Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
The Puzzler

Egyptian evidence in Australia

722 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The Puzzler

Thank you avs76 for that link, it was pretty out there except for this sentence which is probably right: The Pyramids at Tin Can Bay were also destroyed, bulldozed into the ocean by the army in the 1950's. The his-story as the powers to be wanted it, was going to stay the way it had been since Captain Cook arrived, those that have discovered and spoken the truth have either died mysteriously or been frightened or manipulated into silence.

I will take notes on the website, it incorporates many of my interests into one whole package, thanks.

...and thanks also 1.618 for yours, very nice link about his reasons for doing the journeys, I'd never read his reasons or that he lived in Polynesia before. Good old Thor Heyerdahl and his papyrus reed raft, so what do the scholars say about his adventure kmt_sesh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan
The Boats Ra and Ra II

Ra II in the Kon-Tiki MuseumIn 1969 and 1970, Heyerdahl built two boats manufactured from papyrus and attempted to cross the Atlantic from Morocco in Africa. There has been much confusion about the purpose of these voyages. They were not, as it is often stated, an attempt to prove that Egyptians visited the New World in ancient times, something that Heyerdahl himself found unlikely. Instead, they were meant to test the possibility that vessels made of buoyant reeds were seaworthy. Such boats of various sizes were in use in a number of culture areas around the world in ancient times. Based on drawings and models from ancient Egypt, the first boat, named Ra, was constructed by boatbuilders from Lake Chad in the Republic of Chad using reed obtained from Lake Tana in Ethiopia and launched into the Atlantic Ocean from the coast of Morocco. After a number of weeks, Ra took on water after its crew made modifications to the vessel that caused it to sag and break apart. The ship was abandoned and the following year, another similar vessel, Ra II was built by boatmen from Lake Titicaca in Bolivia and likewise set sail across the Atlantic from Morocco, this time with great success. A book, The Ra Expeditions, and a film documentary were made about the voyages.

Apart from the primary aspects of the expedition, Heyerdahl deliberately selected a crew representing a great diversity in race, nationality, religion and political viewpoint in order to demonstrate that at least on their own little floating island, people could cooperate and live peacefully. Additionally, the expedition took samples of ocean pollution and presented their report to the United Nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

weareallsuckers wrote:

...just hypothetically....is a stick figure man part of any heiroglyphic writings? See pic I attached.

LOL That is a pretty simple-looking stick figure, isn't it? Like something a five-year-old boy would draw. You'll certainly find stick figures in Egyptian artwork, but not like that. For example, in this prehistoric petroglyph from the Wadi Hammamat in the Eastern Desert, you can see the figure standing in the large boat. Much later in time are the unusual sticklike figures in the decorations of the burial chamber of Tuthmosis III, from Dynasty 18, which look like this. Even in simplest form actual Egyptian figures, whether prehistoric or dynastic, tend to be shown with some character and definition.

In the same photo as the stick-man and to his left is another ambiguious figure. It reminds me of a large dog with a bedsheet over it. ^_^ The only thing I can think of that's close to it is the hieroglyph of the recumbent lion, which when transliterated represents the sound rw (and was also used as an "L" when writing the names of foreigners, as the ancient Egyptian language didn't posses the sound "L"). However, the odd-looking figure in this scene has no context for such a use and I would say it's not an Egyptian hieroglyph at all.

<a href="http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/date/shared_...s/pilbarawa.pdf" target="_blank">http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/date/shared_...s/pilbarawa.pdf</a> That link gives an idea on how they are dating Western Australian petroglyphs.

Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading that PDF.

...from what I know Cro-Magnon man was never in Nth America or Australia. Unless they mean this style with circle/slash originated in France in Cro-Magnon era? Is there something I am missing in the link between Cro-Magnon and the 2 pictures do you think?

Admittedly I haven't studied Cro-Magnons since my college days, where I took up a lot of anthropology for a minor, so I am hardly an authority on the subject. However, like you, I am unfamiliar with the Cro-Magnons living outside Europe. If the circle-and-slash motif is known from the Cro-Magnons and has been found in other parts of the world, my own first question would be: would a circle and slash necessarily have to be unique to people living 40,000 years ago in France?

Can you let me know also what you make of the above. Being familiar with Ra you may have an alternative explanation to this.

