Egyptian evidence in Australia

[Abramelin]

Say Crystal, what brand of pot do you smoke when you do your 'research'? LOL.

Hints of dingos in Egypt? Where??

The sites you link to, IF they talk about some lost city in Australia, just copy and paste from other sites who also don't give a source; in that way it is just a rumour spread around the internet. "If you repeat a lie long enough, it will become a truth".

This is not anything resembling research: it's Googling till your eyes water, hoping to find sites which talk about Egypt and Australia in one single article, and appearently any site will do...

I think you are just teasing the hell out of us all here, hahaha !!

Edited July 29, 2009 by Abramelin

[crystal sage]

Say Crystal, what brand of pot do you smoke when you do your 'research'? LOL.

Hints of dingos in Egypt? Where??

The sites you link to, IF they talk about some lost city in Australia, just copy and paste from other sites who also don't give a source; in that way it is just a rumour spread around the internet. "If you repeat a lie long enough, it will become a truth".

This is not anything resembling research: it's Googling till your eyes water, hoping to find sites which talk about Egypt and Australia in one single article, and appearently any site will do...

I think you are just teasing the hell out of us all here, hahaha !!

trying to keep separate from the rest of the family.. they all have the flu....

there are many similarities to the basenji and the dingo...

http://www.basenjisrus.com.au/pages/about_basenjis.htm

Basenji & Pariah breeds: Africa's ancient pariah dog, the basenji shares traits with natural dogs such as the dingo and New Guinea singing dog,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basenji

Edited July 29, 2009 by crystal sage

[crystal sage]

Edited July 29, 2009 by crystal sage

[Mattshark]

Instead of looking at what is basically a feral domestic dog here I think this is better.

[Abramelin]

Look Crystal, as some kind of 'proof' you post photos of dogs from other continents.

Humans have travelled all over the world for millenia, and his best friend was... the dog. So you will find dogs in ancient America, Asia, Europe, and Australia.

We people look alike all over the world, so do dogs. People from all over the worlkd can interbreed, and so can dogs. Why? Because we people are one species, like dogs are, no 'races' here.

Just because there is a light brown dog running outside my window here in Holland, does that mean some ancient Australian landed here thousands of years ago? No.

All this is nothing but connecting bits and pieces from around the world, things that can be explained in less spectacular ways. People want spectacle, people want to be entertained, so people want to believe, and tend to see certain things as proof of their belief.

And as you will certainly know, belief has nothing to do with scientific research.

[Mattshark]

Crystal, the dingo is Canis lupus dingo, it is bred from wolves, in fact species wise it is a wolf. The golden jackal is Canis aureus. They are not the same and genetics on the dingo have shown it conclusively to just be basically a feral domestic dog.

[TheSearcher]

Ah yes... the dingo connection...

Dingoes arrived in Australia about 6,000 years ago, from China.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress...ago-from-china/

There are hints that there happen to be dingos in Egypt too...

There are canines all over the world, it stands to reason that they spread around the world in about the same period as man did, as they were amongst the first domesticated animals. But as far as I know man arrived in Australia between 50.000 and 30.000 years ago, not 6.000 years. Which is the generally accepted time frame.

And there are canines in Egypt, yes, but they are not dingos, although I will admit that they might have had a common ancestor, which explains the similar treats they share.

and of course we know that the ancient Egyptians traveled to America too..

I wonder if their graffiti of heiroglyphs are similar to the Australian examples... with the same errors?

It could have been the same group... or from similar times...

No, we don't know this. There are indications that there were contacts between the ancient world and the american continent, but this is not proven in any way yet. It's theory at best, no definite proof has been found. To say we 'know' is quite a leap.

[crystal sage]

There are canines all over the world, it stands to reason that they spread around the world in about the same period as man did, as they were amongst the first domesticated animals. But as far as I know man arrived in Australia between 50.000 and 30.000 years ago, not 6.000 years. Which is the generally accepted time frame.

And there are canines in Egypt, yes, but they are not dingos, although I will admit that they might have had a common ancestor, which explains the similar treats they share.

No, we don't know this. There are indications that there were contacts between the ancient world and the american continent, but this is not proven in any way yet. It's theory at best, no definite proof has been found. To say we 'know' is quite a leap.

... hence the wink.. ... there have been many threads arguing similar stories of the Egyptian American connection...

[crystal sage]

Look Crystal, as some kind of 'proof' you post photos of dogs from other continents.

Humans have travelled all over the world for millenia, and his best friend was... the dog. So you will find dogs in ancient America, Asia, Europe, and Australia.

We people look alike all over the world, so do dogs. People from all over the worlkd can interbreed, and so can dogs. Why? Because we people are one species, like dogs are, no 'races' here.

Just because there is a light brown dog running outside my window here in Holland, does that mean some ancient Australian landed here thousands of years ago? No.

All this is nothing but connecting bits and pieces from around the world, things that can be explained in less spectacular ways. People want spectacle, people want to be entertained, so people want to believe, and tend to see certain things as proof of their belief.

And as you will certainly know, belief has nothing to do with scientific research.

It appears that a good 30% of scientific research is questionable... artificially designed to prove beliefs.. to capture sponsorship.. to pander for ' peer approval'.. to keep jobs... carelessness...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10...al.pone.0005738

There can be little doubt about the fraudulent nature of fabrication, but falsification is a more problematic category. Scientific results can be distorted in several ways, which can often be very subtle and/or elude researchers' conscious control. Data, for example, can be “cooked” (a process which mathematician Charles Babbage in 1830 defined as “an art of various forms, the object of which is to give to ordinary observations the appearance and character of those of the highest degree of accuracy”[12]); it can be “mined” to find a statistically significant relationship that is then presented as the original target of the study; it can be selectively published only when it supports one's expectations; it can conceal conflicts of interest, etc… [10], [11], [13], [14], [15]. Depending on factors specific to each case, these misbehaviours lie somewhere on a continuum between scientific fraud, bias, and simple carelessness, so their direct inclusion in the “falsification” category is debatable, although their negative impact on research can be dramatic [11], [14], [16]. Henceforth, these misbehaviours will be indicated as “questionable research practices” (QRP, but for a technical definition of the term see [11]).

Consistently across studies, scientists admitted more frequently to have “modified research results” to improve the outcome than to have reported results they “knew to be untrue”In a sample of postdoctoral fellows at the University of California San Francisco, USA, only 3.4% said they had modified data in the past, but 17% said they were “willing to select or omit data to improve their results” [42]. Among research trainees in biomedical sciences at the University of California San Diego, 4.9% said they had modified research results in the past, but 81% were “willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper” [However, it is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.

So you are accusing of me using standard 'scientific' practices here?

Edited July 29, 2009 by crystal sage

[Abramelin]

It appears that a good 30% of scientific research is questionable... artificially designed to prove beliefs.. to capture sponsorship.. to pander for ' peer approval'.. to keep jobs... carelessness...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10...al.pone.0005738

So you are accusing of me using standard 'scientific' practices here?

OK, maybe 30% of scientific research is questionable. That is quite different from the 100% of belief systems, agreed?

No, I am accusing you of not doing anything like research, and of you generalizing.

Without scientific research you would not be able to talk with me here like you do; you would still be living in some cave, wearing bear skin. Almost everything you do and use today is the result of what scientists developed and/or discovered. In short: technology is not the result of religion or belief systems or other rosy and spectacular fantasies to entertain the mind...

I haven't seen any 'invention' or 'discovery' based on belief or religion that was anything helpfull.

There will always be scientists who have 'darker' motives, but it's certainly not true for the majority of them.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Abramelin

[crystal sage]

OK, maybe 30% of scientific research is questionable. That is quite different from the 100% of belief systems, agreed?

No, I am accusing you of not doing anything like research, and of you generalizing.

Without scientific research you would not be able to talk with me here like you do; you would still be living in some cave, wearing bear skin. Almost everything you do and use today is the result of what scientists developed and/or discovered. In short: technology is not the result of religion or belief systems or other rosy and spectacular fantasies to entertain the mind...

I haven't seen any 'invention' or 'discovery' based on belief or religion that was anything helpfull.

There will always be scientists who have 'darker' motives, but it's certainly not true for the majority of them.

