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: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Byrd: 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.


SC: Why would the "3-1-4 beacon" exist elsewhere? I keep saying to you that the Giza design would have been regarded as sacred – it came from the “heavens”. There would be only one “heaven on Earth” – one implementation of the sacred Giza design.

Pyramids prior to Giza were built as part of the learning curve to perfect the art of bulding smooth-faced pyramids before implementing the Giza design. Pyramids post Giza's completion are generally regarded as being of much inferior quality and this is reasonably well explained as a direct result of having achieved the goal of completing the sacred plan – building Giza.


Byrd: 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.


SC: As I said, one “heaven on Earth”. Furthermore, the AE are hardly likely to emmulate the 3-1-4 arrangement elsewhere when they did not have the slightest idea of its (decimal) significance. If they DID know of the (decimal) significance of a 3-1-4 arrangement, then who knows, perhaps they might have been tempted into emmulating this aspect of the Giza design elsewhere?

Regards,

SC




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Scott:

Please take note of the red colored "U2U" button in the upper right side of the screen just under the Advert banner.


Springer...



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Why only one?

Because the mysterious advanced civilization somehow knew that the Egyptians would do it!- but of course they couldn't have know that and should have (if this was there idea) flooded the societies of the world with the concept in the hope lots of them would have replicated it. Plus for impact you'd want multiple copies. Nothing shows the importance of an idea more than it being repeated and repeated over the ages. This is shown in religions from that era.

Instead we get one 'maybe' copy?

Interesting what?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Howdy Scott

Sorry I was gone a few days and will also be unable to respond again for another few days.

Thanks for all your replies

What Scott only a 0.02% error – hmmmm well here is an image that shows how Cygnus and Orion match up with Giza. Considering the skill of the Egyptians in aligning the pyramids with North it is odd they got the alignment so off? Why is that?




I must say I enjoy reading the first page of your idea, but one thought why are people who you think are so knowledgeable worshipping very old fashioned (primitive) anthromorphic gods? Worshipping Gods who they think can save them seems rather non-advanced and primitive..

Oh and one suggestion, if you want to be consider a scientific person promoting an idea based on science may I humbly suggest you drop the references to Nostie?

We also seem to disagree on technology, perhaps telling me what you think this civilization didn’t have why don’t you tell us what technology they did have that would have allowed them to understand the science behind asteroids, Novas, Physics and advanced mathematics.

Scott has said, “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.”

Quite a reach don’t you think – and why would a granite model be considered a codex from heaven?

Scott said “Secondly, I would guess that you would get a really good view of the layout from the top of G1 or G2.”

Not as built with the outer layers, they wouldn’t be climbable – which you can prove to yourself by trying to climb the remaining limestone layer that still exists.

Can you explain why you need to look down onto the pyramid plan – from a greater distance than a man of that time could, to see your ‘idea’? Why not just build a circle?

Precession takes 25,800 years to fully play out, we figure it out thru technology and advanced math how did this mythical civilization do it?

So you are predisposing that MAC (mythical advanced civilization) knew that people would read numbers from left to right……

The Sumerians used base 60, other cultures have used 20, the Chinese used prime numbers, the Maya used base 18 and 20 - the Romans….well I think you get the picture, saying that base 10 is natural, is well, wrong.

Why no explanation of why the circle is set on the edge of G1 but then is set not on G3 but a satellite corner?

Scott said, “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.”

In case you don’t realize it Scott, and I’m sure you don’t, but you just announced that you are cherry picking the data. Your idea should explain all the points…in your example you use cult pyramid G1 to send a line South then Cult G2 to send another line to the East then you shoot a ray from G2 and come out with a marvelous connection. Okay what happens when you send a line to West of cult G1 to intersect the line from cult G2 which is going North and shoot it with a ray from G2 – what does that signify? Why isn’t it part of the theory?

Oh in the earlier versions of your theory you had your various rays and lines pointing out when the pyramids were built – why did you drop that – I mean you found it yet now its not “acceptable” why is that? What is the criteria for the acceptance of any aspect of your idea….is it, dare I say it, only accepted if it supports your idea? Anything that doesn’t is ignored?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
continuation from the post above

If you are cherry picking you should have only one explanation which can only explain the first one – that is because after a long, long search that is the only combination of lines, angles and etc that will give you the number you need. If you are not cherry picking your ‘theory’, should explain why my selected lines and rays are also valued - or not. Does your idea do that? There are dozens and dozens if not hundred of dots lines and rays we could layer all over Giza, strange that you only mention a very small number of those – like you are selecting only that data that supports your idea……which is called….what?

