Skeletons of Inca-people found in Norway. How and Why...

Many years ago when I was taking a required college history course we were required to do a term paper on subject 'x' . I dutifully completed the term paper turned it in and received a "C" for content. When I asked why I received just a passing grade, the PHD History professor said that he completely disagreed with the conclusions of my sources which were all peer reviewed texts from the university library. That's when I discovered the truth about university level academia: it's not really about the facts being supported by evidence, it's a frikkin' popularity contest. History and archeology aren't material sciences, they are liberal arts! Any evidence that's anomalous or contradicts the approved peer reviewed theory is purposefully excluded or dismissed as hoax or bunk. There's no more integrity in history or archeology being taught at universities than you'll find in politics! History is written by the 'yes' men who support the status quo! I reject your interpretation of human history for what it is: propaganda!

"I reject your reality and I substitute my own"

Here is a twist Marduk , ehm , or shall I call you Tur-duk ?









The meaning obtained thru reading the above piece, as if it were written in ancient Turkish, can roughly be rendered in today's English as follows:

(May both of) the dog(s) charge well; so that the sacred sky-spirit acknowledges their boldness..

[edit on 29-6-2007 by 23432]

why is that a twist
what do turks have to do with incas

Originally posted by Marduk
why is that a twist
what do turks have to do with incas

it is a twist because it does not fit in well with the accepted wisdom .

turks have nothing to do with incas but central asian migration may have something to do with some native indian tribes.

what is known for sure is that migration took place in ALL directions out of central asia .


www.compmore.net...

polat kaya is actullly making more sense then ever .

Originally posted by crgintx
Many years ago when I was taking a required college history course we were required to do a term paper on subject 'x' . I dutifully completed the term paper turned it in and received a "C" for content. When I asked why I received just a passing grade, the PHD History professor said that he completely disagreed with the conclusions of my sources which were all peer reviewed texts from the university library. That's when I discovered the truth about university level academia: it's not really about the facts being supported by evidence, it's a frikkin' popularity contest. History and archeology aren't material sciences, they are liberal arts! Any evidence that's anomalous or contradicts the approved peer reviewed theory is purposefully excluded or dismissed as hoax or bunk. There's no more integrity in history or archeology being taught at universities than you'll find in politics! History is written by the 'yes' men who support the status quo! I reject your interpretation of human history for what it is: propaganda!

ah the refreshing smell of innocence being lost .

Originally posted by 23432


it is a twist because it does not fit in well with the accepted wisdom .

yeah thats because it isn't accepted that the vikings were Turks and that the runes translate perfectly well in proto Futhark but they say something else much more believable

Originally posted by 23432
turks have nothing to do with incas but central asian migration may have something to do with some native indian tribes.

thats very unlikely as Turks didn't exist until the Ottoman empire in the 13th C
So your timeline is off by about 18,000 years

Marduk


Why are we calling you as such ?

Shouldn't your name be Turduk according to original scripts ?



You do know one of the authentic tribes in caucasia is called " jane " ?

really , you should read polat kaya's web page , he outlines a rather more supportable explanation of the unexplainables .

that one language the turanians spoke was called language of TUR and the world had not expanded yet .
so the incas and norwegians were living next to one another and the sun was swell , tropical at all year around .




explain to me how can a turk understand those runes in northern europe yet the none of the europeans are able to understand it ?

They ( runes ) are written in TUR language of the Turanians and as such it would be normal for a Turk to understand them .

Nothing magical or racial , just plain common sense








[edit on 29-6-2007 by 23432]

this is common sense ???

that an inscription written in ancient Turkish which didn't exist until around 1300CE appears on a stone carved around 1000 years earlier
what are you smoking


if you'd bothered to research the Futhark script on the Mojbro stone properly you would have discovered that translating it in Turkish is rubbish
it already says "Frawaradar was slain on the horse" in Futhark
seeing as its a grave marker for a horsemen I don't think your credulity is attached to your reasoning correctly
try restoring factory settings and see if your common sense comes back online with it ok

anyone who can read turkic tonque can understand what's written on those stones in sweden .
the same language is also found in orkhun valley , mongolia as well as sweden .

I see you have not answered as to why should we call you Marduk instead or real name Turduk ?



Smoking ?

Pineapple brand , smells lovely .

Ottomans maybe young but that does not mean the TUR culture of Turanians did not exist .

Turanians lived in todays eurasian geography .

Today , just like how it was thousands of years , one can set out from estonia to manchuria and one can travel speaking Tur(k) language all the way .

Naaa-aaah , it must of been those strong vikings who ruled central asia as well as norway and obviously they have wrote those inscriptions on those stones in language just happens to be understandable to turk speakers .



LOL

this is a conspiracy site after all , don;t let me stop your fun .

juan juan are coming to get you !!!

Marduk is a noun
and it isn't Turkish
got that ?
now read this
en.wikipedia.org...
especially where it says you don't know what youre talking about (i.e. all of it)
Now don't get me wrong theres nothing in being proud of your roots but when you start claiming that those roots also belong to everyone else despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary its quite clear that you don't care much for the facts
as such your posts are little more than an exercise in futility


now if you've finished attempting to derail this thread like you have in most of the others you've posted this Turkish time travel rubbish in can we get back to topic ?

Originally posted by Marduk

Marduk is a noun
and it isn't Turkish
got that ?


actually , there is the truth here About the name TUR:

The Turkic name TUR or Turk does not appear in Sumerian writings. But
this appearance is rather false. The name TUR has been suppressed in
reading Sumerian texts. We have the evidence for this suppression. One
very important footnote regarding the name TUR has been preserved for
us by C. J. Gadd. He writes: [2] in footnote III. 1: "TUR is read
"mar" in
the name of this god".

Here he openly says that the term "MAR" is actually the name "TUR" of
a god, but somehow, due to some "arbitrary convention", TUR is not
read as TUR but is read as MAR. I am grateful to C. J. Gadd for
writing this footnote. I must add here that the Turkish word TUR has
been read as MAR and/or AMAR in the reading of the Sumerian texts.
This reading of course obliterates totally the name TUR from
translated texts.

The referred Sumerian text has been transliterated by Gadd as:

"DINGIR.LUGAL-MAR-DA-DINGIR-RA-NI-IR" translated by him as "To
Lugal-Marda, his god".

However, in view of his footnote cited above, the transliteration of
this Sumerian expression should have been, that is, if the word TUR
was not transformed into MAR:

"DINGIR.LUGAL-TUR-DA-DINGIR-RA-NI-IR" and the new English translation
should have been "To Lugal TUR-ADA, his god" which I will compare with
the following Turkish expression:

"TENGIR.ULU aGa-AL TUR ATA, TENGIR-ER ER-IN" meaning "God, the Great
Lord Red TUR Father, The God-Man of man" which refers to the ancient
Turanian Sky-God Sun-God TUR from which the names Tur, Turk, Turan and
Turkish come from. When we compare these two expressions side by side
we get the following picture:

Sumerian: "DINGIR.LUGAL-TUR-DA-DINGIR-RA-NI-IR"

Turkish: "TENGIR.uLU aGa-AL TUR ADA (ATA), TENGIR-ER ER-IN"

where the last suffix IN (UN) is the Turkish suffix for 3rd person
singular possessive on nouns.

Thus, in this one statement alone appearing in a Sumerian text,
finding God's name in the form of TUR and/or TUR ATA sets the required
time frame that K. Loganathan wants to establish for concurrent
presence of Turkish with Sumerian. Evidently the name TUR and its
derivatives were suppressed so badly that they and many other Turkish
words had no chance of being read and recognized as Turkish. Thus it
is quite clear that a lot of defrauding of Turkish under the guise of
"scholarliness" and "language development" have been inflicted on the
reading of Sumerian texts starting from ancient times. Semitizing the
ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Sumer texts has been in full force without
regard for the authentic Tur/Turk identity of these writings. In
plain terms, this is called intentional obliteration or fraud.





now read this
en.wikipedia.org...
especially where it says you don't know what youre talking about (i.e. all of it)

I speak almost all of those languages and some more . Just out of curiosity , how many turkic dialects can you sepak ?

I could of told you all on that " wikipedia " page and some more about the agglunitave languages .

I think you misunderstood me , I gues the english not being my best language does not help either .

Rest assured my attempt is a mild amusement with a genuine curiosity .

can you explain why gadd writes about tur must be read as mar ?

I have found it funny what gadd does and funnier still that you do not find it curios .

different sense of humour I guess .





Now don't get me wrong theres nothing in being proud of your roots but when you start claiming that those roots also belong to everyone else despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary its quite clear that you don't care much for the facts
as such your posts are little more than an exercise in futility

Turduk , I am proud of being a human nothing more nothing less . Please do not get me wrong I am not trying to pick on you but I found that you are talking about a set view of certain events , places in history and it does not match with my info.

Seriously , can I call you marduk or turduk , interchangeably ?

now if you've finished attempting to derail this thread like you have in most of the others you've posted this Turkish time travel rubbish in can we get back to topic ?



uh uh uh , those bones found in norway caused a stir becasue they were not european but rather inca or asian or caucasian .

I am not a betting man but if I were , I would say they are eskimo or inuit or tuva bones .

incidentially , inuit also have the 23432 too , go figure , eh ?

Turkish time travel what ?

I am afraid you've lost me there .

A simple google search on TURANIANS should put things in more perspective for you perhaps .

To conclude , those bones are likely to be a pole region people's bones , eskimo , tuva and inuit are my candidates .
I believe in Turanian times , all over eurasia the people of asian & caucasian admixture co-existed and they spoke a language called TUR .

If there are any scripts found with the bones it would be interesting to have a go at reading .

Originally posted by 23432
.

can you explain why gadd writes about tur must be read as mar ?

so you should be saying Maranian and not Turanian then

Originally posted by 23432

To conclude , those bones are likely to be a pole region people's bones , eskimo , tuva and inuit are my candidates .
I believe in Turanian times , all over eurasia the people of asian & caucasian admixture co-existed and they spoke a language called TUR .

the bone abnormality is found in 3% of all races
including 3% of Norsemen as they are one of the "all races"
so there is zero evidence for this being an Incan skeleton or any other skeleton except Norse

no one at all is claiming that these are Eskimo bones
your making this up as you go along arent you

and what the hell is the Turanian times ? a newspaper for people who know nothing about Language families ?
fyi Futhark is from the PIE group and Turkish is from Ural Altaic
these two language groups are in no way similar to each other and attempting to translate one group with the values of another is just going to end up as gobbledigook as we already saw by your translation mentioning Dogs
fyi the scandanavians did not go around making memorial stones to dogs
it is possible to attempt to translate any language with the rules of any other
this method is commonly used by pseudohistorians who start out with a belief and then look for facts to fit it
e.g. Dr Winters translation of Sumerian using Mande
Dr Winters translation of Olmec using Mande
Dr Winters translation of greek using Mande
what youre claiming as fact is a party trick
it isn't at all credible

heres an example

french
"le chien adore le boeuf" (the dog loves beef)
using english rules
"the Chinese adore the beef"
it would be easy for me to claim using this method that French is based on English because the sentence does make perfect sense when translated this way
it would also be incorrect for me to do so

Originally posted by Marduk

Originally posted by 23432
.

can you explain why gadd writes about tur must be read as mar ?

so you should be saying Maranian and not Turanian then


I think you need to re-read what gadd wrote . If it makes you happy , I can call you hercules too .

Oh please , try to explain why tur is read mar , if you can .
I also note you speak no agglunative language , do you not think this is somehwhat an obstacle in understanding the Turanian subject ?

Originally posted by 23432

To conclude , those bones are likely to be a pole region people's bones , eskimo , tuva and inuit are my candidates .
I believe in Turanian times , all over eurasia the people of asian & caucasian admixture co-existed and they spoke a language called TUR .

the bone abnormality is found in 3% of all races
including 3% of Norsemen as they are one of the "all races"
so there is zero evidence for this being an Incan skeleton or any other skeleton except Norse

no one at all is claiming that these are Eskimo bones
your making this up as you go along arent you

hmmm , I am reading the same thread as you and of course adding the eskimo angle delibrately .

I have mentioned the earth not being yet expanded when inca & norwegians were neighbours but I think that went over your head a bit , didn't it ?

a simple youtube search for " expanding earth " theory whould also give another twist to eskimos and norwegians being neighbours , maybe ?

let's check , this is a CONSPIRACY web forum , we are all aware of this little fact , right ?

why are you so adamant that the eskimos and norwegians were never neighbours ?

Some other people point to another conspiracy theory and in it , they claim the earth has expanded / expanding .

If you watch the animation on youtube for " expanding earth " then you should spot how eskimo , inca , norwegian are all neighbours .

they do not mention any bones found in norway .






and what the hell is the Turanian times ? a newspaper for people who know nothing about Language families ?

Turanians times would be pre - roman times , when Etruscans were busy founding Roman Empire , naming the Adige valley in due course .

TURANIAN

The term 'Turanian' may not be a clear one for the reader. One of the definitions by the Encyclopaedia Britannica World Languages Dictionary (EBWLD) under the entry TURANIAN gives the following: [4] [EBWLD, 1963, Vol. 2, p. 1353.]

"TURANIAN. OF OR PERTAINING TO A LARGE FAMILY OF AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGES OF EUROPE AND NORTHERN ASIA, NEITHER INDO-EUROPEAN NOR SEMITIC, SPECIFICALLY KNOWN AS THE URAL-ALTAIC LANGUAGES, OR ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THEM. AS NOUN. 1 ONE WHOSE MOTHER TONGUE IS A URAL-ALTAIC LANGUAGE; A PERSON OF URAL-ALTAIC STOCK. 2 THE URAL-ALTAIC LANGUAGES COLLECTIVELY. 3 THEORETICALLY, ONE OF AN UNKNOWN NOMADIC PEOPLE WHO ANTEDATED THE ARYANS IN EUROPE AND ASIA. [< PERSIAN TURAN, A COUNTRY NORTH OF THE OXUS RIVER]."




fyi Futhark is from the PIE group and Turkish is from Ural Altaic


PIE = see above definition 3 ; if this true then it is natural to assume that the turanians spoke tur language , isn't it ?




these two language groups are in no way similar to each other and attempting to translate one group with the values of another is just going to end up as gobbledigook as we already saw by your translation mentioning Dogs
fyi the scandanavians did not go around making memorial stones to dogs


it was not a translation and it is accurate . It talks about what is being depicted on the stone . I think you do not understand it , simply put , those scripts are readable in turkish runes without TRANSLATION and the meaning fits the picture .


it is possible to attempt to translate any language with the rules of any other
this method is commonly used by pseudohistorians who start out with a belief and then look for facts to fit it
e.g. Dr Winters translation of Sumerian using Mande
Dr Winters translation of Olmec using Mande
Dr Winters translation of greek using Mande
what youre claiming as fact is a party trick
it isn't at all credible

heres an example

french
"le chien adore le boeuf" (the dog loves beef)
using english rules
"the Chinese adore the beef"
it would be easy for me to claim using this method that French is based on English because the sentence does make perfect sense when translated this way
it would also be incorrect for me to do so



no one but you are talking about translation . The conspiracy theory which I am quoting from claims that the ancient tur language was the same language spoken thru out eurasia and mesopotamia .

