Geodetic Measurements of the Great Pyramid aka 1/43,200
Gilgamesh
A month or two ago I posted some info on the Pyramid being a scale
representation of the earth.
Skeptic-bunkers argued this was 'numerology', or 'where did you get
your numbers'. Of course they never provided their own numbers
to the size of the pyramid. Later another poster verified my numbers
based on Flinders Petrie and JH Cole. Well established Egytian
researchers of the Great Pyramid of Giza. (GPOG).
For a good week the skeptic-bunkers kept demanding where I got
the measures for the GPOG width and hieght.
They failed to provide their own numbers against mine and argued
decimal points. I failed purposely to give a source for my numbers,
thinking this is all to obvious and accepted even by Egytpologists.
Proof again of skepti-bunkers blowing a lot of hot air with little to
back it up with.
Then when they found out it was from Graham Hancock, they instantly
ridiculed him. Usual skeptibunker tactic. Attack the messenger.
I have found the original source for the Geodetic Measurements of the
GPOG. From the book 'Pyramid Odyssey' by William R. Fox, 1978,
ISBN 0-8317-7160-7. I will quote extensively from this book.
Conclusion:
The GPOG is an accurate scaled representation of Earth.
The Egyptians would have known the equatorial circumference of the
Earth as well as the distance from the equator to the North (and
South) poles. How and why?
Basics:
The equator of the earth is divided into 360 degrees of longtitude.
Distance east and west of the Prime Meridian.
Each degree of longtitude (long.) is
69.17 miles.
Latitude (lat.) is the measurements of distance north and south of the
equator. There are 90 degrees of lat. to either of the poles.
One degree of lat. is
68.7 miles.
Each degree of lat. and long. is divided into 60 minutes, each minute
into 60 seconds, 30 minutes would represent a half a degree, 30
seconds a half a minute.
The equatorial circumference of the Earth is approx.
24,901.5 miles (Encyclopaedia Americana)
1/2 minute of equtorial long. is 3043.51 feet
There are 4 corner 'sockets' around the GPOG.
When we take the perimeter of the Pyramid base
on the placements of these sockets,
(gross representation of the GPOG, looking downward.
a,b,c,d represent the sockets)
a _____________b
[ ]
[ ]
[ ' ]
[ ]
d[____________ ]c
the perimeter reckoned from the outside corner sockets is,
a-b-c-d-a = 3043.7 feet
1/2 minute of equatorial long. = 3043.51 feet
3043.7 feet x 43,200 = 131,487,840 feet = 24,903 miles.
1.5 miles off of the most recent measurements of the equatorial
circumference fo the earth being 24,901.5 miles, as stated above.
Now the Polar Radius and the hieght of the GPOG.
Taking into account the platform that the GPOG rests on,
(attributed discoverer, Howard Vyse), we find the same correlation
of 43,200.
The polar radius of the earth is 3949.9081 miles.
The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
482.75751 feet, (including platform).
482.75751 feet x 43,200 = 20,855,124 feet = 3949.834 miles
a difference of 391 feet as compared to the Polar radius.
If the hieght of the pyramid were only 1/9 of on inch taller,
we would have a perfect corresponding figure to the polar radius.
Calculations for the hieght and perimeter of the GPOG]
are over 50 years old, newer measurement (none coming mind you)
may account for the differnces in the Geodetic measures.
Now the skepti-bunkers will argue they can do this with a wine glass.
I would love to see the math!
Is this all numerology? Perhaps.
But when looking at the GPOG and all the measures involved inside and
outside, the size, the placement of the directional
north-south-east-west axis, key number play in the chambers,
un-opened doors in a shaft leading from the Queens chamber,
Egyptian Antiquities Orginization kicking out researchers and
accepting a few scant others, under the Paws of the Sphinx, the
weathering of the Sphinx, the Orion correlations, astronomical
correlations across the palteau, all must in some way be conicidental
numerology. Really!?
Gilgamesh
Ovni Chapterhouse--See the Phoenix Sightings
http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
All video all the time
Douglas Weller
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
wrote:
>
>A month or two ago I posted some info on the Pyramid being a scale
>representation of the earth.
>Skeptic-bunkers argued this was 'numerology', or 'where did you get
>your numbers'. Of course they never provided their own numbers
>to the size of the pyramid.
To set the record a bit straighter, one of the main challenges was
claimed accuracy to several decimal places. There was also the
suggestion that an accurate measurement was no longer possible as the
top is missing. (By the way, there is more than 1 pyramid, Jason is
talking about the Great Pyramid here <G>).
[SNIP]
>decimal points. I failed purposely to give a source for my numbers,
Makes you wonder, eh?
>thinking this is all to obvious and accepted even by Egytpologists.
>Proof again of skepti-bunkers blowing a lot of hot air with little to
>back it up with.
>Then when they found out it was from Graham Hancock, they instantly
>ridiculed him. Usual skeptibunker tactic. Attack the messenger.
When the messenger so often reports incorrect information, is this a
surprise?
>
>I have found the original source for the Geodetic Measurements of the
>GPOG. From the book 'Pyramid Odyssey' by William R. Fox, 1978,
>ISBN 0-8317-7160-7. I will quote extensively from this book.
>
[SNIP]
>
>The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>482.75751 feet, (including platform).
Here we go again -- based on estimates to 5 decimal places. What's the
estimated margin of error, please? Somehow I suspect that the author
doesn't mention it, and Jason obviously doesn't understand about
measurement and maths.
[SNIP]
>But when looking at the GPOG and all the measures involved inside and
>outside, the size, the placement of the directional
>north-south-east-west axis, key number play in the chambers,
>un-opened doors in a shaft leading from the Queens chamber,
>Egyptian Antiquities Orginization kicking out researchers and
>accepting a few scant others, under the Paws of the Sphinx, the
>weathering of the Sphinx, the Orion correlations, astronomical
>correlations across the palteau, all must in some way be conicidental
>numerology. Really!?
Eh? Nothing special about NSEW placement -- of course it's astronomical,
no one has said the Egyptians ignored astronomy. I don't see what 1
supposed door in a chamber, 'researchers' with no qualifications not
being allowed access, the paws of the sphinx or its weathering have to
do with numerology.
I guess this is unfair, but I found it pretty funny when my spellchecker
suggested I should change 'Gilgamesh' to 'gibberish'. Sorry folks,
couldn't resist it, my apologies Jason.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
Rodney Small
Douglas Weller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
> wrote:
[snip]
> >I have found the original source for the Geodetic Measurements of the
> >GPOG. From the book 'Pyramid Odyssey' by William R. Fox, 1978,
> >ISBN 0-8317-7160-7. I will quote extensively from this book.
> >
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> >The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
> >482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>
> Here we go again -- based on estimates to 5 decimal places. What's the
> estimated margin of error, please? Somehow I suspect that the author
> doesn't mention it, and Jason obviously doesn't understand about
> measurement and maths.
I discussed this last October on sci.archaeology. You are correct in
saying that it is not possible to estimate the original height of the
Great Pyramid including platform to five decimal places. However, it is
possible -- based on the work of 19th Century British Egyptologist
Flinders Petrie, early 20th Century British surveyor J. H. Cole, and
modern Italian archaeologists Vito Maragioglio and Celeste Rinaldi, to
estimate this height as being 147.058-147.248 meters (482.47-483.10
feet). If you multiply 147.058-147.248 meters by 43,200, you get a range
of 6352.9-6361.1 km, which includes the polar radius figure of 6356.8 km
almost at the midpoint. Coincidence?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>
>On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
>wrote:
>
>>
>[SNIP]
>
>>
>>The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>>482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>
>Here we go again -- based on estimates to 5 decimal places. What's the
>estimated margin of error, please? Somehow I suspect that the author
>doesn't mention it, and Jason obviously doesn't understand about
>measurement and maths.
><snip>
Now, now, Doug! Gilgamesh will assume that you are a nasty
old skeptic if you don't accept his accuracy to 5 decimal
places.
Just because he doesn't understand it, nor what the
discussion was about!
I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
The wicked sometimes rest.
Alexandre Dumas, pere
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Coincidence?
Just think, if you multiply the height of the Washington
Monument by 37,550 you also come up with the polar radius
figure!
Coincidence?
Douglas Weller
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:48:57 -0700, Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com>
wrote:
>
>Douglas Weller wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
>> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >I have found the original source for the Geodetic Measurements of the
>> >GPOG. From the book 'Pyramid Odyssey' by William R. Fox, 1978,
>> >ISBN 0-8317-7160-7. I will quote extensively from this book.
>> >
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> >
>> >The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>> >482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>>
>> Here we go again -- based on estimates to 5 decimal places. What's the
>> estimated margin of error, please? Somehow I suspect that the author
>> doesn't mention it, and Jason obviously doesn't understand about
>> measurement and maths.
>
>I discussed this last October on sci.archaeology. You are correct in
>saying that it is not possible to estimate the original height of the
>Great Pyramid including platform to five decimal places. However, it is
>possible -- based on the work of 19th Century British Egyptologist
>Flinders Petrie, early 20th Century British surveyor J. H. Cole, and
>modern Italian archaeologists Vito Maragioglio and Celeste Rinaldi, to
>estimate this height as being 147.058-147.248 meters (482.47-483.10
>feet). If you multiply 147.058-147.248 meters by 43,200, you get a range
>of 6352.9-6361.1 km, which includes the polar radius figure of 6356.8 km
>almost at the midpoint. Coincidence?
And why not? Seems the likeliest explanation if your figures are
correct.
Rodney Small
If there is only one correlation that is meaningless, unless the scale is
very basic (such as a power of ten). However, the original perimeter of
the Great Pyramid's base was very precisely measured by J.H. Cole in
1925 as 921,455 mm. That figure is virtually identical to the distance
in half a minute of equatorial latitude, and half a minute of latitude is
1/43,200 of a great circle of the earth (half a minute in a minute, 60
minutes in a degree, 360 degrees in a circle, 2 x 60 x 360 = 43,200).
Further, the outside perimeter of the Great Pyramid's sockets was
originally somewhere in the range of 927.2-927.7 meters (there is much
more uncertainty about what this perimeter was than what the perimeter of
the Pyramid itself was), and this range includes the distance in half a
minute of equatorial _longitude_ at the upper end of the range.
Equatorial longitude is 1/43,200 of the equatorial circumference, which
equals just over 40,000 kilometers.
Accordingly, in the original external dimensions of the Great Pyramid
there was one very precise 1/43,200 correlation, another quite precise
1/43,200 correlation, and a third in-the-ballpark 1/43,200 correlation to
key geodetic measurements of the earth. If anyone can come up with
similarly close correlations between some other structure and key
dimensions of the earth, solar system, or universe (on whatever scale you
choose), let's see them.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>A month or two ago I posted some info on the Pyramid being a scale
>representation of the earth.<snip.
And it was shown conclusively that you didn't know what you
were talking about. You even claimed knowledge to 1/1000 of
an inch of a pyramid in which the top was missing and the
sides were slightly different angles!
Which isn't possible.
Rob posted numbers from many different sources showing that,
the more conspiracy oriented they were, the more likely they
were to have fudged the numbers.
I also posted numbers showing, based on your logic, that the
Verrazano bridge was an analog of the size of the Earth.
(For those worried, it isn't. It is just numerology like
Gilgamesh used)
jmca...@gtn.net
In article <335AE8...@erols.com>, Rodney says...
>
>
>jmca...@gtn.net wrote:
>>
>> In article <3365b7e6...@news.demon.co.uk>, dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>> >On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>A month or two ago I posted some info on the Pyramid being a scale
>> >>representation of the earth.
