g99: Well said. Your assessment is a logical one and I can't argue with it. Overall it makes an easy-to-accept explanation that suits most people's needs. But many things always nagged me about the Great Pyramids, and it wasn't until I read Sitchin that everything suddenly made complete sense. Granted, it may be hard for many people (especially on this site) to allow for his alternative theory. I believe it boils down to one thing: Whether we allow the possibility that at one point or another in the last 500,000 years we have been visited by extra-terrestrials. Because if we do, every subsequent puzzle can be solved. I'm not saying that we can blame every mystery on aliens, but when the observations fit perfectly and do not make any sense otherwise, ET's become a viable alternative. Of course, if we don't allow this possibility (though I see no scientific reason not to), then we have to accept whatever earthly explanation there is.

I argue for Sitchin's side because I'm not going to hedge my bets every time, and it would be boring to just agree with all of you all the time. But the truth is that I really don't know, and Sitchin's explanation makes a lot more sense to me, explaining every mystery I ever truly wondered about in a simple way, because I do allow the possibility above. He could very well be wrong. But as you said, in the absense of more compelling data, I lean towards him because I allow ET's.

DaveC: Good point. But whether Americans reach Mars first isn't the issue because we will eventually reach it. The thing that gets me about the latter mud pyramids is that the ego that it takes to build one of these monuments as your tomb, is tremendous. No matter how poor the conditions were, what pharoah would not dedicate a measly 20,000 men and some rock to build an equal or better tomb than his predessors? I think it would be more like a competition.

Basically, according to Sitchin, the Great Pyramids were designed by the Anunnaki for their own purposes (which I won't get into here), and built by their human slaves. The amount of time it took is unclear, but they were built circa 10,000BC. The small pyramid was a proof-of-concept building, and therefore no interior rooms were necessary. After kingship was handed to mankind, pharoahs began building their own pyramids to imitate their gods in the eyes of their people. Like a child imitating his dad. That explains the dramatic drop in construction and complexity, as well as the lack of inscriptions on the Giza pyramids.

Gotta go for now.

I remember watching a documentary that seemed to argue that building the pyramids and other monuments was a good way for the pharaoh to keep the populace pacified. While they were carrying stones, they weren’t taking part in rebellions.
I thought this made sense, because life in ancient Egypt must have been very seasonal. A lot depended on the floods of the Nile. Whenever the people weren’t engaged in agriculture, they would be left without much to do, and they might start to come up with subversive ideas.
Perhaps the pyramids were meant to be a monument to Egyptian culture, as much as they were a monument to the Pharaoh. Something that all Egyptians could look up to, and think: “Wow, look at what we’re capable! We should all just get along. (Besides, my back are killing me… [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img])”

Indeed! As I said before, The Sitchin Paradigm ends forever the biggest debate facing humankind: the creationist / evolutionist conflict. As Freer furthers Sitchin's theory: "it allows us to produce a clear definition of what it means to be generically human." And just think what a species we WILL BE when we know our true history and don't have those differences in "god" or religious beliefs!

I'd just like to say...
Welcome to species maturity!

ps. and oh yeah Hank, A.DIM does mean "the earthling."

pss. Genesis 1:26

And god said, let US make the adam, in OUR image, after OUR likeness.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: A.DIM on 2002-12-03 14:05 ]</font>

I could accept the monument idea over the tomb idea. That would make a lot more sense. But then what was the purpose of the internal passages, chambers, airshafts, and those heavy slabs of granite that could be lifted or closed with pulleys? What was the "Grand Gallery" and how was the wall blasted in at the front? Why did they seal off and hide the ascending passageway with granite plugs? What was the purpose of the granite box and the cavities above, and its incredible sound resonance? How about the Gantenbrink shafts, and the mysterious "door" at the end? They drilled through and found another door. What's behind that? Why is it the only pyramid with air shafts? Where is all the ancient literature regarding the building of the pyramids, indicating techniques and purpose? There's quite a lot of unanswered questions that are nicely answered by Sitchin, except for the Gantenbrink shaft. He hasn't written anything about that.

A.DIM, I read your link (actually I'm on the last couple of pages, will finish on my train home tonight). It's a good synopsis of Sitchin's theories and the subsequent evolution of religion. Hard to read sometimes, but good.

Who would win in a fight? Zecharia Sitchin or the Amazing Randi?

I still believe that humans created the pyramids and with no help made the great pyramids.

