The Geometry of Ancient Sites: A Geo-Grid

By Charles William Johnson

In the previous essay, The Geometry of Ancient Sites, we saw how different ancient sites are related to the major river basins around the world. Let us now add the site of Stonehenge to the geo-grid as previously presented.

In the previous illustration, we have connected New Orleans, Louisiana, Giza, Stonehenge and Easter Island, Chile. Immediately, the reader is going to ask, why New Orleans, Louisiana? In the previous essay, we emphasized the site of Poverty Point, Louisiana. And, we spoke about the fact that we conceptualize corridors between the different sites, not just the idea of fine, thin lines interconnecting the ancient sites. We also spoke about the relationship between the Nile River and the Mississippi River.

It is our purpose in this study to draw attention to New Orleans, and the coordinate points that this city represents on the geo-grid. The city of New Orleans represents the lowest part of the State of Louisiana. The highest part (535 feet) of the State is at Ohskill Mountain, near a site named Watson Brake, which was discovered on a few years ago. That is somewhere between 33 and 32 degrees N. In fact, Watson Brake is said to be the oldest site in the United States by some archaeologists, some 9300 BP, according to radio carbon dating.

One may conceptualize a corridor of the geo-grid, from New Orleans and the Delta of the Mississippi River to the Poverty Point site, some 55 miles northeast of Watson Brake, just as one may conceptualize a similar corridor corresponding to the delta of the Nile River to the Giza complex.

In fact, it must be noted that the coordinates that are often given for both the Giza Site and the City of New Orleans share some common traits:

One might think those numbers to be so relational, but as one searches a little more, the following data are often offered doe the coordinates of the Great Pyramid of Giza:

Obviously, one can measure the expanse of an entire city or that of a large pyramid, such as the Great Pyramid from distinct coordinates, and even choose ones that are coincidental. But, these figures are taken from distinct sources, who had no apparent prior agreement to choose similar coordinate numbers.

But, for this reason, we would rather speak about corridors between the significant sites, than fine thin lines, which can be easily disregarded. It is more difficult to ignore some of the geometrical relationships that we are going to illustrate in this essay, just as similar relationships among the ancient sites were difficult to ignore in the previous essay written on this same subject in the Earth/matriX series.

Possibly one might prefer to visualize the corridor between New Orleans and Giza as that of: Mississippi River/Poverty Point and Nile River Delta/Giza Complex. Such a corridor could be conceptualized between 29+ degrees N and 32+ degrees N; given the fact that the mount/delta of the Nile River reaches close to 31.5 degrees. However, we shall simply emphasize the relevancy of the City of New Orleans for the moment, without offering any explanation for now.

By the way, someone must have surely noticed that we compared apples and oranges in the previous data cited for the different sites chosen for this study.

But, within our studies of the ancient reckoning system, such a comparative symbolism in two different systems does not surprise us. Nor would we be surprised if some one suggested a possible relationship between the coordinates for Giza and the Great Pyramid:

There is no room for surprise, when we realize that 31.13 is precisely 31° 07' 48" 0; again, a translation from one system to another. Nor would we be surprised if some found a symbolism in the 31.13c number with respect to the maya date of 3113 years before our era that is often cited as the maya start date among scholars.

As we mentioned, one may view the numbers as of boundaries for the corridors, and in this manner one could conceptualize NOLA as 90:30 on the grid, and Giza/Great Pyramid as 30:30, which would offer conclusions similar to those that we offered in the previous essay on this subject.

Many scholars draw attention to the symbolic significance of the numbers coming out of the ancient reckoning system. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see other sites enjoying historically significant numbers for their coordinate points.

As we observe Stonehenge with coordinate numbers that relate to the 360c day-count calendar, we would expect the second coordinate number to be: 1° 9' 26" 0 in relation to the 260c day-count calendar. By considering the expanse of the site, one can easily comprehend such an adjustment. But, then again, one could imagine the distillation of numbers, and visualize the 1296c fractal number in this last coordinate expression, given that 1 2 9 (2 + 4) means 1296.

We should remember Harleston's reference to the 7776c count (3888, 1944).

