It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 3
3
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 01:20 PM
My understanding of the "pyramid inch" is that it is a deduced quantity. By that I mean that this unit of measure was created by pyramidologists because it fit so well all the arcane measurements they were trying to correlate with various dimensions of the Great Pyramid. In other words, the "pyramid inch" is a recent manufactured quantity and is by no means at all related to Biblical cubits, or any other ancient unit of measure. Hence, any correlations calculated using this trumped up unit are obviously suspect.

Also, this business of being at "the center of the land mass of the Earth" is just wrong. Byrd's point that the system of latitude and longitude far post-dates pyramid construction is extremely pertinent here. After all, why should these lines be drawn north-south and east-west? Before the system was invented, there was no reason the Egyptians couldn't have considered (for example) the intersection of any two "great circles" (longitude lines are "great circles," lattitude lines are not) at whatever angles. Why would they have necessarily placed something at the intersection of a north-south line with an east-west line? We know that they did not use this system of lines, or anything even remotely like it, for navigation or location. But even if they did, the pyramids are not located at this so-called "center of land mass" anyway!

Harte

[edit on 4/20/2006 by Harte]

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Harte
My understanding of the "pyramid inch" is that it is a deduced quantity....... Hence, any correlations calculated using this trumped up unit are obviously suspect.

Also, this business of being at "the center of the land mass of the Earth" is just wrong.............. But even if they did, the pyramids are not located at this so-called "center of land mass" anyway! Harte

[edit on 4/20/2006 by Harte]

Nice to hear from you Harte

I am sorry that you have been incorrectly understanding the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, The First Temple, The Second Temple, The Third Temple under construction today, and the Great Pyramid where not constructed using the Biblical Cubit/Inch or Pyramid Inch. They are the same measure my friend.

This unit of measure is Devine in Origin. There is nothing arcane, or fabricated about it. Infact, it is the basis of the Imperial Measure, although as noted several times, there is a slight variation today, between the two.

This was why, being a Canadian, I was ashamed and disgusted when we opted to disgard the Imperial Measure for the Pagan delights of the Metric System. ( I must stop here, since the balance of this thought is full of explitives and curses for our Leftist Power Elite).

Anyways, I found a link today, and it has a list of the findings which are neatly complied and relate a stunning observation when the Biblical Inch is used as the unit of measure for the Great Pyramid, which is standing as a wittness to the Lord of Hosts, in the Midsts of Egypt, and the Borders thereof.

Please explain, as best you can, why all of this fact is worthless.

And remember this prior to reviewing it. There is only one unit of measure utilized, which happens to be God's unit of measure. I'll Post some of it here, but theres much, more

www.infinitetechnologies.co.za...

"Numbers of relevance:

The length of a base is 9131 Pyramid Inches from corner to corner in a straight line.

The length of a base side at the base socket level is 9 131 Pyramid Inches or 365.24 Pyramid Cubits.

The length of a base side at sidereal socket level is 9 131.4 Pyramid Inches or 365.256 Pyramid Cubits.

The length of the perimeter at the sidereal socket level is 36 525.63629 Pyramid Inches.

The perfect formula height of the pyramid including the missing apex is 5 813.2355653763 Pyramid Inches, calculated from perimeter of base divided by 2 Pyramid Inches.

The height to the missing apex is 5 812.98 Pyramid Inches.

The volume of the pyramid is: V = 1/3 base area x height = 161559817000 cubic Pyramid Inches = 10339828.3 cubic Pyramid Cubits. [(5813.2355653 Pyramid Inches)/3 * 9 131 Pyramid Inches * 9 131 Pyramid Inches]

Embedded Constants:

Tropical Year or Calendar Year: The length of a base side is 9131 Pyramid Inches measured at the mean socket level, or 365.24 Pyramid Cubits, which is the number of days in a year [9 131/25 = 365.24, accurate to 5 digits]. The perimeter of the base divided by 100 = 365.24, the number of days in a year. [9 131 Pyramid Inches * 4 / 100, accurate to 5 digits]

Tropical Year: The length of the Antechamber used as the diameter of a circle produces a circumference of 365.242 (accurate to 6 digits).

