Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Eddy_P

The Book with Seven Seals - FOUND

258 posts in this topic

What about Ronald Pegg?

Where's he at??

Similar Qs have been previously asked…

“We wish to speak with Ron Pegg. Where is he ? Is it possible to contact him direct ?”

Mr Pegg ceased his seven years of full time Study on 11th February 2002.

He then signed off from the whole project on 21st March 2002.

The group of people coordinating this web site do not know, and were never told of his location in Queensland, Australia. All urgent and important correspondence from Mr Pegg was via e-mail.

He states in his Study documents that

"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."

Mr Pegg is no longer contactable, even by e-mail.

We respect his privacy, and have never tried to find him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share the frustration and some of the questions presented by you.

I do not have the answers either.

As far as ‘what went wrong’, for me, it was the report of a religious group, for religious reasons, crashing four planes and killing over 3,000 people in 2001 in America that made me say “Enough is enough’ as far a Religions having the right to impose themselves on others. Basically this was the final straw, as most of the wars to date have been centered or based upon religious values and disputes.

Ronald Pegg’s work clearly shows there was and is no God, thus Religions based on those ‘mistaken Gods’ - are simply wrong, and now do not have any legitimate claim to push themselves onto others.

Well, like I said previously, it's quite a claim. Even though I agree to a certain extent about the effects of some of the worlds most fundamentalisT religions, I think it's going to be, no, it is going to be difficult getting people to believe this message and that is something the travelers should have known before their first trip.

I can't say I an a believer but, I can say that you have answered all my questions patiently & diligently without being condescending, our argumentative and I appreciate it. Thank you, good luck with your endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eddy,

I must say yes you have been given flack and have not lashed out in a terrible way so good on you.

Now after going over the web site and conducting some re-search into the People involved I don’t see any real sign of an expert in ancient text, ancient linguistics, archeology, pre-history or technology involved in this re-search and or theory.

If I’m wrong please enlighten us to whom has corroborated on this finding and what qualifications they have. Also has someone conducted a peer review (a specialist or renowned scientist?)

Thanks

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems futile...religions practically run the world. Something way more significant needs to happen before the super power that is religion is rejected by the masses. Why do these future people want to influence the believers into doing that? What went so wrong that people from the future felt the need to travel back in time to "fix" things? Because it seems more like they jacked things up.

Is there any indication of what nationality these future people are? I ask because it seems very presumptuous of a nation to go back and influence another nation. I liken it to the missionaries coming to Hawaii and force feeding Christian rhetoric and fear to the natives when they were fine with their own earth based faith and polytheistic god heads.

Shouldn't the future people know this already?

Do you know what a whore is? Turns out there the ones who have been causing the problems, Not neglegence.. or a lack of understanding.. "Supposedly" You try telling a hoe they cant do what they want.. What there wanting being the end of space time continueum and common sense. for a sick Game.. They took The presence of clarity and understanding as an insult when it was presented to them.. Freedom is Free.. Its a generallity. Not a funny joke. nor an expression. If you want to be a whore about it.

Like a Sprite. Wanting to Wallow in its own filth for eternity... cause it hates itself so much.

Edited by KainFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know what a whore is? Turns out there the ones who have been causing the problems, Not neglegence.. or a lack of understanding.. "Supposedly" You try telling a hoe they cant do what they want.. What there wanting being the end of space time continueum and common sense. for a sick Game.. They took The presence of clarity and understanding as an insult when it was presented to them.. Freedom is Free.. Its a generallity. Not a funny joke. nor an expression. If you want to be a whore about it.

Like a Sprite. Wanting to Wallow in its own filth for eternity... cause it hates itself so much.

I have no clue as to what you are talking about.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a suspicion that this may be bunkum

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like I said previously, it's quite a claim….. Even though I agree to a certain extent about the effects of some of the worlds most fundamentalisT religions, I think it's going to be, no, it is going to be difficult getting people to believe this message and that is something the travelers should have known before their first trip.
Yes they did.

The OP (ie. Book with Seven Seals FOUND) is just one Case Study presenting 3 ancient texts from a pool of over 25 ancient texts that describe, document, and/or depicted modern computer technology and the contents of the cd-roms.