We might easily obtain the idea of corridors when we consider world atlases that offer the coordinates for the Gulf of Mexico as 25.00N and 90.00W. Therefore, it is understandable that no city, no pyramidal structure is actually a single coordinate, but rather a set of coordinates, embracing specified spatial boundaries. And, these spatial boundaries are often the object of great debate, when it comes to the need of measuring them.

One may see that the 29.58 figure for NOLA/Giza suggests another significant number/fractal; that related to the speed of light (299709115.4 kms/second). (Note: See the Addendum: Jim Branson, www.ancient-knowhow.com, where the author deals with the latitudinal expression of the Giza Complex as possibly representing the speed of light.)

Within this lesser range of boundaries and corridors (29.58 – 29.98), one can imagine the figure given for the speed of light. The contemporary constant given for the speed of light, then, is fractal expression, 29.9792458. This figure in terms of geo-coordinates would be:

1168.357592² = 1365059.463 And, then, we begin a whole new line of inquiry regarding these relationships to the maya companion numbers that would require another complete essay. But, the significant point, is to note how the fractal expressions of Giza relate as of the speed of light. The possibility of developing a number that is relational to the maya long-count series and to the 29.98 and 30.0 range as of these two number series is hard-pressed to attribute to circumstance and chance at the level of computational differences of terms:

One could expand these considerations to include those of the other possible boundaries of the corridor, which could include the mouth of the Nile River and that of the Mississippi River, as well as the site of Poverty Point, as well as other sites in Egypt near Giza. The 7542c doubles almost precisely to the Meso-American calendar round number (18980c): 1.898003223¹⁰. The 7542c in relation to the maya 1872 yields another kemi number: 567c (since 1872 – 7542 = 5670). Were we to consider the difference between the 29.9709114.5 and 29.58 numbers (i.e., .39091145, which doubles to .195455725), then we would have to begin another essay. For remember the Nineveh number/fractal: 1959552c.

This maya period number, 1872000, in its fractal expression offers a distinct coordinate.

1.872, 3,744, 7.488, 14.976, and 29.952

29.952 DD = 29° 57' 07"2

Obviously, this coordinate expression lies within the Giza complex as well. But, enough said about the symbolism within the ancient reckoning numbers, and their possible relationship to the corridors between ancient sites. Let us explore some more of the geometry of the ancient geo-grid.

The previous view reveals what happens when we visualize a corridor from the point shown on the corridor between NOLA and Giza. A perpendicular line drops down to the easternmost tip of South America. For this reason, as well as for other similar relationships, we view the ancient grid as representing a geo-grid. The ancient sites appear to be foretelling of the layout of the continents and of the great river basins around the world.

One may find relationships among the ancient sites, but it is most intriguing to see that there is yet another level: that of the relationship of the ancient sites to geographical characteristics of the land masses known as continents.

Even the simplest of relationships between Giza and Stonehenge offers pleasant surprises like this 30-60-90 degree triangle referencing the mouth of the great Amazon River in Brazil. For coincidences one can never stop; the ancient sites simply seem to pointing out all kinds of relevant relationships among the sites themselves and characteristics of the planet Earth.

And, as we contemplate these relationships, it only makes sense that the ancients situated their sites, not only in relationship to themselves and among themselves, but in relationship to the their surroundings, to the very Nature within which they lived.

The point that intrigued us as we drew these interconnecting lines among the sites, is that the angle formed by NOLA-Giza-Stonehenge forms a 39-degree angle at Giza; a 51-degree angle at Stonehenge (102 / 2 = 51). Remember, Stonehenge is itself located near the latitudinal coordinate point of 51 degrees. The red triangle would basically represent nearly the shape of the Great Pyramid's profile presentation, in a repeat pattern here. And, strangely enough, NOLA would represent the eye of the triangle in its respective case.

Just how many relationships are there in this set of coordinate points; far too many to discuss in a short essay at this moment.

On a globe of the Earth, if one runs a connecting string/line from Cusco, Peru to Giza, that line passes through the Mouth of the Amazon River. If one traces a line on a globe from Easter Island to Giza, that lines runs through Lake Titicaca.

Addendum to Extract 76 of Earth/matriX

The following image and text are reproduced here by permission from, Jim Branson, www.ancient-knowhow.com, which treat the symbolic representation of the speed of light in the coordinate numbers of the Great Pyramid at the Giza Complex.