For the value of the usual cubit, undoubtedly the most important source is the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid; that is the most accurately wrought, the best preserved, and the most exactly measured, of all the data that are known. The cubit in the Great Pyramid varies thus :--

By the base of King's Chamber, corrected for opening of joints

By the Queen's Chamber, if dimensions squared are in square cubits

By the subterranean chamber

By the antechamber

By the ascending and Queen's Chamber passage lengths (section 149)

By the base length of the Pyramid, if 440 cubits (section '43)

By the entrance passage width

By the gallery width

20.632 ± .004

20.61 ± .02

20.65 ± .05

20.58 ± .02

20.622 ± .002

20.611 ± .002

20.765 ± .01

20.605 ± .032

The passage widths are so short and variable that little value can be placed on them, especially as they depend on the builder's and not on the mason's work. The lengths of the passages are very accurate data, but being only single measures, are of less importance than are chambers, in which a length is often repeated in the working. The chamber dimensions are rather variable, particularly in the Subterranean and Antechamber, and none of the above data are equal in quality to the King's Chamber dimensions. If a strictly weighted mean be taken it yields 20.620 ± .004; but taking the King's Chamber alone, as being the best datum by far, it nevertheless contracts upwards, so that it is hardly justifiable to adopt a larger result than 20.620 ± .005. up

137. In the Second Pyramid the base is very indirectly connected with the cubit, so that it is not probable that reference was made to the cubit, but only to the King's Chamber or passage height which are derived from it. The cubit found varies thus :--

By the tenth course level

By the first course height

By the passage widths

By the great chamber, dimensions squared being in square cubits

By the lower chamber, sides in even numbers of cubits

20.82 ± .01

20.76 ± .03

20.72 ± .01

20.640 ± .005

20.573 ± .017

The course heights and passage widths are less likely to be accurate than the chamber dimensions; a strictly weighted mean is 20.68 ± .03; but, considering the details, probably 20.64 ± .03 would be the truest determination of the cubit here. In the Third Pyramid, the work is very rough in comparison with the preceding, and the cubit is correspondingly variable.

By the base

By the course heights of granite

By the first chamber

By the second chamber

By the granite chamber

20.768 ± .015

20.162 ± .017

20.65 ± .10

20.70 ± .05

20.74 ± .2

Here it is evident that the courses are all too thin on an average, though varying from 36.0 up to 42.8, and they are certainly not worth including in a mean. The average of the other elements, duly weighted, is 20.76 ± .02, or the simple average (as the previous gives scarcely any weight to the chambers) is 20.7I ± .02, which may be most suitably adopted. Arranging the examples chronologically, the cubit used was as follows :--

Great Pyramid at Gizeh,

Second pyramid at Gizeh

Granite temple at Gizeh

Third Pyramid at Gizeh

Third Pyramid peribolus walls

Great Pyramid of Dahshur

Pyramid at Sakkara

Fourth to sixth dynasty, mean of all

Average variation in standard

Khufu

Khafra

Khafra

Menkaura

Pepi

20.620 ± .005

20.64 ± .03

20.68 ± .02

20.71 ± .02

20.69 ± .02

20.58 ± .02

20.51 ± .02

20.63 ± .02

.06

http://www.users.net2000.com.au/~fmetrol/petrie/c20.html

In 1638, an English mathematician named John Greaves joined by an Italian, Tito Livio Burattini, made the first European survey of the Great Pyramid. Greaves estimated the height at 499 feet (within 12 feet of correct) and the base at 693 feet (70 feet too short), but the base was still totally covered by debris at that time. Upon his return to England, Greaves discussed his findings in Egypt with many, including a Dr. William Harvey who had discovered the circulation of the blood. Dr. Harvey was surprised to learn that Greaves had not discovered any means of ventilation which would allow fresh air into the interior of the Pyramid. He insisted that some form of ventilation shafts must exist. Greaves and Burattini did, however, measure the King's Chamber very accurately and it was on the basis of these figures that Sir Isaac Newton deduced his 'profane' cubit of 20.63 inches. A cubit of this dimension was implied by the 1 : 2 proportions of the King's Chamber which suggested to Newton that it must measure 10 X 20 cubits. Newton also postulated a longer 'sacred' cubit of between 24.80 and 25.02 British inches, based on the Jewish historian Josephus's description of the circumference of the pillars of the Temple of Jerusalem. Newton was interested in the exact length of a cubit because he too was convinced that accurate geodetic information was encoded in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, and he needed to know the size of the earth in order to test, and thus to prove, his theory of gravitation before he would publish it.

http://www.geoman.com/jim/pyramid.html

To Michael,

Royal Cubit divides 28 times = e (universal constant)

http://www.good.co.uk/oneworld/geomantic.html

The fact that units of time could be expressed in space was also observed by the Egyptians who were extremely fond of so-called "royal measures". The Great Pyramid was built using the royal cubit (20.62 ins or 524 mm), which was based on the length between the finger tips and the elbow and was further subdivided into 28 units. In itself this signifies some knowledge of the mathematical value "e". It was named after the Greek letter epsilon, a numeric value expressed in the mathematical formula e = (1 + 0)2 = 2.71828 recurring, each of the 28 units correspond approximately to the width of the human finger. Therefore "e" is recognised as a universal constant which governs exponential growth or the base factor of natural logarithms (e-1 = 1.71828) that given enough data grow literally like "spiralling snowballs". That is in simplistic terms, the bigger something is the faster it grows, feeding on its base properties and expanding on them ad infinitum or until it runs out of fuel. Coincidentally the megalithic yard, which was devised around 3,000 BC, contained identical mathematical units as Professor Thom noted it was equivalent to exactly 2.71828 feet.

