By Gary Osborn
My article 23.5 degrees has come under some criticism recently by a blogger on the Internet named Mark Chu-Carroll - a computer scientist working in New York. His weblog goes out under the title "Good Math, Bad Math". His mission? "Finding the fun in good math; Shredding bad math and squashing the crackpots who espouse it".
This guy obviously thinks I'm one of these "crackpots" and has taken it on himself to prove it. Not something I recognise in myself. Sure, friends of mine would laugh at seeing this, as I did; but most would agree that I'm no crackpot and really because I always strive for 'balance' in any argument and that's what my work is all about - that 'point of balance'. One only has to read my articles and books to see this. I'm certainly not naive about the things I research into, and I won't present something publically unless I am sure there is something in it of interest or value one way or the other and despite my own beliefs about it.
Mark says that he was sent my article by someone anonymous - this anonymous guy perhaps thinking that my article would present Mark with some 'field day' exercise . . . a bad mistake, as I will show.
I am always quick to respond to 'knee-jerk' attacks - and this is the case with Mark and others who correspond with him daily. Knowing the full implications of my research which my article just touches on, I can find no justification in the criticisms posed. The intellectual snobbery and smugness expressed in this guy's words give his real motives away.
Its not 'constructive criticism' - just someone who uses the 'weblog facility' as an opportunity to publically "dump" on the work of another and at that author/researcher's expense so as to show off his own "intellectual prowess" - something I find abhorent and NOT something I would indulge in myself.
Sadly and often, we find many 'freethinking researchers' being challenged and attacked by people who have rarely had a unique insight in their life - especially one that could perhaps alter the way we think about the world. Such people often rely on 'second-hand knowledge' - i.e., knowledge that has largely been accepted and established by society; "knowledge" which has been presented by someone else - and ironically someone who was once a 'freethinker' who "went against the grain" and possibly had to deal with the same kinds of debunking tactics.
In any case, I soon discovered that this guy is not up to the task as a debunker really - an amateur pseudoskeptic - all his criticisms falling flat.
Having had some of my work scrutinised on that 'Debunker's Convention' website - The Hall of Ma'at - and having largely survived that ordeal with my integrity and reputation as a serious researcher and author still intact, I find this person's attacks to be a mere irritation - but one that I felt I should deal with quickly. And anyway, these silly personal attacks (e.g., "crackpot!" . . . "gematria looney") and unrealistic criticisms issued by Mark have presented me with the opportunity to weed out the apparent "weak points" in my thesis that others could and would use to debunk the whole thing. So I would like to thank Mark for this at least.
I shall sidestep the personal attacks based on this guy's opinions and go directly to those things that some would misconstrue to be "constructive criticism" - and show just how impotent his "critique" is - and I would like other budding debunkers to take note.
Firstly, as I state in my article:
'One could and would argue that according to the ‘law of averages’, this angle is sure to appear in many paintings and as frequently as all the other angles we can extract from a 360º circle.
However, the truth is, that the paintings or sources I have analyzed are all associated by theme, and also contain deliberately planned, conspicuous linear items and features that are just “begging to be measured” so as to obtain the angles being presented.
For the sake of balancing the argument and to try to prove myself wrong, I also looked into the fact that the angle of 22.5 degrees is also a common angle used in art for perspective, as 22.5º is one sixteenth of a 360º circle. I mention this so that others would be aware of this and could perhaps use this in their argument and so test this themselves if interested.
I must point out that I have examined many paintings, and have found that although some of the overall ‘perspective features’ in some paintings are in the ‘right ball-park’ and could therefore be associated with the 22.5º angle of perspective so as to support this given "fact", [actually finding these perspective features at 22.5 degrees is quite rare] I have found that many suspect features, such as staffs, poles, flagpoles, spears, lances, clubs, bones, limbs, swords and other linear objects, are definitely at an angle of 23.5º or 23 degrees. [Note: References to the angle of 23 degrees is also quite rare and only ever really found in ancient sources such as the famous depiction of the ancient Egyptian Djed column at Abydos. See figure 2 of my article 23.5 degrees]. We find this with certain linear items or features in well-known Masonic symbols and esoteric symbolism – and especially those we find in highly symbolic paintings portraying mystical or religious themes.
