Ark of The Covenant - explained

Written by Robert Bruce Baird

Hold on to your hat! Here comes one ofrepparttar most, incredible stories of ancient technology, which ranks alongsiderepparttar 139101 use of atomic forces andrepparttar 139102 'Lost Chord'. Needless to sayrepparttar 139103 editors of Scientific American who deniedrepparttar 139104 Wright brothers had achieved airborne flight for months after Kitty Hawk won't or wouldn't believe this 'doozy'. I think it is a very good explanation that is part of something even more fantastic which explainsrepparttar 139105 existence of accurate maps from over ten thousand years ago. But I also think these maps might have beenrepparttar 139106 work of Mungo Man orrepparttar 139107 De Danaan they worked with.

The other possibility that would explain their existence relates to Lhasa and a spacecraft which Churchward as well as Brugger’s The Chronicles of Akakor recounts from such things asrepparttar 139108 Lhasa Record which may only exist inrepparttar 139109 Akashic. If you have a better explanation I'd like to hear from you. Is it not important to explain such proven anomalies? Especially when they integrate with things we don't want to admit about man's far more advanced nature in ancient times. If we have blown each other apart before or created hyperviruses such as what killedrepparttar 139110 Mammoth (A current research underway byrepparttar 139111 American Museum of Natural History thinks it can be proven such a virus killed many large animals and that humans wererepparttar 139112 carrier.); does it warrant asking our leaders if they knew these things or why they didn't tell us? We are certain that our knowledge is not exclusive or even complete in these matters. Yet perhaps few people know how many disciplines and areas of how lives are under such oppressive control.

The maps themselves are dealt with underrepparttar 139113 Portolan Maps entry in greater detail and at this point we think it relevant to our discussion ofrepparttar 139114 ARK to bringrepparttar 139115 Pyramid intorepparttar 139116 possibility of advanced prior civilizations on earth. Michael Bradley is a map expert and a good scholar whose work we have quoted before.

"Centre ofrepparttar 139117 Earth's Land Mass, etc.

This is an important concept and I will explain torepparttar 139118 best of my ability. It will be easier to appreciate somewhat betterrepparttar 139119 truly significant placement ofrepparttar 139120 Giza complex.

First let's consider two squares. One is 100 square units (miles, kilometres, or whatever) in area,repparttar 139121 other twice as large, 200 square units in area.

{He illustrates two squares with pyramids on top from an overhead perspective with a line connectingrepparttar 139122 centre points or apex ofrepparttar 139123 pyramids. Underrepparttar 139124 smaller square are 10 units and underrepparttar 139125 larger square isrepparttar 139126 figure 14.85 units. The 100 and 200 unit figures as mentioned are further repeated further under these two squares.}

We will find their respective centres by drawing diagonals. Whererepparttar 139127 diagonals intersect isrepparttar 139128 centre of each square. Together, these squares represent three units ofrepparttar 139129 largest common denominator--100 square miles. So we'll draw a line, divided equally into three parts, betweenrepparttar 139130 centres ofrepparttar 139131 two squares. Since one square is twicerepparttar 139132 size ofrepparttar 139133 other, we will mark off two ofrepparttar 139134 equal parts towardsrepparttar 139135 larger square. This isrepparttar 139136 centre of their combined areas, given their distance apart. If they were closer together, or further apart,repparttar 139137 point would fall elsewhere. Please note that this point is aboverepparttar 139138 centre ofrepparttar 139139 small square but belowrepparttar 139140 centre ofrepparttar 139141 larger one. It is a true geometric centre ofrepparttar 139142 two areas that are separated by this given and arbitrary distance.

It is possible to ascertainrepparttar 139143 area of an irregular shape, although it is much more difficult to do than using squares.

The largest continent, Eurasia, happens to be about twicerepparttar 139144 land area ofrepparttar 139145 American continents. These continents are separated by oceans. One can dividerepparttar 139146 separation into three equal parts, just as above, and findrepparttar 139147 'centre of these two land masses.'

Taking this point, we can calculate Africa intorepparttar 139148 picturerepparttar 139149 same way. Africa is about 25%repparttar 139150 area of Eurasia andrepparttar 139151 Americas combined. Therefore,repparttar 139152 distance from Africa's geographic centre torepparttar 139153 Eurasia-Americas' centre will be divided into five equal parts (i.e.repparttar 139154 '4' represented by Eurasia-Americas, andrepparttar 139155 '1'(25%) represented by Africa's area). Marking off four of these five divisions towardsrepparttar 139156 Eurasia-Americas’ centre, since this centre represents a combined land mass four times as large as Africa, will yield a new point, which is geometric, in this case 'geographic', centre of Eurasia-Americas-Africa combined. If we continue this process withrepparttar 139157 remaining large and small land masses--Antarctica, Australia, Greenland, New Guinea, Java, Sumatra, etc. --we will eventually arrive at a 'centre ofrepparttar 139158 earth's land masses.' It will be as accurate as our method, plusrepparttar 139159 arbitrary inclusion of ever smaller islands, will make it.

