# 3. Stonehenge, Saint Michael's Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel

Updated: Jul 22

## Stonehenge is the same distance from Saint Michael's Mount in Cornwall as it is from the Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy

Thanks to Google Earth, you can measure distances pretty accurately. When I first downloaded the program onto my laptop, I spent some time measuring distances between places, I'm not sure why and I'm not sure what I was hoping to find. At first I found that various cathedrals were equidistant from Stonehenge, then that other religious and natural features of historical significance around Britain and Ireland were equidistant. I'll get round to writing about them soon. When I found that the two Michael Mounts were exactly the same number of miles from Stonehenge, my first thought was that this was just another coincidence. But then it occurred to me that if a man-made place on a seemingly random plain (Stonehenge) is the same distance from two sacred hills / rocks that themselves are part of an alignment and dedicated to a figure, maybe that man-made place was put there in relation to those natural features.

From the centre of the stone circle to the approximate centres of the islands, these are the measurements I have:

Saint Michael’s Mount -Stonehenge : 176.45 miles/ 283.97 km/ 931,659.10 feet / azimuth 246.79 degrees

Mont Saint Michel - Stonehenge : 176.3 miles / 283.73 km / 930,930 feet / azimuth 175.3 degrees

Saint Michael’s Mount – Mont Saint Michel: 206.14 miles / 331.75 km / 1,088,410.34 feet / azimuth 118.32 degrees

There is a difference of approximately (depending on which starting and ending points you take in your measurement) 729 feet / 222 metres between the distances from the Mont Saint-Michel to Stonehenge and Saint Michael’s Mount to Stonehenge. That’s 0.0078 % of the total distance. And it’s possible to take a measurement of 176.34 miles from Stonehenge to Saint Michael’s Mount (so as to match exactly the Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel distance) if you measure to the shore of the island rather than to the centre. The distances are remarkably similar.

So, is it worth considering the location of Stonehenge specifically in relation to these two islands? Not forgetting, of course, the link with the island of Lundy...

Firstly, let’s look at the measurements.

176.45 miles and 176.3 miles from the two mounts to Stonehenge. 206.14 miles between the two mounts. Are these figures significant in any way?

Robin Heath is the man to turn to here. He has not only found a strong link between the location of Stonehenge and the island of Lundy, but also come up with some amazing figures and units of measurement, connecting time and space. He has found that the distance between Stonehenge and the island of Lundy, which is 123.429 miles, is significant because, as John Michell points out in *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth (*page viii) this is also 864/7 miles. He writes: "That identifies the common unit in Heath's lunation triangle as 36/7 miles. In terms of this unit, the sides of the lunation triangle are 10, 24 and 26. It is the same triangle as in the Stonehenge station rectangle but 2,500 times bigger."

So there are 24 units of 36/7 miles, or 5.142857 miles between Stonehenge and Lundy. Let's refer to this unit as a Lunation Triangle Unit, or LTU. This unit is directly linked to the Astronomical Megalithic Yard, which Robin Heath defines as 19.008/7 feet, or 2.71542857 feet. If you convert 36/7 miles, or 5.142857 miles into feet, that gives you:

35 / 7 x 660 x 8 = 27,154.285714285 feet.

That's exactly 10,000 Megalithic Astronomical Yards. So 1 LTU = 10,000 AMY

So how many of these ltu units are there between the Michael Mounts, and between each of the mounts and Stonehenge?

The distance in LTU between the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael's Mount is:

206.14 / 36 x 7 = 40.082778

This is quite close to 40 LTU

The distance in ltu between Stonehenge and Mont-Saint Michel:

176.3 x 7 / 36 = 34.280556

This isn’t as interesting a number... until you think of it as a fraction....

34.285714 is 24/7.

36 / 7 x 240 / 7 = 176.326531

There are 36 / 7 x 240 / 7 miles (or 36 x 240 / 49 miles) between Stonehenge and Mont Saint Michel, or 240/7 LTU.

The Stonehenge - Saint Michael’s Mount distance produces a similar figure:

176.45 x 7 / 36 = 34.309722 and 34.309722 x 7 = 240.168056

So there are 240.168056 / 7 or 34.309722 LTU between Stonehenge and Saint Michael’s Mount.

So in LTU, the distances between Stonehenge and the two Michael Mounts are quite interesting: close to 40 and 240/7.

As there is no reference online or in any books that I know to a link between Stonehenge and the Mont Saint Michel and Saint Michael’s Mount, I wondered what to make of these numerical connections. These places are all the product of lost civilisations. What they have in common is that that were pretty good at astronomy, as well as surveying and navigation, which depend on star charts, observation and obsessive measuring over vast stretches of time an space. But what are we getting into here? If Stonehenge is linked with the two Michael mounts, then it must be linked to the entire line which runs from Skellig Michael to Israel, and Stonehenge must be somehow linked to the temple of Delphi itself.... The southern half of the European Michael line is peppered with temples dedicated to the sun and moon deities Apollo and Artemis, so it seems reasonable to think that the Northern part is equally old, pre-dating Christianity by a good couple of thousand years at least. Stonehenge is of course set out in such a way as to facilitate the observation of the sun and moon over the course of a year and over the course of many years, it's possible that it too was once the playground of sun and moon gods. So what links do we have here between the two Michael Mounts and Stonehenge? Thanks to the destructive powers of Christianity, we've only a few old stones to go by now, stones and mercurial pathways.

Perhaps that's a little unfair: Christians have recycled many ancient pre-Christian sites of importance and built the most beautiful churches on them. Where they destroyed the structures and the believers of old, they at least sometimes preserved their GPS coordinates by marking the spot with something else, often something truly magnificent. There's no church at Stonehenge, but there was, an important cathedral two miles south, on an old mound, called Old Sarum. The Normans decided to move this cathedral and its town out of the harsh cold winds and into the valley further south again, where it is now called Salisbury. Curiously, one of the bishops involved in this move may have been the bishop of Avranches, the town closest to the Mont Saint-Michel, though another version of this story says it was the bishop of Salisbury. There's a story of a white deer being shot with an arrow from Old Sarum, and the new town and cathedral being built on the place where the injured deer finally fell.

To start with, there is an isoceles triangle, or a circle, linking these points: Stonehenge, Saint Michael's Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel. What does this mean? Perhaps it is linked to the sun, since the two Michael lines (English and European) are said to be connected to its course. Of course, the distance between two natural features is what it is. But might they be considered special partly on the basis that the distance between them is close to 40 lunation triangle units? And what about its orientation: 118.32 degrees from the Cornish mount to the Norman one. There is also the question of their alignment with the rest of the European Michael line – Skellig, Sacra San Michele, etc, and in the case of the Cornwall mount, with the English Michael line too. Might these places have been considered special to a mathematical mind, concerned with number, geometry, measurement, surveying and astronomy, before they became purely sacred in a religious sense - be it pre-Christian or Christian? Might the sacred quality of these places be rooted in maths?

The best place to start is a closer look at Robin Heath’s AMY and his lunation triangle, thanks to which he demonstrates the link between solar and lunar cycles and the equatorial circumference of the Earth, time cycles equated to spatial measurement.

### Robin Heath and the Lunation Triangle

A lot of amazing work has been done on ancient metrology, in particular by Robin Heath, Richard Heath, John Michell and John Neal. Amongst their fascinating findings is Robin Heath’s Lunation triangle. One significant island in particular has played an important role in understanding the probable reasons for locating Stonehenge where it is, and this is Lundy. Lundy, Robin Heath says, is named after the word for elbow in the local language, which is interesting as it forms the right angle of the triangle. It also sounds oddly like the French and Latin words for moon.

The lunation triangle is defined by Stonehenge, Lundy Island, Caldey Island, and the bluestone site, where some of the stones that make up Stonehenge are thought to have come from, in the Preseli hills in Wales. In his book *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth,* (co-authored by John Michell), Robin Heath recalls three questions he asked himself in relation to the situation of Lundy, directly West of Stonehenge.

*‘Was Lundy the starting point in this geomantic venture, or was Stonehenge, the location of Lundy then being a remarkable coincidence?*

*Was Stonehenge sited where it is in order to complete a geomantic statement about the calendar across the British landscape?*

*Does this triangle provide the reason as to why the bluestone site was so important as a source for Stonehenge? '*

(Italics his own)

And his answer is:

‘Ever since this triangle was revealed to me, research has reinforced my belief that the answer to all three questions is yes. Stonehenge was most likely the *final* stage in a manifestation of astronomical, geodetic and geomantic wisdom, which predated the original siting of the monument, currently thought to be dated about 3,100 BC.’ (page 40)

The link to the site of some of the stones that make up Stonehenge was certainly compelling. Then there was the fact that this Lunation triangle was exactly 2,500 larger than the station stone rectangle at Stonehenge. The proportions of both the Lunation triangle and the station stone rectangle are 5:12:13.

Then there are the measurements themselves. The distance between Stonehenge and Lundy’s centre point is 123.4 miles. The foot itself is a very old measurement, a product of the measurement of the equatorial circumference of the earth. At some stage, this circumference was measured and reconfigured with a new unit, devised like this: the circumference was divided by the number of days in a solar year, and that figure was then divided by 360,000, to produce one small unit of measurement, the foot. Hence, the equatorial circumference of the earth is 365.24325 x 360,000 = 131,487,568.5 feet. Units of time (days) have been combined with the girth of the earth and used to produce units of space (feet).

The Lunation triangle is in fact linked both to sun and moon, not only by virtue of the unit of measurement, the mile and by extension the LTU, 36/7 miles, that define its length, but also by virtue of the proportions between its sides.

Robin Heath calls it a geometrical device for predicting the moon’s phases and eclipses, and in that respect, the unit of measurement it’s in is irrelevant, this is purely to do with the fact that it’s a 5:12:13 triangle.