To make is easier to comprehend, the time travellers placed other types of ‘hidden’ messages in ancient texts (ie. they told the ancient people other things, which they then wrote down as asked).

The WBD website highlights seven of the eight ‘types’ of messages that Ronald Pegg has discovered…..

FINDING #1 Modern Historical Events described in the Bible

FINDING #2 The 'Michael' from the Bible FOUND to be a modern historical person involved in Bible Codes

FINDING #3 Contents of Modern CD-Roms FOUND documented and described in Ancient Texts

FINDING #4 Certain imagery from Modern CD-Roms FOUND described in Ancient Myths

FINDING #5 The End Time Events as prophecised in the Bible have occurred and have been identified

FINDING #6 Computer Technology FOUND described and depicted in Ancient Texts and Egyptian Glyphs

FINDING #7 A Modern War has been described but hidden beneath various religious stories in the Bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, why a PC? Why that CD?

After all, magic tablets are quite common in antiquity - maybe they're smart phones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now after going over the web site and conducting some re-search into the People involved I don’t see any real sign of an expert in ancient text, ancient linguistics, archeology, pre-history or technology involved in this re-search and or theory.
It is not about the people.

Ronald Pegg just happened to be the person to make these discoveries.

As he said

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.

It does not matter who found this nor who checks it.

Pegg did not write the original Ezekiel, Daniel, nor Revelation texts.

Pegg did not write the modern translations of the Bible (which contain those texts).

Pegg did not produce the 1995 Ancients cd-rom.

Pegg did not write nor produce Strong’s Concordance and its Lexicons.

All these written testimonies and books were produced before Pegg was born, hence he has had nothing to do with any of the input into any of those resources.

Claiming ‘Pegg is not a recognized scholar’ has nothing to do with the actual written resources that he used and from which he derived his conclusions.

My eight year old daughter can read English.

She can read the English Bible.

She can read and view the cd-rom and understand what she is seeing.

She can read the Concordance and understands how it presents the root meanings and etymologies of the words in the Lexicons.

She can match the numbered words in the Bible to the numbers in the Lexicons and write down the original meanings and take the etymology as context.

She can then read what the original words say in a sentence.

She then looks at the running cd-rom while reading those words.

When she does this, SHE gets the same results as Pegg.

In a sense, she has ‘peer reviewed’ Pegg’s work because she has examined the cited texts using the citied references.

It does not matter who examines and scrutinizes Pegg’s work, what he reports as being written in the Lexicons of Strong’s Concordance - IS written in Strong’s Concordance, and when those original words are read in original sentence order, a different ‘report’ is revealed from the contemporary translated English words of the Bible.

Many people disagree with Pegg’s conclusions when he uses the original word meanings, but that is because those people wish to continue to use ‘other given religious meanings’ rather than the original ones as stated in the Lexicon of the concordance.

Other scholars can be cited as knowing ancient, modern, or whatever Hebrew, etc, but the meanings given in the concordance ARE what they say.

Pegg’s claim is that when the original meanings from the Lexicons in the concordance are employed (instead of the given and traditional religious meanings known by scholars) what the ancient person is reporting is an encounter with a real being who was holding a compact disk and showed him its contents.

The case study of the OP, using over 200 descriptions from three biblical writers using Pegg’s method, returns over a 90 percent match of ancient descriptions to the contents of the Ancients cd-rom.

My eight year old daughter can see this.

Why do people need someone else to tell them what something means ?

If I’m wrong please enlighten us to whom has corroborated on this finding and what qualifications they have. Also has someone conducted a peer review (a specialist or renowned scientist?)
I was one of the first to examine and evaluate Pegg’s work over ten years ago. When it showed that it warranted further investigation I commenced a ‘peer review’ which is still underway today. Last year I completed an evaluation of the Books of Daniel and Revelation using Pegg’s methods and concluded from the evidence presented that they both describe and document their encounters with time travellers and the cd-roms.

