I live in Niigata Japan and there is currently (May 2018) an exhibit of Peruvian mummies and a trio of elongated skulls in Niigata City. I travelled there last week to view the skulls and was totally shocked at how insubstantial-looking they were compared to a normal modern human skull. They just seem so delicately formed, smallish and eggshell thin and all had slightly over large eye-sockets in comparison with the rest of the facial features. One was an adult and there were two children, but they still struck me as being surprisingly "lightweight" looking. Also, in college we were taught to measure the internal volume of a skull by filling it with rice which can then be poured into a pyrex beaker and compared with human averages in volume value. Having personally done this numerous times in class it was plain to see at a glance that, if a similar procedure were done with the elongated skulls, the brain mass volume inside each elongated skull would have been far in excess of a normal human.
Beside the display was a GIGANTIC sign explaining in Japanese that the skulls were shaped this way due to boarding, which seems utterly untrue to me. These skulls seemed to have been very delicately shaped "from within" so to speak.
I attempted to photograph the skulls but was immediately accosted by a guard posted beside them. I was then told, "Visitors are allowed to photograph anything else on display, but not these."
The fact that they were human remains was clearly not the reason, as evidenced by the fact that there were many other "normal" remains and mummies displayed around the exhibit which one could take pictures of all one liked. I came away harboring a distinct suspicion that the exhibit was some kind of disinformation whitewash operation being staged to explain away skulls whose existence is increasingly inconvenient to mainstream historical and anthropological models.
this bears a striking resemblance to the end of the Trojan War. The Greeks raided the coastal cities of Asia minor and the nearby islands moving ever farther away from the battle field. After the war was over Agamemnon returned home to find his own city gone and spent his days raiding the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. I've read a couple versions of the myth that say he lost his life in the Delta in Egypt.
Because you know, the board of antiquities is so trustworthy. The Egyptians always out to learn more about their monuments and they wouldn't lie to the public, riiight.
DNA markers should help distinguish population migration routes to better understand who built the oldest Neolithic temples so as to prevent cultural identity theft and misappropriation through wild speculations. Armenian cultural identity theft is a prime example that can benefit from such projects. First, according to National Geographic Genographic Project tracing human migrations, Armenians and their DNA markers were in the so-called Anatolian region more accurately the Western Armenian Highlands 80,000 to 40,000 years ago. Secondly, National Geographic's DNA results debunk any claims that Portasar is anything other than Armenian in origin. Thirdly, according to National Geographic Genographic Project, Armenian DNA through the Y chromosome has a direct link to Pharaoh Akhenaten and his son King Tut; thus, directly linked to all the Pharaohs of Egypt, which proves that Armenians were the progenitors of Ancient Egypt. Yet, most British museums hold out ancient Armenian artifacts of gods and goddesses as derived from "Ancient Turkey" without mentioning the Armenian origins because of pressures from the Turkish government. Clearly, there was no Ancient Turkey as it is a country only 100 years old.
And no, Armenians don't hold themselves out to be space alien hybrids as some have proposed about Akhenaten from shows like "Ancient Aliens" but are indeed a unique human species separate and apart and far more evolved genetically than other current human species on the planet. I think the Armenians should have a new name for their distinct and more evolved species from the rest of the hominids left on the planet.
The Shepherds Monument at Shugborough Hall ...
The two lower letters, the ‘D’ and the ‘M’ refer to (King) Dagobert Merovingian. The upper line letters, O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V broadly translate as, Observer Use the Object at Shugborough to View or understand, Also VISA Versa. The relief picture is best seen as the reverse of a transparency.
Instead of viewing it from the bridge at Les Pontils, one sees it from Rennes-Les-Chateau (Visa Versa). This also applies to the Chinese House, which is located on the West side of the group of monuments, when theoretically it should be where the Doric Temple stands ... that is until one understands why Thomas Anson place it where it is.
