|
endof
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2009, 03:47:36 PM » |
|
Yes -- and the protrusion you can see under the folded arms. Well and the fact that we are even relating to it as a woman.
Here is the male version from that lo-cal:
for the sake of moving away from this point, let us assume it is a woman for now (im still not convinced, also. i never did say i thought it was man) They aren't exactly skilled at making artwork. They put the thumb on the outside of the hand -- not the inside.
Pretty smart people... not to mention it has 6 fingers.... Speaking of our left, its right.
well i can assure you, i was refering to our left. 100%. so, say we assume this is a woman, for now. then pherhaps you may have some ideas on the questions i was asking to begin with, the Arms are gigantic, but the waist is tiny apart from the strange jutting out section which sharply cuts back, but is also smooth. and the head, apart from looking rather strange, with a nose very long and large, is that a cap on top? or part of the head? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2009, 03:49:18 PM » |
|
well i can assure you, i was refering to our left. 100%.
so, say we assume this is a woman, for now. then pherhaps you may have some ideas on the questions i was asking to begin with,
the Arms are gigantic, but the waist is tiny apart from the strange jutting out section which sharply cuts back, but is also smooth.
and the head....well...apart from looking rather...strange, is that a cap on top? or part of the head?
Dude -- I linked an entirely different image. What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
endof
|
|
« Reply #42 on: March 18, 2009, 03:53:17 PM » |
|
Dude -- I linked an entirely different image. What are you talking about?
ok. i was talking the image i posted, which i assumed was what you were talking about. i posted more than one image if youd care to look, open for discussion. i dont know what they are or what they mean, and indeed i never claimed to. simply put, i put them up to be discussed i see you getting some sort of kick out of attacking me for some bizzare reason, mostly likely your own ego satisfaction, all im doing is asking a few questions about the sodding lumps of stone and carvings. theres no need to be righetous self satisfyed stuck up little prick... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #43 on: March 18, 2009, 03:56:26 PM » |
|
I'm a prick and I'm attacking you?  I assure you I am not attacking you nor do I get ego satisfaction from saying "That's a woman." Ask all your questions -- ask them til you are blue in the face -- I don't know what your problem is and by your last comment I'm not going to involve myself and care. Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #44 on: March 18, 2009, 03:57:40 PM » |
|
You're right about the "Bizzare reason" part of your post.
It would be pretty bizzare if I was attacking you -- which makes me wonder how that thought got into your head in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chigs
|
|
« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2009, 04:06:41 PM » |
|
You think this is where the masonic square symbolism comes from? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"On every street there's a nobody who dreams of being somebody.
He's a lonely forgotten man desperate to prove that he's alive."
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #46 on: March 18, 2009, 04:07:41 PM » |
|
 I don't Can't really say where a right angle [90 degrees] originated... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chigs
|
|
« Reply #47 on: March 18, 2009, 04:11:53 PM » |
|
 what bout this? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"On every street there's a nobody who dreams of being somebody.
He's a lonely forgotten man desperate to prove that he's alive."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2009, 04:33:10 PM » |
|
The statue is something entirely different than the drawings with the T's above their heads.
I'm not sure if you are comparing the two so I'll just say that.
To me -- those drawings look like one of three things:
A scarecrow
Someone hung on a stake to intimate others or make an example of for others.
A facismile of a God/Demon/Monster/Whatever designed to keep away intruders [basically a scarehuman]
The image of the smaller person holding up their hands and appearing to move backwards is what really makes me think I am on the right track in this regard. The backing away illusion [it's not really moving hence the word illusion] is evidenced by the bend of the leg indicating the person is retreating. Were the person moving forward the bend would be in the forward leg, instead of the rearward leg.
The third photograph no idea.
The fourth looks like a face but whoever took the photgraph clearly didn't care if we could make it out or not.
The fifth is some kind of animal but again it is a bad photograph so I cannot tell if that image is isolated or it connects to a larger image.
That's my take on it. I would consider showing that first photograph of the undecided woman to a hundred people to get their opinion on it -- but I am personally convinced that is a highly stylized woman's body.