Furthermore, although very close, the angle of 23.5º is not mentioned as having anything to do with the common angles of perspective, so the many references to this angle must mean something else – and for the time being, the obliquity (tilt) of the earth’s axis is the main contender for me'.
Now, I would have thought the failings of this particular argument - i.e., the 22.5 degrees angle of perspective - as regards these 23.5-degree references which appear to be deliberate - was made quite clear . . . but apparently not . . .
[UPDATE 6th JULY 2006. THESE REFERENCES ARE NOW BEYOND COINCIDENCE SEE HERE: THE BAPTIST REVELATION ]
"So, by carefully examining paintings, he [Gary Osborn] finds that the linear items begging to be measured are all quite definitely at an angle of 23 or 23.5 degrees - and in a painting, he can clearly distinguish 22.5, 23, and 23.5 degrees. Hmm... Just for kicks, I decided to see how hard it would be to do that. Here's a little diagram, showing three overlapping angles: 22.5, 23, and 23.5 degrees":
"Gosh, he's good. He can distinguish between those three angles in a painting! Wow!"
I'm amused by the sarcastic "Wow" added on the end because its a cliche in the 'debunker's manual'. Again, for those who find Mark's words confusing - especially after reading the quote from my article - Mark's argument is that because these angles are so close, one would not be able to distinguish 23.5 degrees from 22.5 degrees, and therefore the 22.5 degree angle for perspective would still stand to explain away these 23.5-degree references . . . which is absolute tosh! as we will see.
In a later post Mark gives three bullet point challenges. This is his first two.
"For it to be believable, I would need to accept:
Adding to this in a follow-up post, Mark writes:
"My point about the angles is very simple: 22.5 degrees and 23.5 degrees are incredibly close. Take out a yardstick and lay it on your floor, and look at the angle it makes relative to your level. Now, move the tip of it by 1/4 of an inch. *That* is the difference between 22.5 and 23.5 degrees. Your entire argument is based on the ability of both you, and numerous artists throughout history being able to make a distinction *that* small. Most paintings aren't precise enough for a line to be perfectly *straight* to that precision, much less to match some specific peculiar *angle*."
Ok, I will pick just a few examples to show how unrealistic Mark's argument is, and that despite his need to point out to people their "bad math", he is displaying a wrong or perhaps even a "bad" sense perception of geometry.
I shall leave these images on this page for a limited time only. This is only one small segment of the detailed code in this painting that led me to the encoded information about the earth's axis in the geometrical structure of the Great Pyramid.
The images that follow is from one of two self portraits painted by Nicolas Poussin. This is the second, painted in 1650. It is on display in the Louvre in Paris.
One may ask, how did Poussin know this information was encoded in the Great Pyramid? Well some research into his background reveals evidence as to how he could have known this, and for the first time this will be revealed in my book Axis of God.
First of all, the ring on Poussin's finger contains a four-sided stone which is shaped like a pyramid.
Figure 1: Close-up of Nicolas Poussin's Ring from 'Self Portrait', 1650. The ring contains a four-sided pyramid-shaped stone.
The woman (goddess) on the canvas behind Poussin is wearing a diadem or crown containing an 'All-Seeing Eye'. Now the symbolic link between these two items - the pyramid and the All-Seeing Eye - would be obvious to many people. I will spare Mark the lecture on this and will just refer him and the reader to figure 8 of my article 23.5 Degrees. and also figure 5 below.
Figure 2: All Seeing Eye in the crown of the Goddess Venus or Diana from Nicolas Poussin's 'Self Portrait', 1650.
We find that these two conspicuous details in the painting are connected by the angle of 23.5 degrees exactly - and for a reason.
