Are the Pyramids of Giza a 'Precession Clock' pointing to the past and future?

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

A new theory by the author Scott Creighton demonstrates how all 11 Egyptian pyramids along with the Great Sphinx form a grand `Precession Wheel', indicating key dates from humankind's remote past - and, indeed, its future. In addition it demonstrates links between Giza, Teotihuacan in Mexico, Xi'an in China and - peculiarly - the site of Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland.


www.grahamhancock.com...

What is so fascinating is its astrological alignments not only to stars but to other 'various' points of reference on the global map. It all points to future events predicted by other sources concerning the countdown to 2012. What actually is this and what does it tell us?

Get your mathematical brain working and have a read. What do you think?



mod eit, to add external quote code

[edit on 1-10-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Not at all believable

1. you need an advance civililzation (which hasn't been found)
2. you need this civilization to have detected things we are selves have not
3. you need them to somehow transmit this knowledge to the Egyptians
4. the Egyptians then need to be concerned about this enough to construct something that takes place over many generations - and NOT MAKE ANY NOTE OF IT or incorporate it into their religion
5. OCT is flawed
6. Some of the alignments are very questionable, especially the fact that the line up of three stars doesn't reflect the reality of how the stars (which they are suppose to represent) are organized.

This idea was looked at in excessive detail at the Hall of Ma'at



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Maybe so but you have to remember that BEFORE ancient Egyptians there was a civilisation MORE advanced, technically, spiritually, philosphically etc al that had more than enough knowledge of these things!!

Ancient Sumer has alot that we know and dont know about and it has been suggested that the Great Pyramid and Shinx predates the ancient egyptian timeline by at least a millennia.

interesting though!! As for 2012, I dont think it will be the apocalypse but I do believe there will be some kind of spiritual awakening!!

Guess we'll just have to wait and see!!

JP



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyProphet
Maybe so but you have to remember that BEFORE ancient Egyptians there was a civilisation MORE advanced, technically, spiritually, philosphically etc al that had more than enough knowledge of these things!!

Ancient Sumer has alot that we know and dont know about and it has been suggested that the Great Pyramid and Shinx predates the ancient egyptian timeline by at least a millennia.
JP

I'm curious where you seen the evidence for these statements? While it would certainly be interesting if this were true, I don't recall ever seeing anything that would suggest this, except from pseudoscientists who pick and choose "evidence" to fit what story they are trying to tell. So hopefully it won't be too much trouble to provide some evidence for these claims.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
evidence? how about the pyramids themselves...
i went up to one of the blocks at the base and it was taller than me pure granite and who knows how deep it went. all aligned with the constilation of orion. even down to all the maktabas that surround it. and back in the day it was covered in polished limestone or marble or something according to herotudus. must have been much more impressive back then.

i havnt seen any pyramids our great civilaizations have created, oh wait except for this one "hard rock" cafe, but it was made of aluminum, and it was full of fat tourists, and old rock music memoribilia....not quite as impressive.

im just sayin if you see it it changes your mind and makes you ask questions. (not the hard rock cafe pyramid...)



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Howdy Jimmy

Actually there is no evidence for a "advanced" civilization before the Egyptians. I wish there was but at this time only small regional cultures have been found.

Yes it has been suggested but unfortunately the radiocarbon dating (two studies) done in the 1990s showed that the Pyramids were build around the time the Egyptologists thought they would have been. Secondly the 'workers' village was found - they guys who actually built the pyramids. That is also dated to the around 4500 BP.

2012, according to the Mayans and not the New Agers, one cycle of a calendar will end and another will begin. No more, no less.

Howdy Ecidemon

Ditto

Howdy Therepublic

The Pyramids are made of limestone, but there is granite inside the pyramids. Yes it was probably very impressive, the ancients were very much taken with them.

The Great Wall and the Cath's of Europe were superior to the pyramids, one in size the other in complexity and skill required ton construct. Oh and I've seen them five times. I was also lucky enough to be able to climb over the M one in the late 90s.

The Pyramids are impressive and are a reflection of the strength, organization and skill of the AE.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hello Everyone,

I am new to this Forum so am unfamilliar with the protocols here so if I make a slight faux pas then please forgive.

