Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Re-Re-"FGC to Grapheus"

Guest · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: Re-Re-"FGC to Grapheus"

That>s (about many not defined signs' particulars) what I wrote (July
13th) to suggest a better understanding of these problems I could find
nowhere.

I have to reveal something (nothing special) about me and I assure I
didn>t examine you (anyway don>t you feel hurt): I only desired to
know if there is, still nowadays, that lack of knowledge about Disc>s
graphic characteristics (and other similar matters) I presume.

I graduated (the first time) in Archaeology since 1979 (diverse
graduations followed till 1992...), so you can see at that time like
all students I was attracted by the Disc and made little observations
(since 1975) talking with some experts (even Louis Godart who had
examined the find so closely) but, you can image, I was a little
younger: without results (only generic encouragements).

It was the time I have to examine different finds cause catalogues'
classifications and I had easily noted, f.e., if you look inside
(figurative art experts are needed...) an incision on clay (consider
mainly tablets' writings) you can recognize, if you want, the used
tool and particularly the shape of its point: generally, obvious, a
little rounded, to avoid mainly a clay cutting; secondarly you can
observe the direction of the incision, and even if the writer was
right or left-hand, and the first thing you normally can note it>s:
the point the writer started to incise has a round end, the second one
is: the finishing point presents a more tenouous incision and many
times quite only a superficial line or a clay>s most evident bringing
back (more: you can isolate the single traits, if one of them goes
over or under an other one, corrections, et cetera).

What>s the meaning of my words? It seems (but you have to look at,
consider also the things I saw in 1977 using a normal magnifying lens
you can most easily perceive by an appropriate
graphic software program, as I did in 2003 ore little before) the
spiral>s traits on Disc go normally from the middle to the edge, the
signs also (as much as many scholars state the stamper used to read
from the edge to middle [clockwise] but he stamped and traced the
spiral in the inverse direction [counterclockwise]: a conclusion
sincerely hard to consider as correct); the stamper was, also, a
dextrorse and probably young people (try to sign anything on a round
clay piece only 6 inches large, then try to use a 1/4 inch tide
[Evan>s nr. 29; the biggest is nr. 24: 1/2" sq.] in the proper way !);
the under-signs you can easily guess on it reveal both the faces had
different, very different in the case of Face A (it was wider before),
centers; both the faces were used at least one other time; with good
probability you can find, looking "under" the surface, different
"words" (that>s: signs' sequences)... and so on (these
characteristics are completely objective, and not subjective or
personal, facts: evidentiae).

I have no more considerations to add, mainly as regards as the
decipherment (I said yet what I think of) but I remember you (the
first thing that goes in my mind) the discussed but correct by
proceeding interpretation of the Colosseum>s "ghost" (without letters,
only their holes) inscription not so properly named "ex manubiis": a
classic example of eyes' (and brain>s) use.

Dearly, your
FGC

grapheus@www.com · Guest

On Jul 26, 4:41 pm, altero.pol...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]That>s (about many not defined signs' particulars) what I wrote (July
13th) to suggest a better understanding of these problems I could find
nowhere.

I have to reveal something (nothing special) about me and I assure I
didn>t examine you (anyway don>t you feel hurt): I only desired to
know if there is, still nowadays, that lack of knowledge about Disc>s
graphic characteristics (and other similar matters) I presume.

I don>t believe that there is a lack of knowledge about the Disk>s epigraphic data, when one has read the work of J. Faucounau. This scholar has been the only one, to the best of my knowledge, to "RECONSTRUCT THE SCRIBE>s MOVES", from the beginning to the end. This "reconstruction", plus later the reading of the text, has led to EPLAIN EVERY EPIGRAPHICAL DETAIL in a satisfactory way.
So my first question will be : Did you read, at least, the J.F.'s book[/quote]
on the Phaistos Disk>s decipherment ? (There are also some papers of
the same author on the subject (I mean : the epigraphical data) which
are very useful, but only on small points).

