PROOF OF GOD

I have confirmed what I already know - that the requirement of evidence and source is only lip service on your part.Smyth's claim is clearly evidenced by text and map with coords.You have completely ignored my supplemental observations concerning this evidence.You and Lindum can assert different coords and those different coords will not produce a center with equidistant quadrants.Why don't you produce a map marking your coords ? Your LLM is not LLM - Smyth's is.Smyth's claim stands and your denigration of him reeks of emotional frustration due to your insulting failed attempts to get me to agree with your view. You have continually tried to "appeal" to me for point victory - this reveals an insulting attitude toward me that somehow believes I would concede out of mercy.

Hi WillowTree,It's weird attacks of paranoia like this that got your posting privileges restricted: Everyone is just trying to find the data behind your claims. This should be a joint search for information. If the claims are true, the data will support them, and if they're not true, then the data won't. There's not much room for opinion on numerical claims.I hope you haven't set your expectations too high. Even if something like your LLM claim turned out to be true, the reaction generally would probably be one of, "My, what an unusual coincidence." Few if any will see any relationship to God. Contrary data has been posted for you. For instance, this is from http://don93.terrashare.com/Meridian.htm, and originally posted by Lindum in Message 305, and it shows that your meridian is shorter by 384 miles than the meridian 331 miles to the west: That's the first appearance of the term "equidistant quadrants" in this thread. What are you referring to?It looks to me like Lindum's data all by itself refutes your LLM claim. Unless you can produce contrary data, your LLM claim fails.--Percy

Concerning my claim that Petrie measured in the thousands in 1881, I got the idea from here: (just scroll down a little) This is your comment concerning the full-design circuit perimeter platform BASED upon the socket stones which lie just beyond the as-built circuit perimeter platform.Its not an idea - it is a claim supported by evidence, which makes it a fact. Here is a better version of the same diagram:http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/greatpyramid4.htm Are we speaking about the same socket stones ?The full-design socket stones are cut into the bedrock platform just beyond the as-built platform. IF these socket stones were to of been used, that is the courses and their casing stones enlarged out to meet the unused socket stones THEN the GP and each of its 203 courses would of been a total of 286.1 PI" overall larger.We have four socket stones cut into the bedrock platform (really five but lets just shelve the fifth for the time being), they are visible and demand that their perimeter be measured. In other words, there is an outer perimeter circuit, the overall circuit is precisely 286.1 PI" larger than the as-built circuit perimeter.The 286.1 PI" figure is found 4 other times in the GP, this in itself becomes confirmation that the Architect desired the not used socket perimeter to be measured, and of course because it is there it was measured.The Bible says "the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone" A cornerstone is the capstone which completes the convergence of all four corners.We know there never was a capstone - because the GP is the type of the whole world lacking its King/Jesus Christ. The capstone is the type of Christ, and when He returns He Himself will place the capstone on the going to be refurbished GP. I am not sure you are understanding Petrie.Are you saying the unused socket stones are not there ?Is Petrie saying this ?The relevance has been explained, and I have posted the evidence by Lemesurier, who gives three sets of figures:1) Rutherford's full-design figures based on the outer circuit perimeter.2) Rutherford's as-built figures based upon the inner circuit perimeter. (In Egypt 1957)3) Cole's full-design figures and their reduction accounting for concavity (which wasn't even discovered until 1940/ Cole measured in 1925)Lemesurier, in 2000, confirms the identical measurement figures of BOTH Rutherford and Cole.You are making an argument using Petrie - perfectly legitimate. But, I am not sure we are even discussing the exact same thing.I like this Percy, you have a source, and Petrie is much respected and he deserves respect. But the chronology of scientific enquiry about the GP has each succeeding researcher correcting and improving upon his predecessor - as is the case in any discipline.If you want to maintain that Petrie is correct, and say he refutes my four sources then this is legit, it is a hell of a lot better than saying what Ned said a few posts back "when are you going to post evidence ?" which is defeat talking.If you want to go with Petrie, then how does he trump my sources ?I have four sources in uniform agreement: Rutherford, Cole, Capt, and Lemesurier.I have posted Rutherford's method in determining the height, all of which figures are accurate, including the irrefutable confirmation of unique figures (5448.736 and 286.1) appearing four separate times each, and in each case they confirm the height via their own unique way.Even though I could - I will not create a master post that lists every piece of evidence and point that has been completely ignored.Post 481 has Lemesurier confirming the genuis of Rutherford's measurements - in the tens.