I would like to respond to the post by Hanslune.

Hanslune wrote: Actually there is no evidence for a "advanced" civilization before the Egyptians. I wish there was but at this time only small regional cultures have been found.

SC: The Sumerian civilisation predates the AEs and had more advanced mathematics and astronomy. However, what I am talking about here is a civilisation that understood the Pi constant as a decimal fraction 3.14 and presented the first 3 digits of this with the placement of the satellite pyramids at Giza - see fig 1 here: www.grahamhancock.com...

And what are we to make of this 3-1-4 'beacon'? This -

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

The 'evidence' of such a civilisation is presented to us in the Pyramids themselves. This is a civilisation who understood the precessional motion of the Orion Belt stars:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

And who used this as the mechanism to drive their precession clock:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

The simple fact is, my theories are supported by the evidence of the pyramids. Furthermore, my work offers a plausible answer to questions that Orthodox Egyptologists struggle to answer e.g. the purpose of the cocavities of Khufu and Menkaure, the reason why Khafre has no concavities and why Khafre - a Pharaoh with 5 Queens has no 'Queens Pyramids'.

Hanslune wrote: 2. you need this civilization to have detected things we are selves have not

SC: The ancients understood the motions of our solar system long before our own civilisation had figured it out. Newton, in his search for priscia sapientia, believed the ancients possessed knowledge that had to be re-discovered. I have no compelling reason to dispel the possibility that the ancients may well have more to teach us.

Hanslune: 3. you need them to somehow transmit this knowledge to the Egyptians

SC: The Architects of Giza craeted a plan - a model - possibly sculpted in granite and passed down through generations possibly reaching the Shemsu-Hor and hence into the AE Priesthood who became custodians of the plan and the force behind its implementation.

"The design of the temples [of Egypt] was revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep" - Aldred, 'The Egyptians'. This inscription is to be found at the temple of Horus at Edfu. It tells us the plans for the temples (including Giza) did not originate with the AEs - the design was passed to them in a codex.

Hanslune: 4. the Egyptians then need to be concerned about this enough to construct something that takes place over many generations - and NOT MAKE ANY NOTE OF IT or incorporate it into their religion.

SC: The plan was a sacred plan that 'fell from heaven'. Why wouldn't the AEs desire to create heaven on Earth? Its very origins was connected with the death and rebirth of the Earth as a result of a cataclysm. This idea of rebirth was indeed absorbed into the AE religion - the pyramids were eventually constructed as a 'tomb' to ensure the rebirth of the Pharaoh into the Afterlife. However, the original function of the plan was as an 'early warning system' for ALL of mankind to ensure the rebirth of the Earth after the next cataclysm.

Hanslune: 5. OCT is flawed

SC: The theory I present with the GOCT tells us unequivocally that the main Pyramids at Giza are symbolic of the Orion Belt stars and the 2 sets of Queens Pyramids are symbolic of the max and min culmination of those 3 stars. The Orion correlation at Giza is now too great to be so easily dismissed.

Regards,

S. Creighton



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
[SC: The Sumerian civilisation predates the AEs and had more advanced mathematics and astronomy.

Actually, that's arguable. The difference is a few hundred years based on the data we have now. But niether just suddenly sprang into existance with full-fledged technology and organization and culture and mathematics.
it.stlawu.edu...

Babylonians used a base 60 system, and a close look at their math texts shows that they had interesting ways of using addition and subtraction to achieve many things... but it's hardly on the same plane as we know.

And by the way, their value for "pi" was not "3.14." Their pi-values are two: 3 and 25/8, but they preferred 377/120:
www.seshat.ch...


The 'evidence' of such a civilisation is presented to us in the Pyramids themselves. This is a civilisation who understood the precessional motion of the Orion Belt stars:


Except that the stars of Orion didn't look like that in 13000 BC. The sky isn't a fixed map of unmoving stars and the looks of the constellations change over thousands of years. A good astronomy program (or an hour with some calculations) will show you the correct configuration.

Furthermore, given the star maps on Seti I's chambers, I think you'd have a hard time proving that they understood much about the stars. The bull in the Northern constellations can be identified as Big Dipper and I believe the lion is Serpentus. But they're not shown in proper size or relation.
www.catchpenny.org...



