(31-12-2016, 08:39 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.P.S.  If you do rearrange a longish sentence of completely random words, eg, get a computer to randomly generate which number word to chose from the list and you can rearrange to make something I would be very interested to see the result.

Quote:Many important star names in astronomy have their origins in the beginnings of great civilisations, especially those that were seen to be most sacred. As was to be expected, some star names in our two sacred constellations coincide with the names of “demons” and fit into the codex in exactly the same positions as they do in the sky. (See references that follow):
The text begins with the prime “demon” Ornias (Orion?).
Followed by Beelzeboul (sounds like the star Betelgeuse in Orion).
Followed by Onoskelis (sounds similar to the star Bellatrix in Orion).
There is also mention of a group of three “demons”:
Bultala, Thallal, Mechal (sounds very close to Mintaka Alnilam and Alnitak, the names of the belt stars of Orion).
The text also generalises a larger place in the heavens as Tartarus (sounds close to Taurus). The reference link below has the key words highlighted in the codex:

(31-12-2016, 11:39 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-12-2016, 08:39 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.P.S.  If you do rearrange a longish sentence of completely random words, eg, get a computer to randomly generate which number word to chose from the list and you can rearrange to make something I would be very interested to see the result.

Bunny, this is dodging the question again.

If you accept that individual glyphs can be anagramed, then you have to accept that words can be anagramed.

If words can be anagramed, then your choices of "valid" words once again becomes an astronomically huge number and there would be no difficulty in constructing valid-looking sentences about pretty much anything (a one-way cipher).


You either have to reject or accept anagrams. You can't simply accept letter-anagrams and then reject word-anagrams at your own convenience unless you can find evidence in the text that one was used and the other wasn't.

(23-12-2016, 06:34 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Offered up English wording of applying added step to Stellar's translation.  The full explanation will take longer to type and will be done later.


Presently concealed.

His concealment refutes understanding according to our knowledge.  I see (He) Saturn truly does indeed really
conceal his disc, changing the conditions in the divine allotted order, or perhaps devouring his offspring and then proceeding to renew again. 
Considered unlucky.

Bunny

(01-01-2017, 03:51 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I find it hard to grasp that you find the concept of inra-word anagramming difficult, as others have also found and used it without such intellectual blockages about it.


Bunny, that's a ridiculously incorrect assumption. I don't find the concept of intra-word anagrams difficult at all. I am constantly looking for anagram patterns in the VMS and other old texts. But I am suspicious of ostensible researchers who suggest methods that randomly apply anagrams when convenient to create what they THINK the text might say, rather than looking for actual clues and patterns in the text.

And that wasn't the point of my post. The fact that you have PRE-DECIDED that glyph anagrams are fine and word anagrams are not (and even confirmed that bias in your last message) is a very big problem.

You cannot predecide how the VMS was done for your convenience or based on your assumption that glyph anagrams were more common than word anagrams. How do you  know that's true? How many medieval texts have you read? Do you know Latin or Middle German or Middle English? Would you recognize this kind of text if you saw it?

Steganography was quite common in the middle ages—monks loved to do it. One form had the decoder picking out which words in a paragraph were part of the code and which ones weren't. Sometimes the relevant words (or letters) ran down the right or left side of the page, sometimes it was every other word (or every third word), sometimes it was capitalized words, sometimes you laid down a stencil to read the relevant words, and sometimes the relevant words were found with a key. Sometimes words or glyphs were read in reverse. Manipulating words rather than glyphs cannot be rejected out of hand. If full words can be manipulated in a steganographic pattern, they can also be anagramed, as it is a related concept, and you have no empirical basis for rejecting the idea unless you provide evidence that it couldn't have been done this way.



Bunny wrote: I'm not looking at a one-way or single any way cipher as you may be assuming this is what it must mean.  Maybe you can't see any merit in what Stella finds, or in any similar methods.

I believe you when you say you are not looking for a one-way cipher but the methods you are supporting ARE, in many cases, one-way ciphers.

(01-01-2017, 06:10 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-01-2017, 03:51 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I find it hard to grasp that you find the concept of inra-word anagramming difficult, as others have also found and used it without such intellectual blockages about it.