Look up Morton’s Demon and Apophenia Scott, you may find an answer to your idea

Regards

Hans



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: Why only one [plan]?

… Nothing shows the importance of an idea more than it being repeated and repeated over the ages…


SC: I have never said there was only one plan although I suspect this to be the case. But who knows – there may well have been copies of it (if it did indeed exist) but that’s not the issue. The point is - there would only have been the need to implement the plan once. Build it so large that it would last for eternity. Build it so large that there would be little need to build it twice. In any case, we humans tend to discover that which is most important to us are those things that are most precious to us. And they can be precious for any number of reasons, one of them being the simple uniqueness of a particular artefact. If there was only one blueprint it would have been ultra-precious, “the holy of holies” as it was handed down through the millennia. Aside from the obvious problems of mass production when the world population has been decimated, how important would the blueprint have been deemed if there were hundreds or thousands of copies of it? How many copies of the “Ark of the Covenant” were made?


Hans: What Scott only a 0.02% error – hmmmm well here is an image that shows how Cygnus and Orion match up with Giza.


SC: We’re talking at crossed purposes here. I am not talking about the alignment of Cygnus/Orion and their relative inaccuracies. I am talking about the centre of the Giza Precession wheel (i.e. the circle circumscribed around the 3 most extreme corners of the pyramids) missing the centre of the middle pyramid by only 0.02%. This smacks of intentional design.

If you are really interested in the Orion/Cygnus correlations, here’s the data:

www.grahamhancock.com...

More...



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: Considering the skill of the Egyptians in aligning the pyramids with North it is odd they got the alignment so off? Why is that?


SC: Okay – here we go again......

We can observe a reasonable likeness between the pattern of the Orion Belts stars and the layout of the 3 main Gizamids. I think even the most skeptical of skeptics would admit this much. The match between stars and Gizamids is not perfect but a reasonable likeness is actually all that is needed. If you do not accept this, then there is little point in discussing this further with you.

If you do accept that there is a ‘reasonable likeness – but not perfect’ then let us continue.

But why, you ask, is the groundplan not perfectly aligned with the Belt Stars? Because the priority was to create an alignment with Menkaure and its celestial counterpart, Mintaka. To do this the ancients would have to develop considerable skill in determining cardinal North and we know the AEs did possess this skill – we can see this in the structures they built. They are not 100% accurate but very very close. I believe the GP is in error by only 3/60ths of 1 degree. From a centre point (Khafre) they measured the azimuth of Mintaka (a clockwise measurement from north) when this star sat just above the SW horizon c.10,550BC. The angle obtained by doing this was 212º. This alignment was then marked on the plan and would later become the centre point (apex) of Menkaure’s pyramid on the ground at Giza.

Khufu would actually have been placed last in the design (although this pyramid may well have been constrcuted first). It was placed in alignment with Khafre, thus presenting us with a reasonable likeness of the belt stars. The reason a precise alignment of all three stars with pyramids could not be made was the over-riding necessity to ensure that Menkaure’s apex fell at 212º azimuth (from a Khafre centre) thereby registering the Mintaka astronomical alignment of c.10,550BC. I believe also that there would have been a better correlation between stars and pyramids had Menkaure been placed further SW along its present 212º angle from Khafre. This, however, would not have been possible due to the proximity of the Maadi formation at the SW edge of the plateau.

Now, even if the AEs had managed to create a perfect correlation between sky and ground, what would that tell us? Not a whole lot. The reason for this is that the stars we group as constellations today may not have been grouped in the same way by the ancients. What this effectively means is that we can measure Giza precisely then look at a star-mapping program (with the constellation asterisms turned off leaving just the raw stars) and find 3 stars that will map perfectly to the 3 main gizamids. Does this mean we have found the correct 3 stars? Who knows? There are countless combinations of 3 stars that could be made to fit perfectly to the 3 Gizamids. The thing is – the Designers of the Giza blueprint seemed to be aware of this very problem and so, to ensure a future civilisation would find the correct 3 star group, they built into their design a mechanism which indicates to us how their chosen 3-star group moves (precesses across the sky) over a period of some 13,000 years. They do this by the relative placement of the 2 sets of Queens. These symbolise the maximum and minimum culmination of the Orion Belt stars, the half-precessional pendulum swing. Only by indicating to us the precessional max and min culmination can the ancient Designers be sure that we cannot fail to select the 3-star group they want us to select.