>> >>Skeptic-bunkers argued this was 'numerology', or 'where did you get
>> >>your numbers'. Of course they never provided their own numbers
>> >>to the size of the pyramid.
>>
>> >To set the record a bit straighter, one of the main challenges was
>> >claimed accuracy to several decimal places. There was also the
>> >suggestion that an accurate measurement was no longer possible as the
>> >top is missing. (By the way, there is more than 1 pyramid, Jason is
>> >talking about the Great Pyramid here <G>).
>>
>> Not to mention that elastic and creep strain of the limestone blocks
>> under 3-4 metric tonnes per cm^2 of lithostatic stress has deformed the
>> height of the pyramid at least a few %. It is truly amazing that the
>> ancients were able to calculate this so accurately before it was built;
>> so that they could incorporate all this geologic information. Of coarse
>> since they "apparently" did :-) know all of this geophysics then I guess
>> they could do it...
>>
>> Yes truly amazing.
>>
>> Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
>
>The calculation of the Great Pyramid's original height is based on
>Flinders Petrie's measurement of the angle of a casing stone located on
>the Pyramid's northern face. Specifically, Petrie determined the slope
>of this casing stone to be 51 degrees, 50 minutes, and 40 seconds
>+- 1' 5". J. H. Cole concluded that this was the mean slope of the other
>three faces as well. You're saying that elastic and creep strain of the
>limestone blocks would distort this angle? I don't think so.
Since one must except that elastic strain (transient component)
and creep has occurred over time then the angle they measure today
is not the same angle that the pyramid had when it was first built.
I suspect that much of the lateral strain was taken up by space
between the blocks however vertical compression produces
stain and as a result a change in height of the structure.
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
Rodney Small
Douglas Weller
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:10:33 -0700, Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com>
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>The calculation of the Great Pyramid's original height is based on
>Flinders Petrie's measurement of the angle of a casing stone located on
>the Pyramid's northern face. Specifically, Petrie determined the slope
>of this casing stone to be 51 degrees, 50 minutes, and 40 seconds
>+- 1' 5". J. H. Cole concluded that this was the mean slope of the other
>three faces as well. You're saying that elastic and creep strain of the
>limestone blocks would distort this angle? I don't think so.
Thank you for illustrating so well how ridiculous these figures must be.
1 casing stone doth not a pyramid slope measure, and Cole's assumption
can be ignored as it proves nothing.
Douglas Weller
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:43:48 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>You again provide the same old tactic,
>and argue against JH Coles measures.
>Truly redundant and ridiculous.
Tsk tsk, how dare we argue against Cole's measures? And to use the same
arguments twice, truly disgusting.
Thank you for showing us the error of our ways.
Doug, who is truly flabbergasted by Jason's response.
jon murray
Gilgamesh wrote:
>
> You again provide the same old tactic,
> and argue against JH Coles measures.
> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
Jon
*********
My address has been spam-protected.
It's 'netconnect' & I live in Australia (.au)
*********
Michael Edelman
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> If there is only one correlation that is meaningless, unless the scale is
> very basic (such as a power of ten). However, the original perimeter of
> the Great Pyramid's base was very precisely measured by J.H. Cole in
> 1925 as 921,455 mm.
Let me get this straight. He measured a structure made of stone, which
has eroded over time due to the effects of weather, etc, to a
*thousandth* of a millimeter???
Impressive. At that scale, that's an accuracy of nearly one part in a
million. Given that modern stonemasons build cathedrals and such to an
accuracy of less than a thousandth of that, it's downright amazing. Of
course, maybe they had alien help.
That figure is virtually identical to the distance
> in half a minute of equatorial latitude, and half a minute of latitude is
> 1/43,200 of a great circle of the earth (half a minute in a minute, 60
> minutes in a degree, 360 degrees in a circle, 2 x 60 x 360 = 43,200).
And the circumferance of my house, in feet, is amazingly close to the
distance of Hale-Bopp to the sun at its closest approach when measured
in millions of miles. Mere coincidence? More data:
The height of the peak of the roof of my house in feet is equal to the
mean distance of Mars from the sun expressed in AU! Need more?
The number of pillars supporting the roof on my side porch is *exactly*
equal to the number of moons of Mars, plus or minus one! And the posts
themselves are *exact* replicas of similar posts found in classic Greek
temples located *thousands* of miles away!
I think it's pretty obvious that my house could *not* have been built
without the help of an extrememly advanced alien civilization.
(Even more amazingly, there is a map in the city hall of my town showing
the city in 1902, exactly as it would appear from the air- and yet there
were no aircraft in Michigan in 1902! Could it be more obvious?)
--mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Edelman m...@pass.wayne.edu
Wayne State University voice: (313) 577-0742
Computing & Information Technology fax: (313) 577-8787
Academic Computing & Support Services
Detroit MI 48070 http://www.pass.wayne.edu/~mje/home.html
Rob Hafernik
Well, you know, it just depends on your sources. Hancock gives these
measurements:
* North side: 755' 4.9818"
* West Side: 755' 9.1551"
* East Side: 755' 10.4937"
* South Side: 756' 0.9739"
* Height: 481.3949' (with no explaination for the switch to decimal feet
instead of inches)
Sum of sides: 3023' 1.6045"
How do these match Gilgameshes?
>the perimeter reckoned from the outside corner sockets is,
>a-b-c-d-a = 3043.7 feet
>The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>482.75751 feet, (including platform).
Interestingly, Hancock doesn't add this "platform" height to his numbers to
make them come out right. It wouldn't work anyway, since he's using his
481.3949 number for other things (a relation to pi) and adding the height
of this "platofrm" would mess up THOSE numbers. So Hancock is content to
conclude that the height coincides to the earth's polar radius to "within a
fifth of a percent", which is good enough for him.
Hancock also doesn't measure to the outside of any sockets, just the base
itself, because that's what makes HIS numbers work (all the pi stuff).
Since everyone is trying to prove different measurements by measuring
different ways (and even Hancock gets so confused he mistakes 3023' 1.6045"
for 3023.16' in one spot), it just smells fishy to me.
To be fair, Hancock is a lot more crazy about numbers than Gilgamesh. He
also fools with pi, with the Golden Ratio, with Fibbonacci numbers,
volumes, the ratios of volumes, etc. Changing to Gilgameshes numbers
(which make for a more accurate correlation to the earth's polar radius and
such) would mess up some of his other numbers.
I'd also like to mention something about accuracy and decimal points.
Gilgamesh and Hancock both quote dimensions that are accurate to
1/100,000th of a foot. A foot is about a third of a meter, so this is
about 1/300,000th of a meter, or about 3 micrometers. The average cell in
the human body is about 4 micrometers across. A large single-celled
creature, such as an Amoeba, is about 50 micrometers in size. So, who out
there believes that ANYONE in modern times has measured these things to
within 1/10 the size of a single-celled creature that is too small to be
seen with the naked eye?
Now you know just how silly this kind of accuracy is...
Gilgamesh
jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>
>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>
>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
Then provide measures of the GPOG.
Gilgamesh
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:43:48 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
>wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>>
>>You again provide the same old tactic,
>>and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>
>Tsk tsk, how dare we argue against Cole's measures? And to use the same
>arguments twice, truly disgusting.
>
>Thank you for showing us the error of our ways.
>
>Doug, who is truly flabbergasted by Jason's response.
ANother post by dougie with no measures.
Gilgamesh
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:10:33 -0700, Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>>The calculation of the Great Pyramid's original height is based on
>>Flinders Petrie's measurement of the angle of a casing stone located on
>>the Pyramid's northern face. Specifically, Petrie determined the slope
>>of this casing stone to be 51 degrees, 50 minutes, and 40 seconds
>>+- 1' 5". J. H. Cole concluded that this was the mean slope of the other
>>three faces as well. You're saying that elastic and creep strain of the
>>limestone blocks would distort this angle? I don't think so.
>
>
>Thank you for illustrating so well how ridiculous these figures must be.
>
>1 casing stone doth not a pyramid slope measure, and Cole's assumption
>can be ignored as it proves nothing.
And you still claim yourself a moderator?!?!?! ha ha
Please, provide some measures and by who.
There are enough casing stones to get an angle.
Again well established Egytologists all agree with the angles provided
by academia. Somehow you don't trust nor agree with the measures they
provide.
You argument is so negative that you throw basic facts out the window.
I mean I understand your motives, but they are truly pathetic at this
point.
Gilgamesh
jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>
>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>
>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
I did not measure it.
I take the measures from well established figures in Egytpology.
This does not indclude weller.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>>>>482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>>>
>>>Here we go again -- based on estimates to 5 decimal places. What's the
>>>estimated margin of error, please? Somehow I suspect that the author
>>>doesn't mention it, and Jason obviously doesn't understand about
>>>measurement and maths.
>>><snip>
>>
>>Now, now, Doug! Gilgamesh will assume that you are a nasty
>>old skeptic if you don't accept his accuracy to 5 decimal
>>places.
>
>You again provide the same old tactic,
Yes, because it shows that the measurement isn't accurate
and you don't understand what you are posting.
>and argue against JH Coles measures.
>Truly redundant and ridiculous.
Well, yes, I do find your arguments that way, but I defend
your right to post them.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>
>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>
>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>
Jon, may you have better luck at convincing Gil of this than
Doug, Rob and I have had!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>>
>>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>
>>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>
>Then provide measures of the GPOG.
>
>
Ah, Gil, Rob posted about 10 of them. They varied
considerably.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Paul Dietrich <pau...@efn.com> wrote:
>
>
>Address altered to foil spam programs. Use .org instead of .com
>
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:31:50 GMT
>> From: twi...@worldnet.att.net
>> Newsgroups: alt.alien.research, alt.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors
>> Subject: Re: Geodetic Measurements of the Great Pyramid aka 1/43,200
>>
>>
>> Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > Coincidence?
>>
>> Just think, if you multiply the height of the Washington
>> Monument by 37,550 you also come up with the polar radius
>> figure!
>>
>> Coincidence?
>
>Absolutely
>
>
Correct.
The exact sort of coincidence that is used to "prove" that
the GPOG was a measurement of the Earth!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > Coincidence?
>>
>> Just think, if you multiply the height of the Washington
>> Monument by 37,550 you also come up with the polar radius
>> figure!
>>
>> Coincidence?
>>
>> I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
>> The wicked sometimes rest.
>>
>> Alexandre Dumas, pere
>
>If there is only one correlation that is meaningless,
No. A correlation doesn't mean a causation. You can play
with numbers all you want, but finding relations is easy and
meaningless.
>unless the scale is
>very basic (such as a power of ten). However, the original perimeter of
>the Great Pyramid's base was very precisely measured by J.H. Cole in
>1925 as 921,455 mm.
I hate to tell you this, but the sides are not absolutely
identical.
It has also weathered more than 1 mm during the thousands of
years it has stood there.
>That figure is virtually
You mean it isn't identical?
>identical to the distance
>in half a minute of equatorial latitude, and half a minute of latitude is
>1/43,200 of a great circle of the earth (half a minute in a minute, 60
>minutes in a degree, 360 degrees in a circle, 2 x 60 x 360 = 43,200).
Don't you just love numerology!
<snip>
> If anyone can come up with
>similarly close correlations between some other structure and key
>dimensions of the earth, solar system, or universe (on whatever scale you
>choose), let's see them.
Go to any of the articles by Dr. Matrix on numerology. He
makes many of them.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>
>>>thinking this is all to obvious and accepted even by Egytpologists.
>>>Proof again of skepti-bunkers blowing a lot of hot air with little to
>>>back it up with.
>>>Then when they found out it was from Graham Hancock, they instantly
>>>ridiculed him. Usual skeptibunker tactic. Attack the messenger.
>>
>>When the messenger so often reports incorrect information, is this a
>>surprise?
