Would this be proof of Time Travel ?

[Eddy_P]

I go to my local library and borrow…3 historical and educational compact disks.

1).
From my own books, I re-read ancient accounts from the Middle East regarding Sumerian, Akkadian, and other myths.

* I observe that the sequence of pictures from one of the cd-roms - is the same as that described in all the ancient accounts.

2).
I re-read passages from the Old and New Testaments.

* I observe that (ignoring the given religious context) the described perceived Hebrew festivals documented by Moses, and the ‘future’ WAR descriptions documented by both Daniel and John - describe the sequence of events listed and shown on a second cd-rom.

3).
I re-read the astronomical references from the Bible.

* I observe that accounts in both the Old and New Testaments - describe the sequence of items listed and shown on a third cd-rom.

So basically, what I am asking your members, is

IF it could be shown that those modern cd-roms were NOT made in relation to nor influenced by the various ancient stories and accounts…

Would the documented accounts in all the different ancient texts be proof that a copies of those modern cd-roms were seen by ancient people, and their contents documented in their respective texts ?

[skbuncks]

No.

skb

[brianp]

It's a non-starter because you could never eliminate the possibility that the CD makers had been influenced by those ancient stories. You couldn't even eliminate the possibility of one's own knowledge being influenced by those ancient stories, let alone someone else's.

[Eddy_P]

OK.
What if it could be shown that over thirty ancient stories and texts from between 5,000 BCE to the late 1800s CE contain exact descriptions from three different mid 1990s cd-roms and two specific printed history books…
and there is a depiction of a compact disk in the front of an old Bible…
and within the Bible’s own words it describes a computer system…
and there is a picture of a plastic jewel case from the mid 1800s before plastic was invented…
and Egyptian Hieroglyphs depict computer technology…
and the associated Egyptian stories and texts describe the contents from two of the named mid 1990s cd-roms.

You may argue that pictures from one cd may have been influenced by one of the ancient texts.
But it is more than a coincidence to have the contents from three time independent cds of different topics and two independent history books turn up described in over 30 ancient texts spanning many thousands of years - where it is particularly reported that a messenger “showed and told me these things about the future”.

[tolman]

If there was so much proof around, and it is any good (not merely wishful thinking) why is it not already widely known and talked about?

Are we really so important here that we've been chosen to be the first to know, and to be (presumably soon) shown the convincing proof?
It would be flattering if so, but to be honest, it doesn't seem terribly likely.

If there is evidence, rather than talking about it in general terms, why not just present it, and let people make their own judgements as to its quality and to the objectiveness or otherwise of any interpretations of it?

For example, is 'a depiction of a compact disc' a couple of concentric circles, or something undeniably depicting a product conforming to one or other Philips/Sony [color] Book standards?

[tolman]

Are we really so important here that we've been chosen to be the first to know, and to be (presumably soon) shown the convincing proof?
It would be flattering if so, but to be honest, it doesn't seem terribly likely.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=151911&st=0

So, at least a year ago, and yet still no flood of people astonished by the evidence?

I guess it must either be a huge conspiracy, or the 'evidence' is crap, such as a 'CD' being a circle with a dot in it?
Personally, I'd have found heiroglyphs representing Reed-Solomon error correction a bit more convincing.

Also, what tiny time window would Time Travellers have been operating from if they took a desktop computer using CD-ROMs with them to ancient Egypt?

[Eddy_P]

If there was so much proof around, and it is any good (not merely wishful thinking) why is it not already widely known and talked about?
It has not been publicly released yet.


If there is evidence, rather than talking about it in general terms, why not just present it, and let people make their own judgements as to its quality and to the objectiveness or otherwise of any interpretations of it?
There is a website which presents what you ask, but some forums do not like links to commercial websites.



So, at least a year ago, and yet still no flood of people astonished by the evidence?
The project has been ongoing for over twelve years.
I personally started looking into Pegg’s claims in 2003, and so far I have investigated only about two-thirds of his discoveries.
I have been busy writing up my reports and often asking for help on various internet forums.
Some of those reports have not yet been published.
I still have at least another year of research and reports to conduct and write up.

