On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 23:47:38 -0000
"Luke Threadgould" <luke.threadgould@...> wrote:

> From: "Luke Threadgould" <luke.threadgould@...>
>
> In Truth, Hancock, in his most recent developments, still asserts that the
> lower (bare rock hewn) parts of the great pyramid belong to a far earlier
> epoch than Khufu, ie planned and began during the 10.500 BC era.
>
> Whilst after finally being able to examine, personally, the relief chambers
> over the Kings chamber, he now acknowledges that these parts were
> constructed during the accepted eras.  He yeided to this point after he
> realized that the presumed forged hyrogliphs were accepted to be original
> Khufu graffiti.
>
He said:
(perhaps the subterranean chamber and some other rock-hewn> arts of the
structure may be earlier).

I don't take that as an assertion, or a claim for any particular date.
Has he written anything else about this?

Doug
--
  Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
  Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@...
  Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
  Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 22:05:21 -0700
"Ron Southard" <southard@...> wrote:

> From: "Ron Southard" <southard@...>
>
> Mr. Weller
>
> >Sitchin has had no impact on archaeology.
>
> I seriously question your statement ... no impact on Archaeology maybe, but
> you'll have to work a little harder to convince me that he's had no impact
> on archaeology.   What do you consider impact?   Are you simply stating that
> the Archaeological establishment does not recognize his work?   That we well
> know and would like to know why.    Do you or the establishment or both have
> specific points upon which you challenge his work?   If so please present
> them.     Is he dismissed simply because he is not conventional, or because
> he is Jewish, or because he is not an Archaeologist?   Does he
> need a union card or what.
Your comments on his religion I find very insulting, and make me think
that you do not intend a serious discussion.

1. It is impossible to trace many of his claims because he does not
give references.
2. He doesn't look at other interpretations of most of his seals, etc.
In other words, he presents his point of view while ignoring anyone
else's, He uses old, out-dated sources without discussing the more
recent work that contradicts him.
3. His orbit for Nibiru uses impossible astrophysics.


> >His ignorance of Sumerian, astrophysics, archaeology, archaeoastronomy,
> etc. are probably to blame
>
> I challenge that Mr. Sitchin has anything remotely resembling "ignorance" of
> anything Sumerian.   I suggest you back such a statement up with at least a
> few examples.

See Rob Hafernik's article for a bit on this.  Or find an acknowledged
expert on Sumerian who thinks Sitchin knows what he is talking about.

   And I should think that similar examples are in order as
> far as his alleged "ignorance" of any particular field.    Do you know the
> man?    Do you know his work, have you read it all, or at least a
> substantial portion of it?    Are you familiar with his field work, his
> expeditions and their results?

I have five of his books, I've read most of them.

What field work and expeditions are you referring to?

> >for that. His books make little attempt to be serious academically, in
>
> Maybe this is a compliment?    Can you please explain exactly what
> constitutes an "...attempt to be serious academically...".    I really do
> not understand this and similar statements, they seem to be academic
> arrogance, am I missing something?

Yes. Academics write papers giving clear references so that you can
check the accuracy of their claims, look at the original sources, find
other interpretations, discuss conflicting arguments, etc. Sitchin
doesn't.   It would take years to trace down his sources because he
hasn't given references.


>   Is there specific evidence refuting
> Sitchin's translations, or his interpretations, or his character, or his
> site work, or what?    I'm open to any reasonably supported possibility, but
> so far I've seen no such support, no serious challenge to Sitchin's
> findings, or his statements, or his translations, or anything else about
> him.   Not just here but anywhere.

You haven't looked hard enough. But one reason you don't see much is
what I've said above.  If he referenced his work one could do this much
more easily.,

[SNIP]
>
> I am reminded of the scathing challenge of Erich Von Daniken's "Chariots of
> the Gods" by Clifford Wilson, M.A., B.D., PH.D, in "Crash Go the Chariots".
> "Crash..." is a very indignant but totally unsupported work.

Don't forget it's a Christian Fundamentalist book trying to make its
own argument. Others have done a much better job, eg Story.

Doug
--
  Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
  Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@...
  Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
  Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

>Unless, perhaps, the flowing water was used to turn turbines and generate
>electric power...
>
>G.

I think undoubtedly thats what the extreme pressure was used for,  I have
read in a few book seperate books/reports of a sulphuric discharge that is
still evident in parts of the pyramid.  I magine the power that could have
been produced, enough to power ???


~Lukas

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Southard <southard@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: Saturday, March 06, 1999 12:58 AM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Dunn's "The Giza Power Plant"


>From: "Ron Southard" <southard@...>
>
>
>>From: "G.Mont" <gem@...>
>>
>>One question.
>>
>>Recent discoveries show that the pyramid at Giza was once eroded by the
>>river that ran along its base - a river now long gone - dating the great
>>pyramid to about 9000 years ago, or something like that...
>>
>>If a river ran right through the area, what need for building a monster
>>water pump?
>>
>>G.
>
>It makes sence to me that one would put a pump in a river to take the water
>from the river to where the river isn't, like for irrigation or industry.

True. But raising the water to the level of the pyramids angular shafts
seems more than a bit unusual. Why bring the water so high? Why the unusual
dimensions? Why not a few hundred tiny versions of the pyramid, each pumping
water from the river, rather than one nearly impossible to build monster
pump? Considering the process as described on the website, any hollow object
with sealable openings could be used to fulfill the same function.

>Perhaps the pump was set in a reservoir that stored the dramatically

No reservoir exists as far as I know, or ruins of anything that might fill
that purpose.

>seasonal flooding of the Nile in order to spread the effective growing
>season over a longer period, that's what the farmers and ranchers do now.
>We take water from the Colorado Rockies and through a series of dams,
>powerplants, pump stations etc. spread it over most of the Southwestern
U.S.
>All of these dams and pumps and powerplants, etc. are set in river beds.


A series of pumps would then be needed, which would leave a string of such
pyramids with similar interior features along the Nile, as well as miles of
piping/troughs. Again as far as I know, there are no other pyramids with
similar internal designs.

