PROOF OF GOD

From "Pyramidology Book 3", page 1109 by Dr. Adam Rutherford"Before we are in a position to check the accuracy of the GP's chronograph and ascertain the degree of precision therein, it is necessary to ensure that we have the dimensions of the passages and chambers as constructed by the ancient builders. Should there have been any distortion of any parts through subsidence, earthquakes, etc., then we must ascertain the original positions and measurements.The geometric construction of the original angle of the sloping passages, and proved by four independant methods to be 26 degrees 18' 9.72609", the trigonometrical ratios of which are all expressible in terms of pi, hence can be stated to any number of decimal places desired. Any deviation from that angle in the passages as they are found today would show that movement had taken place since the GP's erection." END RUTHERFORD QUOTEFrom "Decoding the Great Pyramid" pages 235-243, by Peter Lemesurier (2000)"The data which follow, are based throughout on figures supplied by Rutherford. Readers surprised by the extraordinary degree of precision claimed would do well to consider the following facts:1) During the last century or so the GP has been measured ad nauseam, both inside and out, not merely by amateur archaeologists, but by numerous professional surveyors, some of whom have spent literally months on the site using the most up-to-date equipment available - parts of it specifically designed with the GP in mind. Due and precise allowance having been made for the effects of observed temperature-variation on the instruments themselves, for subsidence-distortion, and for wear and exfoliation of the ancient stone, the result has been a series of figures already of outstanding accuracy, and expressed in each case to clearly defined tolerances.Rutherford's own figures for the GP, almost without exception, well within the stated tolerances of the most authoritative surveys.Some of the measurements involved turn out to be clear and direct functions of the distance 365.242 PI" and the quantity pi. The fact that pi can theoretically be calculated to an infinite number of decimal places once again produces figures in which fractions figure prominently.In side elevation, the GP and its passageways present a clear geometric figure composed largely of straight lines and based on known angles and levels, these too have been meticulously surveyed on many occasions. Trigonometrical calculation therefore makes it possible finally to check many of the "raw" measurements against each other, thus exposing even the slightest inaccuracy. For this, absolutely precise data are essential, and any prior rounding up or down would invalidate the results.Rutherford's final figures, as listed below, are almost alone in passing this crucial test in flying colors, in that they "fit" each other trigonometrically to make a perfect and self-consistent system - as any correct assessment of the GP's measurements ultimately must do. There seems to be no alternative, therefore, but to accept Rutherford's figures as they stand, as representing the best available assessment of the GP's intended dimensions.Rutherford: Base square of side: 9131.05 PI" (365.242 Sacred Cubits)(SC=25 sacred inches/one sacred inch is 1/1000th of a sacred inch longer than the British inch) Square base perimeter: 36524.2 PI"
On this basis, the observed angle of slope of 51 degrees 51' 14.3" would total a height of just over 5813 PI"In 1925, professional surveyor J.H. Cole produced "Determination of the Exact Size and Orientation of the Great Pyramid" [Cairo, Government Press, 1925]West Side: 9059.5766 PI"North Side: 9055.4078 PI"East Side: 9060.9137 PI"South Side: 9063.3914 PI"Total Perimeter of Base: 36239.2895 PI"Cole himself suggests an average tolerance of some 1 1/4 inches per side.Lemesurier: Extrapolating from Cole's figures, which are based on a concavity of 35.762 PI" the base square would thus be:West Side: 9131.1021 PI"North Side: 9126.9333 PI"East Side: 9132.4392 PI"South Side: 9134.9169 PI"Total Perimeter of Base: 36525.3915 PI"Cole and Rutherford therefore are 1 1/4 inches apart, with the total distance involved to be well over a half of mile. For all practical purposes these two figures can be regarded as identical.
END LEMESURIER QUOTE.My next post will evidence and explain how the height of 5449 PI" is arrived from the stated height of geometrically figured 5813 PI".

Just a quick reply.The RF is 286.1 PI"I will explain it further with evidence ASAP. Please cease the hypocrisy, every paleontologist and their millions of years in age fossils are not met with this type of double standard.I have claims, evidence posted, and sources.Suddenly these claims are held to a standard different from the known crank dating of alleged human fossils, all because Genesis is not an option.

