Giza / Orion - Further Proof

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The Giza/Orion debate has been raging now for some 14 years or thereabouts, ever since Bauval/Gilbert published 'The Orion Mystery'. Criticism of the theory came thick and fast from mainstream Egyptologists, historians and astronomers. Further proof of the Giza/Orion concordance was needed.

Recently I posted here on ATS my theory demonstrating how the so-called 'Queens Pyramids' on the Giza plateau map out the precessional maximum and minimum culmination of the Orion Belt stars from c.10,550BC to 2,500AD. You can see this here:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Now, as if this was not proof enough of the Orion connection with Giza, I have only now discovered further proof to support the Giza/Orion theory.

Over the years a multitude of mathematicians have been analysing the arrangement of the main pyramids on the Giza plateau in an attempt to discover if there is a single underlying mathematical design or formula that would determine the overall spatial layout of the main Giza pyramids as well as defining their actual dimensions.

Why is it, for example, that Menkaure's pyramid (P3) is so much smaller and misaligned from the others? Why is it that Khufu and Khafre (P1 & P2) are aligned in a reasonably defined NE/SW diagonal and why is Khufu's pyramid the largest?

These are questions that a simple 'maths-only' attempt has thus far failed to find a unified solution to. This is because the people attempting to solve these questions using only mathematics have missed one important element in their deliberations - the stars of Orion's Belt.

As you will see in the short presentation below, when mathematics are considered in conjunction with the Orion Belt stars, everything falls into place simply and logically. Just like this:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton




posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
That is facinating. Good work on your link.

But what would it all mean?



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Excellent work!

Although i do believe in the Orion belt/Giza alignment I must ask one question, what is the ‘taylor point’? I done a search for taylor point orion but nothing from what i could see came up. Would this justify the miss-alignment shown below?
And are you using the configuration of the Orion belt as of recent times or as of past times, namely 10,000BC or there abouts?

Thanks =]
Ps. Im not nitpicking or anything



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 

Hello interestedalways,


interestedalways: But what would it all mean?


SC: It means the belt stars of the Orion constellation were specifically chosen for a very unique purpose. The belt stars 'swing like a pendulum' from SW to E over a period of some 13,000 years and over the next 13,000 years will precess back to the SW.

Giza represents a mighty astronomical clock - and it is ticking. For more of my work visit my main ATS Forum Page here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Wow I had no idea there was such extensive work and research on this right here on ATS.

I do know that quite a few members, and people in general express having felt somekind of connection with Orion in general.

I will take the time and read up on the threads you linked. I guess it is your own forum specializing in this research plus contribution from members.

Sounds good.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rapturas
 

Hello Rapturas,

Thank you. These are important questions you ask:


what is the ‘taylor point’?


SC: The 'Taylor Point' was discovered by C. Wayne Taylor. Very briefly Taylor's mathematics demonstrate how the Great Pyramid of Khufu (P1) focuses on a particular point on the sw base of Menkaure's pyramid (G3). Taylor could not explain why this was so when I asked him but the mathematics demonstrate the phenomenon quite clearly. You can see this here:

www.hallofmaat.com...,469170,469170#msg-469170

When I saw the 'Taylor Point' I immediately realised what it might represent - and the result was the presentation in the header post of this thread.


Rapturas: And are you using the configuration of the Orion belt as of recent times or as of past times, namely 10,000BC or there abouts?


SC: I am using the centres of Khufu and Khafre + the 'Taylor Point'. However, when we measure these against the ACTUAL Orion Belt asterism, the result is quite astounding. Note that the actual asterism of Orion's Belt changes very little over the course of the Great Year (26,000 years approx) since it is barely affected by Proper Motion. This means it looks much the same to us as it did to the ancients 12,500 years ago.

I calculated the angular difference between the placement of the pyramids with G3 centered on the 'Taylor Point' and the actual belt asterism. Here's the maths:

Ground Measures:

Distance of ‘Taylor Point’ to P1-P2 extended line = 77.74m

Distance Al Nitak to Al Nilam = 1.355° = 486.877m (scale1° = 359.318m)

Angular distance = 77.74 / 359.318 = 0.216 = 12.98 arc min

Star Measures:

Angular distance of Mintaka to extended line Al Nitak (Al Nitak – P1) -Al Nilam, (Al Nilam – P2)

tan 7.83° x 1.385 = 0.19 = 11.42 arc min

The Difference:

Therefore Taylor Point’ / Mintaka error = (12.98 - 11.42) = 1.56 arc min.