>I was impressed with the animated page Lukas referred us to, and want to
>spend some more time studying the material before commenting.


Again, looking at the page, it appeared to me that just about any shape in
the universe with a few pluggable holes and a partly hollow interior that
was fire-proof, could be turned into such a pumping device.

A simple clue in favour of the theory would be massive signs of water
erosion in those parts of the pyramid described as continuously filled with
moving water. Do such signs of water erosion exist inside the pyramid's
chambers?

If not, what is the companion theory?
That the work was too complex, never finished and the pump never turned on?

While I'm not saying the idea is without merit, it does seem to be a rather
monumental labour, for such a simple end result, which could have been
achieved using any of thousands of less complex forms and the exact same
technical concept.

Unless, perhaps, the flowing water was used to turn turbines and generate
electric power...

G.

>From: "G.Mont" <gem@...>
>
>One question.
>
>Recent discoveries show that the pyramid at Giza was once eroded by the
>river that ran along its base - a river now long gone - dating the great
>pyramid to about 9000 years ago, or something like that...
>
>If a river ran right through the area, what need for building a monster
>water pump?
>
>G.

It makes sence to me that one would put a pump in a river to take the water
from the river to where the river isn't, like for irrigation or industry.
Perhaps the pump was set in a reservoir that stored the dramatically
seasonal flooding of the Nile in order to spread the effective growing
season over a longer period, that's what the farmers and ranchers do now.
We take water from the Colorado Rockies and through a series of dams,
powerplants, pump stations etc. spread it over most of the Southwestern U.S.
All of these dams and pumps and powerplants, etc. are set in river beds.

I was impressed with the animated page Lukas referred us to, and want to
spend some more time studying the material before commenting.

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Threadgould <luke.threadgould@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 8:05 PM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com


>http://www.anw.com/hancock/updates/htm


Link's dead. Or its time to reboot again....
>
>It's mainly about how Graham Hancock  now believes that the aforementioned
>Hieroglyphs are not forgeries but impossible to recreate graffiti.  I'm not
>saying this is my opinion, I'm just relaying the follow up to, the comment
>on Hancock's remission.


>                                         Relax, were on the same team,


Sorry bout that. I tend to run off at the mouth that way all the time.
I tend to stray from a subject's center a lot too. >:)

The questions were not really directed to you, but to anyone who could
answer them.

While I remember reading about the forgery/graffiti conundrum, I gave the
discoverer and the whole event little note, as I was already quite sure we
had swallowed another fable as reality where Giza was concerned. I hoped the
questions might lead to the basic foundation of the debate on the
graffiti/forgery thing, so I stuck them in at the end there for good
measure.

My assumption as to the actual reason why the Graffiti theory was chosen
over the forgery was probably worded a lot harsher than it was meant to be
simply because it is a rather blanket accusation of perpetrating fraud for
personal gain..

-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Threadgould <luke.threadgould@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 8:05 PM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com


>http://www.anw.com/hancock/updates/htm


Link's dead. Or its time to reboot again....
>
>It's mainly about how Graham Hancock  now believes that the aforementioned
>Hieroglyphs are not forgeries but impossible to recreate graffiti.  I'm not
>saying this is my opinion, I'm just relaying the follow up to, the comment
>on Hancock's remission.


>                                         Relax, were on the same team,


Sorry bout that. I tend to run off at the mouth that way all the time. The
questions were not really directed to you, but to anyone who could answer
them. While I remember reading about the forgery/graffiti conundrum, I gave
the discoverer little note, as I was already quite sure we had

Mr. Weller

>Sitchin has had no impact on archaeology.

I seriously question your statement ... no impact on Archaeology maybe, but
you'll have to work a little harder to convince me that he's had no impact
on archaeology.   What do you consider impact?   Are you simply stating that
the Archaeological establishment does not recognize his work?   That we well
know and would like to know why.    Do you or the establishment or both have
specific points upon which you challenge his work?   If so please present
them.     Is he dismissed simply because he is not conventional, or because
he is Jewish, or because he is not an Archaeologist?   Does he
need a union card or what?

>His ignorance of Sumerian, astrophysics, archaeology, archaeoastronomy,
etc. are probably to blame

I challenge that Mr. Sitchin has anything remotely resembling "ignorance" of
anything Sumerian.   I suggest you back such a statement up with at least a
few examples.    And I should think that similar examples are in order as
far as his alleged "ignorance" of any particular field.    Do you know the
man?    Do you know his work, have you read it all, or at least a
substantial portion of it?    Are you familiar with his field work, his
expeditions and their results?

>for that. His books make little attempt to be serious academically, in

Maybe this is a compliment?    Can you please explain exactly what
constitutes an "...attempt to be serious academically...".    I really do
not understand this and similar statements, they seem to be academic
arrogance, am I missing something?    Is there specific evidence refuting
Sitchin's translations, or his interpretations, or his character, or his
site work, or what?    I'm open to any reasonably supported possibility, but
so far I've seen no such support, no serious challenge to Sitchin's
findings, or his statements, or his translations, or anything else about
him.   Not just here but anywhere.     I believe I truly have an open mind
on the issues, but can someone be more specific.    What exactly in
Sitchin's work do you challenge?    One gets the feeling that his work is
dismissed simply because he has had the audacity to originate a thought; to
meticulously research a body of work that he had no business considering
because it challenges conventional wisdom?!   Or does he just lack tact?

I am reminded of the scathing challenge of Erich Von Daniken's "Chariots of
the Gods" by Clifford Wilson, M.A., B.D., PH.D, in "Crash Go the Chariots".
"Crash..." is a very indignant but totally unsupported work.    I found
"Chariots of the Gods" to be lacking in specific evidence, myself; without
the TV program I happened to see (actually several years before I read the
book) I would have been even more skeptical.   However, I found even less
substance in Wilson's book.   It was a simple statement of an opposing
opinion,....because I said so, ...I guess that constitutes a credible
argument if
you are M.A., B.D., PhD, etc. etc.?

