RE: VMs: RE: Time to get hands dirty

[Big Jim <bigjim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:22 AM 2/22/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> I'm sure the full details can be found in the archives, but one of the
> better reasons is
> that he randomly selected from zero to three vowels for any given consonant
> to make his
> context fit, and thus no one else could possibly come up with the same
> reading of the text
> on their own.
   If the same results can not be accomplished by anyone else following
   the given set of rules - then the rules that make up the solution can
   certainly be considered wrong. If it doesn't work - it's wrong. This 
doesn't mean that
   the concept is wrong necessarily, but if it can't be duplicated then the
   inventor of the hypothetical solution needs to revise his rules so that 
others could
   repeat the application of those rules and arrive at the same results.
   So, in my view John's theory as it stands is wrong, because no one else is
    capable of duplicating the results. You are right that it is 
impossible to
   disprove a belief. People believe in lots of things and very little 
will ever
    convince them not to stop believing. Logic doesn't play a role in 
those discussions, but
    logic does play a role in 'reading'.

Hi John,
I agree ... unless there was a known subject. This it what I have said from 
the onset. The scenario I see could not be seen by anyone else either, 
unless the subject was known. Robert's astronomical observations are a 
perfect example. The loss / gain of light as solar eclipses, lunar cycles, 
sunrises / sunsets, seasons, are all dying god symbols. The dying god is 
the center of the destruction. It seems the times of the appearances of 
these events are not as important as the fact that they supply an 
astronomical art work that enhances the base idea in the exact section it 
should be in.
Also, supernovas are symbolic of the galactic core "star" appearance at the 
start of the destruction. This star becomes, over time, an EYE about 32 
solar diameters across, with an Iris of about 4 solar diameters. It is this 
BLUE EYE (to which I have found a reference) that is at the root of all eye 
symbolism. So, Robert has these pieces, but, the question remains, what do 
we do with them? So far, to me, they fit well as astronomical art works. 
Little references to the greater picture.

John's approach to language is correct, albeit, it could be expanded a bit.
John says:
"The word "tape" is written in an alphabet consisting of consonants only, 
as "tp." If the written word is given by itself, the decoder would decode 
the two letter word "tp" as; type, top, atop, tope, tip, tap, tape, or even 
teepee. Obviously, the writer of the ancient documents did not intend to 
have so many meanings for the single word "tp." To him, it was clear what 
meanings the word "tp" should have. So it was probably for the reader. But 
the skill of reading such writings is lost, and the present day decoder 
does not have any choice but to list all the possible meanings of the two 
letter word. However, if the word "tp" is in the sentence, it is much 
easier to define the meaning because the whole sentence dictates what 
meanings the word "tp" should have."


In John's example, TP has multiple meanings, as given above. But the truth 
is, TP (and this is just an example) would NOT have multiple meanings. TP, 
if such a root existed, would have its own meaning. Extensions of thought 
take this base meaning and expand it to cover broadened ideas, all based on 
the root idea. This root idea is traceable to the original pictures that 
our alphabet is derived from.  Sometimes this new expanded idea is the 
direct reverse of the root idea, sometimes it is completely lost.

In the work that I did, the same complaint was made. Multiple definitions.
The multiple definition argument really does not hold up. The vast majority 
of the words are single definitions. Some have expanded ideas. The fact 
that every sentence on page one was constructed the same way EXCEPT ONE, 
should itself say something. In that ONE sentence, the meaning was derived 
from using the last letter in each given word.

Now, for me, we have two approaches that are almost the same. The main 
difference is that John used the VMS alphabet and I used EVA. I used EVA 
before I realized fully what it was. Then there was a problem. Why was this 
method working if it was a computer code. The answer was simply, EVA was 
created by the same method I believe the VMS was encoded in. Visual.

Words are based on consonantal structure. How those words are hidden could 
incorporate vowel usage, or non-usage. A word that begins with 
EVA  "A,"  could mean aleph or ain. These letters exchange according to 
Hebrew grammar.  Dain exists in Hebrew. But it is not a four letter word. 
It is a two letter word minus the vowel points, which would represent the 
ancient Hebrew.

I understand what John did. If the translation is historically verifiable, 
I could repeat his method.

Jim





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to have a rehearsed routine fit in with broken rhythm.
Rehearsed routines lack the flexibility to adapt. - - L J Fan


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list