432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Paul]

I didn't touch the torso (of the girl)

I don't know why you insist that the figure is female, I've already shown that it's Bernie Clifton:

 

[bruto]

I didn't touch the torso (of the girl).

Yeah, that's what they all say!

 

[Jiri]

In other words, you just added lines where there weren't any.

No, I just added lines where there weren't any anymore. But the lineholders were still there..

 

[Belz...]

Then you will have no problem producing these lineholders.

 

[Paulhoff]

No, I just added lines where there weren't any anymore. But the lineholders were still there..

Give us a break, you added lines where you wanted them to be. They are fake, they are only in your mind.

Paul

 

[Jiri]

Ostrich riding is an ancient sport

I don't know why you insist that the figure is female, I've already shown that it's Bernie Clifton:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/286946138660c5a2a.jpg[/qimg]

I'm proud of you, Paul. You have shown that both the main interpretations of the human figure seem to be riding an animal. In the case of the standing figure, Paul von Randifora makes a strong case that in the second case the animal is an ostrich.
You have also given yet another demonstration of the versatility of the Athena engraving.
Your suggestion of the figure's masculinity: upon inspection Athena's neck clearly lacks Adam's apple. So, there is a clear distinction between male and female.

 

[Jiri]

Then you will have no problem producing these lineholders.

That is true, no problem.

 

[Jiri]

View attachment 6321

Give us a break, you added lines where you wanted them to be. They are fake, they are only in your mind.

Paul

No break, the lines are clearly extrapolated from the engraving, using simple rules. Only then it becomes clear that the lines are not self-oriented, but system-oriented.

 

[Paulhoff]

No break, the lines are clearly extrapolated from the engraving, using simple rules. Only then it becomes clear that the lines are not self-oriented, but system-oriented.

Good, then tell me where I can get the original source picture that you used, and I can do my own extrapolates. This is called verify someone else's results. If I can’t get the original picture please understand that your results will hold no value to me.

Paul

 

[bruto]

Good, then tell me where I can get the original source picture that you used, and I can do my own extrapolates. This is called verify someone else's results. If I can’t get the original picture please understand that your results will hold no value to me.

Paul

While you're at it, I suppose I should mention one point that has not been mentioned yet, but which is crucial to any interpretation, and that is some reliable means of determining whether or not the original engraving is done on a reasonably flat surface, and whether or not the picture being used for analysis was taken from a truly perpendicular viewpoint. If the original engraving was made on a curved surface, a flat picture will not accurately depict the spatial relationships, and if the camera used was not perfectly perpendicular to the surface, the dimensions will be distorted.

 

[Jiri]

Sorry Jiri, it just fails to convince. No matter how you slice it you come up with an explanation that clearly indicates that you inferred the system first, and then drew in your lines on the assumption that the system applied to the drawing. We could go round and round with this forever, but it is simply not convincing. If the lines have names, they are names of yours, not of some prehistoric artist, no matter how fine his work may have been.

Why needlessly complicate things? I have shown that there are algorithms for the recreation of this engraving, and that these algorithms also have a higher meaning. That's rather conclusive. Even among us skeptics

.
One of the most obvious problems with this whole thing is the fact that we can see no reason why, if the creators of that drawing did base it on mathematical principles, they did not evince them more directly. They could, after all, have actually drawn pentagrams, or other geometrical figures, if this was their intention.

In order to draw a single regular pentagram you have to take a minimum of steps. To show this construction using minimum steps is one of the goals behind the design of the Nazca monkey.
One figure drawn in full on a limited space, will make drawing in of more figures difficult. There is a tight limit to how many lines you can have before they fuse into a solid mass.
Athena engraving has a way of compacting meaning, and thus manages to convey massive amount of theoretical data, plus it shows pictures (just like a DVD .

There is no indication that this drawing was intended to communicate anything but its obvious, pictorial content.

The pictorial content is less than obvious, too.

You cannot justify extrapolation without some reason other than your own conviction that there's a system. Every time you try to explain and counter what I say, you come back with another form of saying the same thing: you're working backwards, fitting the phenomenon to the theory.

Of course, if some theorists are right, and some of the mathematical proportions involved are inherently, aesthetically pleasing and apt, then it would not be entirely surprising or significant to find that at least occasionally, an artist, even a prehistoric one, might have produced a particularly well composed picture that embodies those principles. It's clear from many primitive paintings that one of the first areas in which human beings really began to separate themselves from the other animals of the world was art, and that just about as far back as we can trace mankind, there have been artists of great ability, even genius. It is a big leap, however, to infer from that that they knew the math, when we have no other reason to believe that people of that era knew any math at all, since it's obvious from the artifacts that they had no written language, and no written numbers.

I'm not aware of anything in prehistoric drawing or artifacts that suggests such geometric or mathematical sensibility. Even if the extent of the use of geometry by the Egyptians and the Greeks is questionable, we can at least know with certainty that they were familiar with some of the principles, that they had a number system, a written language, and a level of mathematical discipline on which to draw.

 

[Jiri]

Good, then tell me where I can get the original source picture that you used, and I can do my own extrapolates. This is called verify someone else's results. If I can’t get the original picture please understand that your results will hold no value to me.

Paul

Bulletin de la societe prehistoric francaise, an article by Stephane Lwoff from 1941 or 1942. Unfortunately, I lost some notes with data like issue numbers, etc. You can also approach the MOM in Paris, which stores most of the 1,500 engravings.

 

[ReligionStudent]

What was that about the Nazca Monkey? Um that's completely not accepted by any real archaeologist or scholar (if you can send me to a pear reviewed journal article etc on it I might change my mind). But from classes I've had (this is not my area of specialty, but it was covered in one of my grad archaeology classes last smester) The lines are generally seen as some sort of sacred, completely obvious meaning (meaning no space men and not hidden code crap). You cannot deffend some other hypothesis using something that has no accepted basis.

