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.

 

The Bible, Pyramids, and the Face on Mars

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Edenkaia,
How do we reconcile the difference between these two dates?
Also, why is it that it's okay for the pyramids to have been built "in memory" of this "first time of Osiris" as Bauval called it, yet the Sphinx has to be actually carved at that distant age? Plus, see my argument about whether or not anybody in 10,500 BC would have necessarily thought of the star pattern we call "Leo" as a lion at all.

I've seen the argument, and it is a valid one. The question would be, when is the first noted use of the constellation leo for the lion figure that it shows? When did people first begin historically referencing this for what we see it as today? Granted, we have the Zodiacs, but what I mean is, is there any record preceding those records to confirm the existance of the constellation as a Lion? Cave drawings? Anything? As for the topic of why the Pyramids have to have been "in memory" of 10,500 B.C, who knows? Bavaul perhaps, it is his theory. I would concede that the Sphinx was carved around then, but I would also say that the Pyramids were as well. If you follow the timeline theory, they would almost have to have been, considering that the Pyramids would best have lined up in that time, which is exactly when the Sphinx would supposedly be facing directly into the constellation anyway. They just seem to coincide. Like I said, if you follow that theory. Personally, I generally like to play devil's advocate when posting on topics that I have a strong opinion for, it seems to force me to research the opposite side so thoroughly that I am given no choice but to make a sound individual decision based on ALL the evidence.



And another thing, I have seen several rebuttals of Bauval's theory that state that Orion's belt didn't actually line up very well with the pyramids, even in 10,500 BC. Are you aware of these arguments? Would you like to be?


I am aware, thank you. I never claimed that Bauval was the ultimate source for the material anyway. In fact, you were the one to originally cite him, which just opened the chapter for use. I'll admit, I have read only a few of the worthwhile and legitimately argued, but not from lack of searching. If you can link to any, that would be appreciated. But, as for the question, I think my stance is best summed up by Goro Adachi in The Time Rivers "Let me address the argument of the debunkers who claim the c. 10,500 BC date is not pinpointed by the Giza monuments because the angles made by the pyramids and Orion's belt stars do not exactly match at that date. It is actually true that the angles don't match precisely, but it is certainly close enough to make the point - especially with all the other accompanying alignments/positions." That works for me.




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia

Edenkaia,
How do we reconcile the difference between these two dates?
Also, why is it that it's okay for the pyramids to have been built "in memory" of this "first time of Osiris" as Bauval called it, yet the Sphinx has to be actually carved at that distant age?

The question would be, when is the first noted use of the constellation leo for the lion figure that it shows? Granted, we have the Zodiacs, but what I mean is, is there any record preceding those records to confirm the existance of the constellation as a Lion? Cave drawings? Anything? As for the topic of why the Pyramids have to have been "in memory" of 10,500 B.C, who knows? Bavaul perhaps, it is his theory.
We have no ancient records at all that pre-date ancient Sumerian, which is where the first writing arose, around 3500 BC.
Here's what I could find regarding the Sumerian version of what we call Leo:

As previously noted, the Sumerian UR.GU.LA means URKU GULA where GU.LA means "lying down, reclining". This is supported by the additional Sumerian term LA.TA.RA.AK which is Latvian LAIDARIS or LAIDERIS "enclosure for animals, a place to sleep, especially for animals". Hence this applies to the initial stars of Leo's head and the Akkadian Urgula Latarak is Latvian Ur-gulu laidaris "the (reclining) lion's lair".
Source:www.lexiline.com...
I found this info by running a search at google using "Ur-Gula Sumerian." I had found the term "Ur Gula" elsewhere as the Sumerian name for Leo, where it was interpreted both as "lion" and as "big dog." Search "Sumerian Big Dog" to find this information - here's one of many sites where you can find it:
www.sacred-texts.com...

