The Kensington Runestone

Jul 2018
62
Florida
UNDERSTANDING THE MEGALITHIC SYSTEM

There is a fair amount of controversy regarding the Megalithic System of Measures. There doesn’t need to be any controversy, but it exists.

Proponents of the Megalithic System of Measures (MSOM) argue that the 2.727272 Megalithic Yard value, through extrapolation, indicates that the Ancients knew, and had, knowledge of the Earth’s circumference. Not only did they have knowledge, but the physical measure of 2.727272 reflects a down-scaling of that knowledge. The implicit part of the argument is that the Ancients had physically measured, or surveyed, on the EARTH the dimensioning. The explicit part of the argument is that the 7920 ESM diameter of the Earth was the PHYSICAL measure/survey of the Earth.

Opponents of the MSOM then ask the simple question of how the Ancients physically surveyed the entirety of the Earth’s surface. There is no rational way to answer this question so, subsequently, the scholars pronounce that the MSOM is nothing more than pseudo-scientific metrology.

Both the Proponents and the Opponents are yelling at each other from opposite sides of the room. Here’s the real deal:

-The Ancients didn’t physically measure/survey the terrestrial Earth. It didn’t happen.

-The English Statute Mile is not an Ancient Measure.

-The 7920 English Statute Mile diameter of the Earth is not an Ancient Measure.

-The 7920-integer value is Ancient.

-The MSOM is a time-based system whose resultant values were then converted into dimensional units.

-Time came first; the use of the sexagesimal value system set up the 24 hour, 60 minute, 60 second framework.

-The 24h, 60m, 60s framework was translated into the 360°, 60’, 60” values.

-The 360°, 60’, 60” values was then expanded into smaller units of arc-minutes and arc-seconds. Effectively, this is a hybrid value-unit integrating dimension (movement) and time.

-This produced the CONCEPTUAL unit of Earth CIRCUMFERENCE-MEASURE understood as 21,600 arc-minutes, conversely 21,600 nautical miles.
----
We are on the ground floor of the Megalithic System. Pressing the elevator button just moves us to another floor. I tend to remain focused on Floor 22 because of the “consonance” to the MY value: - 22 System (7920 particula); 90° - 21,600 nm/7920 PARTICULA = 2.727272 nm per PARTICULA.

However, there are other floors below the 22nd level:

-11 System (3960 particula); 180° - 21,600 nm/3960 ‘particula’ = 5.454545 nm per ‘particula’

-5.5 System (1980 particula); 360° - 21,600 nm/1980 ‘particula’ = 10.9090909 nm per ‘particula’

Additionally, there are other floors above the 22nd level:

-33 System (11,880 particula); 45° - 21,600 nm/11,880 ‘particula’ = 1.818181 nm per ‘particula’

-44 System (15,840 particula); 0° - 21,600 nm/15,840 ‘particula’ = 1.363636 nm per ‘particula’

In an emergency, we can hit the STOP button while riding the elevator and find our CUBIT value: If 90°/X° = 2.727272/1.727272; X = 56.99999° (57°, which then drops us in our 90° - 57° - 33° value set)

Then we can find out how many ‘particula’ comprise a mathematical CUBIT: 21,600 nm/X ‘particula’ = 1.727272 nm per ‘particula’; X = 12505.268423 ‘particula’ - 12505.268423 ‘particula’ slots us at 57°

You see, all one has to do is ride the MATHEMATICAL ELEVATOR. It is SCALING.
----
The scholars in Ancient India knew about the elevator, albeit in a different form. As best I can discern in the very limited reading I have done on their astronomical corpus, they didn’t use the 7920 or 22 values. They used axial tilt – because they wrote of it in their astronomical treatise, SŪRYA SIDDHĀNTA, in a section which a scholar has dated to have originated back in 7300-7800 BC. You can read of it here:

“SŪRYA SIDDHĀNTA”
Indian/Hindu Astronomical Treatise

24° Axial Tilt
https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.114955778580634/1766012746808254/?type=3&theater

INDIA TO ICELAND
The Megalithic Value System

https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.114955778580634/1786818958060966/?type=3&theater

Here is what we wrote previously about the tie-in to the MSOM:

“During this 360° year, the obliquity of the ecliptic, relative to the ZODIAC, is observed to have moved 24° from an Equinox Point to a Solstice Point (48° total throw). During this 360° year, the obliquity of the ecliptic, relative to the SUN’S rising point on the horizon, from an Equinox Point to a Solstice Point, is observed to have moved 24° (48° total throw).

