432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Jiri]

Okay, so you're using millimeters. Care to explain why, given that the mm is a modern unit of measure? :

This is my last post today. Too many cigarettes = carbon monoxide poisoning = hydrogenated brains

Okey, metric measures are not modern, since we see them in the engraving. As well, Schliemann had found a measuring rod in the ruins of Troy, which was pretty well an accurate half-a-meter. Note, this is the same as the engraving, which actually uses half millimeters.
Go to the "seat1.htm" at my website. It describes, how I came to believe that the engraving is constructed from scratch from the so called "Cone". The so called "Square" is then the Cone's main product. It also takes control from the Cone over additional constructions.
I discovered that unit circles were used for the construction of the Cone. There was one problem though. The unit circles came out at 81 mms diameter (at double lifesize), no matter how many times I repeated the experiment. At the same time I had already come up with the (early) Frame. It made sense in millimeters, so there was one set of units, and moreover, one of the segments of the Frame was 80 mms long, almost identical to the unit circle's diameter. Interestingly, another segment was 81 mms long. Why was the unit circle not 80 mms across, but 81 instead?
This was a major flaw.
But, my work had also shown me that the Cone was not as perfect as the Square, which seemed accurate to a tee. Gradually, I formed a hypothesis (last hope) that if I could construct the template of the Cone & Square in CAD, and then lay this geometrical template over the picture by making the Square of the template identical to the Square of the picture, in other words, let the Square dictate the actual size of the Cone, instead of the other way around - then I might find that the Cone's unit circles had adjusted to an accurate 80 mms.
This hypothesis had worked out beautifully. The two kinds of units meshed.
From this, the extrapolation is that having gotten to the Square, the ancients were able to use it as the anchor for future reconstructions, and free to move and grow the Cone slightly for some reason. I suspect that the whole model is somehow dynamic. Relevantly, the 'Lens' of the Square also moves. It is recorded in another position as well, but doesn't change its size like the Cone.
That's the best explanation I can give you.

 

[Hokulele]

Okey, metric measures are not modern, since we see them in the engraving.

No, meters and millimeters are modern measurements. You are simply assigning them as meaningful since they happen to fit your theory. If they had not, you would probably use inches.

As well, Schliemann had found a measuring rod in the ruins of Troy, which was pretty well an accurate half-a-meter.

"Pretty well accurate?" In other words, not accurate.

Note, this is the same as the engraving, which actually uses half millimeters.

Which is a cherry-picked engraving, not necessarily representative of all engravings.

But, my work had also shown me that the Cone was not as perfect as the Square, which seemed accurate to a tee. Gradually, I formed a hypothesis (last hope) that if I could construct the template of the Cone & Square in CAD, and then lay this geometrical template over the picture by making the Square of the template identical to the Square of the picture, in other words, let the Square dictate the actual size of the Cone, instead of the other way around - then I might find that the Cone's unit circles had adjusted to an accurate 80 mms.
This hypothesis had worked out beautifully. The two kinds of units meshed.

"I fudged the data."

From this, the extrapolation is that having gotten to the Square, the ancients were able to use it as the anchor for future reconstructions, and free to move and grow the Cone slightly for some reason. I suspect that the whole model is somehow dynamic. Relevantly, the 'Lens' of the Square also moves. It is recorded in another position as well, but doesn't change its size like the Cone.

"And the ancients fudged their data too."

 

[Jiri]

Yeah... that'll happen.

I curious... what margin of error would you consider acceptable in your calculations? How far can you be off before your "formula" begins to break down?

It seems to me like you must have to allow for lot's of "slop" in your measurements. You're dealing with ancient, weathered items that don't have sharp features, so there must be a certain amount of guesswork regarding where to place your data points.

Since you don't/can't work from originals, how do you even determine the correct sizes and proportions of the item in question? For example... how do you know the scale of the "Athena engraving?" If you're working from a picture, how do you know the picture is to the exact scale of the etching? Or with the "face on Mars"... how can you place data points on a topological featured that has obviously been subject to extreme erosion... it's seems highly doubtful that the data points you're choosing would be in the exact location of where they were when the ancient builders carved the formation.

Same goes for the "Athena engraving"... wouldn't you expect natural erosion to have changed the dimensions of the engraving since it was carved those many thousands of years ago?

How do you correct for these inevitable errors?

Let this be my last post for the day sice I am not the same man I was yesterday, and I think I lost the "..iens" from being a homo sapiens.
Yours is certainly relevant questioning. Fortunately, I did not have to deal with these problems too much, as the reproduction of the engraving by Stephane Lwoff for the 'Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique de France' appears very accurate to me. Accuracy was also Lwoff's stated goal.
High quality limestone and quartzite survive astonishingly well in the ground. I swear that when looking at large magnifications of the image, one can even see actual reproductions of the tool marks (nicks, notches) in the lines..
The Face on Mars, as well as the minute details of the Nazca Monkey, that is a different issue.
The 'face' contains a very eminent highly perfect right angle. I used it to set the orientation of whatever I was superimposing over the face. The detritus around the face also seems to have a fairly distinct border - something like a surf line. Still, please note that I did not delve very deeply into the face after all - lack of detail is a problem indeed. Despite this, I was quite able to debunk Carlotto's interpretation of the face (adopted by Hoagland This debunking should be fairly clear, I believe. Sorry, Hoagland.
Presently, I would be really happy, if I could lay my hands on an accurate picture (plan) of the monkey. Still it seems accurate enough in some aspects - the biggest things are least distorted, such as the two long lines crossing at 36-degrees, very accurate 36 degrees.
If I am right (judging by the monkey), the Nazca Lines complex is unbelievably important, insofar as there is the direct connection La Marche - Nazca. The situation with the lines is critical, 2007 has already proved devastating for the lines, as El Nino worsens. Soon, we can just forget it. But, what can I do? I have no authority, no influence. Otherwise, if it were up to me, the Nazca-Palpa area would be mapped to the greatest detail long ago -mid nineties at the latest

Oh, and I almost forgot - the reproduction of the Athena engraving by Lwoff had a scale included near the margin.

 

[Iamme]

Consider reading that plants can grow taller and stronger if given music to listen to.. SEE the Thread harmony Music increases reproductivity.

Ha, or being specific, it increases germination as well.

As for continuing with 432, it might be giving away the Lord's secrets to those unworthy....

For He did say, ...... Don't cast your pearls before swine..

Not all our swine HERE, but then again we shall see or maybe we shall hear or maybe the hearing will be reserved for the worthy. Not sure yet...

Onward Christian soldiers.....

And let us all too smug brainiacs here not forget that the good Lord gave us 10 fingers so when we are in 1st grade we can count 1-10 and add and subtract and our whole 10's/decimal system developed from out of fingers! Coincidence?

Do you know that deep thinker Bill O'Reilly who is a very good fast talker and hence got his own radio and tv show, believes in God because he says he does not believe in blind luck being able to account for such stuff as...the other night on tv he rattled off a long string of stuff where he said things like: Sunrise, sunset; tide in, tide out. Stuff like that. The rain cycle. He just does not believe that all the complexities that he said ALL work perfectly and in harmony with each other, just happened.

But what *I* fight over with my ownself is that believing that some all- powerful God that we can't coimprehend, in the way a dog say can't comprehend the stuff *we* know...that just because there is this God that made everything and us...what does that do for us if the whole story about eternal life is made up by man? What good does it do to believe in a powerful God that does not value life himself!...who caused the great flood, who allows missionaries who are doing as he wants, to spread the word, to allow those people to be killed in the line of service. To have babies born deformed. The tsunami in Indonesia and other catastrophes that wipe out people in the way we try to wipe out mosquitos.

If he is not mindful of us..then what matter is of all this discussion?!

 

[bruto]

And let us all too smug brainiacs here not forget that the good Lord gave us 10 fingers so when we are in 1st grade we can count 1-10 and add and subtract and our whole 10's/decimal system developed from out of fingers! Coincidence?

Do you know that deep thinker Bill O'Reilly who is a very good fast talker and hence got his own radio and tv show, believes in God because he says he does not believe in blind luck being able to account for such stuff as...the other night on tv he rattled off a long string of stuff where he said things like: Sunrise, sunset; tide in, tide out. Stuff like that. The rain cycle. He just does not believe that all the complexities that he said ALL work perfectly and in harmony with each other, just happened.

But what *I* fight over with my ownself is that believing that some all- powerful God that we can't coimprehend, in the way a dog say can't comprehend the stuff *we* know...that just because there is this God that made everything and us...what does that do for us if the whole story about eternal life is made up by man? What good does it do to believe in a powerful God that does not value life himself!...who caused the great flood, who allows missionaries who are doing as he wants, to spread the word, to allow those people to be killed in the line of service. To have babies born deformed. The tsunami in Indonesia and other catastrophes that wipe out people in the way we try to wipe out mosquitos.

