Ancient Language of Universal Symbols Discovered

page: 8
81
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Logarock I believe your condemnation of Fell as a con is unwarranted.


There is a difference between consciously committing a fraud, and simple ineptitude.

And there are lots of examples of unusual conclusions reached by well respected scientists.

But in the end, you need to stop focussing on the researcher and consider, instead, the evidence.


Oh I agree. But people like to kill the evidence by killing Fell dont you know.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Wierd, I was going to start a thread but when I read yours I realized I didn't have to.What I've discovered definately falls under symbology, also it deals with a lost knowledge or civilization that has,by the looks of the evidence,been "around".I'm going to just say it,Christianity changed it's main symbol to the cross.Does anybody have a decent explanation as to why?.I mean, because he was murdered on it, seems like a good reason not to use it,at all.Barring that, all you have left is sun god astrological symbology.Now,on top of this a very resourceful,intelligent man named Crichton Miller while researching a different subject found himself kneeling before a cross,a celtic cross,cross with a circle.He was researching a way to measure with only wood and stone,basically what the egyptians would've had on hand.Obviously the connection rocked him,it seems with this technology a person could measure vertically and horizontally.Thus longitude long ago.With this, things really start to click into place.It explains the crosses on the templars sails,the templars as we know now,were gnostic,like the druids, believed in life after death,re-incarnation,and a piece of god being within.The kundilini snakes and abraxas also are mentioned alongside the templars.I believe that this and other great secrets were found by the templars and from the end of the crusades on, the joint started jumpin'.An explosion of esoterica took place.I'll bet amazing maps were found.All manner of unbelievable earth shaking knowledge.Nothing short of this would've stunned the church into silence.Finally I get to the point,Any mention of these tools or any mention of the Geometry that accompanied it,was to be exterminated.By using the cross as a sacred religious symbol it allowed the church squirm room,when the questions about why they are everywhere in history came up.Crosses on the sails....Why they're bringing religion to the new world..I'll leave it there.I could write a book.........Oh, try google video search for "CROSS OF THOTH" please reply



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tweedledee
 


Hiya tweedledee,

Whats that got to do with proto-canaanite petroglyphs?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...you need to stop focussing on the researcher and consider, instead, the evidence.

Oh I agree. But people like to kill the evidence by killing Fell dont you know.


If you are really that interested in the subject, then learn some science and examine the evidence yourself. If you can't hold it in your hand, then check out the published material...now I'm saying published in academic journals...and draw your conclusions based upon what you see there.

One thing though...the rules for "evidence" are pretty strict. The plan is that you should be able to bet the farm on what you see. Personally, I'd never stake my credability on anything less.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Dude no offense really but your preaching to the choir.

I have spent most of my research time on this subject in established and published academic material.

But your missing my point in the question and it was somewhat in cheek. In the case of ogam there are no strict rules for supporting evidence save for the letters and translation itself. This supporting evidence thing that was mentioned back a few is rather overblown in the case of ogam in the US. Its really as simple as this, if you find it in Ireland then there's no question. If its found in the US suddenly there is this demand for outside supporting evidence. The assumption that some should be assumed is unscientific by simple virtue of the fact that the entire body of know ogam in the US is so small as to suggest an anomaly. But as it is there is supporting evidence but it meets with the same scorn general as heart has displayed. The major schools of archeology generally reject the whole cloth and for no other reason than someone outside the field or school had to point it out to them.

As far as the OPs opening post, script like this is found all over the world and suggests a maritime trade and exploration concern having primary to do with prospecting for metal. A great example of this is in China where similar script was used around the bronze producing centers at the same time they used their own script if you will. Much of this script is similar to the Proto-Sinaitic script and other scripts found in conjunction with copper mining most notably around the Sinai Peninsula spreading outward across the Mediterranean. Naturally it has variations as it was originally a hieroglyphic and symbol communication and so tended to morph regionally. It has also found in conjunction with several other established scripts witch suggests mixed nationalities traveling together and this was not unusual with Mediterranean sea powers seeing the wide breath of their activity.

You can goggle Leo Petroglyph Ohio and see ogam, proto-sinaitic and the schematic forms used there.

Leo www.theadventuretrail.com...

This is just a tid bit of the entire site. Good pics of the thing are wanting on the net.

Proto-Sinaitic www.ancientscripts.com...

www.apocalypse2008-2015.com...

 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Fri Mar 6 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Yes but please explain just what supporting evidence is conspicuously missing? You and he say that like there is some 10 point test to verify any ogam inscription by a multitude of outside local evidence. I would expect that from Kelly who never has to question the context of his work or where hes at.

You appear to assume that a group of Celtic monks, or whatever, would sail to the New World, scratch on a few rocks, and leave.

Is this your claim?

After all, for all that has been claimed that these monks have done, where is the physical evidence of their presence?

You're aware that Ogham script is merely series of straight lines and the various sounds correlate to bunches of these lines?

Couldn't some ogham simply be some Native American enumerating how many turkeys he killed over a 20 day period? (5 turkeys the first day, next "bunch" would be three turkeys the second day...) or whatever?

Imagine a Grizzly takes several swipes at a tree branch. Is the bear writing in ogham script?

Where are the artifacts these foreigners certainly would have left behind?

That's the required evidence.

Harte



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by expatwhite
I would like to see a few more sources for this, but if its true then it certainly pushes forward the idea of an advanced civilization spreading its message globally.


Of course there are other interpretations... IE, that disparate cultures around the world all recorded the same celestial events occurring in the sky. Be they mega-auroras or something else not seen today.

(Symbols of an Alien Sky; alien meaning "different from what we observe today," NOT "little green men.")
thunderbolts.info...
thunderbolts.info...
thunderbolts.info...

Regards,
~Michael



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Logarock


You're aware that Ogham script is merely series of straight lines and the various sounds correlate to bunches of these lines?

Couldn't some ogham simply be some Native American enumerating how many turkeys he killed over a 20 day period? (5 turkeys the first day, next "bunch" would be three turkeys the second day...) or whatever?

Imagine a Grizzly takes several swipes at a tree branch. Is the bear writing in ogham script?

Harte


You need to move out of the deep end of the pool my friend.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mgmirkin

Originally posted by expatwhite
I would like to see a few more sources for this, but if its true then it certainly pushes forward the idea of an advanced civilization spreading its message globally.


Of course there are other interpretations... IE, that disparate cultures around the world all recorded the same celestial events occurring in the sky. Be they mega-auroras or something else not seen today.

Regards,
~Michael



Taken as a whole the evidence suggest something more along the lines of a spreading around the earth from a central source IMO.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Many thanks for posting this!!

The link´s info is excellent.

Peace.

Daniel.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
How about we get back on to the thread topic?

Or start another thread on Ogham?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
hiya all,

if "we" are to discover the truth about our past, we CANNOT trust (the whole off) academic society.
They "invented" some theories, as they should, however they also have a really strong belief in being(and staying)correct in their assumptions.

When you look at today's evidence(as opposed to that from around 1900-1950)there's no justice in denying "us" our history without(!) any religious or otherwise stupendous creationism in our recorded history.

As a "clue" i think this topic www.abovetopsecret.com...
and the therein provided link (a long read but worth the time!!) www.thecrowhouse.com...
say's much(if not all?)about our possible common (spread out from one location)heritage.

If there's truth in the nuke-war being fought at aprox. 10500BC(or aprox. 2500BC??)or when ever in earths history.
Then it is also "save" to conclude that (a lott off)isotope dating is contaminated with the remnants off such a war?

So about dating ALL findings, i think there's a lot of "flexebility" possible there.
As in .. dated between 25.000 and 300.000 years?????

I'm beginning to think there's at least an increasing chance of "us" being around multiple times more than previously assumed.
And that the possebility of previous advanced civilisations really exists.
Unfortunately almost all (really old)archeological evidence seems to be burried about 30 or more meters deep, where did all that covering (30M)come from?
An event that covers the earth with 30M of debris is called a worldwide disaster.(wind and rain could do the same?, over time?)
An event that covers a lot of the earth with green-yellow glass is called a nuclear-holocaust.
And devestating multiple meteor inpacts could also glassify a lot of land.

Lots to think about, more to read

seppsoft.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Harte
You're aware that Ogham script is merely series of straight lines and the various sounds correlate to bunches of these lines?

Couldn't some ogham simply be some Native American enumerating how many turkeys he killed over a 20 day period? (5 turkeys the first day, next "bunch" would be three turkeys the second day...) or whatever?

Imagine a Grizzly takes several swipes at a tree branch. Is the bear writing in ogham script?

Harte


You need to move out of the deep end of the pool my friend.

I notice you brush aside the complete lack of physical evidence for the arrival in North America of any Europeans in the era in question,.

Which end of the "pool" I'm in is irrelevant. You asked "what missing evidence...," I answered.

So, do you claim that a group of Celtic Monks came to North America, scratched on some rocks, packed up, and went home?

Your argument about "if you find it in Britain, it's Ogham, if you find it in North America, it's...' whatever, holds no validity in light of the plethora of Celtic artifacts and settlements to be found in Britain and the complete absence of both in North America.

Harte



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Byrd
 

Some of the things you say are correct, some are misunderstood. As far as Pan and Kokopelli you may want to consider digging deeper. Like hundreds of pages.


I have avidly read all the stories of any mythos that I could get my hands on, and also some anthropological material on the topics. So when I say that there's very little similarity, I'm drawing on things like knowledge (and reading) of the Greek Mystery Religions as well as various versions of Kokopelli, including the sanitized one for the tourists (which also has very lewd references in the ceremonies that tourists don't understand.)


You have to skeletalize a study like this and back up a little. So Kokopelli was a hunchback and Pan wasn't. That may end up showing more of a connection that you might imagine when you get back closer to the source.

It doesn't, really. The oldest sources I have on Kokopelli are anthropological texts and tales from the Hopi that date to the 1800's plus rock art that's much earlier. This nice essay by a Celtic Reconstructionist scholar gives a sense of how very different he is:
www.lugodoc.demon.co.uk...

Stripping him down to basics still doesn't give the same thing as Kokopelli other than they were male and played a wind instrument. But if you use that as a generalization, then you can include Count Basie and Satchmo and the Archangel Michael.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

As far as the OPs opening post, script like this is found all over the world and suggests a maritime trade and exploration concern having primary to do with prospecting for metal.


Actually, it isn't found in that context. The "evidence" on the site was cherry picked from thousands of sites where the same symbols show up in different ways. In some cases they've cropped out parts of the images to make the case that the alphabet exists.



You can goggle Leo Petroglyph Ohio and see ogam, proto-sinaitic and the schematic forms used there.

Leo www.theadventuretrail.com...

This is just a tid bit of the entire site. Good pics of the thing are wanting on the net.


I don't see any of those forms used there, frankly. There's some neat and interesting stuff, but none of it is alphabetic. A line can be many things -- but it has to have a certain pattern to be Ogham.

(and anyway, Ogham was invented about 400 AD.)

To be a proto-sinaitic, you have to have more than just an occasional shape. The group of symbols has to make up words and has to be associated with a very few things. In other words, every time there's a water hole in any place around the world, it would absolutely, positively have to have the exact same glyph on the site no matter where in the world or what the culture was to set up proof of a universal language.

Pictures don't count. Everyone drew pictures of themselves, but this isn't an alphabetic concept.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



Byrd you need to go up to the shallow end of the pool with heart.


First off ogam is found in conjunction with Sanskrit on the Ionian peninsula. Sanskrit very old there. Look it up.

Also the glyph in the OP is not cheery picked now or then. Just total blather on your part.

In addition the OP glyph in question could very well be organized. I should expect a comment like that coming from someone that has written in strait line all their life. There are over 9 clear letters on that rock that are identical to those used in the proto-Sinaitic script. And if you go back and study the proto you will see by examples that they could be sloppy with letter placement as well. Apparently not all that wrote on rocks with the proto were scholars.

I would recommend William F Albright or Sir Flanders Petrie. Study the proto and ogam for a few hours anyway.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
More ad hominem remarks, but again I notice the glaring absence of any reply to the original question.

Is it your position that a group (or groups) of Celtic monks came to North America, scratched on some stones, packed up and left?

Because, if we assume that all the "ogham" reported here is real, that is what all the evidence points to.

Come to America! Make your mark (literally.) Then Leave!

Must have been a Celtic motto or something.

There's no artifacts to go with this so-called ogham.

Harte



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Well if we are to understand that some ogam exists in America the amount is so small that it may not indicate any substantial Celtic presence anyway.

The Hopi history says they traveled from the east with a group of white people. If this is true then the group must have been so small as to have been assimilated in all ways. There may be traces of them left out there but it would be like finding a needle in a hay stack.

Back on ogam, even if we were to believe the Celtic monk idea, it is clear that most ogam in the US is pagan sun worship and other things besides.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Logarock]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Stripping him down to basics still doesn't give the same thing as Kokopelli other than they were male and played a wind instrument. But if you use that as a generalization, then you can include Count Basie and Satchmo and the Archangel Michael.


There is much more of a comparison than simply wind instrument and they were male. I cant believe you looked at anything if that all you can come up with. In fact my earlier comparisons posted go past that.

As for the hunchback thing Pan was known to allow nymphs to ride on his back. Thats enough to warrant notice in a skeletal survey between Kokopelli when taken as a whole.

You know this comparison was of enough interest that even none other than Jung looked into it. I have yet to read his findings.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Well if we are to understand that some ogam exists in America the amount is so small that it may not indicate any substantial Celtic presence anyway.

The Hopi history says they traveled from the east with a group of white people.


Historian Frank Waters became a trusted friend of the Hopi and began writing down their stories over half a century ago. His book, considered a good reference on the subject, says that it was the Kachina who told them to start traveling toward the south and then head somewhat counterclockwise about the land, led by the Water Coyote clan. White people had nothing to do with the journey.

www.geocities.com...

See Wikipedia for more. In general, the clans had similar myths (indicating a common origin).
en.wikipedia.org...



Back on ogam, even if we were to believe the Celtic monk idea, it is clear that most ogam in the US is pagan sun worship and other things besides. [edit on 10-3-2009 by Logarock]

And given that Christianity was not really a strong religion until after the 400's and Ogham wasn't in common use until after the 400's, that makes any possible monks only recent newcomers.

Another reason I doubt the "Celtic monk" theory is that there was no increased resistance to European diseases in the Northeastern Native Americans. If such a group had showed up and interacted, they would have brought European diseases... and Native American populations there would have been less vulnerable to them.

There's other difficulties (Eric the Red found the people rather hostile to his own people.) While I do believe the occasional Nordic rune along the northeast coast, I don't see convincing evidence of Ogham or Celts.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Byrd]





top topics
 
81
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join