It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Celtic Cross, and the Tool of Giza?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I was looking for some information, and stumbled across an article noting an amazing discovery made within the Great Pyramid, during the expedition to send the Small Robotics up the 'Air Shafts' that was televised live several years ago.

Because of this find, and the premise behind it, there have been accepted and accredited claims made by other researchers such as Dr Kate Spence, of Cambridge University.

www.bbc.co.uk...


The Great Pyramid is a master of precision. Comprised of an estimated 2.5 million limestone blocks, archaeologists have known for over a century that the Great Pyramid was pointed almost exactly north, but nobody has been able to explain how the ancient Egyptians managed to align it with such unprecedented accuracy.

The deviation in accuracy is minute as Dr. Spence explains:

‘The Great Pyramid is extremely accurately aligned towards north. The sides deviate from true north by less than three ark minutes, that’s less than a twentieth of a degree, which is extremely accurate in terms of orientation.’


This became known as the Spence Theory.

Whether her calculations are accurate or not, is another story. Not the one I am getting to in my prolonged manner.

I found an original story, as I noted, looking for something for Ancient Finds in the Black Sea, and ran across a topic that was curious to me.

Did the Establishment conspire to hide a vital spiritual and historical discovery?

I was surprised by the claims, and could not recall anything like this every being presented by one of my most favorite schemer's, Zahi Hawass, head of Antiquities in Egypt.

Also some followup reported by other Various Respected Scholary and knowledgeable people resulted in Dead Ends, as noted in the following


The famous Professor Clive Ruggles at Leicester University Department of Archaeoastronomy expressed interest in 2003 and then backed away despite contributions to the theory by Professor Covey in America who is a specialist in early migration and the distribution of Clovis points.


There are some fascinating claims made, but I was unable to get any specific details as noted in this Link

express-press-release.com...

I went to his Site, but could only get a Summary, but to my surprise, this tool was the Celtic Cross.



I did find a doorway into details, by searching Google Images of the Celtic Cross, and found a Picture, that opened the following.

I am ef en stunned right now, reviewing these links and research, and all upon our Celtic Cousins and something attributed to them in specific, the Celtic Cross.

And as noted, other researchers have presented theories because of his premise.

www.crichtonmiller.com...

Hit the Sections on the Righthand side. There are many, like 666, or Seprent of Wisdom. Just amazing stuff.

Stuff that I remind you, Hawass has hidden.

Ciao and enjoy

Shane










[edit on 26-5-2006 by Shane]




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
"His work revealed knowledge of ancient mariners and his revelations including the function of earlier henge’s in combination with astronomy. He discovered how latitude and longitude could be found through astrology in prehistory."

Quote taken from this link:
express-press-release.com...


Could these ancient mariners be related to the famous Sea Peoples who were once captured by Egyptian Pharoah Ramses III?

Other ancient mariners have been known to be the Phoenicans and Carthaginians. The Phoenicans were known to join with the Israelites, of King Solomon's time, in a three year sea voyage to an unknown location and bring back many goods from a foreign land. The Carthaginians were fascinated with the cross symbol way before the time of the Christ. It is also interesting to note that Plato's Atlantis describes the alternating waterways and dry land zones to be intersected by a straight road that leads east to west and another straight road that leads north to south. This would be a multi-ringed Celtic-Cross.

The symbol of the cross has also been designed into Mesoamerican temples.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
I was looking for some information, and stumbled across an article noting an amazing discovery made within the Great Pyramid, during the expedition to send the Small Robotics up the 'Air Shafts' that was televised live several years ago.

Because of this find, and the premise behind it, there have been accepted and accredited claims made by other researchers such as Dr Kate Spence, of Cambridge University.

www.bbc.co.uk...


...archaeologists have known for over a century that the Great Pyramid was pointed almost exactly north, but nobody has been able to explain how the ancient Egyptians managed to align it with such unprecedented accuracy.
The deviation in accuracy is minute as Dr. Spence explains:

‘The Great Pyramid is extremely accurately aligned towards north. The sides deviate from true north by less than three ark minutes, that’s less than a twentieth of a degree, which is extremely accurate in terms of orientation.’


This became known as the Spence Theory.


The theory put forth by Doctor Spence has nothing to do with anything "found" in the Great Pyramid such as the "Dixon Relics" that Crichton Miller seems to be glomming onto to sell his book.

Also, you somehow forgot to mention that if Spence's theory is correct, the Great Pyramid must be close to seventy years younger than previously was thought. I hope you didn't overlook this large matter because it didn't fit well with other theories you have proposed here at ATS.


Originally posted by Shane

There are some fascinating claims made, but I was unable to get any specific details as noted in this Link

express-press-release.com...

I went to his Site, but could only get a Summary, but to my surprise, this tool was the Celtic Cross.