Hank or A.DIM: When the aliens handed down the reign of the kingdom to the pharoughs why did the pyramids get simpler? The aliens used human labour to build the pyramids so someone had to of had the plans. Where did these plans go? It is very hard for me to believe that out of 20,000 or so (give or take a few (tens?) thousand) not one had enougth skill to recreate something their fathers or grandfathers had built just before. Or not one of them wrote down what they built before or passed it along verbally.

To work a force of 20,000 you must of had many formen each with plans on how to build the thing. Not one of them passed on this knowledge?

Thanks

Also if we were created by these beings where did they get their knowledge from? If they could evolve and obtain this knowledge, why couldn't we?

[edited to add last sentence]
_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-03 18:07 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-03 18:12 ]</font>

They were put into an R2 Unit's memory circuits, and sent to a desert planet. Duh. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


-Adam

g99: Remember, the three great pyramids (according to Sitchin) were built between 10,000 and 11,000 BC. The pharoahs built theirs 7000-8000 years later. So nobody's grandfather, or great-grandfather, or great-great-great-great-great grandfather was an original worker. That original knowledge was gone. Even today with our modern knowledge, we're at a loss to explain things that happened just a few thousands years ago. So this loss of knowledge is nothing new. The pharoahs did the best they could when they were copying their gods, and the highly-inferior quality is evident.

I do not know how the Anunnaki themselves came about on the evolutionary tree on Nibiru. Probably naturally. Homo-sapien probably would have evolved in a few million years without help. The Anunnaki simply engineered and accelerated our development since they had a desperate need for slave labor, and homo-erectus was untrainable. Therefore, the Adam (Sumerian: earthling) was created, and he is now posting on the BABB. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Thanks Hank. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Hank, where do the time figures come from? Why don't the accepted (generally) times we have now work? In other words, what makes the Great pyramids older than the rest?

Djosers step pyramid has been shown to come before the Great pyramids, so did the beings help create this one too?
or
Does that mean Djoser did not come before the great pyramids? That is hard to believe.

I don't know how they dated the pyramids. Probobly a combination of carbon dating and other methods (K-Ar?).

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

I understand at least some of the pyramids have hieroglyphs on them which say for which Pharaoh they were built.

We have a fairly good idea of the order of the Pharaohs and their dynasties courtesty of an Egyptian historian called Manetho. During the Ptolemaic period (4th century BC to 1st century BC) he was asked by one of the Kings Ptolemy to write a list of kings of Egypt. Although it has some hairy bits, I understand its considered reasonably accurate.

Thanks peter.

But did they also use the usual archaeological dating methods?


quick question: I know they have just recently found a work camp underneath one of the great pyramids. What did this date to? Does it correspond to the dating of the pyramid?
I would think that this would proove the date of the pyramid and that it is not as old as other theories say it is.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Oy! This thread is enormous. I'm feeling compelled to put in two cents.

First: A.DIM--how does the Sitchin paradigm end the evolution/creation debate? What I mean is: if we all woke up tomorrow morning and there were suddenly 500 million people who were convinced that Sitchin is right, would that not simply bring about an evolution/creation/Sitchin debate? Simply proposing a new idea doesn't put an end to old ideas.

Also, that business of "knowing our true history" and ending differences in religious belief; personally I find that a bit alarming. Shades of world monoculture, tyranny of the majority, and whatnot.

(P.S. And I don't believe that I am resisting Sitchins ideas because of Nibuki slave programming. I read part of Freer's site and it is full of holes--"bad people are suppressing the evidence" and "watch me tell an incredibly detailed story about the history of the Solar System based on a few artifacts and a few seeming anomolies"--not very convincing. One specific example of Freer's logic: he says that the development of human beings from hunter gatherers to spacefarers in 250,000 years is much too short of a time span to be explained by evolution which takes millions of years. And he is of course right, the problem is--no one is trying to explain human cultural and technological evolution by any mechanism of biological evolution. I would expect someone who has gray hair and a mustache and talks about genetics to know the difference between cultural and biological phenomena.)

