Abramelin Posted March 29, 2012 #1676 Share Posted March 29, 2012 i had the mircea pdf. i hate to read it. its before i knew the man. can you find the new one from last year? or the sgem presentation? Man, jesus, SEARCH on the WWW. READ the doc I posted about. Maybe you can distill some new links from that. Be creative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted March 29, 2012 #1677 Share Posted March 29, 2012 i didn't say it didn't need to be smelted to product a smelted lead bead. i said it can happen very easily. you don't need a smelter. it cannot happen very easily with copper. why did lead smelting happen 1000 years before copper? as the original question was..... because its easy You did imply just that, that smelting as not required. However, I was pointing out that metal technology pre-dates smelting and in that at least QM is correct in that the oldest evidence for same comes from Anatolia, While you are correct about the oldest confirmed smelting coming from serbia. i think my question was are you familiar with copper in serbia. not people. how it comes out of the ground. is it native? does the article cover that? Ah. I mistakenly neglected to include this: http://www.minsocam.org/msa/collectors_corner/usgs/pp144_pp_141_146.htm 6th section, 9th entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules99 Posted March 29, 2012 #1678 Share Posted March 29, 2012 No, you are wrong: it's a big fat TWO. Well Nah...if no one knows anything we are down to only one type of people. But my comment was meant light hearted, Im not here to bicker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1679 Share Posted March 29, 2012 You did imply just that, that smelting as not required. However, I was pointing out that metal technology pre-dates smelting and in that at least QM is correct in that the oldest evidence for same comes from Anatolia, While you are correct about the oldest confirmed smelting coming from serbia. Ah. I mistakenly neglected to include this: http://www.minsocam.org/msa/collectors_corner/usgs/pp144_pp_141_146.htm 6th section, 9th entry. i meant you don't need to do anything special for lead. a normal campfire will melt it. its not smelting in the manly way. i was pretty heavily into reading about copper in the balkans and the HUGE granite kutels they used to break it down in. what an effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 29, 2012 #1680 Share Posted March 29, 2012 i meant you don't need to do anything special for lead. a normal campfire will melt it. its not smelting in the manly way. i was pretty heavily into reading about copper in the balkans and the HUGE granite kutels they used to break it down in. what an effort. smelt 1 [smelt] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to fuse or melt (ore) in order to separate the metal contained. 2. to obtain or refine (metal) in this way. source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1681 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Well Nah...if no one knows anything we are down to only one type of people. But my comment was meant light hearted, Im not here to bicker... you are supposed to whittle it down to 1 confirming the speaker is one of those that doesn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1682 Share Posted March 29, 2012 smelt 1 [smelt] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to fuse or melt (ore) in order to separate the metal contained. 2. to obtain or refine (metal) in this way. source i mean heatwise. manly. copper is 2000degrees. lead is 650. i know 650 is smelting but 2000deg is SMELTING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 29, 2012 #1683 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) you are supposed to whittle it down to 1 confirming the speaker is one of those that doesn't know. You are supposed to do some work, and come up with links. How about that, eh? Sorry, but you make me think of another member here, "Arbitran". He maybe has - I think - great ideas about Atlantis, but all he does is excuse himself for confusing us. It's irritating like hell. I don't need excuses, I prefer answers. Nobody has to kiss my ass, all I want is them to do their homework, and come up with something we all can chew on. . Edited March 29, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 29, 2012 #1684 Share Posted March 29, 2012 i mean heatwise. manly. copper is 2000degrees. lead is 650. i know 650 is smelting but 2000deg is SMELTING. Hey, what part of the dictionary excerpt above you don't get? Ever wondered why people get p***ed at you in discussions? Because you are so obsessed to be right that you refuse what the other person says by twisting posts in some other direction. That is why. If you are in a hole you should quit digging. Makes you come over as a reasonable person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1685 Share Posted March 29, 2012 You are supposed to do some work, and come up with links. How about that, eh? i would never have put the link to mircea up. its not that i wasn't doing the work, i just don't like it. the english is bad and one of them had a little too much influence. mircea publishes alone now. i posted another article by bela liptak after you posted yours that you say says there was no sea there. did you see it? shall i repost it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1686 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Hey, what part of the dictionary excerpt above you don't get? Ever wondered why people get p***ed at you in discussions? Because you are so obsessed to be right that you refuse what the other person says by twisting posts in some other direction. That is why. If you are in a hole you should quit digging. Makes you come over as a reasonable person. what hole. did i say something incorrect about smelting? you said the first smelter