Apologies for replying to an old discussion, but I though there were some important things that could be said about this subject.
First, I think the cartography (mapping) gets more complicated that has been addressed here. There are different mapping datums that will give different coordinates for the same locations, so how much Munck is off on the coordinates of Stonehenge or anything else involves that subject.
It's my understanding that when the WGS 84 global mapping system was established in 1984, Munck threw out the work he'd done prior to that and started over with WGS 84. The problem with some of Munck's work that follows this is that he doesn't seem to be aware that some of the mapping (UK, Nan Madol, etc) uses a different datum than WGS 84. British mapping for example uses the OSGB36 mapping datum, so to get coordinates for the WGS 84 system requires conversion.
I agree there are also problems with mapping accuracy. Some of the work of necessity is done with 1:50,000 scale mapping where an error the size of the point of a very sharp pencil can have dire consequences on the accuracy. One of the problems with his placement of the Giza pyramids, if not also another case of the wrong datum, is that after scouring all available materials, I wasn't able to find Giza mapping in his publications any more accurate than 1:50,000, which makes it harder to have confidence in his Giza coordinates.
Another aspect of this is that using his system of multiplying degrees x minutes x seconds, a small change in the number of seconds can sometimes have sweeping consequences for the "Grid Latitude" or "Grid Longitude". It can all depend on how large or small a particular value for degrees, minutes, or seconds is.
None of this necessarily means Munck's wrong - if he happened to be right where the Great Pyramid is he could well be right where everything else at Giza is located - but there are some things to take into consideration. Lehner's Giza Plateau Mapping Project book gives coordinates for the Great Pyramid based on an Egyptian mapping agency's benchmark in the Great Pyramid, which didn't seem to match Munck's coordinates, although Lehner's book adds more mud to the water because the distances between the main Giza pyramids deviate greatly from other sources. I'm still very skeptical that Petrie was off by large parts of a mile with these measurements and I'm still not sure where Lehner went wrong that he seems to be. I have asked about that here before and everyone seemed to be just as mystified as I am about it.
Yet another problem is that I don't think anyone has ever accounted for the amount of continental drift that may have taken place since some of these ancient monuments were built, that could change their coordinates over time.
NOW, before everyone throws away their Munck videos in disgust, let's ask what Buildreps should have been asking - IS THERE ANY PART OF MUNCK'S MATERIAL THAT IS SALVAGEABLE? What about his system of numbers itself, even if his cartography is questionable? What about his measurements for the Giza pyramids?
If you look at Munck's materials on Tikal, for example, you'll see some of the same numbers from his questionable mapping schemes posted as physical measurements of the architecture, which is NOT so easily dismissed.
Some of that is here, taken straight from Teobert Maler's measurements with no liberties taken.
Right there, the equatorial circumference in modern miles, written in modern feet. Lest that be taken as sheer coincidence, if I'm not sadly mistaken Maler's measurements of El Castillo show the very same thing, only written backwards in reciprocal form.
Maler measured the width of the El Castillo temple platform at 1224 cm. 1224 cm = 40.15748 ft = 1 / 24901.96098 / 10^n
Munck also showed that two of his his favorite numbers, what I call his Squared Munck Megalithic Yard (2.719715671^2) and his "Alternate Pi" 1.177245771 are written in the proportions of the doorway of Temple II at Tikal as if it were a billboard advertising them.
I definitely get the feeling that someone is speaking to us, even if not through map coordinates as Munck thought. What is the conversation about, though, if not monuments telling us "why they are where they are" or telling us where to find other monuments?
To make a long story longer, if anyone is interested in Munck's mathematics, another student of Munck's, archaeocryptographer Michael L. Morton worked extensively with Munck's numbers and achieved a number of innovations, no matter how misguided some of his own work may have been, including identifying the Royal Cubit value of 1.718873385 feet. It's an eminently logical Royal Cubit value because it's directly related to the basic mathematics of the circle, which is a very good guess at what the 2 Pi perimeter/height ratio of the Cheops pyramid is all about. Radius x 2 Pi = Circumference, of course.
Noticing the analogy between the Giza Pyramids and the Orion's Belt stars, at the suggestion of Mary Anne Weaver, Morton set out to develop a celestial counterpart to Munck's terrestrial mapping grid. This too was fraught with data issues, including that Morton used software that gave answers that were not repeatable with other editions of the same software.
However, I believe that he too was on the right track, because it's extremely difficult to deny the importance of astronomy to the ancient monument builders. The right answer may be that rather than being preoccupied with the locations of celestial objects, they were preoccupied with the cycles of celestial objects.
It appears to be relatively easy to find a wealth of references in ancient architecture using measurements in modern feet to Venus' Orbital Period and Synodic Period, which very neatly corresponds to their obvious and well-known preoccupation with Venus and with calendars that attempt to synchronize the cycles of multiple planets.
What I think we can do is take the best of Munck's work and the best of Morton's work, put it all together, and we'll have the right answer.
Munck has also come under fire because his Great Pyramid is at least a good part of a foot shorter than everyone else's, which is why I've inquired here before about the possibility of missing pavement, probably about 3/4 foot thick, that would have reduced the height to the value that Munck gives.
All the same, the proportions of the Great Pyramid without this pavement may also be meaningful, and I'm fairly confident I know what they are. The height without pavement would seem to be 481.0325483 feet, the square of 21.93245423, which is the reciprocal of 0.4559453264, or 45 / (Pi^2). This is important, because this is half of a figure that is one-quarter of a value that can be used to represent the terrestrial year. 4.559453264 x 2 x 4 = 364.7562691, very close to 365. (Munck's numbers have an alternate expression of 365, which is 365.0200808, which he introduced in one of his publications. Both of these values would seem to be valid.
Notice that I am disregarding decimal placement with equations because it doesn't seem to be relevant, and I can cite examples of Mayan Calendar formulas that also show both awareness of, and indifference to, decimal placement.
This was very difficult for me to understand at first - Munck's math prides itself on absolute accuracy, yet we are seeing figures for planetary cycles that lack that kind of accuracy. The key thing here is that we are talking about CALENDARS which tend to inherently lack accuracy, and need correction formulas to compensate for this. We ourselves in everyday practice still tend to regard the year as having 365 days rather than about 365.25.
This is what we see at El Castillo, many people know that there are 91 steps on each of 4 sides and 91 x 4 = 364 and we can add the platform at the top to make 365 - there aren't 365.25 / 4 steps on each side, although we can regard them as being something else, such as 45.59453264 x 2 = 91.18906528 = 364.7562611 = (3600 / (Pi^2), a form easily constructed from basic elements of circular math. (I'd predict that one of the 91 steps is slightly larger than the rest to reflect this, but have not been able to confirm it). It's a good prediction considering some of the math that can be derived from Maler's measurements of the summit.
Here's one that many authors may overlook with El Castillo: 91 steps x 9 terraces = the important Mayan Calendar number 819.
91.18906528 x 9 = 820.7015875. It's not necessarily the best representation of 819, but the flexibility required for it to represent 819 is also seen sometimes in actual Mayan Calendar formulas. 820.7015875 is the reciprocal of a Remen value of 1.218469679, which I call the "Thoth Remen". It's sort of a long story, but Munck tells the tale of how 9 is a symbol of Thoth, 1 / 9 = .1111111111, and .1111111111^2 = .1234567901, almost the exact sequence of numbers in proper order, which according to Munck therefore makes Thoth the "Father of Numbers", which I don't disagree with. .1234567901 x (Pi^2) - 1.218459679, hence the "Thoth Remen".
This "Thoth Remen" seems to be featured in the Great Pyramid in the apothem length, along with a more important version of the Remen, 1.216733603 feet, depending on whether the theoretical missing pavement is in place or not. These seem to relate to the earth's circumference, just as some classical authors described.
I use a formula of (1.216733603 x 24)^3 = 24901.19745, a figure for the earth's circumference in miles more accurate than that of many mapping datums of the last century.
There seem to be a number of ways to extract the earth's circumference from the Great Pyramid. Munck's height 480.3471728 ft x canonical slope angle of "51.84" = 24901.19745.
Also, I obtained a pyramid base / platform ratio for the Great Pyramid of 1.003877284 using Munck's number system and the best data I could find. This turned out to be a root for another formula involving 2 Pi, which the Great Pyramid seems to be a model of
1.003877284 x (2 Pi) x (2 Pi) x (2 Pi) = 249.0119745 = 24901.19745 / 100.
I think what Munck has discovered isn't a map coordinate system, it's a recursive, self-referential system of numbers that is ideally suited for the expression of planetary cycles and geodetic data through architectural proportions.
It's very rare that I get my hands on a decent dataset for any ancient pyramid, but every time I do, it comes out looking like Munck is right on many things having to do with measurement. Fortunately, architectural data for interiors of ancient Mesoamerican structures is easier to come by and I get my mind blown on a daily basis by the mathematical prowess of the ancients. It's as if every room was carefully designed to be a complex mathematical equation that's as data heavy as the Great Pyramid itself.
If I recall correctly, the Pyramid of Niches at El Tajin (Cuaderno de Arquitectura Mesoamericana Issue 8) appears very likely to have a diagonal of 1.622311470 x 10^n feet. It's a little bit data heavy due to what are probably deliberate irregularities, but I was quite pleased to find that. 1.622311470 seems incredible easy to find in the mathematical and architectural landscape of ancient Mesoamerica.
It's almost absurd how easy it is to find a figure representing Venus' Orbital Period of "225 days" with the value 224.8373803 (364.7562611 / 1.622311479) in ancient Mayan architecture. The ratio for the canonical values of 365 and 225 is 365 / 225 = 1.62222222, closer to Munck's 1.622311470 than it is to Phi 1.618033989. (1.622311470 is also the ratio between Munck's 365.0200808 and the canonical Venus value of 225).
For what it's worth, we can find such a variety of measurements in ancient Mesoamerican structures to completely defeat the idea that they were using simple values of any metrological unit.
For anyone interested, some of the most important numbers I use to analyze unfamiliar numbers seen in architectural data are Pi, 2 Pi, 360, the Radian (360 / (2 Pi) = 57.2577951), and Munck's introductions 1.177245771, 1.622311470 (4/3 of a Remen of 1.216733603), and his (squared) Megalithic Yard of (2.719715671^2). 1.177245771, 1.622311470 and (2.719715671^2) are among those that can often operate well at higher powers, revealing more data.
(Munck's value for the inner sarcen circle radius of Stonehenge, (sqrt 240) x (Pi) = 48.66934411, is 40 of these Remens, but the value is much more interesting in modern feet). Munck's Megalithic Yard of 2.719715671 is a curiosity in that it does not belong to his system of numbers until it's squared. I also find a Meg Yard of 2.720174976 at Stonehenge for the exterior of the sarcen circle, using the number of Meg Yards specified by Thom. The ratio between the inner and outer values is then 1.067438159, an extremely important number that I have never seen Munck publish, but it was hiding all along not only in his geographic values for the Giza Pyramids, but as the ratio between the base measurements of the Great Pyramid and the Chephren Pyramid.
The more we see data begin to flow - that is, the more time we can multiply or divide number A by number B to find important and familiar numbers, not only A x B, but A x (B^2), A x (B^3), A x (B^4) and etc, the more the system is living up to its purpose of data storage.
If anything makes Buildreps a troll, in my opinion it isn't that he can find fault with some of Munck's ideas, that's easy enough to do - it's that Buildreps didn't stop to ask if Munck was still offering us anything real in spite of those faults, before telling us that Munck was nothing but bunk. I certainly disagree with that sentiment.
Mod Edit: Split Off-Topic Post and Replies from Existing Topic and add Reference Link/Dr. Troglodyte
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 27-Sep-19 01:48 by thinkitover.