It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: 3. The events this is susposed to show didn't actually happen or were spread over a much longer period.


SC: This is speculation on my part – I have made this clear. However, that such events occurred around the dates the Giza Precession Wheel is indicating is now being backed up with science. If this is simply a coincidence then it is quite a remarkable coincidence. I think is it is entirely possible that its not a coincidence and we are being presented this past date for this reason – a traumatic Earth event occurred. And it may also be the reason the design also points to future dates – in other words, a cyclical event. As I have explained to Byrd in my last post – simply because the ancients knew of such a cataclysmic cycle does not mean that such cataclysms happen EVERY time. Depending on the nature of the cycle and the catalyst involved, sometimes we may be impacted during the ‘cataclysmic phase’ and sometimes we’re not.

I suppose it’s a bit like knowing the 11-year sunspot cycle. We know the cycle and sometimes summers are much hotter during these phases than others but not EVERY time. This is to say that even although we can predict the sunspot cycle, we can’t actually pedict if the summer really WILL be extra hot or not. Chances are it might be but then again, it might not. Still, best to stock up on the sun-block cream – just to be on the safe side.


Hans: And as Byrd has shown, you have been inaccuracy stating/misrepresenting existing data to fit your theory.


SC: Nonsense. With respect to Byrd, she did not fully understand my ideas. Show me where I have done this.


Hans: I'd recommend a complete rethink.


SC: With respect, Hans – I would not expect any less a statement from a skeptic. What I would say to you is this: IF my ideas are right then we require a complete rethink of our prevailing model of prehistory.

Regards,

SC




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Howdy Scott

Example of cherry picking, you focus on one aspect of the Orion-Pyramids - the dreaded 212 and say it's vastly important but then try to ignore the obvious fact the pyramids don't match up with the stars. This my friend is cherry picking. You also ignore that the pyramids by shape, size, etc do not reflect the characteristics of the actual stars. This is classic cherry picking Scott. A non cherry picking person would give equal weight to all those factors, you do not. You do not because your idea would then collaspe. As I said before you show obvious signs of having fallen in love with your idea and no longer look at it skeptically.


Scott said, "But nevertheless we have ‘advanced knowledge’ expressed through the arrangement of the structures at Giza – knowledge that we know the AEs did not possess." Unfortunately Scott the fact that you believe there is advanced knowledge involved in Giza doesn't prove that the knowledge itself is there.

Yes your idea was not accepted and large holes kicked in it by the folks at Ma'at. I don't recall anyone (an Egyptologist) endorsing or agreeing with your idea? Did someone? Who?

Several times you've misrepresented quotes from sources, when we researched we find you have "bent" them to match your theory. Most recently about the quote from Alfred. This misrepresentation is a key factor in recognizing you have "fallen in love".

The antikythera mechanism is a clever piece of work (but could and did require technology to build) the chisel that was used to cut the gear teeth is technology - but you said that your mythical advanced civilization didn't have any technology just knowledge. This appears to be a contradiction. Is part of the 'knowledge' that was learned about how astrology is real? Rhodes was a center of engineering at that time. The Hellenistic civilization was very clever at the time, coming up with steam and other technology. The technology to build the device probably existed from the 3 century BC

Well there is a new research path for you, show how the knowledge to understand and predict the effects of a nova or meteorites can be obtained without technology - that might prove interesting.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Well! This has surely been an enjoyable debate! I am very glad it was allowed to remain in the category. This is exactly the type of theory and discussion that I started coming to ATS to read. Thank you, all!




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Did they rule by Internet and email? LOL


This thread held my interest with intelligent/intellectual sparring until the above comment. Come on Hanslune - you know what they say about sarcasm!

Great thread and i am only up to page 3 - perhaps i am a little late in reading but - hey - lots to always keep one busy when one is supposed to be working



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello again, Hans


Hans: Example of cherry picking, you focus on one aspect of the Orion-Pyramids - the dreaded 212 and say it's vastly important but then try to ignore the obvious fact the pyramids don't match up with the stars. This my friend is cherry picking.


SC: Hans, - “the dreaded 212”!! Rather than dreading this, why not actually try to fully understand why I consider this 212* Menkaure alignment so important to my theory?

