Thanks for doing some of the legwork on that one,
@AlchoPwn, I was getting prepared to do some sums at the start of the post, and coming out in cold sweats at the thought of it by the end...
Even if any of these "Location A is precisely X miles from Location B" ideas
were true (which, as has been pointed out, we can't take as read), it doesn't mean or prove
anything. You can pick as many arbitrary locations as you like and find that some are of equal distance apart as others. Humanity has settled in enough places, for long enough, that you can barely skim a stone without bumping into a monument, megalith or sacred site one way or another, so it stands to reason that some of them will have spurious connections. But correlation isn't evidence.
By what measure is the Great Pyramid the "centre of the land mass on Earth"? That calculation only works (and even then is up for debate) if we believe the Egyptians used the Mercator projection map of the Earth - how and why would the Ancient Egyptians be relying on a model that wouldn't be created for hundreds of years?
Furthermore, the points on latitude and longitude of the Great Pyramid are coincidence - measurements of longitude rely on the Prime Meridian passing through Greenwich. It's an utterly arbitrary value - why would the ancient Egyptians use a system of cartography/measurement that relied on longitude 0 being in Greenwich, no matter how advanced they were?
Things like the Golden Ratio, Pi, etc., are mathematical constants. They're rules. That different cultures, civilisations and societies - particularly those heavily involved in trade and commerce with other countries - would all reflect them in their work one way or another isn't a mystical coincidence, it's inevitable. You don't get complex civilisations without an understanding of mathematics.
You can make
any number sound mystical or magical if you change the rules as you go along. 72 is a magic number? Fine, let's look for instances of 72 - but, wait, for the casing stones you've had to fall back on "72+2". Why not just say 74? Because it doesn't fit Graham Hancock's Magical Numerology, obviously. And if you're happy to fudge the numbers to allow 74 to pass for 72, then why not allow 75, or 68, or 33?
If you add, divide, subtract and play around with numbers enough, you'll settle on your magic ones. It might look impressive at first glance, but again, it's
Maths. Taking one number and finding your significant number within it isn't evidence of some great conspiracy. Especially so when you're happy to fudge measurements, or to subtract, divide or multiply seemingly at random to get to the numbers you want. Keep tweaking and adjusting, or using measurements that would not have been used by the builders of the monuments in question, with no justification as to why you've settled on that measurement, and of course you'll end up with a magic number.
"Highly advanced technology could stimulate human brains and can induce thoughts to people" isn't the kind of statement you can just throw out unsubstantiated. Where's the evidence?
Finally, if there
was a unified advanced civilisation responsible for all of the buildings you mentioned, capable of orchestrating such a vast engineering feat as to dictate the building of disparate monuments across continents to a vaguely defined grand plan, why is there no physical evidence? Why do the building techniques, materials and architectural styles differ so greatly from one to another if they were all the work of one civilisation? And why did they take so long to do it? There's a good 3000 years separating the construction of the Great Pyramid from Angkor Watt, 2000 separating it from the Nazca Lines, and Stonehenge is older still. How do you account for that?
Trying to draw connections between all these sites is just typical of the likes of Hancock in that it lacks any meaningful historical context. Why talk of Angkor Watt as something ancient and mysterious, when it's contemporary to the Cuenca Cathedral in Spain, yet no one's seriously suggesting mysterious or occult origins for Spanish cathedrals, or being aghast that the architects responsible for their construction had a strong enough grasp of mathematics to ensure that the building was structurally sound.