cerrig
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 16:51
|
He will be remembered for being a visionary, and for being brave enough to stand up and be counted, even at the risk of unkind and spiteful ridicule.
You(and your shadow) haven't commented on his canon of number work, or his ancient metrology, but I guess it's a bit more difficult to throw stones at those. You'll find a good overview of them both in "The New View over Atlantis". An excellent book, one of several of John's, and a book that will one day be seen as such by a great many people.
Once again you choose to denigrate the memory of another truly decent man, also passed on, just like you do with Alexander Thom. You are in danger of becoming someone with nothing worthwhile to say George. That would be quite sad.
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 17:00
|
It's not "his" canon .
It was referred to earlier .
From the first paragraph in the Bob Forrest article “It sufficiently intrigued me to write to its author, telling him that one of his geometrical constructions was wrong, and showing by calculation (I am a mathematician by trade and training, of course) that the vesica piscis construction of his fig.xxiv (Fig.1 in the Gallery here) did not give the angle of slope of the Great Pyramid, as he claimed. John’s reply, which I still have (as indeed I still have many of his letters), thanked me for my correction to the constructed angle “overenthusiastically described by me as the true angle of the Pyramid”, and wondered if I could throw any light on the actual perimeter and area of the New Jerusalem Dodecagon in City of Revelation” .
From the 2nd paragraph.” At some stage in 1979 he asked me to write-up this mathematical investigation for a book he was planning on the New Jerusalem Dodecagon. I did this, but it was never used, and so I include it as an attachment to this memoir for anyone who might be interested. (To view, click here.) However, the results of some of these calculations were reported (though slightly misquoted) in Dimensions of Paradise (1988), p.40.
I have to say now – as I did at the time of doing my calculations – that I fail to see how John derived his geometrical construction from the meagre details given in the Book of Revelation (21.10f). The figure seemed to be 99% John and only 1% Saint John, but what the heck, it was mathematical fun, whatever it was. “
The problems he mentions are directly related to the canon .
|
nigelswift
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 18:17
|
|
cerrig wrote: You(and your shadow)...
Hook noted but not taken. You're years too late, but I do confess to sharing George's preference for evidence over assertion. Not sure that makes me either a bad person or his shadow, though.
In fact, for your information, he and I differ fundamentally these days for while he still patiently asks for evidence I have long ago come to the view that a lot of earth energy leyline talk is just bollocks and asking for evidence about it is playing into the hands of the bollockmongers! ;)
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 18:22
|
|
I thought the shadow was a Jungian reference .
|
nigelswift
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 18:41
|
|
Well maybe, but the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him. I've been called worse, but not often.
|
tiompan
|
Edited May 03, 2016, 18:51
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 18:49
|
See above for the canon ,that you obviously haven't understood .
I read that stuff at the time , and still have some ,including the one that is the basis of this thread .
It didn't take long for it sink in that it was all bollocks .
Pointing out errors is not denigrating and it is always worthwhile pointing out errors .
Of course it's sad when what you believe is shown to be bollocks .
|
carol27
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 19:19
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Unless of course it involves saying scientists and archaeologists are all closed minded (or worse).
Who said that?
|
ryaner
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 19:29
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Oh that was an unexpected treat in a TMA thread!
Mention of goblins always brings that song to mind.
|
ryaner
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 19:30
|
|
carol27 wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: Oh that was an unexpected treat in a TMA thread!
Hear, hear. Of course Mark E is a bona fide goblin.
I like a bit of magic; the mysterious; the wonderous; the stories & tales.
The curmudgeon's curmudgeon.
|
carol27
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 19:31
|
|
ryaner wrote: carol27 wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: Oh that was an unexpected treat in a TMA thread!
Hear, hear. Of course Mark E is a bona fide goblin.
I like a bit of magic; the mysterious; the wonderous; the stories & tales.
The curmudgeon's curmudgeon.
Indeed:)
|
