Professor Vaira Vike-Freiberga is the current President of Latvia, a
country which - after a half-century of occupation - obtained its
independence from the former Soviet Union in 1990. A biography was
written about Vike-Freiberga and her unusual life recently by Ausma
Cimdina as the book, In the Name of Freedom (Jumava (www.Jumava.lv),
Riga, ISBN 9984-05-685-6), a book which was just sent to me to read
by my good friend Prof. Rolands Rikards, one of the world's leading
authorities on composite materials at Riga Technical University (see
http://www.lza.lv/scientists/rikardsr.htm). In that book, Cimdina
writes (pp. 107-109) about a 1991 speech held by Vike-Freiberga
entitled "Scientia et sapientia" [science and wisdom] in which Vike-
Freiberga discussed the nature of science in our modern world,
arguing that science without wisdom was useless.
[beginning of quoted excerpts from the book]
"In her speech, [Vike-Freiberga, herself a much respected mainstream
scientist in her fields of study] integrated both an affirmation and
a criticism of science ... [stating that] ... during the Soviet
regime, the humanities had adopted the totalitarian government's
attitudes and its authoritarian versions of the "truth." ... Vaira
Vike-Freiberga presented a thumbnail history of science.... She
emphasized that the evolution of scientific thinking has gone hand
in hand with the evolution of the humanities, and that the
historical processes of democratisation and European-style democracy
as such are basically a product of the scientific mode of thinking.
At the same time, however, the speaker criticised some aspects of
science... [presenting] examples from the history of the sciences in
Europe and from contemporary scientific developments that do not
speak well of science. The roots of these negative aspects were to
be found in science itself ... not outside it.
... [In the] Middle Ages ... "mouldy parchments" were copied from
generation to generation, full of "wild and untested foolishness".
In the early years of the European universities ... authorised
knowledge "had degenerated into petty disputes" ... intellectual
debates "were reduced to claims from each side based on quotations
from ancient authorities, each side trying to line up as many dead
supporters for their views as possible." [T]he recognized
authorities of the day frequently oppressed their colleagues with
their power and authority (when they did not persecute them). The
history of scientific discovery has been, to a great extent, a
battle against authorities, real or bogus, throughout human history.
As a result, many of the world's greatest thinkers have suffered
tragic fates. The Professor's remarks about science in the Middle
Ages resonated powerfully with the more recent history of the
humanities and the social sciences in the Soviet Union. The USSR
claimed to be the embodiment of a scientific worldview, and yet was
anti-humanistic in orientation.
[T]hese were not problems limited to the Soviet era or the Middle
Ages, but [were] a deeply rooted tendency that is a fundamental part
of science and scientists to this day. "Scientists are most fond of
posing as 'scientific authorities'," she said. "They bitterly
denounce other kinds of knowledge and ridicule scientific evidence
as unsubstantiated and misleading, as if science could presume to
offer absolute truths. Such attitudes are actually incompatible with
the tentative nature and inevitable ambiguity of scientific
discoveries, which are often controversial and are constantly being
replaced by others." Excessive 'scientism'... is particularly
dangerous in countries "governed by political short-sightedness and
economic greed, where science and technology are subject to
irresponsible and irrational mandates." She also discussed social
self-defence mechanisms that offer protection against abuses of
scientific discovery or application. She reminded her audience that
even in the "so-called developed countries, there is an overall
disposition toward science that is, at best, ambivalent."
Her lecture "Scientia et sapientia" [indicated that] ... Only the
wise and strong dare to be self-critical and the same must apply to
science if it is to succeed."
[end of quoted excerpts from the book]
My comment is - I could not have written that better if I had
written it myself.
Many mainstream scientists in the West - if asked - would distance
themselves greatly from previous authoritarian Soviet academic
practices, not realizing how closely to the former Soviet model the
actual "practice" of science in the West operates - when pushed.
Just try to rock the mainstream scientific boat and you will see
this "authoritarian science" in operation quite quickly. On the
other hand "if you join the club", get "your party card", "mind your
p's and q's", and "praise the authorities that be", your academic
life can be quite enjoyable and "successful". I have been bucking
this system for 30 years. Nothing has changed.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Wednesday, December 3, 2003
Japanese Jomon rock image a fake - 237 LexiLine Journal
See the Stone Pages Archaeo News at
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/000447.html
for a story concerning a Japanese rock image - allegedly from the
Jomon period - as a fake.
