Many have heard of the biblical story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, etc. Some believe it, some see it as a metaphor, some don't concern themselves with it at all. But what if there is more truth to it then we realised? What if it was possible to do something like part the red sea through technological means? What if it was this technology that caused the Pharaoh to 'change his mind' and come after Moses once he had given him leave to go? What if, when Moses left Egypt, he took something with him. Something that was to become known as the Ark of the Covenant, but was in fact the power behind the Egyptian's ability to build the pyramids? It has been speculated that the ancients had access to technology we no longer have. Not through their own discoveries, and this is where the ideas behind the ancient alien theories come into play. But, if they did have such a device, what it would be capable of, appear to reveal, from an uneducated and ignorant perspective, would best be referred to as 'god' so that the people would accept it. After all, if some of our technology were to appear back then, what other explanation could there be for it? While much of this is supposition of course, Nasim Haramein has some interesting ideas about this. He proposes that deep in the great pyramid, where there is what appears to be a box or sarcophagus, and is actually the place this device was held. He has calculated the dimensions the AoTC from various sources found in ancient texts and has confirmed it would fit in there exactly. There is evidence that the pyramids were not built to be some elaborate burial chamber. So what if they were built by, and then to house, what was effectively the power behind controlling gravitational fields, acquired as a result of contact with ET's, and it was this that Moses took with him when he left? Nasim Haramein gives a compelling lecture on this which is full of his usual mathematical geometric ideas and analysis, and really brings this possibility to life. It's just over an hour long, and is the last part of a 4 hour lecture called Crossing The Event Horizon. Even though I've had a quick search for it, I don't believe this part is available on YouTube. Having watched the whole lecture, I feel I can say that he knows what he's talking about. Proof about things like this takes time to come out, which is why he needs such a long lecture to reveal it. But proof he reveals. I urge anyone interested in these things to get hold of a copy. Thoughts?
Ancient Aliens is a nothing but a big hoax and Danniken (or whatever his name may be) addmited to being a fraud.
Danniken might have admitted that, I can't say, but how does that have any bearing on this idea at all?
Well it's just that, I don't think they needed a holy relic to make the pyramids in the first place, the early Egyptians where just way smarter and more capable than you are giving them credit for.
The idea of it being a 'holy relic' would only have come about through seeing it under the guise of religion later. The Egyptian's might've been 'way smarter' but nobody can really explain how they achieved what they did with the accuracy they did using the tools they had. Don't be so quick to pass on what you 'know'. As I said, there is mathematical, scientific evidence of this being a possibility, and unless you get to consider the evidence first, simply stating what you've already decided, doesn't open room for discussion. I'm familiar with Nasim Haramein's work, so perhaps rather than dismiss things out of hand, we might look at its possibility open-mindedly, before simply closed-mindedly concluding so.
"but nobody can really explain how they achieved what they did" yes they can. "accuracy" I think the accuracy is overestimated.that in mind the tools they had where sufficient. You open the thread to opinions, I gave you mine, if you have evidence that worth a shit, present it, I am sure it'll change my mind, Show me something that will give me pause, so far all you done is accuse me of things, do your own work, otherwise this idea is dismissed case closed, no room for discussion. Lol
It obviously makes sense for people to consider the evidence, but unless you have a copy of Nasim Haramein's DVD set (which I recommend as it has many extras) you're not going to. Perhaps I can help you with this. I will look at encoding what I have into something I can upload. Slowly but surely you can download and watch each dvd and we can discuss what it brings up. The evidence I refer to here doesn't appear until the last chapter, but if this thread is still alive by the time I come to upload that, you'll understand why considering it makes a difference.
You have no idea. I was going to get into it, but I think I'll let NH do the talking. He says it so much better than I might.
So I'd have to buy a DVD set to talk about this with you? Where can see the pertinent portion for free?
Ummm... The proof isn't a DVD set. The proof is in Haramein's original sources, in scrutinizing his math on a piece of paper. This is why professionals publish articles in peer reviewed journals, instead of making DVD sets. Where are you going to cite your sources in a DVD lecture? Even if all of what he said was just gold, the process has been tainted because you can't involve yourself in the process, can't establish a level of trust. His work isn't subject to you, it's just trying to persuade you.
So basically, you want us to do all of your work for you, in order to discuss this with you. You're excited for us to discuss this issue, yet you can't maybe take some notes from the lecture and give us actual precedent for discussing this with you? This is the thread you started. Not to mention that you start with some patently false statements such as this: Where on Earth did you hear that? That goes against the grain of pretty much all of Egyptology. I'd jump on that with tons of works from actual Egyptologists, and surveys done of scholarship on the issue, but you've got the burden of support right now seeing as you've made the claim. Please, make us confident that you're aware of even one journal of archaeology, enough so to point out it's general trend on this, let alone "most" which implies all of scholarship. I'd really like to see you find multiple journals, journals that are peer reviewed and publish works by PHD authors, that demonstrate how "most" think this way, but I'm actually pretty confident that you won't even find one. As it turns out, I'm pretty familiar with Haramein, and he's always been working on the fringe. Try finding me a work of his that got published by a proper journal, or a peer reviewed book, on this subject. But let's not even go that far. Where's his CV (cirriculum vitae, or academic list of accomplishments), or what credentials does he have?
