Matrix Message 185

"Back to the Stones" & e

Richard ... In forwarding this to you, I'm just trying to help to clarify some issues that mutually concern our work. This is only done in the spirit of good-faith constructive feedback and sharing-of-information. Best Regards .. -- Michael L.M. -------------------------------- In a message dated 06/27/2001 4:42:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Peace2go writes: << Subj: Fwd: back to the stones Date: 06/27/2001 4:42:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Peace2go To: Milamo Hi Michael, I'm forwarding you a note that I just sent to Barron Burrow's unified-psych list. Not sure if you are a member but Jerry Iuliano is and I comment on his work there. BTW, he recently posted that he didn't get much out of your sky-matrix except the number 36 was special. Said your numbers weren't exact enough!?! Are you familiar with that message? The Munck videos arrived yesterday and the first two just blew me away. I never took the time to see how you guys figured the numbers but now it is so clear. No hokus pokus! I don't think Jerry yet sees this matrix as a possible universal mapping from the stars down to his subatomic particles. Certainly the numbers are telling a convincing story. >> (Sorry about that blank email). [Robert ... Feel free to post this as a 'forward', on the email list you are citing. Thanks -- ML. Morton]. No ... I'm not currently a member of that list. Maybe I'll consider joining. Well ... this is interesting. Can you forward to me a copy of Jerry's comments on my work, that you mention ? I don't want to get into a flame-war or anything. I'm just curious to see what he said. "Not exact enough" ??!! That's ridiculous. He may be ("may be") succumbing to reductionism .. in focusing on a solitary, isolated case of an "e" number that Munck came-up with .. based on the radius of the Sarsen Circle, and on the azimuth of the "Avenue", at Stonehenge. I am guilty of repeating Munck's gross and invalid "approximation" of e .. and I need to revise (delete) that passage from the following "paste-copy" of a section in "The Code of the Ancients" at http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm as follows ..... << Now, back to the Grid Longitude of Stonehenge . . . 52562.89164 = RAD (deg) x Pi x 2Pi x Square Root of 2160 (46.47580015) Here we have 4 terms, or quantities, multiplying to a number that encodes the precise original (Giza-based) longitude of Stonehenge. And, each of these 4 terms are important "entities" that are integral to both the design and the essence of this re-discovered 'matrix'. Notice that the number 2160 is a "base-ten harmonic" of the number 21600, and vice-versa . . . the decimal point is simply moved one place, 'horizontally'. Note also that 2160 refers to: mean diameter of The Moon in statute miles (regular miles), years in a Zodiac Age, and the total number of corner-angle degrees on the surface of a Cube. Grid Point Value of Stonehenge The intersection point of latitude/longitude is represented in this 'matrix', for any given site, by the ratio of the Grid Latitude to the Grid Longitude, always greater-than-one. This resulting number is the Grid Point Value: 52562.89164 / 21600 = 2.433467206 [Joe Mason's note: The intersection point-Grid Point Value is also called the "Coordinate Intersect," or C. I.] Munck has determined that the precise (matrix-valid) radius in Feet, of the Sarsen Circle at Stonehenge, is 48.66934411 . . . to eight decimal places. If we divide that radius in Feet by Stonehenge's Grid Point Value, we get . . . 48.66934411 / 2.433467206 = 20 . . . a base-10 harmonic of the 'binary' number 2. Suppose we divide the Sarsen Circle radius in Feet into the RAD (deg) constant? 57.29577951 / 48.66934411 = 1.177245771 Munck found that this number is the TANGENT of the precise azimuth-of-orientation of the 'Avenue' at Stonehenge . . . 49.65408598 degrees. {{ M.L.Morton-the-Editor ... Here is the part I admittedly need to delete .. }} .. "He found further that 49.65408598 is equal to: (e / Pi) RAD (deg) . . . where 'e' is the base of the so-called "natural logarithms," observed in the 'growth patterns' of natural things such as conch shells . . . approximately the value 2.72 . . . (2.72258992 / Pi) x RAD (deg) = 49.65408598 " >> ----------------------------------- Yes .. I now realize that "2.72258992" is just NOT close enough to the actual value of e. (2.718281828). I don't know why Munck evidently thought that "2.72258992" was "close enough" to e. Well .. I admit I need to get the folks at that website to delete that passage. ---------------------------------------- ANOTHER MATTER Involving the e Value ... Richard C.Hoagland ("The Monuments of Mars") .. discovered a_much_closer .. and quite valid, I think ... indication of the e value .. in the Grid LAT (Munck, 1992, "The Code") of The D&M Pyramid at Cydonia on Mars ... 