I am perfectly ready willing and able to be convinced that one or all of
these "alternative originations" guys is full of bunkum, but its going to
take more than "...because I said so."

>There are a couple of articles on my web site or linked to it about
>him. Rob Hafernik's article in the Sitchin Archives and the articule on his
astronomy.

I'm on my way there now.   Looking forward to enlightenment.

Regards to all,
Ron

Hiya G,

>Why now is there no doubt that it is indeed graffiti?
>Is there new evidence which suggests the marks were truly graffiti?

If you  check out the sight, you'll  see the response to the question that
was raised.

http://www.anw.com/hancock/updates/htm

It's mainly about how Graham Hancock  now believes that the aforementioned
Hieroglyphs are not forgeries but impossible to recreate graffiti.  I'm not
saying this is my opinion, I'm just relaying the follow up to, the comment
on Hancock's remission.
                                          Relax, were on the same team,


~Lukas

-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Threadgould <luke.threadgould@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 6:51 PM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com


>From: "Luke Threadgould" <luke.threadgould@...>

>>Why would Hancock's change of face change anything?
>>Is he an expert in Sumerian, astrophysics, archaeology, and
>>archaeoastronomy?
>
>In Truth, Hancock, in his most recent developments, still asserts that the
>lower (bare rock hewn) parts of the great pyramid belong to a far earlier
>epoch than Khufu, ie planned and began during the 10.500 BC era.
>
>Whilst after finally being able to examine, personally, the relief chambers
>over the Kings chamber, he now acknowledges that these parts were
>constructed during the accepted eras.  He yeided to this point after he
>realized that the presumed forged hyrogliphs were accepted to be original
>Khufu graffiti.
>
>To me this still is acceptable and true under Sitchins Theoiries ??

And the whole point hinges upon this forgery/graffiti.
Accepting the forgery as graffiti means acceptance of the dates such
graffiti points to, while accepting the graffiti as a forgery and so on...

Did the discoverer of the graffiti need some sort of evidence to prove his
pre-stated theories about the dates?
Is this why there was a doubt originally as to whether it was graffiti or
forgery?
Why now is there no doubt that it is indeed graffiti?
Is there new evidence which suggests the marks were truly graffiti?

Or, as is altogether more likely, have we simply once again accepted the
notions of the Great Scientific and Academic Minds of the Day who have -
after deep deliberation, scrutiny and pondering - decided that point (a.
graffiti) feels better than point (b. forgery)?
It should. Its what they've been selling for decades and nicely verifies
their continued expert  infallibility.

C'est la vie eh! :-)

G.

In Truth, Hancock, in his most recent developments, still asserts that the
lower (bare rock hewn) parts of the great pyramid belong to a far earlier
epoch than Khufu, ie planned and began during the 10.500 BC era.

Whilst after finally being able to examine, personally, the relief chambers
over the Kings chamber, he now acknowledges that these parts were
constructed during the accepted eras.  He yeided to this point after he
realized that the presumed forged hyrogliphs were accepted to be original
Khufu graffiti.

To me this still is acceptable and true under Sitchins Theoiries ??


~Lukas



  www.anw.com/hancock/updates/htm


~Lukas

-----Original Message-----
From: G.Mont <gem@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: 05 March 1999 22:08
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com


>From: "G.Mont" <gem@...>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Weller <dweller@...>
>To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
>Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 3:21 PM
>Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com
>
>
>>From: Doug Weller <dweller@...>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:30:21 -0500
>>"G.Mont" <gem@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think once again, Sitchin offers the only reasonable explanation for
>the
>
>
>>Sitchin has had no impact on archaeology. His ignorance of Sumerian,
>>astrophysics, archaeology, archaeoastronomy, etc. are probably to blame
>>for that. His books make little attempt to be serious academically, in
>>any case (huge bibliographies full of works that contradict him
>>notwithstanding).
>
>Actually, that's "huge bibliographies full of work that Sitchin's work has
>contradicted", not the other way around.
>
>>Even Hancock now acknowledges that Sitchin's claims
>>about Vyse are false and that the Giza pyramids were built at around
>>the accepted dates (which are probably 3-4 centuries off).
>
>
>In other words, you have no desire for his ideas to be real, so they cannot
>be real.
>You prefer a different origin story and so Sitchin's work must be wrong for
>you to be right.
>So do you have a point to make?
>
>We have all noticed that very little of anything has had any impact on
>archeology.
>
>Why would Hancock's change of face change anything?
>Is he an expert in Sumerian, astrophysics, archaeology, and
>archaeoastronomy?
>
>>There are a couple of articles on my web site or linked to it about
>>him. Rob Hafernik's article in the Sitchin Archives and the articule on
>>his astronomy.
>
>
>And these articles are absolute gospel guaranteed by which deity?
>
>So, all that aside, what theory do you subscribe to? General orthodoxy?
>Evolution?
>
>G.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ta Da! Come see our new web site!
>http://www.onelist.com
>Onelist: A free email community service
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Weller <dweller@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 3:21 PM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com


>From: Doug Weller <dweller@...>
>
>
>On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:30:21 -0500
>"G.Mont" <gem@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think once again, Sitchin offers the only reasonable explanation for
the


>Sitchin has had no impact on archaeology. His ignorance of Sumerian,
>astrophysics, archaeology, archaeoastronomy, etc. are probably to blame
>for that. His books make little attempt to be serious academically, in
>any case (huge bibliographies full of works that contradict him
>notwithstanding).

Actually, that's "huge bibliographies full of work that Sitchin's work has
contradicted", not the other way around.

>Even Hancock now acknowledges that Sitchin's claims
>about Vyse are false and that the Giza pyramids were built at around
>the accepted dates (which are probably 3-4 centuries off).


In other words, you have no desire for his ideas to be real, so they cannot
be real.
You prefer a different origin story and so Sitchin's work must be wrong for
you to be right.
So do you have a point to make?

We have all noticed that very little of anything has had any impact on
archeology.

Why would Hancock's change of face change anything?
Is he an expert in Sumerian, astrophysics, archaeology, and
archaeoastronomy?

