tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6119225172377072190.post7001410191657021281..comments2014-09-14T05:41:17.998-07:00Comments on Gosford Glyphs near Kariong: The 'Bric -a-Brac' of WarUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6119225172377072190.post-19003359971269675382014-09-14T05:41:17.998-07:002014-09-14T05:41:17.998-07:00oh and the 1983 photos appear rougher and whiter b...oh and the 1983 photos appear rougher and whiter because they were recently carved , the rough edges are called spalling chips from where the sandstone has flaked off during carving, go in your back yard and grab a mouldy old rock and carve into it , mystery solved<br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02350979127941424932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6119225172377072190.post-22350091321948884802014-09-14T05:37:02.290-07:002014-09-14T05:37:02.290-07:00Any perceived difference in the to photos can be a...Any perceived difference in the to photos can be attributed to the the angle of the photo taken , for example the photo may look slightly different in proportion to the other as one photographer may have been taller than another and the chance of the 2 photos being taken from the exact same spot is minimal as the cleft is very narrow and hard to get a full shot of the wall<br />The 1983 photos were taken with a 35mm camera as opposed to later modern photos by digital devices , photo processing limitations in the 80's do not give a true representation of colour , the rock wall appears darker because there is more lichens and mold on the surface in wetter weather , the latter photo was taken during an extended drought period where the rock surfaces become bleached out from lack of moisture<br />The photos haven't been photoshopped in anyway and the timelines are correct.<br />There is no need to create a " conspiracy " from this observation as there is overwhelming evidence that proves the glyphs are badly done fakesStevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02350979127941424932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6119225172377072190.post-74247640616063966862014-09-13T21:06:37.623-07:002014-09-13T21:06:37.623-07:00Hi Woy Woy Steve,
There is no question that the 2 ...Hi Woy Woy Steve,<br />There is no question that the 2 pics of Anubis (1983 and 2007) are not the same. I agree with Anonymous who posted earlier.<br />There are many features which don't match up and can't be explained by having been taken by different individuals at different times and from slightly different angles.<br />Many of the proportions of the figures are different.<br />The angles of the arms relative to the torso differ in the two figures. For example the right arm of Anubis ( holding the Ankh) in the 1983 version is at a markedly greater angle to the torso than that of the 2007 version.<br />The angle between the legs is wider at 1983 than at 2007.<br />The cranium at 1983 is more flattened and lizard like.<br />The upper body, measured from the waist is much greater in proportion to the lower body in 2007 than in 1983, and so on .....<br />What is the significance of the blue background in the 1983 version?<br />The engraving looks much rougher and more crudely carved at 1983.<br />It almost looks like it has been roughly scratched on the blue background to bring up the appearance of freshly exposed engraving.<br />Looking at the 1983 version I would think, WOW, if I ever saw anything fake that's it! Don't bother to explore any of that further!<br />You say that you have a picture timeline of Anubis from 1983 to 2007 so when did the transition occur?<br />How can all this be explained?<br />Two possibilities come to my burgeoning conspiritorial mind:<br />1. The original photo was doctored at 1983,<br />2. The original glyph was erased at some time after 1983 and re-engraved to give the 2007 version.<br />Either of these possibilities should have left some traces behind for the professional eye, one would think.<br />Could the 2007 version actually have been there in 1983, and earlier, with its so-called finished 2007 ears, BUT the photograph supplied was completely false in portraying the so-called 1983 version with the so-called unfinished ears?<br />Irrespective of whether the glyphs are ancient or not these observations are puzzling and hopefully should be addressed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com