Franconia New Hampshire Cepheus Megalithic - 210 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

To our files on North America at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/

I am today - as the files

newhampshire.gif and
franconia.gif (decipherment plus photograph from
http://www.nhhistory.org/chooses/details.asp?pageid=oldman)

adding the so-called "Old Man of the Mountain" at Franconia Notch
State Park in

New Hampshire to our list of important megalithic rock sites in the
United States.

As I have discovered, this site marked Cepheus (as the large
protrusion of the Milky Way at that point)
in the ancient megalithic survey of North America by astronomy in
Neolithic days.

For a terrific photograph
see http://www.nhhistory.org/chooses/details.asp?pageid=oldman

Hard to believe, but there are mountains in New Hampshire in the
USA. The tallest peak in the northeast of the United States is Mount
Washington at 6,228 feet. The area was sacred to Native Americans.

South and west of Mount Washington near Mount Lafayette in New
Hampshire (1,200 feet above Interstate 93 ca. 65 miles north of
Concord) we then find Franconia Notch State Park, with the
remarkable Old Man of the Mountain - a [once] spectacular rock
carving which mainstream archaeology gullibly believes [ed] to be a
natural formation.

It is claimed to be an "optical illusion" formed by five ledges and
seen only like this from one location (but see again
http://www.nhhistory.org/chooses/details.asp?pageid=oldman).

It is of course quite clear that this is [was] an ancient megalithic
rock carving of immense grandeur, surely using much of a natural
rock formation - which was then uncarved.

Anyone who takes the time to zoom the photo of the forty-foot head
as photographed at
http://www.nhhistory.org/ chooses/index.asp
(I suggest using e.g. Paint Shop Pro to enlarge the photograph)
will see how clearly and neatly even the eye and the nose and the
mouth are carved, how the hat on the top of the head has the shape
of a hare and how there is a dog (?) up and to the right of the head
at the top (at the small protrusion of the Milky Way above Deneb),
as well as dozens of other figures carved on the ledges.

The only "optical illusion" suffered here is that of mainstream
science, who in their boundless ignorance and arrogance of
alleged "high" learning, can [could] not recognize the carved head
of a man when they see [saw] one.

Remarkably, this "optical illusion" was recognized as a human head
by all else who saw it and it became a state emblem of New
Hampshire - and, although allegedly an illusion,
the outjutting rock which made up this head - disastrously -
FELL early this month,
May 4, 2003 from its perch, in spite of efforts to save it.

See
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/03/old.man.mountian.ap/index.html

We hope it will be restored as the magnificent ancient monument it
once was.

Looting of Artefacts in Iraq - 209 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

.
Here is a link to a New York Times article on the true state of the
looting of artefacts in Iraq.

It is a development with a long history.

But note that the Iraq Museum did not even have a computer
list of its holdings. Rather incredible archaeological sloppiness.

You may have to register - cost-free - with the New York Times.
I recommend it - it costs nothing and you can tailor your
registration to have newsletters sent to you for free on articles
containing keywords of your choosing.

As I have stated so often
it is often primarily the money
and often less so the history
which drives the science of archaeology.

Serious researchers such as myself receive no funds from anywhere.
Where would the profit - except in knowledge - be?

Nabta Megaliths Deciphered - 208 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

.

As I have now posted to our LexiLine files in the folders on Egypt,
the Sahara and Africa, the megaliths of Nabta mark the Vernal
Equinox in ca. 3117 BC marking the stars of Taurus (Aldebaran is the
largest of the markers), the Pleiades, the line of stars at the head
of Cetus, plus the celestial equator, celestial meridian, ecliptic
and galactic meridian.

The mainstream interpretation that the megaliths of Nabta mark the
Summer Solstice around 4500 BC as published in Nature is simply
egregiously wrong, dependent on a very erroneous conclusion that the
near N-S-E-W orientation of the megaliths marks the Summer Solstice -
an alignment which is otherwise not used for the summer solstice in
megalithic astronomy - and misinterpreting the
radiocarbon data by taking an older date for a piece of wood of
unknown origin rather than the certain radiocarbon data for charcoal
from the campfires, which dates the Nabta site correctly in the
period ca. 3500 - 3000 BC.

I think it is high time in scientific circles that the kind of
dating practices visible at Nabta by mainstream scientists - who are
erroneously seeking to establish the site as the oldest astronomical
site in the world - be strongly criticized. This kind of dating is
not advancing the cause of science.

