It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Possible Link between Teotihuacan and Australia/Indonesia

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 1 2015 @ 12:34 AM
Update to list above. I can see a trend a pattern. Seems too repetitive to be random and the locations are predictable using the method im using.

Long Latt Distance to a square
145.3356 -30.9101 1.84km North direction from coordinate
145.289 -30.8661 2.51km West direction from coordinate
145.2424 -30.8221 1.87km North West direction from coordinate
145.1956 -30.7781 1.8km North west direction from coordinate
145.1489 -30.7341 4.99KM North direction from coordinate
145.102 -30.6901 4.14kmWest direction from coordinate
145.0551 -30.6461 1.97km North east direction from coordinate
145.0081 -30.6021 nothing with 5km radius
144.9611 -30.5581 1.3km in East direction and 3.54km in north direction
144.914 -30.5141 2.13km in north direction
144.8668 -30.4701 4.96km in south west direction and 3.17km in south east direction
144.8195 -30.4261 1.28km in south east direction and 1.52 in north east direction and 3.11km in west direction

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: AthlonSavage

If you want to play connect-the-dots, could you at least visualize your maths with some screengrabs? One can argue that everything is connected, but If the same mathematical relationships can be distilled from random landmarks (say modern capital cities) then you're probably seeing what you want to see. Of course I could be too, about all of this. I did notice during my survey that in many places, I could almost predict where a site would be based on the spacing of the other ones, not unlike what you might expect from power lines or cell towers. Just remember a JPEG is worth 1024 words

edit on 1-5-2015 by johnsequitur1221 because: Bazinga

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 11:12 PM
a reply to: [post=19292424]johnsequitur1221[/post

G,day mate. finally found some of the info i was looking for
first off and old ATS thread from 6 march 2012
thread number 816543 posted by a JACE 26
next try searching for a site in New Zealand called celts or was it ancient celtic in new zealand
then look up a bloke from thames also in new zealand called jonathon grey/ i am on his email mail out list and when i can find the story about the great inland sea in aussie and the ruins of an ancient city in arnham land in the northern territoy i will get back to you again
sorry about the delay er the beer fridge beckoned to me it is now under the full effect of el nino lol

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 01:11 AM

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
I have worked out a triangle.

You've worked out no such thing. I'm not going to waste my time figuring out where you get your intial numbers (I suspect it's quite dodgy, though). Regardless, you're then substracting arbitrarily chosen numbers from them, and the "triangle" you come up with (using thise arbitrarily chosen numbers) isn't a triangle, given that each angle has, per one of your previous posts, a margin of error of around 7%, which is quite statistically significant.

The points that you work out from that "triangle" (which again, are highly suspect), are not direct hits, or anything even close. Your "hits" are all over the place as well. Statistically speaking, there is an enormous difference between 1.84 km away and 4.99km away (your lowest and highest values), not to mention the fact that they all vary in direction.

Write down a series of random numbers, then apply the same dodgy math as you did here. You'll find quite similar results.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in