The simple fact is, my theories are supported by the evidence of the pyramids. Furthermore, my work offers a plausible answer to questions that Orthodox Egyptologists struggle to answer e.g. the purpose of the cocavities of Khufu and Menkaure, the reason why Khafre has no concavities and why Khafre - a Pharaoh with 5 Queens has no 'Queens Pyramids'.

I've missed something: "Concavities"?

There's also a number of other speculations that would fit, including the speculation that he didn't much care for his queens.


SC: The ancients understood the motions of our solar system long before our own civilisation had figured it out. Newton, in his search for priscia sapientia, believed the ancients possessed knowledge that had to be re-discovered.


Yes, Newton believed this, but there's no evidence of sophisticated mathematical systems needed to understand the motions before Newton and his calculus. If they understood the motions so well, why didn't they produce astronomical tables like the Sumerians did and why didn't they produce accurate star and constellation maps?



SC: The Architects of Giza craeted a plan - a model - possibly sculpted in granite and passed down through generations possibly reaching the Shemsu-Hor and hence into the AE Priesthood who became custodians of the plan and the force behind its implementation.

Although Heru is one of the oldest of their gods, he doesn't acquire sons until much later. And if the priests were the "force behind its implementation" then why didn't they force pyramids earlier and why were pre-Khufu pyramids not perfect (they had the model) and why did they stop building them?


"The design of the temples [of Egypt] was revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep" - Aldred, 'The Egyptians'. This inscription is to be found at the temple of Horus at Edfu. It tells us the plans for the temples (including Giza) did not originate with the AEs - the design was passed to them in a codex.

Do you have a source other than Aldred, the art historian? Whose translation was he using and when was the translation done? And whicn inscription is this?

I've seen a lot of claims for inscriptions and the like that when you actually find the object turn out to be very mistranslated or misinterpreted. I can read a few hieroglyphics, so my curiosity is based on this.


Its very origins was connected with the death and rebirth of the Earth as a result of a cataclysm.

What writings indicate that Egypt believed Earth would have a birth and rebirth as a result of a cataclysm?


The Orion correlation at Giza is now too great to be so easily dismissed.


No offense intended, but we could also draw the same correlations with a lot of other things that have no relation to Orion.

Besides, it's backwards from the way Orion is seen in the sky.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hello Byrd,

Byrd: And by the way, their value for "pi" was not "3.14." Their pi-values are two: 3 and 25/8, but they preferred 377/120

SC: "Their value"? Who are you talking about here? I am not talking here about the AEs because it is quite clear that they did not express decimal fractions (i.e. the Pi constant) in the manner expressed by the satellite pyramids i.e. 3-1-4. Whoever created this 'Pi beacon' was certainly not AE.

Byrd: Except that the stars of Orion didn't look like that in 13000 BC. The sky isn't a fixed map of unmoving stars and the looks of the constellations change over thousands of years. A good astronomy program (or an hour with some calculations) will show you the correct configuration.

SC: The date is 10,550BC. Did you actually look at my work? I am aware of Proper Motion and also that the Belt Stars of Orion exhibit relatively little and so appear almsot the same over the course of the Great Year. I have sevral good astronomy programmes and they all show this.

Byrd: Furthermore, given the star maps on Seti I's chambers, I think you'd have a hard time proving that they understood much about the stars.

SC: You're right - the AEs themselves probably did not have such understanding. But I am not crediting the AEs with this design, am I?

Byrd: I've missed something: "Concavities"?

SC: It's explained in my presentation.

Byrd: There's also a number of other speculations that would fit, including the speculation that he didn't much care for his queens.

SC: Sorry - clutching at straws and quite ridiculous. My theory explains simply and logically why there can be no so-called 'Queens Pyramids' at Khafre's 'tomb'.

Byrd: Yes, Newton believed this, but there's no evidence of sophisticated mathematical systems needed to understand the motions before Newton and his calculus. If they understood the motions so well, why didn't they produce astronomical tables like the Sumerians did and why didn't they produce accurate star and constellation maps

SC: The simple point I was making is that it took Copernicus to prove the heliocentric solar system. The ancients knew this thousands of years ago. This is just one example of 'lost knowledge'.

