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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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


No actually, you appear to be, the Sole Moderator that partakes and offers your knowledge regularly, inorder to allow other's an opportunity to examine details not originally consider or expressed.

We are all better off, having this.
Whether I am comfortable to accept it, is debatable



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


www.archaeologynews.org...

This was part of the story, I had in Favourites, but I did not have the direct link to the Salt Water erosion Link. It is in the www.acrharologynews.org archives section.
I thought the place was Luxor, that is in deperate need of attention, but I tend to overlook these places, since they mean little to me.

This may help, although it was not the Page I mentioned. It is describing the problem, actually much better, than the article I saw.

www.e-c-h-o.org...


Egypt’s Cultural Heritage under Threat of Destruction

This October (2005) concern is again being raised about the damage being done by the encroachment of agricultural land on Egyptian monuments. Egyptian reliefs and even whole monuments dating back thousands of years could disappear within a decade if action is not taken soon. To try and combat the rise in the water table that traditional methods of framing creates the government is trying to persuade farmers to use drip irrigation, a method that uses relatively little water. However, it has had little success because farmers prefer the traditional method of flooding farmland with Nile water. Draining the area around archaeological sites is also an effective solution but is expensive, and donations from the international community are not always forthcoming. Although a Spanish Mission working at the Temple of Horus at Edfu, are trying to find solutions to this problem by using the latest technology to combat the rise in the water table that is threatening to undermine the temple. One solution may be to dig a trench around the temple and fill it with gravel to drain the area and then use hydrological sensors to monitor the level of water.


Seems, the Egyptian People do not like Israeli Water techonolgy though. It's turned Israel into a Flowering Rose in the Middle East. Too bad, but as you can see it's a sever problem


Are you confusing Ron Wyatt with Hawass?


No


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.


Yes, that is Wyatt. And you mean nobody, right?

atheism.about.com...

Mary Nell] cites Ron's discovery of a wheel hub that he brought to the surface in the late 1970s as proof. The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C. Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity.


And of course, no one believes the Antiquities Director of Egypt, during this time? Who is he, to conclude it is a item from 1400 BC. This tends to get buried, under all the opressive naysaying, (but I am not picking on you Byrd, It's UNIVERSAL)


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.


I wonder if this was due to Ham, bringing his background of Animal Husbandry to Africa? I would appreciate any details about that Trade though. Black Sea Trade to be precise.


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


Oh yes it is interesting, but difficult to pass off the stunning similiarities.


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:

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

Heh. It's just that you


So I have Odd Beliefs??? I know it comes as no surpise to Harte, but I believe Cayce.


And yes, digs are going on. Interpetation in the news by Hawass.

Ciao

Shane




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by Byrd

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



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


I didn't see him explaining how it was used, exactly -- and didn't you say the same thing? Or did I miss that?


And I found this interesting.

www.math.uncc.edu...

The Origins of Geometry
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)



Ah. Well, that's because we need to dabble more in the history of numbers and mathematics.


The Egyptians actually get their calculations from the Sumerians/Babylonians, who were superb engineers. Hindus had some promising directions, as did the Chinese, but both took their maths into a religous format and engineering math took a back seat.


The Babylonians of 2,000 to 1,600 B.C knew much about navigation and astronomy, which required a knowledge of geometry.

And the Phoenecians got a lot of their knowledge from them.



They also considered the circumference of the circle to be three times the diameter.

Okay, at this point in the essay, "bad writing" crops up. They know about circles, yes... but at this point they don't know the Earth is a sphere.



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?


We need terms for relative degrees of "ancient!"

These geometries develop (as the article says) in 600 BC. That's 2,000 years AFTER the building of the pyramids! It was about that time that the concept of "earth as a sphere and not a shield" arose.



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


(pats the pyramid) No, in fact, I believe (as do most scholars) that you are NOT a fluke and that you are related in time and space and culture to ALL the pyramids in the North African area, including the Bent Pyramid, the Step Pyramid, the older Red Pyramid, and the more recent Nubian Pyramids (to name a small set.)





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

Well, I can quote ancient Greeks at you, if you like.


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.


Uhm, he was an "old guy" but not a "really really really old guy." He lived around 150 BC, and that was nearly 200 years after the initial discovery of latitude.
mathforum.org...

And latitude is discovered (drum roll) some 2,300 years AFTER the Great Pyramid and the pyramids in that complex are built.


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?


If you divide any number by another number (and round up or round down) you can always find "rigorous relationships" or "meaningful relationships." I have two cats in my household. My daughter has 3. I'm sure I can multiply and divide out parts of the Great Pyramid and come up with measurements that make my cats significant. I can even measure Evyl Skitty Xena (who has a short and kinky tail and is very fat) and relate her weight/height/length to the pyramid.

The question isn't "can you construct relationships" but " what are the cultural and historical ties that support this." I could say "Egyptians worshipped a cat goddess and sacrificed cats" (quite true) and then relate this to the Great Pyramid and my fat cat, Xena's proportions. While I'm sure her Evyl Fuzzy Brain would be delighted and use it as an excuse to order more catfood, the relationship (while true) is bogus.


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.


