Summations Only

Hi RAZD,

My 15ft kayak is 35 lbs, an aluminum canoe, with less material (no deck) and the same length weighs more, and the kayak is stronger (doesn't flex as much).

Not really a fair comparison, the kayaks design has a lot to do with the reason it flexes less (no deck on a canoe).

I would bet the surface area for your kayak is less than that of the canoe, therefore which one would be less material?

Wouldn't it be better to compare a wood canoe to an aluminum one? Comparing a kayak to a canoe is like comparing an open river barge to a submarine.

Hi Gullwind1

Have you ever taken any classes in these subjects?

Yes.

Even if wood is as strong as steel along the grain, the stresses involved aren't.

This doesn't mean anything. Stresses are based on load and geometry, not the strength of the material. You can design to use the material strength to handle the stresses, whatever the material is. See reply to Theodoric (Message 210): wood along the grain is stronger than steel for the same weight.

I have gone through the design processes, and it doesn't work the way you say it does.

Curiously, I quoted a Naval Architect with 40 years experience that says you are wrong - that is the purpose of the link I provided. Just claiming it is wrong is not you demonstrating that it is wrong.

Reduced does not mean negligible.

Agreed, but what it does mean is that you can define the worst case based on the vessel geometry, and then design to it.

But they would still be lifting the bow and subjecting the ship to stress.

And that stress would still be less than the worst case design condition.

Swells are different than waves. ... They are nothing like tsunamis.

The shape of a wave is similar independent of cause, as it is governed by the physical constraints of water and gravity. A longer wavelength is more like flat water than a shorter wavelength for a vessel that has a shorter length than the wavelength. The purpose of mentioning the Tsunami wave is that a very long wavelength does not necessarily result in a high wave. What I said was

quote:

---

... there is no cause for the wave to build to a high peak or breaking wave, unless there is a LOT of wind.

---

You need to show reference to a LOT of wind in the narrative before you can assume it is there.

You're talking about apples and oranges. Swells are surface disturbances caused by wind and other things hundreds or thousands of miles away. In a global flood, those swells would have nothing to disperse them and could build on each other, regardless of the local wind conditions.

Like the roaring 40's, which changes dramatically depending on weather conditions. Some days can be quite calm.

In a steady state condition the swells would increase in wavelength in an open world wide sea.

As has been said before, if you invoke magic than anything is possible, but if there actually was a global flood then the weather would be drastically affected. Lots of moisture in the air, lots of heat being retained by the water, big storms.

But I'm NOT invoking magic, I am pointing out that you are making up stuff that isn't necessarily in the narrative.

Without any credible information on the actual weather and sea conditions from the narrative, you would have to show a vessel cannot survive in the best conditions that meet the narrative information, otherwise you are creating potentially false conditions.

In reality it would be a small one compared to the purported flood.

(A) how do you know this?

(B) a larger wave, once the length of the vessel is exceeded, makes less of a problem, as the water surface relative to the vessel become flatter.

Actually, it was worse than that. It was built in Wisconsin and had to be narrow enough to get through the St Lawrence Seaway. 710' long with a 78' beam. It was a big canoe. I always thought that was a poor choice for a ship intended for the Alaska run.

Yeah, but shipping companies make lots of poor choices with other peoples lives.

So you are comparing the stability of a vessel with a larger length/beam ratio and likely a higher depth to beam ratio and possibly a higher CG to the purported ark in order to say that the ark would be unstable?

Sure, but this increases the hogging and sagging stress. ...

How so? A sea anchor would be a load in a different direction.

... So you either have these stresses, or your doing barrel rolls. Neither option is particularly good.

Why barrel rolls if the swells are a long wavelength exceeding the length of the vessel? Large but long drawn-out swells are not necessarily a stability problem.

Again you need to show reference to a LOT of wind in the narrative before you can assume it is there.

Not a valid comparison. ...

You asked for it.

... It hasn't been in water for 30 years. I'm willing to be it hasn't spent a single year in the water in those 30 years. Riding on top of a car isn't quite the same thing either. And a kayak is a lot different that a 450' vessel. ...