Tropical Year: The ratio of the lengths of the Grand Gallery to the solid diagonal of the King's Chamber times 100 equals the number of days in a tropical year. [(1 881.5985600 / 51.516461) * 100 = 365.242200, accurate to 8 digits]

Sidereal Year: The length of the antechamber of the King's Chamber times Pi = length of a sidereal year [116.26471 Pyramid Inches * 3.14159 = 365.25636 days, accurate to 8 digits]

Sidereal Year: The length of a base side at sidereal socket level is 365.256 Pyramid Cubits. [accurate to 6 digits]

Mean Distance to the Sun: Half of the length of the diagonal of the base times 10^6 = average distance to the sun

Mean Distance to Sun: The height of the pyramid times 10^9 represents the mean radius of the Earth's orbit around the sun, or Astronomical Unit (AU). [5813.235565376 Pyramid Inches x 10^9 = 91848816.9 miles]

Mean Distance to Moon: The length of the Jubilee passage times 7 times 10^7 is the mean distance to the moon. [215.973053 Pyramid Inches * 7 * 10^7 = 1.5118e10 Pyramid Inches = 238,865 miles]

Sun's Radius: Twice the perimeter of the bottom of the granite coffer times 10^8 is the sun's mean radius. [270.45378502 Pyramid Inches* 10^8 = 427316 miles]

Earth's Polar Radius: The Sacred Cubit times 10^7 = polar radius of the Earth (distance from North Pole to Earth's centre) [25 Pyramid Inches * 10^7 * (1.001081 in / 1 Pyramid Inches) * (1 ft / 12 in) * (1 mi/ 5280 ft) = 3950 miles]

Earth's Polar Radius: The Pyramid embodies a scale ratio of 1/43200. The height * 43200 = 3938.685 miles, which is the polar radius of the Earth to within 11 mi.

Radius of the Earth: The curvature designed into the faces of the pyramid exactly matches the radius of the Earth.

Equatorial Circumference of the Earth: The Pyramid embodies a scale ratio of 1/43200. The perimeter of the base * 43200 = 24,734.94 miles, which is within 170 miles of the equatorial circumference of the Earth.

Earth's Volume: The product of the pyramid's volume and density times 10^15 equals the ratio of volume to density of the Earth. [10339823.3 cubic cubits * 0.4078994 * 10^15 = 4.21760772 x 10^21 cubic cubits = 259.93 x 10^9 cubic miles]

Earth's Mass: Mass of the pyramid = volume * density = 10339823.3 cubic cubits * 0.4078994 Earth density = 4217497. The mass converted to pyramid tons = 4217607.72 * 1.25 = 5,272,010 pyramid tons. Since the mean density of the Earth was defined as 1.0, then the mass of the Earth is 10^15 times the mass in pyramid tons = 5.272 x 10^21 pyramid tons = 5.99 x 10^24 Kg

Speed of Earth around the Sun: The Pyramid Inch times 10^8 = the speed of the Earth around the sun, circa 2600BCE

Mass of the Earth: The weight of the pyramid is estimated at 5955000 tons. Multiplied by 10^8 gives a reasonable estimate of the Earth's mass.

Average Land Height: The average height of land above sea level for the Earth is 5449 inches. This is also the height of the pyramid.

The Light Equation: The height of the Great Pyramid, minus the height of the capstone represents one millionth the time it takes light to travel the mean radius of the Earth's orbit around the sun (1 astronomical unit) using 1 Pyramid Inch equals 24 hours (mean solar day). [(5813.2355653 - 103.0369176) /
10^6 = .0057101986+ days = 493.36116 seconds = 8 minutes, 13.36 seconds]

The Velocity of Light: With distance of one A.U. known and the transit time of light for this same distance the velocity of light can be found. [91848816.9 miles / 493.36+ seconds = 186169.5 miles/sec]

The Sun's Parallax: The size of the Earth as viewed from the Sun and expressed as an angle and generally taken to be 1/2 the diameter at the equator (Solar Equatorial Parallax) is 8.9008091 seconds of arc using 91848817 miles as the mean distance to the sun and 3963.4914 miles as the equatorial radius. The distance between the mean socket level and the height of the levelled bedrock is 8.9008 Pyramid Inches."

Now after that review, is that not an amazing amount of evidence to support the concept that there is something to consider about this aspect of the Great Pyramid?

I can assure you of this today Harte.

If you used the Pagan Metric System and could complete a list like this, when applied to the Great Pyramid, then I would be first to indicate you have a valid point.

Likewise, if you found ANYOTHER UNIT of Measure that when applied to the Great Pyramid, can detail even half of these points, I would apologize and immeaditely stop wasting space on this forum to support this view I have.

But the Problem is Harte, there is none. I have read volumes of opinions and thoughts in respects to this topic, and nothing I have ever seen offers anything other than a dismissal of the matter as silly, with no evidence to the contrary.

The status quo is Cheop's/Kufu! With nothing more that a couple of scribe marks to encompass the complex theory satan has spun over the eons of time.

Even now, you offer nothing, while I know you are able to present Opinions and support this with evidence from other posts I've reviewed of your's. In some cases I've disagreed, and in some, such as the Ogham matter your where discussing with Nat, I agreed and it was supported with good evidence.

Where is it know???