was in anatolia. i said no... there was one lead bead made by melting and no smelter. smelters are from serbia. i said you don't need a smelter to melt lead for a bead. a campfire will do. what was the dictionary bit for? what was it meant to prove? Edited March 29, 2012 by cern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 29, 2012 #1687 Share Posted March 29, 2012 what hole. did i say something incorrect about smelting? you said the first smelter was in anatolia. i said no... there was one lead bead made by melting and no smelter. smelters are from serbia. i said you don't need a smelter to melt lead for a bead. a campfire will do. what was the dictionary bit for? Because you evidently have no idea what the word means or did not take your prozac, that is why. Smelting is not at 2000 degrees nor at 4000 degrees, it is when metal melts, which in the case of mercury is -38, so you can extract it from impurities. We all accept the argument that you need more temperature to smelt copper, and even more to smelt iron but what we can't accept is that the dictionary needs to be changed because you want to be right (that is done enough when enough people are wrong, luckily so far only in the spelling). Besides this is not about smelting, it is your desperate attempt to confirm your false statement above that metallurgy first happened in Serbia, which is quite wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1688 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Because you evidently have no idea what the word means or did not take your prozac, that is why. Smelting is not at 2000 degrees nor at 4000 degrees, it is when metal melts, which in the case of mercury is -38, so you can extract it from impurities. We all accept the argument that you need more temperature to smelt copper, and even more to smelt iron but what we can't accept is that the dictionary needs to be changed because you want to be right (that is done enough when enough people are wrong, luckily so far only in the spelling). Besides this is not about smelting, it is your desperate attempt to confirm your false statement above that metallurgy first happened in Serbia, which is quite wrong. if the birth of metalurgy is melting lead then i very clearly said that was catal hyuk. a smelter used to smelt is a very specific thing and that happened in serbia with copper. you said there was a smelter at catal hyuk. there is a bead. no smelter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 29, 2012 #1689 Share Posted March 29, 2012 if the birth of metalurgy is melting lead then i very clearly said that was catal hyuk. a smelter used to smelt is a very specific thing and that happened in serbia with copper. you said there was a smelter at catal hyuk. there is a bead. no smelter. Does a smelter have a certain form? No. It is a device where you can heat up metal. In the case of lead it could have been a ceramics shard. In fact any of the these pots: found there could be a smelter. Besides, a cast lead bead needs to be liquid, where we are again a the dictionary definition Ah, how I love these guys who need to be right at all cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted March 29, 2012 #1690 Share Posted March 29, 2012 they are all geologists. they work for the government. it pays them to go to conference and talk about a variety of things like coal and gas and potash. lately they have been paid to talk about atlantis. that date seems pretty precise. do you recon they just popped that out of their ear? geologists are always doing that. Cern, the excerpt in question refers to the "Great Flood" as though it were a solid historical event ("...whose shore maintained till the Great Flood [thus until about9.541 + 2008 =11.549 yearsago]"). The Great Flood is biblical, not historical. There is no geological evidence that the entire Earth was ever completely flooded. This alone disqualifies the premise as anything historically reputable. No real scientist or historian in positing a theory for peer-review, for example, would ever suggest the Great Flood was an actual event. It doesn't help when the subsequent line reads "the Key to Locate the Atlantis in the Middle Danube Depression." This is not really historical research, in the most technical of terms. It's fringe. Hence Abramelin's earlier reference to von Däniken. I agree with him. I think Abramelin and others have more than conclusively demonstrated that all of these references to the Pannonian Sea are not the ancient lake itself but the delta and marshy region that developed from it. You seem to be trying to turn a legal battle about a swamp and its flora and fauna into some kind of evidence for Atlantis, and it most certainly has fallen flat. You've given it a hell of a shot but the other posters have been able to refute it. I might not fully understand your excited reaction to the video to which you linked us earlier. You do understand that this is from Cities of the Underworld, do you not? This was a History Channel program. While very entertaining and something which I used to enjoy watching, this is not solid science to begin with. It's TV. It's for ratings. Much or most of the information might even be correct, but a TV program is not to be taken as valid for historical research. And look at the state of the History Channel now. It's almost completely unwatchable. For your own benefit, do not regard a TV show as evidence for much of anything. Damn, it's hard keeping up with this thread. In fact, I cannot. At best I can skim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 29, 2012 #1691 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I might not fully understand your excited reaction to the video to which you linked us earlier. You do understand that this is from Cities of the Underworld, do you not? This was a History Channel