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

Harte
10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

most certainly. But the majority would have been around the Aegean basin. 

Such as the Peleset  (Philistines.)

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
14 hours ago, Harte said:

Such as the Peleset  (Philistines.)

Harte

i know where you are getting that from and you are just generalising again. the Egypt of those times was a powerful and dominate state that interacted and warred with many states. the Philistines to the best of my knowledge were not particularly renowned for sea travel and buccaneering. they might have joined in or they might have been land based and invaded Egypt for its obvious wealth and thus included as another invader.  

the Minoans and Mycenaeans were the dominate sea faring war mongers of the day and you shouldn't let your pride get in the way of a logical debate.  

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
On 5/15/2018 at 1:14 AM, Lord Harry said:

First line of the quote. The author discredited himself by using the term "hieroglyphics" instead of the proper and scholarly terminology "hieroglyphs." There is no reason to read any further. By using the term "hieroglyphics" ( which is an adjective and cannot be pluralized) the so called "researcher" revealed himself to be a charlatan. 

back it up there bro. spelling mistakes are never a indicator if someone is right or wrong. just saying you need to be more 'pacific' in your criticisms of another's views. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
On 5/18/2018 at 9:02 AM, jaylemurph said:

...if you're somehow using Homer as an historical source, you're not really using modern /or/ period sources correctly, and so not in a position to be dictating ethnicities of Greek subcultures.

even though you have a point about Homer writing after the fact by many centuries, i don't think its enough to completely dismiss Homer who was closer to the truth than we are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
28 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

back it up there bro. spelling mistakes are never a indicator if someone is right or wrong. just saying you need to be more 'pacific' in your criticisms of another's views. :) 

That isn’t a spelling mistake though, that’s a terminology mistake. 

Thata like a teacher not knowing the difference between Pedagogy and Curriculum or a police officer not knowing the difference between Assault and Theft.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

even though you have a point about Homer writing after the fact by many centuries, i don't think its enough to completely dismiss Homer who was closer to the truth than we are. 

By that argument, Richard Owen knew more about Dinosaurs than we did because he was closer to the truth (time wise) than we are.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
Just now, Captain Risky said:

even though you have a point about Homer writing after the fact by many centuries, i don't think its enough to completely dismiss Homer who was closer to the truth than we are. 

...clearly you need to read a little of the Greek Alexander Romance(s). They were only written a century or two after his death and have virtually /no/ historical value, despite being two millennia closer to Alexander's time than us. Temporal proximity is no guarantee of historical usefulness.

Also, there is no such thing as absolute historical truth. That concept tends to be thrown around by people who either don't know what they're talking about or have something to sell you.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
4 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

That isn’t a spelling mistake though, that’s a terminology mistake. 

Thata like a teacher not knowing the difference between Pedagogy and Curriculum or a police officer not knowing the difference between Assault and Theft.

nah i can't see it. please explain why it isn't a spelling mistake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
5 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

By that argument, Richard Owen knew more about Dinosaurs than we did because he was closer to the truth (time wise) than we are.

thats not a relevant example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
8 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

...clearly you need to read a little of the Greek Alexander Romance(s). They were only written a century or two after his death and have virtually /no/ historical value, despite being two millennia closer to Alexander's time than us. Temporal proximity is no guarantee of historical usefulness.

Also, there is no such thing as absolute historical truth. That concept tends to be thrown around by people who either don't know what they're talking about or have something to sell you.

--Jaylemurph

yeah I'm not a 100% on Troy either BUT the weird thing is that i watched this doco on the history channel that they found this ruined walled city in modern day Turkey that matches up with Homeric Troy. not saying that its Troy just that it is uncanny. the description of the city state Troy matches the Homer story.

I'm of the opinion that their is a little truth in every story. but its unimportant whether Troy is real or not its the identifiable factors like ethnicity, locations, thinking, reasons and personalities thats relevant to our discussion. generally i resist the urge to go off on tangents and i advice you to do the same and stick to the spirt of cordial discussion.   

nothing wrong with reading. i do it every chance i get. thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
17 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

nah i can't see it. please explain why it isn't a spelling mistake.  

