Referring to your post on 26 Jan 2015, 22:29 and your notion about chess and it's possible influence on Tarot (trionfi are not the topic) I would say that from my point of view you are wrong in all your assumptions and how those 2 could be related.
You cited my opinion about that quite complete so that I don't have to do it again here and at this point.
If you want to know what "C" has to say about that please read (oh I forgot you won't) - or use your search engine.
About the "Scribd-non-incident" concerning fees for downloading FREE documents there I gave the whole procedure as it happens on my (let's say "magical") keyboard in contrast to your "slow connection".
And no. I don't want to amuse myself or anyone with this non-incident.
In fact I find it a little bit sad. So let's just agree that you have a slow connection and I have a magical keyboard.
Anyway anything can happen in this world and who am I to say that something did or didn't?
And please go on with non-reading. That can be quite informative if you do it right. Right?
Well now about earlier than 1717 free masons.
I did point to the link that I gave as an example. 1440 was the date there if you remember and the building was the Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh.
About the Rosslyn Chapel are documentations and films available on-line. You should chose and educate.
You should inform yourself about architecture in medieval times on your own time I'd suggest - in this thread it is only a fringe theme (like Freemasonry and Alchemy and Rosicrucians) - and from your diction I take that you do not know much about those fringe themes.
A good starting point for the connections between cathedrals, Alchemy and Hermeticism (as in Hermes) would be "Le Mystère Des Cathédrales".
There are translations available but it's a delicate subject. And I must warn you Huck:
>> The books are written in a cryptic and erudite manner, replete with Latin and Greek puns, alchemical symbolism, double entendres, and lectures on and in Argot and Cant, all of which SERVE TO KEEP THE CASUAL ( > common ? ) READER IGNORANT. <<
(All caps and bracketed insert by me - citation from the wikipedia link about Fulcanelli.)
You should really take more time between replies and posts. A month maybe. Do not be so hasty because the research you have done for your own purpose in the past doesn't fit the subject here. You have a lot (A LOT) of catching up to do.
I tried to keep the Freemasons out of the equation and tried to keep it strictly VISUAL in my PDF but mikeh and you brought the musirt > musiert > musivisch > Musivisches Pflaster here and so now they are here.
I don't think that many readers here are able (or willing) to keep up with this fringe themes because they didn't look in that direction so far.
In a few months maybe there can be a lightly informed discussion about that but clearly not now. So please hold your horses (Huck especially) and read a bit around. I would think the links that I gave here in thread up to now and in the PDF should keep you busy for some days. Some own research based on those hints added to this time to confirm or to oppose could take a month. Reading and UNDERSTANDING the books involved could take another year. Most people devote decades to them.
So until it will be possible to "discuss" the fringe themes I will keep it strictly VISUAL. The "Falconer" that you Huck brought is very good for that - even if it is not "Tarot" - but related.
You didn't give a source - or did you?. Please do if not.
And you have no opinion about the card and scene there other than that it has a black and white floor? Come on!
The Halliwell Manuscript you refer to with links and all is deemed by Freemasons themselves and some researchers an "Old Charge".
YOU found it on a wikipedia link that deals with "Masonic manuscripts".
Why would you ask ME what makes it "masonic" to ME?
I can assure you that I didn't write the wikipedia article.
I must say that I find your argumentation quite unfounded and twisted. And time consuming.
It seems to be another "Duden-case". If it reads to you like "some normal guild paper" please edit the article on wikipedia with your "opinion" and have a discussion there. Could be for good.
About the old plan for the church (Kölner Dom).
Again you don't give a translation or anything helpful for non-German-reading members! A shame!
This time I will not clean it up for you because it is not helping a bit not even your own strain of thought.
What other conclusion could be made from that plan that REAL masons were magnificent draftsman, perfectly capable of drawing and building true to scale. VERY practical.
Something that can not be said of the Freemasons every time with a clean conscience.
Until you do not have something logical and educated to offer I will not answer to your "freemasonic opinions" anymore.
This reply is in reference to your post on 27 Jan 2015, 09:46, Huck.
What you posted here is another use of the square-grid method.
Here it is not used to magnify a given 2D drawing, but to downsize a living human person so that it fits the size of your "leaf of paper".
When you draw a person lying down you will recognize that the lines that define the body in 3D become "shortened" above all your expectations.
So you use the square-grid for orientation and control.
If you try to do that without the 2 square-grids (1 for observing the body and looking THROUGH it - so it had/has to be transparent and in olden times was made of a frame with nails in it and cord attached to them and by such means forming the square-grid - and the 2nd smaller one drawn directly on your "leaf of paper") you will go wrong in your drawing very fast and the illusion of a stretched out person won't be achieved.
The "leaves of paper" we talk about here are the early historical Tarot cards: "the unbound book of leaves (for kings)".
They do not show very much true 3D - only some kind of perspective but distressed in a way (Le BATELEUR > his table).
How the square grid method is used THERE I explained on the 1st page of this thread on 11 Jan 2015, 18:41.
I cited the pages from "C"'s TRUE TAROT PDF and explained further that nowadays you can do that easily by using Photoshop (or similar programs).
If you would have done that in the 18th century you would have had to copy the black lines of the wood-printed leaf of the card 1 to 1 on a big piece of paper. All of them.
The 1st square grid made of a frame with nails and cord laid directly on the card.
The 2nd square grid with exactly the same size grid drawn on the big piece of paper.
After you have copied the whole card in its exact true size and appearance you would turn for reference to the ladder device that tells you that every card is divided in 3 in height totally identical segments.
If your task is now to "grow" a L'AMOVREVX card where the depicted personas equal Le BATELEUR in bodily height you see that you will have to lengthen your "Ladder-scale" in such a way that the 2 bottom segments cover the whole original card copy with its 3 segment ladder.
Because your square-grids are made of squares (equal in height and width) and you now know how HIGH the new Ladder-scale has to be and you can extrapolate from that how WIDE it must be and go on with preparing the grid for your "up-scaled" L'AMOVREVX and so on...
With Photoshop you can do that in 5 min. With the square-grid-method this should take a day or 2 or more - depending on your drawing- and sketching skills.
And if you wouldn't be given advice (or KNOW about the Ladder) you wouldn't know that there a picture could be hidden AT ALL.
Again I ask you politely Huck not post until I have referred to Mary Greer too (and your comments on it) just for the sake of the reader.
Thanx for understanding! It will take me an hour or 2 to make a picture with "beams" from your magnified version. Thank you for that Huck.