Abydos Helicopter & the Golden Section (Disproving the Palimpsest Theory)
Jiri Mruzek
Abydos Helicopter between Katherine Griffis and myself. I kind of let
it go after making my reservations on the Abydos Helicopter 'palimpsest'
theory known. Nevertheless, if you search on the web for the keywords
'Abydos helicopter', up as number one comes my page about this old
discussion.
Being the first choice obliges one to put in a good effort. In this
case, rather than learning hieroglyphs, my chosen approach was to
analyze the problem geometrically since no one else did that before.
Now, I am pleased to announce that the relevant section of glyphs at
the Abydos Temple showcases the Golden Rectangle to the degree, where
there is no question of this being deliberate, not coincidental.
Since the Golden Rectangle systematically serves as a frame for glyph
groupings, we have certainty that these glyphs were designed together.
Thus, these glyphs are no palimpsests, as they are alleged, because
palimpsests are unintentional. That changes the picture.
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
Seeing is believing,
Jiri Mruzek
Marianne Luban
"Jiri Mruzek" <jirim...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Wakoa.757157$Yo4.72...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Nope. There is no Abydos "helicopter". The changes are deliberate and very
obvious to anyone who can read hieroglyphs, the style of one king changed to
that of another. Blame Ramesses II.
THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding
the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt YOU WILL NEVER THINK OF THE EXODUS IN THE
SAME WAY AGAIN! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html
Jiri Mr.
> "Jiri Mruzek" <jirim...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Wakoa.757157$Yo4.72...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>>Some oldtimers here may remember a short discussion on the so called
>>Abydos Helicopter between Katherine Griffis and myself. I kind of let
>>it go after making my reservations on the Abydos Helicopter 'palimpsest'
>>theory known. Nevertheless, if you search on the web for the keywords
>>'Abydos helicopter', up as number one comes my page about this old
>>discussion.
>>Being the first choice obliges one to put in a good effort. In this
>>case, rather than learning hieroglyphs, my chosen approach was to
>>analyze the problem geometrically since no one else did that before.
>>Now, I am pleased to announce that the relevant section of glyphs at
>>the Abydos Temple showcases the Golden Rectangle to the degree, where
>>there is no question of this being deliberate, not coincidental.
>>Since the Golden Rectangle systematically serves as a frame for glyph
>>groupings, we have certainty that these glyphs were designed together.
>>Thus, these glyphs are no palimpsests, as they are alleged, because
>>palimpsests are unintentional. That changes the picture.
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
>>
>>Seeing is believing,
>
>
> Nope. There is no Abydos "helicopter". The changes are deliberate and very
> obvious to anyone who can read hieroglyphs, the style of one king changed to
> that of another. Blame Ramesses II.
What hieroglyphs? You cannot see them. What you can see and read is the
final 'palimpsest', which is systematic, and can be read geometrically.
It is the only coherent set of observations. Have you studied it? Are
you interested in the glyphs undeniable structure? Can you cope with
such facts?
Sorry to say, but the proposed solution such as the one shown by
Janku and adhered to by most scholars is merely an amateurish sketch.
The proposed hieroglyphics do not last under scrutiny.
There is no serious version of this hieroglyphic solution, one on a
professional level. The egyptological solution is hopelessly sketchy,
one could say - childish.
Can you deal with the extensive presence of the Golden Section within
the Abydos glyphs in question? Do you have to deny the obvious?
Jiri
Marianne Luban
"Jiri Mr." <jir...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:slAoa.166168$vs.17...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
OH YES YOU CAN! Otherwise, some of you wouldn't be seeing what looks to you
like helicopters or submarines. Do you actually believe someone drew them
there?? Get real! Those shapes you discern that have grabbed your
over-active imaginations ARE the original glyphs--or parts of them where the
plaster of the palimpsest has eroded and fallen away. I wrote a lengthy
Usenet post describing just what was going on before you started discussing
it with Griffis--answering the question of somebody with a French name.
Look for it--maybe it is still in some archive. It demonstrates exactly
what glyphs make up what part of the "helicopter".
>What you can see and read is the
> final 'palimpsest', which is systematic, and can be read >geometrically.
> It is the only coherent set of observations. Have you studied it? Are
> you interested in the glyphs undeniable structure? Can you cope with
> such facts?
As I said, I coped with them some years back. And explained them
thoroughly.
> Sorry to say, but the proposed solution such as the one shown by
> Janku and adhered to by most scholars is merely an amateurish sketch.
> The proposed hieroglyphics do not last under scrutiny.
That is baloney. They are pretty clear.
> There is no serious version of this hieroglyphic solution, one on a
> professional level. The egyptological solution is hopelessly sketchy,
> one could say - childish.
Said by someone who probably hasn't the slightest idea what the ancient
Egyptian graphic system or language is all about.
> Can you deal with the extensive presence of the Golden Section within
> the Abydos glyphs in question? Do you have to deny >the obvious?
No. I leave that to you.
Marianne Luban
business" in February of 1998 (or perhaps earlier) as he attests on his
website at
http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usabydos.htm
I was the first to reply to him with the true facts. Checking in the Google
Usenet archives, however, NONE of the responses to that thread can be found
now--not even the original query by Thierry. Now that is very strange--but
perhaps not so mysterious considering certain other of my past messages have
been nuked--and not by me. Also, this Thierry did not see fit to include my
comprehensive explanation on his website, perhaps being dazzled by what he
perceived as the more impressive "credentials" of others. Maybe someone
else can find this early 1998 thread in another archive.
--
Jiri Mr.
> Someone named "Thierry" asked the question about the "Abydos helicopter
> business" in February of 1998 (or perhaps earlier) as he attests on his
> website at
>
> http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usabydos.htm
>
> I was the first to reply to him with the true facts. Checking in the Google
> Usenet archives, however, NONE of the responses to that thread can be found
> now--not even the original query by Thierry.
You were the first to reply to him with the true facts? - Verbally?
You must mean that you made some claims without graphic support.
The problem is one of graphics, so you should react in kind to be
persuasive. As you know, a graphic analysis of the glyphs exists.
It is the sketch bearing the name of L. Janku, and I include it in
my article. Unfortunately, it is very tentative, and doesn't give
a clear explanation. Janku supposes more than one rewriting of the
glyphs. The problem with Janku's explanation - some parts of it do
not fit the original.
There are basically two areas of the inscription in question, both
rectangular. The rectangle on the left is the one containing the
helicopter, the bird with feet in a semicircle, the nine triangles
in three groups of three, and the nine columns. The rectangle on the
right has the other three 'machine' shapes.
What Janku (or whoever produced the graphical explanation) should
have done was take these two problem areas separately from the rest,
which clutters the whole needlessly. If I can produce a graphic
explanation on the background of the actual photograph of the glyphs,
so should Janku. He does not, because he doctors things, i.e.,
he puts his interpretation over his highly inaccurate version of
the underlying stone. For instance he drew two glyphs as if they
were the same in the original, although they are not even similar.
Can you correct the situation? My suggestion, scan the photograph,
and using it for a background, on a decent scale, and in separate
instances, give us your versions of the first inscription, and the
second inscription. Than fuse the two versions so that they
reproduce what we see today.
The third inscription, I think, makes no sense, who would be the
third ruler claiming Seti/Ramses temple?
While you are at it, you can verify the existence of the Golden
proportions in glyph groups visible at this time since you obviously
don't even believe me that the rectangles, which I show fitting
so well over the present glyphs are really Golden.
Jiri
Marianne Luban
--
THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors
from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt
YOU WILL NEVER THINK OF THE EXODUS IN THE
SAME WAY AGAIN! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/
Exodus2.html
"Jiri Mr." <jir...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:AbFoa.168321$vs.17...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Marianne Luban wrote:
> > Someone named "Thierry" asked the question about the "Abydos helicopter
> > business" in February of 1998 (or perhaps earlier) as he attests on his
> > website at
> >
> > http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usabydos.htm
> >
> > I was the first to reply to him with the true facts. Checking in the
Google
> > Usenet archives, however, NONE of the responses to that thread can be
found
> > now--not even the original query by Thierry.
>
>
> You were the first to reply to him with the true facts? - >Verbally?
Uh...no. I didn't call him up in Belgium and explain it to him. I wrote
the explanation in a Usenet group. The post has vanished, insofar as I can
tell.
> You must mean that you made some claims without >graphic support.
> The problem is one of graphics, so you should react in >kind to be
persuasive.
Gee, how could I ever hope to be as persuasive as you?
It is a matter of *epigraphics*--Egyptian writing. So I don't have to type
it all over again, I'll supply an explanation from the website above. It is
correct. That's all I have to say in this matter.
Dear Mr.,
What appears to be a "helicopter" is actually an example of two groups of
hieroglyphs carved one on top of the other. The words psd.t "the ennead of
nine" and X3s.wt "foreign countries" seems to have been carved one of top of
the other. Clearly the artist / craftsman changed the hieroglyphs (perhaps
from the change of kings Sety I to Ramesses II). The actual "helicopter"
seems to be a portion of the psd.t sign and the X3s.t sign on top of each
other with portions erased.
Hope this helps.
Eugene Cruz-Uribe
Associate Dean
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Northern Arizona University
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
alt.archaeology, wrote the following:
>Some oldtimers here may remember a short discussion on the so called
>Abydos Helicopter between Katherine Griffis and myself. I kind of let
>it go after making my reservations on the Abydos Helicopter 'palimpsest'
>theory known. Nevertheless, if you search on the web for the keywords
>'Abydos helicopter', up as number one comes my page about this old
>discussion.
>Being the first choice obliges one to put in a good effort. In this
>case, rather than learning hieroglyphs, my chosen approach was to
>analyze the problem geometrically since no one else did that before.
This is the beginning of your problem, IMO. You should bother to
understand the rules concerning hieroglyphs before anything else.
>Now, I am pleased to announce that the relevant section of glyphs at
>the Abydos Temple showcases the Golden Rectangle to the degree, where
>there is no question of this being deliberate, not coincidental.
>Since the Golden Rectangle systematically serves as a frame for glyph
>groupings, we have certainty that these glyphs were designed together.
>Thus, these glyphs are no palimpsests, as they are alleged, because
>palimpsests are unintentional. That changes the picture.
