It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Another look at the Sphinx

page: 3
28
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Harte

Munck hasn't said anything worth taking the time to refute.

The idea that the ancient people that built stonehenge used exactly the same positioning system that we do (latitude/longitude) with exactly the same origins (equator, Greenwich Prime Meridian) is itself so stupid as to preclude the need for anyone to address it.

You can ooh and ahh over manipulated arithmetic all you want. Most people don't have the time.

Harte

'Exactly the same positioning system' isn't that far of a stretch if they knew the Earth was round. Latitude and Longitude aren't some super high form of science, they're basic measurements. Using the Equator because it's around the middle of the Earth horizontally, same applies. If they knew the Earth was a globe, then they would most likely be capable of figuring out where they'd like the 'middle' of it to be.

Last but not least, they did NOT use Greenwich as their Prime Meridian. They used Giza.

"Manipulation" aside, if the math fails simply because you cannot wrap your mind around Giza as the PM or the fact that an ancient culture may have had Lat/Lon measurements, that's erroneous. If the math fails because it simply cannot SUPPORT itself in terms of logical equations, then you may have a case.

Seeing as he presents the numbers and equations for all to see and I haven't heard that they're wrong (based on Giza PM), I will wait for someone with a bit more expertise in mathematics to explain how they don't make sense before writing them off simply because I don't "believe" a culture could have done that.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Fimbulvetr because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr

Originally posted by Harte

Munck hasn't said anything worth taking the time to refute.

The idea that the ancient people that built stonehenge used exactly the same positioning system that we do (latitude/longitude) with exactly the same origins (equator, Greenwich Prime Meridian) is itself so stupid as to preclude the need for anyone to address it.

You can ooh and ahh over manipulated arithmetic all you want. Most people don't have the time.

Harte

'Exactly the same positioning system' isn't that far of a stretch if they knew the Earth was round. Latitude and Longitude aren't some super high form of science, they're basic measurements. Using the Equator because it's around the middle of the Earth horizontally, same applies. If they knew the Earth was a globe, then they would most likely be capable of figuring out where they'd like the 'middle' of it to be.

Last but not least, they did NOT use Greenwich as their Prime Meridian. They used Giza.

The builders of Stonehenge used Giza? Why? There was nothing at Giza when construction on Stonehenge began.

You're aware, I suppose, that Munck translates various randomly chosen numbers (numerical counts of various stones in the Stonehenge case) into coordinates in our system? That means the Prime Meridian.

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
"Manipulation" aside, if the math fails simply because you cannot wrap your mind around Giza as the PM or the fact that an ancient culture may have had Lat/Lon measurements, that's erroneous. If the math fails because it simply cannot SUPPORT itself in terms of logical equations, then you may have a case.

Munck's bogus arithmetic:
60 stones in the stonehenge circle
multiplied by 360 (for absolutely no reason whatsoever)
equals 21,600
He "factors" (again - no reason at all) this into the "precise" location of Stonehenge (latitude only, so Giza doesn't enter into this) which he gives as 51 degrees 10 minutes 42.353 seconds.

However, the latitude of Stonehenge is 51 degrees 10 minutes 43.84 seconds.

So, bogus pretend arithmetic using numbers that come out of thin air to arrive at other numbers which aren't even what he claims they are.

Now, that's enough of my time spent on this flapdoodle.

Harte

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:43 PM
Considering that Giza is not a closed-case as far as dating of construction goes, the Stonehenge vs Giza construction times wouldn't apply to this theory.

Some say it's dated because of this. Some argue that it'd be a later date because of that. Some say it shows this and thus, must be dated at yet another time for construction.

All we have for Giza are theories of how/when it was constructed. Nothing concrete.

Therefore, theoretically, Giza could have been around and Stonehenge was built according to Giza's construction location. The 60 stones x 360 is the degrees of a circle. Munck explains that he's using a different view than what conventional science would take, as perhaps our modern take on things is not the language that the ancient megaliths were intended to convey.

You seem to be a by-the-book person when it comes to science and dating. All I can say to that is, isn't it interesting how every few years new discoveries are made that change what we thought we 'knew'? Thus allowing ample room for theoretical discussions of alternatives dating.

You say flapdoodle, I say.. well, absolutely right. This IS ATS, is it not? This IS the forum where fringe and conspiracy are encouraged, hm?

