Earthlings Speak Moon Language

[Daniel]

You use theory, which you cannot even prove?

Yes. That's how science works. You can look up falsifiability if you'd like.
(And, by the way, you haven't even come close to "proving" anything either, if you still want to suggest that matters.)

At the same moment, the idea of having 4 SAME roots in ancient protolanguage looks very very strange. Can you point to same situation in modern English?

Of course. There are many homophones in Modern English and other languages. Words like "right" and "check" have about 12 definitions each, though some do go back to a similar root. If you want separate roots, then there are various examples such as "duck", the two meanings of which have nothing to do with each other.

Much more developed language. As you claim that in primitive language as was PIE, the situation of having phonetically same but unrelated roots, takes place very often.

First, we don't make that assumption. Linguistically, PIE was probably just as developed as Modern English. Culturally there were differences, but these are not likely to affect overall complexity. For example, they might have more words for plants and animals than we have now, at least in basic vocabulary.
You don't understand the basics of Linguistics, so it's difficult to have this conversation with you.
Second, one possibility for this reconstruction is that we don't have enough information to separate these forms. Through reconstruction we have some idea what the language looked like, but we don't necessarily know whether there was more separating the forms. Maybe they had different suffixes.

Just because something looks like it might be related does NOT mean you can assume it is related. Really simple. Science. Stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously.

Moreover, please confirm that 4 “different” *ker- exist only because nobody can demonstrate that they are related. Because it looks like confession of linguistic science, that it cannot find the correct solution, so base the theory on such lack of knowledge.

1. You don't like the answer.
2. Therefore it is wrong?

I have never seen such “theory” in any other science field. It is same as to claim that circle has square shape and use this delusion till somebody will demonstrate and prove it is round )))

Lots of things don't make sense in science until you really understand them. For example, a circle isn't just "round". It's actually an infinitely-sided shape. And evolution still hasn't convinced everyone. The whole point of science is that we have to ask challenging questions and try to understand. It doesn't just confirm our assumptions. That's not how it works.

Little switch from *ker topic to historical linguistics problematics. Everybody knows that Jesus is called Alpha and Omega. At your opinion, what does it mean?

I have no idea how this is related. I'm going to move on now.

[Lingvogeometry]

Yes. That's how science works. You can look up falsifiability if you'd like.
(And, by the way, you haven't even come close to "proving" anything either, if you still want to suggest that matters.)

Sure I know about falsifiability. And I also understand that science does not prove anything. Just makes theories that give more predictable results. The theory I offer corresponds to both conditions.

Of course. There are many homophones in Modern English and other languages. Words like "right" and "check" have about 12 definitions each, though some do go back to a similar root. If you want separate roots, then there are various examples such as "duck", the two meanings of which have nothing to do with each other.

Stop! Homophones, as you correctly said, usually go back to similar root. But what we talk about is different roots. You and vocabulary claim that in PIE it was so many different roots with homophony phenomena. I asked to present same in English. “Duck” is ok, but has only two roots. Can you name 4-roots one? Or 7-roots one. According to dictionary PIE root *ker- has at least 7 different UNRELATED roots. And such picture we can see with many other PIE roots. This what I talk about. Modern English being more developed and differentiated does not have such examples. For my understanding in time of PIE it was not so many objects to name as we have now. How it was possible to appear 7 different roots with same sounding plus 4 with little changed sounding (*k̑er-)? Why it does not happen now?

[Lingvogeometry]

I have no idea how this is related.

I do. It is very simple. Alpha comes from Aleph, which means “the bull” and represented as a horned head of the bull – crescent.
Omega comes from Ayin, which means “eye” and represented as a circle.




Both transfer two states of the moon. Crescent and fullmoon. Jesus is an allegory of visible “god”. It is thirteen month (12 apostols + him) and represents first and last moon of lunar year cycle. Alpha and Omega. Easy.
To give additional prove of this concept just look at the symbols of Jesus. Half of bread (semicircle) and the cup (crescent shape object). He comes from young newborn (young moon), then 33 years ( 30 lunar days), dies and resurrects in three days. New moon is coming visible after 3 days of invisible state.



Is this theory falsifiable? Sure. Human stupidity falsify it for thousands of years. They claim the Jesus as the symbol of sun.
Look at caps of that people. They represent white crescent. Look at the nimbus – crescent. They put crescent on the cross, or the cock instead of crescent. Where is the sun???




