Carl Munck - The Code

Bumping this thread because the videos are fascinating.

ETA: One thing I had an idea about after his discussion of Hoagland and Cydonia, someone should try a map of the heavens as an overlay on Earth using Giza/Orion as 0, 0, 0. It might give us key locations of other sites/artifacts.

reply to post by ArdenWolf


I'm sorry your question was actually very helpful and I was generalizing and didn't mean to offend you at all. Please keep in mind that the equator has never moved and the grid latitudes of these sites have not moved either. He claims this system and Giza are around 12,000 years old according to the math, as opposed to the 3,500 BC date given by mainstream archaeology.

There just isn't enough evidence for continental drifting if any during this 12,000 period, in my opinion. It is far from an exact science unfortunately. Even if it has moved slightly, a lot of these sites are gigantic enough that they would still fall on the grid points.

He proposes that Great Pyramid was the ancient Prime Meridian, instead of our modern Greenwich Prime Meridian. If you disregard this, then his theory falls apart. If we plug these numbers into our modern PM, the equations fail. However what he is proposing shows in geomathematics, that these places have in fact not drifted since the mandate to build. At least not enough to be noticeable.

reply to post by roncoallstar

I've watched the first 15 minutes and had to stop. As others have pointed out, what you see here is "law of small numbers" in full action. He is picking numbers to fit the result he expects.

Btw his Stonehenge coordinates seem to be off, just checked them in google maps and cross-checked with wikipedia. To get the correct value he would have to use 360 * 62 and not 360 * 60 (ignoring any plate tectonics here).

PS:
If you are into numbers, I'd recomend to have a look into Pi movie, much more entertaining imho

reply to post by moebius


Nuts. That's what I get for being math stupid.

reply to post by moebius


Good catch. Something is wrong here. Carl mentions that you need to add +2, but he doesn't show it in his flash card. Check this link and you'll see the correct equation is here that fits into Stonehenge's modern coordinates.
geomathematics

The correct equation would be :
62 x 360 = 22320 ; 22320 / 51 / 10 = 43.76

But Carl shows this:
60 x 360 = 21600 ; 21600 / 51 / 10 = 42.35

He did say he was using detailed source maps, and those maps he was using may have been different than what we have today. I really don't know what to make of this because he claims that those were indeed the correct coordinates of Stonehenge, yet today we have a different number. However, that number fits perfectly if you add the +2 as Carl originally states.

bump

boncho

Originally posted by roncoallstar
reply to post by boncho

 

Anything like that would be long gone, especially after a worldwide disaster, except for stone that is. And that is exactly what we are left with.

That's strange. So the dinosaur bones we find are what? Just anomalies? You don't think titanium stints pinned into people's legs wouldn't be noticeable? And tools from the stone age...

(My answer is forgetting a million other things like steel, metals, etc.)

edit on 3-9-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

We don't find dinosaur bones, we find dinosaur fossils,....which are made out of.......stone.

Next question.

Phage
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

Do you think giant blocks of titanium would have been better?

No. Blocks are a pretty silly way of building things unless you don't have other options.

edit on 9/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

How many of our modern steel frame buildings do you think will still be around in 5 thousand years?

2 months passed, and this topic and Carl Munck's research still stand as some of the greatest proof of an advanced ancient civilization, and no one will ever know about it.

Well, at least Carl has opened the eyes of at least one human...

JohnnySasaki

boncho

Originally posted by roncoallstar
reply to post by boncho

 

Anything like that would be long gone, especially after a worldwide disaster, except for stone that is. And that is exactly what we are left with.

That's strange. So the dinosaur bones we find are what? Just anomalies? You don't think titanium stints pinned into people's legs wouldn't be noticeable? And tools from the stone age...

(My answer is forgetting a million other things like steel, metals, etc.)

edit on 3-9-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

We don't find dinosaur bones, we find dinosaur fossils,....which are made out of.......stone.

Next question.

Well, sorry I didn't realize we were arguing semantics here. I posed more than one question however. So there was an advanced civilization which left no remnants at all?

JohnnySasaki

Phage
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

Do you think giant blocks of titanium would have been better?

No. Blocks are a pretty silly way of building things unless you don't have other options.

edit on 9/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

How many of our modern steel frame buildings do you think will still be around in 5 thousand years?

Quite a few most likely, even if they had all fallen by them we would have engineered composites left over.

You are forgetting about the most important thing about historical evidence…

You do realize that almost all metals corrode, right? Ever watch that show "Life After People"? I'm not gonna say everything they had to say was 100% correct, but not much is left even after a relatively short period of time.

What's more, it's well known that the pyramids have been looted.

Next question.

No takers? I thought so.

How about this, I want someone to try this on one of our modern buildings,....say the space needle in Seattle for example. It should be fairly easy beings it has a 360 degree circle at the top. You can use all the "small numbers" you want, given that they come off of said space needle in some way, and in a relatively small amount of steps I want you to find the exact coordinates to the space needle in the "CODE".

That should prove your point fairly well.


I'll be waiting.

