**99.53.1 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (ancient_vizier@yahoo.com)**

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

<< 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

**99.53.3 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (markmccarron_it@hotmail.com)**

From: markmccarron_it@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees

Date: 02/26/02

Firstly, ratio is not the only method, it just happens to be used at the beginning of this code as it is one of the most simplistic forms of encoding known.

The document you reference has been re-written so many times. The website that is from is only used as a 'development area' and not final works. All final works are posted at gizapyramid.com.

Follow this link for the most current edition as I am now putting up a modular series for the association:

Here is the link:

http://www.gizapyramid.com/Research/McCarron/Earth.htm

Here is a quick explanation. Throughout history people have tried to claim the Great Pyramid contained the measurements of the Earth encoded into its structure.

So, adopting SETI research principles, I asked the question, if the Great Pyramid was encoded with the dimensions of the Earth is there any way the Giza Necropolis could independently verify this.

Since there are three major pyramids at Giza, with one being related to the Earth, then it only made sense that the other two should be planets as well.

From here I decided on the following:

1. The pyramids would need to demonstrate a common scale factor.

2. The pyramids would need to represent planets which are in sequence (i.e
as the Great Pyramid is earth I would not expect to find Saturn, Neptune,
Pluto, etc.)

3. Any encoding found would be very simplistic, demonstrate a learning curve
and must begin in a simple ratio format (ie 1:43000, etc).

By restricting myself to the following 'rules' the odds against coincidence are astronomical to say the least. I don't think I need to tell you that the amount of zeros attached to those odds would fill up your email inbox and the email box of several others.

Even against all the odds the document clearly demonstrates that they have been encoded and that the three main pyramids of the Giza Necropolis are scale representations of the three inner planets Mercury, Venus and and Earth. This is an example of 'tertiary validation'.

As you will see from the document, there is no need for me to have any 'special units of measurement' to demonstrate this. This is the principle of anti-cryptography.

This is the route I would like to see Mr Morton and other to follow, it just cannot be reasonable argued with as no assumptions have to made whatsoever. It is really just a physical examination, and as such, physical evidence.

It is there in limestone and unless the authorities nuke the Giza Necropolis all the proof we need is right there.

My work, essentially, is about letting the Giza Necropolis speak for itself, validate itself and not try to apply anything to it 'to make it work'.

I hope you now all understand, that through years of research, this is the only method that can provide proof as every other method requires underlying assumptions.

It is the only way I can beat the authorities.

Mark.

From: Ancient Vizier

>--- Mark McCarron

<< 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

**99.53.4 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (markmccarron_it@hotmail.com)**

From: Milamo@aol.com

Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees

Date: 02/26/02

I'm way ahead of you on this. The alignments you speak of do exist, its like the 'Street of the dead' in south America, a map of the milky way.

**** An important point here, you state that the Great Pyramid should be doubled.

Do you realize this is EXACTLY what I state in my research on the three pyramids being scale representations of the three inner planets?

If the Great Pyramid represents one hemisphere of the Earth then it must be doubled to get the entire Earth.

So, congratulations you have the next progression of the code

Also, math is essential in this plan, geometry is 3D mathematics (ie pi, phi, golden ration, etc) and still NO requirement for 'special units of measure'.

Getting this, anti-cryptography???? ****

The difference between the Royal cubit and a 'flat Earth' is important. The Earth can be shown, without question, to anyone that it is indeed round. However, the Royal cubit can never be demonstrated in such a manner. It can ALWAYS be questioned.

It doesn't matter that they admit they were preceded by scientific communities, it still does not prove they knew or used 360 degrees. Also, I do not think you know that there is NO evidence to even suggest contact between Sumerians (c.5000 BC) and the Egyptian culture (c. 3800 BC). Again, you have to prove it!

Really, if they didn't give a 'tinker dam' about the 'units of measurement' then why should we? It's irrelevant as long as we can decode it.

Who the designers are is irrelevant, they are dead, it is the message that is important now.

The SETI route is not mind bending, in fact, Mr Morton's work would end up far more complex that anything that is required in mine. Also, he can never prove it as he MUST make underlying assumptions that may or may not be correct.

This is a code, elegance has nothing to do with. It is designed to get a message across, not to look pretty. Total effectiveness (no marks here for presentation). Units of measure are irrelevant, you have proved this point yourself. We do not require them to decode the Giza Necropolis, I could use my unit of 'madeupmeasure' and it will still work as long as I have standard conversion rates to other units.

I do not deal in theories, only facts. This is the basic premise of my work, if it is not a FACT it is useless to me.

I understand about your reference to Mr Morton's comments, however, it is not is work I am disregarding, it is his ability to prove it. I know it cannot be done because assumptions must be made. When assumptions exist it becomes only theory, and until those assumption are either proved or disproved the validity of the work can never be confirmed only supported.

In reference to the crying chimp, it is alive, a pyramid is not. Two completely different scenarios that require different methods of communication. One cannot be compared to the other as one is intelligence the other is a result of intelligence.

I detest denial before reading too, so we are agreed on that, however, there are circumstances where I can fully state whether something can be proved or not by only knowing the general methods employed. I do not deny the work itself, I just state it can NEVER be proved.

Let me state this clearly, all the work Mr Morton and others have produced my be great, accurately calculated, methodically thought out, however, it can never be proved as the underlying assumptions have not been proved. It does not mean that you give up, it means you change your approach to a method that can be proved. This is what I have done.

I followed your route and every where I went with it, it was picked apart and completely useless. It took me a long time to concede the point that as long as there were elements, that my work relied on and could not be proved, I could never prove the existence of any code.

I am not a fool, as you have stated, fear comes from the unknown and there is nothing that cannot be known by me. I fear nothing.

In regards to NASA, of course there are things we do not know, but you are not privileged to that information either. Therefore, to the knowledge of the general public, such devices do not currently exist and certainly results from such devices have never been released.

We are not out to debunk anyone, we are there to aid research in scientific methods and inform them if their work will prove anything.

I would be ecstatic if Mr Morton and the rest would come join us in this battle, but we must choose our battles carefully, those we know we can win. Only then will victory be ours.

If we cannot prove it, it only becomes a weapon against us, junk science.

Mark.

**99.53.5 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (ancient_vizier@yahoo.com)**

From: ancient_vizier@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees

Date: 02/26/02

--- Mark McCarron

<< Also, math is essential in this plan, geometry is 3D mathematics (ie pi, phi, golden ration, etc) and still NO requirement for 'special units of measure'. >>

<< Getting this, anti-cryptography???? **** >>

I am going to repeat this, that "archaeocryptography" to the best of my understanding has no singular dependence on units of measure. It frequently generates significant figures from geometry, it generates them from the physical characteristics of monuments, it may even generate them from mathematical values associated with monuments which are categorically similar. More than likely, it is going to generate numbers in a number of these fashions simultaneously.

But when these "anti-cryptographic" values DO then coincide with geomathematical figures and figures generated from units of measure, then we too can be talking about how "astronomical" the odds are against us not looking at something where one or more units of measure were intended, were used, and are known to us even now, as a supplement to what is involved that has no such dependency on measure.

We are in apparently in agreement that some ancient persons created at least an "almanac" of astronomical data, and probably more. Why this "almanac" cannot or should not refer to data like common units of measure would be beyond me.

For what it is worth, regarding the "SETI approach", Mr. Hoagland, whose background includes the very same sort of thing, including the design of "communications" placed on board space probes, seems to think VERY highly of archaeocryptography and has not perceived such sort of conflicts.

Sagan, of course, gets frequently quoted about the likelihood of "ETs" using geometric messages, but then we are easily back to the problem of the "monkey circle" (or geometric crystallization of minerals for that matter), since geometry cannot, strictly speaking, inherently communicate intelligence, and there is nothing I can recommend more highly than Munck's work on the Cuicuilco pyramid showing exactly how that sort of limitation was overcome.

It SHOWS us that it is a circle, and a geometric statement by

A: Being geomathematically located to generate a generic formula for the area of the circle

B: Extrapolating on the area of the circle though its most simple and obvious physical characteristics to give us the formulas for the surface area of the sphere and the volume of the sphere

The odds against A alone are sufficiently astronomical.

But this is also even by itself very formidable evidence of a 360* system of geometric measurement, of geographic measurement, and of a Giza Prime Meridian.

<< Really, if they didn't give a 'tinker dam' about the 'units of measurement' then why should we? It's irrelevant as long as we can decode it.

If the units of measurement can be decoded from the "anti-cryptographic" values, then we seem to have a key to the cryptographic data as well as a key to the intended units of measure.

But honestly, if we were concerned about how palatable we are to academia, there's nothing more exotic required than a better knowledge of Pi than ancients are normally given credit for. To say that things are without relevance because we "could not know" aspects of ancient geometry or units of measure, flies directly in the face of the fact that we DO know much of them.

Why make it a case that the foot or the Royal Cubit or whichever would be meaningless to visitors from some distant star system when a case can be made for the use of knowledge that has openly been handed down?

No one fears to write in their own language simply because the writing might come in the hands of someone who reads and speaks a different one, not that I can imagine.

But I believe there would be numerous examples from both Munck and Morton that would actually meet your criteria.

<< I would be ecstatic if Mr Morton and the rest would come join us in this battle, but we must choose our battles carefully, those we know we can win. Only then will victory be ours.

It's possible that Munck and Morton are two of the most powerful allies that you already have, if you could become aware of that.

I would be ecstatic if I am sure that you are fully aware of the work in question.

Here is a collected body of work by Michael Morton in case you are unaware of it. The older the work, the further down the page. You may want to begin at the bottom and look at some of the earlier writings where he is explaining some of Carl Munck's work. I know from experience that some of the later materials, particularly the implications, can be challenging to come to terms with without the basic background.

There is also a link at the bottom to a page listing works by Carl Munck and how they may be obtained. There is still nothing better for going into detail about Munck's work from the ground up than Munck's work itself.

http://matrix-messenger.tripod.com/index.htm

Regards, Robert

**99.53.6 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (Milamo)**

From: Milamo@aol.com

Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees

Date: 02/26/02

Mark ...

I'm hoping that you could maybe open-up to the possibility .. that .. a_360_arc-degrees-based system .. *has* actually_been_handed-down to us .. to 'us' as Earth-humans .. from .. The Anunnaki .. essentially, Mark .. handed-down to us by_ancestors_of ours.

And .. that there is a whole detailed history concerning these ancestors of ours .. and; that they apparently "left" Earth .. at least 'overtly' .. thousands of years ago .. and that, *since then* .. there has been a loss/distortion/corruption/confusion/suppression process which has happened. (I recommend Neil Freer's works regarding this 'problem' and scenario .. "Breaking the Godspell", and "God Games").

Can you consider investigating this possibility, Mark .. with an open mind ?

Just for one detail .. while I hopefully have your attention, here ...

Consider the possibility that 360 is very, very functional_and_very resonant with .. "the nature of Nature" .. by-way-of Base 10 .. and by-way-of Phi. 36 is the ArcCosine_of_HALF-Phi. Right ? And precisely-so. I have a feeling you do recognize the Golden Section. Very "natural".

"Doubling; and dividing-in-half". Basically resonant with "Nature" .. right ?

Well .. 360 is only a power-of-10 function of 36. Right ? A "decimal-harmonic" of 36 .. correct ? Now .. am I pulling some sort of "nonsense", here ? Am I, Mark ?

OK. Well .. if, at this point .. you don't think I'm pulling any dirty tricks .. please bear with me for a minute. OK, Mark ?

Do you recall my mention of "Volumes and Areas" .. of standard Circle/Sphere geometry .. in a recent email I sent you?

I mentioned the standard math formula for calculating the Surface Area on a Hemisphere. [2Pi * (radius Squared) = Surface Area on Hemisphere]. OK ?

Please accept, for the moment .. the "assumption" that there *is* a multitude of evidence that shows that we .. as Earth humans .. culturally all over the planet .. *have*, in fact .. inherited a 360 degrees-based system of arc-distance measurement .. from *VERY DEEP* antiquity. Beyond this "assumption" .. if you, Mark, would simply open-up to looking at the REAL EVIDENCE of the existence of this handed-down system .. you could hopefully become_inspired_by the following indication ..

(2Pi) * [(360 / 2Pi)]^2 = 20626.48063 Square arc-degrees .. the generic Surface Area on a Hemisphere.

That resulting figure is a decimal-harmonic of my proposed length for The Royal Cubit .. in *regular British inches* .. 20.62648063

This 1.718873386 *regular British feet*.

Do you see the "resonance" here, Mark ?

Do you see the "self-sameness" .. the "self-referentiality", here ?

Can you open-up, Mark .. to the probability .. that .. 360 has been used by The Anunnaki, at least .. for hundreds of thousands of years .. at least ?

Look at the Grid POINT Value for "FACE ONE" @ Cydonia on Mars, Mark. 656.56127 .. (Munck, 1993, "The Code", self-published, http://www.pyramidmatrix.com)

656.56127 = [360 * (360 / 2Pi)] / (10 * Pi). Right on the nose, Mark. Seriously.

Look at the 4 components, there .. the 4 terms ..

1.) 360

2.) 57.29577951 .. the Radian (deg) in the 360 system

3.) 10 .. "base 10".

4.) Pi .. the Pi constant.

Pretty conspicuous of a "360"-based system, isn't it .. being that 656.56127 is the_ratio_of the "ASM" latitude and longitude PLACEMENT of "FACE ONE" .. literally ON THE NOSE .. *using* a prime meridian through the center of "The D&M Pyramid" .. and *using* the equator on Mars ?

Mark .. I'm asking you .. and your organization .. to please open-up to "looking through the telescope". Will you consider looking through the telescope, Mark ?

-- Michael Lawrence Morton

**************************

In a message dated 02/26/2002 4:03:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, markmccarron_it@hotmail.com writes:

<< Subj: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees

Date: 02/26/2002 4:03:09 AM Pacific Standard Time

From: markmccarron_it@hotmail.com (Mark McCarron)

To: pvigay@cropcircleresearch.com

CC: Milamo@aol.com, MetPhys@aol.com, CodeUFO@aol.com, neil@neilfreer.com, ancient_vizier@yahoo.com, palmerri@uwec.edu, arvic@southwest.com.au, Wdestiny44@aol.com, T0Leo@aol.com, EGH@topica.com, CDunn1546@aol.com, Marcio6067@skydome.net, ophi@greatserpentmound.org, artemis@greatserpentmound.org, andy3751@hotmail.com, maryweav@hotmail.com, KTotzek@aol.com, Kynthia@kynthia.net, dle33@swbell.net

I think we are all now coming onto a common wavelength. I too am from the UK, in fact, Northern Ireland.

I also know that while the Royal Cubit is referenced, in the scientific community the value is contested and any reliance upon it has seen every piece of work shot down completely.

Its like trying to tear down a wall with a rubber hammer.

Mathematics can prove things, that is why we use it. For example, it can prove that if I have 2 apples and get two more apples, I now have 4 apples. It all just depends on your approach.

I really didn't put this too well, elegance is irrelevant in systems such as these as the encoders could never know if we would ever find the original unit of measure. Therefore, they would make it so that we would not have to know it.

I've been a 'spanner in the works' for the authorities since I began and I always intend to be as long as I do not put anyone in danger.