No, this is a topic of denial. There seems to be nothing else that can explain this. But evidence to the Contrary which supports your opinion, would be greatful.

And the Placement of this Alter and it's relation to Land Mass vs Water Mass situation. I'll try this in another manner.

If you take a line from the Northpole to the Southpole, and run that line thru the Great Pyramid, "it appears" that along that line, there is more land mass, than anyother place you choose to move that line, but still maintain the Northpole and Southpole positions. Try it on a globe. Do not believe me. Try it yourself. I did and could not find anywhere else on the Globe that I could find any "More" land being covered by that string.

Science is a wonderful tool for researching things Harte. BUT....

I tried also to run a line around the 30th lattitute, but with limited success. It wasn't to difficult with the Equator, as you could expect, but I had way to much slipage occuring with my string to be able to indicate oneway or the other. I find the area between the 20th and 15th Latitute interesting also, but slippage, slippage, Curse, Curse, Curse.

Then hopping on this marvel of a tool known as the Internet, I searched for these measures but could find nothing to support this oneway or the other. The only option I had left was a "Visual" inspection and I must say, it "APPEARS" to be close to true.

I would be nice if there was some form of confirming this beyond the point of arguing it, but can we agree on this.

I have never, seen any research or suggestions offered by anyother person who is so quick to dismiss this premise, with evidnce to the contrary. Are you aware of any research that suggests some other lattitute has more land mass vs water mass on the face of the earth???

On the Above Link, I did find this, which something to ponder, but then, none of the facts above would be accurate and we'd be talking about Ogham and Atlantis, instead of just another pyramid.

"Centre of Land Mass: The Great Pyramid is located almost at the centre of the land mass of the Earth. At one stage in it's history it may certainly have been. The east/west parallel that crosses the most land and the north/south meridian that crosses the most land intersect in two places on the Earth, one in the ocean and the other at the Great Pyramid. "

Then it must be accurate that this is a quailfied statement of fact. There is no evidence to the contrary and again, visual inspection seemingly confirms this, using a Globe.

You see Harte, At least I am trying and offering ways for you to likewise try.

But I do believe, most of the posters here will confirm one thing. This is a Large Topic with many details to consider. I like to stay in the realm of fact, and some seemingly like to remain in a world of speculation, but that is what makes the world go around, isn't it? SPIN.

Ciao

Shane

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Shane
It was after he walked with God.
After his 365.242 Years of living with his family.

Your source, alas, is reinterpeting the Bible to match New Age numerology. It doesn't say "365 years and two feast days" or "365 years and 3 seasons." The Bible very plainly says 365 years and not a jot nor a tittle more.

We could claim with equal validity that it was 365.45 years or 365.666 years or 365.4 years or any other number we liked. Your source is blinding you with "oooh! pretty number patterns!" logic, hoping you don't go back to the original Bible.

.

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:07 PM
Continuing...

Originally posted by Shane
But since the word use is matstsebah, which means "something stationed", (as in a memorial or stone), and we all ready have the memorial or stone identified as an Alter, there is no sense in misspeaking this verse.

Except that matstsebah is not Chaldean, it's Hebrew. Furthermore, if you go to www.blueletterbible.com... or look in your Strong's Concordance, you will see that this same word is used 47 times.

(BTW, the altar was to be set in the CENTER of Egypt....)

So we see referenes to a "pillar of fire" (fire doesn't form a pyramid shape" and a "pillar of cloud" and a "pillar of smoke over a ruined city" and in Kings the ruler stands by the "pillar of a temple" and the pillar measures 18 cubits high with a design of pomegranates at the top of the column and so forth.

Jeremiah 52:21 actually describes one: And [concerning] the pillars, the height of one pillar [was] eighteen cubits; and a fillet of twelve cubits did compass it; and the thickness thereof [was] four fingers: [it was] hollow. "

"fillet" is a simple circular crown.

You can't say that "in this one case pillar means pyramid while in the rest it means column." The language is specific and clear.

So, I agree 100% on what you noted the Egyptians views BECAME in respects to Worshiping. Isaiah 19 covered this clearly.

This is mostly due to the satanic influences which took place in the days of Noah.

This is contrary to the Bible and to archaeological records. The Egyptians never worshipped Yahweh and the "chief god" depended on a number of things (some eras it was Horus, in some areas and times it was a blend of Horus and other gods, sometimes it was Amun, sometimes it was Osiris, etc, etc.) They continued this from the earliest kingdoms until fairly late (post Romans, which would be after 0 AD.)

Now, a pillar on the border between Israel and Egypt makes a lot more sense as a territorial marker and a "our god is here" marker.

But not in the middle of Egypt. It would have been torn down.

