It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:20 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 5 of 7 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
howdy lune! glad to hear you have a life...maybe i should get one!
".(it actually isn't, the "made up" aspects of his translations is very obvious) "
we are at a great point to get into the specific "made up" parts of which you speak! marduk-uk has brought us a link to translating sumerian into english. with that, ya'll should be able to post the original sumerian phrasing w/ sitchin's misinterpretation, and then we (individualy) may go to the translation site and see what we can see! exciting stuff!!!!

(i have NO expectations that you-lune&marduk-uk...& anyone else for that matter- will find any of the following links & information persuasive. i find them very interesting & many probably genuine)
http://s8int.com/page8.html anomalous stuff in coal and rock
http://morticom.com/categoryweirdearthanomalies.htm
more weird geological finds

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm interesting flood and environmental impact information

WOW!!!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true
soooo....melting glaciers...or massive tsunamis resulting from polar ice-mass slippage


anyway...have a super day!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Howdy Rev, Marduk and Mr. PP

Hey Rev, yep start up week for a new semester, always a busy time, chaos, lost students, changed schedules, delightful as always.

Tension rising I see, LOL

Rev, I'd be glad to discuss any of the oooparts, AFAIK all have been explained or noted as frauds. I recommend you pick, say the top 3, and we can go over those at your pleasure. The Flood ceased to be considered a viable theory almost 150 years ago - it was one of the first casualties of the rise of geology.

Posting at Ma'at, yes Mr.PP posting at Ma'at for the archeaological stuff or Baut (bad astronomy) for the other science would be most worthwhile.

Have you noticed Mr. PP that you only post on defunct or nearly defunct websites? I know for certain that your point of view would be appreciated at BA and Ma'at, Velikovskian and Sitchinite viewpoints have become rather rare. Both sites are well moderated and as long as you write with respect you'll be treated with respect.

Oh Marduk on Bad Astronomy there are occasional threads that invoke Sitchin, a character named A.Dim is a proponent of his 'theory', plus a few others.

Adding the following:

Documents to be checked. I would ask if the Rev or Mr. PP have electronic version of any Sitchinite translations? I seem to remember he used bits and pieces. If you can find a paragraph or more of a Sitchin translation we can move on from their. All the orthodox transliterations are on-line.

Question for Marduk, I noted at the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature the following comment

"...And even among the early texts there is one poorly understood composition which differs so markedly from other contemporary documents that it can possibly be regarded as literature."

Do you know what this document is that they are referring too?




(Edited by Lune at 3:31 am on Feb. 8, 2007)


(Edited by Lune at 3:48 am on Feb. 8, 2007)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
woah. don't forget my pseudo-rastafarian one...or my neo-gnostic one....i at least make a claim to those. nope, marduk-uk. you're right. conversation ended.
(you're labeling of information from a given group's catalog as inherently tainted by that group and thus splashing onto any who would put said information out for conversation indicates about as narrow a ....well, never mind. this hasn't been a waste, though. good luck to you.)
'later

thanks, lune, but i actively read debunking websites, magazine articles and the occasional book. :) your offer is kind, but i am convinced that the debunking presents either a mere possible explanatoin of some, a true explanation of others, and a solely emotionally defensive knee-jerk reaction to still others. well...to be honest there is one in particular that i haven't read any decent criticism or discussion about...the astronomical calculator...here:
"An artefact found in the sunken wreck of a 2,000 year old greek ship, was found to be a mechanical calculator, probably used for astronomical purposes, and predating the original mechanical calculator by about 1500 years. It is thought that it was used to work out and exhibit the motions of the sun, moon and planets. A total of thirty gears were found, in the encrusted blob." i am curious what you might know about that. of course, it doesn't have to be alien technology or from an ancient civilization...so you don't have to spend too much time pointing that out for my benefit ;) but i'd love to know if you've read/heard anything about it. ...also, maybe something about pole shifts. i've seen nothing denying the periodic shift and concurrent tectonic slippage... ok...i'm clearly relaxing into this...and THIRD!!! lol ...anomolous skulls (not the "starchild" one) crystal skulls, specificaly...or giant skulls or ones with double rows of teeth...hell, pick some and explain away. no me importa por caca. paz.)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Howdy Rev

I have found that most if not all Creationist materials to be of the lowest possible credible standards. With that said I do consider their evidence but with a 2 kilo block of salt near by.

