By B.L. Freeborn © 2013, updated Nov. 2018

The ancient world took their Ruler very seriously. The King or Ruler as represented by a man would confirm and declare the standards of measure of his land or the ruler. The terms are not meant to be a play on words. It is just that we have forgotten how important standards of measure are. We forget that is until we are at the gas pump and we think we have been shorted! Oh! Then we remember and call the local weights and measures guy and file a complaint with our current Ruler that the law is not being followed. This tradition is alive and well.

The unit of length found by Rene Millon at Teotihuacan near Mexico City was a length of 57 meters or 187 feet.

Hugh Harleston, Jr. in 1972 found that the unit of length at the same site was 41.66″.¹

Robert Horn and Ray Hively² suggested in 1982 the standard length of Newark was 1054 feet. (This is 527 times two.) They called it an OCD (Observatory Circle Diameter). They otherwise measure in meters.

William Romain follows Horn and Hively and uses OCD’s but he otherwise measures in feet.

Marshall notes a radius of 528 feet at the High Bank Works. This 528 is 1/10th of a mile.

The scale on the East Fork Works indicates the candelabra is 528 feet across or 1/10th mile.

The resemblance between the Indus Inch, Sumerian Inch, and English inch is not by chance. In fact, it can be shown with relative ease the basis for Harleston’s length of 41.66″ is the 36″ yard.  Notice that 36/ 41.66 is .864 and this number is found in the diameter of the Sun at 864,000 miles. The same cannot be done for Millon’s length of 187 feet. Notice also how impractical this unit is. A measuring tape of 100 feet can be bought today for a good price and this is almost half the length Millon is proposing. Nobody routinely carries around a 100′ tape. It is unwieldy. People do routinely carry 16 foot tapes, nearly the length of the standard rod of the old surveyor of 16.5 feet. If one makes it into two pieces it is a stick 8.25′ long or if three pieces 5.5 feet in length. In other words, it can double as a walking stick. If 187 feet is absurd then a standard of 1054 feet or an OCD fails for the same reason.

Unless!… they are suggesting the basic unit was a foot and 187 feet then takes on a whole other meaning. The OCD or 1054 feet takes on another meaning as well. If the diameter is 1054 then the radius is 527 or one foot shy of 528. We should consider a factor called error. The ropes were either not taunt enough to get an accurate measure of 528 feet (1/10th mile) or their foot measure was off by .19%. This is a negligible error when talking about a single foot but the error multiples at greater distances and adds up in this case to a foot.

Most of the world will not agree, but the silliest mistake being made in the study of ancient monuments is the use of the meter. They did not use meters. We should not use meters to measure their monuments. The measure closest to what they probably used is still commercially available, very affordable and still in use in the US. There is a big downside to not understanding why the foot /mile measure should be rigidly adhered to at ancient sites. The lengths and numbers had religious importance and the words through gematria reflected the numbers. For example, in the East Fork we just examined, can one see Millon’s value of 187 feet? It appears on the long side as 187 / 2 = 93.5 or 10 times this = 935 feet. We see it quickly because it is a multiple of 10. Compare the converted units. This 93.5 feet becomes 28.5 meters and then one tenth of this is 2.85 meters. The value preferred in the Torah is 186. It repeats the 86 found in Elohim (Lord).  If we are using 2.85, 28.5, or even 57 meters we will never see the repetition in the gematria of the words. We will certainly never arrive at the concept to which they were alluding. The Sumerian cush was discussed in another article and how via gematria one can arrive at its length. The ancient cush is otherwise called a Megalithic Yard.

Here is another example showing how 66 from a partial inch to thousands of miles appears in the foot system and the metric system:

.66″           66″        66′            660′            66 mile       66,000 mile

equates to:

1.68 cm   168 cm   20.11 m    201.17 m   106.2 km    106,216 km

The message gets lost in the units.

The 187 foot length is not their unit of length as Millon deduced. Its repetition at Teotihuacan merely meant the site was built to focus (worship, recall) that length and its meaning. Observe the same phenomena in the East Fork. The repetition of 66 and its repeat in 132 and even 110 feet as 1320 inches does not mean their base unit was 66 feet. It simply means their base unit was the foot and inch, and that they are trying to tell us something important by emphasizing these lengths.

These numbers 66 and 187 still have valid measurable meaning today. Handed down by the “gods” to the Kings to the people and down through generations to us we are still using these units. We do not remember why they have meaning and we do not remember why 66 and 187 and the rest of this growing number list is important but we are slowing getting there. The mystery is unraveling.

One more important concept about East Fork is to be seen before we move on. The left side has an angle. The line is 825 feet high and the line angled at 30 degrees is 440 feet long. (Note that 825 is 528 reversed and recall there are 5280 feet in a mile.) The base length of the candelabra is 560 feet long. The 30 degrees represents the double hour. Every two hours the earth turns 30 degrees, a basic fact in navigation. The circumference of the earth (7920 x pi = 24880 miles) divided by 440 equals 56.55 which is very nearly this value 560 feet and the number we found on the Decalogue in the form het, vav, het, vav or 5656. This number, 56, is going to pop up everywhere. As far as all the other numbers… let us assemble them in another extraordinary way.

Back to PREVIOUS POST

Back to TABLE OF CONTENTS

Forward to NEXT POST

_____________________________

1. Tompkins, Peter, “Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids,” New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1976.
2. Hively, Ray, and Horn, Robert, Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio, “Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy,” Supplement, Vol. 13, p.S1; also Science History Publications, 1982.      See:  http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu
3. Freeborn, B.L., “The Inch, The Megalithic Yard, and The Sumerian Inch,” 2013. See: https://noahsage.com/2013/01/13/the-inch-the-megalitic-yard-and-the-sumerian-inch

.