>
>Petrie, Cole, Thompson all measured the pyramid.
>They have provided the numbers.
>You argue with their findings.
We have. You just don't like the answers.
>Again, tell me the measure of the GPOGiza,
>I don't think you ever had.
>
Rob posted about 10 of these a few months ago. Go back to
deja news and check his work.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>>
>>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>
>>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>
>I did not measure it.
that is obvious. You also obviously don't understand why it
is nonsense.
>I take the measures from well established figures in Egytpology.
But, only ones that agree with you. Rob posted about 10
different measurements for the GPOG. Several didn't support
your thesis, or why you didn't use them.
>This does not indclude weller.
But, Doug is knowledgeable in the field. Enough to know
that the measurments and comments about them don't make
sense.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Rob Hafernik" <hafe...@shokwave.com> wrote:
>Well, you know, it just depends on your sources. Hancock gives these
>measurements:
>
>* North side: 755' 4.9818"
>* West Side: 755' 9.1551"
>* East Side: 755' 10.4937"
>* South Side: 756' 0.9739"
>* Height: 481.3949' (with no explaination for the switch to decimal feet
>instead of inches)
>
>Sum of sides: 3023' 1.6045"
>
>How do these match Gilgameshes?
How dare you bring facts to bear on this? Gilgamesh will be
very displeased with you, Rob!
>
>>the perimeter reckoned from the outside corner sockets is,
>>a-b-c-d-a = 3043.7 feet
>
>>The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>>482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>
And, that weathering hasn't changed it, either!
>
>Now you know just how silly this kind of accuracy is...
>
>
Rob, you're just using the same old argument against poor
old Gilgamesh! Stop letting all those nasty facts get in
the way of a good story!
Rob Hafernik
>But, only ones that agree with you. Rob posted about 10
>different measurements for the GPOG. Several didn't support
>your thesis, or why you didn't use them.
>
Yeah, I did this, but Gil wasn't interested. So, THIS time I used a whacko
source - Graham Hancock.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:43:48 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
>>wrote:
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>>
>>>You again provide the same old tactic,
>>>and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>>Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>
>>Tsk tsk, how dare we argue against Cole's measures? And to use the same
>>arguments twice, truly disgusting.
>>
>>Thank you for showing us the error of our ways.
>>
>>Doug, who is truly flabbergasted by Jason's response.
>
>ANother post by dougie with no measures.
>
Jason, Rob posted about 10 of them when you brought this up
a few months ago!
Why should Doug post them?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:10:33 -0700, Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>The calculation of the Great Pyramid's original height is based on
>>>Flinders Petrie's measurement of the angle of a casing stone located on
>>>the Pyramid's northern face. Specifically, Petrie determined the slope
>>>of this casing stone to be 51 degrees, 50 minutes, and 40 seconds
>>>+- 1' 5". J. H. Cole concluded that this was the mean slope of the other
>>>three faces as well. You're saying that elastic and creep strain of the
>>>limestone blocks would distort this angle? I don't think so.
>>
>>
>>Thank you for illustrating so well how ridiculous these figures must be.
>>
>>1 casing stone doth not a pyramid slope measure, and Cole's assumption
>>can be ignored as it proves nothing.
>
>And you still claim yourself a moderator?!?!?!
Yep. That is a fact, Doug is a moderator.
Why? Did Hoagland claim that he wasn't?
>ha ha
>Please, provide some measures and by who.
Here we go again!
>There are enough casing stones to get an angle.
Well, the quote above was based on only one casing stone.
And, with creep, etc. who knows what the original angle was?
>Again well established Egytologists all agree with the angles provided
>by academia.
All? A bit too strong, there, Gilgamesh!
>Somehow you don't trust nor agree with the measures they
>provide.
Now you understand!
>
>You argument is so negative that you throw basic facts out the window.
Basic facts, like we don't know how high the GPOG was to 5
decimal places? Facts, like the base is not the same size
on all sides? Facts, like the authors you've been quoting
have fudged the data?
Or facts, like we don't agree with you? And, that is the
basic fact that you don't like.
>I mean I understand your motives,
I doubt this.
>but they are truly pathetic at this
>point.
Not half so pathetic as those numbers are.
Marc Line
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, at 06:53:29, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>This does not indclude weller.
What does a manufacturer of soldering equipment or the former lead
singer of a popular beat combo have to do with the value of pyramidal
metrics?
Marc
Rodney Small
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
> >dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:10:33 -0700, Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com>
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>>The calculation of the Great Pyramid's original height is based on
> >>>Flinders Petrie's measurement of the angle of a casing stone located on
> >>>the Pyramid's northern face. Specifically, Petrie determined the slope
> >>>of this casing stone to be 51 degrees, 50 minutes, and 40 seconds
> >>>+- 1' 5". J. H. Cole concluded that this was the mean slope of the other
> >>>three faces as well. You're saying that elastic and creep strain of the
> >>>limestone blocks would distort this angle? I don't think so.
> >>
> >>
> >>Thank you for illustrating so well how ridiculous these figures must be.
> >>
> >>1 casing stone doth not a pyramid slope measure, and Cole's assumption
> >>can be ignored as it proves nothing.
What do you base that assertion upon? One well-preserved casing stone is
certainly enough to measure the slope of a pyramid. Do you "skeptics"
think Petrie, Cole, Maragioglio, and Rinaldi are buffoons who didn't know
as much as you guys? And why do you suppose so many sources say that the
original height of the Pyramid was, to the nearest whole foot, 481 feet?
See, for example, Lionel Casson, "Ancient Egypt" (Time-Life Books, New
York, 1965), p. 134; Humphrey Evans, "Mystery of the Pyramids" (Thomas Y.
Crowell, New York, 1979), p. 83; Chester Starr, "A History of the Ancient
World" (Oxford University Press, New York, 1965), p. 58; and Desmond
Stewart, "The Pyramids and Sphinx" (Newsweek, New York, 1971), p. 166.
Do a little reading folks, your ignorance is showing.
[snip]
> Well, the quote above was based on only one casing stone.
> And, with creep, etc. who knows what the original angle was?
Oh, come on, how does "creep" distort the angle? That's a phony
argument.
[snip]
> >You argument is so negative that you throw basic facts out the window.
>
> Basic facts, like we don't know how high the GPOG was to 5
> decimal places? Facts, like the base is not the same size
> on all sides? Facts, like the authors you've been quoting
> have fudged the data?
True, Gilgamesh has exaggerated the accuracy, but to say we don't know
the original height or base length of the Great Pyramid to a high degree
of accuracy is simply false.
By the way, after reading Michael Edelman's ramblings, my challenge still
stands: Can anyone come up with three correlations that are as good as
those between the Great Pyramid and geodetic measurements of the earth?
Kurt Lochner
Gilgamesh wrote:
>
> A month or two ago I posted some info on the Pyramid being a scale
> representation of the earth.
I don't pay much attention to such, having looked into all much
earlier than you did, I suspect, as it was over twenty years ago.
> Skeptic-bunkers argued this was 'numerology', ...
And they're essentially correct, it *IS* numerology, not by
any means should it be confused with actual engineering calc.
> Of course they never provided their own numbers
> to the size of the pyramid.
Don't have to, numerology is just simple, basic arithmetic...
> Now the skepti-bunkers will argue they can do this with a wine glass.
> I would love to see the math!
I've seen it explained, and yes it can be done with a wine glass!
Please excuse me for not explaining it to you, as I don't
feel obligated to do so, nor do expect that you'd be interested.
> Is this all numerology? Perhaps.
Yup, it's numerology. Calculus, it's not..
Gilgamesh
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>>
>>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>
>>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>>
>Jon, may you have better luck at convincing Gil of this than
>Doug, Rob and I have had!
In now way is this a matter of accuracy.
The rulers used today are not the rulers that were used by the
Egyptians.
This was what was measured used the 12 inch foot rule.
Gilgamesh
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>>
>>jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>>>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>>
>>>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>>
>>Then provide measures of the GPOG.
>>
>>
>Ah, Gil, Rob posted about 10 of them. They varied
>considerably.
Take the average
jon murray
Gilgamesh wrote:
>
> jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >Gilgamesh wrote:
> >>
> >> You again provide the same old tactic,
> >> and argue against JH Coles measures.
> >> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
> >
> >It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>
I know that you didn't measure it, and I doubt that it could be measured
to that precision, and I'm sure that it wasn't measured to that
precision last century (I doubt that *any* macroscopic object, much less
a lump of weathered rock, was measured to anything like that precision
last century).
You are entitled to be - dare I say it - sceptical about 'evidence' that
seems plain stupid, you know. You are entitled to make your own
judgements.
jon murray
Gilgamesh wrote:
>
> jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >Gilgamesh wrote:
> >>
> >> You again provide the same old tactic,
> >> and argue against JH Coles measures.
> >> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
> >
> >It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>
Gil, can you tell us *anything* that has been measured to the precision
of 100,000th of a foot? There probably are such things, but you can bet
that they don't include very large, very weathered blocks of stone. And
you can bet that they weren't measured that precisely last century.
I'm quite happy to go along with your measurement if the precision is,
say, 0.1 of a foot (although I suspect that people who know more than I
about the history and practise of mensuration will have valid arguments
as to why even this degree of precision is inappropriate for a very old
pyramid).
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>>Basic facts, like we don't know how high the GPOG was to 5
>>decimal places? Facts, like the base is not the same size
>>on all sides? Facts, like the authors you've been quoting
>>have fudged the data?
>
>The authors have fudged data? Proof please.
<snip>
Either that or incompetence. Go back and reread Rob's
article on the measurements of the GPOG.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> >>1 casing stone doth not a pyramid slope measure, and Cole's assumption
>> >>can be ignored as it proves nothing.
>
>What do you base that assertion upon? One well-preserved casing stone is
>certainly enough to measure the slope of a pyramid. Do you "skeptics"
>think Petrie, Cole, Maragioglio, and Rinaldi are buffoons who didn't know
>as much as you guys? And why do you suppose so many sources say that the
>original height of the Pyramid was, to the nearest whole foot, 481 feet?
Why do you suppose so many sources don't say that?
Go back and read Rob's article, several months ago, on the
height measurements of the GPOG.
>See, for example, Lionel Casson, "Ancient Egypt" (Time-Life Books, New
>York, 1965), p. 134; Humphrey Evans, "Mystery of the Pyramids" (Thomas Y.
>Crowell, New York, 1979), p. 83; Chester Starr, "A History of the Ancient
>World" (Oxford University Press, New York, 1965), p. 58; and Desmond
>Stewart, "The Pyramids and Sphinx" (Newsweek, New York, 1971), p. 166.
>Do a little reading folks, your ignorance is showing.
Your selectivity is showing. But, the height, no matter
what it really is, doesn't demonstrate that the GPOG was an
analog for the size of the Earth.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Well, the quote above was based on only one casing stone.
>> And, with creep, etc. who knows what the original angle was?
>
>Oh, come on, how does "creep" distort the angle? That's a phony
>argument.
Nonsense. Creep can change a basic angle.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >You argument is so negative that you throw basic facts out the window.
>>
>> Basic facts, like we don't know how high the GPOG was to 5
>> decimal places? Facts, like the base is not the same size
>> on all sides? Facts, like the authors you've been quoting
>> have fudged the data?
>
>True, Gilgamesh has exaggerated the accuracy,
Grossly exaggerated the accuracy. But, he quoted other
sources. That makes their work unreliable.
>but to say we don't know
>the original height or base length of the Great Pyramid to a high degree
>of accuracy is simply false.
That depends on what you mean by a high degree of accuracy.
To the nearest foot? To the nearest furlong?
But, a lot of authors disagree on the height of the pyramid.