The Antikythera mechanism yes I'm very familar with it. They are just finishing up a new series of reviews on it a final report is due out later this year. An excellent example of Greek mechanical ability. It was an astrological display device , probably based on an earlier wooden version. Such devices were known to early writers. One really wouldn't call it a 'mechanical calculator' it was a position indicator. It would appear as you moved the dial(s) it would give you the position of the known planets (in the sky not the solar system).

The shifts of the magnetic poles is known fact, its one of the methods used to date fossils. I think you might be thinking of another theory about the land masses moving around at much faster speeds-probably not friction seems to keep continental drift to centimeters of movement per year. You'd have to engage a geologist on that one.

Modifed and diseased skulls (of all those examined AFAIK). I've never seen anything on giant skulls-although there is a theory that the finding of ancient mastodon skulls may have triggered the cyclops legend. The ancients saw fossil bones, being hunters they could recognize the parts and knew they came from large animals. I never seen a credible report of giant human skull or anything on two rows of teeth. Got a site on that last one?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Corliss has a number of said reports in his books and website. Unfortunately they tend to be only newspaper/magazine reports with no artifacts. They are notable in having no follow up.

American Antiquarian 1885 7:52
Scientific America 1883 48:296


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
...the US articles are also notable as some mention that the Smithsonian Institute had been contacted about the various finds and were soon to arrive on the scene. The Smithsonian denies going. I can think of one find in/near the grand canyon in which a 13ish foot "mummy" was found ina burial chamber with aritfacts that appeared similar to egyptian....late 1800's...no follow up articles.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
The modern media and the old media had bogus stories or misrepresented reports. Like the 2002 reports of a city off Cuba and India. These turned out to be false.

There was a newspaper article that Childress(SP) wrote up of as someone finding an 'Egyptian' city in the grand canyon and the smithsonian hiding it. One article in a local newspaper in 1900 or 1904 I think.

Rather silly


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
grand canyon + mummies=
[url=http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/canyon/canyon.html

...and]http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/canyon/canyon.html

...and[/url] here is a well written, balanced (truly balanced, not like FoxNews!) look at the issue...
[url=http://www.philipcoppens.com/egyptiancanyon.html

...so]http://www.philipcoppens.com/egyptiancanyon.html

...so[/url] what WAS found in the waters off Cuba? I mean, what is the explanation, i know of the "apparently" man-made structures/stones. i haven't heard, or don't recall, about the Indian reference, so please include that also.

OH! and here's a decent link on some of the skulls [url=http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6.htm

]http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6.htm

[/url]
and here's a link to a book you could buy...or just scroll down and read it all!
http://www.lostartsmedia.com/mysteryofamerica.html
( i like this one ....it's free)
and here's a list of skeletal strangeness (and a book to buy...surprise!)
[url=http://www.stangrist.com/giants.htm



(Edited]http://www.stangrist.com/giants.htm



(Edited[/url] by ThaRevrendAl at 12:34 pm on Feb. 9, 2007)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:10 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Howdy Re

The second article was very good and places the story in real context. It leaves the story open to more investigation.

In 2002 a claim was made of artifacts and structures in the bay of cambay. It was later found the sonar device was incorrectly set up and the artifacts were natural.

Cuba, I'll have to look that one up, it was found to be nothing but I don't recall the story.

Have to fly so will deal with the rest later


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:09 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
This is a response to post Jan 20. 2007, thats when I was no longer able to reply but I did save the post on my computer, so you might want to reread the post prior to and up to the post of Jan 20.

