posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by enduser
Once again, thank you for your question.
Enduser: ...from what I can make out, the two sets of queens pyramids have three pyramids in a straight row, unlike the three main pyramids
which have the pyramid of menkaure being slightly offset (which reflects the layout of the belt stars).
Is it not reasonable to assume that if the AE's were encoding a clock at Giza that they would also show the two sets of 'queens pyramids' in the
same layout as the belt stars (and main pyramids)?
SC: Okay - now I understand your question.
My short answer is that I do not think it unreasonable to consider the 2 sets of 3 Queens pyramids as being symbolic of their larger counterparts i.e.
the main Gizamids, especially so when they demonstrate for us the arrangement of those stars at their culminations.
I do, however, consider that the straightness
of the 2 sets of queens pyramids serves a particular purpose. By merely observing the
straightness of the 2 sets of Queens compared to the actual asterism with Mintaka slightly offset from the other two sets (like the main Gizamids), we
are forced to ask the question - why should this be? Is there any particular reason for placing the queens structures in such a manner?
I think there is a purpose to this arrangement and it is simply to 'point' to the intersection point - the Akhet - with the other queens pyramids.
The Akhet - Intersection or mid point between two hills (pyramids).
Were the queens pyramids to have been placed to perfectly mimic the belt star asterism we would not realise that they are in fact 'pointing' to
where they intersect. In other words, the very straightness
of the 2 sets of Queens alludes to their intersection point i.e. one of the Giza
[edit on 8/8/2009 by Scott Creighton]