(I personally have never calculated it based on my own
measurements.)
>
>By the way, after reading Michael Edelman's ramblings, my challenge still
>stands: Can anyone come up with three correlations that are as good as
>those between the Great Pyramid and geodetic measurements of the earth?
Go to the works of Martin Gardner. Especially those under
the nym of Dr. Matrix. I got rid of my "The Numerology of
Dr. Matrix" a few years ago.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>>>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>>
>>>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>>>
>>Jon, may you have better luck at convincing Gil of this than
>>Doug, Rob and I have had!
>
>In now way is this a matter of accuracy.
The believeability of your measurements are a function of
their accuracy. Anyone who claims that they can measure a
weathered monument with the top missing to 5 decimal places
is not accurate!
>The rulers used today are not the rulers that were used by the
>Egyptians.
>This was what was measured used the 12 inch foot rule.
>
First, it has to be calculated, not measured since the top
is missing.
Second, you can't measure 5 decimal places on a 12 inch
ruler.
Whoever did this probably had his calculator set to 5
decimal places so he got the data to that number. It
doesnt' make it accurate. But, it does call into question
the knowledge of the person calculating the number!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>I hate to tell you this, but the sides are not absolutely
>>identical.
>
>Twitch, you must be delusional, not in one post has it been mentioned
>that the 4 sides of the GPOG are identical.
>
>
Actually, there was one. But I don't remember whether it
was the last go round or this one. Pseudoscience never
changes however.
By the way, did you gain the accuracy to 5 decimal places by
multiplication?
You know, 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25
Where you pick up an order of accuracy by mutiplication!
>
>Gilgamesh
>Ovni Chapterhouse--See the Phoenix Sightings
>http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
>All video all the time
I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
<snip>
>Since the egyptians did not use the 12 inch foot, or the meter, or any
>used today measure, then of course you will get measures into the
>1/1000 if an inch or meter. So I don't understand your point.
>
That is apparent! Jason, you don't increase accuracy by
changing units!
>Apparently the stone you mention is in still pretty decent order
>despit the 1000's of years it has been around.
Must be in damn good shape if it gets you accuracies of
1/1000 of an inch. Especially with weathering, creep, etc.
>A web search will give you various sizes.
But, no real ones to that order of accuracy.
>
>>And the circumferance of my house, in feet, is amazingly close to the
>>distance of Hale-Bopp to the sun at its closest approach when measured
>>in millions of miles. Mere coincidence? More data:
>>
>>The height of the peak of the roof of my house in feet is equal to the
>>mean distance of Mars from the sun expressed in AU! Need more?
>
>Need why we would need to know that?
>
Examples of numerology! Like the GPOG being an analog of
the Earth!
Gilgamesh
mle...@hudson.CS.unb.ca (Martin Leese - OMG) wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT Gilgamesh (gilg...@cyberconnect.com) wrote:
>...
>>> The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>>> 482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>
>So now we are up to 5 decimal places. Look, you are claiming an
>accuracy here as good as 1/100th the thickness of a human hair. I
>don't need to find contrary measurements to know that this claim is
>ludicrous. To measure something that big to this accuracy just ain't
>possible. It wouldn't be possible even if 30 feet or so weren't
>missing from the top. Please think about what you are claiming here;
>it is embarrassing to have to read such claims.
Petrie, Thompson and Cole.
Rob Hafernik
>> Well, the quote above was based on only one casing stone.
>> And, with creep, etc. who knows what the original angle was?
>
>Oh, come on, how does "creep" distort the angle? That's a phony
>argument.
>
No, ALL things "creep" over time (unless in a sealed, weightless
environment). Now, stone probably doesn't creep much, not in a time a
short as a couple of thousand years.
No, in this case, I would think weathering would have a much greater
effect. For example, if that casing stone were a meter long, on its
sloping side and one end or the other had weathered by a millimeter (pretty
reasonable after 2500 years of sun and rain), then the angle would change
by about 3 and half minutes. Of course, the same argument applies if the
stone was just made one millimeter out of true.
Applying that back to the problem at hand, every minute of inaccuracy
changes the height by about a third of a foot.
I agree, most sources seem to go by 481 feet, but I don't know how this was
obtained and I don't know how many of them just used the numbers that their
predecessors used.
So, yes, 481 feet times 43200 is about 20800000 feet (using the same
precision in the result as in the source) or about 3940 miles. If we throw
out precision and just use the raw figures (not good engineering practice),
we get 3935.45 miles.
The earth's polar radius is about 3950 miles, so they correlate to about
half a percent.
Of course, since we're multiplying by such a big number, 43200, all it
takes is the merest fudge on the height, a foot or two, and you can make
the correlation work perfectly.
What about the other pyramids, what do their measurements mean? Why pick
on this one just because it's biggest?
Call me a pathetic hick, but this just doesn't make my blood hot.
Rodney Small
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
> >> >>1 casing stone doth not a pyramid slope measure, and Cole's assumption
> >> >>can be ignored as it proves nothing.
> >
> >What do you base that assertion upon? One well-preserved casing stone is
> >certainly enough to measure the slope of a pyramid. Do you "skeptics"
> >think Petrie, Cole, Maragioglio, and Rinaldi are buffoons who didn't know
> >as much as you guys? And why do you suppose so many sources say that the
> >original height of the Pyramid was, to the nearest whole foot, 481 feet?
>
> Why do you suppose so many sources don't say that?
Can you name one reputable source that doesn't say that? I'm not quoting
Pyramidiots, I'm quoting sources that do not believe that the Great
Pyramid incorporated geodetic measurements.
> Go back and read Rob's article, several months ago, on the
> height measurements of the GPOG.
I respect Rob, but he is simply wrong about this issue.
> >See, for example, Lionel Casson, "Ancient Egypt" (Time-Life Books, New
> >York, 1965), p. 134; Humphrey Evans, "Mystery of the Pyramids" (Thomas Y.
> >Crowell, New York, 1979), p. 83; Chester Starr, "A History of the Ancient
> >World" (Oxford University Press, New York, 1965), p. 58; and Desmond
> >Stewart, "The Pyramids and Sphinx" (Newsweek, New York, 1971), p. 166.
> >Do a little reading folks, your ignorance is showing.
>
> Your selectivity is showing. But, the height, no matter
> what it really is, doesn't demonstrate that the GPOG was an
> analog for the size of the Earth.
Again, no selectivity -- the original height of the Great Pyramid was 481
feet +- a few inches, and the height of the platform is 1.75 feet +- less
than one inch. Multiplying the sum by 43,200 equals the polar radius
within a very small range of uncertainty. I agree that this does not
prove that the height of the Pyramid plus platform was designed to
represent the polar radius, but considering there are two other geodetic
correlations on this same 1/43,200 scale makes the polar radius
correlation very interesting.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Well, the quote above was based on only one casing stone.
> >> And, with creep, etc. who knows what the original angle was?
> >
> >Oh, come on, how does "creep" distort the angle? That's a phony
> >argument.
>
> Nonsense. Creep can change a basic angle.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >You argument is so negative that you throw basic facts out the window.
> >>
> >> Basic facts, like we don't know how high the GPOG was to 5
> >> decimal places? Facts, like the base is not the same size
> >> on all sides? Facts, like the authors you've been quoting
> >> have fudged the data?
> >
> >True, Gilgamesh has exaggerated the accuracy,
>
> Grossly exaggerated the accuracy. But, he quoted other
> sources. That makes their work unreliable.
>
> >but to say we don't know
> >the original height or base length of the Great Pyramid to a high degree
> >of accuracy is simply false.
>
> That depends on what you mean by a high degree of accuracy.
> To the nearest foot? To the nearest furlong?
Again, to a few inches.
> But, a lot of authors disagree on the height of the pyramid.
> (I personally have never calculated it based on my own
> measurements.)
Again, what authors disagree?
> >By the way, after reading Michael Edelman's ramblings, my challenge still
> >stands: Can anyone come up with three correlations that are as good as
> >those between the Great Pyramid and geodetic measurements of the earth?
>
> Go to the works of Martin Gardner. Especially those under
> the nym of Dr. Matrix. I got rid of my "The Numerology of
> Dr. Matrix" a few years ago.
Well, if it's so easy to demonstrate these correlations, how come no one
has come up with anything better than Michael Edelman?
Gilgamesh
jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>
>> jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Gilgamesh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You again provide the same old tactic,
>> >> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>> >> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>> >
>> >It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>>
>> Then provide measures of the GPOG.
>
>Gil, can you tell us *anything* that has been measured to the precision
>of 100,000th of a foot? There probably are such things, but you can bet
>that they don't include very large, very weathered blocks of stone. And
>you can bet that they weren't measured that precisely last century.
The earth.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You again provide the same old tactic,
>>>>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>>>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>>>
>>>Then provide measures of the GPOG.
>>>
>>>
>>Ah, Gil, Rob posted about 10 of them. They varied
>>considerably.
>
>Take the average
>
Oh, we can take the average to 5 decimal places?
If they varied considerably, and they did, you can't just
average. The idea is to use the numbers which are most
accurate. Averaging good data and bad data merely corrupts
the good data.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>"Rob Hafernik" <hafe...@shokwave.com> wrote:
>
><snipped>
>Sorry Rob, I'm not using Hancocks numbers now, I found the original
>source of the idea.
>
Translation: The data was bad, so I went somewhere else to
get data to prove the same conclusion!
>
>>So, who out
>>there believes that ANYONE in modern times has measured these things to
>>within 1/10 the size of a single-celled creature that is too small to be
>>seen with the naked eye?
>
>Petrie, Cole, Thompson.
Amazing. They measure a huge monument that has undergone
thousands of years of weathering to 1/10 of a single-celled
creature that is too small to be seen with the naked eye!
And, with the top of the monument missing too!
Rob Hafernik
>>So, who out
>>there believes that ANYONE in modern times has measured these things to
>>within 1/10 the size of a single-celled creature that is too small to be
>>seen with the naked eye?
>
>Petrie, Cole, Thompson.
>
Then they're just WRONG, Gil. Sorry, we just don't measure things that
well. Oh, we could measure small things that well (and even much better),
but this requires lab instruments. Tough to get the Great Pyramid into a
lab, tough to wrap a lab around such an object.
Gil, just explain how in the world you can measure such an artifiact to a
precision much smaller than the human eye can see?
You want to know what *I* think? I think they measured in some other
units, then coverted them and added a bunch of precision as they went.
Here's an example:
Suppose I measure an object and it's 12.00 inches long, as near as I can
eyeball it with a very precise ruler. If I also know that there are 39.37
inches in a meter, then I can say that the object is 12.00/39.37 meters
long, which is 0.3048 meters. Notice that I have the same number of
significant digits in each claim, four.
What I can't do is jump in with a calculator and say that 12.00 divided by
39.37 is really 0.30480061, so THAT is the length of the object, to within
a ten-millionth of a meter. Engineering science doesn't allow you to claim
more significant digits of accuracy in the conversion than there was in the
original measurement. This is a RULE, one that can get you in real,
your-plane-falls-out-of-the-sky TROUBLE if you don't follow it.
Of course, you see scientific pretenders doing this all the time. You'll
be reading an article and see, "the car is 12 feet long (3.658 meters)".
When you see this, you know that the person writing the article knows
nothing about engineering, the proper claim would be "(3.7 meters)", the
same precision you started with.
Also, Gil, what's WRONG with Hancock's measurements? Do you disagree with
them? Did he goof or misread the source or what?
Gilgamesh
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Either that or incompetence. Go back and reread Rob's
>article on the measurements of the GPOG.
Rather not, but he can post it if he likes.
Gilgamesh
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Either that or incompetence. Go back and reread Rob's
>article on the measurements of the GPOG.
