BS: Archeological notions

Subject: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 07:51 PM

Before I forget...

After all of us seeing some of the effects of Katrina, I believe that all the ancient Indian mounds found along the gulf states are not temple ruins but rather man made mounds to establish high ground safety during storm surges.

I believe that the mother of invention is necessity. As a result I veiw most of the tomb and temple explanations for the Great Pyramid as pure bunk. The Great Pyramid has every single feature of an enormous water pump that worked well for desert irrigation. Unlike the Roman awuaducts it was fed by the underground canals which are still there today. For those who are curious, a very average man named Kunkle saw these features 80 years ago.

Once again it was a practical need and not just the idolization of the Gods that built many great structures. In a sense the political need to keep power in the family gave rise to the building of great tombs and not religion in and of itself.

In my opinion there has been a sort of "religious intelligent design" explanation for far too many archeological questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,NAPOLEON
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:55 PM

Yeah, go for it man!
I could have ruled the world only for a 'bloody bunch of roses'
by the way have you met the 'wee' men in white coats. They have a nice jacket in your size!

the emporer of the world

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:28 PM

Not tonight, Josephine.

Funny you should mention, Don. It's interesting that buildings have always represented power.

Pyramids, then churches, then government buildings. They were the biggies. Now, it's financial institutions.

Neat idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,Les B.
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:49 PM

Somehow I see "They're moving father's grave to build a sewer" tied to the idea of the pyramids being both a burial chamber and gigantic pump house ! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:58 PM

oh, good GRIEF! I just watched a program where a director of the A.R.E claimed that the Atlanteans built the pyramids 10,000 years ago! Carbon dating of the mortar? Oh that was just 'repairs'! Inscriptions by the workmen? Just graffiti...Makes no difference that we have no evidence OF Atlantis.....

keeriminy!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:06 AM

The story of the history of musical instruments is the story of the quest for low notes. (Have you ever seen a theorbo?)

The ancient Egyptians realized that the longer a string was, the lower was the note it produced. They built the pyramids to serve as the anchoring points for long, long strings, the other ends of which would be fastened to an obelisk. Millions had been spent on the scheme when someone, probably a teen-age girl, discovered that you could get low notes more simply by making the strings thicker.

To cover the government's embarrassment over the expenditures, the pyramids were deemed works of art, and they have remained such to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,Napoleon
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:31 AM

Yeah! but we sure gave the Russians a good roasting!
Blutcher made a few quid out of it anyway!
          Boney

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:54 AM

It seems sometimes that all of these "alternate explanations" must spring from the hope that in ancient times there may have been people and/or cultures with superior intelligence.

Perhaps it is partly because there is so little evidence of any intelligence around today?

Unfortunately, the continuing ability of today's "leaders" to harness the ignorance of large cultural groups for grandiose and mostly senseless purposes suggests that perhaps we have always been little more intelligent than now.

This makes it much more credible to believe that the grand monuments from the past were constructed by ignorant sots, most likely for some grand - probably religious(?) - purpose that turned out to be a great mistake. The builders of these things are not around to explain them to us because ultimately the stupid die out or are destroyed and replaced by a new social order that's equally, but claiming to be differently, stupid. We can't learn much from history, because the "new stupid" always, it seems, obliterate the history of the "old stupid" lest people realize that there's no real difference.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:30 AM

There does seem to be a view that because we may not know or be able to understand or agree exactly why ancient people built the things they did - that they must have be very different people with different needs and motivations.

There is mileage I think in approaching these buildings (and writings) with the view that the people responsible were little or no different to ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:01 AM

Well-said, Shambles.

I know most of you pooh-pooh some of the metaphysical beliefs which I hold dear, but nevertheless, it includes the belief the pyramids were NOT built as tombs, per se, and were used for ritualistic purposes by ancient mystery schools, and, even modern times mystery school adherents. I knew a wonderful, very erudite elderly woman who went through a ritualistic initiation in the 1930's and to this day, as far as I know, members of certain organisations are allowed to hold private initiations in them with the *blessings* of the Egyptian government.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:31 AM

Sorry, but I think that my ancestors were smart enough to build Stonehenge, the pyramids, the Great Wall, and all the rest of it -- including those figures in the Peruvian desert or wherever they are -- all by themselves. No help from extraterrestials, Ancient Ones, the Earl of Oxford, Jahweh, Isis, Harvey, Osiris, George Bush, Ishtar, Atlanteans or Charlie's Aunt, all by themselves!

As for the mounds in the Lower Mississippi being for storm surge protection -- how do you then explain similar mounds at Cahokia or the mounds up the Ohio? St. Louis and Cincinnati (not to mention Wisconsin) are rarely bothered with hurricans or storm surges.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:32 AM

I claim no metaphysical or off world explaination for the great pyramid. That it was in fact a great public works water utility project seems to offend the uninformed and uninterested (but those people's actual purpose seems to be to offend anyway, so I will gladly ignore their "contribution".

