Evidence of Present Life on Mars
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
examine biology and mathematics all life is mechanical/chemical/mathematical all that is needed is probability constrained by the right circumstances, if you equate nature with god. the material of life is everywhere. all it needs is the proper circumstances to materialize. If you equate god with the circumstances. so be it.
Etymology of the word "god"
Sumerian Deity named god/gud which is the deity of fortune/luck/circumstance.
Etymology of the word "god"
Sumerian Deity named god/gud which is the deity of fortune/luck/circumstance.
I know what you're gettin at, let me say somethin..
creationists sometimes argue that the "right conditions" thing actually supports their theory, from my experience their reasoning is usually something like, "how can something become so perfect without a creator, or overseer"
and evolutionists argue that no, this indeed actually supports our theory because it makes more scientific sense that out of all the planets and galaxies in the universe(the word universe is actually now considered an understatement in science, since it can not be assumed that there is only "one" "uni"verse), there should be well more than one chance that a planet would be able to have the right conditions to allow for atomic particles to form a living cell.
We all know that the "right conditions" are there, so both sides of the creationism vs. evolutionism(or science whatever u wanna call it) both sides are going to implement it into their theories.
Now, lets throw out both theories, COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM... instead of looking at the kid next to you for the answers on the test, try solving the problems for yourself. Get what I'm saying? In order to solve the problem you need to not only do it yourself, but start from scratch and ignore what other people have assumed, ignore what other people have theorized. Observe facts first, things we all know are real and tangible. But no, don't peek at the desk next to you for the answers, because that person might be wrong.
Okay lets get started...
Would you agree that in order to find out where we (and other life forms, and well everything) in order to find out where we came from we must observe the first clue.. what we are made of?
Lets start with the basics... every single molecule, everything that contains matter, everything that has atoms which is well.. everything. Everything has the exact SAME atomic particles... there is no such thing as different types of atomic particles, the thing that makes molecules different is the way the atomic particles form together. So ALL matter is made up of the SAME atomic particles.
So observing what we know that we are made of, we know that EVERYTHING is made up of the SAME STUFF. What does this tell us about how we came to be? Absolutely nothing.
Wow I'm stumped, starting from scratch is definately something that would take a lifetime before you can come up with a scientific theory.
creationists sometimes argue that the "right conditions" thing actually supports their theory, from my experience their reasoning is usually something like, "how can something become so perfect without a creator, or overseer"
and evolutionists argue that no, this indeed actually supports our theory because it makes more scientific sense that out of all the planets and galaxies in the universe(the word universe is actually now considered an understatement in science, since it can not be assumed that there is only "one" "uni"verse), there should be well more than one chance that a planet would be able to have the right conditions to allow for atomic particles to form a living cell.
We all know that the "right conditions" are there, so both sides of the creationism vs. evolutionism(or science whatever u wanna call it) both sides are going to implement it into their theories.
Now, lets throw out both theories, COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM... instead of looking at the kid next to you for the answers on the test, try solving the problems for yourself. Get what I'm saying? In order to solve the problem you need to not only do it yourself, but start from scratch and ignore what other people have assumed, ignore what other people have theorized. Observe facts first, things we all know are real and tangible. But no, don't peek at the desk next to you for the answers, because that person might be wrong.
Okay lets get started...
Would you agree that in order to find out where we (and other life forms, and well everything) in order to find out where we came from we must observe the first clue.. what we are made of?
Lets start with the basics... every single molecule, everything that contains matter, everything that has atoms which is well.. everything. Everything has the exact SAME atomic particles... there is no such thing as different types of atomic particles, the thing that makes molecules different is the way the atomic particles form together. So ALL matter is made up of the SAME atomic particles.
So observing what we know that we are made of, we know that EVERYTHING is made up of the SAME STUFF. What does this tell us about how we came to be? Absolutely nothing.
Wow I'm stumped, starting from scratch is definately something that would take a lifetime before you can come up with a scientific theory.
*snickering* of course the "western world" would have you believe that the word god is of european descent.
I've found those etymologies as well and to even look at them you can tell it's conjecture. i.e. khooda and gott. LOL I laughed when I read those when i first came across them.
http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/002525.html
note: Garcia,Alex
http://www.christianforums.com/t14392&page=11
note:
23rd July 2002, 01:19 PM
wannabe
http://www.ynca.com/Mini Studies/mistaken_j.htm
Also you may want to look up some Jewish/Israeli Freemasonry sites that only use G-D
I've found those etymologies as well and to even look at them you can tell it's conjecture. i.e. khooda and gott. LOL I laughed when I read those when i first came across them.
http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/002525.html
note: Garcia,Alex
http://www.christianforums.com/t14392&page=11
note:
23rd July 2002, 01:19 PM
wannabe
http://www.ynca.com/Mini Studies/mistaken_j.htm
Also you may want to look up some Jewish/Israeli Freemasonry sites that only use G-D
XianeX said:
examine biology and mathematics all life is mechanical/chemical/mathematical all that is needed is probability constrained by the right circumstances, if you equate nature with god. the material of life is everywhere. all it needs is the proper circumstances to materialize. If you equate god with the circumstances. so be it.
Etymology of the word "god"
Sumerian Deity named god/gud which is the deity of fortune/luck/circumstance.
Etymology of the word "god"
Sumerian Deity named god/gud which is the deity of fortune/luck/circumstance.
I know what you're gettin at, let me say somethin..
Naw you're wrong pimpin
creationists sometimes argue that the "right conditions" thing actually supports their theory, from my experience their reasoning is usually something like, "how can something become so perfect without a creator, or overseer"
This may be the case for some but it's not the reason why I asked the question.
and evolutionists argue that no, this indeed actually supports our theory because it makes more scientific sense that out of all the planets and galaxies in the universe(the word universe is actually now considered an understatement in science, since it can not be assumed that there is only "one" "uni"verse), there should be well more than one chance that a planet would be able to have the right conditions to allow for atomic particles to form a living cell.
This may be the case for some but it's not the reason why I asked the question.
We all know that the "right conditions" are there, so both sides of the creationism vs. evolutionism(or science whatever u wanna call it) both sides are going to implement it into their theories.
IMHO we DON'T know what the right conditions are beause we were not present nor can we recreate the event. Simply put we don't have the formula.