program. While very entertaining and something which I used to enjoy watching, this is not solid science to begin with. It's TV. It's for ratings. Much or most of the information might even be correct, but a TV program is not to be taken as valid for historical research. And look at the state of the History Channel now. It's almost completely unwatchable. For your own benefit, do not regard a TV show as evidence for much of anything. Hey kmt, you are spoiling the fun here, Pistory Channel evidence is the best you can get to know that somebody is trying to take you for a ride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1692 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Does a smelter have a certain form? No. It is a device where you can heat up metal. In the case of lead it could have been a ceramics shard. In fact any of the these pots: found there could be a smelter. Besides, a cast lead bead needs to be liquid, where we are again a the dictionary definition Ah, how I love these guys who need to be right at all cost yes a copper smelter from serbia has a specific form. if any old pot is a smelter why isn't catal hyuk credited with the first smelter? lots of burnt pots there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 29, 2012 #1693 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) yes a copper smelter from serbia has a specific form. if any old pot is a smelter why isn't catal hyuk credited with the first smelter? lots of burnt pots there. Now we are getting somewhere so, according to you, because a copper smelter in Serbia has a certain form this: is not a smelter? or this is not a smelter? Edit, and does it not make sense to you that, if there is a piece of smelted metal somewhere that they needed to do it in something? Besides the Serbian smelters are not credited to be the first but to be the oldest known. Which is not quite the same. Edited March 29, 2012 by questionmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 29, 2012 #1694 Share Posted March 29, 2012 i would never have put the link to mircea up. its not that i wasn't doing the work, i just don't like it. the english is bad and one of them had a little too much influence. mircea publishes alone now. i posted another article by bela liptak after you posted yours that you say says there was no sea there. did you see it? shall i repost it? OK, I am sorry, I must have missed that. Please repost that link. Man, I am so hammereed now I am glad I am even able to find the right keys to post this message to you. You also better Quote some part of it. People truellly hate to click links. But when you quote from that link, then they will be curious and try out your link. (You have no idea: I am so ****ed upp now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1695 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Hey kmt, you are spoiling the fun here, Pistory Channel evidence is the best you can get to know that somebody is trying to take you for a ride like the ride you tried to take everyone on about mesolithic origin of polish stone? and weaving in georgia? and on and on... i didn't see her post. was i excited by the video? i think all i said was in the sixth minute they talked about it. the data according to the credit is from the national acedemy in budapest. what excitment? i'm not excited at all about anything. you all however have experienced surprise and now you are all angry. thats classic greek stuff there isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 29, 2012 #1696 Share Posted March 29, 2012 like the ride you tried to take everyone on about mesolithic origin of polish stone? and weaving in georgia? and on and on... i didn't see her post. was i excited by the video? i think all i said was in the sixth minute they talked about it. the data according to the credit is from the national acedemy in budapest. what excitment? i'm not excited at all about anything. you all however have experienced surprise and now you are all angry. thats classic greek stuff there isn't it. Hey, you know what? You are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1697 Share Posted March 29, 2012 OK, I am sorry, I must have missed that. Please repost that link. Man, I am so hammereed now I am glad I am even able to find the right keys to post this message to you. You also better Quote some part of it. People truellly hate to click links. But when you quote from that link, then they will be curious and try out your link. (You have no idea: I am so ****ed upp now ah. got it. happy to hear it. i will repost it. probably not a big hurry for that is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1698 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Hey, you know what? You are right. does archaeology excite you still? do new finds like this that are unexpected really get your juices flowing anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 29, 2012 #1699 Share Posted March 29, 2012 ah. got it. happy to hear it. i will repost it. probably not a big hurry for that is there. Youu got it. Now wherre is that link? I am not the kind of giy to beg for info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cern Posted March 29, 2012 #1700 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Youu got it. Now wherre is that link? I am not the kind of giy to beg for info. wow for a guy you sure remind me of my wife. "Environmental stakes in this case are high: The wetlands involved are the remains of the only inland delta in Europe. This delta has survived since the last Ice Age, when the Pannon Sea filled the Carpathian Basin. Some 400 unique species have survived from that time. Today, in the Szigetkoz ("the region of a thousand islands" in Hungarian), not a single island remains. Since the rerouting, there is no water." bela liptak 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