Byrd: And if the priests were the "force behind its implementation" then why didn't they force pyramids earlier and why were pre-Khufu pyramids not perfect (they had the model) and why did they stop building them?

SC: I am not saying this was the case but speculating. I believe Imhotep was the driving force and began the process of implementing the plan. And this plan was to build Giza. Imhotep knew this would take many many generations to complete and that much experimentation would first have to occur before the sacred plan could be attempted. Thus you see the evolution of the pyramid from simple mastaba, step to true pyramid. Sometimes they got the angles wrong (Bent Pyramid) and structures collapsed. It was a learning curve they had to go through. And so when they achieved the first true pyramid it was then time to implement building of the sacred plan at Giza. After this goal had been achieved the desire to build pyramids gradually diminished as did the quality of the constructions. Giza, however, had to be perfect - and it was.

Byrd: Do you have a source other than Aldred

SC: No but he's reliable I'm sure.

Byrd: What writings indicate that Egypt believed Earth would have a birth and rebirth as a result of a cataclysm?

SC: The AEs most likely knew little of or had entirely forgotten the original purpose of the plan given them although they did somehow remember that the sacred plan - the pyramids - had something to do with rebirth, a concept the Pharaoh bestowed upon his own soul. It became a big part of AE religion but not for the orginal reason.

Byrd: Besides, it's backwards from the way Orion is...

SC: I don't follow - how so?

SC



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Howdy Scott

Thanks to Byrd for her astute comments, I'll add a few points to her expertise.

It would seem we are going over the same ground when we discussed this at the Hall of Ma'at.

One point, you had a history in that discussion of bringing up points, and when questioned on it telling people to look it up in your presentation.

In all cases I recall the information was not there or was misrepresented, so again, in your own words, explain concavities?

You dodged my comment on knowledge of ancient civilization - are you claiming that the Sumerians are this culture? We know you do not, so why bring it up? There is no evidence for this advanced culture you claim left a message for the Egyptians. If so please state it.

As before, you state that the Queen pyramids reflect Orion? Then why are they not so arranged? Why do they not actually reflect what is in the sky? The only resemblance between the pyramids and Orion is the number three - hardly compelling.

I'm sorry Scott but claiming the ancients knew about the solar system is simply pure speculation - and contra to known evidence. No matter how much you believe it and state it over and over again it won't make it true.

Scott the pyramids aren't perfect, they are well made but they are not perfect- someday take a look at how the core stones were assembled.

Regards



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
As I recall, the ancient indian civilization knew that the earth was part of the solar system and it orbited a much-larger sun.

en.wikipedia.org... has a nice write-up, with citations(!!).



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Hello CC Benjamin

Interesting items, it would seem the Indians were making philsophical comments. It may have been a good guess on their part 700-800 BC. The Greeks too knew that the world was round a few hundred years later.

I've posted the relevant portion of your link here, I think the Indians were on the edge but didn't quite have the whole picture, or at least that is how I interpret the comments below

The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.[1][2] Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) recognized that the Earth is spherical and believed that the Sun was "the centre of the spheres" as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10), he states:

"The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread."[3]

He recognized that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early heliocentric concept.[1] He also accurately measured the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the modern measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon. He also described an accurate solar calendar in the Shatapatha Brahmana.[4] The Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century BC) also states:

"The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think the sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken. It only changes about after reaching the end of the day and makes night below and day to what is on the other side."[2][5]

Some interpret this to mean that the Sun is stationary, hence the Earth is moving around it,[2] though others are less clear about the meanings of the terms.[5] This would be elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st century BC), which states:

"The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising."[6]


Good stuff but being naturally skeptical I would be interested in seeing the context of where the quotes are taken from, will investigate


[edit on 19-9-2007 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hello Hans - nice to cross swords with you again.

Hans: Actually there is no evidence for a "advanced" civilization before the Egyptians. I wish there was but at this time only small regional cultures have been found.