All I can say is that sun-worship was extremely common among ancient societies all over the world. And not so ancient, for that matter. It is still practiced among many traditional Native Americans. I grew up around a lot of Lakota people in the Northern Plains, for instance, and every year they still hold their Sun Dance ritual. And I'm not too struck by similar-sounding words and names that can be found around the world, given that the human vocal organs are capable of producing only so many sounds in communication. While Ur is one of the most ancient sites in Mesopotamia and an important temple setting all the way back into the protohistory of Iraq, the sound "ur" is a very simple root. The same is true for Ra or Re, which cannot even be spelled accurately in Western languages because it represents a sound that doesn't exist in most of our languages (the Semitic ayin); we have to resort to "Ra" or "Re" in our clumsy attempt to represent it, and yet it, too, is a very simple root in many languages.

"...The geologist Christian O'Brien argued that these [ancient Hebrew and Sumerian] texts describe a race of beings called Shining Ones - his translation of the Hebrew word Elohim.

The problem here, to begin with, is that "Elohim" is a collective noun and not usually a plural word in ancient Hebrew religious writings. When writing "Elohim" the Judaic scribes were not referring to a multitude of beings. Admittedly, in the Old Testament, "Elohim" is used as a plural of the word "Eloah" but as a prohibition against the worship of pagan, polytheistic gods, so we see its cautionary usage here. Mr. O'Brien's theory reminds me an awful lot of Sitchin and his Anunnaki. "Elohim" is used over 2,000 times in the Old Testament but rarely does it convey the plural sense. This is actually the general rule for the equivalent word in Sumerian, too. I'm not familiar with O'Brien's work but I am with Sitchin's, and he's not someone I can take seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan

hah! armchair geologists and archaeologists and paleantologists and linguists.....we are!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
hah! armchair geologists and archaeologists and paleantologists and linguists.....we are!!!

Absolutely!!! LOL

By the way, thanks for linking the photos before!

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

Thank you kmt_sesh for your excellent answers. Have you seen the apparent translation of what the Gosford hieroglyphics mean?

From: http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptaustralia.html (Now Crystalinks is not the most esteemed website but this is what they have been interpreted as by Ray Johnson.

The hieroglyphs were extremely ancient, in the archaic style of the early dynasties.

This archaic style is very little known and untranslatable by most Egyptologists who are all trained to read Middle Egyptian upward.

The classic Egyptian dictionaries only handle Middle Egyptian, and there are few people in the world who can read and translate the early formative style.

Because the old style contains early forms of glyphs that correlate with archaic Phoenician and Sumerian sources one can see how the university researchers who saw them could so easily have thought them to be bizarre and ill-conceived forgeries.

The ageing Egyptologist Ray Johnson, who had translated extremely ancient texts for the Museum of Antiquities in Cairo eventually was successful in documenting and translating the two facing walls of Egyptian characters - which stemmed from the Third Dynasty.

The rock walls chronicle a tragic saga of ancient explorers shipwrecked in a strange and hostile land, and the untimely death of their royal leader, "Lord Djes-eb".

A group of three cartouches (framed clusters of glyphs) record the name of "RA-JEDEF" as reigning King of the Upper and Lower Nile, and son of 'Khufu' who, in turn, is son of the King 'Sneferu'.

This dates the expedition just after the reign of King Khufu - known in the Greek as "Cheops" alleged builder of the Great Pyramid.

Lord Djes-eb may have actually been one of the sons of the Pharaoh Ra Djedef, who reigned after Khufu.

Egyptian Dynasties

The hieroglyphic text was apparently written under the instruction of a ship's captain or similar, with the corner glyph on the wall displaying the title of a high official or chief priest.

The scribe is speaking for his Highness, the Prince, from this wretched place where we were carried by ship. The expedition's leader, is described in the inscriptions as the King's son, 'Lord Djes-eb', who came to grief a long way from home. The hieroglyphics sketch his journey and his tragic demise. Burial rituals, prayers and preparations are described.

For two seasons he made my way westward, weary, but strong to the end.

Always praying, joyful, and smiting insects.

He, the servant of God, said God brought the insects.

Have gone around hills and deserts, in wind and rain, with no lakes at hand.

He was killed while carrying the Golden Falcon Standard up front in a foreign land, crossing mountains, desert and water along the way.

He, who died before, is here laid to rest.

May he have life everlasting. He is never again to stand beside the waters of the Sacred Mer. Mer meaning 'love'.

There was a moat around the pyramid called the "waters of Mer".

The second facing wall, which was much more seriously eroded, details the tragedy further.

