432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

sorry, what word? god? I am not using it as a definate noun. I am using it to say god. That's a singular indefinate noun. Why would I capitalize that. I am not using it in place of YHWH.
You do not actually address my issue of the OT at all or the fact that humans and their ancestors were eating meat long before the OT.
So, since you refuse to posit any proof at all for your theory, you are telling us you have no proof and made it all up? (it is not on us to prove your unsuported theory, but on you).

It is certainly not imperative for me to post proofs of vegetarianism, as the natural choice for humans. The proof might be in you already - arteriosclerosis, perhaps?
Regarding the OT Genesis, whoever wrote it seems to have had held the belief that vegetarianism should be the way to go for humanity. To me it is advanced knowledge, especially compared to the myths you believe in. A lot of companies payed a lot of money to get you conditioned. Did you not say that cheeseburger is good? If you did not would you agree with whoever did say it? I suppose you would.
Super-size me!
 
It is certainly not imperative for me to post proofs of vegetarianism, as the natural choice for humans. The proof might be in you already - arteriosclerosis, perhaps?
Regarding the OT Genesis, whoever wrote it seems to have had held the belief that vegetarianism should be the way to go for humanity. To me it is advanced knowledge, especially compared to the myths you believe in. A lot of companies payed a lot of money to get you conditioned. Did you not say that cheeseburger is good? If you did not would you agree with whoever did say it? I suppose you would.
Super-size me!

Um yea there is nothing wrong with a cheesburger. (my genetics allow for the digestion of lactic acid, so I am actually evolved to eat the cheesburger). As for OT genesis, no. There is a snake that interacts intelligently with humans, should we be waiting for that too?
 
Well, I just got an e mail response from Davidjayjordan, and it was more of the same old stuff. He leaves his e mail in his sig, but if you e mail him he just continues to make fun of you and ignore your questions. His first words were actually, "Actually I haven;t avoided any questions on JREF" and then he went on to rant about, "you guys". He also pointed out the importance of private and not public communication. Guess ignoring questions in public is embarrassing, but private is alright.
 
Well, I just got an e mail response from Davidjayjordan, and it was more of the same old stuff. He leaves his e mail in his sig, but if you e mail him he just continues to make fun of you and ignore your questions. His first words were actually, "Actually I haven;t avoided any questions on JREF" and then he went on to rant about, "you guys". He also pointed out the importance of private and not public communication. Guess ignoring questions in public is embarrassing, but private is alright.

well stated, Strath.

how about it, angling boY?
 
Um yea there is nothing wrong with a cheesburger. (my genetics allow for the digestion of lactic acid, so I am actually evolved to eat the cheesburger). As for OT genesis, no. There is a snake that interacts intelligently with humans, should we be waiting for that too?

Nice response.

Further support to your original post . The concensus is that chimps and humans last shared a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. Humans, and both species of chimps eat meat, so the hominid diet has probably been omnivorous since before then...

Unless you think the creator faked the evidence that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old and (most of) us the brains to analyse the evidence, whilst creating it a few thousand years ago. At this point I always wonder if any bristlecone pines tree rings say that they are older than the Earth.​


BTW: has anyone else seen a poster alling himself something like "killik" with thread titles like "Graham Hancock is one of the best researchers". Apart form the lack of bandwith eating, this seems similar in some respects.


I do like reading Graham Hancock books, but then I like absolutly barking psudoarcheology, for its humour.

Did you know that the Illiad was written about events in East Anglia? The name of the Gog Madog Hills is evidence for this.
I do get a little confused because Atlantis was in Peru. And in Sumatra. And Atlantis was also Troy (my google fu is too weak for this one, but Ihave seen it in one of these books).

These are books for borrowing from a library as I certainly wouldn't want to *own* them once I have finished.

I would apologise for the derail, but I wonder if we are near the kitten stage anyway.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Nice response.

Further support to your original post . The concensus is that chimps and humans last shared a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. Humans, and both species of chimps eat meat, so the hominid diet has probably been omnivorous since before then...