Robin Heath came up with the idea of the lunation triangle whilst examining Stonehenge and the link he had made between Stonehenge and Lundy. Basically you can make a 5:12:13 triangle quite simply with a length of rope, marked at equal intervals to create thirty equal spaces. Then you can peg it down so as to have 5 on one length, 12 on the next, and 13 on the last. That last and longest length is key: pick it up again and bring it down to divide the triangle into two parts. If you position the third, longest length so that it bisects the shortest side at the 2/3 point, this creates a new smaller triangle, with a hypothenuse of 12.369 units. This represents the length of the solar year calibrated in lunations. The average number of lunations in a solar year is 12.368267. This set-up becomes a tool for predicting both solar and lunar eclipses.

## Links between the Stonehenge - Lundy Lunation Triangle and the Michael Mounts

The ‘12’ side of the lunation triangle is the one that links Stonehenge to Lundy. This distance, as we've seen, is 123.429 miles long, 24 LTU. If you divide it into 12, then each section is 10.2857 miles long (72/7 miles). Or if you divide it into 6, then each section is 20.5714 miles long. Times ten, this is very close to the distance between the two Michael mounts.

**The distance between Saint Michael’s Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel is almost exactly 10 / 6 of the distance between Stonehenge and Lundy.**

Now, if you divide the Stonehenge - Lundy line by 7, instead of 6, and multiply it by 10, you get the Stonehenge - Saint Michael Mount distance and the Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel distance.

**The distance between each of the two Michael Mounts and Stonehenge is exactly 10 / 7 of the distance between Stonehenge and Lundy.**

What does this mean? It seems to point to an intentional connection between Stonehenge, Lundy, Saint Michael's Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel. Perhaps it is just a small part of a larger network of places linked to each other by number in this way, or perhaps by sun, moon or star.

If you multiply the number of miles between the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael's Mount by 6, you get a number which is related to the golden ratio, 1.618.

2 / 1.618 x 1,000 = 1,236.09

206.14 x 6 = 1,236.84

This means that the number of miles between the two Michael Mounts is very close to

2,000 / 1.618 x 6 = 206.01.

There is a difference of 0.13 miles, centre to centre. This is also 0.3 miles more than 205.714 miles, which is 40 lunation triangle units.

You can in fact measure 123.6 miles between Stonehenge and Lundy.

** **The Lunar Cycle and the Astronomical Megalithic Yard (AMY)

One lunar month, or lunation, lasts on average 29.53059 days. How does this compare with the solar year? There are 12 and a bit lunations in a year, which varies from year to year. 12 lunations last 354.36708 days and 13 last 383.89767. One solar year is somewhere in the middle of these two figures, with of course 365.242199 days. On average there are 12.368267 lunations in one year. Robin Heath points out that that’s almost exactly 12 and 7/19 . (page 31, *The Lost Science of Measuring The Earth)*

As the solar and lunar calendars are not exactly aligned, it’s helpful to think in terms of average number of lunations per solar year. So, there are on average 12 lunations plus 7/19 of a lunation in a solar year.

Derived in another way again, you could say that the difference between the length of the solar and lunar years is 10.875199 days (365.242199 – 354.367 = 10.875199 ) and this can also be (just about) expressed as 7/19 of a lunation, or 29.53059 x 7/19 = 10.879691, which is very close to 10.875199.

Robin Heath points this out: 7/19 = 0.36842 and 19/7 is 2.7142857

So there are on average 12 lunations plus 7/19 in a year.

This fraction, 7/19, is significant in and of itself, as months in our solar calendar are divided into weeks of 7 days. Seven is a number that comes up time and time again, 7 colours of the rainbow, 7 notes in a musical scale, the storm ends on the seventh day in flood legends, etc. And 19 is significant because there is another cycle of the moon which lasts exactly 19 solar years. This is the shortest amount of time into which you can (pretty much) fit an integer number of lunations into an integer number of solar years. It’s called the Metonic cycle.

Also, Robin Heath points out that the two principle circles at Stonehenge have diameters that form a ratio of 7/19, or always very close to that (within 0.5%). (page 32, *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth*)

These 12.368267 lunations per solar year (or 12 and 7/19 lunations) are the key here.

7/19 = 0.368421. This extra 0.368267 or 7/19 th part of a lunation is 10.875199 days.

7/19 x 29.53059 is only an average of course, but it is significant. What Robin Heath does next is very interesting. He asks himself how many 7/19 th parts of a lunation are there in one full (average) lunation cycle, and the answer is 19/7 ths. (or in decimals: 29.53059 / 0.368267), that is to say one average lunation period divided by the extra bit that doesn’t quite fit in a solar year after 12 lunations have elapsed. So the number of 0.368267 lunation periods in one lunation is 2.715429. In another way, without reference to any fractions of lunations, just decimals, and the number of days in solar and lunar cycles, 365.242199 – 354.367 = 10.875199 , so 29.53059 / 10.875199 = 2.715407. So a solar year can be expressed as, on average, 12 full lunations plus 29.53059 / 2.715407, which is 10.875199 days. The extra ten or so days that make up the difference in length of the solar year and lunar year can be related back to one lunar month of 29.53059 days. And 10.875199 / 29.53059 = 0.3682689. This figure is slightly different from Robin Heath’s fraction derived 0.368267. Still, it helps to think of it as 19 / 7ths of a lunation period. Robin Heath goes with the fractions method, as this is probably more in keeping with the pre-calculator mind.

As we have seen, the foot is a unit derived from the very proportions of the earth: the equatorial circumference in ancient geodesy (again, according to Heath) is 360,000 x 365.242 feet.

On page 32 of his book, *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth*, Robin Heath writes:

'If the English Foot is made to represent the difference in time between the lunar and solar year (10.875119 days), then:-

*The megalithic yard, based on the astronomy of the lunation cycles of 29.53059 days, becomes 2.71542857 feet in length.*

And: foot : *megalithic yard = differential : lunation period.'*

What about the relation between 13 lunar months and a solar year? 13 lunations are 383.89767 days. ( 29.53059 x 13 = 383.89767) That's 18.655471 days more than a solar year. So 13 lunar months are the equivalent in days of one solar year plus 18.655471 days, or 1.58323 x 1 lunar month. (29.53059 / 18.655471 = 1.58323)

There are an average of 12.368267 lunations per solar year. You could say there are 13 lunations minus 0.631733 of a lunation each solar year, as 13 – 12.368267 is 0.631733. This number, 0.631733, can be (almost) expressed as a fraction: 12.02927 / 19, or perhaps as 12.008 / 19.008.

So there are 13 lunations minus (12.008/19.008 of a lunation) in a year.

(12.008 / 19.008 x 29.53059) + 365.242199 = 383.897677

How many 12.008 / 19.008 of a lunation in a lunation? 1.58266

That's almost 19.008 / 12.008

(19.008 / 12.008 = 1.58294)

We've come across the number 19.008 already. The AMY is defined by Heath as 19.008 / 7 feet, or 2.71542857 feet, and he also points out that 19.008 is 6 x 3.168, which is a number that comes up at Stonehenge and other stone circles. (see page 33 in *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth)*

Also, (19.008 / 7 ) - (12.008 / 7) = 1

19.008 / 12.008 x 13 = 20.578281

and 19.008 / 12.008 x 130 = 205.78281

This number, 205.78281, is close to the value in miles of the distance between the two Michael Mounts (206.14), and it's very close to 205.7142857, which is 40 LTU. Perhaps there is a link here with 13 lunations and the fraction 19.008 / 12.008. You could say there are 10 units of 13 x 19.008 / 12.008 miles between the two Michael mounts, corresponding to 13 lunations and the reverse of the fraction 12.008 / 19.008. (there are 13 lunations minus (12.008/19.008 of a lunation) in a solar year.) This unit of 13 x 19.008 / 12.008 miles would be worth 20.57828 miles. There are close to 6 such units between Stonehenge and Lundy.

123.412857 / 20.57828 = 5.998

And this number squared gives something very close to the distance between the Mont Saint Michel and Durham Cathedral, and between Durham Cathedral and Skellig Michael, as we shall see later.

20.57828 x 20.57828 = 423.465608

Distance Mont Saint-Michel - Durham Cathedral: 424.31 miles

Distance Durham Cathedral - Skellig Michael : 425.10 miles

(As a matter of fact, taking 1/10th of the exact actual distance between the two Michael Mounts, centre to centre, is more exact: 20.614 squared is 424.936996, closer to the actual distances mentioned above. Also, 20.614 x 6 = 123.684, a number even more compatible with the distance in miles between Stonehenge and Lundy, with the added benefit of being also very close to 200 / 1.618 = 123.60939)

So perhaps where distances are nice multiples of this unit, 20.57828 miles, let's call it the Michael Unit, (13 x 19.008 / 12.008 miles), or its close cousin 20.614 miles, there is a soli - lunar connection.

Basically, what Robin Heath shows is that the solar and lunar cycles can be represented in units of length, such as the foot and the Astronomical Megalithic Yard. Not only that, he shows that the solar and lunar cycles most probably *were* used to calibrate units of length. So it follows that placing sites at certain distances from each other, according to these units of measurement and certain lunar and solar friendly numbers, might seem a good idea to people who really value and know their astronomy, and the link between space and time. Perhaps parts of the Michael alignments, such as the distance between Saint Michael's Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel were thought of as special because of the number of Lunation Triangle Units between them. Perhaps sites were placed in relation to these two mounts, as a nod to the beauty of numbers and an awareness of the measuring of time cycles and the Earth's dimensions.

The full moon cycle, the time it takes the sun, as seen from Earth, to complete one revolution with respect to the perigee of the moon’s orbit, is 411.784 430 29 days.

Divide this figure by two and you get 205.8922. This figure can be measured in miles between the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael’s Mount. It is close to 40 ltu.

