Thread: We are Subject To Our HISTORY Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025424

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
The history of the Templars only goes back 1000 years

The History of the Jacobian Covenant only goes back 2600 years (Video)

The History of the Annunaki who settled this planet with civilization 200 thousand years ago has practically never been told ...

WHY? Even though Sacred Geometry of the Annunaki underlies the Pyramid system and the cathedral system, Elites have garnered and sequestered this knowledge away from the People.

It's WHY ELITES RULE TODAY, without our consent.

Anybody care?

[Edited to fix links and scroll lock - Tubbs]

[ 20. May 2013, 12:39: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
This should be purgatory, and I am sure a host will be along and move it shortly. In the meanwhile, who is Enkis ?
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
You don't know who Enki is? Google him.

This is NOT Purgatory; this is HISTORY.

barnabas62 does not want this kind of data in HIS domain.

Please create a category for HISTORY.

EEWC
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
When a host does move it, can they shorten the links please cos they do horrible things to my screen. Ta muchly [Smile]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Doublethink: In the meanwhile, who is Enkis ?
Enki.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Indeed.

I'm also on dial-up, which is like, pulling onto the freeway when you're on your hands and knees.

I live in the forest, and there is no dsl here.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
You don't know who Enki is? Google him.

This is NOT Purgatory; this is HISTORY.

barnabas62 does not want this kind of data in HIS domain.

Please create a category for HISTORY.

EEWC

Purgatory is board for discussion of topics that don't fit on any of the other boards Emily.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Doublethink: In the meanwhile, who is Enkis ?
Enki.
Interesting, so entirely different theological tradition then. I don't know much about Sumerian theology.

[ 19. May 2013, 20:58: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
ITTWACW......

Ian J.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Doublethink: Interesting, so entirely different theological tradition then. I don't know much about Sumerian theology.
Neither do I. I'm planning to read the Wikipedia article when I have more time.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Emily

I've tried to be patient with you but my patience is rapidly running out.

I've explained NUMEROUS times that what you want to post is suitable for the Purgatory boards, but you have paid no attention whatsoever. Others have tried to help as well, but still you choose to ignore friendly advice given by others.

I have also said numerous times that you should read the guidelines for each board to get a feel for what is discussed where. If you had bothered to take that advice, you would know that All Saints is NOT the correct board for this sort of discussion. Do you need me to spell it out for you?

The correct board is Purgatory -that's P U R G A T O R Y

Got it now?

So, what's it to be? Are you going to actually start taking peoples' advice or are you going to be thrown overboard? The choice is yours.

Spike
SoF Admin
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
WHY? Even though Sacred Geometry of the Annunaki underlies the Pyramid system and the cathedral system, Elites have garnered and sequestered this knowledge away from the People.

It's WHY ELITES RULE TODAY, without our consent.

Is this a promotion for a Dan Brown Style novel?

quote:
Anybody care?
I care, if you keep posting stuff like this the plebs might find out and I'll lose my elite ruler status. shhhh ok?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
The History of the Annunaki who settled this planet with civilization 200 thousand years ago has practically never been told ...

Funny that. Maybe it's because there's no evidence whatsoever that any of it actually happened.
 
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 
I know it's giving the H&A's a lot of trouble, but to be honest this is lots of fun, so more power to Emily's elbow I say if she can just post on the right board and not get herself banned. [Big Grin]

It will keep us amused for hours.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thyme:
It will keep us amused for hours.

Try minutes and you'll be closer to getting that right.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
WHY? Even though Sacred Geometry of the Annunaki underlies the Pyramid system and the cathedral system, Elites have garnered and sequestered this knowledge away from the People.

It's WHY ELITES RULE TODAY, without our consent.

Is this a promotion for a Dan Brown Style novel?

quote:
Anybody care?
I care, if you keep posting stuff like this the plebs might find out and I'll lose my elite ruler status. shhhh ok?

Could be. Dan Brown was on Breakfast this morning. But he is doing Dante rather than Sumerians.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
As all the All Saints Hosts appear to be out and about, I'll move this thread to Purg ... Off we go!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
After reading the hilarious thread in Styx, I was amazed to find this thread here.

Carry on…

K.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I've just noticed that there is an Emily E Windsor Cragg on Facebook, who wrote the following a few months ago:

quote:
Please know, I get kicked out of Forums all the time because I confront their dogma: ATS, GLP, BBC, Crows have all decided I'm just "too much" for their boundaries. Facebook is on the cusp of making the same decision, that I'm too dangerous to be here. I realize this. So I'm [sic] participation may indeed be temporary.
If, Emily, this is you (and it certainly looks like it, given the subject matter of that page), then please note that if you refuse to provide something called EVIDENCE for your claims, then you are the one who is promoting dogma. I am personally very happy to discuss this subject with you (assuming I can find the time), if it is done on the basis of evidence and argument. How on earth do you expect us to believe what you are saying, simply on the basis of your say-so??

It really is not being unreasonable to ask for your claims to be supported with just something objective. How about it?

[ 20. May 2013, 13:39: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It really is not being unreasonable to ask for your claims to be supported with just something objective.

Annunaki of the gaps?
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Ah, if only I could still get in touch with Marduk (whom I first met on GH and then onJREF), he could give us all the links and counter-arguments! He can read Sumerian for a start.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Maybe Elvis could help?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Can I put in a claim for Baptist Landmarkism/ Trail of Blood here? That Cathars and the like were really Truly Believing Baptists™ who were exterminated by the Nasty Cruel Catholicses™ (along of course with all the evidence proving they were Truly Believing Baptists™, doubtless aided and abetted by the Enim and the Illuminati)?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Annunaki of the gaps?

That sounds almost as esoteric as "naturalism of the gaps". [Snigger]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If, Emily, this is you (and it certainly looks like it, given the subject matter of that page), then please note that if you refuse to provide something called EVIDENCE for your claims, then you are the one who is promoting dogma. I am personally very happy to discuss this subject with you (assuming I can find the time), if it is done on the basis of evidence and argument. How on earth do you expect us to believe what you are saying, simply on the basis of your say-so??

It really is not being unreasonable to ask for your claims to be supported with just something objective. How about it?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Annunaki of the gaps?

That sounds almost as esoteric as "naturalism of the gaps". [Snigger]
If you don't consider naturalistic explanations to be valid, exactly what kind of "evidence" would you find acceptable?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Nice to hear from Emily again, as here in Alpha Centauri, she has a loyal band of readers. Some of the links are dodgy, as here we are being patched through by our broadband controller on the exo-planet, which you earthlings laughingly call Alpha Centauri Bb. But enough of such badinage.

But we know enough about your Jesus, to realize that with the retirement of Sir Alex, he is one of the most promising football managers around. I say all power to the elbow of Emily! Greetings from the exo-planet laughingly called Alpha Centauri Bb!
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Croesos -

I didn't say that naturalistic explanations were not valid. I was criticising "naturalism of the gaps": assuming that everything has to be explained in accordance with philosophical naturalism (a highly tendentious and ill-defined philosophy) even if that explanation is absurdly improbable.
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
WHY? Even though Sacred Geometry of the Annunaki underlies the Pyramid system and the cathedral system, Elites have garnered and sequestered this knowledge away from the People.

It's WHY ELITES RULE TODAY, without our consent.

Is this a promotion for a Dan Brown Style novel?

quote:
Anybody care?
I care, if you keep posting stuff like this the plebs might find out and I'll lose my elite ruler status. shhhh ok?

Could be. Dan Brown was on Breakfast this morning. But he is doing Dante rather than Sumerians.
Dan Brown at his worst is more logical than this,.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
This is neither the circus nor heaven - no trolling, no games. Parodies that make no debating point come very close to personal attack / trolling.

You are not obliged to participate in this thread if you don't want to, other boards (including hell) are thataway -->

Doublethink
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Croesos -

I didn't say that naturalistic explanations were not valid. I was criticising "naturalism of the gaps": assuming that everything has to be explained in accordance with philosophical naturalism (a highly tendentious and ill-defined philosophy) even if that explanation is absurdly improbable.

[Confused] So if you accept spectral evidence as valid, what's wrong with the Annunaki postulate?

[ 20. May 2013, 16:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
So if you accept spectral evidence as valid, what's wrong with the Annunaki postulate?

Nothing's wrong with it IF I accept spectral evidence.

Trouble is though, me old fruit... I don't accept "spectral evidence"!!

Where the blazes did you get that idea from? Or is this just another one of your wild assumptions, of which there have been many in your responses to my posts?

I never realised that logical inference was termed "spectral evidence"!

Now it's my turn to go: [Confused]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Which brings me back to my still unanswered question of what you consider valid evidence? You seem like a "selective naturalist" (not related to "natural selection"), who will require ironclad physical evidence for other people's pet ideas but dismiss any similar scrutiny of their own as "philosophical naturalism".

In short, isn't your request for "evidence" the exact kind of thing you dismiss as the product of "a highly tendentious and ill-defined philosophy" in other contexts?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That is the problem with 'supernatural evidence', isn't it? It has no constraints, unless you begin to appeal to naturalism. Thus I have evidence that magical pixie dust is at work in the universe. How can this be falsified? It can't, under a supernatural aegis.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
The history of the Templars only goes back 1000 years

The History of the Jacobian Covenant only goes back 2600 years (Video)

The History of the Annunaki who settled this planet with civilization 200 thousand years ago has practically never been told ...

I find it amusing the way this OP treats Masonic/Templar conspiracy theories as the Establishment narrative that needs to be exposed and debunked by the Annunaki theorists.

Though I suppose with the kind of money and media-attention that Dan Brown garners these days, there are those who might suspect he's the guy running the black helicopters.

[ 20. May 2013, 17:19: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Which Annanuki postulate do you mean, Croesos?

On the consistency argument, many Christians today are quite happy with the methods of Historical criticism and their application to any ancient texts, including those of particular significance to Christians. It seems consistent to me to subject the "Annanuki postulate" (whichever one you are thinking about) to that standard.

Let's take Sitchin's theory. I take it that you're not really surprised by the following observations.

quote:
Sitchin's ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. His work has been criticized for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims
Given this thread is about a Shipmate's claims about what constitutes HISTORY, it seems fine to me to argue that, for various critical reasons, the Annanuki extra-terrestrial theories should not be considered as HISTORY unless and until they have been through some form of academic peer review. Based on the Sitchin article, at least one of the Annanuki theories is marked "failed" already.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Though I suppose with the kind of money and media-attention that Dan Brown garners these days, there are those who might suspect he's the guy running the black helicopters.

Hey, don't make fun of renowned Dan Brown.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Let's take Sitchin's theory. I take it that you're not really surprised by the following observations.

quote:
Sitchin's ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. His work has been criticized for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims
Given this thread is about a Shipmate's claims about what constitutes HISTORY, it seems fine to me to argue that, for various critical reasons, the Annanuki extra-terrestrial theories should not be considered as HISTORY unless and until they have been through some form of academic peer review. Based on the Sitchin article, at least one of the Annanuki theories is marked "failed" already.
Only if you confine yourself to the straightjacket of "philosophical naturalism". There could be some supernatural explanation about why it seems like Sitchin is just making shit up but in fact reality has been warped to conceal the real truth.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Magic pixie dust fits the bill.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Can I poke it with a stick through the bars too? Can I? Can I?

God bless you Emily. Really. Which He will. All will be well.

Or is that just too ad hominem Oh Hosts ?

Emily, we'd probably be better off in Hell if you like. It's warmer there. Some of us can try and love you there.

As for the subject, let's assume I completely agree with you 110%, where do we go from here to loving the poor ? To making a difference ? To seeing the future break in to the present ?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Can I poke it with a stick through the bars too? Can I? Can I?

<Snipping something I hope was sincere>

Or is that just too ad hominem Oh Hosts ?

What do you think, Martin? In what way is this sentence related to the OP?

Answer in the Styx, please.

Kelly Alves
Passing Admin.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Let's take Sitchin's theory. I take it that you're not really surprised by the following observations.

quote:
Sitchin's ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. His work has been criticized for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims
Given this thread is about a Shipmate's claims about what constitutes HISTORY, it seems fine to me to argue that, for various critical reasons, the Annanuki extra-terrestrial theories should not be considered as HISTORY unless and until they have been through some form of academic peer review. Based on the Sitchin article, at least one of the Annanuki theories is marked "failed" already.
Only if you confine yourself to the straightjacket of "philosophical naturalism". There could be some supernatural explanation about why it seems like Sitchin is just making shit up but in fact reality has been warped to conceal the real truth.
Too binary, Croesos. I don't see philosophical naturalism as a controlling factor in any peer review. If a person of faith and an agnostic, both with the necessary critical expertise, look at a particular hypothesis and the evidence for it and both judge it to be unfounded in their professional opinion, then the hypothesis has failed their peer review. They then take their professional hats off, leave their measured responses behind, go to a pub for a drink and say "well, actually, unfounded may be the professional judgment, but basically, the notion is batshit crazy!", they are doing what people do. Philosophical presuppositions do not determine or confine the results of professional judgments. Personal judgements (in the bar afterwards) are another matter.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Oh!

