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: 27
187
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Ty for reply.
I am not denying the peeps are enjoying translating hieroglyphs. What am saying is that most have not been deciphered. Unless of course you are saying that WIkipedia is incorrect?

Is that what you are saying?




posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I think what Phoenix358 means is this: A pottery wheel is a form of lathe because it turns the workpiece and the workpiece is worked on as it turns , like on a lathe. Unlike Harte’s version of a static piece and an unsteady method applied vertically, which can’t produce the accuracy of circles that we have demonstrated exist.

If the class would like to take note, I have produced genuine engineering counter arguments ,over the last 7 pages or so, to Harte’s suggested methodology to certain objects, I have shown genuine engineering concepts and forensics that offer a more than reasonable body of evidence regarding the accurate centring, concentric striations, and rigidity in the way these objects were created.
I have even given Harte and the class 20 free minutes of machine time to create a tiny, tiny gift for Harte that demonstrates purely and honestly the engineering evidence I have set out.
Even after my non-emotional and logical replies and production of contrary evidence, Harte feels it acceptable to make sweeping statements that simply say “ there weren’t any” as if this is the true and final official line on the matter, and that if anyone here believes otherwise they are somehow a laughing stock in the eyes of the truth .
We have even had a moderator here willing to be persuaded on the matter, and yet Harte would like to make us all feel inferior by even contemplating such strong engineering evidence.
Perhaps, by re-reading these pages of considered and logical responses, the class can decide for itself whether the AE had some form of rigid primitive lathes, and not let simple statements of denial earn any kind of validity .
If the lathe section of this thread was shown to more lathe operators, and told them that the counter arguments to lathe forensics were being proposed by a former Mechanical Engineer, they would react as Stan and Ollie do below, which will now become my standard response to Harte’s sweeping engineering statements.


And as for that swan necked vessel, it wasn’t done on a lathe as far as I’m concerned.
The bowls, and the concentric circular dish are another matter, and show lathe forensics. a reply to: purplemer

edit on 10-3-2019 by bluesfreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesfreak

I will go back and have a read off your stuff. Soz its hard when I am working. The bowls do not make sense and it looks to me like they are worthy of a thread in their own accord.

Thank you for your work in this thread.

Happy days





posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

Ty for reply.
I am not denying the peeps are enjoying translating hieroglyphs. What am saying is that most have not been deciphered. Unless of course you are saying that WIkipedia is incorrect?

Is that what you are saying?


Is this the article you mean?
Wikipedia article on hieroglyphs

There's nothing in there about most being decyphered (and nothing about 90% of them not being decyphered.) In fact, there's a nice overview of how we translate and some of the cautions in translating (such as reading order for names and multiple forms of the writing.) Could you link the article you read and we can take a look at it?



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd




Aha! That's amusing. I probably walked right past it when we visited (I was on the hunt for magical knives and we didn't have much time there) So the material is about a 5 on the MOHS scale and could easily be carved with glass ... so any flint tool will cut and shape it just fine (likewise obsidian, sand (quartz), granite, etc. Thanks for looking that up.


SO just to clarify. The vessel I mentioned was made in very early Egyptian times. Was made to an incredibly amazing specification and you have no idea how they did it.


Exactly. Oh, I have a general view of how it was done, but the actual study of items is very complex because of the huge number of artifacts and the great stretch of time (3,000 years) not to mention styles and workshops. It'd take working with a museum (or several) and doing studies on collections to be an expert at it.

I'm more interested in magical knives.


So good infact that its only in the last couple of decades that we could reproduce such vessel.

I would dispute that. The Romans (and a lot of other civilizations) were doing exquisite stone work like this tiny 2 inch perfume bottle carved from agate (Roman, 1st century)

Or even this exquisite alabaster cup of Tutankamun's


Funny how there cultures seemed to diminish from earlier times. Its as if they had some kind of fall from grace.