And is Antarctica exclude from the map and calculations of land area/mass?

We are finally starting to get to the details that we need. Thank you.However, there is an odd statement from one of your sources. This is mathematical nonsense which has been explained to you before.But one more time.Let's say I have a circular rug. It is sort of flat on the floor but not exactly. I have a cloth semstress' measuring tape and I use it to measure the rug. It is too short to do it in one step so I measure it by sliding the tape along to measure off a couple of lengths of the tape. I figure I've got the diamter right to within 1/2 and inch out of six feet.Now I can calculate the circumference. 6 feet * PI gives me the answer. If I use PI as 3.1415926 Then I can calculate a circumference to a precision of something like a 10,000th of an inch. However that does NOT mean the I actually know the circumference to anything like that accuracy.I can give the circumference as 18.84956 feet. (6 * PI ) This is nonsense. What I have is a circumference of 18.8 feet plus or minus about an inch and a half. Or 18.8 feet plus or minus .13 feet. Pretty close but not to within .00001 feet which the 18.84956 requires.The precision to which I calculate PI has nothing to do with the accuracy for my measurements of the circumference.

Dear Willowtree;I am still waiting for an answer to my earlier post, unless you can answer the problems I raised, your Great Pyramid argument has no scriptural support and is just a ridiculous math exercise that means nothing.

quote:

---

"altar" has two meanings. It is a place of sacrifice and death. Or it is a place where something is testified to.

---

So you are assuming that if an altar was built not for sacrifice but as a sign, the prohibition against using cut stones would not apply. There is only one case in the Bible where an altar was constructed as a sign. (Joshua 22:26-28) But in this case the altar was still made of uncut stones. The command at (Exodus 20:25) "In the event that you do wield your chisel upon it, then you will profane it." is very clear, use of cut stones was "profane" which would desecrate or make the altar unfit for worship of any type. There is no loop hole in the divine command at Exodus 20:25, all altars of cut stones were profane. In the Bible various memorials or pillars were built to commemorate various events or people, all of those that had divine approval were also built of uncut stones as well and they are never referred to as altars.(Genesis 28:18) "So Jacob got up early in the morning and took the stone that was there as his head supporter and he set it up as a pillar and poured oil on the top of it."(Genesis 31:44-46) "And now, come, let us conclude a covenant, I and you, and it must serve as a witness between me and you." Accordingly Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. Then Jacob said to his brothers: "Pick up stones!" And they went taking stones and making a heap."(Joshua 4:20-24) "As for the twelve stones that they had taken out of the Jordan, Joshua set these up at Gilgal. And he went on to say to the sons of Israel: "When YOUR sons ask their fathers in time to come, saying, 'What do these stones mean?' YOU must then let YOUR sons know, saying,"These memorial pillars were piles of uncut stones, in no case were the stones for memorial pillars cut, that was the way they were made. So the great pyramid as any kind of altar or even as just a memorial pillar, would still be profane and not acceptable to God.

quote:

---

The numeric value of those verses add up to 5449.

---

I see that others are already pursuing this argument so I will let them show you the gaping holes in it. There are no hidden numerical codes hidden in the Bible, the meaning is in the words, words that most people seem to be unable grasp or unwilling to, so they invent systems of finding other meanings that mean what they want rather than what God wants.

quote:

---

Not when you objectively consider the interior passage system and its exact symbolism matching the message of the Bible.

---

From the little bit that I have read on this in your posts to other people your description matches well with church doctrines but appears to conflict with what the Bible teaches.The scripture cited to support the Great Pyramid as being an altar to Jehovah God is, (Isaiah 19:19) "In that day there will prove to be an altar to Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to Jehovah beside its boundary." which can not be a reference to the Great Pyramid for a very simple reason. (Exodus 20:25) "if you should make an altar of stones for me, you must not build them as hewn stones. In the event that you do wield your chisel upon it, then you will profane it." (Deuteronomy 27:5-6) (Joshua 8:30-31) (Judges 6:26) (1 Kings 18:30-32) So there is no way the great Pyramid with it's many cut stones would be acceptable to God, it would be profane.Foreigners were not allowed to share in building the temple or even the wall of Jerusalem because as non worshipers of Jehovah, they have no share in true worship. (Ezra 4:3) "and the rest of the heads of the paternal houses of Israel said to them: "YOU have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God, for we ourselves shall together build to Jehovah the God of Israel," (Nehemiah 2:20) "we must build; but YOU yourselves have no share, nor just claim, nor memorial in Jerusalem." So scripturally there is no way Egyptians could have built an acceptable altar to Jehovah.Also Isaiah 19:19 is written in symbolic language and is not describing an actual altar, this symbolic altar is stated to be a pillar. A pillar is a tall narrow cylinder, or in the Bible can also refer to a pile of uncut stones, Egyptian pyramids are neither. The Egypt described here is not literal Egypt, it refers to the world alienated from God. (Revelation 11:8) "the great city which is in a spiritual sense called Sodom and Egypt," and the pillar (1 Timothy 3:15) "is the congregation of [the] living God, a pillar and support of the truth." (Revelation 3:12) So what Isaiah 19:19 is saying that there will be true worshipers of Jehovah standing firm in the middle of a world that is in spiritual sense like Egypt and yet they will be on the border of that land because they are soon to enter God's promises. So no reference here to the Great Pyramid or any other.In the scriptures, Jehovah's altars and memorial pillars are never built or to be built using cut stones. The only things built with cut stones used in Jehovah's service was the temple buildings. But since Isaiah 19:19 makes no mention of a temple and any altars or memorial pillars built with cut stones would be profane, there is no reference to the Great Pyramid in this verse.Attempting to support your case on the math based on the Great Pyramid is pointless since the numbers are all preset to give the desired results, as the others are pointing out to you, and as I have said before it is just a simple exercise in numerology. "Special" measuring units are invented to create the desired match with selected data chosen to fit the results. It is a simple trick, a math game like someone knowing what number you picked, a few simple steps and seemly amazingly impossible coincidences are soon found that fool the gullible. (Proverbs 14:15) "Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps." Step back and consider how foolish Pyramidology is, why would God have a pagan nation spell out ambiguous things in tons of stone, that could have been stated in a few simple words in the Bible? The greatest proof of God is not some man-made mountain of stone, it is in God's ability to deliver his people and in the super human accuracy of fulfilled Bible prophecies. Only those who doesn't understand the power of the Word of God feel the need to look for support for God's existence in the dimensions of a pyramid.Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

I will if you show where I've been hyprocritical.If someone found a fossil and told me it was 1,678,042 years old, I (and any self-respecting scientist) would ask them to provide the methodology used to arrive at such a figure, and examine it critically.It appears that you may be the one practicing a double-standard, since you self-admittedly do not understand how Rutherford made the measurements and calculations, but take them on faith nonetheless. Why so much faith in Rutherford's work, and an apparent absolute denial of the work of other scientists, historians, mathematicians, biblical scholars...?(Though as I've said several times before - if you want to discuss evolution, do it someplace other than this thread.)I look forward to the "Rectification Factor" measurements and calculations.

I've verified these figures. For a right triangle with an angle of 51.854^o and a base of 9131.05/2=4565.53 PI", the height is 5813 PI". All this proves is that Rutherford can do math, since the 5813 PI" figure is derived, not measured. Had Rutherford measured all the angles and sides and found they agreed trigometrically, that would be a different story, but he didn't. He couldn't - the original capstone is no longer there to measure. It can only be inferred.Unfortunately, Rutherford's height is wrong. It is higher than all other estimates by nearly 40 inches, and the reason is because he used an incorrect base length that includes the concavity. You need the base of the pyramid *without* the concavity, which is what the Cole figures represent. Using the Cole figures yields an original height that is in pretty good agreement with everyone else, around 5770 inches.Why did Rutherford feel the need to use the incorrect base length to obtain a higher height? Perhaps it's related to his rectification factor. So you'll be posting how he obtained the 5449 PI" figure next?--Percy

These figures bear on your claim that the radius of the concavity is equal to half the radius of the earth. Plugging in your figures yields a radius of about 4.6 miles, not 2000 miles. If you recall, I posted a similar calculation using someone else's measure of the concavity in Message 295, and getting a radius of 3.7 miles. Neither result is anywhere near the 2000 miles you require.--Percy

Yes, of course.Jar, what is your point ?