 

[Paulhoff]

Bulletin de la societe prehistoric francaise, an article by Stephane Lwoff from 1941 or 1942. Unfortunately, I lost some notes with data like issue numbers, etc. You can also approach the MOM in Paris, which stores most of the 1,500 engravings.

Sorry, but what you have said here has no weight because we can not pear review it.

Paul

 

[Paul]

Bulletin de la societe prehistoric francaise, an article by Stephane Lwoff from 1941 or 1942. Unfortunately, I lost some notes with data like issue numbers, etc.

So your work is based on enlargements of reproductions from 65 year old magazines?

 

[ReligionStudent]

Hate to break it to you Jiri, but scholars tend to avoid papers that old, things get out date fast, it would really bolster your theory if there were something newer, and truthfully, if anyone else actually proposed/supported your theory.

 

[Macoy]

Why needlessly complicate things? I have shown that there are algorithms for the recreation of this engraving, and that these algorithms also have a higher meaning. That's rather conclusive. Even among us skeptics

Us skeptics? where are you, planet jordan?

You get more pompous as your arguments get more defensive.

 

[Psiload]

Why needlessly complicate things?

Indeed, Jiri... Indeed. That's the point we're all trying to make.

 

[bruto]

Why needlessly complicate things?

Why indeed? Why take a picture on a wall and try to make a mystical thesis of it?

I have shown that there are algorithms for the recreation of this engraving, and that these algorithms also have a higher meaning. That's rather conclusive. Even among us skeptics

You have not shown that what you consider a higher meaning was meant by anyone else but yourself. You have not shown that the algorithms relate to the actual creation of the engraving. I see no demonstration that there are algorithms for the creation of the drawing itself, but only for the extrapolated and interpolated symbols that you yourself have imposed on it.

In order to draw a single regular pentagram you have to take a minimum of steps.

which have not been taken by the artist who originally drew the engraving.

To show this construction using minimum steps is one of the goals behind the design of the Nazca monkey.

Without bothering to worry the Nazca monkey itself - or the obviously arbitrary line extrapolations you have applied to it, crossing some boundaries and missing others - what possible reason is there to relate it to this figure? What evidence is there to consider that there is even the most tiny or remote relationship between the monkey and this drawing, other than the fact that both appear to exist on planet earth?

One figure drawn in full on a limited space, will make drawing in of more figures difficult. There is a tight limit to how many lines you can have before they fuse into a solid mass.

So if we credit the original artist with doing what he intended to do, he drew what he intended to draw, no more and no less. He chose the medium and the scale. You now seem to be implying that the artist would have drawn more had he had the space, and that implies that the artist did not plan his drawing well at all, and that he did not have an overall graphic plan, and this provides as good a reason as any to infer that the original artist had no intention beyond the creation of the sketch as it exists.

Athena engraving has a way of compacting meaning, and thus manages to convey massive amount of theoretical data, plus it shows pictures (just like a DVD .

No, it's not like a DVD at all. The physical impressions on a DVD are entirely without pictorial meaning. They are purely code. Any inferred pictorial content you might find in the pits and valleys burned on its surface would be imaginary and coincidental, and if you started to report seeing meaning in the patterns in the reflections of a DVD's surface, you would rightly be thought to be exercising an over-active imagination, or to be outright delusional. Similarly, when you come across an illustration which is clearly representational, you need to find some reason to infer that extraneous coding is intended in addition to the representation. Since the creators of this engraving had no written language, and left no record, and since there is no unambiguous data in the picture itself to indicate coding, any inference that it is more than a picture is entirely speculative.

The pictorial content is less than obvious, too.

It's a picture of a person, right? A human figure is recognizable. Its content is the representation of a person. All else is speculative.

 

[Jiri]

A lot of what is being said boils down to this: Finding some curious relation or artifact in something does not mean the creator of that something did it intentionally.

.
Right, for a 'curious relation' it takes only a couple of accidental steps, or so to occur. For a complex 'curious relation', or in other words a full-bodied system, the number of accidental steps needed increases dramatically. So does the likelihood that the creator did it by design.
.

A small example: The square is a simple, basic shape. I suspect not even DJJ would be surprised to find squares in ancient artwork and architecture. Put two squares next to each other to form a 1x2 rectangle--another simple, basic shape. No surprises here. But wait... wait for it... wait for it...wait for it...
The diagonal of that 2x1 rectangle is √5, the major part of that mysterious golden ratio thing. Throw in a circle or two, and, my goodness, there's phi itself in all its miraculous glory.

One semi-circle suffices, and we have the makings of at once two Golden Rectangles, so you are indeed right. The diagonal of the 2:1 rectangle will be the circle's radius (2.236..).
When we swing it to the left, for example, the resulting distance is now divided into 1 and 1.236. The extension of the square's base gives Phi with the height of the rectangle - they represent two sides of a Golden Rectangle.
2 / 1.236.. = 1.618..

Swing it to the right (Square dancing to get 1 + 2.236 = 3.236.. Now, the height of the old rectangle (2) forms the short side of a Golden Rectangle with the new distance of 3.236.. - two sides of four needed for a Golden rectangle. To see this done in the context of the engraving's square:
http://www.vejprty.com/seat3.htm

Add, or subtract a square from any Golden Rectangle, get a new Golden Rectangle. Repeating the process will lead to a spiral. But, you still did not get around to constructing a 36 degree angle from this position, not to mention construction of the regular 5-pointed star.
More steps would be needed. So, your small example doesn't work. It does not take you past the simple repetitive and decorative stage at best as the intention of the artist.