I have challenged every skeptic to try to punch holes in my research, they couldn't do it. So all I have to do now, is continue the methods I am currently using in my examination and release that data into the public domain. They'll never know what hit them. hehe.

Mark.

From: Paul Vigay

To: Mark McCarron

CC: Milamo@aol.com, MetPhys@aol.com, CodeUFO@aol.com, neil@neilfreer.com,
ancient_vizier@yahoo.com, palmerri@uwec.edu, arvic@southwest.com.au,
Wdestiny44@aol.com, T0Leo@aol.com, EGH@topica.com, CDunn1546@aol.com,
Marcio6067@skydome.net, ophi@greatserpentmound.org,
artemis@greatserpentmound.org, andy3751@hotmail.com, maryweav@hotmail.com,
KTotzek@aol.com, Kynthia@kynthia.net, dle33@swbell.net

Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:17:32 +0000 (GMT)

On 25 Feb, Mark McCarron

<< 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. >>

Erm, it doesn't matter what we call units of measurement, whether it's a meter, a yard, a cubit or whatever. I believe alien races will use mathematical measurements such as PI or e or other mathematical constants etc. We've merely given these names, which tend to get in the way of people's logic.

For instance, we could all argue as to how valid things like megalithic yards are (as they're no longer current measurement systems) but the megalithic yard is very elegant and consists of e feet - which will be known by other intelligent races, even if they don't call it by the same name as us.

<< 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. >>

The Royal Cubit is a fact. Maybe people overseas don't realize this, especially as governments and secret societies are trying to suppress imperial measurement systems, instead trying to manipulate people into using the metric system (which is meaningless and non mathematical), whereas the imperial system is much more accurate and fits in much well with the thinking any alien race will have. It's a very valid system here in the UK, and I've just looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary (definitive reference book over here) and it's listed as perfectly valid.

<< 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. >>

Agreed - but it doesn't matter what we call the actual measurement. We could call it the Royal wibble or something. If something is PI feet or some such mathematical value, then the actual name is irrelevant. It's the mathematical evidence which lies behind it which is useful, and I can confirm that much more interesting results are yielded from ancient structures when we use imperial measurements rather than metric ones - which were designed to lead people away from the elegant mathematical measurement systems of the ancient world.

<< 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. >>

I fully agree.

<< 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. >> It can be elegant. For instance my example above about the megalithic yard - which is completely elegant and completely mathematical, being e feet. If you convert it to cm or m it ceases to be elegant and is no longer evenly mathematical, as cm are hardly related to PI, e or any other elegant mathematical constants, whereas referring to something as e feet is simple and elegant.

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

Yes, but in other measurements it doesn't mean anything.

<< 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. >>

I agree with your logic, but we must also seek to uncover and reveal what certain authorities would prefer us to forget about, which is why I find that using imperial and ancient measurement systems is much better than using the flawed metric system.

<< 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. >>

So what. The majority of the world thought the earth was flat, or the heavens revolved around the Earth at one point in history. It doesn't make it correct though. I think we need to search for truth. I for one don't care if 1 person or 1 million people believe something. If what they believe is wrong, then it's meaningless.

<< 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. >>

Mathematically it's virtually impossible to prove anything, so it's a rather fruitless task trying. All we can strive to do is to provide as much evidence as possible and share it with others, so that more people can benefit from research and possible evidence.

<< 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. >>

Hehe. I know the feeling. :-)

Paul

**99.53.7 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (markmccarron_it@hotmail.com)**

From: markmccarron_it@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees

Date: 02/27/02

Right, the simplest way forward here is to present me with a document containing all the mathematics and writing and I will conduct an analysis and give you an honest opinion.

I will view all material with a completely open mind and if you have indeed identified something, even to the extent where it is a possibility then I will support you and request that you join the association.

Similarly, any criticisms I may make I request you that you take as being absolutely sincere.

My challenge to all of you is simple, prove it.

Good luck, Mark.

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2002