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
Considering that Giza is not a closed-case as far as dating of construction goes, the Stonehenge vs Giza construction times wouldn't apply to this theory.

Some say it's dated because of this. Some argue that it'd be a later date because of that. Some say it shows this and thus, must be dated at yet another time for construction.

All we have for Giza are theories of how/when it was constructed. Nothing concrete.

Therefore, theoretically, Giza could have been around and Stonehenge was built according to Giza's construction location. The 60 stones x 360 is the degrees of a circle. Munck explains that he's using a different view than what conventional science would take, as perhaps our modern take on things is not the language that the ancient megaliths were intended to convey.

So at Stonehenge, they divided the circle into 360 degrees? Given the fact that there are not 360 stones there standing in a circle, exactly where did this number come from?

You ever heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy??

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
You say flapdoodle, I say.. well, absolutely right. This IS ATS, is it not? This IS the forum where fringe and conspiracy are encouraged, hm?

You know, there are a great many interesting things written about the sphinx at this site. There used to be an excellent article in the old Tinwiki here about it. Multiple threads exist here about it.

I know necroposting is frowned on by many. I get it that someone starts a new sphinx thread here periodically. But is this really "another look at the sphinx?"

I felt cheated when I checked out the thread. There's no sphinx here. Nothing but bull hockey.

Now, had the thread been titled "various and sundry piles of bull hockey about the sphinx," I might have approached this thread with the perspective you describe!

Much is known about Ancient Egypt, (though admittedly, not as much is known about the sphinx in particular.)

Threads like this, and Texas Sharpshooters like Munck, discourage people from discovering that fact.

Harte

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:22 PM

If his numbers are a coincedence, it is an interesting one. What if it isn't? What if he is on to something?

Btw, Happy Festivus to you as well.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Im2keul

If his numbers are a coincedence, it is an interesting one. What if it isn't?

It's just about as much coincidence as is the Texas Sharpshooter hitting dead center bullseye - before he paints on the target!

Harte

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr

Originally posted by Harte

Munck hasn't said anything worth taking the time to refute.

The idea that the ancient people that built stonehenge used exactly the same positioning system that we do (latitude/longitude) with exactly the same origins (equator, Greenwich Prime Meridian) is itself so stupid as to preclude the need for anyone to address it.

You can ooh and ahh over manipulated arithmetic all you want. Most people don't have the time.

Harte

'Exactly the same positioning system' isn't that far of a stretch if they knew the Earth was round. Latitude and Longitude aren't some super high form of science, they're basic measurements. Using the Equator because it's around the middle of the Earth horizontally, same applies. If they knew the Earth was a globe, then they would most likely be capable of figuring out where they'd like the 'middle' of it to be.

Last but not least, they did NOT use Greenwich as their Prime Meridian. They used Giza.

The builders of Stonehenge used Giza? Why? There was nothing at Giza when construction on Stonehenge began.

You're aware, I suppose, that Munck translates various randomly chosen numbers (numerical counts of various stones in the Stonehenge case) into coordinates in our system? That means the Prime Meridian.

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
"Manipulation" aside, if the math fails simply because you cannot wrap your mind around Giza as the PM or the fact that an ancient culture may have had Lat/Lon measurements, that's erroneous. If the math fails because it simply cannot SUPPORT itself in terms of logical equations, then you may have a case.

Munck's bogus arithmetic:
60 stones in the stonehenge circle
multiplied by 360 (for absolutely no reason whatsoever)
equals 21,600
He "factors" (again - no reason at all) this into the "precise" location of Stonehenge (latitude only, so Giza doesn't enter into this) which he gives as 51 degrees 10 minutes 42.353 seconds.

However, the latitude of Stonehenge is 51 degrees 10 minutes 43.84 seconds.

So, bogus pretend arithmetic using numbers that come out of thin air to arrive at other numbers which aren't even what he claims they are.

Now, that's enough of my time spent on this flapdoodle.

Harte

You need to go to the back of the class and study the basics of what he says. 360 is the number of degrees in a circle, Stonehenge is in the shape of a
circle
. If your mind is closed you will not see. He pulls his numbers from what he sees and I'm sorry but 360 multiplied by 60 yields precisely 21600. When all is said and done it is simple math and geometry that unfold. Geometric characteristics combined with simple math and a smattering of something that is generally lacking from today's population...wait for it...

simple logic
edit on 18-12-2012 by WHYFIGHT because: sleepy head dumb dumb forgot to write something.