I did find a doorway into details, by searching Google Images of the Celtic Cross, and found a Picture, that opened the following.

I am ef en stunned right now, reviewing these links and research, and all upon our Celtic Cousins and something attributed to them in specific, the Celtic Cross.

And as noted, other researchers have presented theories because of his premise.

www.crichtonmiller.com...

Hit the Sections on the Righthand side. There are many, like 666, or Seprent of Wisdom. Just amazing stuff.


The first link you provided for the Chrichton Miller info was a press release submitted by a publishing company trying to sell Miller's book. "About" the hosting company:

Express-Press-Release.com is a free, simple, easy, express and very effective way to distribute over the web your company press releases. Some of our advantages include: no registration required, human edited & monitored content, no long forms - in fact only a few fields on-line form for quick posting, we value your time, own page for each of your press releases (search engine optimized), unlimited posting, your press releases are archived and will never expire or be deleted, which means you'll continue receiving exposition for years ahead from your posting on this site while you are free to regularly re-post your press releases in order to stay on top if there is a need from...


From the press release:

Released on = November 21, 2005, 5:22 am

Press Release Author = Pendulum Publishing

Industry = Media


I went through the information at both of the Miller sites and found absolutely nothing that would indicate any connection at all between the Egyptians and the Celtic cross.

But I did see this:

He discovered how latitude and longitude could be found through astrology in prehistory.


The above statement includes a physical impossibility - that of finding longitude without a portable timepiece. That simply cannot be done.

Regarding Miller's other claims, the same sort of calculations he attributes to a Celtic cross and plumb line can be accomplished with a stick and a plumb line.

Additionally, he lays out a silly argument about how the Egyptians "must have had..." this or that instrument, as if it was some Earth-shattering discovery, when nobody to my knowledge has ever said that the Egyptians didn't have some instruments that allowed them to calculate (replicate, really) things like slopes and angles.

No, the entire thing is a complete waste of time - there's nothing to it, and Hawass is not involved in any nefarious activities regarding anything Crichton Miller has to say.

Next?

Harte



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I don't like egypt or egyptians my head hurts from them im gettting tired of all this jibbity jabbity tobacco smoking egyptians pyramid tit there is nothing cool interesting about them.f-n egyptians fk them

[edit on 27-5-2006 by Hawaii_boy]

[edit on 27-5-2006 by Hawaii_boy]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Well, the Egyptian ankh and the Celtic Cross DO look alot like. And as far as I know, no one knows where the Celtic Cross originally started.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawaii_boy
I don't like egypt or egyptians my head hurts from them im gettting tired of all this jibbity jabbity tobacco smoking egyptians pyramid tit there is nothing cool interesting about them.f-n egyptians fk them


Oh, I don't know. The idea of pulling scrambled brains out of your head through a nostril by the use of a small decorative spoon is reminiscent of, say, the Hollywood lifestyle.


Harte



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Originally Noted by Harte


That simply cannot be done.


But yet, he (Miller) proves this premise you harbour is not correct.


Not only that, other Scholars are adapting and useing this for their thesis's in respects to this, as the first link notes.

Being here this short time, I have learnt to as least covered your skeptic views prior to them arriving, my friend.

No, everything here, in respects to this tool, is and can be applied in the practical, from what I can find, and the development of this notion has addressed the many seperated lines of thought throughly.

It is a simple, functional, operational tool.

Ms Spences Theory, was completed based upon the reconstruction of calculations in computer programs using such a simple tool.


Also, you somehow forgot to mention that if Spence's theory is correct, the Great Pyramid must be close to seventy years younger than previously was thought.


And sometimes, Harte, I wish you read things before you presume confusion.

As I clearly noted, just for those of your opinions "Whether her calculations are accurate or not, is another story."

At least I do read things as far as possible. I admit 100%, I am only half way through the 25-30 various aspects of Miller's thoughts, and how these have been considered. Thus far, I find it a very interesting proposal, for which I can not find too much to disagree with.

Shocking? Yes!
Contrary to my personal veiws? Certainly!
Does that mean, we are unable to welcome thought or knowledge, others can offer? Not likely.

The Lines of thought in respects to Constantine, and the Chruch and such, may or may not have an association to this simple tool, since this seems arguementive. But if you have somehow reviewed this Link completely, I am agast at your above noted response.

That simply can not be done, does not sum it up.

I would have expected much more of an insightful response, with all the figures you can recite to dismiss this.

And as for selling things Harte, EVERYTHING DOES. And what did I do? Found you a backdoor in, to view the text without coughing up a Penny. ( I recall your comments on that Grecian Site Jsor/Jstor !!) I also noted, I had difficulties getting info myself, and was only able to do so, once the term Celtic Cross, was introduced. And it was only using the Google Image Bar, and 8 or 10 pages in, that I found anything in respects to this.

