432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Jiri]

Isn't it amazing that museums will give some people access but not others? I wonder how they make that determination? Hmmmm.

Sometimes they make mistakes, too.

 

[Jiri]

In that case, what you call hunter-gatherer societies had the most leasure time available, especially if they were more gatherers than hunters. Rather than waste time on building pyramids they could tinker and invent. They had up to 200,000 years to do that since such is the dating of the oldest fossils of physiologically true Sapiens Sapient.

.

Ummm, nope. Hunter-gatherers spend the majority of their time collecting food to eat, because it isn't located in one place they have to move around constantly searching for food. In other words, they were nomadic.

To the low numbers of humans, many places they lived in were like the garden of Eden. In places, it must have been a little like living in an orchard, or next to a big pantry. Food was plentiful, and everyone was rich in that respect. People have vegetarian digestive systems, best adapted to nuts as the main source of protein. With just a little effort, one could probably create plentiful stores of durable food, such as nuts, dried fruits and vegies, wild grains, and honey. Thus, there was no need for moving great distances, unless you had a herd mentality, had meat on your brain, and wanted to follow the herds from the shores of Atlantic to the ranges of the Urals. If not, you could build a comfortable house, such as found at Gonnensdorf (of 12,000 years ago), and devote yourself to a bit of gardening, or tinkering with things in your workshop.
Did you ever pause to reflect on how the Garden of Eden could just be the memory of good ole Paleolithic times ?
Did you ever pause to reflect on how come the Bible opens up with the correct supermodern definition of what people should eat? Where did that knowledge come from? The herdsmen?

This also means that they can't develop any technology which involves large structures or machines, since they can't caryy those with them. It isn't until Homo Sapiens started to develop agriculture and ceased being nomadic that they could begin to really develop technology, because they then had more spare time, and weren't constantly on the move.

They became enslaved to their herds, and providing food for their cattle and pigs were the primary stimuli for agriculture, which is a euphemism for agri-barbarism

Just as there are zero pictures of any other tools. Which by your intimated argument means those tools didn't exist. Hoist by your own petard?

My petard blew up over your head..

Because no evidence exists that they had pulleys. However, experimental archeologists are finding interesting and inventive ways to reproduce Egyptian structures using only the technology that was known to be available at the time.

And they fail in their pathetic attempts so miserably. Just to test you, how would you transport those 50 to 70 tons heavy Granite blocks up to the King's Chamber?

The trouble for modern humans is that we have the tools to do this easily, which means that it's very hard for us to see how it could be done with only basic tools. If anything, I think you are the one who gives these people too little credit. They were able to build incredibly complex, massive structure to quite exacting standards with only fairly basic tools, and we modern humans haven't worked out exactly how they did it. To me that's seriously impressive.

To me it is seriously impossible in great many cases.

But you appear to believe that they required tools passed down to them from some prehistoric superculture, or aliens, which is to completely remove the credit from the egyptian builders and pass it off to myth.

By your logic America didn't build the skyscrapers, because the wheel was invented in Mesopotamia..

 

[wollery]

To the low numbers of humans, many places they lived in were like the garden of Eden. In places, it must have been a little like living in an orchard, or next to a big pantry. Food was plentiful, and everyone was rich in that respect. People have vegetarian digestive systems, best adapted to nuts as the main source of protein. With just a little effort, one could probably create plentiful stores of durable food, such as nuts, dried fruits and vegies, wild grains, and honey. Thus, there was no need for moving great distances, unless you had a herd mentality, had meat on your brain, and wanted to follow the herds from the shores of Atlantic to the ranges of the Urals. If not, you could build a comfortable house, such as found at Gonnensdorf (of 12,000 years ago), and devote yourself to a bit of gardening, or tinkering with things in your workshop.
Did you ever pause to reflect on how the Garden of Eden could just be the memory of good ole Paleolithic times ?
Did you ever pause to reflect on how come the Bible opens up with the correct supermodern definition of what people should eat? Where did that knowledge come from? The herdsmen?

Our digestive systems are adapted to an omnivorous diet, because our ancestors were nomadic opportunists. Very few places on Earth naturally have such a ready plentiful supply of food for any length of time as you seem to suggest. And "good ole Paleolithic times"? Remember them well do you?

