Profile for Harvey L. Gaspar MD > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by Harvey L. Gasp...
Top Reviewer Ranking: 5,413,934
Helpful Votes: 31

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
Harvey L. Gaspar MD (Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA)
(REAL NAME)   

Show:  
Page: 1
pixel
Before The Pyramids: Cracking Archaeology's Greatest Mystery.
Before The Pyramids: Cracking Archaeology's Greatest Mystery.
by Christopher Knight
Edition: Hardcover

16 of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A strong confirmation for the megalithic yard. D.C. new Jerusalem?, 22 Mar. 2010
Alexander Thom is well vindicated in this issue. Also, we again find the Craft as the keeper of the ancient knowledge. Although I found some of the measurements not quite as accurate, the degree of deviation was not statistically significant. Of course it is not possible to measure precisely using Google since the map is a composite of overlapped satellite photos. On the other hand, the accuracy is very good nonetheless. If the design and building of D.C. was done with such ancient knowledge, and if the knowledge still exists, it appears that the desired result of late is wanting. It is hard to believe that such noble individuals are able to influence the rag-tag bunch now in Washington. I fear that today, we lost our republic forever. Hopefully, I am wrong. Meanwhile, the book is an excellent read and although I got lost in some of the math, most of it was easily followed. If the keepers of the secrets are alive and well in this era, then they have much work to do.

I also have question for the authors. Have you been able to find any other historical cities on the globe that exhibit evidence of design using megalithic units? The inability to do so would tend to add support to the D.C. evidence. Also, what motivation would encourage the keepers of the knowledge to allow it to travel to the 'New World'? Altruism at its finest? Perhaps Ben Franklin was not just chasing the ladies during his stay in Europe as has been suggested by his critics.

Congratulations to Chris and Alan for another great read. What is next?

Harvey L. Gaspar MD ret.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Apr 13, 2012 9:05 PM BST


Who Built the Moon?
Who Built the Moon?
by Christopher Knight
Edition: Paperback

15 of 20 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Too Many Coincidences To Be Chance Alone., 30 Oct. 2005
This review is from: Who Built the Moon? (Paperback)
Coincidence that the moon's diameter is exactly 400 times smaller than that of the Sun? Coincidence that the one second arc of the Moon's rotation is exactly 100 Megalithic Yards? Coincidence that the Moon exactly blocks the Sun's disk during a solar eclipse so that the Sun's corona can be studied? Without which much of Einstein's work would not have been confirmed. By the way the Moon is also 1/400 of the distance from the Sun which Isaac Asimov described as being 'the most unlikey of coincidences'. That the Moon is almost exactly 1/4 the size in diameter of the earth (which makes it the largest moon for a planet this size) and without its precise position at present, life as we know it would not have happened? Too many coincidences to accept as pure chance for me. And the fact that so many of the relationships can be expressed in whole rounded integers (within 99 % accuracy)in the metric system which we have blindly accepted as of modern origin which it apparently is not. All in all, an exciting and easy read even for this non mathmatician. The authors conclude that the moon is not a coincidence of blind nature and offer several (3) answers, which they wisely do not force upon us. The most important thing is that they do force us to think a bit more about what we have accepted blindly for centuries just because it seemed to fit the science of the times. Just as the 'flat earth' did before it.

Two criticisms: 1. The book cover, and several areas in the book state that the Moon is 1/400 the size of the moon. This should have read as the 'diameter' of the moon's disk and the Sun's disk for clarity. 2. Page 41 last paragraph states that the Moon's circumference in Megalithic Yards was divided INTO the total of seconds of arc in the earths orbit. It should have read BY the total of seconds of arc as correctly reflected by the answer given. The math is correct and simple and hard to refute.
And by the way, none of these or similar coincidences are found with the rest of the planets or moons in our solar system. Another coincidence?

Perhaps our scientific community should be willing to look a little closer to home for some of their answers as to the origin of our planet and solar system and in particular to the source of our miraculous Moon.
Both thumbs way up on this one. Maybe more is coming?
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Mar 28, 2011 1:13 PM BST


Page: 1