Maybe Rosetta Stone isn't ancient?

[haukipesukone]

I was just thinking Masons or some other occult group already knew how to read hieroglyphics, but there were some Egyptian mysteries they wanted studied. They couldn't just say "hey, we can read those weird signs". Instead they made the Rosetta Stone and planted it somewhere, and one of them "found" it. That's how other, unwitting, scholars could start studying Egypt too and provide their findings to the people who planted the stone.

Any comments?

[eternal1stparty]

I was just thinking Masons or some other occult group already knew how to read hieroglyphics, but there were some Egyptian mysteries they wanted studied. They couldn't just say "hey, we can read those weird signs". Instead they made the Rosetta Stone and planted it somewhere, and one of them "found" it. That's how other, unwitting, scholars could start studying Egypt too and provide their findings to the people who planted the stone.

Any comments?

Interesting. I think this is definitely a possibility as there is no way the mystery schools "forgot" how to read hieroglyphics.

[haukipesukone]

Yay, a comment.

[rapunzel]

I was just thinking Masons or some other occult group already knew how to read hieroglyphics, but there were some Egyptian mysteries they wanted studied. They couldn't just say "hey, we can read those weird signs". Instead they made the Rosetta Stone and planted it somewhere, and one of them "found" it. That's how other, unwitting, scholars could start studying Egypt too and provide their findings to the people who planted the stone.

Any comments?

Unless you have any proof the Rosetta Stone is a forgery you're just indulging in day dreaming, pleasant though that is.

[rapunzel]

Interesting. I think this is definitely a possibility as there is no way the mystery schools "forgot" how to read hieroglyphics.

Do you have proof that the Graeco Roman Mystery Schools used Egyptian hieroglyphs? If they didn't that's a very good reason for the knowledge to have died out. I understand that the last dateable hieroglyph is dated to AD 394 on the gate of Hadrian at Philae.

[aratron]

i do find it a bit too conveneient that the rosetta stone is just discovered and then unlocks the secrets very bizarre.

[pri01]

Good point. History is written by victors and any discoveries that expose the truth are supressed. So why would they allow the rosetta stone to reveal supressed information or history? Even today truth is supressed in our sophisticated media. Rosetta stone is far too convenient a find.

[aratron]

Good point. History is written by victors and any discoveries that expose the truth are supressed. So why would they allow the rosetta stone to reveal supressed information or history? Even today truth is supressed in our sophisticated media. Rosetta stone is far too convenient a find.

oh god yeah.

it was probably in the Vatican for a thousand years.

then suddenly found in the sand.

you would think that wherever it was found there would be other similar findings of an equal significance.

[pri01]

oh god yeah.

it was probably in the Vatican for a thousand years.

then suddenly found in the sand.

you would think that wherever it was found there would be other similar findings of an equal significance.


Nah, they got a blue peter presenter to make it as a project and tossed it in the bin when the clay cracked.:D

[haukipesukone]

Good point. History is written by victors and any discoveries that expose the truth are supressed. So why would they allow the rosetta stone to reveal supressed information or history? Even today truth is supressed in our sophisticated media. Rosetta stone is far too convenient a find.

Convenient is just the right word. How convenient they just happened to find it then.

oh god yeah.

it was probably in the Vatican for a thousand years.

then suddenly found in the sand.

you would think that wherever it was found there would be other similar findings of an equal significance.

Somehow it being a forgery makes more sense to me, but could be it is really ancient and they planted it to be found when it was convenient.

[1977]

Do you have proof that the Graeco Roman Mystery Schools used Egyptian hieroglyphs? If they didn't that's a very good reason for the knowledge to have died out. I understand that the last dateable hieroglyph is dated to AD 394 on the gate of Hadrian at Philae.
Apuleius was shown hieroglyphs that were read to him:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1666/1666-h/1666-h.htm
Behold the day which thou desiredst when as thou shalt receive at my hands the order of religion, and know the most pure secrets of the gods, whereupon the old man tooke me by the hand, and lead me to the gate of the great temple, where at the first entrie he made a solempne celebration, and after morning sacrifice ended, brought out of the secret place of the temple books, partly written with unknown characters, and partly painted with figures of beasts declaring briefly every sentence, with tops and tailes, turning in fashion of a wheele, which were strange and impossible to be read of the prophane people: There he interpreted to me such things as were necessary to the use and preparation of mine order.
Academic interpretation: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V12N1/takacs.pdf
Once a person was deemed ready, we learn, s/he was instructed after the morning ceremony and informed which preparations were necessary. The books, which contained this information, seemed to have been written in hieroglyphs (11.22).