The biblical treatise on what to eat precludes pork, shellfish, insects and using the milk of a mother goat to boil it's own kid. None of these actually have any detrimental effect on Humans, so it's not exactly a correct supermodern dietary plan. In fact, it's nowhere near correct.

The bible also calls bats birds, says that pi is 3, and tells us to stone to death a girl who doesn't scream loudly enough when raped. Not really my idea of an ideal guide book for anything.

The gardeon of Eden comes from the dream of an ideal place for humans to live, somewhere that has no disease, no predators and the trees always bear fruit, 365 days a year. You talk of a house 12,000 years old, which, if I'm not mistaken, is about the time hunter-gatherers were making the move to small scale agriculture, so a house is not stunningly surprising, is it?

They became enslaved to their herds, and providing food for their cattle and pigs were the primary stimuli for agriculture, which is a euphemism for agri-barbarism

The move to settled agriculture allowed humans to keep animals penned, rather than following and hunting, which meant a more ready supply of protein rich food, not to mention dairy produce.

My petard blew up over your head..

Can't have it both ways. If you want to argue that a lack of pictures of one thing indicates that that thing didn't happen, then you have to accept that a lack of pictures of another thing indicates that that thing also didn't happen.

There is evidence that certain tools were used in Egypt, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that they were used for the tasks we are discussing, even if there is no direct evidence that they were. There is no evidence at all that more advanced tools existed, and certainly none that more advanced tools were used for those tasks.

And they fail in their pathetic attempts so miserably. Just to test you, how would you transport those 50 to 70 tons heavy Granite blocks up to the King's Chamber?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

Ask and ye shall recieve.

To me it is seriously impossible in great many cases.

Just because you can't see how it could be done doesn't mean that it can't be done.

By your logic America didn't build the skyscrapers, because the wheel was invented in Mesopotamia..

Again, nope, because we can see a slow steady progression in technology from the wheel up to the modern technology used to build skyscrapers. Your argument goes backwards, saying, in essence, that the wheel came from degraded skyscraper technology. An argument for which there is zero evidence.

 

[Macoy]

Just to test you, how would you transport those 50 to 70 tons heavy Granite blocks up to the King's Chamber?

how about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6514155.stm

 

[Hokulele]

Damn, Hokulele appears to have called it.

Thankee kind sir. *curtsies*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

Ask and ye shall recieve.

how about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6514155.stm

Kudos gentlemen.

 

[Belz...]

Well done. This line holder does extrapolate to (it forces) several straight lines. Both of us should produce the same lines based on this lineholder, else we'd have to be blind. Go ahead and show us how it is done, and that you now understand this part of the method.
Atta boy, Belz

And now it's YOUR turn. Lineholders, please.

 

[Paulhoff]

The pyramid failed to do it job anyway, the pharaoh and his gold where still stolen. Even if it is impressive in size, put a skyscraper along side a pyramid and tell me which one is more functional, a pyramid is a great waste of material.

Paul

 

[ReligionStudent]

I fail to see what Sneferu proves, as he was an OK pharaoh, which is exactly when I said pyramids were built.
As for the sphinx, its earliest theorized builder would still place it in the OK as well. You really are making no sence with this.

In that case, what you call hunter-gatherer societies had the most leasure time available, especially if they were more gatherers than hunters. Rather than waste time on building pyramids they could tinker and invent. They had up to 200,000 years to do that since such is the dating of the oldest fossils of physiologically true Sapiens Sapient.

There is no support for this and most anthropolgists think otherwise. because hunter gatherer society also required constant migration and the movement of camps etc to be effective. At the very least it required extended trips away to go outside of the local area.

They could have been working anywhere in the vicinity. What you say is no final proof of anything. even if they too had worked on the Pyramid.

yes but it does give strong dating to the time of the pyramids and evidence of what tools were used etc.

Show me one picture of them building a big pyramid using those tools. You can't, there are zero such pictures.

show me one picture of your special tools.. YOu can't, but I can show you evidence of the tools I support as being there.

Indeed, you need much better tools to build a big pyramid. But, the Egyptologists will not even allow the builders use of pulleys.