A difference of 1.56 arc min is astonishing accuracy. Indeed, such a tiny error is not percetible to the naked eye.

Hope this answers your questions.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Good topic, history is so clouded and does not explain many things. How is it possible that ancient Egypt was more advance the further back in time you go? Why would they use constellations for the alignment of these structures?


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Recently I posted here on ATS my theory demonstrating how the so-called 'Queens Pyramids' on the Giza plateau map out the precessional maximum and minimum culmination of the Orion Belt stars from c.10,550BC to 2,500AD. You can see this here:
www.scottcreighton.co.uk...


The dates of the construction of both the pyramids and sphinx IMO are much older than modern science tells us.
What is your opinion of this? And are you confirming this theory?


Hancock and Bauval
One well-publicised debate was generated by the works of two writers, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, in a series of separate and collaborative publications from the late 1980s onwards. Their claims include that the construction of the Great Sphinx and the monument at Tiwanaku in modern Bolivia was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx's lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River is an accurate reflection or “map” of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion’s Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively.

Their initial claims regarding the alignment of the Giza pyramids with Orion (“…the three pyramids were an unbelievably precise terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion’s belt”— Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995, p.375) are later joined with speculation about the age of the Sphinx (Hancock and Bauval, Keeper of Genesis, published 1997 in the U.S. as The Message of the Sphinx). By 1998’s The Mars Mystery, they contend:

…we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is “frozen” on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical “Age of Leo” (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was “housed” by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the Gregorian calendar dates of 10,970 and 8810 BC. (op. cit., p.189)
Great Sphinx of Giza ]


This would put the build date as far back as 12,500 years ago, and the buildings were not just confined to Egypt but South America as well. I’m a complete amateur, but these theory’s make since to me.

I believe Atlantis existed, and the survivors are who built these monuments around the globe, but unfortunately civilization still declined as time went on. This is a good puzzle.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

Hello LDragonFly,

Thanks for your post.


LDragonFly: The dates of the construction of both the pyramids and sphinx IMO are much older than modern science tells us. What is your opinion of this? And are you confirming this theory?


SC: I am inclined to accept the date for the construction of the pyramids at Giza pretty much as reasoned by the prevailing view from academia. The dates may perhaps be wrong by a few hundred years either way but my view is that these structures were indeed the blood, sweat and tears of the people of the 4th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt.

But here's the sting in the tail - the AEs used a template or 'codex' that 'supposedly fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep". The AEs tell us this themselves on a small inscription in the collonade of the Temple of Horus at Edfu. What I theorise is that the AEs were essentially implementing on the ground at Giza an ancient 'codex' (perhaps a small granite model of Giza) that came from a much earlier time, from a civilisation that is lost to our history books. I say this because the advanced astronomical and mathematical information that is so plainly on display at Giza was - as far as we currently understand - quite beyond the ability of the Ancient Egyptians.

So, if not the Ancient Egyptians, then where did such knowledge come from - and how the the AEs acquire it? That is the paradox we are faced with and my work attempts to offer an explanation to it.

You can access more of my thoughts and from my main ATS Forum Page here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock - I am inclined to agree with Robert's central hypothesis concerning Giza/Orion which we have discussed at length in a number of private and public debates. We do, however, have some fundamental differences of opinion. Graham Hancock has published a number of my articles on his GHMB Forum.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

Hello LDragonFly,

Thanks for your post.


LDragonFly: The dates of the construction of both the pyramids and sphinx IMO are much older than modern science tells us. What is your opinion of this? And are you confirming this theory?


SC: I am inclined to accept the date for the construction of the pyramids at Giza pretty much as reasoned by the prevailing view from academia. The dates may perhaps be wrong by a few hundred years either way but my view is that these structures were indeed the blood, sweat and tears of the people of the 4th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt.


In this time frame was the constellation orion in there night sky? I would have a hard time believing that they would construct such a monument mirroring the constellation Orion if it wasn't in their view. Same goes for the Sphinx and the constellation Leo


But here's the sting in the tail - the AEs used a template or 'codex' that 'supposedly fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep". The AEs tell us this themselves on a small inscription in the collonade of the Temple of Horus at Edfu. What I theorise is that the AEs were essentially implementing on the ground at Giza an ancient 'codex' (perhaps a small granite model of Giza) that came from a much earlier time, from a civilisation that is lost to our history books. I say this because the advanced astronomical and mathematical information that is so plainly on display at Giza was - as far as we currently understand - quite beyond the ability of the Ancient Egyptians.


