(note: "NW" denotes link currently not working -
apols)
STONEHENGE - STATION
STONES
Sites marked SS - 91, 92, 93 and 94 -
represent the four Stonehenge Station Stones (the diagram is from
Castleden). Of these four sites, only one now boasts a stone
accurately in situ, 93, and only one other site, the 91 'recliner',
has a stone of any sort. For all that, much has been made of the four
sites and the rectangle they appear to produce.
1.
SS93 2. SS91
3. Detail from Doutre showing a
rectangular shape (of sorts).
Now the line connecting SS93 to SS91,
the rectangle's hypotenuse (or one of them) is interesting, to some, it
seems. According to Bonnie Gaunt, THE MAGNIFICENT NUMBERS OF STONEHENGE
AND GIZA, that line is at angle of 118 degrees East of North and pursuing it in
that direction from the centre of Stonehenge and you'll end up at the Great
Pyramid in Egypt:
Note also that a line at right angles to
the longer sides of the rectangle seems to pick out the Midsummer Solstice
Sunrise. It was William Stukeley, FRS, who
first noticed this solar orientated axis for the site, apparently, 1740 AD:
"whereabouts the sun rises when the days are longest".
And that's not all: according to Robin
Heath, for one, the rectangle's sides pick out the Northmost Moonset, the
Southernmost Moonrise and the four Cross-Quarter or High Cross-Quarter days,
notably Imbolc (circa Feb. 1st), Beltane (circa May 1st), Lugnasadh (circa
Aug. 1st) and Samhain (circa Nov. 1st).
(2500 BC, or
so, Charles Webster tells us, moreover, looking from the
centre out over SS93 on the March 21st Equinox
gave you Arcturus with the same star visible over SS94 at
the Summer Solstice - and over SS91 on Nov.21st. SS92
is mentioned in a lunar context. The idea is based on computer
interrogation using Skymap. I
've put a link to a freebie download version of this below: SkyMap Pro 8).
Consider, too, Noah's Ark! http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3563/topic3563035.shtm
Note, too - as Heath does - the
right-angle twixt moon and sun (which only happens in the latitudinal
area of Stonehenge: about 35 miles either side of Lat. 51 degrees - roughly
Portsmouth to Bristol). apparently. Heath, himself, comments on Midwinter
and Midsummer rises and sets not being "exactly" opposite below - despite the
indication they do given by him above. Cross Quarter Days - as Sig
Lonegren reminds us - evoke the Celtic Cross. See his excellent
www.geomancy.org for the full exposition of the idea - the actual
link is http://www.geomancy.org/astronomy/quarter-cross-quarter/index.html
See also Crichton Miller for the idea
that this cross represents a navigational tool of yore: http://www.crichtonmiller.com (NW), and, also, compare the Wheel of the Year distribution of
the 'elements' of Fire, Air, Water and Earth, the directions North, South, East
and West, and the Four Seasons, with those generated by the tradition of the
four Royal Fixed Star Watchers
(www.geoffss.plus.com/royalwatchers.htm),
the Jachin and Boaz (and alchemical) tradition, the Biblical Four Horsemen and
the four Humours of Galen (sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and
melancholy).*
All in all, interesting stuff! But
there's trouble in this Station Stone paradise. According to Dr. Aubrey Burl,
BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY No. 35, June 1998, 'STONEHENGE ANGLES', the right-angle
claim obtains at Lat. 50.485 (underwater and not around Lat. 51 degrees).
I looked at this on NAO and found the lack of decimals a hindrance, obtaining a
solar value of 40 degrees northernmost moon and a solar sunrise of 49
degrees = 89 degrees. But GeoAstro gives 49.5 for the latter ... 89.5 and
closing? Burl calls the lunar alignment 'imprecisely directed' (if
intentional), anyway, and calls the right-angle idea 'superficial' (but I note
possible typos et al therein re. data): http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba35/ba35lets.html
And there's another more serious
problem with the Heath model, for one - and it is one acknowledged by
'guru' Alexander Thom, for one: it just doesn't work as regards the
four Cross-Quarter Days. Not, that is if the assumption is that it is the
solstices and equinoxes they divide.*
* But if the assumption is that they divide the "Quarter Days", then they
are Dec 25th, March 25, June 24th and Sept. 29. Now this dates to 1752 AD.
