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).

David K referenced this passage:

<The Hugh Franklin cubit is 20.611354 inches

his megalithic yard is real pi x root 0.75 alough he has it (root 3)/2 = 2.720699 feet

His circumference for the Aubrey is 330 x 2.720699

this is 897.83069 divided by the HFC is 43.56

Converted into 100ths of a foot this is 363 x 4 = 1452

1452 converted using 100/99 is 1466.6666666666666666 exactly.

Thom's aubrey circumference 8976 x100/99 = 9066.66666666666 / 1466.66666666666 = 6.18181x 5280 = 32640>

Hi David and thanks for this reference. It seems that 99/100 ratio conversion factor gets around a lot in these investigations eh? No wonder A.Thom regarded base value 17 being the prime factor involved in these measurement calculations of Henge layouts, as 32640 / 17 = 1920. A very familiar numeral factor in many of my calculations as well. the Vesica ratio calculation of 265/153 is as I mentioned on Jim's topic 9 x 17 = 153. divisor. Which gives a similar close appx. to the HFC when the same formula is applied. However, my thoughts concerning this precise formula as compared to whole integer ratio values for Vesica math, is that there was some sort of intent behind using those appx. ratios in constructions. I just can't seem to recall the whole integer ratio value for a Vesica of 1.7325 at the moment. Oh, now I remember, 693/400 ratio. Wouldn't you know this numerator would be factored by 11, 9 and 7, in this case regarding the Giza Grid layout. Starting to see why Vesica ratio appxs. come in handy now? I enjoyed watching some of the videos you mentioned by the archaeologist Bill Wilkinson on the Megalithic Portal site you gave a link to. Very interesting to see some of these sites being investigated so thoroughly as we like to do sometimes at Giza. Too many cross parallels in dimensions to count really. Thanks to Jacob's preference for fractions instead of decimal notation, I can't help but see the value you mentioned of 6.18181 being a base 10 multiple of 34/55 addendum to the GP cubit 20.618181 ins. now LOL!

Best regards,

Stephen

<The Hugh Franklin cubit is 20.611354 inches

his megalithic yard is real pi x root 0.75 alough he has it (root 3)/2 = 2.720699 feet

His circumference for the Aubrey is 330 x 2.720699

this is 897.83069 divided by the HFC is 43.56

Converted into 100ths of a foot this is 363 x 4 = 1452

1452 converted using 100/99 is 1466.6666666666666666 exactly.

Thom's aubrey circumference 8976 x100/99 = 9066.66666666666 / 1466.66666666666 = 6.18181x 5280 = 32640>

Hi David and thanks for this reference. It seems that 99/100 ratio conversion factor gets around a lot in these investigations eh? No wonder A.Thom regarded base value 17 being the prime factor involved in these measurement calculations of Henge layouts, as 32640 / 17 = 1920. A very familiar numeral factor in many of my calculations as well. the Vesica ratio calculation of 265/153 is as I mentioned on Jim's topic 9 x 17 = 153. divisor. Which gives a similar close appx. to the HFC when the same formula is applied. However, my thoughts concerning this precise formula as compared to whole integer ratio values for Vesica math, is that there was some sort of intent behind using those appx. ratios in constructions. I just can't seem to recall the whole integer ratio value for a Vesica of 1.7325 at the moment. Oh, now I remember, 693/400 ratio. Wouldn't you know this numerator would be factored by 11, 9 and 7, in this case regarding the Giza Grid layout. Starting to see why Vesica ratio appxs. come in handy now? I enjoyed watching some of the videos you mentioned by the archaeologist Bill Wilkinson on the Megalithic Portal site you gave a link to. Very interesting to see some of these sites being investigated so thoroughly as we like to do sometimes at Giza. Too many cross parallels in dimensions to count really. Thanks to Jacob's preference for fractions instead of decimal notation, I can't help but see the value you mentioned of 6.18181 being a base 10 multiple of 34/55 addendum to the GP cubit 20.618181 ins. now LOL!

Best regards,

Stephen

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.