This makes me wonder if it wasn't a person not a "thing" that fell from the sky, this is just one thought. Possibly a translation error? like I said before, I'm no expert on this just fascinated by it.

Yet again their is evidence of a past advanced technology, used in the construction of Giza. I do wonder why this technology seemed to fade as time marched on.


So, if not the Ancient Egyptians, then where did such knowledge come from - and how the the AEs acquire it? That is the paradox we are faced with and my work attempts to offer an explanation to it.


Again in my mind I think person, and not a thing. If it was a document they would have to read it, or decode it, then implement what was written. This could have taken years or even decades to accomplish.



As for Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock - I am inclined to agree with Robert's central hypothesis concerning Giza/Orion which we have discussed at length in a number of private and public debates. We do, however, have some fundamental differences of opinion. Graham Hancock has published a number of my articles on his GHMB Forum.


I think your all on the right track. Do keep searching Scott, we will be waiting to see what you uncover.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

Hello LDragonFire,

Thanks again for your post.


LDragonFire: In this time frame was the constellation orion in there night sky? I would have a hard time believing that they would construct such a monument mirroring the constellation Orion if it wasn't in their view. Same goes for the Sphinx and the constellation Leo


SC: Yes – both constellations were visible at Latitude 30°N (Giza) at that time.


LDragonFire: This makes me wonder if it wasn't a person not a "thing" that fell from the sky, this is just one thought. Possibly a translation error?


SC: Because we have no actual description of this ‘codex’ then the nature of it is open to speculation. Since the implementation of the ‘codex’ (i.e. the arrangement of the structures at Giza) connects Giza with the date c.10,500BC It may be more than a coincidence that science is now telling us that a cataclysmic asteroid impact struck the Earth, possibly being the catalyst that brought about the end of the ice age. That the dates in the ‘codex’ coincides with these traumatic Earth eeents is remarkable enough but the ‘codex’ also indicates the year 2,500AD. It seems then that the ancients knew of some cosmic cycle that we have yet to comprehend. To pass this knowledge down to future generations, the ancients perhaps devised a granite miniature model which – far into the future from their time - would be copied and become the Pyramids of Giza.

That the AEs tell us the codex supposedly fell from ‘heaven’ could simply refer to the previous ‘Golden Age’ when the codex was designed, when there was higher levels of knowledge; knowledge that was subsequently lost in the cataclysm c.10,500BC. The codex was the only surviving remnant of that lost wisdom, passed down from generation to generation until it reached the AEs who deicided to contruct ‘heaven on Earth’.


LDragonFire: Again in my mind I think person, and not a thing. If it was a document they would have to read it, or decode it, then implement what was written. This could have taken years or even decades to accomplish.


SC: Not a document – a miniature granite model of Giza. Perfectly easy to replicate on a larger scale but more difficult to understand the latent knowledge contained within without posseissing a deep understanding of mathematics and astronomy. That the AEs did not possess the level of knowledge we find ‘encoded’ within the codex tells us the codex must have come from some other time/civilisation that is now lost to our history books.

Best wishes,

SC



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Hey Scott,

I am very interested in your work and I believe that you may be on to something big here. There seems to be a pretty distinct (imo) connection between the Pyramids at Giza and Orion based on what you've presented. Very fascinating indeed.

You say that you believe that the Egyptians were given some sort of plan that mapped out where, and how to build these immense structures. That this plan fell from the heavens. But why no Egyptian markings inside the pyramids that suggest as such?
You said:

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
I say this because the advanced astronomical and mathematical information that is so plainly on display at Giza was - as far as we currently understand - quite beyond the ability of the Ancient Egyptians.

Based on this statement I wonder then how you believe that the Egyptians would've been able to build these structures without any advanced knowledge of such subjects.

I guess its my understanding that in order to execute the layout which exists at Giza on the scale by which it was, and the precision, there would've needed to be a great understanding of mathematics, geometry, physics, geology and astronomy; not just a model built in granite.

