The art of Ed's pre-Horus rock
trailmarker
specimen, it should be noted for the Egyptologist that this particular
ancient American art importantly links the feathered serpent to a
specific form of Horus, as the "25" version. One early example (though
other forms exist, such as in the Pireii Hieroglyphica) of the "25"
Horus exists (along with the "52" coyote, or in this case I suppose,
Jackal)within the upper set of glyphs, at-
http://members.xoom.it/francescoraf/hesyra/merneith.html
where the "52" is incorporated with the head and rear leg of the
Jackal, and the "25" is incorporated with Horus as part of the feet.
Actually, here as the one talon and platform; as the other talon holds
a tombstone shape (likely representing a tablet).
The exposition concerns the art and language located at-
Http://www.edconrad.com/
click on "Man as old as coal", scroll down to Ed'd very first
specimen.
To be continued ....
Lloyd Bogart
argue about whether these are really human remains
or examples of synthetic stone with hidden abstract
symbols.
think about it --- we'd all be grateful.
Lloyd
*****
In article <3a1f5ae6.02013...@posting.google.com>,
Bob4AB5
and multirepresentational nature, and that ancient artists often incorporated
or combined and connected individual symbols, and sometimes (as is in this
case) incorporated or combined major representations, such as these, at-
and tried to fathom the art as an expression of one idea, you might come up
with (as various different ancient people likely did) some kind of weird
creature, such as this Griffin, at-
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/conker/weird-beasts/griffin.htm
or a Cherubim, such as those of the temple doors, portrayed at-
http://www.templemountfaithful.org/Temple1aa.jpg
....
Bob4AB5
>You and Ed could start your very own newsgroup
>think about it --- we'd all be grateful
But you all (would that be you and George?) would then remain ignorant of
what's really new and exciting in the field of archaeology. PS I sent you some
ancient art (a sphinx portrayal, you might want to trade with the one I sent
George) also taken from a purported iron meteorite.
Regards, Bob
George Black
The exciting things in the field of archaeology have nothing to do with
your outlandish claims.
But then you knew that.
Bob4AB5
was very original as an artis, his subjects were quite traditional, and
virtually every new discovery repeated itself within the archaeological record.
So, when I suggest that the art/language of this stone, at-
>http://www.edconrad.com/
>click on "Man as old as coal", scroll down to Ed's very first
>specimen.
was responsible for various religious interpretations (as well as being the
bearer of the primary written language symbols, inherited by the major scripts
of the world), I'm not speaking of just this one stone, but the traditional art
form, that evolved to this representation.
Another interesting interpretive probability, would be the way the ancient
Greek likely viewed (though also incorrectly fathomed as an expression of one
idea) this specific type of art; as the three headed creature known as Cerberus
(also associated with the serpent) which within the art of Ed's rock, can be
said to reflect (as the flanking two of the three) the beings as being chained
at the neck. The traditional totem art of many faces would explain some ancient
Greek reports contending that this 3 headed creature, in reality had fifty
heads, such as is reflected here, at-
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/cerberus.html
tbc ....
Bob4AB5
exists as the darker centerpiece of Ed's rock, at-The dark tail of the feathered serpent (that could also be said to represent
(to an ancient Greek) the chained colar (containing the omega type cursive form
of "r", inorporated with 25/52 symbols) of the left head of Cerberus; the colar
may also represent a hand, adding to the complete alpha (though reversed, and
in the coyote/sphinx position) glyph below, a Janus style head, the lighter
part of which, is in itself a coyote (as the reversed "L" form) glyph (with
coyot's nose facing upwards).
This addition of the head to an already complete alpha form, does have a
comparable, which I'll post below, though in the below comparable, the addition
is to an alpha form in the Horus or eagle/hawk position. I'm not sure exactly
what the meaning might be, but perhaps it is the opinion of the artist,
concerning either the evolution of "L" (as the "L" glyph to the left might
suggest), or the birth of the greater alpha (the alpha majuscle).
This is one of the pre-Horus portrayals in my new collection, which I call the
"crowning of alpha". Though most in my collection are being taken from
purported meteorites, this one was taken from an obsidian artifact that was not
flaked but formed, at-
http://www.ele.net/oshara/SanJose/2-10-2.jpg
where, within the portrayal at left, a symbolic arm and hand (that likely
serves also as a serpent in the mouth of the eagle) begins at the left side of
the neck of the man with the tilted head, and adds to the complete alpha type
pre-Horus glyph below, a Janus style head or crown, that artfully (and
inscribed but not carved) reflects a human face at left, and coyote facing
right, who share the same realistic eye. tbc....