Correct, the stresses on a rooftop are likely considerably higher than sitting in the water for a year.

... You can't just scale the equations indefinitely.

Sorry, but that is how actual design is done, by the equations, based on the calculated stresses and the material strengths.

Vessels larger than the purported ark have been designed - you rode in one - so we are not talking about extrapolating off the end of known data.

But they were in it for a year.

And what were the weather wind and sea conditions?

Still don't see it lasting a year.

Curiously, your opinion is not able to affect reality.

The believers can say anything they want. I'm looking at reality. ...

Are you? Without contradictory information you would need to assume the best case conditions from the information provided in the narrative.

We can look at trees that are known to exist and see if they are long enough and large enough to provide material needed to build a vessel to the parameters given in the narrative. From what I can see, they exist such that a vessel could be constructed with wooden boat building technology.

... And joints are not as strong as the beam itself, primarily because of the flexing that takes place. Eventually, there will be a failure.

Again, this is a design issue. The joints are not as neat as in a steel vessel, where material can be welded, but even in a steel vessel the joints are made with brackets to increase the strength and the joints compared to the middle of the beam.

This is why traditional wooden vessels used knees.

Source for this?

Google 4 masted clippers, and you will find videos of one of these vessels in a storm with the bow snaking around in response to loads from the rigging.

Then why did the Tesseriaconteras stay docked for its entire service life? It wasn't even a single hull, but it was too big to remain intact in anything but dead calm waters.

The loads on that vessel would be due to the oars when it was taken out. Sitting there it did not have those loads.

Enjoy.

Yes.

Good. Me too. Funny how what I took from them is so different from you.

This doesn't mean anything. Stresses are based on load and geometry, not the strength of the material. You can design to use the material strength to handle the stresses, whatever the material is. See reply to Theodoric (Message 210): wood along the grain is stronger than steel for the same weight.

I meant the stresses wouldn't be along the grain, which seems to render your whole argument moot. The keel, for example, would have the grain running lengthwise (X-axis), while the stresses would primarily be up and down (z-axis).

Curiously, I quoted a Naval Architect with 40 years experience that says you are wrong - that is the purpose of the link I provided. Just claiming it is wrong is not you demonstrating that it is wrong.

But your argument is only valid along the grain, which does not always hold.

Agreed, but what it does mean is that you can define the worst case based on the vessel geometry, and then design to it.

Sure.

And that stress would still be less than the worst case design condition.

But still affecting it, over and over and over...

The shape of a wave is similar independent of cause, as it is governed by the physical constraints of water and gravity. A longer wavelength is more like flat water than a shorter wavelength for a vessel that has a shorter length than the wavelength. The purpose of mentioning the Tsunami wave is that a very long wavelength does not necessarily result in a high wave. What I said was quote: ... there is no cause for the wave to build to a high peak or breaking wave, unless there is a LOT of wind. You need to show reference to a LOT of wind in the narrative before you can assume it is there.

Why? I'm assuming nothing more than the conditions that would be reasonably experienced in a real-world situation Do you have some reason to think that there would mysteriously be no wind anywhere in the world during the flood? I think you need to support your assertion that there was no wind more than I need to support the assumption that there would be some and it would cause swells just like it does today.

Like the roaring 40's, which changes dramatically depending on weather conditions. Some days can be quite calm. In a steady state condition the swells would increase in wavelength in an open world wide sea.

And would also increase in amplitude with no land mass to stop them. Waves (and swells) can build on each other as the frequencies match up.

But I'm NOT invoking magic, I am pointing out that you are making up stuff that isn't necessarily in the narrative.

You are making things up if you assert that somehow there was no wind. The bible doesn't mention that either.

Without any credible information on the actual weather and sea conditions from the narrative, you would have to show a vessel cannot survive in the best conditions that meet the narrative information, otherwise you are creating potentially false conditions.

No, what I'm doing is projecting the probable weather conditions that would be experienced in the conditions described by the narrative. I see no reason to assume that there was no wind anywhere on earth during the flood.