So, how many AMY between the two Michael Mounts?

206.14 x 8 x 660 x (19.008/7) = 2,955,524.593

If you divide that by 100,000, you get a number that's close to the number of days in a lunar month: 29.555 (In fact a lunar month is 29.53059 days)

If you were to take a unit of 29.53059 AMY and multiply it by 100,000 you get 2,953,059 AMY, which converted to miles is 205.968 miles, which can in fact be measured between the two Michael Mounts. (It's just 0.172 miles off the centre to centre measurement)

So it seems that the distance between the two Michael Mounts can be understood as the number of days in a lunation times 100,000 AMY, the AMY being already a lunar derived unit.

### Representing Space and Time

This meshing of spatial and temporal measurements comes up again and again. After all, things can only move in both space and time, not just space. And not only are space and time inexorably linked, but representations of space and time are crucial to our understanding of them. As Kant put it, space and time are a priori to our experience of them, they are, together, the conditions for the existence of everything else. You might say that devising units of measurement derived from sun and moon cycles, and then using them to places important sites on land, might demonstrate in itself a certain awareness of the linked natures of space and time, and our place within them.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in the *Critique of Pure Reason*:

'Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived from outer experiences. For in order that certain sensations be referred to something outside me (that is, to something in another region of space from that in which I find myself), and similarly in order that I may be able to represent them as outside and alongside one another, and accordingly as not only different but as in different places, the representation of space must already underlie them [dazu muß die Vorstellung des Raumes schon zum Grunde liegen]. Therefore, the representation of space cannot be obtained through experience from the relations of outer appearance; this outer experience is itself possible at all only through that representation.' (A23/B38). Kant.

In the field of physics, time and space are viewed as inseparable. The first proponent of space-time continuum, Hermann Minkowsk, wishing to emphasize the geometric qualities of space and time, said in 1906:

*"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."*

I don’t want to discuss Kant or Minkowsk in any detail, just to point out that an understanding of the peculiar nature of space and time has been central to the most profound shifts in philosophy and physics since the enlightenment. Once the importance of the representation and interdependence of time and space have been grasped, it is essential to come up with a system of measurement of time and space which reflects this. I think it would be inconceivable for a culture that had understood that cycles of time are already the motions of bodies in space, not to want to convey cycles of time in units of measurement of space, even down to units as small as the foot and the inch. I think that we should recognise that the units of measurement that have come down to us, or that have been derived from measuring ancient sites, are the product of great minds, possibly thousands of years ago.

I also think the great antiquity of the foot and the mile and lines of longitude and latitude and the way we divided the day into 24 hours and the year into 12 months carry so much meaning. We can infer from it something of the minds that produced it, that needed a system of measurement in which time cycles could be reflected spatially.

Because the foot itself is a product of temporal and spatial measurements - the girth of the Earth and it's path round the sun - it reveals an understanding of the interdependence of space and time on behalf of its creators.

Robin Heath describes the foot as ‘an astonishing enduring artefact bequeathed to us from the prehistoric world.’ (page 43, *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth*)

While the connection between the foot and the equatorial circumference of the earth is undeniable, it does not necessarily prove that the foot was used in ancient times. But it is a fair assumption that the foot goes back to a time when it was possible to measure the equatorial circumference of the earth very accurately. Since the foot is, historically, older than recent accurate measurements of earth (since Copernicus), it must be true to say that there was a time before recorded history when it was possible to make precise measurements of time and space in order to conjure up a unit that was devised from precise measurements of the Earth and its cycles.

As a result I think it is not an anachronism to talk about the positioning of Stonehenge by its builders in units of feet, and by extension, in miles, and other multiples of the foot too.

So how can it shed light on the Stonehenge - Michael triangle?

### The number 17.632653 (or 24/7 x 36/7)

If you double the distance between Stonehenge and the Mont Saint Michel (176.3 miles), you get 352.6 miles, or if you add the length that separates the Mont Saint-Michel from Stonehenge (176.3 miles), to the Stonehenge - Saint Michael's Mount distance (176.4 miles) and consider them as one length, you have 352.7 miles. Or if we take the distances between each Michael Mount and Stonehenge to be both a nice 240 x 36 / 49 miles long, that is 176.3265 miles, then we have a total of 2 x 240 x 36 / 49 miles, or 352.65306 miles. So, depending on how you measure it, the Mont Saint-Michel - Stonehenge - Saint Michael's Mount distance is between 352.6 and 352.7 miles long.

This number is not a million miles off the number of days in a lunar year, 354.36708 days. In days, this number 352.653 is 12.589 days short of a full solar year, and 1.71408 days less than a lunar year. Is there a link, or is a miss as good as a mile?

The number 352.65306 is 6.05306 short of the number of days in an eclipse year. Half an eclipse year is 173.31 days long, which is roughly three less than 176.3265. Six lunar months are 177.18 days.

All of these are close but not exact fits though. What about on the ground at Stonehenge?

At Stonehenge itself, on Google Earth, it’s possible to trace a circle of 1,763.74 feet around the outer edge of the henge, to a radius of 281.14 feet from the centre. I don't know how exact this is.

If you divide the Mont Saint-Michel – Saint Michael’s Mount distance in miles by 7 you get segments of 29.448571 miles. This is quite close to the value of one lunation in days, 29.53. Again, it's not an exact fit, but close.

Six of those segments of 29.44 miles make 176.691429, which is very close to the 176.36 miles we have seen already.

So the Mont Saint-Michel-Saint Michael’s Mount-Stonehenge triangle has sides worth close to 6 and 7.

If we divide the longer side of the Michael-Stonehenge triangle by 7, and multiply that section by 6, we get something close to the value of the shorter side of the triangle.

206.14 / 7 = 29.44857 miles

29.44857 x 6 = 176.69143 miles

That's 0.36 miles off being a precise match.

There is a further possible connection to the lunar cycle: just now we divided the Stonehenge - Michael line into seven parts. If you also divide the Stonehenge - Lundy line, the East-West part of the Lunation triangle, by seven, as we've seen, you get segments of 17.632653 miles:

Stonehenge - Lundy = 24 x 36 / 7 miles, or 123.42857 miles.

24 x 36 / (7 x 7) = 17.632653

Stonehenge - Saint Michael's Mount and Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel = 176.32653 miles

17.632653 x 10 = 176.32653

So the Stonehenge - Michael triangle has two sides worth precisely 10 / 7 of the Stonehenge – Lundy side of the lunation triangle.

176.363 is also 36 x √24 or 62 x √(6x4)

or 240 / 49 x 36 = 176.3265

or even 63x4x10/7x7 = 176.3265

63x4/7=123.42857

24/7x36/7= 17.632653

There are 7 segments of 24 x 36 /49 miles , or 17.632653 miles between Stonehenge and Lundy, and 10 of them between Stonehenge and the Mont Saint-Michel, and Stonehenge and Saint Michael's Mount. There are 24 / 7 Lunation Triangle Units or LTU between Stonehenge and Saint Michael's Mount, and Stonehenge and the Mont Saint-Michel. The fraction 24 / 7 is familiar to us today in terms of time measurement, merging a solar time framework (1 day or 24 hours) with a lunar time framework (one quarter of a lunar month, or a week of 7 days) .

Furthermore, something close to 1 / 7 of the Stonehenge- Lundy distance separates Stonehenge from Avebury: 17.36 miles.

123.4 / 7 = 17.62857

The two inner circles within the great circle at Avebury are each 340ft in diameter. The circle of the twelve surviving standing-stones at Newgrange in Ireland is also 340 in average diameter. That's 103.6 meters. 103.6 is half of 206.12. This last figure is the number of miles between Saint Michael's Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel. Perhaps you can't compare a number of meters with a number of miles, but after all meter and mile are related to each other by a number very close to the golden ratio (1.618) which is 1.609.

A line can be drawn linking the two, from Avebury all the way south to Stonehenge, to the southern perimeter of the henge itself, that’s 17.36 miles long, and amazingly, the azimuth is 176.3 degrees. (distance Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel: 176.3 miles)

This is part of an established ley line, which takes in a tumulus north of Stonehenge, Clearbury Ring, South of Salisbury Cathedral, and another structure further south, Frantenbury Camp. The length of the line from Stonehenge to the last camp is 19,800 yards, as observed by John Michell. We've come across this number before, as 1 AMY is 19,0008 / 7 feet. And there are 13 lunations minus 0.631733 of a lunation each solar year, as 13 – 12.368267 is 0.631733. This number, 0.631733, can be expressed as a fraction: 12.00363 / 19, or perhaps as 12.008 / 19.008.

So there are 13 lunations minus (12.008/19.008 of a lunation) in a year. Also, we saw earlier that there are 13 lunations minus 0.631733 of a lunation each solar year, 13 – 12.368267 is 0.631733 or 12.008 / 19.008.

For some reason, I can't find any connection made previously between this line and the Mont Saint-Michel, which is on a similar alignment, from Avebury, the vicinity of Stonehenge, through Old Sarum, etc.

The distance between Stonehenge and Avebury henge from centre to centre is in fact 17.31 miles. John Michell points out in the book ‘*The Lost Art of Measuring the Earth*’ (page 105) that this number is virtually the square root of 300, which is 17.320508.

And, Michell points out (page 72) that Avebury is situated on the latitude 360/7 degrees. So to go back to our 24/7 and 36/7 fractions, you can say that Stonehenge (the southern part of the henge) is 24/7 x 36/7 miles south of that point latitude 36/7.

Michell also points out that the distance between Stonehenge and the 51st line of latitude just south of it is 12.342857 miles. That’s exactly 1/10th of the distance between Stonehenge and Lundy, 123.4 miles, or 24 x 36 / 7 miles, or 24 AMY (see pages 72 and 104).