They say openly that young Jesus is young moon. Look below. Just solve this little puzzle:



So you see how my theory and linguistics can find biggest historical mistakes. I need your help guys! I cannot persuade humanity without help of professionals. I’m professional engineer, but not linguist as you correctly noticed. With means of big data analysis, I have found something very important for society. All human religious conflicts can be stopped if people will understand that they have common roots of religion, of language, of culture.
If we will not stop fighting now we will destroy the planet. The moon was always the point of interest for humanity. It is a philosopher’s stone. It can help us to unite. But somebody has to inform people about it. I try to do my best, but my efforts are not enough. Most people laugh as you do, cause the concept sounds too easy for modern people. Nobody remembers simple suggestion received from ancients – everything genius is simple.
Thank you for you critics and comments. Even such support is good for this idea. Professional sight always needed to craft good product and engage people to the idea. Thank you!

[freknu]

Did I understand you correct? You use theory, which you cannot even prove? Nice.

Prove what? There is nothing that requires proving.

At the same moment, the idea of having 4 SAME roots in ancient protolanguage looks very very strange.

Why? Statistically there is nothing strange about it, especially not considering the very nature of comparative linguistics and reconstructions.

Because it looks like confession of linguistic science, that it cannot find the correct solution...

So? "I do not know" is not a bad thing. Until there is enough evidence it would be foolish — and outright damaging — to conclude anything other than the roots cannot be shown to be related and thus will be treated separately.

It is same as to claim that circle has square shape and use this delusion till somebody will demonstrate and prove it is round.

A circle can be demonstrated to be round and thus the claim that a circle is square is demonstrably false.

Little switch from *ker topic to historical linguistics problematics. Everybody knows that Jesus is called Alpha and Omega. At your opinion, what does it mean?

Well, to begin with, the first and last characters of Aramaic is alef and taw, which was later translated into Greek as alpha and omega... *drumroll* because alpha and omega are the first and last characters of Greek.

The expression itself simply means "beginning and end", hence the usage of the first (beginning) and last (end) character.

So you see how my theory and linguistics can find biggest historical mistakes.

What mistakes? Make an extraordinary claim and you will have to provide extraordinary evidence.

[Lingvogeometry]

Well, to begin with, the first and last characters of Aramaic is alef and taw, which was later translated into Greek as alpha and omega... *drumroll* because alpha and omega are the first and last characters of Greek.

I understand your point. But Book of Revelation was written originally in Greek, but not translated from Aramaic. So Jesus is called Alpha and Omega as this was first and last letters of Greek alphabet? Ok. But why first and last?
In case of lunar origin of this allegory, 13th new moon is at the same time first moon in next year cycle. So calling it first and last is quite logic.
Also both letters graphically make a silhouette of fish, so it could be noticed by author. We all know that Jesus is connected to fish and fishermen.



Omega came from Ain, that was also looking like a fish:




Every fisherman knows from ancient times that fish activity periods are deeply related with the state of the moon. Modern scientists explain such relation with change of intensity of the light during different periods of moon cycle. Fullmoon gives more light so the fish is much more active during this time. Taking this into account one of the oldest fishing techniques is fishing with light. Check Chinese fishing nets as an example. Moreover, every fisherman knows that successful fishing takes place at night time – the time of the moon, as you understand.
The connection is also seen from semiotics. The fish comes at the same place where crescent moon.



Check the logo of Dreamworks. They understand the connection between the fish and the moon very deep.

[Lingvogeometry]

Why? Statistically there is nothing strange about it, especially not considering the very nature of comparative linguistics and reconstructions.

Please give example of such roots in English. 4 or 7 roots as in case of *ker-

[freknu]

Well, to begin with, the first and last characters of Aramaic is alef and taw, which was later translated into Greek as alpha and omega... *drumroll* because alpha and omega are the first and last characters of Greek.

I understand your point. But Book of Revelation was written originally in Greek, but not translated from Aramaic.

Sure, but the expression is from Aramaic, not Greek. Had the manuscripts been written earlier it would have been alpha and psi, even earlier and it would have been alpha and tau.

Why? Statistically there is nothing strange about it, especially not considering the very nature of comparative linguistics and reconstructions.

Please give example of such roots in English. 4 or 7 roots as in case of *ker-

Irrelevant.