This wall begins with the badly eroded glyph of a snake (Heft), with a glyph of jaws (to bite) and the symbol for 'twice'.

The snake bit twice.

Those followers of the diving Lord 'Khufu', mighty one of Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Adzes, not all shall return.

We must go forward and not look back.

All the creek and river beds are dry. Our boat is damaged and tied up with rope.

Death was caused by snake.

We gave egg-yolk from the medicine-chest and prayed to Amen, the Hidden One, for he was struck twice.

We walled in the side entrance to the chamber with stones from all around.

We aligned the chamber with the Western Heavens.

The three doors of eternity were connected to the rear end of the royal tomb and sealed in.

We placed beside it a vessel, the holy offering, should he awaken from the tomb.

Separated from home is the Royal body and all others.

Here is inscribed the extraordinary story of the death and burial of 'Lord Djes-eb' one of the sons of the Pharaoh Ra Djedef.

I reread your earlier post describing the incorrectness of the cartouches and serekhs, where above it states that these are cartouches but you say they are a serekh and should be in a cartouche. I can see they are a square serekh, not an oval cartouche. I have read that serekhs were used before cartouches when Sneferu introduced them in the 4th Dynasty. If this is an ancient 3rd dynasty form of hieroglyph it makes sense they are in a serekh not a cartouche? yes? It does say the story dates from after Khufu. The hieroglyphs tell a story from the 4th Dynasty it seems in 3rd Dynasty hieroglyphs. What do you think of that explanation? Do you think that Egyptologist Ray Johnson got it wrong?

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.618
hah! armchair geologists and archaeologists and paleantologists and linguists.....we are!!!

The good thing about being armchair ....ists is thatw e can discuss things that proper ...ists would not because we don't have reputations at stake. We are freeeeeeee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
The hieroglyphs were extremely ancient, in the archaic style of the early dynasties.

This archaic style is very little known and untranslatable by most Egyptologists who are all trained to read Middle Egyptian upward.

The classic Egyptian dictionaries only handle Middle Egyptian, and there are few people in the world who can read and translate the early formative style.

There are serious problems with this theory if the inscription is supposed to date to Djedefra ("Ra Djedef" from your post) or even to his father, Khufu, before him. It is correct to say that the archaic form of hieroglyphs are difficult to read, even to trained scholars, but by the time of Sneferu, Khufu, and Djedefre (early Dynasty 4) hieroglyphs had been standardized. They are no longer what one would call "archaic." Inscriptions from Dynasty 1 and Dynasty 2 of the Early Dynastic period can present quite a challenge, but even by late Dynasty 3 hieroglyphic writing was well beyond its formative stage.

It's true that most Egyptologists are trained in Middle Egyptian, as are laypeople such as I, but Middle Egyptian grew out of the writing form of the Old Kingdom and most Old Kingdom inscriptions that are of a formal nature or are clearly written are not difficult to read. In fact, I personally am better able to translate Old Kingdom inscriptions than I am the inscriptions of later periods. In other words, an Egyptologist or linguist trained in Middle Egyptian rarely has a problem translating Old Kingdom hieroglyphs (the exception being something like extremely arcane or retrograde religious writings, which is true of most periods).

The two best dictionaries I own, Faulkner's A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian and the classic German Wörterbuch, have been invaluable in assisting me in the translations of inscribed artifacts on display at the two museums where I am a docent. I should most clearly stress that I am not an expert at translations, but if I can make a go of it, a properly trained and schooled Egyptologist certainly can.

Because the old style contains early forms of glyphs that correlate with archaic Phoenician and Sumerian sources one can see how the university researchers who saw them could so easily have thought them to be bizarre and ill-conceived forgeries.

LOL When I read that I realized that the same thing had been posted much earlier somewhere in this thread, and I had written a response to it. No matter. This quote kind of confuses me, unless I'm misreading it. The Phoenicians did not even become a significant kingdom till around 1200 BCE (over 1,300 years after the time of Khufu) and are most likely a development of Canaanite cultures native to that area of the Levant. To cut it short, the Phoenicians didn't even exist yet; nor, I believe, did any form of writing in that area of the Levant. In fact, most scholars believe the sophisticated form of writing the Phoenicians used ultimately originated, at least in large part, from Egyptian hieroglyphs; this origin of their writing is the consonantal script called Proto-Sinaitic (a.k.a., Proto-Canaanite).

