Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Scott,
I must say I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to answer all your questions, I wouldn't mind a bit if you were genuinely seeking the truth to our ancient history, you seem to have preconceived notions and are not even open to logical open debate, I am not trying to de-throne your theory, as I said it could well have merit, I am merely presenting what I have found. If you think that all the pieces I have presented here are all coincidence, then I really don't want to waste my time responding to your posts, but I will continue in hopes that you are an open minded person seeking sincerely to understand our ancient history.

So here we go,
Author: Scott Creighton (90.199.94.---)
Date: 07-Mar-11 19:05

Hi Ed,

Quote:

EN: You were using your theory of the Gravity Cubit to say "there was no need to invoke the speed of light" in creating a measuring system.


SC: No - more accurately to invoke the use of light (i.e. the sun) but NOT the SPEED of light. How exactly would the ancients have measured the speed of light? Please present a simple technique that would have been accessible to and within the capabilities of the ancients to do this?

ANSWER EN: "within the capabilities of the ancient" there you go again presuming the ancient people could not have known these things, I ask you for evidence that they did not, I am presenting logical evidence they did.

Quote:
EN: So I wanted to see if you had a valid point, you may well have been right but when I read your theory I was a bit surprised to see the term "almost exact" used several times when presenting a theory on the root of an exact measuring system that in my opinion most certainly should not only include light but would be most logical to be based upon it.


SC: But that is where you are wrong, Ed. I was not "...presenting a theory on the root of an exact measuring system..." for I know only too well that we do not know for certain what the exact measurement of the AE cubit was. Several cubit rods have been recovered and all are of slightly different lengths so, on that basis, how could I possibly say with any certainty what the exact length was intended to be? The fact of the matter is - a unit length can be extrapolated using the sun and Earth gravity (i.e. a simple pendulum) that is a close approximation to the average length of the various cubit rods that have actually been found. No need to invoke the speed of light.

ANSWER EN: The only logical measuring system would fit together flawlessly and include exactly what I state below, I am presenting it here and you say there is no evidence, what do you think I am presenting, have you studied it enough to see how it all fits together or what, study the evidence before you lash out at everything I present.

Quote:

EN: I have presented a very logical, exact mathematical formula for the measuring system that includes the speed of light, the sound frequency wave length...


SC: Please demonstrate how the ancients would have been able to access any of this to create the cubit? How could they have physically learned of this information? What simple experiments could ancient people have done that would have unveiled this knowledge to them?

ANSWER EN: There you go again with your preconceived notion that the ancient people could not have know this or to be taught this knowledge, that is just plain closed minded period.


Quote:

EN: ...and the Great Year, (light, sound and time) that fits with ancient cosmology very accurately.


SC: With respect, Ed, it would fit a whole lot better if you could actually show how the ancients could have obtained access to such knowledge? Showing how this can be achieved using what was available to ancient people will go a long, long way to supporting your theory. Otherwise......

ANSWER EN: There you go again, refer to my previous answer

Quote:

EN: I discovered that formula by following the geometry I am proposing in my work the Giza Template.


SC: And your geometry commences with a completely inexplicable and arbitrary assumption. Imagibe you are the designer of Giza, sitting there with a blank canvass. You place an x,y axis. Okay, no problem there. And then for some inexplicable reason, you then place a completely arbitrary line running from bottom right through the vertical axis. Why? What is the rationale for placing such a line on your blank canvass? You suggest that the causeways of G1 and G2 'hint' at this radius? Well, the causeway of G2 hints at it much more directly since this causeway runs from the centre of the axis to an endpoint, the Valley Temple. Why not simply place a line on your blank canvass here as a radius and draw your circle using this? Please explain why you chose to place on your canvass which, at this point, contains only an x,y axis a completely arbitrary line (a line that will LATER in the design align with Khufu's causeway).

ANSWER EN: My geometry commences with logical basic geometry backed with cosmology and mathematical formulas, if you can't understand that the read a couple of books on the subjects and get back to me.


Quote:

EN: The template can be created using only a compass and straight edge with no need to measure, and does not depend on an "as built" survey or to be more precise, conflicting surveys.


SC: Ed, I can show you unified designs for Giza that start with a blank canvass, that have no need to measure, that are far simpler than what you have presented and which do not even require a compass but need only a straight edge. Your geometrical construction is not unique in that regard.

ANSWER EN: Then show it to me I am more than happy to evaluate it fairly without preconceived notions.

Quote:

EN: I want to note here also that I have not yet shown all of the evidence I have for this as I am way behind on my E-Book release due to circumstances beyond my control, so not having some of the evidence to present here is a bit frustrating for me. I did post some images from the book to help and maybe I'll post more.


SC: Alas, evidence is what we need, Ed. If you have any evidence that shows the AEs had a means to discover the speed of light or the length of 1hz that would go a long, long way to assisting your case here.

ANSWER EN: Alas all I need is time to do that but if I have to keep going over pointless questions with you just because you can't understand basic concepts then I' never get my work done.

Quote:

EN: As far as throwing stones goes I was simply stating that if your are holding me to these high standards, and you very well should be, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I couldn't agree with you more, but I felt you should hold yourself to those same high standards.


SC: Ed, honestly, I am not too bothered about the accuracy of your scheme per se BUT if you are telling us that this scheme was designed in order to preserve a measuring system which was to be recoverable 5,000 years into the future then I am simply saying that one would expect that it would have been laid down with much more care and precision. I am NOT the one stating that a 'measurement system' was the function of the Gizamids - my own Gravity Cubit is merely demonstrating how it is possible that the AEs could have devised their cubit using the sun and a pendulum. I cannot say x is precisely this or that because you cannot easily obtain the fraction of one swing of a pendulum - thus it is reasonable to assume that a fraction of a swing would have been rounded up to a complete 148 (as opposed to the actual 147.757). THAT is why I am not saying x is exactly this or precisely that.

ANSWER EN: It is very precise considering the scale and materials used, I don't have to draw an EXACT five pointed star for you to realize I am drawing a star, or do I?

Quote:

EN: I feel that the evidence I have presented especially for the measuring system is as close to extraordinary evidence that has been found to date.


SC: I disagree. The accuracy of your presentation has been questioned on this board by various posters. Your starting point has been questioned by me. And, in any case, if you put enough geometric shapes together, given enough time and analysis, you will find you have enough points from which you can extrapolate all manner of 'meaningful discoveries'. That's just math.

ANSWER EN: If you think all of the evidence that I have presented is al coincidence then I just don't know what to say, show me one flaw in the measuring system and be very specific. I will take errors into consideration and will change whatever needs to or scrap the whole idea if you can show me where I am wrong, so please study it for me and prove me wrong.

Quote:

EN: There is nothing in my equations that are not exact,


SC: The accuracy of your presentation has been questioned numerous times by various posters. Certainly you can invoke different surveys as a defense but DO YOU know which one is right? Is it not somewhat cherry-picking when you select one set of data for some structures whilst another data set for other structures?

ANSWER EN: I do not have access to all the data I would like to have, I am pointing out there are discrepancies among the surveys. So I am going by all the surveys, my geometry agrees more accurately with the Giza Mapping Project and that is supposed to be the latest most accurate data, unfortunately I only have limited data from that, I have the main pyramid dimensions and they agree with the geometrical and mathematical design of my theory.

Quote:

EN: ...they logically fit the cosmology and are encoded within the geometry without taking one measurement from Giza, that is a point you and Don seem to be missing, without taking one measurement from Giza, I think thats worthy of considering very closely.


SC: As I said to you above - your presentation is not unique in that regard. There are other, much simpler, solutions.

ANSWER EN: Present them to me don't just talk about it, show me.


Quote:

EN: So what more can I say except just try to look at this work without any preconceived notions, you seem to not accept that someone or culture could have known these things in ancient times and that is an assumption that I do not adhere to.


SC: No, Ed, that is where you are quite wrong. Show me EVIDENCE that they did, present a MEANS by which ancient people could have obtained such knowledge and then I will be much happier to accept what you are saying.

ANSWER EN: There you go again, ancient people could not have know these things, well I got news for you Scott they did, get over it your not necessarily the the top of the knowledge fountain. What do you think I am showing you here, my evidence.
From now on I will only respond to rational questions by rational people, I don't have the time or want to keep going around with you or anyone else that can't discuss thing rationally.
Regards,
Ed

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
The Accuracy of Measurements 232 Edward Nightingale 06-Mar-11 03:00
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 158 Scott Creighton 06-Mar-11 19:32
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 158 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 00:27
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 162 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 00:44
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 169 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 02:08
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 136 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 03:09
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 169 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 03:26
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 183 Dr. Troglodyte 07-Mar-11 16:48
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 157 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 17:10
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 164 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 17:37
History and Update 174 Dr. Troglodyte 10-Mar-11 19:00
Re: History and Update 155 Laird Scranton 10-Mar-11 19:56
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 157 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 10:23
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 126 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 15:25
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 156 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 15:44
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 171 lobo-hotei 07-Mar-11 16:11
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 120 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 17:59
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 121 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 18:16
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 119 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 19:08
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 165 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 21:31
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 162 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 23:43
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 160 Laird Scranton 08-Mar-11 02:39
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 157 lobo-hotei 08-Mar-11 00:19
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 144 Scott Creighton 08-Mar-11 23:38
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 170 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 14:58
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 153 Scott Creighton 09-Mar-11 15:00
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 120 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 16:10
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 161 Scott Creighton 09-Mar-11 16:33
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 159 Ahatmose 09-Mar-11 16:37
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 161 Scott Creighton 09-Mar-11 16:39
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 171 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 16:38
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 161 Scott Creighton 09-Mar-11 16:42
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 169 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 16:50
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 146 Ahatmose 09-Mar-11 16:53
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 122 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 17:18
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 162 Ahatmose 09-Mar-11 17:40
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 161 carolb 09-Mar-11 19:05
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 168 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 20:15
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 171 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 20:17
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 153 carolb 09-Mar-11 20:27
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 125 lobo-hotei 09-Mar-11 21:01
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 139 carolb 09-Mar-11 21:27
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 178 lobo-hotei 10-Mar-11 01:05
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 172 carolb 10-Mar-11 01:09
Mod Warning 234 lukehancock 10-Mar-11 07:51
Re: Mod Warning 167 lobo-hotei 10-Mar-11 15:11
Re: Mod Warning 183 lobo-hotei 10-Mar-11 15:14
Re: Mod Warning 230 lukehancock 10-Mar-11 16:59
Re: Mod Warning 138 lobo-hotei 10-Mar-11 19:35
earlier request also 150 lobo-hotei 10-Mar-11 19:46
Mod Note to Scott & Lobo 223 lukehancock 11-Mar-11 08:33
Re: Mod Note to Scott & Lobo 131 lobo-hotei 11-Mar-11 17:22
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 176 Lee Burton 07-Mar-11 19:07
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 188 Edward Nightingale 06-Mar-11 22:24
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 213 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 00:40
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 269 magisterchessmutt 07-Mar-11 17:54
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 189 Edward Nightingale 07-Mar-11 06:54
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 167 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 11:06
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 166 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 15:52
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 136 Laird Scranton 07-Mar-11 15:53
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 159 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 18:11
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 171 Edward Nightingale 07-Mar-11 15:48
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 191 Scott Creighton 07-Mar-11 19:05
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 113 magisterchessmutt 07-Mar-11 19:57
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 113 Edward Nightingale 07-Mar-11 16:02
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 163 Edward Nightingale 07-Mar-11 16:24
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 158 Edward Nightingale 08-Mar-11 03:22
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 161 Scott Creighton 08-Mar-11 16:08
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 159 Edward Nightingale 09-Mar-11 01:11
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 158 Scott Creighton 09-Mar-11 09:54
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 161 laughin 09-Mar-11 18:38
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 136 Scott Creighton 10-Mar-11 17:41
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 117 Scott Creighton 10-Mar-11 18:03
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 161 Edward Nightingale 10-Mar-11 23:46
Where or where did the erroneous images go ? 161 Ahatmose 11-Mar-11 00:31
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 168 Scott Creighton 11-Mar-11 00:33
Re: The Accuracy of Measurements 174 Edward Nightingale 11-Mar-11 03:11


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.