We jumped from Julian to Gregorian then: "Give us back our ... days!" rang
the protests. Before this they were on Xmas Day (Jan. 6th), 6th April, 6th
July and 11th Oct. (in Scotland it's 2nd Feb, 15th May, 1st August and 11th Nov
- closer to the Cross-Quarter Days). Imbolc, say, hardly divides either of
the relevant two of these English days! The Quarter Days were payment
settlement dates - legal concepts. (BREWERS)
Why not? Well, Midwinter opposes Midsummer much as the
Spring and Autumn Equinoxes oppose each other (well, fairly nearly, anyway)*,
but the two sets of Cross-Quarter Days don't. Beltane is a different
number of days from Midwinter and Midsummer to Lugnasadh as Imbolc is different
to Samhain. But they have to be the same for the idea to
work.* It is a necessary condition.** NAO tells us sunrise Feb 1st
this year is azimuth 117 degrees. Logically, to oppose this, Nov. 1st
sunset should be (360 - 117) 243 degrees. But we get 248. And May
1st is 65 degrees, giving (360 - 65) 295. But we get 301
degrees.
* http://websurf.hmnao.com/is the data
source I used - its one drawback is it has no
decimals so derived values of relative positions (of, say, the Midsummer sunrise
to the northernmost Moonset) can have nearly plus/minus 1 degree of
error. There's also GeoAstro (j giesen) etc.
**In fairness to Sig, he
addresses the X-Quarter Day "mismatch" on his site. Here's an example, though,
of the problem:
NAO Websurf data sunrise/set for Stonehenge
2009: June 21 49 311 Dec
21 128
232 Mean 88.5
271.5 Equinox 89 271
BUT
Equinox
89 271 June 21
49
311 Mean
69 291 May
1 64! 296! -
the "Cross-quarter Days" are all like this! April 22 data obtains
here.
Next, the rectangle itself. In
Martin Doutre it's not even regular, the shorter sides being of different
lengths, and, if Doutre's wrong, then is this rectangle the product of
('Pythagorean') 5-12-13 maths or of Octagonal maths ... or some other design,
say that of Gaunt? Thing is, they're all SO VERY SIMILAR - but yet not the
same. If we take data from Gaunt and compare it to the M L Saunders/J Neal/H H
Franklin Octagon and the R Heath/J Neal/Ralph Ellis 5-12-13 we'd find that the
'5-12-13' triangle would become 5-12.07-13.064 would become 5-11.458- 12.5
(working back). Put another way, Heath would have an angle of of 22.62 degrees
with his 5-12-13 compared to an octagonal 22.5 degrees and Gaunt's 23.5-6
degrees. One degree covers them all.
Semi-organising my online reference
library I was reminded of Heath's http://www.skyandlandscape.com/Article%20by%20Robin%20Heath.htm
(NW) - 'Sky and Landscape'. Robin mentions numbers
that chime here: 23.52and 33, and c/o of him, we come across
'near perfect rectangle' with the 'longside aligned to the
(northernmost) moonset'!?
But that's not the biggie: I
read of the Station Stones providing a 5 : 12 : 13 in one place and of
them providing an octagon in another. Neat trick! Or, putanother way, which one is it, if any at all? Or is it
both?
Assuming the positioning of the Station
Stones was other than decorative in intent, then all the ideas proposed
are viable - given we only have the one stone in situ and that this
stone is nearly 4 and a quarter times smaller than the 'recliner',
anyway (and "one of these may not be original." acc. witcombe)! Not much
here to provide anyone with proof positive ...*
*From English Heritage
(thanks to Mrs Finola Andrews, PA to the Stonehenge Director)
comes this data:
91
2.6 1.5 1.1 13.1
92
1.9 1.3
1 8.1
93
1.2 1 0.7
3.1
94 1.9
1.3 1 8.1
You are looking at
heights, widths and thicknesses (all metres) and weights(tons).
91 and 93 are in bold because they actually exist. Data for 92 and94 is pure speculation. There is no reason to suppose they were
utterlyidentical, for instance.
And that brings us to the actual
rectangle dimensions themselves. They vary (almost as theory to
theory). If we take the hypotenuse value, say, then English Heritage
measures the distance at about 279' (from memory) to Bonnie Gaunt's 288'.