It didn't, actually. They quit making the stone vessels but that may have been because it took too long and about that time their pottery and glazes became better (and developed things like "faience" (it's actually a frit, if you want to get technical about it))... rather than spending a long time at a hand turned stone vessel, they could make beautiful and lighter objects more quickly out of pottery.

There was also a breakdown of the kingdom for a few hundred years after the end of the Old Kingdom before the Middle Kingdom arose (what happened was a dispute over the throne and the country divided into smaller countries before being reunited later (there's more to it than that but nobody wants a huge essay.) However, the administrative chaos didn't affect much of daily life, as can be seen in artifacts from these periods.
edit on 10-3-2019 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: bluesfreak

I missed that. I didnt realise that the AE didnt have lathes. Puts a whole different perceptive on this issue. How on earth did that make these vessels then. It seem nigh on impossible to me if this is the case!


I linked to a guy that made a bowl by hand in a video. I linked to Stock's explaining how he made a vessel with an opening half the size of the vessels diameter.
But still you go on about how nobody has any idea how it was done.

You can't ignore your way out of ignorance.

Harte



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

Ty for reply.
I am not denying the peeps are enjoying translating hieroglyphs. What am saying is that most have not been deciphered. Unless of course you are saying that WIkipedia is incorrect?

Is that what you are saying?

Quote Wikipedia saying that most glyphs haven't been deciphered.
No fair editing it in yourself then quoting it before the editors delete it.

Harte



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte


As i said you earlier you have shown yourself to be very limited on this subject. You skirt around issues and pretend to have information that is simply based on your imagination. You think you know history. You really dont. My next thread will blow your mind and shift your paradigm.


I will have myself another cup of roasted coffee. No need to further reply to you in this thread

Take care for now



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte


As i said you earlier you have shown yourself to be very limited on this subject. You skirt around issues and pretend to have information that is simply based on your imagination. You think you know history. You really dont. My next thread will blow your mind and shift your paradigm.


I will have myself another cup of roasted coffee. No need to further reply to you in this thread

Take care for now



I've never claimed to be an expert, unlike yourself.
I've brought plenty of evidence and information to the discussion. All of it left unresponded to by you.
You've brought nothing but "Nuh-uh!"

You have no knowledge whatsoever on the subject, else you would have let at least a little bit slip into your posts.
Regarding replies, no reply is better than "Nuh-uh!"

Harte



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: purplemer

It’s a terrible analogy.

Pottery is an amazing thing for archeologists, it plays a crucial role in gathering information like dates and technology.

It’s extremely well studied, and any ancient symbols written on a coffee mug wouldn’t be misidentified as ancient, as you’d use the vessel it’s written on to help age it.

It’s just science and facts, two things you clearly don’t have much of a grasp on.


I'm just getting back to this thread.

Dude my analogy was perfect, and you're either not understanding, or something.

My point was that art style alone, can't accurately date something. And my point stands.

Also no one explained how ceramic itself could be dated, separate from its style. Since ceramic is not organic, it can't be dated like organic matter... right?

So beyond style, how can things like ceramic be dated?



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: peacefulpete

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!!

Think what you want - here's what I said:

originally posted by: Harte
All hieroglyphic texts that can be read have been deciphered. That would be 100%.
Harte

Some texts can't be read. Texts that have worn away. Texts on papyri that have been water damaged, etc.

There is no text that contains clear Egyptian glyphs that cannot be translated.

Better?

Harte


Wow. I didn't even consider that... you actually believe that ALL hieroglyphics have been translated... besides ones that were damaged...

I find that extremely unbelievable. Rosetta Stone makes sense for providing direct translations, but beyond that... I certainly do NOT have faith in anyone's ability to guess what weird drawings mean, while lacking any solid reasons behind it.

Especially when a drawing can arbitrarily mean practically anything that the artist wants it to mean.

I mean, just think about it. If I sit down and draw a cat... What does it mean? Maybe it means a cat. Or maybe it means... divine blessings? Or maybe it means... allergies, because I'm allergic to cats, lol. Or maybe it means the speed of a cat running. Or maybe it means food, since in China they eat cats.