The Precession Wheel I describe has ONE WAY and ONE WAY ONLY of PRECISELY circumscribing ALL the pyramids at Giza. How can this be cherry-picking if there is only ONE CHERRY to pick?

Now, within the Precession Wheel there are only TWO alignments (from Khafre centre) that can reasonably be considered - through the apex of G1 or G3. So, only TWO reasonable possibilities. I have extensively analysed both alignments and found that ONLY the 212* Menkaure alignment makes sense of the design presented to us. The G1 alignment simply does not ‘go anywhere’ whereas the G3 alignment fits the Orion Belt stars like a glove. How can this possibly be considered cherry-picking?

I describe the Sphinx as being the unique reference point for the start position of the clock (i.e. equivalent to the 12 o’clock position on an analogue clock). The Sphinx precisely sits on the outside edge of the circumscribed circle and is UNIQUELY PLACED to perform such a function. There is nothing else that is so obvious can perform this function. How can this be considered cherry-picking?

I explain the function/role of EVERY pyramid at Giza and the Sphinx. I don’t select the pyramids that fit my ideas and leave out pyramids that don’t. Every pyramid at Giza has a purpose and my work offers an explanation of what that purpose is - for each and EVERY pyramid. How can this possibly be considered cherry-picking when I offer up an explanation for ALL these structures?


Hans: You also ignore that the pyramids by shape, size, etc do not reflect the characteristics of the actual stars. This is classic cherry picking Scott. A non cherry picking person would give equal weight to all those factors, you do not. You do not because your idea would then collapse. As I said before you show obvious signs of having fallen in love with your idea and no longer look at it sceptically


SC: How do I ignore the pyramid shapes and sizes? I have explicitly explained to you their relevance in terms of my own theory. I have no real interest as to why other writers may consider this important. As I said to you before, if you think there is a correlation between the size of the pyramids and the magnitude of the Orion Belt stars then that’s an issue for you to discuss with Robert Bauval, not me. The size/magnitude question has absolutely no bearing on my work whatsoever and I have no opinion of this question either way. It simply does not matter to my work if Bauval’s theory is right or wrong – it has NO bearing on what I present. Are you seriously accusing me of cherry-picking when I don’t even have an opinion on someone else’s theory? This is just absurd!!

More...



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Scott said, "But nevertheless we have ‘advanced knowledge’ expressed through the arrangement of the structures at Giza – knowledge that we know the AEs did not possess."

Hans: Unfortunately Scott the fact that you believe there is advanced knowledge involved in Giza doesn't prove that the knowledge itself is there.


SC: The structures at Giza are arranged in such a way that this astronomical clock is easily observed – and it works. This is actually a fact – I have shown how it works through my various presentations. The question you are asking here is whether or not what I have presented was really intended. Was there a codex that encoded this precessional cycle or is this simply some incredible happenchance we are observing?

I have never calculated the odds of this being the result of simple chance but my gut feeling is that the odds of this must be astronomical. I do not believe we are looking at a series of remarkable coincidences – we are looking at deliberate design. That the various components of this precession clock can be so well defined and be the result of simple chance is equivalent of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and producing a jumbo jet!


Hans: Yes your idea was not accepted and large holes kicked in it by the folks at Ma'at. I don't recall anyone (an Egyptologist) endorsing or agreeing with your idea? Did someone? Who?


SC: Hans – I did not present my work to the Hall of Maat expecting it to be accepted by them! I’m actually a bit brighter than that, y’know! I presented my work to the HoM because I wanted them to analyse my work in order to identify any gaps or weaknesses. There was no fatal flaw, no killer blow. No one agreed with what I had to say – didn’t expect them to - but I thought this was nice:

Posted by: Joe Schiller (IP Logged)
Date: May 12, 2007 05:50AM

I think the score here is 51 to 49 in favor of Scott. His theory is very rational but, if true, they would have decided on some clincher for successfully decoding the monuments. I think that could have been the codex buried at the apex of the triangle.

www.hallofmaat.com...,451249,451624#msg-451624



Several times you've misrepresented quotes from sources, when we researched we find you have "bent" them to match your theory. Most recently about the quote from Alfred. This misrepresentation is a key factor in recognizing you have "fallen in love".