(A) how do you know this?

Because I've studied the effects that land has on weather and sea conditions, and what the lack of land would do to them. It wouldn't be millpond conditions all around the world, that's for sure.

(B) a larger wave, once the length of the vessel is exceeded, makes less of a problem, as the water surface relative to the vessel become flatter.

That doesn't make the stress problem go away, it just means it won't be as bad as it could be. A vessel riding up and down 100 foot swells, even with a thousand or fifteen hundred feet between them is still subject to hogging and sagging.

Yeah, but shipping companies make lots of poor choices with other peoples lives.

Well, the food was good anyway.

So you are comparing the stability of a vessel with a larger length/beam ratio and likely a higher depth to beam ratio and possibly a higher CG to the purported ark in order to say that the ark would be unstable?

No, I've never said the ark would be unstable. I said it would break up in rough seas.

How so? A sea anchor would be a load in a different direction.

A sea anchor would keep the bow into the wind and waves, thus causing greater hogging and sagging stress than if it was lying broadside to the waves, when it would be rolling back and forth.

Why barrel rolls if the swells are a long wavelength exceeding the length of the vessel? Large but long drawn-out swells are not necessarily a stability problem.

You're assuming it would only experience long swells. I'm not.

Again you need to show reference to a LOT of wind in the narrative before you can assume it is there.

Wind exists in the real world. Why would it not exist during the flood?

You asked for it.

No, I asked how your kayak would react to being constantly flexed at the bow and stern, over and over for a year. You changed the comparison to being strapped to the top of your car. That's what I said wasn't a valid comparison.

Correct, the stresses on a rooftop are likely considerably higher than sitting in the water for a year.

But sitting in water while being flexed back and forth...?

Sorry, but that is how actual design is done, by the equations, based on the calculated stresses and the material strengths.

But not by assuming that your can just add material to make it stronger by the same amount. After a certain point, the weight of the material limits how much extra stress it can take. And your calculations are still dependent on the strength along the grain of the wood.

Vessels larger than the purported ark have been designed - you rode in one - so we are not talking about extrapolating off the end of known data.

No, but we are talking about scaling up from small wooden vessels to larger ones. You are assuming that increasing the size of the beam increases its strength by the same amount, regardless of the size. From what I remember, that isn't automatically the case.

And what were the weather wind and sea conditions?

I'm willing to be they weren't millpond calm.

Curiously, your opinion is not able to affect reality.

No, but I'm basing my opinion on that reality.

Are you? Without contradictory information you would need to assume the best case conditions from the information provided in the narrative.

Why not assume normal conditions based on what we know about weather? That's all I'm doing.

We can look at trees that are known to exist and see if they are long enough and large enough to provide material needed to build a vessel to the parameters given in the narrative. From what I can see, they exist such that a vessel could be constructed with wooden boat building technology.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. You keep talking about the strength of wood along the grain, so I was referring to finding a tree of sufficient size to carve a keel beam 450' long so that the grain would actually be in the same direction as the hogging and sagging stress.

Again, this is a design issue. The joints are not as neat as in a steel vessel, where material can be welded, but even in a steel vessel the joints are made with brackets to increase the strength and the joints compared to the middle of the beam. This is why traditional wooden vessels used knees.

None of which you can do with a wooden vessel. So you still have joints, flexing back and forth. Knees aren't as strong as welds.

Google 4 masted clippers, and you will find videos of one of these vessels in a storm with the bow snaking around in response to loads from the rigging.

Not arguing that the rigging caused stress. I'm disputing that the rigging was the main source of stress.

The loads on that vessel would be due to the oars when it was taken out. Sitting there it did not have those loads.

The oars caused too great a load on the ship? Seriously? I'd really like to see a source on that.

Hi Dirk, and welcome to the fray.

Maybe we should look at some actual wooden ships that approach the supposed size of the ark? See this list, which shows that all wooden ships over 100m in length suffered from severe structural problems, even when they were reinforced with steel.

