Observations on things.

[Deleted member 1432]

I think individuals have been perpetually subjected to a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack. I'm borrowing this term from technology:

Like priests and Popes who have separated man from God.

We are struggling because if you were one for studying backdrops (a historian), you now realise that it was only ever a fake thing, expedient for its time, a helper to develop the present.

There's a real danger in this nihilistic type of 'it's all fake' attitude, which is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. There have been many recent great discoveries achieved through comparing what you call backdrops and then identifying patterns and similarities. I refer to Gunnar Heinsohn and Sylvain Tristan who between them have demonstrated that most of Ancient Roman and Greek history is a reflection or duplication of later events with some slight detail changes. Archaeology also supports this. Obviously, way back when they did this they had no idea what the real historical backdrop(s) were so they created new ones by duplicating their current ones... who knows how many babies they threw out with that bathwater? Are we in danger of repeating the same error by rewriting history based upon our current backdrop (resets etc)?

 

[feralimal]

@Will Scarlet I hear you. I would prefer to characterise my position, not as nihilism but more as agnosis - ie the state of having awareness of my own ignorance. And that this position is beneficial as I don't fall into auto-believing stuff and wasting my time.

 

[Estram]

Nothing of any etheric collection point or transmission infrastructure has been photographed, described, advertised, patented.

Here's one patent. If I understand it correctly, it's a water treatment station for treating water by ozonation using atmospheric electricity.

ЕВРАЗИЙСКАЯ ПАТЕНТНАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ (ЕАПО)


If you look at drawing they included it does look a lot like a top of an old building, which I think is interesting.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

No-one and nothing has separated Man from God more than modern Science.

What are scientists if not priests?

Why? Because it shows you don't know what you're talking about?

That is a prime example of bad manners and the kind of arrogance that this forum already has enough of. Perhaps you should read the Posting Rules.

@Will Scarlet I hear you. I would prefer to characterise my position, not as nihilism but more as agnosis - ie the state of having awareness of my own ignorance. And that this position is beneficial as I don't fall into auto-believing stuff and wasting my time.

I didn't assume that your previous comment regarding backdrops etc., was a discussion of your personal beliefs, I thought you were talking in general terms, sorry.

When you say "Agnosis," which seems to have overtones of a medical condition, do you mean you are an Agnostic? Do you believe that it is impossible to know anything about humanity's past? It now occurs to me that your contributions to this forum over the years have always been de-constructive rather than reconstructive, as if you are seeking additional evidence to support your agnosis / agnosticism. A true nihilist would discard all conventional beliefs and then use that as a basis for the discovery of new ones, most of us here fall into that category at some point along its development, although many seem to get stuck right after the point of discarding, or they get sidetracked into pre-packaged contrivances. So, I apologise if I seemed to be labeling you personally as a nihilist.

I also notice that you very frequently express 'Likes' or appreciation of attempts to reconstruct our past by other posters. Given your agnostic position this appreciation must be for the attempt rather than the actual content. This is highly confusing for the recipient as he or she will take it as support and approval of the content rather than the form. Eventually, once your true position has become evident, through your comments in other threads for example, such 'Likes' and appreciation become confusing, even worthless.

I hope you don't take this as a personal attack as it sincerely isn't meant that way.

 

[Udjat]

What are scientists if not priests?

This is interesting, I think that this is a good point, if I am understanding correctly. Are you saying that a doctor is like a shaman? If that is what you are getting at, I like the cut of your jib, and I would say, that priest and scientist are one in the same. This is why I don't like to give thigs labels so much. It is an important things to see, in my eyes. Like I have said before, there is truth in everything even lies, or if you would like to call lies, impasses or misunderstandings.

When I was in philosophy class, someone called me a Pantheist and I said, "No, I am a (my first name)." No one really knows anything, so therefore what can we say? Just our opinions. The uncertainty I think is exhilarating, of what is out there, if there is an out there, what happens after we die, etc.

My question is why should we all believe one human over another about most anything? Not any of us have the answers because nothing has changed, nothing has changed since what we know as the dawn of time.

Now I am just babbling and it is time to stop. Thanks so much for all of your input, I need a break.....