Most values are in the 281'-283' range with Thom (and Heath) just slightly
larger at 283.6 and I think Chris Witcombe carried 285' on his excellent and
informative Sweet Briar College site (details below). Obviously, given
Octagonal maths, 5-12-13 or even PhiSq (as mentioned above!), one dimension
informs the rest. Doutre, however is trapezium (UK def.) rather
than rectangle proper, with shorter sides given of 112' and 113.4' compared to,
say, Gaunt's 115.1-ish'. Ralph Ellis, THOTH: ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE
(2001), carries measurements of the shorter, or sides: 108.75984 ..' by Flinders
Petrie and 109.25196867 ..' for Atkinson, this second being explicitly centre to
centre (insofar as that is possible as imperial values being derived by me from
the metric given. Given the adherence of Ellis to the 5-12-13 model, the
longer sides necessarily have to be 261.0236 or 262.2 .. whilst the hypotenuse
value has to be either 282.775584 or 284.0551 .. The first, or Petrie
value, falls within the normal range determined (by me) above. Jon Michell carries a side longer length of 260.851643 by a
shorter one of 108.617428 (see pp. 83 and 85) between faces and carries Thom's
(asymmetrical) side lengths of 260/260.25' and 111.1/110.2' (THE MEASURE OF ALBION, 2004, later,
THE LOST SCIENCE ... ,
2006, co-authored with Robin
Heath)*:
*Note (geoffss, 17-02-11) -
E Herbert Stone, STONES OF STONEHENGE, 1922, p. 113, THE FOUR STATIONS:
"symmetrical", "22.5 degrees", 284' hypotenuse ... equals sides of 108.68' and
266.08' sides.
And the 118 degree azimuth
(angle) to the Great Pyramid? Well, the different models produce
outcomes of 117 degrees*, 117.1 degrees, 117.2 degrees, 117.38 degrees,
117.415 degrees and Gaunt's 118 degrees (for a Station Stones' hypotenuse). ML
Saunders gives the bearing 118.1255 for Stonehenge-Giza itself using "spherical
geometry" (on a not quite spherical Earth) but a different value, of 116.75
degrees, for the relevant Station Stone midface to midface, with plus or minus
0.75 degrees for the SS edges.
I note that NAO supports a
Midwinter sunrise azimuth of 117 degrees for Cairo, near Giza, for 14th to the
30th of December, and an Imbolc value of 117 degrees for a Stonehenge
sunrise.**
*Doutre gives SS91 at
an azimuth of 115 degrees and SS93 at 114.8-116.8. James Q Jacobs kindly
supplied me with a value just less than 117
degrees (from memory - mine, that is!) . **Not forgetting the plus/minus 0.5 degree possibility.
The actual obtaining azimuth of Khufu from
Stonehenge (off north) is about 118.22 degrees over a distance of 2234.309
miles. For these figures see input coordinates Stonehenge -1.82641
and 51.17886; Khufu 31.132505 and 29.9789953 (geoffss, 20-06-08). At www.satsig.net/ssazran.htm
I'll add in a nicety from Morph (Paul Ashworth - and thanks!): on
Midsummer 2500 BC, Orion stood at azimuth 118 degrees to Stonehenge whilst
Sirius was at 116-117 degrees to the Sphinx. So 116-118 covers the lot
with Regulus rising with the Sun at this period. In about 2576 BC,
Regulus, essentially, WAS the Sun.
Gary Osborn's research may
be informative here. Planet Earth tilts, the angle varying from about 22.1
to about 24.5. The value is commonly expressed as 23.5 degrees (although
our present 23.4 degrees is nearer the mean). This is also the figure
commonly given for the two Tropics, Cancer and Capricorn (although 234333 ....
actually obtains). The total distance between the Tropics, stylised
and in degrees, is 47 (see www.geoffss.plus.com/jesusandjohn.htm
)*, 2 X 23.5 Gary noticed 23.5 was a somewhat thematic angle in the art of
the C16th** and C17th AD - and thematically linked to .... St. John. See
Gary's site in detail at http://www.garyosborn.moonfruit.net/ Click on 'News' (left-hand side menu) and explore 'REVELATIONS'
and 'REVELATIONS 2'. See also "Bigbytes" and an
explicitly Tropical angle of 23.5 degrees from the Stonehenge Station Stones***:
http://dcsymbols.com/templates/page21a.htm
* A value known to Ptolemy, C2nd AD. About then
precession meant the sun was in Cancer and Capricorn at the Equinoxes - hence
these being the names applied, although the actual placing no longer applies.
