karenellen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> > You didn't reply to the following questions
>
> > "You didn't say if the book actually
> mentions
> > great circles . Does it ? Could you provide a
> page
> > where the term is used ?
> > and
> > Where did I say the angle didn't change in a
> great
> > circle ?
> >
> > The age is relevant , lots of post medieval
> > examples can be shown to point to
> prehistoric
> > sites whether nearby or hundreds or thousands
> of
> > miles away ,we know that they are non
> intentional
> > because we can ask the builders or have the
> plans
> > .Think of the number of straight major roads
> and
> > airport runways that can be shown to be
> "aligned
> > " on prehsitoric sites using GE ,it's
> nonsense .
> > And worse , the whole thing collapses because
> of
> > the great circle , by maintaining the same
> bearing
> > you will not arrive at the sites suggested in
> the
> > book , to do so requires changing the bearing
> ,
> > making a nonsense of the belief that the
> Cerne
> > Abbas club points to Giza or it's penis
> Machu
> > Pichu .
> >
> > You still haven't come up with a couple of
> sites
> > where I will show you the same type of
> imaginary
> > lines and examples as are found in the book .
>
>
> Ok. We have been saying the same thing over and
> over past eachother:
I am still saying what I said earlier .
The angle of a great circle
> changes as it goes around the earth. We agree on
> that. I missread one of your examples, sorry.
> Let's understand that the angle that sets the
> course for a great circle DOES NOT need to
> maintain the same angle value around the circle;
Which has been my point all along and means suggesting that maintaining a particular bearing as suggested in the book i.e. "Following the line in the opposite direction NE 67.43â°, in Tibet we find the region near the Great Potala where T. Lobsang Rampa, in his book "The Third Eye", describes the cave of the Giants is located." etc makes no sense as the following that bearing from Cerne Abbas will not take you to to where you say , and even worse ,your primary source is one of the most famous and humourous con men of the last century .
> The medieval argument is irrelevant as would be
> one on the other side of the argument; such as,
> the fact that some straight highways connect two,
> three, etc. number of towns, is by chance alone
> NOT by design. It can be either, now or in
> Medieval times! i.e. hundreds of towns have
> flourished along railways and highways, straight
> or not.
That was not the point of "Think of the number of straight major roads and airport runways that can be shown to be "aligned " on prehsitoric sites using GE ,it's nonsense . " The roads and runways can be shown to be aligned prehistoric monuments hundreds and thousands of miles away .
Somewhere in the beginning of the book the
> author warns about assuming every monument
> encountered was meant to align. There has to be
> some other design element that corroborates the
> alignment.
That would explain why you chose Avebury , a Neolithic monument built long before and having nothing to do with with Phoenicians and connecting it with the equally nonsensical Isle Royale in Michigan harbour Phoenician association .When ou could have made a very simple alignment to other monuments from the same period and same type .Not that it would make the "alignmnet " any more intentional than the extreme nutty one .
>
> In this forum we are talking about pyramids, so
> let's take a pyramid example. We agree the
> pyramids align north and all agree is not by
> chance alone, correct? Well, I drew a line due
> North from the side of Chephren. Accross the
> Mediterranean it aligns with two Roman
> amphitheaters: Aspendos and Selge.
That is what you find , they are all over the place it is to be expected and has nothing to do with intention . As I keep asking ,and you keep avoiding , come up with a couple of sites and I'll show how easy it is .