PIE is not English, English is not PIE. English is an attested language, PIE is a reconstructed language.

[Lingvogeometry]

Herewith I will make an effort to demonstrate the common appearance of root *k̑er- in PIE. I will take derivatives from each “separate” root and show that they have strong semantic connection.

*k̑er-(1) - horn, head, upper part of body.

The horn has noticeable C-shape, which is first semantic feature. And it grows from the head, which is also important.


Carat – unit of mass, used for measuring gemstones and pearls. Initially comes from “carob” with meaning “small horn” due to noticeable C-shape of carob tree beans. Horned shape.


Carrot – vegetable with noticeable horned shape.


Carotid – artery, which comes into the head and has special “horned” Y-shape when splitted.


Cerastes – kind of snake with horns on the head.


Ceratopsian – horned dino.


Cerebellum – part of the brain. Related to the root as it is in the head.
Cerebrum – brain itself.
Cervine – horned animal.
Cervix – applied to neck-like parts of the body. The neck is related to the head.
Cheer – stands for the face, which is on  the head.
Chelicera – horn-shaped mouth parts of some arachnids, crabs and spiders. Sometimes looking like a horn/knife, sometimes like scissors.


Corn – horn-shaped vegetable.


Cornea – C-shaped part of an eye. Possible related as a part of head.


Corneous - a biological and medical term meaning horny. Used to name something having horny shape of horny origin. For example hooves.

Corner – angle. V-shape, which is geometric semblance of C-shape.


Cornet – music instrument with horn-like conical pipe as semantic feature. Or horned shape wafer cone.
Cornculate - small horn-shaped processes.
Cornification – conversion of body cells into hard horny structures (hair, nails, feathers)
Cornu - a structure with a shape likened to a horn.
Corydalis – horn-shaped type of flower.


Corymb – special type of flower heading. Gives horn/crescent shaped flower.


Coryphaeus – Leader of chorus. Head in figurative meaning.
Cranium – skull. Head.
Criosphinx – Sphinx with horned ram’s head.
Hart – Male type of deer. Horned animal. In most cases, female deer does not have horns.
Hartebeest – horned animal
Hornbeam – type of tree with horn-shaped flowers.


Hornblende – horned-shape mineral in igneous rock.


Hornet – insect with horn-shaped body.

Hornfels - is called so because of its exceptional toughness and texture both reminiscent of animal horns.
Longicorn – horned beetle.


Migraine – headache.
Olecranon – elbow head. Horned shape part of bone. Stays in a corner formed by bones of the hand.


Rhinoceros – Animal with a horn.
Saveloy – rod or C-shaped sausage.


Serval – wild-cat with noticeable “horns” of ears.


Tarboosh – “horn” like cap.


Triceratops – horned dino.

As we can see, the semantic core is turning around main given concepts of horns and head.
Have also to point attention on such objects as Latin “caravel” – type of boat, coming from Greek “karabos” with meaning beetle, lobster (due to shape of its pincers) . Any boat has recognizable C-shape silhouette. As for caravel it was made from cow leather, so this semantic feature may play more initial role. Russian “korova” (cow) also comes from discussed root.


This pagan god name is HORS. He is coming on a boat and rules by horned animals. But in etymology, there is no connection to *ker- root...
At the same time there is a word in Russian – “horn”, which means bugle. This construction is simple horn and 100% should be related to PIE root *k̑er- (1), but if you will look in the dictionary it will be said that it comes from Latin fornacem (oven) and then from PIE root *gwher- "warm". Where is the logic?

Or English “crown”. It is related to the head, has horns, sounds same as “horn”, but is not connected with above root!
Or “crab”? “Karabos” with meaning “lobster” goes to *k̑er- (1), but “crab”, which has pincers same as lobster goes to *gerbh-? Come on guys! It is not falsifiability. It is bullshit, that nobody wants to question.


Now let’s take a look at second root:
*k̑er-(2) – to grow, increase.
Most derivated words demonstrate the process of growing, enlarging.
Accrete, accrue, concrescence, increase. But there are some, where this process is not seen clearly and transferred mostly metaphorically.
Crescent – growing, increasing moon. At the same time, it visually looks like a horn.


Crescendo – swelling volume of sound. Yes, there is a process of growing of volume, but look at the symbol for crescendo. It is an angle. One who made it understood which growing object symbolize the process. It is growing crescent, which geometry can be transferred as angle, corner symbol.