Well, yes, we do know where they come from. And when. They're standardized measurements of older measurements. At one time, every country; every region, and sometimes every town had its own measurements. You could call your "heap of wheat" a "brown bagfull" if you liked. But this was inconvenient for rulers and governors who wanted to know if the 'bagfull' of wheat from Eritrea was the same as a 'sackfull' of wheat from Tuscan. You're using English measures that were standardized in the 1600's :
www.answers.com...


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.


I can do that with Xena's measurements, you know. Or Tuan's measurements. This doesn't mean that when they die I should bury them in the Great Pyramid or that they know all the secrets of the universe (Tuan is a pound-rescued purebred Birman. He's lovely, and he has only about 3 braincells, one of which is devoted to sleeping on schedule.)


[edit on 31-5-2006 by Byrd]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Byrd]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Shane,

As I said before, the entire issue of longitude is really a side issue anyway, when it comes to the Egyptians. I mentioned it only because when I read the info at Miller's webpage, his claim that the ancients could determine longitude by using the Celtic Cross (or any other tool) was the first completely ridiculous yet easily debunkable claim made there that I came across. This cannot be done even today, even if you know everything there is to know about spherical geometries, longitude, astronomy or whatnot.

I was disappointed that Miller didn't even give us any info on Newton's ideas in this field, other than to just mention it in passing, that is. I'd never heard that about Newton, but I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about the father of the calculus.

Calculating longitude if you have a watch is a piece of cake. You set out from port with your watch set to local time. After traveling for some time, you check the angle of the Sun in the sky, and compare this angle with what the angle should be if the time on your watch was still correct. The difference in the angles, the measured angle and the "should be" angle, tells you how far east or west you have come. So you see, you have to be able to "carry the time" with you from your point of origin. It is for this reason that telling local time cannot provide you with your longitude.

But FYI, finding the "local" time is precisely the same as what you are doing when you "check the angle of the Sun in the sky." Given the local time, by whatever means, the problem then becomes "What is the time right now back in my home port (or at the "zero" longitude)?

Not that any of this matters at all, since the Egyptians didn't need to know anything about longitude in any case. I only mentioned it because, like I said, it was a ridiculous (and unsubstantiated) claim made by Miller early on in his webpage. Further reading only revealed his "method" for finding local times, which, pardon me, I don't think anyone would put beyond the ken of ancient humans, after a certain period, anyway.

Harte



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I'd never heard that about Newton, but I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about the father of the calculus.


en.wikipedia.org...

The Longitude Problem
In 1714 the question of finding the longitude at sea, which had been looked upon as an important one for several years, was brought into prominence by a petition presented to the House of Commons by a number of captains of Her Majesty's ships and merchant ships and of London merchants. The petition was referred to a committee of the House, who called witnesses. Newton appeared before them and gave evidence. He stated that for determining the longitude at sea there had been several projects, true in theory but difficult to execute. He mentioned four:

by a watch to keep time exactly
by the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites
by the place of the moon
by a new method proposed by Mr Ditton.

Newton criticized all the methods, pointing out their weak points, and it is due mainly to his evidence that the Committee brought in the report which was accepted by the House, and shortly afterwards was converted into a Bill, passed both Houses, and received the royal assent. The report ran "that it is the opinion of this committee that a reward be settled by Parliament upon such person or persons as shall discover a more certain and practicable method of ascertaining the longitude than any yet in practice; and the said reward be proportioned to the degree of exactness to which the said method shall reach."


You see, I did recall something from School. Imagine that


I am sure, that at this time, depsite the previous note from Byrd, Longitude was a problem. And as pointed out by Harrison's theory, it was actually quite simple in the End. Using the Plumbline.

Do you see what I am noting. What Miller is suggesting is not unfeasible, since in the End, it is the manner, which you, yourself had noted earlier, that Egyptians would have taken on a construction project. Some sticks and a Rock on a string.

It is also quite clear, this knowledge was evident within the Mid East according to some of the Geometry links noted before, and part of what was noted was navigation. Egypt is noted as part of these who knew and actually set geometry in motion.

That means, between 1800 BC to 1700 AD, this knowledge was lost or I think Miller is suggesting hidden, which I am starting to have difficulties with.


Not that any of this matters at all, since the Egyptians didn't need to know anything about longitude in any case. I only mentioned it because, like I said, it was a ridiculous (and unsubstantiated) claim made by Miller early on in his webpage. Further reading only revealed his "method" for finding local times, which, pardon me, I don't think anyone would put beyond the ken of ancient humans, after a certain period, anyway.

Harte


And I will like to say thanks for giving examples, so I could get what you where noting. School was nearly 30 years ago, and I and really am trying to view what both you and Byrd have noted, but contradictions in your arguements are what is found, when just trying to verify it.

Just because, Egyptians 'didn't need to know' anything about longitude, it is being suggested they did, by at least 1800 BC, if not earlier whether they needed it or not.

Just because, the Geometry of the Sphere, isn't something the Egyptians recorded, it is evident in the Great Pyramid very accurately.

As for the basic principle laid out by Miller, it was all Astronomy, and the Zodiac. And that simple little device called a celtic cross, allows this to be measured. (According to his claims, and patents.)