[quote]I graduated (the first time) in Archaeology since 1979 (diverse
graduations followed till 1992...), so you can see at that time like
all students I was attracted by the Disc and made little observations
(since 1975) talking with some experts (even Louis Godart who had
examined the find so closely) but, you can image, I was a little
younger: without results (only generic encouragements).

It was the time I have to examine different finds cause catalogues'
classifications and I had easily noted, f.e., if you look inside
(figurative art experts are needed...) an incision on clay (consider
mainly tablets' writings) you can recognize, if you want, the used
tool and particularly the shape of its point: generally, obvious, a
little rounded, to avoid mainly a clay cutting; secondarly you can
observe the direction of the incision, and even if the writer was
right or left-hand,
[/quote]
Yes. I agree. So, the Disk>s scribe was left-handed.

[quote]and the first thing you normally can note it>s:
the point the writer started to incise has a round end, the second one
is: the finishing point presents a more tenouous incision and many
times quite only a superficial line or a clay>s most evident bringing
back
[/quote]
This is not 100% true. But as a "general rule", it is.

[quote](more: you can isolate the single traits, if one of them goes
over or under an other one, corrections, et cetera).
[/quote]
YES.

[quote]What>s the meaning of my words? It seems (but you have to look at,
consider also the things I saw in 1977 using a normal magnifying lens
you can most easily perceive by an appropriate
graphic software program, as I did in 2003 ore little before) the
spiral>s traits on Disc go normally from the middle to the edge,
[/quote]
DEFINITELY NO. You have to revise your "reconstruction". The spiral
has been traced SPIRE BY SPIRE, begining with the MOST EXTERIOR ONE.
For the longuest spire, the tracing may have been done ONE HALF in one
direction, the other in the inverse direction, what explains your
mistake. Please, take a better look, beginning FROM THE EXTERIOR
SPIRE.

[quote]the
signs also (as much as many scholars state the stamper used to read
from the edge to middle [clockwise] but he stamped and traced the
spiral in the inverse direction [counterclockwise]:
[/quote]
NON. See herabove. The problemù is that HE HAS ALTERNATED tracing of
ONE SPIRE and STAMPING in the "track" so created. Once arrived AT THE
END of the track, he was tracing another spire.

[quote]a conclusion
sincerely hard to consider as correct);
[/quote]
Sure. And it is wrong, even if some HALF-SPIRES have been traced
counter-clock wise !..

[quote]the stamper was, also, a
dextrorse
[/quote]
YES!.

[quote]and probably young people (try to sign anything on a round
clay piece only 6 inches large, then try to use a 1/4 inch tide
[Evan>s nr. 29; the biggest is nr. 24: 1/2" sq.] in the proper way !);
[/quote]
Not so young !!! Because he was able to COMPOSE HIS POETIC TEXT in
proportion as he was writing it !.. So, he was surely an EXPETIMENTED
bard... But very sloppy !!!

[quote]the under-signs you can easily guess on it reveal both the faces had
different, very different in the case of Face A (it was wider before),
centers; both the faces were used at least one other time; with good
probability you can find, looking "under" the surface, different
"words" (that>s: signs' sequences)... and so on (these
characteristics are completely objective, and not subjective or
personal, facts: evidentiae).
[/quote]
You are mixing TWO different phenomena : 1)- On both Faces, but only
at the beginning, i.e. in the most exterior spire, the scribe has
written a first sentence and obliterated it. In other terms, the FIRST
spires are (partially) palimpsests 2)- The scribe has CORRECTED
sometimes one or two words of the DEFINITE text. These are the TRUE
"corrections".
It is more or less possible to "guess" the signs which have been
"corrected". For the palimpsests, there is NO HOPE of reading anything
of what has been obliterated !..