Regarding the pyramid construction "memorializing" the "Osiris Time," I'd have to say that from what I've seen, only the age of Khufu's pyramid has been questioned by (at least the current gang of) pseudoscientists. I'm no expert, I'd rely on Byrd for the info, but I believe, as Shane implied earlier, that the ages of the other two of the three "Orion" pyramids have a solid foundation for the dates of construction that are associated with them by Egyptology. For this reason, Bauval cannot claim they were constructed in 10,500 BC without being immediately refuted, and thus according to him the three major pyramids at Giza only "memorialize" the date.
Now, regarding the Sphinx, I am of the opinion that the Sphinx was carved where it is because that's where the rock outcropping was that forms it's head. And it faces due east from it's position by design, to face the sunrise. No reason for Leo to enter the picture.


Originally posted by EdenKaiaPersonally, I generally like to play devil's advocate when posting on topics that I have a strong opinion for, it seems to force me to research the opposite side so thoroughly that I am given no choice but to make a sound individual decision based on ALL the evidence.


For this statement, I could hug you. Especially in this area of early civilizations, it is rare to find an individual that will truly look at both sides of an argument.



Originally posted by EdenKaia

And another thing, I have seen several rebuttals of Bauval's theory that state that Orion's belt didn't actually line up very well with the pyramids, even in 10,500 BC. Are you aware of these arguments? Would you like to be?

I am aware, thank you. I never claimed that Bauval was the ultimate source for the material anyway. In fact, you were the one to originally cite him, which just opened the chapter for use.

Point taken. I'm not going back through here to see why I brought it up. But Bauval is the source for the Orion theory.
BTW, there's a thread at The Hall of Ma'at forum concerning this very subject in which Bauval has posted (he's a member there.) This thread contains some info on what other cultures saw the "Leo" star pattern as - but the info isn't referenced. Here's the link:www.hallofmaat.com...,19588,19588#msg-19588

I'm breaking off here for the character limit. More to come.

Harte



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia

And another thing, I have seen several rebuttals of Bauval's theory that state that Orion's belt didn't actually line up very well with the pyramids, even in 10,500 BC. Are you aware of these arguments? Would you like to be?


I am aware, thank you. I never claimed that Bauval was the ultimate source for the material anyway. In fact, you were the one to originally cite him, which just opened the chapter for use. I'll admit, I have read only a few of the worthwhile and legitimately argued, but not from lack of searching. If you can link to any, that would be appreciated.

I have a few, you may have been there already:
www.doernenburg.alien.de...
That one is several pages, link to next pages at the bottom.
There are several arguments made at The Antiquity of Man webpage:
www.antiquityofman.com...
This site has a multitude of links to papers and articles on this very subect:
www.ianlawton.com...

Here's what astronomy has to say about this so-called "alignment" with Orion in 10,500BC:

My own investigation showed that, while the line of the two outer pyramids is set 38 degrees from north, the angle of Orion's Belt to north in 10500 BC is close on 50 degrees! Hardy an exact match. I calculate that circular precessional motion would give 47 degrees, whereas including nutational terms makes it slightly higher. Measurements in the planetarium agree. Bauval, on the other hand appears to have used computer programmes. He implies that only with modern sophisticated computers can we examine the ancient skies! I wonder if he also made the mistake of measuring angles off a flat screen.

Bauval's choice of 10500 BC (when Orion is furthest south in its precessional cycle) also supposedly fits with the Milky Way aligning with the Nile. But the course of the Nile is variable, and we do not now know where it ran in 10500 BC with any accuracy.

A parallel assertion of Hancock and Bauval is to say that 10500 BC would be during the astrological "Age of the Lion" - a connoctation they seek with the sphinx. However the Vernal Equinox of 10500 BC would lie at 2000: 11h40m, +2.2 degress, which though close to the star pattern we now know as Leo, still lies decidedly in Virgo. Again, not a perfect match.

Finally, as my colleague in the planetarium world, Ed Krupp, has pointed out, the otherwise straight line of the pyramids is deformed towards the north, but the line of Orion's Belt is deformed towards the south.