MrPP says:

I, TOO, have posted my own, differing speculations - based upon Sitchin and many OTHER sources upon my bookshelves. But, when I do so, you always respond with seemingly adamant arguments supporting your original, going off in a fireworks of tangential positions posited in question foremat - "What about....?"

If indeed this was the case then again I must apologize because it was either before I started posting here regularly or had no idea you were quoting or referencing from anyone other then sitchin. But calling my rebuttals fireworks and asking about other information that may or may not show what it is you are saying is relevant or not, seems like what is to occur or take place on a forum. If all we are to do is just come to a forum post our thoughts read what others wrote about it and or their own thoughts and then move on well other then the fact that this isn't a guest book but an actual forum, exactly where are we to move on to? This is perhaps as I mentioned why we don't have regular postings, individuals post a thought and move on alright, right to another forum. Or is it that this is the online version of James P Carse work in which we are to just continue posting for the sake of future posting with no true purpose? (From finite and infinite games an excellent read)

MrPP says:Your implied adamancy over a speculation IMPLIES that you are trying to build a strong foundation for a future conclusion.

IMPLIES, more like SHOWS that I am building a strong foundation for a future conclusion, would be about right. Just because we can't PROVE anything doesn't mean we can't show (attempt, try, make an... effort, wait isn't that using intelligence? "this sarcastic comment refers to the lengthy convo you Rev and I had on intelligence and awareness, I thought I clarify that here) that one idea is more likely suited then another. How could you make such a statement as the one above as well as saying that I am also "nondirectional" and "decreases the relevancy to my point", if I am working toward a conclusion or comment with "you always respond with seeemingly adamant arguments supporting your ORIGINAL" empahsis mine. I either am supporting my original or I am not, "seemingly" would imply that I am. You see as I have stated I really don't see the point in cominng to a forum simply to rehash things we all already believe and AS WELL, if we do have thoughts outside of the established box why should we not strive to show them as being relevant to explore. But I do have an understanding of your position on the matter and feel that perhaps not everyone is yet ready for this type of posting(?). As far as me "seeming cloud the issue", I would beg to differ. Not only do I often explain where I am coming from but give the whys and how it relates to the discussion at hand.

It is statements like this "As to the 'shining ones', these may have been simply METALLIC robots (p)rotecting the lives and critical properties of the Nakis - like the one encountered by Gilgamesh in Lebanon/Baalbek" emphasis mine that show that not only is it seemingly irrelevant for anyone to cite any kind of source what so ever but that to as you have stated about me to come to or be working toward a conclusion is as seeming irrelevant as well. It is for instance clear that the shinning ones were none other then the anunnaki, that even yahweh was said to be so briallant men could not look at him less death became of them. Even in the works of Enoch: "They [the two men] conducted me to a place where those who were there were as bright as fire, but when they wished they could appear as ordinary men." As far as I have read the robots or artificial life forms the anunnaki created did not "morph" into human beings at least nothing of the sort has even come close to showing this within any text and or illustrations. But then this isn't what we are suppose to be doing right critiquing each other? More like, "hmm, sounds interesting, definitely something to think about....ok-thought about it, so what's next". :S


As for this alien fathering Jesus bit, you said you read the first part of Star Fire, hence you would know that this isn't the case, but that his line did indeed descend from that of Enki, though Jesus, however,was not directly fathered by Enki or any other anunnaki for that matter. Trying to prove Jesus was fathered by whomever is to me a non sequitor and better left to the likes of Laurence Gardiner.

Lastly I think it might be the often lengthy replies that perhaps causes you to believe and or think that: "The responses are not only tangential/non-directional, but of increasingly reduced releavance to your point. While I'll grant that you are skillfully framing each statement/question, you seeming cloud the issue." First thank you for the comment, but the over all statement could not be further from the truth as I have already mentioned, this whole line of thought orignally stemed from our discussion on the anunnaki and their longevity in which I believed they were immortal, and you other wise. I thus soon established that it seemed you believed the anunnaki to not only be as human as we but unlikely to have been or presently capable of anything beyond human qualities, my example greater awareness or higher consciousness if you will. I thus came to the monument section browsing and posted to some length about why people don't post and such and open my own section called the "audience of life" in which I talked in some detail as to why people come to this board. We thus picked up the coversation of awareness and went through quite a dialog as to what it meant to each of us and to me especially how this was relevant to showing the anunnaki to be ANYTHING BUT just human quality material so to speak, they WERE NOT as I contended, just more technologically advanced but physically and mentally or I would say have a greater awareness and ease at reacting to and perceiving reality that gives them an ADVANTAGE not SUPERIORITY over us. No where in all of my posting have I left this line of thought, you may have thought that I lost sight of what we were originally talking about but I assure you I have not, my beliefs are still the same and while detours to explain my thoughts and comments have occured none have been irrelevant or non-prudenant to showing that the anunnaki were more then just technological gods, and a added bonus that humans could also achieve this. For me to come to a conclusion would thus end the matter altogether unless 'others' with different opinions and interpretations come fourth to show the hows and whys of their own thoughts, theories and or ideas.

Eyaj whynsos

Sorry it took so long to respond LOL


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:20 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Eyaj: the problem I have with the ‘naki being more aware than we, (or would enlightened work here?) comes from their behavior: rape, revolt, Machiavellian power games, murder and dismemberment, and a willingness to lead “us” to slaughter in pursuit of personal goals. All things that are very evident in human history, also. The examples of higher awareness or “enlightened beings” within human experience seem to agree that compassion is a hallmark of such a state. I also think that the raising of awareness for a species (prolly all of existence) is a critical mass sort of thing, whereby the percentage of enlightened ones to the whole grows exponentially. Mayhaps the ‘naki are further along in this than we…? Dunno.


First I think the meshing of greater awareness and Enlightenment readily shows that these two are not one and the same, the anunnaki ruthless ness and compassion as you believe comes with enlightenment. I don't devle into such matters as enlightenment, but as I have mentioned awareness is or greater awarness is perhaps better understood in this way. You have a man walking down a city street with tall buildings, a man on top of one of the tallest buildings a man in a plane high enough to see the city and an astronaut high enough to see the entire continent. Each one has a greater view of the same area, and while the man on the top of the building can readily see say a plane crash into a building and the empending smoke and dust rushing toward the man on the street, this doesn't make him superior or enlighten, just more aware. The same could be said of the individual in the plane if he sees an incident and reacts to it before the two men below him and so on. This is how I view awarness, enlightenment is a choice, what I am saying of awareness happens naturally, one can improve awarness on a micro level over others but I think as a species the anunnaki are pretty much on the same level as most humans are on the same level as other humans in similar environment and situations.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Hmmm you guys don't seem to be speculating you're stating as fact that the spacemen were real.

Isn't this the equivalent of discussing the diet of unicorns, the wedding habits of green (Barsoomian) men and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:32 pm 

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:35 pm
Posts: 165
Location: Georgia
Unicorns ate green men and pooped them into angelic-pretending pinheads. You may be one of them, Looney.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Ah so you agree that speculation based on non-evidence is just mental mastubation, fantasy? Good for you Mr. P you appear to be learning.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:41 am 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Lets see, if I am speculating about why the universe is rapidly expanding, I probably shouldn't assume dark energy is real, this way I have no base to form a working hypothesis, and let alone any way to varify my intial speculation, design any viable test, to determine one way or the other, or for that matter even be looking through the telescope to begin with cause to be honest, nothing we learn in regards to the expansion of the universe will likely ever effect us.

Imagination is far from overrated, and if you ask Lune, me personally, I would say while I have considered the evidence presented by the many authors who write about ET and ET's possible intervention with humans is a potent source of information in which one should not easily and or simply disgard, I would, however, say that the evidence is not conclusive.

But since you did remark, tell me, exactly what emcompases speculating for example, I don't know...speculating about the anunnaki let's just say, ya know, anything, hmmm?

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 7 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron