+DieChecker Posted October 16, 2016 #26 Share Posted October 16, 2016 On 10/14/2016 at 9:07 AM, stereologist said: So you think that this is the only extant portion of an unknown language? Written languages have properties that can be detected. The evidence is that this is actual language. A lost culture or language? No. A coded document of some sort? Possibly. I thought the CIA ran the "language" through their decryption programs and it did not detect any language patterns at all. Only by lumping several of the characters into broad categories, can even the beginning of any patterns be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted October 16, 2016 #27 Share Posted October 16, 2016 7 hours ago, DieChecker said: I thought the CIA ran the "language" through their decryption programs and it did not detect any language patterns at all. Only by lumping several of the characters into broad categories, can even the beginning of any patterns be found. I was referring to the wikipedia entry which mentioned that it appeared to be somewhat like language. I would not be surprised to learn that further analysis or more detailed analysis showed that it was not language like. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclefred Posted October 19, 2016 #28 Share Posted October 19, 2016 On 10/16/2016 at 1:24 AM, DieChecker said: Humm.... an author defending his book. Not unexpected. That doesn't change the fact that several of his "translations" are based off identifications of plants that look only mildly like the plant he says they are. He is trying to put a jigsaw puzzle together and since the pieces aren't doing what he wants, he's shaving them down and rounding them off, so they fit together very, very loosely. Then saying that he's figured out some percentage of the puzzle. But then when you look at it with his percentage, the puzzle still doesn't look like a picture. On 10/16/2016 at 1:24 AM, DieChecker said: Humm.... an author defending his book. Not unexpected. That doesn't change the fact that several of his "translations" are based off identifications of plants that look only mildly like the plant he says they are. He is trying to put a jigsaw puzzle together and since the pieces aren't doing what he wants, he's shaving them down and rounding them off, so they fit together very, very loosely. Then saying that he's figured out some percentage of the puzzle. But then when you look at it with his percentage, the puzzle still doesn't look like a picture. Sorry, I thought you were interested in more information and peer discussion. I didn't realize you were just forum boy trolling. With your obvious academic expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 20, 2016 #29 Share Posted October 20, 2016 16 hours ago, unclefred said: Sorry, I thought you were interested in more information and peer discussion. I didn't realize you were just forum boy trolling. With your obvious academic expertise. I'm interested. If there is real information that appears logical, and not conclusions drawn from a string of five or ten "maybe"s. I'm not pretending to be an expert, but I do know enough, and have read enough, to know that Mr Stephen Bax is basically just guessing. What actual percentage can he say that each "translation" is correct? What he's done isn't really any better then what Sitchen did with the Sumerian cruneiform tablets to conclude that civilization started by way of Aliens, called the Anunnaki, who came from a planet in our own solar system called Nibiru. All of which is complete BS. He's taking one thing (plants) that are in the drawings, and trying to match them (badly) to real life plants and then trying to stylize any of many names for each plant to try to fit it against the possible matches. It really is just grabbing and guessing. If that still does not make sense/logic to you, then it is I who am sorry that You, yourself, are the fanboy, and unable to realize that Mr Bax probably didn't translate anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted October 20, 2016 #30 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Ive read a little about this over the years. Wondering.....remember how da Vinci did mirror writing? I'm sure that over the course of history others have thought of the same thing. Has anyone ever tried reversing the text and THEN trying to decode it? Just a thought.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now