The astronomical basis for arguing that the layout at Giza goes back to 10500BC is therefore very thin. It would be well if more could be done to counter the publicity of books, put out to the public, that base so much conjecture upon such flimsy science.

Anthony Fairall,
Dept of Astronomy, University of Cape Town,
Rondebosch, South Africa, 7700.
Source:www.antiquityofman.com...


Originally posted by ShaneAlso for the Constellations, the storyline, being discussed here, indicated, from what I have found, that the Egyptian had a 12 Sign Zodiac, but this can be explained at the following in more depth.

www.mazzaroth.com...

Hope this is useful.

Shane,

The Temple of Hathor in Dendera, the site where the zodiacal round stone you referenced was found, dates only to the Ptolemaic era in Egypt and is thus indicative only of the Greek form of the zodiac, though some names may have been changed. IOW, it doesn't tell us much about what kind of zodiac the Egyptians had back when they were carving the Sphinx.
Plus, look what the author at that site says on another page about the Egyptian god Set:

It is interesting to note that in the Denderah Zodiac, Cassiopeia is called Set (This link added on March 21, 2004 will require a username and password to enter the Volume III subject), which means "Set up as a Queen," and is associated with the constellation Aries in that the priest in Egypt saw a star representing the coming of the Messiah or even Moses (Cassiopeia is above Aries, the Ram).

Now that is truly laughable.

Harte



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

I have a few, you may have been there already:
www.doernenburg.alien.de...
That one is several pages, link to next pages at the bottom.


I have been to this site before, but I disregarded its value concerning the alignment of the stars to Orion's belt because of the following quote from that very site at the beginning of the argument, "There is a striking resemblance: three stars in the middle of the Orion constellation, diagonally but with one star deviating, and three pyramids, also with one deviating from the diagonal. And the relative positions of stars and pyramids match each other perfectly.
But the authors found even more similarities which cannot be explained by coincidence"

This refers to the other claims that Bavaul had made concerning the misalignment of the last pyramid and the brightness of the dimmest star. The author goes on in great length debunking many of Bavaul's theories, to his credit, might I add, but on this subject, the reference is found wanting. His claim is that the alignment is merely coincidental, which is hardly a convincing argument with nothing to back up the statement.
The other site I have not yet seen, but I will definately be reading through it. More soon.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Hello EdenKaia

I ran across this for your Nebuchadnezzar/Daniel thoughts.

Ezekiel Chapter 29 vs's 13 thru 21.



13 Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered:
14 And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom.
15 It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.
16 And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after them: but they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.
21 In that day will I cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud forth, and I will give thee the opening of the mouth in the midst of them; and they shall know that I am the LORD.


I though of your topic, and wondered if you had previously considered this?

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
maybe if we really knew what zodiac the Egyptians used, maybe it is in perfect alignment, also if they were using 360 days when it was built (alleged 10,500 bc) maybe it is also in alignment for that system.

www.copywritingweb.com...

I guess this shows what we do know about the Egyptian Zodiac all seems to be pulled from the greek and roman eras like someone said, but if they once used a 360 day calender like some of the other high ancient cultures,

www.touregypt.net...

i guess i have always wondered when is the next time the Giza structure will resemble another constellation or age, does anyone know if it will? Or is it just limited to the age of Leo some alleged 12,000 years ago?


[edit on 19-5-2006 by mosca]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mosca
i guess i have always wondered when is the next time the Giza structure will resemble another constellation or age, does anyone know if it will? Or is it just limited to the age of Leo some alleged 12,000 years ago?