360° (year)/66° (Arctic to Equator) = 5.454545 (Megalithic Fathom)

360° (year)/132° (Arctic to Antarctic Circle span in a year) = 2.727272 (Megalithic Yard)

Welcome to MSOM.
----
No one in the Megalithic Era – or even before according to the SŪRYA SIDDHĀNTA – was stretching a chain with links across the terrestrial Earth to measure/survey its circumference. They didn’t need to – observing and TIMING the celestial sphere (the heavens) worked just fine.

Therefore, PROPONENTS need to stop stating, or implying, that the Ancients “knew” the physical dimension of the Earth’s circumference. What they knew was an external reference could inform them of the TIME-DIMENSION of the Earth’s circumference. They then applied this conceptually, through mathematical scaling, into a circumference dimension. They then down-scaled that circumference measure into smaller dimensional units. Furthermore, quit running around saying that the 7920 ESM circumferential measure of the Earth is Ancient, as it isn’t. Only the 7920 integer is Ancient, the unit label explicitly connected to 5280’ ES is a 14th century retrofit.

PROPONENTS need to construct MODELS. This is what science does…they take data and MODEL it.

PROPONENTS need to quit connecting every known historical measure into the Megalithic System of Measures. Two-hundred pages of long units, short units, fractional long and short units is too much. Until one can make an accurate discrimination between units that are valid and others that are corruptions, presenting two thousand historical measures is worthless. The fact that the majority of those two thousand measures are long/short and fractional adjustments actually diminishes the impact of what is being told. All that long/short and fractional measure stuff is bullshit anyways…all that is being done is that units are being mathematically whipsawed in a gross case of pre-confirmation bias.

PROPONENTS need to quite using square roots. Until it can be shown that this mathematical operation was used eight thousand years ago, stay away from it. If you haven’t noticed the only mathematical functions that I have used is multiplication and division…setting up proportions and ratios.

OPPONENTS need to sharpen their wits, as well. The pseudo-metrology label is a cop-out. The easiest answer one can give is “No.” That is what pseudo-metrology label explicitly presents. It’s a lazy way of trying to impress others with your pseudo-intellect. Whatever money that pseudo-metrology advocates spent on their education was a waste.

================================
 
Jul 2018
62
Florida
https://www.facebook.com/Phippsburg-History-Center-114338978642314/?ref=nf&__tn__=%3C-R&eid=ARBQWeEoipbpksZFEO3CZoqpYnrDTQWWDADWqxH3vN4ClPa5MRxD-eqQNSbIsph5nL_V7KUmC2UdNcMF&hc_ref=ARTQzDGcoLCr6CBWrSc6DWpCl9vFLbcyWcAvFEWfbD2R4Eoibq7WGg59ysFAD-5N4cI&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARC6MAIpIr-zqEunU6PNvcI7rkkfgDhtA0vASiOf67uYIFhW4ZkJXBz83TpAHJnBpEkUf8S7q4N-z0qDjAYR8s5Hhuaoi5YktzA1oON4ktaXMmfvKmzpH6wHLZLE1A4EUw7UanCUwTG2dBnXWJIo8DhVxilziaHh5dvMA2WVo8AZnxaBHmKslcCNtAAXnbcJoe65v6HbEIaIYT_Pf9JcOXuROsVdz6vCT1upaCdGqvthcxoThOk4r0gYGA
LET THE DANCE BEGIN
--------------------------------------


This time the group (loose as it is) has the game plan in place with all the B________T that will follow. I had said that books were in the works. Well here we are. Have they gone through incredible vetting and fact checking and on and on. I'm pretty sure they have. My, my, my -- over THREE HUNDRED names to check on and verify. Would Diana not check ALL RECORDS to see if any ONE OF THEM WAS FAKE. You know the academics will pounce on ANY name that's not traceable and condemn the whole works. You decide. On the other hand, if the academics FAIL, then the work of Scott Wolter and many others--stands. Then over 100 years of academic trashing on the Kensington Stone and Newport Tower will become the stuff of Friday night Scottish whiskey drinking and much much laughter. AND remember, TWO academic sites (historians) have been "404'ed" in the past 30 days.


