It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Giza: Proof of a unified plan

page: 1
11
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:40 AM
For those who want to feed their head. Others best move on.

One of the ongoing arguments against a unifed plan for The Giza Plateau is that their is no proof for a relationship between the 3 pyramids at Giza and other pyramids of The Old Kingdom. I believe however that there is and I offer this as something to ponder. Observe this diagram using Petrie's measurements.

Clive Ross adjusted this diagram to reflect a true east west bearing and his new corrected version is below.

As a a final image for now I post the measurements of The Bent Pyramid as agreed on by most Egyptologists.

Type Bent Pyramid
Height 101.1 metres (332 ft)
Base 188.6 metres (619 ft)
Slope 54°27' (lower)
43°22' (upper)

The first obvious relationship is our favourite and that is the 9 by 11 ratio.

a second obvious relationship is ... well not so obvious at all.

Mainstream Egyptologists claim that the angle was changed on the Bent Pyramid because structurally it started to fail and so the angle was changed but allow me to ask you a question. If we were building a building today and it was structurally starting to fail ... well would we continue to build on what appeared to be faulty footing ? I doubt it and I doubt that The Ancients would be so stupid as well. No to me the bend was deliberate and here is a neat little proof tying it into Giza.

According to Wiki the angle for the top part of The Bent Pyramid is 43°22' now in decimals this equals 43.3667°

Now interestingly or coincidentally we find this precise angle at Giza as well. Here is what Petrie wrote prior to the correction.

Centre of First to centre of Second Pyramid 13931.6 and 13165.8 = 19168.4 at 43º 22' 52""

Now the builders knew that the world was full of doubting Thomas' so they wanted to make it so obvious that even a blind man could see it so they decided to do something pretty amazing they decided to place another proof in your face but firstly lets look at this angle of 43.36667° - The tan of this angle is 0.9445 and so the amazing builders at Giza decided to place it so in your face that even the total sceptic would be a bit hard pressed to call it a coincidence for the distance from the center of G2 to the center of G3 along the horizontal gives us the same ratio of the distance between the horizontal distance of G1 and G2 and the vertical distance of G1 to G2 namely the ratio of .9445 In our diagram we have a north south distance of 13936.1 and a horizontal east west distance of 13162 that ratio being 13162 / 13936.1 = 0.9444 and checking to the distance east west between G2 and G3 and checking precisely with the angle and tan of the upper protion of The Bent Pyramid or the tan of 43º 22'

So to me it is pretty obvious. The Giza Plateau was designed as a total unit from the beginning and used the same ratios found in other Old Kingdom pyramids. The question is what were they trying to tell us ?

Regards
Don Barone

PS: If we use the original imAge with Petrie's unadjusted numbers we get this:

13166 / 13932 = 0.9450 and equaling the distance east-west between the centers of G2 and G3 EXACTLY !

All just a lovely coincidence ? I pesonaly rather doubt it.

.
edit on 31-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: spelling

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:47 AM

The first obvious relationship is our favorite and that is the 9 by 11 ratio.

Shouldn't this be in the 911 forum?

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:15 AM

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:10 AM
Let's take a quick look at The Red Pyramid. It has the exact same angle as the top part of the Bent Pyramid or 43°22'

The height is also the same (or so they think) as The Bent at 200 cubits.

Using our new tool for measuring at Giza or .9445 we get a base at The Red of (200 / .9445) x 2 or 423.5 cubits

Half this is 211.75 cubits.

211.75 cubits is equAl to 4336.285 inches this is eqaul to 363.86 feet and 110.14 meters

Here is what we have ... according to Wiki

Type True Pyramid
Height 104 metres (341 ft)
Base 220 metres (722 ft)
Slope 43°22'

However if we have base of 220 meters we get 7874 inches and thsi would give3 us a height of 7874 / 2 / .9445 = 4168.3 inches or 202.15 cubits (4168.3 / 20.62) so clearly there is something amiss in Egypt and Egyptology. The height they show as 104 meters or 4094.5 inches or 198.6 cubits but they tell us it is 200 cubits high .. so clearly "They" don't really have a clue. If the height is 200 cubits and the angle is 43°22' then the base must be (200 / .9445) x 2 or 423.50 cubits x 20.62 = 8732.66 inches = 221.81 meters = 727.72 feet

SPECIAL NOTE HERE IS THAT 423.5 X 20 = 8470 = NUMBER OF INCHES IN BASE OF G2 (8471.9)

This is very typical of all of Egyptology as they never ever try to checK their measurements.

