> > >Who suggested using the Sun? To make a straight
line over a long
> > >distance over difficult terrain do the following.
Make up a bunch of
> > >sticks. It helps if the sticks have either
a notch (as you said)
I am always trying to be helpful.
> > > or a
> > >'Y' shape at the top. Put a stick in the
ground. Some distance away
> > >put a second. Put a third so it lines up
with the first and second.
Speaking of notches, you cannot put a notch in
the second stick,
with which you could view the third stick. Simply
hiding the
third stick behind the second one, won't be accurate
enough,
because due to distance, the third stick is made
thin and fits
a number of times into the thick vertical profile
of the second
stick. This introduces a tiny mistake, (supposing
that all the
sticks are vertical). Next, the first mistake
gets compounded
by the second arising from the limits of accuracy
in the unaided
human eye, etc.
The more times you repeat the process, the more
you will stray
from the original line. You would have to prove
otherwise,
else you have a very suspect and unverified hypothesis..
> > >Put the forth so it lines up with the first
three. Put the fifth so it
> > >lines up with 2-4. Keep on doing so until
the end. In difficult
> > >terrain put the sticks closer together.
At the top of a hill put them
> > >very close together.
> > OK, let's try that.
> > \ I|
> > \ |
> > \|
A| G|
> > \
| |
> > \
__D|___________H|__________
> > \
B| E|
/
> > \
| | /
> >
\_____C|_______F|____/
> > First line up IBF. Then line up CEA.
This requires that your sticks
> > be vertical. If they are not vertical, the
bird's eye view (what a
> > map-maker sees) will not be a straight line.
> not really . all they have to be is in the same plane.
Plane? No chance of the sticks being in the same
plane around
Nasca (Andean foothills)! Sorry, but whilst
Simon Read presented
an easily imaginable idea, I don't see your refutation,
could you
explain it again, in clear detail, please? I
may be a bit slow..
> in fact,
> if they are sloped and a plumb bob is
dropped to the shadow of the
> stick you can be sure that you are following
the same sun line
> no worse than parallel planes(assuming you
check at the same time).
So, you admit that 2,000 years ago, Nascans had
watches
accurate to the second! Else, you are resorting
to unfairly
Hi-Tech.
> being on the same plane of course requires sighting.
one
> advantage of your example is that you can sight
HAI as a check.
Yesterday, while web-browsing, I came across the
idea that
despite some basic similarities between the geoglyph
of a
giant trident visible in the cliffs from far
asea at Pisco
Bay, Peru, and the Nasca, Peru figures - the
two aren't
related.
My 2 cents here buy me the observation that both
designs
have a rare common feature, in that they are
invisible from
land. The two are like Yin and Yen in that one
is visible
only from the sea (an entirely practical idea),
whereas the
other is visible only from high in the air (supposedly
an
impractical idea back then). Here, the two ideas
coexist..
Sat, 03 May 1997 02:51:54 -0700
From:
Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
Organization:
Ancient Science-Art
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors, soc.culture.usa,
sci.history.science, sci.anthropology, sci.skeptic, sci.math
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 00:31:57 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
> <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >> In sci.anthropology, on thread _Re: 200-ton
monoliths in Khafre's
> >> pyramid? (was Re: Advanced Machining in
Ancient Egypt)_, Jiri Mruzek
> >> <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
> >> >Tony Hague wrote:
> >> >> Interestingly, if you look at a Saturn
V now, you will see that,
> >> >> relatively speaking, man *did* go to
the moon by low tech.
Snip in the name of brevity.
> Three people post using the Saturn V as an
example. Coincidence? I
> don't think so.
A Miracle then!
I just don't see why one should call a rocket
Saturn,
when it's slated to go to the Moon.. Don't tell
me it was
called after the Roman god.
> (snip)
> >> So what is the "remarkable" and "unachievable"
aspect of these
> >> artifacts? You mention the flat planes,
we present ways to form the
> >> planes.
> >No way! Pouring a trough full of water to create
a flat
> >water surface is not the same as mirroring
that same
> >surface upon giant blocks of stone.
> Now having said that could you answer my question?
Physically, there is nothing unachievable about
these
artifacts. What is remarkable - these are the
artifacts
that Do Achieve those specs, while Others Don't.
Voila, the sought after remarkability.
Where else can we find similar workmanship on
the same
weightclass of blocks (15 tons)? As far as I
know - there
is no such place.