>There are a couple of articles on my web site or linked to it about
>him. Rob Hafernik's article in the Sitchin Archives and the articule on
>his astronomy.


And these articles are absolute gospel guaranteed by which deity?

So, all that aside, what theory do you subscribe to? General orthodoxy?
Evolution?

G.

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:30:21 -0500
"G.Mont" <gem@...> wrote:
>
> I think once again, Sitchin offers the only reasonable explanation for the
> events leading to its construction and the many small changes to it over the
> millenia. Then again, I have no difficulty with the idea of beings superior
> to humanity. Humanity does not strike me as all that intelligent. But then,
> if Sitchin is right, humanity's normal life-span is around 1000 years and
> that means there hasn't been an adult human on earth since the Flood.
> Adulthood would probably figure in at around 100.

Sitchin has had no impact on archaeology.  His ignorance of Sumerian,
astrophysics, archaeology, archaeoastronomy, etc. are probably to blame
for that. His books make little attempt to be serious academically, in
any case (huge bibliographies full of works that contradict him
notwithstanding). Even Hancock now acknowledges that Sitchin's claims
about Vyse are false and that the Giza pyramids were built at around
the accepted dates (which are probably 3-4 centuries off).

There are a couple of articles on my web site or linked to it about
him. Rob Hafernik's article in the Sitchin Archives and the articule on
his astronomy.

Doug
--
  Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
  Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@...
  Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
  Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Threadgould <luke.threadgould@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 4:57 AM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Dunn's "The Giza Power Plant"


>From: "Luke Threadgould" <luke.threadgould@...>
>
>Hello again Ron and welcome G,
>
>As you mentioned "The Giza Power Plant",  thought i'd mention Edward
>J.Kunkel's theories again.  The volume of evidence here is quite
>overwhelming.  Here the recurring use of water, echoes the site plan of
>Tiahuanaco, Mexico and the Atlantian legends retold by the Mayans and
>followers of Horus etc.
>
>The following web site has moving working diagrams of each part/section of
>the great pyramid as it would have functioned "theoretically of course".
>
>While i reserve judgement on all aspects of this theory, i would greatly
>appreciate your impressions/reactions to this version of the idea.
>
>http://www.thepump.org/
>
One question.

Recent discoveries show that the pyramid at Giza was once eroded by the
river that ran along its base - a river now long gone - dating the great
pyramid to about 9000 years ago, or something like that...

If a river ran right through the area, what need for building a monster
water pump?

G.

There are two points of relevance to your argument supporting
the "superior intelligence" of those who built the Great Pyramid.
First, it is entirely possible that there was a more advanced
civilization than the one we have retroactively constructed to
have existed at the time the pyramid was built.  There is evidence
of such in the sahara desert, there is evidence that there was
a movement east and south as the climate deteriorated.  There is
evidence of writing much before the first dynasties that are
recorded by the west.  The problem is that the westerners are
so enraptured by their own knowledge that they cannot perceive
of those who came before doing things they cannot do.  There
is pyramid construction going on to replicate the pyramid
building process and, thus, proving that it could be done (Nubia).
The peoples who lived in Bolivia hundreds of years ago were better
farmers (measured by yields per acre) than those currently using
"modern technology" including fertilizer/pesticides and the "old
ways" are being replicated today to improve yields.

Homo erectus had boats and traveled the oceans.  The Americas
were inhabited before the last ice age.

The basic problems is one of retroactively narrowing what people
may have done and not being objective about what evidence does
exist.  "They were too primative" - is a subjective judgement.
You would be amazed by the accomplishments of early man!

J.

Hello again Ron and welcome G,

As you mentioned "The Giza Power Plant",  thought i'd mention Edward
J.Kunkel's theories again.  The volume of evidence here is quite
overwhelming.  Here the recurring use of water, echoes the site plan of
Tiahuanaco, Mexico and the Atlantian legends retold by the Mayans and
followers of Horus etc.

The following web site has moving working diagrams of each part/section of
the great pyramid as it would have functioned "theoretically of course".

While i reserve judgement on all aspects of this theory, i would greatly
appreciate your impressions/reactions to this version of the idea.

http://www.thepump.org/

                                          ~Lukas

Christopher Dunn's "The Giza Power
>>Plant" was such a book.   I was very intrigued by Dunn's careful
>formulation
>>of the "Great Pyramid as Power Plant" scenario.   But, I saw little or no
>>evidence (other than an item in the bibliography)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Southard <southard@...>
To: 2012-Theories@onelist.com <2012-Theories@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, March 05, 1999 1:15 AM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com


>From: "Ron Southard" <southard@...>
>
>
>>..., the only thing that even remotely ties everything together is Z.
>Sitchin's Earth
>>Chronicles - and it ties everything together far too well.
>>
>>Over the last decade I've been watching the growth of awareness in the
west
>>of Sitchin's works.
>>
> Bravo G!
>and nice to meet you!  (I posted an introduction but may have sent it only
>to Lukas, not the group?  I'm new at this)


Actually, we're all new at this - even the old-timers.

>I'm a Sitchin "fan", and have similarly observed that his work continues to
>be virtually ignored.  Not only by "conventional wisdom" but often even by
>other "alternative theory" researchers.   It's frustrating to read theories

Science and Academe haven't worked for the public since WW!!, in my opinion,
and anything which does not turn a profit or gain some advantage for their
current industrial and political employers is usually viewed as threatening
or inconsequential. For this reason, I usually consider anything which is
ignored whole-heartedly by Academe and Science as probably bearing some
validity and likely bearing some controversy.

Other alternate theory researchers want their work to mean something and I'm
afraid Mr. Sitchin simply upsets the whole damn apple industry - not just a
cart or two. The absolutely only way to discern highly complex truths is
through extreme inter-disciplinary co-operation and extrapolation, but we
live in a compartmentalized society where each discipline bears a singular
and special language and exists seperate from everything else, working in
secret.

