Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It most certainly and clearly does explain how
> they arose in the first place.

Well, just, no, it doesn't. I cannot vouch for everything at Nazca being result of design inspired by theoretical geometry, but the Nazca monkey figure most definitely is. You may study the design at my site. It has a beginning, progression of geometric ideas covering a lot of ground, and a conclusion, which is in turn cross-linked to La Marche and Giza. The design states all this math in artistic, yet accurate shorthand. It works.

> If the concept is correct they were procession
> ways to encourage the gods to send rain the
> original ways would have been fairly simplistic.

It just never rains at Nazca. It is one of the driest places on Earth, and has been so for a very long time despite immediate proximity to the Pacific. The little rain that does fall is negated by a thermal layer of air guarding the figures. Praying for rain at Nazca would have been stupid, and would soon result in atheistic tendencies among locals.

> Each growth ring in the structure of their spirit
> worship would have resulted in increasingly
> complex procession paths; exactly what we observe
> by chance.

Gee, it is really too bad the white folks had to spoil the fun, because by extrapolation the spiral rings would have by now be done with the unified theory of creation. BTW, did you say that processions had walked inside the lines, or outside? Both don't make much sense.
1) if procession walked along the outside of the lines, there would soon be new lines.So, this version is out of the question.
2) if procession walked inside the lines, these lines would necessarily need to be a little wider, evidently no problem, what with the size of the figures. The lines do not constitute a comfortable walking path. In places, you would have to carefully walk foot-over-foot, like in a minefield. Once you are in the lines, you cannot turn back, so you have to keep walking until you find exit onto firm ground again. That could take you days. The same happens if you turn back. With the sun beating down on you, you'd stumble now and then, or perhaps, even fall on your nose. Over the centuries, people like you would have left many traces. Check out the stone steps of old temples and churches for wear from centuries if not millenia of use.
The ground of the Nazca plain is in fact rather soft, covered by hard sun-baked crust. It's like thin ice on a lake. It will break under the kid, who won the hamburger-eating contest the past five years, and it will break, if anybody jumps.
The condition, in which Maria Reiche found the Nazca plain indicates general line avoidance by the locals out of respect. They obviously knew about fragility of the terrain. All vandalism dates from the modern era, and there is a lot of it. Anyone riding a bike, or wearing heeled leather shoes leaves a trace likely to survive until hell freezes over.

> In no way does this imply they couldn't make
> beautiful, complex patterns to please their
> deities; the fact the patterns are there prove
> that.

Especially, the patterns I point out, suitable for sacred grounds.
Let me point out another thing, which is not a moot point by any means. Any processions wondering into the lines find themselves in the Supreme Labyrinth of this planet. Imagine yourself driving the Alaska hi-way all night long. You perceive only the immediate stretches of straight, or curving road ahead, you do not perceive the figure you are driving. That's Nazca.
You might be able to find guides among your population, but never one that could walk across the whole Nazca plain. They could take you to access and exit points not too far from each other.
No one knows, how the plain looks like from high, and directly above, remember? Viewing it from surrounding hills gives a slanted view, which lacks depth.

Unless: You made a plan of the whole plain by walking within the lines with your surveying crew. Walking by larger numbers of people on the outside without sand shoes would lead to track creation, which is not in evidence. Neither are sand-shoes, I presume.


> But I believe the math ratios would be a later
> addition by the 2-D spirographers, such as
> yourself. They didn't lay out the procession paths
> to solve complex math problems, and THEN decide to
> walk upon them!

Intrinsic is intrinsic, professor. I show the intrinsic properties of given designs. Those cannot be done away with. Sorry..

> Your saying
> >"What a poor and partial explanation."
> indicates to me you neither want nor appreciate
> discussion of your ideas.

To me it indicates that I found it to be a poor and incomplete explanation. Now you know some of the reasons why.

> If what you seek is to be hoisted on the shoulders
> of adoring fans because you alone of all
> archaeology followers solved the amazing secret
> code of the ancients, please take a number.

Hoisted on the shoulders of adoring fans, sitting on a log, and wearing more feathers than the Kiowa nation, no thank you. It is a non-existent species for my research. Let me give you a hint, and a warning my friend: even the minutest dose of geometry may prove lethal to a fan spoiled by the dramatic accounts of the past - Nazca as a landing ground for spaceships, Atlantis sinking and boats escaping to Egypt, the Earth crust sliding dramatically, nuclear weapons exploding over India, time-travel by Nostradamus, druids dancing at Stonehenge - why would you pore over Geometry, and give yourself a headache?

Take a number? To humor you I will take a set of numbers.

* Infinity for the adoring fans.

Those who "solved the amazing secret code of the ancients". - Is there a mainstream code of a global civilisation? Or a sole visiting alien race, perhaps? Among the numerous claimants, who has presented compelling cases?
What problems were/are there to solve? There are solutions to the special geometry of the Great pyramid, and its meaning in various contexts. Here the honor goes to a number of discoverers. The Pyramid is mathematically sophisticated, and gives tantalizing glimpses of a glorious past now lost in the dark of prehistory. It is perfect per se, as it provides an interface for several geometries, the indispensable Pi, and PHI among them, but it also makes perfect sense in relation to its surroundings, be it the planetary scale, or mutual layout with the other two great pyramids of Giza, and perhaps other local structures, as well.
There is Schwaller de Lubicz, who has shown how certain Egyptian artifacts consistently show governance by PI and PHI. He gets the # 1 in that category, and he earns more gold for noticing the blatantly prehistoric attributes of the Sphinx. Great scholar, but as much as I hate using the term, he was certifiably politically incorrect. He is on academy's ignore list.
Giorgio De Santillana & Hertha Von Dechend did great work on the 'precessional code' in sagas, myths and legends. Great work! The code exists, and they get a the Nobel! However, because of its linguistic nature, mathematically, the code does not go past listing the precessional numbers. Its other function is to describe precessional cycles in epic and vivid allegories. "Hamlet's Mill" provides hard evidence for the precessional parts of the "Frame".
[www.vejprty.com]
What else is left?
Solutions for global alignments of ancient sites on great circles _ Jim Alison comes to mind. Incidentally, Easter Island, Nazca, Giza, and Angkor divide the same great in mutual PHI proportions. This fact seems very eloquent in view of my theory, and vice versa. Kudos to Jim, and a big # 1 in this category.
Anything else?
How about this link attesting to the fact that search for the Giza layout can be more frustrating than the search for the Holy Grail.
[www.renneslechateau.com] (Don Barone?)

Anything else? I just gave up on another periodic search of the internet. Nothing new to report in the specialty of reconstructing plans of ancient architectural and pictorial artifacts from exact ideas, an area, in which I have been active.

So what should this code of the ancients be like? How does the obscure, hermetic, and intrinsic become open? - If the code was intended as a message to the future, it has to advertise itself to perception on a given level. In my experience, this objective is typically solved by "special effects", which lure one's mind in. This factor makes the encoding and decryption a game at both ends of the process. Another wrinkle is that the Nazca Monkey by itself is not solvable without prior knowledge of a given design, occurring in the Athena engraving from La Marche. The degree of the game's difficulty must correspond to the level of reward to the decoder. In order, to be believable - the more meaningful the encoding, the better. For instance, each of the four sites I have studied yields designs, which could go straight into a geometric textbook, because they are combinations of theorems. High accuracy is required to ascertain the existence of the relationship.
La Marche, Nazca, and Giza employ a unique way of pentagram construction. However, any thematic repetition is always done creatively, resulting in a new design. The designs have to be informative, and teach something in depth. In this case, there is a very interesting portfolio of bits and pieces of info on this and that, but the Golden Section predominates.
If you can leave the same code in strategic places around the planet, spacing the instances by thousands of years, it is obvious that you should be given directly proportional respect. In my case, I have so much respect for this prehistoric agency that I am at a complete loss, as to what exactly this agency was. But I can ascertain without hesitation that the encoding exists.
When it comes to taking a number on solving it, why should I need a number? So far, I am alone.

Jiri Mruzek

> Jammer