BS: Archeological notions

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

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

busy, you say?

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: 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: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 12:53 PM

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

LOL

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: katlaughing
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:08 AM

freda, well said, and Thank Yew!

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

100 !!

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: Cluin
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 05:15 AM

That boat sailed long ago.

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: 18 Nov 05 - 04:25 PM

and keyed the Lone Ranger's new Missabe.

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

marinated some tofu

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: Cluin
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:10 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

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: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:41 AM

Turning zink into gold

zing
gong
golg
gold

Done!!!!!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:32 PM

Oops...

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

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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:46 AM

Gacy hardly fits in that group.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Cluin
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:06 PM

Adam's (or Rama's) Bridge.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:19 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: 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 - 02:09 PM

New York isn't even real....

heh

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: 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: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:59 PM

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

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