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).

Geoff stated

this analysis ties in with the work of Howard Crowhurst at Carnac France who has root 5 as 42500/19008

42500 is divisible by the megalithic yard and 19008 is 6336 x 3 the imperial system integrating Thom's and the imperial systems.

this version of root 5 divides into 816 to give 364.9536 x 360 x 1000 = 131383296 / 5280 = 24883.20 Michell's meridian circumference exactly.

So can the independent findings of Thom, Michell, Crowhurst, Bath, and several other metrologists all be wrong? I really do not think so. Everything can be expressed and reconciled in whole numbers

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Jan-19 14:56 by DavidK.

*'It's generally held that the dimensions of G1 make good sense with respect to the observed ratios. However, this does not apply well to G2 as I’ve described it above. Should this specification be correct then it might be suggested that a height of 272 cubits and a base of 408 cubits would be more in keeping with the design. However, this would suggest a G2 cubit of 528mm. '*this analysis ties in with the work of Howard Crowhurst at Carnac France who has root 5 as 42500/19008

42500 is divisible by the megalithic yard and 19008 is 6336 x 3 the imperial system integrating Thom's and the imperial systems.

this version of root 5 divides into 816 to give 364.9536 x 360 x 1000 = 131383296 / 5280 = 24883.20 Michell's meridian circumference exactly.

So can the independent findings of Thom, Michell, Crowhurst, Bath, and several other metrologists all be wrong? I really do not think so. Everything can be expressed and reconciled in whole numbers

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Jan-19 14:56 by DavidK.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.