What is disturbing about this report is the archaeologist's
statement that this artifact had never been investigated
before "since it was considered an important historical object",
i.e. people just accepted it as legitimate on its face.
Is that the scientific standard used in mainstream archaeology? The
more important the object - the less seriously it is investigated?
As some of you know, I have several times recommended the re-study
of the Turin Canon by new thermoluminescence methods, since I am
sure some of the pieces of this important historical papyrus have
been mis-pasted in the reconstruction process. Thermoluminiscence
would easily determine where the pieces should properly be pasted
(by grains on the paper, etc.). My suggestions have fallen on deaf
ears in Egyptology, for the same reason as given above - the object
is "too important" to study - it might be damaged.
And so, erroneous conclusions drawn from a - surely - falsely
reconstructed document are used to map the chronology of ancient
Egypt, for which the Turin Canon is of eminent importance.
Is this good science? Not in my book.
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/000447.html
for a story concerning a Japanese rock image - allegedly from the
Jomon period - as a fake.
What is disturbing about this report is the archaeologist's
statement that this artifact had never been investigated
before "since it was considered an important historical object",
i.e. people just accepted it as legitimate on its face.
Is that the scientific standard used in mainstream archaeology? The
more important the object - the less seriously it is investigated?
As some of you know, I have several times recommended the re-study
of the Turin Canon by new thermoluminescence methods, since I am
sure some of the pieces of this important historical papyrus have
been mis-pasted in the reconstruction process. Thermoluminiscence
would easily determine where the pieces should properly be pasted
(by grains on the paper, etc.). My suggestions have fallen on deaf
ears in Egyptology, for the same reason as given above - the object
is "too important" to study - it might be damaged.
And so, erroneous conclusions drawn from a - surely - falsely
reconstructed document are used to map the chronology of ancient
Egypt, for which the Turin Canon is of eminent importance.
Is this good science? Not in my book.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Where was Mount Sinai? - 236 LexiLine Journal
DATING OF MOSES AND EXODUS - A CONFIRMATION - OF A SORT
A mainstream archaeologist - who I presume otherwise wishes to
remain anonymous - sent me the following link by private e-mail and
I am passing it on to you.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm
The short, single AND significant comment of this archaeologist to
the content of the article at the above link was as follows:
"Confirmation … of a sort:"
The archeaologist is referring to confirmation of my work showing
that mainstream chronology relating to Moses and Exodus is clearly
false - see http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi300.htm.
The link above refers to "the confirmation ... of a sort" through
the very important work of Professor Emmanuel Anati (see
http://www.harkarkom.com/Anati.phtml - this page gives his biography
in english), who writes in October 2003 that the Mount Sinai
archaeological EVIDENCE clearly invalidates the current dating of
Moses and Exodus, and that all available evidence points to a much
earlier date.
Professor Anati would even date Moses and Exodus back a full
thousand years, but I think that my chronology as posted for quite
some time now at http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi760.htm will
ultimately prevail, with the reconcilable difference in our dates
having to do with the dating of the end of the Early Bronze Age.
The accurate correction of the date of Exodus, as I have long
alleged, will ultimately put the birth of Moses ca. 1708 BC, with
all of the consequences that this has for our understanding of the
subsequent chronology of the history of human civilization, for the
history of Egypt, for the history of the Jews, and for the history
of religion generally.
DAVID ROHL - A TEST OF TIME - SYNOPSIS BY JOHN FULTON - ARTAPANUS
and JOSEPHUS
Let us go back a few steps to what I have been writing for years. To
fully understand what Artapanus and also Josephus wrote about Moses,
it is useful to read e.g.
"A New Chronology: Synopsis of David Rohl's book 'A Test of Time' ",
by John Fulton, at http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm
(please note for the text reproduced below that the Egyptologists
currently date the 13th Pharaonic dynasty to ca. 1782-1650 BC -
according to Peter A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs).
Here is what Fulton writes:
[start of quote]
"The early Christian historian Eusebius in his work Evangelicae
Preparationis' quotes from a book Peri Ioudaion' (Concerning the
Jews) by the Jewish historian Artapanus. This work of Artapanus has
not survived down to the present but is also quoted in Clement's
Stromata'. Artapanus, writing in the 3rd century BC, had access to
ancient records in Egyptian temples and perhaps even the famous
Alexandrian library of Ptolemy I.
Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting
the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew
up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres.
Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this
pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were
invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of
his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres
died and lead the Israelites to freedom. It may be only a Mosaic
story with similarities to the biblical account, yet the only
pharaoh with the name Khenephres was Sobekhotep IV, who took the
name Khaneferre at his coronation. He reigned soon after Neferhotep
I of the 13th Dynasty, as mentioned above, the pharaoh in power at
Moses' birth!
Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews', with access to very old
manuscripts and writing in AD 93, also mentioned Moses' Ethiopian or
Kushite war. Here, Moses led an Egyptian army down the Nile valley,
past the Third Cataract, deep into Kush (modern Ethiopia). In the
British Museum is a stela (page 261, fig. 289) which tells of a 13th
Dynasty pharaoh undertaking a campaign south into the region of
Kush. That pharaoh is none other than Khaneferre, the step-father of
Moses according to Artapanus. He is the only 13th Dynasty pharaoh
who is recorded as having campaigned into Upper Nubia or Ethiopia.
At Kerma on the Nile an official Egyptian building was found,
outside of which was discovered a statue of Khaneferre, so dating
this building to the 13th Dynasty. This is many hundreds of
kilometres south of the known boundaries of 13th Dynasty Egypt and
may have been a governor's residence'. It would have been built to
secure Egyptian interests in the area after the military victory of
the Egyptians led by Moses, as this was the only Kushite war at that
time with Egypt. As Moses was a prince of Egypt and was 40 years old
according to the Bible when he fled to Arabia, he could certainly
have led this military operation - an Israelite leading an Egyptian
army to war! If this part of Josephus' account is true then it adds
weight to the rest of his account of the life of Moses and also
gives us some firmer evidence of the existence of this charismatic
leader!"
[end of quote]
WHERE WAS the MOUNT SINAI of MOSES? - PROFESSOR EMMANUEL ANATI
Professor Emmanuel Anati has written a book, just recently
published, entitled, The Riddle of Mount Sinai, which can be ordered
at http://www.harkarkom.com/Order.phtml, where Anati writes that
Har Karkom was the "Mount Sinai" of Moses (see
http://www.harkarkom.com).
As Anati writes - as found at:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm:
[start of quote]
"Considering these various factors together, it seems that the
biblical narratives reflect what archaeological research has
discovered at Har Karkom, Beer Karkom and Kadesh-Barnea, as well as
at Jericho, Ai, Arad, Edom and Moab, and elsewhere. If the epic
described in the books of Exodus and Numbers relies on even a
minimal historical matrix, and if indeed there was an Exodus with
stops at the foot of Mount Sinai and at Kadesh-Barnea, then its
chronological context can only refer to the BAC period during which
Har Karkom was a holy mountain of exceptional importance. The
documentation gathered through archaeological research at Jericho
and Ai, the comparisons with Egyptian literature, and the actual
finds at Har Karkom, all seem to imply that the biblical narratives
have some historical background referring to the era of Exodus. Thus
the age of Joshua beginning at Gilgal, marked the twilight of the
Early Bronze Age. This is when the epoch of Moses ends, an epoch
which both culturally and historically belongs to the Early Bronze
Age, about one millennium before the dates given to such episodes by
what had been so far the conventional chronology."
[end of quote]
Professor Anati's new book, again, is The Riddle of Mount Sinai,
which can be ordered at http://www.harkarkom.com/Order.phtml.
Are we correcting ancient history at LexiLine? We are.
A mainstream archaeologist - who I presume otherwise wishes to
remain anonymous - sent me the following link by private e-mail and
I am passing it on to you.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm
The short, single AND significant comment of this archaeologist to
the content of the article at the above link was as follows:
"Confirmation … of a sort:"
The archeaologist is referring to confirmation of my work showing
that mainstream chronology relating to Moses and Exodus is clearly
false - see http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi300.htm.
The link above refers to "the confirmation ... of a sort" through
the very important work of Professor Emmanuel Anati (see
http://www.harkarkom.com/Anati.phtml - this page gives his biography
in english), who writes in October 2003 that the Mount Sinai
archaeological EVIDENCE clearly invalidates the current dating of
Moses and Exodus, and that all available evidence points to a much
earlier date.
Professor Anati would even date Moses and Exodus back a full
thousand years, but I think that my chronology as posted for quite
some time now at http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi760.htm will
ultimately prevail, with the reconcilable difference in our dates
having to do with the dating of the end of the Early Bronze Age.