>with little holes in them that can be so neatly filled by Sitchin's
>findings.   I don't consider Sitchin's work to be "theory" so much as
>"discovery".   He, it seems to me, has carefully (and thanklessly)
>translated a huge volume of documented history; and then has gone on to
>uncover and point out to us myriad examples of evidence extant that support
>that written history.


The man deserves a Nobel prize for his accomplishment; there is no doubt in
my mind of that, even if he is mostly wrong in his assumptions. Opening even
the smallest door into the forgotten past is worth some reknown and I think
Mr. Sitchin has rent a very large hole in the fabric of the veil which has
hidden our history since the Dark Ages..

I was aware of many of the edifice enigmas of the planet long before 1976,
but was utterly at a loss to link anything together from the evidence. Von
Danaiken's wonderful cataloguing of the anomolous earth was tantalizing, but
left so much that could have happened otherwise, through some as of yet
undiscovered natural pattern. In 76, all of the little bells went off, as
each of the puzzle pieces fell neatly in place.

>I find myself reading and being almost compelled to pick up the phone and
>call authors and ask if they've read Sitchin, and suggest that they get


Over the years I've sent letters to Omni, Science Digest, The Knowledge
Network, David Suzuki and the like, with pretty much a "sorry were busy
doing important things right now" response. Personally, I've always wanted
to send copies to science fiction writers. 300,000 years of mythology turned
reality could make for some damn fine fantasy-sci-fi novels. :-)

Not to mention movies...

>together with him to compare notes.   Christopher Dunn's "The Giza Power
>Plant" was such a book.   I was very intrigued by Dunn's careful
formulation
>of the "Great Pyramid as Power Plant" scenario.   But, I saw little or no
>evidence (other than an item in the bibliography) that he had read much or
>shared any ideas with Sitchin.   I intend to make an effort to directly
>encourage them both to exchange information if they have not already done
>so.


Way back when, books on pyramidology appeared everywhere and experiments
showed again that something was definitely happening where "nothing could
happen". Way back when, I used to keep my stash in the base of a hand formed
Giza pyramid for the boost. There was even a patent taken out by some Polish
or Hungarian dude, way back when, for a pyramid razor blade sharpener.
Industry stopped selling that sort of electo-steel blades however...

>BTW does anyone know of a contact point for Christopher Dunn.  I've been
>unable to find a trail to him on the Internet.   I would like to tell him
>how much I enjoyed the book and literally try to encourage an exchange
>between him and Sitchin.


Search the net.

>For those of you who haven't read the book, I think he does a particularly
>excellent job of "proving" that the Great Pyramid could not possibly have
>been constructed  by any civilization as rudimentary and "primitive" as we
>have been taught existed at the time it was supposedly constructed.   The
>idea that any    He illuminates his particular reasoning based on his
>personal knowledge and experience, not of history, anthropology,
>evolutionary theory, etc.,  but of the currently known practical limits of
>mankind's ability to manipulate available natural resources.   He shows how
>even knowing everything we collectively know about construction materials
>and techniques today, we literally could not physically duplicate the Great
>Pyramid.    As an engineer who has spent a career in heavy engineering
>construction in the USA and abroad, I agree, we would be hard pressed to do
>it at all, much less within the time frame that conventional wisdom has
>ascribed to its conceptualization, design, construction, and
>"commissioning".


Actually, my favourite is Karnak. Chop off the top of a mountain and build a
huge platform out of a neighbouring mountain on the flat spot. Gotta love
that. The idea that the chamber held crystals is not going to gain a lot of
acceptance anywhere soon either, what with the new age crystal thing in
vogue.
Always wondered why they almost entirely ignored the pizo-electric effect
when I was in school.

>I am convinced that the Great Pyramid was built by a "superior"
>civilization, one more advanced than ours today, not by hordes of ignorant
>and opressed slaves under the whip of an army of "construction formen" with
>no apparent previous experience.    Nor is it reasonable to me to believe
>that such an undertaking is realistically attributable to the ego or
>religious ardor of a single obsessed ruler, let alone several similarly
>obsessed rulers in succession.


I think once again, Sitchin offers the only reasonable explanation for the
events leading to its construction and the many small changes to it over the
millenia. Then again, I have no difficulty with the idea of beings superior
to humanity. Humanity does not strike me as all that intelligent. But then,
if Sitchin is right, humanity's normal life-span is around 1000 years and
that means there hasn't been an adult human on earth since the Flood.
Adulthood would probably figure in at around 100.

>Not to mention the reality that no evidence has ever been found to
>substantiate that the Great Pyramid was built as, or ever used as, a burial
>site, funiary temple or any similar purpose.


Well, that's a field of Academe that has been selling "One Story" for
centuries, and they are not about to let some upstarts with fancy equipment
and computers walk in and shatter their theories, and occupations without a
fight. No amount of evidence could possibly sway those who already know they
sell pure bunk, especially if acceptance means loss of prestige, position
and power. Academe has pretty well summed up all of this stuff as
astro-archeology, or archeo-astronomy, I forget which, and it has been
labeled along with anything which remotely includes  "outer-space" as
preproven false and thus in need of no investigation. This is what passes
for "knowledge for knowledge sake" these days in Academe. But it is all
purely survival tactics. They know, more than anyone what is at stake here.



G.

>..., the only thing that even remotely ties everything together is Z.
Sitchin's Earth
>Chronicles - and it ties everything together far too well.
>
>Over the last decade I've been watching the growth of awareness in the west
>of Sitchin's works.
>
  Bravo G!
and nice to meet you!  (I posted an introduction but may have sent it only
to Lukas, not the group?  I'm new at this)

I'm a Sitchin "fan", and have similarly observed that his work continues to
be virtually ignored.  Not only by "conventional wisdom" but often even by
other "alternative theory" researchers.   It's frustrating to read theories
with little holes in them that can be so neatly filled by Sitchin's
findings.   I don't consider Sitchin's work to be "theory" so much as
"discovery".   He, it seems to me, has carefully (and thanklessly)
translated a huge volume of documented history; and then has gone on to
uncover and point out to us myriad examples of evidence extant that support
that written history.

