Welcome!
.To our files
on Ancient Ireland at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Ireland/I have added two new Knowth decipherments
knowthkerb15.gif
deciphering the Knowth Kerbstone 15
and
knowthequinoxevent.gif
showing how the interior walls of Knowth in Ireland
mark the stars on the line of the Equinoxes.
UPDATE - READER COMMENT by Malcom DeanSubj: Re: [LexiLine] 141 LexiLine Newsletter 2003 More Knowth
Decipherments
Date: 2/2/2003 4:42:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: "Malcolm Dean"
To:
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mr. Kaulins, your work is extremely impressive. Is anyone
undertaking some kind of analysis of these interpretations in order
to show that the alignments you propose are not accidental? I
realize this must be obvious to you, but some such analysis would
help reduce skeptical criticism.
Malcolm Dean, Graduate Student
(M.A. Mass Comm. Research
University of Leicester, U.K.)
1015 Gayley Av #1229
Los Angeles CA 90024-3424
323-876-8559 home office
UPDATE - LEXILINE ANSWER by Andis Kaulins
Dear Malcolm,
Thank you, but we still stand at the beginning of this pioneer
research. History has been in the making for millennia, so no one is
too quick to change anything. It is a long, tedious process getting
the archaeologists, historians of astronomy and other related
academics (Egyptology, Assyriology, etc.) out of the terrible ruts
they are in, and most of them have their own personal agenda, their
presumed fields of expertise, and they are understandably interested
primarily in their own work - for which they are paid, so they stick
to what they know or think they know. I blame no one by the way. I
teach at a university myself to 200 students a semester, and I am
paid to teach mainstream doctrine for the courses that I offer, so
that is what you do - that is your contract. You are not paid to
bite the hand that feeds you. This is normality.
Once you start to rock the boat, the number of allies diminishes
rapidly - in any field. That is why much of science is so one-sided.
People are generally subservient to the reigning authorities in
their fields, unfortunately, and to the institutions writing their
paychecks. This is the case in all disciplines.
So, ultimate progress depends on pioneers such as myself and new
generations who see a niche to be filled, who see new approaches
which they might consider to be interesting and which they think may
prove to be a wise career direction for their future. Perhaps you
will be one of the people to ultimately add to this field. If one
waits "for the other guys to do it", the experience of life shows
that the other guys often do not do it. Anyone who has ever started
a successful start-up business will tell you this - they saw a
niche, and filled it, and were suprised no one else had done it.
As George Bernard Shaw once wrote: "The reasonable man adapts to
society, the unreasonable one tries to change it - hence, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Who is checking my theories? I do not know. It is a nearly thankless
and professionally quite dangerous task for any established
professional who would do it. If I am right, as I am sure I am, it
makes your average archaeologist and historian of astronomy look
like a rather incompetent idiot, and no one wants to admit to that
position.
Publication in professional journals is also not an alternative to
publicize these research results. Articles submitted to so-called
peer review journals (what I call "crony blurbs") do not get
published if you allege that what the reviewing peers are themselves
writing and doing professionally is nonsense. There is an old saying
that new ideas do not win out because they are accepted by the
establishment, but because the old establishment dies out. There is
a lot of truth to this.
I am nearly finished with a book on this subject which I hope to
publish this year. That is one prerequisite to getting things taken
more seriously. Almost everyone still regards internet publication
as "fun" and not much more, even though it actually is far superior
in many ways - but the present generation of academics will never
accept the internet as it should be accepted as a viable
academic "alternative". This is because they grew up with another
system. Internet publication as an accepted form of "science" will
only truly begin with the younger generations, i.e. people who grow
up with the internet as an integral part of their lives.
So, to be taken seriously, you still have to have a book and
optimally, try to publish "learned" articles in printed academic
journals (which means to use a lot of jargon and sesquipedalian
sophistries i.e. "big words", and most importantly, to quote
your "peers" extensively - that is the right formula). But it is
difficult to cite peers if they are writing garbage, and I refuse to
write the "jargon jumble" which today often passes for "science".
Or would you prefer titles for megalithic decipherment such as:
"Socioarchaeological and Ethnogenetic Ramifications of
Anthropomorphic Realism in the Prehistoric Art of Mesolithic and
Neolithic Megalithic Populations: Chronological Frames in
Technological Evolution and Monumental Sculpture". All of these
terms are taken out of actual published articles.
I am capable of writing such stuff, but I refuse to do it, and howl
when I see it. It has something of the overdone decadence of Gothic
art which is categorized by overloaded decoration and ornamentation
at the cost of "simplicity and clarity" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
We see this in the evolution from megalithic to "Celtic" art as
well, where no one - exept for apparently me alone - can decipher
the stones because the basic message as in Gothic art has
been "masked" by "excessive enrichment" and "complication"
(Encyclopaedia Britannica). My decipherment of the stones proceeds
by simplification - I get rid of the decorative but misleading
veneer, ignore the previous masking ornamentations of the scholars
and get to the bottom of things.
Most scholarly articles - and remember that I teach legal writing at
the university level - can be reduced to one abstracted sentence to
be answered by the question "What is the point of this paper?"
I find it all highly amusing - but that's the world.
In any case, as far as as "review" of my work is concerned, if a
high opinion of established academia were justified, I could
say "there are many men and women of critical mind in academia who
are thrilled in their chosen professions to examine new and exciting
ideas which might improve human knowledge, and this is proceeding
apace".
Unfortunately, my low opinion of established academia is closer to
reality, so that I have to say "there are very, very few men and
women of critical mind in academia, in fact, in any generation there
are only at best a handful of them, so do not hold your breath".
That is why the encyclopaedias honor the greats - for they are few.
Your average man AND academic - and this is 99 percent - does what
he is told (or thinks he or she is expected to do by the powers that
be) - and is happy doing it, and profits by it. And, frankly, the
world runs on this predicatability.
Nevertheless, I shall continue to rock that boat, and since my
theories are correct, there is no question that one day what I write
will become established doctrine, and will then, of course, be
handled just as uncritically by the followers of this doctrine, as
the doctrine before.
Each of us in this life has our chosen role, for whatever reason,
and so we fulfill it the best we can. That is what make this planet
such an interesting place.
Pioneers such as myself rant and rave at the establishment claiming -
and knowing that we are exaggerating provocatively - that we have
to do with an academic world composed of mental midgets - sometimes
I am even convinced of this. The establishment sits in their warm
offices, with no need of change at all from the status quo, and
says - cleverly - "What do I have from any of this new stuff? You
mean if this man were right, I would have to recant what I myself
have previously done and written in my field in my life? Never."
That is why it is a gargantuan task to change anything in society -
in any field. Isaac Newton called it inertia. And when an
irresistable force meets an immovable object - you have ... friction.
That is why I have an online newsletter - I need not waste my time
with the inevitable kick-boxing which is otherwise sure to occur,
and has in the past. I have learned not to get involved in it. It
brings nothing. I publish my research results on the internet - it
is availabe for all to see, to comment on and for others to do with
what they want. Much of my research is reproducible, indeed
improvable !, but if others do nothing , it is their decision - and
I have in any case my time free to continue with my research.
Who decides whether I am right? - in the end, we ALL do.