But nonetheless, I will say this. Miller has used some grey matter.
Does this mean, it was the Tool used at Giza????

I understand what it is you are notings Harte. My questions, with all of this, would revolve around Maintaining the GIZAMT. I can understand how they would be able to denote the Time during the Night, and figure the time at Giza, but I can get how that could be done during the day. Not that this would be extremely important, since you should be able to see during the day, but anyways, I am sure you can help here, and if not Byrd will have some thoughts.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Hey Byrd

No, I have not 'seen' if functioning neither. The explaination or theory seems sound, but I guess that would make an intersting project to Video. Two Sticks and a Circle devided into 360 Degrees, and thats the tool. Does it work? This IS a good question.

The knowledge of the Zodiac, and Astrology is simple enough to work with, and we have all the knowns, even being reminded to us in Miller's Site.

But yes, I would love to see how that works. Where's Discovery Channel or NGS when you need them? Oh Yeah, interpeting everything according the Hawass.


The Numerics, I had thought that Babylons worked in 12's or 1/12th's, the Sumerians in 6's and 60's and the Egyptians in 10's, but the Strange wording, I thought was something of the Trade or Conquests, and maybe the blending of these cultures during those times (2000-1800 BC). You seemed to pickup on that with your Pussy Example, I think, and yes, that should be noted. Trade and Measure would be important.

I do wonder, how the 'Sea People', intermingled, within these groups?

As for your Kitty Comments, funny. I started to worry when Xena and her Kinky tail got mentioned.


But no Byrd, I do not believe your cats butt is an example that would determine the mean circumference and mean diameter of the earth. You do need something akin to 440 Cubics or whatever the appropriate measure (Feet, Metric) would be, No?? Not to mention, the balance of the Measurements.

I know things are big in Texas, but you wouldn't fit her in the Decending Passage, let alone the that Enterance to the King's Chamber.

And a quick question, What about Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Was that an accurate account, or fabrication. (I don't know) I looked for other details, but they all said the same thing. No one seems to be dispelling the Video, or that he had noted.

Then of course, the speculation amasses, due to the Wyatt, not having the item anylonger.

Have a Good Evening

Ciao

Shane



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

en.wikipedia.org...

...He stated that for determining the longitude at sea there had been several projects, true in theory but difficult to execute. He mentioned four:
by a watch to keep time exactly
by the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites
by the place of the moon
by a new method proposed by Mr Ditton....


These are all interesting methodologies for finding the World time, which is really the problem. Of course, the watch was decided upon, it being the easiest. I looked into the method proposed by Ditton:

...WILLIAM WHISTON: All that would be needed is a straight row of 20 or 30 warships somehow permanently anchored across the Atlantic. At midnight each night, the ships would fire off large sky rockets, which could be seen or heard for 100 miles around. With the explosions, mariners will always know when it is midnight in Greenwich and will be able to determine their longitude by comparing Greenwich time to the local time on board their ship.

Upon further reading, I have found reason to believe that Newton himself never came up with a method, he even doubted that clocks could do the job, because of the turbulence experienced by ships at sea:

...ISAAC NEWTON: I have told the world oftener than once that longitude is not to be found by watchmakers but by the ablest astronomers. I am unwilling to meddle with any other method than the right one.

DAVA SOBEL VO: Newton really prejudiced the Board by saying in no uncertain terms that no clock would ever succeed in finding the longitude
Source of both above references:www.pbs.org...
This from Newton actually surprises me. But I'm not surprised to find Miller mischaracterizing (to say the very least and be polite about it) the entire situation.


Originally posted by Shane
Do you see what I am noting. What Miller is suggesting is not unfeasible, since in the End, it is the manner, which you, yourself had noted earlier, that Egyptians would have taken on a construction project. Some sticks and a Rock on a string.

I see what you are noting, yes, but what Miller suggests absolutely is not feasible. In fact, he does not suggest at all any method for astronomically finding longitude! So his method for the ancients finding longitude is the epitome of "unfeasibleness." Interestingly, though, this claim of Egyptian longitude is not (really) the basis for some other thesis he is trying to put forward, so like I said, it's a side issue anyway. By this I mean that at least he's not trying to use his (vacant) longitude claim to support some crazy idea about Egyptians colonizing the New World or something, like many others have tried to do.


Originally posted by ShaneIt is also quite clear, this knowledge was evident within the Mid East according to some of the Geometry links noted before, and part of what was noted was navigation. Egypt is noted as part of these who knew and actually set geometry in motion.
That means, between 1800 BC to 1700 AD, this knowledge was lost or I think Miller is suggesting hidden, which I am starting to have difficulties with.

There's no reason to believe at all that the Egyptians could find longitude. Hence no reason to believe that this knowledge was somehow "lost."


Originally posted by ShaneAs for the basic principle laid out by Miller, it was all Astronomy, and the Zodiac. And that simple little device called a celtic cross, allows this to be measured. (According to his claims, and patents.)

But Miller doesn't lay out any procedure at all for some faraway traveler to determine what you have called the GIZAMT. The Celtic Cross certainly cannot do this.


