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).

Sirfiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Surveys of this sort only reflect the ‘as

> built’ dimensions, not intended dimensions. If

> you disagree, please provide what irrefutable

> evidence that exist which would lead anyone to

> assume any surveyed dimension of G1 are the exact

> intended dimensions of the Ancient Egyptian

> builders? That any survey does is an assumption

> with no irrefutable evidence addressing this

> conundrum. Therefore the correct answer can only

> be 'None of them'!

i use Legon's numbers in my 3D model of Giza

which has the automatic and enviable etc. feature

of being ideal to measure the distances between peaks

and other exclusive traits i have yet to get fully around to

(i had grand designs on measuring and comparing the spheres,

but kept tripping over the so far endless distractions)

this image: (http://dudeman.net/astra/giza/6b.gif)

shows there is a point equidistant from all 3 pyramids

this page: (http://dudeman.net/astra/giza/lines-proj.html)

attempts to explain, without advanced math, how odd that is

...that the distance should be exactly 5000 cubits, however

seems somehow somewhat conspicuous to the casual observer?

but, this is where mathematicians are even more impressed

and thus why skeptics must play dumb at points like this

...the odds of that are beyond accidental, not possibly unintentional

point to anything else easily deemed obviously officially intentional

perhaps you're familiar with the expression

"even a broken watch is right twice a day"

but if the watch is always right, maybe it's not broken

that is the essence of a mathematical Proof by Induction

basically, if something has proven itself a reliable predictor

we are charged by Science to give it the benefit of the doubt

- or that w/c/should be a detail we didn't follow up on properly

which then we would all feel very silly at the end of the movie ;o)

"Repeated Confirmed Correlation: is what is needed, and what we have

...at risk of feeling silly in a minute, i will attempt to explain...

ok so, i am currently in a room which happens to be exactly 10 x 10

if you have a room in a house that is exactly 10 x 10, meters or feet

and other measurements of other dimensions and angles etc. within

confirm a tendency for integer units as obvious common denominators

that contribute to an assumption, so common as to evade description

all minor details that point to a now even widely accepted conclusion

- which leaves the skeptic in an uncomfortable and unenviable position:

just because the details are small enough to be dismiss-able on their own

that they are of a set of observations contributes to the merit of that set

so, the commonality that ties them together is what has gained plausibility

- attacking the details misses the whole point, which may be the whole point

we have a conundrum, positioned somewhere between:

"just because the pi isn't all shtick doesn't mean its edible"

and "ok, we've found a few trees, but where's the confounded forest?"

well, let's point our tricorder around and see if more trees appear?

it's the age old argument of... which method makes a better argument"

specific verified measurements, or some text on papyrus or in clay ???

is the road trip's paper map the end-all/be-all of that kinda knowledge?

or... if a new road or intersection appears before you, is the map wrong?

it's like we've hit the jackpot at a slot machine (whee, tokens on the floor)

and the guy next to us is trying to tell us that we haven't won anything really

but we're too busy stacking the tokens spewing out of this thing to pay any mind

still, there's this nagging sensation of these tokens not being tender anywhere...

but the thingy is ...we would have noticed... so, there is no prevalence of

surprising interesting geometric interesting significant number coincidences

in enough random places to dismiss these findings enough to just ignore them

but the burden of proof is not on us, paper only covers rock

so, if you have a scroll that says this rock was carved upon

we have no reason to not take its word for that

but scissors cuts paper

if we have an empirical repeatable measurement

which contradicts something written somewhere

...then the credibility of scrolls is reduced

...which may be what's worth so much trouble

so that's what this is all about

believing what's written

instead of our own eyes

- but still, rock breaks scissors -

if the pyramids were aligned to stars

that turns out never remotely existed

yes, that would indeed be a thing

and thus, cause to drop OCT, say

...but it's not ;o)

>

> So Jim, without knowing the intent of the Ancient

> Egyptians you, like everyone else, are just

> guessing and guessing is not science. Fact: No one

> has yet provided any evidence, let alone

> irrefutable evidence. supporting the Ancient

> Egyptians use of pi, phi, √2, √3 or √5.

>

the Ancient Greeks were convinced

that all numbers must be rational

that is, could be possibly expressed as a ratio

thus proving the gods were not random or insane

and they invented math, obviously

so there were strong feelings etc.

it is not known today, what happened to the guy

who proved that √2 must be an irrational number

but no story of his demise has him ending well

- and it turns out nowadays we know he was right

and there are other irrational numbers as well

in fact irrational numbers outnumber rationals

that there is no mention of pi in any scroll

may be a clue that the scribes n scrollers

were indeed not the designers n architects

but you simply can't be a circle expert and not know pi

just as you simply ...and using Occam's Razor, now...

- can't be a square expert and not know √2

- can't be a triangle expert and not know √3

- can't be a rectangle expert and not know √5

now, you can cook without being able to eat, but why?

are you a robot chef? some other more plausible accident?

...and just as it is possible to compose an opera without any music theory

but the odds of that make any empirical examples so far staggeringly rare

see, arguments like that, so far, their only purpose seems to be

to just diminish the apparent significance of, well, math itself

and would ironically be an easily worthy argument

if the world didn't have so much of it... oh...

neither are pi and phi modern constructs

they're older than the stars themselves

...hiding your head in the sand, as it were

only sells that shtick to fellow ostriches?

