Hold on to your hat! Here comes one of
most, incredible stories of ancient technology, which ranks alongside use of atomic forces and 'Lost Chord'. Needless to say editors of Scientific American who denied 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 explains existence of accurate maps from over ten thousand years ago. But I also think these maps might have been work of Mungo Man or 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 as Lhasa Record which may only exist in 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 killed Mammoth (A current research underway by American Museum of Natural History thinks it can be proven such a virus killed many large animals and that humans were 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 under Portolan Maps entry in greater detail and at this point we think it relevant to our discussion of ARK to bring Pyramid into possibility of advanced prior civilizations on earth. Michael Bradley is a map expert and a good scholar whose work we have quoted before.
"Centre of Earth's Land Mass, etc.
This is an important concept and I will explain to best of my ability. It will be easier to appreciate somewhat better truly significant placement of Giza complex.
First let's consider two squares. One is 100 square units (miles, kilometres, or whatever) in area, other twice as large, 200 square units in area.
{He illustrates two squares with pyramids on top from an overhead perspective with a line connecting centre points or apex of pyramids. Under smaller square are 10 units and under larger square is 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. Where diagonals intersect is centre of each square. Together, these squares represent three units of largest common denominator--100 square miles. So we'll draw a line, divided equally into three parts, between centres of two squares. Since one square is twice size of other, we will mark off two of equal parts towards larger square. This is centre of their combined areas, given their distance apart. If they were closer together, or further apart, point would fall elsewhere. Please note that this point is above centre of small square but below centre of larger one. It is a true geometric centre of two areas that are separated by this given and arbitrary distance.
It is possible to ascertain area of an irregular shape, although it is much more difficult to do than using squares.
The largest continent, Eurasia, happens to be about twice land area of American continents. These continents are separated by oceans. One can divide separation into three equal parts, just as above, and find 'centre of these two land masses.'
Taking this point, we can calculate Africa into picture same way. Africa is about 25% area of Eurasia and Americas combined. Therefore, distance from Africa's geographic centre to Eurasia-Americas' centre will be divided into five equal parts (i.e. '4' represented by Eurasia-Americas, and '1'(25%) represented by Africa's area). Marking off four of these five divisions towards 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 with remaining large and small land masses--Antarctica, Australia, Greenland, New Guinea, Java, Sumatra, etc. --we will eventually arrive at a 'centre of earth's land masses.' It will be as accurate as our method, plus arbitrary inclusion of ever smaller islands, will make it.
A meticulous calculation of such a 'centre' will result in a point directly on meridian (longitude) of Great Pyramid but 6' (minutes) south of Great Pyramid--but there's only sand in that location. The Giza Plateau is first solid bedrock on correct meridian {And Archaeology Magazine had temerity to suggest builders were merely imitating natural landforms with Sphinx and Pyramid in last months issue.}. It is 6' in error from true centre.
Sixty seconds of 101.3 English feet = l' (minute) of arc, 6080 feet on 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 at equator. The Earth's equatorial circumference contains 360 degrees or 21,600 nautical miles = 24,872.73 common or statute miles.