> >> You mention right angles we present ways
to form the right
> >> angles.
> >Not the ways to implement such precision upon
> >the Pyramid, though. (snip)
Speaking of unanswered questions, could you comment
on the above? Do you think you could give us
a proposal
on how to give the casing stones these perfect
specs?
Remember, it is not just one, or two sides that
you want
to position, but six sides (faces). Let's look
at the
water-trough-trick. Suppose you succeed on one
face, then
to get the opposing face just as flat, you will
have to
turn the block upside-down. Now, your trough-trick
won't,
work unless your first flat stone-face lies on
a perfectly
flat floor. But even if you did have such perfectly
flat
platforms, (you would need quite a few to produce
115,000
blocks..) how would you prevent damage
to the already
perfectly planed, and edged sides?
So, where are the numerous perfectly flat platforms
directly
in the neighbouhood of the Pyramid?
> >> You mention long straight lines, you present
ways to from the
> >> long straight lines.
> >You must have misunderstood me, Matt. I didn't
> >present any such ways to form those lines.
> Sorry, I meant that "we present ways" to form
these lines.
Too bad, no one is about to put those lines to
test.
So, throw me another line, Matt.
> >That bit about the sun directly behind the
line
> >tossing the line over the hill in the form
of a
> >shadow cast by a pole standing on the hill's
top -
> >that was nothing decisive. A solid method
of marking
> >20-miles long straight lines by Lo-Tech (sticks)
> >hasn't yet been suggested for difficult terrains.
> >I am always trying to be helpful. I can't
bear to
> >see my opponents mangling their arguments.
> Who suggested using the Sun? To make a straight
line over a long
> distance over difficult terrain do the following.
Make up a bunch of
> sticks. It helps if the sticks have either
a notch (as you said) or a
> 'Y' shape at the top. Put a stick in the ground.
Some distance away
> put a second. Put a third so it lines up with
the first and second.
> Put the forth so it lines up with the first
three. Put the fifth so it
> lines up with 2-4. Keep on doing so until the
end. In difficult
> terrain put the sticks closer together. At
the top of a hill put them
> very close together.
The closer the sticks are - the more inaccurate
their
alignments. The shorter the distance - the less
dispersal
between two would-be superimposed parallel lines
- and the
larger the inaccuracies, which remain un-noticeable.
So, you would like to maximize the distance between
any
three sticks, but at Nasca natural factors impose
severe
limitations. We are in the Andean foothills,
where it never
rains, and the days are always hot.
The air shimmers, there is inversion, etc. The
optics are
deceptive. It's only about 300 BC, up to 650
AD. Why, the
heck should you go to so much trouble to make
those lines
so straight. Why all the meticulous measurements?
I can see two possible solutions>
1) The lines have to be near perfect to fit in
with
the overall geometric plan of Nasca.
2) The longer such lines are, the more accurate
arrow they
could constitute to something perhaps
a given multiple
of the particular line length away.
Well, at least I name a couple of possible purposes..
> >> And when given solutions to your "dilemmas"
you
> >> say, that's not really the important part.
Then what is. Stop bringing
> >> up the unimportant and achievable.
> >Solutions? I haven't seen any solutions, sorry.
> >I do admit that I've seen a lot of interesting
> >thoughts, though none could quite cut it.
> Do you want to find solutions or do you want
the problem to remain
> "unsolvable" except with your answers? Have
you tried to lay out these
> lines? Have you done any experiments or field
work?
You have to perform your own experiments. I cannot
do it
on your behalf, because whenever I would fail,
you would
charge that I failed either on purpose, or subconsciously,
since by failing I would second my hypothesis.
(snip)
> >Is there anything unachievable on Giza, IYO?
> No.
Then, why wasn't it achieved elsewhere?
Sun, 04 May 1997 17:41:50 -0700
From:
Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
Organization:
Ancient Science-Art
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology, sci.history.science, sci.math, sci.skeptic
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ,
17 , 18 , 19 ,
20
Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> > > Simon Read wrote:
> > > > matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
wrote:
> > > > >Who suggested using the Sun? To make
a straight line over a long
> > > > >distance over difficult terrain do the
following. Make up a bunch of
> > > > >sticks. It helps if the sticks have
either a notch (as you said)
> > I am always trying to be helpful.
> > > > OK, let's try that.