Because the correct terminology for what he was referring to was ... “hieroglyphs”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
12 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

thats not a relevant example. 

No, it’s perfect because your argument is “he knew more because he was closer to the event”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Because the correct terminology for what he was referring to was ... “hieroglyphs”. 

maybe i just don't get it but it looks like a spelling mistake rather than two different definitions like you originally suggested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No, it’s perfect because your argument is “he knew more because he was closer to the event”. 

its about time perspective and not trying you be cleaver by twisting the argument around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

yeah I'm not a 100% on Troy either BUT the weird thing is that i watched this doco on the history channel that they found this ruined walled city in modern day Turkey that matches up with Homeric Troy. not saying that its Troy just that it is uncanny. the description of the city state Troy matches the Homer story.

I'm of the opinion that their is a little truth in every story. but its unimportant whether Troy is real or not its the identifiable factors like ethnicity, locations, thinking, reasons and personalities thats relevant to our discussion. generally i resist the urge to go off on tangents and i advice you to do the same and stick to the spirt of cordial discussion.   

nothing wrong with reading. i do it every chance i get. thanks. 

Hi Risky

If it doesn't matter if the story is true then how could the description of a city matter? For the most part they all had streets, houses, retail ect so any found site could meet many of the descriptors of a nonexistent city.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

its about time perspective and not trying you be cleaver by twisting the argument around. 

Then maybe you should construct your position in a way that is beyond confusion(self inflicted confusion)

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
Just now, Captain Risky said:

its about time perspective and not trying you be cleaver by twisting the argument around. 

No, he's not "twisting." He's using it in exactly the same you did but in a way that highlights its ample intellectual short-comings. I believe the Shakespearean version of the term "hoist by your own petard."

--Jaylemurph 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

No, he's not "twisting." He's using it in exactly the same you did but in a way that highlights its ample intellectual short-comings. I believe the Shakespearean version of the term "hoist by your own petard."

--Jaylemurph 

you have rocks for brains if you think that Homer living within verbal memory of an event and Sir wearer of Hats living after 3200 years latter can be equalised. 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

you have rocks for brains if you think that Homer living within verbal memory of an event and Sir wearer of Hats living after 3200 years latter can be equalised. 

 

Indeed, as I, for example, am not blind unlike Homer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Indeed, as I, for example, am not blind unlike Homer.

not sure about that... you're posting like you drunk too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

not sure about that... you're posting like you drunk too much. 

... and the horse you rode in on son.... 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

you do realise that when that phrase was coined the horse was the dominate mode of transport? welcome to 2018 and the car. i wonder when we finally get autonomous vehicles and car ownership is a thing of the past whether the expression will be...

...and the rideshare company you used. ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
39 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

you have rocks for brains if you think that Homer living within verbal memory of an event and Sir wearer of Hats living after 3200 years latter can be equalised. 

 

...if you think Homer (if he even existed, which is a minority position in modern Classicism) was within living/verbal memory of the events that inspired his works, you yourself might need to re-assess your cranial contents.

--Jaylemurph

EDIT: It's a sign of a failing/poor argument that you result to such petty insults. One might think you've learned from the times threads get shut down when you do that, but there's little evidence to support that.

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
48 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

its about time perspective and not trying you be cleaver by twisting the argument around. 

It's a picky point but valid. You don't use "hieroglyphics" to refer to the style of that script because it's a noun, not an adjective. I had the same thing pounded into me when I was studying hieroglyphs.

So if you're looking at, say, a sarcophagus with an inscription on it, you would say, "This inscription is composed of hieroglyphs." Or if you want to use the modifier, you'd say, "This is hieroglyphic writing."

So, yes, very picky, but valid. It kind of hints at the legitimacy of the training and background a person has. But you know what? I work with Egyptologists, and every once in a while I hear them say "hieroglyphics."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

...if you think Homer (if he even existed, which is a minority position in modern Classicism) was within living/verbal memory of the events that inspired his works, you yourself might need to re-assess your cranial contents.

--Jaylemurph

EDIT: It's a sign of a failing/poor argument that you result to such petty insults. One might think you've learned from the times threads get shut down when you do that, but there's little evidence to support that.

hope i didn't hurt your feeling. 

 

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.