"SLAPDOODLE"... begone, before i taunt you a second time.

edit on 18-12-2012 by WHYFIGHT because: I can

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:00 AM
I believe in this very strongly, the Egypt and Mars connection. Something that will help anyone else to see the connection is the new discovery made about the Face on Mars. This video shows the connection very strongly.

Here is link. If you watch it you will be blown away.

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr

if you had specific sites or books or anything you could source for me to reference for that anti-gravity theory, itd be appreciated!

THis is a fun place to begin: www.youtube.com...

Unfortunately there's not a convenient encyclopedia of hidden knowledge you can order from Amazon.com. You have to wade through the piles (mountains) of written and now video works, find what is common, what appears to be universal, and make up your own mind.

I learned what I think I know over many, many years of seemingly unconnected but interesting things. I started to see threads, common themes, patterns, and followed the stepping stones to a p lace where I can now just begin to have an understanding of a small piece of how things work.

The only thing I am dead-certain of at this point is that the stories they tell us in church and in school and most of all, on TV, are straight-up lies.

We are a controlled, managed, and bewildered people. We cannot reasonably look to those who perpetuate the lies to walk us out of them. That is just ridiculous. That is why I get irritated at all those whi insist the government fess up about UFO's and fake moon landings and such. They will not. You have to decide for your self, and move forward accordingly.

THe savior has been here all along. He's in the mirror.

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:48 PM

Originally posted by WHYFIGHT
You need to go to the back of the class and study the basics of what he says. 360 is the number of degrees in a circle, Stonehenge is in the shape of a
circle
. If your mind is closed you will not see. He pulls his numbers from what he sees and I'm sorry but 360 multiplied by 60 yields precisely 21600. When all is said and done it is simple math and geometry that unfold. Geometric characteristics combined with simple math and a smattering of something that is generally lacking from today's population...wait for it...

simple logic.

How about using your simple logic to explain to us exactly how it is that you somehow know that the builders of stonhenge divided circle angle measures into anything at all, much less the exact same system we use today, including all the way down to minutes and seconds of arc.

I mean, I asked once already. Where are all the Munck followers? Why have I not seen the answer posted yet?

I already know the answer. It's the same as the answer to "Why did the sharpshooter paint that target on the barn (after he'd already shot)?"

And please. Enough with the sophomoric platitudes about mathematics. I teach the stuff, including logic.

Harte

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 02:43 AM
The 60-360 argument of stones-degrees in a circle evidence you want from Munck followers is at it's simplest, a theory.

There is a theory about how Stonehenge was built. In fact, there is a new theory saying that the older interpretation of building was chronologically wrong.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That seems to happen quite often in archaeology. One thing is stated as fact based on evidence, and then the facts get changed at a later date due to newer finds pointing at a different outcome.

The theory I have based off of the Munck calculations is that there was an older civilization that arranged specific monuments mathematically across the globe. Theoretically, if we use Lat/Long, then a previously advanced civilization that disappeared may have also used the same measurements.

It's all conjecture. The point being that modern understanding of ancient events is NOT concrete, and therefore the argument that "No it isn't because we said so" doesn't hold enough water YET to close out the deal once and for all.

That's the beauty of it. There is enough leeway within modern understanding to leave gaps wide enough that theoretical alternate explanations can gain ground to stand upon. Whose to say the Stonehenge builders, who used a circle, didn't understand that there were 360 degrees in a circle and thus, used specifically 60 stones for the roundabout construction to convey a message?

To view it in OUR way of interpretation and preclude that they may have had a DIFFERENT interpretation all those thousands of years ago is a bit presumptuous on our part as the modern civilization on the planet.

The questions always beg answers and simply because a logical "No" is the simplest answer, doesn't mean it will neatly encompass all the quirks that occur.
edit on 21-12-2012 by Fimbulvetr because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
Whose to say the Stonehenge builders, who used a circle, didn't understand that there were 360 degrees in a circle and thus, used specifically 60 stones for the roundabout construction to convey a message?

To view it in OUR way of interpretation and preclude that they may have had a DIFFERENT interpretation all those thousands of years ago is a bit presumptuous on our part as the modern civilization on the planet.