But what, exactly, are "Mystery Schools"?

[pri01]

Convenient is just the right word. How convenient they just happened to find it then.



Somehow it being a forgery makes more sense to me, but could be it is really ancient and they planted it to be found when it was convenient.

Even if it is genuine, how do we know that the interpretation is honest and none corrupt?

There are many excellent researchers on this forum who are questioning the official version of events. Information about incorrect time lines etc. I find it really difficult to accept historical evidence as accurate and true in the context that it is being presented right now.

I maybe totally wrong though. There are many academics out there who can absolutely say and provide evidence that the rosetta stone is the genuine article. They may be able to present absolute concrete evidence in that their interpretation is accurate and robust.

However, what are the chances that they have all been fed a big fat lie?

I say this because ancient Egyptian history covers a period of many thousand years. Would it be possible that the language used may have changed a little over that length of time?

Even the English language has evolved to resemble something that our ancestors of 500 years ago would be unable to understand today.

[lyricusmagna]

I was just thinking Masons or some other occult group already knew how to read hieroglyphics, but there were some Egyptian mysteries they wanted studied. They couldn't just say "hey, we can read those weird signs". Instead they made the Rosetta Stone and planted it somewhere, and one of them "found" it. That's how other, unwitting, scholars could start studying Egypt too and provide their findings to the people who planted the stone.

Any comments?

Actually you would be surprised how ancient the Rosetta Stone is. The middle section writing belongs to the ancestors of my people.

Although masons are guilty of doing other things, but not this one.

[rapunzel]

i do find it a bit too conveneient that the rosetta stone is just discovered and then unlocks the secrets very bizarre.

You are mistaken; the discovery of the Rosetta Stone didn’t just “unlock the secrets”. The ability to read the glyphs was lost because people misunderstood what they stood for and because of the false assumption that hieroglyphs were only symbols for words and did not represent sounds.

Diodorus Siculus, the 1st century BC Greek historian, wrote and completely misunderstood:

"Now it happens that the forms of the Egyptians’ letters take the shape of all kinds of living creatures and of the extremities of the human body and of implements... For their writing does not express the intended idea by a combination of syllables, one with another, but by the outward appearance of what has been copied and by the metaphorical meaning impressed upon the memory by practice.... So the hawk symbolises for them everything which happens quickly because this creature is just about the fastest of winged animals. And the idea is transferred, through the appropriate metaphorical transfer, to all swift things and to those things to which speed is appropriate."

And the philosopher Plotinus writing in the third century said the hieroglyphs were nothing less than Platonic ideas in visual form, "each picture…a kind of understanding and wisdom" revealing to the initiated true knowledge as to the essence and substance of things.

Although some people would have still been able to understand them the rise of Christianity soon sent them into oblivion.

For more information this site is useful.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hieroglyphics.htm

Many attempts were made over the centuries to translate the glyphs and the earliest attempt is believed to be a fifth-century scholar named Horapollo who set up a translation system based on hieroglyphics' relation to Egyptian allegories. After Horapollo's hypothesis, 15 centuries of scholars dedicated themselves to a false translation system.

After the discovery of the Rosetta Stone it took many years of work to arrive at the stage where the glyphs could be read with any degree of confidence and work continues on decipherment and translation as more texts are found.

This is the not the only discovery that helped in translating an unknown language. The Behistun Inscription was written in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian and there have been other such discoveries as well.

But of course you will believe what you want to believe.

[rapunzel]

Even if it is genuine, how do we know that the interpretation is honest and none corrupt?

