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).
molder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dave 20.736 cannot be the royal cubit as Jacob has
> pointed out no cubit rods come near it.
>
> Thom very good with his measures though and we
> should concentrate on them.
Jim are you aware of the ancient use of the 175/176 ratio
Thereby making the 20.736" cubit of 1.728 ft x the above ratio to make the shorter Egyptian cubit 1.71818181818 ft
From John Michell's ."The Dimensions of Paradise "
He suggest there was 1760 cubits to G1's base, to which i would agree, based on 1760 x 20.6125" which = 36278"
DPP
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dave 20.736 cannot be the royal cubit as Jacob has
> pointed out no cubit rods come near it.
>
> Thom very good with his measures though and we
> should concentrate on them.
Jim are you aware of the ancient use of the 175/176 ratio
Thereby making the 20.736" cubit of 1.728 ft x the above ratio to make the shorter Egyptian cubit 1.71818181818 ft
From John Michell's ."The Dimensions of Paradise "
He suggest there was 1760 cubits to G1's base, to which i would agree, based on 1760 x 20.6125" which = 36278"
DPP
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.