Phippsburg History Center

2 hrs ·
http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/…/the-lost-templar-j…

This should be interesting. Four centuries (1353 to 1770) of journal entries of the Sinclair family. Over three hundred names contained within the journals. Details that are not found elsewhere in the historical record. One name, purportedly, being the name of the carver of the Kensington Rune Stone. Is this work of Diana Muir's going to be controversial? Sure, it is. I can tell you how it is going to play out...which you already know, as well. The skeptics and debunkers will first claim that it is a hoax, a modern-day forgery whose provenance can't be proven. Then they will attack Diana, dredging up what flaws they can seize on to question her motivation and inquisitiveness in pursuing this line of research. They will sprinkle notions of fame, glory, and greed as the catalysts for Diana's work. They will, without a doubt, attribute the hoax as being her handiwork - and her's alone. It is entirely fair to question new information. Questions regarding provenance have to be addressed. Skeptics/debunkers like to portray provenance as a binary state, either it is of valid provenance, or not. Provenance is actually more subtle than merely a binary answer. I don't have Diana's book, nor have I read the material otherwise. I have heard about it, both in general form and, in the case of some specific topics, much more in depth. I have no notes, photos, or anything else in my possession. I, like you, will have to purchase the book to see what all is in it. I have known of the journals for over two years now. Others - including the skeptic/debunker crowd - have been aware of murmurs that the journals existed. As I recollect, Diana Muir had posted on Facebook a crowd-funding request to raise money to have the Sinclair journals translated. I don't know what transpired from that, but I do know that others within the debunking corral noticed the same posting and then remarked on it later in time.

This should be interesting...




SCOTTWOLTERANSWERS.BLOGSPOT.COM

The Lost Templar Journals of Prince Henry Sinclair – Vol. 1
The following is the foreword I wrote for the first of multiple volumes of the journals of Earl Henry Sinclair and the journals of the ne...
 
Jul 2018
62
Florida


_____________________
Sometimes you just have to hammer home the "historian" story of "lucky guess" to "how come all these numbers match the Kensington Stone numeric coded sequence"....... just saying---cheers
_____________________


Phippsburg History Center
2 hrs
TEMPLAR ROUND CHURCHES (England)
Window and Pillar Placement
[File Share]
-MS PowerPoint
https://drive.google.com/open…
-Adobe Acrobat
https://drive.google.com/open…
We built this PowerPoint back in August 2016. At the time we were looking to see how the exterior window placement along the exterior of the structure (circumference) matched to the Newport Tower. We found the center point within the interior of the ORIGINAL, circular nave of each structure and then determined the azimuthal headings, referenced to True North, to the center of each pillar and then, further out, the exterior window openings. Two of the four surviving Templar round churches in England (one additional church existed, but was later destroyed) have an eight-pillar construct for the now-interior, circular nave. The eight-pillared-nave churches are at Cambridge and Northhampton.
The Newport Tower has eight pillars.
The other two Templar round churches in England have interior naves which used a six-pillar construct.
--------
An eight-pillar construct for any circular structure means that the pillar separation (if uniform) will be 45°. It's quite simple, 360° divided by 8 returns 45°.
Of course, by now we all are quite aware that a 360° circumference circle may be represented by the 22 value. This traces back to the fractional ratio for the CIRCUMFERENCE of a circle divided by its DIAMETER, expressed as 22/7, which in turn produces the value of Pi, 3.142857. The 22 value is the CIRCUMFERENCE.
The eight-pillar constructs of both the Cambridge and Northhampton nave's mirror each other.
The first pillar at both Cambridge and Northhampton, using Due North as the center of the nave, and moving clockwise, have their center-points at 22°. The centers of the remained pillars are then spaced in 45° increments around the circumference (of the interior nave).
This should sound familiar to you all. Eight pillars and a 360° cylinder on top of the pillars. 22-8, or alternately 8-22.
Additionally, those 8 pillars start their rotation around the circumference with Pillar #1's center-point at 22°. A variation of the 22-8, or alternately 8-22, numerical value sequence.
KRS to NT to Gks 1812, 4to to Cambridge/Northhampton to...Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (as the story is told).
--------
By the way, the diameter of the cylinder wall extending above the pillars at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in CAMBRIDGE, England...when mathematically converted to a CIRCUMFERENCE measure...falls within 1" of the surveyed circumference measure of the NT's exterior wall.
In other words, the interior NAVE of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in CAMBRIDGE has the same CIRCUMFERENCE & DIAMETER measures that the Newport Tower was constructed to.
--------
I reckon that Benedict Arnold, since he didn't mind walking the nearly 100 miles to visit the six-pillar Chesterton Windmill, saw no problem in walking another 45 miles to visit the eight-pillared Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Cambridge, England. Arnold's father was a tailer so we have to assume that Benedict knew how to measure things, right?
I am sure that sometime in the future we will hear these arguments from the fringe skeptic folks, so we might as well just put them on the table right now.