The accurate correction of the date of Exodus, as I have long
alleged, will ultimately put the birth of Moses ca. 1708 BC, with
all of the consequences that this has for our understanding of the
subsequent chronology of the history of human civilization, for the
history of Egypt, for the history of the Jews, and for the history
of religion generally.
DAVID ROHL - A TEST OF TIME - SYNOPSIS BY JOHN FULTON - ARTAPANUS
and JOSEPHUS
Let us go back a few steps to what I have been writing for years. To
fully understand what Artapanus and also Josephus wrote about Moses,
it is useful to read e.g.
"A New Chronology: Synopsis of David Rohl's book 'A Test of Time' ",
by John Fulton, at http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm
(please note for the text reproduced below that the Egyptologists
currently date the 13th Pharaonic dynasty to ca. 1782-1650 BC -
according to Peter A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs).
Here is what Fulton writes:
[start of quote]
"The early Christian historian Eusebius in his work Evangelicae
Preparationis' quotes from a book Peri Ioudaion' (Concerning the
Jews) by the Jewish historian Artapanus. This work of Artapanus has
not survived down to the present but is also quoted in Clement's
Stromata'. Artapanus, writing in the 3rd century BC, had access to
ancient records in Egyptian temples and perhaps even the famous
Alexandrian library of Ptolemy I.
Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting
the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew
up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres.
Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this
pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were
invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of
his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres
died and lead the Israelites to freedom. It may be only a Mosaic
story with similarities to the biblical account, yet the only
pharaoh with the name Khenephres was Sobekhotep IV, who took the
name Khaneferre at his coronation. He reigned soon after Neferhotep
I of the 13th Dynasty, as mentioned above, the pharaoh in power at
Moses' birth!
Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews', with access to very old
manuscripts and writing in AD 93, also mentioned Moses' Ethiopian or
Kushite war. Here, Moses led an Egyptian army down the Nile valley,
past the Third Cataract, deep into Kush (modern Ethiopia). In the
British Museum is a stela (page 261, fig. 289) which tells of a 13th
Dynasty pharaoh undertaking a campaign south into the region of
Kush. That pharaoh is none other than Khaneferre, the step-father of
Moses according to Artapanus. He is the only 13th Dynasty pharaoh
who is recorded as having campaigned into Upper Nubia or Ethiopia.
At Kerma on the Nile an official Egyptian building was found,
outside of which was discovered a statue of Khaneferre, so dating
this building to the 13th Dynasty. This is many hundreds of
kilometres south of the known boundaries of 13th Dynasty Egypt and
may have been a governor's residence'. It would have been built to
secure Egyptian interests in the area after the military victory of
the Egyptians led by Moses, as this was the only Kushite war at that
time with Egypt. As Moses was a prince of Egypt and was 40 years old
according to the Bible when he fled to Arabia, he could certainly
have led this military operation - an Israelite leading an Egyptian
army to war! If this part of Josephus' account is true then it adds
weight to the rest of his account of the life of Moses and also
gives us some firmer evidence of the existence of this charismatic
leader!"
[end of quote]
WHERE WAS the MOUNT SINAI of MOSES? - PROFESSOR EMMANUEL ANATI
Professor Emmanuel Anati has written a book, just recently
published, entitled, The Riddle of Mount Sinai, which can be ordered
at http://www.harkarkom.com/Order.phtml, where Anati writes that
Har Karkom was the "Mount Sinai" of Moses (see
http://www.harkarkom.com).
As Anati writes - as found at:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm:
[start of quote]
"Considering these various factors together, it seems that the
biblical narratives reflect what archaeological research has
discovered at Har Karkom, Beer Karkom and Kadesh-Barnea, as well as
at Jericho, Ai, Arad, Edom and Moab, and elsewhere. If the epic
described in the books of Exodus and Numbers relies on even a
minimal historical matrix, and if indeed there was an Exodus with
stops at the foot of Mount Sinai and at Kadesh-Barnea, then its
chronological context can only refer to the BAC period during which
Har Karkom was a holy mountain of exceptional importance. The
documentation gathered through archaeological research at Jericho
and Ai, the comparisons with Egyptian literature, and the actual
finds at Har Karkom, all seem to imply that the biblical narratives
have some historical background referring to the era of Exodus. Thus
the age of Joshua beginning at Gilgal, marked the twilight of the
Early Bronze Age. This is when the epoch of Moses ends, an epoch
which both culturally and historically belongs to the Early Bronze
Age, about one millennium before the dates given to such episodes by
what had been so far the conventional chronology."