[edit on 19-5-2006 by mosca]


Well, Since the Heavens revolve in a period of some 24 - 26000 years, I would guess we are just starting the second half of that period, so in about 14000 AD, we would see a similiar alignement. Just my speculation

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
wow, lol thats a long time for us to wait to see if anything happens



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
what exactly are you expecting to see when this alignment happens mosca?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
im not sure, i just always felt the alignments of the complex had to do with not only the marking the past (age of leo or whatever) but also whatever age is coming in 12,000 years. I just feel we have to consider both to try and understand the monument. I wish i was smart enough to see what constellations would look like in those days maybe its a clue of somekind.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
There isn't really any reason to expect that the constellations themselves will look any different, exept of course if a star explodes during that time or something. Many believe that what you are seeing is light that actually left the star a long time ago. Recent studies have contradicted this. Either way, the only thing I would expect you might see is an alignment of the Sphinx in the direction of the constellation that is much closer than there is now. Advanced civilization though it may have been to have created this monument, I do not believe their purpose was any greater than a marker. The real question is, what is the connection to the Mars based monuments? And what does that suggest about our history as a race?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
..Many believe that what you are seeing is light that actually left the star a long time ago. Recent studies have contradicted this...


These two sentences, when put together, attempt to throw all of astrophysics out the window. Trashing all of known science in order to shoehorn a few features on Mars into the human experience is going a bit far, I'd say.

References for these "Recent studies (that) have contradicted this," please. That is, if there actually are any.

Harte



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by EdenKaia
..Many believe that what you are seeing is light that actually left the star a long time ago. Recent studies have contradicted this...


These two sentences, when put together, attempt to throw all of astrophysics out the window. Trashing all of known science in order to shoehorn a few features on Mars into the human experience is going a bit far, I'd say.

References for these "Recent studies (that) have contradicted this," please. That is, if there actually are any.

Harte


Always enjoy these little spats Harte.
Anyway, the research is being done by a friend attending the UCLA for his Thesis. His studies are over the concept of 'light interfered", stating that what you are seeing is not the semblance of the star's original shimmer, but rather a doppleganger relief created as the light passes through and around various atmospheric anomolies and graviational disturbances. The concept is that the light you see is from a separate direction than that which appears, shifting with more a graduating arch the farther and farther away from the source that we are. He includes the concept of Einstein's General Gravity theory, and assert the applicatiion of it upon the rays as they travel through space to where we are now. It has been proven that gravity can distort time itself, as you can see on clocks on the tops of tall buildings...etc. He asserts that this, along with the concept that light will bend and bounce around objects that carry a reflective surface, to conclude the possibility that what you are seeing is not, in fact, what is truly there, or was there, respectively. This is what I was referring to. As far as I know, this is a pioneer concept. Could be wrong. I have already been given permission to quote and post aspects of the paper as soon as it is finished, and when it is Harte, I will make sure that you are the first to see it on ATS.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
..Many believe that what you are seeing is light that actually left the star a long time ago. Recent studies have contradicted this...


EdenKaia,

Your statements below certainly at least shed some light (no pun intended) on what you were saying (above.) Yet, as you can see above, you implied that somehow studies are "contradicting" the concept that when you look at a star, you are seeing the light from that star which actually left the star a long time before you see it. What you say below in no way at all "contradicts" this concept. The light you see may have been distorted, the star may not have been in the position it appears to have been from here, the light might not be "true color" due to red or blue shifting, etc. Yet that light absolutely did leave the star you see "a long time ago...," looong before it entered your eye.


Originally posted by EdenKaia... The concept is that the light you see is from a separate direction than that which appears, shifting with more a graduating arch the farther and farther away from the source that we are. He includes the concept of Einstein's General Gravity theory, and assert the applicatiion of it upon the rays as they travel through space to where we are now. It has been proven that gravity can distort time itself, as you can see on clocks on the tops of tall buildings...etc. He asserts that this, along with the concept that light will bend and bounce around objects that carry a reflective surface, to conclude the possibility that what you are seeing is not, in fact, what is truly there, or was there, respectively. This is what I was referring to....


I am extremely sensitive to this issue in particular because it is one of the ridiculous arguments used by creationists to attempt to "prove" that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old. The light from faraway stars could not have reached Earth in that amount of time, yet we see it, refuting the argument. Refuting it, that is, unless you posit some mechanism for getting the light here sooner, which your previous post seemed to imply. Of course, usually the creationists simply claim that God created the light "in transit," so to speak, at some point around 6,000 light years away (how convenient!)

