257 replies to this topic

[Eddy_P]

Likely Guy, on 09 January 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

I've come across some evidence that the real Ronald Pegg died before 2004.

That would explain why his email account has not been used nor accessed for about ten years.

[Likely Guy]

Eddy_P, on 09 January 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

That would explain why his email account has not been used nor accessed for about ten years.

Also why how you 'respected his privacy', because he's dead. I think that he died in Bundaberg, QLD., between 2002 and '04.

Edit: That still lends no creedence to his, or more importantly your, theory. Just to his existence.

He had no training. I'm a researcher, you're a researcher, he was a researcher. We're at square one.

Edited by Likely Guy, 09 January 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Peter Cox]

TheSearcher, on 08 January 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

You do realize that he will just answer with the quote from the elusive Mr; Pegg : I am not the issue. My Discoveries and Research, and the Evidence will speak for itself. Please focus on my Discoveries and personally examine all the Evidence for yourself, and do not come to a conclusion based upon preconceived ideas given to you by other people.
However the "Discoveries and Research, and the Evidence" do not speak for themselves and whomever dares disagree or ask after peer review, gets the same answer over and over again : "Go to my website and look at the shiny shiny and the pretty pictures!!" (ok I might have let sarcasm get the best of me there).

i have a feeling that you are correct, However if Mr Eddy_P cant see the relavence in having an expert look over the work and agree to it or question it and be convinced its correct well then he has little more than a good bed time story with pretty pictures.

I can make up my own mind on topics if I see enough evidence on them, but im no PRO so it lends no credibility to the theroy if I say yes its right.

So by the very nature of his argument its flawed, as having 100 people who know nothing on the topic saying its correct lends NO credibility to it.

Just my 2c worth lol.

But thats for the answer lol - as i said you right that would be the answer I would get hahahahahahaha

[Peter Cox]

Likely Guy, on 09 January 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Also why how you 'respected his privacy', because he's dead. I think that he died in Bundaberg, QLD., between 2002 and '04.

Edit: That still lends no creedence to his, or more importantly your, theory. Just to his existence.

He had no training. I'm a researcher, you're a researcher, he was a researcher. We're at square one.

This whole thing is like a pasta drainer the more you stare at the bottom the more you realize how many holes exsist in it.....

The theroy by nature of it is flawed and the lead up to it is flawed.

[TheSearcher]

Likely Guy, on 09 January 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

I've come across some evidence that the real Ronald Pegg died before 2004.

I thought that Eddy P. and Ronald Pegg were one and the same as well. But no, now I don't think so.

This, of course, gives nor implies any credence to Eddy's theories.

Interesting find there Likely Guy. Quite correct alsoby saying that it doesn't give credence to any theory.

Peter Cox, on 09 January 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

i have a feeling that you are correct, However if Mr Eddy_P cant see the relavence in having an expert look over the work and agree to it or question it and be convinced its correct well then he has little more than a good bed time story with pretty pictures.

I can make up my own mind on topics if I see enough evidence on them, but im no PRO so it lends no credibility to the theroy if I say yes its right.

So by the very nature of his argument its flawed, as having 100 people who know nothing on the topic saying its correct lends NO credibility to it.

Just my 2c worth lol.

But thats for the answer lol - as i said you right that would be the answer I would get hahahahahahaha

Well, the best example of this, is what Quaentum posted earlier, about the use of modern Hebrew to come up with DVD instead of correctly using ancient Hebrew where the sounds made were totally different. That post was spot on, yet the answer was ......"no you're wrong".... It's this kind of behaviour that destroys any credibility left.

Peter Cox, on 09 January 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

This whole thing is like a pasta drainer the more you stare at the bottom the more you realize how many holes exsist in it.....

The theory by nature of it is flawed and the lead up to it is flawed.

I think we can all agree that the premise and the theory are quite flawed.

[Peter Cox]

TheSearcher, on 09 January 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Interesting find there Likely Guy. Quite correct alsoby saying that it doesn't give credence to any theory.



Well, the best example of this, is what Quaentum posted earlier, about the use of modern Hebrew to come up with DVD instead of correctly using ancient Hebrew where the sounds made were totally different. That post was spot on, yet the answer was ......"no you're wrong".... It's this kind of behaviour that destroys any credibility left.



I think we can all agree that the premise and the theory are quite flawed.

Agreed.

I love the "no you are wrong cause i say so" answers and arguments lol. I cant prove you wrong, there is no evidence to show that you are wrong, but take my word for it you are wrong. hahahahahahahah love it.

such a well balanced position to take

[DieChecker]

Appears there really was a Ronald John Pegg in Queensland. Ancestory.com says he voted from 1949 to 1980, and probably after, but the records are probably just not available yet.