What definition says that a palimpsest is somehow "unintentional"? The
definition of a palimpsest says nothing about its "unintentional"
quality, but is defined as "A manuscript, typically of papyrus or
parchment, that has been written on more than once, with the earlier
writing incompletely erased and often legible." (AHED) The word comes
from the Latin palimpsEstum, from Greek palimpsEston, neuter of
palimpsEstos, 'scraped again'.
Hre you have a palmpsest which was original rendered in stone
(limestone), and then laid over with gypsum plaster to create a new
carving. Over the years the gypsum plaster has fallen away in patches,
giving the odd overlay of two writings atop one another.
The only "unintentional" quality of the Abydos palimpsest is the ancient
Egyptian carver/gypsum overlayer who created this palimpsest never
realized someone like you would come along 3000+ years later and try to
see objects in his carving which he knew nothing about, nor ever
intended.
The ancient carvers _intended_ to write a _phrase_ which glorified the
two kings involved, using words based on hieroglyphic symbols. They
succeeded admirably. Only you and a few of the paranormal/alien
persuasion seem to want to ignore these symbols are words first and
foremost. Rather you wish make them into something else.
>http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
>
>Seeing is believing,
Oh, I agree: it's all in whether one really wants to see, or merely
advance an argument which has no basis in fact.
This is an Egyptian palimpsest, and quite a deliberate and intentional
one. One has to recall that the grouping of symbols is a set method of
quadranting for individual words. When one has limited space for a
"rewrite," which in this case is _very_ intentional, then the revised
title must also fit with both the rule of word quadranting _and_ the
space provided. Had you understood the nature of hieroglyphic writing,
you would know that the "squaring" of word symbols within written
Egyptian is standard and is seen all the way back to predynastic - early
dynastic writing.
Here, the Seti I original epithet is a variant of /wHm mswt sxm-xpS
dr-pDt-9/ (being a Two Ladies' epithetical title, No. N1a in von
Beckerath's work on king's names and epithets) (von Beckerath 1999
<1984>: 151).
Ramses II replaced part of this epithet with a variant of his own,
/mk-Kmt waf.-xaswt...grg tAwy/ which is part of his Two Ladies'
epithetical title (neing No. N2 in von Beckerath's work (von Beckerath
1999 <1984>: 153) . In the case of the overlaying palimpsest, only
/mk-Kmt waf.-xaswt/ is the significant part.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/netwomen_1999/ReschEgy/seti-ram-glyphs.jpg
Black = Seti's full Two Ladies epithetical name, and Red = Rameses II's
overlaying Two Ladies epithetical variant. While elongated spacing of
certain glyphs give more of the impression of the helicopter, for
instance, in the Nakken photo, the objects which appear as an "airplane"
and "submarine" can be detected in the overlaying glyph example above.
In short, neither "geometrical analysis" nor "seeing is believing"
admonitions tells us anything new about the Abydos palimpsest. It is,
as described before, merely an example of the usurpation of Seti I's
titles and name within his own Abydos Osirian temple's First Hypostyle
Hall, as performed by his son, Ramses II, who clearly completed this
portion of the Temple.
Reference:
von Beckerath, J. 1999 <1984>. _Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen_.
Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, Bd. 49 G. Burkard and D. Kessler Mainz:
von Zabern.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
University of Alabama at Birmingham
UAB Options/Special Studies
Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D.
The picture does not display, with the error text "Done, but with
errors on the page" in the status bar. Yet in a mildly tangential
vein -- and from the old aav archives of '98 -- we find this caerulean
gem:
Dear Brethren,
Having returned just last week from a two week research expedition to
Egypt, we thought it germane to these groups to note a conceivable
example of succubus activity in an ancient Egyptian monument -- the
Temple of Seti in Abydos.
In the rear of the temple lies the Hall of Sokar and Nefertum, behind
which is a thin, rectangular room called "The Chapel of Sokar" by
modern Egyptologists. Herein the walls are profusely illustrated with
large carvings depicting certain historical (legendary) events. On
one wall, Osiris is pictured laying down on an altar of sorts
masturbating with Isis at his head. On the opposite wall, Isis -- in
the form of a dove -- has mounted his erect phallus, and is pictured
receiving his seed in order to conceive Horus, his successor and
eventual avenger.
Though a certain amount of culture-shock is to be expected in
confronting the religious imagery of other peoples (such as the
apparently Viagra-imbued Seti) and other epochs, the message appears
clear enough -- a non-human entity apparently capable of flight is
depicted copulating with the newly resurrected Osiris.
Perhaps the ancient Egyptians would be equally surprised to see us
attribute such ancient and enduring activity to horny grey leprechauns
from outer space.
As we ponder the mysteries;
-Brother Blue, B:.B:.
Obscuris Vera Involvens
http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.brotherblue.org/
Jiri Mruzek
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:35:34 GMT, Jiri Mruzek <jirim...@shaw.ca> in
> alt.archaeology, wrote the following:
>
>
>>Some oldtimers here may remember a short discussion on the so called
>>Abydos Helicopter between Katherine Griffis and myself. I kind of let
>>it go after making my reservations on the Abydos Helicopter 'palimpsest'
>>theory known. Nevertheless, if you search on the web for the keywords
>>'Abydos helicopter', up as number one comes my page about this old
>>discussion.
>>Being the first choice obliges one to put in a good effort. In this
>>case, rather than learning hieroglyphs, my chosen approach was to
>>analyze the problem geometrically since no one else did that before.
>
>
> This is the beginning of your problem, IMO. You should bother to
> understand the rules concerning hieroglyphs before anything else.
But, I did. Hieroglyphs are fascinating and were an ingenious method
of communication. I familiarized myself with the glyphs involved, but,
no, I did not learn Egyptian, or hieroglyphics.
But, I learned some rules from the Abydos writing that you had no
idea of. My observations are that while hieroglyphics on papyrus,
or painted on wood are more or less a kind of a freehand - the engraved
hieroglyphics adhered to a strict canon of form, and were utilized on
a geometrically structured space. I noted heaavy usage of the Golden
Section. Have you or any Egyptologists ever even done that?
Marianne did not answer this question, so let me repeat it:
Do you even allow the Egyptians the sophistication of knowing and
using the Golden Section?
>>Now, I am pleased to announce that the relevant section of glyphs at
>>the Abydos Temple showcases the Golden Rectangle to the degree, where
>>there is no question of this being deliberate, not coincidental.
>>Since the Golden Rectangle systematically serves as a frame for glyph
>>groupings, we have certainty that these glyphs were designed together.
>>Thus, these glyphs are no palimpsests, as they are alleged, because
>>palimpsests are unintentional. That changes the picture.
>
>
> What definition says that a palimpsest is somehow "unintentional"? The
> definition of a palimpsest says nothing about its "unintentional"
> quality, but is defined as "A manuscript, typically of papyrus or
> parchment, that has been written on more than once, with the earlier
> writing incompletely erased and often legible." (AHED) The word comes
> from the Latin palimpsEstum, from Greek palimpsEston, neuter of
> palimpsEstos, 'scraped again'.
In other words, the whole is unintentional - the way the two writings
combine since one is usually erased, or rendered otherwise invisible,
at least temporarily. It is you, who says that the final result, as it
is now - was not intended.
> Hre you have a palmpsest which was original rendered in stone
> (limestone), and then laid over with gypsum plaster to create a new
> carving. Over the years the gypsum plaster has fallen away in patches,
> giving the odd overlay of two writings atop one another.
So, the combined result should be unintended, and chaotic regarding
geometric structuring. However, it is not in this case, as the two
combine into one system of geometry.
> The only "unintentional" quality of the Abydos palimpsest is the ancient
> Egyptian carver/gypsum overlayer who created this palimpsest never
> realized someone like you would come along 3000+ years later and try to
> see objects in his carving which he knew nothing about, nor ever
> intended.
Don't be so sure what he intended. You are not him, or her.
Things are not as simple, as you present them. There are two
sides to this story, one relating to the glyphs as writing,
and one relating to the layout, and the geometry of the signs
themselves. _ Guess which one is the more exact science? :)
The geometry of the engraving can be reestablished by measuring,
but how do you reestablish the one-time presence of glyphs, which
you cannot see anymore? The only coherent attempt at a graphic
explanation I have seen is that by Janku. Yet, he made some easy
to catch mistakes.
All I know is that what we have now happens to be systematic.
The most numerous of all the signs in the engraving is the Golden
Rectangle, whose presence there is well established, just check
my article. Due to this undeniable reality, I've got to consider
the possibility that the whole palimpsest was planned, as such.
There could even have been one engraving first. Then the same
engraver may have covered parts of it by plaster, and engraved
something different. Still, he ought to know that the plaster will
eventually fall out, baring all of the engravings for the future
viewers. He ought to know this final shape, after all, this was
his painstakingly accurate, and thought out work.
> The ancient carvers _intended_ to write a _phrase_ which glorified the
> two kings involved, using words based on hieroglyphic symbols. They
> succeeded admirably. Only you and a few of the paranormal/alien
> persuasion seem to want to ignore these symbols are words first and
> foremost. Rather you wish make them into something else.
Do not forget, not all the symbols can be seen. To support your
opinion, someone will have to do serious work directly over the
background of the engraving. Even then, the geometry, the presence
of the Golden Section will loom pretty big.
Again, do Egyptologists own up to the fact that Egyptians were
familiar with the Golden Section some thirty-three hundred years
ago? Forget the planes, and submarines for the moment, and focus
on my question about the Golden Section. You see, if no one had
ever noted its presence in the Abydos engravings, then I want to
claim credit, where you would grant me none.
>>http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
>>
>>Seeing is believing,
> Oh, I agree: it's all in whether one really wants to see, or merely
> advance an argument which has no basis in fact.
What do I base on, if not facts? Maybe not your favorite kind of
facts, but facts nevertheless.
> This is an Egyptian palimpsest, and quite a deliberate and intentional
> one. One has to recall that the grouping of symbols is a set method of
> quadranting for individual words. When one has limited space for a
> "rewrite," which in this case is _very_ intentional, then the revised
> title must also fit with both the rule of word quadranting _and_ the
> space provided. Had you understood the nature of hieroglyphic writing,
> you would know that the "squaring" of word symbols within written
> Egyptian is standard and is seen all the way back to predynastic - early
> dynastic writing.
Very good! If you are aware of the squaring, are you aware of
the great precision, with which the layout was planned, and are
you aware that the work teems with the Golden Section as
accompaniment to the squaring?