It depends on how you look at it... man has always dreamed of flying.. of getting closer to God... hence the urge to create tall buildings.. shrines .. temples .. castles on mountains...hills... and eventually.. their ultimate dream.. flight...

many scientist credited the show .. 'Star Trek' with inspiring their choice of career... their inventions...

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/21418

If you look back in history... it was religion that was behind most of the world's battles.. and the warfare inspired many new technologies a way to kill faster and more efficiently... like even now... many of the world's sudden leaps technologies were byproducts of inventions that assisted the art of warfare..

the 'Space Race' of 'Man's belief that they can conquer space and take over other worlds too has boosted technology...

Alchemy , Metaphysics and Metallurgy

Alchemy was a mix of pre-modern chemical technology wrapped up with mysticism and metaphysics and directed toward specific goals.

It tried to find keys to God’s processes, but without a modern understanding (which it eventually derived to its own demise) of how those processes worked. Alchemists took ideals of purity and perfection, assumed a corrupt world could be made perfect, and attempted to understand how both persons and the world could be ‘purified’.

In the case of people, that might mean looking for an elixir that would cure all diseases, or extend life. In the case of earth materials, it involved learning how to shift (”transmute”) the nature of materials toward the purest of them all, which was gold via the “philosopher’s stone.”

Alchemists seem to have viewed what was essentially early chemistry and metallurgy as actually or metaphorically a magical or religious act, involving ritual invocation, an idea possibly derived from their impression of the ancient Egyptians who associated their own alchemy with the god Thoth, and whose practitioners might have been priests.

http://www.faust.com/index.php/legend/alchemy/

http://www.whatismetaphysics.com/wherephys...ysicsmerge.html

“It isn’t a question of science bringing spirituality in. It’s more a question of expanding the circle within which both science and spirituality lie, so that the kind of question we can ask can be looked at from the different points of view that both science and spirituality bring to the table. It’s important to realize that the subject, the ‘inner space,’ is worthy of great exploration. It’s important to realize that the ways we explore the ‘inner space’ may not be the same ways that we explore ‘outer space.’ But the ways that we understand inner space may be greatly assisted by the ways that we understand the quantum nature of the physical world.”

In conclusion, everyday we are coming closer to seeing physics and metaphysics merge.

We try to ground our religious and philosophical convictions in rational argument and science, but we won't be restricting our imaginations or our metaphysical convictions to these things. We believe that ultimately metaphysics can become physics, religion can become science, and vice versus, not by reducing metaphysics but by enlarging metaphysics with science, not by reducing science but by enlarging science with metaphysics.

Kenneth Lloyd Anderson

Why Science Needs Metaphysics

http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/why_science.htm

Edited July 30, 2009 by crystal sage

[Abramelin]

It depends on how you look at it... man has always dreamed of flying.. of getting closer to God... hence the urge to create tall buildings.. shrines .. temples .. castles on mountains...hills... and eventually.. their ultimate dream.. flight...

many scientist credited the show .. 'Star Trek' with inspiring their choice of career... their inventions...

If you look back in history... it was religion that was behind most of the world's battles.. and the warfare inspired many new technologies a way to kill faster and more efficiently... like even now... many of the world's sudden leaps technologies were byproducts of inventions that assisted the art of warfare..

the 'Space Race' of 'Man's belief that they can conquer space and take over other worlds too has boosted technology...

Ah, inspiration. But you can be inspired by watching fire, a flying bird, a flower, a tree, a river, a mountain, and lots more.

But I don't think it were priests who invented camp fire, clothing, machines and tools.

That was done by those who thought about things, then tried things out - trial and error - and then came up with a solution no priest or shaman would ever have thought of.

What I meant was that a religion or belief system won't give you any answers to practical problems; you will have to do some real research. You may want to find God in heaven, but the Bible won't give you a detailed plan how to build a space ship, right?

A religion or belief system may motivate you to go look for things, true, like many things (like hunger, climate, disease, and so on) can motivate you to go find a solution and/or create an invention, but it is still the ingenuity of men and not some holy words that will finally lead to any solution of a problem.

I can pray to God to heal my wife of her sickness, and only if I am lucky she will indeed be healed; if she dies it was the will of God. But I can also try to find the cause of her disease, and then try to find a cure... and not wait for God and hope he hears my prayers.

