The crucial test
hagen
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/pro2.gif
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/gnomonic.htm
Ole Hagen
hagen
13 Jan. 18:37 vis valgmuligheder
Nyhedsgrupper: sci.archaeology
Fra: "hagen" <dan5m...@yahoo.com> - Find beskeder fra denne forfatter
Dato: 13 Jan 2006 09:37:05 -0800
Lokalt: Fr. 13 Jan. 2006 18:37
Emne: Re: Just a new formulation
Besvar | Svar til forfatter | Videresend | Udskriv | Individuelt
indlæg | Vis oprindelig | Fjern | Rapporter krænkelse
hagen skrev:
- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
The key to the Phaistos disc:
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/pro2.gif
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/gnomonic.htm
This happy piece of history (below) deceived me.- I failed to see the
risk of intriguers.
The decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris some fifty years ago is
the equivalent in the humanities of Crick and Watson's discovery of the
structure of DNA. Today it belongs in the same rare class as
Champollion's decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs in the nineteenth
century.
http://www.wwnorton.com/thamesandhudson/new/spring02/551077.htm
how Ventris solved what has been dubbed "the Everest of Greek
archaeology". Interviews with friends and contemporaries reveal Ventris
to be an eternal outsider and an unconventional thinker, and suggests
that it was precisely his exclusion from British public school cliques
and academic communities which afforded him the freedom to take
intellectual risks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/linear-b.shtml
Ventris hielt einen Vortrag über seine Arbeit beim Radiosender BBC,
wobei einer seiner Zuhörer John Chadwick war.
http://www-ivs.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/bs/lehre/wise0102/progb/vortraege/...
O. Hagen
hagen
a lie, 'cause there are no responses. Neverthereless I know I got a
friend like the rest of you. His very name is Desmond Tutu.
sincerely
Ole Hagen
grap...@www.com
What the hell has Desmond Tutu to do with the Phaistos Disk ????
Regards
grapheus
hagen
The Roman church is very realistic about sins.
Don't divorse: because you are harming your children.
Don't do suicide; be harming your best friends.
Don't be a Saint, because you'll be vulnerable for gossip, mediocrety)
Let us wait 300 years and you'll be canonized, the truth finally
prevailles
Sincerely
Hagen
P.S. I dreamt I saw Saint Augustine alive like you and me . . .
Ruud Harmsen
Desmond Morris?
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
He too is inscrutable?
hagen
internet: freedom of speach was violated in this case.
Would you've believed, that this corporeal proof was ignored, if you
were told so twenty years ago?
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/pro2.gif
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/phaistos.htm
Hagen
Marc Adler
Are there any non-lunatics working on deciphering the disk?
Marc
grap...@www.com
If you mean "serious" and "proved by its consequences", the answer is
YES : there is a decipherment, called "the Proto-Ionic Solution", which
*explains all the epigraphical facts* (like the scribe's corrections
and the source of the Hagen's "stems") and of which *all the
consequences have been verified by more than 30 undisputable facts*,
like a)- the existence of a Proto-Ionian people in the Aegean during
the Early Bronze Age b)- the existence of the caracteristics of their
Greek dialect c)- the path they used to come to Greece d)- etc.
Unhappily, all this has been published in three books only in French
(to be preferentially read in this order : "Les Proto-Ioniens..." ,
"Le déchiffrement du disque de Phaistos..." and "Les Origines Grecques
à l'Age de Bronze...") by the author, J. Faucounau. (But one, able to
read French, can still get pretty easily those books from any
e-bookshop selling books in French, like www.amazon.fr or
www.alapage.com. for instance, or from the editing house "L'Harmattan"
at <diffusion...@wanadoo.fr>)
Regards
grapheus
hagen
the mouth in the super-market, or the anonymous person in the crowd
with a pair of shears ?
Do me the favour to open the two URL's above, and you'll easy confirm
my final proof.
Hagen
grap...@www.com
Ole, do you seriously believe that there is a "Sign P" (i.e. sign n°
36) which has been obliterated in A08 ?...
How can you not see that the only legible rest of the obliterated sign
is a kind of V "in relief" , which CANNOT be the "fork" of the "P-tree"
?.. Have a better look, Ole, please...
Best regards
grapheus
grap...@www.com
Interesting !.. I suggest that Mark be the arbiter concerning your
first "proof" concerning the "P-sign" (First link quoted).
Who is right, in your opinion, Mark : Ole, seing in the only visible
rest of the obliterated sign in A08, i.e. a kind of "inversed V" in
Ole's picture, the "fork" of the "P-tree", i.e. of the Sign n° 36 in
the usual notation ... Or J.F., me and others, seing in this rest a
"bent arm" (with Ole's upside-down picture restablished in a normal
position) ?..
grapheus
hagen
like: tracing contours, embossment, direction of light etc., who knows?