> > > > \ I|
> > > > \ |
> > > > \|
A| G|
> > > > \
| |
> > > > \
__D|___________H|__________
> > > > \
B| E|
/
> > > > \
| | /
> > > >
\_____C|_______F|____/
> > > > First line up IBF. Then line up CEA.
This requires that your sticks
> > > > be vertical. If they are not vertical,
the bird's eye view (what a
> > > > map-maker sees) will not be a straight
line.
> > > not really . all they have to be is in the same plane.
> > Plane? No chance of the sticks being in the
same plane around
> > Nasca (Andean foothills)! Sorry, but
whilst Simon Read presented
> > an easily imaginable idea, I don't see your
refutation, could you
> > explain it again, in clear detail, please?
I may be a bit slow..
> sure remember we are talking a vertical
not horizontal plane
> instead of sticks use giant coins.
line them up the same way.
> edge on. sight down the row of coins
and they all look like lines
> now a coin or any other solid circle standing
at a right angle to
> a horizontal plane contains an infinite
> number of lines. But only one of them
is vertical. However all are in
> the same plane, and make equally good sighting
liens.
> therefore the sticks used to define a vertical
plane do not have to be
> vertical. they only have to be in the
same plane.
This is just plain Mumbo Jumbo. First you say:
"a coin or any
other solid circle standing at a right angle
to a horizontal
----------------------------------------------
plane contains an infinite number of lines.
But only one
of them is vertical." "However, all are
in the same plane"..
Well, of course, they are! You lined them up,
remember? You said:
"instead of sticks use giant coins. line
them up the same way."
-------------------------- !!!
How tricky you are! You transform the imperfect
sticks into
the perfect coins, and then you line those up
perfectly both
vertically and lengthwise.
Only then you wave your wand and let the sticks
take over
from the coins, and say: "therefore the sticks
used to define
a vertical plane do not have to be vertical."
You should add: "if, and only if they are aligned
towards each
other."
But, how do do that? We're back where we were.
Your tautological
rhapsody was all about getting the sticks vertical
from one side.
Why not say it simply? Sticks aren't coins..
> > > in fact,
> > > if they are sloped and a plumb bob
is dropped to the shadow of the
> > > stick you can be sure that you are following
the same sun line
> > > no worse than parallel planes(assuming
you check at the same time).
> > So, you admit that 2,000 years ago, Nascans
had watches
> > accurate to the second! Else, you are resorting
to unfairly
> > Hi-Tech.
> no, if everyone has a flag man and the leader
gives a signal
> when the shadow hits the plumb bob
> all the flagmen drop their flag at
> the moment the see the ealier flag dropped
> you get an excellent approximation of the same
time.
> many ancient armies used this technique.
So - are all the flagmen already standing in a
line?
No - because the line doesn't exist yet. As a
result,
you will get a bunch of parallel lines. The lines
will
be only slightly inaccurate because of their
shortness
(as we know - the shorter the line - the harder
it is
to perceive its exact angle).
Your next problem is to move all these lines
inline -
and there you recognize the old problem of having
to
produce a single line - out of nothing!
For, how will you reflect (transpose)the snapshots
of
the sun's shadow, from where you take them -
to where
you want them?
>From the first moment that the human hand armed
by
slightly crooked sticks dabbles with natural
perfection,
the human reflection becomes, in Plato's words,
Just a Dancing Shadow On the Wall.
The line won't be perfect, because all you've
got is sticks..
BTW, you don't even have perfectly straight sticks
- where
would you get those?
Where is this discussion going? I am content,
as long as
polemists come up with ever more sophisticated
versions of
the ancient Lo-Tech. Let them ascribe a far greater
knowledge
than before to the Nascans and to the Egyptians.
Put such
acknowledgement in history books, and teach it
to kids!
What we get so far is just awkward hush-hush
attempts.
Jiri Mruzek - Finder/Keeper of Science-Art
Thu, 08 May 1997 18:56:54 -0700
From:
Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
Organization:
Ancient Science-Art
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology, sci.history.science, sci.math
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 1997 01:52:50 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
> <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
> >Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> >> Simon Read wrote:
> >> > matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
wrote:
> >> > >Who suggested using the Sun? To make a
straight line over a long
> >> > >distance over difficult terrain do the
following. Make up a bunch of
> >> > >sticks. It helps if the sticks have either
a notch (as you said)
> >I am always trying to be helpful.