Print it out yourself and ask around Work or School what people think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2009, 04:39:45 PM » |
|
Oh and I just realized these are from a video -- so nevermind my criticism of who took the photographs -- they aren't photographs! Duh!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
endof
|
|
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2009, 04:45:13 PM » |
|
no im not comparing the two. as for who took the photos, that would be me. they are stills from this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U(is in german) so if you dont speak german, just keep an eye out for the images. there is a (part 1) also. overall the site is very strange looking. But the 'woman' if it is indeed a woman (mayb some sort of god like figure? wide hips, fertillity?) is bizzare. pherhaps they wernt good at proportions, but still, that just looks plain odd. the face dosent look like a face, it dosent look even like any of their other faces. male or female. and the strange peice that is either on the head or part of the head with what looks like flaps coming down rather than ears coming out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #53 on: March 18, 2009, 05:02:12 PM » |
|
While they suck at proportions it actually is pretty hard to carve rock into looking like something.
Generally it turns out as a blob -- unless you are highly skilled with the proper tools.
They did a good job with the rock carving of the boar though from the video.
Oh and being that it is a figurine it likely had some purpose as a toy or idol or maybe even just decoration.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #54 on: March 18, 2009, 05:03:52 PM » |
|
From all the diagrams of shopping bags and critter pics I'd guess they were just signs for the meat market
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #55 on: March 18, 2009, 05:04:44 PM » |
|
 Isn't she pretty. Come to papa. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
g1rlg0ne
|
|
« Reply #56 on: March 18, 2009, 05:54:35 PM » |
|
I thought the demonization of farming was quite interesting considering HR 875.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
powerofthadolla
|
|
« Reply #57 on: March 18, 2009, 06:18:24 PM » |
|
I would like to say this proves beliefs but it simpily cant, because christianity as a whole originated at 33********* ce=ad. it would be obsurd not to notice the winning team syndrome calling it proof planting the flags and to ignore hunter gatherers were 'pagans'. Jesus -wanderer without home or possessions irl not a psychopant. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/gobekli/pp120908c.shtml |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
los tiene así que ahora usted va para ver la violencia ese viene un movimiento sinceramente ah empedrado nosotros salimos el corrompe el golpe de descuartizado de imperio del estadio disparando al presidente es hora de revolución otra vez
€∀§M_ ³
|
|
|
|
Size10
Guest
|
|
« Reply #58 on: March 18, 2009, 08:32:18 PM » |
|
You see the problem though, right?
It's gonna giddy up the Religious folk, and giddy up the Atheist folk, into a combatitive froth that wastes everyone's INFOWARRIOR energy. Which is not where PP needs to be. I understand the Project Bluebeam reference, using the religious dogma such a broadcast False Flagger would employ, but we have a f***ing war to win against those who'd like to murder us all and just continuously self-defeating with these religious aspects can't be healthy.
Mike
Mikey, you seem to be the one with a burr under the saddle. Who's trying to pitt one side against another here? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
White Rose Sophie
|
|
« Reply #59 on: March 18, 2009, 08:44:34 PM » |
|
bluebeam in the making
My thoughts exactly. Here's a snippet of Serge Monast's article: Engineered Earthquakes & Hoaxed 'Discoveries'The first step in the NASA Blue Beam Project concerns the breakdown [re-evaluation] of all archaeological knowledge. It deals with the set-up, with artificially created earthquakes at certain precise locations on the planet, of supposedly new discoveries which will finally explain to all people the "error" of all fundamental religious doctrines. The falsification of this information will be used to make all nations believe that their religious doctrines have been misunderstood for centuries and misinterpreted. Psychological preparations for that first step have already been implemented with the film, '2001: A Space Odyssey;' the StarTrek series, and 'Independence Day;' all of which deal with invasions from space and the coming together of all nations to repel the invaders. The last films, 'Jurrassic Park,' deals with the theories of evolution, and claim God's words are lies. http://i.am/jah/evolut.htm
Hoaxed "Discoveries'