Curiously, it appears that most of those vessels survived for the length of service required of the ark, certainly for the 40 day period of rain\flood that would account for the major stresses on the vessel (with the remainder of the time sitting in calm water?).

My point is that you cannot show that such a vessel as the purported ark cannot be built. The ark narrative does not provide much in terms of what the conditions were that needed to be survived, so it is difficult to gage the need for substantial structure. Was it a hurricane or just a rainstorm?

Then you have the type of service in question:

(1) all vessels with rigging on them (most of the ones on your list) are subject to high loads from the rigging. The loads are normally variable in direction and intensity, and this variation leads to working of these vessels much more than would occur in a non-rigged ship floating free.

(2) vessels under tow are also subject to loads from being towed that mean the total loads are more than would occur in a non-towed ship floating free.

(3) others have to have provisions for their intended use that jeopardize structure and storm survival (oar ports or gun ports in the sides).

The main issues are joint construction and sealing of the vessel. Joint construction was not addressed in the narrative, IIRC, so you are going on assumption in that regard. The sealing was apparently done by tar, which was still used in the golden age of sail.

Note that I am not arguing that the purported ark was actually built, just pointing out that you cannot assume that it couldn't be built without having a lot more information that is not available. IIRC there is no description of the internal structural elements at all.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Hifearandloathing

Not really a fair comparison, the kayaks design has a lot to do with the reason it flexes less (no deck on a canoe). I would bet the surface area for your kayak is less than that of the canoe, therefore which one would be less material? Wouldn't it be better to compare a wood canoe to an aluminum one? Comparing a kayak to a canoe is like comparing an open river barge to a submarine.

Okay, try this:

http://www.osagian.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store...

quote:

---

Length  Width  Depth  Weight  Capacity  Persons
 12'     29"    11"    46lb    400lb       1

---

Shorter, heavier, ~same girth (depth and width).

Enjoy.

Hi again Gullwind1,

But your argument is only valid along the grain, which does not always hold.

My argument that wood is lighter than steel only applies along the grain. Now you are talking about sheer loads within the members, and this is a function of area vs stress.

Again, you define the stress conditions, and then we can design to meet them.

But still affecting it, over and over and over...

How much and for how long? Define the stress and you can design to meet it.

After the 40 days of rain don't we have a different survival condition, one that even a wounded ship could survive?

Why? I'm assuming nothing more than the conditions that would be reasonably experienced in a real-world situation Do you have some reason to think that there would mysteriously be no wind anywhere in the world during the flood? I think you need to support your assertion that there was no wind more than I need to support the assumption that there would be some and it would cause swells just like it does today.

How do you know they are reasonable if you don't have any information about the actual conditions? Assumption?

I didn't say there was no wind, I said that there was no real information on the wind, and that without information you are making stuff up to imply your case is stronger.

I've seen heavy rain with no wind, so it is possible.

http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/

quote:

---

7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

---

Rising water. Some wind, but how strong not mentioned. No storm conditions mentioned other than rain.

That doesn't make the stress problem go away, it just means it won't be as bad as it could be. A vessel riding up and down 100 foot swells, even with a thousand or fifteen hundred feet between them is still subject to hogging and sagging.

Yes, and the loading would be significantly less with longer swells. The period of swells is related to the fetch of the wind (even little wind) so the swells could be very long but not very high.

And without any information to derive a reasonable sea condition there is no rational to assume one with sever loading conditions.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : link

My argument that wood is lighter than steel only applies along the grain. Now you are talking about sheer loads within the members, and this is a function of area vs stress.

That's what I've been talking about from the start.

Again, you define the stress conditions, and then we can design to meet them.

Why? So you can dispute them and claim that without a specific description in the bible, we can't assume anything more than millpond conditions? I have reality, in which no wooden vessel larger than 400' has had any success whatsoever, and even then only limited.

How much and for how long? Define the stress and you can design to meet it.

The bible says they were in it for a year, but you don't seem to think there were any waves.