On the Monument, the shepherd's thumb of his left hand is immediately after the 'R' in Arcadia – alphabetically followed by the ‘S’, his index finger is planted on the 'N' in the second word 'IN'. The word 'Ego' is dropped from the end of 'Et In Arcadia Ego' to leave ‘Et IN ARCADIA’. The thumb ‘picks up’ the ‘S’ and the finger overwrites the ‘N’, thus reading ‘ET IS ARCADIA’ – or, ‘Also in Arcadia’.
All the monuments are Templar based and tell an intriguing story.
Geoffrey
might be a typo of some kind. you said she was the offspring of Jupiter and Jove. Jupiter is a compound word meaning Jove Father (its the same being). did you mean Jupiter and Juno, his wife?
The ruins are of the Anunnaki .... not the Inca. Everyone knows the Inca built on the ruins of the Anunnaki. Much less sophisticated stonework is characteristic of Inca using prior masterpieces.
The flood happened. There is more evidence to support the accuracy of the Bible than any of your scientific theories.. you just have to look. Although, God has to open your eyes for you to see the truth. If you really want truth you should ask the Creator.
Time is short.
Thank you for contacting us regarding the accuracy of this article.
Please email me at: [email protected] and inform me of any errors and I will have them corrected. I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to do this so we can make sure our reporting is as factual as possible.
I know about cliff swallows and so did the person writting the article. The birds they were speaking of were different. What made them stand out, in their mind, was that they formed holes in the cliffs by rubbing with the leaves and then pecking like wood peckers at the rock. They claimed that the nests ended up being 4 to 6 inches deep into the cliff face. They actually did make a comparison about the similarity between cliff swallows, weaver birds and these birds.
It is good you all apparently majored in the sciences, and not English. You would think that SOMEONE would have noticed that artifact s spelled "ARTIFACT", and NOT "artefact". There IS something called an artefact, so it passed your spell-check, but you would think someone would have read your article before it was published..
Minoans used strong mortise and tenon joints (can't tell from the reconstruction of the Khufu boat - but there aren't any holes for rope fixing, so probably did the same) and linen with pine resin to provide a watertight composite hull for long voyages, dramatically improving seaworthiness. There is probably more to this relationship, for example, they supplied architects for most of the mainland palaces around the med, they were experts in water tech (viaducts, water storage, townwide communal plumping, steam rooms, etc). The archaeology supports your theory, they used canals around the pyramids. The lifting is an interesting concept, they were using ships for transporting masonry, so will have needed a method of lifting them – not seen any examples of block and tackles around this time, so you may be right! I believe the Minoans that dominated the shipping lanes in the med may have used this technique, not for lifting, but to sink foreign vessels that resisted boarding. E.g. if they attacked with stand-off weapons (arrows and slings), drive into the foreign hull amidship, forcing the foreign hull to list, so she would take on water. The Minoan composite hulls would be lighter, faster and more manoeuvrable to achieve this.
A thought, to counterbalance the block at the front end, they could lift water ballast at the backend! Assuming a fulcrum around the 1/5th of length, they would need to lift 1/5th the weight in water at the back to balance the boat. They could use leather bladders to do this and there are blocks at the backend so they wouldn’t slide down the hull! They could then dump this ballast after delivery for the return leg to pick up the next load. I think your theory may be correct, they didn't have block and tackles for lifting and would have needed a method to load and unload blocks.
I’ve read about the many claims of some chemical plant based ‘stone softening’ thing. Not it. Its a reach. There’s no visible evidence of a chemical change to the stone. And there’s an implied gradual activation level and depth to the affect. It would be a tech we can’t explain. But the evidence I'm referring to which is in so many places around the world, have a degree of precision that, if considered as a result of the projection of our modern approach to building, would make riparianfrstlvr’s 30 years of construction experience seem like a sad waste of time. no offense. The architectural evidence demonstrates that if they needed to, they could have banged off hundreds of same size blocks which would in our experience, make building far easier. And yet they made stone structures with all different sized stone pieces. No big thing there, but then they have seam gaps that appear to have a fraction of a mm in tollerance. Zero chance that was done by hand, especially with any blocks that were big. If you start down the road of high level CnC work that falls apart too. Too much work. To high a level of precision in part rather than in whole. If you were to CnC all the pieces of the ascending passage in the great pyramid with CnC, there would still be a cumulative error issue in assembly. They built huge stone structures easily, and with the stone softening tech, it removes most of the pre visualization necessary for a large engineering project. Yada yada.