Regards
grapheus

grapheus@www.com · Guest

On Jul 26, 6:32 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Would you PLEASE stop creating new threads to continue your
conversations? People "kill" the threads they>re not interested in so
they can focus on the ones that are of interest to them and so they can
see new ones as they come in. We can>t kill this conversation if you>re
going to keep pulling this attention-begging new-thread stunt.
[/quote]
I saw that you are posting yourself on the Disk. So, you should be
interested in this HIGHLY TECHNICAL conversation, which changes us
from the discussions about such or such IMPOSSIBLE or STUPID so-called
"decipherments" !!!!

grapheus

Harlan Messinger · Guest

Would you PLEASE stop creating new threads to continue your
conversations? People "kill" the threads they>re not interested in so
they can focus on the ones that are of interest to them and so they can
see new ones as they come in. We can>t kill this conversation if you>re
going to keep pulling this attention-begging new-thread stunt.

Harlan Messinger · Guest

grapheus@www.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 26, 6:32 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Would you PLEASE stop creating new threads to continue your
conversations? People "kill" the threads they>re not interested in so
they can focus on the ones that are of interest to them and so they can
see new ones as they come in. We can>t kill this conversation if you>re
going to keep pulling this attention-begging new-thread stunt.

I saw that you are posting yourself on the Disk. So, you should be
interested in this HIGHLY TECHNICAL conversation, which changes us
from the discussions about such or such IMPOSSIBLE or STUPID so-called
"decipherments" !!!!
[/quote]
Instead of presuming to know better than I do what I>m interested in,
just stop being a public nuisance and let me make my own decisions, OK?

hagen · Guest

On Jul 26, 8:05 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]graph...@www.comwrote:
On Jul 26, 6:32 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Would you PLEASE stop creating new threads to continue your
conversations? People "kill" the threads they>re not interested in so
they can focus on the ones that are of interest to them and so they can
see new ones as they come in. We can>t kill this conversation if you>re
going to keep pulling this attention-begging new-thread stunt.

I saw that you are posting yourself on the Disk. So, you should be
interested in this HIGHLY TECHNICAL conversation, which changes us
from the discussions about such or such IMPOSSIBLE or STUPID so-called
"decipherments" !!!!

Instead of presuming to know better than I do what I>m interested in,
just stop being a public nuisance and let me make my own decisions, OK?
[/quote]
Whether you like it or not Harlan Messinger, although I nearly don>t
care anylonger - once did.
(when my break-through is accepted in what ought to be the near
future, won>t you say? When 'the disturbed' slowly come to realise,
that another mans deciphering will never become their own big chance
in life)
I fear you shall be refered to as the man, who called my genuine
interpretation of the famous Phaistos disc inscription:" An impossible
and stupid so-called decipherment" ;-)?
WellI I promise to do, what is in my power to avoid this from
happening.
Best regards
Hagen
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/0937.htm

hagen · Guest

On Jul 28, 5:42 pm, hagen <dan5m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 26, 8:05 pm, Harlan Messinger

hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
graph...@www.comwrote:
On Jul 26, 6:32 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Would you PLEASE stop creating new threads to continue your
conversations? People "kill" the threads they>re not interested in so
they can focus on the ones that are of interest to them and so they can
see new ones as they come in. We can>t kill this conversation if you>re
going to keep pulling this attention-begging new-thread stunt.

I saw that you are posting yourself on the Disk. So, you should be
interested in this HIGHLY TECHNICAL conversation, which changes us
from the discussions about such or such IMPOSSIBLE or STUPID so-called
"decipherments" !!!!

Instead of presuming to know better than I do what I>m interested in,
just stop being a public nuisance and let me make my own decisions, OK?

Whether you like it or not Harlan Messinger, although I nearly don>t
care anylonger - once did.
(when my break-through is accepted in what ought to be the near
future, won>t you say? When 'the disturbed' slowly come to realise,
that another mans deciphering will never become their own big chance
in life)
I fear you shall be refered to as the man, who called my genuine
interpretation of the famousPhaistosdiscinscription:" An impossible
and stupid so-called decipherment" ;-)?
WellI I promise to do, what is in my power to avoid this from
happening.
Best regards
Hagenhttp://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/0937.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I owe an excuse to Harlan Messinger. I>ve come to see, that I
misunderstood the four asterisks infront of the insult, sorry
http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/inside.gif
regarde
Hagen


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Languages Forum
Page 1 of 1