I placed the links to evidence in the Annunaki thread.

what I expected to discuss here is how it happens to be that Scriptures only begin 4000 years ago when in scientific fact, the Earth is 3.5 billion years old.

Doesn't make sense to me that Earth, with so many mysterious artifacts, pyramids and hidden cultures, must restrain ourselves to such a short official history.

Any takers?
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
Who's saying that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures constitute the "official history" of the earth? (leaving aside the yeccies, who are looking relatively reasonable at this point [Biased] ).
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I've just noticed that there is an Emily E Windsor Cragg on Facebook, who wrote the following a few months ago:

quote:
Please know, I get kicked out of Forums all the time because I confront their dogma: ATS, GLP, BBC, Crows have all decided I'm just "too much" for their boundaries. Facebook is on the cusp of making the same decision, that I'm too dangerous to be here. I realize this. So I'm [sic] participation may indeed be temporary.
If,

Emily, this is you (and it certainly looks like it, given the subject matter of that page), then please note that if you refuse to provide something called EVIDENCE for your claims, then you are the one who is promoting dogma. I am personally very happy to discuss this subject with you (assuming I can find the time), if it is done on the basis of evidence and argument. How on earth do you expect us to believe what you are saying, simply on the basis of your say-so??

It really is not being unreasonable to ask for your claims to be supported with just something objective. How about it?

Please check the Annunaki thread for links to "evidence." If that is not sufficient, let me know, okay?
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ah, if only I could still get in touch with Marduk (whom I first met on GH and then onJREF), he could give us all the links and counter-arguments! He can read Sumerian for a start.

Marduk is not a buddy of mine.
I can't help you find him.
I work at losing him all the time.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Doublethink: In the meanwhile, who is Enkis ?
Enki.
Interesting, so entirely different theological tradition then. I don't know much about Sumerian theology.
Actually, it's New Age Cosmology, that's all.

They live where they manifest by visualization.

Causes and effects have no meaning to those folks.

Imagine if you lived on a Holodeck.

Um-hum.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Who's saying that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures constitute the "official history" of the earth? (leaving aside the yeccies, who are looking relatively reasonable at this point [Biased] ).

If you read the directives of the Rethuglican and Democrapic Potties, that's where they get their stuff ... NO FURTHER than 4000 years BACK.

And the texbooks our kids get in school continue that myth. Have you read your kids' textbooks?

Emily
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I could do with a translator at this point, Emily. I haven't the least idea what point you are trying to make.

By definition what we call ancient history began about 5,000 years ago. But that is purely a historian's definition, based on the earliest available written records.

From a historian's viewpoint, the written records are interesting as a source of information, but their existence may only provide fragmentary and partial information. That's just the general problem with recorded history. The same argument applies to archaeological findings; they provide at best fragmentary evidence.

The historians' pictures of ancient history are variable, subject to change as a result of further findings.

And that is a common feature of historical research for any period for which there are records. New records (archaeological, written) may be found at any time, cast some fresh light on any period. But the record will remain partial, fragmentary. Much that happened never gets recorded, or even if it does, records can get destroyed, or permanently lost.

The record of history is variable, and so therefore are the opinions on the records available so far. We're constrained by the available data. In general, the fewer the sources, the more provisional the picture.

The record of what happened may be changing, but it is always less than what happened, and the same may be said of any interpretations of the record. These are just the best that researchers are able to do with the record.

(xposted with loads of Shipmates)

[ 21. May 2013, 01:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Sitchin was not a theoretician. He was a translator among other translators.

It's the Sumerians who had opinions about their history going back and back and back.

[Smile] Em

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Which Annanuki postulate do you mean, Croesos?

On the consistency argument, many Christians today are quite happy with the methods of Historical criticism and their application to any ancient texts, including those of particular significance to Christians. It seems consistent to me to subject the "Annanuki postulate" (whichever one you are thinking about) to that standard.

Let's take Sitchin's theory. I take it that you're not really surprised by the following observations.

quote:
Sitchin's ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. His work has been criticized for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims
Given this thread is about a Shipmate's claims about what constitutes HISTORY, it seems fine to me to argue that, for various critical reasons, the Annanuki extra-terrestrial theories should not be considered as HISTORY unless and until they have been through some form of academic peer review. Based on the Sitchin article, at least one of the Annanuki theories is marked "failed" already.

 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I could do with a translator at this point, Emily. I haven't the least idea what point you are trying to make.

By definition what we call ancient history began about 5,000 years ago.

Dear Barnabas, and yes I have and I disseminate copies of the Gospel of Barnabas, so I know you.

Ever hear of resurrection? That's another word for Life-after-life.

I'm in YHYH's "pocket," because as an unregenerate Dragon soul, my karma is "the law of the jungle."

The only good I get is if I EAT HUMANS.

Yuck! I'd rather starve.

So YHVH sequesters me because I DO NOT FIT IN.

Ancient history begins HALF A MILLION YEARS AGO when Annunaki first began mining gold here. Why? Because they needed CHEMTRAILS to spare the natural atmosphere on their planet which was dissipating.

Chemtrails are not new. Utilizing base elements to create a canopy over gaseous atmosphere has been tried and done over and over, usually with more bad results than good ones.

Okay. To proceed ...

Five thousands of civil history is less than one drop in the bucket ... so what we know for sure is, TPTB have NO INTEREST in telling us the real or whole story.

Can we agree this far?

EEWC
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Who's saying that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures constitute the "official history" of the earth? (leaving aside the yeccies, who are looking relatively reasonable at this point [Biased] ).

If you read the directives of the Rethuglican and Democrapic Potties, that's where they get their stuff ... NO FURTHER than 4000 years BACK.

And the texbooks our kids get in school continue that myth. Have you read your kids' textbooks?

Emily

I make my living editing textbooks for (mostly) Canadian schools and universities, so I read them all the time. The timeframe they deal with depends on their subject matter: recorded human history begins about 4000 BC (which, if you do the math, is actually about 6000 years ago), archaeological records go back millennia further than that, paleontology millions of years, and geology billions of years.

I've worked on textbooks that discuss all these areas, each in their proper timeframes -- so this 4000-year boundary you speak of is unknown to me.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I could do with a translator at this point, Emily. I haven't the least idea what point you are trying to make.

By definition what we call ancient history began about 5,000 years ago.

Dear Barnabas, and yes I have and I disseminate copies of the Gospel of Barnabas, so I know you.

Ever hear of resurrection? That's another word for Life-after-life.

I'm in YHYH's "pocket," because as an unregenerate Dragon soul, my karma is "the law of the jungle."

The only good I get is if I EAT HUMANS.

Yuck! I'd rather starve.

So YHVH sequesters me because I DO NOT FIT IN.

Ancient history begins HALF A MILLION YEARS AGO when Annunaki first began mining gold here. Why? Because they needed CHEMTRAILS to spare the natural atmosphere on their planet which was dissipating.

Chemtrails are not new. Utilizing base elements to create a canopy over gaseous atmosphere has been tried and done over and over, usually with more bad results than good ones.

Okay. To proceed ...

Five thousands of civil history is less than one drop in the bucket ... so what we know for sure is, TPTB have NO INTEREST in telling us the real or whole story.

Can we agree this far?

EEWC

It may be different in your part of the US, but over here, my school textbooks did deal with the history of the Earth from before 5000 BC. Not human history, no, but history nonetheless.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Jade Constable: It may be different in your part of the US, but over here, my school textbooks did deal with the history of the Earth from before 5000 BC. Not human history, no, but history nonetheless.
But I guess they called it Pre-History.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Sitchin was not a theoretician. He was a translator among other translators.

It's the Sumerians who had opinions about their history going back and back and back.

That is according to Stitchin's translations, the accuracy of which is disputed. And there are other criticisms of his writings to be found here.

It is not safe to take him as an authoritative source of information about Sumerian culture and Sumerian self-understanding of their own history. His translations, interpretations, scientific understandings and readings of myths and legends have all been the subject of criticism by other researchers.

Why should he be believed, and others doubted? He lacks credibility for a variety of well-documented reasons. Peer reviewers have found serious holes in his work.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
I'm not in a position to doubt translators.
I do, however, doubt their interpretations.
Sasha Lessin's interpretations put me in stitches.
Absurd, they are.
I let the Spirit of God guide me, in this respect.
And the Annunaki do have their own problems.
Thanks be to God!
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


what I expected to discuss here is how it happens to be that Scriptures only begin 4000 years ago when in scientific fact, the Earth is 3.5 billion years old.


That should have read 4.54 billion years.

GG

[ 21. May 2013, 03:15: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Why do we expect recorded history to be older than, oh, say, writing?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I'm not in a position to doubt translators.
I do, however, doubt their interpretations.
Sasha Lessin's interpretations put me in stitches.
Absurd, they are.
I let the Spirit of God guide me, in this respect.

OK. It's a common enough understanding within Christianity that so far as hearing the indwelling voice of God is concerned, it's wise to be accountable within a church community. Check your perceptions of guidance with others.

The reason is simple enough; we get our guidance wrong routinely, because of the "noise" in our minds caused by various human weaknesses. That's just the normal outworking of the church as the Body of Christ.

It's a kind of "peer review" of our perceptions. Peer review is great. We don't have to accept what it says, but we're wise not to ignore our weaknesses.

Or as Cromwell put it "I beseech ye, in the bowels of Christ, consider that ye may be mistaken".

You've already reduced HISTORY to your personal perception of the Holy Spirit. You discount independent verification at your personal peril.

quote:
From your earlier post:
Dear Barnabas, and yes I have and I disseminate copies of the Gospel of Barnabas, so I know you.

No you don't. Barnabas62 is my Ship name. My local church nickname is Barnabas and I was 62 years old when I joined SoF.

Associating me with the very late pseudopigraphic mishmash which is the Gospel of Barnabas is laughable. If it has any roots in relatively early documents, they are probably Gnostic or Ebionite in character; in its amended form it conforms to Islamic understandings of Christian origins.

quote:

Ever hear of resurrection? That's another word for Life-after-life.

I'm in YHYH's "pocket," because as an unregenerate Dragon soul, my karma is "the law of the jungle."

The only good I get is if I EAT HUMANS.

Yuck! I'd rather starve.

So YHVH sequesters me because I DO NOT FIT IN.

Clearly you believe in reincarnation. I don't. It's not orthodox Christian belief. Again, it is associated much more with the family of beliefs generally described as Gnosticism.
quote:

Ancient history begins HALF A MILLION YEARS AGO when Annunaki first began mining gold here. Why? Because they needed CHEMTRAILS to spare the natural atmosphere on their planet which was dissipating.

Chemtrails are not new. Utilizing base elements to create a canopy over gaseous atmosphere has been tried and done over and over, usually with more bad results than good ones.

You may think that. I think your opinion is without value as a contribution to HISTORY
quote:

Okay. To proceed ...

Five thousands of civil history is less than one drop in the bucket ... so what we know for sure is, TPTB have NO INTEREST in telling us the real or whole story.

A complete non-sequitur, coupled with a paranoid reference to The Powers That Be.
quote:

Can we agree this far?

Not in the slightest degree.

[ 21. May 2013, 06:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

Marduk is not a buddy of mine.
I can't help you find him.
I work at losing him all the time.

I was interested to read this - have sent you a pm.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Which brings me back to my still unanswered question of what you consider valid evidence? You seem like a "selective naturalist" (not related to "natural selection"), who will require ironclad physical evidence for other people's pet ideas but dismiss any similar scrutiny of their own as "philosophical naturalism".

In short, isn't your request for "evidence" the exact kind of thing you dismiss as the product of "a highly tendentious and ill-defined philosophy" in other contexts?

Where have I said that I require "ironclad physical evidence" for other people's pet ideas? That assumes that proper evidence has to be limited to the physical. But there is absolutely no such thing as pure physical evidence, in the sense that we can derive any conclusion at all simply from the firing of our neurons in response to sense perception. If I look at a physical object, I can make no sense of it at all unless I have some framework of ideas in my mind, and I am prepared to apply logic to that perception through those ideas. Of course, this all happens so unconsciously that often we don't even recognise that most of our sense perception is actually ideational (which is not the same as subjective idealism, in case you jump to that fallacious conclusion. I certainly do not believe that all of our sense perception is ideational). So therefore we cannot even talk about 'evidence' unless we factor in the roles of logic and ideas. Therefore all conclusions are the result of logical inference, because our minds (or brains, if you prefer) do not have direct contact with the physical objects being perceived, but only infer their existence through the medium of sense perception and the ideas that make sense of sense perception. (By the way... if you feel like promoting pure empiricism, and believe that pure sense perception can count as valid evidence, then how do you distinguish between the perception of things in reality and the perception of things in a dream? Ironically, it's the empiricists whose theory affirms 'spectral evidence'!!)