Unless you think the creator faked the evidence that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old and (most of) us the brains to analyse the evidence, whilst creating it a few thousand years ago. At this point I always wonder if any bristlecone pines tree rings say that they are older than the Earth.​


BTW: has anyone else seen a poster alling himself something like "killik" with thread titles like "Graham Hancock is one of the best researchers". Apart form the lack of bandwith eating, this seems similar in some respects.


I do like reading Graham Hancock books, but then I like absolutly barking psudoarcheology, for its humour.

Did you know that the Illiad was written about events in East Anglia? The name of the Gog Madog Hills is evidence for this.
I do get a little confused because Atlantis was in Peru. And in Sumatra. And Atlantis was also Troy (my google fu is too weak for this one, but Ihave seen it in one of these books).

These are books for borrowing from a library as I certainly wouldn't want to *own* them once I have finished.

I would apologise for the derail, but I wonder if we are near the kitten stage anyway.

Jim

As an interesting side note, there have been chimps seen to make and then use spears for hunting.

I would like to see the Hancock thread, will go look for it now. I just finished editing, this morning, a paper for a book on historical contraversies. Its on the Ark of the Covenant not being at Aksum Ethiopia, a position contrary to Hancock's ill researched book. I really just cannot find any reason to be a fan of this guys work. He's pretty much like Dan Brown, connecting random tangents to make some story, and then throwing Templars in, except he claims to be a journalist reporting the truth.
 
It was mildly susrprising that immediately following my description of what is understood by 'line-holders' Belz has asked for yet another description, and so I let it slide since I was comfortable presuming that those with genuine interest had duly noted my explanation of 'line-holders'. After all, 'line-holders' are central to my theory.

I don't give a rat's left cortex what definition of line-holder you're using. I am asking you to prove your claim that they exist and that they mean what you claim they mean by SHOWING us the line-holders.

It's obvious that those are actually either a figment of your imagination, or something you simply made up. An honest researcher would've shown us, already.
 
As an interesting side note, there have been chimps seen to make and then use spears for hunting.

I would like to see the Hancock thread, will go look for it now. I just finished editing, this morning, a paper for a book on historical contraversies. Its on the Ark of the Covenant not being at Aksum Ethiopia, a position contrary to Hancock's ill researched book. I really just cannot find any reason to be a fan of this guys work. He's pretty much like Dan Brown, connecting random tangents to make some story, and then throwing Templars in, except he claims to be a journalist reporting the truth.

I wondered about mentioning the Use of Weapons* in chimps, but thought that could be left to someone else ;-)

I really just cannot find any reason to be a fan of this guys work.

I am, but only for the unintentional humour and from a library; none of my borrowed pseudoarcheology books have ever been returned overdue...


I would like to see the Hancock thread, will go look for it now.

Nooo.

Bandwidth eater much insanity.

Unclean.

OK, if you really want to (just type the phrase in uotes into google and play spot the spam) but BEWARE.



I hope you liked my other links, I thought they were equally plausible as Jiri's "theories".


Jim

*One of my favourite books
 
I wondered about mentioning the Use of Weapons* in chimps, but thought that could be left to someone else ;-)



I am, but only for the unintentional humour and from a library; none of my borrowed pseudoarcheology books have ever been returned overdue...




Nooo.

Bandwidth eater much insanity.

Unclean.

OK, if you really want to (just type the phrase in uotes into google and play spot the spam) but BEWARE.



I hope you liked my other links, I thought they were equally plausible as Jiri's "theories".


Jim

*One of my favourite books

Speaking of pseudo-archaeology books, I found the coolest book in Borders tonight. I have not read it yet, but I recognize at least one or two the the contributing authors. Archaeologcial Fantasies: How PSeudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public I havn't read any yet, but will post a thread once I have if it is good. It appears to be against the hole secret ancient society/ aliens load of BS.
 
I don't give a rat's left cortex what definition of line-holder you're using. I am asking you to prove your claim that they exist and that they mean what you claim they mean by SHOWING us the line-holders.