_____
in case you missed the dark humor has to who has been identified as the "fringe skeptic folks....":oops:
 
Last edited:
Jul 2018
62
Florida
In keeping with upsetting and shocking news, one has to go over the postings regarding literary personalities of the medieval times to get a real "bell ringer". Remember those 11,000 documents that were released. Guess what the researchers found -------- ya they did, big time------ the hooked X in someone's name. This will get the literary people going -- enjoy :nerd::nerd:




Phippsburg History Center added a new photo to the album: Hooked X Rune Form Research.

October 13 at 11:25 PM ·
HOOKED X and E-HOOKS
Reg.Lat.1896 Part A
Dante's Inferno // ca. 1400-1450 AD
When Dante is spelled DÆNTE with a Hooked X construct it presents a bit of difficulty for anyone to argue that the Hooked X is not an Æ scribal abbreviation. Researcher Steve DiMarzo zings these emails my way, I process them, and you get to learn right along with Steve and I. The blue-shaded words utilize E-Hooks. The E-Hook constructs have a very distinctive branch on them, and in most cases we can find a little swirl that closes the upper loop on the -E. The Æ constructs on the inset photos (on right side of slide) occur mid-word. We know these are Æ constructs - not just E-Hooks - because one of the words, as the spelling continues, then ends with a regular, lower case -E. We only looked at Folia 99V in the manuscript so there is a very high probability that these constructs may be found on the other folios.
The next time you hear anyone - runologist or otherwise - tender the argument that the Hooked X runic glyph is the product of the 1883/1885 Larsson Rune Rows...just laugh. I reckon that if you believe some kid's homework assignment in the late 19th century, not found until less than twenty-years ago stashed deep in the bowels of some Swedish museum archive, was the basis for the KRS/SPR/NRS...then more power to you.
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Reg.lat.1896.pt.A


Some say the "Inferno" was written about the "Templars"........you decide
 
Last edited:
Jul 2018
62
Florida
AND ALL OF THIS started with the 8/22 combo on the Kensington Stone. So if someone says don't drink the coolaid of the Hooked X......well, we're not here to impress any academic. We already know their WRONG...