How far back before Ptolemy the '47' goes I currently give in. **1515 AD is a
date given by Gary, I notice. It is also the birth year of the man
who 'invented' the letter j. When I first saw the dates 1515-1717 given in
Gary's REVELATION 2 (click on NEWS on his site, given below or http://garyosborn.moonfruit.com/revelations) I thought it was an author's 'in-joke'. Note, as Gary does, the
similarity twixt 23.5, the birthday of the Baptist (24th June) and the proximity
to the 21st June Summer Solstice.
***"Bigbytes" accords the Station
Stones angles of 23.5 and 66.5 and notes the Equator to Tropics (23.5)
and Tropics to Poles (66.5 - where 23.5 + 66.5 = 90 degrees). These, in
turn, I note, generate a "Khufu" angle to E-W of 27.5 degrees = 117.5 (to
Gaun't 118).
Now a right-angled triangle (Euclid 47)
with an angle of 23.5 necessarily generates another of 66.5 (as 23.4 would
66.6). The range 117-117.5 degrees covers 5 X 23.4-23.5.* It's
an idea! And 235 is also the number of lunations in a complete lunar
cycle, northernmost to northernmost.
*The actual Lat.
obtaining is 23.4394444r
Next, the Midsummer Solstice sunrise
azimuth. NAO, for instance gives a value of 49 degrees. And this
seems to fit with:
The 'aveglaswin' author of the above,
Michael Everest, cites various authorites for the angle indicated: Hawkins
40 54, Atkinson 40 49, and North 40 43 (albeit in 3000 BC, this last).
According to the article (link given below under "Players"), Stonehenge
represents a 'happy compromise' twixt Pythagoras and the Icknield Way,
and.apparently, the (Station Stone) bearings are something 'all authorities
agree on' - well, pretty much. It leaves the obvious 90 degrees minus the
'bearing' = the sunrise azimuth = 49 degrees (and a bit). This is the NAO
websurf value. GeoAstro gives us a value of 49.5 degrees for 2007 AD: http://www.jgiesen.de/sunmoonpolar/index.html#stonehenge
The highly evocative
Stonehenge Midsummer dawn - and the sun
is atop the Hele/Heel Stone.Except this event
isn't dawn.Dawn happened already - to
the left. The definition? NAO
gives sea-level, uninterrupted plane tangential to
the horizon.Note the sun itself has a diameter of
1/2 a degree.
The sun first appears (false dawn) to
the left and then actually appears - also to the left - moving rapidly
southwards (to the right) and rising. It 'sits' atop the Hele/Heel Stone
some time later - well clear of the ground (and the dawn). Remember
though, values of variously 49 degrees, 49.5, 50, and circa 50.5
(Lockyer/Jacobs) have been attached to the event. You could argue they
all fit kinda - and it's still a glorious visual presentation,
dawn or no dawn! I note James Q Jacobs here: the azimuth of the Heel Stone is is
51 and 3/7th degrees, which is also the Latitude of Avebury and 1/7th of the
Earth's circumference. He argues for it as a fixed reference point
since actual dawn at midsummer is (quite) a moveable feast**:
*Richard Mudhar's incredibly
readable overview at MEgALiThiA - Stonehenge and Astronomy - points to some of
the problems and tells of another stone, to the left of the Heel/Hele, the pair
capturing the sunrise. Site link given below. However, there weren't
2 stones, possibly, but 4 (Inigo Jones sketch, 1620 AD, and seeable
at www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/englandstonehenge.htm
See, though, noting a 50 degree midsummer sunrise line (corresponding
- roughly - to the site's surveyed axis ... and John
Michell, DIMENSIONS OF PARADISE, 1988, P.92, I note): http://www.sandowclowns.co.uk/childrenschoices/ArtisteDetail.php?ArtistID=199
In the context or Michell's CPC
(using my vertex values, not his) these are the "Great Circle" azimuths. The
original Circle of Perpetual Choirs (CPC) model had a diameter of 126 miles
(stylised), a circumference of 396 miles, and 10 vertices each 38.934 miles
(stylised) from those on either side on the decagon. Obtaining distances (actual) and azimuths as applies to my
vertices:
Llantwit-Enderby (his Croft
site) 125.924
126.106* 49.72
degrees (.79*) This is the 126 diameter in the CPC model). Note: too,
the Midsummer sun's "path" - www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/decagon.htm
(scroll to "Llantwit Major"/ John Michell sourced, I believe).