A meticulous calculation of such a 'centre' will result in a point directly onrepparttar 139160 meridian (longitude) ofrepparttar 139161 Great Pyramid but 6' (minutes) south ofrepparttar 139162 Great Pyramid--but there's only sand in that location. The Giza Plateau isrepparttar 139163 first solid bedrock onrepparttar 139164 correct meridian {And Archaeology Magazine hadrepparttar 139165 temerity to suggestrepparttar 139166 builders were merely imitating natural landforms withrepparttar 139167 Sphinx and Pyramid in last months issue.}. It is 6' in error fromrepparttar 139168 true centre.

Sixty seconds of 101.3 English feet = l' (minute) of arc, 6080 feet onrepparttar 139169 equator = 1 nautical mile, whereas one 'common' or 'highway' ('statute') mile equals 5280 English feet. A nautical 'knot' is one nautical mile (6080 English feet) per hour of time; it is a unit of speed measurement, not of static distance.

Sixty minutes = 1 degree of arc, or 60 nautical miles atrepparttar 139170 equator. The Earth's equatorial circumference contains 360 degrees or 21,600 nautical miles = 24,872.73 common or statute miles.

All this sounds deceptively precise! In fact, of course, standardization ofrepparttar 139171 length ofrepparttar 139172 English foot, and therefore of seconds, minutes and degrees of arc, was not accomplished untilrepparttar 139173 1750s--andrepparttar 139174 size ofrepparttar 139175 Earth was not measured correctly at that time. Just asrepparttar 139176 French Academy made an error in fixingrepparttar 139177 length ofrepparttar 139178 metre, which was supposed to be one ten-millionth part ofrepparttar 139179 surface distance fromrepparttar 139180 Earth's equator to either pole, because they couldn't measurerepparttar 139181 Earth accurately, so alsorepparttar 139182 British Admiralty made inaccurate geographic measures. Nonetheless, these measures remain accurate enough for most practical purposes. Nowadays, units of measure are fixed by correlation to electromagnetic wave-lengths {Couldrepparttar 139183 ancients have been able to attune with Gaia's earth energy grid and send signals along it to recordrepparttar 139184 time taken for a bounce back or echo?}. Since 1966, for example,repparttar 139185 metre has been fixed as a division ofrepparttar 139186 wave-length of Krypton 86.

Beyond Common Sense...

Written by Terry Dashner

The Limits of Common Sense…

Terry Dashner…………….Faith Fellowship Church PO Box 1586 Broken Arrow, OK 74013

I was taught to value common sense. My roots are small town, lower middle-class American fromrepparttar heart of America—Oklahoma. My dad was a WWII veteran who had seen action inrepparttar 138824 South Pacific and claimed he made it throughrepparttar 138825 war byrepparttar 138826 grace of God and his ability to use his natural wits. My Mother was from a family of nine brothers and sisters, who grew up in a country home without electricity and without indoor facilities. They had a path-and-a-half that led to an outhouse, a good distance fromrepparttar 138827 house.

Pragmatism was honorable andrepparttar 138828 way to “make it” inrepparttar 138829 rough-and-tumble world outside. Pragmatism was known by many names inrepparttar 138830 Dashner home—good-ole-common-horse-sense, good-sense, level-headedness, and common-smarts, to name some ofrepparttar 138831 more commonly used. And much pride went into addressingrepparttar 138832 pundit’s paradoxes,repparttar 138833 intellectual’s conundrums, and academia’s curricula with a home-spun wisdom that kept life simple. After all, isn’t life supposed to be simple?

Throughrepparttar 138834 years my pragmatism has rescued me, on more than one occasion, while serving inrepparttar 138835 military and municipal law enforcement. I’m glad for my contributions to country and community by way ofrepparttar 138836 common man’s wit. But to be perfectly honest, I must admit that there is more to living than just being practical. Listen please.

I agree with Socrates. Our most practical need in life is to be more than a pragmatist. I believerepparttar 138837 words of Jesus who said that man shall not live by bread alone. Yes, there is more to living than bread. As a matter of fact, Jesus also said that it would profit man very little to gainrepparttar 138838 whole world—all it offers—and lose his own soul. Or in other words, man was created for a higher purpose. Man should not live by his natural wits alone, while ignoringrepparttar 138839 deeper issues of life beyond this life.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use