There's no definitive way to guess what weird drawings mean. Come on, man. lol.

I can believe in direct translated examples like Rosetta Stone, and if there are any other such direct translations, but that's really as much as I can believe in any of it being translated.

Hey I drew a car. Does it mean... a car? Or divine blessings? Nope, my car drawing means music, lol, because I play music in my car... lol.

Artwork is fundamentally arbitrary in its meaning, and practically incomprehensible, as far as guessing exactly what the artist had in mind.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: peacefulpete

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...


Give it up. You're embarrassing yourself. ALL Egyptian glyphs ever found have been translated.

Harte


Funny, I think you're embarrassing yourself, by saying that ALL hieroglyphics have been translated.

How about if I draw an apple. And someone finds it, a few thousand years from now. Will he know what symbology I had in mind when I drew it?

Obviously, no. They'll have no idea if my apple drawing symbolizes food, or symbolizes a blessing, or whatever. And if they find Apple products with the iconic logo, they might have no concept of branding logos, and they might think our products have the logo, as a good-luck symbol, or whatever.

There's literally no end to the open interpretations of arbitrary drawings.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte




You're a fool if you think that vase cannot be made with CNC machinery


Now here is the finish him move..

A fool is one that believes there own imagination over objective fact. Something you have masterly demonstrated yourself in this thread.

You know maybe you are correct. Maybe a state of the art mechanical robot could pull this off. Would you be suggesting that the AE had access to such equipment since you are all out of others options you will have to admit that its ad least a possibility.

I love the smell of roasted coffee in the morning


FINISH HIM!!

(forward, down, forward, A)

FATALITY!!



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

I can get you one.
Cheap.


I'm still just reading thru the last couple pages. I can't wait for the punchline here.

Hmm... you can get one, cheap... which is made of plastic, because it's a modern kid's toy, from a factory in China, right? Am I close to guessing the punchline? lol



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: bluesfreak

I missed that. I didnt realise that the AE didnt have lathes. Puts a whole different perceptive on this issue. How on earth did that make these vessels then. It seem nigh on impossible to me if this is the case!



Well, it's always impossible to prove a negative... So there's really no way for anyone to state that they DIDN'T have such things...



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte




You're a fool if you think that vase cannot be made with CNC machinery


Now here is the finish him move..

A fool is one that believes there own imagination over objective fact. Something you have masterly demonstrated yourself in this thread.

You know maybe you are correct. Maybe a state of the art mechanical robot could pull this off. Would you be suggesting that the AE had access to such equipment since you are all out of others options you will have to admit that its ad least a possibility.

Non Sequitur.
You claimed it couldn't be made by modern means, multiple times throughout your posts in this thread.
Now "maybe" it can?
I'm telling you it certainly can be made by modern machinery.
I think I ought to know, having programmed CNC machinery in an earlier career.
I stated nothing whatsoever about AEs having such machinery. You go there with this inane post of yours to distract from the fact that I've shown you that this vessel CAN be made by modern means.
That's an utterly transparent dodge from your own argument.

So - first it "can't be made by modern means."
Then "maybe it can be made by modern means."
Then dodge away from your own repeated argument from ignorance with a non sequitur.

Look who's finished.

Harte



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: bluesfreak

I missed that. I didnt realise that the AE didnt have lathes. Puts a whole different perceptive on this issue. How on earth did that make these vessels then. It seem nigh on impossible to me if this is the case!



Well, it's always impossible to prove a negative... So there's really no way for anyone to state that they DIDN'T have such things...


Except (sigh) we have drawings from them of their workshops showing craftsmen in action. We have the drills and we have equipment from the workshops. And although you with your modern experiences (which are not to be discounted) can't think of any way to do this using ancient technology, I can think of half a dozen ways that it might be done, from drills to a type of file to abrasives (sand) on cloth... and so on and so forth.