[end of quote]
Professor Anati's new book, again, is The Riddle of Mount Sinai,
which can be ordered at http://www.harkarkom.com/Order.phtml.
Are we correcting ancient history at LexiLine? We are.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Stonehenge Stone 3 Axes - Stars by Leo - 235 LexiLine Journal
This posting continues the further decipherment of the Stonehenge
stones with carved axes upon them. See the previous posts for Nr. 53
and Nr. 4.
I have now uploaded
stonehengestone3.gif
to our Ancient Britain folder in our LexiLine files at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/
THE AXES ON SARSEN 3 - Stars between Leo Major and the Big Dipper
The 3 axes on Sarsen 3 mark the stars:
1. kappa and iota in Ursa Major - nearly one large bright star since
they are so close
2. theta in Ursa Major
3. psi in Ursa Major
These are the largest stars just below the familiar stars of the Big
Dipper in Ursa Major, which also belong to Ursa Major, and which are
included in the form of the Great Bear but not the Big Dipper.
Other figures on Stone 3 mark Leo Minor, Lynx, Cameolopardalis and
Ursa Minor.
For a photo of Stone 3 go to
http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/stone3/stone3.html
stones with carved axes upon them. See the previous posts for Nr. 53
and Nr. 4.
I have now uploaded
stonehengestone3.gif
to our Ancient Britain folder in our LexiLine files at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/
THE AXES ON SARSEN 3 - Stars between Leo Major and the Big Dipper
The 3 axes on Sarsen 3 mark the stars:
1. kappa and iota in Ursa Major - nearly one large bright star since
they are so close
2. theta in Ursa Major
3. psi in Ursa Major
These are the largest stars just below the familiar stars of the Big
Dipper in Ursa Major, which also belong to Ursa Major, and which are
included in the form of the Great Bear but not the Big Dipper.
Other figures on Stone 3 mark Leo Minor, Lynx, Cameolopardalis and
Ursa Minor.
For a photo of Stone 3 go to
http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/stone3/stone3.html
Stonehenge Stone 4 Axes - stars of Leo - 234 LexiLine Journal
This posting continues the further decipherment of the Stonehenge
stones with carved axes upon them. See the previous post for Nr. 53.
I have uploaded
stonehengestone4.gif
to our Ancient Britain folder in our LexiLine files at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/
THE AXES ON SARSEN 4 - Leo Minor and Leo Major
Long before "laser technology"
(see http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/stone4/stone4.html)
found axes on Sarsen 4, I identified them using computer graphic
programs, and indeed for Sarsen 4 I have these axes identified as
Leo Minor on page 122 of Stars, Stones and Scholars.
If you look at our Ancient Britain Files here on LexiLine at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/
I uploaded my decipherment of the axes on Sarsen 4 at Stonehenge on
July 31, 2002, identifying them as Leo Minor.
Here we see from my decipherment of all the now known axes on Stone
4 as uploaded at stonehengestone4.gif that one star of Leo Minor is
marked by the axes and that the remainder mark the major stars of
Leo Major.
A further posting on Stone 3 at Stonehenge is forthcoming.
stones with carved axes upon them. See the previous post for Nr. 53.
I have uploaded
stonehengestone4.gif
to our Ancient Britain folder in our LexiLine files at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/
THE AXES ON SARSEN 4 - Leo Minor and Leo Major
Long before "laser technology"
(see http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/stone4/stone4.html)
found axes on Sarsen 4, I identified them using computer graphic
programs, and indeed for Sarsen 4 I have these axes identified as
Leo Minor on page 122 of Stars, Stones and Scholars.
If you look at our Ancient Britain Files here on LexiLine at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/
I uploaded my decipherment of the axes on Sarsen 4 at Stonehenge on
July 31, 2002, identifying them as Leo Minor.
Here we see from my decipherment of all the now known axes on Stone
4 as uploaded at stonehengestone4.gif that one star of Leo Minor is
marked by the axes and that the remainder mark the major stars of
Leo Major.
A further posting on Stone 3 at Stonehenge is forthcoming.
Stonehenge Stone 53 Axes & Dagger represent Scorpio - 233 LexiLine Journal
A lot of absolute nonsense is being written by archaeologists and
the press about the meaning of the axes carved on Sarsen 3, Sarsen 4
and Trilithon 53 at Stonehenge.