As for Sumerian, it is an entirely different language from ancient Egyptian, both in speech and in writing. In fact, to this day scholars have been unable to identify to which language family Sumerian belonged. It's possible the Egyptians got the idea of writing from the Sumerians, an argument for which scholars have reached no consensus as of yet, but one thing on which nearly all scholars agree is that Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs have no relation.

The ageing Egyptologist Ray Johnson, who had translated extremely ancient texts for the Museum of Antiquities in Cairo eventually was successful in documenting and translating the two facing walls of Egyptian characters - which stemmed from the Third Dynasty.

When I started reading the translation I realized I had already read it once before--probably in the same post from somewhere earlier in this thread. Anyway, I am not familiar with an "ageing Egyptologist" named Ray Johnson. Do we know anything about his pedigree or training and university studies? I have met the modern Ray Johnson, current director of the Chicago House in Luxor, Egypt, whose lectures I have attended at the Oriental Institute here in Chicago (the Chicago House is based out of the O.I.). LOL I can promise you they're not the same men. For one thing, the Dr. Johnson I know is relatively young, and for another, his specialty is epigraphy and he is an expert in Egypt's ancient languages. He would not find the Australian example credible.

I was trying to find Dr. Johnson's web page on the O.I. website just now but came up with something more interesting. I stumbled across this web page which offers many of the same counterarguments I presented earlier about the Australian inscription. The author of this page is incorrect in stating that the Son of Re epithet dates to Dynasty 5, but other than that I think it's a good read.

In any case I have read the translation before. I would agree with the author of the above-mentioned web page that most of it doesn't say anything at all. I would also offer that whoever carved it into those rocks, had at one point read the ancient Egyptian tale "The Shipwrecked Sailor" and was perhaps inspired by it. I am of course implying a modern forgery--not a shipwrecked Egyptian sailor who liked the story. This tale dates to the Middle Kingdom, long after the time of Dynasty 4. A lot of the translation strikes me as a fanciful modern attempt at ancient Egyptian literature, and some of it is just plain wrong (such as the title "Lord of the Two Adzes," which is not something I have ever seen inscribed for an Egyptian king).

I have read that serekhs were used before cartouches when Sneferu introduced them in the 4th Dynasty. If this is an ancient 3rd dynasty form of hieroglyph it makes sense they are in a serekh not a cartouche? yes? It does say the story dates from after Khufu. The hieroglyphs tell a story from the 4th Dynasty it seems in 3rd Dynasty hieroglyphs. What do you think of that explanation? Do you think that Egyptologist Ray Johnson got it wrong?

Sneferu did not introduce the cartouche. There is evidence on a fragmentary sealing found in mastaba K12 (at Beit Khallaf) that a late Dynasty 3 king with the Horus name of Sanakht was the first to use the cartouch for his nswt-bity name. On the fragment is but a corner of a cartouche with the ka glyph, and scholars believe his nswt-bity name was Nebka. Even if Sanakht wasn't the first to use the cartouche, it is undisputed that Huni was; he was the last king of Dynasty 3, right before the reign of Sneferu and the start of Dynasty 4. By the time of Khufu and Djedefre the titulary was established and the serekh was used only for the king's Horus name. Any scribe writing a king's name in early Dynasty 4 would use the conventions of the time and would never put the king's birth name or throne name inside a serekh. I do believe this fellow Ray Johnson got it wrong because scribes, while often writing about events of the past, would never revert to archaic glyphs for a formal inscription. There is not a big difference in the first place between glyphs of Dynasty 3 and of Dynasty 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
I have heard of the pyramid at Gympie and from what I know it still exists, although it has been vandalised extensively. I had no idea there were other pyramids in the area once upon a time and I grew up a couple of hours drive from Tin Can Bay (it's a lovely part of the world, by the way). So I looked and found a couple of things:

"The Pyramids at Tin Can Bay were also destroyed, bulldozed into the ocean by the army in the 1950's." source and another. Dodgy sources, I know, but it is all I could find.

This site discusses a book and has some cool pics: here

I don't know anything about the government trying to cover it up and I won't bother trying to find that at the moment as we are close to a federal election and the bull is flying thick and fast. There are plenty of people willing to whinge about something sinister that the government is up to.

Avs

I have not heard about that Government covering these things up, my wife lived in Gympie for many years and still has friends there. I do know another Gympie Pyramid was destroyed to make way for a Townhouse development in the early 80's. I understand the council does not recognise them as having any historical significance.