 

[feralimal]

Do you believe that it is impossible to know anything about humanity's past?

Know, is an interesting word. I think there is only a very narrow range of things that can be known. There is the present experience, and certain principles. Even one's own memories cannot be known - one can only know that one is bringing the past to mind in the present. From there, there are things one can have more or less certainty about - hypotheses can be better or worse. Re history, geography, buildings - I rate physical stuff (things I can go and see) far more highly than tertiary accounts in books, or things on screens.

Given your agnostic position this appreciation must be for the attempt rather than the actual content.

I love personal interpretations. Eg I genuinely appreciate your position in stating an alternative position to my own. I also appreciate your thoughts on the information you have processed, and the things you have written. Liking doesn't mean I agree. Perhaps this is confusing. I would prefer a wider range of emoticons, but we only have the 6 to choose, which admittedly does send a clunky message.

I hope you don't take this as a personal attack as it sincerely isn't meant that way.

No, I'm fine with it! I don't mind criticism. I wish it were possible for me to feel more comfortable about history, I hope someone finds a special key to unlock even more. It was a bit of a shock and quite saddening to realise it's more constructive to leave all the stories to the side, at least for me. But there it is.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Are you saying that a doctor is like a shaman? If that is what you are getting at,

Absolutely not, scientific doctors generally don't work with the metaphysical or the supernatural as shamans do. I mean that science is a religion and the scientists are its clergy.

My question is why should we all believe one human over another about most anything?

We shouldn't, although we need to consider and evaluate alternative opinions and points of view rather than think we are right about everything wouldn't you agree?

No one really knows anything, so therefore what can we say? Just our opinions.

We could close this forum down on that basis then. You are right everything posted in this forum breaks down to opinions, even the Bible is a collection of opinions, but millions of people have adopted those opinions as their own. None of us are born with opinions, they are formed and developed through personal experience, education and listening to other opinions (I include all forms of indoctrination and 'brainwashing in there.) The problems arise when they become static and stagnate ...'in my opinion'. In that situation people become crusaders of their opinions. They stop listening and can only ever talk about those opinions. Everything they see or hear that might challenge their opinions has to be made to conform to them. Everything that can't be explained by their opinions becomes 'unknowable'. Their personal value, worth or 'image' is totally invested in their beliefs, which is why they must be defended at all costs.

We should never stop forming and developing our opinions or questioning our beliefs. It's a lifetime's journey, not an occasional vacation. So, "what can we say?" We can say what our current opinions are at any given time and explain what it is that has led us to them. As we experience and learn more 'what we can say' will probably be different and even contradictory to what we said before. For example, some of the proposals made in the older articles on my website have been superseded or contradicted by those in newer ones - sometimes that happens during the course of the same series of articles. This should be a natural process of development within any kind of quest or research.

[Please note: the above is based upon my current opinions which may change by this evening ]

I genuinely appreciate your position in stating an alternative position to my own. I also appreciate your thoughts on the information you have processed, and the things you have written. Liking doesn't mean I agree. Perhaps this is confusing. I would prefer a wider range of emoticons, but we only have the 6 to choose, which admittedly does send a clunky message.

You appreciate them even though you actually believe I am "wasting my time." Perhaps we should have a new emoticon that says "Nice try, but no cigar."

No, I'm fine with it! I don't mind criticism.

That's a relief, although it wasn't meant as a criticism - who am I to judge your personal beliefs after all?

 

[feralimal]

You appreciate them even though you actually believe I am "wasting my time." Perhaps we should have a new emoticon that says "Nice try, but no cigar."

I struggle to discern what bits to pay attention to, especially when it comes to written work. I like architecture and prefer it to written works, but even then we can see how scenarios can be cut from whole cloth eg Palace of Aigai where I show some revealing before and after photos of "Philip ii's palace" from "Ancient Greece". In 30 years time will anyone care how reconstructed the palace was? And in 100 years? And if that's what happens with physical evidence, how much easier is it to edit online material? Meta history - Who provides the data?