Phippsburg History Center
10 hrs ·
ANCIENT METROLOGY
7920 Particula to English Statute System Conversion
Circumference to Diameter
Slide 1 of 4
Some more grunge work related to the Earth’s CIRCUMFERENCE value as it was understood long ago. There are four slides in this series and the successive slides’ build upon the previous posted ones.
A couple weeks back I was wanking about the 7920 English Statute Mile diameter value of the Earth. At the time I could not discern how the 7920 value for the DIAMETER had been derived from the 7920-value used as the CIRCUMFERENCE in the PARTICULA SYSTEM. Compounding this was the fact that the metrologists (the mathematical historians who enjoy figuring out how the ancient dimensions came to be) all seemed to be STARTING with the 7920 ESM DIAMETER, rather than ending with it, and then mathematically deriving a value for Pi (3.141818) that “solved” all of their dimension conversions.
To me, it seemed like they had ginned up a Pi value, then back-fitted it into their various conversions. To be truthful, that is actually what they did. They got their conversions to work, and their general conclusion that nearly all historical dimensional measures are offspring of an original DIMENSIONAL value, was supported.
I understand why the metrologists did what they did, and that is because they were unaware of the 7920 CIRCUMFERENCE value, expressed in particula units. This is evident by the fact that metrologists never wrote about the 7920 PARTICULA SYSTEM, or that 7920 was a value associated with the Earth’s CIRCUMFERENCE (vice diameter).
One cannot start with the 7920-value for the Earth’s DIAMETER. There wasn’t - and still isn’t - a way to DIRECTLY MEASURE the Earth’s DIAMETER. The diameter measure was, and still is, a mathematical derivation of the Earth’s CIRCUMFERENCE. Therefore, one had to establish the circumference FIRST, then understand the relationship between circumference, diameter, and PI.
The more partitions (think slices) that one made of the circumference of the Earth, the more accurate the computed diameter would be.
The accuracy of Pi is important, as well. Using a value of 3 for Pi is not accurate. A value of 3.15 is reasonably accurate. Any value in the 3.14 range is very good. The 7920 Particula System used a value of 3.1428571 (7920 particula circumference divided by 2520 particula).
What I find to be ironic is the obsession to determine how many digits to the right of the decimal point one can compute for Pi. For some, this obsession must be really titillating. To each their own, continue on your quest. I can’t say that my obsession with SEEING the stack-up of the Pi values around the Megalithic Yard/Cubit/33-57 values is of any greater merit than finding what the 200th digit of Pi might be.
Of course, no one really freaking cares what the 200th digit of Pi is…because it has no relevance in the physical world that we inhabit.
Meanwhile…the Megalithic Yard/Cubit/33-57 value stack-up illustrates over 5000 years of human history embodied in Ancient Monuments lying across half of the Earth’s surface. Not altogether insignificant, heh?
-------------
Late last week I was running through the larger book which contains the Icelandic Gks 1812, 4to astronomical treatise. One of the other treatises in the book was the Rímbegla II (c. 1275-c. 1300). (Kedwards 2014: 106) One section of this treatise defines dimensional unit conversions. (Kålund & Beckman 1914-1916: pp. 124-5). A snippet of the passage may be seen in the upper left-hand corner of the slide.
The dimensional unit conversions are attributed to Macrobius, a Roman scholar who produced several important literary/scientific works during his lifetime. One of the topics written of by Macrobius dealt with the circumferential dimension of the Earth. As Macrobius’ circumference value was the same as Eratosthene’s, it stands that Macrobius was commenting upon his predecessor’s work.
If you are following the slide presentation, the order to read the text boxes is RED LIGHT, GREEN LIGHT, DYNAMITE BLUE. Yep, it was the game that we played outside as kids. If Claudius Clavus’s First Map of the North/Vienna Text manuscript can use words from a Danish folk-song for Greenland locations, I can use a sequence convention based off of a game that we played in our childhood. (It might NOT have been Clavus who assigned those names to the locations…)
Here we go:
MACROBEUS
-252, 000 STADIA EARTH CIRCUMFERENCE
-EACH QUADRANT (1/4 PART) IS 63,000 STADIA (63,000 * 4 = 252,00)
-A QUADRANT IS 90° (90° * 4 = 360°)
-7000 STADIORUM IS 1 DEGREE OF THE EARTH
===================================
HOW MANY STADIORUM IN THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EARTH?
-360° * 7000 STADIORUM = 2,520,000
-2,520,000 STADIORIUM IS 10X THE STADIA
-A STADIORIUM IS 1/10TH OF A STADIA
===================================
-7000 STADIORIUM / 60’ = 116.6666667 STADIORIUM PER 1 MINUTE OF LATITUDE (EQUIVALENT TO 1 NAUTICAL MILE)
-116.6666667 STADIORIUM / 10 = 11.6666667 STADIA PER NM
The above section is just simple math converting units.
-------------
STADIORIUM PER 24 HOURS LONGITUDE (360°): 7000 * 360 = 2,520,000
STADIORIUM PER 1 HOUR LONGITUDE (15°): 7000 * 15 = 105,000
STADIORIUM PER DEGREE: 7000
STADIORIUM PER MINUTE: 7000 / 60’ = 116.6666667 (EQUIVALENT TO 1 NM)
STADIORIUM PER SECOND: 7000 / 60’ = [RESULT]; [RESULT] / 60” = 1.9444444
This sub-section is just a number’s run. I was getting a little boggy in trying to figure out which direction I needed to go…so I went back to the basics, transcribed some basic conversions…and tried to get unstuck.
252,000 STADIA / 7920 PARTICULA = 31.818181 STADIA PER PARTICULA
31.818181 STADIA * 22 PARTICULA = 699.999982 STADIA PER DEGREE
2,520,000 STADIORIUM / 7920 PARTICULA = 318.181818 STADIORIUM PER PARTICULA
318.818181 STADIORIUM * 22 = 6999.999996 STADIORIUM PER DEGREE
This sub-section was just additional work trying to get out of the bog. We dropped the 7920 Particula value into the mix. Our results were good, in the sense that we replicated Eratosthene’s 700 stade unit for 1°. Of course, this produces 7000 stadiorium for 1° as a stadion is 1/10th of a stade.
-------------
 