Lloyd Bogart
Bob, the last time you posted to sci archaeology,
I invited *anyone* who could see the abstract
symbols you go *on and on* about to respond and say
so. Nobody did. Well, to be more accurate, Larry
Athy (alone) said he could see *some* of the things
you describe, but he had the benefit of several private
images from you, with lines and diagrams added.
He also said that even he *could not* see them all,
even with that added information.
There was *nobody* else, and unfortunately, I think this
requires the conclusion that the *vast majority* of us
are wondering WHY your keep on posting descriptions of
things that only you and perhaps Larry are able to imagine
that you see. (Larry, after all, has convinced many of us
that he also sees things that *are not* there for the rest
of us, so you two, and Ed, should get along well together.)
Ed Conrad is *totally* convinced that these images
represent fossilized human remains. You, on the other
hand seem *totally* convinced that they represent
synthetic stone objects with embedded symbolic figures
and abstract symbols. Please accept the fact that
most of the rest of us -- I'd venture to say *all* of
the rest of us -- cannot and will not give any credence
to what we cannot see. What you and Ed are promoting
is not archaeology and it's not science, it's personal
obsession and "bunny rabbits", plain and simple. One
empty, fictional rant, no matter how imaginative, is
indistinguishable from the other.
Your personal obsessions (and Ed's) aside, there is
nothing here of any archaeological interest -- not even
to a psychologist.
You have my email address from our previous exchanges.
Remind yourself that "reply" will not work, unless you
wish to post to the newsgroup.
Lloyd
*****
In article <20020201204218...@mb-mu.aol.com>, bob...@aol.com
Bob4AB5
If you posted with your real e-mail address, the image (one of many that I now
have, that in no way whatsoever could be considered -
>symbolic figures
>and abstract symbols.
I sent you (so you could determine just how absurd and laughable this repeated
statement-
>is not archaeology and it's not science, it's personal
>obsession and "bunny rabbits", plain and simple.
with whatever strange reasons for this-
>Remind yourself that "reply" will not work, unless you
Whatever you do though Lloyd, don't go flying with George, unless you guys take
someone with you who can point out the landing field.
I'd also bet any amount of money that you can't see the "25" below the
feathered serpent of Ed's rock. This isn't just because you have poor eyesight
though, Lloyd, it's because even after all this time, you are a very poor
student who instead of taking notes, or paying attention; prepares rebuttals to
whatever the subject might be.
Bob
Lloyd Bogart
(Bob4AB5) wrote:
> Well Lloyd,
> If you posted with your real e-mail address,
I have privately sent it to you TWICE, Bob... why don't you keep it?
> the image (one of many that I now
> have, that in no way whatsoever could be considered -
> >symbolic figures and abstract symbols.
> as some even come close to the fine art catagory);
> I sent you
To the wrong address, which I told you about twice.
>(so you could determine just how absurd and laughable this repeated
> statement-
> >is not archaeology and it's not science, it's personal
> >obsession and "bunny rabbits", plain and simple.
> truly is) would not have been returned to me, due to your own
> weird problems,with whatever strange reasons for this-
It's very simple. Bob. When you post using an actual email
address, you start getting 20-30 spam messages a day. I'm
sure this hasn't happened to you, yet, or you wouldn't think
using a spam-trap address was so very "weird".
> >Remind yourself that "reply" will not work, unless you
> >wish to post to the newsgroup.,
This is a message I've sent you twice before. How's your memory?
> and I don't have your secret e-mail address.
bogart[at]centurytel.net Perhaps you could write it down somewhere?
> Whatever you do though Lloyd, don't go flying with George,
> unless you guys take someone with you who can point out the
> landing field.
Skepticism is a *requirement* of real science -- George has
every right to severely doubt what neither he nor I can see.
Who, besides yourself, *does* see all the stuff you write about?
I've asked if there is *anyone* else. Nobody responded. Does
that mean the "vast majority" cannot saee what you're posting
about. I think so.
> I'd also bet any amount of money that you can't see the "25" below
> the feathered serpent of Ed's rock. This isn't just because you have
> poor eyesight though, Lloyd,
No, it's because I don't spend to much time examining ambiguous
patterns on a computer screen, seeking out preconceived illusions.
That's not science.
> it's because even after all this time, you are a very poor
> student who instead of taking notes, or paying attention;
> prepares rebuttals to whatever the subject might be.
> Bob
The term *science* cannot EVER be used to describe what
one person, alone, claims to be able to see. When others also
see it, then the subject matter *may* fall under the label
of science. Of course, people see what they want to see
very frequently. That's been studied scientifically also.
But who else claims to see what you do?