I do appreciate your filtering of many sources to come up with a position of your own. You can use a heuristic, intelligently filtered model as you do - I see you as someone able to provide a personal interpretation, and I value your efforts more highly than MSM nonsense - or you can have a high threshold for presented evidence to even be considered worthy of consideration, as I do. I don't think only one way to proceed. I think that history is a constant churn and I think I can make a good case for my position. It seems to me that any understanding of history needs disclaimers - there are surely many ways to interpret any event, nevermind events that we weren't there for.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

@feralimal: The word ‘Stolenhistory’ implies that there was a history in place prior to its theft. The qualifier - ‘Rediscovered History of the World’ also implies that whatever has been stolen can be rediscovered. It’s therefore reasonable to assume these tenets are fundamental to the forum and that its members are here to rediscover that stolen history.

However, from the agnosis, or agnostic frame of reference, it would seem that any attempt at such a rediscovery is a completely futile waste of time...

agnostic (n.)

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley, supposedly in September 1869… (Source)

T.H. Huxley was a Fellow of the Royal Society, a staunch supporter of Darwin and grandfather to Aldous Huxley, author of ‘Brave New World’ - the NWO blueprint.

In his 1889 book "Science and Christian Tradition," he (T. H.) stated...

“I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.”

The term was further clarified a year later…

“The agnostic does not simply say, ‘I do not know.’ He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know.” (Source Robert G. Ingersoll, "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott," 1890)

Interestingly, the Greek form of the word gnōsis, doesn’t just mean "knowledge” but also includes the sense of “inquiry” – the seeking of knowledge. Therefore, the antithesis of gnosis – agnosis – must imply the sense of a total disinterest in seeking knowledge.

Given the above, it’s clear that you are not here to rediscover any stolen history and that your participation has a different reason. I wonder if your real interest is in studying us. Perhaps to you we are like lab rats in a maze, on a never-ending mission of futility to understand where we are? Whenever one of us ventures into a new, previously unexplored, part of the maze you reward us with an ego-massaging ‘Like’ or your appreciation, to encourage us on towards new futile endeavours. Occasionally you will throw us ‘treats’ of deconstructed history to entice us further into the maze, whilst you study us: analysing our interpretations; our methods and our interactions.

For me the ‘agnostic’ ideology is yet another ‘Brick in the Wall’, to quote Pink Floyd. I truly believe that there was history in place that had to be taken away from us in order for a new one to be imposed. I also truly believe that we can rediscover that stolen history because at some level what we were and who we were still survives deep inside of us in spite of all the hideous things that have been done and are still being done to prevent us from uncovering it. I’m here to at least try and catch a glimpse of who we once were in the hope that we can become so again. It may be futile, but I consider it vital.

(I would appreciate it if you don’t ‘Like’ this comment. In fact I would appreciate it if the facility to ‘Like’ was removed from the forum to be honest. They say 'a picture is worth a thousand words' but in this case a far more honest expression can be made in a few well chosen ones.)

 

[feralimal]

Therefore, the antithesis of gnosis – agnosis – must imply the sense of a total disinterest in seeking knowledge.

It doesn't to me! I think I am seeking real knowledge. Agnosis to me is about applying oneself or concerning oneself with those things that can be known, by a process of discarding of the unknowable, ie refusing to consider belief or hearsay. Agnosis to me is awareness of one's ignorance, that one cannot know very much, even if one uses the words "I know". In fact, when I hear someone say they know this or that, the more I think that they don't!

I have a hard definition of 'know'. I accept there is colloquial use of the word where we can use "I like" or "I feel" or "I believe" or "I know" interchangeably. This is not what I mean when I use 'know'. I mean it in a hard, certain way. But I accept that I don't know very much.

Part of the trick to me, is that the education system trains people into believing they know, rather than actual knowing. In fact they just have strong beliefs that are assumed to be knowledge. If you believe you know something, eg Evolution, the Big Bang, that area is now closed as you have the answer. That false beliefs/teachings are assumed to be knowledge is a major problem! False knowledge breeds a lack of inquiry, and deference to authority. Not knowing is the opposite, for me.