What is important to understand in the first step is that those earthquakes will hit at different parts of the world where scientific and archaeological teachings have indicated that arcane mysteries have been buried. By those types of earthquakes, it will be possible for scientists to rediscover those arcane mysteries which will be used to discredit all fundamental religious doctrines. This is the first preparation for the plan for humanity because what they want to do is destroy the beliefs of all Christians and Muslims on the planet. To do that, they need some false 'proof' from the far past that will prove to all nations that their religions have all been misinterpreted and misunderstood.Kinda like James Cameron's movie about the "Tomb of Jesus". Apparently enough people didn't buy into it, so it's kind of faded away. After reading both Stephen Quayle (Christian) and Graham Hancock's/Graham Phillip's books (non-Christian) - (and the biblestudy.net site) I tend to lean towards human beings existing before Adam....and that many of these pre-biblical findings could quite well be attributed to Nephilim. Hancock's stuff is fascinating - but I cannot say I agree with his conclusion. (Shhh...don't tell Doc or Fusion! ) And as far as the Garden of Eden - I think the NWO believes it to be in Iraq....or at least they've been looking for it there. I don't consider what has been posted thus far to be convincing enough for this location to be Eden. A pre-biblical city? Yes. Eden? Naw. Hey, maybe this is the location of the land of NOD, where Cain went after getting booted from Eden.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Philbin
Guest
|
|
« Reply #60 on: March 19, 2009, 12:59:52 AM » |
|
Mikey, you seem to be the one with a burr under the saddle. Who's trying to pitt one side against another here?
Look, only my friends can call me Mikey, and they they have to sign a waiver contract prior to that privilege -  "They certainly were important. The solitary Kurdish man, on that summer's day in 1994, had made the greatest archaeological discovery in 50 years. Others would say he'd made the greatest archaeological discovery ever: a site that has revolutionised the way we look at human history, the origin of religion - and perhaps even the truth behind the Garden of Eden." I guess a simpler question would have been, "Size10, do you WANT this to be the Garden of Eden?" because I hope you understand that if the Garden of Eden actually happened, then we're back to David Icke's (dinosaur-evolved or travelling alien race) lizard people as the most likely culprit for such a genetic experiment. Took the rib from Adam's breast and made a woman? What are we otherwise, earth worms? And we don't want there to be Lizard People among us, surely. I'll reiterate again, so there's less confusion. I don't think this shows the origins of the Garden of Eden unless someone 12,000 years back was indoctrinated into the Garden Of Eden Cult on the whim of some leader who misrepresented this archeological find 6,000 years ago. Or who in fact, 12,000 years ago commissioned their building to promote his Human Genesis myth, which there are a lot of in ancient history. That's my thruppence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #61 on: March 19, 2009, 02:29:06 AM » |
|
Since I somewhat sucked the "fun" out of this thread and it's mystery I will insert some back into it -- MAXWELL STYLE! [As in bullshit -- but in favor of the Bible instead of against it] That woman figurine IS none other than Eve! This is proof of the Garden of Eden! In Genesis we find the text: To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Science has shown that a woman with wider hips can give birth much more easily.  From the figurine of Eve we can see that she had enourmous hips. This would have allowed for easier childbirth. When Eve was cast out of the garden of Eden with Adam -- God narrowed down her hips in order to make childbirth more painful. That is why females now do not have such wide hips and this figurine looks strangely out of proportion! The female hips have long been associated with both fertility and general expression of sexuality. Since broad hips facilitate child birth and also serve as an anatomical cue of sexual maturity, they have been seen as an attractive trait for women for thousands of years. Many of the classical poses women take when sculpted, painted or photographed, such as the Odalisque, serve to emphasize the prominence of their hips. Similarly, women's fashion through the ages has often drawn attention to the girth of the wearer's hips. Hence we have scientific proof this is a figurine of Eve! Now in all seriousness -- if I dressed this logic up and put a bow tie on it I bet I could get 10 morons to believe me. Sad... isn't it? Practice your debunking skills on my obviously flawed [ intentionally, don't get excited morons] arguement. Go go go! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
db
|
|
« Reply #62 on: April 22, 2009, 12:45:04 AM » |
|
Original "hittite"/"proto-hittite" story is of a temple -- not a garden. Demi-goddess is banished from her temple (like Eve and Adam's banishment from garden) cut off from communication with the other gods.