they are called cliff swallows and they use leaves and grass and other stuff for the nest for the eggs. and they make their bird house out of “mud”. and after a while the mud does break apart and crumble. you are right though about ancient cultures using mud to seal joints in masonry, stone construction. we call that “mortar”. i remember that documentary on the show called “Nature”, it is on tv just before Nova. in the 30 years i have been in the construction i have used natural stone, man made stone, concrete block, bricks, wood. sometimes i use mortar, someytimes just dirt, and sometimes nothing at all as the man made blocks are designed that way. i have visited many historcal places and it is obvious their construction methods and materials have not change that much.
I remember reading, somplace and quite some time back, about a bird the made it’s nest in stone cliffs. It woul rub some sort of leaf on the chosen spot. It took alot of leaves but eventually the stone started to ‘rot’ and crumble away.
The person that wrote the article suggested that the the pre-columbian Americans used this method, along with stone tools, to so finely fit their ‘building blocks’.
These babies were sacrificed along with the dogs. They had fractures on their skulls, they were not mistreated waifs.Just a bunch of revisionist claptrap. The whole world knows how bloodthirsty the Romans were. Just admit it, the Romans were bloodthirsty baby sacrificers.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
I live in Niigata Japan and there is currently (May 2018) an exhibit of Peruvian mummies and a trio of elongated skulls in Niigata City. I travelled there last week to view the skulls and was totally shocked at how insubstantial-looking they were compared to a normal modern human skull. They just seem so delicately formed, smallish and eggshell thin and all had slightly over large eye-sockets in comparison with the rest of the facial features. One was an adult and there were two children, but they still struck me as being surprisingly "lightweight" looking. Also, in college we were taught to measure the internal volume of a skull by filling it with rice which can then be poured into a pyrex beaker and compared with human averages in volume value. Having personally done this numerous times in class it was plain to see at a glance that, if a similar procedure were done with the elongated skulls, the brain mass volume inside each elongated skull would have been far in excess of a normal human.
Beside the display was a GIGANTIC sign explaining in Japanese that the skulls were shaped this way due to boarding, which seems utterly untrue to me. These skulls seemed to have been very delicately shaped "from within" so to speak.
I attempted to photograph the skulls but was immediately accosted by a guard posted beside them. I was then told, "Visitors are allowed to photograph anything else on display, but not these."
The fact that they were human remains was clearly not the reason, as evidenced by the fact that there were many other "normal" remains and mummies displayed around the exhibit which one could take pictures of all one liked. I came away harboring a distinct suspicion that the exhibit was some kind of disinformation whitewash operation being staged to explain away skulls whose existence is increasingly inconvenient to mainstream historical and anthropological models.
this bears a striking resemblance to the end of the Trojan War. The Greeks raided the coastal cities of Asia minor and the nearby islands moving ever farther away from the battle field. After the war was over Agamemnon returned home to find his own city gone and spent his days raiding the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. I've read a couple versions of the myth that say he lost his life in the Delta in Egypt.
Because you know, the board of antiquities is so trustworthy. The Egyptians always out to learn more about their monuments and they wouldn't lie to the public, riiight.