Originally posted by ShaneI understand what it is you are notings Harte. My questions, with all of this, would revolve around Maintaining the GIZAMT. I can understand how they would be able to denote the Time during the Night, and figure the time at Giza...

Since Miller didn't tell us, why don't you enlighten us as to how one goes about "...figur(ing) the time at Giza..." once one has established the time at one's locale? Even if you know the diameter of the Earth precisely, and the latitude of your position, you still cannot "figure" your longitude from local time only.

Anyway, now I've debunked two items at Miller's page, without much effort. The longitude problem of the ancients and Miller's assertion that Newton had a method for astronomically determining longitude. Should I dig further? What are you, biased toward the Celts (or their cross, anyway)?


Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
... the following proposal:

the stars don't change much, so you can use them to measure the earth's revolution just as well as you can use the sun, the only difference being an accumulative deviation of ~ a degree or (4 minutes) per day, by comparing the two measurements and taking the date into account (enabling you to calculate offset) wouldn't you have just what you need, namely the clock to derive your longitude ?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
the stars don't change much, so you can use them to measure the earth's revolution just as well as you can use the sun, the only difference being an accumulative deviation of ~ a degree or (4 minutes) per day, by comparing the two measurements and taking the date into account (enabling you to calculate offset) wouldn't you have just what you need, namely the clock to derive your longitude ?

No, what you'd have is a method for telling the time at your location.

In order to find your particular longitude, you also would have to simultaneously know the time of day at your "zero" longitude, wherever it was that you designated that to be (for us, it's Greenwich, England - thats where we get Greenwich Mean Time - GMT.) In this thread, assuming the Egyptians could do this (they couldn't), Shane (and I ) have been calling it Giza Mean Time (GizaMT).

Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
There's no reason to believe at all that the Egyptians could find longitude. Hence no reason to believe that this knowledge was somehow "lost."


Well we could end this portion of this, by agreeing. Egyptians may not have needed it.


But Miller doesn't lay out any procedure at all for some faraway traveler to determine what you have called the GIZAMT. The Celtic Cross certainly cannot do this.


I do understand what you are noting, and from considering this very carefully, with your assistance, this is something, that maybe impossible to accomplish from the point of orientation. I was thinking, this maybe done though, by the Stars, but reflecting on this further, it would be difficult to still make an assessment of the GIZAMT.

Me, enlighten?




Anyway, now I've debunked (ONE) two items at Miller's page, without much effort. The longitude (YES) problem of the ancients and Miller's assertion that Newton had a method for astronomically (IS THIS WHAT HE WAS SAYING? I didn't see it THAT way) determining longitude.

Should I dig further? (YES) What are you, biased toward the Celts (or their cross, anyway)?


Harte

(My inserts)

I thought Miller was suggesting Newton may have known, due to his intelligence, and may have not said anything because of his intelligence. Not that he had any suggestions or offered anything.

As for the your question my Honest answer to the Celts would have been, Originally, they are part of the Lost Tribes, but not in the sense that British Israelism has distorted the matter. (That becomes part of the Secret Societies, which seem not to be so secretive anymore.)

Nat's searches for the Ogham, and results to date, indicate this is not accurate, in the sense that they came from the East and spread across Europa and into the Ilses. Trying to see what was out there, many interesting claims from the Sciences, and specifically the Genetics Research, contradicts this clearly. They have nothing in common, with the Germanic and Bulgars, or the Roman and Greek peoples.

They did control a large portion of Europa though, leading upto the Roman Empire, but this seems more through conquest.

As for the Cross, I have no bias. It's the Globe's bias that identifies it as the Celtic Cross. I doubt very much it's origins are "Celtic", but just associated with them.

I still do believe, Mr Miller, has truthfully found the purpose of this tool. For finding GIZAMT, I can not explain something Newton wouldn't explain, but it's other uses are quite interesting. As I noted to Byrd, I would love to see a Documentary on this, showing it working.

For Charting the Stars, and Locating the Sun, even during the Night, yes, this should work. For assessing the Seasons, and measuring the Angles of the Sun, yes, this should work. For Construction purposes, I would expect you would even agree, this should work, for laying out the Angles, and Alignment.

Was it the Tool of Giza???? That remains unanswered.

And I wish to thank you for the Expression of your 'This would not work', and elaborating on this in detail.

I am not a brick, (even though at times, I guess you wonder), but I am not Kreskin neither. I have no clue, what you are thinking when the details offered amounts to 4 words.

Having your explaination, afforded me an opportunity to consider these carefully. Reviewing texts, based on your responses, and Byrd's additional thoughts, I still see inconsistancies, but I do believe, your 'This would not work' for Longitude is correct.

But 'This would not work' doesn't allow me, to learn anything my friend. If I need to be told something, then what is the use of Thinking? I want to know, why 'This would not work' and only with an understanding of your thoughts, and appropriate consideration, can we learn why, 'This would not work'.

I trust you understand what I mean Harte.

I have had many 'learning experiences' based on the Idea's "Others have offered" and in this case, I learnt more on a matter, I had no previously use for. The furtherest I navigate is to the next Bass Hole, or to a destination on a Map.