Now, lets throw out both theories, COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM... instead of looking at the kid next to you for the answers on the test, try solving the problems for yourself. Get what I'm saying? In order to solve the problem you need to not only do it yourself, but start from scratch and ignore what other people have assumed, ignore what other people have theorized. Observe facts first, things we all know are real and tangible. But no, don't peek at the desk next to you for the answers, because that person might be wrong.
Okay lets get started...
I guess.....
Would you agree that in order to find out where we (and other life forms, and well everything) in order to find out where we came from we must observe the first clue.. what we are made of?
I agree.
Lets start with the basics... every single molecule, everything that contains matter, everything that has atoms which is well.. everything. Everything has the exact SAME atomic particles... there is no such thing as different types of atomic particles, the thing that makes molecules different is the way the atomic particles form together. So ALL matter is made up of the SAME atomic particles.
I agree but this takes us to the question of where do molecules come from, how are they created, did they always exist? This also opens the door for where did god come from or who created god?
So observing what we know that we are made of, we know that EVERYTHING is made up of the SAME STUFF. What does this tell us about how we came to be? Absolutely nothing.
Back to square one?
Wow I'm stumped, starting from scratch is definately something that would take a lifetime before you can come up with a scientific theory.
Thats my take friend.
Naw you're wrong pimpin
creationists sometimes argue that the "right conditions" thing actually supports their theory, from my experience their reasoning is usually something like, "how can something become so perfect without a creator, or overseer"
This may be the case for some but it's not the reason why I asked the question.
and evolutionists argue that no, this indeed actually supports our theory because it makes more scientific sense that out of all the planets and galaxies in the universe(the word universe is actually now considered an understatement in science, since it can not be assumed that there is only "one" "uni"verse), there should be well more than one chance that a planet would be able to have the right conditions to allow for atomic particles to form a living cell.
This may be the case for some but it's not the reason why I asked the question.
We all know that the "right conditions" are there, so both sides of the creationism vs. evolutionism(or science whatever u wanna call it) both sides are going to implement it into their theories.
IMHO we DON'T know what the right conditions are beause we were not present nor can we recreate the event. Simply put we don't have the formula.
Now, lets throw out both theories, COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM... instead of looking at the kid next to you for the answers on the test, try solving the problems for yourself. Get what I'm saying? In order to solve the problem you need to not only do it yourself, but start from scratch and ignore what other people have assumed, ignore what other people have theorized. Observe facts first, things we all know are real and tangible. But no, don't peek at the desk next to you for the answers, because that person might be wrong.
Okay lets get started...
I guess.....
Would you agree that in order to find out where we (and other life forms, and well everything) in order to find out where we came from we must observe the first clue.. what we are made of?
I agree.
Lets start with the basics... every single molecule, everything that contains matter, everything that has atoms which is well.. everything. Everything has the exact SAME atomic particles... there is no such thing as different types of atomic particles, the thing that makes molecules different is the way the atomic particles form together. So ALL matter is made up of the SAME atomic particles.
I agree but this takes us to the question of where do molecules come from, how are they created, did they always exist? This also opens the door for where did god come from or who created god?
So observing what we know that we are made of, we know that EVERYTHING is made up of the SAME STUFF. What does this tell us about how we came to be? Absolutely nothing.
Back to square one?
Wow I'm stumped, starting from scratch is definately something that would take a lifetime before you can come up with a scientific theory.
Thats my take friend.
has anyone studied coral reefs???
has anybody read about the lifeforms at deep sea that respirate "iron" YES BREATHE IRON!
evolution/creation is happening right now as we type. be it "god" or mathematics/chemistry it's all the same shit.
for scientists:
unknown = unknown
for theists:
favorable unknown = god
unfavorable unknown = devil
we "are" because we "were". no beginning no end. we came from "what we are".
alluding to the "we" in the koran and the "i am" of the bible. albeit conjecture.
historically, the greeks had issue with the number zero (for good reason). in other words they had a problem with the concept of "nothing". absense is the "presense" of nothing, unfortunately absense is the substantiated by what is missing. meaning that nothing is something. in short, nothing is a part of everthing meaning that "all is". therefore there is no begining or end just transition between presense and absense i.e. 0 and 1 the binary system used to build computers.
add space for more change and time for transition hence the universe/internet etc. I'm being facetious but this shit is pretty simple and very similar.
I can go deeper with that parallel. the only difference between digital (human artifice) and analog (natural existance) is resolution. those of you who do digital music know what quantization is/does. the difference between a virtual universe and the "real" universe is quatization/scale.
I can go deeper with "digital logic / rules of nature" but i won't.
once again, more of my uni-deistic rhetoric.
has anybody read about the lifeforms at deep sea that respirate "iron" YES BREATHE IRON!
evolution/creation is happening right now as we type. be it "god" or mathematics/chemistry it's all the same shit.
for scientists:
unknown = unknown
for theists:
favorable unknown = god
unfavorable unknown = devil
we "are" because we "were". no beginning no end. we came from "what we are".
alluding to the "we" in the koran and the "i am" of the bible. albeit conjecture.
historically, the greeks had issue with the number zero (for good reason). in other words they had a problem with the concept of "nothing". absense is the "presense" of nothing, unfortunately absense is the substantiated by what is missing. meaning that nothing is something. in short, nothing is a part of everthing meaning that "all is". therefore there is no begining or end just transition between presense and absense i.e. 0 and 1 the binary system used to build computers.
add space for more change and time for transition hence the universe/internet etc. I'm being facetious but this shit is pretty simple and very similar.
I can go deeper with that parallel. the only difference between digital (human artifice) and analog (natural existance) is resolution. those of you who do digital music know what quantization is/does. the difference between a virtual universe and the "real" universe is quatization/scale.
I can go deeper with "digital logic / rules of nature" but i won't.
once again, more of my uni-deistic rhetoric.
1. If the sumerian people are not caananites or syrians link #1 is useless. Gad is also attributed to a person, place, prophet AND specific tribe. The majority of what the main contributor for link#1 posted can be found here WORD FOR WORD:
http://coohmp.homestead.com/wouldwe.html
We'll strike that from the list. Cut and paste action is a NO NO.
