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

Page 54

Sections List- 99 Electrons and Mythologies
Impossible Correspondence Index

From: Milamo@aol.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (Milamo) 
Date: 02/26/02

In a message dated 02/26/2002 4:45:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, MetPhys writes:

<< OK boys, lets wrap this bullshit up. >>

Are you being sarcastic ? Or .. what, MetPhys ? This is a_very_important debate, here, going on. In case you didn't realize it. Who the hell do you think you are .. to say this ? Get back in your cage, MetPhys. Please.

-- Michael L.M.

_______________________________

99.54.2 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (MetPhys) 

From: MetPhys@aol.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/27/02

In a message dated 2/27/2 3:17:02 AM, you wrote:

In a message dated 02/26/2002 4:45:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, MetPhys writes:

<< OK boys, lets wrap this bullshit up. >>

Are you being sarcastic ? Or .. what, MetPhys ?

This is a_very_important debate, here, going on. In case you didn't realize it.

Who the hell do you think you are .. to say this ?

Get back in your cage, MetPhys. Please.

-- Michael L.M. >>

I'm just saying that Mark asked for proof that you all are correct and that its time that you all should wrap it up and prove it or quit repeating what you have already said a dozen times. I only have so much webspace to document this and it shouldn't go on forever.

If you will notice, Mark sent me his information first and if I had not forwarded it to you, you wouldn't be having this debate.

And don't ever tell me again to get back into my cage or I'll make it my lifes purpose to prove you wrong myself.

MetPhys@aol.com

_______________________________

99.54.3 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (MetPhys@aol.com) 

From: MetPhys@aol.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/27/02
To: dle33@swbell.net

In a message dated 2/27/2 4:40:59 AM, you wrote:

<< This can only go downhill from here. >>

Why do you think I told you to wrap it up? You think I didn't know that after listening to you ego's taking the conversation over completely and bolstering your own theories with two pages of reasons???

Time to prove it or get off the pot.

MetPhys@aol

_______________________________

99.54.4 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

In a message dated 02/26/2002 5:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, markmcca-@hotmail.com writes:

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

{{ Absolutely wrong. Do you know how long The Anunnaki live .. their lifespans ? But even_aside_from that .. they are our *ancestors*, Mark !! They HANDED-DOWN the math and science .. the kingship, etc., etc. .. to us !! If you can't handle learning about who we are .. our origins, etc. .. at least as far back_as_The Anunnaki .. about where we came from .. again .. at least as far_back_as the Anunnaki .. then you are are simply being stupid, stubborn, and asinine. }}

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. >>

Why are you insisting that we "start in a vacuum" ?? We are NOT coming out of a vacuum.

The PROOFS come in the sense of .. "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Ever hear of this ? ***PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT***. Well .. we've GOT the proofs(s) .. many, many, many, many times over. We've GOT the damned PROOF(s) !!!!     Wake the Hell Up !!!! Look at the SKY .. look at the sky-locations .. in the "ASM". Please. Right THERE .. we've got the proof(s).

Look at the f----- DATA .. will you ??!!!???!!!?"??!!!?????? OK .. I'm getting too damned pissed off at this stubborn fool. I better stop right here .. for "now", at least.

-- Michael L.M.

_______________________________

99.54.5 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: 02/27/02

In a message dated 02/26/2002 8:45:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, MetPhys writes:

<< In a message dated 2/27/2 4:09:04 AM, you wrote: >>

<< In a message dated 02/26/2002 5:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, markmcca-@hotmail.com writes:

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

{{ Absolutely wrong. Do you know how long The Anunnaki live .. their lifespans ? But even_aside_from that .. they are our *ancestors*,

Mark !! >>

<< I know how long they were supposed to have lived between the time of their origin and Adm/Eve (approx. 80 trillion yrs) and between their origin and the beginning of human history as we can detect (160 trillion yrs). Knowing the longest cycles, 311.40 trillion yrs (Vedic Full cycle- there isn't one longer than this, that we know of) divided into 7 falling and 7 rising planes of 20 trillion apiece puts Anu at level 4 (12 Titans, 12 Anunnaki) of the fall and the Adm/Eve at the bottom at Level 7 (80 trillion between) because the Anu did come before Adm/Eve didn't they. And the garden story was about the creation of the very first humans wasn't it. So there's your proof the Anunnaki were 80 trillion yrs before Adm/Eve. Ever heard of anything living for 80 trillion yrs. as a being? Atoms did. And Atom is synonymous with Adm. That was simple Michael....And I've proven it. And I can give good proof as to the the origin of the word Anu.nnaki...remember the Anu of Besant and Leadbeater? If I stayed in a box, I would never have found it. I sent Email to many of you about the Anu and Anu.nnaki and none of you responded.

MetP-@aol.com >>

OK ...

MetPhys ... you have now crossed over into "disinformationland" .. *bigtime* .. and I will have NO PART of your disinformation-craziness. You have crossed WAY over the line, MetPhys .. into raving lunacy .. which wants to throw a blanket of absurdity and grotesque lunacy over this discussion .. and I will have NONE of THIS. (See, folks .. why I toldhim to "get back in his cage" ??!! THIS .."above" .. is what I mean. At this point .. I am ready to leave this discussion .. seeing as how MetPhys has thrown one of his "theatre-of-the-absurd" grenades in here .. AND .. seeing as how 'Mark the Stubborn' McCarron has planted his ass and rooted it so far into the ground that it looks as though he'll be stuck there in that spot forever. (As it looks now .. from what I am seeing). The work goes on .. despite people hurling theatre-of-the-absurd grenades, and despite people firmly committed to being debunkers and being totally closed-minded to the proofs I've been offering for years. They keep claiming there's "no proof" .. even as I put it right in front of them !!! What the hell more can I do ??!! I've had it with this particular "exchange". Let the evidence speak for itself. Let the work speak for itself .. and it will. You all have the URLS and posts, and such. Go to it. I will continue on .. much more to come .. much more ..

-- Michael L.M.

_______________________________

99.54.6 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: 02/27/02

In a message dated 02/27/2002 2:58:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, markmcca-@hotmail.com writes:

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

Date: 02/27/2002 2:58:57 AM Pacific Standard Time From: markmcca-@hotmail.com (Mark McCarron)
To: MetP-@aol.com, Mil-@aol.com, pvi-@cropcircleresearch.com, Code-@aol.com, ancient-@yahoo.com, palm-@uwec.edu, arv-@southwest.com.au, Wdest-@aol.com, T0L-@aol.com, EG-@topica.com, CDunn-@aol.com, Marci-@skydome.net, op-@greatserpentmound.org, arte-@greatserpentmound.org, andy-@hotmail.com, mary-@hotmail.com, KTot-@aol.com, Kynt-@kynthia.net

Now your just going crazy. Do you not get this point at all, regardless of what you 'believe' to the rest of the world it is crap. You asked did I know how long the Anunnaki lived, there is no evidence that this race existed, let alone the preposterous idea that they lived for 80 trillion years.

Guys, seriously, stay in reality. I cannot support anything you say or find when you begin talking like this.

I looked at the link, you have proved nothing other than you do not know what constitutes as proof. This only leaves me in the position were I begin to question any work produced by yourselves. At this point, I am waiting to hear one of you offer me a ride in your space-craft. If any of you have a sensible brain on your shoulders you will instantly get the point. Reality has limits, imagination does not and paper cannot tell the difference nor refuse to be written on.Come back to Earth guys, you are your own worst enemies. I can understand at this point why Chris Dunn has been ignoring you. It is because you come across as clinically delusional. >>

Mark ..

That was ****MetPhys**** .. who is "speaking" strictly for HIMSELF !! NOT for me .. NOR for Damon Elkins .. nor for anyone else here !!! MetPhys is essentially a "theatre-of-the-absurd" actor, IMO .. and that's why I told him to .. "get back in his cage". But, of course .. YOU, Mark, have_disingenuously_"taken advantage" of MetPhys hurling one of his "theatre-of-the-absurd" grenades into the fray .. by trying to "label" **his*** craziness as "representative" of my work and of Damon's work. This is another example of your dishonesty and of your unethical actions.

It is very obvious to me, at this point .. that you, Mark, are committed to remaining totally closed-minded toward the "ASM". You keep saying we "can't prove it" .. even as I put put prime proofs right in front of you .. even as I send you URLs to page-after-page of proof after proof after proof .. beyond a reasonable doubt. I will not beat a dead horse .. er .. I mean .. a dead ass .. especially one that grows roots so damned fast.

-- Michael L.M.

_______________________________

99.54.7 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (MetPhys) 

From: MetPhys@aol.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/27/02

Hey Michael,

No proof that Anu is the root of Anu.nnaki?

You know how many years it took me to put bible, cosmogony and the mythologies of the earth in a list of 7 Levels?

You wanna know how long it took to study and relate that list to Sumerian and Babylonian Gods?

You wanna know how long it took to put the Sumerian Gods in reasonable order and associate 12 Anunnaki with the 12 helpers and 12 Titans?

Ever noticed the writings of Jerry (Iuliano) in my Email list of contributors? Those are the ones about the number 18 Anu and Hydrogen atoms. Surprised that Anu is connected with atoms?

So discount it. It doesn't matter to me. You are the genius of ASM but you picked up some garbage along the way about Anunnaki. I told you a long time ago quietly, you were making an error in adhering to Anunnaki as people. What base of work or intuitive intelligence do you offer in calling Anunnaki or the pantheons of Gods, living beings of a few thousand years ago? Do you know the Greeks made their Gods so ridiculously exaggerated that no one would literally take them for being real people?

Could it be the popular thing to say with literalists these days and all your friends say it also? None of them offered any response to my Email inquiry. Is it better to deamonize me rather than offer a better explanation? I've studied their explanations and its not ringing correct against the 40,000 other books, bibles and uncounted sites I've studied. All I have been seeing is your acceptance of someone elses work in the Anunnaki Dept, much to my surprise, because I thought you wanted the truth, above all.....it seems only in a few scientific fields do you want that?

MetPhys@aol.com

_______________________________

99.54.8 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (TOLeo) 

From: TOLeo
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/27/02

In a message dated 2/27/02 7:41:08 AM EST, Milamo writes:

<< I've had it with this particular "exchange". Let the evidence speak for itself. Let the work speak for itself .. and it will. You all have the URLS and posts, and such. Go to it. I will continue on .. much more to come .. much more ..

-- Michael L.M. >>

And I for one, Michael, look forward to it. You may be ultimately proven totally wrong and he may be correct, but I have had personal experience with Mark's academic style. It's all from the same book. It's an elitist attitude. This is not to say I reject or am ignorant of scientific methodology. But, unless you have a PhD in Mark's particular "discipline", it appears anything you say or produce is ignored. The word "Science" derives from the LATIN "SCIENTIA" = "KNOWLEDGE". People who truly seek "knowledge" ought to be willing to at least consider evidence which even the rankest amateur puts forward. Many of the world's greatest discoveries have been made by people without the least formal education in the fields of their greatness, people with nothing but innate intelligence, inquisitiveness and perseverance. I don't know what Mark's qualifications are in comparison to yours, Michael, but I suspect you could run rings around most academics in the field of mathematics alone. And you have demonstrated that your abilities run to many other disciplines as well. Don't leave, keep your cool, and you will prevail.

Len

_______________________________

99.54.9 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (Raphiem) 

From: Raphiem@onebox.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/26/02

catching up on some discussion threads here ...

Michael, Len is right ..... the proof will be in the pudding .... and you've demonstrated this over and over ...... don't let assademics .... tell you otherwise ......

You need people like Mark!!! view them as advarsaries .... to test your argument against ...... they can be a major help ..... really .... after all assademics have turf they need to protect .... don't forget they spent years and money (either their own or their parents) getting their pedigrees and thesis .... and now they have to protect their jobs or investments .... and their worst nightmares are nothing worse than a gumbee streetwise crazed man ... coming along and blowing their theories to smithereens ....... with no pedigrees .....

keep up the good work ....

T0L-@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 2/27/02 7:41:08 AM EST, Milamo writes:

<< I've had it with this particular "exchange". Let the evidence speak for itself. Let the work speak for itself .. and it will. You all have the URLS and posts, and such. Go to it. I will continue on .. much more to come .. much more ..

-- Michael L.M. >>

And I for one, Michael, look forward to it. You may be ultimately proven totally wrong and he may be correct, but I have had personal experience with Mark's academic style. It's all from the same book. It's an elitist attitude. This is not to say I reject or am ignorant of scientific methodology. But, unless you have a PhD in Mark's particular "discipline", it appears anything you say or produce is ignored. The word "Science" derives from the LATIN "SCIENTIA" = "KNOWLEDGE". People who truly seek "knowledge" ought to be willing to at least consider evidence which even the rankest amateur puts forward. Many of the world's greatest discoveries have been made by people without the least formal education in the fields of their greatness, people with nothing but innate intelligence, inquisitiveness and perseverance. I don't know what Mark's qualifications are in comparison to yours, Michael, but I suspect you could run rings around most academics in the field of mathematics alone. And you have demonstrated that your abilities run to many other disciplines as well. Don't leave, keep your cool, and you will prevail.

Len

_______________________________

99.54.10 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (CodeUFO) 

From: CodeUFO@aol.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/28/02

In a message dated 2/27/02 5:08:34 PM, T0Leo writes:

<< I will continue on .. much more to come .. much more ..

-- Michael L.M. >>

And I for one, Michael, look forward to it. You may be ultimately proven totally wrong and he may be correct, but I have had personal experience with Mark's academic style. It's all from the same book. It's an elitist attitude. This is not to say I reject or am ignorant of scientific methodology. But, unless you have a PhD in Mark's particular "discipline", it appears anything you say or produce is ignored. The word "Science" derives from the LATIN "SCIENTIA" = "KNOWLEDGE". People who truly seek "knowledge" ought to be willing to at least consider evidence which even the rankest amateur puts forward. Many of the world's greatest discoveries have been made by people without the least formal education in the fields of their greatness, people with nothing but innate intelligence, inquisitiveness and perseverance. I don't know what Mark's qualifications are in comparison to yours, Michael, but I suspect you could run rings around most academics in the field of mathematics alone. And you have demonstrated that your abilities run to many other disciplines as well. Don't leave, keep your cool, and you will prevail.

Len >>

Well, I've been following this whole discussion and trying to remain as objective as possible. I haven't entered into the discussion/debate because when it comes to the math, as most you on this list already know, I'm not in the same league as Michael, Luliano, et. al. But I've been following Michael's work for a couple of years now and I do understand the gist of the work and the general underlying concepts.

Len wrote:

<< You [Michael] may be ultimately proven totally wrong and he [Mark] may be correct >>

I suppose that may be possible but what seems undeniably clear to me is that "something" remarkable is being revealed by Michael's work (with all due respect to Munck's pioneering trail blazing). It may, in the end, turn out that Michael's work is showing exactly what he thinks it's showing. I think, also, it's just as possible it will result in a discovery of something other than what he thinks it is right now. Who knows? But who can look at the work and deny that something remarkable is occurring? I'm tempted to list a ton of these "remarkable" correlations right here, but it's all been laid out before so there's no reason to do so. You've all seen it. The point is, SOMETHING is happening here. These correlations can't be one long string of chance coincidences. That, in and of itself, is reason enough for serious investigation and continued work. Michael's work is revealing SOMETHING which, to any reasonable, thinking person, needs to be accounted for.

As for the question of what constitutes "Proof", I do understand both sides in this debate. The idea of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the whole reason I couldn't sit on a jury to decide the life or death of a person if I'm asked to render my decision based on that idea. I just couldn't do it. I'd need to hear a completely voluntary confession from the accused or see a video tape of the accused actually committing the offense in question. That's also why, for me personally, the jury is still out on the decision of whether or not Michael's work is actually revealing what it "appears" to be revealing. I tend to think it is, but I'm not quite ready to bang the gavel and pronounce my decision. However, I can say one thing for sure at this point: I am convinced the work is showing us something which appears to be so mind boggling that, whatever the "something" turns out to be, it will be paradigm shattering.

But back to the "proof" issue. It gets complex. Even though I "think" I pretty much understand it, I'm not sure I can adequately explain it. There are several elements involved. Four elements, key elements, come to mind: (1) Assumptions, (2) Facts, (3) Evidence, and (4) Proof.

Basically (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), an Assumption is an idea, concocted from a presumably logical analysis of a set of observed phenomena. These phenomena can be said to constitute Evidence which seems to support the Assumption. The Assumption, however, is not considered to be a Fact, regardless of how much evidence there might be to support it. In other words, it is disputable. That's not to say the Assumption is false. It may, indeed, turn out to be a Fact.

A Fact is something that is indisputable by any known means and there is no amount of Evidence which can be brought to bear against it (or, at least, that's the "assumption"! LOL! But you get the point.)

Proof... well, proof, in the scientific arena, has it's own particular definition. It's what's arrived at (or not) through a certain rigorous process generally referred to as "the scientific method". Basically (and, again, I'm not a scientist but this is how I understand it), the Scientific Method goes like this:

A phenomenon is observed but not understood. In order to understand it a "Theory" must be developed. But what is a Theory? Again, in the scientific arena, a Theory has a specific definition which is different, in a way, than the colloquial use of the word. Colloquially we use the word as interchangeable with the word, "idea". You hear it all the time. "I've got a theory about that" or "My theory on that is...". In the Scientific Method, a Theory is more complex. Essentially a Theory is... (let's see if I can remember this from my college days!) ...a Theory is a set of Propositions (basically "assumptions) which purport to explain a phenomenon or set of phenomena. The Theory must be tested to find out whether or not it is valid or "true". This is done by what is called "operationalizing" the Propositions. In other words, the Propositions are linguistic elements, words, sentences, paragraphs, which purport to explain the phenomenon in question. In order to test these Propositions, they must be "operationalized"; turned into... well, something "testable", something that can be subjected to experiment, either mathematically or in lab experiments. A mathematical equation is one example of an operationalized proposition.

Each Proposition is tested individually and the results are analyzed. If the results from the testing of Proposition "A" support the Theory then that Proposition is kept. If the results do not support the Theory, that Proposition is reevaluated. Maybe it just needs to be changed a bit and tested again or maybe the testing showed conclusively that Proposition "A" is totally out of the ball park. If the latter is the case, Proposition "A" is discarded. The same process is followed with each Proposition until all possibilities are exhausted. In the end, what is left is a picture of how well the Theory stood up to the testing. If the Theory still seems reasonably valid, in light of the pros and cons from the testing process, it is changed to more accurately reflect the results of the tests. It may go through many revisions. Eventually the Theory (in whatever form it eventually takes) may be "Proven" to be "true" when and if the end results of the tests yield indisputable supporting data. In that case, what was once a "Theory" now becomes a "Fact". Ideally, the Propositions should never be skewed or "fudged" to fit the Theory (no matter how much in love with the Theory the scientist might be) and the Theory should be malleable enough to change according to the test results. Obviously not many grand scientific Theories have been "Proven" due to the incredible number of variables that need to be taken into account and tested and the time and money involved in doing so.

Having said all that, it seems what the scientific community would like to see, and should be willing to accept for peer review in regards to the ASM, would be a fully delineated Theory, complete with a set of testable Propositions (as defined above) and their respective operationalized counterparts.

In a sense, it seems to me, this is pretty much what Michael has done, albeit perhaps not in such a systematized fashion. He certainly has "operationalized" the propositions (although the propositions may not formally exist in itemized, written form) by turning them into mathematical equations and putting them to the test. And we should remember, too, that even though there are a handful of other interested parties involved in this work, Michael is pretty much on his own. It's not like there's a whole community of capable people out there, each with different areas of expertise, all busily working on the problem. The ASM isn't exactly a small potatoes issue. It's gigantic. And we need to remember also that Michael isn't a formally trained "scientist". On the one hand that might be to his disadvantage in some respects but, on the other hand, I suspect it gives him a great advantage of "Freedom" from the constraints of academically "approved" methods, policies and procedures. He can work outside the box without threatening his position on the faculty. Remember Einstein was a "nut case" working as a clerk upstairs in a patent office when he came up with his Relativity theory. God forbid he should come up with any such ideas as a fully tenured professor.

Len put it simply:

<< Many of the world's greatest discoveries have been made by people without the least formal education in the fields of their greatness, people with nothing but innate intelligence, inquisitiveness and perseverance. >>

None of what I said here should be misconstrued to imply that I'm not interested in Mark's work. On the contrary. It looks very interesting and I'm going to try to keep up with it and see where it goes. There's room enough for everyone, who has the ability, to pursue the great mysteries of the Universe each in his/her own way. Hopefully, cool heads will prevail and open minds will proceed toward the Truth, whatever that might turn out to be.

-Gary-

_______________________________

99.54.11 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (Raphiem) 

From: Raphiem@onebox.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/28/02

now now Michael calm down ... remember it's like all those assademics who reckon that Yonaguni Pyramid/temple structure is till a natural formation .....!!! after countless divers have brought pictures back and video footage and have sworn it can not be natural!! ..... out come the assademics ... with it's still natural ..... steps and all ... it's still natural ... it's the same deal here ..... no different ......

mil-@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 02/27/2002 2:58:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, markmcca-@hotmail.com writes:

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

Date: 02/27/2002 2:58:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: markmcca-@hotmail.com (Mark McCarron)
To: MetP-@aol.com, Mil-@aol.com, pvi-@cropcircleresearch.com, Code-@aol.com, ancient-@yahoo.com, palm-@uwec.edu, arv-@southwest.com.au, Wdest-@aol.com, T0L-@aol.com, EG-@topica.com, CDunn-@aol.com, Marci-@skydome.net, op-@greatserpentmound.org, arte-@greatserpentmound.org, andy-@hotmail.com, mary-@hotmail.com, KTot-@aol.com, Kynt-@kynthia.net

Now your just going crazy. Do you not get this point at all, regardless of what you 'believe' to the rest of the world it is crap. You asked did I know how long the Anunnaki lived, there is no evidence that this race existed, let alone the preposterous idea that they lived for 80 trillion years.

Guys, seriously, stay in reality. I cannot support anything you say or find when you begin talking like this.

I looked at the link, you have proved nothing other than you do not know what constitutes as proof. This only leaves me in the position were I begin to question any work produced by yourselves. At this point, I am waiting to hear one of you offer me a ride in your space-craft. If any of you have a sensible brain on your shoulders you will instantly get the point. Reality has limits, imagination does not and paper cannot tell the difference nor refuse to be written on.

Come back to Earth guys, you are your own worst enemies. I can understand at this point why Chris Dunn has been ignoring you. It is because you come across as clinically delusional. >>

Mark ..

That was ****MetPhys**** .. who is "speaking" strictly for HIMSELF !! NOT for me .. NOR for Damon Elkins .. nor for anyone else here !!! MetPhys is essentially a "theatre-of-the-absurd" actor, IMO .. and that's why I told him to .. "get back in his cage".

But, of course .. YOU, Mark, have_disingenuously_"taken advantage" of MetPhys hurling one of his "theatre-of-the-absurd" grenades into the fray .. by trying to "label" **his*** craziness as "representative" of my work and of Damon's work. This is another example of your dishonesty and of your unethical actions.

It is very obvious to me, at this point .. that you, Mark, are committed to remaining totally closed-minded toward the "ASM". You keep saying we "can't prove it" .. even as I put put prime proofs right in front of you .. even as I send you URLs to page-after-page of proof after proof after proof .. beyond a reasonable doubt. I will not beat a dead horse .. er .. I mean .. a dead ass .. especially one that grows roots so damned fast.

-- Michael L.M.

_______________________________

(Note: So we come to the end of this conversation. Milamo, the mathematical logician and Mark "Prove it" McCarron, master of logic, who both suddenly loose any logic when confronted with, not only a layout of the longest Vedic cycle known, the complete and organized levels of creation from the beginning of chaos to the close of the 311.40 trillion year cycle in the future and the return to chaos again, the proper placement of not only every major societies mythological characters, but moreover includes the Sumerian concept of the Anunnaki, and a complete discounting of Anunnaki as Anu, the basic unseen unit of creation thus showing that the Anunnaki were not beings as Milamo supposes and McCarron does not accept. Yet, Mark, did not read the links so he doesn't know that the Anu creative unit can exist for 80 trillion years and, obviously Anunnaki cannot, and if he offers no other better timeline nor one more totally complete, how does he "prove" that the 80 trillion years of the Anu is wrong? FACT is....he can't. And I admit, my Email stating this Anu dating timeline is proof is not proof. How can such a thing be proven? Yet, it cannot be disproven. I will say, it is the best estimate and location in time, of the Anu / Anunnaki.

I've mailed to several people who believe the Anunnaki existed and these researchers have invested plenty of time and credibility into the 'Anunnaki as human Theory'. I have not received any Email either, proving better knowledge, proving that the Anu concept is incorrect nor that my placement of Anunnaki in the complete Vedic time cycle is incorrect. These things, at this time, are simply ignored and I doubt any new input from any of these researchers can better my postulates.

Now, I can understand an oversight that Mark McCarron might have made in the unorganized barrage of Emails he received from myself, Milamo and his entourage, but when he discovers that the Anu can live for 80 trillion years, not Anunnaki, he will logically, and hopefully agree. Personally, I like Christopher Dunns 'Giza power Plant Theory' and I will be studying Marks site for any parallels with my conclusions, such as 'the concept of the 'Cheops pyramid being an 8 sided octahedron' which I concluded several years ago.

Milamo, who has been willing to have me use my bandwidth to record his voluminous posts, as intelligent as they are, also reveals that the Anu Theory shows promise as a threat to the Anunnaki / Creator Theory.

Lets see, how did he phrase it?

<< MetPhys ... you have now crossed over into "disinformationland" .. *bigtime* .. and I will have NO PART of your disinformation-craziness. You have crossed WAY over the line, MetPhys .. into raving lunacy .. which wants to throw a blanket of absurdity and grotesque lunacy over this discussion .. and I will have NONE of THIS. (See, folks .. why I told him to "get back in his cage" ??!! THIS .."above" .. is what I mean. At this point .. I am ready to leave this discussion .. seeing as how MetPhys has thrown one of his "theatre-of-the-absurd" grenades in here >>

To this I will only say, Perhaps he has a better map of where these Anunnaki existed in creation and has proof that the Anunnaki were human?

Perhaps he didn't see Mark stating clearly that without proof, Milamo's works were not going to be given any credibility, and rightly so with anyone, seeing that Mark uses protocol, which none followed even after being cautioned. That was the end of the conversation! Perhaps Milamo didn't understand that sheer force of will power wasn't going to cut it and neither was accusations against those of us who don't mind questioning his data or cutting off conversations that obviously were not going any further.

I understand what Mark wants. He forces you to jump thru hoops, if you are fool enough. If we choose to play that game of "Give me proof", the game of all academia and rational science, someone just might do that for that proof entails knowing the very secrets of the universe....the cipher...... that created the arbitrary measuring units in question.

If we choose not to play the game of "Prove it", we might simply accept the mathematics of intuitive whole systems that compliment the rational scientific approach.

And make sure you also prove your idea belongs to you.

Tsk, tsk....as I said "Lets wrap up this bullshit".
So let's do that. I hope you enjoyed our little psycho-drama.

MetPhys@aol.com

The conversation continued, somewhat, with my attempt to research Section 99.56.5 The Circle as Intrinsic, Absolute Measure (MetPhys), and discover the elusive proof of a "cypher", or the absolute measure upon which all other so called "arbitrary" measure is based.

_______________________________

99.54.12 Prove We Have Consciousness (MetPhys) 

From: MetPhys@aol.com
Subject: Prove We Have Consciousness
Date: 02/27/02

Some say, "If you can't prove it, it is not valid or doesn't exist".
Some say, "You cannot prove you have a consciousness".
Does this lack of proof indicate we are all brainless beings without consciousness?

"To the Rationally Minded the Mental Processes of the Intuitive Appear to be Working Backwards"
Frances Wishes 9/04/01

Keep your rationalism away from me and let me astonish you by using your rational maths for incredibly practical, intuitive machines.

MetPhys@aol.com

_______________________________

99.54.13 Churches measure Cheops constructs metric (Jerryiuliano) 

From: Jerryiuliano@aol.com
Subject: Churches measure Cheops constructs metric
Date: 02/26/02

In a message dated 2/24/2002 11:21:07 AM US Mountain Standard Time, TomBuoyed writes:

<< Jerry,

Check out these numbers from a Dane named Finn about the megalithic yard.

Tom

Forwarded Message:

Subj:Fwd: Megalithic yard
Date:2/24/2002 10:53:16 AM US Mountain Standard Time
From:JMason4557
To:JamesFuria, Dee777, Code UFO, jactuz33@hotmail.com, Wdestiny44, TomBuoyed, raphiem@onebox.com, MetPhys, ancient_vizier@yahoo.com, ald902r@hotmail.com, Peace2go

Hi Folks. Check this out.

Forwarded Message:
Subj:Megalithic yard
Date:2/13/2002 3:54:17 AM US Mountain Standard Time

From: Svanlund@get2net.dk (Finn Svanlund Harteg)
To: jMason4557@aol.com

To those, who are interested in units of length and ancient metrology.

14335.71 m. The author, E.Haagensen did not find any known unit of length here. The average of the two distances is 14 335.65 m.

However, you can get to the length of 14 333.7 m by using:

METRES AND TIME
10 000 km x pi : 6, divided with the numbers of days in a tropical year. It is: 10 000 km x 3.1415926536 : 6 : 365.24219871..= 14335.65939.. m. (Pi as 3.1416 gives, 14 335.69..m ).

CUBITS
44 x the diagonal in Cheops ( the side is 440 cubits á 0.5236 m ). It is 44 x 230.384 m x V2 = 14 335.7358 m. (Cubit as 3.1416 m : 6 gives, 14 335.702..m ).

The average of these two distances is 14 335.698 m or 14 335.7 m.

MEGALITHIC YARD
1 old foot = 12 old inches = 12 x 0.025399772 m = 0.304797264 m. 1 MYB ( Megalithic yard Bornholm ) = 10 000 old feet : 3675 =

2.721088435 old foot = 0.8293803108 m.
1 meter = 1 000 MYB : pi : 264.
1 old foot = 0.3675 MYB.
10 000 MYB x 11 : 9 x V2 = 14 335.7 m.

Finn Harteg Svanlund@get2net.dk >>

TB :

Concerning the two distances between the churches, 14335.71 meters and 14335.59 , there is a unity between the metric system and the linear English foot. This unity is accomplished by the base leg of Cheops pyramid in feet , 763.81 ft ..(Churchward/Ramsey..1910) ..height = 486.256 and base leg = 763.81:

log(14335.71/763.81) = 2 * 486.3306453 / 763.81

To convert 14335.71 meters to linear inches:

14335.71 * 39.37 inches = 564396.509 inches

such that:

sqrt(14335.71 * 39.37 / 763.81 / 100 ) = 2.718314119

invert this number:

1 / 2.718314119 = .3678750711

the fine-structure constant in cosine form:

COS 137.03600324 = 1/[sqrt(14335.71 * 39.37 / 763.81 / 100)] = .3678750711

Using Leahy/Sephira Malkuth constant, 288 , and Cheops constructs

[288^(ht/bl)] / 100 = .3678750753 = COS 137.03600324

where ht = 486.257318

where bl = 763.81

Concerning the megalithic yard (.304797264 meter) = one old foot

486.256 * .304797264 = 148.2094984 meters

486.256 * 12 / 39.37 = 148.2111252 (actual meters)

763.81 * .304797264 = 232.8071982 meters

763.81 * 12 / 39.37 = 232.8097536 meters (actual meters)

The specifications of the Great pyramid (Cheops) are from the book by Howard Vyse : THE GEOMETRY OF ART AND LIFE...page 22 are:

height = 232.8 meters

base leg = 148.2 meters

J.Iuliano

_______________________________

99.54.14 Cheops a(em) and G(n) (Jerryiuliano) 

Subj: Cheops a(em) and G(n)
Date: 3/25/02
From: Jerryiuliano@aol.com
To: MetPhys

MP:

Try to rationalize this mathematical phenomenon: the connection of the Cheops constructs to the electro-magnetic and gravitational condensation constants:

ELECTRO-MAGNETIC

a(em) = fine-structure constant, aka "alpha", Sommerfield constant...

