Crop Circles just one sign of Revelation

[stereologist]

I asked for a clarification of your definition of landscape geometry. I want to be certain that I understand what you mean.

Alright, so let me ask a few questions to clarify this.

1. Are you referring to the selection process or the selected sites/locations?

2. Why is this geometry?

According, to this definition the circles from Furlong are not landscape geometry. Do you agree?

It was not clear from your definition if you meant the selection process or what was selected. I did not expect that sort of uncertainty in your answer. There are many things in which the method of selection is important and others where the selected set is important. That is why I asked question 1.

I am also curious why you called this geometry. I did not see anything about geometry in your answer. A simple way to define geometry is the study of shapes and the properties of those shapes such as length and area. You definition didn't seem to have anything to do with. That is why I asked question 2.

Your definition also seemed to exclude the circles Furlong discusses.

All I am trying to do is to allow you to help me and others out by refining your answer. There is no correct answer except what you state. This is your definition and if takes a few tries to get it where we all understand then that is ok with me. Definitions are often quite hard to get right the first time.

[badeskov]

The title of the thread is "Crop Circles just one sign of Revelation".

Then you post "The crop circles element was just for this topic on UM as I saw a possible link between the focal point of the Landscape Geometry and the focal point of Crop Designs in Wiltshire southern Britain which I thought might interest other UM users."

Are you telling us that crop circles is a non-issue in this thread?

You have been loud about the claim that crop circles are not all man made. You have not posted a single crop circle you think is not man made despite repeated requests. To me that is an admission that all crop circles are man made art.

Well, this tale has been coming apart since page 1 of this thread, so it can't really be that surprising..

Cheers,

Badeskov

[The_Spartan]

Well, this tale has been coming apart since page 1 of this thread, so it can't really be that surprising..

Cheers,

Badeskov

Laver seems like perfecting the art of "beating around the bush"

[laver]

A reasonable statement and I understand your concern. First, let me stress that my posting style, and my defense of orthodox research and scholarship, have never changed. Not one bit. I've been a Mod since October of last year and joined UM in July 2007, so feel free to search out and examine any of my detailed posts prior to my becoming a Mod. You will see I've maintained the same style and approach throughout. Moderators are allowed to post and take part in any discussion, and nearly all of us Mods do (or for all I know, all of the Mods do). I suspect the Administrator of UM, Saru, recruited me to be a Moderator not so much for my stance on any given issue but for other qualities I might possess.

A Mod is not required to be impartial when posting as a regular poster. Like any member, we are allowed to post based on our own beliefs, expertise, and backgrounds. A Mod is responsible for maintaining order and civility. This thread has gotten heated on occasion, but I have not seen any infringement of forum rules. If you feel a poster has gone too far, please feel free to use the Report button so that the Mod team can evaluate and address the issue.

Finally, when I find it necessary to issue warnings or engage in some other formal way as a Mod, I've adopted the convention some of the other Mods use at UM. I will issue a post all in bold type and in verbiage that makes it obvious something is wrong. I will also sign it, which in regular posts I never do. So unless you see this, you can be sure I'm posting as a regular poster.

I hope we can move beyond this now. You should not feel intimidate just because a Mod is taking part in your discussion. When I take you to task and ask for references or more information, I do so as just another member. I just happen to be one of the only Mods who regularly takes part in the Ancient Mysteries forum. It's my "home" here at UM.

I really appreciate your taking the time to reply in such helpful detail. I've snipped your response only to keep this own post shorter.

Allow me to cite an example of landscape geometry as demonstrated through archaeology. This concerns Egypt in Dynasty 5 and 6. The most important sacred site in that early period was Heliopolis (ancient Iunu), which now lies mostly under the sprawl of modern Cairo. This was the main cult center for the deities Atum and Re. The Giza pyramids were in view of this site and its large temple precinct in the mid-third millennium BCE, and in fact a line drawn from the southeast corners of each colossal Giza pyramid points straight at Heliopolis (an archaeological example of landscape geometry). But subsequent pyramid building had to take place elsewhere because there was no more room at Giza. Pyramids of the later Old Kingdom were built at sites like Saqqara and Abusir. But archaeologists have noticed that like at Giza, the corners of these more distant pyramids also point straight northeast toward Heliopolis, even if that temple precinct was not in sight. This is another real example of landscape geometry, if theoretical.