Last night, in a dream, I "saw" an ear of corn and a *very*
intricate ship model. Also a former colleague in my
university department, and 3 women playing a card game.
None of that is science, nor is it archaeology.
Bob, no-one who claims to be a scientist takes notes and pays
serious attention to people who have highly ideosyncratic and
potentially delusional views of reality -- unless, of course,
they're paying us to do it.
Finally, I'm aware of no-one who claims to be an archaeologist,
who's method involves staring intently at images on a computer
screen until *something* seems to resemble shapes and figures.
If I send you some patterns by email, will you tell us all what
you see?
You have no other person supporting your observations posted here,
and so far, at least, you're unwilling to have your special abilities
and conclusions tested. I say again, what you're doing is not science
and it's not archaeology. As far as I can tell, it's bunny rabbits.
Have fun.
Lloyd
*****
Bob4AB5
You (if you ever wish to become a scholar) have to learn to accept the truth,
even if that truth causes you to rethink a long held view.
>I don't spend to much time examining ambiguous
>patterns on a computer screen, seeking out preconceived illusions.
>That's not science.
We're not dealing with rocket sciene here, the ideas and observations I've
presented are few and fairly simple.
>You have no other person supporting your observations posted here,
>and so far, at least, you're unwilling to have your special abilities
>and conclusions tested.
Just because you don't support my observations, or wish to test conclusions;
does not mean others (a little smarter than you) do not.
The most basic and verifiable observation is probably attested to by all but
you. When I provide information, eg- Our numeral "5" is neither Arabic (a
circle), nor Hindu (a few different versions, the sanskrit being the most
popular as a "Y" with a "2" as the tail); You personally, probably label that
information (because you possess legetimate knowledge) as a potentially
delusional view, brought to your attention by a person who thinks he sees
numeral fives on rocks. I don't have any special abilities. However, every
person but "you" must support the "5 is neither Arabic, nor Hindu" observation,
or there would have been a rebutal by now.
>so far, at least, you're unwilling to have your special abilities
>and conclusions tested.
The problem with "5" (the missing history) is no problem to you (just ignore
it, and pretend that it's a bunny rabbit). That you don't choose to discover
for youself what all others (by now) know is a fact, is a good indication of
just what kind of scientist or scholar you happen to be.
Bob (having fun)
Lloyd Bogart
(Bob4AB5) wrote:
> Lloyd,
> You (if you ever wish to become a scholar) have to learn to accept the truth,
> even if that truth causes you to rethink a long held view.
I have no problem with that. I believe I adopted that view long ago
[snip of my own position]
> We're not dealing with rocket sciene here, the ideas and observations
> I've presented are few and fairly simple.
And who, besides yourself, agrees with them?
[snip]
> Just because you don't support my observations, or wish to test
> conclusions; does not mean others (a little smarter than you) do not.
I will be happy to test your conclusions, once they become observable
to someone besides yourself. Please have those others join the
conversation, if you know of any.
> The most basic and verifiable observation is probably attested to by
> all but you.
There's no "probably" about it. Either others *do* attest to
something or they do not. So far, you're the only one attesting.
> When I provide information, eg- Our numeral "5" is neither Arabic (a
> circle), nor Hindu (a few different versions, the sanskrit being the most
> popular as a "Y" with a "2" as the tail); You personally, probably label that
> information (because you possess legetimate knowledge) as a potentially
> delusional view, brought to your attention by a person who thinks he sees
> numeral fives on rocks. I don't have any special abilities. However, every
> person but "you" must support the "5 is neither Arabic, nor Hindu"
observation,
> or there would have been a rebutal by now.
No, Bob, the absence of a rebuttal doesn't mean that anyone at all agrees
with your conclusions. That's the embarassed silence of a host of
readers who are either ignoring this nonsense, or who have already
killfiled you. There are several books on the history of numbers which
do an adequate job of describing the origin of the numeral '5'. Would
you like a few references?
[snip]
>
> The problem with "5" (the missing history) is no problem to you
>(just ignore it, and pretend that it's a bunny rabbit).
If you are positing a problem in Math history, this is the wrong
newsgroup. If you want us to believe that there are man-made
symbols and graphics in rocks that formed millions of years
before humans graced this planet, you'll have to do better than
merely assert that as a fact.
> That you don't choose to discover
> for youself what all others (by now) know is a fact,
Just who are those " all others"? *None* of them have come
forward to say that they agree with you. Is it possible that
*none* of them read this newsgroup? Is this newsgroup
populated only by persons incapable of seeing what you see?
What an amazing coincidence that would be!
> is a good indication of
> just what kind of scientist or scholar you happen to be.
