| Author | The Principle: Stonehenge |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 11-12-2013 at 19:31
Jon ,as I said to Neil "have a look at Andy's links and check out the principal writers . That's what is telling , not the trailer . "
Particularly Sungenis .
" Galileo was wrong :the church was right " is a clue .
george
 Profile
 Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-12-2013 at 06:59
Quote:
| "Galileo was wrong :the church was right " is a clue .
It's an easy guess that there's a Geocentrism agenda since Robert Sungenis is the executive producer. |
|
Sure guys, there might be an agenda. It's also possible that the director will have developed the subject even-handedly regardless of who helped raise the finance. Without having seen the film, I find it very difficult to comment on the content.
Regardless of the Biblical issues surrounding recent discoveries, it looks as if they will use Stonehenge to explain the development of mankind's early cosmology. In my opinion, Stonehenge was an stunningly beautiful expression of those ideas: The place where theories about the Universe were developed. If the graphics they have done for Stonehenge are as good as the trailer, they will bring that achievement to a mass audience.
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 3098
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-12-2013 at 09:41
"It's also possible that the director will have developed the subject even-handedly"
You're kidding, right? The subject being the "special" place that the earth has in the cosmos.
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 943
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-12-2013 at 15:32
You're kidding, right? The subject being the "special" place that the earth has in the cosmos.
Hi DM,
SH would be a good example for them to 'Jump-Off' from, as it's very nearly confirmed that the late incarnation of Stonehenge was an accurate Geocentric Model of the Earth and its place in the Cosmos.
In it, the Sun, Moon, & Stars are pretty clearly shown to orbit the Earth.
Whether the producers interpret their modern findings to reflect a Religious Belief remains to be seen, but bear in mind that we didn't learn of the true Solar-Centric system till a very brief 400 years ago. Almost all models described before this time are Geocentric.
Neil
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3934
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-12-2013 at 22:29
This article from 26 March 2006 mentions Sungenis offering $1,000 to anyone who could disprove Geocentrism and prove Heliocentrism. He also alleges that Foucalt's pendulum which is accepted by most as the deciding factor could move due to other influences.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_1kaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XCYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=robert-sungenis&pg=6714%2C4991566
Whether this is all sensational journalism or whether evidence and proof really are lacking or whether someone trousered his £1,000 and more importantly whether he changed his mind, I'll leave up to anyone who is interested enough in pursuing the proof angle to find out.
I'm happy to wait for the film and enjoy the bit that Jonm figured out 
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-12-2013 at 22:53
Rune , that's why I said earlier .
"Randi offers a Million dollars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge
These cheap skates offer a $1000 to disprove the geocentric view, lol . Would it be worth the price of a stamp ? 2
george
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 3098
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-12-2013 at 10:24
I would say that the whole thing is a form of wedge strategy.
Profile
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1925
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-12-2013 at 08:11
Jonm - I'm afraid you've contributed to a strange, anti-scientific project. How can this possibly be a good thing?
SH would be a good example for them to 'Jump-Off' from, ...
Yeeesss. And jump off too - what? That modern science (since Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler) is wrong and the Dark Age Church remains as a cutting edge depository of correct physics and astronomy?
I doubt that Sungenis has done a 180 since 2010 when he was in my State (Indiana) hosting a conference on geo-centrism. Not just the solar system, the whole universe, spinning around the earth every 24 hours. He wasn't just the kind host - this is what his book states.
His book also purports that top astronomers and physicists realize that the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, so there's also a pesky conspiracy to hide the truth... He claims that modern science can only "make" a Copernican solar-system or universe "work" is by inventing "Dark Energy" theories (untrue.) Actually a geo-centric model pretty much requires that we throw everything we know about gravity right out the window in order to make IT work.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-12-2013 at 09:06
Quote:
| Jonm - I'm afraid you've contributed to a strange, anti-scientific project. How can this possibly be a good thing? |
|
I would argue that Stonehenge is part of our common heritage so should be available to all. Do you think I should be vetting who I give information to based on what they might or might not do with it? Even if you do, the new stuff about Stonehenge has already been published, so it's not as if this is a great secret.
Quote:
| I'm happy to wait for the film and enjoy the bit that Jonm figured out |
|
Thanks Rune.
Quote:
| SH would be a good example for them to 'Jump-Off' from, as it's very nearly confirmed that the late incarnation of Stonehenge was an accurate Geocentric Model of the Earth and its place in the Cosmos.
In it, the Sun, Moon, & Stars are pretty clearly shown to orbit the Earth. |
|
Agreed, it is a brilliant place to start. The mainstream media haven't picked it up, so they have an opportunity to make a real impact with their opening sequences. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2013-12-15 09:08 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1925
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-12-2013 at 17:06
No such thing as bad publicity, hmm?
Do you think I should be vetting who I give information to based on what they might or might not do with it?
Well, I would! Particularly if I had no control how the information would be presented...
The last place I'd like main stream media (not that "The Principle" is main stream) to see a less than well publicized theory would be for it to air as part of "Ancient Aliens" or on the Stormfront website.
