Questions about the "Bardic origin of Tarot" theory

[venicebard]

Hi VB,

Well I've read through all your postings - and also seen your website. To cut a long story short, I've finally concluded that your foundations are shaky.

I honestly think if they were, they would have upended me by now! Instead, they keep leading me to new discoveries.

I should make it clear though that my interests re. your bardic thesis lie with ancient Norse. I live in England - the 'land of Ing'. Many of our current words & place names are derived from them.

I grew my hair long to be like the Vikings (the explorers more than the ravagers). I can tell you you will find Tifinag quite interesting: Fell projects names in Low German (Scandinavian) that fit the letter-shapes precisely, and the Table of Alphabets in my book attampts to correlate Tifinag with other alphabets related to tree-letters. Tifinag obviously is: D is a door (oak), K or C a cairn (concentration of stones, just as the hazel is concentrated wisdom, 'in a nutshell'), T-holly a barbed spear-point (L.Ger. tagg), Q-apple three dots strewn on the ground, SS-blackthorn at taurus-the-neck a ball-ended torc (the prevailing Scandinavian variety thereof), F-alder (resistant to moisture) a ferry-boat (L.Ger. far) in the north but a bridge seen from above (with alder pilings, no doubt) in North Africa, and so on, plus the use of the solar symbol (circle with dot in center) for B-birch--the beginning of the year (at Yule)--in North Africa but for S-willow in the north--where the sun does not appear until the willow month (aries-taurus). I'll stop now.

Far better to peruse it all curled up in a comfy chair.

(I hear yuh.)

 

[venicebard]

Some of the foundation for this theory is based on Barry Fell and that makes me a bit afraid, ans sceptic, to say the least!

I happen to read old norse and have studied hieroglyphs and have read Fell. And his method is totally arbitrary. . . .

Fell was totally incompetent! And it can be proven.

. . . to which I replied:

. . . If you wish to criticize specific points of his, by all means do: I'm all ears (and tongue, of course)

Unless you were simply put off by my "why bother" with respect to your reading the whole thread (or have a schedule that permits you online even less often than mine), it appears you do not have any substantive criticisms of Fell after all. Just as I thought.

I don't think most people really understand just how jaded and dogmatic academia has become, and will remain as long as tenure and 'peer review' staunchly defend most fields against substantive new ideas. Just ask any (professional) archeologist how old the Sphinx is! The damage to it over time was from water erosion, as any good geologist can tell almost at a glance, not that of wind and sand, and the region had been too dry to produce same for thousands of years before Khefren came along and (no doubt) had the head, a greater proportion of which (than of the body) had withered away, carved into a human head.

Or better yet, ask him or her how Egyptians supposedly carved granite using only copper tools? especially, how such copper tools can have cut deeper into the quartz than the surrounding feldspar (first noted by Flinders Petrie)? The only viable answer to the latter question is that ultrasonic drills were probably used: this is the answer that the evidence forces on us. The answer archeologists try to force on us is: "with superhuman effort." How scientific. Whether such drills were still in use by dynastic times is a question I do not yet have enough data to answer; and indeed the most refined artifacts may be from much earlier times (as is the Sphinx and probably the Great Pyramid itself, since its careful precision tooling indicates it was an enormous machine of some sort, not some silly tomb).

I could go on at length in this vein, and indeed my sharpest criticism is in fields one would think might be less distorted by the politics of money (prior to close scrutiny) than the humanities, such as physics and cosmology. Of course biology, as we all know, is ruled by the 'neo'-Darwinists and so fights to not allow any criticism even of their precious creed into the public schools. Meanwhile, someone had to be around in the pre-Jurassic to produce those perfect stone spheres mentioned in the appendix to Forbidden Archaeology (reference and page number on request, as I don't have it with me), and so on.

Fortunately for me, I have found a much more solid model of things than any being sold on campuses these days, namely a Hermetic one which corrects modern science on many points (including which way current flows), one that admittedly would not be available to me without the strides academia made up to the middle of last century (and only mavericks since), strides only obscured by the 'advances' heralded more recently. The only advances being made today in astronomy, for instance, are its empirical observations themselves, as the theoretical model by which they are parsed into 'information' is utterly skewed from reality (which is surprisingly easy to demonstrate).

I'll stop now, since I am probably only talking to myself at present.

 

[Ligator]

Ok. A quick note about Fell.

Once upon a time I liked Fell. His hypothesis where appalling to me. Then I read some of his books and read other works by Esop and others and... I had to reject Fell and the epigraphers around Esop.

I know some ancient Egyptian and old norse. Around the debvate about the kensington Stone and about the Petersborough petroglyphs I have to note this:

The petersborough petrgoglyphs:

He assumes that symbols on the stones are tifignag signs (used 2000 years before that alphabet is used in a way which can be dated precisely). The petroglyph is assumed to be from around 1500 B.C.

These are the underlying assumptions Fel make:

* That there is NO system or ORDER in the way these tifignag (sorry if that word is misspelled) signs are to be read. Sometimes he strats from the left, sometimes from the right sometimes in the middle, sometimes it goes around... Fell and the ESOP does the same thing in many more instances, like the case of the alleged trip by the egyptian to Peru or Chile (Maui)... And there are NEVER a system, at least no one he writes about. So it is all in the eyes of the beholder where to start to read... Completely arbitrary and all known languages and texts have some order in it, the texts Fell translate almost NEVER has order in it, and almost NEVER (in the case of the old norse, NEVER) a natural starting point from where to read.

* The problem with this is apparant when one looks at the supposed words. Because MANY syllables are missing in the texts Fell has "translated". The strange thing is that Fell allegedly translated many of the texts very quickly. That is strange, because so many syllables are missing. How can one judge whether F + R in tifignag is supposed to mean Father (fathur), futhark, Fark (old norse) or what ever? And since Fell has no method for telling whether a text should start from left, or right or whatever it could also mean R + F (rafn??)...

* Som with his method everything could mean everything...

* Which is also clear from his (and the Esops) use of dictionaries. I have always enjoyed the hypothesis that Maui travelled to Peru across the Indian and pacific oceans just to write an egyptian text with libyan syllables.. (tifignag) It is funny in itself... But, the strange thing is that the epigraphers assume that they spoke middle egyptian at the time around 300 Bc. Why has no one ever used the NEw Egyptian dictionaries... Or does it not matter that there are 1200 years in between?

Fell does the same thing. It is not so easy just to compare an allegedly Norse language 1500 BC with dictionaries about old norse 2500 years later... And this also emphasises´the fact that anything could mean anything, because Fell can make ANY hypothesis he likes about the language 1500 BC, and he does not think he needs to prove anything linguisticly... *sic!*

* The greatest problem is, however, that fell constantly IN ALL HIS "translations", INCLUDING THOSE IN OGHAM, assumes that there are no grammar in the text. The petersborough petroglyphs, all ogham, Maui egyptian texts, ogham in India, tifignag in Scandinavia, Kensington stone, ogham ias well as hieroglyphs in central USA (!), in ALL his assumed translations there are no traces of grammar, and NO attempts of Fell to trace what the grammar was like (this is the main difference between him and real epigraphers, like the once trying to slove the riddle of mayan language, like the person who found a method to read the languages in old Crete, like the first discoverers and interpreters of the babylonian and old egyptian languages).

He simply assumes that ALL texts he has dechifered are written in SPOKEN LANGUAGE, with sloppy, or no grammar!

As a matter of fact. So called spoken texts do not exist... In all texts remaining, EXEPT THOSE TRANSLATED BY ESOP OR FELL, there are clear remnants of grammar that can be formed to a system and can be used as a proof that comfirms the translation...

Funny, isnt it. ONLY texts by Fell and ESOP show a lack of grammar. Or uese grammar in a sloppy and arbitrary way.

* But the method of Fell is quite simple. He assumed what the order of the text was, he assumed that a certain symbol meant this or that. And then he compared that order of syllables that he had found to a dictionary of some kind. If he assumed that it was old norse he used that one. And then he picked a word, based on his further assumptions what the text dealt with, WITHOUT EVER STATING THE EXAKT REASON FOR PICKING THAT EXACT WORD.

Sometimes this use is dunny... Like when he used Middle Egyptian dictionaries for both the OLD egyptian as well as the egyptian used 1200 years after... ) can you see the irony in it?!


THIS IS WHY I THINK FELL IS HARDLY ANYONE ONE WOULD LIKE TO QUOTE AS A SOURCE...

/Torbjörn

 

[Ligator]

In short... For me that can read old norse his method is crazy! I cannot decribe it in a more polite and objective way.

But the lack of a scientific argumantation about WHY he chooses the order of the text he chooses, or one word instead of another, SHOULD make people think and wonder...

And I wonder... Does he use ogham in the same way?

All I know is that the assumption he makes is that they wrote "spoken language" at the time, because Fell has written this himself.

