It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Giza and 9/11: A new proof of intent

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Hi all firstly allow me to apologize for allowing myself to be baited by the naysayers and orthodox. As on Ma'at I allowed myself to become embroiled in meaningless banter while allowing them to digress the thread. It will not happen again. So onward we go. Please note that I will totally ignore inflammatory remarks and posts from certain posters and immediately report them to the moderators.

The Giza Pyramids or monuments if you will appear to be haphazard but they nicely form a 9 by 11 rectangle. The meaured sizes are 1417.5 cubits allowing 20.62 inches per cubit by 1732.5 cubits. Click all images for a larger view



Now I have also claimed that The Great Pyramid is an exact image of The Giza Plateau but in a smaller (1 to 5.4) scale. I will post proof of that later but it is to The Great Pyramid that we will now go to show that 9 by 11 on the plateau in our rectangle is no fluke or co-incidnece.

Most who know anything about the pyramids know that the accepted size of The Great Pyramid is base of 440 cubits and height of 280 cubits or if we use 40 as our unit of measure we get 11 (base) by 7 (height) and there most research stops allowing these elements to continue but I have I think come up with something original and it is quite extraordinary. Firstly here is a great image copyright to Gary Osborn of The Great Pyramid to scale. Remember click image below for a larger image.



As I said most researchers, including myself have always used 40 and arrived at 11 by 7 or 1/2 base or 5.5 by 7 in height but I was looking at this image of John Legon and had a thought. Here is the image.



However here were John Legon measurements:



Now the reason what I have discovered has not been found before is because everyone including myself knew that the measurement from the center of The Queen's Chamber to the center of The King's Chamber was 21 cubits and we always used that and it yielded nothing of consequence and then suddenly just the other day I saw this image again and decided to do this to it. I decided to call the distance 22 cubits instead of 21 and things just began to fall into place.



Once we establish the center distances as 22 cubits IT NOW BECOMES OUR BASE UNIT ! So the unit of measure we base everything else on now is the distance (or so I thought) between the centers of The King's and Queen's Chambers and from that one thought comes this.

The base now becomes 198 (220 - 22) and 242 (220 + 22) but it also becomes very cleverly 9 and 11 ! For 198 is 9 x 22 and 242 is 11 x 22. Very clever. Observe ...



But that is just a scratch on the surface for if we measure the distance from where the shafts would exit the pyramid we get a distance also equal to 198 cubits and we have this diagram:



But then we draw a (blue) line joing the two 198 cubit lines and we create a parallelogram Observe what happens when we draw one more line:



Okay let's draw a few more lines and finish an astounding image:



Okay and just a couple more ...



Okay this image also shows us that where the King's Chamber shafts meet is precisely half way between the pyrmaid floor base and a line drawn where the shafts would exit the chamber. Observe ...



Okay seeing everything fit so perfectly I was convinced that the distance between the two centers had to be 22 cubits but the only source I could find was Petrie and this is what he had to say:




The position of the King's Chamber in the Pyramid is defined thus: N. wall at base 330.6 ± .8 S. of centre of Pyramid; S. wall 537.0 ± .8 from centre; E. wall (284.4 ± 20.7) = 305.1 ± 3.0 E. of centre; W. wall 107.7 ± 3.0 W. of centre. Base of walls 1686.3 to 1688.5 ± .6 above pavement; actual floor 1691.4 to 1693.7 ± .6 above pavement; ceiling 1921.6 to 1923.7 ± .6 above pavement.


So from wall to wall divided by two would yield our center distance and here it was ... or so I thought for 330.6 + 537 = 867.6 and divided by two gives us 433.8 inches and given 20.62 inches per cubit we get, according to Petrie, 21.04 cubits and with the allowable error precisely 21 cubits NOT 22. but I was convinced that my design was correct so where was I going wrong and then I saw the light. I once again managed to see again how unbeleiveably clever the builders were and what a great sense of humor they had for I had forgotten the main theme of this thread and a lot of my research and that was 9 and 11 and then the obvious solution revelaed itself to me and that will be for my next installment.