Pegg’s work has been on the internet for over ten years during which I have been asking people for help. There were only a limited number of interested people here in Adelaide where I live, so I turned to the internet where people with similar interests were discussing these topics. I do not have all the answers relating to Pegg’s claims and discoveries.

During the ‘show & tell’ and investigation processes on the internet I was informed that people wanted to view the evidence. So I produced webpages and placed pictures thereon.

Some people then wanted detailed explanation, so I wrote my reports.

Soon it was then pointed out to me (just as you are indicating) that a ‘peer review’ is required regarding Pegg’s work, so I asked for help with that issue on many forums.

I was informed that to study something a correct procedure is required. I researched this, implemented the scientific method of which I was advised and continued with my investigations.

But interestingly, various people came forward and claimed that the methodology of parts of my process were ‘wrong’ or ‘invalid’. They then proceeded to argue among themselves (and with me) as to how the scientific method should be used, which one should be used, and where they thought my method was incorrect or deficient.

ALL of which had nothing to do with the topic of Pegg’s discoveries themselves.

‘Peer review’ is similar. Some say it is essential, other say it is not, so again they started to argue among themselves and with me), again, wasting time from actually evaluating the evidence presented by Pegg.

btw. The process I followed can be found here:

http://www.tt2012.com.au/PPHC-SG/timetravel/index.html

The last time a Peer Review was conducted on this topic, the educated Religious elite decided to compile past time travel encounter accounts into one book, call the messengers 'Angels', and in order to continue to control the people they perpetuated the 'Son of God' idea (created by a Roman emperor).

Those elite were at the Roman Catholic Council of Carthage on 28 August 397 AD; the book - The Bible, with the religious bias and earlier misinterpretations being compounded during a later translation into Old English in 1611 AD.

But that council would not have been in a position to peer review anything of an advanced scientific nature.

That is the exact point Pegg is trying to make. Time Travel Encounters (ie. a personal contact with time travellers and a computer showing the pictures and sounds from the cited cd-roms) were perceived as Religious events, not the technological events they were.

The knowledgeable Religious Elite (the peers of those times) took it all to be a religious thing, and hence religious people thereafter continued to perpetuate a religious ‘God’ context.

Religious people with religious bias chose themselves to decide what it all meant. Ergo their ‘peer review’ of the ‘encounter stories’ were deemed to be from a religious God.

This time regarding review and evaluation of those ‘encounter texts’ Ronald Pegg wants everyone to have the opportunity to evaluate the evidence for themselves, and not to be told what to believe by the Religious elite. The Peer Review, this time, will be conducted individually by YOU.

If I’m wrong please enlighten us to whom has corroborated on this finding and what qualifications they have.
Regarding the OP (ie. Book with Seven Seals FOUND evaluation).

Qualifications unknown.

Since 16th December 2012:

97.50 Eddy

92.18 robb

97.50 susan

97.50 David

93.30 David

97.50 Robbie

97.50 hhh

97.50 faye

97.50 Andy

97.50 nibs

97.50 Jonithan

72.60 AJB

95.80 ME

97.50 bob

97.50 daniel

Average of 95.09 percent.

So besides my daughter, these other people have corroborated Pegg’s claim.

btw. I was going to start looking into your questions about angels, but this side issue has taken up my available time this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have previously responded to

Real scientific/academic arguments have three legs to stand on:

1) The authors own observations/conclusions,

2) Outside support, provided in the form of citations to other scientific/academic works

3) Peer review, to ensure quality and to ensure selective quoting/citing hasn't been used to build a false argument.

1)

a. The author was Ronald Pegg, 1996 to 2002. 20 original research Booklets available, plus three other works not yet released.

b. I have made other new exclusive independent discoveries regarding similar topics and ancient texts myself.

2)

Eddy Pengelly, 1998 to 2008. Independent examination of Pegg’s work, often redoing topics from original texts. My academic works, self- published 2004 to 2006.

(I have used most of my work as examples on the website. To be seen as a separate peer reviewer, I probably should have just shown Pegg’s works then linked to my citations.)

3)

a. Eddy Pengelly, Australia, 1998 to 2002. Rechecked Pegg’s quoting and citations of many ancient texts and references.

b. James Burroughs, America, 2004. Rechecked Pegg’s quoting and citations of Bible references.