I find myself reading and being almost compelled to pick up the phone and
call authors and ask if they've read Sitchin, and suggest that they get
together with him to compare notes.   Christopher Dunn's "The Giza Power
Plant" was such a book.   I was very intrigued by Dunn's careful formulation
of the "Great Pyramid as Power Plant" scenario.   But, I saw little or no
evidence (other than an item in the bibliography) that he had read much or
shared any ideas with Sitchin.   I intend to make an effort to directly
encourage them both to exchange information if they have not already done
so.

BTW does anyone know of a contact point for Christopher Dunn.  I've been
unable to find a trail to him on the Internet.   I would like to tell him
how much I enjoyed the book and literally try to encourage an exchange
between him and Sitchin.

For those of you who haven't read the book, I think he does a particularly
excellent job of "proving" that the Great Pyramid could not possibly have
been constructed  by any civilization as rudimentary and "primitive" as we
have been taught existed at the time it was supposedly constructed.   The
idea that any    He illuminates his particular reasoning based on his
personal knowledge and experience, not of history, anthropology,
evolutionary theory, etc.,  but of the currently known practical limits of
mankind's ability to manipulate available natural resources.   He shows how
even knowing everything we collectively know about construction materials
and techniques today, we literally could not physically duplicate the Great
Pyramid.    As an engineer who has spent a career in heavy engineering
construction in the USA and abroad, I agree, we would be hard pressed to do
it at all, much less within the time frame that conventional wisdom has
ascribed to its conceptualization, design, construction, and
"commissioning".

I am convinced that the Great Pyramid was built by a "superior"
civilization, one more advanced than ours today, not by hordes of ignorant
and opressed slaves under the whip of an army of "construction formen" with
no apparent previous experience.    Nor is it reasonable to me to believe
that such an undertaking is realistically attributable to the ego or
religious ardor of a single obsessed ruler, let alone several similarly
obsessed rulers in succession.

Not to mention the reality that no evidence has ever been found to
substantiate that the Great Pyramid was built as, or ever used as, a burial
site, funiary temple or any similar purpose.

Someone asked earlier about 5/5/2000 by Richard Noone.   Just recently
finished the book and found it to be a little repetitious and a bit slow to
get to the point, but all in all thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it
presented many interesting new (to me anyway) perspectives.

Regards,
Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: 2012-Theories-owner@onelist.com <2012-Theories-owner@onelist.com>
To: gem@... <gem@...>
Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 5:26 PM
Subject: [2012-Theories] Welcome to 2012-Theories@onelist.com



>What's your 'big picture',  do you subscribe to the 'alternative' hitorical
>ideas, or do you feel that we're all talking unprovable mumbojumbo ?  Well
this
>is the list for you, get typing, and tell us what you believe.


Actually, disguised as an artist and vagabond ne'er-do-well, I've been
studying the human race from the vantage point of its discarded and
forbidden aspects since I was 18. I'm nearly 50 now and after numerous years
collecting all the wierd bits in the fringes of human behaviour, the only
thing that even remotely ties everything together is Z. Sitchin's Earth
Chronicles - and it ties everything together far too well.

Over the last decade I've been watching the growth of awareness in the west
of Sitchin's works.

I'm interested in seeing if there is still, after 20 years, no real
refutation to his work.
To date, the strongest argument against it has been generally "it is not so
because it can not be so.", which translates to "I do not want it to be
so.".

I too hope it is not so, but I'd rather prove it one way or another and
prepare for whatever is true..

This, naturally cannot occur until authourity itself becomes forced to deal
with the information, because in this culture; human, we only accept what is
officially proclaimed to be true.

In my opinion, authourity became obsolete about 25 years ago, and is, again
in my opinion, currently only concerned with maintaining the continuity of
their prized positions of power - the continuity of government. Anything
which threatens the continuity of the political occupation is eliminated
with prejudice as soon as possible. Truth, factuality, evidence, and
integrity are simply no longer a part of that job description. Thus,
although bereft of the ability to officiate an event's veracity, it is now
solely up to the public to ascertain what is real and what is not.

Glad to be aboard.

G.

Dear Paul,
                   I will make this my last response because i think arguing in a
public arena is both demeaning and irrelevant to the subject of the list.  Also
I don't want to be thought of as a squabbler.

Your entire manner has been provocative, and perhaps you need to learn how to
make friends, rather than how to humiliate people offering you a welcome
handshake.

                                                                I appologise for
doing that,

                                                                                                            
~Lukas

Hello again ))

  >> If puritan English grammar is so important to you, why not start a news
group ? <<
>> After all I don't want to offend anymore fanatics do I? <<

       Well, puritan English is of no importanace to me whatsoever, and I am
certainly not a fanatic, nor was I offended.  And if you think I was picky,
I'd love to know where you learned English!  Those mistakes were very basic,
and I am a very forgiving person with language.  When I see  "thing's writen
like they our not importent than it make's me wundre who I'me really
commmunicating two."

       ALso, newsgroups in general do not hold any great fascination for me,
and I have no interest in starting one, thanks.

         The *subject* of this newsgroup is what fascinates me, nothing more.
I am a writer by profession, so when I see consistantly bad writing, it is a
red flag to me.

>> ...if you want to join in with the list, you might have to
get off your high horse to type !!! <<<

        I don't want to be perceived as being on a "high horse," and I
certainly don't like being pressured to just "type," as you have done twice
now.  Join in with what?  I haven't seen any postings or anything to join in
with.

   Despite what you may think or have learned, or not learned, there is, in
fact, an art to the English language, and an art to communicating. I certainly
don't expect everyone to practice these arts, but there is a spectrum of
writing and communicating styles, and some easily obtained middle-ground. If
you think it's a waste of time to encourage better writing, then I hope you'll
do well in your life, writing as you do.

       So, I will leave quietly, and you can go back to your own style of
English writing, and I hope you meet some bright and interesting people along
the way!

        Good luck to you, whoever you are!