After the 40 days of rain don't we have a different survival condition, one that even a wounded ship could survive?

Not in reality. There would still be wind, swells and storms, unless you have some reason to think there wouldn't be?

How do you know they are reasonable if you don't have any information about the actual conditions? Assumption?

Experience. I have sailed on the ocean, and I know the conditions one experiences there.

I didn't say there was no wind, I said that there was no real information on the wind, and that without information you are making stuff up to imply your case is stronger.

I'm not assuming constant gales. I'm simply assuming similar conditions to what is experienced today, with the removal of the canceling effect of the continents. Why is that not reasonable?

I've seen heavy rain with no wind, so it is possible. http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/ quote:7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. Rising water. Some wind, but how strong not mentioned. No storm conditions mentioned other than rain.

So you are advocating that god was magically interfering with the weather, preventing the normal conditions from being experienced. When you invoke magic, you can explain anything.

Yes, and the loading would be significantly less with longer swells. The period of swells is related to the fetch of the wind (even little wind) so the swells could be very long but not very high.

Not if they are building up over thousands of miles, with no continents to interfere.

And without any information to derive a reasonable sea condition there is no rational to assume one with sever loading conditions.

Just experience and reality, but you don't seem to be interested in those.

By the way, I'd still like to see some support for your assertion that the oars on the Tesseriaconteras were the source of its structural problems.

AlphaOmegakid writes: $150M investment in theme park featuring Noahs ark in life size replication as well as a complete biblical theme park.

That sure is a lot. Much more than what Noah actually had to spend

It would be neat to see them construct it and try to go about like noah did without using the modern technology we have to day.

It would be like trying to re-contruct the Great Pyramid.

Take this article for instance:

Let's pause from our tour for a moment's rest and reflection. Whoever built the Pyramid used a technologly that we still do not possess today to cut, move, and cement stones. Whoever built it also had some knowledge of the Earth, because it was built in the right spot-one of the few places that would support such a great weight. The builder also knew where the greatest land mass of the Earth was in both the North-South and East-West directions. Amazing. But we had better keep going. And joining us on the leg of our tour will be none other than Sir Issac Newton...

http://www.europa.com/~edge/pyramid.html

If the Great pyramid was not there today but only written about, it too no doubt would be viewed as a "myth".

Not being able to reconstruct something or imagine it's dimensions as unprobable certainly does not make it make believe by any stretch as witnessed by the Great pyramid.

From the same article:

Only a solid stone mountain could endure the Pyramid's immense weight. And indeed, a flat solid granite mountain happens to be located just beneath the surface of the ground directly under the Pyramid. It is built to face true North. The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europa, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid, the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion

We know from geometry that there is a universal relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. Consider this: The height of the Pyramid's apex is 5,812.98 inches, and each side is 9,131 inches from corner to corner (in a straight line). If the circumference of the Pyramid is divided by twice its height (the diameter of a circle is twice the radius), the result is 3.14159, which just happens to be pi. Incredibly, this calculation is accurate to six digits. So the Pyramid is a square circle, and thus pi was designed into it 4,600 years ago. Pi is demonstrated many times throughout the Pyramid. Other numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days. All of the evidence in the Great Pyramid shows that 4,600 years ago somebody knew a great deal about the Earth. But it gets better, much better: The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid. All four sides of the Pyramid are very slightly and evenly bowed in, or concave. This effect, which cannot be detected by looking at the Pyramid from the ground, was discovered around 1940 by a pilot taking aerial photos to check certain measurements. As measured by today's laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth. This radius of curvature is what Newton had long been seeking.

That's just some of the highlights of the article. If anything this gives the probablility of the Ark existing as much as the Great pyramids existance.

The only difference being you can see the Great pyramid (seeing is believing for the skeptic) and only see what is written about the Ark.

Take this article for instance:

Yeah, let's take it. Then let's drive a stake through its black evil heart, cremate it to the finest ash, sprinkle it with holy water, lock the cinders in a leaden casket, bury it under ten feet of concrete, and just pray that that's enough to stop the stupid from leaking out.

