Why conical boulders

Please post your theories for discussion here. Expect plenty of questions and devil's advocacy.

Moderators: Jo, admiralbenbow, Keeled_over

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:18 am

My sentiments exactly,why else would someone lay down a geometric figure such as the cross and the triangle and others that I don't know about if not to indicate something,a message of whatever kind.I can't understand why they have been virtually ignored over the years except by a handful of people.They are not exactly rock ornaments in someones back yard and the geometric concept is shunned because the majority don't understand it,a subject at school to be wagged in favour of PE on the playing field.
I have had an idea you may be interested in regarding the implementing of both our theories which I will put a bit more thought into and I'll get in touch.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:57 pm

Geoff,
Before I touch on the entrance to F do you know if Nolan's and Crooker's survey's were done before or after Nolan moved cone A as I have found a correlation between both using what I theorised in the first post.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby . . . on Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:33 am

Dave

Both surveys were undertaken after Nolan moved Cone A. However, Crooker observed that the original depression was still obvious, and there was a trail between the stone and the hole. Cone B had also been moved, but again there was a depression to mark more or less where the centre had been. See Crooker, 1993, 176-9.
User avatar
. . .
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:14 am

Thank you.the reason I asked is I've eventually ended up with the dimensions for the reconstructed cross as being the same as surveyed by Crooker for Nolan's cross at 293-429-145 without any adjustments by me.On that NS line I have the MP at 838ft from the N end and the Welling triangle at 1131ft which is 293ft difference.I'll reconfirm the other two and get back.
When combined with Amundsen's dimensions something remarkable happens,remarkable to me anyway.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby . . . on Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:21 pm

Be careful! If you find amazing results with Petter’s numbers, and amazing results with the actual numbers, you open yourself up to the criticism that you could probably do the same with yet another set of numbers. It may be better to stick with one explanation!
User avatar
. . .
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: West Midlands, UK

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:14 pm

Perhaps your right,maybe too much to handle but it is something I can't ignore considering what it says and from day one I have let this geometry speak for itself rather than what I want it to say.
I have whittled those dimensions down for the reconstructed cross and they turn out to be 293-430-144,I have settled for that as I know what the 430 means,it coming into the picture for location G which I will be describing later.
I re-read your earlier post about the distances from F to Nolan's cross and initially thought you meant the reconstructed cross,now I know what you mean and agree with that as a possibility.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:32 am

THE TOMB

In the 1614 publication of the Rosicrucian Fama Fraternitatis is a description of the life of it's founding father
Christian Rosenkreutz and the tomb in which he was interred upon his death in 1378 and stating that he lived for
106 years,not citing the year of 1484.
The tomb was described as being of 7 sides,5ft long and 8ft high with the entrance door in one side and the
remaining 6 sides with doors to small rooms containing diverse items.

I propose that Location F is the site of such a tomb containing the remains of Francis Bacon which were removed
from his original burial site within the grounds of his home at Gorhambury Estate in England in 1626.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:56 am

Following on from the above the reason I think that there is a 7 sided tomb at Location F is because of the Welling triangle situated at 1131ft From the top of the 1704ft N/S line running through it and the MP.The triangle was surveyed by Aarlek Walton in 1963 determining that the angles at its apex were set at 23d26m to the left of the N/S line and 36d34m to the right.That means that the right side of the triangle is set at 36d34m and that side points directly to Location F at 36d 34m West of True North at a distance of 986ft.

The sides of the triangle were measured as being 10ft each side,and a technique used by Stonemasons of old for drawing a 7 sided figure on the cross-section of a column requiring 7 sides was to draw an equilateral triangle,then from one corner of the triangle inscribe half the length of one side and step off that distance around the circumference of the column.In the case of the Welling triangle it would give a 7 sided figure with sides of 5ft as in the description of the tomb.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:26 am

[size=150]THE ENTRANCE

Location F is set on the side of the 1704ft Hexagon as previously described which is set at 60d from True North.One corner of the 7 sided tomb is on that line and the door is set into the second side of that tomb clockwise from that line.Each of the angles at the centre is 51d 26m and half of that is 25d 43m,meaning that the centre of the door is at 77d 09m from the line.Using a bit of artistic lcence and more accuracy it could just as well be 77d 08m.
The centre of the door would then be set at 60d + 77d 08m = 137d 08m from True N the year of birth of CR.However the access to that door is not from directly above but by way of a tunnel set along the same bearing from the door at 137d 08m at a distance of 137ft 08in.
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why conical boulders

Postby Dave Wood on Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:49 am

The past 3 posts have described the tomb and its entrance and the location of each,which in total took me 6 years of head banging geometry to figure out and little did I realise that to find the end result all I needed to know was the name of the person I was looking for and the existence of the Cross.As previously shown the full value for Francis is 67 and Bacon 33 giving his name numerically as 6733.

In order to find that access point to the tunnel leading to the ultimate goal of the tomb and Francis Bacon is from the centre of the Cross take a bearing of 67d 33m SE from True South and at a distance of 337ft 6in will take you directly to that point.

Now for Location G,if francis Bacon is at F what is at G
Dave Wood
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Your Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Fatal error: ./cache/ is NOT writable. in /home/oakislan/public_html/forum/includes/acm/acm_file.php on line 103