Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 20 Next >>
Topic: The Revelation of the Pyramids - by Pooyard (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Jeremiah Avery
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2431
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 7:48am | IP Logged | 1  


 QUOTE:
I think they assume this because they see some pyramids are primitive and some are not.. so they automatically assumed the primitive ones were the older and the advanced ones were later. I think this is the massive error all along.


Yet your assumption is somehow gospel? It wasn't just eyeballing the pyramids and saying "that one's older and that other one was built later." Centuries of debate and investigation yielded various findings.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 7:49am | IP Logged | 2  

Charles, you're leaping (without evidence) to the existence of technologies whose function is unsupported by scientific principles in order to explain something that is fully explainable by primitive tools and muscle and that is part of still extant building and art practices.

This is what I mean by Dunn and his ilk first making you swallow the lie that the truth is impossible, so they can feed you this pablum of unsubstantiated drivel.

That's not being outside the box, Charles. That's cramming yourself into a tinier box and locking yourself in. What you need to do is to actually educate yourself on the building practices of the Ancient Egyptians. Not through Dunn, but through mainstream sources.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Jensen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 7:58am | IP Logged | 3  

"Yet your assumption is somehow gospel?"
-----

I never said that.  It's just a theory. It's a theory why the pyramids are viewed a certain way rather than as they may actually be. 

They are viewed as having a primitive purpose... because primitive people moved into that era.. but they actually have a purpose more sophisticated in ways than we understand even now.

This is the theory because of details discovered and realized after going over all these facts. It's a massive puzzle still being put together.

"It wasn't just eyeballing the pyramids and saying "that one's older and that other one was built later." Centuries of debate and investigation yielded various findings."

Keep in mind though that the people who came to these conclusions are archeologist.. people who may not have the necessary training to evaluate what they are finding. You have engineers looking at this stuff who have the experience to understand what they are seeing.. and it's telling them things completely different.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Jeremiah Avery
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2431
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 8:04am | IP Logged | 4  

Actually engineers have explained how they were built, using fulcrums, pulleys, etc. Showing that with enough manpower, time and the right equipment that those structures could be constructed.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18024
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 8:05am | IP Logged | 5  

It's not a theory; it's barely a hypothesis.  You've insulted our intelligence, not to mention your own.  Don't further insult the scientific process.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Jensen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 8:12am | IP Logged | 6  

"Charles, you're leaping (without evidence) to the existence of technologies whose function is unsupported by scientific principles in order to explain something that is fully explainable by primitive tools and muscle and that is part of still extant building and art practices."

I think there is proof these technologies are proven.  That is why I think everyone needs to examine Dr. Judy Wood's website.  Listen to here interview I posted.  Google the Hutchison effect. And it just happens the WTC was loaded with design elements from the pyramids at Giza.

"This is what I mean by Dunn and his ilk first making you swallow the lie that the truth is impossible, so they can feed you this pablum of unsubstantiated drivel."

I have dealt with machining and sculpting.. and I have read his books.  From what I have read there is no question in my mind.  The only question is if he is being factual about certain elements his theories rely on.  If this wasn't the case he would be a liar.. and I juts don't get that sense from him. And also.. there was that insect shell element he didn't even understand that tied in perfectly with info I had researched. This just supports the idea that the pyramid had some advanced function as well. Juts too great of a coincidence for me.

"That's not being outside the box, Charles. That's cramming yourself into a tinier box and locking yourself in. What you need to do is to actually educate yourself on the building practices of the Ancient Egyptians. Not through Dunn, but through mainstream sources."

That is what I am in the process of doing.. thanks for the advice though.  Am am familiar with them as well.. I have a very strong curiosity. It is something that had interested me before but not to this level.

As I said.. I had believed the conventional explanations before.. but if you look at the actual details closely you see something else is going on here.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Charles Jensen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 8:15am | IP Logged | 7  

"It's not a theory; it's barely a hypothesis.  You've insulted our intelligence, not to mention your own.  Don't further insult the scientific process."
-----

Grow up. 

Don't you have something better to do with your time?

You are an insult to yourself.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Charles Jensen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 8:20am | IP Logged | 8  

"Actually engineers have explained how they were built, using fulcrums, pulleys, etc. Showing that with enough manpower, time and the right equipment that those structures could be constructed."
-------

To that precision though?  Not according to people who actually do this kind of work.

You can claim these people saying this are wrong but that doesn't make it so.

Then when you look at the other information relating to this everything points to a different direction than what we have believed in the past.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Jeremiah Avery
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2431
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 8:27am | IP Logged | 9  

You're saying actual engineers don't "actually do this kind of work"?


 QUOTE:
You can claim these people saying this are wrong but that doesn't make it so


Likewise your dismissal of people who actually investigated the origins of these constructs and took the time to break it all down to explain it isn't all that accurate either.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Jensen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 8:39am | IP Logged | 10  

"You're saying actual engineers don't "actually do this kind of work"?"

Which engineers are you referring to? The engineers in this documentary appeared to be high level successful engineers .  

At the very least it appears we have a difference of opinion.  And then you have all the info that I have researched myself that just happens to perfectly tie in with the theory this engineer has about the pyramids and they aren't even aware of this other separate science.

"Likewise your dismissal of people who actually investigated the origins of these constructs and took the time to break it all down to explain it isn't all that accurate either."

I think you need to evaluate the same info I have to come to that conclusion, though.  I think if you did you would see where I am coming from.  Its a lot of stuff though.. I doubt I get any takers.  But that is also why I feel confident in my view.. because I have done all that research and seen verification all over.


Edited by Charles Jensen on 15 September 2011 at 8:45am
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Mark Dickie
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 August 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 9:21am | IP Logged | 11  


 QUOTE:
What makes you think antigravity bug shells are stupid?

Bwah! 

Hoo-boy!  This thread makes Occam terribly sad.  


Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Jensen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 9:25am | IP Logged | 12  

"Bwah! 

Hoo-boy!  This thread makes Occam terribly sad."
--------

All truth goes through three phases. 1st it is ridiculed, 2nd it is violently opposed. 3rd it is accepted as self evident.

Manned powered flight would have been mocked the same way at one time.  

If you study electrogravitics you realize that it is very plausible insects use this effect.. it explains mysteries about flying insect that haven't been explained conventionally.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 20 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login