I am far from the mathematician that stereologist and Harte and other adept posters are. In fact, my math skills are deplorable. Nevertheless, I have taken the time to become familiar with mathematics as known and practiced by ancient Egyptians, and it is clear to me the type of precision proposed by Furlong and you was not known in ancient Egypt. This is why the Great Pyramid is not actually square, although damn close. There is no evidence that the Egyptians were even acquainted with fractions in the Early Bronze Age, when the Great Pyramid was built—things like the Horus Eye as fractional symbol and mathematical papyri come from long after the time of the Great Pyramid. This doesn't mean such papyri could not have existed in the Old Kingdom; it more likely means such papyri did not survive or are yet to be found. Still, we are obligated to adhere to extent evidence, and the extent evidence does not agree with much of what you've been arguing about the Great Pyramid. Extent evidence also shows us the Egyptians were not familiar with formulae such as pi and phi.

Rather, what I personally see and what other posters have mentioned, is a grand case of pareidolia. Trust me, you can take any given spot on the planet and make a big case for pretty much any sort of mathematical phenomenon you want. Were Furlong to move his preferred sites to Germany or Russia or China or Guatemala, I am certain he could find something that would make his circles work equally well. In other words, I remain unconvinced. And as I review the pages of this discussion, I don't see a poster who seriously defends you.

Finally, as for ancient sites, you would need a hell of a lot more proof to demonstrate beyond dispute that Bronze Age England has some conceivable connection with Bronze Age Egypt. What you say about the Roman Catholic Church repurposing pagan sacred sites is definitely true, but that does not form a working connection with Egypt. Many others have tried to establish such a connection—alternative writers as well as posters at UM—and none have succeeded in making his or her case.

Thank you for your, as ever, reasoned reply.

That is not to say I agree with all your comments, but will certainly have a think about them.

You say

'. Were Furlong to move his preferred sites to Germany or Russia or China or Guatemala, I am certain he could find something that would make his circles work equally well. In other words, I remain unconvinced'

Now, this is just not a true statement in this case

There has been much 'argy-bargy' about the height to base ratio of the Great Pyramid on this thread

but your math expert Swede has confirmed in a recent post the original height and distance across the

base which are, within inches, the dimensions used in my previous posts to establish a ratio of 7 / 11 - Fact.

Did David Furlong take this ratio to 'invent' a design based on the sites he proposes for his twin circles

on the Marlborough Downs leading to Temple Farm ?, or did he, as detailed in his book, just discover it ?

Can you imagine how complicated such an 'invention' would have to be ?

He first has to discover that two circles, of an unknown radius, would, when overlapped, give a vesica

in the middle that fitted the Great Pyramid as built 7 / 11 ratio, with an equilateral triangle off the circle centers. This

vesica's height and width has also to conform to the 7 / 11 ratio of the Great Pyramid. Furlong notes other aspects of his

geometry which conform to the Great Pyramid design.

Having worked all this out and found a radius of about 6 miles for the circles he then has to find a place to

hatch this 'evil deceit' for his book about the alignment of ancient and church sites in Britain etc.

It cannot be anywhere else in the world to fit his book, and all the sites have to be

possibly or actually of ancient origins. The focal point, the Temple Farm position, of the Kings chamber in the

pyramid he has created, has to also be a plausible ancient location to fit this supposed 'deceit'.

That I would suggest is an almost impossible task with a design many many miles in size and pure common

sense and logic says that his explanation that he just found it, with full details of how this came about in his book,

has to be the overwhelmingly correct judgement on his discoveries.

I think you and other posters are 'clutching at straws' in trying to suggest that the Marlborough Downs geometry is a

case of pareidolia on Furlong's part and on the part of anyone who can see the geometrical logic of the design.

Pareidolia, like the seeing of faces in a rock face or some natural element, is a recognised phenomena with

possible evolutionary advantages.

David Furlong was studying the disposition of ancient sites and church sites and was interested in the fact that

some clearly followed a curved alignment. He did not imagine this, it was a fact and it still is a fact out there

on the landscape for anyone to look at. Tracing this out he found first one circle then another overlapping the

first with a specific distance between the circle centers with its geometric relationship to the Great Pyramid.

