MIND BENDING STUNNING EVIDENCE!!!

Initiate
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:48 pm

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 12:54 am » by Ruquick


LowSix wrote:
ruquick wrote:so far I have not heard one plausible or responsible piece of debunking.
The tower theory is looking good! :cheers:


Thats only because i'm waiting for this thread to reach ten pages before I bring the Hammer of Thor down upon this theory.



DAMMIT LOW!!
lol

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 11758
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 1:27 am » by -Marduk-


LowSix wrote:
ruquick wrote:so far I have not heard one plausible or responsible piece of debunking.
The tower theory is looking good! :cheers:


Thats only because i'm waiting for this thread to reach ten pages before I bring the Hammer of Thor down upon this theory.

Oh Götter, Low in debunking mode...fasten ure seatbelts..and put ure Stahlhelm on..eheh
Get ready for an presentation dat would look every dissertation like mongoloid scribblings
Low is already taping his fingertips :twisted:
________________________________________________________________________________
-= PREDESTINATION: Itz hard to be ze good guy when you turn into a fucking gun =-

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:59 am

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 2:08 am » by Realorfake


Image


the pyramids of giza were originally thought to mimic Orion's belt, but we've learned that the calculations are too "loose" and the actual positions of the pyramids are to another set of stars in a different part of the sky...

Among these critiques are several from two astronomers, Ed Krupp of Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles and Anthony Fairall, astronomy professor at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Using planetarium equipment, Krupp and Fairall independently investigated the angle between the alignment of Orion's Belt and north during the era cited by Hancock, Bauval et al. (which differs from the angle seen today or in the 3rd millennium BC, because of the precession of the equinoxes), and found that the angle was considerably different from the "perfect match" claimed by Bauval and Hancock in the Orion Constellation Theory. 47 degrees per the planetarium measurements, compared to the 38 degree angle formed by the pyramids


as for the true group of stars I cannot recall the constellation but there was vid posted here on DTV in 2 parts documenting the caves underneath the pyramid that explained it.
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:59 am

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 2:17 am » by Realorfake


germanpils wrote:Image


its not the rock

but i just found something else
look at the arrow from your shadow of the sun, below your arrow is a little highlighted dot,
it ALSO has a shadow to the right,

my theory in the huge shadows there is a huge village with high towers



edit: posted the wrong pic but now its right



actually it IS the rock and its quite simple.

The sun is low on the horizon, therefore, even things small in height will cast long shadows.

This shadow eminates from the the rock thats sitting "ON TOP" of the hill. Obviously the hill has a higher topography because it too casts a big shadow behind it. This rock that sits at the top of the hill is casting a very very long shadow because the angle of the sun is so low on the horizon. Think of a cactus on top of a hill at sunset. Its shadow can be meters long if not longer depending...

As for the little white line that was added to the pic demonstrating its angle just missing the rock (and im sure it was placed there to demonstrate this and discredit the rock), well actually its better proof that it is in fact the rock. The shadow starts at the base of the rock which is exactly where the line meets the rock...

sorry to burst the bub peeps.
Last edited by Realorfake on Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:57 pm

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 2:22 am » by Fleshstorm87


Maybe see it better if veiwed as a neg.???? just wondering...dont have adobe ps.- pull in/out the contrast?
Kill yourself......begin again............

Initiate
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:48 pm

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 2:28 am » by Ruquick


realorfake wrote:
germanpils wrote:Image


its not the rock

but i just found something else
look at the arrow from your shadow of the sun, below your arrow is a little highlighted dot,
it ALSO has a shadow to the right,

my theory in the huge shadows there is a huge village with high towers



edit: posted the wrong pic but now its right



actually it IS the rock and its quite simple.

The sun is low on the horizon, therefore, even things small in height will cast long shadows.

