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.

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

page: 3
18
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: No – you get a circle. Understanding the relationship of that circle’s diameter to its circumference and being able to express this in decimal form is a way of explicitly demonstrating abstract knowledge.

Decimal arithmetic isn't the highest form of math, you know. You're being a bit biased here.

The 22/7ths is more correct than 3.14. The AE's and other ancient civilizations knew perfectly well what it was, but they all wrote it as fractions (as I showed a dozen posts or more back.) And, as showed then, they didn't think it was that special. Useful, yes. Special, no.

That the Pi ratio is being PLAINLY pointed out to us serves as a ‘beacon’, inviting us to investigate further, inviting us to circumscribe Giza with a circle. When we do this we begin to uncover the precession wheel encoded into the design. This would most likely have gone unnoticed were it not for the 3-1-4 ‘beacon’ instructing us to “draw a circle”.

But it doesn't work. In your drawings, the Orion belt stars make only a turn of 1/4th the circle instead of 1/2 of the circle (and your circle isn't a circle, you know.) You showed a full half-cycle precession with the belt stars ending up on different horizons, 180 degrees from each other. On the ground, they're 90 degrees.

And this precession wheel is not a concoction of my own imagination – all the components required for a functioning astronomical clock are presented, are clearly defined and immaculately crafted.

There's no time reference to 25,772 years and no way to derive it from your design. A clearly defined and immaculately crafted idea would have been able to convey this and show the position at any time point.

Furthermore, as a "device" it's unusable. If I asked you to show me how you'd derive the place of Orion's belt in AD 505, I don't think you could do it with that. The orientation of the belt stars would't match what was in the sky.

SC: The AE used a decimal system, yaddayaddayadda !! The AE did not, however, use decimal fractions.

They used a "base 10" system. That's not the same as a decimal system with decimal fractions.

SC: Mathematical knowledge, expressed through a granite model, can be easily transferred through a culture – no chanting required. The culture in question need not necessarily understand the deeper levels of knowledge in the model’s design but this does not mean the model would not have been important to their culture. We are told that it came from the “heavens” afterall.

Where are the drawings and references to it? Yes, you cited Aldred... can you point to the item online that he was pointing to? I'm not being mean, but you saw the photo on the page, and I really would like to check the translation. I haven't been able to google out any reference to Imhotep in that temple.

SC:A smooth-sided pyramid might be relatively easy for our civilisation to construct (??). Imhotep, however, initiating the plan had nothing to go on, just a finished model of the Gizaplex. Before him there had never been such a thing as a pyramid and would have been a very daunting task. How exactly do you build a smoth-sided pyramid (using AE techniques)?

Actually, it's fairly easy. What was hard was developing the idea of what they wanted and getting the angle right.

If they had the picture, then Imhotep or his successors would have quickly figured the whole thing out. All he had to do was set up the drawing and make a scale model. They had ways of measuring angles rather precisely, so it was a pretty simple thing to determine what the correct angle was. And they would have made models of the designs to study and make sure the placements were right.

They could have easily built it before, assuming they convinced the pharaohs that it was necessary. They could have placed it anywhere on the Nile... Giza was not the only spot. It's costly and labor intensive, but the people believed pharoah was God and if a series of Gods had decreed that this must be built, then they would build it.

They could have built it with much smaller pyramids, in fact. And if it was important to them, they would have put models of it in the pharaohs' tombs (they certainly had models of other things in the tombs.)

Clearly there would have been a long and difficult learning curve involved. Many mistakes would have been made and new innovations introduced until they had perfected the craft.

You're underestimating them. Take a look at the monumental statues and temples they were doing (including balancing stacks of rock into columns). These people weren't barely able to make brickwork -- they had some highly sophisticated monumental works.

SC: As I have already stated, the AE did not realise the significance of the 314 beacon because they did not understand decimal fractions. They simply did not see this knowledge – unfortunately.

Then they wouldn't have transmitted it. They did make wooden "tomb models" of temples and buildings and other things for the mausoleums and burial chambers of the pharoahs and nobles. If this design was important and if they were trying urgently to build it, then where are the tomb models that show it? Where are the models that show 314 in any form?

We do see them transmitting other instructions and knowledge and engineering principles in designs, in textbooks, in math scrols, and tomb models. In order to get a good proof, you have to show linkage with something like that.

After Imhotep, the plan would have had to go to the successive pharoahs. So why didn't they try to build it with their already good tech and why not in a convenient place like the cult centers at Tel El Armana or Bubastis or Mendes?

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: I present a theory. A new interpretation of the Gizaplex based on the relative arrangement of the pyramids there. A theory – nothing more, nothing less. How many theories do you know of that have external proof?

All of them.

Now, the ideas in "skunk works" aren't really theories... they're just ideas. No support (or minimal support) and critiques are not welcome. You can say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster originated the plan there, and you'll probably get some enthusiasm and very little critques. Not so on the rest of the board. We have some real scientists here and real science geeks, and they know what the word, "theory" really means.

A REAL theory has to have support and has to have a falsifiability test. For instance, I have a theory about the White Shaman panel: rockart.org... -- that it was painted over a time period of 1,000 years and by 3 different cultures. In order to do this, I have to show 3 distinct styles in the art, have to link those with the same style at other sites where that's the ONLY style, and have to show three different time periods through radiocarbon dating of those sites. For bonus points, I need to be able to link parts of the designs (lines and dots and things like that) with a specific group.

I also have to be able to PREDICT with my theory (predict, for example, that this unique mix of styles will never occur elsewhere and that it only occurs in this one place because it was a territory overlap.) I will also have to give some sort of metric/measurement and statistical data.

If I can't do that, my peers will rip me to shreds and no one will consider my subsequent work worthy of publication. And this reputation of being a real loser will follow me around.