Pegg’s works are not yet in a clear concise form.

Here is an extract regarding PEER REVIEW

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

(bolding added) Edited by Eddy_P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there even any real evidence that Mr Pegg existed, other then as an Internet Presence?

Wouldn't it be just as likely to get a lot of "hits" in the Bible, if you used, a Conventional book style Encylopedia, or even just a very thorough Dictionary? Why couldn't these time travels have taken hundreds of CDs and DVDs and shown them to people, thus with a large enough selection, the same results could be done as in that single Encarta DVD?

And is it recorded how the author arrived at the conculsion of this Encarta DVD? Was he running against random DVDs, or did he somehow suspect this DVD series for some unknown reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it's so convincing how come rhere's no peer reviewed journal articles?

not even the fortean brigades touch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that clear? In post #185....

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

The FIX is in my friend... The Illuminati does not want Joe Internet to know that time travel is real. It is why they keep covering up those photos with guys holding cell phones..... BWAHH HA HA!!!

Actually I know Time Travel is not real because The Doctor told me so.

23496349.jpg

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again thank you for your answer, however Here are my thoughts on peer re-view.

Lets say for instance a mining expert finds a new, better, cheaper way of doing things and gives it to a homeless man with no experience, no understanding of mining and no real qualification. This homeless man says "yes that is it and will work". Then the miner takes it to sell to a large company saying dont worry it must work cause the homeless guy outside agrees, does that mean it will work 100%. NO at best it means the miner will lose credibility.

Much the same way it someone well schooled and versed and qualified in Egypt, had a theory regarding how the pyramids were built: out of these 2 scenarios what would you believe:

He gave his work to me (my qualification is in Marketing and business management) I look over his work and with very little understanding and know how on how to test and conduct the correct methods I say "Yes this is perfect" - would that make it right?

Second scenario: He gives his works to experts in the field, they then all agree that it is well possible that, that happened, so they give the work to some people to test the theory too, a geologist says yes the rocks are consistent with the theory, a expert in dating says yes the dates line up well, a civil engineer says yes the structures would have worked with the methods available at the time, however a structural engineer says, no the type of proposed ramp would have crumbled under the pressure of moving the stone. Can you just write off what he says and move forward or it that theory now flawed?

If you see what Im getting at, without EXTENSIVE EXPERTS testing, questioning and summarizing the work at best its an opinion. So you supply a list of names and thats great, but for all I know that is the uneducated masses that can barley use a computer - so at a 95% hit rate its easy to convince an idiot or a person that cant question what is presented to them as they have little understanding.

Its like doing magic to a 50 year old that has been around the block and studied magic tricks, he will question and test you, as he knows there is a trick at play, but a 5 year old will be in awe over the same trick. So getting experienced and qualified people to check your claim and agree with you would be a LEAP forward, but to have to ask me to do it would be unwise as even if you could convert me to believe it would not help your cause of making this a "well known and understood theory" as Im no expert in the fields that you require. If it was a business plan or a marketing strategy then I would be 100% your man, as that is my skill set.

so you say peer review is not important, and the masses are doing it for you. Well then I need to say that doesn’t count and does more harm to your claim that justice.

So again has anyone that is QUALIFIED in the correct fields agreed with the findings? and what tests, and what proof did they find?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I've read some posts of KainFall in other threads as well and I must say, most people have a hard time following his thoughts.

i have a suspicion that this may be bunkum

whatever made you say that? :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again thank you for your answer, however Here are my thoughts on peer re-view.

Lets say for instance a mining expert finds a new, better, cheaper way of doing things and gives it to a homeless man with no experience, no understanding of mining and no real qualification. This homeless man says "yes that is it and will work". Then the miner takes it to sell to a large company saying dont worry it must work cause the homeless guy outside agrees, does that mean it will work 100%. NO at best it means the miner will lose credibility.

Much the same way it someone well schooled and versed and qualified in Egypt, had a theory regarding how the pyramids were built: out of these 2 scenarios what would you believe:

He gave his work to me (my qualification is in Marketing and business management) I look over his work and with very little understanding and know how on how to test and conduct the correct methods I say "Yes this is perfect" - would that make it right?

Second scenario: He gives his works to experts in the field, they then all agree that it is well possible that, that happened, so they give the work to some people to test the theory too, a geologist says yes the rocks are consistent with the theory, a expert in dating says yes the dates line up well, a civil engineer says yes the structures would have worked with the methods available at the time, however a structural engineer says, no the type of proposed ramp would have crumbled under the pressure of moving the stone. Can you just write off what he says and move forward or it that theory now flawed?

If you see what Im getting at, without EXTENSIVE EXPERTS testing, questioning and summarizing the work at best its an opinion. So you supply a list of names and thats great, but for all I know that is the uneducated masses that can barley use a computer - so at a 95% hit rate its easy to convince an idiot or a person that cant question what is presented to them as they have little understanding.

Its like doing magic to a 50 year old that has been around the block and studied magic tricks, he will question and test you, as he knows there is a trick at play, but a 5 year old will be in awe over the same trick. So getting experienced and qualified people to check your claim and agree with you would be a LEAP forward, but to have to ask me to do it would be unwise as even if you could convert me to believe it would not help your cause of making this a "well known and understood theory" as Im no expert in the fields that you require. If it was a business plan or a marketing strategy then I would be 100% your man, as that is my skill set.

so you say peer review is not important, and the masses are doing it for you. Well then I need to say that doesn’t count and does more harm to your claim that justice.

So again has anyone that is QUALIFIED in the correct fields agreed with the findings? and what tests, and what proof did they find?

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).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,NO, it is not a good source.

The sources for the meanings and etymologies provided via your link date from between 1844 to 2008. http://www.etymonline.com/sources.php

Those are not the oldest available publications.

Earlier resources DO give the meaning of ‘roll’ as ‘a rolled up paper’ OR “round objects”.

My source as cited on the website: http://dictionary.re...com/browse/roll

relates:

Your sources are six hundred or so years older than the first Middle English use of the word “roll” that, as clearly stated, came from the Latin word for small wheel.

I stand with my original and previous statement, “roll” did come from the Latin ‘small wheel’.

A compact disk is a small wheel.

…..

Wait a minute. I just checked your specific citation for “roll (n)” that you quoted.you then saidNo it is not. It is the early 13c meaning. The origin goes back to the Latin.[/left]

The early 13th century meaning was ‘rolled-up piece of parchment or paper’ (as you have pointed out) but we are talking etymology and original meanings.

The Bible was not written in the 13th century.

Pegg is seeking the original word meanings. You have used the 13th century meaning.

btw. The 1611 KJV Bible is using religious meanings and religious interpretations from its own later era.

The closest to them is sometimes the Latin as used in the Vulgate Bible.

Your citation CLEARLY states that the ‘roll of paper’ meaning came from an earlier Latin word meaning “small wheel” - exactly what Ronald Pegg states.

I have to call you on this. You have been deliberately misleading.

As obvious from previous posts, some people on this forum do not carefully read what I have written nor follow the links to confirm things for themselves.

You referred to the site and listing I linked to as not a good source despite the fact the the dictionary page you linked to, has, at the bottom of the page, the same source and etymology I linked to listed as word origin. It was only after you thought it helped your case that it suddenly became a good source for you.

You refer to the origin of the word as if that was what they used at the time the books were written, yet we know that definitions can and are changed over time and can even be seen in the word roll. To evaluate its use correctly you must determine what the writers meant when they were writing. What was their experience with books at the time the supposed time traveler arrived with the cd? Did they view books generally as flat disks or as rolled parchment? Parchment of course, so it is not logical they would use a term to describe the cd that did not properly define it for others to understand what it was. In fact, a better word to describe it would have been Disk, from the Latin Diskus and from the Greek Diskos "Round flat surface" as a cd is basically flat.

It has been my contention right along that the ancients, when referring to a book roll or rolled book were referring to rolled up parchment. If you wish to believe that my not agreeing with you is misleading, that is your choice though it doesn't make it true.

