432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

Jiri said:
That is all very nice, thank you, but the system of the monkey glyph at Nazca generates its x,y-axes, which then coincide with the cardinal directions. I must go with what's given.
Because framing parts of the monkey between these directions was so successful, it could be enormously interesting to apply that same principle to other things at Nazca, too. One never knows..
Click to expand...

How does it "generate" this? I looked at your site, and if I remember right there were a bunch of pentgrams over it.
 
Jiri said:
The figure is on one of the 1,500 La Marche tablets. If you look at my measurements of the frame, you'll get an idea of its size, just bear in mind that those measurements are double lifesize. So, the circuit is 61.3 mms long, so if it were a circle, its diameter would be about 20 cm

"even minor errors of measurement critical with relation to proportion"

Absolutely! That's why I worked on at least 2x lifesize copies. Working with lifesize would make such fine work impossible for me, and I dare presume the artist as well - yet, the fact is that the design is that fine a work.. How was the feat achieved? You know my opinion..
Click to expand...

Issues with the above:
A) presume? How scientific is that everyone...
B)your theory requires these measurments to have been put there on purpose, but you state that the piece could not have been accuratly measured by the artist? That is a circuler impossibility.
C) Why can't you be more precise, my girlfriend is working on a study comparing different mammalian nails, some are only a couple centimeters long or less, but she can accuratly measure them. Why can't you measure a 1:1 image accuratly enough? I certainly think this makes me question how you are measuring in general
 
ReligionStudent said:
Issues with the above:
A) presume? How scientific is that everyone...
Click to expand...
Scientific? Jiri?

B)your theory requires these measurments to have been put there on purpose, but you state that the piece could not have been accuratly measured by the artist? That is a circuler impossibility.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah!

C) Why can't you be more precise, my girlfriend is working on a study comparing different mammalian nails, some are only a couple centimeters long or less, but she can accuratly measure them. Why can't you measure a 1:1 image accuratly enough? I certainly think this makes me question how you are measuring in general
Click to expand...
I think I covered that in my last post, which Jiri completely ignored.
 
Jiri said:
Congratulations! :eye-poppi :D :D :D :D
I suggest posting your masterpiece to the whole internet! Just don't show it to your doctor.
Click to expand...


The irony to you comment is interesting. That aside, though, Jiri, in what way(s) did Religionstudent improperly apply your analysis methods to his ancient artifact?
 
jsfisher said:
The irony to you comment is interesting. That aside, though, Jiri, in what way(s) did Religionstudent improperly apply your analysis methods to his ancient artifact?
Click to expand...

Well actually I can field this one, I did not artificialy link it to a bunch of other unsuported pictures I drew lines on that have no real bearing on reality. Or at the very least rotate it around a lot and put it in circle of copies. It would also have been preferable if I used out of date (1940s) methods of reproduction (ie drawing) to copy my picture then enlarge it twice as much and measure based on that.
 
Jiri said:
:D :D :D

Congratulations!
I suggest posting your masterpiece to the whole internet! Just don't show it to your doctor.
Click to expand...
jsfisher said:
The irony to you comment is interesting. That aside, though, Jiri, in what way(s) did Religionstudent improperly apply your analysis methods to his ancient artifact?
Click to expand...

You don't see it, and I grow reluctant to assist you and pry your eyes open, but the main difference in the impact of the two theories is that while I should worry about the men-in-black, he has to worry about the men-in-white:eye-poppi :eek:
 
Jiri said:
You don't see it, and I grow reluctant to assist you and pry your eyes open, but the main difference in the impact of the two theories is that while I should worry about the men-in-black, he has to worry about the men-in-white:eye-poppi :eek:
Click to expand...

A) Why would the men in white be after me and not you, I just read lots of stuff into unrelated numbers, like you.

B) Men in black are both likely fictisious and related to aliens in stories about them, are you saying aliens are involved in your explanation?
 
Jiri said:


Again, and again? I think I lend them out to someone to support four of his Eight Cardinal Diractions.
Click to expand...


wrong tense.