                                              Picky On My High Horse,

                                                        *PaUL*

Dear Paul,
         I'm at a loss for words.  I don't think I've ever come across anyone
as "picky" in my life.
Don't worry yourself, I'll be sure to edit my welcome message immediately.
After all I don't want to offend anymore fanatics do I?

If puritan English grammar is so important to you, why not start a news
group ?

"alt.language.english.grammar.pure",

Seriously though, if you want to join in with the list, you might have to
get off your high horse to type !!!

Your Pal,

                ~Lukas

Hi Luke ))

       Very glad to get your response; sorry if I seemed "picky," but this
stuff is of extreme interest to me, and there is so much garbage on the
internet that credibility is easily lost in a flash if a message is poorly
communicated; mistakes become magnified, and when there are more than 1 or
two, especially in an introductory statement, it is usually a sign...of
something...although I'm not sure exactly what anymore.

       So, in good spirit, I offer these "corrections" to your text so that
credibility will not be lost!

  Hope that no offense is taken.


  (NoTe*  Corrections are marked with
                                       >>>   <<<  brackets)

   O-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-O


Welcome new subscriber !!!!

As you have probably gathered so far, some things in history just don't add
up!!
  Conventional knowledge does not make sense.  This list is for all of us who
want to know the ANSWERS,  the real truth.  The truth behind our

>>>   existance    <<<   SPELLING (should be existence)

as humans.

If you, like me, believe that history began much earlier than

  >>>   3003Bc,    <<<   BC should be BC or B.C., not Bc


and the rule of Menes in Egypt,


>>>  than   <<<       Should be "then," no?
                            (Even a spell-check would not find this.)

stick around.  If you


>>>   hane   <<<           Typo, should be "have"


read about the

>>>   Atlantian's   <<<  No need for apostrophe (Atlantians)



and their

>>>   existance   <<<   Spelling again :)


after the last ice-age, then you'll also wonder what became of them.  Did they
really found the civilization of ancient Egypt with Osiris as their


>>>  leader.  <<<   <---should have a question mark.



What caused the


>>>  distruction   <<<   Spelling : Destruction

of Atlantis, was it the last polar-flip, as told by the Mayan's, when

>>>  Quetzalcoatl    <<<   (Not sure of this spelling, but won't get into it:)



(a survivor of Atlantis) arrived and gave knowledge and civility to Mexico ?

Were indeed, the Atlantians themselves, the progeny of Alien genetic
experimentation, complete in the knowledge of universal truth and


>>>   history.   <<<   Needs question mark.


>>>    A generation of teachers to instruct the native babarians of Darwin's
Earth ??    <<<

     Firstly, this is not a sentence; secondly, I'm not sure where Darwin fits
in, as he was not alive yet....a minor point.


This list is for all of us who wonder about these subjects, and form our own
theories.  For all of us that have

>>>   read;    <<<   Should be a Colon, not a semi-colon
        (read:)


Von Daniken, Graham Hancock, Colin Wilson, Maurice Cotterell, the Flem-Ath's,
Zecharia Sitchin, Robert Bauval

>>>  e.t. c, e.t.c,   <<<

      Once is enough when using etcetera, and the correct abbreviaition is
"etc.", not "e.t.c,"

What's your 'big picture',  do you subscribe to the 'alternative'

>>>  hitorical idea's,   <<<
             I think you mean "historical ideas"
                                 (no apostrophe needed)

or do you feel that

>>>   were    <<<    If you mean we're ("we are"), then it's not
                                clear who "we" is (as a new subscriber.)


  all talking unprovable mumbojumbo ?  Well this
is the list for you, get typing, and tell us what you believe.

                           The Manager'

                                       Lukas  xxxxxxxxxxx


      O-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-O


        Thanks Lukas, I needed to do that!

         Next time we can speak of more substantive things, I'm sure!   If you
need any proof-reading done, just let me know.

                                                 Your PaL,

                                                   *PaUL*
                                               (((---O---)))   o

Well Paul,

                 What can I  say, quite a cheeky entrance.  Seriously though,
I wrote the welcome message around 3.00 am, after an extremely long day.  I
should have spell-checked it but, alas.  As for the list being for
youngsters, hmm, not really, but if anyone had anything worthwhile to say
then age is irrelevant.

As for Terrence McKenna, yes I read some of his stuff, but I couldn't have
listed everything I've ever read, or it would have been a welcome essay.

All these criticisms aside, I hope you can lower yourself to join in, only
joking,


~Lukas

Hi Lukas...

       Just subscribed to this list, and got the introductory message...and I
must say it doesn't read too well or make a very good impression at all!

         *OuCH!*

         I counted at least 9 or 10 typos, mispellings and grammatical errors
in 5 paragraphs.  Not a good sign that this is the right place for intelligent
conversation. Is this list mainly by and for youngsters?

      I also wonder why the name Terrence McKenna does not appear with the list
of other names?

        Well, if there is a response to this, I'd be curious to read it.

       Keep up the good work...if there is any advice I can give to improve
your writing, I'd be happy to do so!

                                           *PaUL*
                                        (((---O---)))   o

Hi

I'm a retired U.S. Foreign Service Officer (the people who
work in the embassies overseas) and a part-time lecturer
at a University here in town.  My area of interest is ancient
civilizations (I teach history).  Have always been interested
in what may be termed "alternative explanations" in lieu of
facts.

Josette

Read a very interesting article by a geo-archeologist about
Atlantis.  Based on research, he hypothesizes that there was
a land bridge connecting northwest Africa and Spain prior to
the melting of the last ice age (peaked around 22,000 BC).
Because of the methane layers in the ocean being released
by the melting process, a very fast melting occurred (the
methane acts to accelerate warming (greenhouse effect) around
10,000 BC.  With this very rapid rize in ocean levels (relatively
speaking), the land bridge was broken.  Prior to this, there had
been no Mediterreanean ocean and there had been civilizations
where the med now exists, Atlantis occupying the land bridge
between northwest Africa and Spain and wiped out by the
flooding of the Atlantic.