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:34 AM

if interested,
google pyramid pump

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:43 AM

John, I love your theory of historical patterns generated by the niteraction of Old Stupid and New Stupid! I smell a PhD thesis!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:53 AM

So how do you explain the Cerne Giant?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:16 AM

So how do you explain the Cerne Giant?
to a nine year old girl...

Done that.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:45 AM

Years ago there was an article in the papers about a boy scout troop that took a stone the same size as the ones in stonehenge, dragged it 20 miles or so, and upended it; using nothing but ropes, rollers, and their own muscles. If boy scouts can do it, so can Druids.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:59 AM

Frankly, I don't give a mummy's curse what the Great Pyramid was built as or to do. It's one heckuva engineering feat any way you look at it.

As for the Cerne Giant -- just a show off!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:02 PM

on Easter Island, they wondered for years how those big statues were put in place...till someone asked the remnants of the locals...who showed them. Ropes and rollers and muscles and, yes, digging holes and building mounds and slowly upending them!

Some folks are so enamored by the IDEA of metaphysical and mystical and 'different' physical notions that they will discount the obvious bulk of evidence in favor of arcane 'maybes'. (sorry kat, me love, but metaphysical theories you like are no stronger in reality than those you DON'T like)

(ummm ...Donuel, I DID Google "pyramid pump" Donuel, and the 3rd hit was http://skepdic.com/refuge/pharoahspump.html, a page devoted to showing that the pump/water system idea does not work...sorry!)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:55 PM

metaphysical theories you like are no stronger in reality than those you DON'T like... Ah, Billddarlin'...not theories if one has the practical application of such metaphysical laws available to them. But, of course they are not for the masses and DO depend on one's own abilities, too. **grin** I KNOW that opens up a whole can of worms and attack, but my lips are sealed.:-)

In Peace Profound etc....

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:10 PM

that tiny little 'if' hidden in there is kinda important...*wry grin*

ah, well, I never WAS one of "the masses", and I STILL don't have any special abilities. 'Taint fair!

" ...my lips are sealed"...

yep, but when the claim is even made that such things are possible, that IS a partial un-sealing of the lips, and, as always...."the burden of proof is on the assertor"

(a philosopher can't just sit back and nod, now can he? ☺, he's gotta play that hole card!)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 01:40 PM

All I can say is get out yer old Mechanics Illustrated and send in your application for membership OR visit amorc.org.**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:24 PM

The Pyramids at Giza were NOT 'water pumps'.... plain and simple...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:25 PM

oops....


Nor do pyramids keep razors sharp, or milk fresh or any of that other oggy-boogy nonsense

Myth BUSTED!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM

Just wait a couple thousand years until the Future starts going through our dumps and tips....!!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:43 PM

I really feel sorry for them Sorch....

heh

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:03 PM

amorc, huh, kat? well, it's like A.R.E., or OAHSPE or URANTIA or Baha'i or Zoraster or Rastafrarian or Scientology or any one of these!, you pays yer money, you takes your choice.

Since I don't have much money OR time, to explore all the convoluted claims, I just sit here and kibitz! Keeps me off the street.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 03:19 PM

(ummm....yes, I know that some don't consider THEIR personal choice to be an actual religion, but to warp a metaphor to my own purpose, "the Devil is in the details!")

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:25 PM

I should also have mentioned that there are a number of original Egyptian illustrations that show obelisks (easily as heavy as the pyramid blocks) being moved on sledges towed by noblemen. Note: SLEDGES! No rollers, although at least one shows some one pouring what must be oil under the runners.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:41 AM

Pouring libations (of water or grease) would have in addition to 'the ritual & religious acts' the additional scientific/engineering benefit of reducing friction!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:51 AM

I looked at Bill's "sorry" site
It said the fire driven water pump was refuted because the Ancient Egyptians had no wood.

If you really accept that premise,
that puts Bill D in the Clinton Hammond catagory of grate thinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:18 AM

Perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Pied Piper
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:19 AM

Oh dear
Oh dear
Oh dear

No wonder the worlds in such a mess when seemingly intelligent people are gullible (or self-deceiving) enough believe this easily disprovable bollox.

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:41 AM

Ancient Egypt had no forests, and did not yet use coal for heating. All boards of any size had to be imported, usually from Lebanon,

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:55 AM

Donuel nees to hear that again....

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

They pyramids were not water pumps.... any archeologist not a drooling moron can tall you that...