But I hope, you will remember this, because if I learnt something through your efforts to fully explain, then all who review this, also are able to learn. And is this not why we are here?

Ciao

Shane



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
...I thought Miller was suggesting Newton may have known, due to his intelligence, and may have not said anything because of his intelligence. Not that he had any suggestions or offered anything.


Well, here's the quote from Miller again:

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.


"...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" is an attempt to say that not only had Newton solved the problem, but also that he had done it with the Celtic cross!

Believe what you want from Miller - even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then, so he might accidentally be (partially) right. I cannot do so myself, for I refuse to listen to a person that is lying to my face in an attempt to get me to buy his book of fantasy archaeology. The Newton claim might not be so offensive, but claiming to have solved this problem of longitude without using a watch, something that even Sir Isaac Newton couldn't do (and that's saying a lot), that my friend is a baldface outrageous lie.


Originally posted by Shane...For Charting the Stars, and Locating the Sun, even during the Night, yes, this should work. For assessing the Seasons, and measuring the Angles of the Sun, yes, this should work. For Construction purposes, I would expect you would even agree, this should work, for laying out the Angles, and Alignment.

I'd say yes, it would probably work for all of these things, though so would a literal multitude of other objects. That does not imply that all these other objects were used for these purposes either. However, it also doesn't imply that they weren't.


Originally posted by ShaneI am not a brick, (even though at times, I guess you wonder), but I am not Kreskin neither. I have no clue, what you are thinking when the details offered amounts to 4 words.

Having your explaination, afforded me an opportunity to consider these carefully. Reviewing texts, based on your responses, and Byrd's additional thoughts, I still see inconsistancies, but I do believe, your 'This would not work' for Longitude is correct.

But 'This would not work' doesn't allow me, to learn anything my friend. If I need to be told something, then what is the use of Thinking? I want to know, why 'This would not work' and only with an understanding of your thoughts, and appropriate consideration, can we learn why, 'This would not work'.

I trust you understand what I mean Harte.

I have had many 'learning experiences' based on the Idea's "Others have offered" and in this case, I learnt more on a matter, I had no previously use for. The furtherest I navigate is to the next Bass Hole, or to a destination on a Map.

But I hope, you will remember this, because if I learnt something through your efforts to fully explain, then all who review this, also are able to learn. And is this not why we are here?


I get what you are saying here. I had not anticipated the difficulty I had in getting across the reasons this cannot be done. If I had, I would have gone into more detail in my first mention of the subject.

But, after all, the "longitude thing" was just an example of an easily refuted claim made early in the text at Miller's website. I used it to show that what Miller says should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Like you (and I) said, the Egyptians didn't need knowledge of longitude anyway. Actually, if all you're doing is exploring, a compass is all you really need. Who cares what longitude you're at when you're in Ireland if you came there from Egypt?

Regarding what you learned from me here, I'm glad, Shane, but you could have learned exactly the same thing from Miller. He lays out the "longitude problem" fairly clearly on his "ancient navigation" (or whatever) page, but he just doesn't go on to solve it!

Here's a suggestion - next time instead of maintaining that your source does do something I say can't be done, just ask me - "Why can't it be done, Harte?" Maybe I'll be wrong.


Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Hey Harte

I have re-read things, in here, am I am confused with anger in the Following. No one should get that upset, and I wondered.

Well, here's the quote from Miller again:



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.
my emphasis

Compared to yours


"...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" is an attempt to say that not only had Newton solved the problem, but also that he had done it with the Celtic cross!


Like I said, I like to learn, and I presume the following would reflect some accuracy. As has been pointed out, Longitude was difficult.

Lattitude was fine, since from some point the Astrolabe, was utilized, or more correctly a Mariner Astrolabe This mainly being a Marked Disc which measured the Stars/Sun with an adjustable shaft that swung to mark the Position. Hmmm

astrolabes.org...

A number of devices were used to measure the Sun's noon altitude. Among them were the quadrant, cross staff and, later, the back staff and the mariner's astrolabe. All these devices had a single use; to measure the altitude of a celestial body above the horizon. The Mariner's Astrolabe, which was popular in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, was a simple brass ring, graduated in degrees with a rotating alidade for sighting the Sun or a star.


I also found an interesting History, covering all devices to today.

pwifland.tripod.com...

The major problem with back-sight instruments was that it was difficult if not impossible to sight the moon, the planets or the stars. Thus, toward the end of the 1600's and into the 1700's, the more inventive instrument makers were shifting their focus to optical systems based on mirrors and prisms that could be used to observe the nighttime celestial bodies.

The critical development was made independently and almost simultaneously by John Hadley in England and by Thomas Godfrey, a Philadelphia glazier, about 1731. The fundamental idea is to use of two mirrors to make a doubly reflecting instrument-the forerunner of the modern sextant.


And back to that point of using the Night, I found this interesting.