SC: Complete nonsense. Aldred informs us that the design of the temples came in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara, in the days of Imhotep. Aldred further tells us that Imhotep raised a pyramid for Djoser at Saqqara – a design that seemed to ‘hark back to a remote past, recalling the occasion of the ‘First Time’. QED.


Hans: The antikythera mechanism is a clever piece of work (but could and did require technology to build) the chisel that was used to cut the gear teeth is technology - but you said that your mythical advanced civilization didn't have any technology just knowledge. This appears to be a contradiction.


SC: Hans – I think I have said what technology I don’t think this lost civilisation possessed. iPods, 4x4s, nuclear bombs, spark plugs, electricity... If they could design a precession clock as sophisticated as Giza then I do not think that a device similar to the Antikythera mechanism would have been beyond their technology. Howebver, the key point I was making to you with this example was to demonstrate to you that technology and the knowledge to produce such technology is not a linear process as the prevailing view of history would have us believe. This is a device that is clearly out of place and time – as is the Giza Precession Wheel.

Regards,

SC



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Fibrokat; Yes it has been good, as with all good debates it has caused me to research and learn new things.

Howdy Shreader: Comment noted, intended as a joke – but I see your point on the sarcasm, a tad snippy, a reflection of my not being born in an English speaking country, my apologies to Scott

Howdy Scott I re-read your article at www.grahamhancock.com..., which I presume is still current?

Full translation of the Alfred quote:

Here's the complete quote p. 31-32 (third edition, revised and updated by Aidan Dodson, 1998):

The temples of Philae, now rebuilt on the adjacent island of Agilkia, are first of a series of magnificent stone buildings that arose on ancient foundations at Kom Ombos, Edfu and Esna in Ptolemaic and Roman times as far as Dendera 115 miles to the north. These vast edifices in their huge proportios, their unstinted use of sandstone and granite, their elaborate floriated capitals, their astronomical ceilings, their scrupulous detail and technical triumphs, have a solemn grandeur. They were built according to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. The most complete of them is the temple of the falcon god Horus at Edfu, built between 237 and 57 BC, the most perfectly preserved monument of the ancient world. It's many inscriptions have bequeathed a wealth of information about the founding of such temples, their construction and use. the daily ritual, the festivals and their dates, the duties of various priests, even the dimentions of each chamber, it's name and purpose, besides myths of very ancient origin.

What scott said it said

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.

Hans: Sorry Scott no inclusion of Giza, which is clear when you give the entire site, they were talking about temples at x and Y not Giza-so why are you talking about Giza.....

The Precession Wheel I describe has ONE WAY and ONE WAY ONLY of PRECISELY circumscribing ALL the pyramids at Giza. How can this be cherry-picking if there is only ONE CHERRY to pick?

1. It predisposes that the mythical advanced civilization that you say had no technology would know that people in the future would be able to look at the Giza site from the air, understand precession-oddly we didn’t figure this out without using technology
2. That the mythical advanced civ would use a analog clock, using a 12 hour system – and read it to the right- and not to the left
3. That “314” would have some meaning to us instead of 413 – of course that assumes – a giant presumption that we’d use a base 10 math system – So Scott what base system did the Sumerian use – since you say they were first, what did they use?
4. So after a long search you found that one angle, out of lots, G2 G3 gave you what you wanted – so that means all the other ones mean what?

I have extensively analysed both alignments and found that ONLY the 212* Menkaure alignment makes sense of the design presented to us.

Hans: Translation this is the only number that supports your idea therefore, of all the numbers one can find this has to be the right one, yep not a cherry in sight on that one.

The G1 alignment simply does not ‘go anywhere’ whereas the G3 alignment fits the Orion Belt stars like a glove. How can this possibly be considered cherry-picking?

Hans: How do you know that? Or is that because you are ONLY looking for numbers that back up your idea and all others are ignored?

I describe the Sphinx as being the unique reference point for the start position of the clock (i.e. equivalent to the 12 o’clock position on an analogue clock). The Sphinx precisely sits on the outside edge of the circumscribed circle and is UNIQUELY PLACED to perform such a function.

continued



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Continued

Hans: Scott are you sure its PERCISELY? The one diagram I saw at the site I noted above doesn’t show that type of accuracy. Do you have a more accurate one? (it shows the circle beyond the corners of the G3.

There is nothing else that is so obvious can perform this function. How can this be considered cherry-picking?