Unfortunately, it would not be easy to show the same impressive
geometry if the whole gets halved to just one set of glyphs .
You can do it in the area with the columns and the triangles,
although some of the present effect would disappear, but you
cannot do it in the area to the right.
> Here, the Seti I original epithet is a variant of /wHm mswt sxm-xpS
> dr-pDt-9/ (being a Two Ladies' epithetical title, No. N1a in von
> Beckerath's work on king's names and epithets) (von Beckerath 1999
> <1984>: 151).
>
> Ramses II replaced part of this epithet with a variant of his own,
> /mk-Kmt waf.-xaswt...grg tAwy/ which is part of his Two Ladies'
> epithetical title (neing No. N2 in von Beckerath's work (von Beckerath
> 1999 <1984>: 153) . In the case of the overlaying palimpsest, only
> /mk-Kmt waf.-xaswt/ is the significant part.
>
> See:
> http://www.geocities.com/netwomen_1999/ReschEgy/seti-ram-glyphs.jpg
I did, what you show is merely a sketch. You should produce a
demonstration directly over the background of the engraving,
and do it on a decent scale, not everybody has a microscope:)
> Black = Seti's full Two Ladies epithetical name, and Red = Rameses II's
> overlaying Two Ladies epithetical variant. While elongated spacing of
> certain glyphs give more of the impression of the helicopter, for
> instance, in the Nakken photo, the objects which appear as an "airplane"
> and "submarine" can be detected in the overlaying glyph example above.
I can't fit the glyphs you propose into the actual palimpsest.
Can you do it for me? Anybody out there?
> In short, neither "geometrical analysis" nor "seeing is believing"
> admonitions tells us anything new about the Abydos palimpsest.
So, you knew that the predominant sign is the Golden rectangle?
Even if you considered this routine, was it not worthy of being
put on record somewhere?
> It is,
> as described before, merely an example of the usurpation of Seti I's
> titles and name within his own Abydos Osirian temple's First Hypostyle
> Hall, as performed by his son, Ramses II, who clearly completed this
> portion of the Temple.
Except that Janku must resort to postulating three carvings
to make things fit, and even then he marvels at the sloppiness
of it all. How do I know, he is wrong - that there was no such
sloppiness?
Jiri Mruzek
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
alt.archaeology, wrote the following:
>Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:35:34 GMT, Jiri Mruzek <jirim...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>Being the first choice obliges one to put in a good effort. In this
>>>case, rather than learning hieroglyphs, my chosen approach was to
>>>analyze the problem geometrically since no one else did that before.
>>
>>
>> This is the beginning of your problem, IMO. You should bother to
>> understand the rules concerning hieroglyphs before anything else.
>
>But, I did. Hieroglyphs are fascinating and were an ingenious method
>of communication. I familiarized myself with the glyphs involved, but,
>no, I did not learn Egyptian, or hieroglyphics.
>But, I learned some rules from the Abydos writing that you had no
>idea of. My observations are that while hieroglyphics on papyrus,
>or painted on wood are more or less a kind of a freehand - the engraved
>hieroglyphics adhered to a strict canon of form, and were utilized on
>a geometrically structured space.
<sigh> Did I not say that glyphs are based on two issues: quadranting
of the glyphs themselves into words and utilization of the space
provided in the carvings? Yes, I did, as I can plainly see.
Now, you want to go into some mystical review of the Golden Section
when, even IF it were utilized, would not change the fact that the
carvings are words about the titles of two kings. In other words, all
of your review of the Golden section is a distraction from the actual
purpose of the carvings, which are the Two Ladies names for these kings
overlaid upon one another. It certainly would not prove anything about
planes, heliocopters and submarines being known about or used by the
Egyptians.
>> What definition says that a palimpsest is somehow "unintentional"? The
>> definition of a palimpsest says nothing about its "unintentional"
>> quality, but is defined as "A manuscript, typically of papyrus or
>> parchment, that has been written on more than once, with the earlier
>> writing incompletely erased and often legible." (AHED) The word comes
>> from the Latin palimpsEstum, from Greek palimpsEston, neuter of
>> palimpsEstos, 'scraped again'.
>
>In other words, the whole is unintentional - the way the two writings
>combine since one is usually erased, or rendered otherwise invisible,
>at least temporarily. It is you, who says that the final result, as it
>is now - was not intended.
I am saying that there was no intention upon the part of the first OR
second carver to render these two sets of glyphs in such a way to create
"planes, heliocopters, and submarines." The second carver specifically
was attempting to fit words into a limited space, using the quadranting
of glyphs into words, which was standard in writing Egyptian language.
He suceeded in that effort as most phrases (which are repeated
elsehwere) are quite readable.
>
>> Hre you have a palmpsest which was original rendered in stone
>> (limestone), and then laid over with gypsum plaster to create a new
>> carving. Over the years the gypsum plaster has fallen away in patches,
>> giving the odd overlay of two writings atop one another.
>
>So, the combined result should be unintended, and chaotic regarding
>geometric structuring. However, it is not in this case, as the two
>combine into one system of geometry.
Which obviously makes sense IF you have defined space and are guided by
word-glyph quadranting. The Golden Section, if applied, is deduced by
YOU only from noting the limitation of space and the use of "squaring"
of the words. It's an overanalysis of common Egyptian writing
practices.
>> The only "unintentional" quality of the Abydos palimpsest is the ancient
>> Egyptian carver/gypsum overlayer who created this palimpsest never
>> realized someone like you would come along 3000+ years later and try to
>> see objects in his carving which he knew nothing about, nor ever
>> intended.
>
>Don't be so sure what he intended. You are not him, or her.
Nor, if I may be so bold, are you. You certainly cannot say for a fact
that the "Golden Section" was even known by the Egyptians, or applied in
this situation. I can make several determinations from intersecting
various lines on a sheet, for example, but it doesn't mean the original
writer was even aware of the possibilities or conclusions I may come to
have, _especially if the original intent was to write words_ and he was
using lines _only_ as the underline to keep his words straight on the
page.
>Things are not as simple, as you present them. There are two
>sides to this story, one relating to the glyphs as writing,
>and one relating to the layout, and the geometry of the signs
>themselves. _ Guess which one is the more exact science? :)
Dare I say that the studying of glyphs are? Because, really, what you
have is so much overanalysis (what my mother used to call navel
lint-watching) of a common phenomena in regards to writing of two
different sets of glyphs.
Egyptologists have myriad examples of overwriting within confined space
on monuments and other objects (such as the coffinettes of Tutankhamun
which overlaid that king's name upon an earlier king's name).
Egyptology does have a name for such action: it's called "usurpation,"
and is VERY common in the New Kingdom and later.
>The geometry of the engraving can be reestablished by measuring,
>but how do you reestablish the one-time presence of glyphs, which
>you cannot see anymore?
Because, as I noted before, there are OTHER examples of the epithets on
other monuments to the point to what glyphs were missing. Previous
examples do not make this guesswork, you see.
>The only coherent attempt at a graphic
>explanation I have seen is that by Janku. Yet, he made some easy
>to catch mistakes.
He was also using some of the wrong glyphs, from what I remember.
>All I know is that what we have now happens to be systematic.
>The most numerous of all the signs in the engraving is the Golden
>Rectangle, whose presence there is well established, just check
>my article. Due to this undeniable reality, I've got to consider
>the possibility that the whole palimpsest was planned, as such.
IMO, you can only assume that what "planning" took place was the fact
the second carver/plasterer had to utilize the same space as the
original carving to place one of Ramses II's specific epithets within
the same space. To cover this space, he used a system of cramping
and/or elongating the glyphs to accomplish this effect. Similar types
of elongation/cramping can also be seen in the Tutankhamun example I
mentioned above.
>There could even have been one engraving first. Then the same
>engraver may have covered parts of it by plaster, and engraved
>something different. Still, he ought to know that the plaster will
>eventually fall out, baring all of the engravings for the future
>viewers. He ought to know this final shape, after all, this was
>his painstakingly accurate, and thought out work.
Why must he assume the second plastering would fall away? There are
several examples were replastering was done throughout Egyptian
monuments during pharaonic times (some even takes place today by modern
Egyptians to ancient monuments, BTW). Writings upon monuments were
meant to last through eternity, and therefore were reinforced several
times to keep them legible. However, once the pharaonic period passed,
no one was there to replaster these epithets, and they fell away.
Remnants of the original plaster from these much-discussed beams were
still found on the floor in the Abydos Temple by Mariette, as I recall.
So, the subsequent "effect" of a "plane, heliocopter, and submarine" is
in the eye of the _beholder_, and not the original artist. Had the
original artist wanted them seen, he would not have gone to such care to
render the new glyphs solidly over the first glyphs, and in many cases,
continued to replaster the area again and again.
<snip covered ground>
>>>Seeing is believing,
>
>> Oh, I agree: it's all in whether one really wants to see, or merely
>> advance an argument which has no basis in fact.
>
>What do I base on, if not facts? Maybe not your favorite kind of
>facts, but facts nevertheless.
No, merely assumption of facts not in evidence, as one would say in
legal jargon. This is, as rules of evidence go, "speculation" without
laying a proper foundation.
>
>> This is an Egyptian palimpsest, and quite a deliberate and intentional
>> one. One has to recall that the grouping of symbols is a set method of
>> quadranting for individual words. When one has limited space for a
>> "rewrite," which in this case is _very_ intentional, then the revised
>> title must also fit with both the rule of word quadranting _and_ the
>> space provided. Had you understood the nature of hieroglyphic writing,
>> you would know that the "squaring" of word symbols within written
>> Egyptian is standard and is seen all the way back to predynastic - early
>> dynastic writing.
>
>Very good! If you are aware of the squaring, are you aware of
>the great precision, with which the layout was planned, and are
>you aware that the work teems with the Golden Section as
>accompaniment to the squaring?
Are you aware that hieroglyphic writing is based upon glyph grouping to
form words in much the same way that we form English words in such a way
that consonant and vowels appear together in certain set rules?
While you can see geometric "harmony" of the Golden Section in
hieroglyphic writing, I would say that if you don't understand the way
hieroglyphic writing was formed, even as far back as the predynastic
palettes, to form word patterns, then (IMO), you are like the man who
cannot see the forest for the trees.