(I really am not just complaining here I have no idea what you mean, did you mean to say leant them out or maybe will lend them out. This makes no sence)

Also it still does not let us see them.
 
ReligionStudent said:
wrong tense.


(I really am not just complaining here I have no idea what you mean, did you mean to say leant them out or maybe will lend them out. This makes no sence)

Also it still does not let us see them.
Click to expand...


I think he is just being sarcastic to avoid providing any evidence of the claims.

To be fair, it was wrong tense, wrong gender, and a misspelling of Directions, but hey, I think most people would get the jist. Unlike the numerology stuff, which doesn't really go anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
I think he is just being sarcastic to avoid providing any evidence of the claims.

To be fair, it was wrong tense, wrong gender, and a misspelling of Directions, but hey, I think most people would get the jist. Unlike the numerology stuff, which doesn't really go anywhere.
Click to expand...

I get the jist, but Im not sure if he is planning on lending them out, thus letting us finally see them, or if we cannot see them because he has already leant them out.
 
ReligionStudent said:
Issues with the above:
B)your theory requires these measurments to have been put there on purpose, but you state that the piece could not have been accuratly measured by the artist? That is a circuler impossibility.
C)
Click to expand...

Not at all, not if you can enhance your vision, and tools. Given the right tools, I could measure in nanometers.. Couldn't you?
But, could you draw accurately the same figures on the same small space using the classic tools? No? Well, neither could I, and neither could the ancient designer unless he had better tools than that.
 
Jiri said:
Not at all, not if you can enhance your vision, and tools. Given the right tools, I could measure in nanometers.. Couldn't you?
But, could you draw accurately the same figures on the same small space using the classic tools? No? Well, neither could I, and neither could the ancient designer unless he had better tools than that.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you think that they could measure with the precission you use, but not draw with it?
unless you are saying they had tools accurate enough to do so, which are apparently not preserved anywhere.

Your theory then rests on this:
The ancients drew with a certain accuracy, which would require more accurate tools than they are known to have had.
and here's where it falls apart, because you cannot assume these tools to people who where still sitting their knapping when they wanted to go hunting.
Your theory is thus debunked, unless you can say they did not necessarily need to be able to produce the carving with procission (which would mean any values taken from it would not be accurate representations of what they had meant to put in, making the values you measure unrepresentative of the artists agency and pointless) or you can produce the tools.


BTW if you can measure more accuratly do so. As we have said before the mm is not very accurate here, as even fractions of a mm are easily measurable and important.
 
Last edited:
ReligionStudent said:
A) Why would the men in white be after me and not you, I just read lots of stuff into unrelated numbers, like you.
Click to expand...

No, not like me, not even remotely. I am not into numerology. Can you tell me, how you can make a distinction between numerology and serious analysis?

B) Men in black are both likely fictisious and related to aliens in stories about them, are you saying aliens are involved in your explanation?
Click to expand...

I'd rather keep aliens out of this. It is difficult enough to conceive, where the theoretical dimension of the engraving, and of the monkey glyph from Nazca comes from in the first place.
Yet, it is there.. Someone had to have the knowledge and the means..
 
Jiri said:
No, not like me, not even remotely. I am not into numerology. Can you tell me, how you can make a distinction between numerology and serious analysis?
Click to expand...
yes, but can you? Yours is just as little serious analysis as mine was. It looks at numbers and adds them together in orders where their is no reason to, and does all sorts of additional drawing that robs the artist of any agency.



I'd rather keep aliens out of this. It is difficult enough to conceive, where the theoretical dimension of the engraving, and of the monkey glyph from Nazca comes from in the first place.
Yet, it is there.. Someone had to have the knowledge and the means..
Click to expand...
Unfortunatly the one with the knowledge appears to be you and you are layering it back onto the origional artist's work.
Also, what theoretical dimensions of the Nazca Monkey. The theory I have heard is that its a design on the desert with religious importance as a symbol of a monkey.

Unfortunatly your work not only appears to have no actual archaeological basis, but you are completely intent on robbing the origional artists of their agency in creating these pieces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom