Re: Minotauros
- From: "grapheus" <grapheus@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 May 2006 08:22:50 -0700
hagen wrote:
Thank you for your response! This looks at least like a new begining;
but by what reason are you not convinced, that it is of short cut
calendrical nature?
Well, because your arguments are not convincing. As simple as that !
In fact, you have been trying to give a rational (calendaric) meaning
to "calendaric-unmatched" figures (See hereafter). This is "forcing"
the facts to enter them into a preconceived scheme..
This is what I say:
Imagine a scenario of 22 couples holding 61 weekly meetings each year
First "calendaric-unmatchted" figures : a)- Why 22 ? There is no
possible calendaric explanation for this number (a Lunar month is 29,
not 22) b)-Why 61 weeks ?? There is no known calendar with 61 weeks
c)- Why 241 or 242 (or even your 244) days ??? Any ancient people knew
that one year had about 365 days ! So, why making a calendar covering
only 2/3 of the year, when, by increasing a bit the diameter of the
disk (and clay is cheap!), it would have been easy to reach a 365 (+ or
- 10) days? Here again, you have been trying to give a rational
calendaric meaning to figures which are obviously not related to a
calendar !
If B, by way of example, is unavoidable detained, then A stands as
surety:(B)A. All 22 couples are obliged to participate by both in at
least two weekly gatherings pro anno. A further set of complicated
rules are followed strictly, and carefully entered into the annual
minutes. Such construction, in its broader aspects, corresponds with
the platonic bodies that I've discovered,
By "forcing the facts to enter into your scheme"...
whereas a language-structure
in verse and with rhymes and grammar do not produces minutely
gnomonical arrangements by itself (v).
By saying that, you are disqualifying yourself ! How anybody could take
you as a serious searcher, when you are denying the facts like you do ?
Why putting aside the "Proto-Ionic Solution", which has shown that
there is the possibility to consider the disk's hieroglyphs as a TEXT
(more precisely a PSALM , and to reach a decipherment of it ?..
Point: The various translations don't even follow a common agreement
upon the length of the sentenses in a presumed text, because of its
complexity.- E.F.A.N.K. - ( Evidence for a non-linguistic key ).
So what ??? No matter the multifarious and contradictory
"translations" which have been given ! ONLY ONE is important : the one
which is supported by more than 30 pieces of EVIDENCE, i.e. the
"Proto-Ionic Solution". If you want to be taken seriously, please,
show first that THIS solution is wrong, before writing -as you do- that
"a language-structure ... does not produce... (the recorded)
arrangements".
I hope that you will know now why nobody but you believes in your
calendaric solution, in spite of the tremendous work you have done in
trying to justify it.
With my best regards
grapheus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Minotauros
- From: Alan Crozier
- Re: Minotauros
- References:
- Minotauros
- From: hagen
- Re: Minotauros
- From: IE J
- Re: Minotauros
- From: hagen
- Re: Minotauros
- From: Alan Crozier
- Re: Minotauros
- From: hagen
- Minotauros
- Prev by Date: Maps of the 1500's - I don't pretend this is Archaeology coz it ain't, but this is for Inger, if she's interested. Please note I'm writing in the subject line her name, which is not designed to be illegal.
- Next by Date: Re: Minotauros
- Previous by thread: Re: Minotauros
- Next by thread: Re: Minotauros
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