Ole
grap...@www.com
I don't think so ... Any scholar who has seen the disk with his own
eyes agrees that the clearest remnants of the obliterated sign in A08
are a kind of V in relief, with one branch shorter than the other,
looking like a bent arm... That it's the arm of a monkey, as
J.Faucounau supposes, is certainly not obvious !.. But it seems a more
possible solution than yours...
I would appreciate if some of the readers of this post would give their
opinion about that, using your own excellent picture at
<http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/pro2.gif> :
"Can the "bent arm", remains of the obliterated sign, be coherent with
the remnants of a possible "sign P" (= the tree with two branches,
visible in the two other compartments represented in your figure),
which would have been printed upside down, or not ?" .
You say YES, I say NO. So, a poll on this question would be highly
interesting, in my opinion...
grapheus
hagen
but maybe the popularity of the disc has descended, now when everybody
knows, that the inscription is definitively deciphered.
Hagen
Colin Fine
grap...@www.com
Instead of writing stupidities WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION than your
IGNARROGANCE and even offensive for the many scholars who have tried to
solve the enigma, you would have been smarter to participate to the
poll concerning the obliterated sign in A08.
But this is probably asking too much from you !..
grapheus
hagen
Prof. K. Jeppsen suggests, in his analysis of the signs (KUML 1962.
p.179),
that the the eroded area in A08 hides the sign Q, also upside down.
Sign Q is, by the way, the second best choice according to my
arrangement.
Hagen
grap...@www.com
1)- His name is M. Kristian Jeppesen.
2)- "Second best choice" or not, I notice that you are not sure anymore
of your "crucial proof" !..
3)- Other very dubious hypotheses have been launched concerning the
obliterated sign, ALL -including Jeppesen's one- not fitting with the
tracess left in the clay, following the opinion of the scholars who
have seen the disk with their own eyes (What was not the case of
Jeppesen, as far as I know) :
Jeppesen : Sign n° 40 inversed (= your sign Q)
Macalister : Sign n° 44
Read : Sign n° 36
Ipsen : Signs n°s 17 or 19
Schertel : Sign n° 39
The opinion of the "serious" scholars is that, as the traces left in
the clay don't fit with ANY of the known signs, one has to deal here
with a new sign ( Cf for instance Y. Duhoux, "Le disque de Phaestos" p.
33.
Regards
grapheus
hagen
2) No, but like sign P, sign Q is a reduced sign-group II stem, they
form the two stems OP an OQ, still sign P is the only sign that
perfects the gnomonical arrangement
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/gnomonic.htm
3) Thank you. I'll run through those proposals for fun.
Douglas G. Kilday
"Marc Adler" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote ...
>
> [...]
>
> Are there any non-lunatics working on deciphering the disk?
Yes, there's Torsten Timm for one, who posted here a year or so ago.
grap...@www.com
Ha! Ha! Ha!... A "decipherment" based upon several implausible
hypotheses and confirmed by NOT A SINGLE FACT ! (To be compared with
the c. 30/40 undeniable facts confirming the Proto-Ionic Solution).
Here is a short list of the most implausible hypotheses : 1)- the Disk
would be of Minoan origin 2)- Not only its language would be the same
as the one written in Linear A (consequence of hypothesis n° 1), but
the shape of the signs would be related 3)- the lack of "intermediary
syllabaries" between the Phaistos Disk and the Linear A tablets is
justified by a Cretan writing on papyrus 4)- Etc.
I maintain what I wrote : the Disk has been DEFINITELY deciphered, but
the ONLY CORRECT solution is the Proto-Ionic one, supported by more
than 40 pieces of evidence.
grapheus
grap...@www.com
Richard Herring
<azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>grap...@www.com wrote:
>....
>> I maintain what I wrote : the Disk has been DEFINITELY deciphered, but
>> the ONLY CORRECT solution is the Proto-Ionic one, supported by more
>> than 40 pieces of evidence.
>
>
Is *that* what it says?
--
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com
Easier to make such poor jokes than showing that the EVIDENCE has no
value, right ?...
grapheus
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com writes
>
>Richard Herring wrote:
>> In message <1137906030....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, mb
>> <azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >
>> >grap...@www.com wrote:
>> >....
>> >> I maintain what I wrote : the Disk has been DEFINITELY deciphered, but
>> >> the ONLY CORRECT solution is the Proto-Ionic one, supported by more
>> >> than 40 pieces of evidence.
>> >
>> >et in saecula saeculorum, amen
>> >
>> Is *that* what it says?
>>
>
A poor joke is more conducive to enlightenment than poor scholarship.
>than showing that the EVIDENCE has no
>value, right ?...
>
You've had my opinion of your "EVIDENCE" and your misapplication of
Shannon's work on other occasions. Repetition would be tedious.
--
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com
Richard Herring wrote:
> In message <1138029166.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> grap...@www.com writes
> >
> >Richard Herring wrote:
> >> In message <1137906030....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, mb
> >> <azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >grap...@www.com wrote:
> >> >....
> >> >> I maintain what I wrote : the Disk has been DEFINITELY deciphered, but
> >> >> the ONLY CORRECT solution is the Proto-Ionic one, supported by more
> >> >> than 40 pieces of evidence.
> >> >
> >> >et in saecula saeculorum, amen
> >> >
> >> Is *that* what it says?
> >>
> >
> >Easier to make such poor jokes
>
> A poor joke is more conducive to enlightenment than poor scholarship.
>
> >than showing that the EVIDENCE has no
> >value, right ?...
> >
> You've had my opinion of your "EVIDENCE" and your misapplication of
> Shannon's work on other occasions. Repetition would be tedious.
Ha!Ha!Ha!.. After the meaningless joke, the OLD TRICK of "I already
said it" !!!!
One thing is sure and established : YOU are always THE SAME !...
grapheus
mb
Just the proper closing words for the Credo of the Proto-Ionized
religion. After all these years, even the most unbelieving among us
cannot help knowing the words.
grap...@www.com
Yes, but "the most unbelieving" ignarrogants believe in the
Rish-Chadwick Theory in secula seculorum !..
It's a well known fact that the strongest fighters against a religion
are the believers in another one. So, people like you cannot forgive
the publication of papers offensive towards THEIR religion, like the
following :
<http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/v013.htm>
grapheus
Richard Herring
<azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
--
Richard Herring
grap...@www.com
Richard Herring wrote:
> In message <1138088089.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, mb
> <azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >Richard Herring wrote:
> >> In message <1137906030....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, mb
> >> <azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >grap...@www.com wrote:
> >> >....
> >> >> I maintain what I wrote : the Disk has been DEFINITELY deciphered, but
> >> >> the ONLY CORRECT solution is the Proto-Ionic one, supported by more
> >> >> than 40 pieces of evidence.
> >> >
> >> >et in saecula saeculorum, amen
> >> >
> >> Is *that* what it says?
> >
> >Just the proper closing words for the Credo of the Proto-Ionized
> >religion. After all these years, even the most unbelieving among us
> >cannot help knowing the words.
> >
> In that case, shouldn't it be RANDOMLY CAPITALIZED?
Another of your GOOD OLD TRICKS, I suppose ?..
Excomunicating people who don't respect YOUR DOGMA in a literal manner
; "Using CAPITALS is shouting", even when they innocently use them just
to call the attention upon a single word !...
How convenient !.. Talking about this awful CRIME allows to avoid any
serious discussion on the basics, right ?.. Or to answer to the
question I asked ten times : "What do you know about J.F.'s theories ?
What are the books and/or papers of his that you have seriously studied
? And if you have read at least some of his books, what is wrong with
the evidence he has presented?"...
But I know already your answer ! You will surely use the other usual
trick : "The question has already been answered" !!!!! Without saying
when and where, of course !.... For that also, you will pretend that
"the question has been already answered" !..
grapheus
Des Small
> Excomunicating people who don't respect YOUR DOGMA in a literal manner
> ; "Using CAPITALS is shouting", even when they innocently use them just
> to call the attention upon a single word !...
It makes you look like a loony. Since you genuinely are a loony, this
convention is a very great service and convenience to the readers of
the froup.
> How convenient !.. Talking about this awful CRIME allows to avoid any
> serious discussion on the basics, right ?.. Or to answer to the
> question I asked ten times : "What do you know about J.F.'s theories ?
> What are the books and/or papers of his that you have seriously studied
> ? And if you have read at least some of his books, what is wrong with
> the evidence he has presented?"...
Last we heard, the dog ate the evidence that was worth presenting while
the evidence presented wasn't.
> But I know already your answer ! You will surely use the other usual
> trick : "The question has already been answered" !!!!! Without saying
> when and where, of course !.... For that also, you will pretend that
> "the question has been already answered" !..
Des
is particularly fond of the punctuation "!.." !..
grap...@www.com
Des Small wrote:
> grap...@www.com writes:
>
> > Excomunicating people who don't respect YOUR DOGMA in a literal manner
> > ; "Using CAPITALS is shouting", even when they innocently use them just
> > to call the attention upon a single word !...
>
> It makes you look like a loony. Since you genuinely are a loony, this
> convention is a very great service and convenience to the readers of
> the froup.
Ha!Ha!Ha!.. You mean for the VOLUNTARY BLIND readers of the group ?..
For those guys, putting the word that they want NOT TO SEE in capitals
is certainly an inconvenience !
>
> Des
> is particularly fond of the punctuation "!.." !..