Well actually if my memory is correct, rob only ascertained the
equatorial radius, his conclusion being, 43,300.
I don't remember the polar radius.
(no doubt he fudged some numbers anyway)
Harry Bosch
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
> >
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >>jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Gilgamesh wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You again provide the same old tactic,
> >>>> and argue against JH Coles measures.
> >>>> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
> >>>
> >>>It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
> >>>
> >>Doug, Rob and I have had!
> >
> >In now way is this a matter of accuracy.
>
> The believeability of your measurements are a function of
> their accuracy. Anyone who claims that they can measure a
> weathered monument with the top missing to 5 decimal places
> is not accurate!
Not only are they not accurate they are lying. You might make that kind of measurement
with a micrometer but what a hell of a micrometer that would be.
I would ask by what means the measurement was made in 1925. Surveying was done with a
Gunters Chain or a surveyors tape which would be 300 feet long for flat ground. If one
side of the GP is over 700 feet long, that means you have to "break chain" at least
twice. The accuracy of surveyors tapes after temp corrections etc. is not much more
than 1/125th of a foot. So you "break chain" twice. What do you mark your place with?
If you use a needle, it is at the smallest 1/50th of an inch which is 0.02 inches or
0.0017 feet, so you see Gilgamesh, it is not possible to survey "measure" an object as
large as the GP to 5 decimal places, it just is not possible. Ah, you say you could do
it with a laser distance measuring device. Nope, here the accuracy is only 1000th of a
foot if you are very lucky and average several dozen readings. So your measurements are
calculated. They probably measured in meters and converted to feet with (as twitch
said) the calculator set on 5 decimal places.
If you don't believe this, ask any surveyor or Civil Engineer, there must be a bunch on
the NET.
Regards
Harry
--
========================================
"Violence never settles anything."
Genghis Khan 1162-1227
har...@chatlink.com
========================================
Rob Hafernik
>>Gil, can you tell us *anything* that has been measured to the precision
>>of 100,000th of a foot? There probably are such things, but you can bet
>>that they don't include very large, very weathered blocks of stone. And
>>you can bet that they weren't measured that precisely last century.
>
>The earth.
>
NO, GIL! And claims like this make it hard to respect your ideas.
To quote _The Foundations of Astrodynamics_ by A. E. Roy, MacMillan, 1965:
"An up-to-date value for the equatorial radius, R, is 6,378,145 plus or
minus 100 meters while the ellipticity, f , is 1/(298.34 plus or minus
0.1)". Page 205.
So not only is the earth measurement good to within only 100 meters, but
it's only good to about 1 part in 64,000. A LOT less precise, then, than
the accuracy you're claiming for the pyramid.
Rodney Small, you're a believer (but not an idiot) who has spent time with
earth measurements, back me up on this...
Rob Hafernik
>Well, if it's so easy to demonstrate these correlations, how come no one
>has come up with anything better than Michael Edelman?
>
If you'll remember the LAST time we went over this, I got pi to a couple
places in the measurements of my garage and some other constant (I can't
remember and it took too much work to repeat) with the perimeter of my
property.
Twitch, I believe, came up with some similar stuff.
They weren't GREAT correlations (only within a percent or so, if I recall),
but we don't have years to spend looking for them, either.
>> Go back and read Rob's article, several months ago, on the
>> height measurements of the GPOG.
>
>Rodney Small said:
>
>I respect Rob, but he is simply wrong about this issue.
Um, I said that 481 feet was the most commonly cited height for the GPOG.
You disagree with this? Note, this is NOT 481.0000 feet. I also said that
this correlated to the polar radius (and why POLAR, anyway, why not
equatorial, if they were going to put circumference into the base?) within
about a half a percent.
Also, Rodney, I'm suprised that you would jump all over ME when Gilgamesh
is making much more silly claims. I've AGREED with you, it's Gil who's
claiming that we know a dimension of the earth to less than one foot of
accuracy. YOU know that claim is stupid, but you aren't speaking up.
LASTLY, I want to bring up a fallacy that hasn't been mentioned before and
seems more important to me than all these measurements.
If those ancient egyptians were so damned smart and had such wonderful
technology that they could measure the earth as well as modern people, and
they wanted to build a building that would represent those measurements of
the earth and show off their smarts, then:
Why build a SQUARE building to represent a ROUND planet? And, why build
lots of other square buildings whose measurements DON'T represent any earth
measurements.
They must have been some wierd people...
If *I* were going about this task, I would build a ROUND building. They
could have still built it from square blocks, it would still have looked
round from a distance. They could have constructed a hemisphere whose
circumference was a multiple of the earth's, whose equatorial radius was a
multiple of the earth's and whose height was a multiple of the earth's
polar radius.
THIS would have been a lot more convincing.
If we're going to postulate that aliens helped them, or that ancient gods
helped them or that the pyramids were made a long time ago by a previous
civilization that had high technology, or WHATEVER, then why COULDN'T they
have built a REAL replica of the earth?
Also a few others:
* If they were so damned smart, why didn't they use real tools and
materials? No iron or steel has ever been found inside one of these
things. No plastic, no graphite-epoxy, no GLASS (a really easy material to
make).
* Why not use concrete, or at least mortar, if their technology was so
vast?
* Why is there evidence that the interiors were lit by candles when they
were working on them? Didn't they have electricity if they could go into
space and check out the difference between polar and equatorial radius?
No, the whole hypothesis, that they must have been advanced because of a
bunch of metrics, just doesn't fit in with ANYTHING else.
-----
I think, if I were Bill Gates and had all the money in the world, I'd build
MYSELF a pyramid. It would be at least 100 feet bigger than than the GPOG,
with all sorts of cool numerology built in. At least then, we'd have proof
that there's no mystery about sweat and labor.
Rob Hafernik
>No plastic, no graphite-epoxy, no GLASS (a really easy material to make).
Since posting this I've heard a rumor that glass objects were found inside
some pyramids. I don't have time to research and find out if this is
really so. Instead, just strike glass from the list, it isn't important to
the argument anyway.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip.
> I agree that this does not
>prove that the height of the Pyramid plus platform was designed to
>represent the polar radius,<snip>
We agree on something.
Rodney Small
Rob Hafernik wrote:
>
> >Well, if it's so easy to demonstrate these correlations, how come no one
> >has come up with anything better than Michael Edelman?
> >
>
> If you'll remember the LAST time we went over this, I got pi to a couple
> places in the measurements of my garage and some other constant (I can't
> remember and it took too much work to repeat) with the perimeter of my
> property.
>
> Twitch, I believe, came up with some similar stuff.
>
> They weren't GREAT correlations (only within a percent or so, if I recall),
> but we don't have years to spend looking for them, either.
Again, it's _three_ correlations that we are talking about here. I
haven't seen you, Twitch, Michael, Martin Gardner, James Randi, or anyone
else come close to three logical correlations between _any_ other
structure and the earth, solar system, universe, etc. It's one thing to
say how easy it is to do so, it's another thing to do it. However, if
someone can do it, I will rethink my position.
> >> Go back and read Rob's article, several months ago, on the
> >> height measurements of the GPOG.
> >
> >Rodney Small said:
> >
> >I respect Rob, but he is simply wrong about this issue.
>
> Um, I said that 481 feet was the most commonly cited height for the GPOG.
> You disagree with this? Note, this is NOT 481.0000 feet.
If that's all you said, I apologize. However, I seem to recall several
people saying that no one knew what the original height of the Great
Pyramid was, and I thought you were one of them.
> I also said that
> this correlated to the polar radius (and why POLAR, anyway, why not
> equatorial, if they were going to put circumference into the base?) within
> about a half a percent.
As I posted during the last go-round a while ago, if you incorporate
equatorial latitude and equatorial longitude, incorporating the
equatorial radius is superfluous. However, incorporating the polar
radius would be new information.
> Also, Rodney, I'm suprised that you would jump all over ME when Gilgamesh
> is making much more silly claims. I've AGREED with you, it's Gil who's
> claiming that we know a dimension of the earth to less than one foot of
> accuracy. YOU know that claim is stupid, but you aren't speaking up.
Well, I've said that the height of the Pyramid is not known to five
decimal places. But again, why not address the fundamental issue here:
The original height (including platform) and perimeter of the Pyramid are
known to a high degree of accuracy, and they correlate very closely to
the polar radius and equatorial latitude, respectively, on a scale of
1/43,200. Further, while the outside perimeter of the sockets is not
known with as high a degree of accuracy, there is a good correlation
between this perimeter and equatorial longitude on a scale of 1/43,200.
> LASTLY, I want to bring up a fallacy that hasn't been mentioned before and
> seems more important to me than all these measurements.
>
> If those ancient egyptians were so damned smart and had such wonderful
> technology that they could measure the earth as well as modern people, and
> they wanted to build a building that would represent those measurements of
> the earth and show off their smarts, then:
>
> Why build a SQUARE building to represent a ROUND planet? And, why build
> lots of other square buildings whose measurements DON'T represent any earth
> measurements.
>
> They must have been some wierd people...
>
> If *I* were going about this task, I would build a ROUND building. They
> could have still built it from square blocks, it would still have looked
> round from a distance. They could have constructed a hemisphere whose
> circumference was a multiple of the earth's, whose equatorial radius was a
> multiple of the earth's and whose height was a multiple of the earth's
> polar radius.
>
> THIS would have been a lot more convincing.
> If we're going to postulate that aliens helped them, or that ancient gods
> helped them or that the pyramids were made a long time ago by a previous
> civilization that had high technology, or WHATEVER, then why COULDN'T they
> have built a REAL replica of the earth?
You're assuming that the _only_ purpose of building the Great Pyramid was
to incorporate earth measurements. That makes as little sense to me as
the notion that the Pyramid was only a tomb. I would guess that the
Pyramid was used for multiple purposes, and building it in the unique way
that it was best served those purposes.
> Also a few others:
>
> * If they were so damned smart, why didn't they use real tools and
> materials? No iron or steel has ever been found inside one of these
> things. No plastic, no graphite-epoxy, no GLASS (a really easy material to
> make).
Wrong. An iron plate was found, but has been sloughed off by
Egyptologists as a recent introduction, even though there is no evidence
that is the case. It just doesn't fit very well with the conventional
wisdom.
> * Why not use concrete, or at least mortar, if their technology was so
> vast?
They did use mortar. In fact, Flinders Petrie marveled at the fact that
16-ton casing stones were fitted together within 1/50 of an inch of
one another with mortar in the joint.
> * Why is there evidence that the interiors were lit by candles when they
> were working on them? Didn't they have electricity if they could go into
> space and check out the difference between polar and equatorial radius?
Lit with candles when they were working on them? How do you know when
the candles were used? It's very possible that the Pyramid was reused by
more primitive people hundreds or even thousands of year after it was
constructed by an advanced civilization.
> No, the whole hypothesis, that they must have been advanced because of a
> bunch of metrics, just doesn't fit in with ANYTHING else.
You're not impressed with the workmanship in the Pyramid? It's only the
most accurately aligned building to the cardinal points of the
compass in world history! How about raising 27 ton stones more than 200
feet into the air and fitting them precisely into place?
> I think, if I were Bill Gates and had all the money in the world, I'd build
> MYSELF a pyramid. It would be at least 100 feet bigger than than the GPOG,
> with all sorts of cool numerology built in. At least then, we'd have proof
> that there's no mystery about sweat and labor.
Several pyramids have been built by modern man, and all pale in
comparison to the GPOG. But if Bill ever gets around to it, let me know.
Regards,
Rodney
Martin Leese - OMG
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:54:22 GMT Gilgamesh (gilg...@cyberconnect.com) wrote:
>> mle...@hudson.CS.unb.ca (Martin Leese - OMG) wrote:
>> >On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT Gilgamesh (gilg...@cyberconnect.com) wrote:
>> >...