This can hardly have anything to do with pareidolia; the very fact that you and others suggest that Furlong's

landscape geometry is a 'delusion' will I am sure not impress any free thinking UM user who, like me, will probably

conclude that this suggestion is just another 'debunking' tactic to try and explain a discovery you do not understand

or do not want to try to understand.

In some people, I do not necessarily mean you in this comment, the inability to recognise his discovery for what it is

- a discovery - must relate to 'willful blindness' -

the conscious or unconscious inability to properly evaluate information which challenges a preconceived world view,

opinion or belief. I believe this has been shown to be quite common in many walks of life.

Edited September 28, 2013 by laver

[cormac mac airt]

~SNIP~

There has been much 'argy-bargy' about the height to base ratio of the Great Pyramid on this thread

but your math expert Swede has confirmed in a recent post the original height and distance across the

base which are, within inches, the dimensions used in my previous posts to establish a ratio of 7 / 11 - Fact.

Did David Furlong take this ratio to 'invent' a design based on the sites he proposes for his twin circles

on the Marlborough Downs leading to Temple Farm ?, or did he, as detailed in his book, just discover it ?

Can you imagine how complicated such an 'invention' would have to be ?

He first has to discover that two circles, of an unknown radius, would, when overlapped, give a vesica

in the middle that fitted the Great Pyramid as built 7 / 11 ratio, with an equilateral triangle off the circle centers. This

vesica's height and width has also to conform to the 7 / 11 ratio of the Great Pyramid. Furlong notes other aspects of his

geometry which conform to the Great Pyramid design.

Having worked all this out and found a radius of about 6 miles for the circles he then has to find a place to

hatch this 'evil deceit' for his book about the alignment of ancient and church sites in Britain etc.

It cannot be anywhere else in the world to fit his book, and all the sites have to be

possibly or actually of ancient origins. The focal point, the Temple Farm position, of the Kings chamber in the

pyramid he has created, has to also be a plausible ancient location to fit this supposed 'deceit'.

That I would suggest is an almost impossible task with a design many many miles in size and pure common

sense and logic says that his explanation that he just found it, with full details of how this came about in his book,

has to be the overwhelmingly correct judgement on his discoveries.

I think you and other posters are 'clutching at straws' in trying to suggest that the Marlborough Downs geometry is a

case of pareidolia on Furlong's part and on the part of anyone who can see the geometrical logic of the design.

Pareidolia, like the seeing of faces in a rock face or some natural element, is a recognised phenomena with

possible evolutionary advantages.

David Furlong was studying the disposition of ancient sites and church sites and was interested in the fact that

some clearly followed a curved alignment. He did not imagine this, it was a fact and it still is a fact out there

on the landscape for anyone to look at. Tracing this out he found first one circle then another overlapping the

first with a specific distance between the circle centers with its geometric relationship to the Great Pyramid.

This can hardly have anything to do with pareidolia; the very fact that you and others suggest that Furlong's

landscape geometry is a 'delusion' will I am sure not impress any free thinking UM user who, like me, will probably

conclude that this suggestion is just another 'debunking' tactic to try and explain a discovery you do not understand

or do not want to try to understand.

In some people, I do not necessarily mean you in this comment, the inability to recognise his discovery for what it is

- a discovery - must relate to 'willful blindness' -

the conscious or unconscious inability to properly evaluate information which challenges a preconceived world view,

opinion or belief. I believe this has been shown to be quite common in many walks of life.

The ratio mentioned in your posts has nothing to do with what Furlong is claiming as the ratio, since he says that it is 7:22 height to base.

http://www.kch42.dia...keys_intro3.htm

Which means that for construction purposes it would be 7 height to 11 base (corner to midpoint). This is not the same as using the full base of 22. But it does suggest that you're using Furlong's base, corner to midpoint, as the full length of base which is NOT what Furlong is using. Not that he's any more accurate, he isn't, but it appears you're misapplying his already incorrect claims to say something entirely different. Which makes both of you wrong.

His circles aren't twins as you suggest since their radii, as given by him, vary by 18 meters from 9570 meters (western circle) to 9588 (eastern circle). Nor do the sites actually come together at a specific center but vary by as much as several hundred, and in one previously posted case over 1300 yards. This is not accuracy, this is someone manipulating data to show something it doesn't. That you've apparently bought into it suggests that you're not as discerning as you seem to think.

What unknown radius? Furlong gives his calculated radii for both circles and they're wrong. Not slightly wrong but exceedingly wrong.

Claiming the Great Pyramid was built on a 7:11 ratio doesn't make it true. That would literally mean that for every 11 units in the Egyptians had to go 7 units up. This makes the pyramid 1/2 the height it actually is and also shows that you don't know much about ratio's used in construction. The full length of the base is never used in this way.

Everything else you've said after the above point is just more incorrect conclusions base of exceedingly faulty calculations and a poor, if not non-existant, understanding of construction.

Repeating an incorrect conclusion doesn't make it right. And you still don't understand what landscape geometry actually means.

cormac

Edited September 29, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[laver]

The shape of a pyramid when placed on say a map, as Furlong did, is the width of the base and its height from the

base to the top forming a triangular shape.

In the case of the Great Pyramid this is height 7 units , base 11 units from established dimensions.

That message of 7 / 11 from the Great Pyramid is what was used by David Furlong in locating the

focal point of Temple Farm and also dictates the vesica shape formed by his two circles.

I would suggest, UM user, that you do not take notice of some anonymous poster who for some reason seems

fixated with trying to 'debunk' the Furlong discoveries with false information.

This is important because Temple Farm proves to be a very important location as we shall see.

[stereologist]

That message of 7 / 11 from the Great Pyramid is what was used by David Furlong in locating the

focal point of Temple Farm and also dictates the vesica shape formed by his two circles.

Why do you insist that the vesica is 7:11 when a vesica has a 70:121 ratio?

I suspect that the issue is that what you and Furlong claim is a vesica is in fact not a vesica. In your earlier posts you pointed out that a vesica has a 70:121 ratio and not a 7:11 ratio. So why are you changing your ratio?

Why do you post a definition for landscape geometry that excludes Furlong's circles? Are you unwilling to refine your definition for some reason? Everyone here is willing to have you adjust and refine your definition. It is normal to do that. If you don't we have to wonder why you chose a definition which excludes Furlong and his circles.

[cormac mac airt]

The shape of a pyramid when placed on say a map, as Furlong did, is the width of the base and its height from the

base to the top forming a triangular shape.

In the case of the Great Pyramid this is height 7 units , base 11 units from established dimensions.

That message of 7 / 11 from the Great Pyramid is what was used by David Furlong in locating the

focal point of Temple Farm and also dictates the vesica shape formed by his two circles.

I would suggest, UM user, that you do not take notice of some anonymous poster who for some reason seems

fixated with trying to 'debunk' the Furlong discoveries with false information.

This is important because Temple Farm proves to be a very important location as we shall see.

The Cross-section of the Great Pyramid of Egypt.

The ratio of height to base of this monument is 7:22.

http://www.kch42.dia...keys_intro3.htm

As seen from his website this was claimed by Furlong himself. Which means you're purposely misrepresenting him and that's putting it nicely. One would also think that in order to make a connection with anything of a religious/Christian nature that a designer would have used a true 'vesica priscis' but this is not the case, as can be seen, as the centers of each circle do not fall on the perimeter of the opposite circle.

cormac

Edited September 29, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[cormac mac airt]

http://www.kch42.dia...keys_intro3.htm

As seen from his website this was claimed by Furlong himself. Which means you're purposely misrepresenting him and that's putting it nicely. One would also think that in order to make a connection with anything of a religious/Christian nature that a designer would have used a true 'vesica piscis' but this is not the case, as can be seen, as the centers of each circle do not fall on the perimeter of the opposite circle.

Late edit for spelling.

cormac

Edited September 29, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[stereologist]

One would also think that in order to make a connection with anything of a religious/Christian nature that a designer would have used a true 'vesica priscis' but this is not the case, as can be seen, as the centers of each circle do not fall on the perimeter of the opposite circle.

Cormac I was hoping that laver would discover this for himself. Sometimes it helps people when they figure out for themselves that the numbers are off because what they are told is not what is. In this case the ratios hinted that this was not a vesica.

[laver]

Vesica - an almond shaped aureole in the shape of a pointed oval

This is the shape in the middle when two circles overlap

Vesica Piscis - usually refers to a special case vesica where the center of each

circle lies on the circumference of the other.

In the case of the Furlong discoveries his 2 circle centers have been designed and

set out on the landscape the right distance apart to specifically replicate the Great Pyramid geometry

so that an equilateral triangle off these circle centers gives the correct pyramid height related to the vesica

width. This uses the established actual height to base ratio of the Great Pyramid of 7 / 11.