DNA markers should help distinguish population migration routes to better understand who built the oldest Neolithic temples so as to prevent cultural identity theft and misappropriation through wild speculations. Armenian cultural identity theft is a prime example that can benefit from such projects. First, according to National Geographic Genographic Project tracing human migrations, Armenians and their DNA markers were in the so-called Anatolian region more accurately the Western Armenian Highlands 80,000 to 40,000 years ago. Secondly, National Geographic's DNA results debunk any claims that Portasar is anything other than Armenian in origin. Thirdly, according to National Geographic Genographic Project, Armenian DNA through the Y chromosome has a direct link to Pharaoh Akhenaten and his son King Tut; thus, directly linked to all the Pharaohs of Egypt, which proves that Armenians were the progenitors of Ancient Egypt. Yet, most British museums hold out ancient Armenian artifacts of gods and goddesses as derived from "Ancient Turkey" without mentioning the Armenian origins because of pressures from the Turkish government. Clearly, there was no Ancient Turkey as it is a country only 100 years old.
And no, Armenians don't hold themselves out to be space alien hybrids as some have proposed about Akhenaten from shows like "Ancient Aliens" but are indeed a unique human species separate and apart and far more evolved genetically than other current human species on the planet. I think the Armenians should have a new name for their distinct and more evolved species from the rest of the hominids left on the planet.
The Shepherds Monument at Shugborough Hall ...
The two lower letters, the ‘D’ and the ‘M’ refer to (King) Dagobert Merovingian. The upper line letters, O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V broadly translate as, Observer Use the Object at Shugborough to View or understand, Also VISA Versa. The relief picture is best seen as the reverse of a transparency.
Instead of viewing it from the bridge at Les Pontils, one sees it from Rennes-Les-Chateau (Visa Versa). This also applies to the Chinese House, which is located on the West side of the group of monuments, when theoretically it should be where the Doric Temple stands ... that is until one understands why Thomas Anson place it where it is.
On the Monument, the shepherd's thumb of his left hand is immediately after the 'R' in Arcadia – alphabetically followed by the ‘S’, his index finger is planted on the 'N' in the second word 'IN'. The word 'Ego' is dropped from the end of 'Et In Arcadia Ego' to leave ‘Et IN ARCADIA’. The thumb ‘picks up’ the ‘S’ and the finger overwrites the ‘N’, thus reading ‘ET IS ARCADIA’ – or, ‘Also in Arcadia’.
All the monuments are Templar based and tell an intriguing story.
Geoffrey
might be a typo of some kind. you said she was the offspring of Jupiter and Jove. Jupiter is a compound word meaning Jove Father (its the same being). did you mean Jupiter and Juno, his wife?
I believe there is no such word as 'weightage' . Proper usage is just 'weight '.
The ruins are of the Anunnaki .... not the Inca. Everyone knows the Inca built on the ruins of the Anunnaki. Much less sophisticated stonework is characteristic of Inca using prior masterpieces.
The flood happened. There is more evidence to support the accuracy of the Bible than any of your scientific theories.. you just have to look. Although, God has to open your eyes for you to see the truth. If you really want truth you should ask the Creator.
Time is short.
Dear Bob,
Thank you for contacting us regarding the accuracy of this article.
Please email me at: [email protected] and inform me of any errors and I will have them corrected. I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to do this so we can make sure our reporting is as factual as possible.
Thanks again.
Best regards,
Gary (Editor)
There are some errors in this story. I would be happy for the author to contact me.
Bob Sheppard VMAP.
I know about cliff swallows and so did the person writting the article. The birds they were speaking of were different. What made them stand out, in their mind, was that they formed holes in the cliffs by rubbing with the leaves and then pecking like wood peckers at the rock. They claimed that the nests ended up being 4 to 6 inches deep into the cliff face. They actually did make a comparison about the similarity between cliff swallows, weaver birds and these birds.
It is good you all apparently majored in the sciences, and not English. You would think that SOMEONE would have noticed that artifact s spelled "ARTIFACT", and NOT "artefact". There IS something called an artefact, so it passed your spell-check, but you would think someone would have read your article before it was published..
This is almost certain to be a forgery. Pictures show artefact to be in too good of a condition to be authentic
Hi Istvan, this is an interesting concept. I've been looking at Minoan technologies around this time which traded with Egypt. The Minoan hulls seem to be advanced, see: http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/3500-year-old-advanced-minoan-tec...