As this feature has no entrance, appears to have no internal structure - is it still a pyramid? It's just a hill isnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
avs76
I have not heard about that Government covering these things up, my wife lived in Gympie for many years and still has friends there. I do know another Gympie Pyramid was destroyed to make way for a Townhouse development in the early 80's. I understand the council does not recognise them as having any historical significance.

As this feature has no entrance, appears to have no internal structure - is it still a pyramid? It's just a hill isnt it?

Interesting point - just what constitutes a pyramid? There are plenty of hills around that are shaped like, well, hills. Yet they are called pyramids.

Avs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
There are serious problems with this theory if the inscription is supposed to date to Djedefra ("Ra Djedef" from your post) or even to his father, Khufu, before him. It is correct to say that the archaic form of hieroglyphs are difficult to read, even to trained scholars, but by the time of Sneferu, Khufu, and Djedefre (early Dynasty 4) hieroglyphs had been standardized. They are no longer what one would call "archaic." Inscriptions from Dynasty 1 and Dynasty 2 of the Early Dynastic period can present quite a challenge, but even by late Dynasty 3 hieroglyphic writing was well beyond its formative stage.

It's true that most Egyptologists are trained in Middle Egyptian, as are laypeople such as I, but Middle Egyptian grew out of the writing form of the Old Kingdom and most Old Kingdom inscriptions that are of a formal nature or are clearly written are not difficult to read. In fact, I personally am better able to translate Old Kingdom inscriptions than I am the inscriptions of later periods. In other words, an Egyptologist or linguist trained in Middle Egyptian rarely has a problem translating Old Kingdom hieroglyphs (the exception being something like extremely arcane or retrograde religious writings, which is true of most periods).

The two best dictionaries I own, Faulkner's A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian and the classic German Wörterbuch, have been invaluable in assisting me in the translations of inscribed artifacts on display at the two museums where I am a docent. I should most clearly stress that I am not an expert at translations, but if I can make a go of it, a properly trained and schooled Egyptologist certainly can.

LOL When I read that I realized that the same thing had been posted much earlier somewhere in this thread, and I had written a response to it. No matter. This quote kind of confuses me, unless I'm misreading it. The Phoenicians did not even become a significant kingdom till around 1200 BCE (over 1,300 years after the time of Khufu) and are most likely a development of Canaanite cultures native to that area of the Levant. To cut it short, the Phoenicians didn't even exist yet; nor, I believe, did any form of writing in that area of the Levant. In fact, most scholars believe the sophisticated form of writing the Phoenicians used ultimately originated, at least in large part, from Egyptian hieroglyphs; this origin of their writing is the consonantal script called Proto-Sinaitic (a.k.a., Proto-Canaanite).

As for Sumerian, it is an entirely different language from ancient Egyptian, both in speech and in writing. In fact, to this day scholars have been unable to identify to which language family Sumerian belonged. It's possible the Egyptians got the idea of writing from the Sumerians, an argument for which scholars have reached no consensus as of yet, but one thing on which nearly all scholars agree is that Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs have no relation.

When I started reading the translation I realized I had already read it once before--probably in the same post from somewhere earlier in this thread. Anyway, I am not familiar with an "ageing Egyptologist" named Ray Johnson. Do we know anything about his pedigree or training and university studies? I have met the modern Ray Johnson, current director of the Chicago House in Luxor, Egypt, whose lectures I have attended at the Oriental Institute here in Chicago (the Chicago House is based out of the O.I.). LOL I can promise you they're not the same men. For one thing, the Dr. Johnson I know is relatively young, and for another, his specialty is epigraphy and he is an expert in Egypt's ancient languages. He would not find the Australian example credible.

I was trying to find Dr. Johnson's web page on the O.I. website just now but came up with something more interesting. I stumbled across this web page which offers many of the same counterarguments I presented earlier about the Australian inscription. The author of this page is incorrect in stating that the Son of Re epithet dates to Dynasty 5, but other than that I think it's a good read.

In any case I have read the translation before. I would agree with the author of the above-mentioned web page that most of it doesn't say anything at all. I would also offer that whoever carved it into those rocks, had at one point read the ancient Egyptian tale "The Shipwrecked Sailor" and was perhaps inspired by it. I am of course implying a modern forgery--not a shipwrecked Egyptian sailor who liked the story. This tale dates to the Middle Kingdom, long after the time of Dynasty 4. A lot of the translation strikes me as a fanciful modern attempt at ancient Egyptian literature, and some of it is just plain wrong (such as the title "Lord of the Two Adzes," which is not something I have ever seen inscribed for an Egyptian king).