This is the AM (Great Circle) and FM data
outcomes for my vertices, e&ce - hence the discrepacies marked?. FM
methodology is valid for this distance. I employed my vertices with
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/distance.html#START and
http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-gridref.html
NAO websurf gives a Midsummer Sunrise azimuth of 49 degrees for Lat 5-ish
(Stonehenge, Glastonbury and Llantwit but 48 for Lat. 52-ish (Llandovery -
"Cilgwyn", Raggedstone Hill - model centre and Old Stratford), and 47
degrees by Lat. 53 (our model top). These are over one degree different
from "Great Circle" values.. As you move north, though, both
decrease.
** I'm thinking maybe a
total range of as much as some 4.8 degrees greatest to least (based on
Lockyer's figures for 3000 years extrapolated - see NOTES near the bottom of
this page). That's in a 47+ to 52+ degrees range over 20500
years (half the obliquity cycle). Using the Giesen 49.5 for
today, then we're looking at 47.1 to 51.9 (47-52?). 1550 AD seems
to be the mean value - and very close to today's.
The present obliquity is said to be about 23.44 degrees. My extrapolation
of Lockyer would subtract and add about 1.255 degrees to this creating a range
of about 22.185 to 24.695. Compare this the Wiki's values: "The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1 and 24.5 ...
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_ti
Lastly, there's one line readers might like
to explore: the other hypotenuse. I've not seen any suggestion
whatsoever made for it by commentators - if of course SS92-SS94 had
any purpose as an alignment I'd be interested as to ideas. Perhaps
Skymap?
STOP PRESS! This just in
from ML Saunders - and my thanks (email to me
30-05-08):
My word you've been busy Geoff. Nice
to see so much effort in one space, you've collected over the years. If the side
of your octagon is 62.5 cubits, you can rest a 5:12:13 rectangle on it to
generate the Aubrey holes from the solstice line. You get 2 sets of 4 septagons,
octagon, 28 5:12:13 rectangles and a decagon. SS93 then sits azimuth centered
between two aubrey holes in situ (ss92 ss94 slightly offset). The tumuli centers
and SS93 inner face 62.5:150:162.5 cubit ... Hope you're well :)
"Players"
Professor Richard Atkinson - a 1978
measurement carried by Ralph Ellis, p. 141. "Bigbytes" - http://dcsymbols.com/templates/page21a.htm -
gives 23.5 and 66.5 angles (indicating
tropics).
Dr. Aubrey Burl - possibly the leading
(and most prolific) luminary in archeoastronomy.
Robin Heath - http://cura.free.fr/decem/06heath James Q Jacobs http://www.jqjacobs.net/astro/epoch_2000.html Jacob carries 50.617 degrees for 2000 AD and notes it is a
moving value year-on-year. His outcome for 2000 is similar to Lockyer's
for 1900 (see below) but not NAO or Giesen. For his latest Temporal Epoch
Calculator (2011) see below.
E Herbert Stone -
STONES OF STONEHENGE (1924) - midsummer
azimuth of Lockyer east of north 49 34 18 = axis, 1840 BC, moving yearly to 50
26 30 by 1900.
*A list of archaeological resources relating to the Station Stones
is carried under Monument Information Alternatively, simply search
Station Stones on Google and it's a top 10 outcome: STATION STONES,
Sources.
AUTHOR
NOTE:
Since this is the last page of the series, may I note here that
the topics touched on are disparate threads of research which inform my
MS MOVING MENHIRS but don't necessarily make it into that (at least in any
detail). This page, for instance will condense down to a few lines of
particular relevance to the Glastonbury and Stonehenge vertices of the Michell
Circle of Perpetual Choirs (CPC).
It is the MS that unifies these pages -
I just had seven A4 folders of my (many years, now) studies which would have
gathered dust had I not put them here for others to pick over - and add to (and
my thanks to all for this!) as they wish.
One thematic line is
'right-angled triangle' - and Moggz's Whiteleaf Oak study encouraged me to look
upwards: were there any significant to
be found in the sky, I wondered. 'STATION STONES' provides some supportive
material of the idea that there arguably were (well, nearly, anyway!) - I least
I think the idea can be reasonably advanced. All the above indicates the
lengths you need to go to in order to 'cover one's back' when writing even a few
lines! For example, here is some (heavily stylised) thematic
"glue":
The "sunrise line" at Stonehenge, John Michell
gives 50 degrees east of north. I can't currently provenance my
(incorrect!) origin of 51 as CPC Midsummer sunrise. But it's in my early
notes ... See though "... the maximum
winter moon rise at 41 degrees and the midsummer sunrise at 51 degrees ..."