Or if you'd rather pibble around in the shalow, Von Däniken end of the pool, go right ahead.... You can play another popular game of bunk called 10500BCE after this game has run its course....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM

Donuel... all I said was that the site is devoted to refuting the water pump theory. *I*, as a grate (sic) thinker, made NO (as in none) claims either way. The implication is, of course, that I cannot accept the water pump theory when there are so many unanswered problems with it. As was pointed out by mack, Egypt did not have a large, regular supply of wood...and all the site does is ASK what they might have burned if, as claimed, the pump was operated by fire.

It is not a good argument to go from my pointing out that the pump theory has problems and easy-to-find refutations, to implying that MY thinking is suspect.

The standard rule is...if you MAKE a claim, you are responsible for proving and/or defending it. In this case, you made a claim, asserting your belief in someone else's study. I made NO claim about the ultimate truth of the claim....only that it was far from universally accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:15 PM

"it was far from universally accepted"


And the award for "Understatment of the Week" goes to....

,-)

Subject: RE: BS: Archaeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:37 PM

Many thousands of years ago, the Sahara was a thriving fertile area - they keep on digging up bits of trees, etc out there. Many animals including elephants lived there. Of course, long before that it was part of the seabed...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:30 PM

Foolstroupe, you are almost correct. There was once a huge lake there, long gone by the time we're talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM

If the Great Pyramid was a water pump, it had to pump water from somewhere. Where?

As has been known for centuries (literally), the ancient Egyptians used an extensive system of shallow lagoons and ponds for capturing the annual flood of the Nile. This water was then distributed via a system of canals to fields, and canal building continued until today.

Farmers also used swapes, or shadufs (the spelling may be wrong and probably is), to move water from the Nile or canals to their fields, and do the same today. The swape is a long pole mounted on another pole or between two poles so that it moves up and down and in a circle. The horizontal pole is mounted off-center, and has a bucket on one end and a weight (often a ball of mud) on the other. Water is scooped up in the bucket, and the arm rotated to the field, where the water is dumped.

Egyptian engineers also built dams. Perhaps as far back as Khufu's time they dammed the Wadi Garawi, southeast of Cairo. This dam was about 33 feet high, between 200 and 370 feet long, and between 150 and 270 feet thick. Egyptian engineers also dammed the Orontes River in Syria, creating the Lake of Homs; the dam is still in use and is about a mile and a quarter long.

Given their mastery of irrigation canals and dam making, why would they go through the trouble of moving 2.5 million blocks of stone to build a pumphouse?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:38 AM

Ancient Egyptian ships were huge, and yes made of wood. One was recently unearthed near the Giza Plateau. They were not as large as the 500-800 ft long ships made briefly by the Ancient Chinese but some were cabable of ocean voyage.

I have seen the fire powered pump work. I have seen every feature in the Great Pyramid match every required feature in the pump - except for one missing butteryfly valve. The Kings chamber/firebox still shows evidence of ash and intense heat, even the ratchets in the great ascending chamber are intact. If one studies these properties with any discipline whatsoever it is clear there is more evidence of the Great Pyramid having much more to it than being an empty tomb with no hyroglyphics anywhere within its walls. I am convinced the proof is incontravertible that the pump at the Giza plateau once worked perfectly. As to what purpose, is more speculative although common sensical than than the clear evidence of all the pump's working features still in existence.

With all the evidence in hand Occum's razor supports this feature of the the Great Pyramid. Forget all the religious BS and foolish pyramid power claims and look at what is really there.

The alternative of course is to follow your own opinion without studying the facts which is a sort of 'intelligent design' way of thinking. To me not caring is preferable to taking a forceful amd uniformed stand.

And Bill, I do not think you are "grating" at all :)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:14 AM

"I am convinced the proof is incontravertible that the pump at the Giza plateau once worked perfectly."

I'm sure that the 'Dänikenians' appreciate the support....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:57 AM

Billdarlin'...oddly enough, believe it or not, YOU are just the type of person AMORC prefers as a member...we prefer Walking Questionmarks.:-) I wish I had my brother's capacity of memory. He'd be a great one to back up some of the things I know and state, without having to go dig through reference pubs. to cite.

Also, to some who may have been referring to AMORC as religious, is is NOT a religion. Religious and/or spiritual people may be members, but it is not a religion.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:29 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMORC

If like me, you didn't know what AMORC is....

Sounds like a load of "Deluded Little Dupes" (as defined in The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM

I assure you, AMORC would NOT want me in their midst! ☺

And 'religion' or ≠ religion, it is, like 'folk', a matter of how wide you set your definitions. It certainly has some of the characteristics, if not the defining one of "Supreme Being who made & controls us".