His method is so arbitrary, that one easily could prove, using the same sloppy method as Fell, that the petersborough petroglyphs is a text divining about our debate on the internet 2008 AD, or about the use of mushrooms when making food for space astronauts!

I am not joking. This is how arbitrary he chooses syllables, words, and the order in which to read the text...

I repeat. I AM NOT JOKING. Once upon a time a wrote such a text, proving that those petroglyphs dealt with spacetravel and spacefood. (And I even suceeded to make the case even stronger for my thessis that Fell... The words I picked were more suited to the so called tifignag syllables he uses. And, above all, I succeeded to create some kind of system for the spelling and grammar, which Fel never ever tries...

But this does not mean that the text is about spacetravel... Or that it even IS a text...

I did it to show the inconstant and sloppy method of Fell...

And, boy, the Esop, did not like me! )



/Torbjörn


PS

Fell can spell words differently, in a way which no other texts, known to mankind, vary the spelling... But that is another story...

/T

/Torbjörn

 

[Kircher Tree]

how Egyptians supposedly carved granite using only copper tools? ... The only viable answer to the latter question is that ultrasonic drills were probably used: this is the answer that the evidence forces on us. The answer archeologists try to force on us is: "with superhuman effort." How scientific.

What is the evidence that forces this answer on us?

See link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_building_technology_in_ancient_Egypt

It is now known that the tools employed for carving the granite were small balls of Dolerite that is a mineral harder than granite.

Why is this not a "viable answer"? I was unable to find the archeologist that you quoted as saying "with superhuman effort". Could you provide a link or citation? I would be interested to know who would say such a thing.

Thanks.

 

[Ligator]

Sorry for my sloppy spelling. But Sweden plays against Russia in the European Soccer Championship, and the rusians are leading with 1-0! (

But even in my sloppy spelling tonight there are visible traces of grammar and a system of spelling... )

/T

 

[Ligator]

Ultrasonic?

Hmmm... I think I can smell the hypthesis that "modern technology", coming from UFO:S, where behind some things found in Egypt. This is off topic... But I have debated this many times with others...

Am I right or wrong?

My favourite is when some people try to claim that the sandalstrap-sign is a lightbulb! ) So, why does the egyptians talk about sandals when they talk about that sign then, I would like to ask them? )

If this is so, I can see why you like Fell. The same method is necessary when claiming that "modern technology" or UFOS built the pyramides or the sfinx, as when claiming that tifignag syllables where used in Bohuslän, Sweden, 1000 BC.

/Torbjörn

PS

If from earlier times... Well, compare stones from earlier times with stones cut around 2800 BC, at the time the pyramides where built... Sand wears down stone in a similar way as rain wears down stones... Do also compare this with the historic accounts written by the egyptians themselves (they are dating the pyramides too)... Compare it with artifacts found...

 

[Ligator]

"in bronze age Scandinavia and points west, a form of ogham was used alongside Tifinag (in its pre-Berber form): instead of the later four staves of five letters each, the five vowels were omitted. So it went:

B L F S N . . . H D T K Q . . . M G Ng 'Z' R ."

Ah, Fell again. The Bronzeage people were according to fell using both ogham anc tifignag. But the same goes for the so called ogham, as with tifignag. PROOVE it, do not do as Fell, just state it and claim that science is to state something bizarre and then others have to disprove you.

/T

 

[venicebard]

Completely arbitrary and all known languages and texts have some order in it, the texts Fell translate almost NEVER has order in it, and almost NEVER (in the case of the old norse, NEVER) a natural starting point from where to read.

You overstate the case here. Also, sometimes an image accompanies a letter-sequence going up (the only really odd direction, after all) that makes the word being indicated somewhat obvious. (I'll try to return with an example.)

Because MANY syllables are missing in the texts Fell has "translated".

From particular words? No. What you mean is perhaps that some smaller 'link' words are missing that would make a more complete sentence: consider that the carving was being made in rock, perhaps in some haste even, for all we know.

How can one judge whether F + R in tifignag is supposed to mean Father (fathur), futhark, Fark (old norse) or what ever? And since Fell has no method for telling whether a text should start from left, or right or whatever it could also mean R + F (rafn??)...

I'll try and find this particular case, so I can comment on it.

Which is also clear from his (and the Esops) use of dictionaries. I have always enjoyed the hypothesis that Maui travelled to Peru across the Indian and pacific oceans just to write an egyptian text with libyan syllables.. (tifignag) It is funny in itself...

"...just to write an egyptian text..."? [emphasis mine].

But, the strange thing is that the epigraphers assume that they spoke middle egyptian at the time around 300 Bc. Why has no one ever used the NEw Egyptian dictionaries... Or does it not matter that there are 1200 years in between?

Perhaps the dialect the Libyans spoke was closer to M.E. than N.E., due perhaps to respect they held for the Egyptians of 1200 B.C.E. who defeated them. And having studied ancient Egyptian rather a lot over the years, it is news to me that there was all that much difference. Slightly different literation in some cases, and surely some change in idiom; but the same basic vocabulary, n'est ce pas?.

Fell does the same thing. It is not so easy just to compare an allegedly Norse language 1500 BC with dictionaries about old norse 2500 years later...

If the shoe fits [etc.] Now if one could prove that the Teutonic sound shift could not possibly have occurred by that time, one might have a point.

. . . and he does not think he needs to prove anything linguisticly...

You do have a partly valid point here, some basis perhaps for the criticism that his chosen academic field was oceanography and not linguistics. However I do recall some specifically linguistic arguments posed by him in ESOP and elsewhere show blinders his critics seemed to be wearing.

The greatest problem is, however, that fell constantly IN ALL HIS "translations", INCLUDING THOSE IN OGHAM, assumes that there are no grammar in the text. The petersborough petroglyphs, all ogham, Maui egyptian texts, ogham in India, tifignag in Scandinavia, Kensington stone, ogham ias well as hieroglyphs in central USA (!), in ALL his assumed translations there are no traces of grammar, and NO attempts of Fell to trace what the grammar was like (this is the main difference between him and real epigraphers, . . .

I think you overstate things here. But certainly in many inscriptions the lettering is more in the nature of labels for petroglyphic figures than declarative statements. Certainly in the anals of both Fell and ESOP are cases of longer declarations in which grammar is present. There may be a dearth of these in the oldest Scandinavian inscriptions, though, I'll have to go back and check.

* But the method of Fell is quite simple. He assumed what the order of the text was, he assumed that a certain symbol meant this or that.

Are you denying the very existence of Tifinag and ogam consaine here?

(Back in a minute.)

 

[venicebard]

All I know is that the assumption he makes is that they wrote "spoken language" at the time, because Fell has written this himself.

I don't quite understand the problem you have with this.

His method is so arbitrary, that one easily could prove, using the same sloppy method as Fell, that the petersborough petroglyphs is a text divining about our debate on the internet 2008 AD, or about the use of mushrooms when making food for space astronauts!

Sure, if one discard all context, one can prove anything, I suppose. How utterly trivial!

I repeat. I AM NOT JOKING. Once upon a time a wrote such a text, proving that those petroglyphs dealt with spacetravel and spacefood. (And I even suceeded to make the case even stronger for my thessis that Fell...

(In your opinion.)

The words I picked were more suited to the so called tifignag syllables he uses.

So you have decided it is not even Tifinag! I guess I won't ask you, then, how you would account for the inscription, as apparently your 'hypothesis' is that it does not exist.

Ultrasonic?

Hmmm... I think I can smell the hypthesis that "modern technology", coming from UFO:S, where behind some things found in Egypt. This is off topic... But I have debated this many times with others...

I can see that you (along with most other people) are not aware UFOs are a geological phenomenon having nothing to do (as far as I know) with alien technology. (They are simply ball lightning with spin: glowing plasmas emitted by quartz-bearing rock under seismic pressure; in fact, this accounts, oddly enough, even for the 'abduction' phenomenon...)

But if you want me to believe that this pitiful sub-civilization of today is the highest plateau man has ever attained, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... The evidence for advanced cultures in the past is quite extensive, in spite of its being ignored (or classified as 'anomalous', as if this dismisses it) by academia.

So, why does the egyptians talk about sandals when they talk about that sign then, I would like to ask them? )

I don't know: perhaps they were remarking on the shape of the sign and concealing its meaning. But of course with your standards of 'proof' we moderns shall not ever peer beyond any veil of secrecy the ancients have thrown up before us. One's method is different when one's goal is to try to see beyond such blinds. That the degree of (relative) certainty is qualitatively less in such endeavor than in established theories of man's past is quite easily refuted: I can disprove many key assumptions on which academia rests its ever-shifting case for the modernist world-view. In fact the modern materialists' blinders make their world-model rather pathetic in its inconclusive complexity... but I digress.

Sand wears down stone in a similar way as rain wears down stones...

Ah, you are a geologist as well! (I think not.)