Hans: Why does the sphinx stand out – versus other sites on that circle?

I explain the function/role of EVERY pyramid at Giza and the Sphinx.

Hans: And rejected all combinations and numbers that don’t support your idea. There are tons of number and boogles of numerological caches of false gold all over Giza but that doesn't mean they have any meaning.

I don’t select the pyramids that fit my ideas and leave out pyramids that don’t.

Hans: Actually you do, G2 doesn’t match up with Orion belt yet you include it

Every pyramid at Giza has a purpose and my work offers an explanation of what that purpose is - for each and EVERY pyramid. How can this possibly be considered cherry-picking when I offer up an explanation for ALL these structures?

Hans: sorry you have not been able to explain why G2 is out of position, why the satellites or why the Mr 314 queen pyramids don’t match Orion’s arrangement

Oh and Joe Schiller gave you 51 our 49, well you kinda have one non-Egyptologist on your side – and the rest? Would it be cruel of me to post what the Egyptologist thought of the idea?

Sorry Scott but the Anti device fits into the linear progress you so dislike - its unusual that it was earlier than expected-although there are writing about it and other machines at that time. The history of technical innovation isn't exactly linear it more wavy, with things being invented a number of times, independently sometimes, being lost and found again-with the context of general linear movement.

To prove otherwise you need to - dare I say it - find Atlantis



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Oh Scott I did look up a better diagram and I see the error, instead of your using the corners of G1 and G3 you've moved the circle to the outer corner of the three queen pyramids of G3 - putting it there causes the circle to just touch the Sphinx, if it had been based on G3 it would have missed all together

Base numbers

It sure was lucky that the advanced civilization knew we'd be use a 10 decimal system

Base 5

3.03

Base 8

3.10

Base 20

3.2G

Base 60

3.8[24]

Or they would have really flubbed up the number of Queen pyramids.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: Howdy Scott I re-read your article at www.grahamhancock.com..., which I presume is still current?


SC: This was my first article of the Hancock site. Here’s my latest:

www.grahamhancock.com...

As with any developing idea/hypothesis, it is always evolving as new things are discovered. This design is multi-functional and very economical, using the same structures and features in different ways to impart different aspects of the ‘message’. Although I believe the main purpose of the concavities forms part of the dating mechanism for the Precession Wheel, it is possible that it could also have been used in the manner I describe in the Centroid Alignment Theory to indicate a particular location southwest of the Giza pyramid field. What may be found at this location we can only guess – the blueprint?


Hans: Full translation of the Alfred quote:

Here's the complete quote p. 31-32 (third edition, revised and updated by Aidan Dodson, 1998):

The temples of Philae, now rebuilt on the adjacent island of Agilkia, are first of a series of magnificent stone buildings that arose on ancient foundations at Kom Ombos, Edfu and Esna in Ptolemaic and Roman times as far as Dendera 115 miles to the north. These vast edifices in their huge proportios, their unstinted use of sandstone and granite, their elaborate floriated capitals, their astronomical ceilings, their scrupulous detail and technical triumphs, have a solemn grandeur. They were built according to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. The most complete of them is the temple of the falcon god Horus at Edfu, built between 237 and 57 BC, the most perfectly preserved monument of the ancient world. It's many inscriptions have bequeathed a wealth of information about the founding of such temples, their construction and use. the daily ritual, the festivals and their dates, the duties of various priests, even the dimentions of each chamber, it's name and purpose, besides myths of very ancient origin.

What scott said it said

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.

Hans: Sorry Scott no inclusion of Giza, which is clear when you give the entire site, they were talking about temples at x and Y not Giza-so why are you talking about Giza.....


SC: The inscriptions found at the Temple of Horus tell us ONLY that the plan for the temples came in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. The inscriptions do NOT instruct the AE where to build the temples. However, the codex was received at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep and lo and behold - where do we find Imhotep’s first PYRAMID? At Saqqara! So it seems that the word ‘Temples’ should not be taken as excluding pyramids. Indeed, the ‘standard’ funerary complex consists of 1 pyramid and 2 temples (mortuary and valley).

More...



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


SC: The Precession Wheel I describe has ONE WAY and ONE WAY ONLY of PRECISELY circumscribing ALL the pyramids at Giza. How can this be cherry-picking if there is only ONE CHERRY to pick?