Robert

Using this data for Cheops the fine-structure constant is derived just the same as the Churchward data 1910:

http://users.net2000.com.au/~fmetrol/petrie/c6a.html#21

Petrie data:

Ht of Cheops=5776+-7.0 inches

Base leg Cheops=9068.8+-.5 inches

Using 9068.8 inches as base leg and 5773.370937 inches as ht. then it can be shown: 2.629063 inches off Petries data, within his allowances:

(10^(5773.370937/9068.8))/.37=11.70623765=137.035999935^(1/2)(Kinoshita's number)

Petries data is no difference than Churchwards data:

Churchward ht=486.256 ft

Churchward baseleg=763.81 ft

(10^(486.2560047/763.81))/.37=11.70623765=137.0359999^(1/2)

J.Iuliano

**99.2.3 MILAMO'S DATA AND FINE-STRUCTURE**

Sir:

Milamo thinks that I am manipulating numbers to fit the equations, refer to his OWN figures for Cheops:

I respectfully differ with Jerry Iuliano .. on his dimensions for The Great Pyramid of Giza .. which he is seemingly manipulating (apparently .. as I see it) .. in order to 'force-fit them' into his compulsion to incorporate the "fine-structure constant" into his equations.

I do not see any_compelling_reason to incorporate the "fine structure constant" into the ancient Archaeo-sky Matrix.

Further .. Jerry Iuliano's quoted dimensions for the original height (capstone included) and base length of The Great Pyramid are not really even very close (in "Archaeo-sky Matrix" terms) to the figures of Munck (1992). Munck's figures .. which, in this case, I have always supported as being self-evidently correct .. are .. 480.3471728 regular feet, and 754.5275746 regular feet. This gives a base angle slope tangent of .. (480.3471728 / 377.2637873) = 1.273239545 = (4 /3.141592654), or "exactly" (4 / Pi). Yes .. the relatively precise Pi constant is one of the keys, in this ancient Archaeo-sky Matrix..........

Using his own data does the same thing as Churchwards /Petrie data:

(10^(480.34663357/754.5275746))/.37= 137.035999935^(1/2)...(Kinoshita)

His value for height is 480.3471728 ft or .00005393 part of a foot difference from 480.34663357 ft.

480.3471728-480.34663357=.00005393 ft

In percentages the ratio of Petrie, Churchward and Munck are:

480.346637/480.3471728=99.9998884% difference or basically the same. It's the RATIO thats important.

J.Iuliano

**99.2.4 FINE_STRUCTURE CONSTANT** from Tom Mellett

Michael Morton wrote:

I respectfully differ with Jerry Iuliano .. on his dimensions for The Great Pyramid of Giza .. which he is seemingly manipulating (apparently .. as I see it) .. in order to 'force-fit them' into his compulsion to incorporate the "fine-structure constant" into his equations.

I do not see any_compelling_reason to incorporate the "fine structure constant" into the ancient Archaeo-sky Matrix.

Gentlemen:

I feel uniquely called upon to arbitrate this little dispute concerning the measured dimensions of the Pyramids, not only because I teach undergraduate physics labs at Vanderbilt University but also because I happened to read these e-mails while in the lab waiting for students to finish their own reports.

Therefore, I will apply to both Michael Morton & Jerry Iuliano the standards of simple measurement theory which apply at the level of undergraduate college physics. The more egregious offender here is Michael, but Jerry also needs to have a reminder about recognizing the limits of physical measurement --- the single most troublesome concept students have in making measurements.

Let me start by examining the actual figures Michael gave as the height and base lengths of the pyramid and then demonstrating a "reductio ad absurdum" argument to show the fallacy of Michael's measurement claim.

480.3471728 regular feet and 754.5275746 regular feet. This gives a base angle slope tangent of .. (480.3471728 / 377.2637873) = 1.273239545

Leaving aside the 480 integral feet, I wish to focus on the fractional part of the last foot, i.e. the figure 0.3471728. This fraction of a foot expressed in inches will be 4.1660736 inches. Now taking that latter fraction of the 5th inch (i.e. truncating the decimal), we get 0.1660736 inches. (Note the 7 decimal places.)

Let me now bring in the wavelength of the green light spectral line my students just examined in the mercury vapor lamp diffraction experiment. Its value is 546 nanometers. Expressing this figure in centimeters, I get: 0.0000546 cm. Converting that figure to inches, I get 0.0000215 inches. (Notice the 7 decimal places to correspond with the 7 decimal places of the pyramid measurement.)

So the first absurdity here is claiming a precision of measurement of the height and base of the great pyramid which is smaller than the actual wavelengths of the light we would need to see the very pyramids by!!! Now this is not the _Heisenberg_ Uncertainty principle, but something more elementary, the simple uncertainty in measurement inherent in dealing with macroscopic objects.

(I won't even get into here the issue of the curvature of the earth and the temperature expansion of the blocks of the pyramids as affecting the precision of measurements, not to mention fractal theory in moving from fine to coarse in establishing the actual edges of the pyramid blocks. But I will elaborate if you wish me to. Michael's claim of precision demands it.)

So, Michael, the first problem with your number is its impossibility in physics. I do not question its possibility in arithmetic since you arrived at the number by applying Carl Munck's grid coordinate system. I am actually sympathetic to your cause and I marvel at the work of Carl Munck, but the fact that you present a physical impossibility as actual physical fact is, to me, prima facie evidence of your projection onto Jerry Iuliano of your own insecurities about your own "true belief" in the Munck system.

("True belief" means making the relative part into the absolute whole without recognizing the inconsistencies in logic that necessarily arise in that endeavor).

In short, you are guilty of whatever you accuse Jerry of. It is you, Michael, who are "force-fitting" Munck's data onto the measurements of the Great Pyramids. It is you who have a compulsion to do so and it is you who are manipulating data to fit a conclusion demanded by your prior "true belief" system.

