- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] VMS - a forgery?
- [split] VMS - a forgery?
-
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
-JKP- > 17-12-2016, 12:12 PM
(17-12-2016, 12:00 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(16-12-2016, 02:35 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I found a date its in my profile and I also put these guys to the test Bunny, regarding the VMS's authenticity. These people really are spot on here and have guided me in my blindness. Well I now think its still Gematria with a date for the VMS set at 1433. Thanks for the appraisal Bunny!
Again, I have to express that you have found a date that has been relevant to other researchers, who also used "unaccepted" methodology. You found 1546, though not by Gematria, which you link to Dee. It is also the date of birth of Tycho Brahe who has been a central theme in the VM to some researchers. 1546, another coincidence?
[...deleted for brevity...]
Bunny
Bunny, the problem is not that it's an unaccepted methodology. The problem is that the interpretation is subjective.
If you use Stellar's methodology EXACTLY as he has laid it out, you WILL get different results from Stellar.
If I use his methodology EXACTLY as he laid it out, I will get different results from both of you.
If ANY researcher uses his methodology, every single one will get different results, some of them will be dramatically different.
Which one is right? -
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
bunny > 17-12-2016, 12:31 PM
(17-12-2016, 12:12 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote pid='9891' dateline='1481929220']
Bunny, the problem is not that it's an unaccepted methodology. The problem is that the interpretation is subjective.
If you use Stellar's methodology EXACTLY as he has laid it out, you WILL get different results from Stellar.
If I use his methodology EXACTLY as he laid it out, I will get different results from both of you.
If ANY researcher uses his methodology, every single one will get different results, some of them will be dramatically different.
Which one is right?
[/quote]
The correct one.
Bunny -
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
-JKP- > 17-12-2016, 02:44 PM
(17-12-2016, 12:31 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(17-12-2016, 12:12 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote pid='9891' dateline='1481929220']
Bunny, the problem is not that it's an unaccepted methodology. The problem is that the interpretation is subjective.
If you use Stellar's methodology EXACTLY as he has laid it out, you WILL get different results from Stellar.
If I use his methodology EXACTLY as he laid it out, I will get different results from both of you.
If ANY researcher uses his methodology, every single one will get different results, some of them will be dramatically different.
Which one is right?
The correct one.
Bunny
[/quote]
Bunny, I don't mean this in a mean way, but that's a non-answer. It adds nothing to our understanding of the method or the results and it sidesteps the question.
My question was a sincere one. If twenty different people use the exact same method and get twenty widely differing answers, then of what value is the method? There is no way to know which of the interpretations is even close to the mark. -
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
bunny > 17-12-2016, 07:53 PM
(17-12-2016, 02:44 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bunny, I don't mean this in a mean way, but that's a non-answer. It adds nothing to our understanding of the method or the results and it sidesteps the question.
Yes, it was a non answer. Not being flippant but I see more than one correct answer being possible, and that is something not easily grasped as has been obviously voiced by many. My soon published hypothesis will address that issue.
My question was a sincere one. If twenty different people use the exact same method and get twenty widely differing answers, then of what value is the method? There is no way to know which of the interpretations is even close to the mark.
For now it's more like this is his method and he is the translator, not other people, what he finds is not what you would find with reason. The method is not of much value to the general academic arena beyond what he finds, any facts can be followed up as I have done and in cases where I know a bit about a given subject I can see more in what the few words say, that is interpretation. I think the problem is there is the standard academic study in the way that normally runs and gets results, and unconventional methods that go against the logic of the standard approach and cannot be verified on mass ie, 20 people will get 20 different results from the same process. That is the case here and wih other similar methods, along with results in different languages maybe 1:1, glyph:letter, that seem in their translation to again have churned out complete and incomprehensible gibberish. On looking at some of these assumed gibberish texts the grammar etc. and specific words is indeed bizarre, but not gibberish nor unfactual in context.
The only example I can come up with is a cringe worthy one, and no I don't think little green men did it. In Close Encounters of the Third Kind film, the officials had worked out what was going on and were on the mountain, but various other people through a myriad of circumstances and experiences also ended up there. No explanation why or how but they did, some research and methods are like that. No idea how it all works, but results are found by the relevant researchers own method, and not so dismissible either.
Bunny