And this is part of the point Byrd. 10000 years ago, (just to pick a date), the constructor of the Great Pyramid placed this exactly there. In the today, there is no other location on earth, that this could be accomplished. The exact center of the land mass of the Globe is the exact placement or matstsebah of the Great Pyramid. Again, is this a coincidence?

www.europa.com...

Your original source is really hoping that you don't look at the map and notice that right about 40 degrees latitude north is much closer to the "center of the land mass." When you add in Antarctica, it also shifts the location. The "coincidence" is simply someone telling you that something is true and wrapping it up in religion and hoping you will believe it.

Great Pyramids site is about 29º58´53" N 31º08´00" E
So you'll notice that it misses the thickest section of Africa and actually misses the thickest section of Europe, too. The biggest slice of landmass appears to be about 120 degrees E and about 45 degrees N.:
go.hrw.com...

I think you would have been correct, if you used Petrie's own words.

No, it's true. Petrie's translations are so inaccurate that nobody except New Agers (and only the ones who are NOT in the reconstructionist movement) use his works. His digs misidentified cities and artifacts, and his translations are so poor that the British Museum does not sell his books and puts out a disclaimer about them.

Pyramid Inch = 1.0011 present inches, and 1.0010846752 British Inches.
Pyramid Cubit or Sacred Cubit = 25 pyramid inches.

Here's where that term comes from (we have measuring tools from Egypt and none of them are "pyramid inches" though we do have other measurements):
www.touregypt.net...

So it was coined by Smyth. He got the math wrong, too.

Remember that the Great Pyramid isn't a lonely icon out in the middle of the desert. It's right on the edge of Cairo (which has been around for milennia) and surrounding it are a lot of older pyramids AND a city for workers and funeral temples and monuments to gods and several other smaller sphynxes and so on and so forth.

I'll address the Really Bad Numbers in another post (basically the numbers are created by rounding up/down/glossing over inaccuracies while declaring "the universe upholds the truth of this in these wonderful numbers!"

If I used their methods of arithemetic and accuracy, I could lose those 20 pounds I'm supposed to lose by using their math. I wouldn't have to change my diet or exercise paterns.

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:44 PM
Okay, more Numb3rs (you can tell what tv series I watch!! (grin))

Originally posted by ShaneThis unit of measure is Devine in Origin. There is nothing arcane, or fabricated about it.

There's no proof it existed before Smythe came up with it.

The length of a base is 9131 Pyramid Inches from corner to corner in a straight line.

Let's check the math. First of all, the Pyramid isn't precisely square.
There's a difference of 8 inches in the sides (edited because Byrd-brain multiplied by 1.01. Gah! They'll take away my math license, they will!) :
north - 755.43 ft = 8975.406pyramid inches
south -756.08 ft = 8963.129 pyramid inches
east - 755.88 ft = 8960.752 pyramid inches
west - 755.77 ft. = 8979.446 pyramid inches.

(doublecheck my math, here. I multiplied feet by 12, then divided it by the Pyramid Inch measure (since the PInch is a little larger than the actual inch.)

www.world-mysteries.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------
(here's the figures in excel)
----------------------------------------------------------------
item feet std inch 1.01 pInch 1.001 pInch
north 755.43 9065.16 8975.405941 9056.103896
south 756.08 9072.96 8983.128713 9063.896104
east 755.88 9070.56 8980.752475 9061.498501
west 755.77 9069.24 8979.445545 9060.17982
0 0
I used the "pyramid inch" measure found elsewhere of 1.01 inches. If it's 1.001 inches, as I think you cited, then the numbers are off even more:

north: 9074.22516
south: 9082.03296
east: 9079.63056
west: 9078.30924

In fact, none of them comes vaguely close. You've been "shorted"on your pyramid! And that's only the measure of the inner stones (it had a limestone facing on it that was several inches thick and so was actually bigger than 755 feet.

The length of a base side at the base socket level is 9 131 Pyramid Inches or 365.24 Pyramid Cubits.

Would you care to do the math, here? Since the true "pyramid inches" measurement of the base is 9160 PInch, the cubits sure don't match. In fact, what my calculator (and slide rule) come up with is that it's 366.2 Pyramid Cubits (based on the 1.01 inch to a Pyramid Inch figure.)

The length of a base side at sidereal socket level is 9 131.4 Pyramid Inches or 365.256 Pyramid Cubits. The length of the perimeter at the sidereal socket level is 36 525.63629 Pyramid Inches.

Again, get out a calcluator (or paper and pencil.)

Your source (as we say here in Texas) "lies like a big yellah dawg."

The perfect formula height of the pyramid including the missing apex is 5 813.2355653763 Pyramid Inches, calculated from perimeter of base divided by 2 Pyramid Inches.

The height to the missing apex is 5 812.98 Pyramid Inches.

