1 - Why would a time traveler from our future go back to the 1990's, i think you said, to pick up an antiquated computer and software to take it back in time?.....Your only answer was that the Cd's you seem to think were used to influence people in the past came from the 1990's.
Yes, absolutely correct. The conclusion based upon ten years of research was that the cds came from the mid 1990s. Supporting evidence and reports can be found via the websites and links cited earlier in this thread.
BUT I have never said the cds directly influenced the past.
2 - How would the computer actually function before electricity was available? You supplied no answer.
3 - How would ancient people understand English? You supplied no answer.
(1)…Why not just use a computer and software from their era?...
2. incorrect.
3. incorrect.
1. see info via link.
My replies to these and similar questions have been on the PPHC-SG website for years.
Here is a direct link to a copy of FAQs4 - Why you felt that the Cd's influenced the past because the images on the cd were similar to reality in the past instead of the cd images being created based on accounts in the past? You supplied no answer.
They have been documented and depicted along with their contents by many ancient people in their respective texts, but I have never said the cds influenced the past.
In regard to “cd images being created based on accounts in the past” my position on this has been stated many times.
Here is a direct link to a copy of my reply5 - Why you asked for help with hieroglyphic translations and when given that help didn't use the actual translations but used your own translations to back up your claims? You supplied no answer.
If you are referring to my March 14, 2006 request on egyptiandreams, the glyphs that I cited were found to be incorrectly copied from the Papyrus of Ani.
The ‘help’ given to me was often a repeat of what contemporary scholars deem to be the original meanings and interpretations.
I sought out an original copy to which I subsequently referred and studied.
For example, when I referenced this other source, there were three anomalies with the traditional interpretation and translation that were not addressed.
1). The half circle (loaf) above the wave and below the snake has been
ignored.
2). The first red 'disk' has also been
ignored.
3). The '|' refers to the
disk and not the 'sitting male'.
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.
Then, as I was searching various Egyptian reference books, some of the glyphs in question have notations indicating that the translator himself did not know what they really meant or represented.
Some of these are the glyphs under study, and when Pegg’s context is employed, it reveals a whole new meaning which supports Pegg’s other discoveries.
Back to Plate 1 from the Papyrus of Ani, column 1 (partly shown above). Glyph number 15 - 3rd up from the bottom - (taken to be N27*, the horizon of heaven) does not look like the glyph in the book. (It is also nothing like X4, roll of bread.) It is of something else. The glyph above it is also not listed. Both are not anything like the usual glyphs as documented by previous ‘Egyptian experts’.
Using Pegg’s context and what they look like, the second appears to be a depiction of a saddle for a compact disk.
Explanation of other glyphs
can be found here.
* Gardiner, A 1978,
Egyptian Grammar, Third Edition Revised, Griffith Institute, Oxford.
6 - Why you tried to use Nostradamus to show that he had predicted Ronald Pegg when his prediction had nothing to do with Mr Pegg? You had no answer.
The connections are fully revealed and explained in the books
Pegg, R 2006,
Nostradamus Unsealed - The Discoveries of Ronald Pegg, PPHC, Adelaide, SA
on-line electronic versionPengelly, E 2004
A New Perspective - The Bible and Nostradamus, PPHC, Adelaide, SA pp. 107-157, 195-226
on-line electronic versionFor you to ask this question it suggests to me that you have not read those reports.
7 - How Joseph Smith could put his seer stones (that you indicated were the cd's) in his hat, put his hat up to his face blocking out all light and see visions from them? You had no answer.
Incorrect.
As extracted from wikipedia and cited on my webpage, the “seer stone” and the “hat” report refers to a different ‘brown stone’ which isn’t the seer stones that Pegg claims were cds.
Here is a report regarding the hat and a seer stone…
Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was periodically hired, for about $14 per month, as a scryer, using what were termed "seer stones" in attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. Smith's contemporaries described his method for seeking treasure as putting the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone. His favored stone, chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg, was found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.8 - Why you have refused to accept first hand accounts of others that worked with Joseph Smith? You indicated they were not Joseph Smith and you would only accept his testimony. In reality, their first hand accounts conflicted with your beliefs so that is why I believe you won't accept them.
Believe what you wish.
As indicated elsewhere in my works, I prefer to cite the first hand account by the person doing the activity rather than a first or second hand report by someone else who may or may not have been watching carefully.
Here is an extract from my webpage that illustrates my view…
The actual cited content, is from an 1891 interview with Smith's brother William.
S.D. Ricks introduces the citation with
"J.W. Peterson and W. S. Pender interviewed Joseph's brother William in 1891 and reported:"
Again, this is not first hand testimony of what Smith actually held in his own hands.
It is a third hand 'report' by Peterson and Pender of what Smith's brother was recalling - from over 60 years earlier!
Like the game of Chinese Whispers, during the passage of 60 years the information may have become somewhat corrupted due to William's memory.Link to full 1800s Smith Encounter ReportIt was interesting that originally you claimed the golden plates of Mormon were the cd's until it was shown the size and weight of the plates precluded that from being true, then you took a month or more to update your story, which is all it is.
No.
Pegg’s words made it seem that the golden plates of Mormon were the subject of his claim, but as I explained, this was not what he meant. I amended that report to clarify this point.
In other sciences, theories are often changing as new facts become available. It has also been said that…
“Science has made great strides in modern times. As a result, old theories have given way to new ones. What was once accepted as fact may now be seen as myth. Science textbooks often need revision.”
This is the same with Pegg’s new discoveries.
He put forward a theory and a conclusion.
Parts were suspect, so more evaluation was conducted, with new information being found.
So Pegg’s report was amended and updated.
The portrayal and substance of Pegg’s report was questioned again, so his sources were reinvestigated, again.
As you point out, conflicting information from past accounts seemed to challenge Pegg’s theory.
So this was reinvestigated.
Pegg’s arrangement and poor choice of words were found not to be helping the presentation of his theory, so with the new information in hand, I corrected some of his words and put forward the new information in context with what had been discovered.
I also noted that, of the four of five new pieces of information put forward, only one obviously contradicted what the other reports said.
Does one un-confirmable past report make all the other pieces of information invalid ?
No.
Just because you still do not like the conclusion, as one piece of the puzzle doesn’t fit, this in itself doesn’t totally diminish the value of the other discoveries.
On many occasions you have been shown to be wrong but refuse to acknowledge fact and logic instead preferring fantasy, which of course is your right to do but doesn't support your claims in any way.
No.
On many occasions people have put forward their interpretations based upon their logic (or have kept to the status quo, continuing to believe in the ‘old school’ way of thinking), claiming Pegg is wrong or he is in fantasy land - but to date no one has read and viewed all of Pegg’s available evidence and thus have NOT been exposed to all the facts discovered by Pegg (and myself).
Without reading all the facts and information, I find it premature for someone to say “you don’t support your claims in any way”.