But there it is. A fine arguement, to which nothing you have offered or presented is contrary to what is put forth. Not that Egyptians, Science, or previous Knowledgeable People have ever offered a sound answer. Except of course, Aliens.


Have a Good Day Harte, and start trying a little harder. I am, and learning things along the way. It's not all that bad of a thing, you know.

I have more reading to do now!

Oh but before I do.

You see an interesting comment by Forest Lady. I suggest if Hawass never sent those Robots up those shafts, no one still would have an idea. But here, Mr Miller has, and it is compelling.

And we see enlightenment to the extreme with Hawaii Boy. Likely due to cooking with Lava Stones. Toooo much of some sulphuric chemical absorbing into his diet.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

The above statement includes a physical impossibility - that of finding longitude without a portable timepiece. That simply cannot be done.



The underlying assumption is: this tool cannot be used to determine the time. i haven't read enough yet to make up my mind either way, though, if it works, it works, heck replication should be easy, shouldn't it, hopefully i'm not too dumb to use it



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Harte
The above statement includes a physical impossibility - that of finding longitude without a portable timepiece. That simply cannot be done.


The underlying assumption is: this tool cannot be used to determine the time. i haven't read enough yet to make up my mind either way, though, if it works, it works, heck replication should be easy, shouldn't it, hopefully i'm not too dumb to use it


Well, regardless of what Shane may choose to believe, as one that actually knows how to determine longitude, I will forever maintain that it cannot possibly be done without a portable timepiece.

Long Lance,

Any stick (or combination of sticks) can be used to determine the local time. The problem with calculating longitude is that you absolutely have to know what time it is not only in your current location (which used to be determined using a sextant), but also what time it is at your "zero" longitudinal position. In this case, it would likely be safe to assume that, if the Egyptians had any knowledge at all of longitude (and they did not,) then the "zero" line would have probably been at Giza. Of course, if you happen to be at Giza (or your particular "zero" point,) then it is easy to determine your longitude. Just name it "zero!"

It should be said that this longitudinal argument is a side issue anyway. The Egyptians never went anywhere asea beyond the Mediterreanean, though we may allow for the likelihood that they may have cruised south for some distance along the East African coast. These trips always were accomplished by constantly maintaining sight of the shoreline. So they really didn't need to know anything of longitude. I only brought it up to show the bankruptcy of Miller's pseudohistorical ravings.

Harte



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Well, regardless of what Shane may choose to believe, as one that actually knows how to determine longitude, I will forever maintain that it cannot possibly be done without a portable timepiece.


Hey Harte, This is exactly what the Celtic Cross, according to the presentation of Mr Miller's is, A hand held portable time piece. It's not some Stone marker.

I am still reviewing this, and agree, with you in respects to onething. It is a fantastic claim, and I trust people will do their absolute best to dismiss it, because as of yet, speculation of any, falls well short of even an attempt to do so.



The problem with calculating longitude is that you absolutely have to know what time it is not only in your current location (which used to be determined using a sextant), but also what time it is at your "zero" longitudinal position. In this case, it would likely be safe to assume that, if the Egyptians had any knowledge at all of longitude (and they did not,) then the "zero" line would have probably been at Giza. Of course, if you happen to be at Giza (or your particular "zero" point,) then it is easy to determine your longitude. Just name it "zero!"


And I am sure, this is exactly what has been explained in his presentation. I read something in respects to this specific concern you note, and will look over what I have reviewed, and paste it for your to review.


The Egyptians never went anywhere asea beyond the Mediterreanean, though we may allow for the likelihood that they may have cruised south for some distance along the East African coast. These trips always were accomplished by constantly maintaining sight of the shoreline. So they really didn't need to know anything of longitude. I only brought it up to show the bankruptcy of Miller's pseudohistorical ravings. Harte


Bankruptcy,
. Well thats of course the realm of thought been presented in your arguement.

It is nice to actually see, the cliches coming, since it's clear you have nothing else to put forth to debunk it! The ramblings unfortuantely are yours. Oh well. Still reviewing and I'll find that Latitude stuff for you. It was a very good arguement with lots of FACT.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Hey Harte, This is exactly what the Celtic Cross, according to the presentation of Mr Miller's is, A hand held portable time piece. It's not some Stone marker.

I am still reviewing this, and agree, with you in respects to onething. It is a fantastic claim, and I trust people will do their absolute best to dismiss it, because as of yet, speculation of any, falls well short of even an attempt to do so.


If you read my previous post, Shane, perhaps you will notice that I posited that time could be kept at a single position on Earth by a combination of sticks. These are also a "handheld portable timepiece," yet they only tell the time wherever you happen to be. They will not tell you what time it is back in Giza if you are in Ireland, nor will a Celtic cross, nor will any object, though any object (within certain parameters) can be used to tell local time.