That's a theory: idea based on a very tight chain of evidence, that has a falsifiability test and offers predictions of what you'd see uncovered from a new dig (no overlapping of art styles from the same time period, in my case.) Every new discovery will either confirm my theory more or will drive a big hole through it. There's no shame in being shown to be wrong...but there's a real shame in a "theory" that has no good strong chain of evidence.

SC: And it only takes a very small asteroid to impact the Earth at the right location, at the correct angle to knock the Earth off its axis of rotation. This would cause the Earth to effectively tilt. What effects do you think such a tilt might have on the inhabitants of the Earth? All caused by a very small asteroid.

Well, the 2004 Christmas earthquake and tsunami tilted the planet by an amount much more than a meteor exploding in the air (which was their theory) would. The 4650 BC collapse of the volcano that created Crater Lake doesn't seem to have had that impact.

Here's a list of the "top ten" volcanos and earthquakes -- they had huge impacts on the Earth and left marks on the Earth. None of the modern ones led to the selective extinction of a lot fo species -- even Tambora, which had global climate effects:
www.uwgb.edu...

All of them could also have tilted the Earth.

SC: Plato explicitly tells us, in recalling Solon’s story, that ‘this is true history’. Socrates also states this. I have no reason to doubt that when Plato explicitly tells us something is true, it was indeed true. Plato knew the ground rules of his discussions and would not contradict them in such a way.

He made up fictional teaching stories all the time (his "if" scenarios), and it shows in all the stories about him -- his tale of "The Cave" is a good example of this. His concept of the Philospher King is framed in this way.

Check out his books on the web sometime.

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:50 AM
Howdy Scott

The book I was referring to was Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith.

Your explanation of the importance of Orion's stars mises several key points.

When the three stars are superimposed over the pyramids do they match up? No they do not, if you align the center both of wings are out of alignment and vice versa. Secondly the size of pyramids don't reflect the actual qualities of the stars themselves. Please explain the importance of the size of the pyramids to the actual Orion stars? Please also explain why M was built with Red Granite? Also why the satellites don't reflect the alignment, size or pecularities of the actual stars?

This misalignment cast serious doubt that the Egyptians were trying to replica a sky they themselves couldn't see. If they were they got it wrong.

Another point Scott have you actually read Plato's Timaeus and Critias?
You seem to take everything Plato wrote as the truth. Taking your unshake faith in Plato as a basis please explain the following which is taken directly from that work.

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then..

www.activemind.com...

Now you've been saying we cannot find these guys because they carefully only built on the areas that were flooded. Yet Plato, says they had an empire that had overrun Africa to Egypt and the entire western Med up to Tyrrhenia...so why don't we find them? Did they rule by Internet and email? LOL

Moreover, they divided at the bridges the zones of land which parted the zones of sea, leaving room for a single trireme to pass out of one zone into another.

So an advanced civilization use triremes?

The docks were full of triremes and naval stores, and all things were quite ready for use.

Hmmm more triremes

The entire area was densely crowded with habitations; and the canal and the largest of the harbours were full of vessels and merchants coming from all parts,

Ah so merchants from all parts so we should find Atlantean manufactured items in habitations through out the world? Do we?

The leader was required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war-chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots; also two horses and riders for them, and a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman who could fight on foot carrying a small shield, and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships.

So Scott does this sound like a civiization capable of building advanced telescopes to explore and understand the galaxy and the effects of a Nova?

Remember this is what Plato says

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:16 AM
“Plato explicitly tells us, in recalling Solon’s story, that ‘this is true history’. Socrates also states this. I have no reason to doubt that when Plato explicitly tells us something is true, it was indeed true. Plato knew the ground rules of his discussions and would not contradict them in such a way”

Scott could you quote the part of T & C where this is said? I’m unaware of this statement within the document. However I do know that Crantor, the first editor of the Timaeus and Critias, claimed that every word was true.

www.sacred-texts.com...

I find the word ‘True’ three times and history but once and not in the combination you suggest

In Timaeus

Critias says: Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages

So we have several layers of hearsay

Is the alleged Egyptian telling the truth?

Is Solon telling the truth?

Is Critias the elder telling the truth?

Is Critias the younger telling the truth?

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Hanslune]

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by Byrd

Byrd: Decimal arithmetic isn't the highest form of math, you know. You're being a bit biased here.

SC: No, I’m not being biased at all. I am simply pointing out the fact that the satellite pyramdis at Giza are arranged as 3-1-4 which just so happen to be the first 3 digits of the Pi constant, 3.14……

Byrd: The 22/7ths is more correct than 3.14. The AE's and other ancient civilizations knew perfectly well what it was, but they all wrote it as fractions.

SC: No. 22/7 is only one of many formulas that result in the Pi constant. e.g. the formula 1068966896/340262731 is far more accurate, to 17 decimal places. Indeed, it is certain that there are other formulas and methods to determine the value of the Pi constant that we have yet to discover.

Now, it does not matter what formula is used, they all give the first 3 digits as 3-1-4. So tell me - what formula should the ancient Designers have used to represent a circle? The point is they would not know which formula to depict because they would not know which formulas a future civilisation would discover and recognise. Yes we did discover 22/7 but the ancient Designers could not take the risk that we might not have discovered this method.

The point is all formulas result in 3-1-4 as their first three digits for the Pi constant. Surely then, logic dictates that since all formulas produce 3 1 4 as the first 3 digits then it is these digits (i.e. the answer as opposed to the formula) that would be more noticeable to a future, mathematically advanced culture. This is why it is the answer that has been presented to us as a beacon as opposed to any of its many formulas.

Byrd: But it doesn't work. In your drawings, the Orion belt stars make only a turn of 1/4th the circle instead of 1/2 of the circle (and your circle isn't a circle, you know.) You showed a full half-cycle precession with the belt stars ending up on different horizons, 180 degrees from each other. On the ground, they're 90 degrees.

