Re: Pyramidiocy (was Re: Strange Maths)

Whittet (
25 Jul 1995 15:03:58 GMT

In article <3ug7ej$>, says...
>In article <>,
>William E. VanHorne <> wrote:
>> In article <3uc0vi$> (Whittet) writes:
>>>The pyramid is also located so that an arc swept from its center and
>>>intersecting its diagonals neatly encloses Egypts delta.
>> And points *directly* and *unmistakably* to a point in Europe that is
>> pointed to by a line bisecting the line drawn from Rennes le Chateau to
>> a real big rock somewhere. Astounding!
>>>The number of feet in a mile can be obtained from the number of days in a
>>>millenium divided by the number of miles in a degree of the earths
>>>circumference at the equator 365240/69.17424... = 5280
>> The Egyptians not only knew the circumfrence of the earth but could
>> acurately predict the *exact* size of the English mile *before* there
>> was an England. Time! Space! Synchronicity!
>>>The pyramid idiocy part comes from the fact that the more correlations you
>>>want to get the more sophisticated the model you have to use. The mere Pi
>>>relation is dwarfed by the derivation of the mile as a ratio between measure
>>>of time and space.
>> Have you ever done the calculations that reveal the hidden message encoded
>> in the Washington Monument? No, not that stupid thing in Washington, D.C.
>> The *real* Washington Monument that is (can it be mere coincidence?) located
>> in <pause for effect> *Alexandria*? Templars! Cathars! Freemasons!
>It's interesting that you should bring up the Washington Monument. Read the
>piece below, from Martin Gardner's excellent book "Fads and Fallacies in
>the Name of Science" (still available from Dover Books), chapter 15
>"The Great Pyramid":
>To begin with, Charles Piazzy Smyth (prof. of Edinburgh University,
>Astronomer-Royal of Scotland) discovered that the base of the Pyramid
>divided by the width of a casing stone, equaled exactly 365 -- the
>number of days in a year.

Wrong. Taylor working from the measurements of Howard Vyse,
discovered that the perimeter of the base measured in english
inches gave a number that was very close to the number of days
in a century.

Casing stones originally composed the
>outside surface of the monument.

A true statement, and about the only one in this post !

The stone measured slightly more
>than 25 inches, and Smyth concluded that this length was none other
>than the sacred cubit.

Wrong. It was Sir Isaac Newton who drew this conclusion.

The first to suggest a relationship beteween the measures of antiquity
and Egyptian standards of measure was Pythagoras. Girolamo Cardano, a close
friend of Leonardo da Vinci suggested that the common basis of European
standard of measures, which were even then beginning to get out of sync,
might be found in Egypt.

Attempting to reestablish what ancient measures like the Greek and Roman foot
had been from measures of the monumental buildings of antiquity, John Greaves
found that "the Roman foot contained 1944 such parts as the English foot contains
2000", and that the Roman foot was 24/25ths of a Greek foot. Greaves then went on
to establish on what unit the Great Pyramid had been built.

>From Greaves data Sir Isaac Newton deduced that one of the units used in building
the Great Pyramid had been a "sacred" cubit very close to 25 British inches in length.

Isn't associating these discoveries with Smyth instead of Taylor and Newton,
because Smyth can be associated with odd ideas, a manipulation of the data?

long rambling diatribe deleted, but the sense is generally that
of the following paragraph...

>There is also a vast occult literature dealing with the Pyramid,
>expecially in Rosicrucian and theosophical traditions. The Biblical
>prophecies of Smyth are rejected but the authors find in the monument
>a great deal of mathematical, scientific, astrological, and occult
>symbolism which varies widely with individual writers. According to
>Madame Blavatsky, the interior of the Pyramid was used for the
>performance of the sacred rituals connected with the Egyptian "Book
>of the Dead", and most theosophists today assume there are vast
>mysteries of some sort connected with the stone monument that are
>known only to initiates.

...Some people with strange ideas are unduly impressed with the
Great pyramid, therefore all study of it has been by crackpots
and can be safely dismissed.
>As worthless as all this literature is, it is not entirely worthless
>if we can see in it an important object lesson. No book has ever
>demonstrated more clearly than Smyth's (the other Pyramid books, of
>course, to a lesser degree) how easy it is to work over an undigested
>mass of data and emerge with a pattern, which at first glance, is so
>intricately put together that it is difficult to believe it is
>nothing more than the product of a man's brain. In a sense, this is
>true of almost all the books of pseudo-scientists. In one way or
>another, they do not let the data speak for themselves. Consciously
>or unconsciously, their preconceived dogmas twist and mold the
>objective facts into forms which support the dogmas, but have no
>basis in the exterior world.

Sir Flinders Petrie, a famous
>archeologist who made some highly exact Pyramid measurements, reports
>that he once caught a Pyramidologist secretly filing down a projecting
>stone to make it conform to one of his theories!

Isn't this exactly what debunkers are doing when they improperly attribute
the conclusions of Sir Isaac Newton to Smyth, and then make Smyth out
to be an oddball, associate all study of the pyramid with the occult
and conclude that all literature on the subject of the great pyramid
is worthless?
>Paul Schlyter,