[skbuncks]

OK.
What if it could be shown that over thirty ancient stories and texts from between 5,000 BCE to the late 1800s CE contain exact descriptions from three different mid 1990s cd-roms and two specific printed history books…
and there is a depiction of a compact disk in the front of an old Bible…
and within the Bible’s own words it describes a computer system…
and there is a picture of a plastic jewel case from the mid 1800s before plastic was invented…
and Egyptian Hieroglyphs depict computer technology…
and the associated Egyptian stories and texts describe the contents from two of the named mid 1990s cd-roms.

You may argue that pictures from one cd may have been influenced by one of the ancient texts.
But it is more than a coincidence to have the contents from three time independent cds of different topics and two independent history books turn up described in over 30 ancient texts spanning many thousands of years - where it is particularly reported that a messenger “showed and told me these things about the future”.

Go on then, hit is with some proof. And no, I'm not going to pay for it so don't even ask

skb

[tolman]

I still have at least another year of research and reports to conduct and write up.
Well, I guess if you think it's unimportant enough to wait yet another year, you won't find many people here disagreeing with you.

Do come back when you're prepared to show the evidence.

Though I guess you probably wouldn't need to, since it will, no doubt, be front page news anyway.

[Harryprice]

It all reminds me of von Daniken's work. Why not ET rather than time travellers?

[Croydon Bob]

Why not ET rather than time travellers?

Or a psychic with a sense of humour playing a practical joke to make it seem as if he'd got his info from a time traveller.

[Pebble]

and there is a depiction of a compact disk in the front of an old Bible…
and within the Bible’s own words it describes a computer system…
and there is a picture of a plastic jewel case from the mid 1800s before plastic was invented…
and Egyptian Hieroglyphs depict computer technology…
and the associated Egyptian stories and texts describe the contents from two of the named mid 1990s cd-roms.
”.


Sounds a bit like Nostradamus to me - vague information being reinterpreted in light of subsequent events.

If I could go back in time, then wishing to leave evidence for the future, I think I would go for something rather specific and famous. E=mc2 would be quite good, the chemical formula for plastic perhaps, but I would also include things like the name of the first man on the moon, polar adventures, discovery of America etc etc. There are vast amounts of data that are sufficiently specific that no room for doubt would be left (one could even write in current languages before they have been invented).

[Croydon Bob]

Here is some REAL proof of time travel: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20020951-10391698.html

[skbuncks]

Here is some REAL proof of time travel: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20020951-10391698.html

That's more like it. Why Eddy couldn't you have just posted definitive evidence like this is anyone's guess?

skb

[Harryprice]

Here is some REAL proof of time travel: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20020951-10391698.html

See also http://hearing.siemens.com/ca/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

[Eddy_P]

Go on then, hit is with some proof. And no, I'm not going to pay for it so don't even ask
As requested.
Please refer to my publisher website.
World Breaking Discoveries .com .au (http://www.worldbreakingdiscoveries.com.au)

There are 5 Video Reports to view.
A comprehensive Egyptian example.
A tour of many ancient texts and what computer technology they describe.
7 written News reports.
An overview of findings page.
(and for skb, please ignore) a page that links to an E-Shop where my reports are listed.

[chaggle]

I predict it won't take long before this ends up in the junk pile.

[skbuncks]

Eddy, Eddy Eddy, why are you still persisting with this? Talk about wasting your life.
For your interpretation to be true you would have to demonstrate that your translations of the hieroglyphs hold in not only all contexts in which they appear but in the context of the the evolution of the documents in which they appear.
You were told this four years ago but apparently failed to take it on board.



It only ‘works’ because you/me (ie. laypeople) are/were using the same ‘rules’ for the same or similar hieroglyphs. Of course you are going to ‘make sense of them’ using their ‘rules’. You have gone to the museum with a preconceived idea of what the hieroglyphs mean (ie. what Gardiner, Allen, and Collier have told/taught you).

I don't generally respond to your posts, Eddy_P, because I do not agree with you. I'm sure that is something to which you're quite accustomed, or you wouldn't be posting here in the first place.