Second: HankSolo--I tried to read this thread thoroughly but I'm still confused as to what all these mysteries that need explaining are. The business about a decline in pyramid quality doesn't seem very mysterious. There is not a culture in the world that has not waxed and waned. (Note use of Moon phase terminology to bring in astronomy connection [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ). There aren't any Pharohs around these days. Why not? Egyptian civilization waned, Greek civilization waned, Chinese civilization waned, then waxed, then waned, then waxed. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

The anology with space exploration is apropo (sp?), except when it comes to a human exploration of Mars. There is no guarantee that human beings will set foot on Mars. We could have a major economic crisis that leads to a world-wide depression, followed by a series of large wars or something. Who knows? The future is uncertain and if there is one thing we know from history it is-- sometimes very nasty stuff happens.
So if we don't get to Mars will people in the future be saying: "Well, look at that, they went to the Moon but a few decades later all they could produce were hand-gliders. The aliens must have left."

Granted, we will probably get to Mars. We live in more of a global civilization these days which means that a disruption to the course of our civilization could only come about by a series of incredibly huge catastrophes. Egypt was not such a stable civilization. It was local, subject to invasion, bad harvests, etc. Why is a decline mysterious?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Plane-arium on 2002-12-05 00:51 ]</font>
Just read the rules for the BABB so I thought I should add--message edited to change some wases to weres and sight to site

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Plane-arium on 2002-12-05 12:51 ]</font>

Plane-arium, good reply. Just look at the Brittish empire for another example. From nuthing, to a empire conquering half of the people on the world, then to a isolated area again. All without the intervention of aliens. (Well India does have that whole monkey alien problem, but that is for another thread [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img])

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

I don't know. You'd have to check elsewhere. I assume the information is available, and hasn't been suppressed. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]


Again, I don't know whether the work camps have been dated, but everything I've heard suggests that they relate to the pyramids. Presumably their location is a bit of a giveaway - why'd you build a work camp anywhere except near the place you're working.

However, I do know about what they've found there:

- The workers' diet included prime beef and fish - not the normal food for your typical Nile peasant, but ideal for people engaged in hard labour.

- The archaeologists found skeletons of workers who'd survived major amputations. In other words, these were people who'd suffered major industrial accidents, and the authorities did what they could to keep these people alive, even if they weren't going to be able to contribute further to the construction of the pyramid. They weren't slaves who were killed when they were of no further use.

- The workers' skeletons also showed signs of deformation as a consequence of their labour. They worked hard and they were fed well.

That's à propos (French). [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

The future's uncertain,
The end is always near

Anyone remembers this one? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

BTW: I agree with your points. Sometimes the rulers of ancient civilizations built large monuments that were just too ambitious.
The Roman Emperor Nero built a vast palace for himself after the fire that destroyed Rome, called the Golden House. Some say it was actually covered in sheets of gold. But this was obviously a megalomaniacal undertaking. Many Romans felt that it was offensively big and expensive, in fact, and after Nero was forced to abandon power during a rebellion no other Emperor dared to build such an ambitious palace again.

Ah. I knew that didn't look right. Thank you. Also, thank you because looking at your post I now know how to make words appear in italics. Now I just have to figure out fonts, bold, web links, etc. etc. etc. I am so internet unsavy.
Oh! I just went looking for a smilie and actually scrolled down and it's all right there! Great! Duh. Always scroll down butterfly. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img]


It's The Doors, but I can't remember which song. Roadhouse Blues? I think Jim Morrison died about the time I was born. Maybe a few years later. When did he die?

On 2002-12-04 23:30, Plane-arium wrote:

... a very good post. Clear, concise, to the point.

However...

Chinese civilization waned, then waxed, then waned, then waxed.

This isn't some thinnly-veiled and covertly racist "wax on - wax off" pun, is it?
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]
Such a pun never occured to me, I was simply thinking of the incredible longevity of Chinese civilization.
Besides, wasn't the Karate Kid's teacher from Japan? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It is Roadhouse Blues from the 1970 album Morrison Hotel. Morrison died in 1971. He probably knew something about the Apollo program that NASA wanted to conceal. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-12-05 14:33 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-12-04 23:30, Plane-arium wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-12-03 14:00, A.DIM wrote:
Huh? You didn't really read the papers if you're still asking.

http://www.neilfreer.com/index11.htm

And you're right, I should take solace in not "knowing our true history" and the fact that we AS A SPECIES are still "babel-factored", waging wars in the name of this "god" or that "belief." Ignorance is bliss, huh?
I learned to celebrate differences long ago, now I'm hoping something that unites us ALL.

Another fine example of fragmented or mis- information: "... full of holes--"bad people are....".
You should not put in "quotes" those which are not.