How about Plate 17 & 18?edited to add 17 & 18This message has been edited by jar, 07-15-2004 03:19 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, this is true.It claims as fact that the coordinates provided and the acompanying map evidence the claim that the Nile-Delta Quadrant is the center of the world's land mass/area, that the GP was built in the exact center of that quadrant, which is also on the exact border of Upper and Lower egypt, which said location can also accurately be called the "midst of the land of Egypt". The middle of Egypt does not take into account the Western Sahara desert - of course. Negative, the map DOES APPEAR to quarter equally.Here you cast the eyeballing method in a negative description, yet, you have shown no hesitancy to use the same method to assert that your fisheye maps somehow usurp the map of my source. I have supplied the complete evidence by which the source provides for his claim.If you want to say the LLM is "300 hundred miles away" then this location does not quarter the world's land mass/area. Yet, you have not definitively provided your claim for LLM.According to Peter Lemesurier, LLM rightly interpreted means "longest land contact meridian on the Earth's surface". I don't know for sure.I assume it means, (pertaining to the claim) all the longitude surface land including Antartica and the Americas. You are refuting by saying "doesn't look like".The map of my sources DOES LOOK LIKE and it includes the coordinates on the picture plate. Are you claiming that Lindum WAS saying/claiming that the coords REALLY pinpoint a mile away from the actual location of the GP ?I am going to review those posts. No !This has been YOUR m.o. of "refutation" !Come on ! Where is your consistency ? YOU have attempted to disprove the claim of CENTER by asserting the quarters are not equal - show me.My source makes the claim of which I have posted the entirety of his evidence for the claim.I contend, that the Middle East is called "Middle" because it is a region that is considered to be the middle or center of the world's land area. The N.D. Quadrant being the exact middle - the GP being the precise middle. You are assuming otherwise based on what ?The map of Smyth clearly visualizes his coords and claim.The defintion of the word "mass" has changed radically from Smyth's day.As to what he understood it to mean I would say "area" would be a synonym. BUT, today, NOBODY knows what "mass" means. I have not agrued erosion factored in nor will I.

Hi WillowTree,There are two problems with your land mass claim:

1. Your claim says the location of the Great Pyramid divides the world's habitable land into four equal areas. Habitable is not defined and is therefore ambiguous and probably open to much debate, and it is certainly variable over time.
   ​
2. You have provided no calculations adding all the habitable land areas together.

All you've provided is a map which looks like the claim might be true, though you can't tell because of all the irregular shapes, and except that you can't tell which regions are habitable. So the map is useless for deciding the issue. And since which lands are habitable is a time-dependent and opinion-dependent variable, the claim could never be settled in any mutually agreeable fashion.Also, I assume the claim is that the Great Pyramid was built at the center of habitable land 5000 years ago. There's really no way to establish which lands throughout the world were habitable 5000 years ago.This claim is specious.--Percy

WILLOWTREE claims: Are you serious? We replied to each other several times regarding your erosion comments - remember the whole issue with you first using "is" to describe the 5449 SI height of the pyramid, and then you switched to "was" (and now I've noticed you are using "is" again.)From your post #271 The real reason I am bringing this up is because on more than one occasion you promised to respond to me on the nature of erosion after checking your sources.Your argument: My comment was that it is illogical to surmise that any external stone structure would be completely immune to erosion during centuries of environmental exposure.You seem to promise to get back to me, and then later assert that an argument didn't exist.Hopefully you won't do that with the derivation of the Rectification Factor.(Also, I wouldn't mind hearing what your sources have to say about erosion.)