Egypt had its temples. Their knowledge was not handed out to the masses.

I am not talking abou the masses I am talking abou the government and its use of the armies etc. There is evidence that government used its more advanced bronze weapons etc in combat and its attempts to take control of Syria/Palestive, but what it did have was not sufficient and the tools you suggest are not present in the archaeological record at all.

 

[jond]

La Marche and Nazca do give evidence of advanced ancient science. Cyclopean architecture also points materially to an unknown prehistoric civilisation. Tihuanaco gives you Stone-Age architecture, and so does the Sphinx, the two temples nearby Sphinx, Osireion, etc. Did we forget about the Yonaguni structures?
http://www.morien-institute.org/imk9.html#caveout
You get the model planes, especially the golden ones from South America. You have the Abydos Helicopter code.
.
Plato places Atlantis between Europe and the Americas, on a Cuba sized island, somewhere, but you already knew that

I get it now!!!!
Toth passed on the Atlantean secrets to the Egyptians, which the Jews took and buried under the Temple of Solomon. This is what the Templars found and buried under Roswell!!! It had nothing to do with Jesus and Mary Magdelen, that's just a diversion! The Real Secrets (tm) are way bigger than we ever imagined!!! And all we need to do is use the Osiris numbers to sort it all ou!!!! How could we have been so blind????

It's True (Where s Amy Wilson these days?)

 

[ReligionStudent]

.


To the low numbers of humans, many places they lived in were like the garden of Eden. In places, it must have been a little like living in an orchard, or next to a big pantry. Food was plentiful, and everyone was rich in that respect. People have vegetarian digestive systems, best adapted to nuts as the main source of protein. With just a little effort, one could probably create plentiful stores of durable food, such as nuts, dried fruits and vegies, wild grains, and honey. Thus, there was no need for moving great distances, unless you had a herd mentality, had meat on your brain, and wanted to follow the herds from the shores of Atlantic to the ranges of the Urals. If not, you could build a comfortable house, such as found at Gonnensdorf (of 12,000 years ago), and devote yourself to a bit of gardening, or tinkering with things in your workshop.
Did you ever pause to reflect on how the Garden of Eden could just be the memory of good ole Paleolithic times ?
Did you ever pause to reflect on how come the Bible opens up with the correct supermodern definition of what people should eat? Where did that knowledge come from? The herdsmen?

People are not vegetarian by nature, all evidence points to meat playing a hugely important role in early human nutrition. Its funny how there is absolutely no evidence for your idea of "a bit of tinkering". More likely what you would see is useful work, such as making stone tools (a process which I ensure you can take ours for somthing like a bowl) And if you want to see adapted to nuts, you need to look to something like a robustus.
As for the bible being a memory of early life. Ha. That's it I can't dignify that idea at all.
And it certainly does not have a modern definition of what people should eat, for instance, cheeseburgers are good!

They became enslaved to their herds, and providing food for their cattle and pigs were the primary stimuli for agriculture, which is a euphemism for agri-barbarism

A more likely model is that agriculture was the stimuli for agriculture, it would have provided a huge amount of nutrients that they needed. Also don't forget that even up through early complex societies such as egypt, fishing, foraging, and hunting were all very important parts of nutrition as well.

And they fail in their pathetic attempts so miserably. Just to test you, how would you transport those 50 to 70 tons heavy Granite blocks up to the King's Chamber?



To me it is seriously impossible in great many cases.

yes, to you, but you do not have thousands of unpaid workers to do the job for you.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Sometimes they make mistakes, too.

Sometimes (read always) they require at least basic credentials of real scholarship.

 

[JonnyFive]

Oh yeah? How so, give an example, for I am unaware of showing you anything else but standard number relationships.

You are claiming that Stone Age artists had advanced mathematical knowledge that they embedded in a frame. You claim the following on your web page:

-The artists had advanced mathematical knowledge.
-The artists had advanced astronomical knowledge, at least equal to what we have now.
-The frame exhibits a special series of ratios that can only be found by dividing the proper lines in an non-intuitive way.
-You have some kind of advanced insight into the "meaning" of the frame, despite not having any kind of record of what the artists actually intended.
-You claim that 25,920 is the number of the years in the Zodiac, and this is somehow special.
-The Great Pyramid is somehow related to the measure of the Northern Hemisphere.
-That the ancients calculated the precession of the Earth.
-That the frame had some innate function other than being a piece of art.