If you use the KJV for your biblical reference and if the KJV is an accurate translation of the early texts, then the etymology you wish to use is invalid as the early texts were written more than 1000 years before that etymology came into existence.

Oh yes it does, especially after catching you out.

I can not give value to your words after what you did above. You infer that I (or other researchers) may deliberately attempt to deceive*.

The Evaluation website clearly states its resources, and clearly and accurately quotes those sources, and presents it all for the reader to evaluate for themselves.

If you have a problem with what is being presented, it is with the publishers of those source publications, and not with Pegg nor myself.

Modern Hebrew is only about 150 years old. The sounds associated with the letters of the modern Hebrew alphabet differ from those of ancient Hebrew which is what would have been used when the texts were written. You have used modern Hebrew to come up with DVD instead of correctly using ancient Hebrew where the sounds make DWD, DOD or DUD as I have shown before. There is a V sound in ancient Hebrew but for an entirely different letter.

The problem is not with the sources or the publishers of those sources but with you using the wrong sounds for the wrong hebrew script in an attempt to support your theory.

When a person is shown the incorrectness of applying modern Hebrew sounds to ancient Hebrew writings but continues to do it is IMO an attempt to deceive the public into thinking that what is being presented is correct. IMO a person who is not being deceitful would make changes to their theory based on what would be the correct application of the sounds in ancient Hebrew. Whether or not a person is deceitful depends on whether or not necessary corrections are made.

* I expect people to follow the given links and scrutinize what those links say and confirm it all for themselves; in the same way I followed your links but found that you were being misleading by deliberately leaving out key available information.

Yet you did not follow my link or even look at the quote I posted until you were halfway done with that part of your reply. So perhaps you should take your own advice. What key information did I leave out? Did I not link to the site I was referencing? Yes. Did I not quote from that site? Yes. Did you leave out that the dictionary page you linked to had the same source I used listed as word origin yet refer to that source as not good? Yes.

You have no way of knowing what he was thinking nor why the time traveller said what he did. Thank you for your opinion, but this is a mute point.

John says he was told the value by the time traveller and gives that value as 144,000.

Yes it's my opinion but so is yours about John being told by a time traveler.

No, Pegg advises that at least two or three surrounding verses (and sometimes chapters) have to be read to place the context.

And no, you are incorrect.

Here is Revelation 7:2-8

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, 3. Saying, ‘Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’. 4. I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000; sealed out of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 5-8 lists the twelve lots of 12,000.

Subject one (the angel) and what he held : (2a.) “And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God” then after the ‘what he said’ comes information regarding ‘what he held’ (4a.) “I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000”.

What subject one said: (2b.3.) “and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 3. Saying, ‘Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’”

4b then goes on to relate another subject, the twelve lots of 12,000 associated with the tribes of Israel.

(Why the tribes are related I do not know. It probably has something to do with earlier religious stories from the Old Testament.)

So again, I stand by what Mr Pegg says. The seal (of the living god) was told to John, being 144,000.

(Then comes the 12 lots of 12,000)

This part of your post is most important. I have made bold the parts that indicates the number sealed and who was sealed. It is quite clear that 144,000 servants were sealed on their foreheads. Your own post supports my contention that it was people that were sealed and not the numerical size of a file. Thanks Ed

Numerically yes, but this is part of the level eight decoding that was found in the Bible by Pegg.

Briefly, the ‘story’ of the tithes (ie. 10% of something) relates to large numbers over the 1,000 configuration.

This is how actual troop stats and other historical information was ‘hidden’ in the Bibles words.

People looking to match the signs, taking the Bible at face value, would look to history for a certain number associated with a particular describe event.

BUT that number (of troops for example) has been changed by 10%.

In this case, the 12,000 stated by John is actually the figure 120,000 (ie. a zero was taken off the end).

Thus the 12:00:00am time stamp looks like the number 120,000 but has been tithed to 12,000. (a zero taken from the end)

(This is the best I can do at the moment. You asked, I replied. In context with all the other high numbers over 1,000 this will become more obvious later when the work is published.)