I wonder if your real interest is in studying us. Perhaps to you we are like lab rats in a maze, on a never-ending mission of futility to understand where we are? Whenever one of us ventures into a new, previously unexplored, part of the maze you reward us with an ego-massaging ‘Like’ or your appreciation, to encourage us on towards new futile endeavours. Occasionally you will throw us ‘treats’ of deconstructed history to entice us further into the maze, whilst you study us: analysing our interpretations; our methods and our interactions.

I don't know who you think I am! Some sort of student of this forum or people, I guess... but aren't we all?

My liking something relates to stuff that I do like. I appreciate the effort that someone has put in to explain or reason something, even if it differs to my own thinking. I can appreciate positions totally in opposition to mine, without conflict - I recognise the work of someone else trying to find and seek truth, and presenting that in their own way.

The word ‘Stolenhistory’ implies that there was a history in place prior to its theft.

It does imply that there was a history in place prior to its theft. And, while I think there really was a history that happened, I'm just not sure of the theft bit. I pretty sure that we cannot know what the history really was. Put history aside for a sec, and think about something a present event. Even if you personally witness the event there can still be multiple interpretations. Eg - on the football pitch one person can think someone deserved a red card for a dangerous challenge, whereas the next person will think the person didn't even touch him. Ie present, personally witnessed interpretation is hard. WRT to history, I think it is valuable to view many and various interpretations.

Also what if the real answer involves some element of deconstructing the question? What if the word 'stolen' is too much of a presumption, as I think is possible. All consequent answers have to have the ideas of 'opposition', 'a theft', 'damage', 'a wounded party', etc baked in. If you ask the wrong question, you won't ever get the right answer.

I think there are other options available. Perhaps there is no overarching nemesis - but a/ a bunch of data that is open to multiple interpretations, and b/ some genuine villains that do attempt to direct the herd with loud bangs. That seems possible to me. The point of stolen history to me is more like: if we accept that the history we were given was a lie, what can we say about the past and why it matters?

I would appreciate it if you don’t ‘Like’ this comment.

I'll do what I like. I won't tell you what to do - you do as you see fit. And, on reflection, I do like your comment, sorry.

 

[Jd755]

In fact I would appreciate it if the facility to ‘Like’ was removed from the forum to be honest

Me too.
The emoticon like symbology makes for lazy thinking. What does it matter if someone "likes" or "doesn't like" what someone else has written. It successfully stops most people composing a response and that is the last thing a forum needs...if it is to prosper.
If you find value in written content, if you take umbrage with the content, if you have counter evidence or are able to shed further light on the content then at least have the decency to add to the written conversation not express your emotion through a cartoon.

 

[nightrider_2000]

Jd755, I couldnt resist LOL

 

[Jd755]

Jd755, I couldnt resist LOL

You going to build one of those atmospheric energy collector devices from those Russian patents?

 

[nightrider_2000]

its on the list, i have to score some magnet wire from amazon, got some metal spheres etc and most supplys for this in stock;

 

[Quiahuitl]

The emoticon like symbology makes for lazy thinking.

How?

What does it matter if someone "likes" or "doesn't like" what someone else has written.

Funny thing to say. Does this apply to other areas of your life? Does it matter whether you like your dinner or the local pub you drink in?

It successfully stops most people composing a response

What makes you think people would be encouraged to write more thoughtful responses if the like feature was not available?

If you find value in written content,

It's extremely difficult to assess that. Every now and again a few pieces fit together and I often make a comment. Sometimes I even get a worthwhile response. For example on my Antarctica photos thread Antarctica maps and photos

I posted a photo of the map room in the Farnese villa which was built around 1560ish and shows a land bridge over to a green Antarctica. I said "I think it's safe to assume whoever created this map was a very wealthy man with a global trading empire."

You replied "That is one hell of a leap of faith," which was not a helpful response at all. Antarctica maps and photos

Subsequently Alltheleaves said "The Palace was commissioned in 1513 by Alexander Farnese (1468-1549), who was subsequently elected Pope under the name of Paul III," which was a very helpful response. Antarctica maps and photos

So we're looking at a picture of the *Pope's* map room!

if you take umbrage with the content,

Then don't bother replying. This is just making the situation worse. People say things on this forum that piss me off all the time. So far I've managed to avoid descending into name calling and bickering.

if you have counter evidence

That's a tough one. Depends if you understand the point that's being made or not I suppose. I've noticed you have a habit of quibbling with details and ignoring the main thrust of an idea.

or are able to shed further light on the content

Yes! This is by far the most valuable input anyone can make.

then at least have the decency to add to the written conversation not express your emotion through a cartoon.

