Page 19 of 57
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:02 pm
by stan
Stan knows a lot about them too.
Beagle, this belongs on the joke page! But thanks for your vote of
confidence.
I understand what procession is, but I don't really know what processional numbers are. There was someone back along the way that had a lot to say about them, though.[/quote]
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:44 pm
by Minimalist
Hard to explain but there are certain numbers or permutations which relate to the precession of the equinoxes.
For example... 72 which is the number of years it takes for the sun to move one degree along the ecliptic. It is interesting how often the number 72 shows up such as Osiris being set upon by 72 conspirators.
The actual value is 71.6 but, as Hancock points out, 71.6 "conspirators" would hardly fit into the narrative.
Hancock cites a source named Jane Sellars for much of this. I've never had the chance to follow up on it.
I am certain, however, that marduk will appear and claim that Sellars is a pole-dancer from Las Vegas.
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:20 pm
by marduk
from this book ?
The Death of God in Ancient Egypt: An Essay on Egyptian Religion & the Frame of Time
Out of print for over three years, the only information has been through such New-age writers as Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, who I feel have misrepresented my ideas. This work is not about astrology, although the zodiac must be discussed, nor is it about any numbers being encoded by the ancient Egyptians, as reported by these writers. In fact I had written just the opposite, pointing out that the number 72 was inserted into the story of Osiris by Plutarch, which would be after the time of Hipparchus, which would mean that the information was 'out there.' I was trying to make quite a different point. Unfortunately, my reporting of the interest by ancient cultures in certain numbers, as discussed by writers such as Joseph Campbell, and my wondering about an alternative use for the outdated sky calendars buried with Seti I and Ramesses IV seem to have won me a place in the hearts of those whose ideas have no support from me. I have long felt I should defend my book,and to that end I have labored for a year to bring forth a revised and updated version. This version has additional illustrations and supporting computer images of the precessionally changed sky over key predynastic settlements. This is for those interested in seeking a verifiable origin, or basis, for the Egyptian belief system, and is a serious and thoughtful investigation.
review by the author "Jane Sellers on how alternative authors have misrepresented her work
you were saying
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:26 pm
by Beagle
you were saying
YOU WERE SAYING - that you were not going to post in this topic again unless you were asked.
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:30 pm
by Beagle
I know, along with most people, about the Chandler wobble and the precession of the equinoxs', etc.
There is a lot here that I have never gotten into before. But keep explaining Min.
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:47 pm
by Minimalist
It would be interesting to find a copy of Sellar's book and compare the citations. Might be worth a trip to the library.
I found that "review" on Amazon and noted that it was dated Sept., 1999 and that Sellars said she had been working on a revision for a year. It is now 7 years later and still nothing.
Seems odd that it would take that long.
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:01 pm
by Beagle
Elementary question here - aren't degrees just an arbitrary measurement like everything else? We ascribe to a circle 360 degrees, but could not another culture decide on a different amount of degrees? The geometry should be the same.
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:05 pm
by marduk
YOU WERE SAYING - that you were not going to post in this topic again unless you were asked.
I am certain, however, that marduk will appear and claim that Sellars is a pole-dancer from Las Vegas.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:49 am
by Beagle
I'm about ready to get this finished Bob. Then I'll find a copy of Underworld. I'm sure not going to review it online though.
We might pick a time of day to do it - when it's not too busy here. This has been a real PIA - sorry.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:33 am
by marduk
I'm about ready to get this finished Bob. Then I'll find a copy of Underworld. I'm sure not going to review it online though
when you read it you'll be glad you said that
it is by far tjhe biggest pile of shite he ever wrote
mind you i haven't read supernatural
i heard that was even worse
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:39 am
by Beagle
Thanks Marduk, I would expect nothing less from you. You seem to have read all of his books.
This is my first one.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:51 am
by marduk
don't get me wrong
when i first read his books i didn't know any better and i enjoyed them, the same as i had with Daniken years earlier. I wouldn't say i believed them, that ended for me the day i read my first sitchin book. I realised that people claim things are true for many other reasons apart from they actually are
but that was over 10 years ago
as you read through them they do trail rapidly downhill
he wasn't rich when he wrote fingerpaints
he was when he wrote the others
its like money jaded his ability. underworld is really awful. there will be long times when you put it down and have to force yourself to go back and read it. I don't know anybody whos ever read it withjout skipping some sections
I only managed to get through it in the end by leaving it next to the toilet and reading it when i was having a particularly difficult bowel movement
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:07 am
by Beagle
I read Von Daniken when you were a newborn - or not yet born. I'm not going to continue a discussion with you on this thread. I'll take it back to the Schoch thread.
Sorry about your constipation. A lesser person would have a field day with that one. Life calls, and I have one. I'll discuss things with you later.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:41 am
by marduk
Beagle wrote:I read Von Daniken when you were a newborn - or not yet born. I'm not going to continue a discussion with you on this thread. I'll take it back to the Schoch thread.
Sorry about your constipation. A lesser person would have a field day with that one. Life calls, and I have one. I'll discuss things with you later.
if you're older than me
why don't you know anything yet
reading things by Daniken, Childress, Schoch, Alford, Sitchin Hancock, and co won't help
maybe you should pick up a real book now and then. i can recommend some if you like
a particularly difficult bowel movement
who had constipation
constipation - Obstruction; stultification.
see typical Psuedo technique taking something someone said and exaggerating it to fit in with your personal belief system
you got your ass kicked in the schoch thread last night beagle
you really don't want me riding you for the rest of your forum life and pointing out every error you make do you ?
should i do a little research on your previous posts across the internet ?
i'd stop with the personal attacks if i were you which you started after my very first post in this forum
otherwise i might start on some
you've been attacking me from the get go
because you don't have a clue what i'm about and you have a vivid imagination. thats going to get your ass into a lot of trouble if it carries on much longer
do you understand. i've finished playing with you. from now on i'll take the gloves off
i'd also like to take this oppotunity to welcome our new member "buy valium order online"
welcome to the forum B.V.O.O.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:20 am
by ReneDescartes
Marduk could you please cool down a bit .I think your replies to Beagle are disproporsionate .I want to read your post about archaeology ,could you and Beagle as well kindly clean up the mess you spilled on this forum .Perhapsa little word of regret to the other members for having to wade through all this to find relevant entries .No need to be insulted ,none meant .