Were that true then the 12:00:00 (120,000) would be reduced to 12,000 but it also means that the 144,000 (rounded up) file size, an even larger number, would also have been reduced by 10% making it 14,400. By doing it for one and not the other you are basically playing with the numbers to make it come out right and that invalidates it completely.

OK, let us look at the score.

Religious scholars seeking biblical signs compared to history for the past 2,000 years……say 20 % (I am being very generous).

Pegg’s comparisons using original word meanings and context during 7 years of research…..94 %.

I will let the reader do the math to see which method is producing results.

Applying original word meanings to text written 1000+ years before those original meanings existed is meaningless. As such, what those writers said can not be based on something that did not yet exist. That alone greatly reduces the 94% and "the math" can't be done until accurate values have been determined.

No. A responsible researcher will check each word in each verse then its sentence syntax then its correct meaning. (This is what the Evaluation allows, with links included.)

Ezekiel, Daniel, and John wrote about their encounters. They relate this in their accounts. To make sure the research is accurate we MUST make sure that the text being scrutinized is the same. It is no use one person quoting an American Bible while another cites an Old English Bible. The words will be different because the religious groups have chosen to interpret the words their way (and often for their own purposes).

This is why Pegg uses the KJV Bible, not for the accuracy of the words, but because they are numbered and referenced in Strong’s Concordance, where the Lexicons state the original meanings (which Pegg employs rather than the often given religious ones).

Original meanings that did not exist when the books were originally written (Ezekiel, Daniel and John not the KJV) and would only come to exist 1000+ years after those books were written.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

Basically the KJV is a translation of a translation with some parts possibly a translation of a translation of a translation. If one is interested in what was originally said, the ancient sources would be best regardless of whether they are cross referenced in the concordium

Absolutely true, and a very important point.

Also why the evaluation provides for a NO, Maybe, and YES response. The reader has total control on his/her responses to the provided evidence.

BUT the pictures cited in the Evaluation are not random images taken from the internet.

They are pictures and images, and sequences of images from one mid 1990 cd-rom that, when compared to the sequence of descriptions from three biblical writers, match to not only what is being described (ie. the content of the picture) but to the sequence of pictures themselves.

This goes way past coincidence.

By limiting the images to what was on the cd you are, even though you may not realize it, skewing the results even though you have given the choices of yes,no and maybe. To avoid that you need the image from the cd as well as several images that are similar from the internet then phrase the question similar to "Which image is the following text describing"

As far as the images matching the descriptions, that's because the descriptions are what the images are based on.

No.

You just do not get it do you.

The biblical writers state what they saw, say images A-Z.

When the cd-rom is run, a series of pictures, say 1 to 13 are seen in specific order.

There are no other images or similar images to use as a base reference. I know what you mean, but what is on the cd-rom IS on the cd-rom.

OK, so let us compare biblical descriptions of images A-Z with the cd-rom pictures in order 1 to 13.

(I am thinking of the main Ezekiel evaluation where from 166 verses over 400 matches were made, with over 40 being consecutive. The latter are shown on the video on the ‘Contents Compared’ page of the linked website)

The biblical writer says something like “and then I saw the sky (A) above the sea ( B)”.

The first picture of the cd-rom presentation (after the intros) is (1) “a sky above a sea” background picture.

There is nothing else on screen, but the sky and sea.

Pegg asks you the question “is what Ezekiel describing seen?”.

How can this in any way skew the results. It is either yes, no, or maybe.

Then Ezekiel says he saw C & D (still on picture 1)

Looking at the same picture two images appear that match C & D.

Then Ezekiel says “he was taken to” (ie. picture 2) “and that he saw” E,F,G.

The second screen in sequence appears on screen, and there on it, are an E, F, and G.

Again, the reader has the opportunity to respond as to whether the images E,F, & G match to biblical descriptions…

..and so on.

It is a closed system. There are not any other pictures. Either the biblical writers’ descriptions match to the pictures or they do not.

So far, 14 people confirm that 94 % of the descriptions DO match.

Using your example of the sea/sky image. When you ask if what they see is what ezekiel is describing is seen, you are asking if the person taking the quiz agrees that it is the specific image on the cd rom that ezekiel is writing about. That is why I say it is skewed.

The order of images correspond to the text because the images were based on the text and the order was kept. It is not a case of the biblical writers descriptions matching the images but the images being created based on the biblical writers descriptions.

14 people say there is a correlation with 94% of the images but that doesn' make it 94%. You have to factor in the mayby's and no's as well. If 14 say yes there is a correlation, 14 say mayby there is a correlation and 14 say there is no correlation then that only gives you a 33% that say there is a correlation and the correelation is not so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there even any real evidence that Mr Pegg existed, other then as an Internet Presence?
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.

Wouldn't it be just as likely to get a lot of "hits" in the Bible, if you used, a Conventional book style Encylopedia, or even just a very thorough Dictionary? Why couldn't these time travels have taken hundreds of CDs and DVDs and shown them to people, thus with a large enough selection, the same results could be done as in that single Encarta DVD?
I doubt it.

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

Once the time travellers decided to place ‘messages’ in ancient texts so someone in the late 20th century could find them, they apparently chose the technology used by Ronald Pegg (so he would easily identify it) and four cd-roms and at least two particular printed history books from which to use specific datable KEY information.

The Ancients cd-rom had ‘future’ history regarding Alexander the Great in relation to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon being told who will eventually take over his kingdom.

The Grolier cd-rom had the 1991 Persian Gulf War information which again, related to what will occur ‘in the future’ regarding Middle Eastern kingdoms (and other general ‘future information’).

The printed books related the Religious History of the major Religions as well as that of the Jews.

The RedShift2 cd-rom had information about several comets which were dated to the times that Michael Drosnin and Dr Rips were introduced to the E.L.S. Bible Code, which subsequently dated the activities of Ronald Pegg due to extra time periods being told to Daniel and John.

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).

And is it recorded how the author arrived at the conculsion of this Encarta DVD? Was he running against random DVDs, or did he somehow suspect this DVD series for some unknown reason?
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found something rather interresting

The Pegg Project with trademark number 987433 was lodged on 05/02/2004 and has a status of Registered/Protected. The applicant/owner of the trademark is registered as Robert Pengilly .

More details to be found here. So it's just another little piece f the Pegg / Pengilly puzzle. I'm sure they are one and the same person.

I also came after some posts from Eddy in other forums, I realized that we are still being quite nice to him here. Damned, but has he taken some flack in others, I was nearly sorry for him.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This part of your post is most important. I have made bold the parts that indicates the number sealed and who was sealed. It is quite clear that 144,000 servants were sealed on their foreheads. Your own post supports my contention that it was people that were sealed and not the numerical size of a file.
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.

Were that true then the 12:00:00 (120,000) would be reduced to 12,000 but it also means that the 144,000 (rounded up) file size, an even larger number, would also have been reduced by 10% making it 14,400.
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.

As far as the images matching the descriptions, that's because the descriptions are what the images are based on…..

…and…

The order of images correspond to the text because the images were based on the text and the order was kept. It is not a case of the biblical writers descriptions matching the images but the images being created based on the biblical writers descriptions.

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

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.

The civilizations presented are from around the Mediterranean region from between 2000 BCE and 476 CE, being Etruria, Carthage, Roman Empire, Greece, Phoenicia and Egypt.

(The Egyptian section only presents seven video shows, and not pages of pictures.)

The Etrurian section shows things Eturian…

The Roman section shows things Roman…

The Greece section shows things Greek…

The Phoenician section shows things Phoenician…

The Carthage section shows things Carthagian…

…and NOT anything to do with Palestine, Jerusalem, the Bible, the Old Testament, nor the New Testament.

To evaluate its use correctly you must determine what the writers meant when they were writing. What was their experience with books at the time the supposed time traveler arrived with the cd? Did they view books generally as flat disks or as rolled parchment? Parchment of course, so it is not logical they would use a term to describe the cd that did not properly define it for others to understand what it was.
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.

In fact, a better word to describe it would have been Disk, from the Latin Diskus and from the Greek Diskos "Round flat surface" as a cd is basically flat.
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.

Edited by Eddy_P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.