It is my belief that these were not built by the AE's, that these structures were there before the AE's were. I know it sounds crazy. But there are no hieroglyphs in or on any of these structures that would indicate that they were intended to be tombs, or even built by the Egytptians.
Wiki



SC: I am inclined to accept the date for the construction of the pyramids at Giza pretty much as reasoned by the prevailing view from academia.


Why do you feel inclined to believe this?

Thanks.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Hello PhotonEffect,

Thanks for your post.


PhotonEffect: You say that you believe that the Egyptians were given some sort of plan that mapped out where, and how to build these immense structures. That this plan fell from the heavens.


SC: Not necessarily where or how to build them. How to ARRANGE them and the dimensions to use – scaled up from the model, of course.


PhotonEffect: But why no Egyptian markings inside the pyramids that suggest as such?


SC: Think about it. If you are trying to pass information down to a future generation using astronomy and latent knowledge encoded into the layout of your design, the last thing you will want to do is to cover the structures with other markings. These would merely act as a distraction, drawing our minds away from the ‘big picture’. So, in the absence of any pyramid markings, where else can w look in order to obtain any meaning in these imposing structures? The most obvious next place to look is in the arrangement of the structures. The ancients did not want our noses pressed against a wall, studying some obscure inscription – they want us to stand back and see the BIG PICTURE.



Originally posted by Scott Creighton
I say this because the advanced astronomical and mathematical information that is so plainly on display at Giza was - as far as we currently understand - quite beyond the ability of the Ancient Egyptians.

PhotonEffect: Based on this statement I wonder then how you believe that the Egyptians would've been able to build these structures without any advanced knowledge of such subjects.


SC: They followed a template, a scaled model of Giza. The bricklayer need not understand the grand scheme of the architect!


PhotonEffect: I guess its my understanding that in order to execute the layout which exists at Giza on the scale by which it was, and the precision, there would've needed to be a great understanding of mathematics, geometry, physics, geology and astronomy; not just a model built in granite.


SC: The model conveys the message through the arrangement of the structures. There is sufficient evidence to build a case that the AEs could have achieved this feat. They did, afterall, have plenty of practice. Giza did not appear overnight but only after hundreds of years of refining techniques and evolving structures.


PhotonEffect: It is my belief that these were not built by the AE's, that these structures were there before the AE's were. I know it sounds crazy. But there are no hieroglyphs in or on any of these structures that would indicate that they were intended to be tombs, or even built by the Egytptians.


SC: I have explained above why I believe the structures at Giza are devoid of inscriptions. I think very few Egyptologists now hold onto the view that the Pyramids were built solely as ‘tombs’ but also had a very significant religious role in ensuring the King’s Afterlife. My own view is that the structures were built according to a pre-ordained plan passed down to the AEs from antiquity but that the Pharaohs ‘appropriated’ the structures they were building for their own cultural/religious ideas. And why shouldn’t they? They did, afterall, build the things.


SC: I am inclined to accept the date for the construction of the pyramids at Giza pretty much as reasoned by the prevailing view from academia.

PhotonEffect: Why do you feel inclined to believe this?


SC: This question will always be debated and questioned. However, I think there exists sufficient carbon-dating of the structures to conclude that they were – more or less – contemporary with the Pharohs they were attributed to. See here:

www.archaeology.org...

Best wishes,

SC



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
What I theorise is that the AEs were essentially implementing on the ground at Giza an ancient 'codex' (perhaps a small granite model of Giza) that came from a much earlier time, from a civilisation that is lost to our history books.

Hi Scott. May I first say how glad I am to have you interacting with us here on ATS. Lost civilization postulation is the very reason I found my way here in the first place. I have looked at your theories and am astonished by the discoveries you have made.

Just a small point regarding the "small granite model" - I now understand why, in another thread, you referred to this and how you felt your work would be authenticated by the discovery of it. Do you think this model would have been accompanied by other forms of instruction - perhaps inscribed tablets? I say this because, as we're all aware, the genius of Giza is in the geometrical detail. I doubt a small scale model could convey the importance of such precision on its own and would suggest that it has to be just one component among a group of instructional material.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 

Hello Cythraul,

Nice to make you acquaintance and many thanks for your post.


Cythraul: Do you think this model would have been accompanied by other forms of instruction - perhaps inscribed tablets? I say this because, as we're all aware, the genius of Giza is in the geometrical detail. I doubt a small scale model could convey the importance of such precision on its own and would suggest that it has to be just one component among a group of instructional material.


