It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

page: 24
187
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte




All hieroglyphic texts that can be read have been deciphered. That would be 100%.


Boom! You are so so wrong. I thought you new your stuff. You are demonstrating you know next to nothing now.

Here is a List of Egyptian hieroglyphs on Wikipepida. Please note less than ten percent have been deciphered.

en.wikipedia.org...


You come onto my thread and make stuff up. I will call you out. thats all you have been doing for a while now.




posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte




Ther's no evidence that the Sothic Cycle held any major significance to the AE


Debunked again. I know the significance. What until you see my next thread then you can eat you words!




posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte




All hieroglyphic texts that can be read have been deciphered. That would be 100%.


Boom! You are so so wrong. I thought you new your stuff. You are demonstrating you know next to nothing now.

Here is a List of Egyptian hieroglyphs on Wikipepida. Please note less than ten percent have been deciphered.

en.wikipedia.org...


You come onto my thread and make stuff up. I will call you out. thats all you have been doing for a while now.

Not my fault you can't comprehend anything.
Here - find the glyphs that your authority (wiki) left blank in this dictionary. www.pyramidtextsonline.com...

The third entry under A is the first one I see that you think has never been deciphered. All the rest are there, with their meanings.

Harte



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
On the other hand, non-organic materials can't be dated in the first place, so it's always an open question when exactly they were made.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK only organic materials can be dated, right?

Which leaves artifacts like bowls and pottery as guess-work based on what they were found nearby.


They can be dated by several methods with varying degrees of accuracy. In general they're dated in relation to other materials at the site... BUT... choices in material and design and construction change over the centuries. So things like stone sarcophagi can be dated even without hieroglyphs.



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte
Boom! You are so so wrong. I thought you new your stuff. You are demonstrating you know next to nothing now.

Here is a List of Egyptian hieroglyphs on Wikipepida. Please note less than ten percent have been deciphered.

en.wikipedia.org...


You come onto my thread and make stuff up. I will call you out. thats all you have been doing for a while now.


Hop on over to the Yahoo Groups Glyph study - you have to join to see the lessons but you can eyeball it and see how active it is with translation.

Here's the link to a whole list of vocabulary videos

Somewhat outdated list of major translations (does not count coffins, offering stele, and minor papyri, ostrika, and so forth)

Translated papyri are here (papers are in German but German-to-English translation isn't impossible)

And then there's all the (not completely reliable) translations by Budge which seem to be everywhere (including his dictionaries.

...etcetera.

So, as you see, Harte is correct.



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: peacefulpete




e: the Dogon tribe: I never got clear myself if that was real or hoaxed, as a lot of sources say, but it's worth researching.


Go and have a look. This peeps have not been hoaxed. This is there culture. Look at there head dressed. Its the orion system. They use the Ankh. They have hats the shapes of Djeds. They measure the Sothic cycle and in there own words they come from the Egyptian priest class and there job is to preserve the knowledge.

They have a wealth of infromation to share. Infact they are being further confirmed because they new about Sirius C too and low and behold peeps are now detecting the gravitational field of a third heavy object.



Thanks for the reply; I will look into this more in a few days, when I finish moving and get a proper internet connection. Right now, I'm using my iPhone as a personal hot-spot internet connection... which lets me use the web, but it's a lame web connection.

I googled the topic and found a nice vid about it, but my current web connection is terrible at watching online videos lol. It's all I can do to read and post in the forums right now, lol. When I do watch online vids, it defaults to the lowest quality video, so it's not really worth it, right now.



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte




All hieroglyphic texts that can be read have been deciphered. That would be 100%.


Boom! You are so so wrong. I thought you new your stuff. You are demonstrating you know next to nothing now.

Here is a List of Egyptian hieroglyphs on Wikipepida. Please note less than ten percent have been deciphered.

en.wikipedia.org...


You come onto my thread and make stuff up. I will call you out. thats all you have been doing for a while now.


I think he was trying to be clever in his wording about that.

He said "100% of the hieroglyphics WHICH CAN BE DECIPHERED, have been deciphered" or something like that.

Which is essentially saying that 90% of them CAN'T be deciphered. But that he wants to say 100% anyway, lol, within the limits that 90% can't be translated...

So in other words, he was saying that 100% of the 10% have been deciphered LOL!!



