Hello,

I am writing my last messages here for a while as need to focus on other things. But, I have read what you wrote about Clive and your enthusiasm. I have not followed him, I am not aware of what all he does. I am very aware of how we can see patterns and there are coincidences - especially in numbers - ( also, numbers can be altered depending on where your info is derived from) .......Our minds can take us places we would not necessarily go if not for various stimuli that cranks our attention.

Do you remember the bit of "The Face on Mars" and all of the geometry and mathematical work that was done on it? Well, there is no "Face" and there is no Cydonian City, however there is great math and geometry overlaid.

The early stages of crop circle studies (I surveyed and photographed and did numbers and geometry with Gerald), there was incredible mathematical analyses performed and geometrical as well - even new theorems in geometry that Euclid had missed....alpha numeric coding of past presidents of the UK's Psychical Research Society (spelling?) and so on ---profound lessons for mankind.............The crop circles are made from human beings, not from some paranormal entity ( despite what Swami wrote about me for sensationalism, that was bogus and he never took it down and it has spread over the internet)........Humans had designed the circles and glyphs, and by chance some of the new math and geometry was found in them, but, it was never the circle designer's intention. nor intelligence....it just happened to be that way at times with some patterns....

What ever his work, I am sure it is a blend of coincidences, numbers and freaky ideas. I would like to see it, but, as you say it is a book's worth. Has any one ( independent of him and his relations or colleagues) ever reproduced what he has suggested - and too, where does he get his specific numbers from or does he round them off and so forth?

I am not trying to be rude, I am asking real questions as I am aware of how numbers can play games and fool us. They are also hard to track down and most people are not interested in them, so theories can be published and yakked as if they are real and many will not know the difference. I have seen this over and over. Yeah , too about the Orion stuff as well...........I have watched as that has become blown out of proportion and this and that with the alignments to this and that and on and on ---and too on the Sphinx..........theories such as these are not challenged too much as the areas of expertise is not so abundant or general. Real scientists and astronomers do not look at a lot of this material because it is classified as amateurs or nuts trying to make a name for themselves and writing their own history......Real geologists, scientists, and so on, they do not endorse most of any of this because it is in truth bogus. Authors get away with publishing the weirdest things and act as if it is truth and they are the one who has figured out the "all" of it all because the average reading audience who reads this kind of stuff is not educated in most instances so it is easy to pull the wool over their eyes, sort to say......New age people who go to conferences such as CPAK - well, ask them any credible science lesson or history and they are ignorant - ( as in not educated - not as stupid) and can not answer or answer from the latest Atlantis Alien agenda announcement ....They are gullible, as for instance - the two suns "Binary"---that theory has changed every year to fit the audience and to seem more credible and the man is not even an astronomer, yet gets away with announcing himself as such. Unreal----

I know some of my (old in age) colleagues have taken me under their wings and I was taught old fashioned methodology. However, I am grateful for this. Through the years I have learned discernment and watched how authors and others have credited themselves with wild discoveries --------but, they are not real in truth.......

I am not trying to preach, I just got taken back when I read this post as it reads like all of Giza is figured now..........and, well, I just do not believe that. There may be some correlations and coincidences........but, how many people are claiming they have broken the code of Giza? ( Example: I have a number of construction theories on the GP and every author is claiming they are correct) So, really that is all I am trying to point out and how it is misleading to people who are gullible and ignorant and ready to hear anything to bring sensationalism to their day - as in conferences that market themselves "rewriting history" and authors who say the same - It is more ego than true science, and for money --not great contributions to our world of understanding truths...........

I am sorry if I am skeptical - I actually am a skeptic that is why I research the things I do. But, I do not mean to sound like a bitch, just , don't know how to write some thing like this that I am trying to express. ---All and all though, I find some of Clive's work interesting - just have not seen it all .......it is fun to talk and look a t numbers ( for some of us) ....but, numbers can be iffy....

OK, well, I will leave this forum for some time now as I have to do some other things and if I do not reply or what ever it is because I am not here -.

Thanks so much.......

XC


Dr. Colette M. Dowell, N.D.
Circular Times
[www.circulartimes.org]