However let's use 220 meters as a base and this gives us 8661.4 inches and precisely 5 times the north-south distance at Giza of 1732.28 cubits or a scale of 5 Red Pyramid inches = 1 Giza cubit.

If we allow 43°22' as the angle then the height must be tan of this angle = 0.94455167 x 1/2 base of 220 or 110 meters = 103.9 meters for the height but this gives us 4090.35 inches or 198.37 cubits so what is the true height ? Is it 200 cubits or 198.37 cubits ? Or is the angle not 43°22'

And people wonder why I tend to ignore Egyptologists.

.
edit on 31-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: spelling

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:39 PM
Okay here is something new I stumbled upon and it all ties into the realization that Giza and The Bent and The Red were related. I think I have finally figured out the true measurement at The Bent and at The Red Pyramids. Let us begin with The Bent. Why 43°22' (upper) and why would the tan of this angle show up at Giza ? (0.9445) The solution is amazing and I am starting to think that it all ties into some ancient geodetic monument system to possibly relay out the farms that were lost during the annual Nile floods but I can not preclude that there is a more amazing reason but let's leave that for later.

When I realized that the tan of The Bent and The Red pyramids were in plain sight at Giza I started to search for a logical reason and find out a bit more of how they were related and I have come up with something neat. For now let us look to the reciprical angle to 43°22' (upper) and look at 46°38' (opposite of upper) Now the tan of this angle 46.63333 is 1.0587034535 and this leaves us the short side of a right angled traingle with this angle as 110 (height) and 110 / 1.0587034535 = 103.90067 Now this gives us when multiplied by 20.62 2142.43 inches and times 2 (both sides) = 4284.864 inches and this gives us 108.83576 meters after dividing by 39.37. Now had you done as many calculations as I have you too would have noticed that this number looked an awful lot like another very important number. In the diagram below:

In this diagram above the circumference is sq rt of 3 x 2 x Pi or 10.8827962 now if we multiply this by 10 we get 108.827962 and this is very close to 108.83576. But we wanted exact so I multiplied 108.827962 by 39.37 and got 4284.557 inches whcih equals 207.786463 and divide by two gives us 103.893231424 cubits. This new number now gives us 110 / 103.893231424 = 0.944484 and 1.0587793 and gives the angles 46.63538 and 43.36462 and this equals 43°21' 52" within 8" of 43°22'

And the bottom angle was simply to show us another of their favourite ratios 1 to 1.4 with 1 / 1.4 = 0.714285714 x 90 = 64.28571428 and this gives us the angle of 54.46232221 or 54°27' 46.2" and gives us a base of 361.50 cubits = 7454.13 inches = 621.1775 feet = 189.335 meters

The perfect tie in between Giza and Dahshur and we find Pi to boot. So here is perhaps the solution to The Bent Pyramid. Hope you have enjoyed this.

Cheers
Don Barone
.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:21 PM
And a nice little diagram tying it all in ...

Cheers
Don Barone
.

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 04:25 PM
A possible further solution to proving that the same geometry or message was used at Dahshur as was used at Giza. Observe. As always click on image below for a larger view.

Just a notation almost all who have measured at Giza agree that from the north side of G1 to south side of G2 is 1101 cubits. I have always wondered why it was not 1100 even to give us our 9 by 11 but perhaps this diagram above can give us a clue.

Cheers
Don Barone

.

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:10 PM
Well apparently there is nobody reading but that is okay I don't mind talking to myself. It is quite therapeutic and helps me think as well. Okay back to Giza for just a while. The base of G3 is 4154 inches + or - while that of G1 is about 9069 + or minus. The total is 9069 + 4154 = 13223 and wouldn't you just guess it that 9445 x 1.4 is also 13223. Er I think someone is trying to tell us something people. There is a great deal more that I have found which ties Giza and Dahshur neatly together and that will be forthcoming shortly. However does anyone seriously still think that this is just a coincidence ... Oh I nearly forgot wouldnt you also just know that 4154 / Pi = 1322.3

Anyway I am afraid, and I mean very afraid as I have to visit the dentist this evening. If I survive I will post more later.

Cheers
Don Barone

edit on 3-11-2014 by Ahatmose because: spelling

new topics

top topics

11