From: ancient_vizier@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (ancient_vizier@yahoo.com) 
Date: 02/26/02
To: MarkMcCarron_IT@hotmail.com

--- Mark McCarron wrote:

<< I do not think you understand exactly what I am saying. In order to prove to the entire world of the existence of a code it must be 'bullet proof'. >>

<< I cannot, under any circumstances, just say that something is not there, however, similarly you cannot prove that it is. In my research, I can prove the existence of such a code and it is unquestionable. >>

<< This is my point. We must stick to straight forward mathematics that does not rely on any particular unit of measurement and we can prove quite clearly the existence of the embedded code and present it in that manner. >>

This leads me to think that we are speaking of ratio, as per my earlier response. In looking at some of the material, I see the correspondences derive from using the same unit of measure between two corresponding measurements, and that is all the ratio involved. That's not even as hard to satisfy as a requirement as what I thought you meant. That does mean that that relationships will be the same regardless of unit of measurement, but it virtually disables the ability for the actual measurement itself to communicate anything in addition, the way I understand it. I cannot imagine that any intelligences that can see a way around that restriction would live with it, if they saw ways that both actual measurements and ratios could encode data... and the latter, to the best of my understanding, is exactly what is happening in the Pyramid Matrix.

<< As you can see it only took me two emails to essentially discredit the mathematics, imagine what the scientific community would be like. >>

You haven't begun to do that.

<< I am not attacking you, but rather trying to arm you all against the problems I have encountered in my quest to demonstrate this. >>

I'm not enthusiastic about anyone who'd kick me to let me know what the world is like outside my oyster, if that's what you mean. Thus far I sympathize with "fringe researchers" rather than their antagonists who will "debunk" them without even looking at the material. I hope you don't fall into the category with which I don't sympathize...

<< The relationships that Mr Morton and others are trying to demonstrate simply can never be proven to exist and therefore a waste of time and resources. I am not saying that they should scrap their work, but rather modify it so that it does not require 'special circumstances' for the numbers to be 'revealed'. >>

Well, I think it would be silly for us to argue, because it's very clear that a conversation between you and me is me, who does not fully understand your work, conversing with you with who obviously does not fully understand the work of Munck and Morton.

Munck's first and foremost premise is that there is a geomathematical encoding system, and the numbers that are generated by the placement of monuments on that geographic grid are also demonstrated by the physical aspects of the monuments. Their designs demonstrate "Why they are Where they are". That means you have at least two simultaneous systems corroborating each other. This also applies where we have a rarity of certain monuments- substantial circular pyramids for example- yet they defy statistics to demonstrate that this is valid. In doing so, they demonstrate how the ancients got around the ambiguity and restriction of ratio. That is the Cuicuilco pyramid of course and it is MOST impressive to me as Munck has decoded it.

There is only so much of that you can see and *not* strongly suspect the ancients used the same 360* latitude and longitude system we do with the exception that the Great Pyramid marked their Prime Meridian.

The question of how we might have *inherited* these systems and the applicable systems of measurement that bring out further encoded information from this system, rather than "independently" rediscovered them is a field of study in itself.

If you have reservations about some of the subjects referenced (i.e., Martian monuments for example), those are simply references where there is a limited supply of known monuments directly associated with a particular mathematical constant. There may be "Indian Mounds" nearly in my back yard that encode the same mathematical constants as directly, but they're not that likely to be decoded yet. Naturally, only about 1% of the world's monuments have been decoded in this way. The 1% which has, which is a pretty wide sampling as far as geography or cultures, consistently shows relevance.

<< You can change my work into any unit of measurement you like and it will still work perfectly, that makes it impossible to question. >>

Well, not exactly... is this some of yours?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/development/TheCase/Primer/PrimerPlantetary.htm

"The Pyramid of Khafre (Chrephren)

Here is what I have found.

The Polar radius of Venus is 6051.8Km. 6051.8 * 1000 = 6051800m 6051800 / 43200 = 140.0879629m

The height of this Pyramid is 143.5m. According to NASA the radius of Venus is 6051.8Km.

First find the Circumference 6051.8 * 2 = 12103.6Km 12103.6 * 3.14 = 38005.304Km 38005.304 *1000 = 38005304m 38005304 / 43200 = 879.752407m

This corresponds to 863.2m, which is the perimeter of Khafre's Pyramid. The perimeter of Khafre's Pyramid represents the circumference of Venus."

If so, exactly how do you propose to have proven that 836.2m signals 879.752407m? There's quite a difference. I might have to question that...

I would hate to tell you what goes into finding valid estimates from figures like that in the Pyramid Matrix and considering them firm.

But again... I would hope you actually familiarize yourself better with the material in question prior to thinking

<< "it only took me two emails to essentially discredit the mathematics" >>

I suspect it will take you two weeks just to go over the mathematics... I'm sure it took me much longer...