It IS discussed on the website I noted before. I suppose that members (or is it Internal Revenue?) have the last word about 'official' classification, but when I read about a set of carefully set out, organized and protected metaphysical beliefs and practices, the distinctions blur.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM

Believe me, Bill, you are exactly the type fo person which can make AMORC the org. is it. I mean that sincerely and seriously.

That website, as many others which do not look beyond recent history, is incorrect in some of its statements. For a true, short historical outline of AMORC, please see this page.

Also, Roger and I have been members for over 25 yeas. Nowhere does it say or have we EVER been told to believe we are controlled by anything other than our ownselves. We do not, nor are we told, to address any diety of any kind. It is the ignorance of sites such as you noted which continue the misconceptions.

AMORC's monographs teach one the scientific application of metaphysical laws. And, before any of you poo=poo that, I woudl ask you to consider the following:

Throughout history a number of prominent persons in the fields of science and the arts have been associated with the Rosicrucian movement, such as Leonardo da Vinci (1452 to 1519), Cornelius Heinrich Agrippa (1486 to 1535), Paracelsus (1493 to 1541), Francoiz Rabelais (1494 to 1553), Theresa of Avila (1515 to 1582), John of the Cross (1542 to 1591), Francis Bacon (1561 to 1626), Jacob Boehme (1575 to 1624), Rene Descartes (1596 to 1650), Blaise Pascal (1623 to 1662), Baruch Spinoza (1632 to 1677), Isaac Newton (1642 to 1727), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646 to 1716), Benjamin Franklin (1706 to 1790), Thomas Jefferson (1743 to 1826), Michael Faraday (1791 to 1867), Marie Corelli (1855 to 1924), Claude Debussy (1862 to 1918), Erik Satie (1866 to 1925) and Edith Piaf (1915 to 1963).

Not exactly your everyday, navel-gazing, empty-headed followers, if you know what I mean.:-)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:43 PM

That list of members is as big a load of BS as 'The Da Vinci Code'!!

I'll trust Wiki...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:47 PM

Donuel:

Can you provide a reference to the 'huge' Egyptian ship discovered near Giza? The Egyptians did relatively little open sea sailing. The only open sea ship remains were discovered just this past year. A google on ancient Epyptian ships will give many references to the scarcity of large timbers. In fact, many were made of short lengths of locust wood (about 2 feet long), pieced together. There was a ship discovered in an underground vault at Giza a few years ago but that can hardly be taken as standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:06 PM

FYI on Egyptian ships from a guy who calls 'em all boats.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

Once upon a time in the Sahara Forest . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:25 PM

I stipulated in my post that AMROC, and the order as a whole, does NOT specify a 'controlling intelligence' or promote obidience to anyone or anything....that makes it different from most religions. But the page you link to contains this, which DOES share some notions with religions:

"The Rosicrucian path incorporates both metaphysics and mysticism. Metaphysics is that which falls beyond the five physical senses; for example, intuition, visualisation, and healing techniques. Mysticism does not refer to anything mysterious. Mysticism is simply the process by which you may eventually experience direct, conscious union with the Absolute, Divine Mind, Universal Intelligence, or what some Rosicrucian students call the God of their Hearts. This is not done by adhering to specific tenets or beliefs, but by learning and applying natural laws which, over time, allow you to experience Divine or Cosmic Consciousness."

...to me, ANY set of ideas and theories which presuppose 'healing', the 'Absolute', 'Divine Mind' and 'Universal Intelligence'(and other things beyond the usual 5 senses), have similar requirements, in that they expect us to set aside certain notions of scientific proof and logic. They often ask us to "open ourselves" to experiences and energies that cannot be directly measured, so that we may acquire knowledge of powers and existance beyond the usual 3-dimensional world we live in. The very process of "opening ones self" creates a mindset that suggests one OUGHT to see something or be thought flawed or lacking in some way.

   I need experiences that do NOT require me to expect them in order to engage them....experiences that can be replicated and shared using the senses I use everyday.
   Our mind/brain is a very complex thing. It can be hypnotized; it can have vivid dreams; it can reflect on its own nature; it can 'remember' stuff than never happened, and with practice, it can partially regulate breathing and temperature...etc. All this has been demonstrated many times, and indicates to me that one has to be VERY careful of what one admits as objective, rather than subjective, experience. When I add to this the number of esoteric disciplines which, like metaphysical Towers of Babel, ask me (us) to believe layers and layers of often contradictory claims about the Ultimate, I shake my head in wonder. Perhaps the Red Queen can "...believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.", but I just can't mansge it...


Told you I was a hard case! I consider being "open minded" as being willing to be SHOWN, not as willing to believe before being shown.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:02 AM

1) What Bill D says, and Rapaire too.

2) Never underestimate past societies or examine them from your own cultural standpoint.

3) Never overestimate them either.