You say that I dismiss scrutiny of my own position (or "pet ideas" as you rather scathingly put it). Where have I said - or implied - that I dismiss scrutiny of my own position? This is something that you have dreamt up (spectral evidence!) - or perhaps assumed, because I have not been prepared to just roll over and accept your atheistic view of reality. I am very willing to accept scrutiny of my position, but I will only accept logically valid scrutiny, not pseudo-scrutiny based on special pleading.

All valid scientific evidence is based on logical inference, and not simply sense perception. We cannot draw any conclusions about reality unless we make inferences based on various assumptions (such as, for example, the uniformity of nature, which cannot be observed empirically, since we cannot directly observe every event in the entire history of the universe). All theories of origins are based on inference, because the events have not been directly observed, or repeated according to the scientific method. Even if certain hypothesised events could be reconstructed in the laboratory, it is a non sequitur to conclude that "this is what must have happened", because the conclusion of "did happen" does not follow logically from the premise of "could have happened". Therefore it is perfectly right and logical to investigate the presuppositions held by those who infer a certain theory of origins. These presuppositions may actually be incoherent. I certainly believe that the presupposition of philosophical naturalism is logically incoherent, based on the observation, experience and study of various aspects of reality, such as the nature of complex functional systems, reason, consciousness, the moral sense and time, with reference to first cause. These are all recognised aspects of reality, which therefore constitute evidence, by which we can come to an apprehension of truth.

You seem to give the impression that "objective evidence" leads inexorably to atheism. I have seen no evidence to support that conclusion. That is why I used the word 'tendentious'. The lack of the existence of a supreme, intelligent, personal and moral first cause requires some other 'absolute' to explain the facts of reality. This impersonal, non-intelligent, amoral, infinitely regressive (or originating from 'nothing') force called 'nature' explains very little about reality as far as I can see.

So in a nutshell, to answer your question: the definition of 'evidence' includes the rigorous application of logic to all aspects of reality.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Crœsos

It occurred to me after reading EtymologicalEvangelical's latest post that if might help this tangent to provide this link to a related discussion in Kerygmania.

EE and I are not on the same page. I see Historical Criticism as primarily a matter of methodology and professional discipline. The presuppositions of practitioners (re the supernatural or indeed anything else) are secondary; the primary dimension is methodological and subject to peer review.

I'm not of course suggesting that the process is free from manipulation in favour of prior agendas. Precisely the same argument applies to scientific research - there are always social games afoot. But findings have no abiding future unless they receive the support of practitioners with different presuppositions.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
The presuppositions of practitioners (re the supernatural or indeed anything else) are secondary; the primary dimension is methodological and subject to peer review.

Could you please give me an example of a metaphysically relevant* truth claim that has no reference to or dependence on any philosophical presupposition?


* i.e. a claim that has some bearing on what we believe about the nature of reality. So an idea in the same epistemic category as, for example, London being a city on the river Thames, which was called Londinium by the Romans, doesn't count, because this really has no obvious bearing on anything metaphysical.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
EE

I'll do so on the Keryg thread, rather than in the tangent here. Seems fairer to me to give the answer within the framework of that OP, rather than this one.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Where have I said that I require "ironclad physical evidence" for other people's pet ideas? That assumes that proper evidence has to be limited to the physical. But there is absolutely no such thing as pure physical evidence, in the sense that we can derive any conclusion at all simply from the firing of our neurons in response to sense perception.

Then what are you asking for here? What kind of "EVIDENCE" (your caps, not mine) are you expecting EW-C to cite?
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Hmm. I have to wonder whether Barnabas knows what evidence he will accept.

I choked on the Gospel of Barnabas when I read the whole thing.

Then I read the Vatican document that supported it, and I was REALLY confused.

Want the linK?

So, evidence is quite IFFY and demanding evidence quite beside the point.

We must hear the Ring of Truth (by the Holy Spirit) and respond to That whether we have empirical evidence or not ... is my take on it at this point.

Got a better idea?


Em [Smile]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Then what are you asking for here? What kind of "EVIDENCE" (your caps, not mine) are you expecting EW-C to cite?

I am asking for the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law. This, of course, includes physical evidence - although remembering that 'pure' physical evidence is impossible, because sense perception stripped of any ideation delivers nothing by way of evidence (imagine you were looking at, say, a door and you had no concept in your mind of the ideas of shape, colour, substance, differentiation, identity, plurality, perspective, function and so on... What would you 'see'?).

But just because there is usually an element of the physical in a body of evidence, does not mean that the only reality that we are allowed to believe in is the physical. We can infer that the physical world cannot be a self-contained closed system, because if it were, then certain realities would not exist. That is a perfectly sound inference. The empirical method is merely that: a method, and certainly a limited one.

I must admit that I am still mystified by one of your comments earlier on this thread:

quote:
You seem like a "selective naturalist" (not related to "natural selection"), who will require ironclad physical evidence for other people's pet ideas but dismiss any similar scrutiny of their own as "philosophical naturalism".
Could you please quote an instance of where I have dismissed scrutiny of my own "pet ideas". I am most intrigued to know where you got this idea from.

Obviously, I am affirming that it is logically incoherent for someone to insist that my views should simply conform to the demands of a dogmatically imposed philosophy, such as the philosophy of naturalism. Imposing a dogma on me cannot be called 'scrutiny'. Imagine if someone demanded that you explain your views in conformity to the dogmas of Islam, for example. And if you refuse, you are then told that you are dismissing scrutiny of your "pet ideas" by labelling such scrutiny as just "Islam". I am quite sure you would feel pretty peeved by that conclusion!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Gospel of Barnabas

Epistle of Barnabas

Collection of early Christian Writings

Briefly, Emily, the Epistle of Barnabas is generally recognised as an early document and not without worth. Though included in the 4th Century Codex Siniaticus, it was never accorded canonical authority in the Western church.

The Gospel of Barnabas is another matter entirely, as you can see from the Wiki article. I'm not sure how you could have come across any Vatican endorsement of the Gospel. Unlike the Epistle of Barnabas, it does not get included at all in the online collection of canonical and extra-canonical writings on the linked website. It has a most dubious reputation, and for very good reasons.

Let's see your Vatican link.

[ 22. May 2013, 04:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Then what are you asking for here? What kind of "EVIDENCE" (your caps, not mine) are you expecting EW-C to cite?

I am asking for the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
Given that courts usually don't accept magical, miraculous, or other types of supernatural explanations, isn't this a de facto embrace of "philosophical naturalism"? I mean, what if it was really a demon that assumed the accused's shape and brutally stabbed his wife to death in front of all those witnesses? Surely that's enough of a possibility to qualify as reasonable doubt, right?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
You seem like a "selective naturalist" (not related to "natural selection"), who will require ironclad physical evidence for other people's pet ideas but dismiss any similar scrutiny of their own as "philosophical naturalism".
Could you please quote an instance of where I have dismissed scrutiny of my own "pet ideas". I am most intrigued to know where you got this idea from.
I was applying the term "pet ideas" to EW-C's annunaki hypotheses, but when don't you dismiss scrutiny of your own positions? That's your "philosophical naturalism" argument at its core: that your musings can appeal to magic or miracles or other supernatural explanations while everyone else has to present "the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law".
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Proof that would satisfy a Court of Law?

Courts of Law don't necessarily seek cosmic Truth.

They seek a way out of a civil dispute.

EEWC
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Given that courts usually don't accept magical, miraculous, or other types of supernatural explanations, isn't this a de facto embrace of "philosophical naturalism"?

Not at all. Given that "philosophical naturalism" rejects the role of intelligent agency in the causation of complex effects, then that philosophy is certainly not what barristers, juries and judges accept. If someone comes home and finds his house trashed, he doesn't assume that a bit of wind got in the house and caused the devastation. He assumes that a crime has been committed by a conscious and purposeful agent.

If a body is discovered with its throat slashed, the police generally don't assume that it was caused by some impersonal natural phenomenon. They assume a person committed the act.

As for the words 'magical', 'miraculous' and 'supernatural': you are just throwing these words around to give a certain impression that any explanation that is not limited to philosophical naturalism is somehow absurd and irrational. Arguments should not be based on the emotional impact of phonetics. Try defining these words (which I notice you never do).

Firstly, theism per se is not necessarily 'magical', because God works as a purposeful intelligent agent, and does not subvert logic. So we can forget the word 'magical'. 'Miraculous' simply denotes the operation of laws which can overrule the laws of physics and chemistry. We actually do this all the time when we make free will decisions, because we are overruling the determinism of natural laws. But, as humans, we are limited in what we can overrule, hence the fact we, of ourselves, cannot perform those acts which are normally associated with the term 'miracle'.

The term 'supernatural' (as I explained here) simply denotes "above nature", in the sense that there are dimensions of reality above the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry. The laws of physics and chemistry have not dictated this message that I am writing. If they had, then my ideas would be determined by nature, and therefore would be a legitimate part of nature. You would then, as a philosophical naturalism, have to accept that what I am saying is just as legitimate as your views. Are you, as a naturalist, going to argue with the laws of physics and chemistry? Are the laws of physics and chemistry 'wrong' in determining what I am writing? Therefore, thought itself is actually 'supernatural', in the sense that I have explained (but I suspect it will be difficult for many people to make that connection, because most of us have been effectively conditioned to interpret the word 'supernatural' in a certain way - largely thanks to being brought up on fairy stories in our formative years).

By the way... I assume that you reject the Big Bang theory? Technically - even within the philosophy of naturalism - it is 'super'-natural, because it is believed that the laws of nature that we recognise today were not those operating when this event occurred (see this article by Hawking, with reference to his view that... "the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang."). I assume also that you reject all notions of the multiverse, because that is also 'supernatural' thinking? Michio Kaku has said... "That there could be an infinite number of universes each with a different law of physics". And finally, no less a person than Richard Dawkins admits that the universe is "queerer than we can suppose", and that we with our limited perception of reality cannot possibly fully make sense of it (although that doesn't stop him making an exception of himself and dogmatically making assertions about reality as a whole! *groan*).

This is all evidence to show that philosophical naturalism is actually 'super'-natural when it has to grapple with difficult questions about the nature of reality. The model of the closed system of natural laws is simply inadequate to explain the very large, the very small, origins and, I would contend, much of the stuff of everyday life.

So if you really think that this philosophy is at the basis of all evidence based thinking, then you really need to think a bit deeper, my friend.

quote:
I was applying the term "pet ideas" to EW-C's annunaki hypotheses, but when don't you dismiss scrutiny of your own positions? That's your "philosophical naturalism" argument at its core: that your musings can appeal to magic or miracles or other supernatural explanations while everyone else has to present "the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law".
I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer: give me an example of where I have dismissed scrutiny of my "pet ideas" or "musings". You use the terms "magic, miracles and the supernatural" to imply that I resort to irrationality. Show me where I have done that. If you can't, then clearly your objection is invalid.

[ 22. May 2013, 09:19: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Given that "philosophical naturalism" rejects the role of intelligent agency in the causation of complex effects

"External intelligent agency", if you please. The actions of living things within the universe are perfectly consistent with naturalism.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
The actions of living things within the universe are perfectly consistent with naturalism.

Good. Then we are both right, because our thoughts (which are actions) are perfectly consistent with the operation of the laws of nature. Since my words are merely pixels - as are yours - and since "pixels can't be wrong", then logically we are both right!

Good, this naturalism lark, innit?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think it's a strawman, EE. I believe the real issue is not that presuppositions can lead to bias (of course they can). It is about whether bias will inevitably corrupt professional research work. My answer to that is a resounding "no".

If in the process of professional research work, any of us finds our presuppositions being challenged, we have personal choices to make. What we can't do is deny the finding. What we then have to do is see what that finding does to us, what changes of mind may be necessary as a result.

In the end, I believe it is a matter of personal honesty. The general recognition that personal bias is normal is a good starting point.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Then we are both right, because our thoughts (which are actions) are perfectly consistent with the operation of the laws of nature.

Depends what you mean by "right". Or for that matter, "true". On one level your analysis is absolutely correct, on another you're still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. But we've had this discussion before, and nothing will ever come of it because you refuse to entertain the idea that independent thought, logic or reason are possible in a naturalistic framework.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
But we've had this discussion before, and nothing will ever come of it because you refuse to entertain the idea that independent thought, logic or reason are possible in a naturalistic framework.

Refuse?

Far from it! I certainly do not refuse to entertain this idea. I have entertained the idea, thought it through and, on the basis of the evidence, come to a certain conclusion, namely, that independent thought, logic or reason are not possible in a naturalistic framework. Therefore some other explanation is required.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
on the basis of the evidence

The inability to comprehend how something can happen is not evidence.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
The inability to comprehend how something can happen is not evidence.

So someone comes along and claims that such and such a phenomenon was caused by certain events. They have no evidence for it, but just their special pleading and dogmatic insistence. There is no logical connection between cause and effect, and, in fact, the cause is fundamentally contrary to the effect.

His hearer is unconvinced and says so. But instead of presenting evidence to support the theory, the theorist simply criticises the sceptic with the words: "your inability to comprehend how this has happened in this way, is not evidence."

Good one, Marvin.