There are many excellent researchers on this forum who are questioning the official version of events. Information about incorrect time lines etc. I find it really difficult to accept historical evidence as accurate and true in the context that it is being presented right now.

I maybe totally wrong though. There are many academics out there who can absolutely say and provide evidence that the rosetta stone is the genuine article. They may be able to present absolute concrete evidence in that their interpretation is accurate and robust.

However, what are the chances that they have all been fed a big fat lie?

I say this because ancient Egyptian history covers a period of many thousand years. Would it be possible that the language used may have changed a little over that length of time?

Even the English language has evolved to resemble something that our ancestors of 500 years ago would be unable to understand today.

Of course Egyptian changed over the years as did the hieroglyphs. There are thought to be five phases of the ancient Egyptian language namely - Old Egyptian, classical Egyptian (Main Egyptian), late Egyptian, demotic and Coptic and during the course of 3500 years of the usage of the Hieroglyphs, the language underwent many changes and the number of signs also increased to/by around about a thousand. This is why the translation of hieroglyphs is still being studied and in some cases corrected.

[rodin]

I was just thinking Masons or some other occult group already knew how to read hieroglyphics, but there were some Egyptian mysteries they wanted studied. They couldn't just say "hey, we can read those weird signs". Instead they made the Rosetta Stone and planted it somewhere, and one of them "found" it. That's how other, unwitting, scholars could start studying Egypt too and provide their findings to the people who planted the stone.

Any comments?

Why didn't I think of that? :D

Actually I don't know so much about Rosetta but I would be VERY interested if it is faked because I see a faked Egyptian heritage to 1717 Freemasonry.

Faked artifacts and female assassins are hallmarks of Hoaxes R Us

[rodin]

If it was impossible to decipher Egyptian until the babelstone how come this?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102716

[rodin]

But what, exactly, are "Mystery Schools"?

King's new Clothes?

[haukipesukone]

Even if it is genuine, how do we know that the interpretation is honest and none corrupt?

There are many excellent researchers on this forum who are questioning the official version of events. Information about incorrect time lines etc. I find it really difficult to accept historical evidence as accurate and true in the context that it is being presented right now.

I maybe totally wrong though. There are many academics out there who can absolutely say and provide evidence that the rosetta stone is the genuine article. They may be able to present absolute concrete evidence in that their interpretation is accurate and robust.

However, what are the chances that they have all been fed a big fat lie?

I say this because ancient Egyptian history covers a period of many thousand years. Would it be possible that the language used may have changed a little over that length of time?

Even the English language has evolved to resemble something that our ancestors of 500 years ago would be unable to understand today.

Especially main stream Egyptian history isn't to be trusted. Scholars are force fed bunch of nonsensical dogma they have to repeat to keep their jobs.

I doubt most upright and trusted scholars would ever consider the possibility that the stone may be a fake since to do so would be to consider the possibility that a conspiracy has taken place, and everyone knows conspiracies don't exist.


Actually you would be surprised how ancient the Rosetta Stone is. The middle section writing belongs to the ancestors of my people.

Although masons are guilty of doing other things, but not this one.

How do you know this? Is it the blood of your people that tells you the stone is real?

I have no knowledge whether the stone is real or not, and I'm not saying it's a fake. All I know it seems a bit too convenient the way they found it, and I want to consider the possibility that it's a fake.

So if you have some good evidence that corroborates your claims that it is indeed real, I wouldn't mind seeing it.

[macdon]

Actually you would be surprised how ancient the Rosetta Stone is. The middle section writing belongs to the ancestors of my people.

Although masons are guilty of doing other things, but not this one.
Your people?

You are from Skopje in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonijia, created by renaming the province of Vardaska in 1944. The Rosetta Stone does not have your west Bulgarian dialect on it, rather it has the Greek spoken by the conquering Macedonians of whom Cleopatra was one, who no matter how much you say otherwise were and still are Greek.

This whole thread is a crackpot thread with no basis for the theory. Reptilian overlords has more evidence pointing to it then the premise of this thread.