Jul 2018
62
Florida
posting TWO

After about two further hours of being bogged down, working different computations that all went nowhere, I looked at the 31.818181 STADIA PER PARTICULA result once again. There it was…
-CONVERT TO BASE 10: 100 / 31.818181 = 3.142857 STADIA PER PARTICULA
1000/318.181818 = 3.142857 STADIORIUM PER PARTICULA
The “CONVERT TO BASE 10” is actually a misnomer here. We are already working in a base-10 convention. What we are doing is converting between two different “unit value” schemes, one being STADIA and the other being PARTICULA.
Our conversion result is PI.
This being the case, we can now do a valid substitution operation where we take the 7920 value, formerly our CIRCUMFERENCE value, and assign it as the value for our DIAMETER.
We can do this because we established a “fixed” value for one of the two values we are going to use in our next computation, that being the conversion result of Pi. I apologize for the non-exact wording that I am using. I know there is a technical term for the substitution that I just did, but I do not recall it. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that many times over the last three years I have wished that my math teachers in school were still around. Mrs. Sabodash, Mr. Forest, and Mr. Hammerton from my high school years and Mr. Nehring from college. They would have pinned this stuff down because they were all great mathematical minds and great teachers. I wasn’t the best student.
With the 7920-value allocated as our diameter, what would our circumference value be?
-SET THE 7920 AS YOUR DIAMETER, USE C=(D)(PI)
-3.142857 * 7920 = 24891.429211 UNITS
-THIS IS HOW THEY UPCONVERTED “STADIA PER PARTICULA” INTO THE VALUE WE ASSOCIATE AS THE ENGLISH STATUTE MILE EARTH DIAMETER
With this above operation we mathematically transposed our 7920 Particula Earth circumference value and fashioned a 7920-value unit as an Earth diameter value.
We didn’t start with a pre-assumed 7920-value unit as the Earth diameter, to wit, the 7920 English Statute Mile diameter value, so we did not violate the scientific method.
Again, the metrologists of the 19th and 20th centuries weren’t aware of the 7920 particula value of the Earth’s circumference. All they knew what that the 7920-value had been an Ancient diameter value of the Earth, a supposition that was validated by examining the dozens and dozens of historical physical measures and finding a correlation which indicated that a 7920 geodetic value was responsible.
A 7920-value was responsible, but when one starts with it being the EARTH’S CIRCUMFERENCE, the Megalithic System of Values can then be linked into the larger historical story.