SC: This statement is incorrect. I pointed out to you the Sumerian civilisation predated the AE civilisation. I pointed out to you that the Sumerians had a better understanding of math and astronomy than the AEs. So, your statement above is incorrect - the Sumerians were more advanced than the AEs. The Sumerian civilisation is not, however, the civilisation I am indicating in my work. Who this civilisation was I cannot tell you because they have disappeared leaving only their knowledge in the layout of the Pyramids of Giza.

Now, you ask about the concavities and have the audacity to berate me for not explaining these to you in my earlier post. Alas these posts only allow 4,000 characters, so space is limited. I did, however, provide a link to my work which explains the concavities. This is done with diagrams since this conveys the concept much simpler than a thousand words ever could. If you had bothered to look over my work in the links I gave you and tried to understand it you would not be asking these silly questions now.

I will say this once - I have no intention of discussing my work here with individuals who do not familiarise themselves with it or the arguments I am making.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
So your belief is that some ancient civilization built the pyramids and then vanished without leaving a trace?

Uhm... where did they come from and how is it possible that we haven't found any traces of their history? Are you trying to say that they suddenly woke up one day and decided to invent Ipods and computers and advanced Internets? All civilizations leave an imprint (mining, farming, roads, cities, etc) and we've never seen one that went from walking around naked and bashing tapiers over the head with rocks to the space age and beyond in a few hundred years.

...that'd be a pretty startling population growth, too.

What's your explaination?


SC: "Their value"? Who are you talking about here? I am not talking here about the AEs because it is quite clear that they did not express decimal fractions (i.e. the Pi constant) in the manner expressed by the satellite pyramids i.e. 3-1-4. Whoever created this 'Pi beacon' was certainly not AE.


Again, we run into the problem: if this was some sort of mystical number, then why isn't it repeated elsewhere? If you're saying the whole Giza complex was created to emulate Orion and pi, then how do you explain
* the necropolois with workers who have titles and associations with pyramid building
* the tombs of officials of the three courts
* the lack of records mentioning the pyramids as previously existing structures
* the names of the structures
* the receipts for stone, the depictions of workers and oxen moving the stone and so forth
* the temples dedicated to the three rulers
* the mummies inside the structures
* the lack of other 3-1-4 references (you said it was "passed on" to the AE's... I'm curious as to what evidence you base this on.)



I have sevral good astronomy programmes and they all show this.

Just checking, because the proportions weren't exact and it seemed you were implying that they'd be exact.


Byrd: I've missed something: "Concavities"?

SC: It's explained in my presentation.

...which didn't load for me. Would you mind explaining it again for all of us? I know others would be interested.


SC: Sorry - clutching at straws and quite ridiculous. My theory explains simply and logically why there can be no so-called 'Queens Pyramids' at Khafre's 'tomb'.

Other than "it fits my theory" do you have any other things you point to as your evidence?


I believe Imhotep was the driving force and began the process of implementing the plan.

You'd have to explain, then, why his first pyramids were such a mess if he'd been given explicit instructions?


And this plan was to build Giza. Imhotep knew this would take many many generations to complete and that much experimentation would first have to occur before the sacred plan could be attempted. Thus you see the evolution of the pyramid from simple mastaba, step to true pyramid. Sometimes they got the angles wrong (Bent Pyramid) and structures collapsed.

I think I must be missing something here. You're saying that Imhotep had some sort of plan that included the layout of Giza and the instructions that he had to build pyramids? I thought you were saying that the pyramids were built by a civilization that came before the AE's.

Could you make your timeline a bit clearer? My brain's running on less sleep than usual and I feel I'm missing something here.


It was a learning curve they had to go through. And so when they achieved the first true pyramid it was then time to implement building of the sacred plan at Giza. After this goal had been achieved the desire to build pyramids gradually diminished as did the quality of the constructions. Giza, however, had to be perfect - and it was.


Uhm... with the unfinished King's chamber? And the mismatched and inconsistant dimensions (l/w/h for each pyramid)?


Byrd: Do you have a source other than Aldred

SC: No but he's reliable I'm sure.

I'm not doubting Aldred, but what I'm asking is critical -- where'd he get his translation? If he's using Budge, then the translation would be defective. I'd like to eyeball the source for Imhotep's name ... the date of the temple is so long after Imhotep that the record needs to be examined. By that time (if his name was preserved) he was more of a myth than a real person, and (like Alexander or George Washington or many other historical notables) the report may be Greatly Exaggerated.