SC: We can only speculate what size this model or template would have been but it would have been large enough to convey the dimensions of the pyramids in that P1 demonstrates the Pi constant, P2 demonstrates the 3-4-5 triangle and P3 demonstrates the Phi ratio. And we do know that the AEs themselves used models of the pyramids since some have been found among burial items in a few pyramids.

Certainly I believe an oral tradition would have accompanied the 'codex' and this oral tradition would have connected the 'codex' with a concept of 'continuation of life'. The codex was about encoding the times of cataclysmic cycles (using the Orion Belt stars) so it can be considered an 'early warning system'. As such it is 'telling' us to prepare ourselves for these encoded times - to prepare ourselves in order to survive the aftermath. This oral tradition, I speculate, over time became corrupted by the Pharaohs who assumed it for themselves to survive in the 'Afterlife'.

The Pyramid represents the 'Sacred Primeval Mound' that arose out of the waters. The boats that were buried with the Pharaoh hark back to this remote catastrophic time - the boats would save their lives and carry them into the 'Afterlife'. The chambers in the pyramids I further speculate were not so much burial chambers for the Pharaohs (albeit they may well have appropriated them as such) - I speculate that they were intended as seed vaults, again ensuring the contiuation of life after the next cycle of catastrophe - the 'Afterlife'. Thus we find in the Book of Genesis 'Egypt's grain stores'. Not so much grain stores as 'seed vaults'. The entire religious framework of the AEs is about ensuring an 'Afterlife'. I suggest that these are all echoes from a remote, catastrophic past.

It has been stated by a number of Egyptologists that the Pyramid Texts of the 5th Dynasty hark back to an oral tradition before the 4th Dynasty.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


SC: However, I think there exists sufficient carbon-dating of the structures to conclude that they were – more or less – contemporary with the Pharohs they were attributed to. See here:
www.archaeology.org...


Hey Scott,

Again thanks for your reply. I've read thru the site you provided but to me it doesn't indicate that the carbon dating proved the Egyptians built the Great Pyramids. Did I miss something? It was done on the surrounding facilities and charcoal pieces found on site but does that necessarily mean the AE's built the Gizamids?

The mystery, to say the least, has gripped me. And I wonder, is there a chance, a possibility, that the Gizamids were there before the AE's? Is it possible that what we see around the site which seem to indicate evidence of building/construction of these immense structures by the AE's could actually be evidence of upkeep/renovation?

Could they have been built back at around 10000 bc? It's an alternative theory and it's unorthodox I know, but so is your Giza/Orion theory (which I believe).
So maybe you've considered the same idea?

Cheers.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Hello PhotonEffect,

Thanks again for your post.


PhotonEffect: I've read thru the site you provided but to me it doesn't indicate that the carbon dating proved the Egyptians built the Great Pyramids.


SC: Some of the test samples were taken from the mortar used to bind the pyramid blocks. This mortar was created by burning massive amounts of gypsum. The carbon from the wood fires found its way into the mix and was 'locked in' to the mortar. The carbon-dating dates do fluxuate but only by about a few hundred years or so - not the 8,000 or so years that would be required to have the pyramids built c.10,000BC.

I do think we have to accept that science has it right on this one and that the Gizamids were constructed in the 4th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt.


PhotonEfect: So maybe you've considered the same idea?


SC: Yes, I considered it but the science proves otherwise, I'm afraid. But still we have this incredible precessional knowledge 'programmed' into the arrangement of the structures - knowledge that we are pretty certain the AEs did NOT have. So how, if the AEs constructed the monuments, could such advanced precessional knowledge be found in the Giza structures that the AEs themselves had no awareness of? It is a complete paradox. The only explanation I could surmise was that the AEs themselves were working to a template of some kind that was passed to them from antiquity. The arrangement of the monuments clearly indicates the dates c.10,500BC and the date 2,500AD.

And the AEs tell us, on a small inscription in the collonade of the temple of Horus at Edfu that their structures (temples and/or pyramids) were built according to an archtectural plan that was supposedly revealed in a codex that fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. I do not think that it is any coincidence then that at Saqqara we find Ancient Egypt's first (step) Pyramid built by none other than Imhotep for the Pharaoh Djoser.

Hmm... I wonder where Imhotep got his inspiration?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Hey Scott,

Thanks for your clarifications.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


SC: Some of the test samples were taken from the mortar used to bind the pyramid blocks. This mortar was created by burning massive amounts of gypsum.

