47 replies to this topic

[Oniomancer]

Harte, on 22 February 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

You got that right.

What a waste of electronic storage this thread is!

There's two anthroglyphs of Poseidon's trident on my face.

Some folks call 'em "smile lines," I calls 'em Poseidon's tridents.

Harte

Must be from chewing all that Trident gum.

[tipotep]

SagCan, on 22 February 2011 - 01:06 AM, said:

I stand corrected. Glad you read it so carefully. You're completely right.

Guess the mix up is due to the fact I'm always looking at the site 'North down'.

Dumb slip up.

Any thoughts on the rest of the article?

PS., in itself another curiosity of the site, the fact that the image is best viewed with South up and North down.

If a genuine image it's aligned South / North, or North / South,  a lay out more often found at ancient sites.

Your article is well presented and no doubt if i look hard enough i can see the crab , my reservation is that the legs of your crab look like natural errosion due to rain , in that area they have had a lot of rain in the past few months and i think if you had taken your picture 3-6 months ago it would have looked alot different . I think you have found something that is a natural event and just happens to look like the zodiac signs , i would check the area in another 6 months as see what it looks like .

@ HARTE

Quote

What a waste of electronic storage this thread is!

Now thats just plain nasty  

TiP.

[SagCan]

@ Flashbangwollap Icon

I can only wonder why, when you didn't read the article, you replied twice to it. Like I said, it's a bit hard to take you serious. Not the least because you keep talking about me presenting evidence. No where do I claim to have evidence. But I guess you should have read the article to know so.

The only thing I suggest, not claim, is there could be more to this hill then just being that, just another hill.

I don't claim the creek beds/ gullies are artificial, I sum up a whole lot of facts to would give reason to believe they could be.

About your promise, what makes you think you made things hard for me?

The only thing you did was make unfounded remarks and since you clearly didn't read a word I wrote, that's not surprising.



@ Harte,

good of you to agree with Flashbangwollap Icon. A shame you don't follow it up with arguments.

Your remarks about this threat being a waste of electronic storage strikes me ass odd. Why reply if that's your thought?

Until now, I must admit, reactions are a bit disappointing. Mainly because they, except for one, seem to be based a quick glimpses of the picture and lack any arguments.

But I guess that is your idea of making things hard. And you're right about that, it's hard to discus or defend my theory without any meaningful criticism.

[SagCan]

tipotep, on 22 February 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

Your article is well presented and no doubt if i look hard enough i can see the crab , my reservation is that the legs of your crab look like natural errosion due to rain , in that area they have had a lot of rain in the past few months and i think if you had taken your picture 3-6 months ago it would have looked alot different . I think you have found something that is a natural event and just happens to look like the zodiac signs , i would check the area in another 6 months as see what it looks like .

@ HARTE



Now thats just plain nasty  

TiP.

Thanks for your reply.

First time I discovered this site was in December 2009. So, yes it could be lines due to erosion, but no, it can't be recent. Also, it could be I'm putting people of track by asking to notice the resemblance between the offered pictures and the site. I'll post a picture in which I'll draw the way I think the signs are drawn here. If at all, of course.

And again, it's not the lines per se that make this site stand out. It's the culmination of facts and qualities that seem to present a coherent story that fits many aspects of what could be expected of an ancient artificial work of art, for lack of a better description.

The relation between the two signs as the constellation to which the sun rises on the longest cq shortest days of the year, whether represented on this site or not, is a given. The location, within a degree of the Tropic of Capricorn to. The line that follows the depression that I think could be the arrow of the Sagittarius figure, connects the two Tropics, even when it in fact isn't an arrow. This line reaches it's high point on the Tropic of Cancer, almost exactly where the Constellation of Cancer is situated these days. Same goes for the site it self, it is located practically beneath the constellation of Sagittarius.

As these qualities and facts remain, even if these site is nothing but an ordinary hill. But in the light of all this, it strikes me as odd that the image that sees to come up, is exactly that image that would make sense given all stated facts. If it would have seemed the images of say Lion and Virgin were represented here, I would immediately agree with everybody this was nothing but coincidental. But given the surrounding facts, I think there could be more than just coincidence to this one.


PS, I didn't think Harte's remark was so nasty. Rather I thought it quit naive.

[xCrimsonx]

Well done!   I see a rag doll and a plate of salad!


Tis very much Igneous!!!!!!!!

[Harte]

xCrimsonx, on 23 February 2011 - 01:13 AM, said:

Well done!   I see a rag doll and a plate of salad!


Tis very much Igneous!!!!!!!!

Yes, but igneous is no excuse.

Harte

[SagCan]

Harte, on 23 February 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Yes, but igneous is no excuse.

Harte

Excuse for what exactly?

For replying without reading? For being rude without merit?

For not having the common decency 'debunk' things based on arguments rather then questionable remarks?

Cause please tell me, what is your explanation for all the facts and qualities in this site coming together to form a coherent story?

Like I wrote, it's not so much the possible image itself, it's the combination of things that seems to hint there's something more to this then just an Rochard-test-like exercise.

Or is it just because 'you don't see it', you can't be bordered to look any further?

[Flashbangwollap]

SagCan, on 23 February 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

Excuse for what exactly?

For replying without reading? For being rude without merit?

For not having the common decency 'debunk' things based on arguments rather then questionable remarks?

Cause please tell me, what is your explanation for all the facts and qualities in this site coming together to form a coherent story?

Like I wrote, it's not so much the possible image itself, it's the combination of things that seems to hint there's something more to this then just an Rochard-test-like exercise.

Or is it just because 'you don't see it', you can't be bordered to look any further?

By way of a personal observation I get the feeling you started off from the wrong end of your ideas or who's idea it is.

Sorry but with this sort of thing you need to be a bit more subtle. At least that's my feeling.
Perhaps if you had introduced some of your backup research first it would have softened the impact of the over head shot.

Not that this will help salvage what credibility there might be in the analysis now.
However if you look down the How the Egyptian pyramids were built thread, took to my suggestion of anti gravity machines you'll see that it fell easy prey to ridicule. I think this shows a modern mind set which is hard to deny or hard to place ones self (Modern man) in an ancient setting.
So I can sympathize since all I was trying to do was seed some more ancient way of looking at certain texts.
However as an experiment it showed just how readily most accept relatively modern concepts and science overall.

Personally I'm not worried in the least about building credibility on here for I think that before the mysterious blanks and anomalies of ancient history are satisfactorily filled in as to my comments will have long been forgotten.

[Trog]

Hi SagCan . When I owned a four wheel drive Jeep , some twenty years ago now ,  I drove through that area in company with a friend in a Landrover , there are some unfenced isolated cattle stations of very large acreage , as well as the Iron ore mines in that area of WA , and quite a few tracks mostly ending up at distant windmills .

Of course it would be impossible to see such images from the ground , and yes I can clearly see the outline of Sagittarius but the Crab image is less distinct , but as you mentioned 'All things are possible' .

Some kilometers north of Alice Springs on the main road to Darwin is a Truck Stop Diner come Trailer Park that boasts the highest number of UFO sightings in Australia , it's called Wycliffe Well , you can Google it , I went through there last year hoping to see a UFO but there was a lot of cloud about with heavy rain on and off so I didn't stay long and pressed on to Darwin with out seeing any unusual objects in the sky .

[xCrimsonx]

Harte, on 23 February 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Yes, but igneous is no excuse.

Harte

A simple reply not an excuse, I'm not hear to de-bunk but to enjoy the threads. I read the whole post and found It very interesting and like I said, very well done. Im able to admit that the topic is not my forte.


Dont mistake simple comedy with rude!


When I viewed the picture provided,  at first glance that is exactly what I saw! lol


Igneous due to that whole area is mining country, iron ore, etc. Was actually trying to head towards magnetics and geology of the area. On this note i can only share what I do know!




So again, OP that is what I saw and i do believe you still did great job on this open eyed thread!


Trog.,. BTW, you gotta cut an arm to pay for a cold drink at Wycliffe Well. lol good to see you made It safe to Darwin!

[xCrimsonx]

Flashbangwollap, on 23 February 2011 - 08:58 PM, said:

By way of a personal observation I get the feeling you started off from the wrong end of your ideas or who's idea it is.

Sorry but with this sort of thing you need to be a bit more subtle. At least that's my feeling.
Perhaps if you had introduced some of your backup research first it would have softened the impact of the over head shot.

Not that this will help salvage what credibility there might be in the analysis now.
However if you look down the How the Egyptian pyramids were built thread, took to my suggestion of anti gravity machines you'll see that it fell easy prey to ridicule. I think this shows a modern mind set which is hard to deny or hard to place ones self (Modern man) in an ancient setting.
So I can sympathize since all I was trying to do was seed some more ancient way of looking at certain texts.
However as an experiment it showed just how readily most accept relatively modern concepts and science overall.

Personally I'm not worried in the least about building credibility on here for I think that before the mysterious blanks and anomalies of ancient history are satisfactorily filled in as to my comments will have long been forgotten.

I wont forget this post, it took the words right out of my mouth! I streamed Volcano's and this thread came up, so I "clicked".