(My only quibble with Jerry is that he often uses too many decimal places than can be phsyically warranted, but at least he used the Petrie pyramid measurements which show some uncertainties in measurement, thus making his figures far more acceptible scientifically than yours.)

I also call attention to the fact that you exhibit such insecurity specifically about Jerry's connection of the fine structure constant to the measurement of the Pyramids. I feel it has to do with the fact that the fine structure constant (FSC) is at the very foundation of measurement theory itself. Let me quote Cornell physicist Toichiro Kinoshita, who has made the most exhaustive and exact measurement to date of the FSC:

"This constant plays an important role in the theoretical structure of physics and is also important to metrology, the science of weights and measures."

I would submit that the FSC is the foundation of all measurement theory and without it, no measurements would be possible. Therefore, the FSC should be found to be the basis even of Munck's entire grid coordinate system and the entire Archaeo-sky Matrix!

If I may end this installment with your last quote, Michael, since I agree with you completely here.

"So; no need to "force" the so-called 'fine-structure constant' .. onto the Archaeo-sky Matrix .. please."

There is no need to "force" the FSC onto the Archaeo-sky Matrix, because it is already there --- and there at its foundation! Jerry is merely pointing out that fact... Thank you.

Tom Mellett

Franklin, TN

**Further Clarification; and Apology to J.Iuliano**

This is in response to Jerry Iuliano's email which he 'titled' .. "Milamo's Data Refuted".

I certainly do respect Jerry Iuliano and his work. I want to make that very clear. I just think some things need to be clarified and explained, so I'll try to do that here .. regarding the subject of the original apex-height and base-perimeter of The Great Pyramid, etc., as relates to the "fine-structure (inverse) constant".

I should have clarified, in my previous email on this subject, the distinction between the_ratio_on the one hand .. and the individual "components" .. of apex-height and base-perimeter .. on the other hand. I firmly maintain that_both_are important .. the components and their ratio .. not simply "the ratio".

I do agree .. and Jerry Iuliano's figures show this .. that the ratio of 2Pi .. displayed between the original apex-height and the base-perimeter of The Great Pyramid of Giza .. is directly 'correlating' with the "fine-structure constant (inverse)", as indicated by Jerry Iuliano's figures.

But .. this is_not_a direct correlation with the actual 'dimensions' .. in terms of the_major_individual components .. original apex-height and base-perimeter. Therefore .. this correlation involving "fine-structure constant (inverse)" .. must be heavily "qualified".

If it was "only the ratio that is important" .. as I paraphrase Iuliano's assessment .. then you could use any in a great multitude of various figures for apex-height and base-perimeter .. as long as they 'show' a 2Pi ratio !!

And, if that were_really_the case .. the designers/builders could have used a very "obvious" combination .. such as .. "500" and "3141.592654" .. regular feet .. to show the 2Pi ratio. The decimal harmonic of Pi would have been quite obvious .. and "500" is a nice round number. "Duh .. 2Pi".

This is_not_to belittle Iuliano's finding that the 2Pi ratio correlates nicely with the "fine-structure (inverse) constant". It makes good sense, of course, that this correlation exists. But this is clearly_not_in any way, the "ultimate Archaeo-sky Matrix number", or anything like that. Yes .. the "fine-structure constant" resonates with Pi and with 360 .. so it does correlate with the ancient Archaeo-sky Matrix. But it is not worthy of being declared .. "the key".. to this matrix.

If there was something to be declared "the key" .. it could be Pi .. or it could be 360 .. or it could be "half-Pi Radians (arc)", or it could be the Earth precession cycle (25920 years), or it could be "60" .. or it could be the Radian (deg) value of 57.29577951 .. there are many "candidates".

It needs to be understood .. that the specific, precise locations .. in terms of latitude and longitude_and_also the specific, precise dimensions (lengths, widths, heights) of the structures .. are very important and are self-evidently-so, upon study, of this Archaeo-sky Matrix.

As I showed in my previous email on this subject .. the original apex-height of The Great Pyramid of Giza_has_been correctly derived by Munck (1992).

I showed some equations that support this. Those equations are integrating the "480.3471728" regular feet .. precisely-into the polar dimensions of Earth, in terms of nautical miles .. the 21600 figure and the 3437.746771 polar Earth-radius figure .. along with .. the "Tetrahedral Grid LAT" Archaeo-sky Matrix figure of .. 8760.48194 (Morton, 1999, Internet). I also showed direct correlations to the Stonehenge Grid POINT Value (Munck, 1992) and to the Grid POINT Value of REGULUS as of Jan.1, 2000 (Morton, 1999, Internet).

This original apex-height of 480.3471728 regular feet .. was intentionally used. It is redundantly in-evidence .. as a factor, in many very "key" Archaeo-sky Matrix relationships among important sites, structures, and Jan.1, 2000 sky-positions.

Here are some additional "key" relationships involving "480.3471728" ...

480.3471728 (feet) X 12 = 5764.166073 regular inches. That figure .. is the Grid POINT Value of The Chephren Pyramid of Giza .. (Munck, 1992) .. as well as the original apex-height in regular_inches_of The Great Pyramid itself !!

480.3471728 / 97.33868822 = 4.9348022 = (Pi X half-Pi). "Exactly". The "97.33868822" .. is the_exact_diameter of the Sarsen Circle of Stonehenge, in regular feet (Munck, 1992).

480.3471728 X 97.33868822 = 46756.3637 ... the Grid LAT of The Mycerinus Pyramid of Giza (Munck, 1992). 46756.3637 North .. = 29 (deg) X 58 (min) X 27.79807592 (sec) North.

5577.096019 / 97.33868822 = 57.29577951 .. as in "arc-degrees" .. the numerical value of The Radian-arc, assuming the conventional 360 (arc-deg) system.

The "5577.096019" is .. "The Giza Grid POINT" .. (Munck, 1992) .. the intersection-point of the latitude and longitude indicated by the alignments of the two sets of 3 small, heavily-eroded pyramids at Giza .. one set just south of The Mycerinus Pyramid (aligned due east-west) .. and the other set just east of The Great Pyramid (aligned due north-south).

The east-west alignment is centered at .. 29 (deg) X 58 (min) X 24.5261363 (sec) North .. = 41252.96125 North. { Note .. this is the 'generic' Surface Area on a Sphere .. assuming the (given) radius as the numerical value_of_the 360 arc-degrees-based Radian-arc !! 4Pi X (57.29577951 X 57.29577951) = 41252.96125, in terms of "Square arc-degrees"}.

The north-south alignment is centered at .. 7.396853329 (sec) E.Giza. That is; east of the "Archaeo-sky Matrix" prime meridian that passes through the center of The Great Pyramid.

"The Giza Grid POINT" Value .. 41252.96125 / 7.396853329 = 5577.096019

That intersection .. "The Giza Grid POINT" .. is_also_where one 'arm' of a displayed (from overhead view) Radian-arc .. intersects !!!

That 'arm' of this_displayed_Radian-arc .. at the Giza complex .. from an overhead view .. passes directly_through_the intersection of "The Giza Grid POINT" !!! To see a graphic-drawing of this .. please go to .. http://hometown.aol.com/marscode/giza.html

The other 'arm' of this displayed Radian-arc .. is aligned perfectly, from the overhead view .. with the southwestern_edge_of The Great Pyramid. The center of this Radian-arc is_right-on_the APEX of The Great Pyramid.

So; not only do you have The Radian-arc_displayed_in this precise manner .. at the Giza complex .. but you also have a perfect cardinal-direction-oriented intersection "pointed-out" by two sets of pyramids .. which is_also_where one 'arm' of the displayed Radian-arc intersects !! Additionally .. you have the numerical value_of_The Radian arc_indicated_assuming the conventional 360 system .. AT that_particular_intersection .. directly via "The Giza Grid POINT" Value divided-by the diameter (in regular feet) of the Sarsen Circle of Stonehenge !!! Again ... 5577.096019 / 97.33868822 = 57.29577951

Now .. I'll divide the "480.3471728" figure directly into "The Giza Grid POINT" Value .. 5577.096019 / 480.3471728 = (114.591559 / Pi Squared).

"114.591559" .. is "exactly" (to 6 decimal places) .. 2 Radians (deg). { 57.29577951 X 2) = 114.591559 (arc-deg).

(480.3471728 / 27.58106915) .. = [Radian (deg)] / [(Pi Squared) X (SIN 19.47122061)]

Note .. Sine of 19.47122061 = 0.333333333 ... 1/3rd. The "19.47122061" (deg) .. is the precise planetary-rotation model ideal latitude .. north and south .. involved in the Hoagland "hyperdimensional physics" theory. This latitude is usually quoted as "19.5".

Note .. the "27.58106915" .. is the Grid POINT Value of .. 'The D&M Pyramid' at Cydonia on Mars (Munck, 1992). Please see .. http://hometown.aol.com/marscode/cydonia.html

This does reinforce the apparent reality of a "tetrahedrally-oriented" complex of structures at Cydonia on Mars, as described in R.C. Hoagland's book .. "The Monuments of Mars". And .. this also strongly reinforces the precise correlations among major structures at Giza on Earth, WITH several major structures at Cydonia on Mars, that have been discussed by Carl Munck ("The Code"), and by myself on The Internet.

Further .. this precisely corroborates Munck's derived original apex-height for The Great Pyramid of Giza .. as .. 480.3471728 regular feet.

In closing .. I have shown that although the 2Pi ratio is indicated by the original apex-height and base perimeter of The Great Pyramid .. the precise 'dimensions', in regular feet .. are_very_significant in the scheme of the ancient Archaeo-sky Matrix. Therefore, the fact that the "fine-structure (inverse) constant" correlates with the 2Pi ratio, although a sensible and logical fact .. is not any indication of "paramount" significance, in terms of the ancient Archaeo-sky Matrix.

Michael Lawrence Morton (c) 2001

http://hometown.aol.com/marscode/homepage1.html

http://farshores.topcities.com/farshores/mlmindex.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm

http://mission-ignition.tripod.com

Michael Morton wrote :

I respectfully differ with Jerry Iuliano .. on his dimensions for The Great Pyramid of Giza .. which he is seemingly manipulating (apparently .. as I see it) .. in order to 'force-fit them' into his compulsion to incorporate the "fine-structure constant" into his equations.

I do not see any_compelling_reason to incorporate the "fine structure constant" into the ancient Archaeo-sky Matrix.

Tom ...

Thank-you for responding, first of all. Your input is very much appreciated, sir.

Next .. I apologize to Jerry Iuliano, for accusing him of "manipulating data". I realized, after reading Jerry's reply to my email .. that he was, in fact, focusing on "the ratio" .. the 2Pi ratio between apex-height and base perimeter, or 1/8th of that base perimeter, actually. Further .. I admit that I "missed" .. at first .. the obvious intent of Jerry to show "the ratio" as correlating with the FSC .. in his equations. I hope I made this clear, in my 'most-previous' email. I admittedly have been so caught-up in this work I'm doing .. that I didn't check to see if it_was_in fact the_ratio_ of apex-height to half-side length that Jerry is showing to be so directly related to the FSC. Again .. my apologies, Jerry.

Tom continues ...

Gentlemen:

I feel uniquely called upon to arbitrate this little dispute concerning the measured dimensions of the Pyramids, not only because I teach undergraduate physics labs at Vanderbilt University but also because I happened to read these e-mails while in the lab waiting for students to finish their own reports.

Therefore, I will apply to both Michael Morton & Jerry Iuliano the standards of simple measurement theory which apply at the level of undergraduate college physics. The more egregious offender here is Michael, but Jerry also needs to have a reminder about recognizing the limits of physical measurement --- the single most troublesome concept students have in making measurements.

Let me start by examining the actual figures Michael gave as the height and base lengths of the pyramid and then demonstrating a "reductio ad absurdum" argument to show the fallacy of Michael's measurement claim.

480.3471728 regular feet and 754.5275746 regular feet. This gives a base angle slope tangent of .. (480.3471728 / 377.2637873) = 1.273239545

Leaving aside the 480 integral feet, I wish to focus on the fractional part of the last foot, i.e. the figure 0.3471728. This fraction of a foot expressed in inches will be 4.1660736 inches. Now taking that latter fraction of the 5th inch (i.e. truncating the decimal), we get 0.1660736 inches. (Note the 7 decimal places.)

Let me now bring in the wavelength of the green light spectral line my students just examined in the mercury vapor lamp diffraction experiment. Its value is 546 nanometers. Expressing this figure in centimeters, I get: 0.0000546 cm. Converting that figure to inches, I get 0.0000215 inches. (Notice the 7 decimal places to correspond with the 7 decimal places of the pyramid measurement.)

So the first absurdity here is claiming a precision of measurement of the height and base of the great pyramid which is smaller than the actual wavelengths of the light we would need to see the very pyramids by!!! Now this is not the _Heisenberg_ Uncertainty principle, but something more elementary, the simple uncertainty in measurement inherent in dealing with macroscopic objects.

(I won't even get into here the issue of the curvature of the earth and the temperature expansion of the blocks of the pyramids as affecting the precision of measurements, not to mention fractal theory in moving from fine to coarse in establishing the actual edges of the pyramid blocks. But I will elaborate if you wish me to. Michael's claim of precision demands it.)

Tom ...

In the realm of strictly, literally .. "empirical hands-on measurements of the structures / sites themselves" .. neither Munck nor I have actually gone to Egypt to measure the main pyramids, and neither have we gone to England to measure Stonehenge. That's true, first of all.

And .. when "restricted" to maps and literature on the subjects .. of course, as you show here .. the "accuracy" issue comes up .. along with the "allowable significant figures" issue .. the number of decimal places, etc. This is (or, it "has been", a big issue, up until now, regarding the ASM (I think this may be my acronym for "archeo-sky matrix").. and, regarding any and all systems of measurement .. as you point out.

I submit to you that "pattern recognition" .. or .. "paradigm recognition" .. on the part of Munck .. has .. i.e. .. *subsumed the relevance* .. in this "new area of study", if you will .. of almost_all_of the "concern" over the issue of "significant digits/decimal places". And this is directly due to the very_emergence_of this new "ASM" paradigm.

Let me explain myself. Munck, in my opinion, made a truly ground-breaking discovery .. or, "re-discovery". He recognized a very specific "pattern" .. or "code", to be revealing itself. (I recognized and identified that this same pattern/code extends literally to the_precise_locations of prominent stars in our sky, and includes the exact positions of Galactic Center and Solar Apex .. as of Jan.1, 2000 .. relative to the ecliptic, and relative to the exact ecliptic-longitude location of the Orion belt-star ALNITAK, on Jan.1, 2000.

This "pattern/code" .. became_self-evident_through the use of satellite-accurate topographical maps, and through use of computers (hand-held calculators). The pocket-calculator was a huge factor. It allowed time and effort, involved in working with the numbers, to be drastically reduced. The importance of this factor cannot be over-emphasized. And; this is all based on empirical observation.

One 'key' was Munck's discovery that the sites/structures .. and this has included every mound, stone circle, dolmen, and/or pyramid that I know of .. consistently .. that these sites/structures are precisely located in a 'matrix' involving (in general) the multiplication of the_numbers_of degrees times minutes times seconds .. a figure for latitude and a figure for longitude, with their ratio being the "Grid POINT Value". Another major 'key' was his discovery of self-referential, self-evident prime meridians .. through the center of the Great Pyramid on Earth, and through the center of 'The D&M Pyramid' at Cydonia on Mars. I then discovered that there is an ecliptic prime meridian, again; self-referential, self-evident .. and linked_directly_to the Earth and the Mars prime meridians. It was Mary Anne Weaver's theory .. a research colleague of mine, that the Orion belt-star ALNITAK would be a celestial (ecliptic-oriented) prime meridian "marker", and I have proven her theory as correct .. after over two years of work (since March of 1999). The "time-node" for these 'sky-matrix' correlations .. has been found to be Jan.1, 2000. This is supported consistently by a database .. http://users.cwnet.com/~sidereal/mag/astfixst.htm

So, Michael, the first problem with your number is its impossibility in physics. I do not question its possibility in arithmetic since you arrived at the number by applying Carl Munck's grid coordinate system. I am actually sympathetic to your cause and I marvel at the work of Carl Munck, but the fact that you present a physical impossibility as actual physical fact is, to me, prima facie evidence of your projection onto Jerry Iuliano of your own insecurities about your own "true belief" in the Munck system.

("True belief" means making the relative part into the absolute whole without recognizing the inconsistencies in logic that necessarily arise in that endeavor).

In short, you are guilty of whatever you accuse Jerry of. It is you, Michael, who are "force-fitting" Munck's data onto the measurements of the Great Pyramids. It is you who have a compulsion to do so and it is you who are manipulating data to fit a conclusion demanded by your prior "true belief" system.

(My only quibble with Jerry is that he often uses too many decimal places than can be phsyically warranted, but at least he used the Petrie pyramid measurements which show some uncertainties in measurement, thus making his figures far more acceptible scientifically than yours. )

I also call attention to the fact that you exhibit such insecurity specifically about Jerry's connection of the fine structure constant to the measurement of the Pyramids. I feel it has to do with the fact that the fine structure constant (FSC) is at the very foundation of measurement theory itself.

Well .. you could be partially-right about some "insecurity" I might have, related to my not being familiar with much of quantum and particle physics, including calculations and certain physics constants involved in that realm .. yes. But .. I really have no "problem" with the fine-structure constant .. even specifically in connection with the ASM. Actually .. I'm glad to see the FSC apparently related so well with certain ratios involving the ASM, as Jerry has described. I just made that faux-pas of not checking to see that he was talking about a certain ratio, per se .. and; I also needed to point-out that the individual components of that Great Pyramid ratio (original apex-height and half base-length) .. are very significant in-and-of themselves, in terms of specific relationships to other very important ASM structures/sites/locations. I will only state in response to that .. that this work I'm doing_is_proving itself to be correct .. self-evidently-so .. via empirical observations. This will become more-evident, to more people, I think, as time goes on .. and as more people are able to have, or are able to commit-to .. the time and energy required to focus on what I've posted on various websites on The Internet.

So; I'm saying .. that_your_assertion .. that the "accuracy" of the figures I'm using is .. "impossible, physically, to measure" .. is now effectively a semantical-and-moot point .. specifically with regard to the very emergence of the ASM paradigm.

So; with specific regard_to_the ASM .. the heretofore relevant concern with "significant figures/decimal places" .. as applied to number-of-arc-seconds-or-fractions-thereof .. is now obsolete.

A typical example is the latitude .. or, "Grid LAT" .. of Stonehenge. Munck (1992) found its Grid LAT to be .. 21600 North .. = 51 (deg) X 10 (min) X 42.35294118 (sec) North.

The "key" here, in this case, is the recognition that "21600" is the_obviously-intended_Grid LAT figure .. that is, "obviously-intended"_by_the designers/builders.

You study the best map you can find .. and you see that Stonehenge's latitude is at 51 deg 10 min N. Then .. you study the plan or design of the structure itself .. noting 60 original stones comprising the Sarsen Circle. You then realize that "60" .. on a "circumference" .. might be "refering-to" .. some number .. some numerical value .. related to "a circle". You then "test" the idea that maybe "360" is being "encoded" here .. and you 'experiment' .. you try multiplying 60 times 360 .. and you get .. 21600. Then, you realize that the map you are working from is indicating "a little more than" 42 arc-seconds .. and so you "try" 21600 as a possible "Grid LAT" for Stonehenge. So .. you first divide 21600 by 51 ... and you get .. 423.5294118 .. for "step one". Then .. for "step 2" .. you divide_that_figure by 10 .. the number of arc-minutes ... 423.5294118 / 10 = 42.35294118 (sec). BOOM !! There you are .. because you pull out your magnifying-glass .. and you_can_see .. that your map is indicating "approximately" 42 and 1/3rd arc-seconds !! And that's only about 0.02 arc-seconds difference !! And 0.02 arc-seconds of Earth latitude .. is only a tiny bit more than 2 regular feet !! So; this_confirms_that the 21600 Grid LAT for Stonehenge is correct !!

My point, here, in that example .. is that once you recognize the obviously-intended Grid LAT or Grid LONG .. you will "automatically" calculate the "precisely-intended" number of decimal/fractional arc-seconds .. simply by using a pocket calculator. The pocket-calculator does the work for you .. once you have a firm grasp of the correct Grid LAT or Grid LONG. And_that_comes with studying this matrix .. and from working with the figures .. from working_with_actual examples .. and .. from using accurate maps, hopefully satellite-accurate "official" topo maps.

Therefore .. because you are identifying the obviously-intended Grid LAT and Grid LONG *first* ... you then simply divide-by number-of-degrees .. and then by number-of-minutes .. to "automatically" calculate the precise number-of-seconds. This, then .. eliminates the heretofore valid "debate and uncertainty" as to "allowable significant figures/decimal places", with regard to arc-seconds.

Then; you get into comparing sites/structures with one another .. their ASM numbers, that is. You find that certain sites/structures are "communicating numerically" .. via their ASM numbers. And_that_in turn, functions as an_additional_check on the correctness of the Grid LATs and Grid LONGs you have found for individual sites/structures/Jan.1, 2000 sky-positions.

Thus ... it becomes more-and-more 'self-evident' and self-referential, as you continue to work with the figures .. and as you_review_the figures you have found. The correctness of the various Grid LATs and Grid LONGs becomes corroborated .. more-and-more .. as you work with the ASM numbers of various sites / structures / star-positions/crop-formation locations, etc.

Yes .. I have found mistakes .. a few .. not many .. by comparison and cross-correlations !!

So .. again .. my apologies to Jerry Iuliano. Yes .. it's obvious that the FSC does correlate with the ASM as a whole, but not necessarily_directly_with many of the intentionally-specific and significant Grid LATS, Grid LONGs, and lengths, widths, and heights of various structures/sites.

And; I hope this email has led toward a realization that I am not "manipulating figures", either .. in my work.

Michael Lawrence Morton

http://hometown.aol.com/marscode/homepage1.html

http://farshores.topcities.com/farshores/mlmindex.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm

http://mission-ignition.tripod.com

**99.2.5 Stonehenge-Cheops-Proton-Electron**

From Jerry Iuliano

Sir:

Mathematical connection to Stonehenge, Cheops pyramid, fine-structure constant, the proton and electron:

STONEHENGE....(288) double light

CHEOPS PYRAMID....height=486.256 ft; base leg=763.81 ft

FINE-STRUCTURE CONSTANT....(1998 NIST value=137.03599976)

PROTON Mev/(c^2)....(1998 NIST value=938.271998)

ELECTRON Mev/(c^2)....(1998 NIST value=.510998902)

Letting: p=proton=938.271998

e=electron=.510998902

a(em)= fine-structure constant=137.035998631 (99.9999992% of NIST)

a=height Cheops pyramid=486.255745 ft (or 25.5 ten thousandsths of a foot of referenced data (486.256)

b=base leg of Cheops pyramid=763.81 ft

z=a/2/b=.318309360312

Then it can be demonstrated the following equivalencies:

(10*p)^((e^-z)*z)=36.7870785

288^(2*z)=36.7870785

(10^2)*COS 137.035998631=36.7870785

Things of interest in these equations is the z variable as to one-half Cheops height divided by base leg power function compared to Druid double light(288) with z variable as a SIMPLIFIED power function, (z^2), and of course the angle in radians converted to fine-structure, (COS a(em)^-1).