Hans: 1. It predisposes that the mythical advanced civilization that you say had no technology


SC: You are putting words into my mouth, Hans. I have never said the Designers of the blueprint had !”no technology “ – this is just ridiculous. How on Earth could they have crafted a granite blueprint of the Giza complex (as I suggest) if they had no technology? I have said only what technology I DON’T THINK THEY HAD (electricity, nuclear bombs, ipods,….)


Hans: … people in the future would be able to look at the Giza site from the air,.


SC: Predisposes people would have to look at Giza from the air? Sorry, no!. First of all, if we discovered the blueprint we would see everything perfectly. Secondly, I would guess that you would get a really good view of the layout from the top of G1 or G2.


Hans: people in the future would be able to….understand precession-oddly we didn’t figure this out without using technology


SC: It’s not so difficult, Hans. You select a stone pillar or some other fixed ground object. You see a star aligned with the stone pillar on the southern horizon and you record this position by placing a second “marker stone” in alignment with the first. Over time it will be observed that the marker stone is no longer aligned – the star(s) has moved! The ancients were keen observers of the heavens as the Nabta Playa megalithic circle in the Nubian desert aptly demonstrates.


Hans: 2. That the mythical advanced citv would use a analog clock, using a 12 hour system – and read it to the right- and not to the left


SC: Who said they would use an analogue clock, using a 12-hour system? Why should they not express the passing of time in a clockwise manner? The sun, on its daily journey, travels clockwise. This would be perfectly logical and natural.


Hans: 3. That “314” would have some meaning to us instead of 413


SC: What does “413” mean to you? The point is, had I not seen this as 314 (pi) “beacon”, I would not have thought to try circumscribing a circle around the structures at Giza and would not have found the unique properties of that circle, nor would I have found the Precession Wheel and the dates encoded therein. Indeed, we would not be having this very debate. All of this has come about precisely because I observed (quite by accident btw) a simple 314 “beacon”. Was it intended? I cannot say for certain but IMO it is simply not feasible to find all the key components required for a functional precession clock falling into place by complete accident or through some freak set of coincidences.

More...



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: …of course that assumes – a giant presumption that we’d use a base 10 math system…


SC: A giant presumption? How many fingers do you have? Base 10 is the most natural counting system known to man.


Hans: So Scott what base system did the Sumerian use – since you say they were first, what did they use?


SC: I repeat – stop placing words in my mouth. I said the Sumerian civilisation predated the AEs. I did not say the Sumerians were the first civilisation.


Hans: 4. So after a long search you found that one angle, out of lots, G2 G3 gave you what you wanted – so that means all the other ones mean what?


SC: The design itself POINTS to this angle (out of all possible angles). Why shouldn’t I have followed this angle?


SC: I have extensively analysed both alignments and found that ONLY the 212* Menkaure alignment makes sense of the design presented to us.

Hans: Translation this is the only number that supports your idea therefore, of all the numbers one can find this has to be the right one, yep not a cherry in sight on that one.


SC: AS stated above – the design itself POINTS to this angle (of only two). Hardly cherry-picking.


SC: I describe the Sphinx as being the unique reference point for the start position of the clock (i.e. equivalent to the 12 o’clock position on an analogue clock). The Sphinx precisely sits on the outside edge of the circumscribed circle and is UNIQUELY PLACED to perform such a function.

Hans: Scott are you sure its PERCISELY? The one diagram I saw at the site I noted above doesn’t show that type of accuracy. Do you have a more accurate one? (it shows the circle beyond the corners of the G3.


SC: The earlier groundplans I used were found to be inaccurate. I now use the groundplan from the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, which I am reliably told is the most accurate groundplan presently available.


SC: There is nothing else that is so obvious can perform this function. How can this be considered cherry-picking?

Hans: Why does the sphinx stand out – versus other sites on that circle?


SC: Please, Hans – this is self-evident.

More...



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


SC: I explain the function/role of EVERY pyramid at Giza and the Sphinx.

Hans: And rejected all combinations and numbers that don’t support your idea. There are tons of number and boogles of numerological caches of false gold all over Giza but that doesn't mean they have any meaning.


SC: Hans, we have to be sensible about this. I explain the most obvious angles that arise out of the arrangement of the structures. If there is a more obvious one that you feel I have not already explained then feel free to point it out.