You can try all you want to hide behind the claim of simply showing number relationships, but you make a number of claims that obviously go far beyond that. As the simplest possible example, you claim to have insight into what the artists were thinking and intending with the piece they created. Do you happen to have evidence of this?

Anyway, back to your numbers: Your claim about 25,920 being the number of years in the Zodiac and this having some inherent meaning is numerological in and of itself, as you are claiming hidden, secret, magical meaning to the number 25,920.

Someone will be belittled here, you, or the Stone-Age mathematicians. Being obstinately blind to their logic makes you seem incapable of understanding it. It is just a natural consequence of what you do.

And what, pray tell, makes you so sure of their logic?

Why was I steadfastly ignored by the museum? Not even a ranking French diplomat could make Monsieur Henry de Lumley give me a promised reply.. Why don't you try on my behalf? Where is your intellectual curiosity, and I'm sorry to say, integrity? Would you recommend that I be given access to the vaults with the La Marche materials? No, you would not, you would warn the museum against letting an 'obvious cracpot' across its porch.

Well, that is not my concern. You are the one who has leapt to a conclusion based on incomplete or faulty information. If you were unable to access the original source, then why were you so hasty to go out and measure such a crude representation?

If you have a legitimate scholarly interest in this (as opposed to simply wanting it to be true), perhaps you would be best off taking your theories to a university archaeological department. Perhaps they would be able to arrange a way for you to measure the source piece. At the least, you could present your findings to them for review.

I did not expect anything else. You see, our estimations are mutual. You think I am a nut, and I think the same of you and everybody on your side. It's not that I think you to be obtuse, so help me, you are just not willing to pay attention to my factual research observations because of your mental blocks.

I do not know how to make this any clearer to you, so I will try to enumerate my position on this yet again. If you do not listen to me, that is your problem:

1)I do not presume to judge you a "nut." I think you are mistaken about several things, but that does not necessarily make you a "nut."

2)I do not have a "side" here. I have opinions on the matter. Others share those opinions. That doesn't mean I am taking sides.

3)Contrary to your opinion, I have been paying attention to you. I do not agree with any of your findings, except for the fact that you do appear to have factored 25,920 correctly, and you also appear to have done basic math properly. You have failed to convince me, not because I am not listening to you, but because you do not have convincing evidence.

4)I do not have a "mental block" in place that is dissuading me from "understanding" you or your theories. That belief may help you to explain why I am not welcoming your theories with open arms, but I would kindly ask that you not project this belief on me so readily.

I raised several concerns about your measuring methods and analysis, as did others, and you have not addressed them. Rather, you continue to go off on tangents rather than simply clear up the most basic issues relating to your analysis.

Thus far, you have demonstrated a complete lack of one of the most important criteria for a scientist: the willingness to be wrong. Your writing is rife with talk about the obvious truth, the hidden meanings, etc.

If you want me to accept your theories, you will have to show me sufficient evidence. For me, that means obtaining proper measures, accounting for possible errors, giving a detailed reason why you chose to do this analysis the way you did, and explaining your reasoning and mathematics in proper, systematic steps. If you can do that, rather than create a rambling web page full of nonsensical jumps, then we might have something to talk about.

I frankly don't care if the Stone Age artists understood complex math, so if you have some idea that I just have to be right, then you're mistaken. I discuss these things because mathematics interests me, not because I have some personal stake in the matter.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Well, that is not my concern. You are the one who has leapt to a conclusion based on incomplete or faulty information. If you were unable to access the original source, then why were you so hasty to go out and measure such a crude representation?

If you have a legitimate scholarly interest in this (as opposed to simply wanting it to be true), perhaps you would be best off taking your theories to a university archaeological department. Perhaps they would be able to arrange a way for you to measure the source piece. At the least, you could present your findings to them for review.

On the whole measureing the origional thing, I would just like to note that last night I watched my girlfriend working on a comparative study of mammalian claw bones, and her measurments were accurate to the fraction of a fraction of a millimeter. That is what you should be targeting Jiri.