And here is another GOOD TRICK for DOGMATICS like you not to answer
embarrassing questions, like, for instance : "What do you know about
the Proto-Ionian Theory ? What is wrong with it, in your opinion?"
grapheus
hagen
having outriddled the Phaistos disc inscription.
Someone tell me what the H... is going on?
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/fais.htm
Mr. Hagen?
hagen
The only reason, why your resistence is believed, is that you lean on,
that no-one counter-checks how thorough the symmetries in my
arrangement really are.
Did you for instance knew, that if you put a layer of tartan pattern on
top of the square of stem pairs, you'll get the pairs divided into two
identical parts.
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/fig13b.htm
This arrangement is simply perfect !
Sincerely
Hagen
grap...@www.com
hagen wrote:
> It does'nt matter very much, a single exseption would prove the rule.
This is the way you delude yourself : each time there is a fact
contradicting your theory, you dismiss it or try to find some
explanation of it, instead of asking TO YOURSELF : "Wouldn't my theory
be wrong?". In other words, you consider the favourable facts as a
proof that you are correct, and dismiss the unfavourable ones. In a
Court, this is the best way to create a judiciary error !..
grapheus
hagen
perfectly arranged signs!
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/gnomonic.htm
Hagen
grap...@www.com
You are deluding yourself : there are a lot of "strange things" that
you have put aside. To quote a few ones : a)- a "Minoan" artifact
stamped with no-Cretan stamps in a no-Cretan clay, representing
no-Cretan characters, etc. b)- a "Calendar" with no-365 days and with
strange week-lengths c)- a quadratic figure (four months) transformed
into a spiralic one d)- a 144 signs-total obtained thanks to the
addition of "out-of-the-stream" hieroglyphs e)- a "sign c" in A23
being an "exception to the rule" f)-etc.
Why don't you open your eyes, Ole ?
grapheus
hagen
meetings of different length. Ending up with one event for each day of
a year.
d) The shortform elements are abbreviated out from a logical symmetry,
as I show in fig13b
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/fig13b.htm
e) That this stem in A23 is an exception, does'nt mean, that its odd
form does'nt have an explanation, only that I cannot figure out what it
is.
Hagen
grap...@www.com
hagen wrote:
> b) Some events, each representing a day, are taking place during 61
> meetings of different length. Ending up with one event for each day of
> a year.
And what do you call "meeting" ?.. If I understand correctly your
idea, each hieroglyph would represent an "event" occurring during one
day. So that, when the hieroglyph is found three separated times for
instance, the same "event" has occurred during three separated days.
But why this variable "grouping of days" (they group 2 to 7 days),
that you call "meeting" ?
> d) The shortform elements are abbreviated out from a logical symmetry,
> as I show in fig13b
> http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/fig13b.htm
The problem is that this symetrical figure is not the only one you have
presented !... So, one may wonder : why such variations in your
"perfect arrangement" ? If it would have been really so perfect, you
wouldn't have had to "improve" it so many times !...
> e) That this stem in A23 is an exception, does'nt mean, that its odd
> form does'nt have an explanation, only that I cannot figure out what it
> is.
Well, taking into account your imagination for finding "explanations"
to all what contradicts your basic hypotheses (The Disk is Minoan, it
is a Calendar, etc.), it's surprising !.. Wouldn't it be, this time,
the proof that you have taken the wrong path since the beginning, and
self-deluded yourself ?... I let you think by yourself about this
question...
Regards
grapheus
hagen
grap...@www.com skrev:
In the start I aimed at the objet to understand the puzzle inside the
puzzle, because I felt, it was accessible to me, and I did found the
key, and made the long anticipated break-through.
Maybe it is a matter of surprise for you, but for me, who discovered
the system, the refined conclusion was secondary (soon or later it is
surpassed or improven - think like a philosopher:-).
My additional expertice, which now all in all is open for everyone from
my website, was then meant to maintain my status as an expert in the
subject in the comming years, that followed upon the expected approval
of my discovery, this stayed however absent.
A genious mould always generates (symmetrical) variations.
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/arkalochori.gif
Regards
Hagen
P.S. A variant may even show that it is a moon table
grap...@www.com
1)- you voluntarily ignore the work of others. Example : you go on
saying that "the Disk cannot be a text" , although an irreproachable
solution of this kind does exist.
2)- you don't answer to questions. For instance, I asked you hereabove
:"What do you call 'meetings'?" and "How do you explain that an
artifact printed with non-Cretan stamps in a non-Cretan clay may be
Minoan?" , but you didn't answer.
grapheus
hagen
1) A twxt would be secondary to quantitative system that I find.
2) "Meetings" are of course like the unknown quantity in algebra ="X".
y) Non-Cretan yes, and non-Anything known before. So far I prefer
calling it Minoan.
Hagen