SC: I don’t select the pyramids that fit my ideas and leave out pyramids that don’t.

Hans: Actually you do, G2 doesn’t match up with Orion belt yet you include it


SC: How do I leave out G2? It’s the CENTRE of the Precession Wheel, for goodness sake!


SC: Every pyramid at Giza has a purpose and my work offers an explanation of what that purpose is - for each and EVERY pyramid. How can this possibly be considered cherry-picking when I offer up an explanation for ALL these structures?

Hans: sorry you have not been able to explain why G2 is out of position, why the satellites or why the Mr 314 queen pyramids don’t match Orion’s arrangement


SC: Hans – I will tell you this straight up. I AM NOT going to be bogged down by an error of around 0.02%. This is minutiae and well within construction tolerances. The design is of sufficient accuracy to impart the information we require to work out the dates involved. The design may not be to the exacting standards you require but it is accurate enough to convey its information. Furthermore, even is it was a precise match with the Orion belt (and let us not forget this mismatch is only very slight) you would claim that such accuracy was irrelevant because, as I have explained, you could pick three stars of your choice and make an EXACT fit. I will repeat this again – only by showing us how their chosen group of stars moves (precesses) across the sky by the placement of the ‘Queens’ can we be sure. An EXACT match of sky with ground (as Bauval proposes) simply cannot do this.


Hans: Mr 314 Queens pyramids don’t match Orion’s arrangment?


SC: Sorry but this is deliberate obfuscation and mischief-making on your part, Hans. I suspect you know fine that there is a difference between the purpose of the Queens, the Cults and how they are used to convey two different aspects of the Designer’s “message”. This is a very economical design, making use of the same structures to impart different aspects of the ‘message’.


Hans: Sorry Scott but the Anti device fits into the linear progress you so dislike - its unusual that it was earlier than expected …


SC:: Exactly! QED.


Hans: To prove otherwise you need to - dare I say it - find Atlantis


SC: If the world shifted, if the sky fell, if land became sea and sea became land – I contend there would be little remaining in terms of physical artefacts of a former civilisation to hand down or be discovered. Only through the careful crafting of a design (after the event) to encode key ‘advanced knowledge’ (before it was lost forever) can we propose that such a civilisation must have existed.

We may not have their artefacts but we do see their knowledge; knowledge that is out of time and place.

Regards,

SC



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Just briefly...


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: Yes, 3-1-4 could be a lot of things – but it could also be an expression of the first 3 digits of the (decimal) Pi contant. But this 3-1-4 arrangement is not simply a ‘beacon’ – it IMPLIES A CIRCLE!

It does not. It could be a count of 3 separate things. It could be the number of tracts of land in the structure. It could be a count of cattle in a herd. It could be any of millions of things that don't relate to circles.


Do not consider the 3-1-4 ‘beacon’ in isolation here – look at what it IMPLIES and the result of that implication

Did you look at the OTHER pyramid complexes? I did.


SC: I have checked Lehener’s The Complete Pyramids and there is no mention of any incomplete pyramid at Giza, although some exist at other sites.

You're absolutly right. The source I'd grabbed on a quick pass was very wrong about this.


SC: Okay – let me clarify what I am postulating. I said in earlier posts there is an approximate 13,000 year cataclysmic PHASE the Earth passes through, lasting roughly about 2,500 years.

I think you'd do well to modify that postulate. Have a look at the records of disasters like megavolcanos (Siberian Traps), extinctions and so forth. Even with a 2,500 year fudge factor (saying that we spend nearly 1/5th of our time in this "danger zone", the pattern doesn't hold up.


I do not know any more than you do of the true nature of this cycle.

What I do know is that when I go to history and look for confirmation, I find none. I did several samples... multiplied by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20 (and then quit). Even using the huge fudge factor you propose of around 2,500 years, there's still no match.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: I think the point Dr Barbiero is making is that this would have primarily been a sea as opposed to a land impact hence much more diffiuclt to find. Check this out though:img68.imageshack.us...


Neat! Nice sized crater -- but is it Pleistocene? I tend to doubt it. A large meteor hitting an ice shield simply vaporizes ice and dents the ice but not the sea floor... and that area has generally been frozen over since the Cenezoic/Paleocene.