2. Link #2 takes us down the same road. While gad does mean good fortune/luck (at times the meaning is something else) it isn't the hebrew word for what we would use for "god" i.e. supreme diety, creator etc etc etc. It is attributed to a pagan "god" (diety) but gad is NEVER identified with/as YHWH.
peep this spin on it:
http://members.cox.net/thomasahobbs/yea_38.htm
3. Heres something I found interesting when it comes to link 3:
Q. “’Yahweh’ is Hebrew but I speak English. Why shouldn’t I use the English ‘God’?”
A. To this we ask, IS “God” English? Hardly. “God” traces back to the Dutch god, to the Germanic gott and back to the Teutonic guth. Names are transliterated, which means the sounds are carried across unchanged into another language. They are not translated into other languages. “But what about similar forms like John, Juan, and Johann? Or Peter and Pedro?” Some may ask. True, different languages have analogous version of certain names, but that does not change the fact that your given name remains the same no matter which country you travel to. (Notice, too, how closely these name versions RESEMBLE reach other, unlike “Yahweh” and the completely dissonant and unrelated “God.”)
This guy has a unique view on it and takes a crack at the "holy names" people (those who usually promote "gad is pagan" type rhetoric)
http://beth-abraham.org/baal.html
This one provides another spin:
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p220.html
And heres a definition:
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/ID/3618
Now the questions:
Did the sumerians (people you listed in your original post) have a deity called "Gad"? Yes if they are the same as syrians and caananites. Are they the same as the syrians and caananites?
Which came first Gad (son of jacob) , the location or the deity? If the person named Gad actually came first is it possible that he was later worshipped as a deity (ancestor worship)? Yes thats a STRONG possibility IF Gad (son of jacob) did indeed come first.
Bedtime.
:hgk:
Or in science... matter can not be created nor can it be destroyed...
I've thought about this before... People want to apply the concept of time to everything, I think that humans (including you and me) are incapable of FULLY grasping the concept of no beginning and no end. And it makes since that people would want to apply the concept of beginning and end to everything, because you are born and you die, because the sun rises and the sun sets, everything we know has a beginning and an end.
Some kind of electric brain error or some shit happens when you try to imagine a universe, an "everything" that has no beginning and no end, you can't say that it has "always been there" because this describes a presence, so what then is the absence? How can we begin and end but TIME itself and the UNIVERSE are a continuum, a thing that never ends because it never started?
If there is a god then where did he come from? and so on and so on+
Theres something there in that thought process of no beginning and no end to the universe that humans don't understand, that we can't quite grasp the concept of, that we are incapable of understanding.
I've thought about this before... People want to apply the concept of time to everything, I think that humans (including you and me) are incapable of FULLY grasping the concept of no beginning and no end. And it makes since that people would want to apply the concept of beginning and end to everything, because you are born and you die, because the sun rises and the sun sets, everything we know has a beginning and an end.
Some kind of electric brain error or some shit happens when you try to imagine a universe, an "everything" that has no beginning and no end, you can't say that it has "always been there" because this describes a presence, so what then is the absence? How can we begin and end but TIME itself and the UNIVERSE are a continuum, a thing that never ends because it never started?
If there is a god then where did he come from? and so on and so on+
Theres something there in that thought process of no beginning and no end to the universe that humans don't understand, that we can't quite grasp the concept of, that we are incapable of understanding.
I wish I could remember one of the original links I had for the etym. those were just a few oogle searches that I thought you'd be entertained by as well as give some context.
@ syrians/caananites I will say this. they are all of the same origin background etc. . . Sumeria/Mesopotamia/Persia/babylon all basically the same shtuff. either descendants or spinoffs.
Remember Iraq is Sumeria/Babylon I don't see any evidence that the empire didn't extend into syria. actually I've found to the contrary.
The sumerians did have a deity name Gad/Gud/God. remember Cuneiform like hebrew and most "semetic" languages are without vowels. therefore the use of vowel letters or symbols in relation to the Masoretic or english changes are secondary and are at the discretion of the writer's interpretation. In all likelihood (I'll research further) Gad of Jacob came secondary. but it IS a strong possibility in the context of how Gad fits into the bible. if you have a relative date of Gad's birth I'll definitely be able to find out.
Of course to associate G-d with YHWH is pure foolishness. But I'm sure you'll find humor if you correlate the sumerian "G-d" with "In God we trust" on the dollar bill. money and the god of fortune LOL. beautiful. Also considering that the framers of the constitution many times refered to god as "providence".
I used to love hitting folk with the yeshua vs. jesus thing. but it fucks people up when they think "damn, yeah, I never thought of where the word god came from" It's sad but amusing that people refer to a Jewish deity in an either tuetonic or sumerian context. as if there was never a basis for the generic "god" word. i.e. "goddamn" is "using the lords name in vain" ROFLMMFAO.
but the possibility of Gad son of Jacob being an object of worship. Makes me wonder if Asher has anything to do with Ashera/Atarte/Istar
I have found several correlations of hermes = Baal-Gad in several locations. also associated with mount Hermon, the philestines and syria.
A notable line on one of the links you posted
The question has also an astronomical interest. Arabic tradition styled the planet Jupiter the greater fortune, and Venus the lesser fortune. Jewish tradition identified Gad with the planet Jupiter, and it has been conjectured that Meni is to be identified with the planet Venus.
Jupiter is very much asociated with Peter / Vicar of Christ for the catholics.
Peep. From all the sites you gave and my own research I've found G-d associated with jupiter the sun and mercury. even worse one site you gave said that the teutonic version refered to "heathen" gods and after they were converted it became official for the catholics. LOLOLOL more digression.
To summarize after a lil study. Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs.
The origin of Gott/God obviously comes from g-d of sumeria. who knows if it has anything to to with Gad of jacob but it's a definite that it's from the sumerian god of fortune.
the beauty of religion.
@ syrians/caananites I will say this. they are all of the same origin background etc. . . Sumeria/Mesopotamia/Persia/babylon all basically the same shtuff. either descendants or spinoffs.
Remember Iraq is Sumeria/Babylon I don't see any evidence that the empire didn't extend into syria. actually I've found to the contrary.