<snip>
>> Here, the Seti I original epithet is a variant of /wHm mswt sxm-xpS
>> dr-pDt-9/ (being a Two Ladies' epithetical title, No. N1a in von
>> Beckerath's work on king's names and epithets) (von Beckerath 1999
>> <1984>: 151).
>>
>> Ramses II replaced part of this epithet with a variant of his own,
>> /mk-Kmt waf.-xaswt...grg tAwy/ which is part of his Two Ladies'
>> epithetical title (neing No. N2 in von Beckerath's work (von Beckerath
>> 1999 <1984>: 153) . In the case of the overlaying palimpsest, only
>> /mk-Kmt waf.-xaswt/ is the significant part.
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.geocities.com/netwomen_1999/ReschEgy/seti-ram-glyphs.jpg
>
>I did, what you show is merely a sketch. You should produce a
>demonstration directly over the background of the engraving,
>and do it on a decent scale, not everybody has a microscope:)
I think I noted that elongation of the glyphs occur, but quite honestly,
Jiri, you are quite capable of seeing how you "plane" and "submarine"
appear in the glyph example I gave in my previous post. If you cannot
see it, either a trip to the opthlamologist is in order, or a serious
admission that you see only what you wish to see.
<snip of rest as redundant to issues discussed>
Tom Shaw
saint for your posts.
TS
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in
message news:csbcavs7etj2lc1hi...@4ax.com...
Rick Russell
Jiri Mruzek <jirim...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Seeing is believing,
Jiri,
Are you using the image at the top of
http://www.ufocom.org/pages/v_us/m_archeo/Abydos/abydos.html
which is known to be a digitally retouched version of the original? If
so, how do you know that your measurements apply to the original
carving?
Second, looking at the closeups of your "Golden Section" analysis, I
note that you seem to take some liberties with the edges of the
glyphs. Quite frequently, the edges of glyphs fall inside or outside
the lines, without much consistency.
I concur that the original engravers were probably trying to stay
inside the boundaries of some "golden ratio" rectangles, but even your
analysis shows them to be a rather poor fit.
It's also unclear how your claim of "golden sections" disproves the
claim that the hieroglyphs are a palimpsest. Later engravers could
have followed the boundaries of the original runes, perhaps for
practical reasons (plaster is softer than stone; it's probably easier
to carve when you're following some of the lines from an underlying
set of glyphs), or for artistic reasons (the artists simply wanted
their own hieroglyphs to fall within the lines of the existing
carvings, so the result wouldn't look jumbled).
Rick R.
Jiri Mr.
> Jiri Mruzek
>
>>Seeing is believing,
> Jiri,
>
> Are you using the image at the top of
>
> http://www.ufocom.org/pages/v_us/m_archeo/Abydos/abydos.html
>
> which is known to be a digitally retouched version of the original? If
> so, how do you know that your measurements apply to the original
> carving?
Of course, I am using the Un-Retouched version.
> Second, looking at the closeups of your "Golden Section" analysis, I
> note that you seem to take some liberties with the edges of the
> glyphs. Quite frequently, the edges of glyphs fall inside or outside
> the lines, without much consistency.
'Seem' is the right word here, indeed. Please, look again. In most
cases, the alignment is actually quite amazingly accurate. It is
enough to show that the standard method of design of the Golden
Section had been used. I just looked again, and with only a couple
of exceptions, where the lines themselves are somewhat rough, I see
a whole lot of perfection (if you look at all the illustrations).
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
> I concur that the original engravers were probably trying to stay
> inside the boundaries of some "golden ratio" rectangles, but even your
> analysis shows them to be a rather poor fit.
Thank you for a limited approval, nevetheless:)
> It's also unclear how your claim of "golden sections" disproves the
> claim that the hieroglyphs are a palimpsest. Later engravers could
> have followed the boundaries of the original runes, perhaps for
> practical reasons (plaster is softer than stone; it's probably easier
> to carve when you're following some of the lines from an underlying
> set of glyphs), or for artistic reasons (the artists simply wanted
> their own hieroglyphs to fall within the lines of the existing
> carvings, so the result wouldn't look jumbled).
If one wanted to be practical, one would not use plaster at all.
Note that the engravings are on a fairly thin layer of stone
attached to the stone block underneath. The thing to do was to
either replace this entire top layer, or to erase the not very
deep engravings, and start with a clean surface. When you consider,
how carefully everything else had been done, the apparent sloppiness
of the rededication is quite out of place, which in turn is an
indicator that there was no such, but rather that the result was
intended.
My apologies, but, I am rather short on time the past few days.
So short in fact that I haven't yet published something very
important. Starting just with a blank, and following the given
system, one can reconstruct everything under the so called
helicopter. Hopefully, I'll put this up within a couple days.
My apologies also to Katherine, haven't had time to answer her
last (long) post, yet.
Jiri
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/index.html
> Rick R.
>
>
Rick Russell
Well, I looked quite carefully. Some of the glyphs have structures (if
they were Roman-style fonts, I would call them "serifs"); sometimes
you place the "golden ratio" rectangles to completely surround the
serifs, sometimes you place them so that serifs cross over. Sometimes
a glyph falls within the "golden section" on the top and pokes out on
the bottom, or vice versa. In any case, it looks like many structures
on the page do not fit the "golden sections" as you claim, even in
your own drawings.
If you assert that the original carvers composed the entire tablet as
a single carving, I don't see why there would be any problem adhering
to the boundaries of the "golden sections"; surely they would have
measured them out ahead of time and carved their glyphs carefully
along the section boundaries?
For example, look at http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abydgr3.gif .
The "golden section" on the bottom left is matched up with the left
side of the glyph, but the right side doesn't match at all -- it's
poking over the line on the bottom, and falls well inside the line on
the top.
And the glyph on the bottom right side is just as bad; you draw the
golden section to include the serif-like structure on the left, but
allow the serif on the right of the same glyph to extend well over the
line.
We have to wonder whether the original carvers were just sloppy, or
the piece has been modified by less careful artists since the original
carvings were placed on it. Or perhaps they weren't very concerned
about the golden section at all, which places your geometric claims in
doubt.
> whole lot of perfection
???
Perfection is an absolute. What would be an acceptable margin of
error? The sections that you have drawn on your digital images
sometimes match the underlying glyphs quite closely. But a quick check
against the lines that clearly don't match shows ~5% or more error
with respect to the golden section. If these glyphs were all carved in
the original, unmodified stone, why is there any error?
> deep engravings, and start with a clean surface. When you consider,
> how carefully everything else had been done, the apparent sloppiness
> of the rededication is quite out of place,
Then why is any of it sloppy? Failure to adhere to the rules of stone
hieroglyphics would seem to argue for generations of modified
carvings, and against the claim that the carvings were carefully laid
out by the same artist.
Rick R.
Xcott Craver
>
> 'Seem' is the right word here, indeed. Please, look again. In most
> cases, the alignment is actually quite amazingly accurate.
You don't provide any error margins. The mere fact that you
are working from scanned photos guarantees that none of your
measurements can be *amazingly* accurate.
What are the uncertainties on your length and angle measurements,
and what is the % uncertainty when you take two lengths and claim
that they follow the golden ratio? Give or take what percent?
> It is enough to show that the standard method of design of the Golden
> Section had been used.
What I'd like to see is a photograph of anything that *can't*
have a golden rectangle superimposed over it in some moderately
interesting way.
-X
Rick Russell
Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote:
> What I'd like to see is a photograph of anything that *can't*
> have a golden rectangle superimposed over it in some moderately
> interesting way.
That's the point that I was (slowly) getting at. If you're willing to
fudge the edges a bit, you can fit all kinds of squares and rectangles
on the hieroglyphs. Or any kinds of historical glyphs or characters.
If I were going to rewrite a historical document (or tablet), you can
bet that I would leave in the parts that I want, then make sure my own
emendation fit the existing space and looked consistent with the
adjoining text. Even if the glyphs fit the "golden section" quite
well, it doesn't really tell you anything. Later carvers would make an
effort to fit their own changes into the piece.
Rick R.
Jiri Mr.
> Jiri Mr. wrote:
>
>>'Seem' is the right word here, indeed. Please, look again. In most
>>cases, the alignment is actually quite amazingly accurate.
>
>
> You don't provide any error margins. The mere fact that you
> are working from scanned photos guarantees that none of your
> measurements can be *amazingly* accurate.
>
> What are the uncertainties on your length and angle measurements,
> and what is the % uncertainty when you take two lengths and claim
> that they follow the golden ratio? Give or take what percent?
Would visually accurate suffice for your rigorous methods?
It's much closer than invisible hieroglyphs.
>>It is enough to show that the standard method of design of the Golden
>>Section had been used.
>
>
> What I'd like to see is a photograph of anything that *can't*
> have a golden rectangle superimposed over it in some moderately
> interesting way.
I'll send you a pic of my garden hose:)
-X
Jiri
PS - for Rick Russell - I put some new stuff into the article.
See tables # 11, 12, 13, and 14
Jiri Mr.
> In article <PM0003BC2...@BrainHz.bellatlantic.net>,
> Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'd like to see is a photograph of anything that *can't*
>> have a golden rectangle superimposed over it in some moderately
>> interesting way.
>
>
> That's the point that I was (slowly) getting at. If you're willing to
> fudge the edges a bit, you can fit all kinds of squares and rectangles
> on the hieroglyphs. Or any kinds of historical glyphs or characters.
>
> If I were going to rewrite a historical document (or tablet), you can
> bet that I would leave in the parts that I want, then make sure my own
> emendation fit the existing space and looked consistent with the
> adjoining text. Even if the glyphs fit the "golden section" quite
> well,
I do appreciate your honesty in admitting this fact. Xcott Craver
would be quite incapable of being as fair, I believe.
> it doesn't really tell you anything.
Seeing the Golden Section style, or refusing to see it is what
matters. Egyptians are denied the credit of having known the Section,
if I remember.
> Later carvers would make an
> effort to fit their own changes into the piece.
Now about that carving labour itself. Look at Table 18 in my article.
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
The carving is up high under the ceiling, and accessing it would not
be easy. We see that the inscription is on limestone facing, which
rests on a ledge carved into the support column. From this fact we
should probably deduce that the carving of the facing plate was done
on the ground, then elevated into the position on the supporting
ledge. For any subsequent changes, I believe that the facing plate
would be brought back to the ground. Even better, new limestone plate
could have been used, then simply repositioned on the ledge. This would
explain the quality measuring and proportioning, for it is hard to
believe that such work would be done from the scaffolding.
