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.
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.
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?
We have no ancient records at all that pre-date ancient Sumerian, which is where the first writing arose, around 3500 BC.
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.
Source:www.lexiline.com...
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".
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.
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.
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.
Source:www.antiquityofman.com...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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]
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...
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
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...
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....
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?
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.
Originally posted by Shane
And How is that Mars Connection coming?