The sumerians did have a deity name Gad/Gud/God. remember Cuneiform like hebrew and most "semetic" languages are without vowels. therefore the use of vowel letters or symbols in relation to the Masoretic or english changes are secondary and are at the discretion of the writer's interpretation. In all likelihood (I'll research further) Gad of Jacob came secondary. but it IS a strong possibility in the context of how Gad fits into the bible. if you have a relative date of Gad's birth I'll definitely be able to find out.
Of course to associate G-d with YHWH is pure foolishness. But I'm sure you'll find humor if you correlate the sumerian "G-d" with "In God we trust" on the dollar bill. money and the god of fortune LOL. beautiful. Also considering that the framers of the constitution many times refered to god as "providence".
I used to love hitting folk with the yeshua vs. jesus thing. but it fucks people up when they think "damn, yeah, I never thought of where the word god came from" It's sad but amusing that people refer to a Jewish deity in an either tuetonic or sumerian context. as if there was never a basis for the generic "god" word. i.e. "goddamn" is "using the lords name in vain" ROFLMMFAO.
but the possibility of Gad son of Jacob being an object of worship. Makes me wonder if Asher has anything to do with Ashera/Atarte/Istar
I have found several correlations of hermes = Baal-Gad in several locations. also associated with mount Hermon, the philestines and syria.
A notable line on one of the links you posted
The question has also an astronomical interest. Arabic tradition styled the planet Jupiter the greater fortune, and Venus the lesser fortune. Jewish tradition identified Gad with the planet Jupiter, and it has been conjectured that Meni is to be identified with the planet Venus.
Jupiter is very much asociated with Peter / Vicar of Christ for the catholics.
Peep. From all the sites you gave and my own research I've found G-d associated with jupiter the sun and mercury. even worse one site you gave said that the teutonic version refered to "heathen" gods and after they were converted it became official for the catholics. LOLOLOL more digression.
To summarize after a lil study. Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs.
The origin of Gott/God obviously comes from g-d of sumeria. who knows if it has anything to to with Gad of jacob but it's a definite that it's from the sumerian god of fortune.
the beauty of religion.
@ 1/2
we learn in geometry the difference between a line and a line segment and a ray.
a line has no beginning or end. a ray has a beginning and no end a line segment terminates at both ends.
we as humans tend to focus on the points and don't connect the dots.
many humans have been taught to not equate themselves with divinity.
religion is based solely on the end. i.e. judgement day the last day the end of the world blah blah blah.
science plainly states that when i die and decompse i have lost my corporeality but not my existence. which means I can become something else. or more suscinctly many things else.
our natural bodies show us we aren't static. we constantly change. from haircuts to taking a shit to washing dead skin off our asses in a shower. if we were static then all those things we cast off as waste is death.
our corporeality is a constant life and death cycle. we eat dead things to stay alive how ironic.
to consider our human incarnation as the ultimate significane is total lunacy. especially to consider a theos is going to judge us. we didn't begin as humans we didn't even begin as one cell. before we had our bodies we were cells living in other humans bodies. and what were we before that?
theism is ridiculous. but an entertaining thing to observe.
of course there is life on other planets. humans are only concerned with what kind of life not considering that existance with sentience or otherwise is not as important as knowning that we will always be . . . SOMETHING
and as the atheists would say fuck religion.
another uni-deistic rant from XianeX (pronounced Sha-NeZ)
we learn in geometry the difference between a line and a line segment and a ray.
a line has no beginning or end. a ray has a beginning and no end a line segment terminates at both ends.
we as humans tend to focus on the points and don't connect the dots.
many humans have been taught to not equate themselves with divinity.
religion is based solely on the end. i.e. judgement day the last day the end of the world blah blah blah.
science plainly states that when i die and decompse i have lost my corporeality but not my existence. which means I can become something else. or more suscinctly many things else.
our natural bodies show us we aren't static. we constantly change. from haircuts to taking a shit to washing dead skin off our asses in a shower. if we were static then all those things we cast off as waste is death.
our corporeality is a constant life and death cycle. we eat dead things to stay alive how ironic.
to consider our human incarnation as the ultimate significane is total lunacy. especially to consider a theos is going to judge us. we didn't begin as humans we didn't even begin as one cell. before we had our bodies we were cells living in other humans bodies. and what were we before that?
theism is ridiculous. but an entertaining thing to observe.
of course there is life on other planets. humans are only concerned with what kind of life not considering that existance with sentience or otherwise is not as important as knowning that we will always be . . . SOMETHING
and as the atheists would say fuck religion.
another uni-deistic rant from XianeX (pronounced Sha-NeZ)
Mars pictures reveal frozen sea
A huge, frozen sea lies just below the surface of Mars, a team of European scientists has announced.
Their assessment is based on pictures of the planet's near-equatorial Elysium region that show plated and rutted features across an area 800 by 900km.
The team think a catastrophic event flooded the landscape five million years ago and then froze out.
They tell a forthcoming edition of Nature magazine that sediments covered the ice, locking it in place.
Large reserves of water-ice are known to be held at the poles on Mars but if this discovery is confirmed by follow-up observations, it would be a first for a region at such a low latitude.
Dust covering
"It's been predicted for a long time that you should find water close to the surface of Mars near the equator," Jan-Peter Muller, from University College London, UK, said.
"This is an area where there are a lot of river features but no-one has ever seen a sea before, and certainly no-one has ever seen pack ice before," he told the BBC News website.
The interpretation is based on images taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera on Europe's Mars Express spacecraft. These show extensive fields of large, platy features - reminiscent of the fractured ice floes found in polar regions on Earth.
Finding exposed ice at the equator would be unlikely. Very low pressures on the planet would lead to sublimation - the ice would erode over time straight to water vapour.
But the research group, led by John Murray, from the Open University, UK, tells Nature that a crust of dust and volcanic ash, perhaps just a few centimetres thick, has prevented this happening.
"The story runs that water flowed in some kind of massive catastrophic event; pack ice formed on top of that water and broke up, and then the whole thing froze rigid," explains Professor Muller.
"Large amounts of dust then fell over that area. The dust fell through the water and on top of the pack ice, which explains why the pack ice is a different hue to the area around it."
Feeder channels
The water that formed the sea in the southern Elysium, five degree north of the equator, appears to have originated beneath the surface of Mars, erupting from a series of fractures known as the Cerberus Fossae.