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/henryr/quest/henge/index.htm Michell
writes, THE LOST SCIENCE, 2006, p.114, "The line running through the decagon
from Llantwit Major to Croft Hill near Leicester, follows the path of the
midsummer sunrise and is parallel to the Stonehenge midsummer line along the
Avenue towards Goring on Thames." Not so. I hazard. Not
quite.
The Midsummer sunrise angle carried above isn't right.
That 51 degrees given is actually nearer NAO's 49, it turns
out ..... and the northernmost moonset appears to be (360 - 320) = 40 .....
(where 49 + 40 = 89 ... but the lack of fractions means there are
tolerances of up to 50 currently possible). Take
nothing on trust, I've learned, including this, then. Check and check
again - especially internet sourced material. One person has an
'idea'. Another carries it. Presto: two impeccable sources and,
ergo, it must be
true. "Nullis in Verbis" (take nobody's word for it), c/o the Royal
Society, comes to mind. So much CPC investigation I've looked at suffers
from 2 faults:
1. Instant gratification required by those
'seeking'. It's damned hard and mentally taxing work. It takes
a long time and a strong capacity to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and
start ...
2. Misplaced trust: I have little doubt in my own
mind that a 'game' was played out over the English and Welsh landscapes in
the C17th and C18th AD, and that this game carried the fingerprints of
ancient mathematical significances and understandings. John Michell's work
over the years have reprised these again and again - and inspired others,
including, obviously, me. RIP John (geoffss, 24-04-09). But the
Circle of Perpetual Choirs (CPC) isn't the point: there isn't and never was one, not as imagined by
John and so sought by others with so little - if any - success (see
1.). The real point is the
maths of the construct and the
Latitudes, river and BOOK OF REVELATION it has been placed on. He
Phren is the point and Hafren the site.
Mirrors.
A few notes of interest,
perhaps?
1. A 'John' (47) could
therefore be said to indicate 1/2 a year, 2 Johns making a whole 12 month
cycle Capricorn-Cancer and back? Note 23.5 and (X2 =) 47 are said to be "Cosmic
Angles" of Freemasonry:
the 23.5-degree
angle, and it's 47-degree double, are two of Freemasonry's "Cosmic Angles,"
according to Frank C. Higgins in his 1919 book, Ancient Freemasonry: An
Introduction to Masonic Archaeology http://www.freewebs.com/garyosborn/235degreereferences.htm
2. Looking at 23.4 - and noting a
right-angled triangle necessarily 66.6 - then note also the
'mirror' 43.2. Add to 23.4? 66.6
again. Right-angled triangles crop up again
and again and .... If you think in terms of Capricorn and Cancer,
the 2 Tropics, then the angle below Capricorn and above
Cancer will be 66.5-66.6 X 2.
3. Given the differing
dimensions above, I wondered for some time - and in some for
instances - whether it was an apples-and-oranges situation?Station
Stones occupy space. Measuring from different bits to differentbits would produce different outcomes. But I couldn't see
anything obvious in the dimensions of SS91 and SS93 to support the
idea. I donote here, however, that at least one commentator
considers the idea that the SS93 'recliner' hasn't just
fallen over but has actually been moved!
4. 360/7 -
James Q Jacobs provides this value for the centre of Stonehengeout
over the Hele Stone (off North - 51.428...). It is also, as he
notes, the Avebury Latitude. I have also seen
the idea aired that the Station Stones themselves provide a
regular 7-sided star (as against Octagon or 5-12-13
etc): http://www.celticnz.co.nz/US14.html
Scherer, meanwhile, gives the
angle out over the centre of the Hele Stone as 51 51, noting
the similarity the the Great Pyramid's slope (given as 51 50
40)*. The value is 51.84444r. CPC (Circle of Perpetual
Choirs) decagonal geometry creates a derived octagon
ON-THE-GROUND. Centre? Lat. 51.8428**.
River Severn.
Note
*The model axis actually
cuts the river at Lat, 51 51 - which is the value Michell gives for the
Khufu slope in NEW VIEW OVER ATLANTIS - but the octagon centre
is at Lat. 22/7. Neat. **The difference is just under 200 yards twixt Lat 51 51 and
the Lat. 22/7 delivers. True Pi is slightly further
north.