Also, I found a Ronald William Pegg that died in Melbourne in 2011.

Quote

PEGG. - A Service to celebrate the life of Mr Ronald William Pegg will be held in the Le Pine Chapel, 1048 Whitehorse Rd (cnr Linsley St), Box Hill on THURSDAY (Sept. 22, 2011) at 10.00 a.m. In lieu of flowers, donations to Eastern Palliative Care would be appreciated. Envelopes will be available at the Chapel.

Published in Herald Sun on September 20, 2011

I've found Ancestory.com to be a interesting Research tool.

Found many other Ronald Peggs, but not in Australia.

[DieChecker]

Eddy_P, on 09 January 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

Well, someone from Queensland, using their 07 State area code, contacted me several times by telephone during the late 1990s.
Then there are the signed letters from Ronald Pegg, post dated ‘Queensland’ that I received.

Then there is his autobiographical work that contains personal details, as well as details of his work and how the time travellers communicated him, including the placement of the message that James Strong who compiled Strong’s Concordance (during the 1800s in America) was the decoding key.

Someone phoned, wrote, and gave me work to examine. He said his name was Ronald Pegg from Townsville, Queensland (Australia).

So in good faith (as anyone would do), I concluded from the evidence presented to me that, someone called Ronald Pegg, from Queensland was a researcher who had made some amazing discoveries.

So we have to take your word for it.

Quote

I doubt it.

Why complicate things even more ? They had a specific task to do, being the placement of messages in ancient texts.

But, you would consider it possible? Or, that a great many other time travels showed up and each provided a bit.

Quote

So only three cd-roms were essential for the placement of messages plus the general religious history from the printed books, but all the other floppy disks and compact disk to run the 386/486PC system (including the computer itself and its mouse & cable) plus the fourth cd-rom were either shown or told to other ancient people so their added testimonies would augment the evidence provided by the descriptions in ancient texts of the contents of the Ancients cd-rom (and what you have examined from the OP is just 3 of over 20 accounts discovered by Pegg).

This is explained on the ‘Observation’ page of the original on-line evaluation Test.

(The OP presented access to the Official Research and Evaluation site.)

This link provides access to the methodical process from Pegg’s discovery and hypothesis through to his conclusion and evaluates each of four accounts separately:

http://www.worldbrea...conclusion.html

OK. That did show me what I was looking for....

Quote

Based on observing certain pictures from the main menu page of the Ancients cd-rom being described by John in the Book of Revelation at verses 4:6-7, Ronald Pegg wondered whether consulting other ancient texts of similar nature would produce similar observations.

So he started with a realization that his CD main menu reminded him of Revelations with its 7 seals. And he went on from there.

[TheSearcher]

I actually did do the famous tests, by Eddy's website, a perfect waste of 60 minutes btw. To give an example of how it is all interpreted, see the following.

This is referred to as a calf. This btw is also the size of the pics used.

Well....how to say this nicely, this is in fact the roman wolf that raised Remus and Romulus.
See the below picture for comparison.



And that's just one example of the fallacy being perpetrated here. It's build on imagination and assumptions and then some.

[Quaentum]

Eddy_P, on 09 January 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

No. You have ignored what I have said and that there are two separate ‘subjects’ in the verses 2-4.

My post clearly places verse 3 as part of the ‘what was spoken (ie. cried)’ being “and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, ‘Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’”.

Once John had finished hearing all this, he then reported that “the seal of the living God” was told to him. Being “I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000”.

So no, what I said does not support your interpretation of the verse.

Lets start with the verses as they actually are in the KJV:

Revelation

7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

7:5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

7:6 - 7:8 reference the other tribes.

Nowhere in those verses of the KJV does John report that the seal of the living god was told to him though he does say he saw an angel with the seal of the living god.  Neither does he say "I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000" .  If you look at 7:4 above John says "the number of them which were sealed".  Them is plural meaning more than one.  When you look at the flow of the beginning of chapter 7 we have what is going to happen to the Earth, That it should not happen until the servants are sealed, that the number of them is 144,000 and that the total is divided equally among the 12 tribes of Israel.    If you read it in it's entirety you can see that yes it does support what I have said which is not my interpretation but simple reading and comprehension of what was written.

Eddy_P said:

No. The 144,000 was verbally told to John as the number 144,000 as a separate statement.

The 12 lots of 12:00:00 were a visual thing seen by John, and relates back to the Old Testament religiously perceived use of seeing it back then, but where the tithe comes into play is were ‘key words’  are included.

In the PGW context ‘troops’ or ‘sword’ could be the keyword, and also ‘tribes’ as stated by John.

So the inclusion of the word ‘tribes’ sets this as a 10 percent situation.