Sneferu did not introduce the cartouche. There is evidence on a fragmentary sealing found in mastaba K12 (at Beit Khallaf) that a late Dynasty 3 king with the Horus name of Sanakht was the first to use the cartouch for his nswt-bity name. On the fragment is but a corner of a cartouche with the ka glyph, and scholars believe his nswt-bity name was Nebka. Even if Sanakht wasn't the first to use the cartouche, it is undisputed that Huni was; he was the last king of Dynasty 3, right before the reign of Sneferu and the start of Dynasty 4. By the time of Khufu and Djedefre the titulary was established and the serekh was used only for the king's Horus name. Any scribe writing a king's name in early Dynasty 4 would use the conventions of the time and would never put the king's birth name or throne name inside a serekh. I do believe this fellow Ray Johnson got it wrong because scribes, while often writing about events of the past, would never revert to archaic glyphs for a formal inscription. There is not a big difference in the first place between glyphs of Dynasty 3 and of Dynasty 4.

Well it certainly seems you know what you are talking about. The webpage you gave did give good info and I noted you had mentioned some it as you say. I do think they are forgeries as I said earlier, the stick figure man is a give away hey? lol. Anyways thanks for your time on this, it made me aware of the actual inconsistencies with it instead of just the usual, they must be fakes, I need to delve deep to make my final decisions and I believe you have persuaded me these are indeed forgeries. The Crystalinks web page was on this thread before but I wanted to readdress it with you personally so thank you for your time on it. Nevertheless, it does not (yet) shake my belief that Egyptians or more likely Phoenicians could have been here, just that the hieroglyphics are absolute forgeries since there is many more things mentioned in those lists of 'evidences' I'm yet to be absolute about. Thanks kmt_sesh for your respect and genuine knowledge in answering my questions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
Interesting point - just what constitutes a pyramid? There are plenty of hills around that are shaped like, well, hills. Yet they are called pyramids.

Avs

We touched on this subject just a few pages back and it seems pyramid is just a word used to describe anything pyramid shaped, when actually many 'pyramids' are actually ziggurats or pyramid shaped structures. Many people think of a pyramid as being what Egyptians referred to as a pyramid when in fact a pyramid can be any structure whether or not it has an entrance or internals.

See avs76 post for the Wiki link to what is a pyramid.

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starscream
You are doing better than me. Are you able to let us know what it translates to so far?

yes it does not matter now, maybe someone can fill in the gaps?

this is the history of earth, each pill or capsule is the history and the

glyphs outside the pills was the knowledge each people had at that time,

the 1 first born men which are the two small upper right pills are before the created

the 3 light created people were 1st on the bottom then the 2nd near the middle and

the 3rd last ones on the top,they made history quick and adapted knowledge faster

the 1st men wrongy worship the reptiles? and the created ones are to help control

the reptiles and stop them from destroying 1 men so they can mine some resource?

linked-image

Edited by red_rum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
yes it does not matter now, maybe someone can fill in the gaps?

this is the history of earth, each pill or capsule is the history and the

glyphs outside the pills was the knowledge each people had at that time,

the 1 first born men which are the two small upper right pills are before the created

the 3 light created people were 1st on the bottom then the 2nd near the middle and

the 3rd last ones on the top,they made history quick and adapted knowledge faster

the 1st men wrongy worship the reptiles? and the created ones are to help control

the reptiles and stop them from destroying 1 men so they can mine some resource?

linked-image

Yes, it matters and I thank you for answering me, why did you post the pic of the Aboriginal cave drawing of the 'Shining Ones'? I am knowledable on them and what they represent, is it a reference to the Sumerians and the knowledge given to them by the Shining Ones? "made history quick and adapted faster knowledge". Since I have an interest in Raelianism I think that the Elohim link to the Shining Ones has some consideration. That picture in itself is very intriguing, why would Aboriginals paint anyone wearing a robe like that when they themselves only wore a loin string, if anything at all.......to me that tells me this picture is of a non Aboriginal person. Here's a site that is excellent information on the Shining Ones and also mentions them being mentioned in the Egyptian Book of the Dead although I'm sure you are probably already aware of this. http://www.ufoarea.com/lloyd_shiningones.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
Thanks kmt_sesh for your respect and genuine knowledge in answering my questions.