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

More...



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: I must say I enjoyed reading the first page of your idea, but one thought why are people who you think are so knowledgeable worshipping very old fashioned (primitive) anthromorphic gods? Worshipping Gods who they think can save them seems rather non-advanced and primitive.


SC: The page you refer to, as I am sure you probably know, is pure artistic license and has no bearing on my general hypothesis. I have no idea what Gods these people would have worshipped. Artistic license here – that’s all.


Hans: We also seem to disagree on technology, perhaps telling me what you think this civilization didn’t have why don’t you tell us what technology they did have that would have allowed them to understand the science behind asteroids, Novas, Physics and advanced mathematics.


SC: Hans – I can’t tell you the technology they had to produce the mathematical and astronomical information that is blatantly presented to us at Giza. But clearly they had some sort of technology whether this was a simple ‘Celtic Cross’ as proposed by Crichton Miller or something more sophisticated such as a version of the Antikythera Mechanism. Again, I can only speculate.


Hans: Scott has said, “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.”

Quite a reach don’t you think – and why would a granite model be considered a codex from heaven?


SC: I didn’t say this – I was quoting Aldred. Well ask yourself this question – how would it be possible to “transmit” such advanced mathematical/astronomical knowledge across time from the most remote antiquity, unchanged through thousands of years? How do you think this could be done? I think a model of Giza crafted in a durable material – granite, gold – is a reasonable and plausible guess. The AEs tell us they received the design for the plans in a codex – alas, they do not tell us the precise nature of the codex. I cannot, however, see this as a written document since over such a long passage of time, it would be meaningless to future civilisations. Look how long it took us to work out AE glyphs and that was only due to the good fortune of being given a head start with the Rosetta Stone.


Hans: Scott said “Secondly, I would guess that you would get a really good view of the layout from the top of G1 or G2.”

Not as built with the outer layers, they wouldn’t be climbable – which you can prove to yourself by trying to climb the remaining limestone layer that still exists.


SC: Hans, are you serious? Are you suggesting that these people managed to construct the largest buildings known to man using means and methods we are still guessing at but could not manage to find a way to the top of them once they had completed them? They couldn’t construct another ramp? Eh – they (most likely) used a ramp to build the things in the first place!


Hans: Can you explain why you need to look down onto the pyramid plan – from a greater distance than a man of that time could, to see your ‘idea’?


SC: See above answer.

More...



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: Why not just build a circle?


SC: I explained this before. A circle would have been a much much larger undertaking. However, the most important reason for not building a circle is because all you end up with is just that – a circle. You will be asking yourself "How did they come up with the idea to place a circle on the ground?" Did they copy the shape of the moon or the ripple in a pond?

The point being, a circle does not imply an understanding of the abstract concept of Pi (3.14…). Stonehenge tells us its builders could build good circles (by copying the shape of the moon?) but it does not indicate to us that its builders had knowledge of and understood the abstract concept of Pi. The satellite structures at Giza explicitly do this whilst at the same time the 3-1-4 arrangement of these structures implicitly indicates a circle.


Hans: Precession takes 25,800 years to fully play out, we figure it out thru technology and advanced math how did this mythical civilization do it?


SC: See answer earlier in this thread.


Hans: So you are predisposing that MAC (mythical advanced civilization) knew that people would read numbers from left to right……


SC: It has to be one or the other. As I said to you before – what does 413 mean to you?


Hans: The Sumerians used base 60, other cultures have used 20, the Chinese used prime numbers, the Maya used base 18 and 20 - the Romans….well I think you get the picture, saying that base 10 is natural, is well, wrong.


SC: You forgot the AE – Base 10. I wonder where they got that idea?


Hans: Why no explanation of why the circle is set on the edge of G1 but then is set not on G3 but a satellite corner?


SC: This HAS been explained before. The 3 corners selected – G1, G1a and G3c – are the ONLY three corners that will PRECISELY circumscribe ALL the pyramids within the circle. Try it yourself!


Hans: Scott said, “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.”

In case you don’t realize it Scott, and I’m sure you don’t, but you just announced that you are cherry picking the data. Your idea should explain all the points…in your example you use cult pyramid G1 to send a line South then Cult G2 to send another line to the East then you shoot a ray from G2 and come out with a marvelous connection. Okay what happens when you send a line to West of cult G1 to intersect the line from cult G2 which is going North and shoot it with a ray from G2 – what does that signify? Why isn’t it part of the theory?


