NO. 4) [hrl 2] Re: Fw: [bcn2004] Hitit ve Hatti Gök-Tanri OGUZ Töresi

Dear Friends,

Greetings. My response to Mr. James M. Rogers' posting is
interspersed within his text below.


emarhalys wrote:
>
> Yes, the User sceptre was a symbol of kingship. But likewise, using
> the anagrammatizing theory, you might try to associate the ancient
> name of the most Supreme Egyptian god, Osiris,

POLAT KAYA: Let me see. You are trying to tell me "do not try to
recognize USER as Turkish by employing an anagrammatizing theory".
You are very confused. There is no need for me to anagrammatize. You
do not seem to have understood what I have been saying or more
correctly you do not want to understand. I do not use
"anagrammatizing" as you insinuate. I only decipher words that have
been intentionally usurped from Turkish and anagrammatized into
Indo-European (IE) and Semitic languages. Since I write in English you
should have no difficulty in understanding what I am saying unless you
have a hidden agenda to distort and alter my writings.

The ancient Masar/Misir (incorrectly labelled EGYPT - referring to
GYPSY) was a state of Tur/Turk peoples contrary to the perpetrated
misrepresentations. The name "AS ER", "OS ER" and "US ER" were
appellations used to describe the Supreme Sky-God OGUZ ER. The name
"OSIRIS" is the Hellenized form of the original Turkic name "OSIR" (OS
ER). In other words, the name "OSIRIS" is a Greek distortion of the
actual name OSIR. Why did the Greeks have to add an IS to a proper
name? Why did they have to distort and "Hellenize" everything? The
answer is that they were busy usurping and changing ancient Turkish
words, expressions and names. OSIR is Turkish and unquestionably from
OSER/OZER (OGUZ-ER). My recognizing that the Masarian OSIR is nothing
but the Turkish OSER/OZER (OGUZ-ER) has nothing to do with
anagrammatizing or association.

Turkish is a language that uses a lot of vowels and is a very
transparent language. You can see this from my many examples. Just
because you lack knowledge regarding Turkish, does not mean that I
should not recognize my language. Your insinuation is rather out of
place.

Evidently wanderers loved to change everything on their path from its
original form, thus making the original Turkish source unrecognizable.
This game of deception was adopted by the cabalists of Babylon to
confuse the one language that the whole world spoke which was Turkish.
The Semitics removed the vowels of Turkish and Sumerian words leaving
only the consonants, i.e., the skeleton of words. This way they could
read into each set of consonants many distorted meanings taken from
the one source language of the ancient Turanian civilization. By
altering an existing language they opened up a path for them to come
up with manufactured languages that helped them to become a "nation"
from a state of wanderers.

G. S. Kirk, Emeritus Professor of Greek at Cambridge, (1974) writes:
"The very term 'Greek' is full of ambiguity. 'Greek', like 'Akkadian',
denotes a language rather than a people. The Greek-speaking people
began to enter the Greek peninsula shortly before 2000 B.C., but they
found there an indigenenous population that already had cultural and
perhaps linguistic connection with Asia Minor." (p. 267).

This makes one wonder why they were not a 'people'?

Ancient Masarians were not "GYPSIES" as is implied by the concocted
name "EGYPT" or "EGYPTIAN" - which refers to GYPSIES. The world has
been conned by way of using this deceptive verbology in defining
ancient Masarians (Misirians). Thus by way of altering their name,
this longest living ancient civilization of Tur/Turk peoples
(MASAR/MISIR) has been artificially assigned to group of wanderers
that had nothing to do with that state and their civilization. This is
an act of "usurping" other people and their civilization By this act,
at the same time, the name of the original Tur/Turk owners of this
magnificent Masar/Misir state and civilization has been cut off from
the Turkish world.


You said:

> whose names is Asar
> with User? If you did, you would be wrong. Though the consonants are
> identical a S a R vs. u S e R, AS is a throne hieroglyph and User
> is one glyph itself. They are not even remotely the same, though
> they both share the common themes of kingship.
>

POLAT KAYA: It is peculiar that you have the audacity to tell me not
to recognize my own language when I see it. There has been enough
deception perpetrated already to con the whole world. Please don't
try to add to it. I will say this once again. You do not know
Turkish, Turkish history or Turkish civilization therefore you are in
no position to make such judgements. ASER (AS ER), OSER (OS ER), USER
(US ER) are all Turkish words no matter how much denial you show. They
define and describe the ancient Turanian supreme creator Sky-God OGUZ
ER - which the ancient Masar/Misir people worshipped. Do not think
that I will not recognize my own language in Masarian writings just
because you tell me not to do so. Evidently you are well trained to
deflect things that are not to your liking.


You wrote

> This is what I see in your theories. These "associative"
> definitions. Thus your thread about the Wise, the penultimate Sky
> God, they are corrolary. Meanings of significance that do not find
> their root in the consonants chosen for the words. Perhaps in
> Turkish, of course, they are closer, as you say Turkish word
> meanings are based on a monsyllabic system, but in most languages,
> the meanings are syllabically based. Akkadian & Turkish are based on
> monosyllabic, Greek, Hebrew, on syllables, and in my opinion
> Egyptian hieroglyphs in "syllable strings" if that is such a term?
>

POLAT KAYA: You seem to be superficial in understanding what I say in
my writings. Meanings given to words are extremely important. They
give life to the words. Without a meaning associated with each word,
words become lull. Then no communication would be possible. So, let
us not didtort or underestimate my writings by playing games on words
with the use of terms like "corolary", etc. Additionally, it seems
that your understanding of "syllable" and my understanding of
"syllable" are two different things. When I say "syllable", using V
for "vowel" and C for "consonant", I mean sets of: V, VC, CV, CVC
basic arrangements, not the way, for example, that words in English
are syllabized. This different understandings cause a lot of misunderstandings.

As I have stated over and over, so-called Semitic languages are made
up from Turkish and/or Sumerian / Masarian. Probably, Akkadians were
the first one to start the looting. The name Hebrew is another case
of a stolen and repainted car. Its source is from Turkish "BIR O" as
I have pointed out before. "Hebrew" term was applicable to the
language of Cananites, Palestinians and Masar/Misir peoples contrary
to perpetrated disinformation. These peoples were not Semitics. The so
called "West Semitics" or "North Semitics" were Tur/Turk peoples
contrary to all the misrepresentations. They have been claimed as
"Semitic" just like the ancient Turkish Hazar Empire has been
deceptively named "Jewish Hazar Empire". Thus changing Turkish names,
words and phrases of Turkish civilizations has done wonders for some
wanderers.


You write:

> Thus righ now, I am in "the doghouse" with you which is an
> expression which basically means you are not pleased with me. In
> fact, my behavior is more like the dog part of the word.

POLAT KAYA: You put yourself in the "doghouse" by your own obnoxious
behaviour and your insincerity. After all that misbehaving, what did
you expect me to take you for. I tried to elevate you, yet you
insisted, as you say, on playing the dog part of the word which puts
you in the "doghouse". It is a shameful behavior on your part. Grow
up Mr. Rogers.


You say:

> But if
> doghouse were Greek, to take elements out of it and rearrange it --
> why the possibilities could be innumerable. In any good word of six
> or more letters, you have 1/4 of an alphabet to work with in finding
> associations. Thus these longer examples for Synchronism, it is an
> eleven letter word!
>

POLAT KAYA: Now you are faulting me for having found the Turkish
source for a longer IE word? Have you lost your directions?


Yo say:

> Consider the problem you had with Urek, Urekti. You found the match
> at six letters but not at four. Do you see what I am saying?
> Associatively, given enough letters and combinations, I would think
> you could get a match for almost any word whether there was a
> legitimate connection there or not?


POLAT KAYA: You are under the misconception that the anagrammatizers
had a rule that they followed when they were manufacturing IE words
from Turkish sources. Not so. They were free to steal and rearrange
according to their whims and desires. The French anagrammatizer
decided to take Turkish UREK and transform it into French COEUR while
the English anagrammatizer decided to take Turkish UREK" with the
Turkish suffix "TI" added to it and transformed it into English HEART.
The two together (i.e., "UREK" + "TI") means "it is heart" where
Turkish K was softened into H. The Greeks did the same by taking
Turkish "UREK" + "DI" and came up with KARDIA. The Latin
anagrammatizer took Turkish UREK and altered it into L:atin COR. You
see how easy it is? It is a joke. Once you have a Turkish model in
front of you, making alterations and embellishments is as easy as
making a dough. So contrary to what you are saying, I had no problem
with recognizing English HEART as being sourced from Turkish UREKTI.


You wrote:

> What I think will make or break your theory, Dr. Kaya is the amount
> of matches you can get for very short words of Greek from Turkish.
> Five or four letters, no more?

POLAT KAYA: Your flimsy complaint has no validity at all. You must
note that I have dignosed many short IE words and long IE words as
being sourced from Turkish. You will find them in my writings in my
library. You know very well that I hit the nail on the head when I
revealed that Turkish UREK was the source for all the IE versions of
HEART. You are bothered by this and that is why you are trying to
belittle it or divert it. I also pointed out that all medical terms
centred around the bogus etymology of Greek KARDIA are actually
sourced from Turkish UREK. For your information, even the term
ETYMOLOGY is sourced from Turkish. One more thing, let me assure you
that you are in no position to put "rules", "demands" or "limitations"
on my work.


You say:

> Have you ever heard the saying that
> if one million monkeys were given typewriters and they typed at
> random for a hundred years, that the entire works of Shakespeare
> could be found in their random typings?

POLAT KAYA: Yes, I have heard this before but it is pure rubbish.
Even if you gave 10 million monkeys a computer and let them type for a
million years, you would not get Shakespeare out of it. This is
dishonest sophistication designed to con people with. Another
used-car salesman talk. If you belive this kind of nonsense, you are
more naive than I thought.


You write:

> This is what I see with your
> theory, because the longer the word you are trying to trace to the
> Turkish etymology, the easier it will be for you to find a match?

POLAT KAYA: Nonsense. Nothing can be further from the truth. Your
logic, if one can call it that, is faulty again. On the contrary, the
longer the word, the harder it should be to unearth its source, that
is, if the IE languages were original and developed independently away
from Turkish. Your admission that I have found a "match" is proof that
I am accurate in what I am saying, that is, the IE word was in reality
made from Turkish. You must remember that the Turkish source I present
for a given IE word has the same or very related meaning. I am not
just producing unrelated Turkish expressions which would be easy but
would have no relevance. There is no way a Greek linguist or any other
linguist could have come up with IE words containing a gobledeegook
arrangement of consonants and vowels that just happen to line up with
a Turkish expression in both meaning and letters unless they sourced
their IE word from that Turkish expression. This process is
encryption of Turkish source material to form IE words.


Finally you say:

> That is why syncretism or synchronism were so "easy" to find. They
> were both very long words?
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...
>

POLAT KAYA: You must have a really big bag of excuses. You took my
"UREK" example and labelled it as a "weak" example. I gave you much
harder examples and you came up with the excuse that "they were longer
and therefore easy". I gave so many other examples which you ignored.
Why don't you just admit that my examples represent the truth? After
all, I have nailed it completely and undeniably. I understand it may
be difficult for you to admit it but if you throw away your built-in
prejudices and bias, it should be easy.

I am confident that you would not be able to find the Turkish source
of even a few IE words - even if you knew Turkish and wanted to. In
other words, deciphering is not an easy task so don't try and portray
it as one. Your statement "That is why syncretism or synchronism were
so "easy" to find" is again an admission that I was right in my
deciphering of these so-called Indo-European words. You see no matter
how much "repainting" and "embellishing" the usurpers did when
manufacturing IE words out of Turkish source material, the Turkic DNA
was left just below the surface.


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

===============

emarhalys wrote:
>
> Yes, the User sceptre was a symbol of kingship. But likewise, using
> the anagrammatizing theory, you might try to associate the ancient
> name of the most Supreme Egyptian god, Osiris, whose names is Asar
> with User? If you did, you would be wrong. Though the consonants are
> identical a S a R vs. u S e R, AS is a throne hieroglyph and User
> is one glyph itself. They are not even remotely the same, though
> they both share the common themes of kingship.
>
> This is what I see in your theories. These "associative"
> definitions. Thus your thread about the Wise, the penultimate Sky
> God, they are corrolary. Meanings of significance that do not find
> their root in the consonants chosen for the words. Perhaps in
> Turkish, of course, they are closer, as you say Turkish word
> meanings are based on a monsyllabic system, but in most languages,
> the meanings are syllabically based. Akkadian & Turkish are based on
> monosyllabic, Greek, Hebrew, on syllables, and in my opinion
> Egyptian hieroglyphs in "syllable strings" if that is such a term?
>
> Thus righ now, I am in "the doghouse" with you which is an
> expression which basically means you are not pleased with me. In
> fact, my behavior is more like the dog part of the word. But if
> doghouse were Greek, to take elements out of it and rearrange it --
> why the possibilities could be innumerable. In any good word of six
> or more letters, you have 1/4 of an alphabet to work with in finding
> associations. Thus these longer examples for Synchronism, it is an
> eleven letter word!
>
> Consider the problem you had with Urek, Urekti. You found the match
> at six letters but not at four. Do you see what I am saying?
> Associatively, given enough letters and combinations, I would think
> you could get a match for almost any word whether there was a
> legitimate connection there or not?
>
> What I think will make or break your theory, Dr. Kaya is the amount
> of matches you can get for very short words of Greek from Turkish.
> Five or four letters, no more? Have you ever heard the saying that
> if one million monkeys were given typewriters and they typed at
> random for a hundred years, that the entire works of Shakespeare
> could be found in their random typings? This is what I see with your
> theory, because the longer the word you are trying to trace to the
> Turkish etymology, the easier it will be for you to find a match?
> That is why syncretism or synchronism were so "easy" to find. They
> were both very long words?
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...