Modern devices have made us a bit intellectually lazy in that we think this is the only way things can be done. This is demonstrably not true.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
People, please.
There are ways, as Byrd states,that the AE did certain things, that are drawn and/or represented in their art, however, there ARE anomalous objects and forensic tool markings left behind that DON’T reflect these methods, as we have been debating over the last 10 pages or so.
No one can state that we know ALL the methods the AE employed when it comes to architecture, lifting, moving, quarrying; and as there aren’t AE pictograms for everything mentioned above, we can’t assume we know all methods used if we are going to base our certainty on pictorial representations alone.

The bowls and plate-type artifacts that demonstrate a perfect centre, perfect circular striations are without a doubt part of the ‘problem’ if you base how they were achieved on AE artwork.

Many of the drills, saws of AE that I’ve seen are plainly CARPENTRY tools, designed for working on WOOD, and all of the pictographical representations of them in use show the craftsmen working on wooden tables and so forth.
These tools would be quite useless on that nasty granite we often talk about. Yes, many of the vases are softer stone, but these tools are not a satisfactory explanation for granite artifacts.

Simply stating and believing “ they didn’t have any” when it comes to the debate on primitive lathes will simply not suffice in the face of the evidence ,and “they didn’t have any” because there are no drawings of them will not suffice in the face of the evidence either.

I wish to state that I have nothing but respect for those who have persued an academic life regarding the AE, BUT....,
Back in the day of the AE, all those thousands of years ago , it was not academics and egyptologists who built the temples, pyramids, tombs, obelisks, statues etc , it was architects, builders, stonemasons, craftsmen, mathematicians, problem solvers; so in my mind, it is these people who should be consulted by egyptologists to answer the questions that many objects throw at us.
NOT consulting these people because they are not egyptologists is quite dangerous to our quest for knowledge and answers.


a reply to: Byrd


edit on 12-3-2019 by bluesfreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluesfreak
...it was architects, builders, stonemasons, craftsmen, mathematicians, problem solvers; so in my mind, it is these people who should be consulted by egyptologists to answer the questions that many objects throw at us.
NOT consulting these people because they are not egyptologists is quite dangerous to our quest for knowledge and answers.



Because you're not familiar with the material, I believe that you're making some unwarranted assumptions.

IEgyptologists (and other -ologists who study culture) DID consult not only with engineers and architects but sat down with the people and documented how they worked and how they did things. Their records and observations and photographs and films (for more recent stuff) are some of the only documents about this. They do ask other professions about how things are done.

Museums have a lot of these photos and films, like this one from a museum of a traditional shadouf in Egypt being used.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Well this post is basically arguing that we should have a leap of faith in Egyptologists and others... that they’re accurate and properly consulting the proper experts... and that they’re working with honest, good intentions...

But I don’t feel compelled to make that leap of faith. There are obviously selfish interests for the modern country of Egypt, such as their own pride in their own ancestors, who they enjoy assuming that they built the pyramids, Sphinx, etc., which also seems to be the one big draw for pulling in tourists to Egypt... to marvel at the work of their assumed ancestors.

It’s in their own self interest to interpret things that way, and to not consider alternative explanations.

Putting aside notions of aliens: The ancient Egyptians could have very well been a completely different people, with no connection to the modern Egyptians. Which is not a very abstract idea: Just look at how most modern-day Americans are certainly not descendents of Native Americans, who previously had exclusive presence in the same place, for thousands of years, up till just a few hundred years ago.

In Egypt, the idea of distinctly different people, thousands of yrs ago, is certainly true on the cultural level, just based on modern Egypt being a Muslim country, who doesn’t build amazing super structures. And the ancient Egyptians obviously were not Muslims lol.

Which makes it surprising in a way, that they want to assume pride in their ancestors’ assumed culture and achievements, without actually engaging in the same culture themselves...

If they really believed the ancients to be their ancestors, I’d expect them to embrace the same culture, at least a little bit...

Hmm...



new topics

top topics



 
187
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join