The missing element was a way to measure time accurately. The clock makers were busy inventing ingenious mechanical devices while the astronomers were promoting a celestial method called "lunar distances". Think of the moon as the hand of a clock moving across a clock face represented by the other celestial bodies. Early in the 18th century, the astronomers had developed a method for predicting the angular distance between the moon and the sun, the planets or selected stars. Using this technique, the navigator at sea could measure the angle between the moon and a celestial body, calculate the time at which the moon and the celestial body would be precisely at that angular distance. This gives the time back at the national observatory (GIZAMT?) at the moment that the observation was taken which is then compared with the ship's chronometer. Knowing the correct time, the navigator could now determine longitude. When the sun passes through the observer's meridian, the local solar time is 1200 noon and this is compared to Greenwich Mean Time. Remembering that 15 degrees of longitude is equivalent to one hour of time gives us the longitude east or west of Greenwich. The lunar distance method of telling time was still being used into the early 1900's


I knew, this could have been done, but was unaware it was such a current achievement. I had figured this was what was brought forth, during the 1800 BC by Babylon, Sumerians and of course Egypt

en.wikipedia.org...

Sir Isaac Newton invented the principle of the doubly reflecting navigation instrument, but never published it.


www.nahste.ac.uk...

Astronomy: combining his work in mathematics, statics, and optics, he was able to predict the motions of bodies in the heavens, and build a practical reflecting telescope to see them. His improvements to instrumentation also extended to a better sextant, and an enormous composite burning glass.


So, was Miller making up things just so you had to buy his book, and irritating you to the point of claiming Blatant lies, or is Miller just a indicating fact Newton knew, and speculating on why he did not develope it? Because it does seem, Newton knew the principles invloved.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte" 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 ...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" is an attempt to say that not only had Newton solved the problem, but also that he had done it with the Celtic cross!

Shane,
Doesn't this appear to be Miller claiming Newton's method involved using the cross? Why would Newton fear the Church's reaction to his solving of the longitude problem?
And why couldn't the circumpolar stars be used as a timepiece?


Originally posted by Shane

The missing element was a way to measure time accurately...
... the astronomers were promoting a celestial method called "lunar distances". Think of the moon as the hand of a clock moving across a clock face represented by the other celestial bodies. Early in the 18th century, the astronomers had developed a method for predicting the angular distance between the moon and the sun, the planets or selected stars. Using this technique, the navigator at sea could measure the angle between the moon and a celestial body, calculate the time at which the moon and the celestial body would be precisely at that angular distance. This gives the time back at the national observatory (GIZAMT?) at the moment that the observation was taken which is then compared with the ship's chronometer. Knowing the correct time, the navigator could now determine longitude. When the sun passes through the observer's meridian, the local solar time is 1200 noon and this is compared to Greenwich Mean Time. Remembering that 15 degrees of longitude is equivalent to one hour of time gives us the longitude east or west of Greenwich. The lunar distance method of telling time was still being used into the early 1900's


The "moon method" laid out here gives a reasonable approximation of world time, assuming you have the tables of these relationships between the Moon and the celestial bodies. Remember that though it's true that the Moon revolves around the Earth, it takes it a month to do so. So as the face of the Earth turns under the moon, these angles between the Moon and other bodies remain about the same all night. The next night, however, everything will be changed. Newton criticised this method :

In 1714 the question of finding the longitude at sea, which had been looked upon as an important one for several years, was brought into prominence by a petition presented to the House of Commons by a number of captains of Her Majesty's ships and merchant ships and of London merchants...
Newton appeared before them and gave evidence. He stated that for determining the longitude at sea there had been several projects...
He mentioned four:
by a watch to keep time exactly
by the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites
by the place of the moon
by a new method proposed by Mr Ditton.
Newton criticized all the methods, pointing out their weak points...

as you pointed out earlier. I haven't looked into his exact criticism of it, or why he thought it not good enough to warrant his recommendation, but I can assume he had good reasons. He was, after all, Isaac Newton.

I want to say that though your reference mentions the use of a ship's chronometer, one could use the Draco method Miller lays out to find local time. And one could do so without a Celtic cross, BTW.
The fact that this method developed so late is likely due to the stability of the vessels involved. Hard to make any of these measurements on a raft.


Originally posted by ShaneSo, was Miller making up things just so you had to buy his book, and irritating you to the point of claiming Blatant lies, or is Miller just a indicating fact Newton knew, and speculating on why he did not develope it? Because it does seem, Newton knew the principles invloved.

Obviously Newton knew several methods. Yet he considered them all inferior, including the clock method (clocks sucked in Newton's day.)
Miller claims Newton solved the problem. He did not. Moreover, Miller says Newton solved it using the cross.

I already wasted enough time and money on Erich VonDaniken and others, I found out I had been lied to right there in print in their books. I recommend to anyone reading this that they not waste their time nor their money on any author that will tell straight out lies and lies by implication right there on a webpage.

Harte



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
(chuckle)

Shane, your research is quite good! I had intended to come back and explain that what the "Celtic Cross" device was, was actually a sextant -- and I see you've figured that out already, AND done the Wikipedia scan and looked for ancient technology as well.

Excellent work!

