The translation is just a statement, without any critical reasoning to support it. Anyone can just make up a translation for a small section of heiroglyphics to mean whatever they want. But does it work across all available documents? Does it fit the context of the surrounding words? Have you tried applying a different meaning to see if that also works? Why _can't_ mean sun, or record, or DVD, or wheel, or some sound, or anything else at all?
It seems like your argument is:
1. A contemporary translation omitted some symbols.
2. "This means that the contemporary translation of these glyphs is incorrect, or at the least, not fully representing what the ancient scribe was trying to describe."
3. Therefore "..It is a depiction of a compact disk"!!!!
Wow. Clearly there's a lot missing between steps 2 and 3.
You're also doing yourself a disservice with statements like "..final definitive pieces of evidence that confirm beyond doubt Pegg's claims" and "what they actually represent" which suggest you've already decided you're right.