Regarding the claim and it's fantastic aspect, it can only be dismissed, as the author never shows how to overcome this timekeeping problem in the entire treatise. Yes, he mentions using the "head" of the constellation Draco (Draconis to him, apparently) to tell the time at night, since there's no shadow from the Sun to aid in this calculation, but this method also cannot keep what the author calls "world time" since Draco's position in the sky is completely dependant on the position of the observer. In other words, this method can certainly be used to determine the local time, but is absolutely useless in determining "world time."


Originally posted by Shane

The problem with calculating longitude is that you absolutely have to know what time it is not only in your current location (which used to be determined using a sextant), but also what time it is at your "zero" longitudinal position....


And I am sure, this is exactly what has been explained in his presentation. I read something in respects to this specific concern you note, and will look over what I have reviewed, and paste it for your to review.


As sure as you may be of this, I am more sure that this is not "what has been explained in his presentation." I did note that he mentioned that Newton had an argument that astronomy could be used to determine longitude, yet Miller fails to describe even Newton's method in his presentation.


Originally posted by Shane

The Egyptians never went anywhere... So they really didn't need to know anything of longitude. I only brought it up to show the bankruptcy of Miller's pseudohistorical ravings. Harte


Bankruptcy,
. Well thats of course the realm of thought been presented in your arguement.

It is nice to actually see, the cliches coming, since it's clear you have nothing else to put forth to debunk it! The ramblings unfortuantely are yours. Oh well. Still reviewing and I'll find that Latitude stuff for you. It was a very good arguement with lots of FACT.

There is no information anywhere on the referenced website that indicates in any way that Miller has solved the longitudinal problem using astronomy only. No information, that is, other than the author's claim to have accomplished this. So, in fact, there is nothing at the website to debunk. The author makes a series of claims, yet does nothing to back up his claims, so by definition his argument is bankrupt.

A couple of things:
It's not a "Latitude stuff" problem, it's a longitude "stuff" problem.

Miller actually states at his website that the Earth rotates from the East toward the West. Perhaps this is why he has had a problem devising the phraseology necessary for him to communicate his fantastic method for finding longitude without a timepiece that shows the time at "zero" longitude.

Harte



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well, if you're only using the position of the sun, then yes, you need a clock, what about using the sun at a given local time (sunrise/set or noon preferably) in conjunction with the stars? not sure either way, just food for thought.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

A couple of things:
It's not a "Latitude stuff" problem, it's a longitude "stuff" problem.

Harte


May I express my apologies, in respects to Terms. If I had erred in respects to this, it was an oversight

I will say, It was Latitude stuff I had noted. Nothing within any of the documents refered to Longitute that I have seen yet. Still need to get back in there to finish it soon

(I got sucked into a Bible debate by asking a stupid question about a stupid comment, not to mention my concern currently, the Eastern Black Sea Coast and Steppes Archaeology,)

And thank you for explaining yourself. It goes much further than suggesting it can not happen.


I just wish to ensure, I let you know I saw it, and will consider this, when I proceed to review the Link.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Well, the Egyptian ankh and the Celtic Cross DO look alot like.


Erm, they really don't. The ankh looks like a capital "T" with a loop on top of it (and the top part isn't the same length as the bottom part.)

The celtic cross is a cross (often with flared ends) with a ring where the arms join.
www.godweb.org...


And as far as I know, no one knows where the Celtic Cross originally started.


It's Christian and started in England in the 800's, as the church finally dominated religion in the British Isles and the land became more unified.

aco.ca...

ask.yahoo.com...

(an Irish Christian's website on this, with some detail not found elsewhere: www.claddaghstore.com... )

I saw a site that claimed that Callanish megalithic structure in Scotland was a very ancient Celtic Cross... but when you look at the photos of the site, the clam is just a tad dubious:

www.charles-tait.co.uk...

www.prehistoric.org.uk...



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

The famous Professor Clive Ruggles at Leicester University Department of Archaeoastronomy expressed interest in 2003 and then backed away despite contributions to the theory by Professor Covey in America who is a specialist in early migration and the distribution of Clovis points.

The reason they backed away was that when they checked his theory, they found it didn't hold water. Harte has pointed out one of the problems; the other, of course, is that the ancient Egyptians didn't know that they were at what the modern world (5,000 years later) labeled "the 30th degree north."

They didn't mark their maps with degrees or zones. They had no clue.


Stuff that I remind you, Hawass has hidden.


How could he hide it?

American universities are a huge source of income for them, and hundreds of archaeology departments send professors and teams of students and shovelbums to Egypt every year. Some of the universities (like Southern Methodist University) are strongly Christian based. There is a huge interest in Christian artifacts.