Bunny, that's a ridiculously incorrect assumption. I don't find the concept of intra-word anagrams difficult at all. I am constantly looking for anagram patterns in the VMS and other old texts. But I am suspicious of ostensible researchers who suggest methods that randomly apply anagrams when convenient to create what they THINK the text might say, rather than looking for actual clues and patterns in the text.

And that wasn't the point of my post. The fact that you have PRE-DECIDED that glyph anagrams are fine and word anagrams are not (and even confirmed that bias in your last message) is a very big problem.

You cannot predecide how the VMS was done for your convenience or based on your assumption that glyph anagrams were more common than word anagrams. How do you  know that's true? How many medieval texts have you read? Do you know Latin or Middle German or Middle English? Would you recognize this kind of text if you saw it?

Steganography was quite common in the middle ages—monks loved to do it. One form had the decoder picking out which words in a paragraph were part of the code and which ones weren't. Sometimes the relevant words (or letters) ran down the right or left side of the page, sometimes it was every other word (or every third word), sometimes it was capitalized words, sometimes you laid down a stencil to read the relevant words, and sometimes the relevant words were found with a key. Sometimes words or glyphs were read in reverse. Manipulating words rather than glyphs cannot be rejected out of hand. If full words can be manipulated in a steganographic pattern, they can also be anagramed, as it is a related concept, and you have no empirical basis for rejecting the idea unless you provide evidence that it couldn't have been done this way.



Bunny wrote: I'm not looking at a one-way or single any way cipher as you may be assuming this is what it must mean.  Maybe you can't see any merit in what Stella finds, or in any similar methods.

I believe you when you say you are not looking for a one-way cipher but the methods you are supporting ARE, in many cases, one-way ciphers.

(31-12-2016, 06:15 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The gematria approach has far more possible combinations than any other I have seen mostly consisting of1:1 glyph:letter with anagramming or few additional letters, giving a pool for each word often 5-20 or1 if a longer word. 

Quote:I am interested in the presented results rather than the method in this case.  Random word sentences such as eg. red offside water, can be disregarded so one would not be looking at 200+ words anymore than 200 random bits from various jigsaws fit together.

Quote:I am interested in whether out of this seemingly unlimited word choice sense and particularly fact can be pulled out.  I guess you pulled out a clod war JFK story based on what you know ie. the past, but if JFK, NASA or July did not add up to one of the values what would you have substituted them with to make the narrative?  Was the choice (though out of many) there because it is recorded in the code?  
Bunny

(02-01-2017, 04:08 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-12-2016, 06:15 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I will be happy to answer these questions, but first I would request an answer for this issue from my last post:

Also, Bunny, I believe you said each paragraph would still have a common thread, regardless of what different "translations" emerged from it. Well, I made a Cold-War story out of the text that stellar translated as the Garden of Eden story. I don't see the commonality but perhaps you can explain.

(02-01-2017, 01:31 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-01-2017, 04:08 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-12-2016, 06:15 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I will be happy to answer these questions, but first I would request an answer for this issue from my last post:

Also, Bunny, I believe you said each paragraph would still have a common thread, regardless of what different "translations" emerged from it. Well, I made a Cold-War story out of the text that stellar translated as the Garden of Eden story. I don't see the commonality but perhaps you can explain.

That would require me pre-revealing my theory to you before published.  But Stellar continues to confirm the thread.  I guess it's a case of wait it out atm.

(02-01-2017, 05:22 PM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-01-2017, 01:31 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-01-2017, 04:08 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-12-2016, 06:15 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I will be happy to answer these questions, but first I would request an answer for this issue from my last post:

Also, Bunny, I believe you said each paragraph would still have a common thread, regardless of what different "translations" emerged from it. Well, I made a Cold-War story out of the text that stellar translated as the Garden of Eden story. I don't see the commonality but perhaps you can explain.

That would require me pre-revealing my theory to you before published.  But Stellar continues to confirm the thread.  I guess it's a case of wait it out atm.

If you need time to publish a theory, that is not unreasonable. Please of course be aware, I will continue to wait for proof on this exact point because I honestly doubt there is a "common thread" between the thousands of different possible renderings of a single gematria paragraph. Stellar's work has not addressed this specific question, so I don't believe it can be cited as an explanation. Please let me know when you show how JFK's moon landing and the Eden narrative share a common thread, and I will happily read the explanation.