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: peacefulpete
On the other hand, non-organic materials can't be dated in the first place, so it's always an open question when exactly they were made.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK only organic materials can be dated, right?

Which leaves artifacts like bowls and pottery as guess-work based on what they were found nearby.


They can be dated by several methods with varying degrees of accuracy. In general they're dated in relation to other materials at the site... BUT... choices in material and design and construction change over the centuries. So things like stone sarcophagi can be dated even without hieroglyphs.


Wait, wait, how can stone sarcophagi be dated, though?

You're saying by stylistic choices?

That's incredibly inaccurate.

For example I used to have a coffee mug, with Roman figures on it, built in modern times. But going by style, it would be dated a couple / few thousand yrs ago...



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte
Boom! You are so so wrong. I thought you new your stuff. You are demonstrating you know next to nothing now.

Here is a List of Egyptian hieroglyphs on Wikipepida. Please note less than ten percent have been deciphered.

en.wikipedia.org...


You come onto my thread and make stuff up. I will call you out. thats all you have been doing for a while now.


Hop on over to the Yahoo Groups Glyph study - you have to join to see the lessons but you can eyeball it and see how active it is with translation.

Here's the link to a whole list of vocabulary videos

Somewhat outdated list of major translations (does not count coffins, offering stele, and minor papyri, ostrika, and so forth)

Translated papyri are here (papers are in German but German-to-English translation isn't impossible)

And then there's all the (not completely reliable) translations by Budge which seem to be everywhere (including his dictionaries.

...etcetera.

So, as you see, Harte is correct.


Your post does not validate that Harte is correct... lol.

Unless you're talking about the same 100% of 10% has been translated... which is basically putting a spin on the fact of 90% being untranslated...



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Your post does not validate that Harte is correct... lol.

Unless you're talking about the same 100% of 10% has been translated... which is basically putting a spin on the fact of 90% being untranslated...



So what material isn't translated? Can you link to some of it?

The only material I know of that's not translated are things held in small museums that are not associated with universities.... but that's not a lot of material (an example is the coffins at the Rosicrucian Museum in San Jose.) But that's not 90% of what's out there.

And since I'm skeptical, what's your source for saying that 90% isn't translated?



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Wondering if Harte’s going to respond to my last Lathe posts on the previous page regarding centring and tooling methods and forensics...



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: peacefulpete
On the other hand, non-organic materials can't be dated in the first place, so it's always an open question when exactly they were made.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK only organic materials can be dated, right?

Which leaves artifacts like bowls and pottery as guess-work based on what they were found nearby.


They can be dated by several methods with varying degrees of accuracy. In general they're dated in relation to other materials at the site... BUT... choices in material and design and construction change over the centuries. So things like stone sarcophagi can be dated even without hieroglyphs.


Wait, wait, how can stone sarcophagi be dated, though?

You're saying by stylistic choices?

That's incredibly inaccurate.

For example I used to have a coffee mug, with Roman figures on it, built in modern times. But going by style, it would be dated a couple / few thousand yrs ago...


A coffee mug where the ceramic material can be identified and dated..

A poor example.


edit on 8/3/19 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Your post does not validate that Harte is correct... lol.

Unless you're talking about the same 100% of 10% has been translated... which is basically putting a spin on the fact of 90% being untranslated...



So what material isn't translated? Can you link to some of it?

The only material I know of that's not translated are things held in small museums that are not associated with universities.... but that's not a lot of material (an example is the coffins at the Rosicrucian Museum in San Jose.) But that's not 90% of what's out there.

And since I'm skeptical, what's your source for saying that 90% isn't translated?



Someone else gave the 90% figure, so they'll have to say where they got it from.

However, AFAIK the only tangible translations of hieroglyphics come from the Rosetta Stone, which is not huge.

So if that's our only real translations, then 90% untranslated sounds like a low estimate of untranslated hieroglyphics.

And my impression is that nearly every "translation" I've read, seems ridiculous. Someone (maybe you?) linked to a hieroglyphic "dictionary" and just look at how ridiculous it is. A drawing of two men, standing and crouching down, was translated as "submissiveness" or something like that. I mean, sure, that's a guess, but it's not compelling. When a little kid draws two stick-figures, for example, it doesn't mean "submissiveness," lol.