The NIST values used for the proton and electron are centerline values.

The formula value used for fine-structure is 99.9999992% of NIST fine-structure(137.03599976), 137.035998631/137.03599976=.999999992

The height used for Cheops is 25.5 ten thousandths of a foot of referenced data(see below). 486.255745/486.256=.999999475

Combining the equations demonstrates the meaning of the proton as a function of double light (288) through the "poetic meaning" of double light POWERED, (2/(e^-z):

proton energy= [288^(2/(e^-z))]/10=938.2719959 Mev/(c^2)

This equation represents pure mind-energy-matter. The Cheops variable -z represented as power to the mind form (visual reality...a/2/b)=z; that is double (2) divided by light (electron....a(em).....photon) to the visual reality of a geometric object (a/2/b) Cheops constructs; sits as a power function to the Stonehenge standard (288). 288 represents the mind (D.G.Leahy) while 2/(e^-z) represents energy (e=electron) an energy that is subtly altered to the exact proton energy by the Cheops pyramid constructs.

J.Iuliano

Referenced material: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/US9.html

The first or Stonehenge I phase of construction happened about 1900 BC. There was a double ring of earthworks -- an outer bank 2-3 feet high and about 380 feet in diameter, and an inner bank at least 6 feet high and about 320 feet in diameter. In the direction of midsummer sunrise there was a gap in the banks and a number of upright stones were set in and beyond that gap. One of these, now called the "heel stone" for unknown reasons, was surrounded by a circular bank, presumably marking it as special. Just inside the inner ditch was a circle of 56 evenly spaced holes, called the Aubrey holes after John Aubrey who (re)discovered them in the 17th century AD. The circle is 288 feet in diameter and the holes are all placed with less than 2 feet of error either radially or circumferentially. Hawkins's key conjectures is that this number 56 relates to the period of the "regression of the nodes" of the moon's orbit (that is, the precession of its orbital plane) which is 18.61 years or about 56/3 years. This is an eclipse cycle. Ê

The idea is that one or more markers would be moved around this circle, one step per year, with one or more of the positions being considered as significant when the markers reached them. Next, perhaps, was the erecting for the four "station stones", which stood on mounds at four points more or less on the Aubrey hole circle, forming a near rectangle. ÊThe short sides of the rectangle are parallel to the alignment from the center to the heel stone, and this line points to the midsummer sunrise; the opposite direction points to the midwinter sunset.

Now, the moon's rising and setting positions on a particular date are not fixed, but vary through that 18.61 year period. From one of the station stones at one end of the rectangle, the two stones at the other end mark the two extreme positions of the midsummer moonrise; and conversely, from one stone at the latter end, the two stones at the former end mark the extremes of midwinter moonset. Other stones in conjunction with the station stones form additional such alignments, some involving additional directions such as midwinter sun*rise* and equinox rather than solstice alignments. Several alignments are repeated using different stones. The angles between the different alignments are latitude-dependent, so that the station stone rectangle could be a rectangle at a different latitude only if different alignments were used.

About 1750 BC, Stonehenge II was constructed, apparently by a different race / tribe of people. They enlarged the entranceway with more banks, and they brought in the first circles of stone. ÊThey started to build a double circle about 70 feet in diameter, of 5-ton stones, with extra stones marking the entranceway. However, this was never completed. Hawkins speculates that there were to have been 37 pairs of stones in the circle and that it was to have been used like the Aubrey holes,with a marker moved annually.

The blue circle is the Aubrey Circle, with a diameter of 288 feet. This diameter is exactly the intended, diagonal face length of the Menkaure Pyramid, from the base to the apex point. The distance (288 feet) is also of the 576 feet of diagonal face length from the base of the Great Pyramid to the height of the altar floor. The base perimeter of the Great Pyramid was exactly 288 reeds (of 10.5 feet each). The Giza Plateau was set out as a grid of 288 squares, each 189 feet X 189 feet (1/4th of the length of the Great Pyramid was 189 feet). The grid ran 18 squares east-west &16 squares north-south. In Numbers chapter 7 of the Bible, Moses is given a total of 288 gifts. The Bible is packed with astronomical codes, which aspect is, of times, the sole preoccupation of an entire Biblical passage. Herodotus, the father of profane history, left us solid clues that the Pyramid acre was 28800 square feet. The Geomancer's mile of Great Britain was 57600 feet (28800 X 2). The Waitapu standing stone circle site in New Zealand was a dual, overlapping circle observatory, wherein the north-south extremities of the site extended through 288 feet, geometrically.

http://users.net2000.com.au/~fmetrol/petrie/c6a.html#21

Petrie data:

Ht of Cheops=5776+-7.0 inches

Base leg Cheops=9068.8+-.5 inches

Using 9068.8 inches as base leg and 5773.370937 inches as ht then it can be shown:

(10^(5773.370937/9068.8))/.37=11.70623765=137.035999935^(1/2)(Kinoshita's number:

The following excerpt is reprinted from "Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man" by Albert Churchward, a student of the European Egyptologist Gerald Massey. According to John Henrik Clarke, in his introduction to the volume, "(Massey)" was an agnostic whose intention was to prove that the basis of European culture was created outside of Europe by people that some Europeans later characterized as savages without a history or culture. His search led him to Egypt where he found proof that Western culture was, in fact, African in origin, the larger portion of it coming from the Nile Valley. . ."

About the Pyramid of Giza, built by ancient Africans, Churchward writes: The Great Pyramid, when understood, far surpasses and ellipses King Solomon's Temple as a building, or any other in the world. . . The base is a true square, and perfectly oriented, set due N.E.S.W., parallel with the equatorial line, absolutely no variation of points; its base on huge rock and that rock perfectly and truly hewn and levelled (sic) to the earth's curvature of 8 inches to the mile, the importance of which is evident-keeping it from convulsive damages as time goes on. The height of the pyramid is 486.256 feet, and each side is 763.81 feet. The height thus measures, with the radius of a circle whose circumference equals the four sides. . .showing that the circle could be squared by these ancient architects which has not been improved on since. Its base side length is 365.242 sacred cubits, showing the number of days and fractional part of a day in a year. . .

Here, in the Great Pyramid, is the one material centre (sic) which gives the standard for those practical things-weights, measures, etc., and these were carried from land to lands, with .......

The EGYPTIAN Cheops pyramid formula as follows:

(10^(486.2560047/763.81))/.37=11.70623765=137.035999935^(1/2)

**99.2.6 BULLETIN (Michael Morton)**

This is intended as a bulletin. Some details will be given, here, but this is not intended as a "final report" on this matter.

Michael L.M

This is in regards to the PHOENIX UFO witnessed by thousands of people in Arizona, USA on the evening of March 13, 1997.

The date was March 13, 1997 .. in the evening.

There are 2 very significant time-periods, in terms of DAYS, indicated by the_timing_of the appearance of this huge UFO. One period is .. 5764 days .. from the sighting to December solstice of 2012 .. Dec. 21st. This coincides with the 'end' of the Mayan calendar.

The other period is .. 1024 days ... from the sighting to January 1, 2000. That date is now a self-evident 'time-node', involving a massive-scale, precise "Archaeo-sky Matrix" synchronization .. already substantially documented and empirically observed. (I have extensively researched this, and I've written much about this on The Internet).

The precise decimal-fractional numbers of days .. of these 2 periods .. are .. 5764.166073 and 1024.020699 ... self-evidently referenced, as correlative to specific major time/space nodes in the 'Archaeo-sky Matrix' as following, here, below ....

(5764.166073 X 1024.020699) = 5902625.371

5902625.371 / 35.53057584 / 2.842446068 / 3.141592654 ... = 18603.76601

35.53057584 ... Galactic Center ("GC") Grid POINT Value on Jan.1, 2000.

(Morton, 2001, Internet).

2.842446068 ... Solar Apex ("SA") Grid POINT Value on Jan.1, 2000

(Morton, 2001, Internet).

3.141592654 .. a relatively precise Pi constant.

18603.76601 .. exactly HALF of the 37207.53202 Archaeo-sky Matrix 'form' of the base slope angle of both The Great Pyramid of Giza and The Mycerinus Pyramid of Giza. 37207.53202 .. = 51 (deg) X 51 (min) X 14.30508728 (sec).

ALSO ... 18603.76601 W.Giza .. is the Grid LONG of Rosslyn Chapel, in Scotland. 18603.76601 W.Giza .. = 34 (deg) X 17 (min) X 32.18644638 (sec) W.Giza. [ W.Greenwich 03 deg 09 min 31.38644638 sec ].

Also Note .. 37207.53202 N. = Grid LAT of Solar Apex, Jan.1, 2000.

18603.76601 / 5.411616169 = 3437.746771

5.411616169 .. Grid POINT Value of The Washington Monument.

(Morton, 1998, Internet).

3437.746771 .... Polar Radius of Earth .. nautical miles.

54116.16169 .. Grid LAT Rosslyn Chapel (Morton, 2000, Internet). This is a decimal harmonic of Grid POINT Value of Washington Monument. 54116.16169 North .. = 55 (deg) X 51 (min) X 19.29274927 (sec) N.

The Orion belt-star composite (Morton, 2001, Internet) .. is .. 7.957747155 .. a composite ratio of the Grid POINT Values of the 3 Orion belt stars .. as of Jan.1, 2000.

ALNITAK .. 43.63323131

ALNILAM .. 170.010936

MINTAKA .. 31.00627668

(43.63323131 X 31.00627668) / 170.010936 = 7.957747155

(18603.76601 / 7.957747155) = 2337.818185

23378.18185 = Grid LAT 'Pyramid of The Sun', Teotihuacan. (Munck, 1992)

23378.18185 = MINTAKA X ALDEBARAN X ANTARES X REGULUS. { Grid POINTS, all .. on Jan.1, 2000 }. In other "language" ... 23378.18185 = (Pi Cubed) X 8.888888889 X 4.297183464 X 19.7392088

Grid LAT Solar Apex / Grid LAT 'Sun Pyramid' = U.S. Capitol Building. In "other language" .. 37207.53202 / 23378.18185 = (5 / Pi).

Now ... (5 / Pi) = 3.872983346 / 2.433467206 In "other language" .. U.S Capitol Building = The Miami Circle / Stonehenge.

Again .. this is only a bulletin ... not intended as a "complete presentation". But it is hoped that your interest has been piqued somewhat.

You might want to check out my writings at several websites. Some of those writings are quite detailed .. and some of them do involve details of the above subject.

http://hometown.aol.com/marscode/homepage1.html

http://farshores.topcities.com/farshores/mlmindex.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm

http://mission-ignition.tripod.com

Regarding sky-positions ...

http://farshores.topcities.com/farshores/skymat_1.htm

Also ... the sky-position database for Jan.1, 2000 ...

http://users.cwnet.com/~sidereal/mag/astfixst.htm

Michael Lawrence Morton (c) 2001

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2001