The 144,000 may be in a separate verse (7:4) but the use of the word and at the beginning of that verse indicates it is a continuation of 7:3 and ties "them which were sealed" into the the reference to servants.  John is told the number of them which were sealed being 144,000 of all the tribes of the children of israel yet nowhere does he indicate that he is told or saw that it was 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes.  Based on that, the most logical conclusion is that he evenly divided the 144,000 between the different tribes.

Eddy_P said:

As I have said before, the Ancients cd-rom is not about Hebrew nor Christian Religion, neither does it contain any Hebrew nor Christian pictures.

and as I have said, it's not about the text or the cd-rom but your purposeful application of the sounds associated with modern Hebrew to ancient Hebrew text.  It is incorrect and invalidates that part of your theory.  Let me reiterate, It is not about the text ot the cd-rom but your actions of incorrectly applying the sounds of modern Hebrew to ancient Hebrew text.

Eddy_P said:

Unless they were describing something new to them but in terms they knew. Then it would be perfectly logical to describe a rotating round disk as a ‘rolling’, being like a rolling small wheel.

Yet it has been pointed out to you previously, the cd would not spin until it was in the closed cd drive and they would never have seen it spin and would not describe it as rolling.

Eddy_P said:

Yes, exactly what an Egyptian did (about 640 and 1300 years before Ezekiel and John).

The scribe Ani has depicted what two time travellers showed him and has also described its contents.

He has drawn the form of a compact disk, used the ‘straight line’ underneath it to show it is a real object, named it as the RA-Disk (with the vocalization of ‘ra’ matching the sound of the makers of the Ancients cd-rom, being sca-LA, and shown its owner as a sitting man in white.

Link: http://www.worldbrea...lyphs_2006.html

Tell me Ed, how many years have you trained and worked at translating hieroglyphics?  I'm willing to bet none, yet you feel your translations are coreect and those who have done the work are wrong.  The puts you squarely in the realm of fringe writers who have come up wuith their own translations which were incorrect but who peddled them as correct to try to support their theory.  

Eddy_P said:

No. You have already been told this is not the case back in a reply to your post #4594694.

I know this part is out of order but I am using it to tie it all together.

Yes I knwo you have told me that I am wrong that the cd was not created based on history but that history came about because of the cd's and time travelers.

• In your posts you have changed the KJV text, dismissed sentence structure and ignored syntax.
  
• You have made unsupported statements about what John supposedly saw.
  
• You have not only failed to acknowledge your incorrect application of modern Hebrew sounds to ancient Hebrew script but have continued to act as though it has something to do with the text or the cd's when it is your doing.
  
• You have made bad assumptions such as the ancients seeing the cd rom spin when that would have been physically impossible.
  
• You have used your own incorrect personal translations of hieroglyphics over the translations of those who have trained and studied for years.

In essence, Ed, all that you have posted and shown, has not supported your theory but undermined it.  It has been undermined to the point where it no longer sits on the ground but is in a hole.  The more you try to validate your theory using bad assumptions, unsupported statements, misuse of alphabet sounds and incorrect translations, the more you undermine your theory and the deeper the hole you dig.

[Peter Cox]

So Ronald Pegg is no more - passed away. RIP

I have to agree with the above post from Quaentum: Eddy you use certain things out of contence and swear by it. Then when PROVEN wrong, write that off as opinion and carry on with your theory. Then when PROVEN wrong again you just push it aside and carry on?

This is why Peer review would buy you a little credibility.

So my advise is get a pro to look over all your work and let them tell you how far from the truth on a FACT for FACT basis goes, then take it from there.

[DingoLingo]

Peter Cox, on 10 January 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

So Ronald Pegg is no more - passed away. RIP

I have to agree with the above post from Quaentum: Eddy you use certain things out of contence and swear by it. Then when PROVEN wrong, write that off as opinion and carry on with your theory. Then when PROVEN wrong again you just push it aside and carry on?

This is why Peer review would buy you a little credibility.

So my advise is get a pro to look over all your work and let them tell you how far from the truth on a FACT for FACT basis goes, then take it from there.

Now that would be good but he knows he won't have it agreed on.. And there goes one source of income

[TheSearcher]

DingoLingo, on 10 January 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

Now that would be good but he knows he won't have it agreed on.. And there goes one source of income

Not sure if Eddy actually sells something with this? Can someone confirm ?

[DingoLingo]

TheSearcher, on 10 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Not sure if Eddy actually sells something with this? Can someone confirm ?

Read his web site at the cost of the books and the workshops

[TheSearcher]

DingoLingo, on 10 January 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Read his web site at the cost of the books and the workshops

I only did the test and already lost some IQ points just doing that. I didn't want to expose myself to the rest of the site. I kinda missed that