"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside" - Allan Bloom - The Closing of the American Mind




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: A.DIM on 2002-12-06 09:42 ]</font>

It is true that I had only read one of Freer's papers before I made that post. Yesterday, I had some free time and I was curious so I spent about four hours reading Freer's site and Sitchin's site. However, I don't think the point I was making really required any reading actually.

I will try to be clearer: (Note the terminology used in the following illustration is not meant to be offensive; I just think it's funny).

Imagine three persons. Person A, Person B, and Person C.
Person A says to Person B--"You are a jerk."
Person B says to Person A--"No, I'm not a jerk; you're an idiot."
Person C comes along and says to both--"Here, let me resolve your debate. The truth is you're both nincompoops."
Did Person C really resolve the debate? No. Person C simply offered an alternate hypothesis.
So my point was: yes, if everyone believed in Sitchin's ideas, that would end debate. But that is true of any idea. If everyone in the world believed that the universe is a giant pink bunny, then there wouldn't be any debate about the nature of the universe. But just because it would end debate is no reason to get all gung-ho about the pink bunny idea. Sitchin's hypothesis of human beings being the result of aliens performing genetic engineering on Homo Erectus doesn't resolve anything just because it uses elements of both evolution and creation. It's just another idea that needs to be backed up with evidence and reasonableness and the whole works before it is convincing. Reading Freer's and Sitchin's web sites was not convincing enough for me to even seek out their books.

I agree that it would be nice if there was less killing and nastiness in the world. I hope that in the future a few general ideas will universally take hold; ideas like might does not make right. But what Sitchin and Freer are talking about is a very detailed and complex idea about what human beings were and are and S & F are saying THIS IS THE TRUTH. This is the TRUE HISTORY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM. That, to me, is a monolithic belief system and the idea of a monolithic belief system spreading across the globe is frightening to me because if enough people believe in a detailed system what happens to the people who have some trouble with the details? I'm not accusing Freer and Sitchin of any nasty plans! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I'm just making a general observation.

You're right. Misuse of quotes. I was trying to use quotes as a short hand device and I thought it would be clear from the context that I was conveying general impressions and not directly quoting.

The point was that Freer and Sitchin talk a lot about their ideas being suppressed. I don't have any experience of the educational systems in other countries but I agree that in my experience of academia in the United States there is a tendency toward rigidity. A funny and trivial example: When I get my Bio-Lab reports back the TA inevitibly writes "Use standard Times-New Roman font." on the top of the paper. I find this annoying so I have sworn to never use Times-New Roman again. Yes, there is rigidity and I complain about it; and Alan Bloom complains about the Feminists and Multiculturalists; and Feminists and Multiculturalists complain about Dead White Men; and Freer and Sitchin complain about Archeology departments.
Fine. Let's all complain. But Freer and Sitchin seem to often make a sort of arguement from suppression and imply that if the suppression was removed, their idea would be universally acknowledged. That is not so. There is nothing obvious and unavoidable about the alien hypothesis. There is no overwhelming evidence for Nibiru.
What I mean by that is--I was not overwhelmed by the evidence offered by Freer and Sitchin on their websites and I very much doubt that I would be overwhelmed if the content of those sites was "unsuppressed" and shouted from the roof tops of Harvard University.

Oof. This has gotten a lot longer than intended. Sorry.

Plane-arium, you are right. If it doesn't overwhelm you, there is no reason to believe it. It can still be fun to discuss. Personally I'm not trying to convert anyone, so I'm not seeking people to agree with me. I'm just pointing out and discussing an alternative view that some people have, including me. I think it's great that we can all have different opinions and discuss them, and learn a little about each other and our different views at the same time. That's the open-mindedness that I'm seeking. I don't mind someone listening and being skeptical and questioning inconsistencies in a theory, that's part of seeing how well a theory stands up. Believe me, if seeking converts was the goal, this is the last place I would post! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I think A.DIM is right about the universal religion part. I'm of the opinion that religion (and differences in religion) has been a leading source of war, grief, and loss of knowledge throughout history, and has done much more harm to the human race than good. I also believe that the worst is still in store for us. The next use of nuclear weapons will probably be due to conflicts rooted in religion. Being athiest, the only hope I have ever been able to come up with would be some sort of other-wordly revelation, that may enlighten our religious views. ET's displaying their advanced technologies, teaching us about ourselves, our history, and our universe, etc... would hopefully spawn a common "religion" within a few generations. That is the hope. Sure there will be holdouts, and people should be free to believe whatever they want. But the vast majority will be of one scientific view, and there will be no more battles over whose "god" is better. Realistically, we would probably find something else to fight over, but at least that fierce religious fury would be past us. And if this enlightenment came sooner from the realization of Nibiru, the Anunnaki, and their involvement in our past, that could be a good thing. (Actually, the Anunnaki were more war-like than any human I've ever heard of, so maybe it's not a good thing!)