[ This message was edited by: bat400 on 2013-12-15 17:13 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12312
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-12-2013 at 19:10
If I was Jon I'd still be pleased my work was getting some recognition and dosh for my efforts. But I'd draw the line at trying to defend their work though...
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-12-2013 at 19:57
Quote:
| Well, I would! Particularly if I had no control how the information would be presented... |
|
I don't agree with the automatic assumption that this documentary will be a bad thing. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with it.
Nevertheless, the only way a theory can be controlled is to withhold all information. This may well be the thing to do with the other segments of the theory which have correlating monuments (these all, including Stonehenge, stem from exactly the same thing). Once you open up a box of ideas, it's very difficult to step away from them, so sometimes it's better to leave the box closed.
We'll see how it goes?
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 943
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-12-2013 at 15:51
If I was Jon I'd still be pleased my work was getting some recognition and dosh for my efforts. But I'd draw the line at trying to defend their work though ...
Amen, Andy.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-01-2014 at 08:00
Quote:
| It is to be hoped that Jon's example of a Geocentric Universe as observed in the Neolithic would be used as a benchmark, rather than as an endorsement of a Modern concept. |
|
I've seen the segment now: Yes, they use it as a benchmark to explain an early view of the cosmos. Stonehenge is great for this because it's so easy to see how the heavens work using Stonehenge's arrangement. The French animation company (BUF) did a marvellous job. I guess everyone is assuming that the film argues for geocentrism as shown at Stonehenge, but I'm not convinced that it does given who the backers (behind the scenes) seem to be. Wait and see I guess.
Just been told that the film has got a full theater release in the USA. I guess it's unusual for a documentary to go to theaters (cinema in UK speak) rather than TV or the internet.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-01-2014 at 17:02
"Krauss and Kaku will have something to say for being associated with this nonsense , probably many others too . "
Looks like Krauss has commented as expected .
https://twitter.com/LKrauss1/statuses/413110311160266752
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-01-2014 at 17:54
Yes, odd to get so much adverse comment on the content of a film that nobody's actually seen.
I understand that Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers, is being served with legal notices (presumably for libel) over the film, so Krauss's comment is looking fairly mild.
Curious stuff.
Still, they did a great rendering of Stonehenge.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-01-2014 at 18:56
Jon , have you looked at the bit where Rick De Lano describing obliquity at 23.5 as " that angle is not just local but somehow fundamental to the structure of the cosmos " . Not only ignoring the fact that it is not a constant and thus different at the build of Stonhenge but he seemed to be implying that it is associated with some other similar figure , any ideas what he was thinking about ?
George
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-01-2014 at 08:59
Quote:
| Jon , have you looked at the bit where Rick De Lano describing obliquity at 23.5 as " that angle is not just local but somehow fundamental to the structure of the cosmos " . Not only ignoring the fact that it is not a constant and thus different at the build of Stonhenge but he seemed to be implying that it is associated with some other similar figure , any ideas what he was thinking about ? |
|
I saw the clip George, but without seeing the film, it's really difficult to comment. All this stuff is so new that there aren't any textbooks out yet describing what the most recent satellite data shows and what this means.
I skimmed some of the papers and found out that this universal axis does exist: One of the main tasks of sending up the latest satellites was to prove or disprove the existence of this: It should not exist according to standard cosmology theories and one idea was that the data from the earlier space missions was flawed. However, from the published Planck satellite data of late 2013, it seems that an axis does exist in our Universe (dubbed "The Axis of Evil" because it can not be explained).
A bit of background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil#Cosmology
However, what exists and why that is important is a mystery to me: I just don't have the time at the moment to research it. The reason it seems to be important to some is that one interpretation of some religious texts (including the Bible) is that this axis should exist.
But my interest is primarily in Stonehenge, where both the layout and the internal structure show a fixed world philosophy about the cosmos and Universe as a whole. In the early stages, I got a few questions from people asking if I believed in the world-view shown at Stonehenge: At the time, I thought it was a very odd question to keep getting asked, so I'm interested to see what it is that the scientists who were interviewed for the film have found.
All the best
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-01-2014 at 09:51
Jon , The De Lano bloke must believe the A of E exists ,and was was suggesting that it , or something similar was related to obliquity today and " that angle is not just local but somehow fundamental to the structure of the cosmos " , which apart from the major premise must be another major error . the problem would be that if you actually went through the claims you might spend a lifetime correcting them but that particular one was related to the Stonehenge bit .
George
[ This message was edited by: tiompan on 2014-01-31 11:36 ]
Profile
Reply
|
ainsloch
Joined:
04-08-2012
Messages: 177
from Belfast
OFF-Line
| Posted 31-01-2014 at 11:21
>>Still, they did a great rendering of Stonehenge. <<
I enjoyed the clip, it looked good. Nice job on getting your work out there Jon. Just curious though, I had read previously that the station stone rectangle could be approximated by a 5-12-13 right angle triangle, which has an angle of 22.62 degrees. Others have said it could be approximated by an octagon (22.5 degree angle). In around 2000 BC the obliquity of the ecliptic would have been around a degree more than this, 23.7 degrees. Have you any thoughts on the geometrical interpretations of the station stones?
Ainsloch
Profile
Reply
|