40 (deg) X 52 (min) X 4.773646584 (sec) North .. = 9929.184894 North. The TANGENT of that latitude ... = TAN 40.86799268 deg = 0.865249843 Then, looking at the (e / Pi) ratio ... 2.718281828 / 3.141592654 .. = 0.865255979 (0.865255979 / 0.865249843) = 1.000007092 Yes ... the numbers aren't exactly matching, of course. I think Hoagland "could" have made that qualification, but he really didn't. I guess he thought the approximation was "good enough". I don't know if that's true .. if he was simply content to let it be a "significant approximation" .. I'm only speculating that 'maybe' that's why he didn't make that qualification. Actually .. "no damage done", in_this_case .. because, in my opinion at least .. he_was_making a valid approximation !! What would be The D&M latitude .. or .. what would The D&M Pyramid latitude "have to be" .. theoretically .. to give the "exact" (e / Pi) ratio ? We can calculate that. Take the ArcTAN of .. 0.865255979 .. ArcTAN 0.865255979 = 40.86819374 deg North. How far .. in terms of arc-seconds on Mars .. is that .. from the_actual_Grid LAT of The D&M Pyramid ? (40.86819374 - 40.86799268) = 0.00020106 latitude arc-deg on Mars .. = 0.723816 arc-sec of latitude on Mars .. difference. How many regular ("British") feet of 'difference' is that ? One latitude arc-sec on Mars is equivalent to 'about' 54 regular feet. (54 X 0.723816) = 39 feet ... approximately. That's ... "roughly"... (2 X 19.5), by the way. (-; -------------------------------- And ... that's "roughly" .. the northern boundary latitude of the Washington, D.C. city limits .. (-; By the way ... have you seen the Daniel Perez website map-overlay graphic of D.C./Arlington and Cydonia !??! Scroll down ... until you come to the map-overlay graphic .. of Cydonia and D.C./Arlington .. showing the irrefutable precise_positional_correlations of .. (The Pentagon--D&M PYRAMID) .. and .. (The White House--THE FACE). You must see this for yourself. http://www.terminator3armageddon.com/conspira/dcmars.html -------------------------------------- So .. getting back to The D&M latitude and (e / Pi). Only about 39 feet north of the Grid LAT of The D&M Pyramid, (Munck, 1992, "The Code") .. is the "exact" [ArcTAN (e / Pi)] latitude. That's pretty damn close .. relatively-speaking .. when you consider the_GIGANTIC_size of The D&M Pyramid. Plenty close enough !! ---------------------------------------- REGARDING the COSINE of the "GIZA Latitude" .. I feel that I do need to take issue with Hoagland's statement on the Art Bell 'Coast-to-Coast AM' radio show .. concerning what RCH called .. the "precise relationship" of the TANGENT of the "CYDONIA" latitude and the COSINE of the "GIZA" latitude. I do this only to_help-to-explicate_the "accuracy" issues involved. Hoagland used the term, "precisely" .. on the Art Bell Show. I cannot accept that description, in this_particular_case. Here is the Cosine of the Grid LAT (Munck, 1992, "The Code") of The Great Pyramid of Giza ... [First .. here is its Grid LAT .. 89298.07684 North .. = 29 (deg) X 58 (min) X 53.09041429 (sec) North]. Converting that to arc-degrees only ... 29.981414004 (deg). COSINE 29.981414004 = 0.866187552 That is_significantly_different, in this case, to .. 0.865255979, and also to .. 0.865249843 .. (see 'the above'). If you use a ratio with Pi .. (3.141592654 X 0.866187552) = 2.72120845 ... not close enough to the actual e value of 2.718281828 So .. this is why it is not_accurate_to say that .. "the tangent of the 'CYDONIA' latitude is 'precisely' equal to the COSINE of the 'GIZA' latitude. The_precision_of the "ASM" (Archaeo-sky Matrix) requires a much greater "specificity" when describing site-locations or monument-locations, than simply 'GIZA' or 'CYDONIA'. Giza, and Cydonia, both cover way-too-much ground, to be correct in using descriptions in this way. Is there a latitude at 'CYDONIA' .. whose tangent matches the cosine of the latitude of The Great Pyramid ? Yes. Just a "little south" of The Tholus ..or just a "little south" of The City Square ... (-; ... see what I mean ? All I'm pointing-out, in this instance, is the need to be "monument-specific" .. such as ... "D&M PYRAMID APEX" .. or .. "CITY SQUARE CENTER" .. or .. "NOSE ON THE FACE". --------------------------------------- I hope this email has helped toward clarifying some things for some people. -- Michael L.M. http://mission-ignition.tripod.com/matrix/ http://hometown.aol.com/marscode/homepage1.html http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm P.S. If you go to both the "Giza" and to the "Cydonia" overhead graphics, by Gary Val Tenuta, on the "AOL" website .. you can hopefully see how the 3 main Giza pyramids were situated to "precisely tie-in" with the centered locations of THE FACE and THE D&M PYRAMID @ Cydonia. -- M.L.Morton

(c) 2001 by mailto:Milamo@aol.com Michael Lawrence Morton ~ Archeocryptographer.

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

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