see http://jqjacobs.net/

is doing a great deal of work

- in part in cooperation with Victor Reijs -

(see http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/aarde.htm)

on archaeogeodesy and ancient megalithic sites,

especially from the mathematical and technical side of things.

See especially Jacobs' recent blog posting at http://jqjacobs.net/blog/neolithic.html

as well his

*Ancient Monuments Placemarks*at http://jqjacobs.net/archaeo/sites/

Much of this work at http://jqjacobs.net/

follows along archaeoastronomical and archaeogeodesic lines of thought

that we also have followed over the years

as seen on the following two graphics taken out of my 2003 book

Stars Stones and Scholars , pages 226 and 227:

Above : Satellite Map Projection (page 226 of Stars Stones and Scholars)

Above : Normal Road Map Projection (page 227 Stars Stones and Scholars)

Very interesting for me is that Jacobs has found a line by very precise mathematical methods which corresponds to the very same geodetic line that I alleged - using simple map methods - running from Newgrange/Knowth to Silbury Hill/Avebury/Stonehenge. Hence, what Jacobs writes is certainly bound to be important for the further development of archaeoastronomy and archaeogeodesy, especially since, as far as I can tell, he was not aware of my work or my calculated line when he did his own calculations.

The differing map projections show - in my opinion - that the ancients used the stars for their triangulations, otherwise they could not have arrived at the lines found in the satellite projection. It remains to be seen if Jacobs' precise mathematical methods can corroborate all or any of these lines which I have calculated by simple map projections.

I am not sure if you will be able to see the graphics on your browser, so here are the URLs for the online images:

http://www.megaliths.net/europe1.png (satellite map projection)

http://www.megaliths.net/europe2.png (road map projection)

__________

John (*Northstar) wrote:

As I am not one to believe in coincidence, was any effort made in

locating the apex of the 'pyramid' given a 51 degree angle or

establishing connection between other known sites using this form?

I'm quite sure, given your study of the errors of Egyptology, that

you can guess where I'm going with this line of thinking. Perhaps

there are also two other outlines yet to be re-discovered?

__________

Andis replied:

Walter Machalett, the founder of the Machalett Group on Prehistory and Early History, at whose annual conference I will be giving my Tanum / Gerum presentation in Germany in May, in fact developed the theory that the Extern Stones (Externsteine) in Germany formed the apex of a land survey pyramid which had one corner at the Great Pyramid in Egypt.

See these works (both in German):

Walter Machalett, Die Externsteine, Hallonen-Verlag, Maschen, 1970.

Walter Machalett, Die Externsteine, Arbeits- und Mitteilungsblatt eines Forscherkreises für die Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Externsteine im Teutoberger Wald, 7. Jahrgang, Heft 28/29, Maschen, 1972.

I have been very reluctant, however, to include any discussion of the pyramids in my megalithic survey work because it is difficult enough just to get people to consider the simple possibility that Neolithic man was capable of land survey by astronomy. If you bring the pyramids into such a discussion, then your believability becomes even more difficult to sustain, because there are simply too many wild theories about the pyramids out there. Usually, adding pyramids to the discussion of any theory tends to detract from that theory, rather than to help it. That is why in my book, Stars Stones and Scholars, at page 301, with a reference at footnote 42 to Peter Tompkins, Secrets of the Great Pyramid , I write about - my alleged - ancient megalithic survey of the Earth as follows:

"These measurements would have allowed the ancients to draw many far-reaching conclusions about the actual size and shape of the Earth. It would also have permitted them to calculate the length of a degree of latitude and longitude for various geodetic locations selected by them and thus also for the whole Earth by extrapolation. Such calculations were of course later improved at megalithic sites and later measured in detail at the Cheops Pyramid."

As you can see, I simply relegate the pyramids to a later time frame than the megaliths. That way, I do not have to deal at all with the pyramids.

What we first have to do is to prove that there was an ancient Neolithic survey of the Earth.

Once that has been done, then we can turn to issues of the pyramids.

As far as the ca. 52° angle is concerned, there is of course a potential joint relation between land survey and the pyramids to be found in phi, the so-golden section of mathematics, especially in the figure of the pentagon. Take a look at what the Wikipedia writes about that under Golden ratio.

In any case, to return to the question of whether phi was used in ancient land survey, I must say that I simply do not know, and it will have to be investigated.

## No comments:

Post a Comment