Yes – this is speculation. I have never denied this or claimed it as fact. Indeed, what is there in our pre-history that ISN’T speculation?

In academic circles, speculation-without-data has been out of favor since the early 1900's.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
But you miss the point – the design is essentially a ‘picture’ and was probably crafted as a granite model or some other durable material. Describing the design with a written narrative would be no good since they knew their civilisation was most likely heading towards a dark age where most knowledge, including writing, would be lost.

I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about your proposed civilization, just to make your ideas work. For example, a civilization (which came out of nowhere) suddenly "knows" they're going into a "dark age" when knowledge of writing will be lost.

This kind of thing happens lots in bad fiction novels about lost worlds like Atlantis -- in the real world, civizations do go into "dark ages"... but what happens is that tradition is lost and communication and influx of new ideas are lost. They essentially get "frozen in time"while others move forward. They don't suddenly forget how to weave cloth and make pottery and speak to one another and start running around and bashing things with rocks.

However, there's a much larger counter to your "culture transmitted forward" idea -- and that's in the pyramids themselves.

There's a number of pyramid complexes other than the Gizamids. Some are older and some are newer. I took a look at Dahshur and some others to see if the "314" existed there.

It doesn't.
www.touregypt.net...
www.touregypt.net...

More tellingly, the pharaoh who built the most pyramids (2 large, one tiny) did not arrange them like a Gizamid area.

Senusret II also built a large pyramid at Lahun AND he had a complex of 9 pyramids for his family members. The structures do not resemble the "314" concept.

There's a group of 14 pyramids at Abu Sir (Wikipedia counts 54, but I'm not sure where that count comes from). No "314" or "Orion" plan shows up there:
touregypt.net...

However, the temple designs show the legendary "standard floorplan."

So we see that the AE's can carry through with a design and a floorplan if one is provided for them. We see that they follow it with a good deal of dedication and that they even go so far as to build models of this important structure for their tombs.

In order to show it was a cultural plan (and not an artifact of your own explorations) you have to show how the "314" shows up exactly in the groupings of mastabas and other pyramids.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
For those of you who are curious about the various pyramid complexes (there are well over 100 pyramids in Egypt), Wikipedia has a list of places where more than one pyramid (plus associated temples and workers' houses) are located.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


SC: Yes, 3-1-4 could be a lot of things – but it could also be an expression of the first 3 digits of the (decimal) Pi constant. But this 3-1-4 arrangement is not simply a ‘beacon’ – it IMPLIES A CIRCLE!

Byrd: It does not. It could be a count of 3 separate things. It could be the number of tracts of land in the structure. It could be a count of cattle in a herd. It could be any of millions of things that don't relate to circles.


SC: In the context of my Precession Wheel hypothesis, the arrangement of the satellites at Giza is a deliberate mathematical “beacon” using the first 3 digits of the (decimal) Pi constant. As such, it DOES imply a circle. And when we follow this “instruction” and circumscribe the 3 most outer corners of the Gizamids with the implied circle, the resulting circle exhibits some remarkable properties that simply cannot be the result of random chance. That such a remarkable circle should arise from following the “instruction” would seem to indicate that the 3-1-4 “beacon” was indeed intentionally placed and, therefore, should not be regarded as anything else but the first 3 digits of the Pi constant and not – as you have suggested – a count of cattle in a herd!

More...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


SC: Okay – let me clarify what I am postulating. I said in earlier posts there is an approximate 13,000 year cataclysmic PHASE the Earth passes through, lasting roughly about 2,500 years.

Byrd: I think you'd do well to modify that postulate. Have a look at the records of disasters like megavolcanos (Siberian Traps), extinctions and so forth. Even with a 2,500 year fudge factor (saying that we spend nearly 1/5th of our time in this "danger zone", the pattern doesn't hold up.

SC: I do not know any more than you do of the true nature of this cycle.

Byrd: What I do know is that when I go to history and look for confirmation, I find none. I did several samples... multiplied by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20 (and then quit). Even using the huge fudge factor you propose of around 2,500 years, there's still no match.


SC: Eh - why would you even expect to find anything in current history books relating to this when we are talking about something that science is only now finding evidence for?