>> >>> The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
>> >>> 482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>> >
>> >So now we are up to 5 decimal places. Look, you are claiming an
>> >accuracy here as good as 1/100th the thickness of a human hair. I
>> >don't need to find contrary measurements to know that this claim is
>> >ludicrous. To measure something that big to this accuracy just ain't
>> >possible. It wouldn't be possible even if 30 feet or so weren't
>> >missing from the top. Please think about what you are claiming here;
>> >it is embarrassing to have to read such claims.
>> Petrie, Thompson and Cole.
I will try again. An acuuracy of 0.00001 feet is about 1/5th the
height of a fingerprint smudge. That's right, find a mirror, stick
your finger on it, and measure the height of the smudge above the
glass. You are claiming these people measured (or estimated) an
object over 400 feet high with an accuracy five times better than
this? Think, man. THINK!
Regards,
Martin
E-mail: mle...@omg.unb.ca
WWW: http://www.omg.unb.ca/~mleese/
______________________________________________________________________
Want to know how Ambisonics can improve the sound of your LPs and CDs?
Read the Ambisonic Surround Sound FAQ. Version 2.7 now on my WWW page.
Gilgamesh
"Rob Hafernik" <hafe...@shokwave.com> wrote:
>Why build a SQUARE building to represent a ROUND planet? And, why build
>lots of other square buildings whose measurements DON'T represent any earth
>measurements.
Look at any map of the world, lines of longitute and latitude
run in straight lines. Obvious a sound structure is also of
importance. Also, the point of the pyramid is properly aligned to
certain other points across Giza, and to Heliopolis and Letopolis.
And if they mimicked a metorite, well these primitives were really
impressed.
>They must have been some wierd people...
>
>If *I* were going about this task, I would build a ROUND building.
(this is a joke, right?)
NO round buildings found anywhere in the ancient world on this scale.
Not in South America, Not in China, maybe stonehenge is a decent
place. But since there is no culture that sprang out of nowhere that
could signify stonehenges existance, well maybe its not there.
>* If they were so damned smart, why didn't they use real tools and
>materials? No iron or steel has ever been found inside one of these
>things. No plastic, no graphite-epoxy, no GLASS (a really easy material to
>make).
No bodies, no names, no writtings.
What happens to iron in 2000 years, or 4000 or 12000?
>* Why not use concrete, or at least mortar, if their technology was so
>vast?
I thought there was some kind of Mortar between the stones of the
GPOG?
ber...@whidbey.not
"Rob Hafernik" <hafe...@shokwave.com> wrote:
Big chop--------------------
>* Why is there evidence that the interiors were lit by candles when they
>were working on them? Didn't they have electricity if they could go into
>space and check out the difference between polar and equatorial radius?
Smaller chop------------------
Sort of an aside, I read somewhere that Tut's tomb didn't show
evidence of torches, i.e.; soot on the overhead, and the postulation
is/was that during the construction/decoration phase the interior may
have been illuminated by mirrors reflecting the sun into the interior.
Smoked ceilings may well be/have been the result of later plundering
when the pristine nature of the tomb was not an issue.
--
Clever Hands
(The ".not" is a ".net" not a ".not")
Blessed are the weak for without them the strong would starve.
Martin Stower
Rob Hafernik wrote:
[. . .]
> You want to know what *I* think? I think they measured in some other
> units, then coverted them and added a bunch of precision as they went.
> Here's an example:
Correct. Cole used the metric system for his survey. Fix
presented the figures with Imperial (standard) equivalents,
but failed to adjust the equivalents for precision.
Give that man a cigar.
[. . .]
Martin
Martin Stower
Douglas Weller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:19:10 GMT,
> gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
[. . .]
> >I have found the original source for the Geodetic Measurements of the
> >GPOG. From the book 'Pyramid Odyssey' by William R. Fox, 1978,
> >ISBN 0-8317-7160-7. I will quote extensively from this book.
> >
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> >The hieght of the GPOG (based on estimates) is
> >482.75751 feet, (including platform).
>
> Here we go again -- based on estimates to 5 decimal places. What's the
> estimated margin of error, please? Somehow I suspect that the author
> doesn't mention it, and Jason obviously doesn't understand about
> measurement and maths.
Jason's understanding of measurement is about as good as that of
his source, William R. Fix (not Fox) - of whose book I am lucky
enough to have a copy.
Fix uses Cole's figures. Cole used the _metric_ system for his
survey, and his measurements were to the nearest millimetre; he
also gave estimates, +-, for the positions of the pyramid's
original corners - almost always ignored, of course.
In presenting Imperial (standard) equivalents, Fix converts
Cole's metric figures to such as we see above - without any sign
of understanding the problems involved - consistent with his
overall tendency to get out more precision than goes in.
For his geodetic measurements, Fix quotes figures for several
ellipsoids - which in any case are approximations, used for
practical purposes; a more accurate mathematical model of the
earth is called the geoid - but even so, Fix's ellipsoid figures
have been superseded by more recent standards, such as the
Geodetic Reference System 1980 (GRS80) - on which in turn is
based the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) used for satellite
navigation systems.
Martin
Martin Stower
Gilgamesh wrote:
[. . .]
> Sorry Rob, I'm not using Hancocks numbers now, I found the original
> source of the idea.
Hancock uses Cole's figures, as does Fix - with exactly the same
naive approach to conversion.
>
> >So, who out
> >there believes that ANYONE in modern times has measured these things to
> >within 1/10 the size of a single-celled creature that is too small to be
> >seen with the naked eye?
>
> Petrie, Cole, Thompson.
Petrie measured to the nearest tenth of an inch, with a +- estimate
of error.
Cole measured to the nearest millimetre, with a +- estimate of the
original position of the corners.
Thompson - who is Thompson?
[. . .]
Martin
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>"Rob Hafernik" <hafe...@shokwave.com> wrote:
>
>>Why build a SQUARE building to represent a ROUND planet? And, why build
>>lots of other square buildings whose measurements DON'T represent any earth
>>measurements.
>
>Look at any map of the world, lines of longitute and latitude
>run in straight lines.
How do you make straight lines on a sphere? They are all
curved.
>Obvious a sound structure is also of
>importance. Also, the point of the pyramid is properly aligned<snip.
The point of the pyramid is missing.
>>They must have been some wierd people...
>>
>>If *I* were going about this task, I would build a ROUND building.
You mean spherical. Or at least hemispherical.
>
>(this is a joke, right?)
>NO round buildings found anywhere in the ancient world on this scale.
That is because they were wierd people. They must have been
to build an analog of the Earth in a pyramid.
>Not in South America, Not in China, maybe stonehenge is a decent
>place. But since there is no culture that sprang out of nowhere that
>could signify stonehenges existance, well maybe its not there.
You keep believing that Jason.
>
>>* If they were so damned smart, why didn't they use real tools and
>>materials? No iron or steel has ever been found inside one of these
>>things. No plastic, no graphite-epoxy, no GLASS (a really easy material to
>>make).
>
>No bodies, no names, no writtings.
>What happens to iron in 2000 years, or 4000 or 12000?
IN a dry climate inside a dry building?
>
>>* Why not use concrete, or at least mortar, if their technology was so
>>vast?
>
>I thought there was some kind of Mortar between the stones of the
>GPOG?
As I recall, nope.
Gilgamesh
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>I presume you have proof of this. Do you think by the way, that aligning
>NSEW is terribly difficult?
I'm sure you think it is easy.
Getting a 10' long wall to be a precise straight line with modern
dry-wall is impossible. Scale that to the size of one of the sides of
the pyramid and we would still have trouble making such a straight
line. The Pyramid side would be straighter.
Gilgamesh
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>Rob Hafernik wrote:
>> * If they were so damned smart, why didn't they use real tools and
>> materials? No iron or steel has ever been found inside one of these
>> things. No plastic, no graphite-epoxy, no GLASS (a really easy material to
>> make).
>
>Wrong. An iron plate was found, but has been sloughed off by
>Egyptologists as a recent introduction, even though there is no evidence
>that is the case. It just doesn't fit very well with the conventional
>wisdom.
Of course this was found by Vyse.
The Egyptologists reject the plate but accept his forgery.
(i accept the plate and reject the forgery :>)
>> No, the whole hypothesis, that they must have been advanced because of a
>> bunch of metrics, just doesn't fit in with ANYTHING else.
They weren't advanced?
Well everyone has an opinion.
I guess we are advanced today.
Rodney Small
Martin Stower wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> Jason's understanding of measurement is about as good as that of
> his source, William R. Fix (not Fox) - of whose book I am lucky
> enough to have a copy.
Aha, so you admit you're lucky to have one of the classics!
> Fix uses Cole's figures. Cole used the _metric_ system for his
> survey, and his measurements were to the nearest millimetre; he
> also gave estimates, +-, for the positions of the pyramid's
> original corners - almost always ignored, of course.
But the plus or minuses were a few millimeters, and it defies logic that
all of the errors would have been in the same direction. So try as you
might, you can't get around the fact that the best estimate of the Great
Pyramid's original perimeter was 921,453 mm -- virtually identical to the
distance in half a minute of equatorial latitude -- see below.
> In presenting Imperial (standard) equivalents, Fix converts
> Cole's metric figures to such as we see above - without any sign
> of understanding the problems involved - consistent with his
> overall tendency to get out more precision than goes in.
But the significance of Fix's errors in this regard are negligible. He
does give an overly precise figure for the Pyramid's height, but this too
is of only minor significance.
> For his geodetic measurements, Fix quotes figures for several
> ellipsoids - which in any case are approximations, used for
> practical purposes; a more accurate mathematical model of the
> earth is called the geoid - but even so, Fix's ellipsoid figures
> have been superseded by more recent standards, such as the
> Geodetic Reference System 1980 (GRS80) - on which in turn is
> based the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) used for satellite
> navigation systems.
Well check out "The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 1995" (Government
Printing Office, Washington, 1993) p. K-5. That reference book continues
to give the formula for determining the distance in one degree of
latitude from the 1964 IAU Ellipsoid, which is (in meters): 111,133.35 -
559.84 cosine 2x + 1.17 cosine 4x where x is the mid-latitude of the arc.
At the equator, one degree of latitude therefore equals 110,574.68 meters
and the average half a minute of latitude (1/120 of a degree) equals
921,455.7 mm. If there is a better figure available, what is it?
Further, the best estimate of the polar radius has barely changed since
Fix's book was published. So your implication that more recent figures
have lessened the equatorial latitude and polar radius correlations
inherent in the external dimensions of the Pyramid doesn't hold water.
> Martin
Rodney
Douglas Weller
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:22:17 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
wrote:
>(i accept the plate and reject the forgery :>)
>
Ok Jason, Martin Stower has shown it isn't a forgery and that Sitchin is
talking through his hat. Please show that Martin is wrong or shut up.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
Rob Hafernik
>I'm sure you think it is easy.
>Getting a 10' long wall to be a precise straight line with modern
>dry-wall is impossible. Scale that to the size of one of the sides of
>the pyramid and we would still have trouble making such a straight
>line. The Pyramid side would be straighter.
>
If I was rich, I'd fund a field trip for Gil, so that he could go see for
himself how silly this is. I've seen a lot of pictures of those piles of
rock and I just don't see where he gets this stuff...
Martin Stower
Douglas Weller wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:22:17 GMT,
> gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
> >(i accept the plate and reject the forgery :>)
>
> Ok Jason, Martin Stower has shown it isn't a forgery and that
> Sitchin is talking through his hat. Please show that Martin is
> wrong or shut up.