Many of the features seen by Mars Express have also been pictured by the Mars Orbiter Camera on the US Mars Global Surveyor probe.
Further data is now required to support the initial observations but already other scientists think the interpretation is reasonable.
"I think it's fairly plausible," commented Michael Carr, an expert on Martian water at the US Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, who was not part of the team.
He told New Scientist magazine that a past water source north of the Elysium plates had previously been suspected.
"We know where the water came from... You can trace the valleys carved by water down to this area."
Mars Express has now been in orbit around the Red Planet for a year.
It has already confirmed US observations that substantial water-ice lies at the poles, on its own and mixed with carbon dioxide ice and dirt.
Lander target
The probe will soon deploy its Marsis (Mars Advance Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding) instrument, which has been designed to find the planet's subterranean permafrost.
This underground ice is thought to be the major reservoir for water on Mars today.
However, the way the instrument is set up means it may not be able to see the Elysium sea because it is simply too near the surface. Only if the ice mass extends down many tens of metres will it be able to detect the sea-bottom boundary.
The presence of so much recent (in the geological timeframe) liquid water will excite the speculation that life could have thrived in this area.
"The fact that there have been warm and wet places beneath the surface of Mars since before life began on Earth, and that some are probably still there, means that there is a possibility that primitive micro-organisms survive on Mars today," Professor Murray said.
"This mission has changed many of my long-held opinions about Mars - we now have to go there and check it out."
Professor Muller added: "What we'd like is for the European Space Agency (Esa), with UK support, to send its next lander there."
Details of the frozen sea were given at the Mars Express science conference, taking place at Esa's European Space Research and Technology Centre (Estec), in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
A huge, frozen sea lies just below the surface of Mars, a team of European scientists has announced.
Their assessment is based on pictures of the planet's near-equatorial Elysium region that show plated and rutted features across an area 800 by 900km.
The team think a catastrophic event flooded the landscape five million years ago and then froze out.
They tell a forthcoming edition of Nature magazine that sediments covered the ice, locking it in place.
Large reserves of water-ice are known to be held at the poles on Mars but if this discovery is confirmed by follow-up observations, it would be a first for a region at such a low latitude.
Dust covering
"It's been predicted for a long time that you should find water close to the surface of Mars near the equator," Jan-Peter Muller, from University College London, UK, said.
"This is an area where there are a lot of river features but no-one has ever seen a sea before, and certainly no-one has ever seen pack ice before," he told the BBC News website.
The interpretation is based on images taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera on Europe's Mars Express spacecraft. These show extensive fields of large, platy features - reminiscent of the fractured ice floes found in polar regions on Earth.
Finding exposed ice at the equator would be unlikely. Very low pressures on the planet would lead to sublimation - the ice would erode over time straight to water vapour.
But the research group, led by John Murray, from the Open University, UK, tells Nature that a crust of dust and volcanic ash, perhaps just a few centimetres thick, has prevented this happening.
"The story runs that water flowed in some kind of massive catastrophic event; pack ice formed on top of that water and broke up, and then the whole thing froze rigid," explains Professor Muller.
"Large amounts of dust then fell over that area. The dust fell through the water and on top of the pack ice, which explains why the pack ice is a different hue to the area around it."
Feeder channels
The water that formed the sea in the southern Elysium, five degree north of the equator, appears to have originated beneath the surface of Mars, erupting from a series of fractures known as the Cerberus Fossae.
Many of the features seen by Mars Express have also been pictured by the Mars Orbiter Camera on the US Mars Global Surveyor probe.
Further data is now required to support the initial observations but already other scientists think the interpretation is reasonable.
"I think it's fairly plausible," commented Michael Carr, an expert on Martian water at the US Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, who was not part of the team.
He told New Scientist magazine that a past water source north of the Elysium plates had previously been suspected.
"We know where the water came from... You can trace the valleys carved by water down to this area."
Mars Express has now been in orbit around the Red Planet for a year.
It has already confirmed US observations that substantial water-ice lies at the poles, on its own and mixed with carbon dioxide ice and dirt.
Lander target
The probe will soon deploy its Marsis (Mars Advance Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding) instrument, which has been designed to find the planet's subterranean permafrost.
This underground ice is thought to be the major reservoir for water on Mars today.
However, the way the instrument is set up means it may not be able to see the Elysium sea because it is simply too near the surface. Only if the ice mass extends down many tens of metres will it be able to detect the sea-bottom boundary.
The presence of so much recent (in the geological timeframe) liquid water will excite the speculation that life could have thrived in this area.
"The fact that there have been warm and wet places beneath the surface of Mars since before life began on Earth, and that some are probably still there, means that there is a possibility that primitive micro-organisms survive on Mars today," Professor Murray said.
"This mission has changed many of my long-held opinions about Mars - we now have to go there and check it out."
Professor Muller added: "What we'd like is for the European Space Agency (Esa), with UK support, to send its next lander there."
Details of the frozen sea were given at the Mars Express science conference, taking place at Esa's European Space Research and Technology Centre (Estec), in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
@ syrians/caananites I will say this. they are all of the same origin background etc. . . Sumeria/Mesopotamia/Persia/babylon all basically the same shtuff. either descendants or spinoffs.
Actually all humans are from the same origin and background. To be honest with you a lot of people disagree with your theory. Some circles will say they trace to hittites, caananites and chaleans and that these have little to do with what you mentioned. Those who hold historical evidence of babylon invading mesopotamia will disagree with you. Especially those who have knowledge of how the babylonians used the cuniform style of the Sumerians.
Remember Iraq is Sumeria/Babylon I don't see any evidence that the empire didn't extend into syria. actually I've found to the contrary.
Sumer/sumeria is found in our present day "southern Iraq". Yes the babylonian kingdom did extend to syria but a debate is made about the "sumerian" kingdom.
The sumerians did have a deity name Gad/Gud/God.
No the "sumerians" NEVER had a deity named gad/gud/god. Maybe you should read the links you gave me and take a crash course in ancient mideast culture?You have NO evidence (please direct me to it if you have it) that suggest SUMERIANS worshipped a diety called gad/gud/god. The sumerian kings list does not mention this deity nor do the clay tablets. If you ve ANY info regarding this please share it.
Gad is usually interpreted as the well-known Syrian or Canaanite deity of "Good Luck" or "Fortune"
This is an excerpt from the first link you gave me (the cut and paste guy). If you continue to equate sumerians with canaanites you'll forever be misinformed and in direct contradiction with the evidence you gave. Enlil, An, Enki, Utu, Nanna, Inanna,Ninhursag, Mullitu and Ninlil are sumerian "gods". Now once again if you have any historical or scriptural evidence to suggest caananites and syrians are the same as Sumerians and that these Sumerians worshipped a "god" called "God" please share it. If you can present such evidence I'd love to see it!
Here this link presents several cultures and the gods they worshipped.
http://www.mythome.org/mideastg.html#Sumerian
You'll find gad but you won't find it listed under the sumerian gods.
remember Cuneiform like hebrew and most "semetic" languages are without vowels. therefore the use of vowel letters or symbols in relation to the Masoretic or english changes are secondary and are at the discretion of the writer's interpretation.
I've typed similar yet in depth info numerous times on this board (especially when I had to correct someone). However I don't see how it's relevent for your cause. If it is relevent I'll simply use it to show you the babylonians are not sumerians and that the sumerians never had a deity named "gad"....ah wait I sort of did that earlier in this post.
In all likelihood (I'll research further) Gad of Jacob came secondary. but it IS a strong possibility in the context of how Gad fits into the bible. if you have a relative date of Gad's birth I'll definitely be able to find out.
Dates list him being born between 1559 bc-1568 bc. The most widely accepted date is 1564 bc. BTW the bible mentions gad and meni in the book of isa 65.
Of course to associate G-d with YHWH is pure foolishness. But I'm sure you'll find humor if you correlate the sumerian "G-d" with "In God we trust" on the dollar bill. money and the god of fortune LOL. beautiful. Also considering that the framers of the constitution many times refered to god as "providence".
Well the links you gave associated g-d with YHWH. I agree with you on the dollar bill thing and you know whats funny? I try to tell people these "men" do not worship what they worship. Some people never listen.
I used to love hitting folk with the yeshua vs. jesus thing. but it fucks people up when they think "damn, yeah, I never thought of where the word god came from" It's sad but amusing that people refer to a Jewish deity in an either tuetonic or sumerian context. as if there was never a basis for the generic "god" word. i.e. "goddamn" is "using the lords name in vain" ROFLMMFAO.
Well you see worse than that when halloween, x-mas,easter and valentines day come around. People worship and talk about stuff they know nothing about. If you try to tell them something or have them research it you'll be laughed at, attacked or simply shrugged off.
but the possibility of Gad son of Jacob being an object of worship. Makes me wonder if Asher has anything to do with Ashera/Atarte/Istar
The words/names are close. Look into it.
I have found several correlations of hermes = Baal-Gad in several locations. also associated with mount Hermon, the philestines and syria.
Thats possible.
The question has also an astronomical interest. Arabic tradition styled the planet Jupiter the greater fortune, and Venus the lesser fortune. Jewish tradition identified Gad with the planet Jupiter, and it has been conjectured that Meni is to be identified with the planet Venus.
Jupiter is very much asociated with Peter / Vicar of Christ for the catholics.
Or jupiter lord of plenty. Jewish magick/mysticism involves gad and great fortune (jupiter).
Peep. From all the sites you gave and my own research I've found G-d associated with jupiter the sun and mercury. even worse one site you gave said that the teutonic version refered to "heathen" gods and after they were converted it became official for the catholics. LOLOLOL more digression.
The roman catholics pretty much allow anything HEATHEN to become "official". I don't know if g-d was involved with sun worship but if it was it would be dependent on who worshipped g-d and who were the people in charge at the time. Sort of like how many versions of Ra and Re were assimilated.
To summarize after a lil study. Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs.
The origin of Gott/God obviously comes from g-d of sumeria. who knows if it has anything to to with Gad of jacob but it's a definite that it's from the sumerian god of fortune.
You are incorrect and your entire time line (=) is out of phase. Please take a study on ancient mid east cultures. Better yet take a study on ancient art or ART HISTORY.
Teutons are descended from summerians? Where did you learn this? I don't believe thats possible and no historical evidence I've ran across will support this claim. History supports the Teutons being germanic and european not people of mesopotamia. This is ANCIENT HISTORY 101. You can start with Tacitus and beer if you don't know where to look
While I do agree that the sumerians, babylonians and sumerians basically inhabited the same area history shows they are not the same people.
hit these two links:
http://www.bartleby.com/67/84.html
http://www.bartleby.com/67/85.html
So let's recap. Do the sumerians have a deity named "gad/god" No and they never did. Are the sumerians the same as the babylonians or syrians no and they never were. How do we know this? We turn to historical records which verify it. Are tuetons related to sumerians? They are if germans trace to sumerians (unlikely). History shows they don't.
IMHO I feel one should study the people of the land BEFORE one studies the religion/doctrine/belief system the people held.
:hgk:
Actually all humans are from the same origin and background. To be honest with you a lot of people disagree with your theory. Some circles will say they trace to hittites, caananites and chaleans and that these have little to do with what you mentioned. Those who hold historical evidence of babylon invading mesopotamia will disagree with you. Especially those who have knowledge of how the babylonians used the cuniform style of the Sumerians.
Remember Iraq is Sumeria/Babylon I don't see any evidence that the empire didn't extend into syria. actually I've found to the contrary.
Sumer/sumeria is found in our present day "southern Iraq". Yes the babylonian kingdom did extend to syria but a debate is made about the "sumerian" kingdom.
The sumerians did have a deity name Gad/Gud/God.
No the "sumerians" NEVER had a deity named gad/gud/god. Maybe you should read the links you gave me and take a crash course in ancient mideast culture?You have NO evidence (please direct me to it if you have it) that suggest SUMERIANS worshipped a diety called gad/gud/god. The sumerian kings list does not mention this deity nor do the clay tablets. If you ve ANY info regarding this please share it.
Gad is usually interpreted as the well-known Syrian or Canaanite deity of "Good Luck" or "Fortune"
This is an excerpt from the first link you gave me (the cut and paste guy). If you continue to equate sumerians with canaanites you'll forever be misinformed and in direct contradiction with the evidence you gave. Enlil, An, Enki, Utu, Nanna, Inanna,Ninhursag, Mullitu and Ninlil are sumerian "gods". Now once again if you have any historical or scriptural evidence to suggest caananites and syrians are the same as Sumerians and that these Sumerians worshipped a "god" called "God" please share it. If you can present such evidence I'd love to see it!