The idea of such a “cataclysmic phase” is gradually being supported by science:

”In 1990, Victor Clube, an astrophysicist, and Bill Napier, an astronomer, published 'The Cosmic Winter', a book in which they describe performing orbital analyses of several of the meteor showers that hit Earth every year.... According to those scientists, every one [meteor shower] is the offspring of the same massive comet that first entered our solar system less than 20,000 years ago...The comet may have ridden in on the supernova wave, then gone into orbit around the sun...if it was already here, the supernova debris may have knocked it into an Earth-crossing orbit... Clube and Napier calculated that... Earth crosses through the densest part of the giant comet cloud every 2,000 to 4,000 years... Clube and Napier (1984) predicted that in the year 2,000AD and contiuing for 400 years, Earth would enter another dangerous time in which the planet's changing orbit would bring us into a potential collision course with the densest parts of the clouds containing some very large debris... It is widely accepted fact that some of those large objects are in Earth-crossing orbits at this very moment, and the only uncertainty is whether they will miss us, as is most likely, or whether they will crash into some part of our planet."

'The Cycle of Cosmic Cataclysms' (p.354)

- Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith

Also, Dr Paul LaViolette in his book, 'Earth Under Fire' has shown how the core of our galaxy enters an explosive phase every 10,000 years or thereabouts - regular as clockwork, sending cosmic shockwaves rippling through the galaxy. Who knows the effects such shockwaves will have on the Kuipier belt? Every 10,000 years (or thereabouts) a barrage of asteroids are blasted all over our solar system. Sometimes in a direct collison course with the Earth, sometimes not.

That a cyclical cosmic event exists that has the potential to affect our planet would appear to be fact. What is not so clear is the true nature of the “event” or if there is indeed a pattern of Earth cataclysms within this cycle or if we are struck during such phases by random chance. Bottom line – the cycle would appear to be fixed but the nature of the cycle is such that any Earth cataclysm as a result of it would seem to be purely down to chance.

As I explained to Hans earlier – it’s a bit like the 11-year sunspot cycle. We know the cycle (11 years) and we know that most times (but NOT ALL times) during the sunspot phase summers tend to be hotter. We just don’t know how to predict if the summer will be hotter or not during the 11-year sunspot cycle. Sometimes it is, sometimes not.

More...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


SC: I think the point Dr Barbiero is making is that this would have primarily been a sea as opposed to a land impact hence much more diffiuclt to find. Check this out though:img68.imageshack.us...

Byrd: Neat! Nice sized crater -- but is it Pleistocene?


SC: I have no idea. The point was simply to demonstrate to you that large craters can be found on the Earth. I can point to more if you wish?


SC: Yes – this is speculation. I have never denied this or claimed it as fact. Indeed, what is there in our pre-history that ISN’T speculation?

Byrd: In academic circles, speculation-without-data has been out of favor since the early 1900's.


SC: I don’t consider my speculations are without data. I see Giza as a well-crafted precession clock, pointing to dates c.10,500BC. The dates encoded into the design correspond reasonably well with the dates science is now telling us a cataclysm of some description took place on the Earth. Is this why the design points to this remote date? I don’t know for sure (I am speculating on this) but I do question why the design points also to the future dates of c.2,500AD and 3,166AD?


SC: But you miss the point – the design is essentially a ‘picture’ and was probably crafted as a granite model or some other durable material. Describing the design with a written narrative would be no good since they knew their civilisation was most likely heading towards a dark age where most knowledge, including writing, would be lost.

Byrd: I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about your proposed civilization, just to make your ideas work. For example, a civilization (which came out of nowhere) suddenly "knows" they're going into a "dark age" when knowledge of writing will be lost.

This kind of thing happens lots in bad fiction novels about lost worlds like Atlantis -- in the real world, civizations do go into "dark ages"... but what happens is that tradition is lost and communication and influx of new ideas are lost. They essentially get "frozen in time"while others move forward. They don't suddenly forget how to weave cloth and make pottery and speak to one another and start running around and bashing things with rocks.


SC: I understand what you are saying here but I think the survival of skills and knowledge would largely depend on the size and scale of any catastrophe, how many people survived it and what skills/knowledge the survivors had. And, of course, if the custodians of the ‘knowledge’ (the ‘enlightened ones’) knew of this deadly cycle beforehand, they could plan for it and be the ones best prepared to survive it.

More...



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join