Indeed, similar dating and chronology is rampant in archaeology. It
seems that hardly a month goes by without some archaeologist
finding some new pot or skull and claiming fervently that it HIS
find which is the "oldest" find of this type ever found. This has
got to stop.

Below I have formed some general principles which have to be
followed for accurate and serious dating of megalithic sites.

1. There MUST be precursor technology.
The site can not exist in isolation out in the middle of nowhere -
like in the middle of the Sahara, good grief - without a good theory
or evidence as to where the precursor technology came from. For
example, the megaliths in the Ancient Britain and Ireland show a
long history of working with stone - a technology which does not
just arise out of nowhere - you have to have the tools and the
experience to do this kind of work.

In the Sahara, outside of Nabta, there is nothing of the precursor
technology visible . The site suddenly just appears. The notion that
megalithic building and astronomy thus derived from this region is
simply Alice in Wonderland fantasy writing.

2. There MUST be a continuity in the development of technology over
time. Once a given technology is developed, i.e. carving in stone on
a large scale, it just does not disappear. Rather, technologies are
improved and perfected. This applies to tools, methods and materials.
This continuity must be visible.

Hence, it is equally absurd to allege that the megaliths of Nabta
date to 4500 BC in southeast Egypt, with this technology then
peaking at the Pyramids more than 1500 years later, and inbetween
nothing, NOTHING! Sorry, not even in the realm of probability.

3. There MUST be a plausible astronomical and geodetic explanation
as to why a megalithic site is located where it is.

The ancients did not just put these sites up helter-skelter
everywhere just to mark the Sun and Moon going up and down as most
megalithic observers think, i.e. sort of a garden planetarium in
each Neolithic man's back yard. That is just crazy. You do not need
sophisticated megaliths to simply mark the Summer Solstice alone.
But you do need more sophisticated megalithic methods to find the
Equinoxes or to conduct geographic surveys or to determine the
Summer Solstice within the precession of stars.

4. There MUST be a plausible explanation as to who the megalith
makers in any location were. In Sahara, these were most certainly
NOT the previous inhabitants of the Nabta region, who show
no evidence of having worked in large stone prior to the arrival of
the megalith makers. Hence, any radiocarbon dating attributable to
them does NOT apply to the megalith makers. We find the
similar situation for the megaliths of the Central African
Republican. It is quite clear that these megaliths were not put up
by the local population (perhaps they helped put them up based on
instructions from the megalithic surveyors) – rather, this was a one-
time thing for a specific reason, which as I claim was the survey of
Africa by sea voyaging sailors from Ancient Britain.

5. Hence, at any site, there MUST be a determination made whether
the megaliths were constructed by locals or by a small or large
immigrant group, and in what time frame. All of these myriad
possibilities are never taken into account by the archaeologists and
that is why their work and their results are also seriously flawed.

If we find an Indian arrow-head on Manhattan Island, this does not
date the Empire State Building, nor tell us who constructed it. I
hope I have made this important point eminently clear because most
archaeologists, archaeoastronomers, Egyptologists, near Eastern and
old Testament scholars, do not seem to understand it.

LexiLine Journal #207B - Understanding Calendars and Ancient Chronology including Maya Dating and Halley's Comet

Welcome!

.
--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Szabo wrote:
>
> Dear List, Dear Andis,
>
> I would like to know if i may ask some understanding
> questions in this
> list or rather if, when its some lexiline topic, to you only.
>
> Maybe there are people on the list, that want to answer or that
would also profit of this for learning and understanding.
>
> One is, I have read again and again the page about the
>mayacalendar corrected (lexi75) and still do not understand
>why one must use [minus] 3116 for
> calculations, not 3117 (b.c.). >

Here is my (Andis Kaulins) answer to those questions:

If my explanations have not been able to help you then you will have
to read under "Gregorian Calendar" on John Walker's:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
It is in fact helpful to read and understand that page IN FULL....

Walker, who co-authored Autocad, writes about this problem as follows
in his help file to the free downloadable astronomy program Home
Planet which he also programmed.