You're doing well...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But instead of presenting evidence to support the theory

Name the evidence you would consider valid.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am asking for the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
'Miraculous' simply denotes the operation of laws which can overrule the laws of physics and chemistry. We actually do this all the time when we make free will decisions, because we are overruling the determinism of natural laws.

"Your honor, we object to the prosecution's forensic report. The crime scene operated according to a different set of physical laws than the Coroner's Office, rendering their findings invalid."

I'm pretty sure no court would accept this argument.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The key concept in question is intelligence and its application within nature, to intervene in and control natural laws.

Here's a rather mundane analogy to explain what I mean... If I grow a beard, then (assuming that I don't trim it or keep it tidy) I am just letting nature takes its course. It is natural for me, as a man, to grow a beard. This is just the workings of the laws of nature. But if I decide that I wish to be clean shaven, do I then just let natural laws "take their course"? Of course not. I use my intelligence (i.e. my faculty of consciously being able to control natural laws and select how they operate in a given context) to apply a razor (carefully!) to my face in such a way that I remove unwanted hair without leaving my skin raw and bleeding. In other ways, a certain degree of basic skill (intelligence) is involved in the process.

Now can anyone honestly say that when I perform the act of shaving myself, that I am simply "letting nature takes it course", and that this operation is as 'natural' as just doing nothing and letting my beard grow?

Given the number of animals that self-groom, I'm not sure what level of intelligence is necessary to regard such activities as sub-, un-, or supernatural. I also question the underlying assumption that beard hair is impervious to razors, combs, or other grooming implements unless someone performs an act of will to alter the laws of physics.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
"Your honor, we object to the prosecution's forensic report. The crime scene operated according to a different set of physical laws than the Coroner's Office, rendering their findings invalid."

I'm pretty sure no court would accept this argument.

Well misunderstood.

OK, let's use another aspect of evidence...

If someone commits murder, could he actually help it, because the laws of physics and chemistry forced him to do it? If the philosophy of naturalism is true, then we shouldn't bother having a criminal justice system at all, because there is no such thing as moral responsibility.

I'm pretty sure no court would accept this argument.

But that is the logical implication of saying that every event is fully explicable by and reducible to the deterministic laws of physics and chemistry. (By the way, if philosophical naturalism is true, then what I believe about reality is simply the effect of the laws of nature, and so why are you disagreeing with me? Do you disagree with nature? Or perhaps you don't accept that naturalism implies determinism? If so, then how can you believe that our entire lives are completely controlled by impersonal laws, namely, the non-intelligent laws of nature, which is what naturalism implies?)

Of course, forensic evidence depends on the naturalistic method. Quite right. I have never disputed the role of the empirical method. But your obsession is to make this method almighty and omnipotent, and to try to explain everything by it. I am trying to get through to you that there are aspects of evidence which are not reducible to mere material reactions. Would you say the concept of, for example, 'motive' is reducible to mere chemical reactions? If so, I would be fascinated to see quite how that is supposed to work.

quote:
Given the number of animals that self-groom, I'm not sure what level of intelligence is necessary to regard such activities as sub-, un-, or supernatural. I also question the underlying assumption that beard hair is impervious to razors, combs, or other grooming implements unless someone performs an act of will to alter the laws of physics.
I must remember to try the naturalistic non-intelligence method of shaving some time. I must also remember not to experiment with a cut throat razor. I rather value my life, thank you very much!
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It may be different in your part of the US, but over here, my school textbooks did deal with the history of the Earth from before 5000 BC. Not human history, no, but history nonetheless. [/QB]

According to Sumerian records, the Annunaki first arrived here looking for gold to mine 450,000 years ago. That's a long way from the 5000 years we are officially told about.

And Anthropologists trace and track similar lines of thought and architecture through culture-after-culture on this planet, that all seem to have a common origin.

Em
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
According to Sumerian records, the Annunaki first arrived here looking for gold to mine 450,000 years ago.

As translated by Zecharia Sitchin. Here's a view from the sceptics dictionary. And, again, here's the Wiki article re Sitchin.

Emily, you are asserting something as facts from the Sumerian records things which cannot be substantiated from those records by translators more competent than Sitchin.

We've been here before. Sitchin's work has been discredited. You continue to assert as truth the fruits of his discredited work.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We've been here before. Sitchin's work has been discredited. You continue to assert as truth the fruits of his discredited work.

Discredited by whom, though? People under the influence of the Annunaki! You can't trust those people.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well mousethief, I think your tongue is firmly in your cheek but I know that is exactly the argument which can be advanced by anyone who believes this stuff.

Objective tests are available, however, and have been applied. Look at the Wiki article re translations and interpretations of ancient texts, astronomical and scientific observations, and literalism of myth. Then look at the list of references at the end of the Wiki article.

What do you think, mousethief? We could "check the arithmetic" by following up the references. Or we could accept that the academic criticisms are sufficient to make a considered judgment of "unfounded speculation based on inaccurate assessment of the content and meaning of ancient writings".

Or we could go out to the pub, have a chuckle and agree that "unfounded speculation" doesn't really get near to how barking-mad this hypothesis is. But at least we can have confidence that "unfounded speculation" is a reasonable conclusion.

[ 22. May 2013, 20:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
How did the Annunaki get here? Where are they now? They came here for gold. Why? Where from? If we become successful interstellar travellers then we will be master bioengineers long before that and easily able to microbially extract gold from seawater or backyard slurry. So how were they successful interstellar space farers and third rate miners?
 
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
Aw, thanks a lot, Martin! Just when I was buying into this picture of aliens clad in dungarees and battered helmets - clutching rusty picks and Davey lamps - you had to spoil it all with your cynical practicality. Shame on you!
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Hypocrite that I am ...
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How did the Annunaki get here? Where are they now? They came here for gold. Why? Where from? If we become successful interstellar travellers then we will be master bioengineers long before that and easily able to microbially extract gold from seawater or backyard slurry. So how were they successful interstellar space farers and third rate miners?

Sitchin's translation of Sumerian records is accepted by other translators of Sumerian.

The labels "myth" or "hoax" are applied to many true facts not politically aligned with public teachings of Masonry or Non-Disclosure statutes of ET Treaties like the Greada Treaty 1954 signed by Eisenhower.

And people accept those labels without thinking.

I find Wikipedia's STORY about my sire to be almost wholly without substance, so I don't put much faith in their info-stock.

Emily
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Actually I didn't put my direct answer ...

My direct answer is, I don't believe Wikipedia's label, "myth."

My knowledge of Annunaki History comes from Book of Enoch, Bible Genesis chapter six, Sitchin's translation of Sumerian records, and my own private Source and Guidance.

Those I do believe.

What we believe to be true is simply what defines our perspective at any moment.

When I have a reason to change what I believe, I'm not afraid to question what I know.

Em
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
So if you had to make a guess, EEWC, as to how many people worldwide have knowledge of the facts you allege (aliens, treaties, gold mining, HIERARCHICAL SOCIETIES!!!, etc.), and are authorized to have such knowledge, how large would you say that number is? For instance, how many people in the United States government might you guess are privy to this knowledge?

I'm just asking for a guess, a wild speculation perhaps...
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence. I have contacted two that deliberately obfuscate their data.

Part of the Military knows for fact and another part, by Remote Viewing.

The National Reconnaissance Organization knows (I check in with them). Obama knows some, but not the motives of Annunaki negotiators, who are tricky.

QE2 and a handful of the European 300 families know about it, including the Vatican since way back in the 1980s when they built more observatories.

The Japanese (JAXA) and Chinese know some of it.

The Germans and Norwegians who administer the south pole know a lot, and they've worked with the Annunaki more and longer (since the 1920's) than anybody else has.

That's my sense of, how far this knowledge gets.

Em
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence.
Darn! I stopped studying Astronomy after my first year in University. I should have continued and gotten my part of the bribe.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Maybe bribery maybe blackmail.

If certain information is politically non-PC an astronomer can't get his grants renewed.

That's simple fact these days.

Em
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence. I have contacted two that deliberately obfuscate their data.
Just another question: how do these astronomers find out about Niburu, and how do they learn that they shouldn't talk about it?

Like I said, I dropped out of Astronomy after my first year. During that year I didn't learn about Niburu, it was just Stellar Physics and Galactic Dynamics and stuff. I suppose that I wasn't let in on the secret, because I wasn't advanced enough in Astronomy yet?

So, how does it work? What would have happened if I had continued my studies? I can imagine the following scene:


It's the fourth year in my Astronomy studies. I'm on my way to Practical Observation class, like every Thursday this year. When I get there, our old familiar professor looks slightly nervous. A man in suit whom we don't know is sitting in the corner of the room.

Our professor clears his throat and says: "There's something we need to tell you. Soon, all of you are going to study the Cosmos on your own, pointing your telescopes to various places in the sky. We can't risk that you'd find out by accident and we'd be forced to ... intervene."

One by one, we're led to the University's telescope. When it's my turn, I swallow and look through they eyepiece. There, in the middle of my vision, is Niburu in all its glory. While I try to regain my breath, I suddenly feel a warm hand on my shoulder. I don't have to look around to know who it is.

"LeRoc, we need to talk about your financial future", the man in the suit says.


Is it like this?
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence. I have contacted two that deliberately obfuscate their data.
Just another question: how do these astronomers find out about Niburu, and how do they learn that they shouldn't talk about it?

Like I said, I dropped out of Astronomy after my first year. During that year I didn't learn about Niburu, it was just Stellar Physics and Galactic Dynamics and stuff. I suppose that I wasn't let in on the secret, because I wasn't advanced enough in Astronomy yet?

So, how does it work? What would have happened if I had continued my studies? I can imagine the following scene:

It's the fourth year in my Astronomy studies. I'm on my way to Practical Observation class, like every Thursday this year. When I get there, our old familiar professor looks slightly nervous. A man in suit whom we don't know is sitting in the corner of the room.

Our professor clears his throat and says: "There's something we need to tell you. Soon, all of you are going to study the Cosmos on your own, pointing your telescopes to various places in the sky. We can't risk that you'd find out by accident and we'd be forced to ... intervene."

One by one, we're led to the University's telescope. When it's my turn, I swallow and look through they eyepiece. There, in the middle of my vision, is Niburu in all its glory. While I try to regain my breath, I suddenly feel a warm hand on my shoulder. I don't have to look around to know who it is.

"LeRoc, we need to talk about your financial future", the man in the suit says.

Is it like this?

Not one bit.
1. Focus.--There's a certain class of people who own the companies that produce telescopes. They are produced to certain specifications, which never vary. Only expensive telescopes have an adjustment for focal-length. Otherwise, it is assume the focal-length will be "infinite". This guarantees that focus on planetary bodies WILL MISS, EXCEPT FOR FOCUS ON THE TEXTURE OF THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET, WHICH WILL BE VERY FINE, ALWAYS. There is no provision for seeing "inside" a transparent surface; in fact, I have never ever seen a description of a heavenly body described as "transparent" even though I find transparent surfaces all the time because I look for them.

2. Resolution.--The same class of telescope manufacturers has influence over the "grain" of images for the internet which was set at 72 pixels per inch, although the photographic standard is 300 pixels per inch. This GUARANTEES that images will be "rough-hewn" and not "fine grained." And this fact provides opportunities for mis-scaling and rotating images, to diffuse details.

3. Established Distances & Dimensions.--These are historically {SET} and they cannot be questioned. The method for establishing planetary distances is said to have been "discovered" centuries ago. Never mind, they were inaccurate then, and they're inaccurate now--GROSSLY OFF BY thousands of percent. An example. Our Moon is described by NASA as 2100 in diameter, 226000 miles out. What if I told you it's only 10.8 miles in diameter, only 50000 miles out? That is the order of magnitude of errors in CONVENTIONS in the Astronomy discipline.

http://lro.gsfc.nasa.gov/moonfacts.html

For starters.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
As a Xeroid, my job was to make my customers' copies clear and readable.

Sometimes people rotated their original on the glass, so it was skewed.

Sometimes they ran out of ink, so it was too light; to a cleaning problem, too dark or all dark.

Or if it were a color copier, things came out the wrong color.

We had "registration" problems, copies came out the wrong size, stretched or sqeezed.

These are the sort of faults I find in space images coming out of NASA, ESA, JAXA, APOD and LPOD ... same stuff all the time.

And when you see different faults, different images OF THE SAME SERIES, you begin to realize, somebody's messing with these ... ON PURPOSE.

You do.
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
Emily Windsor-Cragg, first you say that all the astronomers in the world are bribed or blackmailed, and then you say that it's actually that all the telescopes are skewed to produce false images. Which is it? Why does the story keep changing?
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
My story isn't changing at all.

The Annunaki negotiated a Treaty that says, Non-Disclosure trumps Law.

Everybody involved in the process of astronomical information had to be managed and controlled.

The process had to be frozen in place, and no improvements permitted in visual technologies for space shots (satellite fly-bys excepted, but for other reasons).

I have a 1968 photo of the Moon crystal clear; after that Apollo "photography" including "one small step for mankind" has been worse than abysmal.