SC: Okay, I am not entirely sure what you are saying here but I will do my best to answer what I think you are saying. Fact – over the course of a precessional half-year (around 12,960 years) the stars of Orion’s Belt rotate 90º in the sky, from a horizontal alignment to a vertical. Fact – at the same time these stars precess from near the SW horizon across to the eastern horizon. These two positions mark the maximum and minimum culmination of these stars. The relative placement of the 2 sets of Queens (1 set on SW horizon aligned horizontally and the other set on the eastern horizon flipped 90º) is to mark the start and end points of the half-cycle. They reflect this very well and I don’t see why you are having a problem understanding this. Furthermore, as I have previously stated, this explains the absence of ‘Queens Pyramids’ at Khafre’s ‘tomb’ – a Pharaoh who had more Queens than the other two at Giza. There is no need to place precessional markers at Khafre’s ‘tomb’ because we only need to see the beginning and end points of the precessional half-cycle to understand what is being depicted. In my darwing (which is really for illustrative purposes only) traces the Queens along an eliptical orbit because this is how the belt stars precess.

More to follow…

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by Byrd

Byrd: There's no time reference to 25,772 years and no way to derive it from your design.

SC: I beg to differ. A pyramid is a star, expressed by the AE as having 5 points. The slope of the GP is 51.84. Expressed as 5184 we find the sqr root is 72. This is a value that is very close to our present precessional rate of 71.6 years per 1º shift.

72 x 5 = 360.
5184 x 5 = 25,920.
25,920/72 = 360.

The precessional duration and its key values are plainly defined within the dimensions of the GP.

Byrd: A clearly defined and immaculately crafted idea would have been able to convey this and show the position at any time point. Furthermore, as a "device" it's unusable. If I asked you to show me how you'd derive the place of Orion's belt in AD 505, I don't think you could do it with that. The orientation of the belt stars would't match what was in the sky.

SC: But again you miss the point. The PURPOSE of marking the start and end points is NOT to enable us to plot the movement of the belt stars. The PURPOSE of marking the start and end points like this is to enable us to KNOW WHICH 3 STARS the Designers were indicating with the 3 main pyramids. Any 3 stars could, theoretically, be selected AND MADE TO FIT the arrangement/alignment of the 3 main pyramids. Robert Bauval’s on-going debate with Andrew Collins who proposes the Cygnus constellation demonstrates this problem rather well. And this would present us with a problem since we simply have to know the 3 stars the main pyramids represent since it is one of these 3 pyramdis that represents the star the ancients measured to set the start date of their clock. Without knowing precisely which 3 stars the ancients used to do this we are left to guesswork. The ancients realised this problem and ensured that they provided within their design a mechanism whereby we simply could not fail to select the correct triad of stars. They did this by marking the start and end points of the precessional motion of their chosen triad of stars. ONLY the Orion Belt stars precess across the sky in this manner and because of this we can be certain which stars the ancients are indicating to us in the main design i.e. the 3 main pyramids - Orion’s Belt. Now that we know the correct triad of stars, what we have to then do is determine which of the 3 stars was used to set the clock’s start date. By ensuring Menkaure was significantly different (and indeed quite unique) from the other main pyramids it is logical to conclude that it is Menkaure’s alignment that was placed according to its celestial counterpart, Mintaka. In other words, Menkaure’s alignment with its celestial counterpart sets the start date for the clock.

SC: The AE used a decimal system, yaddayaddayadda !! The AE did not, however, use decimal fractions.

Byrd: They used a "base 10" system. That's not the same as a decimal system with decimal fractions.

SC: They used a decimal system. They just didn’t use a decimal point.

en.wikipedia.org...

More to follow...

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by Byrd

SC: Mathematical knowledge, expressed through a granite model, can be easily transferred through a culture – no chanting required. The culture in question need not necessarily understand the deeper levels of knowledge in the model’s design but this does not mean the model would not have been important to their culture. We are told that it came from the “heavens” afterall.

Byrd: Where are the drawings and references to it? Yes, you cited Aldred... can you point to the item online that he was pointing to? I'm not being mean, but you saw the photo on the page, and I really would like to check the translation. I haven't been able to google out any reference to Imhotep in that temple.

SC: Let’s be clear here, there’s no photo and Aldred makes no specific reference to his source other than to indicate the colonnaded court of the temple of Horus at Edfu, of which he further writes:

“...Its many inscriptions have bequeathed a wealth of information about the founding of such temples, their constrcution and use, the daily ritual, the festivals and their dates, the duties of the various priests, even the dimensions of each chamber, its name and purpose, besides myths of very ancient origin."

Aldred, 'The Egyptians, P32

SC:A smooth-sided pyramid might be relatively easy for our civilisation to construct (??). Imhotep, however, initiating the plan had nothing to go on, just a finished model of the Gizaplex. Before him there had never been such a thing as a pyramid and would have been a very daunting task. How exactly do you build a smooth-sided pyramid (using AE techniques)?

Byrd: Actually, it's fairly easy. What was hard was developing the idea of what they wanted and getting the angle right.

If they had the picture, then Imhotep or his successors would have quickly figured the whole thing out. All he had to do was set up the drawing and make a scale model. They had ways of measuring angles rather precisely, so it was a pretty simple thing to determine what the correct angle was. And they would have made models of the designs to study and make sure the placements were right.

They could have easily built it before, assuming they convinced the pharaohs that it was necessary. They could have placed it anywhere on the Nile... Giza was not the only spot. It's costly and labor intensive, but the people believed pharoah was God and if a series of Gods had decreed that this must be built, then they would build it.

They could have built it with much smaller pyramids, in fact. And if it was important to them, they would have put models of it in the pharaohs' tombs (they certainly had models of other things in the tombs.)

SC: Is there a question here?

Clearly there would have been a long and difficult learning curve involved. Many mistakes would have been made and new innovations introduced until they had perfected the craft.
You're underestimating them. Take a look at the monumental statues and temples they were doing (including balancing stacks of rock into columns). These people weren't barely able to make brickwork -- they had some highly sophisticated monumental works.