I will say you choose arbitrarily to dismiss the work of generations of scholars who can back up their findings textually, philologically, linguistically, and historically. There is a massive body of scholarship to support their work, so what can you offer definitively to prove all of them wrong (and I'm talking about almost 200 years of scholars in the field of solid Egyptian linguistics)? What makes you, yourself, correct, and all of them wrong?

You like to use Ani's Book of the Dead. His is just one of a great many that have been found. Do you realize that the Book of the Dead is just one stage in the incredibly ancient evolution of Egyptian religious texts? Before the Book of the Dead came the Coffin Texts, and before them the Pyramid Texts, stretching back into the Old Kingdom. The Pyramid Texts themselves, without argument, come from an even older assemblage of spells and prayers, stretching back into Predynastic times. What I'm saying is, all of these spells, chants, prayers, and incantations follow a progression and belong in a proper context. You're trying to remove the Book of the Dead from a long-reaching context--from which it can't be removed.


Oh, gees, kat, you don't mince words! :lol:

I was looking at the website to which Eddy_P linked us, and unless I missed it I cannot find anything on the background and training of Ronald Pegg. What professional studies has he undergone to understand ancient Semitic languages? What actual peer-reviewed evidence has he presented to refute all of Egyptian linguistic scholarship since the time of Champollion?

Anyone can look at a tidbit of Ani's Book of the Dead and make up something like the provided example, "The compact disk, it sits in the saddle of the protruding ledge in the side of the box." This really doesn't make since either linguistically or historically. It might make sense if it were the caption to a scene of workmen on a tomb wall, but there is no context for it in the Book of the Dead or other religious writings.

Mr. Pegg seems to lack a fundamental understanding of ancient Egypt. He and his acolytes have only one recourse: to insist that all of scholarship is wrong and only they are right. This is self-righteous and unacceptable. It's also the same tactic followed by the likes of Sitchin and Gadalla and their followers, and no one in the academic community even takes them seriously (nor do most everyday people, for that matter).

Then again, this is about time travel to ancient Egypt. Why would time travellers bring computer equipment, something for which the Egyptians would have no application? Why not bring something useful like a toaster or coffee maker? :P

skb

[skbuncks]

http://www.worldbreakingdiscoveries.com.au/news/revelations.html
I forget which thread you posted this one it, possibly the one which doesn't work for me. Anyway may be better to keep your drivel all in one place.

Lets start:
You first claim that in Windows 3.1 programs had to be opened using file manager. My recollections of that era differ in that programs could be opened direct from the desktop. I don't however have a copy knocking around to check and can't be bothered to google so will let that one slide. Moving on...


Associated with the highlighted mediterr.exe file is the file information of 143,442 and 12:00:00am which means the file takes up exactly 143,442 bytes of disk space, and was written to the compact disk at 12 o'clock am. As a rounded up figure the data would be said to take up 144 Kb of space, where K = 1,000. In English that's 144 thousand bytes.
The figure of 143442 would be rounded to 143kb and not 144kb. That aside, given that Revelation was written at around 100CE and that European numerals did not come into wide use until something like the 16th Century I'm at a loss as to who could have recognised them at the time.


The writer of Revelation, John (on Patmos island in 95 CE), says that he was told the number of the seal in Rev 7:4 as "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: sealed an hundred forty four thousand"...On the Windows 3.1 File Manager screen, the number of the mediterr.exe program's seal (ie. its private mark) is 144 thousand (rounded up).
Who in biblical times would recognize an .exe file?


John's twelve reports of hearing the number of the offshoot's seal as being 12 thousand = the 12 lines of data (the offshoots) in the File Manager window each showing the figure 12:00:00.
Note:
While 12:00:00 is strictly not 12,000, the person who told John these things is reporting the time stamp as the number 12,000. (Probably with the same latitude as rounding up the earlier number.) John notes them as twelve lots of 12 thousand and has added a religious reference to the Hebrew tribes.
Why allow this leniency? 12:00:00 = midnight or at a push = 12,0000 =/= 12,000. Notwithstanding of course that there was no one around at that time you could read the numbers, other than your time traveller that is. Quite why he would feel the need to mis-read a time as a number is anyone's guess.