> Bob (having fun)
Bob, psychologists measure lots of things that cannot be directly
seen, and they do it on a daily basis: intelligence, personality,
dementia... we even get pretty good at recognizing folks who know
little or nothing of the scientific method, and who have wandered
off so far in their personal crusades and beliefs that they cannot get
back. Trained scientists and scholars *do not* pay attention to every
strange new idea that comes along, with no objective evidence to
back it up. That's the kind I am, too.
There is a saying: you will know the truth, and it will set you free.
But there are many who have seen the truth, found it unacceptable
to them, and who have then made up their own, because it's more
comforting. Religion and history are full of examples. So is this
newsgroup.
Bye
Lloyd
*****
Bob4AB5
>the ideas and observations
>> I've presented are few and fairly simple.
>
>And who, besides yourself, agrees with them?
Who does not? What has there been presented except 25/52 symbols, the idea that
ABC/4B5 primary inscriptions were often early on associated with or as part of
the eye of Coyote; and that the tetragram (the over and underlined open four)
is the master turning symbol of our alphabet and numerals. It's a nobrainer to
draw one, and find 33 symbols within it.
This is a joke Lloyd->here are several books on the history of numbers which
>do an adequate job of describing the origin of the numeral '5'.
Does that mean you honestly believe it to be Arabic or Hindu? If so, you are
much more deluded than I previously thought. Tell me what you think the origin
is, or are you going to give me the laughable evolving
five theory? Go ahead Lloyd, I'll surrender the podium and delay the exposition
of Lloyd's rock, long enough for you to set the record straight on numeral
five, as you are
obviously -
>pretty good at recognizing folks who know
>little or nothing of the scientific method, and who have wandered
>off so far in their personal crusades and beliefs that they cannot get
>back.
Cheers, Bob
Lloyd Bogart
(Bob4AB5) wrote:
> Lloyd,
> >the ideas and observations
> >> I've presented are few and fairly simple.
> >
> >And who, besides yourself, agrees with them?
>
> Who does not?
No, Bob, the question remains: who *does*? Is there anyone?
> What has there been presented except 25/52 symbols, the idea that
> ABC/4B5 primary inscriptions were often early on associated with or as part of
> the eye of Coyote; and that the tetragram (the over and underlined open four)
> is the master turning symbol of our alphabet and numerals. It's a nobrainer to
> draw one, and find 33 symbols within it.
Nothing has been presented but your *words*.
Is there anyone who even understands what the above paragraph means?
> This is a joke Lloyd-
>> there are several books on the history of numbers which
>> do an adequate job of describing the origin of the numeral '5'.
> Does that mean you honestly believe it to be Arabic or Hindu? If so, you are
> much more deluded than I previously thought. Tell me what you think the origin
> is, or are you going to give me the laughable evolving
> five theory?
No, Bob, I'm not going to discuss the evolution of numbers on
an *archaeology* newsgroup. My opinion on the matter is
irrelevent, and yours even more so. We are considering the
results of examining *images* of *rocks* displayed on a
*computer screen* and why anyone would believe that there
are symbols and graphics to be found in the ambiguous dots
of light so displayed.
The question remains: is there *anyone* besides Bob who sees
what Bob sees? So far, the silence is complete.
> Go ahead Lloyd, I'll surrender the podium and delay the exposition
> of Lloyd's rock, long enough for you to set the record straight on numeral
> five, as you are obviously -
> >pretty good at recognizing folks who know
> >little or nothing of the scientific method, and who have wandered
> >off so far in their personal crusades and beliefs that they cannot get
> >back.
Bob, if there is *any* point to Ed Conrad's foolishness, it is that his
supposed samples come from anthracite coal seams. His "samples",
whatever they are, were formed *millions* of years ago. You say that
there are man-made symbols revealed to you (and to you only, so far)
in those same samples.
Will you now tell us that you *also* believe that humans were present
millions of years ago. Is that correct? Do you have another explanation?
By all means, bring on your rock. But also bring on *anyone* who
is willing to say that you're making sense.
>
> Cheers, Bob
Bye,
Lloyd
*****
Bob4AB5
of number five; that the pre-Horus that exists in Ed's rock, is not the version
you might understand as traditional such as this, at-
http://www.louvre.fr/img/photos/collec/ae/grande/e11007.jpg
nor is the serpent associated with the above Horus, the same shape or type as
the open mouthed serpent that is part of the pre-Horus of Ed's rock.