SC: None of which would have appeared overnight! There would have been a gradual progression in the art of building pyramids towards constructing smooth-sided structures. It is ridiculous you inferring here that the AEs (even with the benefit of a model) could have achieved this without a significant learning curve. You gotta walk before you can run.

More to follow…

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by Byrd

SC: As I have already stated, the AE did not realise the significance of the 314 beacon because they did not understand decimal fractions. They simply did not see this knowledge – unfortunately.

Byrd: Then they wouldn't have transmitted it.

SC: The AEs aren’t transmitting ANYTHING! They are simply building a sacred plan that came to them from the heavens, thousands of years earlier. It is the people who DEVISED the design, the model, that are doing the transmitting. They knew after the last Earth cataclysm c.10,500BC that their civilisation would quickly descend into a stoneage culture and all knowledge would be lost. They devised this design (possibly in the form of a granite model) in order to preserve the most important aspect of their knowledge in the hope that a civilisation would rise some time in the future that would see their ‘beacon’, investigate it and understand their ‘message’. The AEs missed it entirely.

They did make wooden "tomb models" of temples and buildings and other things for the mausoleums and burial chambers of the pharoahs and nobles. If this design was important and if they were trying urgently to build it, then where are the tomb models that show it? Where are the models that show 314 in any form?

We do see them transmitting other instructions and knowledge and engineering principles in designs, in textbooks, in math scrols, and tomb models. In order to get a good proof, you have to show linkage with something like that.

SC: You seem to have answered your own question here. As for the original designs, I am speculating that it would have been in the form of a scaled granite model because the Designers would have reasoned that their own language would quickly fall into disuse thereby any instructions or ‘messages’ in such a form would more than likely be incomprehensible to future civilisations. The simplest way to ‘encode’ the inofrmation they wished to pass on would be through a model of some kind, possibly crafted in granite that could be passed down, unaltered, through thousands of years. Where this model is, who knows. I do speculate, however, that it may be found here (Fig. 3b):

www.grahamhancock.com...

X marks the spot.

After Imhotep, the plan would have had to go to the successive pharoahs. So why didn't they try to build it with their already good tech and why not in a convenient place like the cult centers at Tel El Armana or Bubastis or Mendes?

SC: Like I said, their pyramid-building ability was still evolving. Only when they were confident enough would they feel ready to attempt the sacred plan. As for choosing Giza, well, what can I say – they built it where they built it. For whatever reason(s), they felt Giza was the right location.

More to follow….

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by Byrd

SC: I present a theory. A new interpretation of the Gizaplex based on the relative arrangement of the pyramids there. A theory – nothing more, nothing less. How many theories do you know of that have external proof?

Byrd: All of them.

SC: If there is proof then it is not a theory – it’s a fact. Does ‘String Theory’ have proof? Does ‘General Relativity’ have proof?

Byrd: A REAL theory has to have support and has to have a falsifiability test.

SC: Is that like the theory that the pyramids of Giza were built solely as the burial tomb of the Pharaoh? Where’s the falsifiability test here then?

Unlike the ‘tomb’ theory, my own work is easily falsifiable. The precession clock either works in the manner I describe, or it doesn’t. It is easily tested with any good astronomy software.

Furthermore, the Pyramids as a Precession Clock predicts that there will be no ‘Queens Pyramids’ (i.e. structures comparable in size with the other 2 sets of ‘Queens’) found around Khafre’s ‘tomb’ in spite of him having 5 Queens. To find such would call into question the purpose of the other 2 sets of ‘Queens’ as start and end markers of the Orion precessional half-cycle.
In addition, the Pyramids as a Precession Clock predicts that there will be no other satellite pyramid structures of any size found on the Giza plateau. To find such would render the 3-1-4 ‘beacon’ untenable.

SC: And it only takes a very small asteroid to impact the Earth at the right location, at the correct angle to knock the Earth off its axis of rotation. This would cause the Earth to effectively tilt. What effects do you think such a tilt might have on the inhabitants of the Earth? All caused by a very small asteroid.

Byrd: All of them [impacts] could also have tilted the Earth.

SC: No – they could do so ONLY if they impacted the Earth at a particular angle and during a particular alignment of Earth, sun and moon. Read Dr Barbiero’s theory.

SC: Plato explicitly tells us, in recalling Solon’s story, that ‘this is true history’. Socrates also states this. I have no reason to doubt that when Plato explicitly tells us something is true, it was indeed true. Plato knew the ground rules of his discussions and would not contradict them in such a way.

Byrd: He [Plato] made up fictional teaching stories all the time…

SC: Except the story of Atlantis was not made up by Plato. He was merely recalling Solon’s story and Solon was as real an historical person as Plato and Socrates. That Plato states about Solon’s Atlantis story, “this is true history” is good enough for me. You may doubt its authenticity, I see no compelling reason to do so.

Regards,

SC

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: If there is proof then it is not a theory – it’s a fact.

Nope.

A proof is when every possible case has been examined and there are no exceptions.

Does ‘String Theory’ have proof?

No. In fact, this is on eof the problems with it... there are mathematical models but they have't confirmed any of it. Its predictions haven't worked out and this is why it's starting to fall out of favor with physicists.

Does ‘General Relativity’ have proof?

No. In fact, it doesn't hold true at the subatomic level. That's why there's also a theory of special relativity.

SC: Is that like the theory that the pyramids of Giza were built solely as the burial tomb of the Pharaoh? Where’s the falsifiability test here then?

That's not a theory... it's a statement of what's at the site. However, if you wished to check for falsifiability, then:

* written material refers to the pyramids as something other than the pharaohs' structures (in other words, the ostrika/tablets/workman's orders/tomb paintings would refer to a pyramid as maybe "storage house of knowledge".)
* material at the site (including the temples and tomb models and so forth) refer to dates outside the range of the lifespans of the pharaohs.
* the titles for the pyramids do not refer to the pharaohs or any of their titles.
* style of art at the site and on the chambers belongs to another dynasty than the ones under examination.
* written materials at the site are from a much older dynasty (you can tell this because of the changes in the language. It's like 'Olde AEnglish') -- or a much newer dynasty.