[rapunzel]

If it was impossible to decipher Egyptian until the babelstone how come this?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102716

The knowledge of deciphering heiroglyphs did not die out until 2nd or 3rd century AD. That post was referring to times long before then when people still understood them.

[rapunzel]

Especially main stream Egyptian history isn't to be trusted. Scholars are force fed bunch of nonsensical dogma they have to repeat to keep their jobs.

That's utter rubbish. I have known a number of historians and archaeologists who have all had independant minds and who have a huge desire to learn and understand more. That's why they do the jobs they do.

You are just repeating what other people have said without considering whether it is correct. Look at the huge controversy David Rohl produced with his New Chronology of Egypt, a major revision of the accepted chronology. He is admired by many historians, even those who disagree with him and has certainly not suffered because of his views.

I don't normally quote from Wikipedia but here is what it says about his theory:

Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense."' By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework. Professor Eric Hornung acknowledges that "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations."Academic debate on the New Chronology, however, has largely not taken place in Egyptological or archaeological journals. Most discussions are to be found in the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences' Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1985 - 2006), which specialised in the chronological issues generally neglected in mainstream Egyptology.

So much for "Scholars are force fed bunch of nonsensical dogma they have to repeat to keep their jobs". I certainly wasn't forcefed anything when I was studying Egyptology but I was encouraged to research for myself and come to my own conclusions.

I doubt most upright and trusted scholars would ever consider the possibility that the stone may be a fake since to do so would be to consider the possibility that a conspiracy has taken place, and everyone knows conspiracies don't exist.

Scholars don't consider it a possibility that the Stone is a fake because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is so the question has never arisen. This thread was just someone day dreaming, indulging in "what would happen if..." scenarios. This is how things get started on the Internet. Someone says "what if..." and the next thing is that thousands of people are believing it is true and it becomes a fact. No doubt some chancer will write a book about it:D

I have no knowledge whether the stone is real or not, and I'm not saying it's a fake. All I know it seems a bit too convenient the way they found it, and I want to consider the possibility that it's a fake.

So if you have some good evidence that corroborates your claims that it is indeed real, I wouldn't mind seeing it.

Too convenient the way they found it? That is often how ancient artefacts are discovered, not by deliberate archaeological digging but by pure luck. Besides the Stone is not complete; part of it is missing, broken off, and has never been found.

What sort of evidence would you accept that it is real and what sort of evidence do you have that it is not?

[haukipesukone]

That's utter rubbish. I have known a number of historians and archaeologists who have all had independant minds and who have a huge desire to learn and understand more. That's why they do the jobs they do.


Since you say you know many of them and can vouch for their independent minds, I guess that settles it.

I'm sure many have a fascination for knowledge and know a lot of more esoteric things, but I'm not so sure they're willing to say all of it in public.



Scholars don't consider it a possibility that the Stone is a fake because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is so the question has never arisen. This thread was just someone day dreaming, indulging in "what would happen if..." scenarios. This is how things get started on the Internet. Someone says "what if..." and the next thing is that thousands of people are believing it is true and it becomes a fact. No doubt some chancer will write a book about it:D


When such a discovery is made, isn't it customary to authenticate the find? Nowadays when archeologists discover something like that, they check whether it's really as old as it seems. Did they do that to the Rosetta stone when it was found?

You can't say there's no reason to suppose it's fake, since when any significant discovery is made you're supposed to consider all options. It doesn't mean they have to think that some malicious Mason planted it there, but simply consider the possibility that it may not be as old as it seems.



What sort of evidence would you accept that it is real and what sort of evidence do you have that it is not?

What sort of evidence do you got? I'm not trying to disprove the authenticity of the stone, just consider the possibility. Hence, all the "evidence" I have is circumstantial at best. I was hoping someone with more actual knowledge, than just my hunch, about the stone would have something to contribute. You certainly don't seem to have any.

Your "everybody knows it's correct" -mentality just doesn't work for me. For me a hunch, intuition, even a vague dream may be enough to validate the possibility to consider that something I've taken for granted all my life is not as it seems. That is the premise this thread was founded on. If don't like it, if you think it's irrational or unscientific, go ahead.

But being scientific, there is no rational reason for me to believe anything "they" say about history, unless it's tied to some deeper personal understanding of the matter.

[pri01]

That's utter rubbish. I have known a number of historians and archaeologists who have all had independant minds and who have a huge desire to learn and understand more. That's why they do the jobs they do.


With all due respect, we all have independant minds and a huge desire to learn and understand more.

Is there a possibility that those historians and archaeologists are being lied to in order to perpetuate the official version of events? After all, when they have the dubious character called Dr Zahi Hawass overseeing archaeological persuits in Egypt, who knows what they are attempting to hide.

[lyricusmagna]

How do you know this? Is it the blood of your people that tells you the stone is real?

It's ancient pre-Macedonian language. Because of the Slavic influence it has changed a little, but the core remains the same. The alphabet can be matched and found to be similar.

I have no knowledge whether the stone is real or not, and I'm not saying it's a fake. All I know it seems a bit too convenient the way they found it, and I want to consider the possibility that it's a fake.

It's ok, I though you just jumped to the conclusion its fake. It's good that you keep an open mind it might not be real too. Even if i disagree with you.

So if you have some good evidence that corroborates your claims that it is indeed real, I wouldn't mind seeing it.

There was a Russian research that determined that along with Macedonian researchers. When I have a little more time I will post some of the research here for all to see.

Your people?

Yes, my people.

You are from Skopje in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonijia,

I'm from Skopje, from the Republic Of Macedonia, FYROM is an outdated term that was used in the 20th century.

created by renaming the province of Vardaska in 1944.

Not really. Macedonia is the name my people always called their country. Vardarska is the name the oppressors gave it. Those who occupied the country.

The Rosetta Stone does not have your west Bulgarian dialect on it,

Macedonian is a separate language than Bulgarian, it has nothing to do with dialects. But I don't expect a non-Macedonian to actually understand that.

rather it has the Greek spoken by the conquering Macedonians of whom Cleopatra was one, who no matter how much you say otherwise were and still are Greek.

LMAO! Macedonians who spoke Greek? And Greeks speak also Greek right? Than how come 2 different nations?

Facts are that Macedonians did NOT speak Greek, because they spoke Macedonian of that era, which was slightly different than the one now, and diametrically different than the Greek than, and now as well.

No wonder the Greeks thought Macedonians were barbarians and Alexander of Macedon being the biggest one of all. They hated the Macedonians back than, and they hate them now. They stole history and mythology of other cultures and promoted it as theirs.

Afcourse, history was written by the winners of wars, so no wonder each nation has a different version of history.

This whole thread is a crackpot thread with no basis for the theory. Reptilian overlords has more evidence pointing to it then the premise of this thread.

Reptilians do exist. They happen to have bases where you live, watch your back, they like to turn male anuses in male vaginas according to a popular theory here on David Icke forums.

[rodin]

The knowledge of deciphering heiroglyphs did not die out until 2nd or 3rd century AD. That post was referring to times long before then when people still understood them.

Tell me more

I suspect that the 'knowledge' of deciphering was invented AD as part of the birth of Freemasonry with a faked provenance....

[macdon]

It's ancient pre-Macedonian language. Because of the Slavic influence it has changed a little, but the core remains the same. The alphabet can be matched and found to be similar.

It's ok, I though you just jumped to the conclusion its fake. It's good that you keep an open mind it might not be real too. Even if i disagree with you.

There was a Russian research that determined that along with Macedonian researchers. When I have a little more time I will post some of the research here for all to see.

Yes, my people.

I'm from Skopje, from the Republic Of Macedonia, FYROM is an outdated term that was used in the 20th century.

Not really. Macedonia is the name my people always called their country. Vardarska is the name the oppressors gave it. Those who occupied the country.

Macedonian is a separate language than Bulgarian, it has nothing to do with dialects. But I don't expect a non-Macedonian to actually understand that.

LMAO! Macedonians who spoke Greek? And Greeks speak also Greek right? Than how come 2 different nations?

Facts are that Macedonians did NOT speak Greek, because they spoke Macedonian of that era, which was slightly different than the one now, and diametrically different than the Greek than, and now as well.

