- This is an excerpt from a note to Simon Miles on

his Rennes-le-Chateau work:

http://www.consciousevolution.com/Rennes/Default.htm

I've been thinking about your discoveries and a point that is sticking

in my head is your designation of the Egyptian Royal Cubit as 1.717 ft.,

even if that figure was blessed by Isaac Newton.

Not that I know anything about historical metrology, but John Michell

has a very neat scheme that he sets out in City of Revelation:

1.2165 feet = 1 Egyptian Remen

1.2165 feet x root 2 = 1.72 feet = 1 Egyptian Royal Cubit

A square of side 1 Remen has a diagonal of 1 Royal Cubit.

Cubit measures elbow to fingertip and Remen is shoulder to elbow.

1.2165 feet x root 3 = 2.107 feet = 1 Palestinian Cubit

1.2165 feet x root 4 = 2.433 feet = 1 Roman Pace

1.2165 feet x root 5 = 2.72 feet = 1 Megalithic Yard.

Coincidence or design?

Using 1.72 ft preserves the Michell relationships and doesn't

make much of a difference to the radius of the RLC church

circle. I work it out to be 15480 instead of 15453 ft.

equivalent to 188.78mm on the map. Still well within your

acceptable range of variability.

The relationship to the Megalithic Yard

will perhaps allow you to examine RLC in the

light of A. Thom's work on Megalithic geometry.

MY = root 5 x Royal Cubit / root 2

or root 5 Royal Cubit = root 2 MY

which means that 5 square Royal Cubits

is equal to 2 square Megalithic Yards.

Michell also mentions the Megalithic Mile (p119),

a unit deduced by J.F.Neal from examining the

intervals between ancient sacred sites. It is

2.727272 etc miles. There are 14,400 feet in

one megalithic mile and the distance between

Stonehenge and Silbury Hill is 6 megalithic miles, or

86,400 ft.

The 2.727272 figure appears in the dimensions of

the earth and the moon. If the earth is 10, the moon

is 2.727272. Earth = 7920 miles in diameter. Moon

is 792 megalithic miles in diameter.

Warm Regards,

Dan W.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/sacredlandscapelist

Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com - I thought the list might be interested in a letter from Simon Miles about

his work on Rennes-le-Chateau, so I asked if I could pass it on.

For more info see his Website:

http://www.consciousevolution.com/Rennes/Default.htm

Here is my original note to him, his answer is below:

> I've been thinking about your discoveries and a point that is sticking

dear dan,

> in my head is your designation of the Egyptian Royal Cubit as 1.717 ft.,

> even if that figure was blessed by Isaac Newton.

>

> Not that I know anything about historical metrology, but John Michell

> has a very neat scheme that he sets out in City of Revelation:

>

> 1.2165 feet = 1 Egyptian Remen

> 1.2165 feet x root 2 = 1.72 feet = 1 Egyptian Royal Cubit

>

> A square of side 1 Remen has a diagonal of 1 Royal Cubit.

> Cubit measures elbow to fingertip and Remen is shoulder to elbow.

>

> 1.2165 feet x root 3 = 2.107 feet = 1 Palestinian Cubit

> 1.2165 feet x root 4 = 2.433 feet = 1 Roman Pace

> 1.2165 feet x root 5 = 2.72 feet = 1 Megalithic Yard.

>

> Coincidence or design?

>

> Using 1.72 ft preserves the Michell relationships and doesn't

> make much of a difference to the radius of the RLC church

> circle. I work it out to be 15480 instead of 15453 ft.

> equivalent to 188.78mm on the map. Still well within your

> acceptable range of variability.

>

> The relationship to the Megalithic Yard

> will perhaps allow you to examine RLC in the

> light of A. Thom's work on Megalithic geometry.

>

> MY = root 5 x Royal Cubit / root 2

>

> or root 5 Royal Cubit = root 2 MY

>

> which means that 5 square Royal Cubits

> is equal to 2 square Megalithic Yards.

>

> Michell also mentions the Megalithic Mile (p119),

> a unit deduced by J.F.Neal from examining the

> intervals between ancient sacred sites. It is

> 2.727272 etc miles. There are 14,400 feet in

> one megalithic mile and the distance between

> Stonehenge and Silbury Hill is 6 megalithic miles, or

> 86,400 ft.

>

> The 2.727272 figure appears in the dimensions of

> the earth and the moon. If the earth is 10, the moon

> is 2.727272. Earth = 7920 miles in diameter. Moon

> is 792 megalithic miles in diameter.