Why will no-one engage with us?

 

[Jd755]

its on the list, i have to score some magnet wire from amazon, got some metal spheres etc and most supplys for this in stock;

Excellent. Doing beats theorising hands down.

How?



Funny thing to say. Does this apply to other areas of your life? Does it matter whether you like your dinner or the local pub you drink in?



What makes you think people would be encouraged to write more thoughtful responses if the like feature was not available?




It's extremely difficult to assess that. Every now and again a few pieces fit together and I often make a comment. Sometimes I even get a worthwhile response. For example on my Antarctica photos thread Antarctica maps and photos

I posted a photo of the map room in the Farnese villa which was built around 1560ish and shows a land bridge over to a green Antarctica. I said "I think it's safe to assume whoever created this map was a very wealthy man with a global trading empire."

You replied "That is one hell of a leap of faith," which was not a helpful response at all. Antarctica maps and photos

Subsequently Alltheleaves said "The Palace was commissioned in 1513 by Alexander Farnese (1468-1549), who was subsequently elected Pope under the name of Paul III," which was a very helpful response. Antarctica maps and photos

So we're looking at a picture of the *Pope's* map room!





Then don't bother replying. This is just making the situation worse. People say things on this forum that piss me off all the time. So far I've managed to avoid descending into name calling and bickering.



That's a tough one. Depends if you understand the point that's being made or not I suppose. I've noticed you have a habit of quibbling with details and ignoring the main thrust of an idea.



Yes! This is by far the most valuable input anyone can make.



Why will no-one engage with us?

Are you going to be building the Russian device too?

 

[Deleted member 1432]

What makes you think people would be encouraged to write more thoughtful responses if the like feature was not available?

Because they don't.

If you're going to bombard a thread with flippant comments and childish questions you should really have been paying attention to it.

 

[Jd755]

You replied "That is one hell of a leap of faith," which was not a helpful response at all. Antarctica maps and photos

My reply in full just to put your choice of selection into context

That is one hell of a leap of faith.
Could just as easily be artist or client whimsy. Have you looked into the map in any detail?

I know asking questions of opinions is deemed offensive in many quarters but actually I am simply asking you a direct question about where your thinking came from, which by the way you never responded to.

It successfully stops most people composing a response and that is the last thing a forum needs...if it is to prosper

You swapped "a" out and replaced it with "thoughtful" .

What makes you think people would be encouraged to write more thoughtful responses if the like feature was not available?

Where you actually answer your own question!
Emoticon responses cannot be thoughtful if responding with a comment is thoughtful.

 

[Quiahuitl]

I am simply asking you a direct question about where your thinking came from, which by the way you never responded to.

I'm going to need a bit of help with this one... Where does My thinking come from?

 

[Quiahuitl]

You swapped "a" out and replaced it with "thoughtful"

As per my original comment I said "I've noticed you have a habit of quibbling with details and ignoring the main thrust of an idea."

Are you able to justify your assertion that people would be more motivated to write a response (Apparently you don't care if it's thoughtful or not) if the 'Like' button was removed?

Regarding the Farnese maps, before I posted them onto the forum I did some research to establish that the Farnese villa really existed, and does indeed have a map room. So I had seen those pictures on multiple sources before posting them here. It's hard to be certain of the dates, however all the dates I saw were in the 1500s.

I find it exciting that the maps existed in the 1500s showing a land bridge over to a green Antarctica; and apparently the maps belonged to the Pope. To get my pedantry in first, I should say the guy might have built the villa before becoming pope or whatever.

Where you actually answer your own question!
Emoticon responses cannot be thoughtful if responding with a comment is thoughtful.

I think you've created a false dichotomy here. You appear to be assuming that no thought process goes into the decision whether to award a 'Like' or not.