So now you can see the objection that Harte and I have -- he's simply redesigned an instrument that's been in use since 1800 BC (about a thousand years after the pyramids started being built.) And he uses the same system of measurement that we use (though, if you look at your page on the history of the sextant, you'll see that the ancients didn't divide longitiude up into 100 degrees, but into "fingerwidths" which were close to 1 degree 36 minutes (according to the page.)

The part I find unconvincing (and the others who study ancient cultures would find unconvincing) is that there's no celtic cross designs in the ancient societies that use engineering. In those days, a man (or woman) was buried with the tools they used in life. Important tools were copied and given to others. Even if only a few people in a society used it, the knowledge was transmitted to others (children) and tool copies were made for them.

This is how we know which ancient societies used abacuses and how long a Royal Cubit was.

NO Egyptian mummies are buried with Celtic Crosses -- including those mummies of Coptic Christians. It never occurs in the society at all.

Other technology that the Egyptians didn't have were sophisticated astronomical observatories the equal of the Babylonians. They did have observatories in the stone age, but they didn't obsessively record star charts and tables (as did the Babylonians and the Mayans and Incans, who were obsessed with it.)

This quote from Crichton Miller's site also raised my eyebrows:

The wheel is also marked with the ancient wind rose as well as the 36 decans of the ancient Egyptian Astrologers


It's only accurate if he means "ancient Egyptian astrologers who lived after 200 BC or thereabouts." The more ancient Egyptians (at the time of the building of the pyramid) did not have astrologers and were more interested in keeping away the crocodiles than in writing horoscopes. This bit of culture didn't actually catch on until the time of the Ptolomies (200 BC and onward.)



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
So, was Miller making up things just so you had to buy his book, and irritating you to the point of claiming Blatant lies, or is Miller just a indicating fact Newton knew, and speculating on why he did not develope it? Because it does seem, Newton knew the principles invloved.


Miller was indulging in Bad Research, and he should honestly be ashamed of himself for it. He has his own "version" of history that draws from a number of sources he finds reliable, but they are not as deep as they should be (and some are unreliable) and his scholarly knowledge of ancient cultures isn't as deep as it should be, either.

So he had an idea, and didn't bother to ask the obvious questions about whether these things he found ("celtic cross" signs here and there) were actually other things (known words meaning "the city of") or whether they were actually referenced in the culture and part of a culture (I can draw a six-headed ouroubos serpent with braided necks eating its own tail, and it might be significant to me... but it would be a huge mistake for a far-distant archaeologist to see this drawing and conclude that an important tool or symbol for the American culture of 2000 AD was the six-headed ouroubos.) He looks for things that confirm his theory and addresses some that negate his theory, but it's not at any great depth.

So he's cherry picking to prove an odd theory.

Do we all do this in science? Yes, we cherry pick our sources. But good science means you throw the ideas at others and see what their objections are and you revise when you have been found to be in error.

And before you start, you read literally EVERYTHING you can on the subject... and he's obviously not done much reading on ancient astrology and so forth.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Miller was indulging in Bad Research, and he should honestly be ashamed of himself for it. He has his own "version" of history that draws from a number of sources he finds reliable, but they are not as deep as they should be (and some are unreliable) and his scholarly knowledge of ancient cultures isn't as deep as it should be, either.


Yeah, that or Miller has done a little market research, and found an arcane subject that not a lot of people know much about, in a field which has already been unscrupulously connected with unknown ancient advanced civilizations (The Irish Celts) in previous pseudoscientific writings. He used the relative obscureness of the subject in an attempt to leverage his "book" onto the bookshelves of the Mulders out there that "want to believe" by inventing new things for them to "want to believe."

I swear, Byrd, you give guys like Miller waaaay too much credit when you say that they "didn't look deeply enough" into the subject matter, for example. I maintain that Miller looked deep enough to realize that your average Joe probably wouldn't know enough about it to suspect a fraud. How much deeper [should he have gone? You certainly couldn't expect him to fully research it, could you? I mean if he did, and was honest about it, who on Earth would buy his book?

Harte



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Harte you spend far too much time at the keyboard and not near enough time reading.

The Celtic Cross which is the subject of Miller's book, The Golden Thread of Time - which I have read BTW was patented at his own expense - before the book was written.

You should get another hobby Harte - one that does not include attacking everyone and every thing.

bc
.\



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc

The Celtic Cross which is the subject of Miller's book, The Golden Thread of Time - which I have read BTW was patented at his own expense - before the book was written.

bc
.\


Hello Before

Was there any details offered indept, that explained the Premise and how this Device worked.

Reveiwing his site, the premise in "Most" cases seem easy to follow, but I was wondering.

He does seem to have done considerable research, despite what Harte may feel, which of course he is entilted to.

And did he go to any specifics, as to how he may have concluded, Navigation was quite easy during 2000 BC, and how he can to insinuate, this was "Lost" and then "Found again, in the 1700 AD?

You do not need to explain this here, but a confirmation or denial from one who has taken the $20.00 and laid it out to read the Work he has done, would settle this conception that Harte is fermenting about.

Just wondering

Ciao

Shane



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
(chuckle)

he's simply redesigned an instrument that's been in use since 1800 BC (about a thousand years after the pyramids started being built.)


