(In reply to Ogygos' post here):

Ogygos wrote:
>If someone makes a "profound" -btw what how is profound defined- study on ancient Hellenic - or any ancient civilization for that matter - can he automatically be called a scolar? Aren't there any other prerequisites? I think we are trapped in circular logic here because it is up to the scolars to define what is profound.

Richer, at any rate, hadn’t made any profound or extensive study of the subject area. So no need to get trapped in circular logic.

>In his book he refers to a particular situation where he was able to make predictions based on his thory(for example what whould be on the back of a vase). Of course, since these have not been performed by an unbiased external server they have no value. None the less this does guide us to a methodology for determining the validity of a theory like his.

From what you describe, the methodology seems extremely unsound.

> If a theory can predict things - it has value.

In order to determine its validity and usefulness, the methodology employed would have to be subjected to a great many tests under laboratory conditions. This doesn’t seem to have happened in this case.

>>It's a problem for anyone trying to argue that a system of zodiacal projection existed as early as the 9th century BC when there is evidence to show that the concept of the Babylonian Zodiac did not in fact reach Greece until some five centuries later.<<

So What is this evidence and how concrete is it?

Read van der Waerden, Bartel. (1952/1953). "History of the Zodiac." (Archiv für Orientforschung, Volume 16, Pages 216-230).

>If this or any other kind of theory like it were proven to be correct whould't it automatically lead to the notion that this type of Zodiac were know at earlier times - in Hellas or in the East?

No, because it developed slowly and gradually (as described in the paper I’ve just mentioned).

>>This question presumes that this was what was happening in Greece in the 9th century BC or thereabouts.What evidence do you have to support this?<<

>We have ancient references that new cities were founded based on info given out from the Delphic oracle. On the other hand we must take into account work like that of Theophanis Manias.

[www.stefanides.gr]

>Manias worked on maps which were not very accurate, so Kosmas Markatos has published a book were he uses GPS technology to check the triangulizations proposed by Manias in his classical book. Although he does find discrepencies or large degrees of error for certain cases, there still seems to be a "background" of important relations that can't be exaplained by conventional historical evolution. I must note that I have not read Markatos book - this is based on a magazine article I have read.

[www.srcosmos.gr]

(You might also find this of interest: Peterson, J.W.M., "Mathematical detection of patterns in ancient landscape", In The use of Geographic Information Systems in the study of ancient landscapes and features related to ancient land use, Edited by Peterson, J.W.M., Luxembourg, pp. 111--113, 1998.)

> When there is a preplanned physical code what we first see at first is geometric aspects of this code - wether it is in Hellas or at Giza, it is only when we uncover the code that we understant the reason for there triangulizarions or deodetic grid.

The question of the alleged role played by geometry in landscape layouts has been argued ad nauseam under the Giza threads. Coincidence plays a large part in many of these supposed alignments.

> overstudying one aspect of a certain phenomenal sometimes makes you see the tree and loose the forrest, it makes you blink in regards to the greater picture. There are aspects of ancient civilizations that can only be explained by clearing our mind from all given established exaplanations. Then you can campare notes and make corrections.

>There are various types of alignemnts or correlations, but the most basic is the distance and angle from a point of reference. The problem arises from the fact that most ancient sites - cities - places of religious value - etc, are a lot older than the established date when the calculation of latitude and altitude was possible - with small accuracy from what I am aware at first. This creates a problem , which can only be overcome if we adopt the advanced ancient civilization hypothesis, or the ET hypothesis or both.

Or if we realize that a characteristic of geometry is that geometric forms can be constructed around locations set at random in the landscape. This does not mean that the locations were originally chosen as part of a large-scale geometric plan of some sort … unless there is corroborative evidence, such as in the case of Roman land surveys, where we do know that large-scale grids were surveyed. There were also survey grids in places like Corinth.

>My scope is to present a theory that blends in pyramid design, geodetic planning of ancient sites, alphabet evolution - and formimg of names, and myth creation. I have posted part of this code in the past, a part that relates to planetary encodings. The fact is though that it seems to be more complex encoding astral information also. by the way, I am aware of three authors that deal with geodetic triangulizations of the Hellenic region. Apart from Richer

Who dreamt about alignments that, so it appears, don’t necessarily work properly ...

>we have Theophanis Manias

Who appears to have worked by drawing lines on inaccurate maps … On the question of how easy it is to mishandle data of this sort, you might find "Is improved numeracy needed for the study of Roman land surveys?" (John Peterson) of interest; [www.romansociety.org] (You might have to approach the author himself for details of how to obtain this study).

>and another one who I don't remember who used the Great pyramid of Egypt as a point of reference.

Ah … right …

>The fact is that triangulizations do exist but we need to find the reason behind them. Before I publish my findings that relate to astral correlations I need to confirm them with accurate astronomic data. Above I refered to very old Helladic geodetic code. This af course depends on what one means by old. You see there are isosceles triangles formed when taking a very small data set of neolithic sites in Europe which cannot be explained statitically. I don't think people living before 6 or 7 thousand years could accuratelly compute latitude and longitude.

No, it doesn’t seem very likely …

>Thus there seems to be a problem - a big problem.

And on that point, if on no other, I would agree with you 100%.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me