I'll check the math, here (you can doublecheck this.) But my calculator says that the real measurement is 5829.72 -- off by over 12 inches.

The volume of the pyramid is: V = 1/3 base area x height = 161559817000 cubic Pyramid Inches = 10339828.3 cubic Pyramid Cubits. [(5813.2355653 Pyramid Inches)/3 * 9 131 Pyramid Inches * 9 131 Pyramid Inches]

Check the math there. I think you're going to find it's very off.

Ditto the year measurements. Get the real measurements -- not the OMG! measurements.

Mean Distance to Sun: The height of the pyramid times 10^9 represents the mean radius of the Earth's orbit around the sun, or Astronomical Unit (AU). [5813.235565376 Pyramid Inches x 10^9 = 91848816.9 miles]

They moved the Earth???!!!!

The mean distance from the Earth to the sun is, as we all learned, 93.5 million miles (www2.sjsu.edu...)

That's a HUGE discrepancy of well over 2 million miles!

They also move the Moon to make the formula work:

Mean Distance to Moon: The length of the Jubilee passage times 7 times 10^7 is the mean distance to the moon. [215.973053 Pyramid Inches * 7 * 10^7 = 1.5118e10 Pyramid Inches = 238,865 miles]

The Moon is 384,403 kilometers (238,857 miles) from Earth.

Sun's Radius: Twice the perimeter of the bottom of the granite coffer times 10^8 is the sun's mean radius. [270.45378502 Pyramid Inches* 10^8 = 427316 miles]

And shrank the sun! The Sun is 875,000 miles in diameter, making it 437500 miles in radius. They're off by 10,000 miles. The true radius of the sun in feet is: 2310000000 feet, making it

www.solarweek.org...

You are very obviously an honest person and assume that others who come up with these measurements are also honest people and have done the math.

I invite you to check the other measurements and do the calculations yourself. But do an honest research... get the measurements from sites that are NOT promoting the "pyramid inch."

Then do the math.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by Byrd]

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:52 PM
My compliments to both Byrd and Shane who provide the most interesting and informative readings in this thread. Therefore, could one of you possibly answer me this question (which I have asked similarly before on another thread) and I quote Shane : "There are 36,525 Pyramid inches in the designed perimiter of the Great Pyramid . 36,525 just happens to be the number of days in 100 years" and I'm not trying to be clever here but I am puzzled. The pyramids having being built (arguably) 2 or 3 thousand years BC, how come the Egyptians (or whoever - and that is not meant to blasphemise the Almighty) were able to use the aforesaid measurements when, in their day, there were only 10 months in the year (August and July being added by the Romans centuries later) or did the months contain 35 days each or something (forgive me again as I am not aware of an 'Egyptian' Calendar using these numbers). This has always puzzled me and, after asking this question on other threads (and receiving no answers whatsoever) I remain unenlightened. I would respectfully hope that either of you two could answer this.
Regarding a previous request for any sites containing close-up photographs - it was photographs of the remaining facing stones at the top of the pyramid still in place today (I have searched many sites but they only seem to show them at a distance) NOT the CAPstone (non of which survived) nor the casing stones which are still in place at the bottom of the pyramid.
Again, congratulations are in order to both of you for your very informative and knowledgeable post.
Have a nice day everyone.

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Cowboy1
there were only 10 months in the year (August and July being added by the Romans centuries later) or did the months contain 35 days each or something (forgive me again as I am not aware of an 'Egyptian' Calendar using these numbers).

I don't think there was ever any relationship between the Egyptian and Roman Calendars. I believe the Egyptians used a lunar calendar, but in any case the Romans only changed the number of months in their year not the number of days.

Most ancient cultures seem to have developed surprisingly accurate astronomical calendars, ie: the Mayans. There are Mayan observatories in their temple complexes that look as if they were built in our times. Quite amazing.

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Cowboy1 I am puzzled.

The pyramids having being built (arguably) 2 or 3 thousand years BC, how come the Egyptians (or whoever - and that is not meant to blasphemise the Almighty) were able to use the aforesaid measurements when, in their day, there were only 10 months in the year (August and July being added by the Romans centuries later) or did the months contain 35 days each or something (forgive me again as I am not aware of an 'Egyptian' Calendar using these numbers).

Excellent question. The Egyptian calendar was a lunar calendar, so they really did have a 12 month calendar of 30 days each plus feast days at the end of the year. They reset it periodically and corrected the timing using the rising of the star, Sirius.

BTW, they had only 3 seasons:
www.touregypt.net...

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:56 AM
Thank you Byrd I am indebted to you, I only need a site where there are close-up pictures of the 'facing slabs' at the top of the pyramid and I will be more than satisfied.
Have a nice day mate.

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:51 AM
Good Morning Byrd

Well, that's the responses I was seeking my friend.

