May 7, 2024, 7:18 am UTC |
In: The Hall of Maat > Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals - Brief notifications > Search - Brief notifications |
Goto:  Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
"Clearly the man has a keen eye for historical accuracy..." How droll Anthony, LOL Cayce was one of the great men of Psuedoscience - at least his foundation later paid for the C-14 dating of the pyramids!by Hans - Ancient History
creigs1707 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > SC: But then if the pyramids ARE modelled on > Orion, then the GOCT strengthens the OCT. First a kudo for posting information contra to your own idea. It would appear that the pyramids aren't in Little's opinion. Or are you cherry picking out of Little's writing that which supports yourby Hans - Ancient History
Howdy Scot More than apparently Of course if the pyramids aren't modeled on Orion but the Gygnus trio then your theory falls apart too. Although Dr. Little seems to give your theory more credit - however he fails to realize that without the "guidepost" of the three large pyramids the little ones have no meaning. I recommend you spend your time trying to raise funds to looby Hans - Ancient History
Thank you for the information Jammerby Hans - Ancient History
It appears to be generally accepted but are there concerns about it being faked?by Hans - Ancient History
How does this tie in with the sweet potato question?by Hans - Ancient History
Wouldn't the species of chicken the Polynesian had be different from the ones the Spanish would have brought? Or are the world's chickens not varied enough to show a difference in skeletal form? Who are the Chicken bone experts around here!by Hans - Ancient History
Robert Math correction: I think you mean 11541 not 11451 Going the other way 139 AD - 1460 years get you 1321 1321 + 1460 = 2781 2781 + 1460 = 4241 (not 4251) 4241 + 1460 = 5701 5701 + 1460 = 7161 7161 + 1460 = 8621 10081 + 1460 = 11541 So did Sirius arise the first time in 11451 or 11541?? I checked your website and your claims there show 11541by Hans - Ancient History
Thanks for that information!by Hans - Ancient History
In particular was type(s) was used for tools and weapons?by Hans - Ancient History
Anthony Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hans, > > Do you want to handle the plethora of logical > errors and factual misstatements in his post, or > would you like some help? > > You seem to have a pretty good grasp of the > argument and the fatal flaws in Scott's work. > It's all getting a bit tiring at this pointby Hans - Ancient History
Scot I would humbly suggest the following course of action to make your ideas more acceptable/believable: 1. Show evidence that Giza was planned as a whole 2. Explain why this 'information' was used only once and not recorded elsewhere and appears to not have effected Egyptian culture/civilization in any other way 3. Find the lost civilization (LC) you say came up with this planby Hans - Ancient History
Note: If the limestone was quarried to then be pulverized to make concrete then there should be no rubble left over. I believe the Egyptologist on this board can tell you exactly where an enormous amount of rubble from the construction was left on Giza. Why have rubble from shaping up masonry if it is used in making concrete?by Hans - Ancient History
Sorry Scott Can you give some more details as to what one does after you punch in the 3 digit code - how is the download accomplished?by Hans - Ancient History
Thank you for the detailed responses!by Hans - Ancient History
A question has come up on another forum about the Egyptians using gloves - any Egyptian glove experts out there? The precise question is, "Did the Egyptian's wear gloves while working with stone"by Hans - Ancient History
Demise of the Mammoths? Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC Other dates from Siberia Taimyr Peninsula mammoth, 1948 11,500 River Berelekh mammoth remains, 1970 12,000 Yuribe mammoth, 1979 9,700 Elks, bears and bison seemed to have survived - not as big as a mammoth but what would kill a mammothby Hans - Laboratory
Thank you Ronald Very interesting post-I would say the 'Queen's' have been neglected. If you have any more info on them or a reference that goes into detail I would be interested.by Hans - Ancient History
Well I think this sums it up .....Well, Scott, really, you just proved that you know nothing about human history/archaeology/egyptology ..... This question of the use of queen's as sign posts will only be advanced if the missing LC is found. Even finding this LC will not prove Scott's idea but will make it (the idea) slightly less imaginary.by Hans - Ancient History
creigs1707 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hans: It would appear SC that you did in fact > discuss this with Robert and he did state his > position. Trying to hide reality again? > > SC: Complete nonsense, Hans. If I was trying to > 'hide' anything, why would I make public a link > directly to Robert Bauval's quote inby Hans - Ancient History
creigs1707 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hans: Scott does Robert B. support your orion belt > theory? > > SC: I have no idea. You will need to address that > question to Robert Bauval. > > Regards, > > Scott It would appear SC that you did in fact discuss this with Robert and he did state his position. Trying to hide rby Hans - Ancient History
Yes thank you for the information Apollyon!by Hans - Ancient History
For Thadd This appears to be Robert B's position on Scott's idea, however it's several weeks old. About you post: my honest opinion is that I don't think that your Menkaure 'queen's pyramid' = setting of Orion's belt azimuth angle will convince archaeoastronomers or Egyptologists. As a matter of fact I had long ago looked into that idea myself (I&by Hans - Ancient History
Thadd Perhaps you could let Dr. Krupp know of the information provided by Scott. Scott does Robert B. support your orion belt theory?by Hans - Ancient History
A comment on this subject, C1707 you are appear to be contraddicting yourself. I believe you said: Hans: 1. The main three pyramids do not accurately reflect how Orion's belt is in the sky. SC: I have NEVER said that the 3 main pyramids at Giza correlate accurately or otherwise with their celestial counterparts. As a matter of fact, this would be quite impossible given that the key reby Hans - Ancient History
Thadd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your model says the stars should be in a strait > line (based on queen's pyramids) or reversed fromt > their real order (based on the pharoah's > pyramids), that seems to disprove it right there. > > > As for that's why they call it lost, no that's why > we call it fictionby Hans - Ancient History
Watch the sky for a couple years and mark the spot where the star comes up and goes up and then goes down - split the difference and wallah, you have an approximation of north For Don Took that math problem to Bad Astronomy and got this one response which might answer your question. I'll give it a shot. (post from Kristophe) Quote: .....In my wanderings and studies I chancby Hans - Ancient History
SC: So what do you expect the builders should have done to create the slight misalignment? Float one of the 'Queens' in the air? Don't be ridiculous! The correlation is good enough as it is. Hans: Why because you say so? Explain why the larger 3 pyramids don’t represent Orion’s belt properly and why the two sets of 3 Queen pyramids are in a straight line instead of bent as in tby Hans - Ancient History
A question has come up on another site about whether Gudea was culturally an Akkadian or Sumerian (or other, Gutian?). Can any of the erudite folks on this board comment on this?by Hans - Ancient History