If he is not mindful of us..then what matter is of all this discussion?!

God should have given us 16 fingers so we could count in hexadecimal without having to convert. Very careless of him not to give us a power-of-two digital set. Eight would have worked too. When Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck went to school, they checked their sums by casting out sevens.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Whether you like it or not those simple arithmetic operations on apparently random small whole numbers do produce a systematic result.

Yes. And there is a whole field of Mathematics devoted to this. It's called Arithmetic!

 

[wollery]

Okey, metric measures are not modern, since we see them in the engraving. As well, Schliemann had found a measuring rod in the ruins of Troy, which was pretty well an accurate half-a-meter.

Sounds to me like a standardised half ell, an ell being defined as twice the distance from the elbow to the fingertips, or the distance from the shoulder to the fingertips.

Nothing to do with metres or millimetres, which are, as has been noted a modern invention, based originally on the Earth's polar circumference. See - http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

 

[ReligionStudent]

Ok, I just read the site, and am now going through the thread and there are a few things I want to say first correctiong your terribly abusive missinterpretation of history.

A) YHWH was most likely not Hebrew in origin, actually a deity adoped from other near eastern cultures, certainly many aspects of his were also taken from Canaanite gods, such as El and Ba'al (infact, El is frequently used in the HOT as a non-definite noun meaning god).

B) Hebrew was not always representative of numbers and letters. Its important to not that the numerical understanding is later, the written language certainly came after the spoken language, and the spoken language shows evolution from proto-semitic languages and adoption of many terms from other languages.

C) the written Hebrew of the HOT (Hebrew Old Testament) has undergone countless rewritings and editings. Included in this is the addition of pointed vowells, which also saw the deduction of many consonants, such as yods, waw, and hes, all of which were used as vowels.

D) Jahovah is not equivalent to YHWH, it may be used in that many times but it is a very late German translation of YHWH, which was traditionaly written witht he vowells for Adonai, hebrew word for lord, written instead of the proper vowels, this means that unless one is preparred to read it as adonai instead of Yhwh while reading it is really difficult to just read over and speak allowed. Its like if someone took George Bush and put in the vowels from President. Gegi Besh. Wierd, but same effect

D) the correct pronounciation of YHWH is not a sacred secret. Unfortunately, the vowells were not written in by the Masoretic scribes (see note C), to keep people from reading and thus speaking the sacred name allowed, according to an interpretation fo the ten comandments. It was not secret, but assumed traditionally known. With the loss of much early tradition, the correct vowels have simply been lost. The best traditon is of Yahweh, also based on the normal vowel treatments for He and Waw, which were used instead of vowels until the invention of current writing methods.

E) The NT (where 144,00 comes from) and parts of the OT are not in Hebrew, but Greek and Aramaic and many of the earliest existing texts of the OT are now only found in other languages, such as Ge'ez or portions of the Sepuagint.

Unfortunatelly whoever wrote this has never really read historical or archaeological papers or books on the Ancient Near East or Ancient Israelite religion. I would suggest as a basic starting point anything by George E. Mendenhall, William Dever, or Susan Niditch.

Thaddeus Nelson
Columbia University Dept of Religion
Soon SUNY Stony Brook IDPAS (Archaeology)

 

[jsfisher]

ReligionStudent,

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Okey, metric measures are not modern, since we see them in the engraving.

We can measure the moon in millimeters, but that doesn't mean that the millimeter is as old as the moon. In fact, I can make up an entirely new metric based on the height of my two year old son and call it a Teddymeter. I can then use that to measure the moon. The metric system was first adopted in France in 1791. Why should we not be able to use this system to measure things that are older than the metric system? After all, I can use Teddymeters to measure the moon can't I?