After all, this would seem to be an important inscription, not something
one would just patch over with plaster. I mean, the work on the temple
was still going on in Ramses' time, there were materials and artisans
available to do a real job instead of virtual tinkering.
Jiri
> Rick R.
>
>
>
>
Marianne Luban
numerous enough without trying to add to them some enigmas that are just
plain silly and for whom there are very obvious explanations. I know of a
number of weird things, myself. A couple of them have to do with mummies.
One mummy in California has a pin in its leg that is very much on the order
of modern orthopedic surgery. Another mummy in Brooklyn has a clean hole in
its skull that a number of police officers have
viewed with great curiosity, each agreeing that it is just the size a .38
calibre bullet would make. But no bullet has been found there. If the
hole was made by a sharp instrument--what would it be? Ancient Egyptian
arrows did not have round tips, nor did any of the other weapons we know of
in their arsenal. To make a clean, round hole in a skull, something has to
be driven with considerable force. But what?
Jiri Mruzek
> I think the last word should be this: The mysteries of ancient Egypt are
> numerous enough without trying to add to them some enigmas that are just
> plain silly and for whom there are very obvious explanations.
Of course, a 'plain silly enigma' in this case is the presence of
the underlying geometrical system based upon the Golden Section,
which I dared to discover. Is it a no-no to review the mysteries of
ancient Egypt, and maybe add one's own wrinkle? In my view I just
added another tile to the mosaic of knowledge.
As for the very obvious explanations, I haven't yet heard your take
on why the Golden Section is so prevalent over other forms in the group
of glyphs popularly known as the Abydos Helicopter. It does interest
me greatly, especially since I have asked for it a while ago.
> I know of a
> number of weird things, myself. A couple of them have to do with mummies.
> One mummy in California has a pin in its leg that is very much on the order
> of modern orthopedic surgery. Another mummy in Brooklyn has a clean hole in
> its skull that a number of police officers have
> viewed with great curiosity, each agreeing that it is just the size a .38
> calibre bullet would make. But no bullet has been found there. If the
> hole was made by a sharp instrument--what would it be? Ancient Egyptian
> arrows did not have round tips, nor did any of the other weapons we know of
> in their arsenal. To make a clean, round hole in a skull, something has to
> be driven with considerable force. But what?
For instance, an object hurled by the force of a natural explosion,
or a hit by a small meteorite, although a meteorite should have
enough velocity to exit the skull again, leaving an identical hole
agter adjustments for the respective angles of impact. But, if the
meteorite were ricocheting of some other objects, it may have been
already slowed down enough to become lodged in the brain tissue.
No matter how unlikely these events are to occur, over time they will.
A succcessfully implanted pin in the leg of a mummy suggests that
the surgeon had wielded some successful technology. The geometrical
system behind the Abydos Helicopter panel requires knowledge by the
panel's designers. No meteorite could have flown in from the sky
and drawn the plan on its own.
Jiri Czech out:
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
Marianne Luban
"Jiri Mruzek" <jirim...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4hCqa.40105$ya.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Marianne Luban wrote:
>
> > I think the last word should be this: The mysteries of ancient Egypt
are
> > numerous enough without trying to add to them some enigmas that are just
> > plain silly and for whom there are very obvious explanations.
>
> Of course, a 'plain silly enigma' in this case is the presence of
> the underlying geometrical system based upon the Golden Section,
> which I dared to discover. Is it a no-no to review the mysteries of
> ancient Egypt, and maybe add one's own wrinkle? In my view I just
> added another tile to the mosaic of knowledge.
> As for the very obvious explanations, I haven't yet heard your take
> on why the Golden Section is so prevalent over other forms in the group
> of glyphs popularly known as the Abydos Helicopter. It does interest
> me greatly, especially since I have asked for it a while ago.
Jiri, how can I have a take on something that I don't see?
You see the Golden Section--all I see is a group of hieroglyphs, doctored up
with partially eroded plaster.
> > I know of a
> > number of weird things, myself. A couple of them have to do with
mummies.
> > One mummy in California has a pin in its leg that is very much on the
order
> > of modern orthopedic surgery. Another mummy in Brooklyn has a clean
hole in
> > its skull that a number of police officers have
> > viewed with great curiosity, each agreeing that it is just the size a
.38
> > calibre bullet would make. But no bullet has been found there. If the
> > hole was made by a sharp instrument--what would it be? Ancient Egyptian
> > arrows did not have round tips, nor did any of the other weapons we know
of
> > in their arsenal. To make a clean, round hole in a skull, something has
to
> > be driven with considerable force. But what?
>
> For instance, an object hurled by the force of a natural explosion,
> or a hit by a small meteorite, although a meteorite should have
> enough velocity to exit the skull again, leaving an identical hole
> agter adjustments for the respective angles of impact. But, if the
> meteorite were ricocheting of some other objects, it may have been
> already slowed down enough to become lodged in the brain tissue.
> No matter how unlikely these events are to occur, over time they will.
What, in a world before explosives, could cause a natural explosion? This,
at least, is a topic that interests me. Meteorites are a pretty unlikely
source, I would think.
rzed
> [...] Another mummy in Brooklyn has a clean hole in
> its skull that a number of police officers have viewed with great
> curiosity, each agreeing that it is just the size a .38 calibre
> bullet would make. But no bullet has been found there. If the
> hole was made by a sharp instrument--what would it be? Ancient
> Egyptian arrows did not have round tips, nor did any of the other
> weapons we know of in their arsenal. To make a clean, round hole
> in a skull, something has to be driven with considerable force.
> But what?
Most likely a drill. The Egyptians were known to have practiced
trepanning. Is there something about this mummy that renders that
explanation unlikely?
--
rzed
Marianne Luban
--
"rzed" <Dick....@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
news:b8j9p6$9il$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
Yes--the hole does not go all the way to the brain matter.
It stops short of it--and was filled with wax. Besides, I don't think there
really is much evidence that the ancient Egyptians practiced trepanning. A
number of royal mummies were found with holes in their skulls and that was
one of the theories put forward--that the pharaoh's skulls were opened by
physicians for some reason. But most think now these irregular holes were
most likely made by tomb robbers. However, to me, that is not so
satisfactory, either. Why would robbers want to bash holes in the heads of
royal mummies--there was nothing of value inside them. Maybe it was a
result of adzing off the bandages from the head, looking for diadems. BTW,
they wouldn't try avoid damaging any crowns. Such things were useless to
thieves intact. They would have to be melted down, in any case.
Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D.
Yup, prolly just a fire drill or something. We used to have those
back in elementary school so I'll bet those Egyptian kids used to have
to do that kind of stuff too.
Most likely a drill.
But please use a spell-chequer in the future. I think you meant to
say, "The Egyptians were known to have practiced TRESPASSING," which
is of course why the guvmint had to put up all those No Trespassing
signs way out there in the middle of the desert --
http://www.unmuseum.org/area51.htm
OK.
That's all.
Have a nice day and stuff.
-Brother Blue, B:.B:.
Sublime Lodge of the Blue Brethren
http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.brotherblue.org/
Pete Charest
<mluba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip bullshit about imaginary helicopters>
>Yes--the hole does not go all the way to the brain matter.
That's just because you haven't met the right man yet, Marianne.
---
Pete Charest
Truth Terrorist©
If you're not insulted, then you're not a kook.
rzed
>> Marianne Luban wrote:
>>> [...] Another mummy in Brooklyn has a clean hole in
>>> its skull that a number of police officers have viewed with great
>>> curiosity, each agreeing that it is just the size a .38 calibre
>>> bullet would make. But no bullet has been found there. If the
>>> hole was made by a sharp instrument--what would it be? Ancient
>>> Egyptian arrows did not have round tips, nor did any of the other
>>> weapons we know of in their arsenal. To make a clean, round hole
>>> in a skull, something has to be driven with considerable force.
>>> But what?
>>
>> Most likely a drill. The Egyptians were known to have practiced
>> trepanning. Is there something about this mummy that renders that
>> explanation unlikely?
>
> Yes--the hole does not go all the way to the brain matter.
> It stops short of it--and was filled with wax.
Forgive me for wondering what sort of bullet (or any other round,
sharp instrument) would have penetrated partway into the skull in
normal use. To make a clean, round hole that does not penetrate a
skull, a drill would be a far more likely explanation than any
projectile. Is there any evidence of impact fracture near the hole? Is
there any evidence of regrowth of bone? Do you know what period the
mummy dates from?
Marianne Luban
> Marianne Luban wrote:
> >> Marianne Luban wrote:
> >>> [...] Another mummy in Brooklyn has a clean hole in
> >>> its skull that a number of police officers have viewed with great
> >>> curiosity, each agreeing that it is just the size a .38 calibre
> >>> bullet would make. But no bullet has been found there. If the
> >>> hole was made by a sharp instrument--what would it be? Ancient
> >>> Egyptian arrows did not have round tips, nor did any of the other
> >>> weapons we know of in their arsenal. To make a clean, round hole
> >>> in a skull, something has to be driven with considerable force.
> >>> But what?
> >>
> >> Most likely a drill. The Egyptians were known to have practiced
> >> trepanning. Is there something about this mummy that renders that
> >> explanation unlikely?
> >
> > Yes--the hole does not go all the way to the brain matter.
> > It stops short of it--and was filled with wax.
>
> Forgive me for wondering what sort of bullet (or any other round,
> sharp instrument) would have penetrated partway into the skull in
> normal use.
I can't think of any--and that is the mystery. A drill is logical, but what
for? During mummification, the brain was not removed by drilling holes in
the skull. Brain surgery? In this case, the brain was not accessed.
Please don't start hinting that I may be advocating any actual bullet holes.
The observation was not mine.
>To make a clean, round hole that does not penetrate a
> skull, a drill would be a far more likely explanation than any
> projectile.
I don't disagree. But the explanation is not quite satisfactory under the
circumstances.
>Is there any evidence of impact fracture near the hole? Is
> there any evidence of regrowth of bone? Do you know what period the
> mummy dates from?
I know that the mummy dates from the 21st Dynasty, but I have not been able
to see it first-hand, so cannot answer any more questions.
