From: Steve Jones <stvjns@gargoylemechanique.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:11:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:51:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Symbols - Jones


 >From: Gary Anthony <mithrand@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:59:52 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Symbols

 >>From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:49:37 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Symbols

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:10:13 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Symbols

 >><snip>

 >>>Then (rightfully) linguists and cryptographers should have them!
 >>>I wouldn't know where to begin Greg.

 >>>Where does one find 'linguists and cryptographers'?

 >>If we assume, for the sake of argument, that such symbols are
 >>'truly' alien, and meant to communicate solely to other aliens
 >>from the same culture, then linguists and cryptographers will be
 >>virtually useless.

 >>Egyptian hieroglyphs were untranslatable until the Rosetta Stone
 >>was found--and this symbology arose from a culture that shared
 >>our common humanity and commemorated human experinces in their
 >>writings. "Alien" symbols and glyphs, by their very nature will
 >>probably remain enigmatic.

 >Brian may I refer you back to my post on this list dated
 >October 1st., at:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m01-001.shtml

 >To further elucidate, I would add that linguists and
 >cryptanalysts disagree with your viewpoint.  To be succinct,
 >linguistics has come a long way since the discovery and
 >deciphering of the Hieroglyphic writing system.

 >This aforementioned post should answer posts which speculate
 >that studying alien languages is a useless endeavour; it would
 >appear that since it has thus far generated no response, the
 >community on this list may be ignoring the relevance of it.?

 >In a separate post; the question was asked what samples do we
 >chose for study? Do we not include Orthon's footprints?
 >Initially I think it would be important and scientific to
 >include every sample of alleged alien communication, including
 >the contactee cases. Because if the study is to be truly
 >scientific, it would need to analyse and assess these too, on
 >merit of how they compare to later abductee samples and with
 >what may or may not be generated by the human psyche/mind. More
 >interesting samples may possess certain virtues not recognisable
 >to the untrained non-linguistic eye and by such virtues that is
 >how possible 'structure' may be analysed.


Maybe I am off the mark here but it occurs to me that
Linguistics deals with the tongue in the mouth, whereas 'alien'
writing - if we are to accept to material from
contactee/trainees - deals with relationships in 3D space, even
4D 'space' using a time layer as part of the thought
transmission process (i.e. multiple strokes stacked in the same
location).

Humans convert thoughts into 'lingual' symbols, but ET may
convert thought more directly into higher geometrical
relationships.  Would this still be a Liguistics issue?

Now I am reminded of Crop Circles and their multidimensional
geometrical diagrams.


  --- stv

UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last names to ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.