24/7x36/7= 17.632653

Michell and Heath link the positions of Avebury and Stonehenge in between the 52nd and 51st parallels to the very dimensions of the earth.

The distance between Avebury and the 52nd parallel to the north is exactly 1/100th part of the earth’s polar radius. The polar radius is 3950.076 miles, and an ancient figure is given for this measurement in Heath and Michell’s book, of 3949 and 5/7 miles (see page 10, *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth*). Stonehenge to the 52nd parallel is 39.497 miles. If you run a line between Stonehenge and the 52nd parallel through the centre of Avebury, instead of just directly north, the line is 39.58691 miles long, which is 1/100th of the mean radius of the earth. And if you run the line from Stonehenge through the side of the henge at Avebury to the 52nd parallel, the line is 39.62425 miles long, which is 1/100th of the equatorial radius. So the size and location of the henge at Avebury, in relation to Stonehenge and the 51st and 52nd parallels, seems to be placed in such a way as to express these three earth measurements, on a scale of 1/100.

Also, Avebury-Stonehenge is exactly ¼ of the distance between parallels 51 and 52. This is all explained in Heath and Michell’s book.

So the distance from Stonehenge to the two Michael Mounts in Normandy and Cornwall (176.3 miles and 176.4 miles) is just under three miles short of being ten times the Stonehenge - Avebury distance, if taken to be 17.36 miles.

How many Lunation Triangle Units or LTU are there between the two Michael Mounts? We divided the Stonehenge Lundy line into 7 parts and found that these segments multiplied by 10 gave the length of the Stonehenge - Michael line. If we in turn divide the Stonehenge - Michael line by 6, we get segments of 29.38776 miles. Multiply this by 7 and we get a figure close to the value in miles between the two Michael Mounts: 205.7142857. And the distance between Stonehenge and Lundy, 24 x 36/7 miles or 24 LTU, multiplied by 10/6 gives the same figure, a distance which is less than half a mile short of the distance between the two Michael Mounts, 206.14 miles.

24 x 36 / (7 x 7) x 10 / 6 x 7 = 24 x 36 / (7 x 6) x 10 = 24 ltu x 10 / 6 = = 40 ltu = 205.7142857

So there are (just under) 40 Lunation triangle units between the two Michael Mounts.

So to come back to the number 17.63, or 24/7 x 36/7, it is already part of Robin Heath’s lunation triangle, in that 17.63 miles are 1/7th of the distance between Stonehenge and Lundy. 17.63 miles are also 1/10th of the distance between Stonehenge and the two Michael Mounts, and the distance between the two Michael Mounts is very close to 10 / 6 of the Lundy - Stonehenge distance. 17.63 x 10 x 7 / 6.

The number 176 is important too.

It seems to be connected to metrology, as well as lots of prehistoric places, such as Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid at Giza. As it’s quite close to 176.3, it's worth taking a look at some places where it comes up here.

The fraction 176/175 (or 22/7 x 8/25) is significant, as noted in John Michell and Robin Heath's book, *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth*, page 13. This is the link between certain units of measurement to make up for errors in pi derived lengths. 175/176 is used as a link between long and short version of Greek foot, eg 1.008 to 1.01376

And 1.76 x 180 = 316.8.

I mentioned earlier that 3168 is a number identified with the circumference of sacred temples, featured at Stonehenge, and Glastonbury also. And if you have a circle with a perimeter of 316.8 feet, such as the sarsen circle at Stonehenge, marked out regularly every two degrees of the circle, then the space between each marker point would be 316.8 / 18 = 17.6 feet.

Robin Heath, in *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth, *mentions this 3168 number. At Stonehenge, each pair of Aubrey holes is separated by 31.68 feet. One AMY is 2.71542857 feet and Robin Heath writes: '2.71542857 feet is 6/7 of 3.168 feet, demonstrating the AMY’s connection with sacred geometry.’

Also, the embankment circle at Stonehenge is 1056 feet in circumference, and 1,056 / 6 = 176.

So the number 316.8 is connected to the Astronomical Megalithic Yard:

1 AMY = 2.71542857 feet = 6/7 of 3.168 feet.

19.008 is 6 x 3.168 and 1 AMY is 19.008/7 feet so it follows that 1 AMY is 6 X 3.168 / 7 feet, or 3.168 x 6/7 feet.

And, since 3.168 = 176 x 18 / 1,000, then 1 AMY = 176 x 18 x 6/7,000 feet

1 AMY in feet is also 176 x 12 x 15 x 6 x 70,000

The number 176 is also connect to pi and the number 56, which is the number of post hole marks at Stonehenge. 56 is an interesting number as it’s the number of makers needed to create a system for predicting eclipses (56 or 28).

176 / π = 56.022, or 176 / (864 / 275) = 56.0185

So if a circle had a diameter of 56.022 units, it would have a circumference of 176.

There’s a stone circle in New Zealand with these dimensions, called Miringa Te Kakara.

That makes it 1/6 of the embankment circle at Stonehenge.

I read that the distance in miles between old churches is often 21.12 miles, and this is 12 x 1.76.

1.76 feet are 21.12 inches.

2.112 x 9 = 19.008, which brings us back to the AMY, as 1 AMY is 19.008 / 7 feet, or 2.71542857 feet. So 10 x 19.008 / 9 inches are 1.76 feet and 19.008 / 9 / 17.6 = 1.2

so in fact when you are converting feet to inches, multiplying by twelve, you are also multiplying by (19.008 / 9 / 0.176), and 0.176 itself is 19.008 / 6 / 18...

So another way of seeing 1.76 is 19.008 / 9 / 1.2 or 19.008 / 9 / 6 x5 or 19.008 / 54 x 5, which links it to precessional numbers, of which 54 is one. (see Santilana and Von Dechend, and Graham Hancock). 54 is also 6 x 9.

You could say that any of these figures connected to the number 19.008 is ultimately derived from the difference between the length in days between the solar and lunar years.

Here is a list of places I have found that are approximately 176 miles part.

Skellig Michael - Hill of Uisneach Cat Stone 172.33 miles

Saint Michael's Mount - Stonehenge 176.45 miles

Mont Saint-Michel - Stonehenge 176.35

Stonehenge - Rouen Cathedral 176.5 miles

Mont Saint-Michel - Montmartre: 176.92 miles

Montmarte - Nancy 175.96 miles

Nancy - Saint-Denis Cathedral 175.43

Nancy Cathedral - Notre-Dame-de-Paris 175.54 miles

Montmartre - Canterbury Abbey 174.49 miles

Brussels Cathedral - Rouen Cathedral - 174.60 miles

Is there a connection?

Lastly, to Egypt: the altar in the Great Pyramid at Giza is 44 feet per side, which is 176 feet for the perimeter. And an Egyptian cubit is 20.61818 inches, and this last figure is close in number to the distance in miles between the two Michael Mounts (206.14 miles - in fact you can measure 206.18 miles between the two mounts). A 10.56 foot reed has a cubit measure of 1.76 feet x 6

And 176 feet is 1/30th of a mile. (5280 feet in a mile) there are 1760 yards in a mile.

### Northern alignments with the Mont Saint-Michel : Durham and Avebury

I've found two main alignments heading north from the Mont Saint-Michel through Britain, one slightly to the West of North, and one almost exactly North.

### The Mont Saint-Michel to Avebury Line

The eastern side of the Avebury henge is precisely aligned with Old Sarum, Salisbury and the Mont Saint Michel, on a line with an azimuth of 175.41.This line runs very close to the Avebury Stonehenge line, azimuth 176.32.

The line from the eastern side of the Old Sarum henge to the Mont Saint Michel runs straight through the cathedral in Salisbury, which was moved from Old Sarum to Salisbury.

Why was the cathedral moved? What did the Norman bishops know about this alignment? Did they try to preserve it by placing the new cathedral on it? Was the move entirely to do with getting out of the cold winds on Old Sarum? What was the point of that story about the white deer that was shot and finally fell on the spot of what is now Salisbury Cathedral?

They must have done, or they wouldn't have moved it to somewhere else on the line. Surely this must mean that this alignment was known to them and was important to them.

You can see below that the new cathedral is clearly placed on the Mont Saint-Michel - Old Sarum line.

### Durham Cathedral to the Mont Saint-Michael: a North-South line

Now to the second line from the Mont Saint-Michel through England.

Almost directly north of the Mont Saint-Michel runs a line with an azimuth of 359.65 to Durham Cathedral, which goes straight through the northernmost henge at Thornborough, in Yorkshire. This could mean that the Thornborough henges were placed partly in relation to Durham and the Mont Saint-Michel. This azimuth is so close to zero that you could describe the line between Durham Cathedral and the Mont Saint-Michel as a meridian.

The Thornborough henges are in Yorkshire, and are pretty big. The cursus itself is almost a mile long. They are thought to date from 3,500 and 2,500 BCE. Like the stars of Orion's belt, and the pyramids at Giza, the three henges are arranged in an almost but not quite straight line. Everyone knows about about Robert Bauval and his brilliant work: the pyramids at Giza represent the stars of Orion's belt on earth. And Christopher Knight and Alan Butler have shown these links at Thornborough in their amazing book *Before the Pyramids: Cracking Archaeology's Greatest Mystery.*

Here are some of the reasons given by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler as to why the location of the Thornborough henges are very intriguing.

Thornborough is 2480.95 miles from the North Pole. This is close to 1 / 10th of the earth's meridional circumference, which is 24,883.2 miles. Robin Heath shows that 24,883.2 miles = 12 x 12 x 12 x 12 x 12 / 10 miles (page 11, *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth*)

(Incidentally, a few other very old sites are also at a similar distance from the pole, such as Knocknarea in Sligo, Annaghmare court tomb and Slieve Guliion in Newry and Mourne, Ireland, Birkrigg and Swinside stone circles in England)

Christopher Knight and Alan Butler also show that 'the north and south henges are latitudinally exactly four seconds of arc (4 x 366 MY), centre to centre', and 'a second of polar arc in the 366-system is exactly 366 MY long on the ground.' (Chapter 8, 'Squaring the Circle', in *Before the Pyramids*, by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler)

MY stands for Megalithic Yard, a unit devised by extensive surveying and measuring by Alexander Thom.

