tangent matrix numbers

There is no design. Fine tuning? 99.99999999999% of the universe is fatal to life, fine tuned my arse.

How do you know "life" is all meat bags like us? 

The ONLY evidence available, what do you have?

An open mind.

So nothing then. That's just hunky dory.

You can only see what's in front of your face. Wake up.

Yes, that's what eyes do, they see things in front of our faces. If it isn't in front of our face, then we probably can't see it or it simply isn't there.

Expand your horizons Goldie.

It's actually you Jane who needs to expand their horizons, not me. Your knowledge and understanding of the world around you is more backwards than it is abysmal. You rely on magical explanations where none exist rather than trying to understand how things really work.

I would pity you and your closed mind, but your staunch determination to bury your head in the sand is your own doing. But I still pity you, a little.

One would suppose that the generation of information is limitless.

However the importance of information is probably dictated by the necessity of it's function.

And you know he was a "fraudster", how?

Because he was exposed as one by folks who weren't ignorant and gullible and actually knew what they were talking about. One can simply look at this calculations and where he gets his information to see that he's trying to pull the wool over your eyes, which he clearly has done, which is no surprise at all.

Who, exactly? Do you have a source?

You mean, you haven't even done your homework, you didn't even bother to look into Muncks claims? Then, you have the gall to say I have a closed mind? Hilarious. Sec already provided you with sources, but you just ignored them.

Here's just one example....

Carl Munck says about Stonehenge that it comprises of 60 stones at the outer circle and 15 stones in the center. There are today 93 stones, not counting the missing ones. He neglects the other stones or doesn’t even show them in his own made drawing.
He continues by stating that the 60 stones are arranged in a circle, which is true, and then asks if they might knew about 360 degrees. We don’t know that, it could be so, it could not be so. But he then makes a huge jump by making the equation of 360 × 60 = 21,600 without any further knowledge. It is the second grandiose assumption in Munck's theory, but most people might not even recognize it as unrelated assumptions, because they are mathematically ignorant.
Munck then picks the rough latitude of Stonehenge 51°10', which is only correct within one nautical mile.
He makes the division 21,600 ÷ 51 ÷ 10 = 42.35. This division is completely unrelated, but that is masked behind the empty phrase that the ancients spoke a mathematical language, and hints to the idea that we are ignorant. Of course.
The outcome of this division is 42.35". With that he constructs the center latitude of Stonehenge to be 51°10'42.35", which is false. It is 51°10'44". So, he is lying. It’s in fact 51 meters wrong. Munck's "magical" formula is wrong.

Yes, his "code" numbers are wrong, I checked them out on Google Earth. This has nothing to do with the tangents I mentioned in the OP. He is just the first I know to have started to discover the tangent pattern, and found the start of the pattern with tangents .3077 and .72. , and later, 1.73. 

Yes his "code" is wrong, but that doesn't make him a "fraudster" like you say, it just makes one piece of his work wrong. He believed he was getting his information from aliens. I think HE believed that. Being wrong doesn't make a person a liar. 

Or it shows he believed in his work, and was convinced he was right. YOU don't know. You can't see inside the man's mind.

It's not what's in his mind, it was his actions and how he went about fooling the gullible and making money from them.

I wonder why you would want to defend fraudsters and hucksters like Munck, they are basically criminals and you are defending them.

YOU are saying he was trying to "fool" people, I don't think he was. You haven't proven that at all. 

If Brian Green is found to be wrong about string theory, are you going to accuse him of fraud as well?

Greene never made the same clams as Munck. Greene is a scientist who understands the concept of falsification. Munck did not care about falsification, that's why he made money off of the gullible.

Who is that, exactly?

And what proof do they have?

“Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe,” they wrote, some scientists argue that “if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally”.
First among the topics discussed was testability. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, scientists often require that there be an experiment that could, in principle, rule the theory out — or ‘falsify’ it, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper put it in the 1930s. In their article, Ellis and Silk pointed out that in certain areas, some theoretical physicists had strayed from this guiding principle — even arguing for it to be relaxed.
The duo cited string theory as the principal example. The theory replaces elementary particles with infinitesimally thin strings to reconcile the apparently incompatible theories that describe gravity and the quantum world. The strings are too tiny to detect using today’s technology — but some argue that string theory is worth pursuing whether or not experiments will ever be able to measure its effects, simply because it seems to be the ‘right’ solution to many quandaries.

I have already shown you an example of Muncks garbage being wrong, but it seems, like Munck, you will ignore it all in favor of supporting fraudsters like him. How very sad, Jane.

I SAID the code was wrong. THAT DOESNT make him a liar. You havent proven he is a LIAR, which is what the argument is about.

And he isn't wrong about everything.