It goes a long way to explain a lot of things and is
particularly consistent with African developments.

Josette

Hello Ron and all,

                              Thanks for the introduction, it would be nice to
get to  know each list member a little.  I started the list for the reasons you
mentioned, rather than preaching to the unconvertible, I thought it made sense
to try and find people with an interest in our origins.

I'm 27 and presently at university in Leeds, England, completing my final
teacher training practice at a high school in Harrogate, North Yorkshire. Before
that I worked in London as a theatre set designer/scenic artist.

I'm going travelling in October, starting off in Thailand (for the millennium),
before reaching India and Nepal around February.  After that I hope to spend a
month in Egypt, it's been a long time coming !!

I guess I've always been interested in history, science, evolution and the
universe, however my added fascination with spirituality (I use that term rather
than 'organised' religion), grew after an "out of body experience", about eight
years ago, but that's another story.  I do feel that all these subjects relate
in the "big picture", and that humans have lost contact with the universe,
(around the time of Neanderthal man ??). I have read studies of Shaman Indians,
and much can be said for the benefits of Hallucinogens, after all, everything
that grows is here for a reason, and has a role to play, (a key to the doors of
perception ?).

Getting back to the physical world, a few worthy web sites include;

   Graham Hancock's sites (author of Fingerprints of the gods, Keeper of the
Genesis, e.t.c);  www.anw.com/hancock/contents.htm 
www.flybyte.com/sphinxmars.html  & www.anw.com/hancock/updates.htm

The Flem-Aths site;  www.flem-ath.com/

The Pharaoh's Pump; www.thepump.org/

I have heard the book "5/5/2000" mentioned quite a bit on the 'net.  I am aware
of the planetry allignment of that date so i assume the book relates to that.
Can anyone recommend it ?

  Anyway, enough from me for now, and thanks to all of you for subscribing,

                                                                                   
~Lukas

>Welcome new subscriber !!!!

>What's your 'big picture',  do you subscribe to the 'alternative' hitorical
>idea's, or do you feel that were all talking unprovable mumbojumbo ?  Well
this
>is the list for you, get typing, and tell us what you believe.
>
>     Further Info : e-mail luke.threadgould@...

Thank you for starting this group, I've been looking for just such a group.
I hope it will prosper.   I have been reading the authors mentioned for some
time.   I am particularly facinated by Sitchin's work.

I have read most of Sitchin's books, "The Earth Chronicles" and others.  I have
been captivated by these related subjects and spinning off in search of
corroberating or contradictory material, I have read Von Daniken's work, and a
direct contradiction to Von Daniken, "Crash Go the Chariots" by Clifford Wilson.
I've read "5/5/2000" by Richard Noone, "The Orion Mystery" by Robert Bauval and
Adrian Gilbert, "The
Giza Power Plant" by Christopher Dunn, "Pyramid Power" by Patrick Flanagan, etc.
etc.   Also have been intrigued by "The Bible Code", "Cracking the Bible Code,
and "The Signature of God".    And my library is busting with new volumes
awaiting my attention.

By way of introduction, I am an Architectural Engineer, retired from the
construction buisness in 1991.   I started an architectural design firm a few
years ago that keeps me very busy, plus some other small business investments. 
My wife and I spent a month in Greece in 1992, half of it with Dr. Floyd McCoy,
through "Earthwatch" on an expedition to Santorini (Thera).   We were helping
with research and documentation of the
surface of the island and the details of the civilization present immediately
prior to the cataclismic volcanic eruption that apparently occurred circa 1684
BC changing the face of the island and wiping out all existing civilization on
the island.   Some speculate that this eruption may account for the "Atlantis"
lost continent "legends".   There seems to be some evidence to support such a
theory.   Since that expedition, I have been more aware of the Atlantis legends
and have gradually reached deeper and deeper into that and similar studies.

Looking forward to further discussions and new information.
Regards,
Ron

On May 8, 1953, an elderly professor wrote a letter to Charles H. Hapgood, an
obscure instructor at a small New England college.  The professor was Albert
Einstein and the topic of the letter was a theory of Hapgood's that had
"electrified" the great physicist. Einstein wrote:

I find your arguaments very impressive and have the impression that your
hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the
earth's crust have taken place repeatedly and within a short time.

The consequences of a crustal displacement are monumental. As the earth's crust
slides over it's interior, the world is shaken by incredible earthquakes and
floods. The sky appears to fall as the crust shifts position. Day after day the
sun seems to rise and set over an altered horizon, untill finally the crust
grinds to a halt.  Beneith the ocean, earthquakes generate massive tidal waves
that crash against coastlines, flooding them. Some lands are shifted to warmer
climates. Others, propelled into polar zones, suffer the direst of winters.
Melting ice-caps, released from the polar ares, raise the oceans level even
higher. All creatures must adapt, migrate or die.

The last time this occured was 12.500 years ago (fact),  this brought an end to
the last ice-age, causing the great flood, as the polar caps shifted up to 2000
miles.  Indeed, last time around the North pole was somewhere in north Canada. 
The shift also sent Antarctica into the south polar zone (Atlantis ??) and wiped
out all life there.  The mass extinctions in North America, where hundreds of
thousands of Buffalo/Bison are still being discovered frozen while alive, food
still undigested in their stomachs, are evidence of sudden climatic changes
caused by crust displacement.  It is known that the North Pole has centered at
at least 7 different places over the last few hundred thousand years within a
diameter of 4 thousand miles.

If you've read about the Mayan's then you'll know that they were a highly
advanced culture steeped in Astonomical knowledge.  The Mayan's were totally
aware of this cycle, and understood that the shifts were caused by
Electro-magnetic Solar activity, which results in causing our own magnetic poles
to reverse.

The Mayan's recorded solar activity over thousands of years, and were taught
about it's importance by a clan of people with 'magical wisdom and powers' who
arrived on their shores after the last 'end of the world' (survivors of the
'Atlantean' empire ??).

Got to go now, but more to follow in the near future.  Any responses more than
welcome.

                                                  ~Lukas