Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

Hello David, I think I might be able to help clear this up. Take a look.

The difference in days between a Metonic cycle (same Moon shape same calendar date) and a Saros cycle (eclipse to eclipse) is 355 days: 6940 days (Met.) - 6585 days (Saros) = 355d

This difference, as you know, essentially is a period comprised of 13 sidereal lunar months, each 27.3216 days long.

So: 6940d - 6585d ≈ 13 x 27.32d

A quick double check: A Metonic cycle is about 254 sidereal lunar months (or 235 synodic months) and a Saros cycle is about 241 sidereal lunar months (or 223 synodic months). What does this really mean? It means that super-cycles of the Moon's position relative to the Sun are anchored in super-cycles of the Moon's position relative to the fixed stars. There is recurrent eternity to put it in terms of the ancient Egyptian concept of "Neheh". This is a key insight which matters to your analysis, because from it emerges a relationship which trickles all the way into the megalithic metric you have been studying.

Now let's look at how this is geometrically represented at Stonehenge (as per your expertise) and at "Khufu Akhet-Mr" ("GP"). I am using the terms "represented" as opposed to "encoded" to stay neutral as to intent for now. If these monuments were

At Khufu Aket-Mr, the Met/Saros difference appears to close approximation in the side-slope length: 356 royal cubits. If you decompose this number, 356, you get this: 89/88 x 8/5 x 220.

Go ahead and compute 89/88 x 8/5 and see what you get.

The fraction 89/88 is basically a small correction factor which expresses the difference between the ratio of the two small Fibonacchi numbers 8 and 5 (which I know you recognize from the Venusian cycle) and a number close to φ.

Now, let's fly over to England...

One fourth of a Thom's Rod is 20.4 imperial inches, the same as 1.7 imperial feet.

Now what happens when we correct this length by 89/88? We get a royal Egyptian cubit according to the determination by Flinders Petrie in the King Chamber of Khufu Akhet-Mr:

89/88 x 20.4in = 20.632 inch = 1rc

Long story made even longer: One way you could conceptualize the difference between what Thom saw at SH and what Petrie measured at Giza is a reflection of what the original designers of these two sites

...and this takes me to yet another way you can view the geometry of Khufu Akhet-Mr:

356rc = 89/88 x 8/5 x 220rc

356rc = 89/88 x 8/5 x

Representation versus Intent: Cubits = Days.

27½ is what you would count in days, if you followed the Moon's position on the ecliptic until it returns to a certain asterism nearby...ie any of the 12 zodiacal constellations. That 27½day period is what an ancient Egyptian could have easily observed to be an approximation to the sidereal lunar month. And there is good background (see Richard Parker) why the AE may have wanted to steer away from observing the synodic month to count time and instead focus on the sidereal month (what I have published). So, if we want to pursue intent related to lunar observations, we have still to consider that this intent nevertheless was based on different desires, different cultures, and different imaginations...hence different aspects of lunar behavior.

So the upshot is, if there was intent on the minds of both designers to enshrine a periodical aspect of the Moon, then s/he at Stonehenge was interested in eclipses and s/he at Rostau was interest in recurrent cycles of time and that's why we witness different metrics. The two metrics are however related, as demonstrated, by virtue of the fact that the relationship between the orbital mechanics of the two cycles at play are geometrically represented in a pyramid whose core triangle is golden (ie a Kepler Triangle)....i.e. in its side-slope and base.

I am less than two weeks away from publishing a paper which not only proves that Hemiunu was the architect of Khufu Akhet but also that he was probably aware of this relationship.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31-Mar-18 18:10 by Manu.

The difference in days between a Metonic cycle (same Moon shape same calendar date) and a Saros cycle (eclipse to eclipse) is 355 days: 6940 days (Met.) - 6585 days (Saros) = 355d

This difference, as you know, essentially is a period comprised of 13 sidereal lunar months, each 27.3216 days long.

So: 6940d - 6585d ≈ 13 x 27.32d

A quick double check: A Metonic cycle is about 254 sidereal lunar months (or 235 synodic months) and a Saros cycle is about 241 sidereal lunar months (or 223 synodic months). What does this really mean? It means that super-cycles of the Moon's position relative to the Sun are anchored in super-cycles of the Moon's position relative to the fixed stars. There is recurrent eternity to put it in terms of the ancient Egyptian concept of "Neheh". This is a key insight which matters to your analysis, because from it emerges a relationship which trickles all the way into the megalithic metric you have been studying.

Now let's look at how this is geometrically represented at Stonehenge (as per your expertise) and at "Khufu Akhet-Mr" ("GP"). I am using the terms "represented" as opposed to "encoded" to stay neutral as to intent for now. If these monuments were

*not*designed with lunar astronomy in mind, then the occurrence of lunar astronomic geometry is*incidental*to some other choice including a mundane one let's say, but it cannot be random chance or*co-incidental*.At Khufu Aket-Mr, the Met/Saros difference appears to close approximation in the side-slope length: 356 royal cubits. If you decompose this number, 356, you get this: 89/88 x 8/5 x 220.

Go ahead and compute 89/88 x 8/5 and see what you get.

The fraction 89/88 is basically a small correction factor which expresses the difference between the ratio of the two small Fibonacchi numbers 8 and 5 (which I know you recognize from the Venusian cycle) and a number close to φ.

Now, let's fly over to England...

One fourth of a Thom's Rod is 20.4 imperial inches, the same as 1.7 imperial feet.

Now what happens when we correct this length by 89/88? We get a royal Egyptian cubit according to the determination by Flinders Petrie in the King Chamber of Khufu Akhet-Mr:

89/88 x 20.4in = 20.632 inch = 1rc

Long story made even longer: One way you could conceptualize the difference between what Thom saw at SH and what Petrie measured at Giza is a reflection of what the original designers of these two sites

*may have meant to have represented*(ie we are now leaping to "encoding" and intent): Tracking eclipses versus*tracking time*......and this takes me to yet another way you can view the geometry of Khufu Akhet-Mr:

356rc = 89/88 x 8/5 x 220rc

356rc = 89/88 x 8/5 x

**8 x 27½rc**Representation versus Intent: Cubits = Days.

27½ is what you would count in days, if you followed the Moon's position on the ecliptic until it returns to a certain asterism nearby...ie any of the 12 zodiacal constellations. That 27½day period is what an ancient Egyptian could have easily observed to be an approximation to the sidereal lunar month. And there is good background (see Richard Parker) why the AE may have wanted to steer away from observing the synodic month to count time and instead focus on the sidereal month (what I have published). So, if we want to pursue intent related to lunar observations, we have still to consider that this intent nevertheless was based on different desires, different cultures, and different imaginations...hence different aspects of lunar behavior.

So the upshot is, if there was intent on the minds of both designers to enshrine a periodical aspect of the Moon, then s/he at Stonehenge was interested in eclipses and s/he at Rostau was interest in recurrent cycles of time and that's why we witness different metrics. The two metrics are however related, as demonstrated, by virtue of the fact that the relationship between the orbital mechanics of the two cycles at play are geometrically represented in a pyramid whose core triangle is golden (ie a Kepler Triangle)....i.e. in its side-slope and base.

I am less than two weeks away from publishing a paper which not only proves that Hemiunu was the architect of Khufu Akhet but also that he was probably aware of this relationship.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31-Mar-18 18:10 by Manu.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.