You're most welcome, weareallsuckers, and thanks for your input. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
We touched on this subject just a few pages back and it seems pyramid is just a word used to describe anything pyramid shaped, when actually many 'pyramids' are actually ziggurats or pyramid shaped structures. Many people think of a pyramid as being what Egyptians referred to as a pyramid when in fact a pyramid can be any structure whether or not it has an entrance or internals.

See avs76 post for the Wiki link to what is a pyramid.

The Egyptians did not call it Pyramids either, that is a definition we owe to a Greek traveler who compared them to "Pyramos", an old Greek sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
The Egyptians did not call it Pyramids either, that is a definition we owe to a Greek traveler who compared them to "Pyramos", an old Greek sweet.

LOL, I think weareallsuckers directed someone back to their own post.

Not stirring, I really want to know.

I was just interested what is the difference between a pyramid and a hill. When does it stop being a hill and become a pyramid? Obviously I am refering to the Gympie pyramid. That one held some wonder for me as the site is inaccessible............until Harte ruined the fantasy LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
LOL, I think weareallsuckers directed someone back to their own post.

Not stirring, I really want to know.

I was just interested what is the difference between a pyramid and a hill. When does it stop being a hill and become a pyramid? Obviously I am refering to the Gympie pyramid. That one held some wonder for me as the site is inaccessible............until Harte ruined the fantasy LOL.

Hi psyche :blush:

You know, it is a good thought, here's a hill that is a pyramid, right here in Far Nth Qld, I would only call a hill a hill even it was pyramidical if it was NOT man made, so I would call Walsh's Pyramid a hill (or mountain), not a pyramid. Any natural formation would not really be a pyramid in my opinion, even though it would still be technically a pyramid, Silbury Hill in UK, I would class as a pyramid, not a hill as it was man made.... http://www.cairnsattractions.com/a_walshs-pyramid.html

post-50813-1195107189_thumb.jpg

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Hi psyche :blush:

You know, it is a good thought, here's a hill that is a pyramid, right here in Far Nth Qld, I would only call a hill a hill even it was pyramidical if it was NOT man made, so I would call Walsh's Pyramid a hill (or mountain), not a pyramid. Any natural formation would not really be a pyramid in my opinion, even though it would still be technically a pyramid, Silbury Hill in UK, I would class as a pyramid, not a hill as it was man made.... <a href="http://www.cairnsattractions.com/a_walshs-pyramid.html" target="_blank">http://www.cairnsattractions.com/a_walshs-pyramid.html</a>

Hiya :D

Thanks, that makes alot of sense to me,

Man Made, or shaped structure = pyramid

Natural formation = hill.

Thanks again. I hope they will end up letting people onto the property, I only live about a 2.5 hr drive. I wouldn't mind a look at it myself as we travel there occassionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan

folks, i just came upon a website while using stumble upon...check it out

Oldest Ships found in Egyptian Desert

I dont know itf its true, but do have a look. maybe it could add to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan

now! who says that the egyptians only sailed on reed boats????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.618
now! who says that the egyptians only sailed on reed boats????

i know skeptics and such laugh at graham hancock but the discovery of the ships in egypt were on his website almost a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Spartan

dude that was an extremley evil post!!!! it was your 666th post!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
now! who says that the egyptians only sailed on reed boats????

Coredrill,

I don't know who says this.

Certainly I've never made this claim.

You would do well (considering the title of this thread) to read the info at your first link concerning these ships:

Florida State University anthropology professor Cheryl Ward has determined that wooden planks found in the manmade caves are about 4,000 years old - making them the world's most ancient ship timbers. Shipworms that had tunneled into the planks indicated the ships had weathered a long voyage of a few months, likely to the fabled southern Red Sea trading center of Punt, a place referenced in hieroglyphics on empty cargo boxes found in the caves, Ward said.

Evidence (so far) shows the ships were used for voyages of at most a few months. Australia is at least a year away by sail in on of these boats, if it held together that long (not likely.)

These particular boats apparently sailed to Yemen, which is in the group of sites considered as possibile locations of the unknown destination "Punt."

Now, who says Australia is Punt? A quick search will reveal this.

Must have had outboard motors on them to get to Australia. Prolly could find some hieroglyphics and pictures somewhere in OZ describing and depicting Ancient Egyptians waterskiing to Australia. Ask Rex Gilroy, I'm sure he could come up with something.

Harte

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.