So... curious minds would like to know.


Byrd: What writings indicate that Egypt believed Earth would have a birth and rebirth as a result of a cataclysm?

SC: The AEs most likely knew little of or had entirely forgotten the original purpose of the plan given them although they did somehow remember that the sacred plan - the pyramids - had something to do with rebirth, a concept the Pharaoh bestowed upon his own soul. It became a big part of AE religion but not for the orginal reason.


edited, because I'm tired and this didn't make any sense the first time around Then why is the pharoah associated with the "undying stars" (circumpolar stars) rather than with Orion? And why is the notion of an eternal afterlife (they didn't have any belief in a rebirth) far older than Djoser and the first pyramids -- but is not associated with the pyramids? Why aren't pyramids included in scenes of the afterlife?


Byrd: Besides, it's backwards from the way Orion is...

SC: I don't follow - how so?

Go outside and look at Orion. The arrangement of Giza is not the same as the layout of the stars in Orion's belt (diagonally left to right versus diagonally right to left... they're mapped backwards.) Why leave someone a backwards plan to follow? Orion only looks like Orion from the vantage point of the Earth.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Byrd]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Interesting items, it would seem the Indians were making philsophical comments. It may have been a good guess on their part 700-800 BC.


We had a long-running discussion on the Indians and their sciences awhile back and learned (contrary to what I'd been taught) that they really did have a concept of atoms and so forth about 800-500 BC. None of this matched the modern concept, but at least one of the philosophers had an idea that matter was made up of some type of indivisible substance that had certain qualities. As with most of the science at the time, it became entwined with religion and eventually moved towards a fairly mystical concept.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that they had a notion of a heliocentric solar system. It wouldn't hold a candle to Newton and others, but it was an early model that was far more correct than those that would eventually develop in Europe over the next milennia.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
I will say this once - I have no intention of discussing my work here with individuals who do not familiarise themselves with it or the arguments I am making.


Just a note... we generally toss people off the board for coming here to promote something they've written (it's against the terms and conditions of the site... the T&C you agreed to abide by when you became a member.) I did send a message to the owners and asked them about this (since you're simply responding to things).

HOWEVER... our members are not expected to run out and buy any books/tapes/recordings/videos of people who come here. If you'd like to present your arguments, please do... but please don't put our members down for not running off and buying your book.

Please don't put people down and tell them to "run out and buy my book." Explain it. If you can't be bothered to explain it and back it up by other sources, I'm sure you'll find that people will not be very impressed by your comments.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Good stuff but being naturally skeptical I would be interested in seeing the context of where the quotes are taken from, will investigate
[edit on 19-9-2007 by Hanslune]


Please do! I'm at work, or I'd dig up a reference to the ancient Hindu's having a word that means 1 millionth of a second (it began with T, that's all i recall ATM) and another that means 311 trillion years.

I prefer to be as empirical as possible when it comes to things like this: if there is no evidence, then it probably didn't happen. I wouldn't postulate something as if I knew it if I didn't have some kind of source on it.

On that note, quite why people who lived hundreds of years before Christ needed words that delt with such abstract concepts is currently something I'm looking into.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hello Super Moderator,

SM: Please don't put people down and tell them to "run out and buy my book." Explain it. If you can't be bothered to explain it and back it up by other sources, I'm sure you'll find that people will not be very impressed by your comments.

SC: I have no intention of "putting down" anyone. And I am certainly not asking anyone to run out and buy my book. Just so that we are clear, my work is freely available fromt the links I posted in this thread - these are not links to buy a book. Indeed, my book is not even available for anyone to buy.

Regards,

S. Creighton



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
So your belief is that some ancient civilization built the pyramids and then vanished without leaving a trace?


SC: No, this is NOT my belief. I think it should be clear to most reasonably minded people that there is sufficient evidence to support the prevailing view that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Pyramids at Giza. I fully accept this. I am saying the AEs received the inspiration for the Gizaplex from an earlier advanced civilisation, possibly in the form a scaled, granite model created by the survivors of an Earth cataclysm c.10,550BC. As I have already stated, the AEs themselves tell us they received the designs in a codex from elsewhere.