The feathered serpent within Ed's rock, is much more closely related to these
earlier Egyptian versions, reflected at lower right, at-
http://members.xoom.it/francescoraf/hesyra/narmersvi.jpg
Of course I realize that neither of the great three bald eagles (that would be
you Lloyd, and your flying friends George and Dubhe) can see the incorporated
ABC/4B5 primary inscription in the tailfeathers of the Horus located at the
lower right hand corner, of the above site, but it's something normal and
interested people shouldn't miss.
Still awaiting the missing history of numeral five, Bob
Bob4AB5
>No, Bob, I'm not going to discuss the evolution of numbers on
>an *archaeology* newsgroup.
Well of course Lloyd, why embarrass yourself any futher?
If you're surrendering the podium (and wisely without even trying an
explanation), perhaps you could quit pretending to be like little disruptive
Johnnie at the very rear of the classroom, but return there and let me complete
the exposition. Maybe you could draw a big open four, over and underline it,
and see if you could find one other (I don't want your assignment to be too
difficult) letter or numeral within that symbol.
Bob (and I will address the age of this particular stone in Ed's collection)
Lloyd Bogart
Do you assert that the "art" you identified
in Ed's rocks is *millions* of years old?
What would that imply? Who put it there?
If nobody was around to put it there, what
does *that* mean?
Again, is there *anyone* willing to say that they
agree with you about your "art in rocks"sightings?
(None so far.)
Why are you trying to change the direction of
the discussion? There's no point in talking
about your ideas until there is someone
who can examine your 'evidence'.
What is the sound of one bunny rabbit clapping?
Lloyd
*****
In article <20020203002449...@mb-ce.aol.com>, bob...@aol.com
Bob4AB5
serpent or pre-Horus is the main portrayal, the art and language of this
post-eolithic stone, at-
http://www.edconrad.com/
>click on "Man as old as coal", scroll down to Ed's very first
>specimen.
is of a multirepresentational and multidirectional nature. The stone itself is
a form of the alpha point (sphinx facing left position). There are many small
25/52 portrayals within the art of this stone, such as within the tail of the
feathered serpent (that can also be understood as a colar and/or hand), where
these markers are incorporated with the omega or cursive "r" form (the left
side of the omega reflecting the "5", the right side, the "2"; but also
reflecting the "2" to the left of the omega, and a "5" to it's right.
One of the larger and most interesting "25" portrayals exists as an
incorporation (that is also repeated elsewhere) at the forward tip at left,
where almost at the edge, the tail of a small dark "2" (that is also likely the
lower part of what became the real Arabic or Hindu version of three, as the
3/2) touches the "5" at the base. What makes this "5" interesting, can be
viewed from the position being quarterturned to the right, where then the lower
half of the five can be understood as the dotted circle, associated with or as
part of the left leg of the omega or the cursive "r"; an idea expressed once
again, where the artist/scribe expresses his superior skill in effecting
multidirectional language. tbc....
Lloyd Bogart
anthracite coal layers that are multiple *millions*
of years old.
If there is human-produced art in them, then either you
believe that humans produced art multiple *millions*
of years ago, or else ED is mistaken about their origins.
Which is it, do you think??????
Lloyd
*****
In article <20020203180242...@mb-ce.aol.com>, bob...@aol.com
Bob4AB5
ancient Greek, as the chained colar of the left head of Cerberus) of the
feathered serpent, exists the complete alpha glyph in the coyote/sphinx
position. The dark tail is thought to be a part of the below alpha glyph, where
exists an incorporated primary inscription, consisting of the "25", the "4B5",
and the one that had a greater influence on the ancient Greek; the "ABy"; the
"y" of which being even with, just to the right, and touching the dark pupil
(which is also within the lower half of "B") of Coyote's eye, that is halved by
the lower part of the vertical line of the four. The face (on Coyote's
forehead) of this sphinx, likely is an incorporation of the "5", the alpha
cursive letter, and perhaps numeral "8".
At first glance, one might view the nose of this particular coyote as pig-like,
though by our contemporary standards, it might be considered cartoon like, as
it includes the dotted circle, and presents the nose as exageratedly bulbous.
However, I'm sure it wasn't humorous to the artist, because it is here (the
dotted circle) that we find the focus point that reflects the intelligence and
skill of an ancient but superior artist/scribe. tbc....
Bob4AB5
that serves as Coyotes nose, at-
http://www.edconrad.com/
>click on "Man as old as coal", scroll down to Ed's very first
>specimen.
also serves as the lower jaw of of the open mouthed or striking serpent (which
in this case might be the rainbow serpent of some legends, does not seem to be
the rattlesnake, and appears more {as the art suggests} as the coral snake).