Figure 3: The ring and the eye are connected by an angle of 23.5 degrees - not 22.5 degrees
The angle between the centre of the ring and the centre of the eye in the crown in Poussin's self portrait is 23.5 degrees exactly. The 22.5-degree line - said to be an angle used in paintings for perspective - falls way below the eye.
Figure 4: Close up - showing that the 22.5-degree line begins from the centre of the ring but misses the
eye in the crown, while the 23.5-degree line hits it exactly.
Indeed in close-up or when the lines cover a large area, the gap between both these angles become ever wider. So if we are talking about accuracy here, it would appear that many painters and artists - who like Poussin had encoded the same information and knowledge - expressed it in their references to this angle.
One could say that this particular line connecting the eye in the crown and the pyramid stone in the ring, proves nothing and that this angle is just a coincidence. And if its not a coincidence and was deliberately executed, then there's the possibility that this angle isn't a reference to the obliquity of the earth's axis at all, but something else. Well my answer to this, is that one needs to see the whole code in this painting which would be further evidence, or even proof of what I am saying about these 23.5-degree references, but I choose to leave that for the book. I don't want to give everything away - especially to those who refuse to see it or appreciate it. Knowing what I now know I have to contend that this angle here in this painting is indeed a reference to the tilted earth's axis - and reveals the information encoded in the Great Pyramid.
Now, if the earth's axis was angled at 22.5 degrees instead of 23.5 degrees and I used this angle on this painting to find a reference to the obliquity of the earth's axis at 22.5, I would have to put aside what I had found here, as it would be obvious that the angle between the ring and the eye in the crown is not 22.5. However, the earth's axis at present is 23.5 (23.43 degrees actually but given as 23.5 in most text books) and so is the angle between the centre of the pyramid ring and the centre of the eye in the crown. Need I say more?
After seeing this one example, Mark responded with another post.
"First - I don't know if that's an eye on the crown. Perhaps it's just to relatively low resolution of the images you're using, but to me, that looks more like pixellation of the digitized image than an eye. I looked for better quality images, and found one at http://www.wga.hu/art/p/poussin/4/37selfpo.jpg that doesn't particularly look like an eye to me".
I would agree that the close-up image of the crown could be better, but its been difficult to find one as yet. In fact the image of the painting that Mark has given me the URL to, is the version of the painting I used for the close-up. His statement "it doesn't look like an eye to me" is amazing and typical of debunkers - but its really a desperate attempt at this stage to undermine the whole thing. Even in the close-up one can clearly see the white of the eye around the dark pupil, and even the folds of the upper and lower lids. In any case, I have been to the Louvre and have seen this painting close up and I noted then that this is indeed an eye - and a reference to the 'All-Seeing Eye'.
Further confirmation is given in this detailed description of the painting. Source:
Distinguishing features: "Poussin looks at us with terrible intensity. He is apparently walled in by his art: three canvases are stacked between him and the doorway. The furthest is hidden; the middle one has a woman wearing a crown with an eye on it, being embraced by someone she smiles at with recognition; the front canvas is blank except for the words, "Portrayal of Nicolas Poussin of Les Andalys, done at Rome during the Jubilee Year of 1650, aged 56 years." Poussin wears a dark toga and rests his right hand on a sketchbook. On his little finger is a gold ring with a pyramid-shaped diamond glinting black and white.
"Each detail cries out for decoding, and each has been interpreted in multiple ways. The woman with the crown has been seen as a personification of painting as the supreme art and as Amicitia, friendship. The diamond has been taken as a reference to 17th-century optics, or as a symbol of Constantia, strength of character". (My emaphasis)
Again, knowing what I now know, I would have to say that the interpretations given in this descriptic are quite lame and remain on the surface for the uninitiated public. The pyramid and the eye are deeply connected and were meant to be connected together in this painting - as shown. Is it a coincidence that they are connected by the angle of 23.5 degrees exactly - being the angle of the celestial axis of the earth?
"I also copied the best quality image I could find on google, and I get an angle of just a hair under 25 degrees (24.8 degrees according to my software.)"
