Sorry (?) to complicate your world, but you seemed worth it, so I did.
Rosanne said:
It seems that most academics do not accept that Ogham was about as early as 2000 BCE the time of the amu or Habiru graffetti on el hol wadi. Furthermore it seems that historians believe that Ogham had the Roman Alphabet as its base
Most academics think the universe was originally contained ‘within’ a point (points don’t
have ‘withins’) and that before that there was ‘nothing’ (whatever that is, if it’s not the space between things), thus completely contradicting their own (and my) conservation laws. Most academics believe the invariably
round craters on the moon were caused by meteors, which means they would all have had to have had trajectories
perpendicular to its surface (they were evidently actually caused by some sort of electrical arcing). Most academics believe that gravity is the force involved in galaxy-formation even though they cannot find 90% of the mass needed to make this possible (calling the rest ‘dark matter’ and claiming it is there but cannot be detected—nice ‘out’!): plasma physicists have created all observed forms of galaxy in miniature—and the math
is ‘scalable’—in the laboratory, and they arise from the spiraling-around-each-other of parallel plasma currents or filaments, the dominant forces being electromagnetic thus making gravitation completely negligible and irrelevant. Most academics believe Euclid never proved the existence of parallel lines, when in reality it is only his assumption of existence of
non-parallel lines that was ever actually brought into question (and once it’s put this way, it becomes fairly obvious these critics were themselves insane). Most academics believe with enough ‘patchwork’ they can revive Darwin, and that since creationism is silly (which it is) no-one should be allowed to
hear any criticism of Darwinism in schools until students are old enough to have been indoctrinated into not having an open mind on the matter (and not even then, if they had
their way): the main such criticism appears to be that if one species evolved from another why have no intermediate forms ever been found? In other words, Darwinism has become a religion or faith, as has much else academics teach, which makes me thank my lucky stars I dropped out of Dartmouth to pursue my own course. Most academics believe there is no such thing as right and wrong in human behavior, only varying degrees of being ‘disadvantaged’: if poverty causes crime, why wasn’t America crime-ridden during the Great Depression? Most academics (such as the Smithsonian) believe no Europeans came to the New World before Leif Eriksson... which is just ridiculous.
It was only ten years ago or so that I watched a documentary on PBS about navigation that claimed the ancient Egyptians thought the world was flat! (according to Stecchini’s cogent appendix to Thomkins’
Secrets of the Great Pyramid, they had a surprisingly accurate formula for the flattening at the poles, so this is probably where academics got the idea).
When it comes to ogham, you seem to be depending on everyone but epigraphers themselves, the only ones whose field gives them any claim to expertise on the subject. American archeologists cannot even read the inscriptions they claim are forgeries—though the alphabets they are assumed to be forgeries
of had not yet been deciphered when these inscriptions surfaced—or (in the case of perfectly readable ogam consaine inscriptions) ‘plow-marks’. I guess they don’t even believe ogam consaine existed! since it long predates the four-stave ogham of the British Isles (the vowels being the missing 4th leg of LeBateleur’s table). Linguistic ‘criticism’ of Barry Fell (the patron saint of epigraphy) finds a few places where his notions of old Keltic differed from the prevailing model and assumes thereby to have ‘discredited’ his entire (vast) corpus of work! (they can’t stand the fact that he was self-taught, that is, that his
academic training was in I believe it was oceanography)
The reality is that academia has been hawking the idea of ogham deriving from Latin for so long it is reluctant to ‘retool’—and at
this point would be highly embarrassed to, considering how long it has resisted (or ignored) the evidence. When you actually look into things, you will find epigraphers much more credible than their dogmatist archeologist-critics. The archeologists, for example, still tell us the Sphinx was made in the time of Chefren, this
after geologists pointed out to them this is impossible due to the erosion being water, not sand-and-wind, erosion, Egypt having been
arid since the time of Chefren: it originated more like ten thousand years ago (give or take three) and had its lion head, whose lesser bulk caused it to be more misshapen by erosion than the body, re-carved into a man’s around Chefren’s time).
Well for me there is the physical evidence which points to Italy and the 5x14 suits of the Visconti-sforza, or the Gringonneur Cards maybe.
I admire Huck’s energy and find some of his discoveries fascinating, but on this he grossly overstates his case. (It appears to be a common fallacy amongst those ‘within the fold’ to confuse ‘extant today’ with ‘all there was then’, even when the bigger picture belies this.)
Then there is this ghostly marching of ancient feet with spectres of hands holding magical numbers like 22 and 7 and 12 and unlucky 13.
It is only ‘unlucky’ to monotheists, this because it was
sacred to pagans, it being the number of nion the ash, the ‘world-tree’, meaning the wood of handles whereby man
grasps the world. (I guess man’s hand on one of the signs ‘doubles’ it.) It is the ‘world-tree’ because the universe is demonstrably anthropocentric. Notice I didn’t say anthropomorphic, though it’s that too according to Gnosticism and Kabbalah (and me).
There is Ezekiel's Wheels and the Worlds of the Tree of life, and the three worlds of the Cosmic Axis...
(Could these last have been the 3 mothers? I should look into this.) Ezekiel didn’t
invent his wheels but merely managed to get his glimpse of them transferred to writing: the wheels themselves have been ‘rolling’ forever.
Maybe the origin of letters was simultaneous with the creation of the Universe- a primal vibration and shape and sound of the big bang's voice. I don't know.
If the universe (and upright sentient beings) had not always been around, this would certainly be true. Take my word for it, the big bang (in its 4th or 5th incarnation now?)—unlike Darwinism, which was at least a cogent hypothesis—is one of the silliest, most childish theories ever put forth by the ‘mind’ of man, sillier
by far than Church doctrines of the Middle Ages (which were silly enough), let alone some of the more probing cosmological ideas of that era.
But don’t take my word for any of this... oh, I see you don’t plan to:
I am trying to discover for myself step by step, and I must ride upon others jet stream in this until I settle easy with my own beliefs. Mind you, I do not want to lose my sense of Humour or stop reading the cards- so I raise my glass of Barley beer to Ba-al -A firm, Strong god, and to qoph the Monkey.~Rosanne
Good for you—you go girl! or is it only proper for women to use this expression? I assure you I mean no condescension (ah ain’t mean, so ah cain’t
mean it!)