Mortar and massive amounts of gypsum. Ill have to delve a little more into this...


The carbon from the wood fires found its way into the mix and was 'locked in' to the mortar.

Hmm, not saying that this is not true but it sounds a little too convenient to me.
But thats just me.


I do think we have to accept that science has it right on this one and that the Gizamids were constructed in the 4th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt.

I'm not quite ready to accept it yet.



SC: But still we have this incredible precessional knowledge 'programmed' into the arrangement of the structures - knowledge that we are pretty certain the AEs did NOT have.

Based on your research and theory, coupled with what I've learned with my own research, I would tend to agree with this. There is something 'coded' within the layout of the Gizamids.


So how, if the AEs constructed the monuments, could such advanced precessional knowledge be found in the Giza structures that the AEs themselves had no awareness of?

And this is where it all starts in my view. Maybe the AE's didn't actually build them. (i.e the Giza Pyramids )


It is a complete paradox.

True, when we look at it from the point of view that the AE's were the ones who built these structures at Giza. But when you take the 'AE's as builders' out of the equation, and replace it with "AE's as copiers or repairers' then it starts to make a little more sense(at least to me) and the contradiction begins to ease.


The arrangement of the monuments clearly indicates the dates c.10,500BC and the date 2,500AD.

Another reason why these things could've been built back then before the Egyptians..all circumstantial of course.


And the AEs tell us, on a small inscription in the collonade of the temple of Horus at Edfu that their structures (temples and/or pyramids) were built according to an archtectural plan that was supposedly revealed in a codex that fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep.

Your 'codex', in my opinion, are the Gizamids themselves! That Imhotep got his inspiration for the very first Pyramid from the ones he saw at Giza. Truly awe inspiring they must have been...enough to want to copy them. Of course he couldn't replicate them in size or exact shape right away, which is why we see smaller step forms. All my opinion of course. But to me it makes more sense...


Hmm... I wonder where Imhotep got his inspiration?

Could he have been inspired by what he saw at Giza? And tried to copy it?

Of course this theory leaves us with the question now of who built them? And if the codex came from the heavens(like revealed at Saqqara), and the codex is the Pyramids themselves(like what I speculate), then the implications of how they came to be takes on an even more mysterious form...








[edit on 18-11-2007 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Hello PhotonEffect,


PhotonEffect: True, when we look at it from the point of view that the AE's were the ones who built these structures at Giza. But when you take the 'AE's as builders' out of the equation, and replace it with "AE's as copiers or repairers' then it starts to make a little more sense(at least to me) and the contradiction begins to ease.


SC: Personally I think I have accept the scientific C14-datings of the pyramid mortar. Also, as I have explained in my various presentations, the Pyramids indicate the dates c.10,550BC and 2,500AD. When we check the date of c.10,550BC, we find that this concords with the Younger Dryas, and the termination of the last Ice Age. Science is now finding more and more evidence to support the view that a traumatic event occurred on Earth around this time whcih may well have been the catalyst for the termination of the last Ice Age.

So, is this why we find the datec.10,550BC 'programmed' into the Gizamids? But them why show also us the date c.2,500AD? I speculate that an unknown cosmic cycle is being indicated to us.

We have to consider that after the traumatic events of c.10,550BC it would have taken humanity thousands of years to recover - we simply would not have had the resources to create the Gizamids after such a major Earth cataclysm. The enlightened survivors of such a cataclysm may, however, have been able to craft a granite model of Giza (a 'codex'), programming into its layout the precessional cycle of the Orion Belt stars. Why did they choose these stars? Possibly because the Belt cycle corresponds most closely with the cylical cataclysmic 'event'.

I do feel that this Orion Belt cycle is being presented to us for a very important reason. I may well be wrong in my speculation as to what that reason is but, nevertheless, the cycle is clear and unequivocal.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton


JbT

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Ahhh!. So this is what those lines (I belive you called them 'Lay Lines') are for that bisect the side walls from ground to the peak of the pyramids? [If I dreamt those lines up, forget the rest.]

I assume you are proving that those lines are of no coincidence, or decoration, but are for outside interpertation of the model - at the very least were for construction alignment of the three pyramids in the fashion you show.

Do all 3 pyramids have these lay lines?

Was there a theory of these lay lines before you presented this one that you know of?