"This dialogue allows you to enter a Julian date (remember that the
day number changes at noon, not midnight) and see the corresponding
Universal time displayed. The Universal time is updated dynamically
as you change the Julian date. Click OK to have Home Planet display
the Earth and sky at the specified Julian date (doing this will halt
automatic updates; select Animate/Run to resume them). Clicking Now
resets the Julian date to the current date and time.

You can enter any Julian date zero or greater. For Julian dates for
years before 1 A.D., note that astronomers and historians use
different conventions those years. In history books, the year that
preceded 1 A.D. is called 1 B.C.; zero not having come into use in
European culture at the time. Astronomers consider the year before
1 A.D. as "year 0". Thus when an astronomer talks about an eclipse
having occurred in the year -412, that's the year historians refer
to as "413 B.C.". In converting Julian days to historical dates,
Home Planet assumes the canonical date for the adoption of the
Gregorian calendar, Friday, October 15th, 1582. Many countries
shifted to the Gregorian calendar much later; in Great Britain, not
until 1752. When investigating events in history, make sure you
express all dates after October 15th, 1582 in the Gregorian calendar.

To convert a Universal time to Julian date, use the Edit/Set
Universal time dialogue."
[end of quoted material]

Why is this not corrected by the historians?
Because it is always more comfortable for mainstream scientists to
work with erroneous "established" data than to change to "correct"
data. This happens all the time. The website referred to above
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
provides other more modern examples of this "time-saving" phenomenon.

>I also failed to understand how the 819
> must be seen or added (?) in relation to the long count date.
>Aren't that long-count dates allways correct for themselfes?
>So do i have to add the 819 to the tzolkin ha'ab somehow?
>Or is it just a signal to the julian counting people?
>
> I would enjoy to feel more evidence in these researches by
>entirely understanding them.
> regards,
> Andreas

What is a year?
See here
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Year.html
There are all kinds of possibilities.

A normal "calendric solar year" is 365 days.

But an astronomical or tropical "star" year is a year with a mean
average of 365.24219878 days, which is
"The period of time required for the earth to make one complete
revolution around the sun, measured from one vernal equinox to the
next and equal to 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.51 seconds."
See The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition, 2000 at http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/S0545000.html

The Maya scholars use a "continuous count" of days in the Maya
literature to trace the calendar back to 3114 BC, i.e. as if the
Maya used a strict calendric solar year without corrections for the
fact that 365 days is not quite accurate but is off by about 1/4 of
a day, which, for example, is why we insert leap years every 4th
year in our modern calendars.

Now, if the Maya had been so stupid as not to adjust THEIR calendars
much as we adjust ours to the true astronomical year, then the date
for the start of the Maya calendar would be exactly that which the
Maya scholars allege in 3114 BC, thinking that the superb Maya
astronomers had no understanding of these things.

But the Maya astronomers were not as stupid as the Maya scholars
make them. Rather, the Maya adjusted their calendar for the tropical
year, just as we adjust it in modern times by inserting leap years.

As I have explained at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
819 days is "added" as a notation to various Maya dates to show that
this number of days had been intercalated since the year 0 in the
Maya system at the time of the building of Tikal - which is why
TIKAL was built - to mark the recalibration of the Maya calendric
system, to adjust for the tropical year.

The ERA from 3117 BC (when I claim the calendar began)
running to the building of Tikal
- if we take the "year" to be correctly calculated by the Maya
as an astronomical tropical year of ca. 365.25 days -
shows a difference of ca. 820 days TO
the ERA starting from 3114 BC
(when the Maya scholars claim the calendar began - BASED ON A
CONTINUOUS COUNT OF DAYS WITHOUT CORRECTION FOR A CORRECT
ASTRONOMICAL TROPICAL YEAR)
and running to Tikal.

The Maya calendar as allegedly starting 3114 BC and as alleged by
the mainstream Maya scholars can ONLY be correct if the Maya did not
adjust at Tikal for the tropical year

- BUT the fact is that they did adjust,
and that is the intercalation of 819 days at Tikal.

Thus, the ACTUAL calendar began December 25, 3117, as I allege and
as is proven without doubt at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
in showing how the Maya literature describes an appearance of
Halley's Comet in 375 AD,
which is NOT MATCHED by mainstream chronology
but which is WELL MATCHED
by my corrected Maya chronology.