Uhm... where did they come from and how is it possible that we haven't found any traces of their history?.


SC: Traces of this former civilisation i.e. the clay pots with the 'Made in Atlantis' stamp are now most likely under hundreds of feet of sediment around the former coastlines of the world that are now under hundreds of feet of sea-water. However, they created the plan for Giza and this has been passed down from 10,550BC to the time of Imhotep who most likely initiated the implementation of the plan. This would require the AEs to first learn how to construct a pyramid. When they had mastered this, they began to construct their sacred plan in accordance with their own cultural and religious ideas. It is quite likely that the original purpose of the plan - its deeper mathematical/astronomical 'message' - was mostly lost to the AEs of the 4th Dynasty. That the pyramid was somehow associated with 'continuity of life' after death was remembered by the AEs and incorporated into their religious ideas. But the ancient Architects of the design had a much bigger picture to portray, a picture I present in my work that has been overlooked probably since the plan was first conceived.


Again, we run into the problem: if this was some sort of mystical number, then why isn't it repeated elsewhere?


SC: The Pi constant presented to us wuith the arrangement of the satellite pyramids (3-1-4) doesn't HAVE to be repeated. The AEs didn't repeat it because it wasn't THEIR design. The AEs did not SEE the significance of this arrangement, unfortunately. But a civilisation has now come along (ours) that DOES see the significance of this 3-1-4 arrangement. This is the "Kilroy was here!" beacon, designed to draw our attention and inviting us to investigate the arrangement of the Gizamids further. In so doing, I further discovered the Giza Precession Wheel and the past and future dates it encodes. It is simply untenable to consider that this wheel can be the result of coincidence. My work shows this.


Byrd: I've missed something: "Concavities"?

SC: It's explained in my presentation.
Byrd: ...which didn't load for me. Would you mind explaining it again for all of us? I know others would be interested.


SC: Sorry that you could not see this. However, it is important. It is simply too long and complex to put into words. It is something you have to see to really appreciate. I will try and put some links to some other images.


You'd have to explain, then, why his first pyramids were such a mess if he'd been given explicit instructions?


SC: This was a learning curve. The AEs had to begin somewhere.


I thought you were saying that the pyramids were built by a civilization that came before the AE's.


SC: No - the DESIGN was passed down to the AEs who implemented the plan and built the Gizaplex.


I'm not doubting Aldred, but what I'm asking is critical -- where'd he get his translation?


SC: Alas, Aldred does not say so I cannot give more info on this.


Then why is the pharoah associated with the "undying stars"


SC: Because this was an aspect of the AE religion they themselves developed.

More to follow...

SC



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



edited, because I'm tired and this didn't make any sense the first time around Then why is the pharoah associated with the "undying stars" (circumpolar stars) rather than with Orion? And why is the notion of an eternal afterlife (they didn't have any belief in a rebirth) far older than Djoser and the first pyramids -- but is not associated with the pyramids?


SC: This is entirely consistent with the AEs not understanding the fundamental nature and purpose of the plan. Certainly it was important to them - it "fell from the heavens" afterall. What you would expect to find, however, are small traces of the original purpose, the reason WHY Orion's Belt has been used in the plan. And we do find these small traces - in the Pyramid Texts. I am aware that the PTs did not appear until the 5th Dynasty but it would be unusual that such texts were not based on an earlier, oral tradition.


Why aren't pyramids included in scenes of the afterlife?


SC: But they are - as 5 pointed stars. This is what a pyramid is.


Byrd: Besides, it's backwards from the way Orion is...

SC: I don't follow - how so?

Go outside and look at Orion. The arrangement of Giza is not the same as the layout of the stars in Orion's belt (diagonally left to right versus diagonally right to left... they're mapped backwards.) Why leave someone a backwards plan to follow? Orion only looks like Orion from the vantage point of the Earth.


SC: I am well aware of the orientation and arrangement of the Orion Belt stars. If you are referring to the Kruppside-down argument then that is just plain nonsense. Indeed, I have debunked Krupp's argument here:

www.grahamhancock.com...

Regards,

Scott Creighton





 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join