I really cannot accept this having examined most if not all the images I have found, which always result in the angle of 23.5 degrees - and the software I am using is expensive and accurate. Also, the version of this painting which I chose to present the code hiding within it and which I have now deciphered in full, was the best image in terms of proper perspective - being the version shown above. It also shows the whole of the canvas - i.e., the unpainted edges which are usually hidden by the frame.
"Even supposing that I'm wrong and you're right WRT this image, you haven't bothered to answer how these medieval painters ['Baroque period' Mark] were figuring out the perfect 23.5 degree angle. Like I asked before - were they standing at their easels with protractors? This is a really important issue - you're demanding a spectacular amount of accuracy, a degree of accuracy which is impossible to do freehand. Look at that painting, and explain *how* the painter was able to find the exact 23.5 degree angle to position the "eye"?"
A weak argument. Answer: Through using a protractor and ruler. Actually, protractors and rulers existed at that time and earlier. See here: And Here: Quote: "Some protractors are simple half-discs, these have existed since ancient times" - which shows that Mark doesn't know what he is talking about.
Here's a famous alchemical drawing dating from 1617. The artist was Michael de' Maier (1566 -1622) - a Rosicrucian no doubt and also an alchemist of some influence. This drawing is entitled Emblem XXI and is from Maiers work Atalante Fugiens (Fleeing Atalante). There is much we can extract from this drawing and again, it contains the same code which I discovered in Poussin's self portrait and other paintings, all of which I will reveal in good time. This was nearly 30 years before Poussin painted his self-portrait. The reason why I include this drawing here is mostly because of the sea-shell-shaped protractor which is lying on the ground.
Figure 5: Emblem XXI by Michael de'Maier. Here we see the sage Hermes Trismegistus (Thoth) said to be "squaring the circle"
Ironically, and as if to counteract Mark's argument head-on, we find that on this protractor is a line which is 23.5 degrees exactly. More importantly we also find that like the All-Seeing Eye/Pyramid symbol on the US dollar shown below in figure 6, the right side (not the left side) of the triangle (pyramid) is 23.5 degrees exactly. Surely there is some correlation here? And there is, as I have discovered and will reveal in my book. Maier was no doubt privy to the same information which had been passed onto Poussin. How this same symbolism with the 23.5-degree reference made its way onto the US dollar bill is another thing, but nevertheless it is indeed related and connot be a coincidence. The male and female figures inside Maier's circle/square, a motif which also happens to turn up in one of Poussin's paintings, provide another symbolic clue as to what all this is leading to - too detailed to explain here - suffice to say that all this will one day prove to be more far-reaching in its consequences than the theories posed in The Da Vinci Code. Indeed some of the themes used in 'The Da Vinci Code' - e.g., the symbolic significance of the glass pyramid inside the courtyard of the Louvre in Paris as well as the old Paris Meridian, and the possible secret location of a tomb "under the rose" (meridian) are really closely associated with this 'ancient' code as I will reveal. And I would emphasise that I was already working on these connections before the publication of Dan Brown's book.
"I think that you're just experience apophenia. Humans have a way of naturally looking for patterns. If we're looking for something, we'll find it. Witness the dozens of "jesus images" that people find in everything from pierogies to treebark; or the other "2/3/5" stuff that I linked to along with your stuff in my original post. When you're looking for a specific pattern, you're likelyto find it. You're picking out two very innocuous features of a painting: a ring and some blurred feature on a crown, because they fit what you're looking for. "
Again, and I will repeat, I have not revealed the whole of the code hiding within the geometry of Poussin's painting as yet, and one that led me to the encoded information hiding within the geometrical structure of the Great Pyramid - something that everyone of us has overlooked for hundreds if not thousands of years. When I do eventually reveal what is in fact hiding in this painting (and others) and which has been 'deliberately' encoded by using the angles between certain features and which can then be verified in the geometrical structure of the Great Pyramid, I'm sure that Mark is going to be sorry that he drew attention to himself by attempting to debunk my work, because when this finally comes to light he is going to look a complete fool, if he doesn't already.