It's plug-my-URL time again. See
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/
and especially
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/kogenesis.html
Martin Stower
Gilgamesh
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:22:17 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
>wrote:
>>(i accept the plate and reject the forgery :>)
>>
>Ok Jason, Martin Stower has shown it isn't a forgery and that Sitchin is
>talking through his hat. Please show that Martin is wrong or shut up.
Well I have not seen his observation on the data.
So 'till then I won't make any guesses as to what he said.
Besides the carbon dating of the mortar must be mentioned as well
to justify his theory.
Ooyamaneko
In article <335c9918...@snews.zippo.com>,
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) writes:
>
> jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>Gilgamesh wrote:
>>>
>>> jon murray <jo...@nextconnect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Gilgamesh wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> You again provide the same old tactic,
>>> >> and argue against JH Coles measures.
>>> >> Truly redundant and ridiculous.
>>> >
>>> >It's saying that it's accurate to 100,000th of a foot! Gil, it's STUPID!
>>>
>>
>>of 100,000th of a foot? There probably are such things, but you can bet
>>that they don't include very large, very weathered blocks of stone. And
>>you can bet that they weren't measured that precisely last century.
>
> The earth.
Roight...
Okay, here's a proof for you, Gilgamesh, that your quoted measure
can _not_ be accurate:
1/100,000 of an inch equates to 3 ten-millionths of a meter, smaller
than the diameter of a human hair. Now, I don't know about you, but
even the finest-cut stone I've had a chance to lay eyes on has a surface
that varies by more than this amount...so, Gilgamesh, how could they
1) measure _any_ piece of stone to this level of precision and be sure
that they've measured from the highest peak on the bottom, to the highest
peak on the top?
2) perform the same measurement with the same degree of accuracy when
they don't have access to the bottom of that lump of stone, and that
lump of ston happens to cover several acres of ground?
3) perform that measurement when the entire top of said lump of stone
has up and gone missing?
In short, the level of precision you quote is flatly rediculous --
the best estimate you can make for the height of the Great Pyramid
(for indeed, you can _not_ measure what's no longer there) is
"somewhere near 481 feet" and anyone claiming a higher level of
precision than that is talking out the side of their neck.
> Gilgamesh
> Ovni Chapterhouse--See the Phoenix Sightings
> http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
> All video all the time
-- Ooyamaneko
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| While August Mobius _was_ a difficult and opinionated man, it is |
| untrue that he could only see one side to every question... |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
email: oo...@www.odyssey.ursus.maine.edu
Marc Line
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, at 08:32:00, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>strata around stonehenge...
Bollocks!
Marc
Gilgamesh
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>>"Rob Hafernik" <hafe...@shokwave.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If *I* were going about this task, I would build a ROUND building.
>
>You mean spherical. Or at least hemispherical.
>
Let Rob explain it, he's the engineer.
>>(this is a joke, right?)
>>NO round buildings found anywhere in the ancient world on this scale.
>
>That is because they were wierd people. They must have been
>to build an analog of the Earth in a pyramid.
>
>>Not in South America, Not in China, maybe stonehenge is a decent
>>place. But since there is no culture that sprang out of nowhere that
>>could signify stonehenges existance, well maybe its not there.
>
>You keep believing that Jason.
>
Stonehenge was an example of a round structure that rob was
mentioning. But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
strata around stonehenge... pre-requisite for the knowledge needed
to build such a structure...according to rob
>>>* If they were so damned smart, why didn't they use real tools and
>>>materials? No iron or steel has ever been found inside one of these
>>>things. No plastic, no graphite-epoxy, no GLASS (a really easy material to
>>>make).
>>
>>No bodies, no names, no writtings.
>>What happens to iron in 2000 years, or 4000 or 12000?
>
>IN a dry climate inside a dry building?
>
Well with nothing being found inside the GPOGiza, no not inside
a dry building. And Giza wasn't always dry. Just look at the sphinx.
>>I thought there was some kind of Mortar between the stones of the
>>GPOG?
>
>As I recall, nope.
Recall again, because that is what they used to get a date of the
pyramid. That date being 300-400 years before Khufus reign.
According to Lehner.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Marc Line <ma...@bosagate.demon.spamscamscram.co.uk> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, at 08:32:00, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>
>>But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>>strata around stonehenge...
>
>Bollocks!
>
No. I think they were the early English.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gbl...@midland.co.nz (George Black) wrote:
>
>In article <335cdd75...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>Since the egyptians did not use the 12 inch foot, or the meter, or any
>>>used today measure, then of course you will get measures into the
>>>1/1000 if an inch or meter. So I don't understand your point.
>>>
>>
>>That is apparent! Jason, you don't increase accuracy by
>>changing units!
>>
>>>Apparently the stone you mention is in still pretty decent order
>>>despit the 1000's of years it has been around.
>>
>>Must be in damn good shape if it gets you accuracies of
>>1/1000 of an inch. Especially with weathering, creep, etc.
>
>So, there's the Sphinx, right next door to Khufu's Pyramid with all that 'rain
>induced weathering' and he reckons that the stone in the pyramid is 'still in
>pretty decent order'
>
>Wouldn't it be nice if he stuck to one fallacy per NG
>
George, foolish consistency is the province of little minds.
Jason doesn't worry about consistency.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
<snip>
>Stonehenge was an example of a round structure that rob was
>mentioning. But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>strata around stonehenge... pre-requisite for the knowledge needed
>to build such a structure...according to rob
><snip>
There was a civilization in the area. Not right at that
spot, but then no one lived in the pyramids, either.
Douglas Weller
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:32:00 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>Recall again, because that is what they used to get a date of the
>pyramid. That date being 300-400 years before Khufus reign.
>According to Lehner.
And how do YOU date Khufu's reign? Don't quote Lehner, please, unless
you are saying you agree with him.
Doug
ber...@whidbey.not
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
snip---------
>Besides the carbon dating of the mortar must be mentioned as well
>to justify his theory.
>Gilgamesh
>Ovni Chapterhouse--See the Phoenix Sightings
>http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
>All video all the time
..."carbon dating of the mortar," a joke, right?
Gilgamesh
Martin Stower <mar...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>Douglas Weller wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:22:17 GMT,
>> gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>>
>> >(i accept the plate and reject the forgery :>)
>>
>> Ok Jason, Martin Stower has shown it isn't a forgery and that
>> Sitchin is talking through his hat. Please show that Martin is
>> wrong or shut up.
>
>It's plug-my-URL time again. See
>
> http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/
Well.
The plate found by Vyse was not mentioned.
(mainstream egyptologists consider it a fake)
The carbon dating of the Mortar was not mentioned.
Lehner acknowledges that is is 300-400 years before khufus time
according to the carbon dating.
Not utterly convincing in the least.
Too many holes left unfilled.
And no, stower has not shown it isn't a forgery.
What of the seperate styles of glyphs used from seperate periods of
egypts history?
What of carbon dating the red ochre to date the glyphs?
Gilgamesh
oo...@ursus.maine.edu (Ooyamaneko) wrote:
>In short, the level of precision you quote is flatly rediculous --
>the best estimate you can make for the height of the Great Pyramid
>(for indeed, you can _not_ measure what's no longer there) is
>"somewhere near 481 feet" and anyone claiming a higher level of
>precision than that is talking out the side of their neck.
>
OK, then I accept that Petrie got it all wrong, and will only use
whole numbers for the time being.
This just proves that egyptologists are mostly wrong most of the time.
This does not justify the conclusions given here by the 'skeptics'
though in any way.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>Marc Line <ma...@bosagate.demon.spamscamscram.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, at 08:32:00, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>>
>>>But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>>>strata around stonehenge...
>>
>>Bollocks!
>
>Explain....
>
Marc, I dare you to do it! What an opening....
twi...@worldnet.att.net
ber...@whidbey.not wrote:
>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>snip---------
>>Besides the carbon dating of the mortar must be mentioned as well
>>to justify his theory.
>
>>Gilgamesh
>>Ovni Chapterhouse--See the Phoenix Sightings
>>http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
>>All video all the time
>..."carbon dating of the mortar," a joke, right?
>--
They used ground up greys to hold the mortar together.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>gbl...@midland.co.nz (George Black) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <335cdd75...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>Since the egyptians did not use the 12 inch foot, or the meter, or any
>>>>used today measure, then of course you will get measures into the
>>>>1/1000 if an inch or meter. So I don't understand your point.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is apparent! Jason, you don't increase accuracy by
>>>changing units!
>>>
>>>>Apparently the stone you mention is in still pretty decent order
>>>>despit the 1000's of years it has been around.
>>>
>>>Must be in damn good shape if it gets you accuracies of
>>>1/1000 of an inch. Especially with weathering, creep, etc.
>>
>>So, there's the Sphinx, right next door to Khufu's Pyramid with all that 'rain
>>induced weathering' and he reckons that the stone in the pyramid is 'still in
>>pretty decent order'
>>
>>Wouldn't it be nice if he stuck to one fallacy per NG
>
>In decent order compared to Pyramids done at a later time.
>
Nope. But, don't let me interfer with your little delusion.
Harry Bosch
Rodney Small wrote:
..... some deleted .....
> > Fix uses Cole's figures. Cole used the _metric_ system for his
> > survey, and his measurements were to the nearest millimetre; he
> > also gave estimates, +-, for the positions of the pyramid's
> > original corners - almost always ignored, of course.
..... bunch more deleted .....
> Rodney
Hi Rodney.
It is stated that Cole measured the GP to the nearest mm. From another post this was
done in 1925, I believe it was stated.
What were his methods for survey (measurement) that he could achieve an accuracy of 1mm
or 0.04 inches? It would take an EDM (Electronic Distance Meter) to achieve that kind
of accuracy. Would you please answer these questions? An inquiring mind wants to know.
Regards.
Harry
--
========================================
"Violence never settles anything."
Genghis Khan 1162-1227
har...@chatlink.com
========================================
Gilgamesh
gbl...@midland.co.nz (George Black) wrote:
>
>In article <335cdd75...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>Since the egyptians did not use the 12 inch foot, or the meter, or any
>>>used today measure, then of course you will get measures into the
>>>1/1000 if an inch or meter. So I don't understand your point.
>>>
>>
>>That is apparent! Jason, you don't increase accuracy by
>>changing units!
>>
>>>Apparently the stone you mention is in still pretty decent order
>>>despit the 1000's of years it has been around.
>>
>>Must be in damn good shape if it gets you accuracies of
>>1/1000 of an inch. Especially with weathering, creep, etc.
>
>So, there's the Sphinx, right next door to Khufu's Pyramid with all that 'rain
>induced weathering' and he reckons that the stone in the pyramid is 'still in
>pretty decent order'
>
>Wouldn't it be nice if he stuck to one fallacy per NG
In decent order compared to Pyramids done at a later time.
Gilgamesh
Don Judy
In Article<335f96cf...@snews.zippo.com>, <gilg...@cyberconnect.com>
wrote:
>
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>
> >I presume you have proof of this. Do you think by the way, that aligning
> >NSEW is terribly difficult?
>
> I'm sure you think it is easy.
> Getting a 10' long wall to be a precise straight line with modern
> dry-wall is impossible. Scale that to the size of one of the sides of
> the pyramid and we would still have trouble making such a straight
> line. The Pyramid side would be straighter.
