Arcadia Discussion Zone

Brian

I appreciate your restraint, and accept your decision not to go with the alternative I suggested, but you really should consider how you can possibly know exactly how the originator determined the centre of the orange circle, if he ever got that far. You've come up with one option, I've come up with another, so why couldn't the originator have come up with a third.



You can't possibly know this, and everybody knows you can't know it, so what's the point of saying it? Why don't you start prefacing your observations with: 'It's possible that ....' This should then lead to thoughts such as 'how do I decide which of the alternatives may have been correct?' It would be another matter if you then got onto the island and found drilled rocks, or something, at these points to show that somebody had been there before you. That would be testing your hypothesis, but you don't want to do that (and I see no point in your trying because Fred Nolan has a down on other Oak Island theorists.) How else are you likely to convince anybody that you might be right? However, you won't get onto the island to test your hypothesis, so is any of this important?

That's the other thing, why do you have to be right about this. What difference does it make? The surveys have provided the dimensions and, as you said yourself, it's fairly obvious that the design may have developed from the Tree of Life. This could have been done your way, my way, Petter's way, or another way. However, that doesn't alter the diagram that results when you connect the survey points!

Too few people believe in the Cross anyway, it's just a chance assemblage of stones dropped from a glacier, or such. The important thing is that you're prepared to take it seriously and work on the assumption that it could be significant. This is the way theory works. We don't need to declare that the Cross was definitely the work of the originator, we don't know that, but other people suggesting that it might be a random assemblage of stones is no proof that we're wrong. Proof works both ways.

You and I have decided that it is far better to assume that the stones are intentionally placed, and that they may be significant in the overall scheme of things, rather than ignore them and be wrong. How can anyone criticise us for that? Sometimes it is better to be criticised for doing something rather than for having sat back and done nothing. You have proved the accuracy of your reconstruction. If this is important, and you think the way you did this leads somewhere, then let's hear it. Personally, I don't see that this has anything specific to do with Grail Star geometry - I may be wrong - so why not let it go?

I feel that you may wish to link the Cross to the arcane through the Tree of Life. Your reconstruction seems more accurate than mine or Petter's, but does that make it superior? I don't know. We're all looking in much the same direction, for different reasons. In a sense, we all have theories. If we put the three theories side by side then people could decide which they consider closest to the established facts, gives the best explanation, and provides a useful tool for further research and thinking. Some people wouldn't bother to look.

It may not be that people are saying your theories are wrong, as such, but that they feel there are other theories that better match what is currently 'known' and provide better insights into where to go and what to do next. This 'knowledge' base changes, but sometimes you have to make that happen yourself.

Fine, I will reword it to; in my opinion this is the methodology used by the designer. I agree that I shouldn't say that it is the definite solution to the Cross. I admit to being surprised that you found a variation which also produces acceptable results for the bottom stone position, but I find it highly unlikely that the designer would have used that method because it is much more logical to assume that the circle would be positioned to touch at a single point on the outer Sephiroth as it does on the magenta circle. That's the whole point, to make a circle which perfectly fits WITHIN the area between the Sephiroth and magenta circle. Making them cross is in no way significant. Any random position could have been chosen to do that.
The fact that the T construction is the only way to accomplish that AND also produces the light blue circles which then provide the position of the dark green circle for the top stone of the Cross makes this assumption a virtual certainty, in my opinion. You, for instance, have no explanation for that top stone's position. I do, therefore, it is logical to accept that my methodology is more likely to be correct. I do congratulate you on finding that other possible method though. That alone is more than anyone else in the world has done.
In regard to the Cross stones being naturally positioned, the pot bellied stove parts under the right arm stone argues against this. True, you could say that the other stones may be naturally positioned but the stove at least casts doubt on it. In fact, we really don't know if anything is under the other stones because the only other one ever moved is the center stone, which is not even the same as the other boulders, being flat rather than conical and sandstone rather than granite.

Brian

Cool! You go your way, I'll go mine. Anyway, I think we've beaten this argument to death. We agree to differ, and amicably - sort of!

With respect to the pot-bellied stove, and other artifacts close to or under the stones, I'd have thought that Nolan would at least have been interested in getting them dated, because this might have provided a termnus post quem, or some guide, for the construction of the Cross.

That's Nolan! Not interested in solving a mystery, merely in finding a treasure!

Yeah, that was pretty short sighted of Nolan. I guess he was too cheap to pay for carbon dating. There must have been some small bits of charcoal on the stove at least. They were right under the stone, not just near it. This was witnessed by a person who was helping Nolan at the time. He said that when they rolled the stone away there was a piece of the stove right at the surface and more pieces as they dug down, and also some "culinary", whatever that means, probably knives and forks or something.
I made a small mistake in the post where I said that was the only stone moved besides the center stone. The top one had also been moved with nothing found beneath it. Nolan didn't say he actually dug under it though, so something may have been down further. My guess is that the items were under the right arm stone to indicate that you have to follow the line of the Cross arms in that direction to find a deposit, like on Great Duck Island for instance, the last piece of land the arm line hits before open sea and the right arm point of the star formation. See the connection here? Right arm of the Cross, right arm of the Star.
Sorry I was so hard on you before, gb, but you were kind of provoking me, which doesn't usually have pleasant results.