It's obvious that those are actually either a figment of your imagination, or something you simply made up. An honest researcher would've shown us, already.

Considering that I already posted a number of times on how lines may be extrapolated, once to you specifically, too (page 30 of this thread), who is the honest guy here, and who the great pretender? Hmm?

Line Logic

To Belz - There is a line passing through any two points. We could think of those two points as 'line-holders'.
*
What line logic is there behind an engraved line? It has an infinity of points, and infinity of implied lines. It has only two endpoints, however. These are easy points on the line to identify. It would be harder to determine the mid-point (to know the mid-point, we have to know the end-points first), or the two quarter-points, and so on.
To translate apparently free-hand lines into exact lines, we have to come up with some method. The concept of 'forced lines' is part of this method. Out of the infinity of all the possible lines only those lines, which are special, are usable. A line is special, when it complies to an idea, such as having the category of end-points. The forced nature of the line comes from having to comply to an idea.
Endpoints. Good example of the concept of end-points working well is the 'Frame'. Sometimes, however extrapolating from endpoints does not look good, because the engraved line has its thickness, and the endpoints themselves are not distinct but appear as half-circles (under magnification). Such endpoints of an engraved line do not readily force a single line as translation. We have a choice of different lines to make, which all look equally good (bad). What other categories of linemaking could we use instead?
.
Line confined between edges of an engraved line
An engraved line looks fairly straight, but we find that there is only one line we can draw through it, which bounces between the edges, touching them on both sides without protrusion, or it travels with an edge of the engraved line, in effect smoothing it out.
Example: line 'b', 'd', 'e', 'g' in the image shown
15577461582d8bfef7.gif

The color lines are generated by CAD, but are visually selfsame with the lines I once drew manually over a copy of the image on paper at the magnification of about 4 times lifesize.
.
.Tangential Points. on bowed lines.
An irregularly bowed line forces a line, which rests against the bow.. The forced line will be held by two line-holder points of contact between the bow and the line.
Example: line 'c' in the image shown The example shows that in this case the forced line runs with the edge of the engraved line on one side, instead of meeting a single point.

Hybrid lines
A line starts out as one type, but ends as another type.
Example line 'a'. It starts out from the bottom as the type 'bouncing between edges' in the first marked segment, and ends as a tangent in the other segment of the engraved line. Of course, this line has an alternative based purely on the "bow" technique. It isn't the lone forced line, it is one of two possible forced lines. The two lines dilate at about 1/10th of a degree from the looks of it.
Hopefully someone will know what I mean by bewilderment, when an experiment works out like a dream, and then works itself into the pre-existent overall system. Seeing this happen in essence automatically, as if following instructions, is extremely convincing to the researcher involved (like me).
In this particular experiment lines a-b-c-d create a small but perfect system in conjunction with the x,y axes. The lines 'a' and 'b' had worked out with the y-axis to a visually exact triangle, found on a regular 5-pointed star.
That extrapolated star then worked itself right into the already extensive system of the Cone & Square formation.
15577461593682b65a.gif


Long straight line edges also force extrapolation of a single line.

.Tangential Lines

A line can be tangential to two or more arcs occurring on an engraved line, or separately. This is another way of forcing a line. (line-holders, Belz?)

Enough for now, Belz?
I wrote a reply for JSF, where I went into other details of forcing lines. I think it is on page 33 of this thread. Check it out.
 
What line logic is there behind an engraved line? It has an infinity of points, and infinity of implied lines.


You have to explain why the lines should be drawn at all. What made you think those lines belong there?
 
Last edited:
Nice response.

Further support to your original post . The concensus is that chimps and humans last shared a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. Humans, and both species of chimps eat meat, so the hominid diet has probably been omnivorous since before then...

Perfectly fallacious thinking on your part, since both species could have picked the same aberrancy at any time after. I say aberrancy, because all that time of breaking the rules was not enough to substantially alter the digestive systems of both species. Check it out, the human tract has all the classic telltale marks of being essentially vegetarian.
 

Back
Top Bottom