The large dot of the circle, serves also as the nose of the left face (looking
to the rear) of a smaller Janus style sphinx, while the matching face (the one
we would recognize as the face of a sphinx) at right looks up. This Janus style
sphinx is in totem, or part of a larger Janus style portrayal, where the dot of
the circle serves here, as the mouth of the man facing left.
The dotted circle (if you were to quarter turn the image to the left) is also
(like the one mentioned in a previous post) associated with or part of the left
leg of omega or the cursive form of "r". The quarterturned omega (as you see it
on screen) serves as the top half of a large "2", whose tail continues downward
to connect to the tail of the "5" (curving around the right leg of the smaller
sphinx). While this is not unlike the Egyptian version of the "25" Horus, this
particular large "25" portrayal might seem (at least to the uninitiated) rather
odd, though without a doubt, it attests to the careful planning and attention
to detail paid by the ancient artist/scribe; as upside down, this "25"
portrayal is also a "25" portrayal (the round part of the "5", being the dotted
circle)
The end - Bob Arter (trailmarker)
Thomas McDonald
....Representing many ideas, and having many connections, the dotted circle
that serves as Coyotes nose, at-
http://www.edconrad.com/click on "Man as old as coal", scroll down to Ed's very first
specimen.
also serves as the lower jaw of of the open mouthed or striking serpent (which
in this case might be the rainbow serpent of some legends, does not seem to be
the rattlesnake, and appears more {as the art suggests} as the coral snake).
The large dot of the circle, serves also as the nose of the left face (looking
to the rear) of a smaller Janus style sphinx, while the matching face (the one
we would recognize as the face of a sphinx) at right looks up. This Janus style
sphinx is in totem, or part of a larger Janus style portrayal, where the dot of
the circle serves here, as the mouth of the man facing left.
The dotted circle (if you were to quarter turn the image to the left) is also
(like the one mentioned in a previous post) associated with or part of the left
leg of omega or the cursive form of "r". The quarterturned omega (as you see it
on screen) serves as the top half of a large "2", whose tail continues downward< br>to connect to the tail of the "5" (curving around the right leg of the smaller
sphinx). While this is not unlike the Egyptian version of the "25" Horus, this
particular large "25" portrayal might seem (at least to the uninitiated) rather
odd, though without a doubt, it attests to the careful planning and attention
to detail paid by the ancient artist/scribe; as upside down, this "25"
portrayal is also a "25" portrayal (the round part of the "5", being the dotted
circle)
The end - Bob Arter (trailmarker)
Dear Bob,
I'm interested in getting your answers to the questions posed by Lloyd Bogart. I'm especially interested in whether you agree with Ed Conrad that the item is millions of years old.
And, as I've asked you before, I would like to know if you would present us with a "primer" of your working hypothesis about language in rocks, and the making of synthetic rock by the ancients. When I try to read the explanations you give for the art you see in various rocks, I don't understand where you're coming from because you seem to have an involved and intricate vocabulary for discussing such things. Something like, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Bob Arter's Analysis of Language in Ancient Stones" would help a lot.
Tom McDonald
Bob4AB5
I'm not so sure about you either, Tom (that is, whether or not you are really
interested in learning something new)
> When I try to
>read the explanations you give for the art you see in various rocks, I
>don't understand where you're coming from
However as an experiment in extending the benefit of the doubt, I'm sending you
(providing your e-mail address is valid) a picture of the "25" pre-Horus. The
"25" I've indicated in yellow is of course, from the direction that see it on
screen. The purple lines running partially adjacent to the yellow, reflect the
"25" as seen from an upside down position. Would it not be your opinion Tom,
that the representation of such an unusual phenomenon required careful thought
by an intelligent person?
Regards, Bob
Thomas McDonald
Dear Bob,
I got your email, and can see that it has an attachment entitled:
"first.bmp". However, whenever I try to open it, it crashes my
browser. (I use Netscape 6.2.1) I've tried to open it about 5 times,
and won't try any more (unless you can help me figure out how to without
crashing Netscape.)
Perhaps you could re-send it, or provide a URL link to it, if it is
available online.
As I said, I want to give your views a fair hearing, but keep
getting stumped by the vocabulary you use. I've looked closely at a
number of the images you've explained, and think I see some of the stuff
you mention. However, in the absence of a sort of "primer" to help me
with the basic ideas (even a diagram of the web of the hand, and the
tetragram, and the "eye of the coyote" would be very helpful to me), I
too often find myself lost in your explanations.
Also, as I said, I would like to know if you agree with Ed Conrad
about the age of the item of his that you've been explicating lately.
With hope for some help learning your system,
Tom McDonald
Bob4AB5
I missed a few posts in the Ogam thread, but was wondering why Larry associated
you with the clown.
> whenever I try to open it, it crashes my
>browser. (I use Netscape 6.2.1) I've tried to open it about 5 times,
>and won't try any more (unless you can help me figure out how to without
>crashing Netscape.)
>provide a URL link to it, if it is
>available online.
I have to admit, that one is funny.
> However, in the absence of a sort of "primer" to help me
>with the basic ideas
>the
>tetragram,
Lloyd's working on the tetragram project. I think he's now signed up for a
graphics course, as after completing the open four (and a fine job it was) the
more difficult over and underlining was giving him problems.
> the "eye of the coyote" would be very helpful to me)
Even that's pretty funny.
>With hope for some help learning your system,
That's pretty funny too, as I have
no system, just simple observations I can honestly predict will appear again in
this forum in the future, just as they have in the past.
Cheers anda thanks for the entertainment, Bob (PS-less than 10,000 years old,
as just an opinion concerning only this one stone)
Thomas McDonald
Ah, yes, I see it now. As long as you are amused, my life has not been in vain.
Tom McDonald
Lloyd Bogart
1. Bob seeks images of rocks on computer.
2. Bob identifies rocks that look *to him* like
(insert jargon here: coyote, 25, 52 horus, whatever.)
3. Bob Logs on to archaeology newsgroup and spouts
several paragraphs of jargony stuff.
4. Very few people respond, Bob says "that means
almost everyone agrees with me."
5. Bob insults the few people who bother to respond
because they don't see what he sees, and therefore,
don't agree with him.
6. Someone asks a question that Bob is unprepared to
answer, such as: "Does anyone besides yourself
see these things?" or "How is it possible for human
art to be present in a rock that's probably 280 million
years old?"
7. Bob offers his unsupported opinion that the rock is not
that old, and goes off to look at more computer images
of rocks.
Repeat paradigm as needed.
Surely this must be archaeology..
Lloyd
*****
I
Bob4AB5
I used to think that perhaps you just had poor eyesight, and were not really a
mentally disturbed troll (after all you claim to be a psychologist), as many
might think. I suppose it could be that you were unfortunately responsible for
turning a few clients (maybe who saw coyote's, sphinxes or numerals in rocks)
into serious drug addicts, or maybe did what you thought was your duty, and
performed (or caused to be performed), on these individuals, simple lobotomies
to cure them of their ills; and therefore have a little trouble with some newly
discovered truths (like the "5" not being Arabic nor Hindu, that according to
you, even though you don't wish to discuss it in an "archaeology" forum, does
have a history). Of course it does have a history, but you have to look at it
real close, to be able to remember the symbol, when you see it again.
>1. Bob seeks images of rocks on computer.
>
>2. Bob identifies rocks that look *to him* like
> (insert jargon here: coyote, 25, 52 horus, whatever.)
Not just rocks, Lloyd, tablets for Sumer, various stone artifacts, and newly
discovered, iron artifacts misclassified as meteorites, such as this one, at-
http://www.caspercoin.com/ab2/112.html
containing multidirectional art, where the glyph at top center, likely (as I
have not seen a comparable portrayal, and therefore guessing) represents
"Owl-man", looking at the number "5" (maybe so He can remember it Lloyd) that
he holds by the tail in his talon.
I know these concepts are difficult for you to see or understand Lloyd, but for
the rest of us normal people, if you quarterturn the page to the right; the
representation reflects (and very artfully) an ancient human, and correctly
associates the number "5" (from this direction, upsidedown) with the human
hand.
Regards, Bob
Lloyd Bogart
claims to see what you do, I'll carefully look again.
Your imaginings about my imagined "clients" are, of
course, less imaginative than what you say about rocks
Paradigm on, Dude! bunny Rabbits forever!
Lloyd
*****
PS: insults *are* part of the paradigm, so I *do* understand.
In article <20020205212611...@mb-fw.aol.com>, bob...@aol.com
Thomas McDonald
>Well, Bob I did look at it, and if *even one* other person
>claims to see what you do, I'll carefully look again.
>
>Your imaginings about my imagined "clients" are, of
>course, less imaginative than what you say about rocks
>
>Paradigm on, Dude! bunny Rabbits forever!
>
>Lloyd
>*****
>
>PS: insults *are* part of the paradigm, so I *do* understand.
>
<snip>
Dear Lloyd,
I think Bob is having a good time, and pretty much talking to
himself. It is confusing, since he is doing it in a public forum, but
if you think of him as the guy on the street mumbling about government
conspiracies and aliens beaming radio waves into his head, I think you
have a reasonable approximation of what he's about.