Note: Recently 'Apophenia' - first coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad - has become a term used by skeptics, debunkers and pseudoskeptics. Many have only just noticed that this word describes the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data, and therefore the word provides good "amunition" whenever the need arises to use it -as Mark has done here. Well we will see.
"If I look at 100 random paintings with a protractor marked at 23.5 degrees, looking for things that fit that angle, by golly, I'll be able to find them. And I'll be able to do the same with 12 degrees, 15 degrees, 28 degrees, 52 degrees, 88 degrees, etc"."
Well 52 degrees is common - almost as common as the 23.5 degree angle, as I said. But I have heard this argument before dozens of times, and having to explain the reason why this particular argument doesn't 'hold water' is becoming a little tiresome now. It was even explained in my article. It appears that Mark wasn't paying attention when he read it, and just "saw those things" in the article that "fitted what he was looking for" so as to debunk the whole thing.
Well, I suppose I shall have to repeat what I stated in the article and what I quoted above and emphasise the salient points.
'One could and would argue that according to the ‘law of averages’, this angle is sure to appear in many paintings and as frequently as all the other angles we can extract from a 360º circle.
However, the truth is, that the paintings or sources I have analyzed are all associated by theme, and also contain deliberately planned, conspicuous linear items and features that are just “begging to be measured” so as to obtain the angles being presented'.
Another example . . . although Mark would say this, and also figure 5 shown above, are the result of my own "apophenia".
Figure 6: A close-up of the symbol on the US Dollar bill, which features the 'All-Seeing Eye' in the floating capstone of the pyramid.
This symbol is an obvious reference to the Great Pyramid which is truncated - i.e., missing it's capstone. As we can see the right side is 23.5 degrees exactly and not 22.5 degrees, and the difference between these two angles is distinguishable. Also this symbol is a good example of what I mean when I say that these references appear in paintings and sources that are related by theme. We have here a symbolic connection between the Great Pyramid of Giza and the obliquity of the earth's axis, and as I have discovered, the Great Pyramid contains information about the earth's axis and also geophysical information about the earth. It appears that this "fact" about the Great Pyramid, is what all these sources are leading us to; telling us that it was not planned and built for the sole purpose of being a tomb for a vainglorious pharoah or king. Again the pyramid and the all-seeing eye in Poussin's painting are connected by an angle of 23.5 degrees exactly. We are dealing with a code and there are many examples of this in the sources I have been examining and which I am only touching on in my article and here also.
This is Mark's third point:
"For it to be believable, I would need to accept:"
Yes! . . . That appears to be the case and again, why not?
"Elsie was raised and schooled in America, France, Spain and Italy and vowed in the sacred groves of Diana to become an artist while living in Italy on the shores of Lake Nemi. This was at a time when art and god were quite dead and the myths, mere shadows. Finding neither instruction nor understanding, but only ridicule and cynical prejudice, Elsie embarked on a course of self- study, learning the way of the old masters through deduction and observation and researching the beliefs of pre-Christian cultures, whom she believes were right all along. She was encouraged by her parents who were both master artists and enlightened philosophically and by Salvador Dali, a good friend of her family's. " (My emphasis)
Also interesting is the work of Elsie's father Alfred Russell - whom Salvador Dali said was one of three great artists in the world - including himself of course - the other being Picasso.
Let's now examine the other comments Mark made in regard to my article:
"Such a bundle of silliness, just in the first 5 paragraphs!"
His opinion. Many others, who have seen almost everything I have been working on, don't and wouldn't agree.
"The conspiracy! All of those people "funded by institutions" are trying to cover up the truth!"
I didn't say that.
"The mounds of "data" that everyone ignores!"
Yes, I'm afraid so - especially by people like Mark.
"The lone genius making spectacular discoveries all by himself!"
Well I would have to agree with that. Thanks Mark.