4) The archaeological evidence is a biased recording of a skewed distribution of chance survival. Archaeologists know how flaky it is - that's what seperates us from historians :-)

5) When in doubt, claim an interest in the New Archaelogy and pick your favourite post-processual theory - that should cover all bases.

Fibs (who teaches archaeology at University, for her sins)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Pied Piper
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:43 AM

Hence your minica; this explains a lot.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM

Professional archeologists have to walk a straight and narrow line as Fibs implies.
The lady archeologist who claimed she found oxidized cocaine in pharoic mummies was castigated and professionally excommunicated by her peers.
Her discovery, if valid, would suggest ocean going trade since coca is not found in the old world, at least not anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM

Professional ANYONES--archeologists, archeologists, physicists, geneticists --- must struggle with ego and the NEED to have their theories be right, even as they struggle to determine what IS right. The rewards of making a breakthrough discovery have led many to proclaim and defend awkward positions long after new evidence leads down different paths.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

CH, it is my understanding ANYONE can post anything they wish to Wikipedia. I'd think a sceptic such as yourself would be wary of such. Also, it is too bad a person who has been a student/member of something for over 25 years is not considered a valid source of info about an org. On that premise I guess you would not be the person to ask about your pub sessions, etc. I'll have to look it up in Wik, instead.

I consider your comment about those people associated with AMORC, which I posted, a personal insult.

BillD, "AMROC?" **bg**

they expect us to set aside certain notions of scientific proof and logic. They often ask us to "open ourselves" to experiences and energies that cannot be directly measured, so that we may acquire knowledge of powers and existance beyond the usual 3-dimensional world we live in. The very process of "opening ones self" creates a mindset that suggests one OUGHT to see something or be thought flawed or lacking in some way.

Bill, I hope to get back to you with my brother's input within the next few days (it's kind of hectic here this week) but, in the meantime I can only say this is what I know to be true from my experience and the experiments which Rog (the hard-headed engineer) and I have both carried out in our studies:

We have never been required, nor asked to set aside "scientific proof or logic." In fact, many of the monographs include scientifically-based experiments. Many, many members are scientists and extremely logic-based individuals.

"Opening ones self" simply means to approach with an open mind and does not in any way imply a fault or lack. I, for one, am quite glad that Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, etc. all were brave enough to consider that which may not have been perceived as able to be "directly measured" until further investigation.

Of course, you are free to carry on with whatever assumptions you care to make.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:53 AM

(I guess I typed AMROC blindly...*grin*..I try for more accuracy than that. I hope I didn't inadvertantly create an acronym that offends 79 generations of the Enlightened!)

I had hoped that my posts carried a suggestion that what I do is try to NOT "make assumptions". This is a very important distinction...I do NOT claim "X is false", I seek evidence that "X is true" beyond simply being told "I experienced it".....(if YOU were told that "God gave the tablets to Moses directly", YOU would express doubts without more proof than a Biblical passage)

Well, then, I look forward to some specific instances of what, precisely, has been learned from your (and others) studies that can't be learned elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM

" I consider your comment a personal insult."

Oh well eh... I consider ogga-booga scammers like AMROC insults to human intelligence... so I guess that makes us even....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM

hey, Clinton...let's be fair! Those people, for the most part, are not intentionally scamming anyone! They are presenting opinions about what they really believe, no matter what you or I think about how they got there! We are having some honest disagreements here, but you are taking it to a personal level. It's funny feeling to feel embarassed about having someone agreeing with my basic conclusions!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:37 PM

I'll try to hold off the Plague of Locusts coming yer way, BillD, for the "AMROC" thing...sounds like something affiliated with the current administration. *shudder!*

CH, what BillD said. If you can't discuss, by all means cut down with childish insults.

This is a very important distinction...I do NOT claim "X is false", I seek evidence that "X is true" beyond simply being told "I experienced it".....(if YOU were told that "God gave the tablets to Moses directly", YOU would express doubts without more proof than a Biblical passage)

I am glad you expressed this in this way, Bill, and as always, I am full of respect for you. I shall endeavour to communicate same with my frater and come back with more, later. (Daughter is having tonsils and wisdom teeth out tomorrow am, so it may take me a day or two, plus today is my grandson's 2nd b-day! Did I tell you we are sure he is a reincarnation of 79th Generation of Enlightened Ones' first generations leader, Ai-Em-Aph-Onee?! We are thrilled! It's why I think we'll be able to divert those locusts.)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:45 PM

"Those people, for the most part, are not intentionally scamming anyone!"

Considering the "Priory Of Sion" esque list posted above of supposed members, I tag the whole thing with the lable 'scam'.... if people involved in it are to thick or too blinkered or too apathetic to care, that's fine and jim-dandy for them.... If however, they expect me to take them at ALL seriously, I cannot... I will not...