I think the most glaring ridiculous translation I've seen, was the idea that a hieroglyphic beetle symbolized... divine blessings or whatever. It's literally unbelievable. I could better believe that a beetle meant a beetle.

And "divine blessings" is a classic religious explanation for everything that we can't understand, which is very lame and meaningless. Exactly how the pyramids are explained away as religious tombs, which they're obviously not. But people would rather pretend that everything is a tomb, and that a million hieroglyphics are waxing poetic about blessings and divinity and other vague, intangible ideas like that.

Let's give the AE a bit more credit that they didn't have such stupid meanings behind their hieroglyphics and their monolithic structures, IMO.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: peacefulpete
On the other hand, non-organic materials can't be dated in the first place, so it's always an open question when exactly they were made.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK only organic materials can be dated, right?

Which leaves artifacts like bowls and pottery as guess-work based on what they were found nearby.


They can be dated by several methods with varying degrees of accuracy. In general they're dated in relation to other materials at the site... BUT... choices in material and design and construction change over the centuries. So things like stone sarcophagi can be dated even without hieroglyphs.


Wait, wait, how can stone sarcophagi be dated, though?

You're saying by stylistic choices?

That's incredibly inaccurate.

For example I used to have a coffee mug, with Roman figures on it, built in modern times. But going by style, it would be dated a couple / few thousand yrs ago...


A coffee mug where the ceramic material can be identified and dated..

A poor example.



It's a perfect example of STYLISTIC choices being misleading, which was my point. The style would suggest the mug was a few thousand years old.

But also, please enlighten me how ceramic material can be identified and dated? If you're talking about finding modern chemicals in the ceramic or something, then sure... But beyond that, if the cup was made with all-natural materials, the same way as a few thousand years ago, then how in the world would the cup be dated to modern times?

Isn't organic material the only stuff that can be dated, in the first place?

The cup could be made of clay etc. that formed a few thousand yrs ago, yet the cup was just made in modern times. How could that possibly be dated accurately?



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Your post does not validate that Harte is correct... lol.

Unless you're talking about the same 100% of 10% has been translated... which is basically putting a spin on the fact of 90% being untranslated...



So what material isn't translated? Can you link to some of it?

The only material I know of that's not translated are things held in small museums that are not associated with universities.... but that's not a lot of material (an example is the coffins at the Rosicrucian Museum in San Jose.) But that's not 90% of what's out there.

And since I'm skeptical, what's your source for saying that 90% isn't translated?



Someone else gave the 90% figure, so they'll have to say where they got it from.

However, AFAIK the only tangible translations of hieroglyphics come from the Rosetta Stone, which is not huge.

So if that's our only real translations, then 90% untranslated sounds like a low estimate of untranslated hieroglyphics.

And my impression is that nearly every "translation" I've read, seems ridiculous. Someone (maybe you?) linked to a hieroglyphic "dictionary" and just look at how ridiculous it is. A drawing of two men, standing and crouching down, was translated as "submissiveness" or something like that. I mean, sure, that's a guess, but it's not compelling. When a little kid draws two stick-figures, for example, it doesn't mean "submissiveness," lol.

I think the most glaring ridiculous translation I've seen, was the idea that a hieroglyphic beetle symbolized... divine blessings or whatever. It's literally unbelievable. I could better believe that a beetle meant a beetle.

And "divine blessings" is a classic religious explanation for everything that we can't understand, which is very lame and meaningless. Exactly how the pyramids are explained away as religious tombs, which they're obviously not. But people would rather pretend that everything is a tomb, and that a million hieroglyphics are waxing poetic about blessings and divinity and other vague, intangible ideas like that.

Let's give the AE a bit more credit that they didn't have such stupid meanings behind their hieroglyphics and their monolithic structures, IMO.



This is dead on! They don’t have proper translations of the hieroglyphs. They give the most mundane / simple explanation for them — it’s ridiculous.

The AE’s had a deeper understanding of the esoteric nature in all things. They incorporated that esoteric knowledge in their hieroglyphs. There is a fascinating book on this called ‘Egypt Child of Atlantis’. It’s a very complicated read, but worth it if you want to find the true nature behind the hieroglyphs.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Your post does not validate that Harte is correct... lol.

Unless you're talking about the same 100% of 10% has been translated... which is basically putting a spin on the fact of 90% being untranslated...



So what material isn't translated? Can you link to some of it?

