Quote This is basically literary extrapolation. The problem with extrapolation is that it's only as accurate as the amount of previous/supporting evidence it has.



In this case, the basis is quite literally a few seconds of promo video. Your analysis, while fun and thorough, makes a whole host of assumptions based off of very small details. Like numerous other "prediction" discussions, the lack of substantial evidence leads people to conclude that anything or everything in the teaser has some meaning to be deciphered. In reality, they may just be pointless details that were added because some art director liked them. If we're trying to make accurate guesses, the very first question we should ask about any detail is "Is there a reason to believe this is significant?"



For example, you talk about the obelisks and chains. There is so little information available on what we're seeing that its nearly impossible to come up with any conclusion. Connecting them with Egyptian symbolism might seem to work, but the alternative is just as convincing: That ancient Jedi and Sith used obelisks, and the art direction called for bi-lateral symmetry in the architecture. Do we have some evidence that these obelisks are meant to convey any message other than: "That looks cool"? Is it easier to assume that some designer spend a few days doing research and finding just the right set of symbols to pack a ten-second clip with obscure cultural references? Or was it perhaps nothing more than: "We'll re-texture some obelisks from Korriban and hang some chains from them, because chains look cool"?



The fun part here is that the same can actually be said about the Egyptians. There are many archeologists who have proposed that some usages of iconic symbols may have been nothing more than designers creating appealing appearances, and only applying symbolism and religious meaning after the fact.



In some cases, there is significant reason to suggest meaning. The next question could be: "Do we have evidence to suggest this has a meaning beyond identification or simple artistic correlation?"



The flag is a good example of this. It's a nice catch that it matches the pattern seen on Revan's armor. Beyond the ring-with-four-spokes motif, we can also see strong hints of the three-rings-in-a-line pattern which is suggested on his armor and repeated on the obelisks. Together, it forms a pretty convincing argument that these things are related. However, there isn't much evidence beyond that. It identifies the place as his, but doesn't suggest any motive or intent. Revan has his own flag. But so do the houses on Alderaan, and they're not trying to overthrow the Republic or the Empire. The Mandalorians have their own flag/symbol. Czerka has its own symbol. Balmorran Arms has its own symbol. The symbol itself signifies nothing more than identity. Claiming that it might tell us that he's trying to overthrow either or both is guessing far beyond the evidence.



Note: I'm not trying to tear your discussion down, here. I'm actually trying to add to it, by providing counter-points. There is a lot of good discussion here, but I believe if we're looking for accuracy, we need to temper our assumptions with some degree of logical analysis.