Even though I could - I will not create a master post that lists every piece of evidence and point that has been completely ignored.Please do - I've been lurking and I'm lost to what "evidence" you have presented.

Lets assume this true.Then, my sources are saying there is another set of socket stones just beyond these, which figure a GP 286.1 PI" larger than the one built.

Because you placed quote marks around the word evidence - this tells me it doesn't matter how much evidence I post - you will "refute" by one-line dismissal, which in itself recognizes the inability to refute the voluminous evidence.Charles, I think you are lost, the evo-"science" rooms are down the hall to the left.

Even though this comment was made in the context of the center of world's land area claim - it is obviously equally valid in the math and geometry figures confirming a height of 5449 - there is NO room for opinion in these numerical claims. True.But at the same time, ancient Egypt did not have this type of know-how.When this "coincidence" is placed in the context of all the other "coincidences" Dr. Scott says at some point it must be concluded not a coincidence, and all the other evidence combined becomes a blatant mirror of Divine substance.I am studying the remainder of this post....

You've misinterpreted this. You're looking at a table whose title is The list of instruments employed was as follows. The table doesn't say anything about the accuracy of Petrie's measurements, but only about the measuring tools Petrie employed.The items marked with * are measuring tapes or rods ranging from 1 to 1200 inches in length with divisions as small as 1/100 of an inch. The 1/1000 of an inch accuracy refers to the accuracy of the placement of the divisions on the measuring rods. This doesn't mean that the measuring rods could be employed to measure to a 1/1000 of an inch accuracy, and the human eye couldn't perceive such tiny divisions anyway.Have you tried measuring anything on your desk to a 10,000th of an inch yet? Let us know. Assertions and evidence are not the same thing. Petrie believed the socket stones were used as a foundation for casing stones carried on below pavement level, and he proved this thesis by digging and finding the casing stones below base level. This is evidence that the socket stones were part of the pyramid actually built.If Rutherford, Cole or Lemesurier have uncovered evidence that the socket stones are not part of the Great Pyramid then it isn't in that diagram. The diagram assumes the socket stones are part of some other pyramid never built, but it never explains the evidence behind this assumption. Though the casing stones continued below pavement level, Petrie measured the dimensions of the pyramid at the pavement level. The pyramid builders likely continued the casing stones down below pavement level because the casing stones weight couldn't be supported only by the pavement, but needed support down to bedrock. Actually, you've never explained how a monument constructed by a pagan people before the time of not only Jesus, but even before Moses and Abraham, could have anything to do with Christ or Christianity at all.--Percy

That's an interesting idea, but there's only one set of socket stones. No one anywhere ever talks about 8 socket stones and how to differentiate between them.--Percy

Since the whole height issue doesn't seem to need anything special that might not be true.Placement on the LLP, LLM and center of area would start to get to be very interesting "coincidences" indeed. And I don't think we could say the Egyptians could know that.The comment above was NOT about "in the context of the center of world's land area claim" but was about the LLM please don't get confused.There isn't any room for opinion in the math part of the claims. What seems to be open to opinion is exactly where to measure from. There hasn't been any reason given for Rutherford's choice yet. Petrie did his best to pick somewhere reasonable and gave detailed reasons for it.If you don't like the result you have to show WHY his reasons should be rejected. You (and your sources) have NOT touched on any of that as yet. In fact, you and they haven't done anything but make claims yet. Six hundred posts and we have nothing.Note (from a few posts earlier). We have reason to believe the maps are no good. Remember the Nile delta shuttle picture. You have completely ignored that too.Let's do another summary shall we?From Message 400
Group I: (how "special" is the great pyramid and it's location)1. The height of the Great Pryamid is 5449 sacred inches precisely.
Efforts made to point out to you that precision to within a fraction of an inch is very difficult. No reponse from you on how it could be done.
Some possibility that the GP measured is a "ghost" and doesn't actually exist.2. The great pyramid is at the centre of the arc of the nile delta.
Shuttle picture hints that the map is grossly poorly drawn. No response from you on that.3. The great pyramid on the border between upper and lower Egypt.
Argued with. No reason for making the statment has been given.4. The great pyramid (GP from now on) on the longest land meridian. (LLM)
Shown to be false. No rebutal to the calculations after some weeks. No calculations of the length of any LLM supplied from Smyth.5. The GP is on the longest land parallel. {LLP)
unknown, suspect because of the failure with the LLM6. The GP is at the center of land mass ( I don't recall this being a claim in any of WT's sources. I think it is a mistake he made.)based on an estimate made from a hand drawn map. No calculations shown. Suspect because of the Nile delta map and the LLM.7. The GP is at the center of land area.
( area and mass are understood to the the same thing now)8. The curvature of the faces of the GP matches the curvature of the earth when the radius of curvature of the GP is doubled.Shown to be false. No calculations given by you in rebuttal.It looks like we have given you lots of time (weeks) and you have produced very, very little.There isn't much left of the claims made.