"The "rounding" of the angle of the earth's axis and the position of the Giza pyramid to get the magical "5" in, even though the egyptians did not use decimal angle measurements! (To the best of our knowledge, the egyptians used mathematical units derived from the babylonians, which is where the "degree" unit comes from; the babylonians used a sort of base-60 math - thus the 360 degrees, 60 minutes, 60 seconds angle measurements.)"
Well yes, I would have to agree in a sense that this is the established view based on the best of our knowledge so far. However, Mark is merely spouting 'second-hand knowledge', as discovered by others before him. In my book I show how we can work with contemporary measuring systems to find the location of the King’s Chamber inside the Great Pyramid - using decimal points, degree angles and Phi - but Mark doesn't know that, and of course why should he?
"Ah, but it gets much better. Because, you see, the conspiracy is trying to cover up the true history of the earth! But initiates of the great mysteries throughout history have been trying to provide hints! In the pyramids, in paintings, in maps, in the layouts of cities"!"
Yes that appears to be the case, and why not?
"Hmmm... He sees "deliberately planned, conspicuous linear items that are begging to be measured" in all sorts of paintings? I wonder what Freud would think of that?"
I was wondering when Freud would be brought up. So the guy is a "psychologist". But you see what Mark doesn't understand is how close he is to the truth.
The ancient shaman, and the pagans after him, saw the correspondences between the human spinal column, the 'tree of life', the earth's axis which aligned with the Polestar, and the PHALLUS of the 'creator god'.
Mark also writes:
"But you know what this conspiracy theory about the great magic numbers of the pyramid is missing? The Masons and the Illuminati! Every good conspiracy has to include them, doesn't it? Ah, don't you start worrying now, he's got it covered!"
. . . Er, yes Mark, I do "have it covered". I don't know about the infamous Illuminati, I leave that to others, but here's one example of a Masonic drawing containing the tool symbols of their craft, and there are many others like this which reference these same angles - sometimes along with the angle of 72 degrees, which is a number associated with Precession - also related to the obliquity of the earth's axis.
Figure 7: Masonic drawing (Anonymous).
Apophenia? Aside from the trowel, ALL these symbolic tools associated with the Masons are at specific angles, and the angles I am now familiar with. Each of these angles relate to the code I have discovered within the geometrical structure of the Great Pyramid associated with the earth's axis and the Great Pyramid's location on the earth.
We have the familiar 23.5 degrees which is the angle of the right leg of the compass. The left leg of the compass is 52 degrees - a reference to the sloping sides of the Great Pyramid which are angled at 52 degrees. The left side of the set-square is also 52 degrees, and the wooden mallet is 38 degrees (an inverse of the 52 - i.e., 90 - 38 = 52). The whole of the compass via the centreline is leaning at 30 degrees which is also a significant angle associated with the Great Pyramid, because the Great Pyramid is located 30 degrees North of the Equator. We also find that the two visible edges of the front cover of the book are both angled at 6.5 degrees here. This angle too is significant, as it also turns up in this code within the Great Pyramid and also in many of these art references. As the earth turns on its tilted axis, the Great Pyramid comes as close as 6.5 degrees from the Ecliptic Plane. So then, 30 - 23.5 = 6.5. We find that the straight rule is leaning at at 27 degrees being the angle on which both the King's Chamber and Queen's Chamber are diagonally orientated and centred. When we actually see this encoded information within the Great Pyramid - something I will reveal in my book, and which we find is centred on the King's Chamber and aligned with the Queen's Chamber - we find that the Great Pyramid is pointing to its own location via its apex (capstone) which is now missing.
There is another symbolic reference in this illustration: We also find that the roundel of the compass is positioned in-between the sun (male) and the moon (female) showing that one of the principle secrets of the Masons - as we would find in many other secret societies and schools of the esoteric - is about the fine balance between the opposites - the neutral point - which is what my work is all about. This is why striking a balance between what we see as "real" (factual-objective) and what we see as "unreal" (imaginary-subjective) is extremely important to me. This balance is where we will always find the truth before the truth moves on again like an ellusive butterfly. And the truth is, that everything is connected to and by the creative power of our own individual and collective consciousness - the source of which is also found within that neutral point.