If the Great pyramid was not there today but only written about, it too no doubt would be viewed as a "myth".

The other six out of the seven wonders of the ancient world aren't there today^*, "but only written about", and no-one calls them mythical.

* Unless you're using the list which includes the walls of Babylon.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Chuck77 writes: If anything this gives the probablility of the Ark existing as much as the Great pyramids existance.

Wrong.
The probability of the Great Pyramids having existed is 100%.
The probability of the ark having existed is much less.

Chuck77 writes: The only difference being you can see the Great pyramid (seeing is believing for the skeptic) and only see what is written about the Ark.

Some of the differences are that the Great Pyramids are mentioned in many historical documents; has been seen by many millions of people (thousands of whom are still alive) and is still there to see today.
Whereas the ark was only mentioned in a book which is full of metaphorical parables.

There are other differences, but I expect that pyramids are off-topic.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

That's just some of the highlights of the article. If anything this gives the probablility of the Ark existing as much as the Great pyramids existance.

How in any way does it do that? Odds are just that, odds. We don't know the whole story. Just what knowledge the ancient Egyptians had, and why such knowledge was lost. Anymore than it was simply coincidence that these numbers correspond. People can read virtually anything into anything.

You could measure 4 millimeters of curvature in a 4000-year-old stone edge 230 meters long in aerial photos taken in the 1940's?

O Rly?

Chuck, I've got a real nice lake out here in Gaines County that you might be interested in purchasing. Pretty inexpensively, too, and it comes with all its lakefront property......

[/OT BS]

Maybe there is a point there ? If the Flood story is as wrong as that article maybe we're being unfair on poor old Noah. Maybe the real events were much more plausible, and it''s only the silly story in the Bible that causes us not to believe it.

There actually is some curvature/dishing/something non-planar in the faces of the Great Pyramid, a lot bigger than 4 mm. It can be seen in the shadowing of an aerial photograph alleged to be from the 1940s:

but it took careful surveying to measure it. Combined High Resolution Laser Scanning and Photogrammetrical Documentation of the
Pyramids at Giza:

The middle is farther away than the outer edges. I hope the color-coding is obvious.

Here Martin.au got hold of the raw laser data and posted some cross-sections:

There was a very long discussion of the GP and its measurements and their possible meaning at talkrational.org.. Since the casing is mostly gone it's difficult to take what we can measure and convert it to measurements of the GP as-built. Febble posted a very good summary of the problems with the older surveys that seemed to indicate some special meanings of the as-built measurements here, although you might need to learn a lot of background to appreciate it fully.

Bottom line: the available evidence clearly and unambiguously indicates that there are no meaningful numbers (year length, polar radius, etc.) encoded in the GP.

From your link

quote:

---

This
article was
republished for the
Internet with permission by
Art Bell. The article first appeared in
Art Bell's newsletter, AFTER DARK Vol.1 No.2
February 1995 ~ DREAMLAND REPORT, which is available
by calling 1 800 917-4-ART, so start your subscription today. Subscription:
$39.95 per year and well worth the investment. Visit Art Bell's home page for more
information and an updated list of his syndicated Radio Show COAST TO COAST and DREAMLAND.

---

Art Bell? Art fucking Bell? are you serious?

Can you tell us anything about the author John Zajac? Anything about him so we can determine whether he is someone that we should listen to? Amazing that there are no references isn't it.

WOOOOOOOOOOO
Page 2 is even more exciting. Here is the final paragraph.

quote:

---

Could the builder of the Great Pyramid be a space visitor from another planet? Possibly, if we focus on his advanced knowledge. However, being able to see and/or control the future precisely is what we would recognize as supernatural. Dedication of the interior of the Pyramid to the history of the Jews, prophecy, and especially to the life and death of Christ indicates that the Pyramid must have been designed and built with Supernatural help as a prophetic monument able to endure through the ages, despite millennia of natural and man-made assaults against it.

---

Are you fricking serious? And Percy made you a mod. That ought to be interesting.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.