What makes you think this? Did they build the other two pyramids at Giza, or did they have help for those, too? How about the other pyramids of Egypt? How about the temples and other buildings? Were these all built by someone else?Whatever your answer, if some constructions in Egypt were built by the Egyptians, and if others were built by someone else, then the difference in building style and technique would be obvious, especially the use of technologies unavailable to the Egyptians. Do you have evidence for any of this?--Percy

Percy:Before we stray off into who built the GP and the others, I want to continue with the height.Here me out.I know from the evidence and I know from other sources confirming the evidence that Rutherford is a genius researcher. ONLY because the nature of the conclusions and claims is Rutherford and his predecessors mocked and capriciously dismissed. If he was using his talents to evidence secular sacred cows he would be hailed.Rutherford is beyond any reasonable criticism. Lemesurier, concedes this fact while dismissing his narrow "evangelical focus".I have the truth of Rutherford and Cole and Lemesurier and Capt.But I also understand YOUR major hang-up pertaining to the figures and there decimal places.An inch is only so divisible - I agree.I have the truth of Rutherford and Co. and the truth of your legitimate enquiry about HOW his figures were produced.The problem here is me.I am the conduit between my sources and you.My sources know and understand the math and you know and understand math/geometry. The runner in between (me) does not - hence the problem.I have been diligently seeking the answer as to HOW Rutherford gets figures in the tens and I think I know how. Circumference = pi x diameter.The GP is built according to pi.C = pi + D = pi + 2xR (radius)The important aspect in the image is obscured.If you look at the extreme upper left corner of the square, where the diagonal line intersects the corner, barely visible is an arc curve touching the base line of the GP and the left slope angle line.That slope is 51 degrees 51' 14.3"When the total length of the base line is measured, THEN with these two figures the height is CALCULATED [using pi ?] BECAUSE the GP is the ONLY Pyramid in the world built at that particular angle WHICH is [also pi ?]. My understanding is, like I just said, IF you have two sets of physical measurements (side length/full circuit square AND the slope angle) THEN the four decimal places is because pi can be calculated, because, as the diagram shows, the GP was built incorporating pi.

Yes, Petrie believed this - but what does it mean ?Define "believed", it sounds unsure. But it doesn't matter, because:Fact: There is the hollowed-in core masonry.Fact: This became known only because the casing stones were stripped.Fact: Some casing stones remain at the base (remember the picture) and from these stones the slope was determined and extrapolated up.The circuit base square of the GP as-built, which includes the casing stones was determined. THEN the socket stones exist outside this perimeter forming a larger circuit base square perimeter. This outer perimeter also known as the "full-design" circuit is exactly 286.1 PI" larger than the as-built circuit.This precise figure - 286.1 PI" is confirmed in four other measurements in the GP (as is the unique height figure), this is deliberate - obviously.We have the as-built circuit which includes the stripped casing stones.We have the outer perimeter circuit and the rectification figure of the differential: 286.102 PI".We have the depth of concavity figure = 35.762 PI" which multiplied = 286.102 PI".I have the diagram showing the perimeters and 3 sources in agreement.You must remember that Petrie had no way of factoring the concavity because it wasn't even discovered until 1940.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 07-24-2004 02:35 PM

Any even remotely objective person tracking this debate knows this comment of yours is devoid of any truth.You only say this because to recognize the evidence posted is to admit defeat.You only say this because of the inability to refute.This post proves my initial suspicion that no amount of evidence matters - your kind will brazenly act like it aint there when every honest person knows the preceding posts are crammed with claims, evidence, explanations, and sources.Like I told your buddy Jar when he said the exact same thing a while back - I will not debate any further with you.You did this because you knew I would react this way and you wanted out of the debate due to the floor wiping - you can have the last word if you want.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 07-24-2004 02:29 PM

The flaw in doing this has been pointed out to you more than once. It is not correct. You admint to not understanding the math (actually arithmetic) so you might just have to take our word for this. You were given numerous examples why this is WRONG!You can not take too values one determinable to 4 decimals and one determinable to 1 decimal and multiple them together and then claim that the answer is accurate to 4 decimals. IT IS NOT!