>
> Gilgamesh
> Ovni Chapterhouse--See the Phoenix Sightings
> http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
> All video all the time
I see....The GP is aligned perfectly north/south, and you imply the base's
edges are incredibly straight...and yet, it's not perfectly square....what
exactly is lined up perfectly? What is being used to calculate how the GP is
aligned? Are the the two southernmost corners a little farther apart than the
two northernmost corners so the base can point right at the North Pole? How
wide is the North Pole? Maybe the base of the GP is exactly as long as the
North Pole of the Ancient Builders Of The Great Pyramid NP is wide, and the
sides are exactly parallel. Or maybe the edges of the base point at the south
Pole. Or maybe a line bisecting the angles formed by the intersection of the
lines running from the corners of the base to those corners diagonally
opposite runs North/south or East/West. Or maybe we should calculate the area
of the base and devise a line with the same area on each side of it (within
the base) that runs close to the middle of the EW running base edges, and see
if that points directly north. I guess maybe I'm wondering just what could be
aligned perfectly if the base isn't square, and who decided how to define that
alignment?
If the edges are straight, then I assume the corners of the base have angles
that are not 90 degrees and we could take our measurements from the stones at
the corner? Wouldn't that be handy?
Signed,
Just Wondering
Don Judy
In Article<z5Rp8EAQ...@bosagate.demon.co.uk>, Marc Line cajoled electrons
into appearing on my screen in a fashion similar to that below:
>
> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, at 08:32:00, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>
> >But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
> >strata around stonehenge...
>
> Bollocks!
>
> Marc
Bollocks are a sign of civilization? :)
DJ
Sue King
:tnews.worldnet.att.net>
Organization: West Coast Computer Products
Distribution:
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: ber...@whidbey.not wrote:
: >gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
: >
: >>Besides the carbon dating of the mortar must be mentioned as well
: >>to justify his theory.
: >
: >>Gilgamesh
: >..."carbon dating of the mortar," a joke, right?
: >--
: They used ground up greys to hold the mortar together.
: I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
: The wicked sometimes rest.
: Alexandre Dumas, pere
What was the date, anyway? :)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 16:45:16 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>>Stonehenge was an example of a round structure that rob was
>>>mentioning. But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>>>strata around stonehenge... pre-requisite for the knowledge needed
>>>to build such a structure...according to rob
>>><snip>
>>
>>There was a civilization in the area. Not right at that
>>spot, but then no one lived in the pyramids, either.
>>
>I've got to disagree here. It all depends on what you mean by
>civilization. I don't think civilization reached Britain until it had
>cities.
>
This has always been an interesting point, but to me, the
requirement for civilization is where large numbers of
people can band together to work on large public projects.
Douglas Weller
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 16:45:16 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh) wrote:
>
>>
>
><snip>
>>Stonehenge was an example of a round structure that rob was
>>mentioning. But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>>strata around stonehenge... pre-requisite for the knowledge needed
>>to build such a structure...according to rob
>><snip>
>
>There was a civilization in the area. Not right at that
>spot, but then no one lived in the pyramids, either.
>
I've got to disagree here. It all depends on what you mean by
civilization. I don't think civilization reached Britain until it had
cities.
Douglas Weller
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 14:48:29 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
wrote:
>oo...@ursus.maine.edu (Ooyamaneko) wrote:
>
>>In short, the level of precision you quote is flatly rediculous --
>>the best estimate you can make for the height of the Great Pyramid
>>(for indeed, you can _not_ measure what's no longer there) is
>>"somewhere near 481 feet" and anyone claiming a higher level of
>>precision than that is talking out the side of their neck.
>>
>OK, then I accept that Petrie got it all wrong, and will only use
>whole numbers for the time being.
>
>This just proves that egyptologists are mostly wrong most of the time.
Typical of your reasoning. One person got one thing wrong, therefore
most people of his type get most things wrong.
Marc Line
NGs trimmed to exclude alien life-forms.
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, at 14:27:05, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>Marc Line <ma...@bosagate.demon.spamscamscram.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, at 08:32:00, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>>
>>>But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>>>strata around stonehenge...
>>
>>Bollocks!
>
>Explain....
Option 0. The concise approach
Read!
Option 1. The oh dear approach
Bollocks is a colloquial word for testicles, the male gonads, in which
gametes are produced. They are the dangly-down bits which hang around,
usually in pairs, in close proximity to the bit which is usually dangly-
down, but which has the capacity to be standy-up in certain
circumstances and under certain conditions. The word is also used as an
exclamation, intended to indicate that someone finds something which is
said or written to be nonsensical or alternatively, contrary to reality.
Option 2. The can't lose approach
There is ample evidence of a highly advanced civilisation in the
stratigraphy around Stonehenge. The fact that nothing has been found is
clear evidence of a civilisation so advanced that they left no material
evidence of their presence whatsoever!
Option 3. The non-specific approach
I refer you to Sorviodvnvm, to Nethera Von, to Verlvcio, to Aqvae Svlis
and to Cvnetio. There is plenty of evidence of civilisation around
Stonehenge.
Option 4. The "so what is civilised" approach
I refer you alternatively to the army firing range on Salisbury plain.
Thousands if not millions of shells, bullets and other missiles are
fired into the ground on an annual basis. Is *that* a mark of
civilisation?
Option 5. The pertinent approach, I hope.
But seriously, if you can accept a definition of civilisation which
means, "other than barbarism", where "barbarism" means, "lacking in
refinement, primitive", then I think you would have to agree that
Stonehenge, standing as it does in the midst of a huge number of long
barrows, round barrows, henges, cursuses etc., is itself indicative of a
culture which could be considered civilised. There is ample evidence in
and around Stonehenge for the presence of Neolithic and Bronze age
occupation. These were the people who built and subsequently
embellished these impressive monuments. This was the "civilisation"
responsible for them.
Here's a couple of books to get you started.
For general reading on the Neolithic period I should suggest:
"Introduction to British Prehistory" J.V.S. Megaw & D.D.A. Simpson 1979
"British Prehistory: A New Outliine" C. Renfrew 1974
For Stonehenge I should suggest:
"Stonehenge and Neighbouring Monuments" R.J.C. Atkinson 1978
"Stonehenge" R.J.C. Atkinson 1979
Happy reading!
Marc
Perform robotomy on email address.
Rob Hafernik
>It is stated that Cole measured the GP to the nearest mm. From another
post this
>was
>done in 1925, I believe it was stated.
>
>What were his methods for survey (measurement) that he could achieve an
>accuracy of 1mm
>or 0.04 inches? It would take an EDM (Electronic Distance Meter) to
achieve that
>kind
>of accuracy. Would you please answer these questions? An inquiring mind
wants
>to know.
>
Speaking as someone with a couple of years' on-the-ground surveying
experience, I think 1 mm accuracy is possible over that distance, with lots
of work.
A surveyor's "chain" is typically 100 or 200 fett in the US, but 50 or 100
meters where meters are used. US chains are marked in 100ths of a foot.
I've never seen a metric chain, but I would assume centimeters and
millimeters (or the millimeters might be "eyeballed", inferred by judging
the distance between two centimeter marks, especially in 1925). Of course,
when measuring distances longer than your chain you have to "break chain"
(set a mark and move the chain up) and this doesn't help the accuracy any.
The measurement also has to be corrected for temperature (the steel in the
chain expands at higher temperatures) and the idiosyncrasies of the
particular chain used.
My guess is that Cole would have measured the distance many times and
averaged the results to get his figure.
With care and many measurements and a statistical analysis to find the
"good" measurements to average, I think 1mm accuracy is possible (a
millimeter isn't THAT small). Did Cole do all of this (measure many times,
correct the chain, use statistics to cull out the "good" measurements and
average them)? I don't know.
Of course, finding the SPOT to measure to would have been a challenge.
Those rough blocks of stone don't give you a really good spot to work from.
Rob Hafernik
>>Besides the carbon dating of the mortar must be mentioned as well
>>to justify his theory.
>
>>Gilgamesh
Um... sorry to break it to whatever "expert" you're quoting, but "mortar"
is made up of portland cement (calcined limestone), lime (chiefly calcium
oxide), sand (various silicates) and water.
Ain't no carbon IN it...
Marc Line
On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, at 00:22:28, Don Judy cajoled electrons into this
>
>In Article<z5Rp8EAQ...@bosagate.demon.co.uk>, Marc Line cajoled electrons
>into appearing on my screen in a fashion similar to that below:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, at 08:32:00, Gilgamesh cajoled electrons into this
>>
>> >But since there is no 'civilization' to be found in the
>> >strata around stonehenge...
>>
>> Bollocks!
>>
>> Marc
>
>Bollocks are a sign of civilization? :)
Well, strictly speaking, bollocks alone are anarchist. It is the
scrotum which is the great civiliser. However, there can be no
civilisation without bollocks! Indeed, we are all, without exception, a
product thereof. ;))
Marc
X
Rodney Small
Maybe not in the mortar you're familiar with, but flecks of charcoal
and wood are common in ancient mortar, and charcoal and wood contain
carbon. Carbon dating has been applied to mortar from the Great Pyramid
and other Giza structures and has given dates for the GP more than 400
years earlier than the conventional wisdom. Most strikingly, the GP
dated slightly older than the Step Pyramid. See "Venture Inward"
magazine, May/June 1986.
Anyone care to reconcile the carbon dating with the CW?
Regards,
Rodney
George H Pink
>What about the other pyramids, what do their measurements mean? Why pick
>on this one just because it's biggest?
Well, for one thing.. if you examine the 147 (?) pyramids, only a few
are made at the special 52 degree angle. Golden mean
There are many failures, the most commonly known being the bent
pyramid. They started with the 52 degrees but eventually it
colloapsed and changed to a modest 43-degrees..
I am not too sure why he is specifically choosing the Giza pyramids,
but only a handful of these special pyramids exist in Egypt and less
in Meso America.
Maybe he is like many others, and believes that the bulk of Egyptian
pyramids were copies of the Giza pyramids.
It is obvious to many archaeologists that the Egyptian timeline is way
out of whack.
Gilgamesh
Douglas Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<336f9f85...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:34:14 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:22:17 GMT, gilg...@cyberconnect.com
(Gilgamesh)
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>>(i accept the plate and reject the forgery :>)
> >>Ok Jason, Martin Stower has shown it isn't a forgery and that Sitchin
is
> >>talking through his hat. Please show that Martin is wrong or shut up.
> >
> >Well I have not seen his observation on the data.
> >So 'till then I won't make any guesses as to what he said.
> >Besides the carbon dating of the mortar must be mentioned as well
> >to justify his theory.
> >#
>
> You're not serious -- you make accusations and haven't even bothered to
> do any research into them? You simply take Sitchin's word for it?
No I take Mark Lehners word about the carbon dating.
And it has everything to do with. It throws the mainstrean chronology of
egypt out the window.
Of course there are many things that should be thrown out the window,
but this is but one example. I don't think Sitchin has ever mentioned
carbon dating
of the Pyramid.
I hardly have to rely on Sitchin about Egypt, the egyptologists, and other
so called self described experts, have made enough mess out the
Giza situation, that all I have to do is look at some of thier work and see
huge holes, scoffing of data etc. The overall contention that Giza is
pretty much 'solved' by the mainstream egyptologists is enough to work
with.
The problem with most sciences dealing with ancients is that they promote
such extensive theories, that when taken apart, it is all to easy to
criticize.
Sorry, Martin, but you did not mention the Iron Plate at the end of the
queens shaft, (southern?), found by Vyse. The mainstream deems it a fake,
but recgonizes the glyphs in the relieving chambers found by Vyse,
as authentic.? I would like your opinion on it.
> Qu'elle surprise!
> Tell us what the carbon dating has to do with it (which I know may put
> the Great pyramid about 400 years earlier than usually thought -- I have
> a copy of the original report, by the way, I'm not working on garbled
> versions of it.}.
I'm not sure if I have seen the original report, have not looked for it.
Again, I'll take Lehners word for it though.
Again the carbon dating throws the chronology of Ancient Egpyt out the
window,
as deemed by mainstream egytologists.