Now note again that the compass is leaning away from this 'neutral point' marked by the roundel positioned between the sun and moon. To me this is indicating that there is now an imbalance in man's consciousness based on our almost obsessive focus on Materialism and the "facts" we find in the material world - a male-related left-brain trait - and that the tilt of the earth's axis as encoded within the Great Pyramid of Giza - actually reflects the imbalance in human consciousness and vice-versa. I'm sure that if everything were perfectly in balance, then 'debunkers' like Mark whose actions stem from what appears to be a deep insecurity about the preservation of their perceptions and beliefs in the material world of "facts" and "certainty", wouldn't exist. The truth is, the world is based on 'uncertainty', as we find at the quantum level of our reality, and so 'uncertainty' is where the 'truth lies'. Ideas are always being replaced by new ideas; old established "facts" replaced by "new facts" - everything is always evolving, and surely one's mind must be in that balance to be able to 'go with the flow' and to wherever that ever-flowing 'river' may take us. Sadly many of us find ourselves at resting places of the mind; swimming around in circles within the little stagnant pools that form in the mud beside this flowing "river" - always clinging to the illusion of the "unchanging certainty" of their self-created 'small' environment. But I digress. . . .
Here's another example painted by Edward Collier (17th century) - the papers, letter, comb and crayon all at the angles we find time and time again. Although the theme of this painting is somewhat "off the wall" as it were (pardon the pun) this is just what I would expect from Collier, having examined many of his numerous Vanitas paintings - all of which contain linear objects at these same angles exactly. Apophenia?
Figure 8: Wall Rack by Edward Collier (17th century).
The white memorandum booklet on the lower right is 14 degrees, and at the moment this bears no significance for me. The quill pen is 6.5 degrees. And if we are looking for accuracy, then we can see that the 23.5 degree angles fits better than the 22.5 degree angles - as shown in this comparison close up:
Figure 9: The newspaper at 23.5 degrees and 22.5 degrees.
Anyone can see that although close, the 23.5 degree angles fit the left and top edges of the newspaper better than the 22.5-degree angles - thus revealing that the artist - who intentionally painted the newspaper at this angle, because all the other significant angles are present in this painting - could indeed express accuracy. Mark's argument on this falls flat, and I think I have given enough examples here to show that there is a phenomenon here worthy of more study and research.
Why I should be attacked and criticised for having uncovered the existence of this 'code' which would otherwise remain hidden, is beyond me. Again these same angles turn up again and again together in the same paintings and other sources, and they are leading us to make the necessary connections and conclusions that will lead us to the Great Pyramid of Giza as being the source of this information associated with the obliquity of the earth's axis. We may ask, for what reason was this information encoded? Well I have my own interpretation based on what these people who encoded these references appear to have believed and still believe. Mark misunderstands my take on this:
"But it gets worse: to get to your conclusion about a catastrophe that pushed the earth onto its tilted axis", I would have to accept":
Nope. No way this is credible - physics, mathematics, geology, and history all argue against it."
Mark really must think I'm naive. Yes I understand all this and a lot of this can be argued against in turn as people have and are still doing. But that's not really an argument I want to get deeply involved in until more evidence comes to light that the earth was upright at one time and even during human history - suffice to say that two geoscientists, Allan and Delair have put forward their own theory on this which many have found convincing.
You see, one thing Mark doesn't appear to have noticed in my article, is that I state that its not my own belief that the earth was upright and had tilted due to some catastrophe. I am merely saying that this is one interpretation of what we are being told, or perhaps the conclusion we are being led to by these references in the paintings and other sources and by people who believe(d) it. And so I am more interested in WHY certain people believe(d) it, and again this would explain all these references to this angle of 23.5 degrees. It would appear that I have been "handed the job", as it were, to uncover these references and the existence of this code - a 'real code' because of the consistency of these encoded references to these angles - which goes back hundreds if not thousands of years. What did, or do these people know, that we don't?
