[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 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?