Mnajdra megalithic alignments - Alignments along Mnajdra main axis

[Chris Micallef]

Mnajdra megalithic alignments with sun , moon and stars along the main axis of the solar temple. The use of the Bronze age calendar 16 month and the use of the megalithic rod to build the temple. All these and much more in a paper published by Ing. Chris Micallef.

[Beandolly]

Hey Chris

Post more about your stuff!

[Christopher Micallef]

I have been studying Mnajdra temples for 14 years. I have come to the conclusion that the Mnajdra temple is a 16month Bronze age calendar and is still working today. The declinations I derived for the summer and winter solstices, the equinoxes, the cross quaretr days and the eighth days agree in totally to other megalithic structures in the British Isles. To be exact my work agrees with the work of Professor Alexander Thom. This is remarkable when one compares the declinations because Malta is situated fa off from the British Isles. Somehow communication existed between megalithic man.
I have unearthed the remarkable discovery that the main axis if Mnajdra lower temple is also aligned with the different phases of the moon. The remarkable thing is that the moon seems to interplay with the sun......making this temple a lunar solar one. The declinations are there and I can say that the FIRST FULL MOON during the equinox period is aligned along the main axis of the temple.
I also got hold of Thom's megalithic yard and megalithic rod. 1 megalithic yard = 0.829 metres and 1 megalithic rod = 2.073 metres. Interesting enough is that the eccentricity of the temples were adjusted to suit a whole number of integral units of megalithic rods by playing around (adjusting) the foci of the structural ellipses.
The interesting thing about this whole study. is that megalithic man had certain mathematical concepts....not in the way modern man understands them today.....but in a different methodology and experience generated between Neolithic generations.
I have written a 367 page thesis on these three main aspects...with photos and everything....but in order to publish my book I need about บ,000.....I stop here I did my part...somebody else will have to carry the torch now!!!

[Pixie]

Sorry I don't have the ten thousand for you, Chris, but it is good to know that people out there actually give it their all when trying to bring "other" information into our realm about our "beginnings". Through people like you and others I finally feel that there really is something about us not being "alone". I now think back about movies I have seen...where someone is trying to get us to think about life and how it really started. I see so much more when reading any "religious" material. Keep up the good work and I will try to get more reading done. I looked for this site because I wanted to know if Zecharia Sitchin had his own web site and wanted to answer questions that his fanclub might pose to him. Of course than would mean that he would never get any other work done, so I will have to contend myself with this informative web site. Good to know that there are logical people out there that want to know the truth. Wish I had FAITH, but I want FACTS. Thank you all for your sharing.

[Agnostic]

Sitchin does have his own website. I forget its URL, but u can find it by going to Google.com and searching with his name. (That's how I found this site, also.)

Did you ever publish the book? If not, have you exhausted all possible publisher who might pay YOU for the right to publish it? (OK probably not much, but better than paying for it yourself!)

[Rugby5]

I know this topic is a year old, but you should go to a few science colleges and ask them to publish it.

[innerglory]

We need information on the mnajdra megalithic temple on
malta. Can you find out how much higher the floor of the middle temple is than the
floor of the temple to the left; how tall the standing stones are which
line the two apses of the middle temple; and how tall are any other gateway
or entrance standing stones in the three temples?
i hope this not bothersome for you. i thank you innerglory@rediffmail.com

[Guest]

Google search:

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=10456

Some nice pictures, too.


(Edited by Wallis at 2:13 am on Nov. 1, 2005)


(Edited by Wallis at 2:15 am on Nov. 1, 2005)

[Guest]

More pictures: http://www.canyonlights.com/slides/maltagoddess.htm


(Edited by Wallis at 2:15 am on Nov. 1, 2005)

[Guest]

An overview of the Neolithic Temples of Malta: http://edrichton.com/History/Temples.htm

[MrPP]

Why do archaeologists call every pre-ancient site a "temple"? We don't KNOW that those peoples were as superstitious as we! I can as easily imagine that such strong structures were ore processing facilities or factories. "Altars" may have been work benches?

[Agnostic]

>"Why do archaeologists call every pre-ancient site a "temple"?"<

Probably because the "science" of archeology got its start in an era when western intellectuals believed in the idea of "progress" -- that is, that things have gotten better and better over time (and always will). Even though this basic assumption is no longer fashionable, they have not yet adjusted their assumptions accordingly. So since early man evidently did not have automobiles, refrigerators, and machine guns they must have been stupid and superstitious "savages." It has taken years to partially overcome the archeologists' collective ignorance of astronomy, and we are still suffering from the fact that they are almost all land-lubbers and thus always see a major body of water as a barrier instead of a highway.

[Guest]

An excellent question, MrPP. Could it be that because there are so many "myths" from antiquity that Modern Mythmakers want to believe that "ancient" mankind had nothing to do with their time than to build temples to appease the "gods"?

We moderns do not have any myths, per se. [Excuse me while I fall off my chair in disbelief that I just wrote that.]

Perhaps we are "wrong" in our current thinking. We should rename our space facilities to "temples," our monuments to "temples," even our factories to "temples," as we "sacrifice" the workers to the almighty god of the dollar.

[MrPP]

AGNOSTIC & WALLIS: All good points!!! Yea, I guess that if we're going to insist that the Holy Bibliography of Old Myths and New Myths is the "literal word of God", then we'd better rename everything with a religious title! My Dell becomes an "Anti-Hell Prayer Transmitter"??? :)

I think that the major LONG-term benefit of the works of Velikovsky and Sitchin will be that they treated "myths and legends" as potential sources of HISTORICAL FACT. Such requires great caution, however, as each myth was subject to errors in trans-generational transmissions within a people/language, borrowings from one people to another, the uncertain translations of the earliest writings, and the "updating for current relevance" over thousands of years. Yet, when studied on a global basis, commonalities pop out to provide some seeds of truth to the respecting mind. (A lot of our problem today may be with the mindset - a la the archaeologists - of the translators, most of whom are from rekigious cultures???)

AG, your "oceans = barriers" made me think -- Humanoids capable of interplanetary travel hundreds of thousands of years ago "cain't canoe" on Earth. :)

[Agnostic]

MrPP: Agree totally on how to use myths/legends.

Another way in which we are victims of the fundamental belief in "Progress" is that archeologists ignore all the old myths/legends of a Golden Age in the distant past. They insist on a straight-line PROGRESSion from pre-history to today (this despite such anomolies as so-called Dark Ages) and ignore the possibility that civilizations might have built up to a high level at sometime in the past and then have fallen back, due disasters, made-made or natural.

Their standard reply is "Show me a potsherd" from this supposed Golden Age civilization. (These are the same guy's who will say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" when it suits their own theories.) They don't consider that 1. That's their job, to find the artifacts! or 2. that such sites may be either a. much deeper than they usually dig, and/or b. at places now covered by water!