Nor does anyones belief in anything make it in any way 'untouchable'... Just because they believe it, doesn't mean I can't be critical of it...

Especially when what they believe in is based on lies... (Traced back to ancient Egypt... Ya... right... show ANY proof....)

Nor am I inclined to believe any official party line from any organization that calls itself an "Ancient and Mystical Order"... especially not when they were formed in the early 1900's... BTW, H. Spencer Lewis actually claimed to be able to change zink into gold.... so how seriously am I supposed to take him or his passle of DLDs?

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rosicrucians.html
From his (note the title) "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural"... I'll say it again... "Claims Frauds and Hoaxes"....

"modern Rosicrucians claim to be direct inheritors of the original purposes and philosophy"
So do so-called Modern Druids.... they're lying too.... A load of made-up new-age flimflammery...

I hope you aren't giving them money, kat....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:48 PM

Cross posted...

"cut down with childish insults"
Trying to claim one can develop psychic powers, or change frogs into gold is about as childish as I can imagine....

When you do develop your 'psychic powers', James Randi has a cheque for 1 million bucks with your name on it.... all you have to do is prove it

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

Trying to claim one can develop psychic powers, or change frogs into gold is about as childish as I can imagine....
putting words into my *mouth* again, CH, tsk, tsk...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:59 PM

Nope... just quoting what AMROC claims...

I never said YOU said it did I????

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

"...change frogs into gold.."

been done

and I'll take two

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:06 PM

Some decades ago, when Chariots of the Gods by Von Whatisface was being tossed about, I saw a fellow on television (it may even have been Carl Sagan, but I can't really remember now), using the same kind of reasoning as in the book and in other "alien intervention" myths, give a hilarious and very telling reductio ad absurdum dissertation on why New York City could not possibly have been built by contemporary folks; it had to have been built either by or with the guidance of ancient Atlantians or highly advanced aliens from Arcturus Nine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

New York isn't even real....

heh

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:12 PM

BTW, Clinton 'lying' is a serious charge, and requires more evidence than simple disagreement. You can claim someone is mistaken, or even deluded, but sometimes even the most egregious fools, ala Jerry Falwell, really believe the basics of what they are pushing. They may lie in the PROCESS of spreading their 'message', but you have to be careful what you label lies!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:19 PM

Anyone who has ever claimed they can turn zink into gold is lying

and there goes their credibility, right out the window

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:27 PM

Trying to claim one can develop psychic powers, or change frogs into gold is about as childish as I can imagine....

You did not attribute your cite. Also, where does it say that AMORC claims to have turned frogs into gold? You are descending into absurdity. Next thing you know, you'll be wanting princesses to kiss you to see if you can turn into a, well...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rosicrucians.html
"the Ancient and Mystical Order of the Rosy Cross (AMORC) was begun in 1909 by H. Spencer Lewis, an advertising man in California. Lewis actually purported to change zinc into gold..."

"You are descending into absurdity."
That's just me dealing with AMROC on their own level... Fighting silly-string with silly-string as it were...

"you'll be wanting princesses to kiss you"
They're lined up out the door as I type this... ,-)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,bunnahabhain
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM

Well, there is a small problem with using boats as evidence of/lack of wood. They can be moved about.

As mentioned above, there is good evidence for large scale water engineering projects, weighting vast amounts. They're called dams. There's also good evidence for water pumps, using and ancient design, and normally translated as 'water dippers'

donoul, you do yourself no credit by being taken in by this rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:05 PM

Getting back to the orginal archeological intent of this thread for a moment, some may be interested in how a child mummy from AMORC's Egyptian Museum in San Jose, CA WENT HI-TECH at Stanford University.

From Randi's own site: Our universe and our lives are filled with mysterious and magical things yet to be discovered. Randi does not object to faith in these wonders as long as that faith does not insist on being taken as proven.

That is in complete agreement with the aims of AMORC and in fact, one of the first and foremost things AMORC tells anyone who is interested is We don't expect you to accept anything on faith.

Yes, H. Spencer Lewis did bring AMORC to the USA, but it was in existence long before that. If you really were interested in the truth and followed the link, you would have found that:

The lineage of the Rosicrucian movement can be traced from its beginnings in the mystery schools of ancient Egypt founded by Pharaoh Thutmose III (1500 to 1477 B.C.), and more particularly from his grandson Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (also known as Akhnaton) - through to the Greek philosophers such as Thales and Pythagoras, the Roman philosopher Plotinus, and others, who journeyed to Egypt and were initiated into the mystery schools - through to the symbolism hidden in the love songs of Troubadours, the formularies of Alchemists, the symbolical system known as the Qabala, and the rituals of Orders of Knighthood during the dark and dangerous times of medieval Europe.