1998 NIST value=1/137.03599976 = a(em)

Kinoshita's number = 1/137.035999935 = a(em)
http://www.tc.cornell.edu/er/media/1996/kinoshita.release.html

zero-radius of convergence:(equation begins to break down after 1/137.0359994
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/Cracks/QED.html

GRAVITATIONAL

G(n) = gravitational constant in newtons = 6.6739187*(10^-11) mks

University of Washington ,1998 study of the gravitational constant
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pnu482-1.html
G(n) = 6.67390*(10^-11) mks

CHEOPS CONSTRUCTS

Flinders Petrie, 1883 study of the Cheops pyramid
height = 5776 English inches
base leg = 9073 English inches
http://members.optushome.com.au/fmetrol/petrie/c21.html

Churchward/Ramsey, 1910 study of the Cheops pyramid
height =486.256 English feet
base leg = 763.81 English feet
http://www.charm.net/~ces/trade/tback.html

Howard Vyse, 1830 study of the Cheops pyramid after Napoleon
height = 148.2 meters
base leg = 232.8 meters
from book, The Geometry of Art and Life, by Matila Ghyka, page 22.

THE BETA (37) CONNECTION

37 Egyptian deities
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/h/hex.html

.37 , Beta anomalous exponent, second order phase transitions
http://webphysics.iupui.edu/251/251Sp97GFApr28.html

The electro-magnetic/gravitational constants connection through the volumne to log function of the Cheops constructs: volumne pyramid = (bl^2)*ht/3

[(.37^2)/a(em) * 3/(10^34)/(bl^2)/ht] ^ (1/4) = G(n) = 6.67391897 * (10^-11) mks

[(10^(2*ht/bl)) * 3/(10^34)/(bl^2)/ht] ^ (1/4) = G(n) = 6.67391897 * (10^-11) mks

CHEOPS CONVERSIONS

Flinders Petrie....1883
ht = 5776 inches
bl = 9073 inches (used 9072.929727 = bl)

[(10^(2*ht/bl)) * 3/(10^34)/(bl^2)/ht] ^ (1/4) = G(n) = 6.67391897* (10^-11)mks

Churchward /Ramsey....1910
ht = 486.256 feet (used 486.2560047)
bl = 763.81 feet

[(10^(2*ht/bl)) * 3/(10^34)/(bl^2)/ht] ^ (1/4) = G(n) = 6.67391897 *(10^-11)mks

Howard Vyse....1830
ht = 148.2 meters (used 148.2049173)
bl = 232.8 meters

[(10^(2*ht/bl)) * 3/(10^34)/(bl^2)/ht] ^ (1/4) = G(n) = 6.67391897*(10^-11)mks

J.Iuliano

_______________________________

99.54.15 Corrected: Leedskalnin's Machine (MetPhys) 

Subj: Corrected: Leedskalnin's Machine
Date: 3/27/02
From: MetPhys@aol.com
To: CodeUFO@aol.com

Gary,

This (jpg) is Leedskalnin's Machine found at Coral Castle. If I am not blind, are there symbols in vertical columns on the inside of the core? I see a forward 2, a backward 2, a 5, a triangle, V's, A's, a C, possible K and a possible Z.

1. There are 24 outer "bulk magnets" on the mechanism, for lack of a better word.

2. These 24 seem to have 4 placed in a quadrant-cross (+) from each other.

3. There are 13 units from one side to its opposite side, the 13th being directly opposite the 1st.

4. There are 5 units between any of the 4 quadrants.

5. By best estimate, there seem to be 12 vertical columns of symbols in a half circle. This leads to 24 around the inner surface, yet these vertical symbol columns, in at least one confirmed case, DO NOT match the outer "bulk magnets".

6. If we multiply 24 columns x 6 per column = 144 symbols!!!

7. In an experiment by an independent scientific type who visited Coral Castle, said, upon bringing a small magnet over each outer "bulk magnet" that "it seemed to produce an alternate plus / minus effect as I passed it over each one".

What do you think.

MetPhys@aol.com

Leedskalnin continued on Page 55

Page 54

Sections List- 99 Electrons and Mythologies
Impossible Correspondence Index

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2002