Pyramids 'n stuff

[Littlejoe]

Uhhh?

Littlejoe;

Are you sure you read my blog? I didn't say anything like that and I don't know what those abbreviations stand for. And, where did you come up with the idea that I had bipolar disorder. I think that you are reading things into what I said. That is, if you are even on the right blog.

Oops :blush:,

Sorry, wrong guy. Pay no attention to what I said! :lol:

LJ

Edited to add: I have deleted my message. Sorry again!

[rHarryr]

Littlejoe;

No problem. When you do get to my blog, I hope you enjoy what you read. And, whatever you read, let me know what you think. I like feedback.

[rHarryr]

Littlejoe;

I can't say that the figures I entered are accurate and yours are wrong because I'm not an expert in that field. What I will say is that the figures I put in that post supposed to be figures calculated by the specialists writen down in the text of the book that I used for referrence in quoting those numbers. If you will double check your figures, I will go back and see if I copied them wrong. The book I copied them out of was copyrighted in "71" and revised in "78" and I don't think the measurements have changed that much since then. I'm going to check right now.

[rHarryr]

Direct quote from the book " The Great Pyramid Decoded" by E. Raymond Capt. The paragraph on page "62" reads as follows;

"(7) Rotundity of the eath: The rotundity, or curvature, of the earth was found by surveying the side baseline of the Pyramid. Due to the hollowed-in core masonry (35.76 inches on each side) a curved line was produced. Computations were made to ascertain how long the radius would be that would produce a circle containing that curve. The resulting answer was that the radius would be approximately half the diameter of the earth."

Is this the formula you used, or did you derive your answer from a different one.

[Littlejoe]

Direct quote from the book " The Great Pyramid Decoded" by E. Raymond Capt. The paragraph on page "62" reads as follows;

"(7) Rotundity of the eath: The rotundity, or curvature, of the earth was found by surveying the side baseline of the Pyramid. Due to the hollowed-in core masonry (35.76 inches on each side) a curved line was produced. Computations were made to ascertain how long the radius would be that would produce a circle containing that curve. The resulting answer was that the radius would be approximately half the diameter of the earth."

Is this the formula you used, or did you derive your answer from a different one.
No, I was going by the height. This is based on the base deflection. Computing the radius using a base length of 761.75 ft that works out to a radius of 24340 ft. or 4.61 miles. I can't find any other documentation for the amount of deflection. Although, the curvature "fact" is asserted over and over.

LJ

[rHarryr]

Hey I'm back;

Littlejoe;

I'm curious. Where did you get you base measurement. The longest measurement is 365.259 Sacred Cubits which is equal to the number of days in the anomalistic year. 1 Sacred Cubit is equal to 25 pyramid inches The pyramid inch is equal to 1 British or American inch + or - 1/10,000th of an inch. The Pyramid inch is also 1/500,000,000th of the diameter of the Earth along the Polar Axis.

See if these numbers help any. And, when you come up with a measurement, don't say so many feet equal so many miles. Rather say by scale 1 foot equals 1mile. In other words try scaling the measurement like you would on a map.

[Littlejoe]

Hey I'm back;

Littlejoe;

I'm curious. Where did you get you base measurement. The longest measurement is 365.259 Sacred Cubits which is equal to the number of days in the anomalistic year. 1 Sacred Cubit is equal to 25 pyramid inches The pyramid inch is equal to 1 British or American inch + or - 1/10,000th of an inch. The Pyramid inch is also 1/500,000,000th of the diameter of the Earth along the Polar Axis.

365.259 x 25 = 9131.475 Pyramid Inches (PI) x1.0011 = 9141.519 American Inches.
9141.519 / 12 = 761.79 American feet.


See if these numbers help any. And, when you come up with a measurement, don't say so many feet equal so many miles. Rather say by scale 1 foot equals 1mile. In other words try scaling the measurement like you would on a map.
I come up with a radius of 24,344. That is ft or miles take your pick. The radius of the earth at the poles is 3,950 miles. (It is close to the circumference of the earth, but I don't read that in the quote) There is no other correlation that I can see. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how they get their numbers. :shrug:

Also, your number for the distance of the sun from the earth doesn't work out either. 10^9 =10,000,000,000 (10 billion) ft. Reduced to miles. Divide by 5280 (feet in a mile) = 1,893,939.39 miles.

LJ

[rHarryr]

Ok Littlejoe;

Let's back up and go at this from another angle. I'm going to see if I can find some of the other books that have this information and see if they give the formula in more detail. Something is not comming out and I want to know why. But, I'm afraid it will have to wait until tomorrow, er, ahh, later today rather. It's been a long day and I need to get a little rest before I try to tackle this any more. I'll be back in touch with you later.


Good Night

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Hey folks;

I'm back, but I'm doing a little research of the subject that Littlejoe and I are discussing, so, if you post here, it migh be a little while before I get back to you but I will get back to you. If you have any knowledge of the subject we are discussing, your input is very welcome. Please come on in and make your self to home, I'll be with you as soon as possible.

[FreezBee]

Hey folks;

I'm back, but I'm doing a little research of the subject that Littlejoe and I are discussing, so, if you post here, it migh be a little while before I get back to you but I will get back to you. If you have any knowledge of the subject we are discussing, your input is very welcome. Please come on in and make your self to home, I'll be with you as soon as possible.

Hey rHarryr :hi:

Excuse me for asking, but what exactly is the subject that you and LJ are discussing?


- FreezBee

[rHarryr]

Hello FreezBee;

We have been discussing the Great Pyramid of Giza, the measurements laid out on and in it, and their relationship to the things that I listed in the posts at my blog. If your interested in checking them out for yourself, it's at www.harryrhoades.com. Please be my guest and I hope you enjoy them enough to read all of the posts there when you have the time. Thanks for asking.

rHarryr

[Littlejoe]

O.K., I found it! (the thread that is) :lol: Sorry, but it has been a hectic weekend.

Harry, I look forward to more info. Some of the things in your blog are asserted all over the internet. But I think all the sites I looked at had a common origin. I can't find the name of the author now, but I think it was Henkel. Anyway, hopefully you can shed some light on the numbers.

LJ

[rHarryr]

Littlejoe;

One thing that I did was to get a search engine to find Measurements in the Great Pyramid of Giza. There were 3870 sites to choose from. Some were way out in left field. others were similar to what I was talking about. I had 2 or 3 other books on the Pyramid. One by Peter Tompkins. If you like to check the measurements in Roman, Egyptian, Greek, British, and metric. He is the one to go to If you like someone who will give them to in all of these methods along with the flora and fauna on each level of stone (a little exaguration). I had a book by Peter Lemesurier but I think I lost it when I lost my truck. I think it was in the camper on back. Another search to key in is Pyramidologists. You will be able to find the names of a lot of people that did this kind of research. You might be able to find someone that explains the formula that was used to come up with the measurements that I listed in my blog. In the meantime, I think I'll go back to my blog and enter some of the measurements that referrence Biblical scriptures.

In the meantime also, I'll keep trying to find that other book that I mentioned.

rHarryr

P.S. You cought me just as I was about to call it a night. I have an appointment tomorrow and have to get some rest. So, I'll say good night and I'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Littlejoe]

Harry,

If you think about it, the base deflection of almost 3 ft (unless the 35.76 inch deflection is is pyramid inches which would make the deflection even greater) in 761 ft is way more than the curvature of the earths crust. It only makes sense that this dimension could not be true. Anyone else have any thoughts?

LJ

[rHarryr]

Littlejoe;

Have you had a chance to check out those links and books in the post above? I'm a little ashamed of myself. If it had been 20 or so years ago when I first learned this or even 10 years ago, I'm pretty sure I could have laid out the formula for you myself. It's been so long now and I've had so little opportunity to use what I learned that I have to look in the books I have and have to search for it in the books to find what I'm looking for. I have the same problem with the computer graphics and the A+ (computer repair) classes that I have had. I know this sounds like a lame excuse, but I'm afraid it's embarrissingly true. The best I can do is to give you referrences like the ones above. The same ones that I have to go too. I'm sorry, I wish I could do better.

rHarryr

[Littlejoe]

Hi Harry,

Yeah, I looked at some of those links when I first read your blog about the pyramids. I'm in Civil Engineering and when I see numbers, sometimes they just look wrong...If you know what I mean. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to research something like this. If you can provide something for me to look at specifically, then I can see what I can make of it. I have several software programs and tools of the trade and such that make calculating complex numbers and figuring things like radii easy. That's what happened with the radius thing. It just didn't look possible, so I decided to check it and see myself...because things can sometimes fool you. Anyway, all I can say is sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it looks as if those two "facts" are not accurate as far as I can assertain.

LJ

[rHarryr]

Ok Littltjoe;

I'll keep looking to see if I can find what I was talking about. I know it's got to be somewhere.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Please read the latest post on my blog.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

I know what I'm looking for is out there somewhere, but I must be clicking the wrong links. I keep getting the list of the names of all of the Pyramidologists, but no content of what they wrote. Capt, by comparison to the others, was a Johnny come lately. The others have much higher credentials and did much more extensive research than he shows in his little book. Some, like Rutherford, went off the deep end by predicting the end, but their research up to that point is considered pretty close to impecable. I can't give the answers your looking for about the formulas. If you are still that curious, the only thing I can say is, you'll have to go by a library and read the books if you don't want to by them. The only thing I can add, the answers that Capt gave for the measurements I can't verify, but the measurements they are supposed to represent, I don't doubt are there because I am pretty well convinced that GOD had His hand the measurements found in the Pyramid. I know that makes me sound like a nut case, but if you were taught the way I was, you might begin to see what I'm talking about. If you want to continue this discussion, I'll be around.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Please see my latest post in Research thread, Church History.

rHarryr

[Adam]

From Post #86 in the thread "St. Paul" in Church History 201:

Great Adam;
Big supprise. You think he made all those mistakes. How about taking your last post where it belong, under Archaeology to the thread "Pyramids and Things". We'll discuss this subject over there. Lets get back to the subject of this thread, the Apostle Paul In Britain. By the way, when you go there I'd like to see what answers he came up with for the Pyramids relation to the Earth, Sun, moon and other astrological points of interest. And the formulas he used to get them, There is someone else that might be interested in them, that is if you don't mind too much.
rHarryr
As I told you, Harry, the concluding Vol. IV in 1972 was followed shortly by Adam Rutherford's death, and his son James didn't get Vol. V (the Index) out before 1979 came and went. I can't look up "Sun" and "Moon".
Scanning all four volumes of Pyramidology, in spite of all the measurements and trigonometric formulae, I couldn't find anything about the bearing of the Great Pyramid to any heavenly bodies. I would have thought it was there, but I guess I am remembering instead a number of TV documentaries about Orion's Belt, the Pleiades, or whatever. Yes, there has been a lot of investigation lately about the astronomical orientation of the pyramids, but if it's in Adam Rutherford at all, it's too minor to stand out.
Of course he does revolve the whole Earth around the Pyramid as the center of Earth's land mass. I think. No, I couldn't even find that readily--it must be there. Again and again he maps the Giza Pyramid at the apex of the triangle of the Nile Delta. Can't find more than that.
He acknowledges his debt to Charles Taze Russell (IV, 1337).
Adam

[Adam]

rH:
Perhaps you meant the Great Pyramid's dimensions on the year?'
According to Adam Rutherford on page II, 294:
Sidereal Year 365.25636 m. s. days
Solar Tropical Year 365.24235* " "
Anomalistic Year 365.25986 " "

*(equal to the Base side length -full design, in cubits)

Adam

[rHarryr]

Adam;

No, I don't mean the ones concerning the year's. They're selfexplanitory, all you have to do is count. The relationship to the other physical objects I mentioned require formulas because the measurements in the Pyramid are considered to be scaled down measurements representing them.

rHarryr

[Littlejoe]

rH:
Perhaps you meant the Great Pyramid's dimensions on the year?'
According to Adam Rutherford on page II, 294:
Sidereal Year 365.25636 m. s. days
Solar Tropical Year 365.24235* " "
Anomalistic Year 365.25986 " "

*(equal to the Base side length -full design, in cubits)

Adam
Adam,

Read posts #4 - #8 to see some of what he is asking for. By my calculations, the curvature of the earth mirrored in the base deflection of the pyramid is not accurate, also, the distance of the earth to the sun in the slope. I think he is asking if the formulas used to compute these numbers are in the book you have.

LJ

[rHarryr]

LittleJoe;

That's what I told him in the post at the other thread where I asked him to move the post about the Pyramid to here. If your interested, it's in the thread about the Apostle paul in Britain. Last page close to the end.

rHarryr

P.S. I hope the books he has are not as vague as Capt's book and a little more detailed than Tompkins in English measurements.