Harte



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Yes, I've heard this "in transit" theory before, where Creationists claim that God shows the light from nearby stars on their way simply for the enjoyment of mankind to view them. I don't buy it. I suppose that you could argue that the earth is only six thousand years old, but then, the only real evidence you would have to support your claim would be dating the events told in the Bible, which is one of the greatest compilations of fiction and interpretation the world has ever known. For one, let us look at Bavaul's 10,500 marker for the Sphinx again.(We don't need to get back into this, it is just for a point). Even if one does not agree with this time period for the construction, his points seem to at least validate the existance of a concious people during this age. And then there are archaeological findings that date back far before six thousand years. How do they think we came up with the dates we have for some of these civilizations? In fact, I could use the Bible itself to illustrate my point, as archaeology does support many of the geology, if not the timeframe. For example, Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus- The Bible seems confused on these two men, and historically accurate tablets and documents place them in precise history. And I don't just refer to carbon dating, which is easily corruptable. I mean that on these tablets themselves there is often a reference of time, current year, year that so and so fought the so and so's,...and on and on and on. I've just never really placed much stock in this 6000 year argument. As I've said before, I will occasionally play on either side, as I have done here numerous times. Having said that, however, I can say that theirs is a losing argument. The evidence alone piles higher than their legs can carry them. Not one time will they ever get safely away before it washes the theories right out of their heads. On this point, I would concur.
As for my statement about contradiction, I apologize for how it came out. What I meant to imply was that the light you are seeing is not, in fact, a direct route from the star, and is not the pure light that would have first escaped. What you see is distorted and discolored, the source having long been tampered with. Either way, there are too many things unexplainable by the greatest minds today. What I get the biggest kick out of, is the difference between Creationists and Archaeologists. When the Archaeologist comes across something he can't quite explain, he just hasn't dug far enough. When the same comes true for the Creationist, the only explanation is that God willed it, and therefore the mystery is solved. Where is the fun and education in that?



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
www.sacredsites.com...

members.aol.com...

Above are two links relating the the current debate over the age of the sphinx. One thing I rhave noticed is that EACH side has a tendancy to dismiss the other's evidence without good reason other then "It can't be so because I say so."

The point of all this is that the Sphinxs age is very difficult to determine with certainty, and until some tablet pops up from an easily determinable time period, the debate will continue. Becasue science, like my father said once, is much like religon, except with you holding evidence instead of a book. The interpretation of each is under just as much debate.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
There isn't really any reason to expect that the constellations themselves will look any different, exept of course if a star explodes during that time or something. Many believe that what you are seeing is light that actually left the star a long time ago. Recent studies have contradicted this. Either way, the only thing I would expect you might see is an alignment of the Sphinx in the direction of the constellation that is much closer than there is now. Advanced civilization though it may have been to have created this monument, I do not believe their purpose was any greater than a marker. The real question is, what is the connection to the Mars based monuments? And what does that suggest about our history as a race?


Nice thread! I also touched on this very subject in one of my other threads as It also caught my attention after watching a very good documentory on the connection between the mars face and the sphinx linking the age of Leo.

No matter how many people try to DE-BUNK the mars faces, I belive it resembels a Lion. The Egyptians workshipped half human half Lion Gods. I also feel the sphinx was originally a Lion also. It is all a bit strange.

As to your point about the stars just being light left from years back. When we look at the planets jupitar, Mars etc without a telescope, they look like any other star. But on closer inspection we can actually see they are still there!! Just a thought on what else is up there. Many stars must still exsisit in the same way!

We only understand 4% of the universe, not much really!

I am suspicious as to what the glass tunnels are on Mars. There is so much UFO evidance even from the bible, I seriously question the chances of someone being there! When we only understand 4% of the universe, it leaves a lot open.

Peace and Love



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
lovely Jehovas witness knocked on my door one day, an elderly man who was convinced God created the earth so many thousand years ago. I can't remember the figure but i am sure it was something like 6000 years.