Also, 'the southern Thornborough henge and Lincoln mount are precisely one Megalithic Degree apart north to south, and one modern degree east to west'.

One modern degree of the Earth's revolution on its own axis takes four minutes. A Megalithic Degree is the Earth's revolution on its axis divided by 366 instead of 360. 366 is a very interesting number, as the authors show. For example:

'The ratio of the size of the Earth to the Moon is 366:100. Given that the Earth makes that number [366] of sidereal spins in a year (to the nearest integer) you might think that is a nice number. Or days in a leap year.' (in Chapter 7. Overturning Old Ideas)

'There are 365 sunrises in a year but 366 star rises' (in Chapter 6. Searching for Sirius)

Not only that, but they write that every 10,000 days the Moon turns 366 times in relation to the stars, that if water's freezing point is defined as zero degrees and its boiling point as 366 degrees, the absolute zero is - 1,000 degrees.

** **

Just over a mile away from the Mont Saint-Michel - Durham line are the Rollright Stones, right on the border between Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. There are three monuments, The King's Men, the Whispering Knights and the King Stone. A legend says that on the stroke of midnight, the King Stone and the Whispering Knights come alive again, on certain saint days. (Which saint days I don't know, but where there is a saint day marked on the calendar there must be star or sun alignments) The church at Little Rollright is dedicated to Saint Phillip, the earliest parts are 13th century, the feast day of St Phillip is May 3, and the orientation of the church is, as far as I can make out on Google Earth, 83.10 degrees.

Arbour Low is also close to this line. Arbor Low is a neolithic stone circle Derbyshire, not too far from the lovely little town of Bakewell. There are about 50 stones, and some are arranged in an egg-shaped circle, like at Carnac. The Nine Ladies stone circle is made up of nine stones in a circle.

This line also goes through the little island of Tombelaine, where in the story told by Wace, the lady Helen was killed by the giant, and which also features in the painting of the Mont Saint Michel by the Freres Limbourg in the Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. The island may also get its name from the god Bellenus, a Celtic Apollo.

This line extended northwards goes all the way to the Shetland Islands, crossing the Tyne very close to Gateshead and Newcastle city centre, skirts the Farne islands, and then goes through Fair Isle.

Durham Cathedral must be connected to the Skellig Michael, Saint Michael's Mount and Mont Saint-Michel alignment, especially as it is almost exactly the same distance from the Mont Saint-Michel as it is from Skellig Michael, 424.33 miles and 425.11 miles respectively.. The mound it is built on is probably natural, and by coincidence it too, like its Michael cousins, is surrounded by water, only it is by a river not the sea, the river Wear. The distance between Stonehenge and Durham cathedral is 248.83 miles, which is 1/100th of the meridian circumference of the Earth (24,883.2 miles). Add these 248.83 miles to the distance between the Mont-Saint Michel and Saint Michael's Mount and you get the distance between the Mont Saint-Michel and Skellig Michael.

My feeling is that Durham is connected to all these places. Also, if you draw a line from Durham Cathedral to Saint Michael's Mount on Google Earth, it goes straight through Lundy. And the Skellig - Durham line goes through the historic centre of Dublin, through Trinity College. The whole structure, from Durham to the three Michael Mounts, via Lundy and Thornborough is quite incredible.

In almost all the photos I've looked at it's hard to get a sense of the height of the Mound . In the earlier pictures, it's much clearer, and better still in drawings.

### 3s and 4s

The numbers 7, 36, and 24 come up again and again, in various configurations, in relation to Stonehenge, Lundy, Avebury, the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael’s Mount. The second longest side of Robin Heath’s lunation triangle, the one that links Stonehenge and Lundy, is 24 x 36/7 miles long, or 24 ltu. John Michell points out (on page 74) that the base side of the lunation triangle between Stonehenge and Lundy is 360/7 miles long, and if its projected north to the ‘to its natural terminus at Cape Wrath in the far north-west of Scotland, its length is 3600/7 or a hundred units of 36/7’

This is all pretty amazing. You could say that the fraction 36/7 is a perfect marriage of sun and moon, 36 being 1/10th of 360, the number of degrees in a circle, and close to the number of days in a year, and 7 being the number of days in a week, and about a quarter of a lunation. It’s possible that fractions were used as easy to work with approximations in some calendar or geometrical calculations, and then possibly corrections added at a later stage. Perhaps that is why a circle is divided into 360 parts, not 365.242199 parts – simply for ease of use, and of course, 360 is easier to divide by 6, 18, 24, etc.

Stonehenge to the two Michael Mounts is 176.3 miles long, or 24 / 7 x 36 / 7, or 24/7 ltu.

and there are 24 x 36/7 miles between Stonehenge and Lundy, or 24 ltu. And 19 comes up in relation to the Metonic cycle of the moon, and in the lunar fraction 7/19

They can all be brought back to the numbers 3 and 4.

3 + 4 = 7

3 x 4 = 12

3 x 3 x 4 = 36

(3 + 3) x 4 = 24

(4 x 4) + 3 = 19

So you can also think of the bigger numbers mentioned above in this way:

For example (3 + 3) x 4 / (3 + 4) x (3 x 3 x 4) / (3 + 4) = 17.632653

3 x 3 x 4 / (3 + 4) x (3 + 3) x 4 = 123.42857

4 x 3 x 3 x 4 / (3 + 4) = 20.57142857 (just shy of 20.614)

These numbers, or ten times these numbers, correspond to measurements in miles between some of the points we’ve looked at.

Of course, the 4 can be substituted by 2x2 or 2+2, so that you are dealing only with 3s and 2s, rather than 3s and 4s.

And to go back to the lunar cycle figures, Robin Heath gives his unit of length, the Astronomical Megalithic Yard or AMY, the value of 2.71542857 feet. This figure is derived from the length in days of one lunation divided by the number of days difference between the solar and lunar year. 29.53059 / 10.875119 = 2.71542857

Expressed in 3s and 4s, this becomes close to: ((4 x 4) + 3) / (3 + 4)) + (4+4) / (3+4) / 1000

Also, the value in miles of the distance between Lundy and Stonehenge, 123.4 miles could also be seen as close to 1/81 x 10,000, and 81 is of course 3x3x3x3.

1/81 x 10,000 = 123.456789.

And also, this Lundy Stonehenge distance is very close to 2 / phi x 100.

2 / 1.618 x 100 = 123.6

As a result, you could think of the Stonehenge - Michael Mount distance in miles as being very close to 2 / phi x 1,000 / 7.

2 / 1.618 x 1,000 / 7 = 176.5848

Robin Heath notes that if the polar axis is 3,9495/7 miles, as was taken in ancient geodesy, then this figure becomes 7,680,000 AMY, which is also 212 x 3 x 54. Or it can be expressed as 28 x 3 x 1,000. (See page 33 in *The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth*.)

This can also be expressed in 3s and 4s, as (3 + 4) x 4 x 3 x 1,000.

“That such an exact value should define the Earth’s principle dimensions, from a unit derived from the lunation cycle, a time cycle, is both deeply satisfying and profoundly mysterious to a cosmologist, and exciting for any researcher into megalithic culture”.

The moon’s radius can also be expressed by an amazing number in AMY: it is 1,080 miles, or 2,100,000 AMY

This can be expressed in 3s and 4s as (3+4) x 3 x 10,000 AMY and 3 x 4 x 3 x 3 x 10 miles.

And the ratio between earth and lunar radiuses (radii?) is therefore 210:768

Or 256 / 70 which is 4x4x4x4 / (3+4) x 10

When the people of North-West Europe included the numbers 3 and 4 into their symbols and objects thousands of years ago, did this in fact betray an impressive knowledge of mathematics and geometry, especially in relation to the earth’s size and time cycles? Even if this knowledge had been lost or a secret known only by druids, it may have been the basis of a fetish of the numbers three and four, which comes up in religious stories, myths and jewellery from Celtic and pre-Celtic Europe. Or maybe it's just that a year has four seasons, and it takes three of them for a baby to grow in a womb. The moon has three visible phases and one invisible. The fraction 3/4 is the link.

The number 3 was definitely sacred in the ancient world - or at least 3 as part of 1, 1 as 3. In Ireland, for example, there are several triple goddesses, such as Brid, the springtime and fertility goddess, and the Morrigan, sometimes referred to as 'the three Morrígna'. The best known of these sisters is Macha, who was sometimes called *Grian Banchure*, the "Sun of Womanfolk".

Sometimes the Morrigan are the sisters of three other Irish goddesses, Ériu, Banba and Fódla.

These goddess are three, sometimes one, or perhaps both three and one. Is the Morrigan, for example, one goddess with three aspects, or three separate goddesses? When Saint Patrick wanted to convert people to his beliefs, he emphasised the amazing nature of the number three, the Holy Trinity. My guess is that this was nothing new to the pre-Christians, and that Patrick, far from presenting a new idea, was repackaging an already common belief, and saying we Christians love the number three too, so we can't be all that bad. And elsewhere in the Ancient world, there are many triple goddesses, from the Norse world to Greece, Rome to India, Egypt to Mesapotamia. Many of these are mother goddesses, and perhaps there is a link to the 3 x 3 lunations of a human gestation, or three of the four seasons.