No wonder the Greeks thought Macedonians were barbarians and Alexander of Macedon being the biggest one of all. They hated the Macedonians back than, and they hate them now. They stole history and mythology of other cultures and promoted it as theirs.

Afcourse, history was written by the winners of wars, so no wonder each nation has a different version of history.

Reptilians do exist. They happen to have bases where you live, watch your back, they like to turn male anuses in male vaginas according to a popular theory here on David Icke forums.
Listen mate don't go ranting off topic about your pseudo-state.

Macedonia is in Greece. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonijia was created in 1944 by the communists under Tito. The official language is a Bulgarian dialect, since this language is understood by the people there. Alexander of Macedon was Greek and spoke Greek. That's why the Rosetta Stone has GREEK on it and not some Bulgarian dialect. Mt Olympus, home of the Greek gods in Macedonia. Macedonians conquered a world empire and it spoke Greek, not a Bulgarian dialect. It's all that simple and you can't change it no matter how much you scream.

I trust Russian and communist research as much I trust a hungry lion in the savannah. Mass murderers and thieves, that's all. Don't post anything from Russians or any other Slavic nation for that matter because I won't waste my time with anything from communist states. Post Oxford or Cambridge scholars, but no communist Slavs to support a communist Slavic state's continuing territorial aggression and land grab claims.

Macedonians and *other* Greeks won the war against commies and that's why you're ranting off topic about some glorious ancestors you have, NOT! Look to Genghis and Kublai Khan and their lot if you want glorious ancestors.

[jetzen]

i think the rosetta stone is authentic because when the french army in 1799 egypt found it they freaked out and then it took 50 years to completly translate it.

[pri01]

i think the rosetta stone is authentic because when the french army in 1799 egypt found it they freaked out and then it took 50 years to completly translate it.


Why would the French army freak out when they find a broken engraved plaque? Assuming that at this stage it didn't have a name and they would have no idea what it was.

[haukipesukone]

Why would the French army freak out when they find a broken engraved plaque? Assuming that at this stage it didn't have a name and they would have no idea what it was.

Yeah, did they think it was the tablet with the 10 commandments or something?

[jetzen]

Yeah, did they think it was the tablet with the 10 commandments or something?

witnesses recorded that the french army laid down their weapons because they they thought the find was too profound.

[1977]

Now, why was Napoleon so intent on taking Egypt in the first place?

It has been claimed that Napoleon was a Rosicrucian, which might be viewed with a fair amount of skepticism—save for the fact that his ceremonial collar is purportedly in the possession of AMORC, and can be viewed right on Wikipedia (!): Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6875/napoleonbpcollar.jpg

[jetzen]

ok...nevermind i'll go with the theory about the masons planting it.
thats it ...the masons secretly buried it in a convenient place where the french army could find it.
the rosetta stone is a fake...and has nothing to do with history.
its obviously something the masons cooked up.

[1977]

ok...nevermind i'll go with the theory about the masons planting it.
thats it ...the masons secretly buried it in a convenient place where the french army could find it.
the rosetta stone is a fake...and has nothing to do with history.
its obviously something the masons cooked up.
I am not trying to support that idea at all. However, when you investigate the actual quotation (http://books.google.com/books?pg=RA2-PA25&dq=%22impulse,+grounded+its+arms.%22&cd=2&id=NmrPAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q=&f=false), it becomes clear that the army did not halt at the sight of the Rosetta Stone, but at the sight of the ruins of Thebes:

"At nine o'clock, turning the end of a chain of mountains which formed a promontory, the French suddenly beheld the seat of the antique Thebes, in all its development; Thebes, of which Homer has painted the extent in a single word, the hundred-gated Thebes —a poetic and empty expression, confidently repeated through a series of ages. Described in a few pages dictated to Herodotus by the Egyptian priests, and copied ever since by all other historians; celebrated for a succession of kings whose wisdom has placed them in the rank of gods, for laws which were revered without being understood, for sciences confided to pompous and enigmatic inscriptions (those learned and earliest monuments of the arts, which time itself has forcbornc to injure); this abandoned sanctuary, insulated by barbarism, and returned to the desert whence it was conquered; this city, in a word, perpetually wrapped in that veil of mystery by which even colossuses are magnified; this exiled city, which the mind no longer discovers but through the mists of lime, was still a phantom so gigantic to our imagination, that the army, at the sight of its scattered ruins, halted of itself, and, by one spontaneous impulse, grounded its arms, as if the possession of the remains of this capital had been the ohjcct of its glorious labours, had completed, the conquest of the Egyptian territory."

