The Gosford Glyphs 500 BC

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

You mean apart from the inscription itself, right?

If it's a forgery then there is no evidence. But has that been established?

Yes and I can confirm. I've been through one of the courses on hieroglyphs (and as everyone knows, I can read some of them.)

Absolute fraud. You've got "inscriptions" from people who think the Egyptians were a bunch of illiterate yahoos and had to resort to making pictures instead of writing things like "Unas has come out of the Isle of Fire, after he has placed Truth there in the place of Falsehood." (that's from the Pyramid texts of Unas, less than 200 years after the fake inscriptions were supposedly written.)

You've got letters that weren't designed until the New Kingdom (the lion symbol, for instance) and letters that are backward. You've got "gods" that are missing their main attributes (solar disc, etc.) You've got images of birds from people that don't know the difference between the hieroglyph for hawk and the hieroglyph for chick.

You've got fragments of phrases copied from books but not in a way that anyone would have used them. Princes, by the way, were trained to read and write.

Example right here of "anubis" -- compare to the real thing Note that the ankh is wrong, the style of clothing is wrong, the wig is wrong, and the proportions are wrong. Also the hands are wrong.

And the cuts on the rock show that they're new. They're not weathered.

Oh... and the number of inscriptions keeps growing.

If you'd like to learn some hieroglyphs check out the tools at the Pyramid Texts site You can try your hand checking translations on other inscriptions with these tools and see that they're correct. You can even download and browse through Budge's dictionaries (which have Some problems and are in need of a real updating because they're like reading a textbook from 1900 or so).

And you'll see for yourself just how fake these are.

a reply to: Byrd

So Ironwood Boomerangs in the Cairo museum haven't swayed you slightly? or did you just ignore that fact so it would not upset your paradigm?

a reply to: Byrd

They were Created using Proto Egyptian , I have heard this Argument Against them before .

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Byrd

So Ironwood Boomerangs in the Cairo museum haven't swayed you slightly? or did you just ignore that fact so it would not upset your paradigm?

Give them a break, it took them thousands of years to create that Paradigm (Matrix of Lies) LOL.

a reply to: Byrd

And the cuts on the rock show that they're new. They're not weathered.

Gosford Glyphs Photos

Please point to the "New" engraving. The Patina seems to be intact, untouched, to me.

And you'll see for yourself just how fake these are.

Your correct, there is something fake here, but it isn't these Glyphs.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Byrd

So Ironwood Boomerangs in the Cairo museum haven't swayed you slightly? or did you just ignore that fact so it would not upset your paradigm?

Give them a break, it took them thousands of years to create that Paradigm (Matrix of Lies) LOL.

Throwing sticks have been used for literally tens of thousands of years by cultures all over the world, and you claim they are all Australian?

An Australian boomerang is a returning throwing stick. The Egyptian throwing sticks are not. This is just an idiotic claim made up by the fringe. It goes along with marsupial bones being found in Egypt and a couple of other stupid statements that only fool ignorant people.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Well in the end we are civilized and can agree to differ. The pros go on one of the scales and the cons go on the other, But what we are measuring when it all comes down to the nitty-gritty, is the question of the evidence of civilisation's Linear or cyclical development. Globekli Tepi has already blown your narrative. Along with a sophisticated city on the seafloor off the Gulf of Cambay, you just have not caught up yet.

a reply to: Byrd

Then I would imagine that you are in direct conflict with some of the best academics at the Cairo department of Hieroglyphics.

Some folks will never understand. Brain Dead

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Byrd

So Ironwood Boomerangs in the Cairo museum haven't swayed you slightly? or did you just ignore that fact so it would not upset your paradigm?

Could you link to the object and accession catalog so that we can see they're really ironwood and that they're from the Old Kingdom?

The throwing sticks I know of in Egypt aren't made of ironwood and they're actually not that well designed to return to "sender" (these are from Tut's tomb) - made of "hardwood", which is any hard wood that grows anywhere in the world. These designs are for short range throws, not for hunting something at a distance. Basically, a throw-able club.

Australian boomerangs also come in multiple shapes and sizes for different purposes and not all of them return.

But, just as spears the world over look fairly similar, throwing sticks all over the world look fairly similar. Same with hearths (campfires). Same with skirts, baskets, and hundreds of other items used by very ancient people.

So...no.

Not evidence.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Byrd

They were Created using Proto Egyptian , I have heard this Argument Against them before .

Except.... they're showing the cartouches for Khufu, who lived about 800 years after Egypt was founded. This is supposed to be an expedition by Khufu's son. So he can't be using proto-Egyptian.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Byrd

Then I would imagine that you are in direct conflict with some of the best academics at the Cairo department of Hieroglyphics.

I really don't have time for a video. Who are they (names, please) and exactly what institution is mentioned? There is no "Cairo department of hieroglyphics".

American University in Cairo has courses on hieroglyphs but no "department of hieroglyphics"

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte

Well in the end we are civilized and can agree to differ. The pros go on one of the scales and the cons go on the other, But what we are measuring when it all comes down to the nitty-gritty, is the question of the evidence of civilisation's Linear or cyclical development. Globekli Tepi has already blown your narrative. Along with a sophisticated city on the seafloor off the Gulf of Cambay, you just have not caught up yet.

Gobekli Tepe certainly doesn't blow MY narrative. And I think you need to examine what Anthropology means when they use the word "civilization."
Tell you what, how about if I tell you (without evidence - just like you did) that Dwarka has already blown your narrative.
I know for myself that it has, but since you seem to think there is "sophisticated city" under the Gulf of Khambat (yes, that's the name of the place,) then I'm certain that you are unaware of this fact.

You've just not caught up yet.

Harte

originally posted by: Byrd
I really don't have time for a video. Who are they (names, please) and exactly what institution is mentioned? There is no "Cairo department of hieroglyphics".

American University in Cairo has courses on hieroglyphs but no "department of hieroglyphics"

Please, Byrd.
You are fully aware that these fringies have to completely fabricate EVERYTHING THEY TRY TO USE to support their inane and ignorant claims.
It's obviously the only way they can support their imaginary world view.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Byrd
I really don't have time for a video. Who are they (names, please) and exactly what institution is mentioned? There is no "Cairo department of hieroglyphics".

American University in Cairo has courses on hieroglyphs but no "department of hieroglyphics"

Please, Byrd.
You are fully aware that these fringies have to completely fabricate EVERYTHING THEY TRY TO USE to support their inane and ignorant claims.
It's obviously the only way they can support their imaginary world view.

Harte

Whoops!
Guess I have to eat my words.



Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Byrd
I really don't have time for a video. Who are they (names, please) and exactly what institution is mentioned? There is no "Cairo department of hieroglyphics".

American University in Cairo has courses on hieroglyphs but no "department of hieroglyphics"

Please, Byrd.
You are fully aware that these fringies have to completely fabricate EVERYTHING THEY TRY TO USE to support their inane and ignorant claims.
It's obviously the only way they can support their imaginary world view.

Harte

Whoops!
Guess I have to eat my words.

Harte

Well, this is getting interesting. Oh, not the article. You admitting your wrong lol lol Would you like salt, pepper, or maybe Tabasco sauce to go along with that? lol

Nah.
I'll take some Egyptian Vegemite.

Harte

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Well, this is getting interesting. Oh, not the article. You admitting your wrong lol lol Would you like salt, pepper, or maybe Tabasco sauce to go along with that? lol

You are surprised? People who look at history based on Evidence have to change the 'narrative' on nearly a weekly basis as new evidence comes in. People who base their narrative on belief sans evidence have to deny evidence, lie and do impressive shows of make believe to keep their sterile narrative going.

When archaeologists found Catalhuyuck the narrative changed, when they found Gobekli Tepe the narrative changed, when they found Karahan Tepe it is changing again - do you see how that works?

[If the narrative is 'holy and unchanging' why are archaeologist and other scientists constantly going out and finding stuff to change it - please explain?)

Since I learned the consensus (which by the way has a lot alternative pathways) 'narrative' in the late 60's it has changed constantly - its actually difficult to keep up now about 10 years ago around 15,000 papers were being published each year. How is this possible in your irrational view that it's fossilized and unchanging? You seem to be insisting it never changes but reality shows you that it does constantly - please explain this contradiction?

a reply to: Harte

Again I will state what we are arguing about, the question is, "Is the path to civilization linear or cyclical" I have just found a vid where they go under the step Pyramid where all those inconvenient vases were found, Down deep in those labyrinthine tunnels the shards are still stacked up in great volume, Even carborundum vases with the lathe centering marks are on display . How you turn stones of that hardness is incomprehensible even today, What is displayed that blew me away in the Cairo museum is a turned vase with the handles sticking out, a technical piece of impossibility. He also shows the later cruder stuff. If this does not prove a previous higher technology nothing will, it might be possible to do today with a laser cutting tool.

a reply to: anonentity

Do you Notice How those 2 Clowns are Manic in trying to Control the Narrative ? Talk about Closed Minds that are Incapable of Outside the Box Thinking . Don't Waste your Breath Debating them Any Longer , it's just a Dead End........