Lat.
51.8428 ... (22/7) and 51 51 have both been used to represent
Pi.22/7 was pre-calculator 'schoolboy' Pi. If you
click on www.geoffss.plus.com/perpetualchoirs.htm
you'll see how Point St. John is at Lat. 51 53 (with the
possible masonic joke 3113 and a relationship, numerically, to Sq.
Root 3 - 51 X 3 : 53 X 5). Now we have another significant Lat.:
Pi.I'll resist doing a Graham Hancock: It cannot be complete
coincidence ...but we have the possibility of 2 mathematically
important values beingpicked out. So why not a third, Phi?
Believe it or not, there's something there, just where 'x' indicates
the spotshould be on-the-ground. And, since Kepler called Phi a
'precious jewel', that's exactly where we'll look! This
octagon will have a radius of 50.4 miles - and 5040 is a number of
someinterest: 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 (and divisible by all
the numbers 1-10 inclusive, Michell, NEW VIEW ... Page 123 -
deliberate page or coincidental?). John also notes the 37 X table .... as in 74 ('Jesus') ... 666
- see www.geoffss.plus.com/jesusandjohn.htm 666 is mirrors 234 + 432,
where234 is 2 X 117 and 10 X 23.4, leaving
66.6 to make up a right-angle. Put another way, if the Capricorn
and Cancer Tropics are 23.4-5, then the dimensions above and below them
are 66.5-6 X 2.*
*Note re 117 (geoffss,
01-12-07): it's a mirror (of sorts). 117 is 39 X 3. But is is
also 13 X 3 (power2) ... and 1332
is 666 X 2.
NOTES: 'the obliquity of ecliptic'
etc. Planet Earth is off celestial 'up' by a (moving) angle stylised as
23.5 degrees = and this number is also (and again stylised) accorded the two Tropics, Cancer and
Capricorn. These denote the limits of our year's seasonal cycle.
The cycle is 47 degrees summer to winter. See "Cosmic Angles" of
Freemasonry, above ...
But ... hang you now on (geoffss, 02-02-2011),
obliquity varies - from 22+ ish to 24+ ish degrees over about 20500
years.
Biggest last, circa 8700 BC and smallest
next, circa 11800 AD, According to Lockyer, 1901, (from E Herbert Smith,
STONES OF STONEHENGE, 1922), the Stonehenge midsummer dawn azimuth = its axis =
49 34 16 in about 1840 BC (plus/minus circa 200 years). The obliquity
value was 23 54 30. By 1900, that last value had fallen to 23 27 08 but the
azimuth was up to 50 26 30".* In other words, the Stonehenge Midsummer
dawn azimuth is a moveable feast on a 41000 year cycle. The angle
changes. Here we see a 3740 year change in obliquity of nearly 1/2 a
degree in the Earth's axial tilt (never mind the moon's nutation effect of about
0.005 degree shift ...). However !! Do I also find a Midsummer dawn
bearing in Lockyer that generates 48 34 for 1901 ...
Um!
(Note, geoffss,
05-02-11: I've asked various parties to give me the range of obliquity
possible for Midsummer Stonehenge and the effect this has on the 'sunshine
line'. More to follow, hopefully).
* These confusing (to me - I must be
misunderstanding something!) Sir Norman Lockyer values bears no resemblance
whatsoever to the astronomcal values carried above, I note ... noting,
however, those of James Q Jacobs:
Is this
also the Station Stone rectangle (as propsed by "Bigbytes") - albeit
at 23.5 degrees off North as against about 118 off "Khufu"? Or again:
he Stonehenge Station Stones have been called
octagonal (22.5) and 5-12-13
(22.62). Ralph Ellis, THOTH: ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE ... P. 160 (googlebooks) carries the ideas
22.5/22.6 together in the context of Stonehenge - and this value is indicative (or
can be) of the lower value for the cycle of the Earth's "wobble" for which 23.5 is
often used as a middle value (of sorts) - thanks for the refence, Gary.
The angle from the centre to the ends of shorter
rectangle sides can be the same 47
degrees as with the Tropics. Here a a link to a fascinating study
embracing the tropics, 23.5,
Washington DC, the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge:http://dcsymbols.com
(note: "NW" denotes link currently not working -
apols)