His vesica also demonstrates this ratio of 7 / 11 in its height and width.

This amazing construction designed and marked out on the landscape of Wiltshire apparently thousands

of years ago takes us to the location where the Kings chamber in the pyramid falls on the Wiltshire

countryside - Temple Farm near Marlborough

[cormac mac airt]

Cormac I was hoping that laver would discover this for himself. Sometimes it helps people when they figure out for themselves that the numbers are off because what they are told is not what is. In this case the ratios hinted that this was not a vesica.

Sorry stereologist, but he can't even comprehend how he's wrong even when it's spelled out for him. Your grandchildren will be senior citizens before he gets it, apparently.

cormac

[laver]

Just a reminder of what this looks like from a previous post - it is as shown by David Furlong on page 113

of his book 'The Keys to the Temple'

[cormac mac airt]

Vesica - an almond shaped aureole in the shape of a pointed oval

This is the shape in the middle when two circles overlap

Vesica Piscis - usually refers to a special case vesica where the center of each

circle lies on the circumference of the other.

In the case of the Furlong discoveries his 2 circle centers have been designed and

set out on the landscape the right distance apart to specifically replicate the Great Pyramid geometry

so that an equilateral triangle off these circle centers gives the correct pyramid height related to the vesica

width. This uses the established actual height to base ratio of the Great Pyramid of 7 / 11.

His vesica also demonstrates this ratio of 7 / 11 in its height and width.

This amazing construction designed and marked out on the landscape of Wiltshire apparently thousands

of years ago takes us to the location where the Kings chamber in the pyramid falls on the Wiltshire

countryside - Temple Farm near Marlborough

And what was an early symbol for Christianity? That's right, a fish, which in Latin is Pisces. From which derives the word "piscis".

It does no such thing as none of those churches existed thousands of years ago.

cormac

Edited September 29, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[Swede]

This uses the established actual height to base ratio of the Great Pyramid of 7 / 11.

As per the usual, this results in yet another display of inaccuracy and terminal redundancy. As previously noted (by Stereologist in particular), you would appear to attempt to vary your personal definition of base to height ratio. This, in itself, reflects an obvious difficulty on your part in regards to a basic understanding of mathematical processes.

Previously, two definitions of the mathematical application of the term "ratio" have been presented. The below (with graphics) is one more attempt that will hopefully allow you to grasp this very basic concept/mathematical function.

http://www.mathopenref.com/ratio.html

As to your varying and ill-defined utilizations of the base-line figures, attempts to determine a height to base "ratio" are somewhat limited. The basic, or at least, most readily conceivable ratios, would consist of the following:

• Perimeter (P)/ Height (H)
  
• Side (S)/H
  
• Area (A)/H
  
• Diagonal (D)/H
  

Will not waste the time to present the simple details of the calculations, though can provide such should you actually wish to follow the proofs. Suffice it to note that the following ratios are readily derived:

• P/H = 1:6.2858
  
• S/H = 1:1.5715
  
• A/H = 1:362.001
  
• D/H = 1:2.222
  

Please do inform the collective readership in regards to how you would perceive any of these figures to be representative of pi of phi.

The great sadness here is that you have the temerity to maintain a website devoted to your terminally flawed conceptualizations and attempt to profit from the dispensation of repeatedly demonstrated falsehoods and misinterpretations.

.

[laver]

And what was an early symbol for Christianity? That's right, a fish, which in Latin is Pisces. From which derives the word "piscis".

It does no such thing as none of those churches existed thousands of years ago.

cormac

The churches certainly did not exist thousands of years ago, but the sites did

and as we have seen in previous posts the early Christian church had a policy of reusing

existing 'sacred' or 'holy' sites from previous beliefs.

This is why David Furlong proposed that his circle markers, much later church sites, could have

very ancient origins - a quite valid proposition as other markers go back to at least the

time that Avebury was built about 3000BCE. The landscape geometry could thus date from this

time or earlier.

Yes, the Vesica Piscis is often called the 'pool of fishes' and Jesus is closely associated in biblical

accounts with fish and fishermen. But he is also associated with the Vesica Piscis through the

number '153' the number of large fish caught miraculously by the shores of the Sea of Galilee

near Magdala.

