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).

DUNE Wrote:

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

> Some time ago now i was asked if i could collate

> all my posts into some sort of understandable

> sequence of coincidences that would add up and be

> seen as anecdotal plausible evidence for my

> hypothesis that Giza has its origins in a

> preconceived geometric plan, using numbers in

> various different values of a unit of measure that

> seems to be identical to the modern British inch

> and foot, many of the results shown in my diagrams

> reveal numbers that should only be taken symbolically

> ...

> Im sure there are more square root of three

> encoding's at Giza but i think the above examples

> would now be seen more than just coincidences,(for most).

>

> DPP

I’ve attempted to keep up with you because I’m a firm believer in trials of this sort when people are prepared to undertake them, usually against the odds, because archaeologists wouldn't go anywhere near them. They declare so much of this sort of thing to be nonsense without doing the work beforehand, but in my view the suggestion of a ratio is a ratio irrespective of the units involved, provided the components are present in the structure under review (no numbers produced out of nowhere).

At one point you say the AEs were susceptible to error, but here you seem to be presenting an argument that they were precision geometers, which leads me to wonder whether you might reject an approach suggesting they were merely accurate.

Also, apart from the historical tradition of such, what made you

You must obviously have realised from the start that you’re competing with some fairly simple hypotheses: G1 base to height ratio 11:7 on 440 cubits, or G2 3:2 on 411 cubits. One might also argue, at a stretch, G3 81:50 on 202.5 cubits (

Without wishing to cover old ground, let’s just assume that there’s a super geometric plan at Giza, but what form might it take and have you hit on the only option? Like many others, I’ve also searched for the square root of three (height of an equilateral triangle with sides of 2) at the Giza complex, but looking for a ratio as simple as 7:4, 12:7, 19:11, 26:15 etc., but I note that 97:56 = 1.7321 (that is, your estimate).

One might observe, from an early observation of yours - one side of your Giza Triangle being 1732.1 cubits - that the triangle could have proportions of sqrt2, sqrt3 and sqrt5 (perhaps, as above, based on 56 representing 1) thus being 1422 (79 x 18), 1746 (97 x 18) and 2250 (125 x 18) cubits of 20.5 inches (not that I’m saying this is so), but you and many others will tell me that this cannot possibly be correct because we ‘know’ the cubit wasn’t this length. So, drop this hypothesis.

Of course, as previously observed, the cubits used in the parts may have been of slightly different lengths (piecemeal development). However, do you have any pressing reason why the sides of the Giza Triangle could not possibly have proportions of sqrt2, sqrt3 and sqrt5 times 1000 cubits of 20.63 inches (524mm)?

Calculation and comparison

sqrt2 x 1000 cubits of 20.63" = 29175 inches

sqrt3 = 35732

sqrt5 = 46130

Given the distances involved, wouldn’t you say that this would be fairly accurate as an alternative to your hypothesis? The average cubit would be 20.64" based on the numbers you give.

I’m suggesting, then, that the sides might represent the first three irrational square roots; you suggest that just one of them does. You suggest the dimensions are in inches; I suggest they’re in cubits, potentially that of G1 (523.5mm to 524mm?)

So, what is it in the first instance, based solely on this triangle, would you say would convince people that yours is the better of these two competing super geometric hypotheses? That is to say, does your hypothesis

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

> Some time ago now i was asked if i could collate

> all my posts into some sort of understandable

> sequence of coincidences that would add up and be

> seen as anecdotal plausible evidence for my

> hypothesis that Giza has its origins in a

> preconceived geometric plan, using numbers in

> various different values of a unit of measure that

> seems to be identical to the modern British inch

> and foot, many of the results shown in my diagrams

> reveal numbers that should only be taken symbolically

> ...

> Im sure there are more square root of three

> encoding's at Giza but i think the above examples

> would now be seen more than just coincidences,(for most).

>

> DPP

I’ve attempted to keep up with you because I’m a firm believer in trials of this sort when people are prepared to undertake them, usually against the odds, because archaeologists wouldn't go anywhere near them. They declare so much of this sort of thing to be nonsense without doing the work beforehand, but in my view the suggestion of a ratio is a ratio irrespective of the units involved, provided the components are present in the structure under review (no numbers produced out of nowhere).

At one point you say the AEs were susceptible to error, but here you seem to be presenting an argument that they were precision geometers, which leads me to wonder whether you might reject an approach suggesting they were merely accurate.

Also, apart from the historical tradition of such, what made you

**first**suppose that the AEs might have employed a unit approximating to the inch? What pressing observation raised your suspicion that the base unit was not one of those of which we’re aware?You must obviously have realised from the start that you’re competing with some fairly simple hypotheses: G1 base to height ratio 11:7 on 440 cubits, or G2 3:2 on 411 cubits. One might also argue, at a stretch, G3 81:50 on 202.5 cubits (

*phi*), with a suggestion that 89:55 might appear in G1. So, maybe the discussion might initially be approached on the basis of a choice of alternatives.Without wishing to cover old ground, let’s just assume that there’s a super geometric plan at Giza, but what form might it take and have you hit on the only option? Like many others, I’ve also searched for the square root of three (height of an equilateral triangle with sides of 2) at the Giza complex, but looking for a ratio as simple as 7:4, 12:7, 19:11, 26:15 etc., but I note that 97:56 = 1.7321 (that is, your estimate).

One might observe, from an early observation of yours - one side of your Giza Triangle being 1732.1 cubits - that the triangle could have proportions of sqrt2, sqrt3 and sqrt5 (perhaps, as above, based on 56 representing 1) thus being 1422 (79 x 18), 1746 (97 x 18) and 2250 (125 x 18) cubits of 20.5 inches (not that I’m saying this is so), but you and many others will tell me that this cannot possibly be correct because we ‘know’ the cubit wasn’t this length. So, drop this hypothesis.

Of course, as previously observed, the cubits used in the parts may have been of slightly different lengths (piecemeal development). However, do you have any pressing reason why the sides of the Giza Triangle could not possibly have proportions of sqrt2, sqrt3 and sqrt5 times 1000 cubits of 20.63 inches (524mm)?

Calculation and comparison

sqrt2 x 1000 cubits of 20.63" = 29175 inches

*v.*your 29227 (variance -52")sqrt3 = 35732

*v.*35713 (+19")sqrt5 = 46130

*v.*46149 (-19")Given the distances involved, wouldn’t you say that this would be fairly accurate as an alternative to your hypothesis? The average cubit would be 20.64" based on the numbers you give.

I’m suggesting, then, that the sides might represent the first three irrational square roots; you suggest that just one of them does. You suggest the dimensions are in inches; I suggest they’re in cubits, potentially that of G1 (523.5mm to 524mm?)

So, what is it in the first instance, based solely on this triangle, would you say would convince people that yours is the better of these two competing super geometric hypotheses? That is to say, does your hypothesis

**start**at all well in comparison?Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.