In 17th century Germany, a mysterious publication called the 'Fama Fraternitatis' written by 'Christian Rosenkreuz' was printed. This heralded a renewed interest in Rosicrucianism throughout Europe. As part of this great renewal, the renowned Sir Francis Bacon (1561 to 1626) English philosopher, essayist, and statesman, directed the Rosicrucian Order activities both in England and Europe. Rosicrucian history states that Sir Francis Bacon was actually the author of the Fama Fraternitatis and other works that brought about the revival of the Order in Germany.

The Order crossed the Atlantic in the late 17th century when a Rosicrucian colony was established in Philadelphia. Later such eminent Americans as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine were intimately connected with the Rosicrucian community.

Throughout history there have been periods of greater and lesser activity of Rosicrucianism around the world. While inactive in the Americas during the 19th century, the Order was very active in France, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, Spain, and other lands during this time.

While Rosicrucianism is primarily a western phenomenon it is also eclectic and uniquely draws on the diverse mystical traditions of ancient Greece, China, India and Persia. Naturally enough, it also embraces the great explosion of human scientific and philosophical knowledge of the 19th and 20th centuries.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:06 PM

Adam's (or Rama's) Bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:23 PM

mack, I was referring to the boat found under the sand at Giza. That one is a river boat however and would not be suitable for ocean voyage.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:28 PM

other views

more a chain of shoals, about 3500 years old, NOT "man made"... a search on "Rama's bridge" will get you more than you ever wanted to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:29 PM

Wood isn't the only fuel; camel shite burns very nicely. You'd need a a LOT of shite ... hmmm ... ;o)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Grab
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:07 AM

As far as people in the past having "superior knowledge", for most of Europe for over 1000 years, that was entirely the case. The Romans came with their Greek-inspired knowledge, amazing engineering skills and superior military. And then the Roman empire fell. It wasn't until over 1000 years later that western Europe got back to the same level of technological sophistication.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM

" We don't expect you to accept anything on faith."

Jim Jones, Rev. Moonie, David Koresh and John Wayne Gacey all said the same thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:46 AM

Gacy hardly fits in that group.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:01 PM

I'm wondering about that connection too.

Didn't expect to be wondering about that today.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:05 PM

To compare AMORC to any of that list is so idiotic it's laughable. Yer scraping the barrel, CH.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:31 PM

Like I said KL... I'm just realting to AMROC on their own level....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:32 PM

Oops...

... 'cause deluded little dupes are deluded little dupes in my book....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:34 PM

We don't expect you to accept anything on faith.

Then what value has faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

Faith, and a $1.50, will get you a small cup of lousy coffee....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:59 PM

I know most of you pooh-pooh some of the metaphysical beliefs which I hold dear, but nevertheless, it includes the belief the pyramids were NOT built as tombs (katlaughing)

That sentence shows very clearly the problems one can encounter with you when discussing such things.

What for others is merely a question which can be decided empirically (as far as archeology goes) or is a question of which theory best fits the evidence so far you declare being part of your metaphysical beliefs. No wonder that you feel so easily ridiculed or whatever else when I still think I'm safely discussing empirical support or lack of for some theory.

This is where in my opinion you are crossing the line again. The aborigines (of Australia) declaring their legends about themselves as truth, natives of different cultures saying that scientific findings about their history different from their oral history violate their feelings, the Christians who take the Bible as a biology book, the Muslims who declare that each word of the Koran has been written in the heaven (and ignore findings that there once were conflicting versions of the Koran) are other examples where opinions originating from a belief system conflict with research.

BTW, the article 'the' in my overly long sentence is short for 'those of that group who' and not for 'all of those'. With a very large majority of Christians and with all (though based on a smaller number) Muslims I have talked about such things so far I have no problems at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

I was wondering how long it would take for you to weigh in, Wolfgang. Entrenched as usual, yet certainly entitled to whatever you hold dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM

Faith as an attitude is a very high-class attribute, when it is supported with rational local effort, and it serves to provide motivation, generate energy, dispel apathy, instill optimism and new ideas, and hold ambiguities beyond the scope of the present concern at bay. But when it is used as a substitute for looking, as a grounds for fending off the world instead of steering it forward, it is not high-class or spiritual at ll; it is a spiritual insult. It is unfortunate that both of these concepts are forced to wear the same five-letter label as though they were much more similar than they really are.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:27 AM

"it is a spiritual insult"

And an insult to intelligence....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:41 AM

Turning zink into gold

zing
gong
golg
gold

Done!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:53 PM

I often think that I am involved in a reasoned discussion with Mrs Shambles about one issue or another when I slowly discover that it not the logical process that I think it is - but is usually her view that I may be overdue for a hair-cut, need a shave or is really about some unconnected throwaway comment that I may have made many years previous which she has dug-up after being long-buried.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:10 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 08:16 AM

Tonto, disguised as a glove....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: MMario
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:17 AM

marinated some tofu

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:25 PM

and keyed the Lone Ranger's new Missabe.