Unlike the ‘tomb’ theory, my own work is easily falsifiable. The precession clock either works in the manner I describe, or it doesn’t. It is easily tested with any good astronomy software.

You haven't explained the discrepancy in the stars (why it's only a 90 degree turn instead of 180 and why the position of the pyramids doesn't match the position of the stars or what the signifcance of the fourth pyramid is. And you haven't shown how it's an accurate clock. It doesn't trace the path of the progression when seen from the ground.

Furthermore, the Pyramids as a Precession Clock predicts that there will be no ‘Queens Pyramids’ (i.e. structures comparable in size with the other 2 sets of ‘Queens’) found around Khafre’s ‘tomb’ in spite of him having 5 Queens. To find such would call into question the purpose of the other 2 sets of ‘Queens’ as start and end markers of the Orion precessional half-cycle.

In addition, the Pyramids as a Precession Clock predicts that there will be no other satellite pyramid structures of any size found on the Giza plateau. To find such would render the 3-1-4 ‘beacon’ untenable.

Except ... we already know what's there. That's not a prediction; it's an observation that you're trying to make fit your prediction. Negative predictions ("we won't find any examples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster at the White Shaman" don't count... you have to predict something that is NOT known. A theory would predict that "they're digging at site 418 on Giza and if my theory is correct they will find a series of dots on a stelae that shows the position of the Orion's Belt stars in 203 BC."

And then you check the new material being dug up.

No – they could do so ONLY if they impacted the Earth at a particular angle and during a particular alignment of Earth, sun and moon. Read Dr Barbiero’s theory.

May I counter with Newton and his laws (not theories)?

If you've ever played billiards or pool, you know that any impact/jolt that's not on the equator will tip a ball. They really ARE strong enough to disrupt the Earth.

SC: Except the story of Atlantis was not made up by Plato. He was merely recalling Solon’s story and Solon was as real an historical person as Plato and Socrates. That Plato states about Solon’s Atlantis story, “this is true history” is good enough for me. You may doubt its authenticity, I see no compelling reason to do so.

He lived 200 years before Plato. He wrote extensively. He was a poet, and one of the most popular forms of poetry of the time was tragedy, with the them tragedy caused by hubris being the most popular. He wrote lots of poems about the deeds of Athens (and in the tale, Athens defeats Atlantis.) His poetry about Athens led him to be declared general for one of their wars. His contemporaries noted those poems.

But none of them noted a poem about Atlantis. Plutarch and Herodotus said he composed such a poem, but they are writing some 200-400 years after Solon lived.

Plato records other tales told by Socrates.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

Hans: The book I was referring to was Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith.

SC: Fine - I understand.

Hans: Your explanation of the importance of Orion's stars mises several key points.

When the three stars are superimposed over the pyramids do they match up? No they do not, if you align the center both of wings are out of alignment and vice versa.

SC: First of all, you must concede that the stars of Orion’s Belt, if not an exact correlation, offer a good likeness in terms of the arrangement of the Gizamids. However, this arrangement is such that looking at the night sky we can create any number of potential 3-star correlations that would be just as good a likeness, the wings of Cygnus being but just one possibility. Indeed, Andrew Collins has argued that the Cygnus correlation offers a better ‘fit’ than Orion’s Belt. But this is all just a smokescreen. The three main pyramids are arranged such that Orion’s belt is but one possibility – I accept that they are not precise but the point is - THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE PRECISE!! All that really needs to be precise is the Mintaka/Menkaure alignment - 212* azimuth.

We can easily see a correlation between sky and ground - even if not exact - between a 1,000 or more star-triads. So how can we determine which triad of stars is the triad used by the Designers? It is a big problem because any number of star triads can be made to fit the arrangement of the pyramids (squeeze them, stretch them, rotate them this way or that way). But the Designers realised this problem and this is precisely why they show us how their chosen triad of stars precesses across the sky over some 13,000 years. By including this in their design we can know for sure which triad of stars they are alluding to (regardless of them not being 100% accurate on the ground) because only Orion’s Belt precesses in this manner.

Hans: Secondly the size of pyramids don't reflect the actual qualities of the stars themselves. Please explain the importance of the size of the pyramids to the actual Orion stars?

SC: I think you are perhaps alluding to the magnitudes of the various belt stars versus the actual size of the 3 main pyramids. This is an argument put forward by Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert. I have no opinion on this either way since it has absolutely no bearing on my own theory/hypothesis/conjecture or whatever you wish to call it. I’ll let Mr Bauval fight his own battles.

Hans: Please also explain why M was built with Red Granite? Also why the satellites don't reflect the alignment, size or pecularities of the actual stars?

SC: By ‘M’ I presume you mean Menkaure’s Pyramid? I’m glad you ask this question. Quite simply – and as I have stated on numerous occasions – Menkaure’s pyramid HAD TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. It had to STAND OUT from the other main Gizamids since this is the pyramid that provides us with the astronomical alignment which dates the precession wheel. It is also quite unique of all the pyramids at Giza due to its size. Every other pyramid at Giza has a pyramid that is of comparable size.

Khufu & Khafre (comparable size)

2 x Cult (comparable size)

2 x Queens (comparable size)

Only Menkaure has no pyramid of comparable size. It has no equal and in this regard is also quite unique.

More to follow....

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

Hans: The book I was referring to was Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith.

SC: Fine - I understand.

Hans: Your explanation of the importance of Orion's stars mises several key points.

When the three stars are superimposed over the pyramids do they match up? No they do not, if you align the center both of wings are out of alignment and vice versa.