Minoans used strong mortise and tenon joints (can't tell from the reconstruction of the Khufu boat - but there aren't any holes for rope fixing, so probably did the same) and linen with pine resin to provide a watertight composite hull for long voyages, dramatically improving seaworthiness. There is probably more to this relationship, for example, they supplied architects for most of the mainland palaces around the med, they were experts in water tech (viaducts, water storage, townwide communal plumping, steam rooms, etc). The archaeology supports your theory, they used canals around the pyramids. The lifting is an interesting concept, they were using ships for transporting masonry, so will have needed a method of lifting them – not seen any examples of block and tackles around this time, so you may be right! I believe the Minoans that dominated the shipping lanes in the med may have used this technique, not for lifting, but to sink foreign vessels that resisted boarding. E.g. if they attacked with stand-off weapons (arrows and slings), drive into the foreign hull amidship, forcing the foreign hull to list, so she would take on water. The Minoan composite hulls would be lighter, faster and more manoeuvrable to achieve this.
A thought, to counterbalance the block at the front end, they could lift water ballast at the backend! Assuming a fulcrum around the 1/5th of length, they would need to lift 1/5th the weight in water at the back to balance the boat. They could use leather bladders to do this and there are blocks at the backend so they wouldn’t slide down the hull! They could then dump this ballast after delivery for the return leg to pick up the next load. I think your theory may be correct, they didn't have block and tackles for lifting and would have needed a method to load and unload blocks.
I’ve read about the many claims of some chemical plant based ‘stone softening’ thing. Not it. Its a reach. There’s no visible evidence of a chemical change to the stone. And there’s an implied gradual activation level and depth to the affect. It would be a tech we can’t explain. But the evidence I'm referring to which is in so many places around the world, have a degree of precision that, if considered as a result of the projection of our modern approach to building, would make riparianfrstlvr’s 30 years of construction experience seem like a sad waste of time. no offense. The architectural evidence demonstrates that if they needed to, they could have banged off hundreds of same size blocks which would in our experience, make building far easier. And yet they made stone structures with all different sized stone pieces. No big thing there, but then they have seam gaps that appear to have a fraction of a mm in tollerance. Zero chance that was done by hand, especially with any blocks that were big. If you start down the road of high level CnC work that falls apart too. Too much work. To high a level of precision in part rather than in whole. If you were to CnC all the pieces of the ascending passage in the great pyramid with CnC, there would still be a cumulative error issue in assembly. They built huge stone structures easily, and with the stone softening tech, it removes most of the pre visualization necessary for a large engineering project. Yada yada.
they are called cliff swallows and they use leaves and grass and other stuff for the nest for the eggs. and they make their bird house out of “mud”. and after a while the mud does break apart and crumble. you are right though about ancient cultures using mud to seal joints in masonry, stone construction. we call that “mortar”. i remember that documentary on the show called “Nature”, it is on tv just before Nova. in the 30 years i have been in the construction i have used natural stone, man made stone, concrete block, bricks, wood. sometimes i use mortar, someytimes just dirt, and sometimes nothing at all as the man made blocks are designed that way. i have visited many historcal places and it is obvious their construction methods and materials have not change that much.
I remember reading, somplace and quite some time back, about a bird the made it’s nest in stone cliffs. It woul rub some sort of leaf on the chosen spot. It took alot of leaves but eventually the stone started to ‘rot’ and crumble away.
The person that wrote the article suggested that the the pre-columbian Americans used this method, along with stone tools, to so finely fit their ‘building blocks’.
These babies were sacrificed along with the dogs. They had fractures on their skulls, they were not mistreated waifs.Just a bunch of revisionist claptrap. The whole world knows how bloodthirsty the Romans were. Just admit it, the Romans were bloodthirsty baby sacrificers.
As far as I know the DNA of Jesus has been done, and the results are Jonathan Grays Book. The Ark of the Covenant. which I have read.
Pages