-------------
Now that we have a mathematical method which shows HOW the 7920-value switched from a CIRCUMFERENCE value to a DIAMETER value, we can leverage this in looking at some previous work we did.
The 7920 Particula System, which is a base-10 system, is NOT the MEGALITHIC System, which was CLEARLY a base-60 system. You can see that the Megalithic System was base-60 by watching how its value stream lays out: https://www.facebook.com/…/a.11495577858…/1887218411354353/….
You can see that the 7920 Particula System was a base-10 system which was the CROSS-OVER mechanism from the Megalithic into the Greek/Anglo-Saxon dimensional systems, and then further into what we now classify as the English Statute system: https://www.facebook.com/…/a.11495577858…/1885288651547329/…
Here’s the order:
(1) Megalithic (MF, MY, Cubit)
(2) 7920 Particula
(3) Stade/Anglo-Saxon (and offshoots)
(4) English Statute
-------------
This is really choppy, but as a bit of background…we are all aware that the sexagesimal system is a base-60 system. The values in this system are all multiples of the 60. For example, 60 times 6 equals 360 and 60 times 60 equals 3600. [Note: 3600 divided by 10 equals 360.]
We use a base-10 numeric value system. 10 times 1 equals 10 and 10 times 10 equals 100.
The stadia/stadiorium system is a base-10 system. We know this because the proportion between the units is defined by the 10 value. The proportion between stadia and stadiorium is 1:10.
Let’s now turn to the PARTICULA system value of 7920. Is this value divisible by multiples of 60, or 10, or both – and does it produce values that synchronize to the Stade/Anglo-Saxon and, then further along in time, the English Statute dimension systems?
-7920 / 6 = 1320
-7920 / 60 = 132
-7920 / 600 = 13.2 (13.2 English Statute inches in 1 Anglo-Saxon Foot)
-7920 / 6000 = 1.32
-7920 / 60,000 = 0.132
-7920 / .01 = 79,200 (79,200 Anglo-Saxon inches in 1 OLD English Mile)
-7920 / 1 = 7920 (7920 Anglo-Saxon inches in 1 English Statute Furlong)
-7920 / 10 = 792 (792 Anglo-Saxon inches in 1 English Statute Chain)
-7920 / 100 = 79.2 (79.2 Anglo-Saxon inches in 1 English Statute Fathom)
-7920 / 1000 = 7.92
-7920 / 10,000 = 0.792
-79,200 / 13.2 = 6000
-7920 / 13.2 = 600
-792 / 13.2 = 60
-79.2 / 13.2 = 6
-7.92 / 13.2 = 0.6
The 7920-value of the 7920 Particula System is pretty spectacular. Chronologically, I would place it after the Egyptian Pyramid construction. I say this because the Cubit was the primary dimensional unit for the pyramids. Some have posited that the Megalithic Yard was also present in the Pyramids. Of course, it was! This is because the Megalithic Fathom, Megalith Yard, and Cubit are all part of the SAME dimensional system. The Megalithic System wasn’t some secret, mystical set of values. It was THE value system used in Megalithic Monuments in Egypt and Northern Europe.
The more accurate 7920 Particula System followed the Megalithic System.
-------------
 
Jul 2018
62
Florida
posting three

On the slide in the lower, right-hand corner you can see conversion units between the Anglo-Saxon dimensional units and the English Statute dimensional units. (Wakefield 2006: various)
-------------
References:
-Kålund, Kristian & N. Beckman. Alfræði Íslenzk: Islandsk encyklopædisk litteratur, Volume 2. Copenhagen: Møllers bogtrykkeri, 1914-1916. Retrieved November 2017 http://www.septentrionalia.net/etexts/alfraedi2.pdf.
-Kedwards, Dale (2014) Cartography and Culture in Medieval Iceland. PhD thesis, University of York. Retrieved November 2017 http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/8…/1/KedwardsD-PhD-Thesis.pdf
-Wakefield, Jim. “From the Rollrights to Stonehenge a Measure.” 2006. Retrieved August 2018 http://www.dozenalsociety.org.uk/pdfs/Rollrights08.pdf
 
Jul 2018
62
Florida
How did you like the research on posting #446........kind of sets your teeth grinding....its right there in black and white and LATIN.......damn


When Dante is spelled DÆNTE with a Hooked X construct it presents a bit of difficulty
 

Similar History Discussions