- significant numbers are traipsed upon here

and danced around with obvious choreography

thus, your argument's very nature just... qualifies itself

for automatic compulsory investigation into gaslighting...

even so, already

for your penance

you must watch a Musical on mute

and that's from me, a fellow peer

i can't wait to see

what professor says

=o)

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Surveys of this sort only reflect the ‘as

> built’ dimensions, not intended dimensions. If

> you disagree, please provide what irrefutable

> evidence that exist which would lead anyone to

> assume any surveyed dimension of G1 are the exact

> intended dimensions of the Ancient Egyptian

> builders? That any survey does is an assumption

> with no irrefutable evidence addressing this

> conundrum. Therefore the correct answer can only

> be 'None of them'!

i use Legon's numbers in my 3D model of Giza

which has the automatic and enviable etc. feature

of being ideal to measure the distances between peaks

and other exclusive traits i have yet to get fully around to

(i had grand designs on measuring and comparing the spheres,

but kept tripping over the so far endless distractions)

this image: (http://dudeman.net/astra/giza/6b.gif)

shows there is a point equidistant from all 3 pyramids

this page: (http://dudeman.net/astra/giza/lines-proj.html)

attempts to explain, without advanced math, how odd that is

...that the distance should be exactly 5000 cubits, however

seems somehow somewhat conspicuous to the casual observer?

but, this is where mathematicians are even more impressed

and thus why skeptics must play dumb at points like this

...the odds of that are beyond accidental, not possibly unintentional

point to anything else easily deemed obviously officially intentional

perhaps you're familiar with the expression

"even a broken watch is right twice a day"

but if the watch is always right, maybe it's not broken

that is the essence of a mathematical Proof by Induction

basically, if something has proven itself a reliable predictor

we are charged by Science to give it the benefit of the doubt

- or that w/c/should be a detail we didn't follow up on properly

which then we would all feel very silly at the end of the movie ;o)

"Repeated Confirmed Correlation: is what is needed, and what we have

...at risk of feeling silly in a minute, i will attempt to explain...

ok so, i am currently in a room which happens to be exactly 10 x 10

if you have a room in a house that is exactly 10 x 10, meters or feet

and other measurements of other dimensions and angles etc. within

confirm a tendency for integer units as obvious common denominators

that contribute to an assumption, so common as to evade description

all minor details that point to a now even widely accepted conclusion

- which leaves the skeptic in an uncomfortable and unenviable position:

just because the details are small enough to be dismiss-able on their own

that they are of a set of observations contributes to the merit of that set

so, the commonality that ties them together is what has gained plausibility

- attacking the details misses the whole point, which may be the whole point

we have a conundrum, positioned somewhere between:

"just because the pi isn't all shtick doesn't mean its edible"

and "ok, we've found a few trees, but where's the confounded forest?"

well, let's point our tricorder around and see if more trees appear?

it's the age old argument of... which method makes a better argument"

specific verified measurements, or some text on papyrus or in clay ???

is the road trip's paper map the end-all/be-all of that kinda knowledge?

or... if a new road or intersection appears before you, is the map wrong?

it's like we've hit the jackpot at a slot machine (whee, tokens on the floor)

and the guy next to us is trying to tell us that we haven't won anything really

but we're too busy stacking the tokens spewing out of this thing to pay any mind

still, there's this nagging sensation of these tokens not being tender anywhere...

but the thingy is ...we would have noticed... so, there is no prevalence of

surprising interesting geometric interesting significant number coincidences

in enough random places to dismiss these findings enough to just ignore them

but the burden of proof is not on us, paper only covers rock

so, if you have a scroll that says this rock was carved upon

we have no reason to not take its word for that

but scissors cuts paper

if we have an empirical repeatable measurement

which contradicts something written somewhere

...then the credibility of scrolls is reduced

...which may be what's worth so much trouble

so that's what this is all about

believing what's written

instead of our own eyes

- but still, rock breaks scissors -

if the pyramids were aligned to stars

that turns out never remotely existed

yes, that would indeed be a thing

and thus, cause to drop OCT, say

...but it's not ;o)

>

> So Jim, without knowing the intent of the Ancient

> Egyptians you, like everyone else, are just

> guessing and guessing is not science. Fact: No one

> has yet provided any evidence, let alone

> irrefutable evidence. supporting the Ancient

> Egyptians use of pi, phi, √2, √3 or √5.

>

the Ancient Greeks were convinced

that all numbers must be rational

that is, could be possibly expressed as a ratio

thus proving the gods were not random or insane

and they invented math, obviously

so there were strong feelings etc.

it is not known today, what happened to the guy

who proved that √2 must be an irrational number

but no story of his demise has him ending well

- and it turns out nowadays we know he was right

and there are other irrational numbers as well

in fact irrational numbers outnumber rationals

that there is no mention of pi in any scroll

may be a clue that the scribes n scrollers

were indeed not the designers n architects

but you simply can't be a circle expert and not know pi

just as you simply ...and using Occam's Razor, now...

- can't be a square expert and not know √2

- can't be a triangle expert and not know √3

- can't be a rectangle expert and not know √5

now, you can cook without being able to eat, but why?

are you a robot chef? some other more plausible accident?

...and just as it is possible to compose an opera without any music theory

but the odds of that make any empirical examples so far staggeringly rare

see, arguments like that, so far, their only purpose seems to be

to just diminish the apparent significance of, well, math itself

and would ironically be an easily worthy argument

if the world didn't have so much of it... oh...

neither are pi and phi modern constructs

they're older than the stars themselves

...hiding your head in the sand, as it were

only sells that shtick to fellow ostriches?

- significant numbers are traipsed upon here

and danced around with obvious choreography

thus, your argument's very nature just... qualifies itself

for automatic compulsory investigation into gaslighting...

even so, already

for your penance

you must watch a Musical on mute

and that's from me, a fellow peer

i can't wait to see

what professor says

=o)

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.