SC: First of all, you must concede that the stars of Orion’s Belt, if not an exact correlation, offer a good likeness in terms of the arrangement of the Gizamids. However, this arrangement is such that looking at the night sky we can create any number of potential 3-star correlations that would be just as good a likeness, the wings of Cygnus being but just one possibility. Indeed, Andrew Collins has argued that the Cygnus correlation offers a better ‘fit’ than Orion’s Belt. But this is all just a smokescreen. The three main pyramids are arranged such that Orion’s belt is but one possibility – I accept that they are not precise but the point is - THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE PRECISE!! All that really needs to be precise is the Mintaka/Menkaure alignment - 212* azimuth.

We can easily see a correlation between sky and ground - even if not exact - between a 1,000 or more star-triads. So how can we determine which triad of stars is the triad used by the Designers? It is a big problem because any number of star triads can be made to fit the arrangement of the pyramids (squeeze them, stretch them, rotate them this way or that way). But the Designers realised this problem and this is precisely why they show us how their chosen triad of stars precesses across the sky over some 13,000 years. By including this in their design we can know for sure which triad of stars they are alluding to (regardless of them not being 100% accurate on the ground) because only Orion’s Belt precesses in this manner.

Hans: Secondly the size of pyramids don't reflect the actual qualities of the stars themselves. Please explain the importance of the size of the pyramids to the actual Orion stars?

SC: I think you are perhaps alluding to the magnitudes of the various belt stars versus the actual size of the 3 main pyramids. This is an argument put forward by Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert. I have no opinion on this either way since it has absolutely no bearing on my own theory/hypothesis/conjecture or whatever you wish to call it. I’ll let Mr Bauval fight his own battles.

Hans: Please also explain why M was built with Red Granite? Also why the satellites don't reflect the alignment, size or pecularities of the actual stars?

SC: By ‘M’ I presume you mean Menkaure’s Pyramid? I’m glad you ask this question. Quite simply – and as I have stated on numerous occasions – Menkaure’s pyramid HAD TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. It had to STAND OUT from the other main Gizamids since this is the pyramid that provides us with the astronomical alignment which dates the precession wheel. It is also quite unique of all the pyramids at Giza due to its size. Every other pyramid at Giza has a pyramid that is of comparable size.

Khufu & Khafre (comparable size)

2 x Cult (comparable size)

2 x Queens (comparable size)

Only Menkaure has no pyramid of comparable size. It has no equal and in this regard is also quite unique.

More to follow....

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hans: This misalignment cast serious doubt that the Egyptians were trying to replica a sky they themselves couldn't see. If they were they got it wrong.

SC: No - I think it is all the more reason for them not to get the alignment exact (if it ever was exact, that is). They are scaling up a model but also had to contend with the practicalities of constructing it on the ground at Giza. Perhaps they would have liked to have spaced Menkaure further south but could not due to the Maadi Formation.

Hans: Another point Scott have you actually read Plato's Timaeus and Critias?

SC: Yes – at least a couple of times but I can’t recite it verbatim is that is what you are asking?

Hans: You seem to take everything Plato wrote as the truth…

SC: No – I am saying only that when Plato says something IS true then, and only then, does he present us with an unequivocal statement i.e. Solon’s tale was true history. Then, and only then, does Plato tell us that he is parting from a hypothetical scenario. Indeed, there is no reason why Plato could not and should not have used a true event (however embelished that event may have become over the thousands of years to Plato’s time) to demonstrate his philosophical ideas. Fact is – we could debate this until kingdom comes and neither of us will ever be absolutely sure if Plato was indeed referring to true history or not. He says he was – on this particular occasion – so I have to take him at his word. And all the more reason to now that science is beginning to present evidence of a major Earth cataclysm around the time Plato tells us Atlantis was destroyed which corresponds also with the dates I have found in the Giza Precession Wheel.

Regards,

Scott

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by Byrd

SC: I asked in an earlier post how many theories you knew of that had proofs. You replied, “All of them.” Well, let’s see:

SC: Does ‘String Theory’ have proof?
Byrd: No…
SC: Does ‘General Relativity’ have proof?

Byrd: No. In fact, it doesn't hold true at the subatomic level. That's why there's also a theory of special relativity.

SC: Seems to me then that – contrary to what you have said above - not all theories have proofs.

However, this is all to take our eye off the ball here. Yes, I accept that there is a tendency among the non-scientific community to use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation but I am not going to lose sleep over it. Perhaps your own definition of what I present is more accurate, vis-a-vis:

SC: Is that like the theory that the pyramids of Giza were built solely as the burial tomb of the Pharaoh? Where’s the falsifiability test here then?

Byrd: That's not a theory... it's a statement of what's at the site.

SC: I’m happy to go along with that

More to follow...

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by Byrd

Byrd: You haven't explained the discrepancy in the stars (why it's only a 90 degree turn instead of 180 and why the position of the pyramids doesn't match the position of the stars or what the signifcance of the fourth pyramid is. And you haven't shown how it's an accurate clock. It doesn't trace the path of the progression when seen from the ground.

SC: There is no discrepency. The precessional shift of the Belt Stars is – as I have stated previously – along an eliptical orbit. This shift is 120º and not 90º as you stated. In terms of the placement of the 2 sets of Queens pyramids, from a Khafre centre these are spaced at 156º so there does appear to be a discrepency. But this is not actually the case because the belt stars move around an elipse whilst the 2 sets of ‘Queens’ are placed around a precessional circle of 360º.

Think about it this way – the precessional half-cycle is around 12,960 years based on a 1º shift every 72 years. Since the actual belt stars in the sky appear to to move only 120º from maximum to minimum culmination, representing this in the precession wheel would produce a precessional half-cycle of only 8,640 years (72 x 120) – which is clearly not correct.

To transpose the eliptical motion of the Belt Stars onto the 360º precession wheel and obtain the correct half-cycle value of 12,960 we are forced to space the 2 sets of Queens Pyramids further apart on the ground i.e. 180º - 180 x 72 = 12,960 years. However, what we find is that the ‘Queens’ (from a Khafre centre) are spaced at only 156º, or thereabouts. This is 24º or 1,728 years short of the complete half-cycle i.e. a cycle of around 11,232 years. So, why did the Designers place the Queens at only 156º apart and not 180º as one might expect? I propose that the answer to this is that within the half-cycle the Designers wished to present a very specific duration of 11,232 years. This very specific duration has been encoded within the design to tell us the time between one cataclysmic phase ending and the next phase beginning.