So, thus far we have:
A time traveller going back ~2000yrs into the past who took with him:
· An antiquated (by current standards) computer.
· An electricity generator and the fuel to power it.
· A CD ROM of Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean.
· A towel.

143442 rounded the wrong way to 144k instead of 143k. John would not have been able to recognise or understand European numerals. So who told him what they meant? If it was the time traveller, why given the tacit acceptance of his advanced intelligence was he unable to round numbers correctly? Furthermore why bother telling the file size anyway? What possible use is it John?
An .exe file for some reason described as a seal. John would not have been able to recognise or understand computer terminology and file structures 2000 years before they came into existence. So who told him what they meant, yet got it wrong? And why?
As John was unable to understand current day numerals who mis-translated a time of 12:00:00am as the number 12,000 and why bother in the first place. What possible reason would there be other than a contemporary pseudo-researcher trying to shoe horn time travelling Microsoft reps into the bible?

You really must explain these points before I even bother going any further.

skb

[Croydon Bob]

· A towel.

Well now I'm convinced (for obvious reasons and I'm not going to start quoting).

[Jules]

Slightly off-topic, but here's (http://www.universetoday.com/76821/time-traveler-caught-on-film/) more "proof" of time travel. ;)

Ah, someone's beaten me to it. Serves me right for not reading the whole thread.

[Croydon Bob]

Ah, someone's beaten me to it. Serves me right for not reading the whole thread.

I read your post first then I travelled back in time to post mine before you. :cheesy:

[skbuncks]

I read your post first then I travelled back in time to post mine before you. :cheesy:

Some fat bird stole my mobile in 1928. Bitch.

skb

[Croydon Bob]

Some fat bird stole my mobile in 1928.

Ha, an old dress and a bit of lippy and I had you completely fooled. And I'm not fat, I'm just big boned.

[Jules]

I read your post first then I travelled back in time to post mine before you. :cheesy:

Sneaky.

To believe that the woman in the film was (is? will be?) holding a mobile phone is absurd.
In my opinion it has to be a flux capacitor.

[Pebble]

Sneaky.

To believe that the woman in the film was (is? will be?) holding a mobile phone is absurd.
In my opinion it has to be a flux capacitor.

What a lack of observation - anyone can tell there is nothing in her hands. So in reality she is from the year 30256, when we have developed the ability to implant self diagnostic and immediate treatment capacity into the finger nails - she has just discovered that she was having a stroke and is curing herself. Simple really.

[Eddy_P]

The figure of 143442 would be rounded to 143kb and not 144kb
Not necessarily.
Simply maths (and not computer tech related) if rounded up, takes a number to the nearest 1,000.
In this case, 143,442 does simply round up to 144,000.


Why allow this leniency? 12:00:00 = midnight or at a push = 12,0000 =/= 12,000.
Ronald Pegg discovered an ancient code active in the Bible and other contemporary ancient texts.
Source: Pegg, Ronald, PaRDeS, module One - The Learning Curve, PPHC, Adelaide, 1999. pp103 & 219
You may be aware of it as the ‘power of 10’ difference in the Atlantis Legend numbers.
It is described in the Bible as the ‘tithe’ formula (a one-tenth part of something).
Thus 12:00:00 (ie. as the number 120,000) as 1/10th = 12,000.


John would not have been able to recognise or understand European numerals.
Correct.


Notwithstanding of course that there was no one around at that time you could read the numbers, other than your time traveller that is.
Correct.