Exactly, it claims! It doesn't show that any of this is true at all.I showed you a shuttle photo of the nile delta contrasted with the supplied map. The map doesn't match the photo. So the Nile Delta claim seems to be founded on sand. The point is, WT, the guessing isn't any good on either side of the argument. What I'm suggesting that guessing is all your source has done.As for my "fisheye" map it is an equal area projection. You source claims that it's map is too but it isn't clear to me that it is. If it is fine.Now since we both look at the same map and make conflicting judgements about how equal the areas are the obvious thing to do is show the calculations of area in detail. For your source to make such astonishing claims it would have to have those calculations. Where are they? The complete evidence!??? What evidence? All you've posted is a claim that the LLM runs through the GP. Just a claim, a bare assertion.I supplied you with rough calculations of a longer LM many posts ago. Lindum did a more exact calculation of the same thing. All the numbers that we used and assumptions were supplied. Message 144 This one is mine and is admittedly rough.
Message 345 Lindums is the better one and you need to work with it.You now have two choices:
1) Show what is wrong with our calculations
2) Supply your sources calculations and show why they are better.As of now you have only a claim and we have some calculations that you can examine yourself.My assumption was the LLM means what Lemesurier says it does so we don't have any discrepancy there. Thank you for agreeing with that definition. It is reasonable and allows for calculations that are pretty straight forward. In my case I'm not relaying on just looking at the map. I have started to add up the areas in each quadrant. It is a fair amount of work and I don't intend to continue until you show your sources calculations of the same thing. What I'm telling you is that the numbers seem to be heading toward unequal areas but that the work isn't finished.Since you can't even handle the simpler LLM calculations I don't see why I should be bothered with the area calculations. No, what I think Lindum told us is that the GP is a mile away from the co ordinates that your source supplied. If true it is a minor hint at how accurate your source is.see;
Message 245 for Lindum's positioning of the GP. He has supplied more than a claim.However, this really makes not much difference to what we are talking about. If the LLM is really 300 miles away the mile discrepancy isn't something we need to worry about. To move things along we'll just say that the mile doesn't matter. If you think it does you are in danger of making your source look bad yet again. There has been a misunderstanding on this. I agree that the question can not be settled by just looking. However, what I'm saying is that you haven't supplied anything else yet.My method was to start with looking. To notice that it didn't appear to my eye to be right. To pick a couple of quadrants that seemed to be both easiest to calculate and that appeared to be most different. I then allocated whole continental areas (eg. all of South America to the lower left quadrant) and added up the results. When this is done the quardants aren't equal but they are close enough that the error in the gross method isn't acceptable for drawing a conclusion.I then added and subtracted estimated areas of the continents that were not all in one quadrant. The areas still showed up as being unequal.Now it is necessary to allocate at the country level (all country areas are available on the web). This would, I expect, get the calculations close enough to show the claim to be false if it is false. However, it is more work than I'm willing to do untill you supply LLM support and we settle that claim.I'm just warning you in advance that the area claim may not be right either. No! It is your claim. You show that it is as claimed.If you have posted the "entirety" of the evidence then you have a bare claim based on "eyeballing" of a map of dubious value.I might still be willing to do more work on this. But only after we have finished with the easier to determine LLM and LLP claim. Show your evidence for those and/or refute what Lindum has supplied and we can progress.If looking at the map is all that was done then you need to go over Lindum's results with a fine tooth comb and show what is wrong with them.You see, WT, what appears to have happened is that your source simply looked at the map and noticed that the GP was near a rather long LM. However, looking isn't accurate enough. When I looked it seemed to me that a meridan a bit more over to the east (so it goes further south in South Africa) might be longer. My rough calculations supported this. Lindum's more detailed ones have done so too.Until you show the actual length of the LM through the GP you have nothing to show that Lindum's calculations are wrong. I agree with you on this. We can take "area" as the thing we are interested in. I don't think "mass" should be used any more as it isn't what was probably meant. Oh, sorry I thought you or your sources had done that. That is good then. We did have that discussion about erosion a whole bunch of posts ago and I only followed it lightly so I guess I was remembering it wrong.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-15-2004 05:00 PM

Smyth's map does not include much of Antarctica, and cuts off about half of Greenland. Perhaps this coincides with the "habitable" qualification?WILLOWTREE - have any of your sources given any calculations behind the claim presented with the map image in post 106, "Lines drawn through the north-south and east-west axis of the Pyramid divide equally the earth's terrain"?I would be nice to see some math behind that assertion - looking at the Smyth map alone is not sufficient evidence for that assertion.For example, placing the intersection of longitude and latitude at Jerusalem or Mecca would give the same overall ("eyeballing it") appearance at the global scale. Why the pyramid at that intersection and not Jerusalem? why not Mecca?Calculations, not a hand-drawn map, are needed to sensibly discuss this claim.