Some of these triple goddesses are linked to the moon, and this again can be interpreted as the three phases of each lunar month: the waxing moon, the full moon, and the waning moon (not counting the new moon, of course, when it's invisible to us). Apollo's twin sister Artemis, both of whom have temples on the Michael axis, is one of three moon goddesses. Artemis stands for the young moon, the maiden, and the other two represent later stages in a lunation (or a human life): Selene is the mother and Hecate is the older lady.

Sometimes Artemis is also seen as one of three eternal virgin goddesses, thee other two being Athena and Hestia.

Sometimes three goddesses are linked to fate, such as the three Norns in Norse mythology, or the Fates, in Greece, who were three very old women who spin, assign and cut the threads of human destiny.

Plato too was inclined to split things into three parts, such as the soul, and these three parts can be mirrored in the world by dividing things such as society into three also These three parts of the soul are reason, spirit and appetite, and they correspond to what Plato sees as three classes of society. When each of these fulfils its function without interfering with the other two, then you have something Plato calls justice, or *dikaiosyne* - whether you're referring to society or to the soul, it's the same concept. The first part of the soul is reason, or logos, and this is all about trying to figure out what in the world is true or real. The second part is spirit, *thymoeides, *and this might mean anger or temper, or indignation, or even the courage to be good. The third part, appetite or *epithymetikon, *is all about bodily needs and desires. For Plato, justice can only happen when the logos is in charge.

The Platonist thinkers of the middle ages must have been pleased to know that the Greeks valued the number three like them, as they held in very high esteem the idea of the Holy Trinity, whereby god is one, but also three, three co-eternal and consubstantial persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

By one way or another, the number three has managed to keep its high status through the centuries.

### The number 864

The Lundy- Stonehenge distance is 864 / 7 miles long. This was pointed out by Robin Heath and John Michell. 864 is also 24 x 36. By the same token, you could say Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel is 864 / 49 miles, or 864 / (7x7).

The number 864 pops up again and again, in very interesting ways.

864 x 22 is 19,008. This is the number which comes up when converting feet to AMY: 1 AMY is 19.008 / 7 feet. And 19.008 / 6 is 3.168, a number common in sacred circles.

So 3.168 could be written as 864 x 22 / 6, and 1 AMY could be written as 864 x 22 / 7 feet.

One of the historically used values for pi, which I learnt from Robin Heath’s book, was 864 / 275

You can get the number 176.363 again, in this way:

(√864) x 6 = 176.363

864 / 6 = 144 so you could say:

122 x 6 / (52 x 11) = 3.141818

If pi can be approximated to 864 / 275, then this can be written as (36 x 24) / (5 x 5 x 11). The distance between the Mont Saint-Michel and Stonehenge can be written as (360 x 24) / (7 x 7). So it follows that pi x (5 x 5 x 11) / (7 x 7) x 10 = 176.3143. So the distance between Mont Saint-Michel and Stonehenge in miles is roughly 3.1416 x 275 / 49, or pi x (5 x 5 x 11) / (7 x 7).

And since the Stonehnege - Mont Saint-Michel distance in miles times 7 divided by 10 gives us the Stonehenge - Lundy distance, then Stonehenge - Lundy in miles is

3.1416 x 5 x 5 x 11 x 7 / 7 x 7 , or 3.1416 x 5 x 5 x 11 / 7, which is 3.1416 x 275 / 7

So the number 864 was connected to pi, which was equated to 864 / 275 (among other fractions, such as 22/7 and 25/8), and to the number of miles between Stonehenge and the Mont Saint-Michel, 864 / 49 x 10 is 176.32653. You could say then that Mont Saint-Michel, Saint Michael's Mount, and Lundy are in their relation to Stonehenge, and in some cases to each other, connected to pi itself, and the foundations of geometry.

These are of course approximations of π. Did ancient mathematicians use approximations for practical purposes, making adjustments every so often to compensate for errors? Did they, perhaps, consider √864 = 29.3939 as a rough approximation of the length in days of one lunation (exact value: 29.5301 days). If so, perhaps they might have thought of twelve lunations as (12 x √864) + (√864 /18) = 354.3595

It’s still not exact, as twelve lunations are 354.3612 days, but it’s quite close. (12 x 29.5301 = 354.3612)

176.3 x 2 = 352.6, which is quite close to 354.3612

If the fraction 864/275 was used as an approximation of pi, perhaps the number 864 might have been, in that respect, considered special – partly because it is the product of 24 and 36, partly because the root of this number is close to the value in days of one lunation. Who knows. It's all conjecture.

While I was reading about some dimensions at Giza and the scale of the Great pyramid, compared to the actual dimensions of our planet, which is 1:432,000, I suddenly realised that of course 432 is 864 / 2.

432 is a really important number at Giza. When I looked into it a little bit more, I found some stuff about 432 in other places that was quite interesting, for example 432 x 60 = 25,920, which is close in years to the value of a precessional cycle.

25,920 / 864 = 30

So this makes 864 into what Graham Hancock calls a 'precessional number', whereby it is a multiple of the grand total of years estimated to be in this long cycle.

So,

and anything at latitude 51.84? well, 51.84 x 10 / 6 is 86.4.....

And, to go back to 864, the diameter of the sun is close to 864,000 miles, and the moon's diameter is close to 432 x 5 miles, or 2160 miles.

Also, I found that the square root of 864 can be used as a common denominator for 205.757 and 176.363:

(√864 ) x 6 = 176.363

(√864) x 7= 205.757

The actual distance, centre to centre, between the Mont Saint Michel and Saint Michael's Mount is 206.14 miles ( just under half a mile more than 205.757).

We have Lundy, Stonehenge, Saint Michael's Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel all connected in some way to the number 864, which itself is connected to pi, and to 24 and 36, two numbers central to our calendar. And 864 could be considered a lunar number in that it could be used to calculate a lunar year in days. (12 x √864) + (√864 /18) = 354.3595). So if we join up the dots between Stonehenge and the two Michael Mounts, we have a triangle with two sides worth 6 and one worth 7. Oh and 176.3265 / 3.1416 = 56.12635, and 56 is the number of postholes in the Aubrey circle at Stonehenge.

### The Stonehenge-Michael triangle

So we have a 6:6:7 triangle between Stonehenge and the two Michael Mounts. If we consider it in this way, we are using a unit of measurement worth roughly the value of one lunation in days, converted to miles, or (√864) miles. There are six of these units of (√864) miles between the Mont Saint-Michel and Stonehenge, and another six between Stonehenge and Saint Michael’s Mount, so twelve in all. It is like a terrestrial expression of twelve lunations, drawn up between the two now sea-locked mounds and Salisbury plain. Furthermore, if you add the remaining seven units of (√864) miles to the twelve we just mentioned, you get 19. A 6:6:7 triangle has a perimeter of 19, which is the number of years in a Metonic cycle.

Also, 6 x 6 is 36, and there are 365.242199 days in a year, so you could say that 6 is a solar number. 7 is closer to the moon cycle, as there are roughly four weeks of seven days in a lunar month. So the numbers 6 and 7 reflect something of the yearly calendar, in that solar and lunar numbers are combined.

It’s possible to divide the lengths of the sides of this triangle by other integer numbers: you can consider its sides as 28 and 24, or 56 and 48, or as we've already seen, 7 and 6, using units of 7.3458 miles, 3.6729 miles, or 5.71428 LTU.

176.3 / 24 = 7.3458

205.7 / 28 = 7.3464

176.3 / 48 = 3.6729

205.7 / 56 = 3.6732

34.2857 / 6 = 5.71428

40 / 7 = 5.71428

1 AMY = 19,008 / 7 feet = 2.715428 feet = 0.0005142856 miles = 36 / 70,000 miles

Lundy Stonehenge = 24 LTU = 240,000 AMY

(In LTU, the dimensions of the triangle between the two Michael Mounts and Stonehenge is roughly 240/7 LTU and 40 LTU).

28 x 2 is 56, and this is the number of stones in the Aubrey circle at Stonehenge, 28 is the number of markers needed to make an eclipse predicting calendar, and 56 is better again.

So you could interpret this triangle as being compatible with eclipse prediction, in the way that the stones of the Aubrey circle can be used.

What about the 6/7 ratio between its longer and shorter sides?

And the height of the triangle is 143 miles. This is very close to 176.3 x phi / 2.

143 x 2 = 286

286 / 1.618 = 176.76143

So what is the actual angle of our triangle, with its sides of 176.3265 and 206.14? The base angle is 54.2295, times two this is 108.45892, so the top angle is 71.54188. The exact height of the triangle is 143.0651. 176.3265 x 1.618 / 2 = 142.6481. This is 0.583 mile short of the actual measurement of the height of this triangle.

This last figure is very close to 1,000/7 = 142.857

and we've seen the fraction 10/7 before in terms of the connection between the Stonehenge - Lundy line and the Stonehenge - Michael mount lines. Stonehenge - Lundy / 7 x 10 = Stonehenge - Michael mounts. So our triangle has a height which is 0.2 miles off being 1,000 / 7 miles long. Also, we've seen that 1 AMY is 19.008 / 7 feet, and 1 LTU is 10,000 AMY or 190,080 / 7 feet. And since the AMY is a unit worth 19.008 / 7 feet, you can consider Stonehenge to Lundy as 240 / 7 x 19,008 feet, and since the lunation triangle unit is 1/7th of this distance, the LTU is also 240 / 49 x 19,008 feet, or 93,100.408 feet, which is 17.63265 miles. So it seems that dividing things by 7 is a trend.. and you could say that

(Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel) x (Stonehenge - midpoint between the two Michael Mounts) divided by 200 is roughly equal to Stonehenge - Lundy.

176.326 x 143 / 200 = 126.07309

I think it's interesting that 142.6481 is very close to 1,000/7 , which is 142.857, because 176.3 / 10 x 7 is 123.41: the Lundy Stonehenge and Stonehenge Michael mount distances are linked by a 10 / 7 fraction, and the height of the would be golden triangle to fit Stonehenge, the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael's Mount is very close to 1,000 / 7 miles.

The square root of 206.14 times 10 is 143.57576.

This means that the distance between Saint Michael's Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel, 206.14 miles, is linked to the distance between Stonehenge and the midpoint between these two Michael Mounts, 143.11 miles, because the value in miles of the former is close to the square of the latter, divided by 100.

Can the Stonehenge - Michael triangle be a fifth part of a giant pentagon across the land?

If the Stonehenge - Michael triangle were a perfect golden triangle, then the base angle would be 52 degrees and the top angle 72.

So if the long side of a golden isosceles triangle is 176.3265 miles, then, with a base angle of 54, the height would be 142.6511 miles, and the base 207.2842 miles. This is very close to the actual dimensions of our triangle (143 miles and 206.14 miles) but not quite exact.

A pentagon is made up of five triangles with base angles of 54 degrees. The Stonehenge - Michael Triangle has base angles of 54.2295. If we reduce that slightly to 54, and reduce the length of the base, then it might work. But even reducing one of the lengths by a mile or so to make it fit into a pentagon would result in a structure that didn't fit with the main three points: the Michael mounts and Stonehenge. To make a really precise pentagon, the height of the isosceles triangle would have to be 176.3265 x 1.618 / 2 = 142.6481. You have to multiply the longer sides of the isosceles triangle by phi and then divide by 2.

I've drawn a pentagon here, but it can only work if Stonehenge itself is not the centre, but a point 0.583 miles down the road from Stonehenge, to the South East, to start a line to the midpoint between the two Michael mounts that's 142.6481 miles long. (see below)

The Stonehenge Michael triangle is not quite a golden triangle, where the height is worth the side multiplied by phi and divided by 2, but it's very close, the gold a little tarnished by imprecision. A pentagon to fit the two Michael Mounts and Stonehenge doesn't quite work unless the centre is moved slightly to the South of Stonehenge. Even so, I think it's still worth thinking about the possibility that Stonehenge was placed where it is in relation to these two Michael mounts so as to create part of a pentagon. Also of note is the fact that there is one other place at least which is, enigmatically, the same distance from Stonehenge as the two Michael Mounts, and that's Rouen Cathedral, and the abbey and church of St Ouen. These two churches are on a circle drawn from Stonehenge which passes through the two Michael mounts, but not on the pentagon with Saint Michael's Mount - Mont Saint-Michel for a side.

The circle centered precisely on Stonehenge that runs through Saint Michael's Mount, the Mont Saint-Michel and Rouen Cathedral also goes through the grounds of a church called Saint Mary's Church Ashby near Lowestoft in East Anglia.

** **

This was originally a Norman church, built in 1220. There may have been something here earlier, as the village of Ashby Folville is noted in the Doomsday book of 1086. In any case, the connection with the Normans and the XXIIth and XXIIIth centuries remain. I think this stained glass window of Mary is stunningly beautiful. It's also very interesting in that there are seven stars in her halo. Like a circle divided into 7 (unequal) parts, 360 / 7, the fraction related to the Astronomical Megalithic Yard. The layout of the stars is not unlike the layout of Washington DC, in fact, or the tree of life.

The circle from Stonehenge also goes past a church dedicated to Saint Michael south of Leeds, called St Michael's Church East Ardsley. This church is less than a mile from the North - South line that runs from Durham Cathedral through Thornborough Henge, to the Mont Saint-Michel. (Incidentally, this line also goes through Leeds)

Slightly to the West there's a church dedicated to the Virgin, another beautiful Norman church called Saint Mary's Woodkirk (Wooden Church). It used to be a cell of the nearby Nostell Priory (not pictured above, slightly to the South - East), on the grounds of which is a church dedicated to both Saint Michael and Saint Mary, as well as a very weird looking Obelisk Lodge, which points to links with Egypt and Freemasonry.

The circle also passes through Angelsey.

The 143 miles that run between Stonehenge and the midpoint between the two Michael Mounts passes just by this rock formation: Pulpit Rock. The name is as intriguing as the shape of the rock.

There are two things that make Robin Heath’s lunation triangle special. One is that you can find a scaled down replica at Stonehenge itself, in the shape of a rectangle, the famous station stone rectangle. The other is that you can use this triangle to actually predict eclipses.

There’s nothing to stop you from drawing an isosceles triangle between Stonehenge and the two Michael mounts, but does it correspond to anything on the ground at Stonehenge?

The station stone rectangle is the shape drawn between four stones inside the henge, on the perimeter of the Aubrey circle, outside the stone circle. The triangle that results from bissecting it diagonally is exactly 2,500 times smaller than the Stonehenge - Lundy - Preseli triangle. Is there any shape that is exactly 2,500 times smaller than the Stonehenge - Michael mounts triangle on the ground at Stonehenge ? The dimensions of the Stonehenge Michael Mount triangle are 176.3 and 206.14 miles. What would the dimensions of a corresponding triangle on the ground at Stonehenge be, to the same scale, i.e. 2,500 times smaller?

176.3265 miles are 931,003.92 feet. Divided by 2,500, that’s 931,003.92 / 2,500 = 372.401568 feet long.

This is an interesting number, close to 2 x 36 x 36 / 7 + 24/10 =372.6857.

Centre to centre, the measurement between the two Michael Mounts is 206.14 miles. Converted to feet and divided by 2,500:

206.14 x 8 x 660 / 2,500 = 435.36768

So we’re looking for something that’s 372.4 feet, to match the two short sides of the triangle, and 434 or 435 feet to match the longer side of the triangle.

As it happens, the causeway leading up to the stone circle, to the North-East is 372 feet wide. Also, the outer extremity of the ditch gives a diameter of 374.5833 feet according to Petrie, and an inner diameter of 337.0833. So the width of the causeway is 2,500 times smaller than the distance between Stonehenge and the two Michael Mounts.

(Elsewhere, at The Great Circle at Stanton Drew, six miles south of Bristol, consisting of 36 standing stones, Alexander Thom measured the diameter to be 372.25 feet wide).

On the Sarsen circle, which is 316.8 feet in circumference, every two degrees of the 360 degrees of the circle are 1.76 feet apart (316.8 / 1.76 = 180).

1.76 is of course roughly 1/100 of the number of miles between Stonehenge and the two Michael Mounts. 176.3 miles are 930,864 feet. Divide this by 1.76 and you get 528,900, which is 176.3 x 3,000. Divide this by 1.763 and you get exactly 528,000.(11 x 1000 x 48)

The number 316.8 comes up twice at Stonehenge: it is the number of feet in the mean circumference of the sarsen circle, but 31.68 feet is also the distance between each of the Aubrey holes.

Robin Heath puts forward the AMY as 19.008 / 7 feet.

“The AMY is 19.008 / 7 feet, and 19.008 is 6 x 3.168. Traditionally 3168 is a number identified with the circumference of sacred temples. For example, at Stonehenge, 316.8 feet is the mean circumference of the sarsen circle, and each pair of Aubrey holes is separated by 31.68 feet. 2.71542857 feet is 6/7 of 3.168, demonstrating the AMY’s connection with sacred geometry.”

(*The Lost Science of Measuring The Earth*, page 33)

The 6/7 ratio is the link between one AMY and a unit of measurement at Stonehenge. 2.71542857 x 6 / 7 = 3.168. We have already come across a 6/7 ratio in our Michael triangle: the distance between the two Michael Mounts is 6/7 the distance between each Michael Mount and Stonehenge. 176.3 x 7 / 6 = 205.683.

So you might equate the Michael Mount distance with the AMY and the Michael Stonehenge distance with the 3.168 unit.

And 3.168 / 18 is 176. You might therefore say that the AMY is not only derived from the lunar cycle, but also from the line between the two Michael Mounts: there are 40 KAMY between them. And 1 AMY x 7/6 = 3.168.

40 x 7/6 = 126.7199

(That’s the distance between Stonehenge and Canterbury. (126.67 miles) )

So is there anything on the ground at Stonehenge which is 40 AMY long, 108.6171428 feet, or 40 x 3.168 = 126.72 feet?

The sarsen circle is 108 feet diameter.

The 56 holes of the Aubrey circle have been proven by the astronomers Gerald Hawkins and Fred Hoyle to have been potentially used to predict eclipses.

The points where the paths of the sun and the moon appear to cross are called nodes. The moon’s orbit is elliptical and rotates slowly around the earth. If you place three markers on three holes side by side and move them by 3 places every year around the 56 holes in the circle, you can replicate this movement. 56 / 3 is 18.6667, and it takes 18.61 years for the Sun and Moon to complete one revolution.

There must be a moon marker, moved anti clockwise by two holes every day, so that it goes once round the entire circle every 28 days, thus replicating the sidereal month of 27.3 days. (the moon’s orbit round the Earth)

There must be a sun marker too, moved two holes anti-clockwise every 13 days, so that one full revolution of the circle is made in 364 days, which represents the tropical year of 365.25 days.

To compensate for the inaccuracies, extra movements of these markers can be made. For example, the sun marker is moved an extra hole further for three years, on the winter solstice, and 2 spaces further every fourth year, to replicate the 365.25 days in a year. By this constant motion of the markers, the paths of the sun and moon can be followed and eclipses anticipated.

In short, a moving model of the sun and moon, moved to precise instructions, can help keep track of the paths of sun and moon. At play are the 27.3 day cycle of the moon and the 365.25 day cycle of the sun. These are rounded up to 28 and down to 364, then corrected at a later stage. The beauty of these numbers is that 364 can be divided into 28 to make an integer number, 13.

364 is 4 x 13 x 7 and 28 is 4 x 7

So these numbers are key to understanding prehistoric attempts to follow the course of the sun and moon’s paths.

To go back to our Michael Stonehenge triangle, the longer side seems to reflect the numbers 28 or 56 of the Aubrey circle.

