05-12-2016, 03:52 PM
(05-12-2016, 02:03 PM)bunny wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(02-12-2016, 03:23 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-12-2016, 09:59 AM)bunny wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....
I am soon to publish a theory suggesting that all the differing results people find in different languages (by various means) have a common thread and are all to some degree correct...
Bunny
Hello, Bunny, welcome to the forum.
How do you define "correct". What objective measures are you using to determine that the various translations are what the original scribe intended?
Hi,
by correct I mean factual and in context to the VM and its wider place in history. A challenging concept to be sure, but I can't go into it more than that yet as work in progress which has not yet got onto paper (or screen). I'm busy as we speak (or type) with other things and my attention has temporarily been grabbed by a couple of other more minor VM projects. The upshot is don't dismiss theories and people because it is not the "one" solution and their results (and usually methods to boot) seem obscure and wacky, they fit into a theme of oneness which is not the same as the "one" technical translation. Stellar is a prime example of a researcher whos work fits, assuming and this is a big one that he is not one of those folk who come on with false results and methods for the sake of disruption and making monkeys of us all. If he is sincere he is either accurate or some kind of genius, in that type of choice I usually go with accurate but misunderstood due to obscure methods and unintelligible results.
Bunny
Bunny, there is nothing obscure or unintelligible about Stellar's method. He has described each step of the way—it's very straightforward. The problems with his method have also been critiqued by a number of people each step of the way.
Perhaps you should take some time to read all the back threads in chronological order and study the method, which is neither obscure nor wacky.
One of the problems with the method is it can be applied equally well to a large number of languages and each "translation" leads to a large number of possible words which, in turn, makes the final step very subjective (not wacky, just subjective) which means it's not defensible in its current form and would be considered a one-way cipher (not decipherable) in its current form.