As I have noted, Opinions are nice, and fine for all, but I was supporting my views with some "facts", and I trust when discussing matters such as this, or other things, facts could be employed in refuting a premise, rather than the "I disagree" and that's it.

I applaud you for this, and know you spent a great deal of time on it. Thanks for your thoughts and the support behind those thoughts.

In respects the the Biblical Inch and such, I will review what you offered indept and followup at another time.

But I must indicate you may have been miss lead in respects to the Isaiah matter and what it has noted.

Matstsabah is used only 10 Times in the Chaldean. Certainly Pillar is referenced as many times as you noted, and in those cases, a majority of the topic is exactly what you provided, but in ten cases, this is not what is been discussed in the verse.

Gen 19:26 ,and she became a "Pillar" of Salt. (ntsib)

Exactly what you described. A Piller is exactly that, again from the Chaldean word ntsib from the prime natsab and she became a "Stationary" Statue of salt.

An example for my case

Gen 28:22 , this stone which I have set for a "Pillar" (maststsebah)

Exactly what I have indicated. Jacob has placed the ITEM, (this stone), and set it "inplace" as stationed, to become God's House.

This is the difference I wished to note, since a simple read of the Bible implies exaclty what you have siad, but simple people gave us the KJV and lefts notes to the reader about difficulties.

I hope this clears this up a bit.

But I welcome you comments none the less.

Ciao

Shane

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:48 PM
Regarding the OMG numbers and Pyramidology:

Reflecting upon the nature of Smyth's work, and his character, one is left with the suspicion that a similar kind of analysis, with equally astonishing results, could be done on other structures. Given the lack of a powerful, general philosophical or scientific response to pyramidology, it is perhaps reasonable to deal with the matter by supplying a counter example. This is exactly what Martin Gardener has done in the book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. He states:

Just for fun, if one looks up the facts about the Washington Monument in the World Almanac, he will find considerable fiveness. Its height is 555 feet and 5 inches. The base is 55 feet square, multiplied by 60 (or five times the number of months in a year) it gives 3,300, which is the exact weight of the capstone in pounds. Also, the word "Washington" has exactly ten letters (two times five). And if the weight of the capstone is multiplied by the base, the result is 181,500-a fairly close approximately of the speed of light in miles per second. If the base is measured with a "monument foot," which is slightly smaller than the standard foot, its side comes to 56 1/2 feet. This times 33,000 yields a figure even closer to the speed of light.
And is it not significant that the Monument is in the form of an obelisk-an ancient Egyptian structure? Or that a picture of the Great Pyramid appears on a dollar dill, on the side opposite Washington's portrait? Moreover, the decision to print the Pyramid (i.e., the reverse side of the United States seal) on dollar bills was announced by the Secretary of the Treasury on June 15, 1935-both date and year being multiples of five. And are there not exactly twenty-five letters (five times five) in the title, "The Secretary of the Treasury"?

It should take an average mathematician about fifty-five minutes to discover the above "truths," working only with the meager figures provided by the Almanac. Considering the fact that Smyth made his own measurements, obtaining hundreds of lengths with which to work, and that he spent twenty years mulling over these figures, it is not hard to see how he achieved such remarkable results.(14)
(My emphasis)
Source: www.greatdreams.com...
Ya gotta love Martin Garnder, and shame on anyone that doesn't know of him.

BTW, that source has a detailed history of exactly where the idea of "pyramid inch" originated:

For example, Taylor discovered that the ratio of the perimeter of the base of the pyramid to twice its height gave a fairly close approximation of the number pi , or the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Taylor believed that this important universal constant was intentionally incorporated in the dimensions of the pyramid. The presence of the ratio was regarded as particularly amazing in view of the fact that there is no historical record of anyone having calculated an accurate value for it until many centuries after the construction of the Great Pyramid.

With this geometric proportion in mind, Taylor searched for other related properties. He noted that pi is approximately equal to 366/116.5. Of course, it is an irrational number and therefore cannot be precisely represented as such a fraction. Taylor, however, was intrigued by the similarity of the number 366 in the numerator of this ratio to the number of days in a year. By manipulating the number 366 and other dimensions of the pyramid, he concluded that its builders had used a unit of length which differed from the British inch by only a few thousandths of an inch. Twenty-five of these "pyramid inches" made a "pyramid cubit," and 10 million pyramid cubits approximates the length of the radius of the earth on its polar axis fairly closely.
(My emphasis)
It was Taylor, whose theory was followed up on and broadened by Smyth. Though it's true that Smyth actually coined the term.

These two men are, literally, the inventors of the "pyramid inch." It does not come from antiquity at all.