--
Robin
> Marianne
>
> Most likely a drill. The Egyptians were known to have practiced
> trepanning. Is there something about this mummy that renders that
> explanation unlikely
scent
rzed
cryptic
Rocket
>Marianne Luban wrote:
>> Someone named "Thierry" asked the question about the "Abydos helicopter
>> business" in February of 1998 (or perhaps earlier) as he attests on his
>> website at
>>
>> http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usabydos.htm
>>
Sorry I'm so late on this subject, I hope you will still spot this reply. I
would just like to show you my e-mail to Thierry on the sobject, as follows:
I have been following the discussion concerning the helicopter for some time
and am totally confused in my mind as to what my feelings are on the matter.
One thing has struck me, however: I can accept the palimpsest theory for the
"helicopter" since my knowledge of hieroglyphs is minimal to non-existant and I
must accept the opinion of experts that the recarving of the text produced, by
coincidence, an image that we now think resembles a helicopter. When the same
experts tell me that this coincidence occurred not once (helicopter) but three
times in such a small area ("gunboat" and "submarine") I'm afraid laughter gets
the better of me.
Please understand, I am not convinced that the Egyptians of the time of
Ramses II had helicopters, gunboats and submarines. I am simply saying that
this proposed triple coincidence is not worthy of the scientific abilities of
those proposing it and another solution should be looked for.
By the way, on my several visits to the temple of Abydos, I have searched
in vain for this carving and have failed to find it. As I shall be in Abydos in
November, I would be extremely grateful if you could explain how to find it.
Thank you for a most interesting website :-)
Jim Ashton.
I do feel that the reaction of qualified archaeologists on this matter is "we
have spoken- it is a palimpsest and requires no further discussion", a comment
I have heard in various forms on various subjects (usually less controversial
than this one) and which I find short sighted and irritating in the extreme.
Scientific thinking rejects no possibility until it is proved conclusively to
be wrong and, in this case, I have not yet seen the proof. (remember Davis'
statement about the Valley of the Kings?)
Jim.
Marianne Luban
--
"Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
news:f479b.4323723$cI2.6...@news.easynews.com...
If you don't suggest that the ancient Egyptians had helicopters, submarines
and gunboats--and can accept that the so-called "images" are the result of a
palimpsest and the falling away of plaster--what exactly is the point of
your post? Why do you feel the matter requires further inquiry? Actually,
I don't believe that the images you mention are or ever were all that
obvious and that the online pictures I have seen were doctored.
Rocket
there are more than one images on the lintel and as I said, though I am quite
happy to accept the palimpsest theory for one image, I find it scientifically
unreasonable to suggest this theory for several images which all appear to have
the same (military) theme. Thus I consider the palimpsest theory to be invalid
and suggest that another explanation be found. As you can see from my comments
in the e-mail to Thierry, I have not seen the images myself and am commenting
without real evidence. If, as you say, all the images I have seen have been
doctored, this would be a much more logical solution to me than all the others.
My real reason for writing, however, is the fact that new theories should be
examined on their merits with an open mind. This is often not the case. I find
Robert Bauval's Orion/Giza correlation most interesting and he has at least
spent a great deal of time and effort in demonstrating his theory. His
detractors have not shown me the same zeal and evidence. Another case is the
Mansour Armarna collection. I am offered vast quantities of evidence by the
Mansour family of the genuineness of their collection but none, absolutely none
in scientific format, from the detractors.
There is little effort involved in poo-pooing strange ideas but if we had never
stopped to consider some of them, we would still be living on a flat earth.
By the way, I'm still waiting to be convinced scientifically thet Nefertiti
lies in KV35.
I admire your work. :-)))))
Rocket
Marianne Luban
"Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
> >If you don't suggest that the ancient Egyptians had helicopters,
submarines
> >and gunboats--and can accept that the so-called "images" are the result
of a
> >palimpsest and the falling away of plaster--what exactly is the point of
> >your post? Why do you feel the matter requires further inquiry?
Actually,
> >I don't believe that the images you mention are or ever were all that
> >obvious and that the online pictures I have seen were doctored.
> Sorry, Marianne, I'm not always good at expressing myself. My point was
that
> there are more than one images on the lintel and as I said, though I am
quite
> happy to accept the palimpsest theory for one image, I find it
scientifically
> unreasonable to suggest this theory for several images which all appear to
have
> the same (military) theme. Thus I consider the palimpsest theory to be
invalid
> and suggest that another explanation be found. As you can see from my
comments
> in the e-mail to Thierry, I have not seen the images myself and am
commenting
> without real evidence. If, as you say, all the images I have seen have
been
> doctored, this would be a much more logical solution to me than all the
others.
You can have a look at the images at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/abyhelic.htm
It is quite obvious to me that the text has been digitally enhanced to make
the so-called helicopter etc. look much
more "real" than they actually do in the text. To someone like myself, who
can read the glyphs, it isn't difficult at all to see what happened there.
One can see the old text , which is a standard formula, and how it was
changed to a different one by the son of the pharaoh in whose times the
original signs were carved. That modern technology should be represented
there is no coincidence at all--it is
just a trick of some mischievous person with a good imagination and computer
know-how.
> My real reason for writing, however, is the fact that new theories should
be
> examined on their merits with an open mind. This is often not the case.
I believe as you do, but there comes a time when one has to trust people who
know what they are talking about.
I find
> Robert Bauval's Orion/Giza correlation most interesting and he has at
least
> spent a great deal of time and effort in demonstrating his theory. His
> detractors have not shown me the same zeal and evidence.
I don't know anything about Bauval's theories as the pyramids and the Old
Kingdom are not an area in which I have any expertise.
Another case is the
> Mansour Armarna collection. I am offered vast quantities of evidence by
the
> Mansour family of the genuineness of their collection but none, absolutely
none
> in scientific format, from the detractors.
What do you need? As someone who is very familiar with the art of the
Amarna age, nothing in the Mansour collection looks right to me. And I know
others feel the same way.
> There is little effort involved in poo-pooing strange ideas but if we had
never
> stopped to consider some of them, we would still be living on a flat
earth.
All the ideas you mention have received consideration. So one can hardly
complain on that score.
> By the way, I'm still waiting to be convinced scientifically thet
Nefertiti
> lies in KV35.
> I admire your work. :-)))))
Thank you. I was the first to make the suggestion that the "Younger Lady"
in KV35 might be Nefertiti--but that is all I can do at present. The rest
is up to the forensic anthropologists and radiologists. So far, judging by
their findings, there is nothing brought forward to exclude the mummy from
being Nefertiti. And, BTW, the mummy is a female--no matter what rumor one
hears to the contrary. I saw xray of the pelvic core and even I could see
it is that of a female. Dr. Don Brothwell, the expert who was in the tomb,
pronounced this to be the case the moment he saw the x-ray.
--
Rocket
Do you think the images on this site are enhanced to make the geometry fit? ( I
saved many of them for further study).
>> My real reason for writing, however, is the fact that new theories should
>be
>> examined on their merits with an open mind. This is often not the case.
>
>I believe as you do, but there comes a time when one has to trust people who
>know what they are talking about.
>
For a layman it is often hard to separate those who do from those who don't!
Judging by your work, I tend to place you in the category of those who do, so
your opinion is valuable to me. I have, however, been disappointed in the past
by very respected scientists, so I'm terribly wary.
> I find
>> Robert Bauval's Orion/Giza correlation most interesting and he has at
>least
>> spent a great deal of time and effort in demonstrating his theory. His
>> detractors have not shown me the same zeal and evidence.
>
>I don't know anything about Bauval's theories as the pyramids and the Old
>Kingdom are not an area in which I have any expertise.
It's worth reading the Orion Mystery and then comparing Bauval's evidence with
that offered by his detractors. It demonstrates my problem nicely. (it's a
compelling story, too.)
>
>Another case is the
>> Mansour Armarna collection. I am offered vast quantities of evidence by
>the
>> Mansour family of the genuineness of their collection but none, absolutely
>none
>> in scientific format, from the detractors.
>
>What do you need? As someone who is very familiar with the art of the
>Amarna age, nothing in the Mansour collection looks right to me. And I know
>others feel the same way.
>
I have collected all the reports on the items sent by various experts (sic) to
the Mansour family. All of the reports in favour of the veracity of the
artifacts are clear scientific analyses of the materiel whereas the two reports
against them are totally unscientific opinions. I just went on the Web to
refresh my memory of the names of the persons concerned and none of my old
links work. ("this page is currently unavailable"). I tried a Google search on
Christine Mansoor and EVERY link relating to the affair gave me the same
result- page not available. I tried WWW.armarna.com with the same answer. Is
the subject being blocked on the Net? I'll try to dig out my printed matter and
get back to you with more accurate comments. Basically what I am looking for
are reports showing that the articles are fakes based on scientific evidence
rather than opinion. I respect your comment that "they do not look right" and
this, of course, is a necessary part of analysis of any such materiel but it
needs to be backed up by hard scientific facts. Though my Egyptology is weak, I
have spent my life working with measurements and standards and know the value
of precision in any analysis.
>> There is little effort involved in poo-pooing strange ideas but if we had
>never
>> stopped to consider some of them, we would still be living on a flat
>earth.
>
>All the ideas you mention have received consideration. So one can hardly
>complain on that score.
True, but has it been open-minded consideration?
>
>> By the way, I'm still waiting to be convinced scientifically thet
>Nefertiti
>> lies in KV35.
>> I admire your work. :-)))))
>
>Thank you. I was the first to make the suggestion that the "Younger Lady"
>in KV35 might be Nefertiti--but that is all I can do at present. The rest
>is up to the forensic anthropologists and radiologists. So far, judging by
>their findings, there is nothing brought forward to exclude the mummy from
>being Nefertiti. And, BTW, the mummy is a female--no matter what rumor one
>hears to the contrary. I saw xray of the pelvic core and even I could see
>it is that of a female. Dr. Don Brothwell, the expert who was in the tomb,
>pronounced this to be the case the moment he saw the x-ray.
Yes, I've read your article and find it convincing and well presented. I also
agree with your above comments. Is there any possibility that the older lady
could be Nefertiti? The age fits better but the hair would cause difficulty in
wearing the crowns! Is there any chance od DNA comparisons between her hair and
that of other family members?
I'm very grateful to you for listening to my ramblings
Rocket
Rocket
>"Marianne Luban" <mluba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
>>news:%Qn9b.265785$Os1.2...@news.easynews.com...