SC: Again this shows your lack of understanding of my work. These intersections give us two dates and it logically follows that the ancient Designers would be marking the first set of dates – the first point of the cycle (from c.10,550BC). It logically follows from this that the initial two dates (as indicated by the intersections of cults/Queens) MUST fall within the half-precessional swing of Orion’s Belt i.e. BETWEEN the max and min culmination markers as symbolised to us with the placement of the ‘Queens’. In the scenario you describe above you would have the intersection for the initial two dates outwith the precessional markers which would be meaningless.

More...



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans: Oh in the earlier versions of your theory you had your various rays and lines pointing out when the pyramids were built – why did you drop that – I mean you found it yet now its not “acceptable” why is that?


SC: I haven’t dropped this – it just hasn’t come up in any discussions. But thanks for reminding me of it because I think it’s a darn important point.


Hans: What is the criteria for the acceptance of any aspect of your idea….is it, dare I say it, only accepted if it supports your idea? Anything that doesn’t is ignored?


SC: Why would I even consider including something that is inconsistent with my ideas? I don’t understand your logic here?


If you are cherry picking you should have only one explanation which can only explain the first one – that is because after a long, long search that is the only combination of lines, angles and etc that will give you the number you need. If you are not cherry picking your ‘theory’, should explain why my selected lines and rays are also valued - or not. Does your idea do that? There are dozens and dozens if not hundred of dots lines and rays we could layer all over Giza, strange that you only mention a very small number of those – like you are selecting only that data that supports your idea……which is called….what?


SC: I’ve already explained above why your ‘lines’ aren’t supportable. I have also already explained how it is just plain silly to suggest that I am cherry-picking. Re-read my previous comments on this.

Regards,

SC



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyProphet
 


The Egyptian word for pyramid, "per-a-met", means "tower of the middle", or "midday house", or "tower of measurement". In Runa Simi, An American lenguage, the cognated word "piramita" means solar and sideral clock, gnomon;"pira" (red signal);"mita" (turner piriod).
As a solar cone, the faces of the Pyramids projected solar ligth in diferent position before the sun. Beside, the Pyramid's shadow project toward different points, indicating the hour and solstices. The Giza's Pyramids function was identical to that of the pyramids in America, such as Teotiwakan and Kukulkan in mexico and Intiwatana in Tiwanaku in Bolivia; which it was to tell time.
Now The connection between the Andes region and Egypt are strong; than ever;
1-The Egyptians built boats from the reeds that grew along the Nile River, The Totora reed boat is an ancient craft used for centuries around Lake Titicaca and the prehistoric Andean world.
2- Coca and Nicotine found in Egyptian mummies; both products are Andes' origin.
3- There are drawing of corn fields in Egyptian Manuscripts; Corn is a native american plant.
4- The Egyptian Sun god was named RA,in the Andes region we have Inti Ray-mi as the sun god or the goddess sun ARI.
Also i Have found the origin of the one dollar bill pyramid in the Americas; I will made a tread soon about it.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMARUKHAN
reply to post by JimmyProphet
 


The Egyptian word for pyramid, "per-a-met", means "tower of the middle", or "midday house", or "tower of measurement".


Alas, it doesn't. "Pyramid" is Greek, not Egyptian. "Mn" is the approximate word for pyramid in ancient Egyptian.


The Giza's Pyramids function was identical to that of the pyramids in America, such as Teotiwakan and Kukulkan in mexico and Intiwatana in Tiwanaku in Bolivia; which it was to tell time.


The pyramids in the Americas were platforms for public sacrifices... as the writing on them says and as many accounts confirm (both native and Spanish). The Intihuatana stone (and similar in other cultures) were their sun dials. en.wikipedia.org...


2- Coca and Nicotine found in Egyptian mummies; both products are Andes' origin.


Contaminants from European mummy unwrapping parties. Really. Untouched mummies show no such traces.


3- There are drawing of corn fields in Egyptian Manuscripts; Corn is a native american plant.


Which manuscripts? I'm curious. I do know they drew reeds and so forth, but not corn. Nor are there the remains of corn in their graineries. I'm curious about where your evidence comes from.


4- The Egyptian Sun god was named RA,in the Andes region we have Inti Ray-mi as the sun god or the goddess sun ARI.

Actually, he changed names over the 3,000 years of the civilization. The Inca Empire arose about a thousand years AFTER the Egyptian civilization collapsed.