For one calculation of the historical dates
of the appearance of Halley's Comet
by Joseph L. Brady
"Halley's Comet: AD 1986 to 2647 BC"
see
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1982JBAA...92..209B

There is nothing more to be said on this topic and we will just have
to wait until the Maya scholars get their act together. The facts
and evidence are clear - and I have heard no sensible rebuttal from
Maya scholars on my mesh of dates with Halley's appearance.

So, to answer your question - do you have to "add anything" to the
Maya counts? Well, you have to adjust backwards for 819 days.

As I write at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
"Great Burning Claw" was Halley's Comet
and it did not appear on January 31, 378 AD as a "ruler" -
rather, because of the 819-day error,
Halley actually appeared on May 4, 375 AD,
i.e. much closer to the date of 374 AD calculated by Brady for this
appearance of Halley, which the Maya's can NOT - NOT have seen, this
being one of the closest passages of Halley's Comet on record. It
would have been quite a great sight and the Maya would have noted
it - and did note it - as "Great Burning Claw".

LexiLine Journal #207 - 2003 : Jiahu China Tortoise Shells Deciphered

Welcome!

.

At
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030421/writing.html
William Boltz is quoted as follows regarding the Jiahu, China
tortoise shells (see the previous e-mail on the LexiLine List):

"'There is a span of more than 5000 years ... . How can the
development of Chinese writing have taken so long?,' William Boltz,
professor of Classical Chinese at the University of Washington,
Seattle, told Discovery News."

He continues:

"Speculation based on graphic similarity alone, over
such a great period of time, is next to meaningless. How does anyone
know that the one graph is in fact the graph for 'eye'? It may look
like an eye to someone, and it may have some general approximate
graphic similarity to the graph that stood for the word for 'eye' in
the Shang language, but it might just as well be a graph that stands
for something else, perhaps a heap of grain under a protective
cover."

"Without a context, including a knowledge of the language involved,
it is impossible to say anything about such marks as writing."
[end of quoted material]

I agree with Boltz. You need a context. I am glad to now be able to
provide that context. It is clearly astronomy, and I have been able
to decipher the Jiahu tortoise shells for the greatest part,
although some of the parts of the shells are not clearly visible in
the photographs available and some parts not at all. Nevertheless, I
can say with certainty that these shells contain carved figures and
also mark specific stars quite clearly, especially Perseus and the
Pleiades.

My decipherment has been uploaded to our LexiLine files in the China folder
as
jiahuchina.gif

To my great astonishment, the astronomy confirms the archaeologists'
dating to ca. 6200 BC.

There are basically five top tortoise shells pictured in the photo
available at
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030421/writing.html
and 5 bottom shells.

The top shells show stars above those stars shown on the bottom
shells. The stars can be seen as darker points on the shells and
there are also clearly carved figures on the shells.

Going clockwise from the top right we have:

Top and Bottom Shells 1. Boötes and/or Virgo as a phallic symbol at
the top shell, and Centaurus as a whale or similar fish at the
bottom shell. This is significant since Spica in Virgo has always
traditionally started the Chinese lunar mansions (moon stations).
Perhaps this IS the origin at the Summer Solstice ca. 6200 BC when
according to Starry Night Pro Virgo marked the Summer Solstice,
which would fit the archaeologists calculated date exactly.

Top and Bottom Shells 2. Ursa Major as a bird - top. The bottom flat
shell shows Lynx, Cancer and Canis Minor. Figures of cat and dog are
clear. Cancer marks the Vernal Equinox ca. 6200 BC.

Top and Bottom Shells 3. Auriga (or Gemini) top, Taurus and Orion.
This is unclear. The top is a mask-type of face - clear - and Auriga
has this shape. Too little of the bottom is shown to be sure. This
shell does not mark any of the cardinal points. Why is it included?

Top and Bottom Shells 4. Perseus, the Pleiades and Cassiopeia are
clearly apparent and this is where I began the decipherment. This is
the bottom shell of this duo.

The top shell - Winter Solstice - shows Cepheus with a serpent's
head above it, the serpent of precession. Now for the VERY
speculative part. I think Cepheus is shown as an armadillo - so I
looked it up, because armadillos are not found in China. This is
correct. But then I found out that the 3-banded armadillo can roll
itself COMPLETELY into a ball - just as the rolled sky in the center
of heaven in the circle of precession. It was a perfect model for
the middle of the heavenly sphere. Look at the picture at
http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/tolypeutes.html
I knew nothing about this prior to deciphering these shells.
Coincidence? I do not think so - I think it is an armadillo, but
these are known only to the New World, so there must have been some
knowledge of this in ancient days - or I am in error. Is there a
similar animal in China?