Note the mention of pi in the passage above. The website I linked also shows that this approximation of pi (most pyramidology websites don't tell you it's not even really that close to the actual pi - including the site Shane linked to) is merely the result of the builder's attempts to make the area of each face equal the square of the height:

For example, Taylor and Smyth were both certain that the ratio pi was present in the pyramid's dimensions by design, and that this indicated some special knowledge on the part of the builders of the pyramid-likely knowledge of divine origin. Yet Taylor himself was aware of the belief apparently held by Egyptians of earlier periods that the pyramid had been constructed so that the area of one of its faces would equal the square of its height.(11)

The mathematical sophistication required to achieve this is not great, and in any case a trial and error calculation would soon lead to a close approximation of this proportion. The point is this: if, in fact, the pyramid builders had intended to incorporate the above mentioned proportion (EDIT - he means the area of the face equals the square of the height proportion here - H) , then the ratio of the perimeter of the base to twice the height would be 3.145, which differs from pi only in the third decimal place. This is essentially as accurate an approximation of as Smyth was able to claim from his investigation. So, the ratio could occur as a completely coincidental by-produce of a design which would not have been concerned at all with the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Thus the inference that the ratio must have been consciously included is unwarranted.
(My emphasis again)

So, not only is the ratio pi really nowhere to be found in the pyramidologists' measurements, but the approximation of pi they almost always claim to be so accurate is actually only a ratio that falls right out of a design element and has absolutely nothing to do at all with the ratio of circumference to diameter in a circle, which is the meaning of the irrational number pi.

What else you got?

Byrd, don't think I didn't have faith in you, but I didn't see you addressing this silly "pi" issue, so I went for it.

Harte

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:02 PM
Hello Byrd

Numb3rs, Numb3rs, Numb3rs. ( I wish cursing was apporpriate )

I had always figured I was able to perform the basic tasks to calculate equations, and solve mathematical problems, but even with the efforts you provided, with the link info and your own calculations, it seems to cloud the matter even further than I had expected.

As I have noted, your first response, was somewhat what I had expected to see, and this is due specifically to the nature of this topic. And your I recent efforts with the Calculations was actually beyond what I had hoped to see.

With this said, I can not make any sort accurate response. I got variances which surpassed the figures you noted that where out. Using the Links, and burning the crap out of my calculator and snapping my pencil, I started to realize something.

Review of sites, and books, and such, I see very little in the way of a UNIVERSIALLY ACCEPTED MEASURE in any Unit for the Pyramid. It would be great to have something to START from, that is "Set in Stone" so to speak.

So, as I expressed to Harte previously, I must completely acknowledge this Bibilcal Measure and Pyramid Inch method of measure is open to debate beyond the facts offered. I can not offer any explaination as to why a simple conversion would not express similiar values, unless of course, as I note above, there are just too many various figures being used. Metric, Imperial, US, Egyptian, and so on, and within each, I can find varitions on the unit used, + or - a foot or more.

Is there one set of figures, in either the Pagan Metric or Imperial Inch, that defines the exact measures and can be used to verify calculations.

I would be expecting measures such as:

The length of a base is 9121 British Inches / 760.08 British Feet from corner to corner in a straight line.

The height to the missing apex is 5 806.70 British Inches / 483.89 British Feet.

And so on.

And Enoch was 365 Years old when God Took him. As you noted and the Bible details.

I threw in .242 to draw attention to the Length of a Year and it was a sad attempt to humour up the discussion. That was pure and undeniable speculation on my part.

BUT when I speak to Enoch in the coming years, I'll get back to you on this.

Looking forward to anything you can suggest as a "Generally Accept" measure for the Great Pyramid.

Ciao

Shane

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Shane

Is there one set of figures, in either the Pagan Metric or Imperial Inch, that defines the exact measures and can be used to verify calculations...

...Looking forward to anything you can suggest as a "Generally Accept" measure for the Great Pyramid.
Ciao
Shane

Shane,
How about, oh, I don't know, say FEET?
Or if you are so inclined, then what's wrong with using METERS?

Is it just because these "inferior" measuring units won't tally up to the number of hairs on Krypto the Superdog's tail or something?

Harte

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Harte
Byrd, don't think I didn't have faith in you, but I didn't see you addressing this silly "pi" issue, so I went for it.

Harte

I confess to being completely math terrified. Thanks to "Statistics for the Terrified" (a real book) and "Calculus for Cats" (another real book), I've actually gotten to the point where I can sneak up on a formula and a function and not turn pale and swoon. I can even do most arithemetic.

But I haven't made inroads into geometry yet. I was saving that for later doncha know.

In other words, I was avoiding it till I could figure out what in the heck that was all supposed to mean. So I was delighted to have you leap in there.