Here this link presents several cultures and the gods they worshipped.
http://www.mythome.org/mideastg.html#Sumerian
You'll find gad but you won't find it listed under the sumerian gods.
remember Cuneiform like hebrew and most "semetic" languages are without vowels. therefore the use of vowel letters or symbols in relation to the Masoretic or english changes are secondary and are at the discretion of the writer's interpretation.
I've typed similar yet in depth info numerous times on this board (especially when I had to correct someone). However I don't see how it's relevent for your cause. If it is relevent I'll simply use it to show you the babylonians are not sumerians and that the sumerians never had a deity named "gad"....ah wait I sort of did that earlier in this post.
In all likelihood (I'll research further) Gad of Jacob came secondary. but it IS a strong possibility in the context of how Gad fits into the bible. if you have a relative date of Gad's birth I'll definitely be able to find out.
Dates list him being born between 1559 bc-1568 bc. The most widely accepted date is 1564 bc. BTW the bible mentions gad and meni in the book of isa 65.
Of course to associate G-d with YHWH is pure foolishness. But I'm sure you'll find humor if you correlate the sumerian "G-d" with "In God we trust" on the dollar bill. money and the god of fortune LOL. beautiful. Also considering that the framers of the constitution many times refered to god as "providence".
Well the links you gave associated g-d with YHWH. I agree with you on the dollar bill thing and you know whats funny? I try to tell people these "men" do not worship what they worship. Some people never listen.
I used to love hitting folk with the yeshua vs. jesus thing. but it fucks people up when they think "damn, yeah, I never thought of where the word god came from" It's sad but amusing that people refer to a Jewish deity in an either tuetonic or sumerian context. as if there was never a basis for the generic "god" word. i.e. "goddamn" is "using the lords name in vain" ROFLMMFAO.
Well you see worse than that when halloween, x-mas,easter and valentines day come around. People worship and talk about stuff they know nothing about. If you try to tell them something or have them research it you'll be laughed at, attacked or simply shrugged off.
but the possibility of Gad son of Jacob being an object of worship. Makes me wonder if Asher has anything to do with Ashera/Atarte/Istar
The words/names are close. Look into it.
I have found several correlations of hermes = Baal-Gad in several locations. also associated with mount Hermon, the philestines and syria.
Thats possible.
The question has also an astronomical interest. Arabic tradition styled the planet Jupiter the greater fortune, and Venus the lesser fortune. Jewish tradition identified Gad with the planet Jupiter, and it has been conjectured that Meni is to be identified with the planet Venus.
Jupiter is very much asociated with Peter / Vicar of Christ for the catholics.
Or jupiter lord of plenty. Jewish magick/mysticism involves gad and great fortune (jupiter).
Peep. From all the sites you gave and my own research I've found G-d associated with jupiter the sun and mercury. even worse one site you gave said that the teutonic version refered to "heathen" gods and after they were converted it became official for the catholics. LOLOLOL more digression.
The roman catholics pretty much allow anything HEATHEN to become "official". I don't know if g-d was involved with sun worship but if it was it would be dependent on who worshipped g-d and who were the people in charge at the time. Sort of like how many versions of Ra and Re were assimilated.
To summarize after a lil study. Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs.
The origin of Gott/God obviously comes from g-d of sumeria. who knows if it has anything to to with Gad of jacob but it's a definite that it's from the sumerian god of fortune.
You are incorrect and your entire time line (=) is out of phase. Please take a study on ancient mid east cultures. Better yet take a study on ancient art or ART HISTORY.
Teutons are descended from summerians? Where did you learn this? I don't believe thats possible and no historical evidence I've ran across will support this claim. History supports the Teutons being germanic and european not people of mesopotamia. This is ANCIENT HISTORY 101. You can start with Tacitus and beer if you don't know where to look
While I do agree that the sumerians, babylonians and sumerians basically inhabited the same area history shows they are not the same people.
hit these two links:
http://www.bartleby.com/67/84.html
http://www.bartleby.com/67/85.html
So let's recap. Do the sumerians have a deity named "gad/god" No and they never did. Are the sumerians the same as the babylonians or syrians no and they never were. How do we know this? We turn to historical records which verify it. Are tuetons related to sumerians? They are if germans trace to sumerians (unlikely). History shows they don't.
IMHO I feel one should study the people of the land BEFORE one studies the religion/doctrine/belief system the people held.
:hgk:
i wish i would have posted the link that had the connection to of cimmerians/sumerians be the foreground to the tuetons.
Think with me. you even said yourself that everyone shares a common origin. where did the germans migrate from??? societies change names. just like americans are the descendants of nations all around the world so were the people I mentioned in my "=" clause. you don't have to study art history to find that people can identify or mix styles with others. I wasn't inferring a timeline I was correlating groups of people not chronology.
think also. to say a group of people are only delinated by name is ridiculous. that's like saying everyone in america is american and that there was no such thing as migration or integration in history. nomads come to mind as well.
don't look at german from sumerians as an instantaneous jump. allow time, migrations, and name changes come into play. the facts are there. you just haven't found them yet.
Think with me. you even said yourself that everyone shares a common origin. where did the germans migrate from??? societies change names. just like americans are the descendants of nations all around the world so were the people I mentioned in my "=" clause. you don't have to study art history to find that people can identify or mix styles with others. I wasn't inferring a timeline I was correlating groups of people not chronology.
think also. to say a group of people are only delinated by name is ridiculous. that's like saying everyone in america is american and that there was no such thing as migration or integration in history. nomads come to mind as well.
don't look at german from sumerians as an instantaneous jump. allow time, migrations, and name changes come into play. the facts are there. you just haven't found them yet.
i wish i would have posted the link that had the connection to of cimmerians/sumerians be the foreground to the tuetons.
If you believe the tuetons have a link to sumerians....you know what forget it. They don't and if they did have a link that would connect them to sumeria the link would also connect them to the people of india. No such aryan invasion occured and history shows the tuetons to be a GERMANIC tribe. If you want I can give you ISBN numbers to books or web links to hit.