[Harte]

SagCan, on 23 February 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

Excuse for what exactly?

For replying without reading? For being rude without merit?

Dude,

"Igneous is no excuse" is a pun.  It's a take-off on the phrase "Ignorance is no excuse," which is in regard to the generally recognized judicial axiom that ignorance of a particular law will not be accepted as a defense by a person who broke that law.

Quote

For not having the common decency 'debunk' things based on arguments rather then questionable remarks?

"Based on arguments?"

Saying "Look! This small hill resembles a crab!!!" is not an argument, so it doesn't deserve refutation by argument.

Quote

Cause please tell me, what is your explanation for all the facts and qualities in this site coming together to form a coherent story?

Please, tell me your facts indicating that there has ever, in the history of Mankind, been a culture in Australia that considered constellations to be shaped after the Sumerian/Babylonian/Greek model.

Quote

Or is it just because 'you don't see it', you can't be bordered to look any further?

You have posted a picture of an eroded small hill online.  Exactly why should I "look any further?"

Harte

[SagCan]

@ Harte

Quote

Saying "Look! This small hill resembles a crab!!!" is not an argument, so it doesn't deserve refutation by argument.

If you would have read my article you would know I don't do nothing of that kind. I state clearly that just a vague resemblance would not have been reason to post this.

If you would have read my words instead of just stare at the picture, you would have known I sum up a whole bunch of facts and qualities that together give merit to the idea there could be something more to this.

But hey, that would have meant reading instead of replying.

Quote

Please, tell me your facts indicating that there has ever, in the history of Mankind, been a culture in Australia that considered constellations to be shaped after the Sumerian/Babylonian/Greek model

The whole point of my article is that if this would be a real geoglyph depicting signs of the Zodiac it would change our perception of the past. But for your knowledge, hieroglyphs have been found in Australia and the people we know that used hieroglyphs were surely people that knew about the Zodiac.

Guess it's not only my article you don't read.

Quote

You have posted a picture of an eroded small hill online.  Exactly why should I "look any further?"

I posted an article, summing up many facts. Check if I'm wrong considering those. And if I'm not, then ask yourself, if all these facts are true and they all come together in this site and they seem to tell a coherent story, could it be there's something to this?

Could be you conclude there isn't but it could just be, like me, you start wondering. And maybe, just maybe, you. like me, will think there's ground for further investigation.

Cause different then some state in this topic, I don't claim anything. I just point out.

Now,since it's clearly to much to ask to read the whole article, here a summery I wrote a couple replies ago, maybe you can get yourself to read these few words:

Quote

Again, it's not the lines per se that make this site stand out. It's the culmination of facts and qualities that seem to present a coherent story that fits many aspects of what could be expected of an ancient artificial work of art, for lack of a better description.

The relation between the two signs as the constellation to which the sun rises on the longest cq shortest days of the year, whether represented on this site or not, is a given. The location, within a degree of the Tropic of Capricorn to. The line that follows the depression that I think could be the arrow of the Sagittarius figure, connects the two Tropics, even when it in fact isn't an arrow. This line reaches it's high point on the Tropic of Cancer, almost exactly where the Constellation of Cancer is situated these days. Same goes for the site it self, it is located practically beneath the constellation of Sagittarius.

As these qualities and facts remain, even if these site is nothing but an ordinary hill. But in the light of all this, it strikes me as odd that the image that sees to come up, is exactly that image that would make sense given all stated facts. If it would have seemed the images of say Lion and Virgin were represented here, I would immediately agree with everybody this was nothing but coincidental. But given the surrounding facts, I think there could be more than just coincidence to this one.

[Harte]

SagCan, on 28 February 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

The whole point of my article is that if this would be a real geoglyph depicting signs of the Zodiac it would change our perception of the past. But for your knowledge, hieroglyphs have been found in Australia and the people we know that used hieroglyphs were surely people that knew about the Zodiac.

Guess it's not only my article you don't read.

No, apparently it is you that doesn't read - enough.

Your Australian hieroglyphs are fakes.  They don't even say anything, for the most part, and the hoaxer was caught making them!

LOL

Hard to believe that people still consider that claptrap a reality.

Harte

[SagCan]

@ Harte,

while my article is on no way based on the existence of the Australian hieroglyphs, your claim of them being fake and that the hoaxer was caught, seems in line with everything you say, not based on real research or even interest, just a quick scan of some website and you made your mind up. The debate on the Australian hieroglyphs is still undecided with no clear answers to the many question that come up if it was a hoax.

You don't read, you don't check, you just rant. Mostly nonsense.

A shame.