I'm still waiting. I don't have eternity, believe it or not. I'll give it another couple days, at which time I'll assume your silence is conceding defeat.

a reply to: roncoallstar

Well this is an old topic for you but I just joined this site today because of it. I have watched all the videos prior to a search online leading me here. I was reading the comments and was thinking to myself.. if the globe itself is a constant 360 degrees than it stands to reason that the scale itself would adjust with the earth as it grew. 360 degrees he said is a constant. I suck at math but it just seems logical to me. my thought is to get a globe and mark out the measurements with the new scale rather than the degrees we use today and see what happens.

I watched about 12 minutes of this video before I had to shut it off.

OK, ther's supposed to be some what? Global lattitude number of 21,600? I can find that almost anywhere. I pinpointed a parking lot in Dallas that had coordinates of 21,600 both longitude (adjusted for Giza) and lattitude.

21,600 / (lattitude degrees times lattitude minutes) gives you lattitude seconds. So, 21,600 is NOT a fixed lattitude. It can be almost any lattitude degree/minute combo. I can increase the lattitude or degrees, then just plug it all into the formula. I find out a new degrees. Each minute should get you within 1.15 miles of a site. So you look incredibly close. Then you just figure out the seconds that multiply out to make 21,600.

The result is you'd be kind of close. Given a whole globe, especially back when these videos were made, the most people might have access to is an atlas. Munck gives a coordinate and gee whiz, it's close. He must be right.

BUT, use sattelite imagery and look up the exact coordinates. They are off. That's not the center of Stonehenge.

Oh, and if you can't make up the numbers with the coordinates, divide them. Tell them to make it multiply out to 2160 or 360 or whatever.

It's this simple, factor a number. You get endless possibilities. You can make them match almost anything. Given 21,600 as a coordinate, using this math, you couldn't pinpoint it to any specific latitude.

Maybe there's more things in the video. But I had to call giant BS from the get-go.

Also, he called Stonehenge a perfect 360 degree circle. That's redundant. As if there's a 90 degree circle? By definition, a circle has 360 degrees using that system.

I just get frustrated because I know there are many out there who are wowed by this. This is like that "magic" where somebody feeds you birthdate numbers into a formula and manically at the end, it winds up in something like MMDDYYYY format. But, pick it apart with algebra and it all makes sense. Don't be amazed. This is just a trick too.

Calculations and associations of this kind -- a symptom of mild schizophrenia -- only really work with a lot of fudging. Do the Giza Pyramids line up like the stars in the belt of Orion? Sure... if you fudge them hard enough. So on one hand you have to give ancient civilizations credit for having advanced science that allows them to make extremely accurate measurements, but then you also have to cut them some slack for being relatively primitive and not getting the measurements exactly 100 percent accurate down to the millimeter.

FUDGE

originally posted by: iwan2ski
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

reply to post by boncho

 

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by roncoallstar
reply to post by boncho

 

Anything like that would be long gone, especially after a worldwide disaster, except for stone that is. And that is exactly what we are left with.

That's strange. So the dinosaur bones we find are what? Just anomalies? You don't think titanium stints pinned into people's legs wouldn't be noticeable? And tools from the stone age...

(My answer is forgetting a million other things like steel, metals, etc.)

Well first off, lets keep in mind that no one has actually found live dinosaur bones, only fossils of them. Fossils are not actual bones, but calcified minerals that build around and eventually replacing the rotting live material. So basically fossils are not too far off from stone based on it's mineral composition.

Second, most metals have difficulties standing the test of time due to the metal's susceptibility to corrosion. Now that does not mean we cannot find ancient metal artifacts, because we have, but most are in very bad shape or calcified to truly know what the original design or function was.

Lastly, there have been advanced ancient artifacts such as the Antikythera mechanism that have been discovered and because we cannot fully explain how such devices fit into our current understanding of how advanced our ancestors were, they are left as mysteries and left out of the history books.

Something to think about:
If our modern world were to be hit with an E.L.E. where most humans are killed off and their buildings collapsed, volcanic ash, flooding and sediment covering the terrain for tens of thousands of years while surviving humans retreat to caves for shelter. Humanity would go through a stage of de-evolution where the day-in-the-life is all about survival, not learning and educating.

After just a few generations, knowledge of the old world would be all but forgotten and the few stories which were passed from one generation to the next eventually becomes myths and legends. After thousands of years later when mankind rises out of the caves and begins to rebuild and rediscover all the lost concepts of math, science, language, architecture ...etc, they will eventually come to a point were they think they are the most advanced civilization that has lived on this planet, since their ancestors lived in caves and didn't know things like electricity or modern tool making.

Of course this paradigm all changes when one day someone digs up a calcified iPod and say, "WTF"!

You may be on to something here. I like the way you put the caveman/E.L.E. analogy together...good point

a reply to: pg2010

The entire presentation is 4-5 hours long, 12 minutes isn't even scratching the surface. However, I could understand how you would come to that conclusion after hearing the basic introduction.

If you want to pass judgement based on a fragment of the entire picture, that's just fine by me.

Second video was removed, but someone uploaded the entire presentation in one video for anyone interested.