Hard science is going to demand that the Anunnaki land here, make themselves and their technology available to all to independently witness and test, and then verify the existance of their planet and its orbit. Only then will this theory be accepted by people seeking hard evidence. That's understandable, and it may one day happen. But for now, I don't expect any hard scientist to accept it, so perhaps they are the wrong people to judge it. Like psychology, it may be a soft science. UFO's fall into that category too. Though a scientist seeking hard evidence may not accept ET-UFO's, there is enough soft evidence and witness testimony to possibly prove its case in court.

http://www.rense.com/general31/pehn.htm

Hank i agree with you that religion has been at the root of many wars and it will for many wars to come. But you, nor i cannot dictate what someone else should think. I will never, nor should i go out to some remote part of the world and tell them that they should stop believeing in this and belive in E.T. who has just landed outside of Cairo.

That is ethnocentrism. The belief that your culture is better and they are worse off because they dont have your culture (basically. It is a little more complicated than that). This is the same thing many missionaries are doing in theese countries.

If they freely decide to visit E.T. and believe in its religion, fine with me.
I am against missionaries.
I realize that you did not say that you agree with missionaries, but it is a problem with world wide religions. Even if we have a world religion we will have fracturing of that religion and warring between those fractions. This will happen natturally and it will be impossible to stop without strict controll.

These factions will war against eachother and still kill eachother. It is human nature to have conflict. Yes it is not biological, but it has socially been ingrained in our culture for eons.
So yes you are right we will find something else to fight over, but the fight over religion will not go away. I know this is a pestimistic view of the world, but it seems true to me.


How will hard science demand that they land here? Why not some other populated world? Or why not land at all? A scientists does not start a experiment and then come in halfway to let the experiment know they are being experimented on.


Also how did they evolve on their planet? If the planet travels outside of the life zone of our solar system, how do they keep from freezing? How did they evolve when for something like 3000 or so (however long their agreed orbit is) of thier planets orbit keeps them frozen? Where did they get food? Energy? Yes they might have tech to combat that now, but how did they defeat it when they evolved?


_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-06 17:21 ]</font>

I didn't mean a universal religion in the regular sense, so I put it in quotes. I guess the better way is to call it a "universal scientific explanation" for the things that we attribute to god. Or how about "universal atheism"? Wars would continue to be fought, I agree. But if we remove religion from the picture, we have a better chance of maintaining peace. There is no way to talk religious fanatics into living peacefully with each other. There is no way of orchestrating a rational conversation between opposing groups when you are dealing with oppositions in blind faith. Religion brings out the fury in us, for reasons that I am not sure of. Kind of like highway rage! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Getting back on topic (kind of), life on Nibiru is not very clear from Sitchin's interpretations of Sumerian text. He does state that Nibiru generates its own heat, and its atmosphere keeps it well insulated and stable, including the hot period when it is between Mars & Jupiter. As Sitchin explains, that atmosphere had developed a "hole", wrecking havoc on this stability. After much experimenting they decided that gold ground to a superfine powder could be suspended in the upper atmosphere to fix their problem. Earth and the asteroid belt would be the source of the gold. The rest is history.

I'm not sure how much longer this should go on since it has ranged very far from the original post--I don't know the precise edicit here. But....
Since this seems to have turned into a Sitchin discussion, I am curious-- HankSolo what do you think of Sitchin's website? Specifically, what do you think of that tribute poem on the home page?

You're right about being waaaay off topic. Inevitably, alternative theories about ancient mysteries are going to lead back to him, especially when those "mysteries" are the Giza pyramids because he offers a fully detailed alternative explanation. I guess the etiquette would be to have someone start a new thread if they can't bend the discussion back to the topic or want to branch off. So I can continue the Sitchin discussion in a new PlanetX thread if you're interested, because that poem borders on Sitchin-worship and I think I know what you're hinting at...

Here's the new thread:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...159&forum=10&0

I think you guys would like this. Especially HankSolo, A.DIM, and Rich.

This sunday at 9:00 P.M. eastern on the discovery channel.

< "Building the Great Pyramid"

From the above site: