Archaeologica.org

Jim. I see that your publisher is actually you. I thought for a bit that it was a vanity press but now I see that it is far beyond that.

Pathetic.

Intellects far superior to yours love my book, ouch.

Genesis Veracity wrote:Off by .5% measuring the earth with a simple hand-held device (Celtic Cross), not bad, wouldn't you say?

And how do you explain all those precession numbers in ancient legends, just coincidence? Now put on your thinking cap.

Close but not equal.

Tell me, does the measurement of the base consider the lost sheething? How do you define the "base"? Is the ground around perfectly level? Suppose they excaveated 5 feet deeper and came up with a new "base"?

This is simply numerology. Probably sinful, certainly silly.

I guess it is your little "secret," just as I suspected.

Genesis Veracity wrote:Intellects far superior to yours love my book, ouch.

My intellect is pretty darn superior. I doubt your claim.

If it's "silly" to figure the ancient origin of our mapping and timekeeping system, why the length of the royal cubit was selected, and why the Great Pyramid is 440 royal cubits/base-side, then you should not be writing definitions for dictionaries, although, thankfully, I have a sneaking suspicion that will never happen.

Your intellect is supposedly superior to what?

Once again X, you reveal your ignorance of the model, what you're doing is like trying to explain away gravity by talking about wind, apples and oranges baby.

Genesis Veracity wrote:Once again X, you reveal your ignorance of the model, what you're doing is like trying to explain away gravity by talking about wind, apples and oranges baby.

Back on the subject...

The length of the base is defined how exactly?

Stephen: [to William and the others] The Almighty says don't change the subject; just answer the fucking question.

-Braveheart