If Bruno or Galileo would have sticked to their Roman Catholic upbringing, we would now not be sending probes to other planets.

[Philt]

Ive seen the site at Gosford and they are fake fake fake.

Done sometime last century

[kmt_sesh]

Ive seen the site at Gosford and they are fake fake fake.

Done sometime last century

I would concur, Philt, and I've never been there. I can tell just by the few, selective photos one finds on the Net, and by that sketch. You wouldn't have happened to take any photos? I'd be curious to see more of these fake carvings.

[crystal sage]

I would concur, Philt, and I've never been there. I can tell just by the few, selective photos one finds on the Net, and by that sketch. You wouldn't have happened to take any photos? I'd be curious to see more of these fake carvings.

... It looks like they could be dodgy...

Found this... http://www.diggings.com.au/resources/Debun...rd%20Glyphs.pdf

[Swede]

C.S. - My compliments.

[kmt_sesh]

... It looks like they could be dodgy...

Found this... http://www.diggings.com.au/resources/Debun...rd%20Glyphs.pdf

Thanks for finding that, CS. I haven't read it all yet, but perusing the PDF I can see that my conclusions are substantiated, and there are things I missed. I look forward to reading it in full as soon as possible.

[crystal sage]

Thanks for finding that, CS. I haven't read it all yet, but perusing the PDF I can see that my conclusions are substantiated, and there are things I missed. I look forward to reading it in full as soon as possible.

One to you!

Well actually probably one of many

[Reseacher]

I was doing some research on a rumour I had heard and came up with this web site. Has anyone ever heard of Egyptians in Australia before? What do you think of the evidence and apparent facts contained in this article? I myself was pretty amazed at it all. Even if the heiroglyphics seem fake I find it interesting that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have similar traditions to Egyptians and mummification processes as well as the Aten symbol. (Don't dismiss it because of the mention of the Gympie Pyramid idol)

http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptaustralia.html

very interesting seems to be a similar story like the ''pyramid similarities''

[kmt_sesh]

One to you!

Well actually probably one of many

You're too kind.

[Oniomancer]

That being said, I borrowed the image of the sketch and did some color-coding:

Those characters shaded in red are not even Egyptian hieroglyphs, or they're so far from known versions that they make no sense. A trained scribe would not make such a folly. Those shaded in green are sign groups that don't say anything. Another good example is the square collection of glyphs in this photo. These are all traditional glyphs, but the box says nothing. The glyphs even appear in opposing order, which was not done. LOL It would make about as much sense as me siht ekil gnitirw all of a sudden.

I've got to ask, what's the legitimate character in the upper right corner that looks like Frosty the Snowman supposed to represent?

[kmt_sesh]

I've got to ask, what's the legitimate character in the upper right corner that looks like Frosty the Snowman supposed to represent?

Why, it's Frosty himself. He was an obscure Egyptian deity.

All right, I'm kidding. It's kind of badly drawn but it represents a twisted candle wick superimposed over an extended arm. The wick represents the sound H (an aspirated "h" sound) and the arm represents a sound similar to our flat letter "a" but said deep in the throat (the Semitic ayin sound). It's transliterated as Ha and doesn't really mean anything all by itself, but is a common root for some ancient Egyptian words. You see it in a lot of legitimate ancient Egyptian inscriptions--this example in Australia not being one of them!

[warrior.woman]

HAHAHAHAHAaaaaa!!!

"If it was real we'd know about it by now" says the government official

VIVA LA RESISTANCE

[ShadowSot]

HAHAHAHAHAaaaaa!!!

"If it was real we'd know about it by now" says the government official

VIVA LA RESISTANCE

You bumped a three year old to reply to one comment that doesn't actually have much of a bearing on this thread? Nor isthe person a government official.

Not a good start to your membership.

[kmt_sesh]

Hear that, Emma_Acid? Evidently you're now a government official.

No doubt part of that shady and sinister cabal known as the Big Meanies of Orthodoxy. Their charter is to hide "THE TRUTH" from all of us.

I was wondering how in the hell this dusty old thread got resurrected. Necroposting! There's really nothing wrong with reviving an old discussion, so long as the new post is germane and engaging. I'll leave it at that...