Within the Precession Wheel we find the last cataclysmic phase ended c.8,066BC. Between the dates 10,550BC and 8,066BC (2,484 years) the Earth existed within this ‘cataclysmic phase’. 11,232 years forward from 8,066BC brings us to the date of 3,166AD. Intriguingly, the Orion Belt stars reach minimum culmination around 2,500AD. It seems the designers are telling us to then count 666 years from this date towards the date 3,166AD when the next cataclysmic phase is due.

It is possible that these cataclysmic phases – in whatever shape or form they take – occur approximately at each end of the Orion Belt pendulum swing, hence why the ancient Designers most likely chose this constellation to encode their ‘Giza Doomsday Clock’ since the precessional swing of the belt stars most closely coincides with the cataclysmic phases.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by Byrd

SC: No – they could do so ONLY if they impacted the Earth at a particular angle and during a particular alignment of Earth, sun and moon. Read Dr Barbiero’s theory.

Byrd: May I counter with Newton and his laws (not theories)?

If you've ever played billiards or pool, you know that any impact/jolt that's not on the equator will tip a ball. They really ARE strong enough to disrupt the Earth.

SC: Except this discussion is not about billiard balls (or planets) of equal size. We are talking about an object of relatively insignificant size (a small asteroid), setting in motion a chain of events that ultimately results in the much larger body (the Earth) tipping over. The Earth, remember, is not solid. Read Dr Barbiero’s theory – the maths are quite something!

SC: Except the story of Atlantis was not made up by Plato. He was merely recalling Solon’s story and Solon was as real an historical person as Plato and Socrates. That Plato states about Solon’s Atlantis story, “this is true history” is good enough for me. You may doubt its authenticity, I see no compelling reason to do so.

Byrd: He lived 200 years before Plato. He wrote extensively. He was a poet, and one of the most popular forms of poetry of the time was tragedy, with the them tragedy caused by hubris being the most popular. He wrote lots of poems about the deeds of Athens (and in the tale, Athens defeats Atlantis.) His poetry about Athens led him to be declared general for one of their wars. His contemporaries noted those poems.

But none of them noted a poem about Atlantis. Plutarch and Herodotus said he composed such a poem, but they are writing some 200-400 years after Solon lived.
Plato records other tales told by Socrates.

SC: I could counter this by citing the Homeric Illiad. Nice poem. Myth, we thought. Until we really did discover Troy.

As I said, to Hans in a previous post, I am saying only that when Plato specifically tells us something IS true then, and only then, does he present us with an unequivocal statement i.e. Solon’s tale was true history. Then, and only then, does Plato tell us that he is parting from a hypothetical scenario. Indeed, there is no reason why Plato could not and should not have used a true event (however embelished that event may have become over the thousands of years to Plato’s time) to demonstrate his philosophical ideas.

Fact is – we could debate this until kingdom comes and neither of us will ever be absolutely sure if Plato was indeed referring to true history or not. He says he was – on this particular occasion – so I have to take him at his word. And all the more reason to now that science is beginning to present evidence of a major Earth cataclysm around the time Plato tells us Atlantis was destroyed which corresponds also with the dates I have found in the Giza Precession Wheel.

Regards,

Scott

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by Byrd

Byrd: ...what the signifcance of the fourth pyramid is.

SC: By ‘fourth pyramid’ I am assuming you mean the Cult Pyramid of Khufu? As I explained to Hans, all the Gizamids have an equal (i.e. a pyramid of comparable size) with the exception of Menkaure, which has no equal.

Khufu & Khafre (comparable size) – Very Large Pyramids (VLPs)

Menkaure (no match) – Large Pyramid (LP)

2 sets of Queens (comparable size) – Small Pyramids (SPs)

2 Cults (comparable size) – Very Small Pyramids (VSPs)

Each ‘class’ of pyramid has a specific function within the plan and often we find the structure has more than one function within the precession wheel. The function of the VSPs (i.e. your so-called ‘fourth pyramid along with its counterpart at Khafre's pyramid) is two-fold:

1) To create an intersection around the precession wheel thereby indicating a date. (The 2 sets of Queens - SPs - perform a similar function).
2) To complete the ‘Pi Beacon’. Without the placement of the VSPs there would be no Pi Beacon, no 3-1-4.

Byrd: And you haven't shown how it's an accurate clock. It doesn't trace the path of the progression when seen from the ground.

SC: I have - 1º around the ‘clockface’ = 72 years. It is not meant to trace the path of the precessional progression – only the start and end points (max and min culmination) of the cycle because that’s all you really need to see in order to understand:

1) It’s a precession wheel of some kind.
2) It uses the belt stars of the Orion Constellation.

Regards,

Scott

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:34 AM
Hey guys Im still here!! Have been away for past week so couldnt get involved!! WOW...Need to go through all the posts as I've missed loads!! Once done will see you here!! Looks interesting though!!

JP

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:32 PM
Ooookayy... we've gotten mightily off track, and I thought I'd do a summary rather than pick at details (which I can continue to do)

In a nutshell, your idea is:
* an ancient unnamed civilization existed (for which you have no proof)
* this unnamed civilization had a floor plan that supposedly described the precession of the equinoxes.
* the design includes the least correct form of Pi (3.14) and a circle and the belt stars of Orion tied with a structure on the ground, all done with pyramids.
* the ancient unnamed civilization somehow got the plan for the design into the hands of Imhotep.
* the Egyptians somehow recognized this as an important and sacred design.
* the ancient Egyptians built pyramids until they could build a "perfect" one, and then put up Giza and followed the design without knowing why and then quit building pyramids.