There is every reason to believe that the origins of Eden stories revolve around this part of the world -- also the first part of the world for temple-building (origins of agriculture). Later Sumerian/Akkadian stories may be about this part of Turkey/Syria.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bobaGirl
Member
 Offline
Posts: 2
|
|
« Reply #63 on: April 26, 2009, 10:18:03 PM » |
|
What an amazing find! It really goes against the notion that the human mind was not sophisticated enough to create speach or text that so very long ago. the limist of the human mind those thousands of years ago are deeper than we ever had thought!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I once was peaceful...NOw I in Rage!-NHM
|
|
|
Squiffel
Member
Offline
Posts: 26
|
|
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2009, 05:44:44 PM » |
|
The Garden of Eden is a spiritual place in the mind, not a physical landmark. You are thrown out of the Garden of Eden for becoming intelligent (eating the tree of knowledge), because by doing so, you close off your mind to "unintelligent" perceptions of reality, which warps your perspective of the world into a non-godly more socially acceptable framework.
For example: there is absolutely nothing wrong with not wearing clothes, but because of our "so-called" intelligent thinking, we belittle our perspective of naked people because of stupid human traits like "envy, pride, lust" etc, which cause us to see the world through ungodly eyes.
So no, these stones are not a mysterious landmark which locate the Garden of Eden.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Philbin
Guest
|
|
« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2009, 09:43:00 AM » |
|
re: Sumerian Garden of Eden thread -
I've been doing some research into this supposed Garden Of Eden archeological site and it sounds like there's been a massive mistake attributed to the meaning of the garden. I know organised religion would have us believe it's where Adam & Eve 'happened' but it's looking a lot like 10,000 years ago, a series of great civilisations were wiped out by one meteor catastrophe after another. Its looking like the Gardeners of Eden were just that, gardeners. Clever with irigation. Hailed as 'living Gods' maybe but certainly no more immortal than that. Horticultural Magicians, let's say.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Unintelligable Name
|
|
« Reply #66 on: May 09, 2009, 06:18:28 PM » |
|
Oh boy it's a magical mysterious mystery full of secrets and mumbo jumbo.
My boring suburban life has led me to find the equally mundane yet slightly different to the norm, interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devotional Soul
Guest
|
|
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2009, 07:27:45 PM » |
|
According to Vedic scriptures, 12,000 years ago was the previous age called Dvapara Yuga, which was from 867,000 bc to 3100 bc. All of the dynasties of people are recorded in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Turkey was where the Yavanas lived, warriors that became degraded mleccas, which means meat-eaters and cannabals, which is why there is evidence of human sacrifices. Their statues of fat people match the idea of heavy meat eaters, lol. http://vedabase.net/sb/2/4/18/Yavanas: Yavana was the name of one of the sons of Mahārāja Yayāti who was given the part of the world known as Turkey to rule. Therefore the Turks are Yavanas due to being descendants of Mahārāja Yavana. The Yavanas were therefore kṣatriyas (warriors/soldiers) and later on, by giving up the brahminical culture, they became mleccha-yavanas (irreligious meat-eaters). Descriptions of the Yavanas are in the Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva 85.34). Another prince called Turvasu was also known as Yavana, and his country was conquered by Sahadeva, one of the Pāṇḍavas. The western Yavana joined with Duryodhana in the Battle of Kurukṣetra under the pressure of Karṇa. It is also foretold that these Yavanas also would conquer India, and it proved to be true. Both Vedas and the Bible say that vegetarianism existed before meat eating. It's backwards to say hunters and gatherers evolved into farmers. It's a lot easier to plant seeds than it is to kill animals, especially if you don't have to. Those padlocks look like windows or doorways to me, and seeing that there's three of them, I'd say they are for the 3 worlds or dimensions (physical, astral, and causal). It could also be for the 3 modes of material nature (ignorance, passion, and goodness). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Philbin
Guest
|
|
« Reply #68 on: May 10, 2009, 12:34:26 AM » |
|
or heavy-meat eaters (my hyphenation).  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