The only material I know of that's not translated are things held in small museums that are not associated with universities.... but that's not a lot of material (an example is the coffins at the Rosicrucian Museum in San Jose.) But that's not 90% of what's out there.

And since I'm skeptical, what's your source for saying that 90% isn't translated?



Someone else gave the 90% figure, so they'll have to say where they got it from.

As someone who's learned to translate (badly) hieroglyphs, I'm very skeptical of the figure.


However, AFAIK the only tangible translations of hieroglyphics come from the Rosetta Stone, which is not huge.

That's not correct. The Rosetta stone was just the start. Once the code for that was decyphered (and they'd been working on trying to translate hieroglyphs for quite awhile before Champollion came up with the solution based on the name, Ptolemy)


And my impression is that nearly every "translation" I've read, seems ridiculous. Someone (maybe you?) linked to a hieroglyphic "dictionary" and just look at how ridiculous it is. A drawing of two men, standing and crouching down, was translated as "submissiveness" or something like that. I mean, sure, that's a guess, but it's not compelling. When a little kid draws two stick-figures, for example, it doesn't mean "submissiveness," lol.


I suspect that this is because you haven't studied hieroglyphs (there's over 2,000 individual signs.) The language has words AND signifiers (signs that clarify the meaning of words.) So the word "ka" (for cattle) is the same sound and spelling as "ka" (for soul) ... but the word for cattle has a cow standing next to it. In general, any word that has to do with humans will also have a small illustrative human (or two) next to it. Likewise, the names of animals also have a picture of the animal next to it.



I think the most glaring ridiculous translation I've seen, was the idea that a hieroglyphic beetle symbolized... divine blessings or whatever. It's literally unbelievable. I could better believe that a beetle meant a beetle.


Again, I think you're unfamiliar with the millions of pieces of art, writing, sculpture, etc from ancient Egypt. If you were a fan of the culture, you would know that one of the most important sun deities has a beetle for a head (Wikipedia link -- and notice in the god's name on the left, is the scarab, the two symbols that sound "kph" and "i" and that seated next to the name is the signifier meaning "god".)


Let's give the AE a bit more credit that they didn't have such stupid meanings behind their hieroglyphics and their monolithic structures, IMO.


Indeed, they didn't have stupid meanings... but what you found isn't what the Egyptians said or thought. We have a lot of their writings and in many places this writing is decorated with art (similar to comic books of today where the art relates to the text.) We've got fiction, we've got legends, we've got military campaigns, we've got diplomatic campaigns, bills of sale, lawsuits, court trials, and a zillion other things all in hieroglyphs and all translated.

By the way, the Rosetta Stone is NOT the only work with hieroglyphs plus inscriptions in one or two other languages (see Wikipedia article's last paragraph of the introduction to the Rosetta Stone)
edit on 8-3-2019 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Here’s a little present for Harte, done by yours truly. I have given Harte 20 minutes of my time free, and made Harte a tiny, tiny Egyptian bowl, out of a piece of black stuff lying around. The 20 free minutes included grinding a small tool for turning , turning the piece, and chopping it off the lathe ( parting off in lathe terms)









It’s rough I know, the centre section isn’t the same, but I could do that, I didn’t have a ball nosed cutter to hand to do that— but can the class see the tell tale lathe circular striations and centre point? Can Harte?

Here’s the Egyptian one.




edit on 9-3-2019 by bluesfreak because: Final pic insertion

edit on 9-3-2019 by bluesfreak because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2019 by bluesfreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: bluesfreak

All's good. Neat piece of work.

bally
edit on 9-3-2019 by bally001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: bluesfreak




Here’s a little present for Harte, done by yours truly. I have given Harte 20 minutes of my time free, and made Harte a tiny, tiny Egyptian bowl, out of a piece of black stuff lying around. The 20 free minutes included grinding a small tool for turning , turning the piece, and chopping it off the lathe ( parting off in lathe terms)



Well done but that dont cut the mustard. Why do peeps keep trying to circumnavigate.

How about you try doing the same thing with a granite and cooper tools and how about you you replicate something like this that as the experts state above was done with pounding..




posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I debunked your limited explanation earlier on how the bowl was made. You didn't even reply. Now your back pretending to know your stuff. This thread has made a mess of the so called experts.




new topics

top topics



 
187
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join