Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> I didn't say it was specific. I said it had its modern origins in
>>> Indian symbolism.
>> The "modern origin" didn't surface until the 1970ies.
>> India in Germany in the 1920ies was only known to some linguists;
>> the symbolism entirely unknown.
>
> Care to present some substantiating evidence to the effect that no one
> but linguists knew about India? That's quite a load you want us to
> swallow there.
>
How often do I have to repeat "You can't prove a negative" to
get it into your pointy little head ?

Bring some evidence that indian symbolism was general knowledge
in the 1920ies, you twit.

>>> That connection could be 3000-4000 years old. I don't think,
>>> given that much time that it seems more improbable rather than less
>>> so, unless you don't understand cultural transference. The more time
>>> between the points, the more likely the transference is to have taken
>>> place, unless an impenetrable geographic barrier stands in the way.
>>> Not the case here.
>>>
>> Then explain the use of a Swastika by the Minoans.
>> Superior culture, non IE, no transfer.
>
> Minoans were a mercantile people and had seafaring skills. There
> certainly could have been transfer.

Could have been. You level of argument.
There could have been Martians, too.

> And as for their "superior culture"
> you might have read von Däniken once too many times there, me bucko.

You haven't even got a clue what you're talking about, bozo.

> They were effectively wiped out by the first tsunami that came along and

Oh, they were ? Please publish your ground-breaking research !
Help all those baffled Archaeologists.

> then quickly assimilated by the Greeks.
>
Neat trick. Assimilating a people which was effectively wiped out.
Hmmmmm

>> Unless you can show that cultural transfer happened - and for this
>> you would have to show that the symbol had the same meaning in the
>> cultures.
>
> Why do you assume that?
>
You don't read English to well ?
No - wait, you've snipped too much and shifted goalposts so quick
that you've lost track of your silly claims.

>>> Can you prove that boats and agriculture did not have a single common
>>> source within the proper geographic context? Simply gainsaying
>>> everything I propose is not a proper argument, q.v.:
>>>
>> Since American Indians developed agriculture before contact,
>> here's your example.
>
> No. I said "within the proper geographic context". Obviously, North
> America is beyond the geographic context of Mesopotamia -> Scandinavia.
>
Since the swastika also appeared outside your "proper geographic[al]
context", let's call this what it is : bullshit.

>> Since American Indians used the Swastika before contact, that's
>> another example.
>
> That could easily have come from elsewhere.

Yeah, sure. From Mars, for example.

> Sporadic contact with North
> American indigenous populations took place on a number of occasions
> (Vikings in 1000AD,

You know where L'Anse Aux Meadows is, no ?
You know that there's no evidence for Viking influence ?

> the Chinese in the 15th century,

Oh, Menzies. So that's the level of your "knowledge". <snort>

> possibly even Brendan the Navigator if he existed, and more)

Yes, and with the Flying Spaghetti monster.

> not to mention more
> regular contact with basque and portuguese fishing fleets from 1200AD on.
>
Yeah, sure. Show me Archaeological or Linguistic prove for that.
Could be groundbreaking research again !

>> And you still haven't got it : You make a claim, you back it up.
>
> Ah but I do...you merely gainsay what I propose.
>
You're bullshitting, obfuscating, weaseling and moving goalposts.
That's what you do, you half-educated twit.

>>> Well, then it should be possible to show that ancient Suomi has the
>>> root sat- *before* contact with the Russians. Otherwise, my
>>> proposition is at least valid. Simply saying "No it isn't" is a load
>>> of ********.
>>
>> We're talking about the Swastika, not loan words.
>> Or are you weaseling again ?
>
> Transference is transference, whether is it a pattern or a word.
>
Then show some proof of that transference, dimwit.
"Because I say so" or "It could have been" doesn't cut the mustard.

>>> The swastika had largely been ignored as a symbol (except in India
>>> where it has religious significance)
>>
>> And in Scandinavia as Thor's hammer, and and and.
>
> That is one interpretation. There actually isn't much to back that one
> up and honestly, the shape is not of a hammer, so it should be fairly
> obvious someone is fishing (unless of course you want to bring in the
> art of Jack Kirby to back up your claim).
>
> http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp...008/09/Marvel%
> 20Masterworks%20the%20Mighty%20Thor%20Volume%207%2 0Jack%20Kirby.jpg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nszsut
>
> Look ma! It's toinin'!
>

You really are an idiot without arguments.

>>> until interest in its "importance" was
>>> rekindled by the writings of Madame Blavatsky (who claimed to have
>>> spent two years studying in Tibet as well as to have later spent time
>>> in India) when she brought it out of obscurity.
>>>
>> It gets better and better ...
>>
>> That was your demonstration ? Hmmm
>
> One that actually links to Hitler, yes.
>
You really are an idiot.

>> Plus, you don't seem to get the simple fact that adapting a language
>> or words from that language doesn't mean that religious symbols
>> are also adapted.
>
> So, for you, contact is not the issue. Perhaps you could be specific as
> to what IS the issue (after all, you're the one who decided this was
> worth pursuing but then fail to provide ANY, and I stress the word ANY,
> substantiating evidence OF ANY SORT.

Sorry, I've got nothing as good as your wiki-links, you ******.
Except for the parts you snipped.
Now run along and play in traffic.

And read some books instead of googling and misunderstanding.