And one last observation: the Michael Mount Stonehenge triangle is a 5:5:6 triangle and the Station Stone rectangle is made up to two 5 x 6 rectangles.

### So the Michael triangle is linked to the sun and moon?

I wanted to see if the number of miles between the two Michael Mounts and Stonehenge had any direct numerical link to the solar and lunar cycles. I found something, using the golden number, the number of days in a year, and the distance in miles between the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael’s Mount: The solar year is 365.242199 days long, and this figure can be divided by twenty and then squared and divided by the golden number to make a number which matches the distance in miles between the two Michael Mounts.

365.242 / 20 = 18.2621

18.26212 = 333.504296

333.504296 / phi = 206.1213

I have been using a distance of 206.14 miles between the two mounts, but 206.12 works perfectly well.

So there is a mathematical connection between the distance between Saint Michael's Mount and Mont Saint-Michel and the length of a solar year.

What about the lunar year? If you divide the number of days in one lunation by the golden number, then square it and divide it by the golden number a second time, you also get a figure which can be measured in miles between the two Michael Mounts.

29.53059 / phi = 18.25129

18.251292 = 333.1096

333.1096/ phi = 205.8774

So, you could express the distance in miles between Saint Michael’s Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel as:

(1 lunation in days/phi) squared x 1 / phi

(This website doesn't allow for superscript font, so I can't write out the equations properly)

And also as:

(solar year in days/20) squared x 1 / phi

This also shows a direct (though not exact) link between the solar and lunar cycles and phi.

solar year in days / 20 almost equal to 1 lunation in days / phi

You could also define the AMY directly in relation to the lunar or solar cycles:** **

1 AMY = (1 lunation in days / phi) squared / phi / 40.0301

1 AMY = (1 year in days / 20) squared / phi / 40.079

The ratio between twelve lunations and a year.

I also found that if you divide the length of a solar year in days by the number of days in twelve lunations, 365.242199 by (12 x 29.53), you get a number that can yield some interesting things.

365.242199 / (12 x 29.53) = 1.0307095

Multiply 1.0307095 by 200 and you get 206.14190084

This is exactly the number of miles between Saint Michael’s Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel, centre to centre. There are 200 units of 1.0307095 miles between them, or 100 units of 2.061419 miles.

Is that the reason why this section of the Michael line was significant to people – if indeed it was significant at all - centuries or millennia ago?

206.14190084 x 1.618 = 333.53759

This is very close to (365.242199 / 20)squared = 18.2621 squared = 333.5046598

Also we have seen that 29.53 / 1.618 = 18.250927

And the square of this number is 333.09633

This means that the distance in miles between the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael’s Mount times phi is almost exactly the number of days in a year divided by twenty, squared. It’s also almost exactly the same as one lunation in days divided by phi. So the ratio between a year and twelve lunations times two hundred is almost the same as the number of days in a year divided by twenty and then squared, which is also almost exactly the number of days in one lunation divided by phi.

Assuming we take the margin of error to be acceptable, and allow this ‘almost equals’ to be ‘equals’ for practical purposes, then we have a link between the ratio between a solar year and a lunar year, the distance in miles between Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael's Mount (and by extension Skellig Michael too, as it is a tenth of that distance squared), one twentieth part of a solar year which is then squared, and one lunation divided by phi.

(Solar year / 12 lunations) x 200 = distance in miles between Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael’s Mount

If we go farther afield to Durham and Skellig Michael, there are also numerical connections.

(Solar year / 12 lunations x 20)2 = distance in miles between Durham Cathedral and Skellig Michael, and between Durham Cathedral and the Mont Saint -Michel

Solar year / 12 lunations x 200 x phi= (solar year / 19.99901)2

which is very close to (1 lunation / phi) squared

### Connection to Earth's circumference and radius

The Astronomical Megalithic Yard is defined by Heath as 19.008 / 7 feet, or 2.71542857 feet (19.008 is 6 x 3.168). The ancient value recognised by various researchers such as Robin Heath for the meridian circumference of the earth is 24,883.2 miles. This figure is also related to Pi and a number close to 3168.The Astronomical Megalithic Yard is a unit derived from the solar and lunar cycles - Robin Heath and John Michell show this convincingly in The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth. But I think it might also be derived from the meridian circumference of the Earth.

That's because

3168.227423 x (25 Pi) = 24,883.2

and 3.168227423 x 6 / 7 = 2.7156235

1 Astronomical Megalithic Yard is 2.7156235 feet.

There are 123 miles, which can be understood as 36 x 24 / 7 miles, which works out as

123.42857 miles, between Lundy and Stonehenge or 651702.85712 feet, which are 239,982.77 AMY, or close to 240,000 AMY.

1 AMY = 6 x 24,883.2 / (25 x 3.1416 x 7x 100) feet

Stonehenge - Lundy:

=240,000 x 6 x 24,883.2 / (25 x 3.1416 x 7 x 100) feet

= (240,000 / 25) x (6 / 7) x (24,883.2 / 100 x 3.1416)

= (240 x 6 x 24,883.2) / (25 x 7 x 3.1416 )

= (24 / 25) x (6/7) x (24883.2 / 3.1416) feet

= (24 / 25) x (6/7) x (24883.2 / 3.1416) x 660 x 8 miles

Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel:

= (24 / 25) x (60/49) x (24883.2 / 3.1416) x 100 feet

A winter Phi day sunrise from Saint Michael's Mount is approximately 117.52° .

(24 / 25) x (60/49 ) x 10 = 117.5510204081633

Mont Saint-Michel - Saint Michael's Mount:

= (24 / 25) x (1/7) x (24,883.2 / 3.1416) x 100 feet

The meridian diameter of the earth is = 24,883.2 / 3.1416 miles = 7,920.55 miles

if Mont Saint-Michel - Saint Michael's Mount = (24 / 25) x (1/7) x (24,883.2 / 3.1416) x 100 feet, then

Mont Saint-Michel - Saint Michael's Mount = meridian diameter x (24 / 25) x (1/7) x 100 x 5280 miles

Stonehenge - Mont Saint-Michel = meridian diameter x (24 / 25) x (6/49) x 100 x 5280 miles

Also, the distance in miles between the Mont Saint-Michel and Saint Michael's Mount, 206.14, when multiplied by pi, makes 647.609424, which is very close to the value of the Lundy Stonehenge distance in feet.

### Perhaps Stonehenge was placed where it is in relation to the two Michael Mounts (as well as Lundy)

I began to imagine a group of surveyors trying to come up with a place to locate an important centre, perhaps of scientific or religious significance, somewhere in north west Europe. The area would already be well mapped and they are well versed in astronomy.

They choose the two Michael mounts, the one in Normandy, the other in Cornwall, on the basis of their alignment towards the sun’s path and the number of miles between the two places. It's hard to say whether the two Michael mounts are islands yet - or when the surveyors first started their planning.

These two rocks, then, are our starting point. We draw a line of all the points equidistant from them. The centre will be placed somewhere along this line.

We move on to the island of Lundy – though it too probably became an island only in around 7,000 or 8,000 B.C.E.. We draw a line from its centre due east, and place a pin where this line meets the first. There is another island up North, Lindisfarne, ( though also connected to dry land till about 7,000 or 8,000 B.C.E.) which is pretty much directly north of this point. Another line is drawn between Lindisfarne and the intersection of the two previous lines, due south.

Or perhaps we draw a line of all the points equidistant from the two Michael mounts. Then we decide on a measurement of 240/7 x 36/7 miles (176.363 is also 24 x 36 / √24) and place a point on this line at exactly this distance from each mount. It just so happens that due east is Lundy, due north is Lindisfarne.

Or we pick a distance from the two mounds that will allow Lundy to be exactly due East of our centre, which must therefore be 240/7 x 36/7 miles. This method would be possible even if Lundy and Lindisfarne had not become islands yet, so going way back. It focuses principally on high places, rocks and mounds, not so much islands at all, and on number and geometry.

We have put in place what we need to create an isosceles triangle, or a lunate like Leonardo's. Now it’s down to geometry and heavenly bodies. We create a triangle which is quite special. A line drawn from Stonehenge down through the middle of the Michael line is connected to the two shorter sides of the triangle by the golden number and 2.

Stonehenge to the midpoint between Saint Michael’s Mount and Mont Saint-Michel: 143.12 miles

Stonehenge to Mont Saint-Michel: 176.3 miles

143.1 / 1.618 x 2 = 176.88

One last way in which to link the solar and lunar cycles with the number of miles between Saint Michael’s Mount and the Mont Saint-Michel: the ratio between twelve lunations and a solar year times two hundred is very close to the number of miles between these two places.

365.242199 / 354.367 x 200 = 206.1378

We also create a triangle divisible into 19 equal parts, to echo the Metonic cycle, and the two equal lengths of the triangle more or less reflect the lunar cycle in days. 176.3 / 29.53 = 5.9702, and so these sides are close to 6 segments of 29.53 miles.

Of course, there is no way of knowing whether or not people in the past thought these two places were significant because they were linked by this particular number of miles. But I think there are interesting links to be made, and we can only speculate.

Another look at the two Michael lines in relation to these findings. The English Michael line goes through Avebury. Why? The European line is very long, going all the way to Israel, and perhaps beyond. The connection between Stonehenge and the two Michael Mounts puts a different spin on the Michael lines.

Oh, and Robin Heath mentions in his book on Stonehenge that the Bluestone location in the Preseli Hills is part of an alignment between Stonehenge and ... the pyramids at Giza.

Stonehenge - Great Pyramid 2,236.15 miles 118.23 °

Hmm, that's very similar to the azimuth of the European Michael line....

Perhaps it's time to look further along these two Michael lines.

Starting with Skellig Michael. It too is linked by number to these places.