Mark H a écrit:
A couple of points, Mr Ettinger:
1: I have at no point challenged whether your geometry fits the painting, or whether it is flawed in anyway - I have, on the other hand, challenged your motives, i.e. whether applying the geometry was justified, and I have challenged your conclusion as to what the geometry may represent.
>>OK, fine. What you don't understand is that I did not solve the painting geometry first and then try to apply it to Mahone Bay. It was the other way around. If you look at a map of Mahone Bay, it is impossible to miss the star-shaped formation just off Lunenburg (about 15 miles south of Oak Island). I had already read that pentagonal geometry was involved in RLC, so I thought it was worth a shot to see if this star formation would
fit into the Poussin painting. I could see right away that there was a marked similarity. It would then take several years to work out all the details. What we now have is a PERFECT match between the features of the painting and the Mahone Bay star formation. We also have this geometry PERFECTLY pinpointing the exact Oak Island treasure site location. Not just the island in general but the exact spot on the island, which has never been explained by any other theory. The obvious choice would have been to put it on the highest ground, furthest from shore. Instead, it is in a very odd spot. Only this geometry explains that choice, and explains it perfectly. <<
2. Regarding TOG, yes, there are numerous (some quite massive) flaws in their geometry, but that is not the point - I was using TOG as an example of how a 'solution' was used to jump at entirely the wrong conclusion. You are so wrapped up in the perfection of your geometry, that you are failing to grasp the actual thrust of my arguments. Any arguement seems to be interpreted as an attack on the geometry.
>>Alright, so you accept the geometry but don't accept the connection of it to Oak Island? Well then, all you have to do to make your point believable is to find some other place on this planet that BETTER matches the Poussin geometry and that also pinpoints a known or justifiable treasure site. When you do that, let me know will you?
3. The first permanent settlement in the Oak Island area was not established until 1605 or later. The Poussin in question was painted in or around 1640, a span of 35 years. It is unlikely, though I admit not impossible, that this is enough time to esatablish the 'Money Pit', and for word to reach a painter in France as to the location of the pit. Even if it was, much of that area was unexplored and uncharted until years later, making applying a geometry to a map very difficult and therefore unreliable. Also, the prevailing 'best guess' for the construction of the pit is 1745-95, sometime within 50 years of it's discovery, based on certain aspects of the tale. This in itself is not enough to disprove your theory, but to my mind is certainly enough to suggest that other avenues should be explored - to quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution' - but until the impossible is eliminated, the improbable should not be taken as the only possible solution.
>>The first settlement in the Lunenburg area was in 1628, Oak Island itself was not inhabited prior to 1795 when the treasure pit was stumbled upon. Oak wood from the treasure pit area was carbon-dated to 1575 and Manila hemp fiber from the pit was dated even earlier. There is no firm evidence that the pit was built later than that, although some external touch up work may have been done at any time thereafter. It is my contention that the Knights of Christ were well aware of this area in the 1500's (it having been explored in the 1520's and later by Portugese and French explorers) and took advantage of its unpopulated state to carry out a lengthy project of mapping followed by treasure burial on Oak Island. This theory is extremely plausible. The painting was done AFTER the treasure was buried. Settlement took place rather suddenly between 1628 and 1632, thus, the treasure became unrecoverable. For whatever reason, someone decided to have the geometry concealed in at least two paintings. <<
4. It is your tone, rather than your words which are insulting - you tend to imply that no-one but you is intelligent enough to understand your solution, and that anybody who disagrees with your conclusions is just too stupid to understand. Yes, my last couple of posts addressed to you have been insulting, and that is because I have grown tired of having every post that tries to promote investigating any possibility that does not fit with your solution punctuated with a post from you along the lines of 'Why bother - just look at my solution'.
>>That is what I have found over the last few years of forum posting. That virtually nobody I have ever met seems to understand what I find quite plain. What would YOU think? After a while, I just had to conclude that either I am the greatest super-genius on earth or the vast majority of the population is pretty slow on the uptake. Your last line is actually a good suggestion. Since it is rather obvious that nobody ever COULD come up with anything even approaching the actual solution shown on my website, it does seem a little pointless to look for another solution. Don't let me stop you though. I won't even bother trying to straighten people out anymore. People like you are simply too ungrateful for my aid in trying to stop you from making a fool of yourself in public. Go ahead, find 'The Beast' in a mountain's shadow, turn paintings backward and rotate them to your heart's content. It won't change the fact that Poussin has already been solved, but it will be mildly entertaining for some I suppose.<<
5. I comprehend what you have done. I just don't agree with your conclusions. I am prepared to accept that you may have solved the geometry in the Poussin, if indeed the point of the Poussin was to portray a geometry. That is not the issue here - something you seem to be having difficulty in comprehending. On the other hand, I have seen geometry very similar to yours on other sites which leads me to one of three possible conclusions - 1. you are not the first, or only person to follow this track; 2. you have created a derivative work and claimed it as original; or 3. someone has ripped you off and is using your work without due credit.
>>I would say the latter is the most probable, being that I originated it in 1999 and have never seen anything like it then or since. So where is this website that is using my work? It really doesn't matter because unless they used the exact same angles, they don't have the true solution anyway. If they DO have the exact same angles, then they are blatantly copying my work because it can only be derived in the manner that I explain on the website, using the hex/pent combination. I have people who can vouch for the fact that I first originated the idea of a double-star Poussin geometry in 1999. The fact that it is now being imitated should be your first clue that it is correct and cannot be surpassed.<<