 

[wollery]

-That the ancients calculated the precession of the Earth.

Well, I can't read Jiri's page, the Great Firewall of China prevents it, but I can answer this one claim. The first accurate measurement of the precession of the equinoxes was made By Sir Edmund Halley in 1718. He did it by comparing the positions of bright stars to those noted by Ptolemy and Hipparchus. The Greek astronomers were fastidious measurers and notetakers, and they never gave an accurate value for the equinoctial precession.

 

[JonnyFive]

Well, I can't read Jiri's page, the Great Firewall of China prevents it, but I can answer this one claim. The first accurate measurement of the precession of the equinoxes was made By Sir Edmund Halley in 1718. He did it by comparing the positions of bright stars to those noted by Ptolemy and Hipparchus. The Greek astronomers were fastidious measurers and notetakers, and they never gave an accurate value for the equinoctial precession.

Thank you, sir.

Perhaps Jiri has some evidence that this is incorrect, and that Stone Age primitives accurately computed the rate of precession.

 

[JonnyFive]

Also, a big part of Jiri's page is dedicated to the significance of 25,920 as the number of years in the entire precessional period.

However, I've seen 25,700 and 25,800 as approximate numbers. Why is he so sure it's 25,920?

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

As with slight errors in his measurement, the difference utterly destroys the connections with the "Osiris numbers," as those are all factors of 25,920, but have nothing to do with 25,700 or 25,800 or even 25,921.

25,700 divided by 432 is 59.4907407... ack! Not very pretty at all.

 

[wollery]

Thank you, sir.

Perhaps Jiri has some evidence that this is incorrect, and that Stone Age primitives accurately computed the rate of precession.

The problem is the accuracy of the positional measurement. The precession is less than 1 arcminute per year, so if your measurement accuracy is 1 arcminute (which is better than the Greeks had) then you can't measure any motion over a 1 year period, your errors swamp the measurement. To get a reasonable measurement would take over 100 years, assuming your measuring device remained perfectly constant over that period. But there's no guarantee of that with the sorts of measuring tools the Greeks had, and it gets worse if you go further back in time. The best measure the Greeks had was over the 170 years between Ptolemy and Hipparchus, and Ptolemy's measurement were gleaned form other sources, which introduces additional errors. This means that the errors were quite large. Halley was taking a measurement base of almost 2000 years, which makes the positional errors tiny in comparison to the distance the equinox had precessed in that time. These days we have the ability to measure stellar positions to less than 1 arcsecond, far smaller than the equinoctial precession, which allows us to make accurate measurements over a period of just a few years.

If you want an idea of how small arcminutes and arcseconds are hold out you thumb at arms length. It should be approximately 30 arcminutes across. An arcsecond is one 60th of an arcminute, so 1/1800th of the width of your thumb. Now try measuring a change in position of 1 arcminute without a telescope. That was the challenge for the Greeks, and Jiri's "ancients".

 

[JonnyFive]

If you want an idea of how small arcminutes and arcseconds are hold out you thumb at arms length. It should be approximately 30 arcminutes across. An arcsecond is one 60th of an arcminute, so 1/1800th of the width of your thumb. Now try measuring a change in position of 1 arcminute without a telescope. That was the challenge for the Greeks, and Jiri's "ancients".

So the idea of his "ancients" measuring to within 1 year accurately (remember: Osiris numbers require 25,920 to factor out!) is ludicrous.

Unless, of course, they had some previously undiscovered means of precise measure. I would assume that Jiri has proof of that, if he is going to continue to make the claim. Of course, he will be showing us that evidence any moment now.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I was thinking about this while I walked on the beach today. Jiri claims that Egyptians had to have special tools because they built pyramids. And that the tools existed because they just never felt like recording the fact that they were the most technologically advanced people to exist until the CE.

But Mesoamericans built pyramids. And not only do their records not show these tools, but there are contemporary European written accounts that do not mention them. So, they obviously built the pyramids without them.

 

[jimbob]

Jond, I Think You Need To Find Tha Caps Lock Key As Well As The Excalamation Mark Key For A Really Accurate Post!!!!