[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: D! IV
I really find that publishing an obviously 'unaccepted' solution is nothing
more than misinformation for the gullable, but it's been done before and
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
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
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.
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
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?