[haukipesukone]

Now, why was Napoleon so intent on taking Egypt in the first place?

It has been claimed that Napoleon was a Rosicrucian, which might be viewed with a fair amount of skepticism—save for the fact that his ceremonial collar is purportedly in the possession of AMORC, and can be viewed right on Wikipedia (!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMORC

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6875/napoleonbpcollar.jpg

What is that symbol in the picture? Looks like a space rocket with a slash drawn over it, as if to erase it, and there's an eye on top. And it's inside a triangle/pyramid (how classic), and then there's laurel leaves around it.

Good point. Even if everything about the Rosetta stone is as they say, there's still something they're not telling in regular history books about the whole thing.

[1977]

What is that symbol in the picture? Looks like a space rocket with a slash drawn over it, as if to erase it, and there's an eye on top.
Looks like a stylized Printing press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The slash would be appropriate, considering Napoleon's support of censorship in France (http://www.napoleon-series.org/reviews/general/c_woloch.html). But I am unsure of the actual meaning.

[01000100]

I was just thinking Masons or some other occult group already knew how to read hieroglyphics, but there were some Egyptian mysteries they wanted studied. They couldn't just say "hey, we can read those weird signs". Instead they made the Rosetta Stone and planted it somewhere, and one of them "found" it. That's how other, unwitting, scholars could start studying Egypt too and provide their findings to the people who planted the stone.

Any comments?

Yes sir you are onto something.

The little lion Champollion - his work for the brotherhood was huge. Of coarse as he went through egypt he documented his findings and then destroyed the originals so no one could dispute his interpretations. This is one of the many battles between the two factions of the brotherhood. The templar masons vs the rosey cross masons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Champollion

The name of the rosetta stone should be a key to letting you know what is going on.

[haukipesukone]

The name of the rosetta stone should be a key to letting you know what is going on.

Yeah, it's so obvious I of course missed it. Rosicrucians, Rosetta.

From Wikipedia:

The town of Rashid came to be known in the West as Rosette (Rosetta), the name by which it was referred to by the French during Napoleon Bonaparte's campaign in Egypt. It is famous as the site where the "Pierre de Rosette" (Rosetta Stone) was found by French soldiers in 1799.

[lyricusmagna]

Maybe Rosetta Stone isn't ancient?

And maybe its more ancient than we think ...

[haukipesukone]

And maybe its more ancient than we think ...

What do you mean?

[siriusc]

Interesting, I'm currently listening to an interview with Joseph Farrell posted elsewhere on this forum where this very topic was discussed in part IV.

His theory is that French Freemasons financed his trip to Egypt after gaining some documents from the Vatican. This would make sense that both he and his financiers had a purpose to discover more artifacts and information mentioned in these Vatican text.

Interview:

Page not found on Vimeo

Go to part IV

[lyricusmagna]

What do you mean?

We know carbon dating is flawed. Severely flawed. Right? Right.

Now, when you take into consideration the first appearance of the tribes in northern Egypt, which in turn correspond with the three writings on the stone, you can somewhat pinpoint the date of creation of the stone.

How do we know an approximate date? Take the symbols of the stone, and compare them with similar symbols written on caves in Europe, which geologists, examining the layers of rock know which layer lasted how many years (in aprox. value).

The middle writing of the Rosetta Stone is almost 100% duplicate of the alphabet of the Ancient Macedonians, and also corresponds with all of the Slavic nations' alphabets too.

The findings point to a date very close to the mythical dissapearance of the last island of Atlantis (10.738 BC). Isn't it funny that the Sphinx is believed to be built around this period as well?