This shadow eminates from the the rock thats sitting "ON TOP" of the hill. Obviously the hill has a higher topography because it too casts a big shadow behind it. This rock that sits at the top of the hill is casting a very very long shadow because the angle of the sun is so low on the horizon. Think of a cactus on top of a hill at sunset. Its shadow can be meters long if not longer depending...

As for the little white line that was added to the pic demonstrating it angle just missing the rock (and im sure it was placed there to discredit the rock), well actually its better proof that it is in fact the rock. The shadow starts at the base of the rock which is exactly where the line meets the rock...

sorry to burst the bub peeps.


Not even close dude.The shadow length of the "rock" does not correspond with the shadow length of the surrounding shadows cast by all the other objects. Unless of course this "rock" is shaped like a tall "tower".

Initiate
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:48 pm

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 3:02 am » by Ruquick


aladin wrote:
ruquick wrote:Not even close dude.The shadow length of the "rock" does not correspond with the shadow length of the surrounding shadows cast by all the other objects. Unless of course this "rock" is shaped like a tall "tower".


here is probably still a fallacy?

The single track there were only shadows of uniform height of the shadow-casting object and a single landform.

Is the shadow over sloping terrain, he is "getting longer" - on rising ground, the shadows are "getting shorter" ...


Just going by what I actually see. I see something that appears to be on the ground, casting a shadow that corresponds with the other shadows I see.So far all other explanations make less sense than this. imo

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:59 am

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 3:07 am » by Realorfake


ruquick wrote:Not even close dude.The shadow length of the "rock" does not correspond with the shadow length of the surrounding shadows cast by all the other objects. Unless of course this "rock" is shaped like a tall "tower".


yea and you're looking at a 2 dimensional image - and you're telling me that I'm not even close... do you understand the ignorance associated with that statement?

Whats "not even close" is everyone's failure to grasp simple geometry.

The shadows DO correspond. Every one of them. Including the shadow of the 2nd rock thats in the slight upper right of the image (highlighted by yet another white dot) but realistically is sitting lower down the hill. Its shadow is much SHORTER in length because topographically it sits lower than the first rock.

but you obviously see way more on a 2 dimensional image than everyone else....

look, im not saying the rock is small. Its probably a large boulder, remnants of a collision. But to freely say its a tower just because it casts a long shadow? Sherlock would laugh at you... and everyone else for that matter.
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?

Initiate
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:48 pm

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 3:21 am » by Ruquick


realorfake wrote:
ruquick wrote:Not even close dude.The shadow length of the "rock" does not correspond with the shadow length of the surrounding shadows cast by all the other objects. Unless of course this "rock" is shaped like a tall "tower".


yea and you're looking at a 2 dimensional image - and you're telling me that I'm not even close... do you understand the ignorance associated with that statement?

Whats "not even close" is everyone's failure to grasp simple geometry.

The shadows DO correspond. Every one of them. Including the shadow of the 2nd rock thats in the slight upper right of the image (highlighted by yet another white dot) but realistically is sitting lower down the hill. Its shadow is much SHORTER in length because topographically it sits lower than the first rock.

but you obviously see way more on a 2 dimensional image than everyone else....


look, im not saying the rock is small. Its probably a large boulder, remnants of a collision. But to freely say its a tower just because it casts a long shadow? Sherlock would laugh at you... and everyone else for that matter.




I'm not saying it's a tower as there is no proof of that. I am saying there is something at the base of the shadow that DIRECTLY corresponds with the shadow it casts.
Simple geometry.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:59 am

PostSat Jan 30, 2010 3:27 am » by Realorfake


lol this...
ruquick wrote:Not even close dude.The shadow length of the "rock" does not correspond with the shadow length of the surrounding shadows cast by all the other objects.Unless of course this "rock" is shaped like a tall "tower."


then this....

ruquick wrote:I'm not saying it's a tower as there is no proof of that. I am saying there is something at the base of the shadow that DIRECTLY corresponds with the shadow it casts.
Simple geometry.
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook