SPIRALS, everywhere in the ancient world why ?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


by 25kya there was/were social services, full blown communal living, weaving, worship, vanity or hierachy, full blown art, ceramics... it goes on and on.

would you be surprised if scientists had never been able to explore the region where these people spent the next 15k years?

i wonder how the mother goddess got so big. was it cheese??

reply to post by Parta


i think you need to go deeper into what you are talking about. if you are deviating from the official story, you will have to clue me in to where you are going, and where you are getting your direction from.

I have my own thoughts and am open to hearing yours. I think and speak on several different levels. I was discussing this matter from the point of officialdom. However, if we are to deviate from that angle i just need to know.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


i believe the point was free time originally and hunters and gathers had lots. their culture isn't really that much of a mystery. aurignacians [who made all the beads] were replaced culturally by the gravettians.

the gravettians [first creators of the spiral i know of] had a very clear culture. they were good people. by 25kbc at dolni vestonice they had pretty much everything that we usually require to term them a full blown civilization. i don't think anything unofficial has been concocted for these folks yet.

not all of the skills these specific gravettians in central europe had spread everywhere the gravettians went however... and where exactly these specific gravettians went and what they did couldn't be followed because their land was behind the iron curtain... and under a series of great floods that finished up the ice age.

they actually developed a form of the mother goddess that wore a triangular mask [which might be needed by a ceramic maker?]. this triangular mask shows up again when the early neolithic farmers [starcevo] meet up with the remnants of these gravettians and then these farmers suddenly have smelted metal weapons by the cartload and are worshipping the mask and the spiral.

i don't think anyone has ever asked how the goddess got so big. did she invent cheese? apparently they couldn't digest milk. certain cultures still find a very large wife bulked up on milk to be the ideal.






[edit on 8-5-2010 by Parta]

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

i don't think anyone has ever asked how the goddess got so big. did she invent cheese? apparently they couldn't digest milk. certain cultures still find a very large wife bulked up on milk to be the ideal.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Parta]

I am lacking information on the other people, but will research it for sure.

This statement to me is important. The "fertility godess" with all those teets....it doesn't make sense that she was a fertility goddess.

What you refer to seems plausible.

reply to post by Parta


OK, i am going through the gravettian culture you referenced....it seems to correlate nicely with the claims of William Sidis about how the "red" man was the first man in northern Europe as well as the Americas. The culture described sounds nearly identical to the culture of the Amerinds just a scant 200 years ago.

Originally posted by Snowi

Originally posted by stereologist
I see you rely on Hoaglund the hoaxer for a source. That's kind of humorous.

Hoaxer...can you prove that statement or are you just talking #...???

stereologist likes to cause problems that doesn't make sense to him. He is probably in this thread because he doesn't like Lucus's interpretation and his website has these spirals in them.

Originally posted by King Loki
reply to post by stereologist

 

There is photos of the turtles there also statues of other animals down there Ive seen them many times, there is steps and deep 90 degree groves ... i referred you to Graham Hancock's book if your not willing to look up the facts how can you possibly have a proper debate when you refuse to look up anything (and no wikipedia is not a reliable source and in no way a valid argument) all these things take is a simple google search ... why do you look at wikipedia instead of the people who actually research these things ?? ... wikipedia is all second hand information gotten from main steam sources and notoriously unreliable and opinionated.

At this point with your rude remarks towards other users on this site (just because ur information is different doesn't mean its right) id have to say your trolling.

In stereologist's world, it seems he is right and everybody else is wrong. you should see his trolling on the 2012 forum. I am surprised he isn't banned or warned.

But these spirals too me seem to be a flood of a symbol of such. Just remember there was that global flood.

Originally posted by K_OS
I haven't read through the entire thread but I can tell you that most art historians consider the use of spirals as a representation of water; including the water which is encased in the womb. Just a little side note, the ph level of the womb is almost identical with that of the salt water oceans, probably do to our evolutionary past. So if you look at most spirals in ancient art they are usually in conjenction with water or life. They show up in many civilizations with a great flood theory as well. Which also made it a common symbol for a goddess hence the womb.

just exactly what I stated. If it is a common symbol throughout the world, then it could be a warning of sorts. People think too much and make things too complicated over a symbol.

Originally posted by stereologist
Lucus is a fraud. You can see this for yourself. Listen to him describe things such as petroglyphs and their meaning. Then he says he is giving just facts and you draw your own conclusions. He has already drawn conclusions by suggesting certain shapes are death or dying and then makes the inference that spirals are associated with death.

Again Lucus is a fraud.

I think you are a fraud, and littlebunny challenged you to prove he is a fraud. But you don't answer back.

reply to post by dragnet53


Lucus is a fraud for claiming that he can read the meanings of the petroglyphs. He draws conclusions and then claims it is a fact. That is a fraud.

I looked around at many sources for the interpretation of spirals and not a single place suggested that spirals were warnings, or signs of danger, or death, or peril.

If you can find any source that has spent time studying the petroglyphs and can find such an interpretation please let us know.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by dragnet53

 

Lucus is a fraud for claiming that he can read the meanings of the petroglyphs. He draws conclusions and then claims it is a fact. That is a fraud.

Um, no...that is having an opinion. Being a fraud is presenting information that you know to be false, and claiming it to be true. What you describe is not a "fraud". He may be a "kook", or he may actually have an understanding. I am not disputing that. I am only pointing out that you are misusing the word "fraud".

Dial down the vitriol. It makes your position look more desparate when you embellish so much.

I looked around at many sources for the interpretation of spirals and not a single place suggested that spirals were warnings, or signs of danger, or death, or peril.

If you can find any source that has spent time studying the petroglyphs and can find such an interpretation please let us know.

You mean you cannot corroborate the opinions of a person with unique viewpoints? Imagine that!

I guess that makes everyone a fraud. At least, until they can find someone to agree with them so that they can be corroborated.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Actually Lucus says that it is a fact when it is not. He states that he is not giving his personal opinion. What the videos to see that he does exactly what he says he is not doing. That is why he is a fraud.

Listen to his statements. Listen to what he says he is and is not presenting. Watch the videos. He's a fraud.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Actually Lucus says that it is a fact when it is not. He states that he is not giving his personal opinion. What the videos to see that he does exactly what he says he is not doing. That is why he is a fraud.

Listen to his statements. Listen to what he says he is and is not presenting. Watch the videos. He's a fraud.

I am not going to argue with you. The rest of the viewers here likely will agree that you are grossly overstating your position. To help clarify:

1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick 2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

www.merriam-webster.com...

Unless you are assuming that he is intentionally misleading people, you are incorrect in your wording. It is not fraud to believe in your own opinions.

Fraud is an illegal activity. If you can find evidence that what he is doing is illegal, then you can support your usage of that word.

Otherwise, you are overstating and embellishing. Whether you agree with me or not, the consensus reality will be that I am correct in this assertion.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I appreciate your opinion on this matter. My opinion is that he is a fraud.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You need to chill and relax... You bitch about one guy's opinion of another guy's opinion that you defend.

Why do you defend one opinion and then bitch about another opinion? Are you asking to be called a hypocrite?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You need to chill and relax... You bitch about one guy's opinion of another guy's opinion that you defend.

Why do you defend one opinion and then bitch about another opinion? Are you asking to be called a hypocrite?

Edit to remove the other post and simplify:

"Fraud" is a legal term that does not apply. Him using the term "fraud" to describe this person insinuates that it has been proven that he intentionally misled people.

That is not the case. As a matter of fact, his use of the word fraud could be seen as fraudulent and libelous. If we are going to throw around legal terms, that is.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Fraud is a legal term. It is also a non-legal term.

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
1. One that defrauds; a cheat.
2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

Your claims just might be a misrepresentation of the word as defined in English.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Fraud is a legal term. It is also a non-legal term.

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
1. One that defrauds; a cheat.
2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

Your claims just might be a misrepresentation of the word as defined in English.

and, as i said, a persons opinion that he honestly believes does not fall into any of those definitions. By its very nature, deceit must be purposeful.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


And as I have said it is purposeful.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


All your doing is bitching about semantics. Your still defending one opinion whilst bitching about another persons opinion which makes you hypocritical in argument. So chill dude. Two people have differing opinions about the same thing, big deal. Learn to pick your fights and stop stressing over tiny insignificant details.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Unless you have some evidence that the person in question is not being deceptive, then the persons opinion your bitching about is utterly unfounded and meaningless.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by sirnex]

[EDIT TO ADD MORE]

Since we're bitching about semantics, fraud also means:

"something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage "

In which case, the person in question could be correct in opinion as the party in question would have reputation to gain with like minded peoples, which would be advantageous to him for many reasons.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by sirnex]