Well, HARTE, are you paying attention or still upset? We now are nearing 2800 BC for a Date
(Only 5800 Years to go
)

What would you say to this then Byrd.

Has he 'redesigned an Instrument' or has he just figured out what the Cross and Circle that this Earth refers to as a Celtic Cross actually did? Would not these markers in Ireland and Such, have been an appropriate tool for aligning, items such as Stonehedge? If, of course, the Wheel functioned?

It's a question for you, not if evidence suggests this is accurate.


The part I find unconvincing (and the others who study ancient cultures would find unconvincing) is that there's no celtic cross designs in the ancient societies that use engineering.


I do find this, more of a point to consider, than anything that has been offered this far, for the exact reason you note Byrd. Other than those 'Celtic Crosses' on those Glyphs, that you noted means, 'this is or here is' according to translations, I agree with you.

I have seen nothing to verify this to show otherwise.

BUT, You do remember one of our conversations about Acts 29, and why this was brought up. ( Yes, the Druid's, who told Paul, they came from Egypt. )

Now, regardless, if the Acts 29 was some Mystic Wonder, or is truely Pauls last chapter of Acts, I do not think we would need to go there again, and I hope you agree.

My next question becomes, Just how secretive where the Driuds, and what eventually was their means of leaving the messages they are presumed to have left their followers, the Celt's? Was it not IN STONE?

But Yes, I find that not seeing this tool in history is certain cause to wonder about this


This quote from Crichton Miller's site also raised my eyebrows:

The wheel is also marked with the ancient wind rose as well as the 36 decans of the ancient Egyptian Astrologers


It's only accurate if he means "ancient Egyptian astrologers who lived after 200 BC or thereabouts."


And you are now meaning, the Greek's who picked on the Geometry of the Sphere again, which was from Babylon, Right? And this is evident in the Temple of Hathor that Ptolemaics placed on Ceiling, for the dating you have noted? Just trying to put it all together.

Well, I hope Before BC spends more time in here. Maybe he could reflect on some of these questions, since at least, he has read the Book.

I wouldn't wish to have him explain in detail everything , but confirmation or denial of if these questions are addressed, could settle that matter.

It would be then up to us, You, Harte, and myself to buy the book, if we saw fit. We'll maybe I can rephrase that, You, Others or Myself, if we saw fit.

We know Harte wouldn't!!


Ciao

Shane



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
What would you say to this then Byrd.

Has he 'redesigned an Instrument' or has he just figured out what the Cross and Circle that this Earth refers to as a Celtic Cross actually did?


Well, Shane, he's taken a tool and redesigned it. It's much as if I took the Thor's Hammer sign that the Asatru Pagans wear and made a hammer with it and announced that this was the ancient hammer that Nordics used when they constructed the pyramids of the Maya in Central America.

He scrambles times, cultures, and technologies just as I did in the paragraph above.


Would not these markers in Ireland and Such, have been an appropriate tool for aligning, items such as Stonehedge? If, of course, the Wheel functioned?


In fact, no. They don't tell you the direction of sunrise and sunset on important days of the year, and they don't function as a moon calendar. For those alignments you need Mystical Sticks (straight ones) or a Mystical Rock (one with a sharp point on it that casts a shadow with a point on it) and a sunrise on the appropriate day. And a way of marking the days until you figure out the right one.

Stonehenge was built during a 500 year period that began about 3000 BC (y'know, a side effect of all this debate is that I'm actually beginning to REMEMBER these darn dates!) There are tools and symbols found in the graves and on the markers and none of them is the Celtic Cross design.


My next question becomes, Just how secretive where the Driuds, and what eventually was their means of leaving the messages they are presumed to have left their followers, the Celt's? Was it not IN STONE?


Nope. They were illiterate.

This is mentioned in many sources. They transmitted knowledge by song and rhyme and not by writing. The Celtic Cross symbol (or symbols like it) do not show up until Christianity becomes THE religion of England and Ireland in 700-800 AD or so. A youth would have been sent to the College of Bards (that's what the Greeks and Romans called it) or College of Druids and would have learned the oral tradition.

We do know something about their symbols and that they very fiercely rejected Christianity (seen as a competing alien religion.)


And you are now meaning, the Greek's who picked on the Geometry of the Sphere again, which was from Babylon, Right?

Eh... yes and no. the Greeks got geometry but did far more with it than the Babylonians did. Essentially they began (for the Western Hemisphere) the science of the mathematical branch that we call geometry.


And this is evident in the Temple of Hathor that Ptolemaics placed on Ceiling, for the dating you have noted? Just trying to put it all together.

Actually, no. It was evident in a couple of horoscopes done for the Ptolomies.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
He scrambles times, cultures, and technologies just as I did in the paragraph above..................
.............They don't tell you the direction of sunrise and sunset on important days of the year, and they don't function as a moon calendar.


I think you mistook what I meant, and took it as something deeper, but I get the gist of the response you may have given. NO


I agree, the Markers, that have become 'Celtic Crosses' are not aligning anything, other than the corpes, that may lay under them.

As for the Balance, I am sure thats going to become a topic, if it was not before. I've looked, and cant seem to see one applicable.

Ciao

Shane




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join