Think with me.
I think with and for myself.
you even said yourself that everyone shares a common origin.
This is scientific and historical fact.
where did the germans migrate from???
If you look in a bible and do your research they come from from Japeth and Gomer. These (Japeth and gomer) are NOT semetic people and linking them to semetic people is an error on your part. The people of mesopotamia (especially the babylonians/sargon) ARE semetic. Germans are what some would consider "indo european" you can link them (origins) to the Scandinavians, Veneti, Illyrians and Celts. Franks, Goths, Merovingians and Vandals are "germanic" tribes also.
societies change names. just like americans are the descendants of nations all around the world so were the people I mentioned in my "=" clause.
Yes life originated in Afrika (I won't bother using afrikas original name) but to say babylonians are sumerians is in DIRECT contradiction with recorded history. The people you mentioned in your "=" is out of phase and not consistent with their timelines and ruling dynasities.
Look at what you typed:
Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs.
The problem with this is recorded history, facts and archaeological findings do NOT place the Teutons in ancient babylon nor does our evidence suggest they were from teh area. The facts show mesoptamia was an area inhabited by the Sumerians, Akkadians (whoa re said to have conquered the sumerians) and smaller groups of semites. History shows the Sumerians being CONQUERED by the Babylonians and facts and archaeological findings show the Babylonians adopted the sumerian cuniform and assimilated other aspects of the culture. IF they were the SAME thing as YOU suggest they would have NO need to do copy the cuniform as they would have already had it.
you don't have to study art history to find that people can identify or mix styles with others. I wasn't inferring a timeline I was correlating groups of people not chronology.
No you don't have to study art history but when you study art history it paints a vivid picture of who, what, when, where and why. You don't have to give a timeline (you would have been way off) but the fact that you correlate the groups of people who should NOT be grouped opens the door for SERIOUS questions about your sources and how they are in DIRECT contradiction with recorded history.
think also. to say a group of people are only delinated by name is ridiculous. that's like saying everyone in america is american and that there was no such thing as migration or integration in history. nomads come to mind as well.
To say type "Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs" is as ridiculous as it gets. HISTORY shows the sumerians were CONQUERED by the babylonians so its IMPOSSIBLE for the sumerians to=babylon....especially when the name "babylon" didn't become "big" (it was a name given to a small place before it became the name of the capital) until a certain king came into rulership. You should study middle eastern dynasties before you continue on with your theory....
don't look at german from sumerians as an instantaneous jump. allow time, migrations, and name changes come into play. the facts are there. you just haven't found them yet.
LMAO! Where are these facts? Do you have them? Even over time and a billion and one name changes the GERMANS are NOT sumerians and what your typing is total nonsense.
So if you found these facts please list them so I can start listing dates, credible timelines, historical and archaeological evidence to silent your voice.
If you can't list them leave the topic alone.
:hgk:
If you believe the tuetons have a link to sumerians....you know what forget it. They don't and if they did have a link that would connect them to sumeria the link would also connect them to the people of india. No such aryan invasion occured and history shows the tuetons to be a GERMANIC tribe. If you want I can give you ISBN numbers to books or web links to hit.
Think with me.
I think with and for myself.
you even said yourself that everyone shares a common origin.
This is scientific and historical fact.
where did the germans migrate from???
If you look in a bible and do your research they come from from Japeth and Gomer. These (Japeth and gomer) are NOT semetic people and linking them to semetic people is an error on your part. The people of mesopotamia (especially the babylonians/sargon) ARE semetic. Germans are what some would consider "indo european" you can link them (origins) to the Scandinavians, Veneti, Illyrians and Celts. Franks, Goths, Merovingians and Vandals are "germanic" tribes also.
societies change names. just like americans are the descendants of nations all around the world so were the people I mentioned in my "=" clause.
Yes life originated in Afrika (I won't bother using afrikas original name) but to say babylonians are sumerians is in DIRECT contradiction with recorded history. The people you mentioned in your "=" is out of phase and not consistent with their timelines and ruling dynasities.
Look at what you typed:
Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs.
The problem with this is recorded history, facts and archaeological findings do NOT place the Teutons in ancient babylon nor does our evidence suggest they were from teh area. The facts show mesoptamia was an area inhabited by the Sumerians, Akkadians (whoa re said to have conquered the sumerians) and smaller groups of semites. History shows the Sumerians being CONQUERED by the Babylonians and facts and archaeological findings show the Babylonians adopted the sumerian cuniform and assimilated other aspects of the culture. IF they were the SAME thing as YOU suggest they would have NO need to do copy the cuniform as they would have already had it.
you don't have to study art history to find that people can identify or mix styles with others. I wasn't inferring a timeline I was correlating groups of people not chronology.
No you don't have to study art history but when you study art history it paints a vivid picture of who, what, when, where and why. You don't have to give a timeline (you would have been way off) but the fact that you correlate the groups of people who should NOT be grouped opens the door for SERIOUS questions about your sources and how they are in DIRECT contradiction with recorded history.
think also. to say a group of people are only delinated by name is ridiculous. that's like saying everyone in america is american and that there was no such thing as migration or integration in history. nomads come to mind as well.
To say type "Teutons descended from cimmerians/summerians/sumerians sumer = syria/babylon/mesopotameia = semites/arabs" is as ridiculous as it gets. HISTORY shows the sumerians were CONQUERED by the babylonians so its IMPOSSIBLE for the sumerians to=babylon....especially when the name "babylon" didn't become "big" (it was a name given to a small place before it became the name of the capital) until a certain king came into rulership. You should study middle eastern dynasties before you continue on with your theory....
don't look at german from sumerians as an instantaneous jump. allow time, migrations, and name changes come into play. the facts are there. you just haven't found them yet.
LMAO! Where are these facts? Do you have them? Even over time and a billion and one name changes the GERMANS are NOT sumerians and what your typing is total nonsense.
So if you found these facts please list them so I can start listing dates, credible timelines, historical and archaeological evidence to silent your voice.
If you can't list them leave the topic alone.
:hgk:
and they say i use semantics
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/40 Language/StetsyukHtm/StetsyukB2ch5En.htm
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/40 Language/StetsyukHtm/StetsyukB2ch5En.htm