[Adam]

LittleJoe;
That's what I told him in the post at the other thread where I asked him to move the post about the Pyramid to here. If your interested, it's in the thread about the Apostle paul in Britain. Last page close to the end.
rHarryr
P.S. I hope the books he has are not as vague as Capt's book and a little more detailed than Tompkins in English measurements.
OK, you're talking about the measurements for Earth.
Adam Rutherford got right to that in Vol. I in 1957 (the fore-ordained year of revelation of all this to him), but admittedly revised considerably before the 1970 date of my edition.
There are 10,000,000 Sacred Cubits in the Polar Axis of the Earth, and 500,000,000 Inches--as derived in the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year (so this would not have been so precisely expressed in the original 1957 Outline of Pyramidology.(I, 75-77).)
"The entire geometic design of the Great Pyramid is built upon the Enoch Circle--its circumferance, diameter and radius. which are respectively 365.242, 116.26 and 58.13 geometric or Pyramid inches."(I. 83) (Enoch lived 365 years.)
In Book II Rutherford footnotes some of the technical calculations on pages 300-301. But he prefaces the formulas thusly:
"The full technical details of the structure of the Great Pyramid's exterior will be found in Book V, but the following may be noted here:" (II, 300) Followed by five very technical measurements that determine the angle Pyramid pi, 51degrees,51minutes, and 14.2seconds.
But Book V was never published.
He devotes an entire page to the trigonometry of what he calls The Arris Angle 41degrees, 59 minutes, and exactly 50 seconds. (II, 301)
Help any?
Adam

[Littlejoe]

LittleJoe;

That's what I told him in the post at the other thread where I asked him to move the post about the Pyramid to here. If your interested, it's in the thread about the Apostle paul in Britain. Last page close to the end.

rHarryr

P.S. I hope the books he has are not as vague as Capt's book and a little more detailed than Tompkins in English measurements.
Hey Harry,

I have been following both conversations.

LJ

[Littlejoe]

OK, you're talking about the measurements for Earth.
Adam Rutherford got right to that in Vol. I in 1957 (the fore-ordained year of revelation of all this to him), but admittedly revised considerably before the 1970 date of my edition.
There are 10,000,000 Sacred Cubits in the Polar Axis of the Earth, and 500,000,000 Inches--as derived in the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year (so this would not have been so precisely expressed in the original 1957 Outline of Pyramidology.(I, 75-77).)
"The entire geometic design of the Great Pyramid is built upon the Enoch Circle--its circumferance, diameter and radius. which are respectively 365.242, 116.26 and 58.13 geometric or Pyramid inches."(I. 83) (Enoch lived 365 years.)
In Book II Rutherford footnotes some of the technical calculations on pages 300-301. But he prefaces the formulas thusly:
"The full technical details of the structure of the Great Pyramid's exterior will be found in Book V, but the following may be noted here:" (II, 300) Followed by five very technical measurements that determine the angle Pyramid pi, 51degrees,51minutes, and 14.2seconds.
But Book V was never published.
He devotes an entire page to the trigonometry of what he calls The Arris Angle 41degrees, 59 minutes, and exactly 50 seconds. (II, 301)
Help any?
Adam
Hey Adam,

This isn't much help. What you have typed seems to be mostly mishmash. I keep hoping for some kind of proof of where these guys get their numbers. So far, they don't make sense mathematically.

LJ

[rHarryr]

Adam;

I hope it does help LittleJoe. He understands the math better than I do. But, It might be helpful if you could write out the formula that would show how Rutherford got the measurements. Although Rutherford and Tompkins ( copyright 1971) are relative late comers, though not as much so as Capt. There were plenty of others before them dating back at least a couple of centuries. Most all of them seem to come up with answers reasonably close to each other, you'll see some that might even make you laugh. You might also find out that some of Rutherford's measurments are not so far off. Have you checked out some of the latest results for dates and other measurements in Biblical Archaeology and Bible History lately? If you care to look, key those headings in a search engine. It might prove interesting.

rHarryr

P.S. Looks like LittleJoe beat me to the post. Guess he's a little faster than I am.

P.P.S. The earth is part of them. The others reference the Sun, Moon, and other astrological objects.

[rHarryr]

Hey LittleJoe;

If he can't find anything in Rutherford's books, I'll be supprised. In any case, if he can't, I guess someone will have to start looking a little further back. Like I said above, This type of research on the Pyramid goes back at least a couple of centuries maybe more.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Littlejoe;

Sombody left a comment on my blog with a link to a page that has a lot of stuff (articles) I thought you might be interested in. It's the last comment posted.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Littlejoe:

I don't know if your still interested or not, but I ran across some information that gives a little more detail concerning the measurements from mostly people back in the 1800s. It was mostly in text form, so I didn't take time to copy it all down, I just copied about three paragraphs on my blog and left a link to the information. Some of the formulas are mentioned in text form that you might be able to understand better than I. If your interested, it's added on at the end of the post "More about the Pyramid".