These digs have been going on since before Hawass was director and will go on after he is out of office. There's material and collections from the 1800's onward (my pieces of faience come from a dig done in 1920, for instance.)

Professors could publish what they liked (and students, too) after they get back to the US and Hawass' only possible recourse would be to not let them back in. This wouldn't stop any archaeologist from any other university (or other nation) from going in and verifying the find and publishing that.

So... how are you proposing that Hawass hides ... whatever it is you're accusing him of hiding? He's using a Men In Black "forgetaboutit ray flashy thingie" on everyone in the world?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Hi Byrd

Nice to see you again, so to speak.

First, many thanks, (2 times), for your assistance!

Second, How the Thesis going? Getting near completion?

Third, Hawass

I don't know Byrd. This guy bothers me to no end.

He's been chastized by the Government of Egypt for not protecting their sacred sites, such a the Buildings near the Mouth of the Nile, that are currently being eroded from the foundations up, by the Salt's leeching into the area.

He shuts down, exploration of the Red Sea, when evidence is starting to become apparent, that they may just be and Egyptian army worth of Chariots and artifacts on the Bottom, but has no work being done, since he claims lack of Funding. Why did he stop that exploration, since it was nothing out of his pocket?

And for the things that have been found in those shafts. The Granite Ball, and Hook, and the Rod, (which may still be in there). Where are they today? Why is it still being investigated? (Although, it is suggested, the Rod was part of somelse's investigation of the Shaft from the 20's)

And frankly, I think Egypt, was much much more than what he has presented thus far. (Far more than you even admit, but that's fine too. At least you are finally noting there is uniqueness to the Great Pyramid itself, unlike the copies standing beside it..)

Nothing, and I mean Nothing, coming from Egypt has any interpetation other than Hawass. Sure, he's set himself up for a good gig. I will give him this, but who else is there to verify these finds? I do not know, nor can I find any. Everything is according to Hawass.

I will note, maybe it is 'he is just everywhere', and doing so much, that I get this preception, I will also note he is also turning some attention to Protection, although he still is crying poor. He now is proposing Laws for seizure of of land that sit on sites of 100 Years or more, which will be presented to the Government for implementation.

I would like to see, what has been found though. Not be told about what he thought he found. Do you understand this. It's just wonderful they found this and that, and have no idea what it was until Hawass says so. That bothers me to no end. But maybe it's just the 'hidden' skeptic me.


Fourth, and Harte

Well, he is being more informative, than the first response, and I am starting to understand what he is indicating, but I still am missing how it applies, or even why it would? Maybe you can explain it, since you are very good at that.

As for the 30 degree thing. I would have presumed they couldn't have cared what would have been 'Noted 5000 Years or more later'. Would they have not just Zero'ed from their point of Origin? Or am I missing something?

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Hi Again Byrd

And for some considerations of the Links you offered.

ask.yahoo.com...

But no one is certain about where the distinctive circle of the Celtic cross came from or what it means. Among some ancient peoples, a circle was used to represent the moon, and a circle with a cross symbolized the sun. Thus, the circle in the Celtic cross could have been a pagan moon or sun that was appropriated by early Christians to help convert the Celtic population.


aco.ca...

The cross shape itself has been widely used by many ancient peoples, long before the arrival of Christianity. Its four arms were perfect for denoting the four elements, the four directions of the compass, and the four parts of man - mind, body, soul and heart. The addition of the ring around the cross has had many explanations, everything from sun worship and symbolism, to creating a shape with the cross that was well contained and aesthetically pleasing.


First, we have no certainty on it's Origin, but see how it could be utilized, for denoting Directions, and with the Circle included, possible sun worship or Measureing.

I call also, attention to this External Image, and ask you to look. There are two, items I find striking, one in each portion of the Glyph
www.crichtonmiller.com...

Now, hit this link again, and here is that same item. I wouldn't have seen this before Byrd, without your assistance.
aco.ca...

The Celtic Cross had it's evolution in the British Isles, with it's earliest form dating to approximately the ninth century and appearing mostly in Ireland. This early version is called a recumbent cross-slab, and they lied flat rather than standing upright.


Right across from the above comments, regarding the earliest Celtic Cross'es, there it is. Exactly, as the Glyph, along with the Hooked Item and Cross.

Slightly less dubious than those standing stones though. How did they figure a Celtic Cross from those?? Maybe smoking all that Peat!


Just thought this should get highlighted, since I found it really strange. Right there, and I do not even think Mr Miller had noted this. I had not seen so yet anyways


As for this Lattitude and Longitude matter, is this not outlined here, within the 'Instruments' noted? I do believe, Sir Isaac Newton, was an intelligent person. Was he wrong??
www.crichtonmiller.com...

