherhood of truth seekers, they often choose the data most relevant to the findings they wish to prove.
Click to expand...
I can find no purpose to your statement about scientists beyond a good old-fashioned poisoning of the well. The one wonderful, redeeming quality of science is its core attitude of "Prove it." If a scientist does massage the data to push a hypothesis, his work will not last. I invoke Russell: "the tragedy of science: a beautiful theory wrecked by an ugly fact." While this does often get slapped around by ambitious people, it has proven a most remarkably effective correction mechanism once the perspective exceeds a human lifetime.

I have studied a lot of astronomy, and the plane approximation to stellar motions, esp, for very distant stars like those in the Belt ... over short intervals like a few tens of millennia ... is thoroughly proven. It introduces a trigonometric error so small we would have a tough time measuring it with our astrometric equipment today, and that resolves to better than a hundredth of an arcsecond.
The Egyptians and other pre-Roman astronomers could routinely discern precisions of an arcminute or better. The error in the correlation of Giza with the Belt exceeds that source of observational error by orders of magnitude.

I am curious: you mention solar systems and planets. Which planets? cn
 
ganja man23

ganja man23

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I can find no purpose to your statement about scientists beyond a good old-fashioned poisoning of the well.

I have studied a lot of astronomy, and the plane approximation to stellar motions, esp, for very distant stars like those in the Belt ... over short intervals like a few tens of millennia ... is thoroughly proven. It introduces a trigonometric error so small we would have a tough time measuring it with our astrometric equipment today, and that resolves to better than a hundredth of an arcsecond.
The Egyptians and other pre-Roman astronomers could routinely discern precisions of an arcminute or better. The error in the correlation of Giza with the Belt exceeds that source of observational error by orders of magnitude.

I am curious: you mention solar systems and planets. Which planets? cn
Click to expand...
Sol has over 8 planets and countless tonnes of space debris. Surely you don't think those three stars are just 3 individual suns and nothing more? Anyway you have completely disproved me, oh no :(

http://thehiddenrecords.com/sphinx.htm

Hey guess what!? I think that link is just as much, if not more evidence than you have shown me

can i have evidence as to this thorough proven experiment? i'd love to learn about the methodology used.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ganja man23 said:
Sol has over 8 planets and countless tonnes of space debris. Surely you don't think those three stars are just 3 individual suns and nothing more? Anyway you have completely disproved me, oh no :(

http://thehiddenrecords.com/sphinx.htm

Hey guess what!? I think that link is just as much, if not more evidence than you have shown me
Click to expand...
You and I both know that our sun has planets, but when was that the topic? As for planets around stars 300+ light-years away, what relevance might they have?
You have consistently ignored the main thrust of my end of this dialogue, and seem to be engaging in a campaign of attrition.
I do not see you as being forthright. You cannot deny that you are simply disregarding whenever I show you flaws in your proposals. This is not a seeker's attitude, but a priest's. I have little use for priests of any doctrine.

As for evidence ... misdirection. I have concentrated not on providing evidence, but on finding (and presenting) the flaws in the Orion theory in the hope that you might address them. I see no need to sully the field with evidence of my until we've come to a conclusion regarding yours. You're refusing to play fair. cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top