We have satellites that can read a car license plate on the ground, but we can't see buildings on the Moon or Mars. This is pure poppycock driven the Treaty.

So anything goes. If an astronomer gets too curious as Dr. Harrington did, off him! Fire him, penalize him, lose his grant--whatever it takes to keep the Treaty with the Annunaki inviolate.

You don't wanna piss people off whose technologies are a million years ahead of your own ... now do you? That's where the Annunaki stood until recently ... when Karma came home to them too.

But anyway, I don't think so. We don't want to alienate our Progenitor Cousins, for many reasons.

I could do a whole dissertation on the incidental and deliberate "digital image errors" that are made in order that the Treaty stands clean.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: If an astronomer gets too curious as Dr. Harrington did, off him! Fire him, penalize him, lose his grant--whatever it takes to keep the Treaty with the Annunaki inviolate.
Surely that can't be enough. Then you'd have an astronomer who would have every reason to hold a grudge against the Annunaki, since they cost him his job. He already lost his job, so he doesn't need to be afraid of that anymore. Why wouldn't he spill the beans after being fired?
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
There's so much there to choose from -- where to begin? I'll go with this:

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

We have satellites that can read a car license plate on the ground, but we can't see buildings on the Moon or Mars. This is pure poppycock driven the Treaty.


But the simplest conclusion to draw from this is that there are no buildings on the moon or Mars. I've looked at some of your photos that were supposed to show buildings on Mars, but I don't see a darned thing other than bare rock, and not even a rock formation that remotely resembles a building.

Has anyone ever agreed with you that they see in your photos what you're seeing?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


The Germans and Norwegians who administer the south pole know a lot, and they've worked with the Annunaki more and longer (since the 1920's) than anybody else has.

That's my sense of, how far this knowledge gets.

Em

The South Pole is not administered by the Germans or the Norwegians, separately or together. The whole of Antarctica is administered under the Antarctic Treaty, which came into force in 1961. Norway was an original party to the treaty; the 2 Germanies acceded to it rather later, and upon unification the present republic became a member.

[ 23. May 2013, 01:51: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:

But the simplest conclusion to draw from this is that there are no buildings on the moon or Mars.

I've looked at some of your photos that were supposed to show buildings on Mars, but I don't see a darned thing other than bare rock, and not even a rock formation that remotely resembles a building.

How many photo images did YOU see? I saw about 40000, and I can remember buildings that I saw, a temple at East Hills, a new Defense building there; and underground enclave at Victoria Crater and a military outpost. At Merridian, there was a palace long ruined, now a lake. At the north pole, it's a building shaped like a lady's hat, single story. I remember the buildings, the greenhouses, highway and byways ... and the snakes. Oh the snakes.

Has anyone ever agreed with you that they see in your photos what you're seeing? [/QB]

Oh yeah! There's a group of us centered around Facebook and we all do our work separates, but compare notes occasionally. A couple of those guys know everything I know, understand our reality the same way I do. So, I don't need to be defensive because I've done the work, I do the work, and my friends do the work.

The work of figuring out what is true and what is not true is an honorable work, I'm convinced.

Thanks for asking.

Em
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
Why should I look at 40,000 photos? If I look at 50 and see absolutely nothing like you describe, what reason is there to think that the next 39,950 will be any different?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I've found an academic research tool maintained by Oxford University, which gives online access to Sumerian literature and associated English translations.

Here's the link

If you use the simple search facility and go to the list of proper names, you'll find a-nun-na as a divine name. If you click on that, you find 182 entries listed. Against some of them, you'll find the symbol /Tr/ which means English text translation available for context. Click on /Tr/, and you get the text.

I haven't been through them all yet, though I could. But others have done this kind of research and are unable to find any translations which match up to those claimed by Sitchin in his extra-terrestrial hypothesis. So Emily's claim that other translators have confirmed Sitchin's work cannot be substantiated by reference on the Oxford University website.

Amazing what resources are available online these days.

I'm sure there are loads of historical researchers out there, some of whom have the capability to check the Oxford website translation against the original sources. If you buy into Emily's conspiracy all of them must be getting paid off as well. Probably quite handsomely, given the money that can be made out of the interest in the possibility of extra-terrestrial visitors. "They" must have very deep pockets.

Whether or not you find Sitchin's hypothesis to be intrinsically absurd, it's clear that it can be checked independently, as can the content of the Oxford University site, to see how well the data and the claims stack up against the original sources.

I'm now happy to bet the ranch on my assertion that Sitchin's translation work in support of his hypothesis cannot be replicated by group peer review processes. Indeed, there is powerful evidence that at least on this point it can demonstrated to be false.

Of course this will not convince Emily, but there is a certain reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") in this thread now. Even if you didn't find absurdity in this on general grounds at the start.

[ 23. May 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A couple of points occur to me.

Amateur astronomers are abundant, and not dependent on grants. Moreover, many of them make their own telescopes, including the mirrors, and so are not bound by the conditions of this supposed treaty. And there isn't evidence that they have uncovered any of the features supposed to be hidden by the academics and professionals. They are as capable of publishing as those, or the proponents of the Annunaki hypothesis. And much more likely to leak than someone whose job was put at risk.

And, perhaps more importantly, if they came for our gold, how come we still have it? The stuff in our stores isn't all recently mined. If they were so advanced, how come they didn't mine out all the accessible stuff when they were here?
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
You don't wanna piss people off whose technologies are a million years ahead of your own ... now do you? That's where the Annunaki stood until recently ... when Karma came home to them too.

I asked previously where you get your ideas about the Annunaki from. I suspect many sources over the years have contributed. For instance your description of the treaty situation is almost exactly the plot of the last few seasons of X-Files. You've also mentioned in another post that in contacting us the Annunaki have violated the galactic Prime Directive, which orders that they shouldn't ever interfere with less-developed societies. Of course as any sci-fi fan knows, this is an invention of the Star Trek franchise.

I wonder if you're even aware that you're picking up your ideas from science-fiction TV, either from watching these directly, or reading others who have. Or perhaps you are aware and think that the TV shows are a false-flag operation, part of the conspiracy to hide the truth.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


3. Established Distances & Dimensions.--These are historically {SET} and they cannot be questioned. The method for establishing planetary distances is said to have been "discovered" centuries ago. Never mind, they were inaccurate then, and they're inaccurate now--GROSSLY OFF BY thousands of percent. An example. Our Moon is described by NASA as 2100 in diameter, 226000 miles out. What if I told you it's only 10.8 miles in diameter, only 50000 miles out? That is the order of magnitude of errors in CONVENTIONS in the Astronomy discipline.

Try Parallax.

Parallax checks can be made on distances of astronomical objects. These distances have not been set historically. Just measured. And the measurement process can be repeated today by any independent observers.

Stellar Parallax is a more complicated matter, but as for the moon, checking the reported distance is relatively easy. The calculations are just a matter of the basic geometry of triangles. See the section on lunar parallax.

Emily, there appear to be lots of things you don't know - or don't trust.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Just a question, Emily. What do you want us to do? From your posting on the Ship, it is obvious that you want to convince us that the Annunaki are real and that Niburu exists.

Suppose for a moment that you'll succeed, and that a large number of Shipmates will be convinced by the sheer logic of your arguments. That is what you want, right?

Then what next?

The Ship of Fools isn't an ordinary place. Most of us have above average intelligence. There are scientists here, engineers. There's a number of politicians among us, others are in the higher echelons of Churches of different denominations. We have access to the media (one of us was on the BBC last week). Some of us can get our hands on considerable financial resources.

I see potential here.

Surely this is why you chose us? But we'll need a plan. And your inside information will be invaluable for this.

Here's what I'm thinking. We start producing a small number of telescopes that would be able to see Niburu. There are a number of people here with the knowledge to produce telescopes, and funding won't be a problem. With your unique insights about Niburu we'd give them the exact specifications to look through its transparent surface.

After we produce the telescopes, we'd give them to key persons --indicated by you-- who could be convinced to go over to our side. In the meanwhile, we would work the media and politics (according to a specified plan of course, we couldn't just tell them everything at once). Preachers would pass the Truth from the pulpits.

Of course, you would be the overall leader to guide us through this process.

It's not going to be easy, but after a while we might be able to open the eyes of the world to the Truth. Not everyone of course, some people will still cling to the old conventional pseudo-science (hah!) But with a lot of work and sacrifice, a significant part of the world's population would know what is Real.

What then? Surely, this would break our part of the Non-Disclosure Treaty with the Annunaki. We should be prepared for anything, and we cannot rule out that there would be a violent reaction from them. Should we begin plotting military strategies?

Help us, Emily! What should we do??

[ 23. May 2013, 10:31: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
This is neither the circus nor heaven - no trolling, no games. Parodies that make no debating point come very close to personal attack / trolling.

You are not obliged to participate in this thread if you don't want to, other boards (including hell) are thataway -->

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

I do not want to have to repeat myself again.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


3. Established Distances & Dimensions.--These are historically {SET} and they cannot be questioned. The method for establishing planetary distances is said to have been "discovered" centuries ago. Never mind, they were inaccurate then, and they're inaccurate now--GROSSLY OFF BY thousands of percent. An example. Our Moon is described by NASA as 2100 in diameter, 226000 miles out. What if I told you it's only 10.8 miles in diameter, only 50000 miles out? That is the order of magnitude of errors in CONVENTIONS in the Astronomy discipline.

Try Parallax.

Parallax checks can be made on distances of astronomical objects. These distances have not been set historically. Just measured. And the measurement process can be repeated today by any independent observers.

Stellar Parallax is a more complicated matter, but as for the moon, checking the reported distance is relatively easy. The calculations are just a matter of the basic geometry of triangles. See the section on lunar parallax.

Emily, there appear to be lots of things you don't know - or don't trust.

You're right about parallax, but there's an even easier way to tell the difference between the NASA moon and EW's moon - subtended angle. An object with a diameter D at a distance R will subtend an angle of D/R radians (or (D/R)*(180/pi) degrees), for cases where D is much less than R. So we have:
So EW's moon would look about 44 times smaller than NASA's moon - a huge difference, and easy to spot.

This doesn't require astronomers or telescopes; 0.53 degrees is the angle subtended by a 1" diameter disk held at a distance of 108 inches (1/108 = 2100/226000), but 0.012 degrees would correspond to a 1" disk at 4630 inches (1/4630=10.8/50000).

If you are short of 1" diameter disks, you can use your thumb for comparison. My thumb is about an inch wide, and it's about 30 inches from my eye when I extend my arm - that's (1/30)*(180/pi)=1.9 degrees. So it would take about 1.9/0.53 = 3.6 of NASA's moons to equal the width of my thumb held at arm's length, but a full 1.9/.012 = 158 of EW's moons!

I probably won't be able to check today (clouds) but I feel comfortable saying NASA's moon is a much better fit than EW's.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
True, Dave, but I was thinking about something else.

I suspected that Emily's "smaller" moon and "closer" distance figures were probably inaccurate - maybe miscopied - but thought the major point she was seeking to make was that a small moon nearer to the earth might have the same apparent size in the sky as a large moon further away. Which is true, but irrelevant if one is using parallax to spot distance. So I focused on distance determination by parallax.

Of course the issue of apparent size of heavenly bodies, rather than real size, becomes most obvious during total eclipses, when the apparent sizes of sun and moon are virtually the same, despite huge differences in both real size and distance from the earth.
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
I've been thinking some more about the silencing of all the astronomers in the world, and the size and extent of the alleged conspiracy in general. And I began to wonder (and I pose these questions in all seriousness, no satire or baiting intended): Emily Windsor-Cragg, how is it that the conspiracy to hide "the truth", which apparently exerts total control over thousands(?) of people who are in on the secret, has allowed your Facebook group to continue posting "the truth"? How is it that googling your name returns 188,000 hits, rather than "no results found"? How have your website and photos been allowed to stay up for years? If the conspiracy is as powerful as you suggest, surely they'd be able to prevent you and your friends from spreading your ideas all over the Internet. Surely all it would take is a little pressure on your Internet service provider and you'd be offline.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Hawk:

I don't share Emily's beliefs. But sci-fi TV shows and films are often inspired by ideas that are already published or otherwise in circulation.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
If the conspiracy is as powerful as you suggest, surely they'd be able to prevent you and your friends from spreading your ideas all over the Internet. Surely all it would take is a little pressure on your Internet service provider and you'd be offline.

I thought about this, too. But if Emily were right in every particular, the Conspiracy might well leave her website up and running. Consider: if you have been running a global Conspiracy for thousands of years, you might well develop more sophisticated ways of dealing with your adversaries than simple suppression. Suppressing the truth constantly would take a huge amount of effort and energy. Very inefficient. But allowing the truth to be printed and then taking steps to mock it or make is seem ludicrous would serve the dual purpose of (1) most people not taking the truth seriously and dismissing it and (2) sowing the seeds so that future dissemination of that same truth would be accompanied by large groups of ready-made mockers from the normal populace, without the Conspiracy having to lift another finger. It would be an elegant way to deal with the problem. An ongoing solution for an ongoing problem.