 

[ReligionStudent]

Ok, Goyim, is nothing with masses and slaughter etc, it is plaural of nations (hireq yod mem being the masculine plaural of the noun), and is most often used for those of non-Jewish (or in ancient times the religion of ancient Israel/Judah) faith and culture, since you are apparently Christian David, you are Goyim

 

[ReligionStudent]

Too many posts to read but one last question for DJJ, if Hebrew is sacred, and so are sun etc, how do you take the fact the the Hebrew word for sun, is the sames as the name of the Canaanite deity of the sun.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Thanks for the welcome

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ok, Goyim, is nothing with masses and slaughter etc, it is plaural of nations (hireq yod mem being the masculine plaural of the noun), and is most often used for those of non-Jewish (or in ancient times the religion of ancient Israel/Judah) faith and culture, since you are apparently Christian David, you are Goyim

Sure, but what;s a goyum? Is it like a penus?*

Welcome to the forum.

*DavidJayJordan related joke from another thread.

 

[bruto]

Hello, Religion Student, and good luck!

 

[Hokulele]

Hi ReligionStudent and welcome to the forums. It is good to have people around who can correct all of us on religious terminology and history!

 

[wollery]

Unfortunatelly whoever wrote this has never really read historical or archaeological papers or books on the Ancient Near East or Ancient Israelite religion. I would suggest as a basic starting point anything by George E. Mendenhall, William Dever, or Susan Niditch.

Oh he probably has, but he is completely uninterested in anything that disagrees with his preconceived notions. He doesn't get evolution, biology, chemistry, physics or astronomy either, and when corrected or pointed to a reliable source he takes any statement that even vaguely resembles supporting his arguments and acts as if that was the only thing said.

 

[Athyrio]

Ok, Goyim, is nothing with masses and slaughter etc, it is plaural of nations (hireq yod mem being the masculine plaural of the noun), and is most often used for those of non-Jewish (or in ancient times the religion of ancient Israel/Judah) faith and culture, since you are apparently Christian David, you are Goyim

Good morning and welcome. For what it is worth, it appears that DJJ's definition of goyim (or goyum as he seems to prefer) is anyone who is not a believer in the Jesus Christ, or even more narrowly, those who do not believe in the fashion that he does, and the same for the terms Jews and Gentiles. It may come from an interpretation of the OT reference in Deuteronomy that talks about circumsizing the foreskin of your heart and the Romans 2:28-29 verses in the NT, but he will have to explain it for you himself.

 

[JonnyFive]

Okey, metric measures are not modern, since we see them in the engraving. As well, Schliemann had found a measuring rod in the ruins of Troy, which was pretty well an accurate half-a-meter. Note, this is the same as the engraving, which actually uses half millimeters.

As others have pointed out, you are retrofitting modern measures onto something that wasn't built using them.

You mention two things that you should give more serious consideration to:

1-"pretty well an accurate half-a-meter" indicates that the measure is hardly exact. This, like DJJ's rounding of some number or other to 432 to fit his preconceived notion of things, creates significance where there is none. If I would like to say I am six feet tall because 6 is a special number, I could say I am "pretty well six feet", which would be inaccurate. more accurately, I am approximately 5'11", or 5'10 3/4" according to one measure I had taken, although human height is probably too variable for that level of precision.

2-When you measure in units as small as 1/2 of a mm (or even in mm), then you begin to be able to measure all kinds of things "evenly". It's not very impressive to use a large, awkward unit like the foot, because it often doesn't divide evenly. But the mm and half a mm are nice and small, so it's easy to fit things to those units.

Most critically, as I said above, you're still just retrofitting. You need more information before you can jump to a conclusion.

Now, what exactly are "Osirus number", and what do they do?

 

[Foster Zygote]

As others have pointed out, you are retrofitting modern measures onto something that wasn't built using them.

You mention two things that you should give more serious consideration to:

1-"pretty well an accurate half-a-meter" indicates that the measure is hardly exact. This, like DJJ's rounding of some number or other to 432 to fit his preconceived notion of things, creates significance where there is none. If I would like to say I am six feet tall because 6 is a special number, I could say I am "pretty well six feet", which would be inaccurate. more accurately, I am approximately 5'11", or 5'10 3/4" according to one measure I had taken, although human height is probably too variable for that level of precision.

2-When you measure in units as small as 1/2 of a mm (or even in mm), then you begin to be able to measure all kinds of things "evenly". It's not very impressive to use a large, awkward unit like the foot, because it often doesn't divide evenly. But the mm and half a mm are nice and small, so it's easy to fit things to those units.

Most critically, as I said above, you're still just retrofitting. You need more information before you can jump to a conclusion.

Now, what exactly are "Osirus number", and what do they do?

And if he's measuring in "half millimeters" doesn't that just mean that at least one measurement came out to n.5 millimeters?