So, thus far we have:
a) A time traveller going back ~2000yrs into the past who took with him:
b)An antiquated (by current standards) computer.
c)An electricity generator and the fuel to power it.
d)A CD ROM of Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean.
e) A towel.
a. Correct.
b. Correct.
c. investigations indicate (ie. ancient descriptions) that a specific carry box held the computer system, plus it had the space for a bank of batteries. Whether it did or not is not known. Source: Pengelly, E, A New Understanding, Adelaide, 2006, ‘Arks in the Bible’ chapter. pp127-135
d. Correct.
e. unknown


John would not have been able to recognise or understand European numerals. So who told him what they meant?
You have already answered your own questions.
The time traveller told John.
Source: New Testament, Book of Revelation 7:4
“And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand”


Furthermore why bother telling the file size anyway? What possible use is it John?
He documented this fact as requested. Just as he did all the other images he saw from the cd-rom.
We now read that fact about the ‘seal size’ number.
We look at the file size of the Ancients cd-rom run file.
Rounded up, it is the same.

[chaggle]

I started to write a reply to this but I can't be arsed. It's just not worth the minimal effort required. 'Bye from me on this thread.

[Matt]

You can round up, round down or round nearest. Round nearest is the usual procedure, do you have a reason for deviating from the standard apart from it giving you the number you're looking for?

Also there are 1024 bytes to a kilobyte (there might be some ambiguity these days but the 1024 standard was solid in the days of Windows 3.1

so 143,442 bytes is 140.080078125 kB

The shell in windows 3.1 was called program manager, though programs could also be launched via the file manager or from the command prompt. Details view was not the default.

In details view file manager showed one line of data for each file, there's no default number of files. It showed 5 columns of data. Your screen shot shows list view. The actual default. Here's a page showing details view. http://www.nos.org/htm/os3.htm

The file size is not a seal or a mark any more than your weight is a seal or a mark. It is not recorded within the file in any way, it is an intrinsic property of the data.

[Eddy_P]

You can round up, round down or round nearest. Round nearest is the usual procedure, do you have a reason for deviating from the standard apart from it giving you the number you're looking for?Round nearest is not my understanding of usual procedure.
Here in Australia I was taught that for large numbers you round up to the next thousand - for such things as population and troop numbers.

Pegg’s discoveries included both troop and population numbers in the thousands, and as noted earlier, the 1/10 rule operated with numbers over the 1,000 configuration.

So it was natural that when a large number such as 143,442 was found, rounding it up to the next thousand was the usual procedure.


The shell in windows 3.1 was called program manager, though programs could also be launched via the file manager or from the command prompt. Details view was not the default.
I personally (and apparently Pegg did too) chose to use details view on my 386PC in file manager, as shown in the video (but not on the linked ‘revelations.html’ page).


In details view file manager showed one line of data for each file, there's no default number of files.
You have picked up an editing error - at the minimum, a poor choice of words.

The webpage says “As a default the 'files window' showed twelve lines of data when set to 'details' mode (not shown).”
Pegg made this claim.

When I came to check this, there, on my computer screen, as Pegg described, viewed in details mode on my 386PC, were only twelve files listed. This was the maximum that could appear on my screen. There were other files, but they were below the screen break.

This confirmed my understanding of Pegg’s claim.

This maximum number of 12 is to what Pegg referred as the ‘default’ number of lines.
I can now see what you mean, and that this needs to be reworded.

I will have that page reworded to read
“In ‘details’ mode (not shown) the maximum number of files that could be seen in the files window was twelve.”

Elsewhere in Pegg's work this has been stated as “The default window size allows twelve files to be viewed at a time.”

[Matt]

Round nearest is not my understanding of usual procedure.
Here in Australia I was taught that for large numbers you round up to the next thousand - for such things as population and troop numbers.

Then someone either taught you wrong, or they taught both me and the Australian Bureau of Statistics wrong.

See here (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/95D50E396E5AECFCCA2577AC00155848?opendocument) in the September 2009 population statistics, the population of Australia is listed as 22,155,400 in the table but in the summary this is rounded to the nearest thousand which happens to be 22,155,000. The same as rounding down. I've looked at a smattering of other reports on this site and they always round to the nearest thousand whether that happens to be up or down.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/95D50E396E5AECFCCA2577AC00155848?opendocument




Pegg’s discoveries included both troop and population numbers in the thousands, and as noted earlier, the 1/10 rule operated with numbers over the 1,000 configuration.

Whether true or not this is irrelevant.


So it was natural that when a large number such as 143,442 was found, rounding it up to the next thousand was the usual procedure.