You see, by this time there was no longer an instrument capable of measuring the clock face of the circumpolar stars and Sir Isaac Newton who said that Longitude could be discovered through astronomy was surely aware of the principles involved, but perhaps he could not speak out about the cross for fear of offending the Church of the time.


Isaac Newton, was the one who set in motion, (by offering his own opinions of the concepts of the day for measuring this Longitude), the Longitide Act, that ultimately resulted in the means to find this. Is this right? (It's been too long


And it was Harrison who developed this, as noted.

en.wikipedia.org...

Harrison's son led a voyage aboard a ship from Portsmouth, England to the Caribbean port city of Bridgetown, Barbados with the H-4 aboard. Harrison demonstrated a method of determining longitude by keeping the exact time of day for Britain, while using astronomical observations to find the exact local time on the ship as it sailed to the island of Barbados. In this way he was able to determine the position of the ship relative to Barbados whose longitude was known. The calculation of the ship's position was only 10 miles in error when it arrived.

Today, by other means, we can know the exact time in London (Greenwich Mean Time, Universal Coordinated Time, or "Zulu" Time). By noting the local noon time anywhere in the world, that is, when the sun crosses your meridian (and this can be done quite precisely with a long plumb bob on land), correcting for the Equation of Time, and comparing it with GMT, one's local longitude can be calculated quite accurately. This is the fundamental principle of Harrison's H-4 chronometer, which for use on a sea-going vessel could not use a pendulum. More than anything, this invention marked a breakthrough in clock precision.


So, Delete, Harrison, Britian and Barbados from the first paragraph, and insert
Sailor, Giza, and Glastonbury in those Bolded Words

Then Delete GMT and insert GIZAMT in those Bolded words in the 2nd.

How does this not work? This is where I get lost on what Harte is noting.

The premise remains, but the focal point originates in Giza, say. It would not matter, really where it started. And wasn't that why it ultimately became GMT. It did not matter, and that was the 'MUTUALLY AGREED STARTING POINT'?

Like I noted, am I missing something

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
First, many thanks, (2 times), for your assistance!

You're welcome. Sometimes I feel you must think I'm some sort of spectre, haunting some of your threads!


Second, How the Thesis going? Getting near completion?

Finished! Starting PhD now (aieeeeeeeeeeeeee glug.)


Third, Hawass

I don't know Byrd. This guy bothers me to no end.

He's been chastized by the Government of Egypt for not protecting their sacred sites, such a the Buildings near the Mouth of the Nile, that are currently being eroded from the foundations up, by the Salt's leeching into the area.

Could you link to that? It's not that I doubt this, it's just that I'm not familiar with the story.


He shuts down, exploration of the Red Sea,

How could he do that? It's international waters and bordered by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, Yemen, Ethiopia, Somalia, Israel, Jordan and Djbouti. While he certainly has a say-so in Egypt, he doesn't in Israel or Jordan or any of the other countries.


when evidence is starting to become apparent, that they may just be and Egyptian army worth of Chariots and artifacts on the Bottom,

Biblical scholars and Biblical archaeologists have tested many of Wyatt's claims (including that one) and found that he made outrageous conclusions based on bad evidence.

You can read about it on the Answers in Genesis site (scroll down to the bottom and see how the charts were ... uh... well, they're lies) :
www.answersingenesis.org...

This is just one of many Christian sites that have investigated Wyatt and reported on him and are very disgusted with him and his institution.


but has no work being done, since he claims lack of Funding. Why did he stop that exploration, since it was nothing out of his pocket?


Are you confusing Ron Wyatt with Hawass?


And for the things that have been found in those shafts. The Granite Ball, and Hook, and the Rod, (which may still be in there). Where are they today? Why is it still being investigated? (Although, it is suggested, the Rod was part of somelse's investigation of the Shaft from the 20's)

That's Wyatt again, not Hawass. Wyatt says he found them in the Red Sea, but the charts he shows are from US waters and nobody has ever actually seen those artifacts.


And frankly, I think Egypt, was much much more than what he has presented thus far. (Far more than you even admit, but that's fine too. At least you are finally noting there is uniqueness to the Great Pyramid itself, unlike the copies standing beside it..)


Actually, I think they're all beautifully unique (including the Nubian ones) and I think there's a lot to them. The archaeological and anthropological picture (and translated works) are wonderful and complex, and delineate a society and practices that can seem very odd to us.

What's sad is that most people prefer the fictions of popular writers who take two facts and a lot of imagination and throw them together as a Great Hidden Conclusion and present them as a reality. I wish more people preferred the writings of Ptahhotep, the beautiful masonry and carpentry, the writings on the wall paintings (and would actually take the trouble to learn what they say.)