Cheers
Don Barone

edit on 27-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: spelling




posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahatmose

Isn't it true that any area can be divided into "units" to "nicely" make the dimensions 9 by 11?



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I think the point I am making here is that the unit "1" is the distance between centers. The King's Chamber is offset preciely one unit or 22 cubits and thus establishes the 9 by 11 base and the rest of the measurements within the pryamid. Of course anything can be split into 20 units and then give you 9 on one side and 11 on the other but remember The Great Pyramid is showing you where to find that single base unit by off setting The King's Chamber precisely 1/20th of the base.

Cheers
Don Barone



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Well tragically the solution I thought I had did not pan out so we have to figure out why they went 21 cubits instead of 22. Any guesses ?



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I can't help but feel that the ancients purposely built such mathematically precise structures that dwindle our understanding of what technology is really capable of to remind future generations that if we've forgotten how these structures were built then possibly we've forgotten who and what we really are as well as what we are capable of as humans.

I observe the pyramids as a reminder to not take life so seriously and to realize that we are puzzled over our past simply because we have forgotten something important about who and what we are, over-thinking everything about ourselves and the world we've always existed on.

Because of this I believe there is a deep impression left upon those who simply observe ancient structures without applying any form of judgment or prejudice. Newton discovered gravity through this very method of unbiased analysis so there must be some validity to it.

Since you appear to have discovered a link between the pyramids and 9/11 we should further consider how these similarities link to you and your beliefs about the world you live in. Thoughts?

edit on 27-10-2014 by EviLCHiMP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Hi while going through some of my old notes and websites I had found in the past I found my solution in the work of Jin Allison I will post it tomorrow ... no I will post it now. The solution lies in the fact that the shafts do not meet directly in the center of The King's Chamber but precisley 1 cubit south of center and thus gives us the 22 cubits needed to show my diagrams to be true and accurate and very neat and tidy. Here are two diagrams of mine taken directly after Jim Allison's diagram which follows.



then we get this ...



and thanks to Jim Allison for this image which sets it all in place oh so nicely.



Cheers
Don Barone
.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I haven't really got a clue what you are talking about but well done for having a go at this and not just sitting on the couch watching football with a beer in one hand and some cheese whiz in the other. Just out of interest have you ever read any of CT Russel's the divine plan of the ages and other such books, this kind of stuff was all the rage 120 years ago.
BTW I have sent a U2U on a different topic.
edit on 28/10/14 by Cinrad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
i think youre looking wayyyyy into this. good effort and all, but I think its just coincidence



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
A word from Gantenbrink and Upuat ... Click image below for larger image



Cheers
Don

.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: EviLCHiMP
I can't help but feel that the ancients purposely built such mathematically precise structures that dwindle our understanding of what technology is really capable of to remind future generations that if we've forgotten how these structures were built then possibly we've forgotten who and what we really are as well as what we are capable of as humans.


Oh yes... a couple of guys around a camp fire drinking beer laughing their head off at the idea that if they built something that could last the test of time it would totally baffle future generations...

Like it some kind of joke


Korg.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It is all a joke. Did you get the punchline?



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahatmose


Please note that I will totally ignore inflammatory remarks and posts from certain posters and immediately report them to the moderators.
In your last thread you were the one making the inflammatory posts. Everyone has the right to disagree with you. If you can't discuss your own topic without resorting to threats then you shouldn't be here.

Returning to topic, I see you have invoked the work of John Legon, he was big back in the late 80's with his unified site plan theory. Although that is not a stretch as far as theories go, it was recognized fairly early on by Egyptology there was a unified plan at work at Giza. Petrie and Lepsius both noted that the first pyramid was placed to the far edge of the plateau, an indication the builders knew there would be more to follow.

Legon has been criticized too for going overboard with all the coincidental angles. Not everything was an intentional alignment. The air shafts are a perfect case in point. These shafts do not run in straight lines, they have bends near their terminus at the Kings/Queens chambers, and with that being the case, how can they form perfect geometric forms?

I'm surprised, based on your past thread that you would copy from Legon, as his work counters any notion it was the solar system that guided the Giza layout. That returns us to the criticism Legon received, that if you construct enough coincidental angles, you can make anything align with anything. But what good does any of that do?

