Arcadia Discussion Zone

Ancient? Well, it does date back to the 16th century.
Also, you seem to have confused me with Mr. Macteag. (No u and e in his name, you see.) I suppose the surname is like "Smith" to those of you in the north.

Macteague

This is a interesting charade you are playing the same person cerris is playing the same theory game, that he started on the other thread this seems like the same coincident? As a researcher this anticipation of your explanation of yourself or theory does seem like conjecture. These childish lengthily introductions is very inappropriate you explained nothing credible and like the other thread this seems like one big put on of a shenanigan I think your credibility has dwindled you lost my interest? And this goes for cerris theory too. I think I will wait for your two guy's elusive deception to gets published have fun trying to do so with all this indirection and un-called for theatrics’ for a introduction.

Good luck with your theory anyways' I will take a look here ever so often to see if anything pans out for you like Keith Ranville's theory.
http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... ight=#3486

Sincerely

CRUSADER

I'm not sure what you are referring to as theatrics or conjecture. I was merely trying to correct a bit of confusion. You had mistakenly begun to refer to me as Mr. Macteag.
I am only trying to answer the questions you've had and reply to statements that you have made. Hardly time to draw a breath, eh?

My apologies for posting again so soon.
Crusader, I am troubled by your accusations of "charade" and "deception". This is a discussion forum, not a peer review. In most discussions, one tends to want to introduce themselves and let the conversation flow from there.
You seem to have imposed a personal time limit on any discusssion other than your fascination with Mr. Ranville's theory.
May I suggest that you let others proceed at their own pace?

Okay, you've introduced yourself, MacTeague with a U, now get to the point of how the code was supposedly cracked by you. We can't seem to drag it out of you with a tow truck.

Macteague, please ignore the antics of the two brothers (crusader an JB1717), they are this forums pimples on the ass of progress. Others here are interested in your discoveries and will greet them with critical analysis, as appossed to the more childish " I am right, therefore you're wrong" opinions of these two brothers.

Thank you Jim. For those that are rather demanding or are concerned that their theory may not be the only one, I offer the following.

Information was found in documents relating to John Dee, as well as his communications with others. This information appeared to be a two-part substitution cipher. Mr. Macteag was able to translate that code. Whilst continuing his research, Macteag happened upon the inscribed stone information concerning Oak Island, Nova Scotia on the internet. Noticing the familiarity, he used the code to decipher the message written upon it.
This cipher has been referred to in previous posts. Those interested may wish to reference:

1. Dr. John Dee: General and Rare Memorials Pertayning to the perfect Arte of Navigation
2. Dr. John Dee: The Mathematicall Praeface to the Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara
3. Dr. John Dee: The Hieroglyphic Monad
4 Dr. John Dee: Mysteriorum Libri Quinque
5. Roger Howell: Sir Philip Sidney
6. Sir George Peckham, A True Reporte Of the late discoveries and possession taken in the right of the Crowne of Englande, of the Newfound Landes
7. J.S. Semler: Unparteiische.... der Rosenkreuzer
8. F.A. Yates: The French Academies of the Sixteenth Century

Due to contractual obligations, Mr. Macteag is at this time unable to share certain research particularities. It is hoped that by delving into the research listed above, you will generate a fair idea of the path of the discovery.

oh' great this is the climax?
whats with the head games Macteague!

Crusader

http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... ight=#3486

Like anybody has access to THOSE obscure books and has time to read them all.
MacTeague and MacTeag both have NADA. From the gibberish which he says is the decoded message, I KNOW the whole thing is baseless. Not much point in encoding a gibberish message, now is there?

Macteag

I think its like Magoo you don’t know where you are going with this goose chase maybe you should of taken tank up on his invitation thats where all the kooks hang out!
http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... ight=#3486

Sincerely

CRUSADER

I'm not quite sure where this vitriol originates.
Any researcher has access to these tomes. If one does not have time to peruse them, then how can one debate another's findings?
In any historical discussion, it is assumed that both parties are conversant in the subject matter. Is that not the case at this forum?

matague

You shown nobody anything to nobody you just inconvenienced everyone without facts of your own research or a theory of your own, then you have the audacity to ask us to figure things out that are probably incidiously un-explainable?


http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... ight=#3486

Sincerely

CRUSADER

Keith,
Am I to assume you are familiar with the references I suggested and find no value in them? If so, perhaps you might re-read chapter 6 of A True Reporte Of the late discoveries and possession taken in the right of the Crowne of Englande, of the Newfound Landes. It contains some information that might be of value to you.

Monteague
If you have anything to say to the Grail Knight, say it in the Name of Scottland's Sangal Family.


http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... ight=#3486

Sincerely

CRUSADER

Why on Earth would I want to say something to a "grail knight" from some Scottish family when I am discussing an issue in Nova Scotia?
You must have completely misunderstood my post regarding chapter 6.

well explain youself drama king?

Very well, I will repeat what I posted a few minutes ago.

Am I to assume you are familiar with the references I suggested and find no value in them? If so, perhaps you might re-read chapter 6 of A True Reporte Of the late discoveries and possession taken in the right of the Crowne of Englande, of the Newfound Landes. It contains some information that might be of value to you.

I am not sure why you are suddenly angry, I am offering information that may help your own theory.

I you want to be of any help of anyones theory explain yourself with some sort of facts, just lay your crap on the line tell it like it is? this is drag out way to far say your translation or beat it!

this stall tatic has gone a little to far!

I believe I have provided many facts pertaining to Mr. Macteag's decryption. Far more than I probably should have. Do you disagree with the research provided? If so, please present your evidence that what has been revealed so far is incorrect.
I am sorry for being a bit miffed. Do you refute the evidence in the list of treatises I have indicated?

maybe you should cling on to jimmie he is attracted to your carizma

So, you do refute the evidence that has been presented?
I am not sure of your verbage, but it contains no indication of your position.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd gladly take a look at it.

go figure man...I think there is some other people's theories that need your hienmick help here I am doing fine? With the Keith Ranville Theory...obsess eles where...and quit humping my leg.. on this matter?

MacTeague, why don't you just tell us what's in the book about the newfound landes that might help us? THAT isn't a secret, is it?
In regard to the decoded phrase you gave us, why should anyone believe that is the real message when it doesn't even make sense? Why would YOU even believe it?
Here's what you provided; “Knowest ye terriblus est perishes yon. Ares regains (as) it is strengthened.” It has 20 more letters than the code has figures. How do you figure THAT makes sense?

JB,



If I may, is it not possible that the symbols may represent more than one letter at a time?

Indy

I'm new here, but couldn't help myself from stating something really obvious.

IF the stone did exist, and IF it did bear an inscription, how do you know you are viewing it as intended?

It might be upside down.

The text may read downwards like Chinese script or hieroglyphics.

It may even read right to left, rather than left to right like some Arabic or middle eastern scripts.

Just a thought, but I think this is fundamental and must be considered.