Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
SagCan

Signs of the Zodiac in Australia

48 posts in this topic

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". thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Harte

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.

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.

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:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 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.

You're assuming that solely because harte's response was so brief in it's dismissal. What you don't know is that this was discussed at length here previously, wherein Kmt Sesh showed how these carvings are largely gibberish, with a few provocative bits of translatable names thrown in for fun. The website you're disparaging was taken from an article in Archaeological Diggings magazine. If you want to dismiss that in turn, you're going to have to do some more research of your own.

That which you've compiled so far however is questionable. By your own admission, you went looking for possibly ancient anomalies in the first place, and of course you found one. All your subsequent "research" appears to consist entirely of looking for correlations that reinforce the original idea, which again unsurprisingly you've found in spades. Correlation however does not equal interrelation,

besides which, small scale correlations tend to disappear when you add more data points from other variables, which so far you have failed to do. You've only shown the positive correlations and none of the negative. But that wouldn't help you're theory now, would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming that solely because harte's response was so brief in it's dismissal. What you don't know is that this was discussed at length here previously, wherein Kmt Sesh showed how these carvings are largely gibberish, with a few provocative bits of translatable names thrown in for fun. The website you're disparaging was taken from an article in Archaeological Diggings magazine. If you want to dismiss that in turn, you're going to have to do some more research of your own.

I'm not assuming anything, I said the debate is still open. And for what I read of what Kmt Sesh states, it's his opinion these hieroglyphs are false. An opinion he shares with many others. But that doesn't make it so. He's got some arguments, others got theirs. To me he doesn't really help his case by stating since no 'legitimate scholars' took it serious, nobody should. Doesn't reveal what you would call an open mind on things. So like I said, the debate is open.

And again, my article doesn't revolve around these hieroglyphs. I only mentioned them because Harte claimed there's nothing to suggest a culture knowing the Zodiac ever came in contact with Australia.

That which you've compiled so far however is questionable. By your own admission, you went looking for possibly ancient anomalies in the first place, and of course you found one.

Never said anything of the kind. I said I was following up on ideas that formed after reading the works of others. These lead me to look at the region more closely.

All your subsequent "research" appears to consist entirely of looking for correlations that reinforce the original idea,

Wrong again. The correlations between the two signs, other then both being part of the Zodiac, came up separately. It was when I learned of this correlation, my interested for the place, got more serious. And again, all the qualities of the site are there, even if these 'depictions' are not. It's when you reason the other way around, considering that if any depictions made sense to be depicted here, it would be exactly these once, that gives merit to the idea there's something more then just coincidence to this site. Granted, if I was never struck by the apparent resemblance of the site withe two signs, I wouldn't not have noticed the other qualities and facts surrounding this site.

which again unsurprisingly you've found in spades. Correlation however does not equal interrelation, besides which, small scale correlations tend to disappear when you add more data points from other variables, which so far you have failed to do. You've only shown the positive correlations and none of the negative. But that wouldn't help you're theory now, would it?

Since I state I don't claim this to be the 'real thing' and my whole goal is nothing but more research, I don't really understand your criticism which seems to be aimed on a supposed arrogance or claim on my part, which I can't place.

What negative correlations you would have in mind, escapes me for the most part. I state there's no exact resemblances. I point out the Zodiac was not supposed to be known in these parts of the world. I make clear I'm not claiming anything, I'm just pointing out some of the facts and qualities I found.

But though nothing I said I claim as the truth, to me people tend to dismiss to quickly the fact that all coincidental facts and apparent qualities seem to tell a coherent story in line with a story or site as could be expected from 'the ancient'. It's the sum of all things considered that made me write this article. Just stating coincidences happen seems a little thin to me to just shove it aside. But I guess for people like Harte, who can't be bothered to even read the things they comment on, that's sufficient. Like I said, a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I would have thought that the evidence against the authenticity of the Gosford glyphs is pretty unambiguous and that there was no longer any debate. Who exactly is suggesting otherwise?

http://www.diggings.com.au/downloads/12/articles

http://www.glyphdoctors.com/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=1958

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the evidence against the authenticity of the Gosford glyphs is pretty unambiguous and that there was no longer any debate. Who exactly is suggesting otherwise?

SagCan.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SagCan.

Harte

Two anonymous people - Is that all? If there is any legitimate dispute then surely as to the glyphs authenticity then surely you could refer us to a person with a name in order to enquire further...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not assuming anything, I said the debate is still open. And for what I read of what Kmt Sesh states, it's his opinion these hieroglyphs are false. An opinion he shares with many others. But that doesn't make it so. He's got some arguments, others got theirs. To me he doesn't really help his case by stating since no 'legitimate scholars' took it serious, nobody should. Doesn't reveal what you would call an open mind on things. So like I said, the debate is open.

And again, my article doesn't revolve around these hieroglyphs. I only mentioned them because Harte claimed there's nothing to suggest a culture knowing the Zodiac ever came in contact with Australia.

Ah, but the hieroglpyhs there are a hoax, it's been proven, they caught the man that actually did it. Find below an excerpt from this site. The glyphs were made by a mentally ill person, so we don't know the reasons as to why he did what he did.

The area around Lyre Trig, where the Gosford heiroglyphs are located, is famous for numerous Aboriginal carvings, including figures of giant kangaroos, men holding nulla nullas and spears, as well as carvings of hands and tools. The Aboriginal carvings, many in very inaccessible places, have been well researched and their positions noted long before the discovery of the so-called Egyptian hieroglyphs.

At the southern base of the Lyre Trig, in a very accessible location, two parallel sandstone cliffs, 1.5 m apart and 3 m high, run up the hill for about 15 metres. On both cliffs there are carved familiar Egyptian hieroglyphs, but among them are some stranger figures - a stick man hanging out the washing, a dog's bone, a very un-Egyptian bell and several symbols that look like flying saucers.

Alan Dash, a surveyor with the Gosford City Council between 1968 and 1993, first noticed the carvings about 1975. Thoroughly familiar with the area, he revisited the site several times over the next 5 years, each time observing that more and more carvings appeared on the rock face. He considered the engravings the work of an irresponsible vandal.

Neil Martin himself found the man responsible. "In 1984 1 was in the area helping to put out a fire", he told me. "As I came around the base of the hill, I could hear a noise like someone chipping stone. I walked over to the cleft and found an old Yugoslavian man, chipping the stone with a Sidchrome cold chisel. Because this was national park property, I confiscated the chisel and the man left. Because he was mentally handicapped, we took no further action, but I later gave the chisel to the local historical society. We never saw the old man again."

So yes, a hoax, proven to be a hoax, person who perpetrated it is known. End of story. And sorry but Harte is correct, there is no proof or solid evidence, that any civilisation knowing this particular zodiac and it's usage, came into contact in ancient times with Australian inhabitants. And there really is no solid evidence of it at all, nothing, nada, rien.

Wrong again. The correlations between the two signs, other then both being part of the Zodiac, came up separately. It was when I learned of this correlation, my interested for the place, got more serious. And again, all the qualities of the site are there, even if these 'depictions' are not. It's when you reason the other way around, considering that if any depictions made sense to be depicted here, it would be exactly these once, that gives merit to the idea there's something more then just coincidence to this site. Granted, if I was never struck by the apparent resemblance of the site withe two signs, I wouldn't not have noticed the other qualities and facts surrounding this site.

I do not see anything in the images you posted, other than natural erosion, sorry. I could understand that someone with a lot of good will and imagination could see a crab, but that's about it. Sagitarius, sorry, but no, not seeing it.

The astrology your refer to, is quite datable as well, since it is based on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, from about the 2nd century AD. For this too work, there would have to be some evidence from those days, as to a trip that long or an effort that big, would have been somehow either documented or refered to. There is plenty of material of the 2nd century AD surviving and it becomes more from then on. For the idea to work, it can only work from then on as before that, there was no zodiac as we know it.

Also you refer to the tropics and the equator, well there is something that bugs me about that. I'm not sure if you considered the precession of the equinoxes, because as we speak, according to International Astronomical Union boundaries, the Sun now is in Taurus at the June solstice. According to sidereal astrology, which divides the zodiac into 12 equal parts, the Sun is in Gemini at that time.

I'm uncertain that any of it adds up to be honest, there are too many "what if", or "maybe" factors, for this to even be a viable idea.

Since I state I don't claim this to be the 'real thing' and my whole goal is nothing but more research, I don't really understand your criticism which seems to be aimed on a supposed arrogance or claim on my part, which I can't place.

What negative correlations you would have in mind, escapes me for the most part. I state there's no exact resemblances. I point out the Zodiac was not supposed to be known in these parts of the world. I make clear I'm not claiming anything, I'm just pointing out some of the facts and qualities I found.

But though nothing I said I claim as the truth, to me people tend to dismiss to quickly the fact that all coincidental facts and apparent qualities seem to tell a coherent story in line with a story or site as could be expected from 'the ancient'. It's the sum of all things considered that made me write this article. Just stating coincidences happen seems a little thin to me to just shove it aside. But I guess for people like Harte, who can't be bothered to even read the things they comment on, that's sufficient. Like I said, a shame.

Sorry, but the sum of all things considered, doesn't weigh a lot, if you scrutinise the idea too closely. And no it does not make for a coherent story since there are too many unknown factors, lack of any evidence or facts. Laudable effort none withstanding, it has to be said. And unless you can get someone to go and take an actual look, to see if any of it is man-made, this is a very moot discussion anyway. BEcause I'm sure most will agree, Google Earth is no proof of anything. It's just images.

Ah yes, and I would be cautious as to Kmt, the man can actually read hieroglyphs and translate them, which is more than can be said about you or me. So if he says it is a hoax, I'd be tempted to believe him as opposed to you, who in his 13 posts has not proven that he can do the same.

Oh and if you think that Harte is harsh and Flash is unkind, wait till you meet some of the other sceptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and if you think that Harte is harsh and Flash is unkind, wait till you meet some of the other sceptics.

Oh come on, Searchie!

There's nobody meaner than me around here!

Harteass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the original post to this thread that can't be put right by submerging your head in a bucket of iced water for an hour won't cure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on, Searchie!

There's nobody meaner than me around here!

Harteass

Erm I am of the opinion that Jayle can be a lot worse than you mate, his sarcasm burns. And Abe when in a mood can be too lol. :lol:

you're a meanie, but not half as mean as you think :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm I am of the opinion that Jayle can be a lot worse than you mate, his sarcasm burns. And Abe when in a mood can be too lol. :lol:

you're a meanie, but not half as mean as you think :P

I shall endeavor to do worser.

Actually, I've toned down quite a bit. This is in direct proportion to the level of logical thought that has arisen on this board. Much of that due to your undying efforts.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I shall endeavor to do worser.

Actually, I've toned down quite a bit. This is in direct proportion to the level of logical thought that has arisen on this board. Much of that due to your undying efforts.

Harte

Worser? No such word... I'm getting good at splitting hairs but no where near as good a chopping out the deadwood as Harte. Or is that Hartewood (heartwood)?

Edited by Flashbangwollap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Several wonderful archeological and geological discoveries have been made by average people using google earth such as a pristine forest in Mozambique that is home to previously unknown species and the remains of an ancient Roman villa.. So were their efforts a waste also, and if so were they a waste before the discovery was proven true or after? Or, could it be that it was never a waste electronic storage when they started posting their findings because their efforts at least contained the possibility of a new discovery?

I am so tired of you professional skeptics acting as though only a PHD can make a valid scientific discovery.... Let them have their fun without the condescending ridicule, after all much of the current understanding of our reality as come from "ordinary" people making astute observations.

Yeah, we get it. You believe in nothing that hasn't already withstood the scientific method...forgetting that every "scientific fact" we have today was one wild, fringer speculation until it was proven.. so lighten up and admit we haven't proven and or discovered everything already. That is not science. That is not exploration of the unknown, but most of all it is un-productive and undermining to those of us doing real work to shed light in to dark places.

People with this sort of auto-close minded mentality make wonderful teachers, and terrible scientists..because they can only spout off what someone before them has braved the ridicule and skepticism in order to prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several wonderful archeological and geological discoveries have been made by average people using google earth such as a pristine forest in Mozambique that is home to previously unknown species and the remains of an ancient Roman villa.. So were their efforts a waste also, and if so were they a waste before the discovery was proven true or after? Or, could it be that it was never a waste electronic storage when they started posting their findings because their efforts at least contained the possibility of a new discovery?

You realize that you're calling an eroded hill a "geoglyph" of the zodiac sign Cancer here, don't you?

The OP didn't discover a forest. He deluded himself into thinking he was seeing something that wasn't there and then became defensive when others, including myself, had a better grasp on reality than he.

I am so tired of you professional skeptics acting as though only a PHD can make a valid scientific discovery.... Let them have their fun without the condescending ridicule, after all much of the current understanding of our reality as come from "ordinary" people making astute observations.

So, I'm not allowed to have, and voice, my opinion?

You're tired?

Well, if who is tired about what is to be factored into the situation, I'm tired of self-righteous idiots saying other people are "closed-minded" if they don't see the indian in the cupboard.

Yeah, we get it. You believe in nothing that hasn't already withstood the scientific method...forgetting that every "scientific fact" we have today was one wild, fringer speculation until it was proven..

Every scientific fact?

You are operating under the false assumption that scientific theories are fact.

Facts are data.

Some accepted theories were originally thought to be outlandish, it's true. However, an eroded hillside being a geoglyph of a zodiac sign, I feel, is safely outside that small subset of scientific theorization.

so lighten up and admit we haven't proven and or discovered everything already. That is not science. That is not exploration of the unknown, but most of all it is un-productive and undermining to those of us doing real work to shed light in to dark places.

Some people can't find the dark places, and think that they are in a dark place when the sunlight is beating down on their faces.

People with this sort of auto-close minded mentality make wonderful teachers, and terrible scientists..because they can only spout off what someone before them has braved the ridicule and skepticism in order to prove.

Your opinion of what makes a "terrible scientist" is somewhat skewed from reality.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Several wonderful archeological and geological discoveries have been made by average people using google earth such as a pristine forest in Mozambique that is home to previously unknown species and the remains of an ancient Roman villa.. So were their efforts a waste also, and if so were they a waste before the discovery was proven true or after? Or, could it be that it was never a waste electronic storage when they started posting their findings because their efforts at least contained the possibility of a new discovery?

I am so tired of you professional skeptics acting as though only a PHD can make a valid scientific discovery.... Let them have their fun without the condescending ridicule, after all much of the current understanding of our reality as come from "ordinary" people making astute observations.

Yeah, we get it. You believe in nothing that hasn't already withstood the scientific method...forgetting that every "scientific fact" we have today was one wild, fringer speculation until it was proven.. so lighten up and admit we haven't proven and or discovered everything already. That is not science. That is not exploration of the unknown, but most of all it is un-productive and undermining to those of us doing real work to shed light in to dark places.

People with this sort of auto-close minded mentality make wonderful teachers, and terrible scientists..because they can only spout off what someone before them has braved the ridicule and skepticism in order to prove.

What the op described or tried to describe is hardly the same as a previously unknown species and the remains of an ancient Roman villa. Those are tangible things, proven, hard evidence. And not only scientists can make a discovery, non-scientists can too, history is full of them doing so. However, history is also full of people that work on assumptions, imagination and incomplete knowledge.

Well mate, I have news for you, complaining and wining will get you no-where, and I'm sorry to say, that's what you are doing right now. The bad scientist man told me off, the bad scientist man has no open mind, the bad scientist man this, ..... Grow up, will you!!

Do your homework, do some research other than internet-search and google earth. Wild speculation and assumptions by use of google earth are not something I would call "exploration of the unknown".

Do I come over as angry? Well maybe I am, cause I'm sick and tired of people just ignoring facts for wild speculation and then starting to complain about the bad bad science man that says "No you're wrong." Again, grow up!

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have no doubt the the op's zodiac geoglyphs are nothing more than wishful thinking and that the Gosford hieroglyphs are modern "fakes", this thread did remind me of a hieroglyph that a saw while flying across Western Australia many years ago. It was reported to have been seen from space. When I get a chance I will post a lat/long of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have no doubt the the op's zodiac geoglyphs are nothing more than wishful thinking and that the Gosford hieroglyphs are modern "fakes", this thread did remind me of a hieroglyph that a saw while flying across Western Australia many years ago. It was reported to have been seen from space. When I get a chance I will post a lat/long of it.

Or a picture even if possible? As to anything been seen from space, I doubt that, considering that you would need opticcal equipment to see the great wall of China the pyramids or even the Nazca lines from space. None of these is visible with the naked eye from space, it all need to be amplified to be seen at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a picture even if possible? As to anything been seen from space, I doubt that, considering that you would need opticcal equipment to see the great wall of China the pyramids or even the Nazca lines from space. None of these is visible with the naked eye from space, it all need to be amplified to be seen at all.

Did you happen to see Ancient Aliens last night? That Greek dingbat I think it was flat out lied and said they were visible from space, along with with the Carnac stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I cant workout how to get long/lat from google earth. If anyone wants to see they should do a search on the Ready Mix logo. It was made in 1965 by grading the topsoil away from the limestone bedrock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.