<Bearing 2600 / 1.5 = 1733.333 to be exact. A very primitive rough hewn species, but still workable. 25,000 / 22/7 = 7954.5454 x 2.178 (Eye or Eis) = 17325 x 2080/2079 = 17333.3333.
Just a little more suspension on the tow line for now, :)>
So after that little epiphany moment flashback last night, I went back further through the Archives on the Mysteries board, looking for a further conversation I had with Latona Pistone years ago that might shed further light on this unusual Vesica Silver Fish system. I didn't find it, but what I did happen to stumble across was one of Mick Saunder's metrologic dissertations, I hadn't seen before. Keeping in mind that this is the missing party who correctly identified the same figure I arrived at years ago, and nearly the same time as himself regarding the Commercial Capacity Earth Circ. figure of 1,575,000,000 Inches, as he mentions without identifying this unit specifically as found here:
<They observe the ratios 900, 875, 864, 840 and the polar circumference
1,575,000,000 1/50th earth = 500 stade of 300 cubits [Eratosthenes]
1,555,200,000 1/60th Earth = 60 schoene of 60 stade of 400 common cubit or 600 foot [Herodotus]
So what else does he mention in this very cryptic analysis? This current metrologic monetary mystery unit of a Cubit of 20 ins. as mentioned here:
<If the belt stars dictate the 3:4:5 inner rectangle.
The outer rectangle must give a radius equal to 16 parts.
Hence we have the ratios 16:15:14 to give 3x foot measures.
The 13.333 inch foot is the basis of sumerian measure with 3 foot to 2 cubit of 20 inch.
(This in contrast to the cubit of 21 inch and its foot as 4/7th.
Also found widely in Britain at one time).
Its counterpart is 13.2" foot in the ratio 99:100.
Squares were created in the ratio 70:99:140 so 99x 13.333 = 100x 13.2
In the Sumerian/English system 30 fingers and 21 fingers were used to give 20", 19.8" and 19.6" cubits or
20.833 20.625 and 20.416">
I'd love to see the graphics he posted on this subject, which must be spectacular. I've seen some of his earlier cad drawings long ago in initial discussions with him when I first came aboard GHMB. But during those earlier years, neither he nor I, or anyone else probably knew exactly what we were describing in our own ways either. Not that I agree with all of his conclusions either, however he does seem to have a methodology involved in his process of identifying ancient metrologic units that uses more than educated guesswork of their probable dimensions as with M.Doutre's methods.
Good Luck with that "Resurrection of Osiris", Mick! Frankly, I wouldn't be posting or rehashing any of this topic trail of clues if I hadn't seen the same system applied to the earliest known coinage systems of the past, when I read BV Head's dissertations on them in Historia Numorum. Pattern recognition is the hallmark of good detective work, eh Det. Spade?