Is this correct?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd

Byrd: There's no time reference to 25,772 years and no way to derive it from your design.

SC: I beg to differ. A pyramid is a star, expressed by the AE as having 5 points.

How can you come to that conclusion? There are many references to pyramids throughout the thousand or so years of pyramid construction. None of them are related in the texts to stars. Nor are there stars associated with the pictures of pyramids.

The slope of the GP is 51.84. Expressed as 5184 we find the sqr root is 72. This is a value that is very close to our present precessional rate of 71.6 years per 1º shift.

That doesn't qualify as "highly accurate". There's no reference that indicates "use the GP, Luke" instead of "use the one with 4 pyramids outside it" or "use the little one that's off centered" or "average all the slopes and use that."

72 x 5 = 360.
5184 x 5 = 25,920.
25,920/72 = 360.

That's off by about 200 years -- not "highly accurate." To reach that, you had to fudge things and multiply by 100.

Furthermore, you're using the current structure. It was faced with limestone blocks that were thicker at the bottom and got thinner as you went toward the top. This changes the angle of the slope. You don't cite why they would use the angles of the core stones rather than the angles of the completed structure.

SC: But again you miss the point. The PURPOSE of marking the start and end points is NOT to enable us to plot the movement of the belt stars. The PURPOSE of marking the start and end points like this is to enable us to KNOW WHICH 3 STARS the Designers were indicating with the 3 main pyramids.

You talk about purpose and knowing as though you had access to the records that prove this. You ignore the data that the pyramids are in the wrong position to indicate Orion's belt, that there's no art or text linking the complex to Orion, no indication of a circular trench, and the explaination of "why start when the belt stars are on the horizon" is "to mark a date the ancient civlization... " and then don't specify the date.

And this would present us with a problem since we simply have to know the 3 stars the main pyramids represent since it is one of these 3 pyramdis that represents the star the ancients measured to set the start date of their clock.

The mysterious "ancients." You haven't explained why they felt the belt stars were so important or why they'd use stars to set the start date of their clock or why their calculations are imprecise.

The ancients realised this problem and ensured that they provided within their design a mechanism whereby we simply could not fail to select the correct triad of stars. They did this by marking the start and end points of the precessional motion of their chosen triad of stars. ONLY the Orion Belt stars precess across the sky in this manner and because of this we can be certain which stars the ancients are indicating to us in the main design i.e. the 3 main pyramids - Orion’s Belt.

ALL stars precess across the sky in that manner.

You could do the exact same thing with:
Aquilla: www.astrofilitrentini.it...
several sets of 3 in Aquarius (Aquarius Alpha-Beta-Mu more precisely resemble the Giza alignment) : www.astrofilitrentini.it...
Bootes (another bright constellation) : www.astrofilitrentini.it...
Canis Major, which includes the most important star to the Egyptians -- Sirius:
www.astrofilitrentini.it...
...and on and on and on.

The reason you picked Orion is because of Hancock... not because of a knowledge of what this mysterious lost ancient civilization did. If Hancock had said "Aquarius" or "Big dipper" I submit that you'd be hammering and tweaking your idea to fit his (wrong) ideas.

Now that we know the correct triad of stars, what we have to then do is determine which of the 3 stars was used to set the clock’s start date. By ensuring Menkaure was significantly different (and indeed quite unique) from the other main pyramids it is logical to conclude that it is Menkaure’s alignment that was placed according to its celestial counterpart, Mintaka.

Unique? How? Each pyramid is unique in its shape, its volume, and the number of satellite pyramids and temples. And how is it "placed according to its celestial counterpart"?

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by Byrd

Ooookayy... we've gotten mightily off track, and I thought I'd do a summary rather than pick at details (which I can continue to do)

SC: Ditto.

Byrd:

In a nutshell, your idea is:

* an ancient unnamed civilization existed (for which you have no proof)

SC: A civilisation that understood higher math (i.e. the Pi constant expressed as a decimal fraction), astronomy (precession) and geodesy – yes. I don’t think they had iPods, or drove 4x4s or had flying machines or nuclear bombs though.

Byrd:

* this unnamed civilization had a floor plan that supposedly described the precession of the equinoxes.

SC: This civilisation had awareness of a cataclysmic cycle which the Earth passes through every 13,000 years or thereabouts; knowledge that is presently lost to our civilisation. When this civilisation was destroyed c10,500BC (possibly as a result of a meteor impacting upon the Earth causing a shft of the Earths axis), the enlightened survivors (The Designers) encoded this knowledge into a design – possibly a scaled-down model crafted in granite or some other durable material of the Giza monuments. This was done because they possibly (for good reason) believed their own civilisation would very quickly descend into a stoneage existence and lose most, if not all, of the knowledge it possessed. They wished to pass down the knowledge of this ‘cycle of cataclysms’ to future civilisations as a forewarning. They crafted a very specific design that encoded this information in the hope that at some future date, a civilsiation would arise that would look at their design and see their ‘message’. Naturally such a design would have to be built at a future date when mankind had sufficiently recovered from the cataclysm. And when it was finally built it was to be built so large that it would last as a ‘message for all time, through each and every cycle of cataclysm’.

Byrd:

* the design includes the least correct form of Pi (3.14) and a circle and the belt stars of Orion tied with a structure on the ground, all done with pyramids.

SC: The blueprint or ‘model’ includes a beacon – a number that would be very obvious to a mathematically astute civilisation. The ancient Designers used the first 3 digits of the Pi constant (3.14…) as their beacon, 3-1-4. By indicating this beacon with the placement of the satellite pyramids they sought to signal to future civilisations that, “Kilroy was here!” The 3-1-4 beacon was designed also to imply a circle which, when drawn around the 3 extremities of the Gizamids as to precisely enclose all the Gizamids within it, demonstrates some intriguing qualities; qualities that are difficult to pass off as mere chance. This is the circle that gives us the precession wheel into which past and future dates have been encoded.

More….

new topics

top topics

18