Re: D! IV

[Big Jim <bigjim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I really find that publishing an obviously 'unaccepted' solution is nothing
> more than misinformation for the gullable, but it's been done before and
> will again.

As with everything I do I try to leave enough information for others to 
backtrack my conclusions. What I have on the web is not the way I like to 
do things. But right now I have no choice. It has to start somewhere and 
this is as good a place as any. If it is accepted it will undoubtedly start 
a controversy. Look what has been going on here. This will get other people 
involved and may even produce the clear copies of the manuscript that are 
needed.



>  Jim, I really don't know how anyone could find your solution
> reasonable as you, like others who have claimed decipherment constantly
> avoid responding to the problems pointed out with your method.

I am not avoiding anything. I did try to make a .WPD copy available but no 
one is using Word Perfect. When I converted to .DOC I lost all the Hebrew 
fonts.
I sent out to those that asked a .DOC copy. I am still waiting for the PFD 
writer program. Ross says its coming...be patient.

>  Using a 'I
> can't believe you can't see what I see' argument isn't good enough.

I know...be patient. Its like I cant believe the rebuttals. Instead of 
saying yeah that is a possibility, I get ..well it could also be this. I am 
aware of different definitions of words.  I have made corrections to lines. 
The context continues. My first translation was loose...I was feeling the 
writer out. After going back over it and over it I am confident of my 
method.  Like with everything I do, I first have to convince ME. I am my 
own worst critic. If I thought for a second that this was BS I wouldn't 
continue. I hate BS. I have incorporated the UFO field into what I do over 
the last 10 years. I HATE the UFO field the way it is set up. There is more 
unverified info floating around there than one can believe. I know what you 
are saying John. But I am harder on myself than anyone here could be.



> You have
> a single EVA transliterated text and make your own translation fit! That can
> not be a solution. Each individual looking at the same EVA transliterated
> text couldn't possibly come up with the same Hebrew-ish text.

If it was a line or two lines or even three lines I would whole heartily 
agree with you. But the mathematical possibility  of the entire first page 
plus, following a particular path, a single context, is nothing short of 
impossible.



> FACHYS, I believe you separated into several separate words. How can you or
> any other individual arrive at the same separation? Why not FACH, YS? Why
> does a single letter F - suddenly represent a whole word IN THIS ONE CASE,
> but obviously represents part of a word in others?

I chose the break down of fachys as F ACH  YS(H)  because the only other 
possibility of FACH existing by itself is vav caph cheth. Too many, what I 
call, concrete syllables. He plays with vowels, not consonants and not true 
ancient letters/vocals. I think he has an opinion concerning vowel points 
and anything that is not truly ancient. Based on what I have seen him do, I 
would go as far as looking for vav  caph  hey.  But this doesnt exist.  The 
definition of vav caph cheth  is to discuss, debate, argue. I could jam 
that in the text...but I am not comfortable with it.  I just dont believe 
that is what he did. Latin F is derived from vav.  Vav by itself has a list 
of values. When these values are added to the next possible values, a 
smooth opening statement is made.



> I regret the fact that you are trying to publish unfounded information, and
> doubt anything I say will stop you or even slow down your desire to get to
> the market place with this 'solution'.

I would rather the term First Attempt than solution... I have even said 
that there is no guarantee that this method will continue due to the 
possibility of other hands in this writing.  I have NEVER said anything 
about what I havent seen or translated except it makes one wonder what 
might be there.  I take full responsibility for my actions and my beliefs. 
If I didn't believe in this I would have never gone on with it.


>  I would hope however, that you took
> the time to look at the main problem with your solution - every reader WILL
> arrive at different results and this can't be resolved simply by saying -
> 'It's so plain, I can see it and you can't because you want to be logical
> when it is visual.' By that argument you are stating that the solution is
> indeed subjective - and depends on what the viewer sees.


My conclusions are based on the fact that it is mathematically impossible 
for a particular context to continue for the length of writing that it has. 
In the little I have done on page two, there is even a reference to the 
BLUE EYE... Blue is a key color..Even in early China, ideas like the Great 
Fire, and the Heavenly Blue Emperor (like the Hopi's blue star spirit) were 
associated with this scenario.   Is this just a continuing random coincidence?

Regards,
Jim