It's truly tragic that this complex beauty gets buried under a trivial and shallow shell of pretended miracles. I've been reading about some of the even earlier peoples (10,000 years ago) in the area -- archaeologists and scholars know that they made some attempt to domesticate gazelles and that they had extensive trade routes throughout the Mediterranean and up into Turkey.

(sigh) But that's not as interesting as some wild speculation about pyramids and Orion.


Nothing, and I mean Nothing, coming from Egypt has any interpetation other than Hawass. Sure, he's set himself up for a good gig. I will give him this, but who else is there to verify these finds? I do not know, nor can I find any. Everything is according to Hawass.


Oh, I'll grant you he's a grand egoist. And he has some odd beliefs (he thoroughly believes in Edgar Cayce.) But as far as who verifies the finds, Hawass doesn't make any of them these days. He sits in an office, and the digs are done by universities around the world:
Page of links:
www.deltasinai.com...
Johns Hopkins:
www.jhu.edu...
Christian digs from ASOR:
www.asor.org...
Lycoming College:
www.lycoming.edu...

... and on, and on and on. These are the people doing the digs.


I would like to see, what has been found though. Not be told about what he thought he found. Do you understand this. It's just wonderful they found this and that, and have no idea what it was until Hawass says so. That bothers me to no end. But maybe it's just the 'hidden' skeptic me.


Heh. It's just that you don't know where to look for the material. It's out there by the ton! I know about it, because I am interested in this and have some subscriptions to dig reports.

The problem is that when archaeologists and students report their findings, the public doesn't care. There's no aliens, giant skeletons, or ancient helicopters. There's just people, living and dying, and loving and hating. There's prayers and charms and incantations that don't relate to anything we do or need today. Media would rather report on whether two celebreties are going to have a baby or a divorce than on studies of artifact diversity.

Anyway, here's just a small handfull of some of the reports out there of digs in Egypt that Hawass had nothing to do with (other than saying they could dig and giving them permits for some of the artifacts to be taken out of Egypt.)

Brown University's excavation at Petra:
www.brown.edu...

Bunches of them listed:
archaeology.about.com...

Archaeology Magazine's neat article on the pet mummies of Egypt:
www.archaeology.org...

Petrie Museum:
www.albanyinstitute.org...

and on and on to the tune of 100 or more per year. Hawass could not have directed all of them, or even as many as five of them. All these expeditions produce reams of reports. At least 3600 of them show up on Google scholar:
scholar.google.com...

Anyway, there's some links there you may enjoy. At the very least, just peeking into them will help you get a more balanced picture of what the rest of the world does at Egyptian digs. Egyptian archaeology does not start and end with Hawass.


[edit on 31-5-2006 by Byrd]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Hi Again Byrd

And for some considerations of the Links you offered.

ask.yahoo.com...

But no one is certain about where the distinctive circle of the Celtic cross came from or what it means. Among some ancient peoples, a circle was used to represent the moon, and a circle with a cross symbolized the sun. Thus, the circle in the Celtic cross could have been a pagan moon or sun that was appropriated by early Christians to help convert the Celtic population.


aco.ca...

The cross shape itself has been widely used by many ancient peoples, long before the arrival of Christianity. Its four arms were perfect for denoting the four elements, the four directions of the compass, and the four parts of man - mind, body, soul and heart. The addition of the ring around the cross has had many explanations, everything from sun worship and symbolism, to creating a shape with the cross that was well contained and aesthetically pleasing.


First, we have no certainty on it's Origin, but see how it could be utilized, for denoting Directions, and with the Circle included, possible sun worship or Measureing.


The combined cross-and-circle (rather than "plus"/cross inside circle) is truly a fairly recent Christian artifact.



I call also, attention to this External Image, and ask you to look. There are two, items I find striking, one in each portion of the Glyph
www.crichtonmiller.com...


The "X" inside the circle? That's the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol that means "I'm now going to write the name of a town."

So the bird (which stands for the syllable, "wer") faces the symbol that says "city name" (pronounced "newet") then a "mound" (it's actually a bun, but it looks like a mound) which is the "it" sound.

The words there are "wer newet-it." (I'm using Collier and Manley's HOW TO READ EGYPTIAN HIERGOLYPHICS). I'm not up to doing a full translation of that panel (my ability to read is very limited) but that's no Celtic cross. That's a word-symbol.

(you can see it here for yourself... do a 'find' for 'town' on this page, or scroll through the signs: www.thekeep.org... )


Slightly less dubious than those standing stones though. How did they figure a Celtic Cross from those?? Maybe smoking all that Peat!



In truth, I'm pretty sure there's a circle in those stones (a central ring) and two arms that intersect at 90 degrees. But it's hard to tell from those pictures!