Top and Bottom Shells 5. The top shell by its dark spots clearly
marks Sagittarius (the teapot shape in heaven). This marks the
Autumn Equinox in 6200 BC and the center of the Galaxy. Below this
shell, the flat shell is not visible for decipherment - it could be
Corona Australis.

Along with the shells one also found pebbles which the
archaeologists have suspected to be inserted in the tortoise shells
and then shaken to make noise. A rather quaint idea.
I counted the pebbles - looks like 46 - and found also that there
appeared to be dark pebbles (16), perhaps representing a Saros-type
cycle, and light pebbles (28), perhaps representing the Lunar
Mansions (Moon Stations), but there is no way to prove this without
more materials of some kind. Numerology alone is not sufficient.

LexiLine Journal #206B - 2003 : Ancient Symbols on Tortoise Shells found in Jiahu, China are Astronmy

Welcome!

.

This is to report that ancient symbols have been found in Jiahu in Henan province, western China. See
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030421/writing.html

This alleged writing - there is no proof whatsoever that this is "writing" - consists of symbols carved onto tortoise shells as alleged precursors to Shang writing.

They have been provisionally dated to 6600 BC to 6200 BC - a dating which we find to be speculative.

Artefacts are found in sedimented layers
see http://www.carleton.ca/~bgordon/ Rice/papers/chen95.htm
which are subject to much interpretative radiocarbon dating.

According to the Jiahu rice website above a more likely date for these artefacts is ca. 5600 BC-5500 BC, which could correspond to the Great Flood period at the Black sea and thus these people would be refugees from that Flood. The tortoise shells are in any case NOT OLDER than that. Plus, one has to see the actual radiocarbon data, which often has several "peaks" - so you have to see if the older date peak was not chosen intentionally. It is rather remarkable in the problematic profession of mainstream archaeology that EVERY new find is ALWAYS the oldest - requiring a rewriting of history - is it not?? The whole science of archaeology is like fishing bobbers on the waves - constantly bouncing in a sea of chaos.

The symbols are clearly astronomical - my discovery - as 8 (maybe 11?) tortoise shells were arranged in a circle above the body in the tomb. These were the constellations. Also found in
this context were a great number of small pebbles - probably representing the actual stars.

Also found at Jiahu were ancient flutes, and as stated about ancient legend at
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/1999/bnlpr092299.html and
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ hd/jiah/hd_jiah.htm
"The sound of the flutes is alleged to lure cranes to a waiting hunter."

The flute of course is the stellar constellation of the LYRE and the crane is CYGNUS.

The websites at http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/jiah/hd_jiah.htm
and http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/1999/bnlpr092299.html write further:

"Pictograms, signs carved on tortoiseshells, were also uncovered at Jiahu. In later Chinese culture dating to around 3500 B.C., shells were used as a form of divination. They were subjected to intense heat and the cracks that formed were read as omens. The cracks were
then carved as permanent marks on the surface of the shell. The evidence of shell pictograms from Jiahu may indicate that this tradition, or a related one, has much deeper roots than previously considered."

That writing of course is just one unfounded interpretation after the next. I find it hard to differentiate the permanentness of a shell cracked by alleged heating (no proof of that) and symbols carved on it as "permanent" marks to "retain" the original crack. Does this commentator mean the allegedly heat-induced cracks would otherwise disappear or what? If anything, shells were heated to dry them out for preservation after symbols were cracked and etched into the surface of still fresh shells from eaten tortoises.

The above stated and totally unfounded "divination theory" is one of the pet theories of the archaeologists who live in a world of rites, rituals and demons solely of their own making - having little basis in fact or evidence in the ancient realities of Neolithic mankind.

LexiLine Journal #206A - 2003 : US Museum to Return Ramses I Mummy to Egypt

Welcome!

.
I just received an e-mail pointing to an important article
by Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News, April 30, 2003
entitled
"U.S. Museum to Return Ramses I Mummy to Egypt"
at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0430_030430_royalmummy.html

This is the first time this kind of a thing is happening.
Otherwise, the looted artefacts (artifacts) of Egypt are scattered
throughout the museums and private collections of the world.