>>
>I have collected all the reports on the items sent by various experts (sic) to
>the Mansour family. All of the reports in favour of the veracity of the
>artifacts are clear scientific analyses of the materiel whereas the two
>reports
>against them are totally unscientific opinions. I just went on the Web to
>refresh my memory of the names of the persons concerned and none of my old
>links work. ("this page is currently unavailable"). I tried a Google search on
>Christine Mansoor and EVERY link relating to the affair gave me the same
>result- page not available. I tried WWW.armarna.com with the same answer. Is
>the subject being blocked on the Net? I'll try to dig out my printed matter
>and
>get back to you with more accurate comments. Basically what I am looking for
>are reports showing that the articles are fakes based on scientific evidence
>rather than opinion. I respect your comment that "they do not look right" and
>this, of course, is a necessary part of analysis of any such materiel but it
>needs to be backed up by hard scientific facts. Though my Egyptology is weak,
>I
>have spent my life working with measurements and standards and know the value
>of precision in any analysis.
>
I finally found something via Altavista. It is, of course from the Mansoor
family and should be read with this in mind.
http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/avs.htm#young%20report
>
(snipped)
Marianne Luban
"Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
These quotes sum it up best for me and express my own thoughts on the
matter:
"I've seen quite a few of the Mansoor pieces, and all of them are copies of
known objects.forgers aren't original. They copy. "
Sylvia Hochfield quoting an unnamed Egyptologist in her article published in
ARTnews, Summer, 1978.
and
"What makes these pieces forgeries? It's intangible, hard to put into words,
like a perfume. All the well-known Amarna features are employed in an
incongruous and unbalanced manner. To someone who's used to looking at
Egyptian art, everything is out of place, distorted, just.not right".
Quote from an unnamed "third" scholar taken from an article by Sylvia
Hochfield, published in ARTnews, Summer, 1978.
Marianne Luban
See my remarks at
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/elderlady.html
Rocket
>Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
>news:chy9b.4404687$cI2.6...@news.easynews.com...
>> "Marianne Luban" <mluba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
>> >news:%Qn9b.265785$Os1.2...@news.easynews.com...
(snipped)
Thank you for the link. I find your analysis convincing and logical. I had not
known about James' comments, I started this train of thought myself after
watching the recent TV programme on the subject. The only real difficulty which
I see (both in your analysis and Joann's) is the stated probable age of both
ladies. This is what made me question whether the EL and not the YL could be
Nefertiti. Your article goes a long way towards convincing me otherwise.
>>
Rocket
Rocket
and Nefertiti cases. I know that "a feeling for these things" is often very
reliable, I get such feelings about the correct operation of precision
electronic or mechanical equipment. I'm usually right but there have been
occasions where I was totally wrong and further examination of the facts has
shown me to be wrong. What I'm saying is "never shut the door on further
thought on the subject", even on seemingly proven theories which are
universally accepted (like the flat earth.
Here's a "what if?":
What if one of Akhenaten's pet projects was the establishment of art schools
and the Collection represents the efforts of students. Wouldnt they attempt to
make odd variations on the Amarna theme? Wouldn't they copy existing artworks
(as do modern art students). Anyway, copying was pretty widespread even then.
Here's one of the quotes I like:
Why accept the only negative one (Young’s report) and ignore the positive ones,
about twenty of them…the majority of opinions, especially when they come from
professionally qualified sources, should have some weight.
Dr. Andreina L. Becker-Colonna – Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State
University. Ref. In Defence of the Mansoor Amarna Collection by Gianfranco
Nolli and Andreina Becker-Colonna, published 1986.
:-)))
Rocket
Marianne Luban
"GD" <al...@melb.something.au> wrote in message
news:Xns93FAE3E47F2D3a...@203.166.23.254...
> Kats...@webtv.net (Kat's Scan) wrote in news:17214-3F693951-43@storefull-
> 2273.public.lawson.webtv.net:
>
> > Maybe Pharaoh's Son had some "inside" information, or a friend like
> > Nostradamus? Why would he override previous glyphs with not just one
> > ("helicopter"), but with several fairly "modern" aircraft look-a-likes?
>
>
>
> Ok, it looks like my posting of a few days ago didnt make it to the
> outside world, so I'll type this up again...
> What I'm going to do here is show you where you can see for yourself
> that the palimpset issue is raising its ugly head in that area.
>
> I'll use this page as a reference:
> http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usabydos.htm
>
> To the lower right of the 'helicopter', there is a bird, a chick
> (best seen in the third, purple coloured, image) which is a 'w'
> sound. However, this chick has its feet buried up to the body in
> a large hill, a 't' sound.
> This is your first example. The chick was carved at one time,
> and the hill was carved at another time. Today you see both.
>
> To the lower left of the chick and the 'helicopter' are nine vertical
> bars (indicating the number nine). A closer inspection will show that
> there are also three rows of three hills representing (plural) foreign
> lands) superimposed over the vertical bars.
> Thats your second example. Bars carved at one time, The three rows
> of hills carved at another time. Today you see both.
>
> Beneath the chick/hill are another three vertical bars. At the top of the
> bars is thin horizontal line, and this together with a squiggle coming out
> of the right side of the middle vertical bar make up another character.
> Carved at one time, the three vertical bars carved at another time, and
> today you see both.
>
> To the right of the helicopter is a hand (thumb at the top), a 'd' sound.
> The thin horizontal line at the top is not part of this symbol. Carved
at
> another time, today you see both. Is this the 'submarine'?
>
> To the right of the chick/hill there is another thing which I think was
> called the gunboat. Nope, its a basket with handle (overwritten), a 'k'
> sound. Just below it is a little square with the lower right extended
> a bit. This a 'km' sound. This, together with the 't' sound to the
> left of it (remember, we are reading right to left here) is kmt, the
> name of egypt (the 'k' sound is not pronounced twice).
> Actually on second thoughts the 't' may not be this obvious one but one
> hidden in the makeup of the arm (where the hand is) below this basket.
>
> The browish image at the top of the page has been touched up, and the
> artist has removed the handle from the basket, and the thumb from the
> hand.
>
> The whole area is beset with palimpsets. What the helicopterists have to
> show is that it somehow *escaped* being carved over and remains in its
> original form.
> To me, it just looks like a common outstretched arm symbol (smaller
version
> of the one also overwritten at lower right of the chick/hill) overwritten
> with other crap.
And it all adds up to "Who repulses the Nine Bows," being replaced by "Who
protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries" with some plaster
needed for the modification of the original text having eroded and fallen
off. Anything unusual seen there is just a coincidence.
People who can read hieroglyphs can see right away what is going on there.
King Seti I had the first glyphs carved and his son, Ramesses II, made the
modification to suit himself.
--
Rocket
>of hieroglyphs and I can clearly see what you are saying. Thank you so much and
>I rest my case. I would be pleased if you could do the same with the Mansoor
>collection but I've never seen pictures of them.
By the way, my earlier comments were not intended to criticise, I was trying to
provoke you int giving me something concrete like the above. :-)))
Rocket.
Marianne Luban
> "Marianne Luban" <mluba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, you are a pretty provocative guy (or gal ??). I don't know if there
are any more pictures of the Mansoor collection on the Web, but I have seen
plenty of the items online in the past. One thing I can recall is a plaque
that seemed to me a pretty blatant copy of another famous colored one from
Amarna, where the pharaoh (probably Akhenaten) stands on one foot while
leaning on a staff in the manner of a crippled individual (that is how lame
people were portrayed in ancient Egyptian art--lame foot off the ground).
This plaque, by the way, is not an official portrait. Anyway, the Mansoor
collection had one that looked a lot like it, only the sandal of the pharaoh
looked more like a Roman one. No such sandal has ever been seen in the art
of dynastic Egypt, much less the Amarna period! I recall this particular
item looking so much like a poor copy to me that it was just laughable.
That is my opinion.
Rocket
Yes, I see what you mean and I can understand that many of the "pro" reports
were from non- egyptologists. My problem is not that I believe or disbelieve
one report or another, just that I have found no believable evidence from the
"contras", whereas the "pros" are very vocal and credible.
You will have noticed that I don't believe anybody unless they provide
evidence. I see authoritative statements from respected people that
"Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaton" or "Ramses II was the Pharao of the
Exodus" and think "what can we really believe and what (if anything) is
proven". It makes for controversy but it also pushes some people to revisit
their fixed ideas. As a layman I can afford to do it. If I do (unfortunately)
upset some respected person but, in doing so, make him think twice, then nobody
is the loser.
Rocket
Rocket
>copies and do you think my art school proposition is to be excluded? Could the
>shoe not simply be the work of a poor student? (provoke, provoke!!)
Rocket
amazure 舶俺
About 5 years ago I uploaded some untouched photos of these
to the Newsgroups & asked that if there are in fact 2 different
texts overwritten, then please mark both of these on the photos:
1) The Original Text.
2) The New Text.
3) Give me a translation of *both*.
Some guy who *seemed* to be from a London museum did (1) & (2),
posting not to the original public newsgroups, but to my private email,
without (3).
So I posted (1) & (2) to the applicable newsgroups and asked if
anyone could do a translation.
All said that what I was sent as (1) & (2) were gibberish
and could *not* have been the original texts.
To this day I've seen nothing to properly explain those glyphs.
Still waiting........................................................................... 5 years+
Regards.
Rocket
I think Marianne's explanation and translation is quite clear.
Rocket
Jiri Mr.
> "Jiri Mr." <jir...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
snip
Just spotted this. So, you are familiar with my solution to the Abydos
Helicopter enigma? Do you agree that it is both simple and elegant? If not,
it is always a pleasure to hear what the other side thinks. My solution has
a slight problem, as it runs counter to the historical doctrine, and is sure
to elicit spontaneous denial. Yet, it can easily survive by its technical
virtues. Note that my study is the only in depth study on the subject, and
thus it is so far the only scientific explanation.
Jiri Mruzek
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
Jiri Mr.
> "Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
> news:%Qn9b.265785$Os1.2...@news.easynews.com...
snip some
>>without real evidence. If, as you say, all the images I have seen have
>> been doctored, this would be a much more logical solution to me than all the
>> others.
>
> You can have a look at the images at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/abyhelic.htm
My article.
> It is quite obvious to me that the text has been digitally enhanced to make
> the so-called helicopter etc. look much
> more "real" than they actually do in the text.