Sir Isaac Newton who said that Longitude could be discovered through astronomy was surely aware of the principles involved, but perhaps he could not speak out about the cross for fear of offending the Church of the time.


They had clocks back then.


How does this not work? This is where I get lost on what Harte is noting.


They didn't have the geometry of a sphere calculation back then-- geometry had to wait for the Greeks. Imagine that you're standing on a huge shield (and you don't know how big it is. It's just land, and you know there's an ocean "out there." (the Greeks of that era thought of the world as a shield surrounded by limitless ocean).

How do you tell latitude and longitude with no modern measuring tools?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

How do you tell latitude and longitude with no modern measuring tools?



Review Miller's site. There is, that tool.

And I found this interesting.

www.math.uncc.edu...

The Origins of Geometry
In the beginning geometry was a collection of rules for computing lengths, areas, and volumes. Many were crude approximations derived by trial and error.This body of knowledge, developed and used in construction, navigation, and surveying by the Babylonians and Egyptians, was passed to the Greeks. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century B.C.) credits the Egyptians with having originated the subject, but there is much evidence that the Babylonians, the Hindu civilization, and the Chinese knew much of what was passed along to the Egyptians. (STRANGE WORDING HERE)

The Babylonians of 2,000 to 1,600 B.C knew much about navigation and astronomy, which required a knowledge of geometry. They also considered the circumference of the circle to be three times the diameter. Of course, this would make --a small problem. This value for carried along to later times. The Roman architect Vitruvius took . Prior to this it seems that the Chinese mathematicians had taken the same value for . This value for was sanctified by the ancient Jewish(ISRAELI My Edit) civilization and sanctioned in the scriptures. In I Kings 7:23 we find:

He then made the sea of cast metal: it was round in shape, the diameter from rim to rim being ten cubits: it stood five cubits high, and it took a line thirty cubits long to go round it.--The New English Bible

Rabbi Nehemiah attempted to change the value of to but was rejected. By 1,800 B.C. the Egyptians, according to the Rhind papyrus, had the approximation


Seems like these Ancient Peoples, including Egyptians may have.

www.math.uncc.edu...

Spherical Geometry
Whereas basic plane geometry is concerned with points and lines and their interactions, most of the early geometry of the Babylonians, Arabs, and Greeks was spherical geometry--the study of the Earth, idealized as a sphere. This early science was astronomy and the need to measure time accurately by the sun.


Now, even with your arguement of the Age of the Great Pyramid, (2700 BC roughly) is it not apparent, the Egyptians had this knowledge as well?

The Pyramid is currently Screaming at you. It's saying.... (although I must paraphrase, since I am bad at Egytpian Linguistics as well)

"HEY BYRD, WHAT ABOUT ME??? Are you suggesting I am a Fluke?'


This early science was astronomy and the need to measure time accurately by the sun.


Noted again for 'Effect'


Is this not what the Egyptians gave the world?

And it all revolves, (pardon the pun) Harrison.


Quoted previously in Harrison's Longitude link(and this can be done quite precisely with a long plumb bob on land),


I also have problems with this aspect, of what you are suggesting, that this knowledge was not apparent. (Measuring of the Earth).

www.siriusresearchgroup.com...

It also should be mentioned that Agatharchides of Knidos, the historian and geographer who lived in 2nd century BC, recorded among other things that the base length of the Great Pyramid corresponds to 1/8 arc minute of one degree of geographic latitude. The distance from the equator to 10° of latitude corresponds to 1,105,867 m. One arc minute is equal to 1,843.11 m and 1/8 of that is 230.38896 m. Since the base length of the Great Pyramid consists of 230.38699 m, the difference amounts to only 1.97 mm.

There appears to be a rigorous relationship between Phi, the Royal Cubit and the meter. But would this relation apply to Phi, the inch and the statute mile? Nobody can say for sure where the inch and the statute mile came from. There is no rational relationship between the two. The present definition of an inch is 2.5399956 cm. Since 1 foot equals 12 inches and 1 yard equals 3 feet, one can derive a statute mile of 1,609.341 m from 5280 feet.

By using 2Ö j = 2.544... as a factor, a relationship between Phi and the inch can also be established. [ 2Ö j × 12 × 5280 (feet) = 161190.33]. Using Ö j = 1.27201965 as a factor one arrives fairly close at the mean diameter of the Earth (polar diameter plus equator diameter divided by 2) in meters. Thus, based on the relationship of Phi, it seems the dimensions of the Great Pyramid accurately represent Earth's mean diameter and its mean circumference in both inch and in meter.


Now, it does seem to me, that given the Wonder Standing in Giza, this knowledge was child's play, for the architect.

And I am, really trying, to reflects on Harte's comments too, but it's not fitting.

Ciao

Shane



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join