Here is what these axes - and one dagger, on Stone 53 - mean:
THE AXES - and one dagger - ON TRILITHON 53
see http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/
As already shown on page 125 of my book, Stars, Stones and Scholars,
see http://www.starsstonesscholars.com
Trilithons 53 and 54 represent the back and front stars of Scorpio.
I have uploaded the file
stonehengestone53.gif
to our Ancient Britain files on LexiLine
showing the decipherment of these axes as the stars at the back of
Scorpio - and one dagger, which represents what we today know as
the "sting" of Scorpio. Each axe represents a star and the size of
the axes have been carved to represent the relative magnitudes of
these stars, which include also M6 (the Butterfly Cluster, also
called NGC 6405) and M7 (Ptolemy's Cluster, also known as NGC 6475),
both of which are mentioned in the Almagest and Ulug Beg as "that
which follows the Sting".
The dagger - clearly so drawn on the stone - is not an axe, but
represents the "sting" of Scorpio as seen in ancient days as
something other than a scorpion. Indeed, according to Richard
Hinckley Allen's Star Names, the ancients saw Scorpio as the slayer
of the Giant and the Polynesians saw here a big fish-hook.
Obviously, the men of Stonehenge saw it as a dagger.
A further e-mail is forthcoming on Sarsens 3 and 4.
the press about the meaning of the axes carved on Sarsen 3, Sarsen 4
and Trilithon 53 at Stonehenge.
Here is what these axes - and one dagger, on Stone 53 - mean:
THE AXES - and one dagger - ON TRILITHON 53
see http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/
As already shown on page 125 of my book, Stars, Stones and Scholars,
see http://www.starsstonesscholars.com
Trilithons 53 and 54 represent the back and front stars of Scorpio.
I have uploaded the file
stonehengestone53.gif
to our Ancient Britain files on LexiLine
showing the decipherment of these axes as the stars at the back of
Scorpio - and one dagger, which represents what we today know as
the "sting" of Scorpio. Each axe represents a star and the size of
the axes have been carved to represent the relative magnitudes of
these stars, which include also M6 (the Butterfly Cluster, also
called NGC 6405) and M7 (Ptolemy's Cluster, also known as NGC 6475),
both of which are mentioned in the Almagest and Ulug Beg as "that
which follows the Sting".
The dagger - clearly so drawn on the stone - is not an axe, but
represents the "sting" of Scorpio as seen in ancient days as
something other than a scorpion. Indeed, according to Richard
Hinckley Allen's Star Names, the ancients saw Scorpio as the slayer
of the Giant and the Polynesians saw here a big fish-hook.
Obviously, the men of Stonehenge saw it as a dagger.
A further e-mail is forthcoming on Sarsens 3 and 4.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Axum Obelisk (Aksum Obelisk) Ethiopia - 232 LexiLine Journal
As you can read at the following websites,
Italy has begun to dismantle the Aksum Obelisk
which is to be returned to Ethiopia.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-
woethi173533962nov10,0,5577594.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print
(copy and paste both lines of the above URL link, since it will not
wrap fully in blue, and the link will otherwise not work in Yahoo)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3252283.stm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030526/obelisk.html
I have previously argued for the return of the Aksum Obelisk to
Africa, and as I have noted before and as is found written in my book
Stars Stones and Scholars,
see http://www.starsstonesscholars.com
or http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1722.html
the Aksum Obelisk (also written Axum Obelisk)
- according to my pioneer research on this subject -
is a relatively "modern" stone marker
that marks a major location in Africa
which in ancient megalithic days
was a megalith cornerstone
of the Neolithic geodetic survey
of Africa and the world.
Italy has begun to dismantle the Aksum Obelisk
which is to be returned to Ethiopia.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-
woethi173533962nov10,0,5577594.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print
(copy and paste both lines of the above URL link, since it will not
wrap fully in blue, and the link will otherwise not work in Yahoo)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3252283.stm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030526/obelisk.html
I have previously argued for the return of the Aksum Obelisk to
Africa, and as I have noted before and as is found written in my book
Stars Stones and Scholars,
see http://www.starsstonesscholars.com
or http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1722.html
the Aksum Obelisk (also written Axum Obelisk)
- according to my pioneer research on this subject -
is a relatively "modern" stone marker
that marks a major location in Africa
which in ancient megalithic days
was a megalith cornerstone
of the Neolithic geodetic survey
of Africa and the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