>

> Warm Regards,

>

> Dan W.

thanks for your thoughts and lovely numbers. yes, i am familiar with john

michells books and also find all of these relations extremely fascinating.

the royal cubit: i have not yet posted my full discussion on this, but there

is much to be said. without being able to quote all the references off the

top

of my head (though can find them in my library if you would like), the first

thing i think that can be said about the royal cubit is that it does in fact

take quite a spread of values. it seems that it was measured at slightly

different lengths at different geographical locations. if memory serves,

there

are cubits in egypt from about 20.55 inches up to about 20.8 inches

approximately.

my feeling on this, though i havent fully explored this, is that there is a

local astronomical means of determining a royal cubit which produces a

slightly different value dependent on latitude. that it, there is a "core"

value, and then a series of very slight variations on this figure. i am

aware

that the 20.612 figure which i choose to use is generally a little shorter

than the accepted figure published today. however, the reason that i do this

is because i am captivated by Skinners concept that the derivation of this

length is from the archetypal circle circumference value of 20,612

(corresponding to a diameter of 6561).

but you are absolutely correct in saying that these small variations still

produce very satisfying fit to the rlc circle.

the royal cubit/remen square i find particularly interesting. here is an

astonishing discovery: if one takes such a square in actual size, and lays

it

over the 1:25 000 scale rennes map: this square almost exactly encloses the

rlc circle of churches!!!!!

that is, not only is the circle in the landscape dimensioned in royal

cubits,

but the map circle at 1/25 000 scale has a diameter of virtually one

remen!!!!!!!!! the difference is less than one quarter inch from memory.

if you have explored Paul Royses site The Holy Grail Revealed, with another

take on the rennes geometry, he talks about a circle which he has found in

the

landscape, a different circle to the circle of churches. he does not mention

it, but this circle which he has found has a diameter on the 1:25 000 map of

virtually 1 sacred cubit!!!!!! (ahem, i found this!)

this seems to me to suggest additional evidence that the 1:25 000 scale map

truly was employed as the "plans" of the geometry!

in any case, there is little doubt that all of these different measures form

a

cohesive system which is simply astonishing.

what makes royal cubits so compelling is that the area measure which is

derived from them, the aroura, also shows significant application to the rlc

circle. i may have mentioned this, but if not: the "year-circle" in the

antechamber of the great pyramid, of diameter 365.25 inches has an area of

exactly one quarter aroura. hence this quarter aroura area comes to

symbolise

the solar year. it can also be expressed as a square of 5 royal cubits to

the

side.

amazingly enough, the rennes circle also exhibits very nearly this same

area,

increased by a factor of 10. ( i ignore factors of ten in all of this, but

what i am exploring here is the concept that if two circles have areas in

relation of 10 to 1, then the circumference of one is the diameter of the

other (very nearly). this works because pi is virtually root 10).

all of these results are subject to very small variation. but within this

small variation, the rennes circle of churches is:

3/phi inches diamater

18 000 royal cubits diamater

2.5 aroura area

and circumscribed on the 1:25 000 map by the remen/royalcubit square!

one circle shows up these four simple measures! coincidence?!?!?! not for my

money!

hence: the 18 000 royal cubit diameter circle is a quarter aroura, or solar

year circle. now, with this in mind: observe that the interior works of the

great pyramid have a height of 180 royal cubits (see behind the words "how

simple the solution" in teh eco quote at beginning of my site), also that

the

pillars in the temple of solomon were 18 royal cubits in height, and, if

thats

not enough, check out the last verse in the book of ezekiel! (apologies if i

have already mentioned all this!)

my site has been updated quite a bit lately. i wonder what you think of the

method of drawing the geometry, with the grid of 18 by 19 inche squares? i

have left out lots of collaborative snippets about this, but my aim was just

to show the barebones of a reliable robust method of drawing the Wood

pentagram, something Wood cannot do in two fat books if i may be pardoned a

moment of immodesty!

also new on the site are animations of the crux precessional shift ideas.

also

plenty more to come, but i guess theres more than enough there already. its

probably getting a bit confusing actually, so i think i may add some kind of

breif overall summary to help see the big picture. id love to hear your

comments on how it all looks.

stay in touch! hope all goes well for you!

best regards

Simon

ps

just realised that, per you email, if 5 square royal cubits is 2 square

megalithic yards, as indeed it is, and if the rlc circle is a quarter aroura

circle, ie 2.5 square royal cubits:

then:

the rlc circle has an area of 1 square megalithic yard!!!!!!! (again, as

always, factors of ten are ignored).

now this is something i havent thought of before and this is truly

amazxing!!!!!!

simon

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/sacredlandscapelist

Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com