> >> > > or a
> >> > >'Y' shape at the top. Put a stick in
the ground. Some distance away
> >> > >put a second. Put a third so it lines
up with the first and second.
> >Speaking of notches, you cannot put a notch
in the second stick,
> >with which you could view the third stick.
Simply hiding the
> >third stick behind the second one, won't be
accurate enough,
> >because due to distance, the third stick is
made thin and fits
> >a number of times into the thick vertical
profile of the second
> >stick. This introduces a tiny mistake, (supposing
that all the
> >sticks are vertical). Next, the first mistake
gets compounded
> >by the second arising from the limits of accuracy
in the unaided
> >human eye, etc.
> >The more times you repeat the process, the
more you will stray
> >from the original line. You would have to
prove otherwise,
> >else you have a very suspect and unverified
hypothesis..
> You are promoting a specific answer to this
problem, your support
> primarily consists of the claim that there
is no other way. Have you
> tried to make similar lines? Have you tried
to line up the sticks?
> Have you actually investigated any way of making
the lines or do you
> just *know* it can't be done?
Matt, you just don't adress my concrete observations
from
above. That's just not the way, to avoid discussing
details
of the proposed method, or to acknowledge human
limitations
in transforming ideas of ideals into reality.
> Have you tried to line up the sticks?
Have you tried it in your mind? I have and it
doesn't
work with enough precision. If the first stick
were
transparent, and you had a thin vertical line
going down
its middle then you could align the hairline
on the second
stick (also seen as a hairline at some tens,
or even
hundreds of yards away. Correct, so far?
Do you realise that every time you budge, the
alignment will look differently?
You need to see all three sticks at the same
time.
It's just like bringing a rifle's crosshairs
upon
a target. In practical conditions this means
that you
need to see the far stick over the top of your
alignment, and that is rather unlikely at that
distance.
> Have you tried to line up the sticks?
I can try it right now, at the computer, and so
can
you. Let me use two toothpicks for sighting upon
the
cursor..
Yeh, I knew it - if I line the three up
- I have to
move my head considerably(!!!) to see the cursor
again!
You know that this means considerable scatter
in my
accuracy?
> Have you actually investigated any way of making
the lines or do you
> just *know* it can't be done?
Well, as you see so far, I have justified doubts
about
the claimed great accuracy of such measurements
by
sticks, especially at Nasca. Will you pay for
my passage
to Nasca to undertake the experiment in actual
conditions?
Not a chance right?
> >> > >Put the forth so it lines up with the
first three. Put the fifth so it
> >> > >lines up with 2-4. Keep on doing so until
the end. In difficult
> >> > >terrain put the sticks closer together.
At the top of a hill put them
> >> > >very close together.
> >> > OK, let's try that.
> >
> >> > \ I|
> >> > \ |
> >> > \|
A| G|
> >> > \
| |
> >> > \
__D|___________H|__________
> >> > \
B| E|
/
> >> > \
| | /
> >> >
\_____C|_______F|____/
> >> > First line up IBF. Then line up CEA.
This requires that your sticks
> >> > be vertical. If they are not vertical,
the bird's eye view (what a
> >> > map-maker sees) will not be a straight
line.
> >
> >> not really . all they have to be is
in the same plane.
> >
> >Plane? No chance of the sticks being in the
same plane around
> >Nasca (Andean foothills)!
> Why? Line up the top, line up the bottom, use
a plumb to set the
> vertical, you have a plane.
> >Sorry, but whilst Simon Read presented
> >an easily imaginable idea, I don't see your
refutation, could you
> >explain it again, in clear detail, please?
I may be a bit slow..
> First, it was not a refutation since he just
pointed out that you need
> to set the vertical. I had assumed that obvious.
I don't want to pick nits. Even if all the sticks
were vertical,
the main problem remains - the method itself..
After close to
twenty miles the line will deviate from straightness
visibly -
The line's flow will be flawed, no matter how
little, when we
review it in its entirety from high up in air.
Sun, 11 May 1997 04:53:42 -0700
From:
Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
Organization:
Ancient Science-Art
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology, sci.history.science, sci.math, sci.skeptic
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ,
17 , 18 , 19 ,
20 , 21 , 22
Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > The line won't be perfect, because all you've
got is sticks..
> of course no line is "perfect" so what"
Gee, how can you seriously say that? This entire
discussion
pivots on the visual perfection in the straightness
of the
miles-long Nasca Lines.
Admitting that your lines would not be visually
perfect -
gee, perhaps, you ought to ignore this discussion.
Tue, 13 May 1997 21:43:37 -0700
From:
Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
Organization:
Ancient Science-Art
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology, sci.history.science, sci.math, sci.skeptic
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> In sci.archaeology, on thread _Re: 200-ton
monoliths in Khafre's
> pyramid? (was Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient
Egypt)_, Jiri Mruzek
> <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
> >The line won't be perfect, because all you've
got is sticks..
> >BTW, you don't even have perfectly straight
sticks - where
> >would you get those?
> You have been using the term "perfect" over
and over to describe you
> lines. There are two distinct, but significant,
problems with that.
> First, you have no idea where the lines where
supposed to be, all you
> know is where they are. Of course they are
exactly where they are, but
> that does not tell you where the makers intended
they should go.
Okey, Matt, we see a 16 (sixteen) mile long line
run
over Nasca's Desert, as it undulates toward the
Andes.
We are amazed by the line's visual perfection
- perfectly
visible from our archaeic airship:-)
So, we ponder. For instance, did the makers intend
the
lines to course thusly, and not otherwise?
Well, sure. This is made obvious by the line's
straight-
forward direction. If its makers had seen the
line
deviate, they would have corrected it by turning
it
around. Today, we would call it a Spiral..
> Second, you really don't seem to know where the lines are.
Right, a precise map of Nasca has never been published.
What else can you expect in these Archaeo-conspiratorial
times? I wish to have a detailed 3-D model of
Nasca in my
computer ( I can't tell you that I have found
a Lo-Tech
way of getting onto the internet via my toaster
:-)
> What you
> know is there lines, as measured by somebody,
then put into a book,
> then digitized into your computer, are. So
you have the accumulated
> errors and systematic biases of all those processes
to deal with. Have
> you made any attempt to examine your error
of measurement?
A very good question, Matt. It spots me an opportunity
to clarify a couple of points with regards to
the Nasca
Monkey, as I think that you have drifted from
the subject
of straight lines. Speaking of what's on my computer,
then
it's only the Nasca Monkey, when it comes to
Nasca.
In general, the figures seem too ambiguous to
be studied
out of context. The monkey is an exception, because
it
comes with its own set of references. It is wedged
between
two long lines ( the two longest in the picture
), which
are admirably straight. The longer line is over
180 metres..
By now, you must recognize what I am talking
about - it is
the s.c. X-Tree, or two crossed lines.
Furthermore, the angle between the lines is as
close to
even 36° (degrees), as can be expected, if
such an even
angle had been the makers' objective.
36° is the angle of a 5-pointed star. That
fact gives us
another reference. We are now thinking in terms
of both
the image, and of a potential 5-pointed star.
Once we
decide how big our star is ( we know, where it
goes) -
we adhere to this newest set of references -
the star's
gridline, and the inner and outer circles. We
never
abandon it.. Just remember that fact, when reviewing
all those diagrams from the Nasca Monkey report.
Our very last reference is the world compass.
The monkey's
X-Tree is especially oriented to the world's
cardinal
directions.
Sorry for being somewhat technical. I just had
to give
all those auto-references by the image.
Lastly, I'd like to comment on the large size
of the
Nasca figures. It is this size, which makes it
easier
to copy the figures. It makes sense, because
as we make
the figures small enough to fit into a book -
we minimize
all the mistakes! In short, these ancient line-makers
knew "perfectly" well, what they were doing.
Tue, 13 May 1997 23:21:17 -0700
From:
Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
Organization:
Ancient Science-Art
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology, sci.history.science, sci.math, sci.skeptic
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ,
17 , 18 , 19 ,
20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24
Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> > > Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > > > The line won't be perfect, because all you've got is sticks..
> > > of course no line is "perfect" so what"
> > Gee, how can you seriously say that? This
entire discussion
> > pivots on the visual perfection in the straightness
of the
> > miles-long Nasca Lines.
> > Admitting that your lines would not be visually
perfect -
> > gee, perhaps, you ought to ignore this discussion.
> no man made object is "perfect"
There is visual perfection.
There is perfection for a given purpose, etc.
You are being too general to be serious.
Top Menu
Namon's Gallery Next
Previous
Articles