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:13 PM
If the belt is the remnants of a planet, as I feel, and as it appears some ancients described as well, the missing matter could easily have been sucked into the sun. Where did our moon come from? It is clearly an anomaly in this system, maybe its a piece too?
As for the giza pyramid, while I have revised my views somewhat thanks to Byrd, I still have not been convinced that it is 4th dynasty. I too feel it predates the dynastic age, and likely predates 9 500 BC. By how much, I have no clue, but I am still amazed by its intricate, complex, precise nature, and extreme logistical and physical challenge to build. Megaliths like the oseirion, the Peruvian ones, Mexican ones, Baalbek, Stonehenge, etc. are all curiously related to one another geographically, as Cathie and others have shown. Besides that, they are all still hard to explain in terms of actual method of construction. Levers, screws, fulcrums, wedges, and copper chisels just don't do it for me.
Thanks

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Shane
Review of sites, and books, and such, I see very little in the way of a UNIVERSIALLY ACCEPTED MEASURE in any Unit for the Pyramid. It would be great to have something to START from, that is "Set in Stone" so to speak.

Not true. In fact, we've got good measurements in whatever system you'd like -- meters, centimeters, feet, inches, yards, miles. You can even measure it in terms of how long it would take light to travel from one edge to another (nanoseconds... light travels about 11 inches in a nanosecond.)

When the pyramid was originally constructed, it used the ancient Egyptian system of measurement. You can see the system here, along with the measuring devices recovered from some of the archaeological digs:
www.touregypt.net...

Andddd... converting the feet to centimers:
756 feet = 23 042.88 centimeter
and dividing that by the Royal Cubit used at the time of the building of the pyramids means that they measured the side of the pyramid at about 439 cubits.

The number, 439, doesn't relate to anything significant in their culture.

beyond the facts offered. I can not offer any explaination as to why a simple conversion would not express similiar values,

It was done by people who were sincere Christians and were desperate to make a Christian and biblical connection so that they could then promote the Christian god to the Muslims and others in that area. The need to do this was so strong that they would round up and round down and change measures to make the system "work." The numbers would then confirm "the glory of God and God's ultimate plan."

There are frequent cases of Christians telling and promoting lies so that they can prove Christianity and convert heathens/pagans/etc. John Wesley, Martin Luther, and other notables approved of this practice.

Looking forward to anything you can suggest as a "Generally Accept" measure for the Great Pyramid.

Meters are probably the most accurate, since they're measured against a wavelength of light.

Or you could make up any modern measurement that you liked (divide the length of one of the sides (not all of them, because they're not the same) by 365.25 and call it a "pyramid day unit" or divide it by 1,000 and call it a "Pyramid Mill" or even divide it by '12345' and call it a Fibonaut or whatever you like.

You can construct any measurement system to match anything you like.

But to the Egyptians, it was 439 cubits.

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Shane
Matstsabah is used only 10 Times in the Chaldean.

The books were never written in Chaldean.

The OT was an oral tradition. The books were first written in 700 BC (thereabouts), long after Chaldean had disappeared. It was written in Hebrew, and so you can check the meaning by looking it up in the Hebrew dictionary. Those verses were never in Chaldean... sorry.

Gen 19:26 ,and she became a "Pillar" of Salt. (ntsib)

That said, yes, I looked further at the usage. I agree that ntsib is being used in Gen 19, and it's another word for statue. And that the pillar in Isaiah and some other verses is an altar or monument, and (now that I look again) the ones for temple pillar is yet another word.

However, Isaiah doesn't say which border. However, it wouldn't have been set up between upper and lower Egypt, nor would any Egyptians have worked on it for 20 years nor would the Israelis have set an altar in the middle of a Pagan site, surrounded by eight other pyramids.

Remember that at the time of the building of the pyramids (whether you believe Cheops or not), Egypt had been united for over 500 years, and this was about a thousand years before the time when the empire became fragmented (the Hyksos pharoahs) and then reunited (Amose, etc.) Trying to put Giza as the border is the same as trying to make Oklahoma the border of the United States. While it once was the border, it is not now the border.

In the time periods you're discussing, Giza wasn't the border.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Byrd]

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:47 PM
Here are some great pictures of the Pyramids at Giza

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by Scolecite
6. The Great Pyramid is the most accuratly aligned structure in existence.

I guess they beat our technology to accuratly place small buildings like oil rigs or 50,000 ton underwater tunnel segments on an exact spot with millimeter precision.

Those egyptians had some badass GPS system if they could do it on micrometers.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by merka]

GPS is only acurate to within a few dozen meters, well for civilians at least

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:00 AM
My belief is the "pre-flood" giants built the pyramids.
Giants being the offspring of fallen angels and humans.
Some folks, myself included, believe they were the Atlantian people and built the various pyramids around the world.

Or we could take the Stargate concept...

new topics

top topics

3