Cereal – again growing? Yes, the grain grows, and bread paste “grows” while being prepared, but with same logic everything around us is growing, including horns and heads ) Just take a look at any grain. Its has more logic semantic feature. It looks like small horns or crescents.


Ceres – goddess who gave a name to previous Cereal. It is the goddess of agriculture. Then look at her image. It is logically pictured with one of main tool for cutting the grain – the sickle. And it has crescent shape! By the way the sickle is called "Serp" in Russian, but with no relation to discussed root...


Concrete – it is not growing, but it is hardening. In figurative sense it is close. But if we take lunar paradigm, then everything becomes more easy. Growing crescent finally gives the full moon, which looks like a hard stone (an actually is). Also we remember that any conctere is made from stones.
Crew – initially group of soldiers. Where is growing? Here it is. Soldeirs are youngest and lowest rank in army. Afterwards they will grow to mayors and generals. So it is logic to call them “growing”. Next word demonstrates same more precisely.
Recruit – youngest rank in army.
Griot – poet, bard, musician. Try to find the process of grow here? May be it was the lowest rank of people. But I think, the explanation is simple. Main tool of such people is their mouth, which looks like a white crescent. Remember Coryphaeus?


Hypocorism – Oops. Completely opposite process the grow. It is shortening of long name in most cases. Hard to explain if you don’t understand lunar hypothesis. The moon is not only growing, but also decreases. Becomes small and short. So in this case no break of logic.
Kore – Means “maiden”, but connected to crescent. Why? Because “maiden” means virgin, pure, clean. And young moon in figurative sense is clean, virgin, young. Same with “kouros” with meaning boy, son.
Which story is about young boy and God’s son? Yes, the Bible. As it is an allegoric story about visible characteristics of the moon.
Sincere – pure, honest, heartfelt, soulful, frank, candid. Recognize somebody? Usually people say it about the god. And it is correct, as they talk not about something fictional, but about an object they can see with their own eyes – the moon.

So you can see second “unrelated” root *k̑er-, when checked deeply, gives understanding, that the process of growing, increasing was taken from the environment, by observing such process happening with the moon. That is why *k̑er- (1) and *k̑er- (2) are completely same root. The geometry of crescent is nothing but the geometry of horn. Both growing and both heading the society.
That is why Moses is pictured with horns on his head, Jews where praying to “golden calf” etc.


Moses is phonetic analogue of Russian Mesyac, that means CRESCENT!!! Coincidence? No! Forgotten history of humanity.
So now I have a question. Why word “grain” does not come from same root as “cereal” as it means completely same? Why word “grow” comes from another root? Why "corn" is separate root? It is also the cereal. Why "chorus" goes to PIE *gher-? There tons of such mistakes in etymology that linguists accept without any check, and make more mistakes, building further theories based on such delusions.
Let’s fix it together! Anyone wants to become next Vasmer or Pokorny? I give you this tool for free. Use it. Open the eyes of society!

Alright, there are 2 more *k̑er-s. Let’s dissect them.
*k̑er- (3) – string, plate
Unconnected from first sight they become connected if you know what is all about. It is easy.
String is the allegory of new moon – youngest crescent coming in form of string, thin line.


The plate has also same silhouette from one view – the crescent.


Moreover, it has full round silhouette from another view, which is graphic allegory of full moon. That is why the plate and the cup are so spread symbol in religions. They root to initial object that was considered by ancient people as a god.
I did not find reflexes, but I predict that above described logic will be followed in their cases.

And finnaly:
*k̑er- (4) - to harm, injure; ruined, spoiled
Again, no connection from the first sight. It can be called unrelated in deed, but there is a logic.
The moon in its last phase becomes harmed. Russians directly call it "harmed moon". In English we use waning moon, which means old, weakening. The process is opposite to grow, but we have seen such phenomena in case of “Hypocorism”.

I understand that some old linguists did not find such logic (or did not want to find), but in time of democracy and science how you - professionals - don’t see such simple correlation?
All 4 *k̑er- are the same root, divided (may be politically) into four, not to let people understand real roots of the language, religion etc.
I ask again for you help! There are so many such mistakes in etymology. Lets fix it! Lets explain to society where did we take initial roots. What was the role of our satellite in this process!
Earthlings speak moon language! The binary nature of this unique object gave us ability to develop binary logic. We made a computers on this logic, but still don’t understand that our own logic is same. Operating by crescents and circles, we made letters, words, knowledge. That is why old Hindu wisdom says: “Knowledge is milk flowing down from celestial cow”. Stupid mistake is to forget about this simple concept and start fighting between “solar” and “lunar” religions.
They are all lunar. Let’s stop this f@cking bloodshed!
Sorry for long speech and emotions. Believe you understand me.

[freknu]

I understand that some old linguists did not find such logic (or did not want to find), but in time of democracy and science how you - professionals - don’t see such simple correlation?

Correlation does not imply causation.

All 4 *k̑er- are the same root, divided (may be politically) into four, not to let people understand real roots of the language, religion etc.

Yes, that was the plan of the Illuminati all along! MWHAHAAHAHAHAAA!

[Lingvogeometry]

Yes, that was the plan of the Illuminati all along! MWHAHAAHAHAHAAA!

One Breivik is not enough for Norway? Will see how will you laugh, when radical muslims will step on your fjords…
The only way to stop them is to admit that their religion is same as yours. Language gives such option. But the feeling of self-importance demonstrated by modern people, may cause fatal worldwide war… Stop thinking of yourself like you know everything in this world. You even don’t understand your own history.
You repeat that Jesus is a corner stone, but never ask why it is so. Because you don’t believe that this puzzle is very simple. Corner stone is unique stone in the building that visually makes corner/angle. This is visual allegory of crescent moon.


During Easter time your shops loaded with rabbits– the symbol of Jesus, but you don’t understand that rabbit is an allegory taken from the Moon. Ancient people see that rabbit on the moon. Made many stories about. Put it on their flags. But we see it every year and don’t recognize this simple symbol.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rabbit

Again sorry for my emotions. But time is ticking away...

[Daniel]

The fact that you can make an argument and find arbitrary-selected correlations to back it up doesn't make it scientifically valid.

A major problem with your approach is that it lacks any statistical balance: you can pick out a few words here and there that may appear to support your point, but you couldn't maintain it while looking at the average properties of all words; in fact, if you weren't just picking out the best (coincidental) examples, you wouldn't even see the patterns in the first place.

In short, you're telling a story, rather than doing science. I'm going to move this to an area of the forum where such non-mainstream ideas are appropriate. There you may continue, in this thread only, to discuss it if you wish. From a scientific perspective, I would advise you to consider other options and maybe discuss other theories with us, but I expect you will go on trying to defend this one. It's not going to go anywhere, but we can stop you from doing that.

[Lingvogeometry]

you can pick out a few words here and there that may appear to support your point, but you couldn't maintain it while looking at the average properties of all words.

Happy New Year, everyone!
The reflexes for analysis of *ker- root were not picked out here and there. They were taken from this source: The University of Texas at Austin - Linguistic Research Center
What is non-mainstream? It is official etymology.
Examples from religion were taken from opensource book – the Bible.

The only problem is that my opinion is non-mainstream? Sure, it is not. Like known opinion of Giordano Bruno was non-mainstream. But he was right. And I’m right. You will understand it with time.
Remember words of Mahatma Gandhi: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Just wait for a while and you will applaud me on Nobel Prize ceremony. Cheers!

[Daniel]

The reflexes for analysis of *ker- root were not picked out here and there. ... What is non-mainstream? It is official etymology.

The problem is not the source of information. It is the statistical distribution of that information. If you play enough times, you'll eventually win the lottery. But that doesn't mean that you will win the lottery on average, or even enough to earn back the money you spent on it.
That's the core problem with various claims about phonosemantics: even if they are somehow true, there is no way to show that they are statistically true. Or, much more likely: the claims are simply false, because they represent only coincidences. If it was not coincidence, we could apply statistical methods and show that in general this works, not just for the small number of times it happens to work.
I can't be clearer than that.

The only problem is that my opinion is non-mainstream?...

I agree: new, innovative ideas CAN be good. But they can also be bad. That's the tricky part: being different isn't always good, it just might be.
This is where burden of proof comes in: if you can demonstrate that your approach is worthwhile, then you can convince others. But you are failing to do so. Aside from the statistical problem, one reason is that rather than making coherent scientific arguments, you are making unsubstantiated claims and then posting pictures.
If you think about it, maybe the reason that people haven't "solved" this yet is because it's wrong. Certainly lots of people have tried. Phonosemantics is interesting; it just happens to also be wrong. To the extent it might be true, it would explain very little, not paradigm-shifting theory-disproving level discoveries.

Just wait for a while and you will applaud me on Nobel Prize ceremony.

Not a chance in this case, unfortunately.

I don't have more to say about this.

[Lingvogeometry]

If it was not coincidence, we could apply statistical methods and show that in general this works, not just for the small number of times it happens to work.

That is why I ask you to help! Let’s start from very beginning to check my theory in terms of statistical analysis.
The assumption is pretty clear. I assume, that human language appeared as a composition of vocal abilities of anthropoids and visual constants of arc and circle taken from model, available for observation to any leaving creature with enough optic capabilities – the moon.
From my point of view these two constants were kind of basic binary elements, which made available to code the information about environment.
For example, having a vocal element such as “krak”, which known to be a word from language of primates, with meaning “alarm call”, the brain could combine it with prominent visual object, that comes night time, when the level of danger is most high in the nature. Afterwards, when the language of primates was developing further, this combination could be transferred onto another object, such as banana, being a complete visual analog of crescent, or coconut, which is analog of full moon circle.
Or having in mind such logic combination as crescent – “krak” and see angry “smile” of another individual, which in body language of primates means “angry, danger”, the association mouth – “krak” could come into developed language and form new semantic core.
You can review phonetic similarity between CRESCENT-KRAK, KRAK-KRUG (circle in Russian) and so on. But it does not mean that Russian or English come from monkey language ) It is just a correlation caused by limited phonetic abilities of linguistic apparatus of anthropoids. And such correlation is a good starting point for researchers.

Help me to check this assumption with means of statistics and rules of linguistics, and I will accept or deny it according to the results. I deeply believe in science methods and in case of any result, I’m ready to accept it, independently of my personal preferences. Thank you!

[Daniel]

Well that's actually a reasonable reply.

The first point to start then is falsifiability: how could your theory be wrong? If your theory is right, then there should be an imaginable alternate universe in which it is wrong. In that universe, how would you prove that it is wrong? Now, apply the same test here: if your test works, then your theory is wrong. If not, you can reasonably say it is supported by the data. So, let's try to prove your hypothesis wrong: what is a convincing way to do that? What evidence, if it existed, would completely convince you that you're wrong? Then let's look to see if that evidence exists.

I assume, that human language appeared as a composition of vocal abilities of anthropoids and visual constants of arc and circle taken from model, available for observation to any leaving creature with enough optic capabilities – the moon.

Why? Why not the sun? Why not the ocean? Why not trees? Or food? Or something about attractive pre-humans of the opposite gender?
Regardless, this is unknowable. It's an interesting thought, but one that we can't speculate about because it would have no effect on the language today. The range of human sounds is way beyond this, and we can't reasonably reconstruct proto-human language. It is also certain that languages change, and there would be nothing left over from that language today. So if you think there is any current similarity because those sounds have not changed, then that is certainly wrong.

....arc and circle...
From my point of view these two constants were kind of basic binary elements, which made available to code the information about environment.

Arc and circle? Why? How are those related to sounds? The problem with this is that you're interpreting it as a metaphor (as seen by early humans, possibly not consciously). So why not talk instead about lines vs. planes, or angles vs. circles? Or 1 vs. 0? Or a candy cane vs. a bowl of oatmeal??
Your theory is not specific enough to distinguish these, and we have no way to of testing for this.
Therefore, your theory is not right or wrong, it's just unfalsifiable, a bad theory, irrelevant to science because it cannot ever be tested. It's interesting, maybe something to write fiction about or speculate on in a long philosophical discussion, but it's not science. It can't be. Unless you can invent a time machine. But more than that, it's not just that it might be right and we can't know: it is no more potentially right than an infinity of other theories. This isn't just a problem of lacking data. It's a problem that you have no legitimate reason to make this theory. Unfortunately that's how this works from a scientific perspective. (You're not alone in having unfalsifiable theories about language evolution, of course. But the others shouldn't be taken seriously either.)

For example, having a vocal element such as “krak”, which known to be a word from language of primates, with meaning “alarm call”

We have no way of knowing what kinds of sounds (if any) early primates made. Some monkeys today make a sound like that, and others make different sounds. In fact, the research you're referring to found dialectal differences in the monkeys, meaning that the sounds in monkeys are arbitrary, so you can't use that as evidence to claim then that human language sounds are not arbitrary.

“alarm call”, the brain could combine it with prominent visual object, that comes night time, when the level of danger is most high in the nature. Afterwards, when the language of primates was developing further, this combination could be transferred onto another object, such as banana, being a complete visual analog of crescent, or coconut, which is analog of full moon circle.

Certainly possible. But why not "lion" and "stick"? The point is, we can't figure out what things they were referring to.

However, at a very abstract level, your ideas may be correct: human language MIGHT have begun as a binary contrast. Based on the work of Saussure and others, language is seen as a system of contrasts, rather than a system of absolute meanings. So the reason that "b" can be part of a word with a meaning is because "b" is not "c", because "bat" and "cat" refer to different animals. Therefore, "b" and "c" [k] are contrastive sounds in English.
It is very reasonable to speculate that language began as a binary contrast, but we have no way of confirming that. Additionally, it might not have just been binary because many animal species have more than just two sounds.
But regardless, I think it is reasonable to say that early human language involved a system of contrasts, without as much information/contrastiveness as modern human languages.

But that does NOT associate the contrasts with any particular sounds that would remain in the languages (in any particular way) today.

Consider words that evolve to mean their opposites. There is no sound-meaning relationship!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

You can review phonetic similarity between CRESCENT-KRAK, KRAK-KRUG (circle in Russian) and so on. But it does not mean that Russian or English come from monkey language ) It is just a correlation caused by limited phonetic abilities of linguistic apparatus of anthropoids. And such correlation is a good starting point for researchers.

Statistically (see the link I gave you before) it is not surprising at all that EVERY language will have some sequence of sounds that is something like "krak" (given whatever phonotactic constraints exist in the language-- for example, a language with no final consonants and no consonant clusters might only have "ka"). But that doesn't mean there's a REASON for those particular sounds for those particular meanings.

This is where statistics comes in: take a RANDOM SAMPLE list of 100 words in the language in some semantic field in one language, or a RANDOM sample of words for one thing (like "moon") from 100 (not too closely related) languages. Is there any way to defend your hypothesis?
You can try that and let us know, but I strongly doubt it.

In fact, the only things you can show are:
1. Human languages use contrastive sounds.
2. Human languages make a contrast between the apple pies and pencils-- circular things, and long things.
But there are millions of other things that human languages also make contrasts between.

One way of testing this is to show that the evidence is stronger than a different theory.

Here's my new theory:
Humans are special because we live on land and evolved to rule the land. But we also originally came from the water, and we need water to survive. So it's about balance. Therefore, human language must have originally referred to the binary contrast that was most important for survival and identity: the difference between "wet" and "dry". "wet" was originally a sound like "ooooh" and "dry" was originally a sound like "ssss", because these sounds are clearly related to those meanings, just try saying them. Then over time other meanings got these sounds too. Some examples:
WET: glue is wet; water is blue; hoods and shoes protect us from water; food is related to [eating and] drinking.
DRY: deserts are dry; the sun dries up water; smoke is due to burning fire; when we sleep we are not drinking.

Bottom line: interesting story, but I have no evidence for that. You don't either.

Help me to check this assumption with means of statistics and rules of linguistics, and I will accept or deny it according to the results.

Ok, please do, and then post the results. You must select 100 words in one language and then one word in 100 languages. Your theory predicts that it should be similar in these cases. But the goal is not for you to LOOK FOR similar words. The goal is for you to look at RANDOM words (related only in meaning) then compare them. Are they similar? I'm certain you will find no evidence to support your hypothesis. But if you do, please let us know. And if you don't, also please let us know.

I deeply believe in science methods and in case of any result, I’m ready to accept it, independently of my personal preferences.

Great. One of the best things we can do as scientists (maybe the only thing we can do) is prove theories false. It's useful to do so because the remaining possibilities are still possible, and we can stop wasting our time on false theories. Spending your time advocating for a particular theory is actually not a very good use of time: that's called bias, and it won't help anything. You should instead be showing that it is the only possible theory because other theories don't work. But in this case I don't think you can do that.
Remember: whatever you do must be replicable by others. So you can't do it in a way that is "special" (=biased) for you. You must do it so that anyone can run the same test (with different words) and find that your theory is still supported by the data.