[ETA: typo fix. Even after doing a preview post.]

[ 23. May 2013, 19:06: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
[qb]

Emily, there appear to be lots of things you don't know - or don't trust.

Yes! On both counts, I agree.

The scale of objects on the Moon is ABSOLUTELY impossible given official dimensions and distances. Absolutely!

I cannot account for the differences, and I don't pretend to be scientific enough to do so. So it's just a cunundrum I have to live with. And I complain about this all the time, to no avail.

People just keep reciting the same stuff back at me, and I say, "Well, I hear you!"

Em
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Why should I look at 40,000 photos? If I look at 50 and see absolutely nothing like you describe, what reason is there to think that the next 39,950 will be any different?

I can't help you, I'm sorry.

Seeing is subjective, is true.

Thanks for your candor. It's better than avoidance in my book.

Em [Smile]
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Good point.

Amateur astronomers tend to believe the conventions, of course, because they discount their own intuitive realizations, that there's more going on than customarily meets the eye.

I know a few guys who do not go with conventions. John Walston, Bill Bryson, Henning Kemner, on-line during the past year or two have captured images of people walking around on the Moon's surface, architecture and so forth. You can Google them.

JAXA captured a whole video of a ceremonial parade on the Moon a couple of years ago.

Moon video images are in my Facebook files, and what they bring up is that clarity is possible.

Therefore, clarity is necessary, to my mind; and all the photographers who can only bring up the texture of rocks on the surface are truly missing the point of clarity.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A couple of points occur to me.

Amateur astronomers are abundant, and not dependent on grants. Moreover, many of them make their own telescopes, including the mirrors, and so are not bound by the conditions of this supposed treaty. And there isn't evidence that they have uncovered any of the features supposed to be hidden by the academics and professionals. They are as capable of publishing as those, or the proponents of the Annunaki hypothesis. And much more likely to leak than someone whose job was put at risk.

And, perhaps more importantly, if they came for our gold, how come we still have it? The stuff in our stores isn't all recently mined. If they were so advanced, how come they didn't mine out all the accessible stuff when they were here?


 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Hawk, I have come to believe that we all have the capacity to link in to a global consciousness about what is true, if we desire to.

I have come to see modern media and fantasy and sci-fi are hooking into the same Sources I do.

We all know TPTB utilize the some-truth, some-myth model of knowledge presentation, in order to keep us all fascinated and confused at the same time.

This is why I dumped my tellie in 1997, and I haven't "WATCHED" a single drama on that medium since I began this work, so modern media is outside my experience entirely. I eschew it all.

How do I know what I know? I am a remote viewer, an Annunaki-hybrid myself, somewhat telepathic; and what I KNOW FROM DATA dovetails with what I believe from Intuition and Inspiration.

That is the best I can do. History will judge my predictive work after I'm gone.

Em [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
You don't wanna piss people off whose technologies are a million years ahead of your own ... now do you? That's where the Annunaki stood until recently ... when Karma came home to them too.

I asked previously where you get your ideas about the Annunaki from. I suspect many sources over the years have contributed. For instance your description of the treaty situation is almost exactly the plot of the last few seasons of X-Files. You've also mentioned in another post that in contacting us the Annunaki have violated the galactic Prime Directive, which orders that they shouldn't ever interfere with less-developed societies. Of course as any sci-fi fan knows, this is an invention of the Star Trek franchise.

I wonder if you're even aware that you're picking up your ideas from science-fiction TV, either from watching these directly, or reading others who have. Or perhaps you are aware and think that the TV shows are a false-flag operation, part of the conspiracy to hide the truth.


 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
One of the Occult principles of the Annunaki is that the Truth itself has some value, if people happen to find it. So, I use completely public domain images, I use my own re-rendering process, I show my data.

Nothing I do is illegal. I have spoken with about 20 individuals at NASA and NSA, and under the Law I am allowed to publish whatever I come up with.

If it's true or not in actuality, people who claim to know or show that Convention is deliberately Wrong ARE PERMITTED BY LAW to make this claim.

The principle is called, "Hiding the truth in plain sight."

Em


quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
I've been thinking some more about the silencing of all the astronomers in the world, and the size and extent of the alleged conspiracy in general. And I began to wonder (and I pose these questions in all seriousness, no satire or baiting intended): Emily Windsor-Cragg, how is it that the conspiracy to hide "the truth", which apparently exerts total control over thousands(?) of people who are in on the secret, has allowed your Facebook group to continue posting "the truth"? How is it that googling your name returns 188,000 hits, rather than "no results found"? How have your website and photos been allowed to stay up for years? If the conspiracy is as powerful as you suggest, surely they'd be able to prevent you and your friends from spreading your ideas all over the Internet. Surely all it would take is a little pressure on your Internet service provider and you'd be offline.


 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
LeRoc, I have saved yours for last, and I will have to leave for a while after this, without addressing other threads. I have a set of twins to care for today.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question, Emily. What do you want us to do? From your posting on the Ship, it is obvious that you want to convince us that the Annunaki are real and that Niburu exists.

Let's all become more aware people; let's be more aware that our Leadership is vested in deceit and secrecy, and they're cheating us in more ways than we are even allowed to know. This is cosmic play, and I believe the winners are those with acute awareness rather than those who are content to sit as sheeple.

Nobody here is sheep; that is very clear to me, and I'm delighted with the response I have received on this set of issues. Very thought-provoking, and I hope I have honored your questions sufficiently.

Suppose for a moment that you'll succeed, and that a large number of Shipmates will be convinced by the sheer logic of your arguments. That is what you want, right? Then what next?

I'd be flabbergasted. I wouldn't know what to do. Cynicism is what I usually get back. [Smile]

The Ship of Fools isn't an ordinary place. Most of us have above average intelligence. There are scientists here, engineers. There's a number of politicians among us, others are in the higher echelons of Churches of different denominations. We have access to the media (one of us was on the BBC last week). Some of us can get our hands on considerable financial resources. I see potential here.

I can see that! You guys are awesome! Most of you are way over my head, intellectually, broadly and deeply. But I'm doing something kind of unusual, and I don't get to talk about it ... ever ... not with my kids, not with my former Xeroids and certainly not with my neighbors! But I do get over at Facebook to hobnob with some others who share my same suspicions about OFFICIAL DOGMA dominating over real information.[/QB]


Surely this is why you chose us? But we'll need a plan. And your inside information will be invaluable for this.

[QB]Here's what I'm thinking. We start producing a small number of telescopes that would be able to see Niburu. There are a number of people here with the knowledge to produce telescopes, and funding won't be a problem. With your unique insights about Niburu we'd give them the exact specifications to look through its transparent surface.


You don't need telescopes to see Nibiru. You need light filters on conventional cameras to filter out everybody but uv light. Maybe NIGHTSHOT would do it, I don't know. Nibiru is HUGE; it's filling our skies, but our skies have the blue-white, aluminum-barium powder ceiling that is hard to see through.

... Of course, you would be the overall leader to guide us through this process. It's not going to be easy, but after a while we might be able to open the eyes of the world to the Truth. Not everyone of course, some people will still cling to the old conventional pseudo-science (hah!) But with a lot of work and sacrifice, a significant part of the world's population would know what is Real.


I love your humor here, and I'll just smile. Uhm, the whole world doesn't need to know, only about 2% of the population which are in charge of governance NEED TO KNOW. And people who want to know Science, need to know. But this knowledge is not salient to struggling multitudes for whom survival is their only real and abiding interest.

Nibiru is not threatening us. Our Cosmic God YHVH allowed the Annunaki to peel us out of Olesol's orbit and into this orbit for reasons.

It's all going to come out in the wash, is my conviction. I trust God.

What then? Surely, this would break our part of the Non-Disclosure Treaty with the Annunaki. We should be prepared for anything, and we cannot rule out that there would be a violent reaction from them. Should we begin plotting military strategies?

That Treaty is dead in the water since March 1st of this year, when the Annunaki overturned the Monarchy, there, that made it.

Help us, Emily! What should we do??

Let's pray for good weather, then, okay?
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
Speaking as an Egyptologist, history is one thing the O/P is not.
Fantasy in a Hancock style, possibly, but not history as we understand the term.
I had hoped we had got rid of the pyramidiocy of Russell, Smythe and co in their romantic fantasies.
I was wrong, apparently.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
This is why I dumped my tellie in 1997, and I haven't "WATCHED" a single drama on that medium since I began this work, so modern media is outside my experience entirely. I eschew it all.

How do I know what I know? I am a remote viewer, an Annunaki-hybrid myself, somewhat telepathic; and what I KNOW FROM DATA dovetails with what I believe from Intuition and Inspiration.

What is your subjective experience of telepathy - what actually happens ?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Let's all become more aware people
This is more or less the answer I expected.

In your posts, you say that you believe that there is a threat from the Elite and/or the Annunaki (I still haven't figured out if the Annunaki are the good guys or the bad guys in this story). However, the only answer you have to this threat, the only thing we could do about it, is 'become more aware'.

Compare this for a moment with, for example, Global Warming. Some of us (including me) believe that Global Warming is a threat to our society. So, what is our reaction to this threat?
  1. We try to make people aware of this threat.
  2. We propose some ideas of what we can do against this threat. Using cleaner energy, reforestation, etc.
In your case, part 2 is absent. You want to make people aware, but aware to do what: If you genuinely believed that we were under threat, you'd propose at least some things we could try to do about it.

This strongly suggests to me that you aren't really interesting in doing something about the Annunaki/Elite threat you perceive. You just want people to be aware, you want to get their attention. And I have a strong suspicion that it isn't really the Annunaki that you want attention for.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

What is your subjective experience of telepathy - what actually happens ?
The mind grows in the space it occupies; it takes on location, time and expansion-or-contraction.

It becomes a space, a room not unlike a computer monitor, sense-able.

My own thoughts constitute the "processor," but other thoughts intrude, slide by, or linger.

Over the past 22 years when I began doing this, it was like chat-text. Now, with more practice, it's like a chat-room, and I'm the moderator of it.

But in my case would I ever claim that all thoughts that come to me are of my own creation.

Does this make sense to you?

Em [Smile]
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg:[qb] Let's all become more aware people

This is more or less the answer I expected.


In your posts, you say that you believe that there is a threat from the Elite and/or the Annunaki (I still haven't figured out if the Annunaki are the good guys or the bad guys in this story). However, the only answer you have to this threat, the only thing we could do about it, is 'become more aware'.


Annunaki are divided into factions; so some of them are good guys and some of them are bad guys.


Compare this for a moment with, for example, Global Warming. Some of us (including me) believe that Global Warming is a threat to our society. So, what is our reaction to this threat?[list=1]
[*]We try to make people aware of this threat.
[*]We propose some ideas of what we can do against this threat. Using cleaner energy, reforestation, etc.


This topic, Global Warming, is a perfect example of an issue MUDDIFIED by the existence of silent complicity with unnamed Treaties (with the Annunaki); with the pacification and compartmentalization of scientists who remain ignorant of the FACT we have a different Sun from before; and with the Use of Media as an element to keep the general populace in uproar and confusion so nobody can confront and challenge TPTB.

Another FACT is, the same corporate interests that keep quiet about the sun are the same ones that blame humankind (and not unaccountable, toxic industries) for the "over-production" of CO2, which isn't even toxic to life. Those same interests are the ones buying up patents and silencing inventors of Free Energy ideas.

That whole topic is so ripe and rife with hypocrisy, it's a perfect example of how toxic leadership can get when they have control of information.

In your case, part 2 is absent. You want to make people aware, but aware to do what: If you genuinely believed that we were under threat, you'd propose at least some things we could try to do about it.

1. Buy-cut and under-cut corporate media.
2. Vote with your feet; accept no more Diebold rigged elections and media lackeys and shills as leaders.
3. Rearrange your life so you don't need corporate fuels, corporate housing, corporate funding and corporate information. Why? Because corporations profiteer on lies and influence-peddling, and that's no way to run a world.
4. Be a leader. Say what you're gonna do and then DO IT! Stop mouthing platitudes but continuing to follow the crowd consuming stuff on the broad road.
5. Organize your family and friends into a club or cooperative that challenges the system, inter-personally, with a buying club, a local tool and toy library, a senior hospice, an after-school club for kids that doesn't hammer propaganda into the kids, etc. Return to the community and reassert the desire and need to share and cooperate one, with another.

These suggestions are in my book, "Civil Life in Galactic History," available at amazon.com .

This strongly suggests to me that you aren't really interesting in doing something about the Annunaki/Elite threat you perceive. You just want people to be aware, you want to get their attention. And I have a strong suspicion that it isn't really the Annunaki that you want attention for.

Wanna bet? [Smile]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg:
1. Buy-cut and under-cut corporate media.
2. Vote with your feet; accept no more Diebold rigged elections and media lackeys and shills as leaders.
3. Rearrange your life so you don't need corporate fuels, corporate housing, corporate funding and corporate information. Why? Because corporations profiteer on lies and influence-peddling, and that's no way to run a world.
4. Be a leader. Say what you're gonna do and then DO IT! Stop mouthing platitudes but continuing to follow the crowd consuming stuff on the broad road.
5. Organize your family and friends into a club or cooperative that challenges the system, inter-personally, with a buying club, a local tool and toy library, a senior hospice, an after-school club for kids that doesn't hammer propaganda into the kids, etc. Return to the community and reassert the desire and need to share and cooperate one, with another.