I repeat , there is no TRANSLATION of any sort .

Please can you read before jumping up and down ?

I am claiming that the ancient Turanians spoke a Tur language and that there was / is a conspiracy to hide this truth.

I am also claiming that the earth had not yet expanded at some point in past and in those times the norwegians and incas could of been neighbours .

marduk

chill out , fyi , this is a conspiracy forum and I am writing about conspiracies .

this is a conspiracy forum but this isn't a cospiracy section
this is the Ancient & Lost Civilizations forum
the mods here have on a number of occaisons pointed that out

Originally posted by Marduk
this is a conspiracy forum but this isn't a cospiracy section
this is the Ancient & Lost Civilizations forum
the mods here have on a number of occaisons pointed that out

Turduk

I am ancient and justified .

joking aside ;

I am talking about a lost civilisation of Turanians , I am surprised you are having such a difficult time to get your head around this fact .

why are you taking this so personally ?

is it sooo disturbing to think that the language the turanians speaks is rather older then you were thought ?

I am offering a plausible conspiracy , if there is ever such a thing .

if those bones are not " white " people's bones , I am saying that the explanation could be such that the earth wasn't expanded yet and the continents were together .

It is not such great leap from what is already being touted as " expanding earth " conspiracy .

It is about a lost civilisation , Turania .


so , what say you ?
Can I call you Turduk like how the original scripts is written ?

duh
its Marduk
the Bible pronounces it Merodach
in Babylonian which is a semitic dialect it starts with an M
IN ALL THE TEXTS ITS WRITTEN

there is no confusion over this at all so I don't know why you are flusing your credibility claiming otherwise



as for your theory
its actually an untested hypothesis
when you know enough about the history of this planet it might move on but not while youre claiming that the geography of this planet has changed drastically in the last 10,000 years
thats plainly absurd

as for your claims of a Turanian civilisation
the only reason youre claiming that is because you think your genes are a part of it
that is also plainly absurd
we already established that you had no idea of the previous migrations through Turkey in another thread
you're probably descended from an Iranian
or a Greek
or a Mongol

Originally posted by Marduk
duh
its Marduk
the Bible pronounces it Merodach
in Babylonian which is a semitic dialect it starts with an M
IN ALL THE TEXTS ITS WRITTEN

there is no confusion over this at all so I don't know why you are flusing your credibility claiming otherwise


there is no confusion on my part , on the actual sumerian texts it is written as TUR but then it gets changed into MAR .
Also , I can read sumerian texts , can you ?



as for your theory
its actually an untested hypothesis
when you know enough about the history of this planet it might move on but not while youre claiming that the geography of this planet has changed drastically in the last 10,000 years
thats plainly absurd

I am talking about linguistic & cultural ties between various human groups . Nothing less , nothing more .


as for your claims of a Turanian civilisation
the only reason youre claiming that is because you think your genes are a part of it

I think you are setting up a " straw-man " argument rather then answer a simple question. Do you know why TUR should be read as MAR ?



that is also plainly absurd
we already established that you had no idea of the previous migrations through Turkey in another thread

wow , where and when whom did you established it ?

Sumerian text does not say marduk , it says turduk . You have no idea why , how , when , this switch happened .

I know my past well enough so I can tell you that persian , greece , mongolian history refers to my tribe/clan in their records . I am of a tribe/clan as old and as ancient of all of them .

knowing one's family's past is not absurd imho .

[edit on 30-6-2007 by 23432]

for the last time
Its pronounced Marduk
the biblical version is pronounced Merodach (also an M)
AND NO
You can't read Sumerian if you think its even remotely similar to Turkish
but heres a test for you



what did I just say ?
admit it
you have no idea do you

Turduk


why don't you admit first that you have no idea when and why the switch from turduk to marduk took place and what was the purpose of such an exercise .

As for the test , tell me what convention you are using to " write " sumerian and I will tell you what you " think " you have just said .


.




[edit on 30-6-2007 by 23432]