Again, thankyou for posting this presentation Scott! Im amazed.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JbT
 

Hello JBT,

Many thanks for your post.


JBT: Ahhh!. So this is what those lines (I belive you called them 'Lay Lines') are for that bisect the side walls from ground to the peak of the pyramids?


SC: These features are known as the 'Conacvities' and they can be found on the Pyramids of Khufu and Menkaure. Miroslav Verner wrote that the faces of the Red Pyramid at Dahshur are also "slightly concave."

The concavities are quite unique, with no other pyamids in Egypt displaying such features.


What was the purpose for concave Great Pyramid sides? Maragioglio and Rinaldi felt this feature would help bond the casing to the core. Verner agreed: "As in the case of the earlier Red Pyramid, the slightly concave walls were intended to increase the stability of the pyramid's mantle [i.e. casing stones]" (The Pyramids, 2001, p. 195). Martin Isler outlined the various theories in his article "Concerning the Concave Faces on the Great Pyramid" (Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 20:1983, pp. 27-32):

1. To give a curved form to the nucleus in order to prevent the faces from sliding.
2. The casing block in the center would be larger and would serve more suitably as a guide for other blocks in the same course.
3. To better bond the nucleus to the casing.
4. For aesthetic reasons, as concave faces would make the structure more pleasing to the eye.
5. When the casing stones were later removed, they were tumbled down the faces, and thereby wore down the center of the pyramids more than the edges.
6. Natural erosion of wind-swept sand had a greater effect on the center.

Isler dismisses the first four reasons based on the idea that "what is proposed for the first pyramid should hold true for the others." He also dismisses the last two because they would not "dip the courses," but rather have simply "worn away the surface of the stone." Adding another category to the list above, "a result of imperfect building method," he proceeds to theorize that the concavity was an artifact of a compounding error in building technique (specifically, a sag in the mason's line). One is tempted to reject this theory based on Isler's own reasoning: "what is proposed for the first pyramid should hold true for the others."

The concavity has prompted more improbable theories, usually in support of some larger agenda. David Davidson (cited by Peter Tompkins in Secrets of the Great Pyramid, pp. 108-114) defended the discredited Piazzi Smyth by attempting to demonstrate that if measurements included the hollowing, they would provide three base measurements that describe the three lengths of the year: solar, sidereal, and "anomalistic." (These lines, on the diagram below, would be AB, AEFB, and AMB.) What Davidson is assuming is that the concavity, present today in the core structure of the pyramid, would extend to the finished cased surface. There is no evidence for this; indeed the extant casing is perfectly flat. Maragioglio and Rinaldi observed that the granite casing of Menkaure's pyramid was flat, but above the granite the packing-blocks formed a concavity in the center of each face...The purpose for the concavity of the Great Pyramids remains a mystery and no satisfactory explanation for this feature has been offered. The indentation is so slight that any practical function is difficult to imagine.


From here: www.catchpenny.org...

The real puzzle the concavities at Giza present is the fact that they appear on 2 of the 3 main Gizamids. The centre pyramid of Khafre is devoid of these features. Why?

I speculate that the concavities serve two purposes:

1) They present to us a 'timing mechanism' for dating the comples. When we measure the azimuth of the pyramids of Menkaure, we find it is 212* from North. When its equivalent star, Mintaka, was aligned at 212* we find this was c.10,550BC. But to determine this date we must know the angle of the alignment (i.e. 212*) but ALSO the PRECISE TIME of DAY the Mintaka angle was measured. We could guess this was in the early morning or the evening when the stars would be visible on the horizon. But the ancient designers did not take any chances with such vital information. I speculate that - in this context - the concavities represent the belt stars shining on the SW horizon with the middle star (Al Nilam) set below the horizon thus mimicking the middle pyramid of Khafre which does not 'shine'. You may understand this dating mechanism better with the following diagram:



2) The second purpose of the concavities may be to indicate a very specific location to the SW of Giza. These functions are not mutually exclusive. The concavities in this sense serve as mathematical b-sectors, utilising the 3 most ancient methods: incentre, circumcentre and barycentre of a triangle. The crosses within the circles correspond with the concavities of Khufu and Menkaure. The 3 methods pruduce a quite unique traingle oriented in a very particular way. What may lie at this location is anyone's guess. The ancient 'codex'? Or there may be absolutely nothing!



Hope this explains better.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton






top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join