I will quote from my own article:
'If the earth did not tilt from an upright position, and had never been vertical, then to explain these references, it appears that such a scenario was nevertheless believed by many to have happened, or perhaps the vertical position of the earth was possibly an ‘ideal’ that only existed in the mind of man and largely based on ‘upright’ spiritual ideas and concepts that are shamanic in origin. I cannot stress this enough, because it’s not my intention to prove that the earth was once upright, nor my own belief that it ever was – only to bring attention to the evidence that it was once ‘believed’, and perhaps still believed that this was once a reality and/or should be or will be again'.
Also see Further Reading section included after the article here:
I have added this section to show that a lot of people today and in the past, have imagined, considered, theorised, suggested and believed, that the earth was upright at one time and that this was what the myths and stories relating to a "Golden Age" in our past according to many different cultures, are all about.
I really don't have to put this theory forward myself, as enough people have done this already. I only bring attention to it; and for me such notions and beliefs make sense when we find these references to the angle of 23.5 in these paintings and other sources - especially those on the theme of 'death', 'enlightenment' and Arcadia.
I shall end this re-examination of my work with this quote from Mark's last post:
"Just for example, after I typed the 12 degrees above, I went back to poussin image. If you draw a straight line from the center of the "eye" on the crown to the tip of his nose, you get an angle of precisely 12 degrees. Or how about exactly 36 degrees - a number with great mystical significance to Jews? A line from the center of the woman's eye to the peak of the part of his hair is exactly 36 degrees".
Really? Sorry, not interested in that . . . I think the word "crackpot" or "gematria looney" comes to mind.
This page was constructed to show a typical case in point of the kind of juvenile and often vicious attacks that freethinking authors and researchers like me are to expect from debunkers and pseudoskeptics. It's an "occupational hazard" for many authors of the 'alternative history' genre - and 'par of the course'. However, I also constructed this page to present more evidence regarding this phenomenon of the 23.5-degree references.
I had taken a break from the debate to work on this page, as is my right, and while doing so, I was sent a nasty personal email by Mark Chu-Carroll - obviously after he read some of this page which showed how incompetent he is in debunking my work. It was clear Mark was 'losing it' and losing the debate, as people do not resort to these kinds of personal attacks unless they are evidently failing in their argument.
Mark then posted a page on his weblog entitled "Osborne Runs Away" (see here) - which again is just what one would expect from a pseudoskeptic who resorts to 'character assasination' when he is losing the argument. The page still exists.
Mark states that I was "running away". On the contrary, after having constructed some of this page I went back to his weblog and confronted him and his friends several times, and in the course of this I had to endure the same routine debunking tactics - many of which were irrational and taken straight from the "Debunkers handbook of Clever Answers".
I have placed links to the pages where Mark is able to give comment to the points made on this page. Because of this, he really cannot continue to use the excuse that the reason why I do not have a 'comments page' on this website, is so that anyone who disagrees with me is not permitted to respond.
A 'comments page' will be placed on here soon.
Especially click on article on that page entitled:
By Winston Wu.
Quotes from Why I'm Not a Skeptic by Michael Prescott
" . . . And here we come to what is, as I see it, the real problem with skeptics. They wish, above all, to be certain – and when reality doesn't oblige them by offering clear-cut answers, they turn away from reality and seek refuge in pre-existing theory".
"They jump to prearranged conclusions and shut their eyes - and their minds - to anomalous data and alternative explanations".
"In their quest to prove themselves right, they lose sight of the ambiguities and paradoxes of life. In their desire to be safe and sure, they turn away from anything interesting and new".
They are creatures of comfort and routine, not explorers. They cannot think outside the box. They will, in fact, deny that there is or ever could be anything outside the box - and they'll heap scorn on anyone who suggests otherwise. They'll call names, cry fraud, and holler that civilization is in danger and the barbarians are at the gates. They'll do anything, really - except examine their own assumptions with a remotely critical eye".