Subject: RE: BS: Archaeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 12:21 AM

But what did that have to do with Archaeology?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 05:15 AM

That boat sailed long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 06:54 AM

Generic assumptions about Rosicrucianism or any other type of practise are about as useful as generic assumptions about anything.

One misconception is that mystical experiences are born out of belief, and so are the result of projected hopes or fantasies. Many styles of meditation teach the opposite -

they teach a process of becoming objective, by teaching practises which assist in withdrawing from the active mind, peeling away layers of identity and BELIEF - until a perception is experienced that is not influenced by identity, culture, or belief, but is a raw unfiltered experience.

btw I don't know anything about Rosicrucianism, but shared a house in the early 80s with a man who was a Rosicrucian - a remarkable and outstanding person who was a brilliant teacher, and then spent a decade or so developing bush flower remedies from the wildflowers of western australia.

I don't believe in the Beatles. i don't believe they exist, anyone who believes in them are just hallucinating fantasisers.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Leadfingers
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:04 AM

100 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:08 AM

freda, well said, and Thank Yew!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: rich-joy
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:19 PM

re Mack's statement :
"The Egyptians did relatively little open sea sailing" - and others like it - perhaps it's time to throw the cat amongst the pigeons and refer 'catters to this site :

http://www.awarenessquest.com

on Australian Archaeological Anomolies, covering Rex Gilroy's (and others) lifelong research into numerous discoveries that don't fit with the college/university textbooks!!!


Cheers! R-J

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:11 AM

Others may set up the straw men of Von Daniken and other shysters to "prove" that fire powered hydraulic pumps did not exist until modern times, rather than look at the schematics and evidence of every feature* of the pump existing in the great pyramid.

*again- all except the butterfly valve.

That such a rudimentary technology existed back then was not my main point. I was pointing out that the easiest explanation for many archeological discoveries has been to declare many findings "a religious site". This is like an "intelligent design" explanation and is an excuse for lack of scholorship. It is preferable to say "we don't know".

I do not know how the 20-50 ton stones were carried atop a mountain or interlocked in the buildings of Machu Pichu.
I am not willing to assume they were built for religious purposes.
Transmuting the fear of death with religious teachings of life ever after can be a powerful motivation to do remarkable things in life but without proof or mechanical explanations it remains a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 04:57 AM

If ETs with no concept of religion came and found amongst our ruined civilisation say a European cathedral - I wonder what practical purpose they may place upon it?

Presuming of course that they hadn't already built it on one of their earlier visits..........

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:42 AM

"rather than look at the schematics and evidence of every feature* of the pump existing in the great pyramid"

I have looked at the "evidence" and I side with the vast majority of reputable scholars who say such 'evidence' is a load of bullflop and wishful thinking, propped up by bad archaeology... speaking of straw men...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: MMario
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:48 AM

shambles -if ET's wiuth no concept of religion etc.etc. they would probably conclude it was used as a marketplace and teaching center - which most cathedrals were - sometimes even WHILE services were being held.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:38 PM

Ok, lets look at the standard things that people build really big structures for. Not in thousands of years ago, but now, so we have no doubts about what's happening.

1. Killing each other (fortification, aircraft carriers)

2. Selling stuff to each other ( malls etc)

3. Worshipping something/someone( catherdrals, sports stadium)

4. Transporting stuff (roads, bridges, dams etc)

Now, lets assume that the pyramids were built by people, and their motivations haven't changed too much. Which explanation fits best?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: MMario
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:45 PM

1? They would throw criminals up really high and when they would land on the point of the pyramid it would break their back - killing them!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:53 PM

Are you calling the ancient Egyptians "Tossers" MMario??

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 02:13 PM

shambles -if ET's wiuth no concept of religion etc.etc. they would probably conclude it was used as a marketplace and teaching center - which most cathedrals were - sometimes even WHILE services were being held.

Once a building is in place - it can and will be used for many purposes. However a more logical approach would probably conclude that the scale and care taken in the detail and twiddly-bits of a cathedral would make it very different to what was usually required for a teaching centre and marketplace.

Perhaps our approach to grand buildings has changed along with the time-scales required in their construction. The biggest projects now only take a few years. Stonehenge for example was in construction for many hundreds of years. Perhaps it was less the end result - but the process and what was involved in it?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM

Construction of large structures were often embarked on to keep the punters busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:22 PM

busy, you say?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:49 AM

If I wouldn't have believed it I wouldn't have seen it.

Wolfgang