Bauval is another case in point, he has also constructed numerous coincidental angles to prove Giza was based on Orion, and the air shafts and Queen's chamber follow the 'precessional half-cycle (the two culminations) of Orion's Belt.

So which is it? Orion's belt? The Solar System? A purely geometric pattern? An alignment with Heliopolis? Sometimes over analyzing things gets you no where.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: EviLCHiMP

Oh i don't think we've forgotten anything.

Deliberately uninformed perhaps, but that's out of our hands to a large extent.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   


I'm surprised, based on your past thread that you would copy from Legon,


I used one of his diagrams ... that is hardly copying his work and the main body of work belongs to Jim Allison. Like Clive Ross' work I build on the good ideas of others. That is kind of how science and research goes. I am always quick to give credit where credit is due. And perhaps you should re-read that last thread of mine and see who originally threw the first punch. No more will be said on that topic but you also say this:




it was recognized fairly early on by Egyptology there was a unified plan at work at Giza. Petrie and Lepsius both noted that the first pyramid was placed to the far edge of the plateau, an indication the builders knew there would be more to follow.


Perhaps you have missed about 15 years of arguments between "The Orthodox" and "The Fringe" because there is not an Egyptologist alive today who would agree there is a unified plan at Giza. You see that is the main argument. Some of us look for that unified plan while the orthodox and Egyptologist don't because they say one does not exist so why look for that that is not real. Meanwhile here is a further interesting diagram that shows that by drawing just a couple of extra lines in The Great Pyramid we get this design. A1 is exactly the same as A2 while B1 is exactly the same as B2 while the remaining little pyramid is 1/10 the original large one.



The base of the "B" triangles or pyramids is 11 while that of the "A"s is 9 and the little one is 2.

And just an observation, it almost looks as if the space below the Queen's Chamber in the inverted pyramid corresponds almost exactly with the missing top of the right side up pyramid suggesting that maybe that was how it was supposed to look.

As to tying all this into our solar system that may yet come in due time remembering that using just a 9 by 11 right angled triangle we were able to lay out our solar sytem's inner planets.

.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
However as always relying on other people's data can lead to disaster. Case in point. The exit point of the King Chamber shafts IS NOT 154 cubits up from the base but as follows. (As always click for larger image)





The exit points are on the left facing the 103rd course or 3148.4 inches or 152.69 cubits and on the right facing the 102nd course or 3119.1 inches or 151.27 cubits actually a far cry from the 154 claimed by John Legon and picked up on by Jim Allison.

So did the shafts exit at 154 ? or 152.68 or 151.27 ... I have looked for other soruces but there are few who suggest where the shafts might have exited. Meanwhile for your reading pleasure here is Jim Allison's take on things. ... Click here

And one more 9/11 I missed.



.
edit on 28-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: add image



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahatmose
Do you have anything substantial or independently verifiable for us this time? Something based in reality, perhaps? Or is this just going to be another thread of you manipulating "measurements" that don't actually exist, so you can continue to push your wacky ideas, all while plugging your ears and going "la-la-la-la" every time someone points out your many errors and inconsistencies?

Making up your own 'units' and fudging numbers until they happen to work for you doesn't prove anything about the pyramids, Egypt, or the ancient Egyptians. It does, however, prove just how stubbornly ignorant some of the people around here are...



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I could be wrong, and the OP will tell me if i am, but rather than firm conclusions being drawn here mate, i rather feel that this is a work in progress.

It's a progression of discovery, which will naturally have errors, blind alleys and assumptions built in, until they can be ironed out during development of the hypothesis.

In other words...it's an ongoing investigation, not a conclusion.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I could be wrong, and the OP will tell me if i am, but rather than firm conclusions being drawn here mate, i rather feel that this is a work in progress.

It's a progression of discovery, which will naturally have errors, blind alleys and assumptions built in, until they can be ironed out during development of the hypothesis.

In other words...it's an ongoing investigation, not a conclusion.



As far as I can tell Don has been working on this for 10 or more years. He was posting about megalithic yards and other measurements on other websites for at least that long and is building on work by Clive Ross. Don how long have you been working on this?



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join