Nope, rounding nearest is natural. Rounding off (down) is easiest. Rounding always up is wrong and unusual by all counts. The only reasons suggested for you doing so are your claim to have been miss-educated and my suggestion that you used "bankers rounding" to give the result most advantageous to you claim. Even so it ignores that fact that there's 1024 bytes to a kB not 1000


I personally (and apparently Pegg did too) chose to use details view on my 386PC in file manager, as shown in the video (but not on the linked ‘revelations.html’ page).


You have picked up an editing error - at the minimum, a poor choice of words.

You're welcome.


The webpage says “As a default the 'files window' showed twelve lines of data when set to 'details' mode (not shown).”
Pegg made this claim.

When I came to check this, there, on my computer screen, as Pegg described, viewed in details mode on my 386PC, were only twelve files listed. This was the maximum that could appear on my screen. There were other files, but they were below the screen break.

You could see more with the default font size if you maximized the screen. This is assuming you had at least a VGA gfx card thus a 640 x 480 screen resolution. Since that was the common stanard for win 3.1 it should be a pretty safe assumption.

Anyway it seems that you're talking about a specific file manager window size rather than something attributable to that CD ROM?


This confirmed my understanding of Pegg’s claim.

This maximum number of 12 is to what Pegg referred as the ‘default’ number of lines.
I can now see what you mean, and that this needs to be reworded.

I will have that page reworded to read
“In ‘details’ mode (not shown) the maximum number of files that could be seen in the files window was twelve.”

Sorry but that's just not true. See the screenshot I linked to. It seems that you're saying that at a specific non maximzied window size that both Peg and I experienced, twelve lines of data were shown in details view. However this will be true for numbers other than twelve lines of data. So would have no bearing on how we'd expect the screen to be viewed by anybody else, as the window can be resized to give different numbers.


Elsewhere in Pegg's work this has been stated as “The default window size allows twelve files to be viewed at a time.”

Which doesn't appear to be true and even if it was, would not be specific to this CD ROM

[tolman]

Some fat bird stole my mobile in 1928. Bitch.

skb
Well, I took a television back to show to Queen Victoria.
She really wasn't amused - miserable old bag kept complaining that there was nothing to watch.

[ZERO]

Then someone either taught you wrong, or they taught both me and the Australian Bureau of Statistics wrong.

See here (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/95D50E396E5AECFCCA2577AC00155848?opendocument) in the September 2009 population statistics, the population of Australia is listed as 22,155,400 in the table but in the summary this is rounded to the nearest thousand which happens to be 22,155,000. The same as rounding down. I've looked at a smattering of other reports on this site and they always round to the nearest thousand whether that happens to be up or down.



I'll back Matt up here. I'm Australian and I was taught to round to the nearest number.
Another example is Aussie coins. 1 and 2 cent coins were abolished a few years back and the system we have now rounds up or down to the nearest five.

[Dubious Dick]

I'm betting LSD>:D

[skbuncks]

I'll back Matt up here. I'm Australian and I was taught to round to the nearest number.
Another example is Aussie coins. 1 and 2 cent coins were abolished a few years back and the system we have now rounds up or down to the nearest five.

So, thus far the 'proof' of time travel relies upon shoehorning a method of rounding numbers into the bible which no one uses, or has ever used...is there really any need to continue with this?

skb

[chaggle]

So, thus far the 'proof' of time travel relies upon shoehorning a method of rounding numbers into the bible which no one uses, or has ever used...is there really any need to continue with this?

skb

No.

[panama]

Is this discussion still on the regular forum? I've looked the fella up and he's done this trolling in other places at other times. All his assertations have been refuted and not just here. The guy is a half-wit. Let's just ignore the ****

[skbuncks]

Is this discussion still on the regular forum? I've looked the fella up and he's done this trolling in other places at other times. All his assertations have been refuted and not just here. The guy is a half-wit. Let's just ignore the ****


It's really quite sad the number of years of his life that he has devoted to this tripe. It must take a particular type of stupid to persevere for so long in spite of all the evidence against your pet theory.

skb