Some of these are actually good, with or without the Annunaki. If believing in them causes you to use less fossile fuels and care about your community, I would be the last one to object.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
True, Dave, but I was thinking about something else.

I suspected that Emily's "smaller" moon and "closer" distance figures were probably inaccurate - maybe miscopied - but thought the major point she was seeking to make was that a small moon nearer to the earth might have the same apparent size in the sky as a large moon further away. Which is true, but irrelevant if one is using parallax to spot distance. So I focused on distance determination by parallax.

Of course the issue of apparent size of heavenly bodies, rather than real size, becomes most obvious during total eclipses, when the apparent sizes of sun and moon are virtually the same, despite huge differences in both real size and distance from the earth.

The disadvantage of appealing to parallax (valid though the point is) is that actually applying the method requires some effort. You need observations of the moon taken from two widely-spaced points to measure its apparent position vs. the distant stars. The longest baseline you can get on earth is 4000 miles, so at 226000 miles you'll see a maximum shift of (4000/226000)*(180/pi)=1.0 degrees, and you won't be able to estimate this by using your thumb - you need two distant observers taking measurements simultaneously to avoid discrepancies due to the moon's own motion in orbit. (You can't just take two observations 12 hours apart by yourself, because the moon's 28 day orbit will cause it to traverse an angle of about 6.4 degrees in that time - and it's in a direction that would make your computed parallax angle nonsensical.)

I was attracted to comment on EW's size and distance numbers precisely because they offered an unusually clear and simple way to compare claims to observation. I can think of lots of reasons why her claims are wrong based on well-established principles; for instance, if the moon were 50000 miles away instead of 226000, a month would only be 2.8 days long instead of 28. (This is a consequence of Kepler's 3rd Law, which is literally on page 2 of my copy of Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.)

To apply this, you'd at least need to a) be willing to accept centuries-old physical principles, and b) know how to do exponents on your calculator. Parallax requires simpler math, but careful and tedious observation. But the angular size argument is so simple and easy, it allows you to see almost instantly that her numbers can't be right - because at arm's length, the width of your thumb just does not appear to be 160 times the diameter of the moon.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Right again, Dave. (Nice rational tangent as well BTW.)

I knew the Wiki Parallax link for other reasons (recent conversation with one of my grandchildren over stellar distances), thought Emily (who is clearly attracted by visual images) might "get" the diagrams, not need the maths. Took the easy way out (for me!)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

These suggestions are in my book, "Civil Life in Galactic History," available at amazon.com .

Emily, that's covered by our Commandment 9 and we discourage it. The "avaiable at amazon" makes it a direct bit of self-advertising.

Linking to content you've already written or shown in a blog will normally get a pass, provided it's in the context of the discussion and doesn't cross any of the other guidelines.

Here's the Commandment wording

quote:
9. Don't advertise or spam

Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

What is your subjective experience of telepathy - what actually happens ?
The mind grows in the space it occupies; it takes on location, time and expansion-or-contraction.

It becomes a space, a room not unlike a computer monitor, sense-able.

My own thoughts constitute the "processor," but other thoughts intrude, slide by, or linger.

Over the past 22 years when I began doing this, it was like chat-text. Now, with more practice, it's like a chat-room, and I'm the moderator of it.

But in my case would I ever claim that all thoughts that come to me are of my own creation.

Does this make sense to you?

Em [Smile]

Yes, but we would probably disagree about the origin of thoughts in your head that you do not believe arise from your own mind.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, but we would probably disagree about the origin of thoughts in your head that you do not believe arise from your own mind. [/QB]

No doubt!

But please keep in mind, I place every thought that comes to me within the context of the Christian Covenant going back to the Jacobian Covenant of the Kingdom of David initiated by YHVH, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not a Wiccan.

Also, my books are not commercial because they're cheaper than having to print off a free manuscript off a home printer. It's just a simpler way to disseminate information. I haven't earned $100 in royalties at amazon.com in the four years since they started printing my books. I don't even call it publishing. They're a printer, is all; and what I write is not going anywhere--not commercially.

But ok, I'll respect Commandment No. 9.

Emily
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Is there a categorical difference between this so-called Jacobian-Davidic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant, which the New Testament identifies as the Covenant of Grace fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth?
 
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Oh!

I placed the links to evidence in the Annunaki thread.

what I expected to discuss here is how it happens to be that Scriptures only begin 4000 years ago when in scientific fact, the Earth is 3.5 billion years old.

Doesn't make sense to me that Earth, with so many mysterious artifacts, pyramids and hidden cultures, must restrain ourselves to such a short official history.

Any takers?

Yep, comparing action man fighter pilots with ancient stone artifacts has definitely convinced me. Where do I join up?
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
Have you seen the Indian "vimannas", jet planes from ancient Hindu India, ten thousand years ago?

They had them; they also had nuclear wars; there's residual radioactivity in some uninhabitable areas of India.

... under Hierarchy leadership.

I'll put up the link to a "vimana" plane image tomorrow. It'll take a while to dig out of my folders.

Em

[ 26. May 2013, 01:33: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Have you seen the Indian "vimannas", jet planes from ancient Hindu India, ten thousand years ago?

They had them; they also had nuclear wars; there's residual radioactivity in some uninhabitable areas of India.

... under Hierarchy leadership.

I'll put up the link to a "vimana" plane image tomorrow. It'll take a while to dig out of my folders.

Em

If you're talking about these "aircraft", the Wikipedia article notes

quote:
A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircraft described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.
The article notes also that the text that the description is found in was created in the 20th century by "mental channeling", which no serious historian would accept as a valid source.

As far as the radioactivity goes -- there is such a thing as natural background radiation. Some areas are noted for high levels of radiation due to high concentrations of naturally radioactive material. No need at all to postulate ancient nuclear war.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I find odd artifacts interesting--regardless of their true origins. I like to play with ideas, and think if there's anyway something *could* be true.
The Antikythera mechanism is one example.

When I was growing up, in the '70s, there was a lot of public attention given to the plane Emily mentioned, Nazca lines, ancient astronauts, etc. I considered the possibilities, but didn't come to any particular conclusion. I read some Von Daniken. I found I was more interested in the actual items than his interpretations of them.

I personally think that humans have a vested interest in thinking that of course current human knowledge is the greatest that has ever been, because we don't want to believe that knowledge could've been lost, or that current humans aren't "all that". We're the top of the evolutionary heap. We're the only ones who use tools (except many animals do), who have language (except whales and prairie dogs do, e.g.), who play as adults (except many animals do), etc.

Which, I think, is one reason we get so fascinated by how the pyramids and stone circles were built. How in the world did they do it, when we don't have the knowledge, and they had only very primitive tools?

IMHO, attributing ancient technology to space aliens is a way to get around that and still keep our self-esteem. Clearly. we ARE "all that" on our planet. But we were visited (or even planted) by beings who were more advanced, and they did all that ancient stuff that we don't understand, and we'll be like them when we grow up. And then we'll be even more "all that".

I don't know if aliens/hybrids exist, if they've been here, or what they got up to if they were. But, just maybe, we once knew a bunch of stuff that we've forgotten--both how to do things, and that we may not be the only "advanced" creatures on earth.

{Cue whale song and prairie dog whistles.}
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
The AntiKythera mechanism is a stunning piece of work, and the only thing I really wanted to see when I was in Athens for a day. (And I had my purse nicked on the Metro, and had to go into the bowels of the police station, and find a bureau de change that would take my left over Hungarian and Rumanian currency, before I could get there.) It looks as though they have changed the display since then, as there was no reconstruction.

I've a book on the subject, currently in the hands of a clock repairer who I thought would be interested, which tells a story of a clock expert whose work was not welcomed by the scientific experts at work on the device, but also reveals that various Roman period writers referred to such objects.

Apropos of not a lot, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist, wrote of creatures on the Moon who had a mirror mounted in a well with which to observe the Earth, and hear what was said on it - though perhaps I should not mention this. It does suggest technology which disappeared for a while. I wonder if it can be shown that Newton had access to the document (which was read by Rabelais, who passed the idea on to Cyrano de Bergerac for his own SF novel.) (Though Roger Bacon was reputed to have a mirror which allowed his students to see distant objects.)

[ 26. May 2013, 12:47: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I find odd artifacts interesting--regardless of their true origins. I like to play with ideas, and think if there's anyway something *could* be true.
The Antikythera mechanism is one example.

I personally think that humans have a vested interest in thinking that of course current human knowledge is the greatest that has ever been, because we don't want to believe that knowledge could've been lost, or that current humans aren't "all that". We're the top of the evolutionary heap. We're the only ones who use tools (except many animals do), who have language (except whales and prairie dogs do, e.g.), who play as adults (except many animals do), etc.


Oh, I agree -- modern Western science is not necessarily and in all areas the acme of human knowledge and achievement. But when, in a very short Wiki article, two reasonable objections to the claim that that these were pre-historic "jet planes" appear, I see no reason not to point them out.

Assuming, that is, that these were what Emily was referencing.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Apropos of not a lot, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist, wrote of creatures on the Moon who had a mirror mounted in a well with which to observe the Earth, and hear what was said on it - though perhaps I should not mention this. It does suggest technology which disappeared for a while.

Pure fiction, sorry. The "True History" is Lucian having some fun parodying Homer's Odyssey and a few other things. Not only are his characters carried up by a whirlwind to the Moon (which is impossible) they then have all sorts of silly adventures.

Lucian was an inventive and imaginative author probably best known for writing "The Ass", which, even centuries later, is still a good read (but not true either).

People could be, and were quite imaginative in those days. When almost everything had to be done manually and the hard way, no wonder magic was invented: stories of boats that didn't need rowing, or that could just fly, doors that magically opened for you, work that was done for you by invisible beings, voices that spoke from thin air to give you advice or warnings... the natural human longing for colour, excitement, expediency. A brief break of much-needed imaginative escapism, before getting back to the daily grind.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I agree that the journey to the Moon is fiction, and a device for allowing him to comment on current politics.

But the idea of using a mirror in that way is odd in the context of a story which is so imaginative. His manner of getting there is much less ridiculous that that Cyrano used (the glass containers of dew) - he could easily have observed a waterspout, if not a full blown tornado, and that it could pick up such things as fish. It is based on extrapolating to a ridiculous extent an observable natural phenomen. So why not have used an observation made in the bowl of a silver spoon? And why not try it out? I wouldn't argue that some sort of full sized well based observatory had been tried at the time. That's just silly. But the concept could have been developed from the well at Syene, used in Eratosthenes' Earth measuring maths, where the Sun could be observed at the solstice.

I believe Arthur C Clarke based some of his fiction on current scientific ideas. SF, and I would include Lucian as SF, uses unconsidered scientific and technological trifles that people have left lying about. If he did invent the idea himself, that's even more remarkable than picking up some philosopher/technician's gadget idea. It isn't, of course, unrelated to Archimedes' solar focussing weapon, whether or not that actually ever existed.

I suppose it could be argued that if enough authors are churning out enough ideas, some of them are going to turn out to be related to some sort of workable ideas that could have been around at the time, while most are going to be without any foundation in the laws of physics. Certainly Homer's "invention" of Hephaistos' mechanical serving maids is obviously wild fantasy with no grounding in anything around at the time.

[ 26. May 2013, 18:44: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
One example of the way technology washes back and forth is The Ruin. Some (you feel cold and wet) Anglo Saxon looking at the remains of Roman Bath, and calling it enta geweorc.

Our forebears were not any less intelligent and our current mode is not the only (and probably not the best) way to do civilisation.

*work of giants.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That's a brilliant poem, isn't it? And the rest of it makes it quite clear that he knew Bath had had people in it, and was built by them, so was using metaphor.

I've just been looking at my bookshelves to re-read it. I was sure I had an Anglo-Saxon reader, which might have had the original words, but couldn't find it, only a verse and a prose translation.

I think you're right about him being cold and wet - he does keep returning to the hot baths, and the men in golden halls quaffing mead, doesn't he?

It's interesting that he sees that the skills are lost - I went to a lecture in Oxford about the period of the collapse of the Roman occupation, and one of the features was the loss of pottery skills. People went back to worse than before the Occupation - presumably because they had relied on centralised production and no-one local knew how to make pots properly.

One of my favourite technology stories is of St Eanswyth in Folkestone, in her late teens, marking out the route for an aqueduct from a spring a few miles from her convent, which worked from the 6th century to the beginning of the 20th. There's a hagiographic version, involving her drawing a line with her crozier, making the water cross a valley with a stream without the waters mixing, and flowing up out of said valley, but there is, or was, evidence on the ground for something more sensible. A wealth of stuff that wasn't lost, and no way of knowing how it had been transmitted.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
What is noteworthy in this chat situation is that you're trading stories on sci-fi authors and popular literature.