[+DieChecker]

Vesica - an almond shaped aureole in the shape of a pointed oval

This is the shape in the middle when two circles overlap

Vesica Piscis - usually refers to a special case vesica where the center of each

circle lies on the circumference of the other.

In the case of the Furlong discoveries his 2 circle centers have been designed and

set out on the landscape the right distance apart to specifically replicate the Great Pyramid geometry

so that an equilateral triangle off these circle centers gives the correct pyramid height related to the vesica

width. This uses the established actual height to base ratio of the Great Pyramid of 7 / 11.

His vesica also demonstrates this ratio of 7 / 11 in its height and width.

This amazing construction designed and marked out on the landscape of Wiltshire apparently thousands

of years ago takes us to the location where the Kings chamber in the pyramid falls on the Wiltshire

countryside - Temple Farm near Marlborough

Just a reminder of what this looks like from a previous post - it is as shown by David Furlong on page 113

of his book 'The Keys to the Temple'

Wait, wait, wait....

Just looking at the picture, I can see that the pyramid touches only at the midpoints of both sides of the vesica. Any and all triangles could do the same. The ratio of height to base has zero to do with if a triangle would fit there. The circle on the pyramid also does not touch anything interesting. As does the parallelogram. You could put a much stubbier Aztec pyramid in there, or a much thinner Nubian pyramid, or a very flat Chinese pyramid. And all would fit the same as the Egyptian GP. The only reason the GP is needed is because of the King's Chamber.

"In the case of the Furlong discoveries his 2 circle centers have been designed and set out on the landscape the right distance apart to specifically replicate the Great Pyramid geometry..."

Except any triangle will fit in there.

"...so that an equilateral triangle off these circle centers gives the correct pyramid height related to the vesica width."

I thought the GP was "nearly" and equilateral triangle. With the sides going up at 58 degrees and the peak being 62 degrees. That is a difference of 4 degrees, which is actually pretty significant. Maybe your Temple Farm is not the real target?

"This uses the established actual height to base ratio of the Great Pyramid of 7 / 11.

His vesica also demonstrates this ratio of 7 / 11 in its height and width."

I was just reading up on the height to base ratio on an equilateral triangle and the concensus of people giving advice to high school and college students online is it is about 86%, or 0.86. Where as a 7/11 ratio is about 0.64. Are you sure you're doing that math right?

http://answers.yahoo...23053057AAWS95X

if x (base) =10 and side (equilateral right?) = 10, then y = sqrt (z^2 - (x/2)^2) = sqrt (10^2 - (10/2)^2) = sqrt (100 - 25) = sqrt 75 = 8.66. Thus because we used 10 as our length, we can see that the ratio is 0.866....

So how does the base-height ratio equal 7/11 (0.64)? It should be 9.5/11......

Maybe this was already covered, but it feels like if it was then Laver would not still be talking about 7/11....

Edited September 30, 2013 by DieChecker

[cormac mac airt]

The churches certainly did not exist thousands of years ago, but the sites did

and as we have seen in previous posts the early Christian church had a policy of reusing

existing 'sacred' or 'holy' sites from previous beliefs.

This is why David Furlong proposed that his circle markers, much later church sites, could have

very ancient origins - a quite valid proposition as other markers go back to at least the

time that Avebury was built about 3000BCE. The landscape geometry could thus date from this

time or earlier.

Yes, the Vesica Piscis is often called the 'pool of fishes' and Jesus is closely associated in biblical

accounts with fish and fishermen. But he is also associated with the Vesica Piscis through the

number '153' the number of large fish caught miraculously by the shores of the Sea of Galilee

near Magdala.

He has neither provided evidence to support this contention nor has he actually shown that landscape geometry shows actual circles. What he has done was create a circle with a circa 6 mile radius, place it on a map of Wiltshire, see that several ancient monuments and churches fall within that circle and then claim that they actually fall on the circumference of said circle. Which means he's manipulated his data to say something it doesn't and you've been foolish enough to believe him. Then he attempts to connect this manipulated data to the Great Pyramid with a meaningless "ratio", and again you've bought into it. All of which shows that neither of you know anything meaningful about ratios or their relationship to pyramids and pyramid construction.

cormac

[stereologist]

The churches certainly did not exist thousands of years ago, but the sites did

and as we have seen in previous posts the early Christian church had a policy of reusing

existing 'sacred' or 'holy' sites from previous beliefs.

This is why David Furlong proposed that his circle markers, much later church sites, could have

very ancient origins - a quite valid proposition as other markers go back to at least the

time that Avebury was built about 3000BCE. The landscape geometry could thus date from this

time or earlier.

Yes, the Vesica Piscis is often called the 'pool of fishes' and Jesus is closely associated in biblical

accounts with fish and fishermen. But he is also associated with the Vesica Piscis through the

number '153' the number of large fish caught miraculously by the shores of the Sea of Galilee

near Magdala.

That makes as much sense as claiming that these circles are associated with Creataceous dinosaurs. It's a valid proposition since the churches have reused existing dinosaurs haunts. The circles might even be 100 million years old.

Seriously, these circles are not even landscape geometry according to your definition. The circles are modern and have no age earlier than the time Furlong made them up.

[laver]

TEMPLE FARM and onward.......

Any UM user who has been following this thread and missed a few earlier posts might be wondering

why Temple Farm, an estate near Marlborough in Wiltshire, southern Britain should be so important.

According to the David Furlong proposals detailed in his book 'The Keys to the Temple', published in

1997 by Piatkus, the design of the Great Pyramid is an integral part of the landscape geometry of two

overlapping circles he discovered on the Marlborough Downs which he believed to be of very ancient

origin. The circles were, and are, marked by ancient sites and church sites with the present structures

on these sites being dated back to many hundreds of years ago; but the 'holy' ground on which they

were built may well, due to church policy, have very much older sacred significance from pre-Christian

times. The biggest Neolithic stone circle in Britain, maybe the world, is on one of Furlong's circles and this

has been dated to about 3000 BCE, so some 5000 years old.

Now the idea that the Great Pyramid design could be linked to a landscape layout in Britain of sites set out

thousands of years ago does seem very strange. When I first read Furlong's book 'The Keys to the Temple'

years ago my initial reaction was one of great surprise at his proposals but looking at maps and studying it

further the landscape geometry and its relationship to this pyramid design was evident and clear so this had

to be due to either some amazing coincidence or it was an ancient design. From finds of Egyptian items in

burial sites in Britain it was clear that there was some sort of contact between Egypt and Britain thousands

of years ago.

But if this included landscape geometry in Britain on a huge scale and the design and construction of the

Great Pyramid at Giza in Egypt it would have to have been a massive undertaking with some purpose in

mind. Why would people thousands of years ago have carried out this huge task ?

Was it meant to be discovered at some time in the distant future ?

The Furlong landscape proposals using this pyramid design indicated a particular location on the Wiltshire

countryside close to Rockley, near Marlborough, a farm called Temple Farm.

Was this location so important in some way that its identification would have justified the extraordinary amount

of work involved in both Britain and Egypt all those years ago ?

All we really know about Temple Farm is that it is located in an area with many ancient sites, is close to Avebury

Henge, on one of Furlong's circles, and was back in the 12th century a base of some sort for the Knights Templar

hence its name.

David Furlong mentions its Templar connections in his book and writes at the end of Chapter 4

'It is also said that they (the Knights Templar) knew about hidden powers within the landscape, invoking these

energies in their rituals, and that their esoteric knowledge was incorporated into the hidden geometry found

within the proportions of Gothic cathedrals'

The Keys to the Temple - page 67

This is just heresay, but the design and inspiration for the Gothic cathedrals must have come from somewhere and the

sites used were once again often places that had 'sacred' origins that go back to pre-Christian times.

It has not been established if the Knights Templar had a hand in this construction programme but they were, until closed

down starting in 1307, a very powerful organisation in Europe not only in the church but also starting the first banking

system.

Temple Farm near Marlborough was a Knights Templar base but of no apparent significance as there were Templar

properties in many places which retain the name down to the present day.

If Temple Farm had a particular importance to the Templars because of its position as a focal point of very ancient

landscape geometry, as is now coming to light, this knowledge would have been a secret, as the landscape geometry

with its links to the Great Pyramid was a secret, and probably only known to a very few of the organisation.

One can speculate that this huge secret was kept for a reason and that this was because at some time it

would be revealed.

After all there is not much point in having a secret over hundreds, thousands, of years if it is not at some time to be

revealed.