Regards, Robert

99.53.2 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (dle33@swbell.net) 

From: dle33@swbell.net
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/26/02

Mark McCarron wrote:

<< I really do not care how many numbers he can remember or how well he can add them together. My point is that he does not how to establish mathematical communication with an unknown race. This is what I specialize in. I know that it impossible for communication to be established if the encoding race made it a requirement that you know its unit of measurements. >>

<< This is SETI research principles, I have tested them, NASA has tested them and they work. The contents of the Voyager space probes were built upon these methods as a method of establishing contact with an unknown race. >>

Let me try an idea out on you please:

If I can show you from the links of Giza, Cydonia and sky patterns of two distinct "Ages" in which grand galactic, solar system, and Earth orientations are unmistakably the intentional alignment scheme, would you pay attention? If I can show you on a celestial sphere globe the foundation of the navigation of this vicinity of the Milky Way Galaxy using a double Great Pyramid inside the sphere, would you pay attention? If I can show you the ecliptic paths of Earth and Nibiru based upon this layout and markers at Cydonia, would you pay attention? These are all simple constructs without requirement for math to see the relationships. How mathematically necessary is it to see this? What units of measure are being used? Would it be necessary to use math to see this plan? If you could see this plan, would you still hold to your opinion that the only way to establish "communication" with the designers of this plan is through math?

<< My reply: >>

<< I am anything but closed minded I assure you. Nothing can become a fact, it either is or it isn't. A brick is always a brick, fact. What you mean to say is, that it may be becoming generally accepted. Facts cannot be accepted or denied, therefore by definition, the 'Royal Cubit' will ALWAYS remain opinion and, as such, completely useless when trying to prove anything. >>

When it was "fact" that the Earth was flat and anything to the contrary was heresy punishable by death or at least ostracization, it was widely accepted as fact but since proven wrong. That "fact" was accepted and denied. The Royal Cubit is a unit which allows one to arrive at design and construction plan in a straightforward fashion rather than necessitating conversion to some other unit of measure to grasp the logic and reason behind the plan.

<< My reply: >>

<< I know of no evidence whatsoever that proves the Sumerians used this. I deal with Egypt with specific reference to the Giza Necropolis. Please provide proof and I will concede this point. However, proving the Sumerians used it has no bearing on the designers of the Great Pyramid. It would be like trying to argue that the staple diet of America was Sushi just because that was so in China. Again, there is no way to prove this. >>

Then why did the ancient civilizations admit that there were civilizations which preceded themselves who were masters of math, design, science, culinary delights, bicameral legislature, etc. etc.? The ancient Sumerians knew of the zodiac...a 360 deg orbit of the Sun. They also knew of Earth's polar precession movement around the ecliptic pole as evidenced by the grand alignments mentioned above. They also knew of Nibiru's 3600 year orbit which encompasses 360 deg of revolution. The simple fact that the Sumerians told us in writing that these predecessors existed is sufficient evidence to question whether indeed the ancient Egyptians also had such a predecessor....thus it does have a bearing on who the designers of the Great Pyramid were.

<< My reply: >>

<< Now your just getting lost. Its quite clear that you failed completely to understand this part of my statement. >>

> The uses of measurement that you describe are in everyday normal applications. We are talking about establishing mathematical communication and this is a whole different area. There are only a few methods of achieving this, it cannot be done if one side (ie the designers or encoders)have used a unknown unit of measure and require it to be known by the decoders.

<< Please think about this really hard: >>

<< The unit of measure could be anything, the amount of possibilities would be << staggering alone. A code is trying to convey a message, you do not make it << any harder than it already is and you certainly do not make it impossible. >>

Yes, the units of measure I mentioned are in everyday normal use today just as the ancient ones were likely the ones of use in antiquity. The ones who used those may have not given a tinker's dam whether anyone else ever discovered their meaning.

<< My reply: >>

<< What??? No. Come back to reality, just for a moment. It CANNOT be done, it can NEVER be proved. The original unit of measure will always be open to question as I could pick hundreds (if not thousands) of values that would present me with many 'relationships' throughout the structure. Try it for yourself and you will see that I am right. This was one of the first problems I had when first approaching this subject and why I choose the SETI route. >>

Whatever route you chose may be lacking in completeness or in simplicity to understand the subjects at hand without need for mind bending work to grasp.

<< My reply: >> << Completely wrong. Its always the same. Your just converting it. 1cm = 2.54 British inches. Mathematics has values, not elegance. Really this is a VERY lame argument.zz >>

So....then it stands to reason that if I multiply 1cm by 1cm to achieve one square cm....it has the same impact as some fractional element which forever removes the "elegance" of the simplicity of numbers? Come on...who's being lame here?

<< My reply: >>

<< No, its just a unit, and as it can be converted to any other unit, its completely irrelevant. >>

See above. Your statement is simply not logical.

<< My reply: >>

<< You cannot prove anything. I know this, you know this or else you would have. Evidence is one thing, proof is another. I can prove my research. >>

I can prove my research.... I can state what I believe to be the outcome of my research.... I am solidly convinced of the meaningfulness of my research and the outcome... That doesn't mean that you will necessarily be convinced...nor that I will be as convinced of your theory as you are.

<< My reply: >>

<< He called into question his honesty in such matters, not whether he made mistakes. Stop trying to cover for him, he is an adult (I hope) and should accept responsibility for his actions. >>

Sorry, I may have overstepped not having seen the original correspondence. My purpose in this communication is to state unequivocally that there are many parallels in my work and that of MM. I cannot speak of his work with authority, but I can tell you it bears examination from the evidence rather than to be summarily dismissed.

<< My reply: >> << A chimp mimics the behavior of a subject that is present with it. >>

How about the fact that Flo (gorilla) expressed sadness at the loss of her kitten and actually shed tears at the time? This is not mimicking...it's communication.

<< The only subject present is a pyramid, does it sign to you? >>

My scenario has the west edge of the Great Pyramid aligned with the belt stars of Orion, the peak of the D&M Pyramid, and the head of the flying serpent of Cydonia in one straight line in 2012ad.... The peaks of the Khafre and Menkaure pyramids align to significant points of Cydonia such that the Great Sphinx overlies the "Face" of Cydonia.... In a word, yes, this is a form of speaking to me about the multiple linking of the Great Pyramid to Cydonia and to the sky.

<< It's a solid limestone structure, it cannot move, it cannot respond, it is not alive, and it has no intelligence. Really wise up. >>

No...the intelligence behind it is from the designers and builders.....and it is intact and fully functional.

<< My reply: >>

<< Many have, they come and join us to combine forces to release the truth. They also can respect criticism of their work as they know we are ONLY interested in making them better researchers and their research accurate. >>

I have no quibble with anyone who studies the evidence of my work and then chooses to take potshots....the thing I detest is the denial without hearing the evidence....

<< My reply: >>

<< It will always be denied as it is not fact nor the truth. It is values, drawn at random, from mathematics based upon the requirement of unprovable units of measure. That is the truth. >>

Value of meaning behind great galactic alignment is certainly not random....and it is provable...and that is the truth.

<< My reply: >>

<< There IS a code, that much I do agree with. However, the method of extrapolation is what I am questioning. It just can never be prove and a waste of a good talent and, what appears to be, a genuine heart. This is why I am so abrasive in these emails, I am saddened to see someone waste their life on something I know not to be true and I am trying to correct this. >>

In other words, don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up. Right?

<< My reply: >>

<< Not really, we're the World's largest, we have some powerful backing and over 3000 members worldwide. Have you ever had someone try to tell you something and you know, for a fact, that what they are telling you is completely impossible. Well, that is the situation I am involved in and I have to try to convey a very complex subject matter to Mr Morton to explain this. >>

And what if Mr Morton is just as convinced that what he understands is not only possible but appears to him to be logical, meaningful, and purposeful? The world's history is full of examples where the masses were wrong and one individual came along and proved it. If you had seen what Michael and I have seen in synchronicity, precision, redundant corroboration, and elegance....you might change your position...but probably not. It is obvious that your mind is not open to new ideas about these subjects, so I for one will continue with my work rather than attempt to drag horses to water...since it's pretty clear that they are not interested in drinking.

<< My reply: >>

<< No, not that, we just cannot prove it. If we keep relying on things we cannot prove we will always be disbelieved and kicked in the teeth. I fear nothing. >>

We will be disbelieved on these subjects and kicked in the teeth whether or not we are right....so should we just stop research since it's hopeless? No thanks.

The person who truly fears nothing is a fool. You are not a fool....so either you are whistling past the cemetery or you aren't speaking the truth, in my opinion.

<< My reply: >>

<< As far as the space program (and its equipment), NASA. Please do not try to be pedantic. >>

Not pedantic....there are several insiders and former insiders at NASA who readily admit that there are things being done there which are known to only a very small number of people.

<< My reply: >>

<< I agree, however, Mr Morton is only onto misleading values. >>

Some seem to me to lead to very meaningful end results which fit with both ancient and current knowledge. Pretty convincing evidence of real value not misleading.

<< My reply: >>

<< This feels strange, I am the one who is constantly accusing governments of conspiracy's on this matter. Now I am accused as being part of them. This world gets weirder every day. >>

Could it be because you stated that your organization's purpose is to debunk those who disagree with you? (paraphrasing here) Sounds like conspiracy to me.

This world is in for a wild ride with a far more weird history than we can imagine if we but look at the evidence.

Damon