So, you can't, or won't, see the inherent contradiction stated in your own post, as delineated above?

Let me help - the "fact" that there are 360 degrees in a circle today (a defined quantity that has no bearing beyond this definition - and yes, pun intended) is viewing it "in OUR way of interpretation ..."

Not only that, but Munck has the wrong latitude for the center of Stonehenge. His is for the address of the place. Talk about considering his followers to be idiots...that is, you don't actually think the bulders also coincidentally used the same address system found today in Britain, do you?

Harte

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:26 AM

I don't see why people of an older civilization wouldn't understand the composition of a circle, if it's been proven that the Pi ratio has been incorporated (whether by accident or not) into certain megaliths. Pi being the basis for the circle formula - with absolutely no regard to Munck in this reply - certainly gives at least one leg to stand on for the theory that the ancients MAY have had knowledge of the degrees in a circle.

We don't look at Stonehenge and see 60 stones, and 360 degrees. We see a megalithic site that we try to understand what its use was, and how it was built. The symbology incorporated into it has been on the backburner for however long now due to the fact that we're not 100% how they did it, or really.. even when they did it. It's all theoretical.

So to say that it absolutely 100% could NOT be 60/360.. well, that can't be proven. Neither can the fact that it MAY be. My only concern with regards to your reply is that you seem to nail it down as 'concrete', when even modern information on such sites isn't infallible (or fact, most of it is still proclaimed theory). So, while I do appreciate your knowledge and it's interesting to read the view from the other side of the fence, sometimes the simple 'Nope, not possible' response doesn't have a place in the conversation because there are still too many modern questions about the site to proclaim we have any sort of stranglehold on the meaning of the construction.

I mean, think about it. The Pyramids were supposedly built in stages, as steps leading upwards for the ascension of the Pharaoh, culminating in a smooth-sided building as a 'sun ray path' to the afterlife. There's a ton of symbolism in that construction alone. Why COULDN'T there be something similar in the odd (if coincidental) use of 60 stones to make a 360 circle? It's conjecture, but it isn't so far off-base that it should be immediately discounted as fake, simply because our modern understanding (limited as it is) says 'Nah, I REALLLLLLY doubt that.'

But thanks for always keeping me on my toes and my brain turning!

Fim

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr

I don't see why people of an older civilization wouldn't understand the composition of a circle, if it's been proven that the Pi ratio has been incorporated (whether by accident or not) into certain megaliths.

The problem here is that this last assertion is false. Pi has never been proven to have been incorporated (even accidentally) into any truly ancient architecture (meaning, obviously, prior to Archimedes, who was still ancient I suppose.)

Originally posted by FimbulvetrWe don't look at Stonehenge and see 60 stones, and 360 degrees. We see a megalithic site that we try to understand what its use was, and how it was built. The symbology incorporated into it has been on the backburner for however long now due to the fact that we're not 100% how they did it, or really.. even when they did it. It's all theoretical.

I can agree with all of that.

But the question stll remains, why does Munck multiply by 360? Does he have some reason to believe that the builders of Stonehenge divided a circle into the same number of units that we do today? If so, I'd like to see it.

Originally posted by FimbulvetrSo to say that it absolutely 100% could NOT be 60/360.. well, that can't be proven. Neither can the fact that it MAY be. My only concern with regards to your reply is that you seem to nail it down as 'concrete', when even modern information on such sites isn't infallible (or fact, most of it is still proclaimed theory).

So Munck has the "theory" that they used 360 degrees for a circle? On what data is this theory based?
You realize that's just the same question I had before but asked in a different way.

Originally posted by FimbulvetrSo, while I do appreciate your knowledge and it's interesting to read the view from the other side of the fence, sometimes the simple 'Nope, not possible' response doesn't have a place in the conversation because there are still too many modern questions about the site to proclaim we have any sort of stranglehold on the meaning of the construction.

"Not possible" wasn't part of anything I said.

Couldn't he have multiplied the 60 times, say, 144? Why didn't he do that instead? Is it just "not possible" that they had a concept similar to the modern one of what a "dozen" is?

Again, he used the 360 because it allowed him to "factor" his result into a latitude for the address of the Stonehenge site, but that latitude doesn't match the latitude of the henge's center.

Not just a Texas Sharpshooter, but a lazy Texas Sharpshooter.

Harte

new topics

top topics

28