Fair point. Of course, you're saying these things without having the benefit of knowing what he says. Nobody is saying anything about it needing to be accepted by the establishment. This is just a forum for stoners. Having said that, I believe some of his work has been, but that's not important. The lack of someone else's opinion doesn't mean that what he has to say has no relevance. All that matters is how you feel about what that might be. No persuasion necessary. Just consider with an open mind. Now, you don't have to do that of course. You can simply do, what many people do, and decide you already know something without considering it first. It is strange to me, and I assume you've not seen the work I refer to. But rather than be excited about considering something you've not been able to before, it causes doubt and negativity before you've even begun to. It's no wonder why people who think outside the box always seem to get dismissed so easily.
Ok good, and that's true, yet you give the impression that you already dismiss him. You reveal an almost defensive quality to your responses, as if you already know something and refuse to consider anything else unless it comes by way of the 'proper' routes. It doesn't matter. It will take a while to upload the first video, then you can choose to watch it if you wish. I don't care. After that, you can dismiss or debunk. This forum is about revealing beliefs so that others can consider and discuss the ideas they raise, so I've decided to let NH put his own case here, even though I doubt he's a stoner.
I certainly would be excited, if: 1. He did this using a format with which we can establish trust in him. 2. I hadn't already heard this claim and other similar claims. And I don't mean to come at you with negativity or an unfair level of skepticism. I am simply being frank, and pointing out why the professionals do things the way they do. Generally people like him that make DVD's, do so to avoid having to cite their sources, and to avoid having to pass this by their peers who have real credentials. If he really were trustworthy, then he would have no problem getting these ideas published in a reputable journal. To be frank about ancient alien theorists in general, I've yet to see a professional publish anything of the sort. So, while I do consider the possibility, I've yet to give it credence, because I don't see any precedent for these claims in my own research, or even any reception of it amongst academia. Yes, interesting claims can be made about OT accounts, when it comes to ancient alien theories, but these are usually belied by a poor understanding of the text and relevant historical data. I tried to find a theorist who actually had learned ancient Hebrew, had done enough anthropology and classical archaeology to properly address these texts, but I couldn't find a one.
Meh, it's more the case that I've gone through a long protracted process with stuff like this, then it is the case that I'm just being defensive of the groups that I feel are the authority on the issue. I don't refuse to consider. I just hesitate a bit to consider it more, because I spend most every day considering until I get sore brains, about biblical history. That's kind of how I plan to make a living in the future.
I find it hard to believe the Egyptians even built the pyramids. But then again, I am fascinated with aliens so most of the things I read and watch about the pyramids are about how they aren't built by the Egyptians LOL. I mean think about it... how come the dynasties afterwards could not continue to build such monuments? All the attempts afterwards failed, those pyramids all broke down over time. How does architecture get worse over time in the same civilization? That makes no sense to me. That's like US forgetting how to build our tallest buildings. How does architecture knowledge get lost within the same civilization in a span of a few hundred yrs?
@tuner Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear enough. This is not primarily about ancient aliens or anything biblical. Why it is different is because he takes the time to lay out his evidence for the fundamental pattern of creation, using fractal geometry and quantum physics. And as any good scientist should do, explains it clearly, with personality, and does so with proof. I think he does just that. His honesty, integrity and brilliance, comes across. Was good enough for me. His source is his own work. And his theories about the Universe and consciousness come across in a way that makes sense. Like I said earlier, it's all about how it resonates. If it doesn't do that then dismiss it. I am not suggesting you or anyone has to enter into this thinking that you'll have to believe him, but you also don't have to think you won't be able to because other mainstream 'scientists' might not concur. Judge him if you must after giving him a chance to explain himself. Now, I've got the first DVD encoded down to a watchable 220MB for the 1.25 hours. I could make it smaller but I'm loathe to do so. I have quite a slow upload speed, and won't be able to start it until tomorrow. I imagine it will take a few hours. Once I've done so I should be able to post a link. Hopefully you will download it and we can go from there.
Unless his theories go against the currently held belief by scientists who have a reputation to uphold who cannot be seen to consider this work (or anyone with a voice outside the club) lest they taint their reputation or lose funding. Perhaps the DVD approach is one of the only ways (the lecture tour is the other) to get across to those who are open that there are other ideas that mainstream science is not open to (yet). I don't claim to be an 'anything' you understand, nor do I represent NH. I just know when something feels real to me. For the most part, I'm not interested in looking at things from a scientific academic perspective. That's not how my brain works. But NH makes sense to me in a way that my little brain (plus a small bowl) can work with. I suspect it will for others too.
Dude...I don't have time to explain it in detail.mall you really need is common sense. The rest, is on Google for you.