Hello Hermione,

Sorry for not replying to the points made on your previous posts but I was a bit busy. Let me try to do it now.

>>It means that he had not made any very profound study of ancient Greek civilization. Therefore, his conclusions about this particular alleged aspect of Greek thought cannot - as Thompson pointed out - be relied on.<<

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.

>>Your question is irrelevant in this context; some dreams are good, some bad. Sometimes dreams can provide intuitive perceptions of which the waking consciousness might be incapable (e.g., Coleridge and "Xanadu"). In cases such as the one under discussion here, however, such intuitive perceptions are valid only if there is hard evidence to support them. In Richer's case, there is no such evidence.<<

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


>>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? 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?

>>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. 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. 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.

> He is very convincing in showing there was a
> strong astrological relation between the building
> of ancient Hellenic sanctuaries, art on temples,
> even war equipment – shields etc with certain
> animals that we today recognize as being related
> to the zodiac.
>>Not so convincing, however, if he hadn't studied Hellenic civilization in depth.<<

Yes you might be right, but 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.


>>If all you're trying to do is to argue that human purpose was at work in locating point A with reference to point B, the existence of errors of angle and distance might not necessarily matter too much: you might be an inaccurate surveyor,but it doesn't mean that there was no intention to survey such-and-such an alignment. For instance, errors can be found in areas where there is evidence of Roman cadastral survey (although Roman surveyors were, on the whole, pretty accurate); but these errors don't mean that there was no survey. In the case of Richer, however, I would suggest that the alignments that you describe here are possibly the sort that might well occur in a dream, but that the errors subsequently revealed in the hard light of day (and Google Earth) appear to fall outside the definition of acceptable survey error, and therefore are not errors as such at all. Instead, they are indications that no such alignment or relationship was ever intended by the original builders of these temples and other monuments.<<

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.

>> Actually there is a very old, very accurate and
> very advanced geodetic code in Hellas that spans
> out to cover all of Europe and beyond.
This is rather a sweeping statement. What evidence do you have to support it?<<

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 we have Theophanis Manias and another one who I don't remember who used the Great pyramid of Egypt as a point of reference. 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. Thus there seems to be a problem - a big problem.

It will be easier for me to explain if I take things from the beginning. Thus a different thread I will be presenting ideas from the first volume of the book I have completed(in Hellenic) titled "IEROS(holy) LOGOS". In this thread I will present more Crete Orion relations.

BR

ogygos