This thread on UM is all about whether this is the time it is being revealed..... a time of Revelation ?

Since this thread has been running one poster - bee - has given details of a strange named 'head' shape found in the landscape just to the north of Temple Farm, her posts give details of her discovery and because of her interest in the

the work of David Furlong and his book she thought there could be a link to Temple Farm. She noted that the stories

about the Templars include accounts of them venerating 'heads' which would seem to be the case from details that

come out of the period when they were being disbanded.

It seems very unlikely that Templars generally knew about this 'head' at Temple Farm or it would have come out

when many were tortured and burnt at the stake. But the symbol of the head and maybe 'wisdom' was clearly

venerated and this could relate to the 'bee' head near Temple Farm because it took 'wisdom' on the part of David

Furlong to find his twin circles and 'wisdom / inspiration' to spot the Great Pyramid connection and identify Temple

Farm. It also took 'wisdom' on the part of 'bee' to spot the 'head' and see the possible link to Temple Farm.

A clue may have been left in the landscape from long ago and named like many other Templar sites around

Britain, and the 'bee head' may be that clue.

So why Temple Farm in southern Britain as a site to point to and guide people to at some time in the future, seemingly

thousands of years into the future, by using simple math and geometry ?

Research showed that it is the focal point of long distance Great Circle bearings to various ancient locations but for the purpose of this thread on UM we will look at its bearings to the Holy Land and how bearing lines highlight the church

sites chosen for the Book of Revelations.

In the Book of Revelations, the last book of the bible, the first 3 Chapters are dedicated to messages from Christ to the churches of Asia ( modern day Turkey) and these 7 named church locations are

Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea

In chapter 1 verse 20 we are told there is a 'secret meaning' in these 7 churches and on this UM thread it is suggested

that this 'secret meaning' is the geometric layout of these churches with 5 being highlighted by a bearing from

Temple Farm of 110 degrees which goes to Turkey and then crosses the Mediterranean and Cyprus to the Holy Land

at Mount Arbel / Magdala on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, an area so important to the New Testament stories

about Jesus.

So we have a link through landscape geometry from Ancient Egypt with the Great Pyramid and the ancient spiritual

beliefs of that area to Britain and then to the Holy Land and the biblical accounts of Jesus and Mary of Magdala who

as we shall see would seem to have been aware of this amazing design.

[Swede]

TEMPLE FARM and onward.......

Bert: Merely a note or two+:

1. Has it ever entered your "sphere of research"/mentality to actually investigate/acknowledge the rather extensive information with which you have already been presented (courtesy of numerous worthy contributors) ?
   
2. Did you actually take the time to read the clear rebuttal to the arguments presented by Bee?
   
3. Did you actually take the time to read and digest the extensive rebuttals to virtually every single fanciful "point" of your spurious position?
   
4. Do you have the internal capacity to realize that you repeatedly cite a fraud
   
5. Do you have the personal courage to acknowledge that your understandings of simple mathematical functions are sorely lacking and are based upon the mathematical inadequacies of a demonstrable fraud?
   

And lastly, and most emphatically, do you, in any manner, understand the definition of the term redundancy?

Please do address the above in detail.

Edit: Format.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Swede

[+DieChecker]

Do you have the internal capacity to realize that you repeatedly cite a fraud

I don't know that it is a Fraud. It is just not special. Anyone could go around in a country like England and draw somewhat large circles using "special" spots on a map, and then pin down a "super special" place in that geometry using a famous structure's layout. It should be relatively easy to do. So, it is not fraud, but perhaps misrepresentation as being special, which I think it is not.

[stereologist]

What I find rather strange is the definition of landscape geometry given by laver that conflicts with Furlong's circles.

It is also strange that the title of thread seems to have been forgotten. The installation art called crop circles seems to no longer be of interest.

Now the discussion is turning to the woo of "energies" and other malarkey.

[stereologist]

I think this is fraud. I'm not using the term in any legal sense. But it is dishonest. It is deceitful. It is based on misrepresentations and outright lies. It is being willfully continued despite the clear and unequivocal evidence against. Yes,it is fraud.

[AtlantisRises]

Personally I think that if this thread isn't about Crop Circles anymore or Revelation anymore that the thread has outlived it's purpose. Fair enough every thread wanders off topic now and then but this thread doesn't seem to have ever actually have been on topic.