Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> One of the things we
> also find in this 'design' is that the Sphinx
> perfectly bisects the Lehner-Goedicke Line (i.e.
> the Precession Timeline) into two equal parts
> which is why I initially believed that was the
> correct line to use (giving the 3980 BC date).

You don't attach any special significance to this middle point anymore - after you found the G2-Sphinx line?

> There are other obvious lines to the Sphinx from
> the main pyramids that intersects the timeline at
> different points (dates).
>
> 1) G1 apex to Sphinx
> 2) G2 apex to Sphinx
> 3) G3 apex to Sphinx
>
> Any one of the above could be the correct line
> (date) - so which one are we to use as the
> 'meaningful' line (date)? If this design truly is
> what I'm suggesting then the designer would also
> have seen and (hopefully) anticipated this problem
> and built into the design a means by which we
> could 'know' which line to use. This is to say
> that the designer would have encoded the line
> itself with something very meaningful and, in this
> regard, I think they did and this is why I now
> believe the G2 centre to Sphinx is the correct
> dateline. Consider:
>
> Max culmination 23420 BC - 17820 = 5600
> 17820 - 10460 BC = 7360
>
> So the ratio of 7360:5600 is where G2 intersects
> the Precession Timeline (on its way to the
> Sphinx).
>
> Now Divide 7360 / 5600 = 1.314285714285714
>
> Compare with Pi approximation of 22 / 7 =
> 3.142857142857143
>
> Thus the line from G2 centre to the Sphinx has
> 'meaning' encoded at that particular intersect
> point. The other lines from G1 and G3 to Sphinx
> have no such meaningful data encoded into the
> line.

I see your point. But I am not sure what to make of it.

To me it seems to be unnecessary convoluted. If the builders wanted to convey a message/date, surely they would have done so in a way that ensured that they didn't fail miserably for thousands and thousands of years - until you decided to look at ratios.

To decide what is meaningful and what is coincidence is a challenge here.

> MA: Could your "inter-quarter lines" serve
> more as builders instructions/aids, and the
> implied circle as the "clock"? [/quote]

> SC: It's possible, yes. I hadn't really thought
> about that so I would need to look into it more. I
> had only ever thought of the inter-quarter lines
> as a 'legacy' of the underlying design method.

I would like to expand on my thoughts on the implied circle as the "clock" but it is getting late so I will have to save that for later.

Morten



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Jan-19 02:44 by Morten.