I think Bob's pretty harmless; even his attempts at abuse are sort
of off-hand and half-hearted. In any case, every once in a while I enjoy
trying to see what he sees. Sort of like looking for Waldo. (Except,
of course, there was always a Waldo in the "Where's Waldo" pictures.
With Bob, it's a crap shoot whether there is any there there.)
Tom McDonald
(BTW, do you have a working email address? I tried to respond
privately, but what I assume to be your spam-block prevented that.)
TSM
Bob4AB5
I suppose any one can be a naysayer (instead of actually making contributions
to this forum, that certainly do not have to reflect original thoughts or
subjects), though no one having responding in this thread, with their version
of "no Bob, you're seeing things", could ever be original or brilliant enough
to even coming close to filling the shoes of the sorely missed great Brian
Scott. Not one of the supposedly intelligent people, posting in this thread,
who ignorantly refute obvious evidence such as this fine and truly amazing work
of art, at-
>http://www.caspercoin.com/ab2/112.html
which is without a doubt, an iron artifact more mysterious and awe inspiring
than any impressive tale of fiction ever presented in this forum. The secrets
of it's method of manufacture, just may hold the key to a brighter future for
our offspring. This treasure of the past also (along with many other stones and
artifacts that have been posted in this forum) contains part of the missing
history of our numeral "5", and reflects the respect for the numeral, that has
been long forgotten. Of course, none of the trolls responding here would wish
to admit that the "5" indeed does have a missing history, or that an ordinary
person like myself could discover this truth, through the study of what they
would understand as common rocks; which is precisely why I get the last and
best laugh, because to proclaim any topic whatsoever, as off-topic in this
forum (especially when the "5" again repeats itself within another impressive
work of art), is almost as absurd as the claim that there is no missing history
of numeral "5" (which not one ignorant and ineffective troll {though laughably
posing as a scholar} posting in this thread, can or will provide).
Cheers, Bob (who laughs long and loud)
Lloyd Bogart
> Dear reader,
> I suppose any one can be a naysayer
Just as anyone can spout gibberish?
(instead of actually making contributions
define "contribution"
> to this forum, that certainly do not have to reflect original thoughts
> or subjects),
especially ones that are not archaeology
> though no one having responding in this thread, with their version
> of "no Bob, you're seeing things", could ever be original or brilliant enough
> to even coming close to filling the shoes of the sorely missed great Brian
> Scott.
Wasn't he the one who described you as a "dishonest SOB"?
> Not one of the supposedly intelligent people, posting in this thread,
> who ignorantly refute obvious evidence
visible only to Bob? is "obvious"?
such as this fine and truly amazing work
> of art, at-
> >http://www.caspercoin.com/ab2/112.html
which was called a meteorite until Bob decided
it was something else?
> which is without a doubt, an iron artifact
yes.
> more mysterious and awe inspiring
> than any impressive tale of fiction ever
> presented in this forum.
Quite possibly.
> The secrets of it's method of manufacture,
if you believe meteorites are the result of 'manufacture'
> just may hold the key to a brighter future
[remaining conjectures and unsupported silliness snipped.]
> Cheers, Bob (who laughs long and loud)
Very long, and very loud, and quite to himself.
Lloyd
*****
Bob4AB5
>http://www.caspercoin.com/ab2/112.html
>Go make a discovery, there are lots of things of which we need to have a
better understanding.
Again, even a person not quite as bright as you, can see the "5", appreciate
the art, and with a quick web search, comprehend completely, why you can not
and will not present your understanding of the history of our numeral "5";
because you don't wish to reveal what would become the obvious truth,
concerning your bonefide status as a likely sock-puppeted troll, that without
any question whatsoever, is a complete and clueless, scholarposing pompous
ass.
Bob
Lloyd Bogart
(Bob4AB5) wrote:
> Don't get mad Lloyd,
i'm not mad, Bob....bemused, maybe
> >http://www.caspercoin.com/ab2/112.html
> Go make a discovery, there are lots of things of which we need to have a
> better understanding.
Been there, saw a computer image of a meteorite
> Again, even a person not quite as bright as you, can see the "5", appreciate
> the art, and with a quick web search, comprehend completely,
No, only you can do those things. Bunny Rabbits.
> why you can not
> and will not present your understanding of the history of our numeral "5";
> because you don't wish to reveal what would become the obvious truth,
Have you read Menninger? his version of the number 5 is pretty
convincing.
> concerning your bonefide status as a likely sock-puppeted troll, that without
> any question whatsoever, is a complete and clueless, scholarposing pompous
> ass.
> Bob
You know, I've been called worse by people who *didn't*
spend hours deluding themselves.
What exactly *is* a "likely sock-puppeted troll"?
Rock on, Bob.