Based upon a close examination, I must disagree. The photograph of
the inscription I used seems generally accepted. The picture itself
seems uniformly sharp.. Besides, how could you be so sure of what
you claim to be obvious to you without having seen the actual artifact?
And how would that detract from the nature of the proportions, which
I have shown clearly to be atributes of the scene as it is now. That
much goes without question, and I would take this fact before a jury
of peers at anytime.
> To someone like myself, who
> can read the glyphs, it isn't difficult at all to see what happened there.
> One can see the old text , which is a standard formula, and how it was
> changed to a different one by the son of the pharaoh in whose times the
> original signs were carved.
Let it be noted that other than one very rough edged diagram by
Bohumil Janku, no graphic explanation has been demonstrated against
the background of this detailed photograph. I have once or twice
asked Marianne to burden herself with this task for the sake of
science. Doing so should take you no longer than it took me to
prepare my own case.
> That modern technology should be represented
> there is no coincidence at all--it is
> just a trick of some mischievous person with a good imagination and computer
> know-how.
You are making serious accusations, which is fine if you are right,
but what if you are wrong? Do you have the next explanation ready?
>>My real reason for writing, however, is the fact that new theories should
>>be examined on their merits with an open mind. This is often not the case.
>
>
> I believe as you do, but there comes a time when one has to trust people who
> know what they are talking about.
Is this supposed to mean that instead of examining new theories on
their own merits, one should rather trust the brief word from the
authorities? Why does this remind me of politics?
> I find
>
>>Robert Bauval's Orion/Giza correlation most interesting and he has at
>
> least
>
>>spent a great deal of time and effort in demonstrating his theory. His
>>detractors have not shown me the same zeal and evidence.
Maybe, but the diagrams of the same in Hancock's FOG are grossly
inaccurate despite claims to the contrary. We talked about this
with Martin Stower long time ago.
Jiri Mruzek
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/
Jiri Mr.
All I say is, produce the explanation against the actual background of
the scene. How would have the actual glyphs looked? What you say in no
way disproves my analysis.
Jiri
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
Jiri Mr.
> About 5 years ago I uploaded some untouched photos of these
> to the Newsgroups & asked that if there are in fact 2 different
> texts overwritten, then please mark both of these on the photos:
> 1) The Original Text.
> 2) The New Text.
> 3) Give me a translation of *both*.
Thank you, so someone else had asked the same.
> Some guy who *seemed* to be from a London museum did (1) & (2),
> posting not to the original public newsgroups, but to my private email,
> without (3).
>
> So I posted (1) & (2) to the applicable newsgroups and asked if
> anyone could do a translation.
>
> All said that what I was sent as (1) & (2) were gibberish
> and could *not* have been the original texts.
If you check my analysis of the same, I have voiced my reservations
regarding the same things.
> To this day I've seen nothing to properly explain those glyphs.
> Still waiting........................................................................... 5 years+
> Regards.
Well, then what about my findings? So much nonsense, or what?
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
Jiri Mruzek
amazure 舶俺
"Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message news:6XSab.4661612$mA4.6...@news.easynews.com...
I do still have them, I'll search my archive CD's and post ASAP.
Until then:
http://www.nccn.net/%7Ewwithin/abydosphoto.htm
Regards,
Amazure.
Marianne Luban
"Jiri Mr." <jir...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9CTab.189029$la.37...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Marianne Luban wrote:
>
> > "Rocket" <roc...@the.moon> wrote in message
> > news:%Qn9b.265785$Os1.2...@news.easynews.com...
>
> snip some
>
> >>without real evidence. If, as you say, all the images I have seen have
> >> been doctored, this would be a much more logical solution to me than
all the
> >> others.
> >
> > You can have a look at the images at
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/abyhelic.htm
>
> My article.
>
> > It is quite obvious to me that the text has been digitally enhanced to
make
> > the so-called helicopter etc. look much
> > more "real" than they actually do in the text.
>
> Based upon a close examination, I must disagree. The photograph of
> the inscription I used seems generally accepted. The picture itself
> seems uniformly sharp.. Besides, how could you be so sure of what
> you claim to be obvious to you without having seen the actual artifact?
Jiri, we have been through this before. Doctored or not,
the glyphs still say the same thing--perfectly normal pharaonic formulae. I
am not going round and round with you on this again. The stuff you see
isn't there, was never there.
Jiri Mr.
If the scene were perfectly normal hieroglyphics, there would be
no mystery known as the Abydos Helicopter. The stuff I see (and you
don't) is there, pixel for pixel in agreement with CAD drawn schemata.
The geometry of the scene is an aspect, which exists independently of
any other aspects.
As for going round and round with you on this, I don't recall us having
any open in depth discussion on this subject. I do not participate in
discussions on this group much, as I grew a little tired of talking to
people, who cannot relate to the actual work I've done on the subject.
Well, it is always available for leasurely inspection at my site, and
I am perfectly content to just leave it that way. Those, who can derive
a benefit from my work, will do so, and that's what matters to me.
Pete Charest
wrote:
> Those, who can derive
>a benefit from my work, will do so, and that's what matters to me.
Your so-called *work*, Jiri, is pure dreck, dross, and smegma.
You are an idiot, barely qualified to pound sand.
Take your bullshit arguments elsewhere, okay?
---
Pete Charest
KookSpotter
If you're not insulted, you're not a kook.
Rocket
talking about except that I guess you are trying to show that the egyptians had
a greater knowledge of mathematics than we credit them for. I know nothing of
the "golden Section" or what in may mean. Please forgive my ignorance.
Marianne has now convinced me that the "images" at Abydos are, in fact,
coincidence due to recarving of the texts. :-)))
Rocket
Jiri Mr.
>>http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
>>
>>
>
> Jiri, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't understand a word of what you are
> talking about except that I guess you are trying to show that the egyptians had
> a greater knowledge of mathematics than we credit them for.
Exactly, and it shows with the right analysis. Sorry, you do not
understand it, although its degree of difficulty is not all that high.
> I know nothing of
> the "golden Section" or what in may mean. Please forgive my ignorance.
If you read more of my report, you would know. Golden Section, aka Golden
Mean, Master's Cut, Phi ratio, Divine Proportion - it would not have so
many names if it wasn't important. You should fill this hole in your
knowledge.
> Marianne has now convinced me that the "images" at Abydos are, in fact,
> coincidence due to recarving of the texts. :-)))
I am happy to hear you found intellectual bliss.
Jiri Mruzek
> Rocket
>
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
>If the scene were perfectly normal hieroglyphics, there would be
>no mystery known as the Abydos Helicopter. The stuff I see (and you
>don't) is there, pixel for pixel in agreement with CAD drawn schemata.
The hieroglyphics are normal, what happened to them is not. And drawing a
CAD 'schemata' to match what you think you see should not be difficult.
And which photo are you using? The original, or the retouched one?
http://fragileearth.tripod.com/egy-aircraft.htm
In the url above, Photo X is the original, Photo II is the reworked one.
[SNIP]
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Rocket
I was looking for- a careful analysis of the facts without prejudice or bias
and it adds the final confirmation to Marianne's conclusions. I'm going to have
a look at your other sites now. :-))
With gratitude,
Rocket.
Doug Weller
That one isn't mine, but do have a look at mine. :-)
Jiri Mr.
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:08:46 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Jiri Mr. wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
>>If the scene were perfectly normal hieroglyphics, there would be
>>no mystery known as the Abydos Helicopter. The stuff I see (and you
>>don't) is there, pixel for pixel in agreement with CAD drawn schemata.
>
>
> The hieroglyphics are normal, what happened to them is not. And drawing a
> CAD 'schemata' to match what you think you see should not be difficult.
Drawing schemata over hallucinations should be a difficult endeavor
indeed. Others would not see the hallucinatory parts, of course, they would
only see the CAD diagrams. That is not the case, I assure you.
>
> And which photo are you using? The original, or the retouched one?
>
> http://fragileearth.tripod.com/egy-aircraft.htm
>
Are you telling me you have never studied my article on
the Abydos Helicopter? See for yourself..
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/abyhelic.htm
> In the url above, Photo X is the original, Photo II is the reworked one.
>
I find your attitude highly condescending, Doug.
BTW, have you read my Baalbek article, which dispels some myths about Baalbek
from your site? Go to:
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/baalbek.htm
Jiri Mruzek
Jiri
Pete Charest
wrote:
>I find your attitude highly condescending, Doug.
I find you to be an uncompromisingly offensive pseudointellectual
dipshit.
In other words...you suck, Jiri...
and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Why don't you join Twooskey and blow your freaking heads off?
W.R. Dixon
>
> Doug Weller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:08:46 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Jiri Mr. wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >>If the scene were perfectly normal hieroglyphics, there would be
> >>no mystery known as the Abydos Helicopter. The stuff I see (and you
> >>don't) is there, pixel for pixel in agreement with CAD drawn schemata.
Applying Occams Razor to the problem of the alleged helicopter we have:
---For it to be a helicopter:
-One (or more people who see a helicopter
---Against it being a helicopter
-No other inscriptions matching the current one under discussion.
-No indication in the surviving documents from that time of any
such device being in existence.
-No indication in surviving documents from neighboring countries
from that time of any such device being in existence.
-No surviving artifacts from the alleged device.
-Such device is totally our of character for the time being discussed.
-Many authoritative people speaking politely against it being a
helicopter.
Ignoring for now the last point, the evidence says that it is not a
helicopter.
Adding in the last point, such suggestions as to the existence of a
helicopter in ancient Egyptian times can safely be added to the realms
of Flake Science.
Bill Dixon
Ray Freed
for instance to prehistoric horsemen, are broken.
Ray
Jiri Mr.
> Your baalbek page is faulty, most photos won't display and the links,
> for instance to prehistoric horsemen, are broken.
> Ray
Thanks a lot for telling me. It's that damn Mozilla. Somehow it resets
the links to my hardrive. It's fixed, now. The photos should display,
and the links should work.
Thanks again,
Jiri
http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/baalbek.htm
Pete Charest
wrote:
>
>Thanks a lot for telling me. It's that damn Mozilla. Somehow it resets
>the links to my hardrive. It's fixed, now. The photos should display,
>and the links should work.
It was better when it was broken.
Your website is loaded with forgeries and fraud of all sorts.
You are a pathetic excuse for a pseudoscientist. Your "investigations"
are fraught with fallacy and illogic.
Here's laughing at you, kid.