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