The Dinosures are older than that, what about the earliest human remains ever to be found. Lucy etc. I mentined this to the lovely man and he just didn't know what to say. Ifelt sorry for him as he really did belive what he was either told or read i am not sure. He left feeling very embarraced poor soul!

I don't buy the 6000 year thing. What is weired though, how did we go from cave men to all of a sudden big cities with sewer works, pipes, agriculture, construction etc etc. There is no evidance of INBETWEEN

Even cave men formed scaffolding of some sort while painting ADVANCED artworks onto the caves. It has even been sujested that they lived in mud houses not in caves and they were more INTELLIGENT than we give them credit for! Look into Jonathun Grays work, he is an archeologist and has uncovered many mind boggeling facts that many people CHOOSE to ignore due to red tape, or not wanting to RE-WRITE our history books!

The creater likes to keep us in suspence!!

Peace and Love

[edit on 05012005 by Earth Angel]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I suppose that you could argue that the earth is only six thousand years old, but then, the only real evidence you would have to support your claim would be dating the events told in the Bible, which is one of the greatest compilations of fiction and interpretation the world has ever known. For one, let us look at Bavaul's 10,500 marker for the Sphinx again.(We don't need to get back into this, it is just for a point). Even if one does not agree with this time period for the construction, his points seem to at least validate the existance of a concious people during this age.


Hello EdenKaia

Not being the 'Fence Sitter' and considering myself as Christian, I find your remarks, as well as Harte's, a sad inditement of the pathetic knowledge, even Christains have with respects to the Biblical Account.

Certainly, the Jewish and Christian Premise of the Bible is true in 1 singular respect.

THE BIBLE IS A GENEOLOGY, and it is expressed with the decendants of Adam, through to Christ. This is the Bible in it's basic form. (I do not wish to deminish the Historical, Spiritual and Prophetic nature attributed to the Bible though)

This is only one family, on the Planet. A family that was created on the 8th Day

Day itself, in the Hebrew is from an unused root, meaning to be hot; a day ( as the warm hours ) whether literally (From sunrise to sunset or from one sunrise until the next) or figurativly (a space of time defined by an associated term) (often as an adverb);- an age or age.

Literally, it is clear, this could not be right. Figuratively, then thats an other thing altogether.

It's too bad, though, that this is the manner inwhich Christian's, in general, tend to be regarded.

But not all of us, have difficulties with Dinosaurs, nor Cavemen. That is what Recreation fixed in with Mankind.

And How is that Mars Connection coming?

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
And How is that Mars Connection coming?


Well, fairly well, actually. I've been busy with other things lately and haven't really had the time or opportunity to post on this topic. Here is some of the things I've found. For the first example, though not extremely interesting or relevant, is that "Cairo" in a more ancient dialect of Egyptian, means "Mars". My research has also unearthed an extensive study by David Myers and Richard Hoagland on the topography of the Cydonia complex and its relation to earth monuments and geographical layouts. I suppose that the logic was that if the Giza pyramids could correlate with an astrological positioning of stars, then perhaps the connection between the Face and Earth could be found there in the same way. Here is what they found:



This is an overlay of an area southwest of London, England matched to the Cydonia complex. I don't know how many are familiar with some of the monuments outside of London, but that is for another post entirely. The Avebury Stone Circle is one of these. Anyway, the overlay has startling results IMO. Now granted, this is technically shooting an arrow into the wall and then drawing a target around it, but the correlations here are still a bit too coincidental to just be coincidental. There is also a larger scale model of this graph that includes Stonehenge and many of the other "unknown origin" monuments in the area, but I havent yet been able to find it. If anyone could, it would be appreciated and would greatly add to my research. Oddly enough, these monuments all seem to correspond to various geometrically stable mounds in the Mars complex. Even more interesting, is the mathematical meticulations surrounding the layout of these Earth-based creations. They seem to follow along in the series of base numbers and universal constants. Also a bit too coincidental. Any thoughts or additional research links and/or books would be appreciated as well.



[edit on 28-5-2006 by EdenKaia]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join