I'm talking about science and technology in previous ages, and my Annunaki page at Facebook presents solid evidence of their pre-eminence in the remote past.

We can't make the past go away and pretend we're at the top of the pile, when we're not at the top of the pile, and others went before us, much more learned than we are now.

Today, we could not duplicate the pyramids, we cannot travel in space regularly except at great danger; we have no command of Free Energy.

Did you see the South American pyramid that emitted a huge light straight into the sky? I've got the image report on that.

I think contemporary culture is conceited in this regard.

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
If you're talking about these "aircraft", the Wikipedia article notes

quote:
A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircraft described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.
The article notes also that the text that the description is found in was created in the 20th century by "mental channeling", which no serious historian would accept as a valid source.

As far as the radioactivity goes -- there is such a thing as natural background radiation. Some areas are noted for high levels of radiation due to high concentrations of naturally radioactive material. No need at all to postulate ancient nuclear war.

Okay, I won't laugh at your sources if you won't laugh at mine. [Smile]

Oh, you believe what Wikipedia tells you, and whoever wants to write anything as content, they are free to do that.

I placed the image of the vimanna at

http://freecommonlaw.us/images/TimeAnu/SumerianArtifact.png

Emily

[ 27. May 2013, 02:41: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
This just in - according to the latest observations from a noted Boston observatory (i.e. the roof of my apartment building - the clouds finally cleared up!) the moon, when compared to a tape measure held at arm's length (approx. 27 inches from my eye), appears to have a diameter of about 1/4 of an inch. This corresponds to an angular size of 0.25/27 = 0.0093 radians or 0.0093*(180/pi) = 0.53 degrees - a good match to NASA's size/distance figures and a poor match to EW's values, as previously described here.

So Emily, how do you explain the fact that the angle subtended by the moon is 44 times larger than you claim it to be?
 
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :
 
One of the sad things about the Velikovsky/von Däniken/pyramidiot adherents is the great dishonour that they do to human achievement.

When I stood in front of the pyramids at Gizeh, or walked within the circles of Stonehenge and Avebury, I would have thought it insulting to suppose that they were built by anyone other than devoted, strong, and ingenious human beings – the same kinds of devoted, strong, and ingenious human beings who would later build the Parthenon, and – later still – Salisbury Cathedral.

Within the pyramid of Khufu [Cheops] there is a graffito* naming one of the teams of workers as ‘Friends of Khufu’, and within the pyramid of Menkaure [Mykerinos] there are graffiti naming teams called ‘Friends of Menkaure’ and ‘Drunkards of Menkaure’. All of these suggest a very earthly humanity that rings true across the ages.

Theses people were not gods or visitors from outer space: they were human beings who sometimes got it wrong. An object that illustrates both the skills and the limitations of ancient stone workers is the unfinished obelisk in the granite quarries at Aswan. It may have been ordered by the Pharaoh Hatshepsut, wife of Thutmose II. It would have been taller than any other obelisk known to us today, but after the great labour of pounding and polishing to free the shaft had almost been completed on three sides, a flaw appeared in the granite, and it lies where it was abandoned, still attached to the bedrock, a monument to hard labour and bad luck.


* Of course the pyramidiots, for ever possessed by conspiracy theories, claim that this graffito is a forgery perpetrated by its discoverer, Howard Vyse.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Of course the pyramidiots, for ever possessed by conspiracy theories, claim that this graffito is a forgery perpetrated by its discoverer, Howard Vyse.

Well duhh, obviously it's a forgery. Even the Chinese are at it nowadays. What gave this one away was that it says "Ding Jinhao was here - 1425 BCE" - an elementary flaw.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
The forensic trail of the Vaimānika Shāstra goes back to 1952.

It was a denizen of the ship that revealed to me that T. Lobsang Rampa was in fact Plympton plumber Cyril Henry Hoskin AKA Carl Kuon Suo ...

If there had been jet aircraft and a nuclear war in India in the past hundred million years we'd have found the culture that produced them.

Em, I WANT to believe all that you say, like I WANT to believe, seriously, that the cosmos was made in six days (not like I want a hole in the head, honestly) but my epistemology won't let me.

How do I change my epistemology ?

To the OP, our history is in the mind of Love, as is our present and our future. All will be well, regardless.
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Okay, I won't laugh at your sources if you won't laugh at mine. [Smile]

Oh, you believe what Wikipedia tells you, and whoever wants to write anything as content, they are free to do that.

Emily

Wikipedia is increasingly reliable, at least in broad strokes. They do make extensive use of external references, and these are found in the footnotes. The paper by the engineers at the Indian Institute of Science, cited in the Wiki article, is available here.

You seem to want scientific and historical validation for your ideas, Emily, but reject out of hand evidence that seems to run counter to your claims.

Scientists (and, indeed, scholars in all disciplines, including history) spend much of their time taking apart the ideas of others to see if there truly is logical and evidentiary support of the claim. Academic and scientific journals are full of arguments over hypotheses. A scientist who brings forth an idea fully expects that others will stomp all over it to try to disprove it. This is how science works--the ideas that survive this intense scrutiny become the theories that are seen as approximating some aspect of "the truth".
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Maybe that's what Vince in Rex the Runt meant when he said, 'Tuesday!'!.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This just in - according to the latest observations from a noted Boston observatory (i.e. the roof of my apartment building - the clouds finally cleared up!) the moon, when compared to a tape measure held at arm's length (approx. 27 inches from my eye), appears to have a diameter of about 1/4 of an inch. This corresponds to an angular size of 0.25/27 = 0.0093 radians or 0.0093*(180/pi) = 0.53 degrees - a good match to NASA's size/distance figures and a poor match to EW's values, as previously described here.

So Emily, how do you explain the fact that the angle subtended by the moon is 44 times larger than you claim it to be?

The problem is, they've got the distance wrong ... and that's by design.

So, I'm helpless here because details on the surface are absurd and impossible given the official size and distances.

I'm just a digital imaging tech. I cannot evaluate what astronomers are doing. But they look crazy as shit to me!

Emily
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Prove it.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Prove it.

I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.

But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.

Also. What I know about my father ... differs absolutely from the information in Wikipedia. Their "official account" is complete garbage, in alignment with all the other "official" renderings of his sad, sad story.

The people who write Wiki don't do any real research; it's all just gossip and the usual innunendos.

So I couldn't trust Wiki coming out of the gate!

Emily

[ 27. May 2013, 23:09: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Prove it.

I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.

But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.

Let me see if I understand you: you are capable of analysing evidence so as to refute findings that conflict with your worldview, but you can't present evidence in a way that proves anything that is a part of your worldview?

[ 27. May 2013, 23:12: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This just in - according to the latest observations from a noted Boston observatory (i.e. the roof of my apartment building - the clouds finally cleared up!) the moon, when compared to a tape measure held at arm's length (approx. 27 inches from my eye), appears to have a diameter of about 1/4 of an inch. This corresponds to an angular size of 0.25/27 = 0.0093 radians or 0.0093*(180/pi) = 0.53 degrees - a good match to NASA's size/distance figures and a poor match to EW's values, as previously described here.

So Emily, how do you explain the fact that the angle subtended by the moon is 44 times larger than you claim it to be?

The problem is, they've got the distance wrong ... and that's by design.

So, I'm helpless here because details on the surface are absurd and impossible given the official size and distances.

Not so. You claimed the moon is 10.8 miles in diameter and 50,000 miles away - but I can literally go outside tonight and see that can't be true.

If the moon were 10.8 miles in diameter, it would have to be just 10.8/0.0093=1200 miles away to appear as big as it does.

Alternatively, if the moon were 50,000 miles away, it would have to be 50,000*0.0093=465 miles in diameter to appear as big as it does.

The evidence of my eyes (anyone's eyes, really) is that one or both of your numbers must be wrong, quite independent of anything NASA says.
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


Also. What I know about my father ... differs absolutely from the information in Wikipedia. Their "official account" is complete garbage, in alignment with all the other "official" renderings of his sad, sad story.

The people who write Wiki don't do any real research; it's all just gossip and the usual innunendos.

So I couldn't trust Wiki coming out of the gate!

Emily

Again, here, the onus is on you to prove that your version is correct and that everyone else in the world has it wrong -- not just whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry on Edward VIII, but all the other historians and commentators who have written volumes on the subject. You haven't supplied anything except wild and unlikely conjecture and speculation to counter the "gossip and usual innuendo." Without serious, verifiable evidence, why should anyone believe anything you have to say?
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Prove it.

I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.

But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.

Let me see if I understand you: you are capable of analysing evidence so as to refute findings that conflict with your worldview, but you can't present evidence in a way that proves anything that is a part of your worldview?
Right. All I have as "evidence" is photo images that I have worked on, re-rendered in which I see what the Official Images LEAVE OUT.

Nobody is going to accept this because they're going to say, I confabulated the re-rendering.

All I can legitimately do is raise the question, again and again--

"Is it okay that scientistic dogmatists are lying to us about what is going on in the skies over our heads?"

All my work PROVES nothing, in the current definition of PROOF.

Emily
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
I have no intention nor ability6 to PROVE anything to you in the current legalistic definition of "proof."

I only know what I know, by God!

EEWC


quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


Also. What I know about my father ... differs absolutely from the information in Wikipedia. Their "official account" is complete garbage, in alignment with all the other "official" renderings of his sad, sad story.

The people who write Wiki don't do any real research; it's all just gossip and the usual innunendos.

So I couldn't trust Wiki coming out of the gate!

Emily

Again, here, the onus is on you to prove that your version is correct and that everyone else in the world has it wrong -- not just whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry on Edward VIII, but all the other historians and commentators who have written volumes on the subject. You haven't supplied anything except wild and unlikely conjecture and speculation to counter the "gossip and usual innuendo." Without serious, verifiable evidence, why should anyone believe anything you have to say?

 
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.

But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.

Emily - if you have a tape measure and primary school geometry, you have the method. It's only similar triangles. One of your numbers is wrong, either the diameter or the distance, even leaving out any other science. This is basic maths.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Don't sell her short, mertide - her numbers could both be wrong...
 
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :
 
Dave W. That is indeed possible, I didn't think of that. [Smile]

It just seems bizarre to me that an expert in crochet including pattern design doesn't have an intuitive as well as mathematical understanding of proportion. It's absolutely essential in scaling up patterns for different yarns and hooks. This is just a bigger scale.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg:
1. Buy-cut and under-cut corporate media.
2. Vote with your feet; accept no more Diebold rigged elections and media lackeys and shills as leaders.
3. Rearrange your life so you don't need corporate fuels, corporate housing, corporate funding and corporate information. Why? Because corporations profiteer on lies and influence-peddling, and that's no way to run a world.
4. Be a leader. Say what you're gonna do and then DO IT! Stop mouthing platitudes but continuing to follow the crowd consuming stuff on the broad road.
5. Organize your family and friends into a club or cooperative that challenges the system, inter-personally, with a buying club, a local tool and toy library, a senior hospice, an after-school club for kids that doesn't hammer propaganda into the kids, etc. Return to the community and reassert the desire and need to share and cooperate one, with another.

Some of these are actually good, with or without the Annunaki. If believing in them causes you to use less fossile fuels and care about your community, I would be the last one to object.
Some great ideas. Yes! magazine is a good source of similar ones, and how everyday people are putting them into practice.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
How have these digital images been fraudulently edited ?

How can I replicate the originals ? By what technology ?

If I did, what would be the difference ?

What is the current definition of proof ?

What should it be instead ?

What has God revealed to you that cannot be revealed to me ?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
All I can legitimately do is raise the question, again and again--

"Is it okay that scientistic dogmatists are lying to us about what is going on in the skies over our heads?"

If it were true, then no it would not be OK. But as there is no reliable (or even believable) evidence to support the conjecture, and oodles of reliable and believable evidence against it, I see no reason to believe that said lies are actually being told.

I'm certainly not going to change my entire worldview based on a bunch of photoshopped pictures of clouds that don't even show what they're being alleged to show after being photoshopped.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How have these digital images been fraudulently edited ?

How can I replicate the originals ? By what technology ?


SOURCE ORIGINALS are available at

http://areo.info/mer/ ... Mars
http://www.apolloarchive.com/ ... Moon
http://www.ciclops.org/ ... Saturn

and other official sites.

If I did, what would be the difference ?

Mars images are unresolved in their focus, mis-scaled, falsely colored

Moon images were taken in both white and black light, the white light were strictly fly-bys and the black-light images strictly in a soundstage.

Saturn images are black-and-white in an era of full color; and details of human figured are blacked- and LINED-OUT!

What is the current definition of proof ?


That's up to the viewer.

What should it be instead ?


An agreed-upon technology that provides CLARITY, crisp focus, full color and depth-of-field.

What has God revealed to you that cannot be revealed to me ?

... Whatever I asked God that you didn't ask yet.
He tells me ONLY what I ask, nothing extra.

He's not here merely to indulge my curiosity. I have to go out and learn something, also.

Emily [Smile]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0