Also i Have found the origin of the one dollar bill pyramid in the Americas; I will made a tread soon about it.


No need, really. The U.S. Treassury (which prints the bills) has a page about it, as do many sources. The records of the committees that came up with the design are part of our national archives:
www.greatseal.com...

And the history is really well known here in the US:
en.wikipedia.org...

The men who designed it are famous and we have good archives of their notes and writing. So, as I said, it's well known where it came from and what it symbolizes.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Alas, it doesn't. "Pyramid" is Greek, not Egyptian. "Mn" is the approximate word for pyramid in ancient Egyptian.
NEED TO FIND SOURCE

AMERICAN PYRAMIDS
KUKULKAN

teotiwakan



intiWATANA TIWANAKU






As you can see the Ancient Americans used their constructions to observe the sun movements; maybe in later times they used them in sacrificial ritual; when their cultured got corrupted like many others cultures.

The Chinchorro mummies are mummified remains of individuals from the South American Chinchorro culture found in what is now northern Chile and southern Peru. They are the oldest examples of mummified human remains, dating to thousands of years before the Egyptian mummies. They are believed to have first appeared around 5000 BC and reaching a peak around 3000 BC. Often Chinchorro mummies were elaborately prepared by removing the internal organs and replacing them with vegetable fibers or animal hair. In some cases an embalmer would remove the skin and flesh from the dead body and replace them with clay. Shell midden and bone chemistry suggest that 90% of their diet was seafood. Many ancient cultures of fisherfolk existed, tucked away in the arid river valleys of the Andes, but the Chinchorro made themselves unique by their dedicated preservation of the dead.
The Chinchorro mummies are significant because during the periods of these mummies, everyone who died was mummified, including children, new-borns and fetuses. This shows that it was not reserved for those of high rank or high status - mummification was not a sign of social stratification. In the same region cotton were used 5600 years ago.

Agriculture started in the Americas 11.000 a 8.000 years ago. corn used in the Americas 8000 years ago.

Oldest Mine Ever Found in the Americas; A 12,000 year old mine that was used for the extraction of iron oxide has been discovered in the San Ramon Ravine of Chile

Cotton used in the Americas 800 years before any other parts of the world. where was that in north part of Chile.

The Incas; as the Mexica were like the romans they conquered land and knowledge from other cultures, They didn't invent anything; they used old knowledge from previous civilizations.
.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AMARUKHAN
reply to post by Byrd
 


Alas, it doesn't. "Pyramid" is Greek, not Egyptian. "Mn" is the approximate word for pyramid in ancient Egyptian.

NEED TO FIND SOURCE


Easily done. It's well known (and I goofed -- it's not "min"... it's "mer" I was too lazy to look it up to confirm it at the time) :

7. The word pyramid is derived from the Greek word, 'pyramis'
8. The Ancient Egyptian word for a pyramid was 'mer'
source: www.ancientnile.co.uk...


Wikipedia


12. "Some Egyptologists, notably Mark Lehner, state that the Ancient Egyptian word for pyramid was mer."
en.wikipedia.org...


...and so on and so fourth.

"Pyramid" as a Greek word is mentioned in all those plus many more places.


As you can see the Ancient Americans used their constructions to observe the sun movements; maybe in later times they used them in sacrificial ritual; when their cultured got corrupted like many others cultures.


All you have there is a bunch of pictures done within the past 10 years. They did have observatories, but they weren't pyramids. And (if you weren't aware) they had been carving pictures of sacrifices and writing about sacrifices (which you can check for yourself by learning to read the script) on the pyramids themselves.

Their observatories have been excavated (and stuff found that shows they were recording the sun, planets, and stars there) -- basically they have 13 towers or other markers for studying the sky. Here's a picture of the remains of the oldest one found so far:
news.nationalgeographic.com...


The Incas; as the Mexica were like the romans they conquered land and knowledge from other cultures, They didn't invent anything; they used old knowledge from previous civilizations.


We can agree somewhat (I don't know what you mean by Mexica.) However, the Chinchorros didn't have any observatories or pyramids. They did have earthen mounds, I believe. But no stonework and no observatories.

The Mayans and so forth were good enough astronomers that they used the observatories and calculated precessions. The Egyptians had very little interest in astronomy -- the few reasonably accurate maps of the sky date to after the Greeks conquered them (300 BC.) The Sumerians and Babylonians, however, were obsessed with star positions and had observatories.
edit on 31-3-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join