Giza / Orion - Further Proof

reply to post by Scott Creighton



1) Uh yes! I remeber that part of your presentation now. I knew there was something you were saying or relating to in these lines from your prior work.

2) Yes, I remeber this part now too. The location in the sand revealed with your incentre, circumcentre and barycentre of a triangle layout.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Truely amazing how you show all these features to work in conjunction with eachother. I think it adds merrit to your claims myself. Its a fairly complex system, and you seem to be using all the features of the giza plateau without excluding things that dont fit.

In fact, do you claim anywhere to exclude certain features or facts to come up with this work? Have you been accused of this before? Do you know of features that dont fit your theorys? I only ask cause I dont recall any myself. You seem to have included all the major features in these vast models/theorys, at least to someone like myself.

reply to post by JbT

Hello JBT,

Thanks again for your post. You're keeping me busy today!!

In fact, do you claim anywhere to exclude certain features or facts to come up with this work? Have you been accused of this before? Do you know of features that dont fit your theorys? I only ask cause I dont recall any myself. You seem to have included all the major features in these vast models/theorys, at least to someone like myself.

SC: You really wouldn't believe the things I have been accused of, some here on ATS and on other forums. 'Cherry-picking' is one of the most often quoted jibes although it beats me how I can be accused of cherry-picking when my work explains the function of the Sphinx, every pyramid at Giza and the peculiar features of those pyramids. Indeed, my work offers an explanation as to why there are missing pyramids!

The Pharaoh Khafre had 5 wives (and a mother) each of whom it could reasonably be argued deserved to be buried in the same fashion as Khufu's Queens and Menkaure's Queens i.e. in a Queen's Pyramid. It seems somewhat odd that Khafre (possibly) built the last Queen's Pyramid beside Khufu's Pyramid for Khufu's wife, Queen Henutsen and yet felt no such desire to build similar structures for any of his own 5 wives or indeed his mother.

So, in answer to your question, I have focussed my work on trying to offer an explanation to what many regard as the most notable structures on the plateau - the 11 pyramids and the Great Sphinx.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Many thanks for your response to my post Scott.

Regarding the point raised here by PhotonEffect:
Scott, I've noticed that you suggest that the Giza pyramids may have been planned at 10,500 BC but not actually constructed until the more recent dynasty period that carbon-dating seems to qualify. Do you think there is any merit to the notion that the physical foundations may have actually been laid thousands of years before the AE built the pyramids, or do you find it more agreeable that the entire project was embarked upon at the time agreed by orthadox historians?

That the AE built the structures at Giza according to astronomical alignment and phenomena I am convinced (thanks in large part to your work). What do you think of the possibility that the AE built the pyramids, as a calendar and constellation marker, but of their own accord - with no codex? I only say this because I am of the opinion that the world's great ancient civilisations did develop a superior understanding of our solar system of their own accord, and may even have been able to backward-calculate important alignments leading to 10,500 BC. For example, the Mayan Long Count calendar - and I may be wrong here - signifies events in the remote past, long before the Meso-American civilisations who used the calendar are known to have existed.

This is just a point of discussion. For the record, I'm with you on the theory that some kind of codex was inherited.

reply to post by Cythraul

Hello Cythraul,

Thanks again for your post.

Cythraul: Do you think there is any merit to the notion that the physical foundations may have actually been laid thousands of years before the AE built the pyramids

SC: I wouldn't say this is impossible but most improbable. If the foundations of the design or 'codex' was laid down at Giza circa 10,500BC I see this as being done for a very important reason since such an undertaking would have been an enormous project - yes, even to lay down only the foundations.

Science is now finding evidence of a catastrophic Earth event having occurred around this time and so I believe this is why the 'codex' (i.e. the arrangement of the structures) indicates this time (as well as the future date c.2,500AD). If the catastrophe was severe enough then populations of plants and animals would have been decimated all over the world.

I do not believe there would have been the human resources nor indeed, the will, to organise and implement the laying of such foundations at that time. Basic survival and a hunter-gathering existence would have been the order of the day. Only when the human population had recovered sufficiently enough could they begin to consider the world around them and their place in it; only then would they be able to consider the meaning of the ancient 'codex' that was bequeathed to them by the enlightened survivors (their ancestors) of the catastrophe.

Hope this answers your question.

Best wsihes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Thanks Scott. I agree. For the pyramids, your scenario is the most logical.

But may I ask your opinion on the date of the Sphinx's construction? If you are suggesting that the general period of 10,500 BC would have been a little too shaky for the undertaking of a project like the pyramids, I assume you feel the same way about the Sphynx (particularly as it is a key component in the Giza calendar according to your theory, not an unrelated monument).

So what about the erosion on the body of the Sphinx noted by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz and John Anthony West? If this doesn't suggest an earlier build-date, then what does it suggest?

Scott, what do you make of the theory that the chambers inside the pyramids also point to constellations ?

I believe the thinking is they guided the pharoah to constellations that were significant to the afterlife, sort of a map for the soul.

I also believe that in this theory orions belt is a lunch pin to the alignment of the pyramids

forgive my fuzzy memory, but I think the big dipper was involved, and one particular star in the big dipper was important

I really should pay more attention to late night TV

Are the South American pyramids laid out in such a manner that they reflect a particular constellation?

Granted, on a larger scale geographically speaking, but perhaps a possibility.


Wondering too, if some hold that the South American pyramids are an individual copy of the Giza pyramids?

reply to post by Cythraul

Hello Cythraul,

Cythraul: May I ask your opinion on the date of the Sphinx's construction? If you are suggesting that the general period of 10,500 BC would have been a little too shaky for the undertaking of a project like the pyramids, I assume you feel the same way about the Sphynx (particularly as it is a key component in the Giza calendar according to your theory, not an unrelated monument).

SC: The question as to the dating of the Sphinx is complex. This is due to the fact that this structure was carved from in-situ rock. The pyramids, on the other hand, were built from quarried blocks (although there is a theory that the upper blocks may actually have been cast) and bound together with mortar and within that mortar there are traces of carbon which dates the pyramid structures to c.2,500BC. On the basis of this we have to consider that the Sphinx is contemporary with the AE culture of the 4th Dynasty. In the early 1900s when the Sphinx enclosure was cleared of its sand, pot shards contemporary with the 4th Dynasty were discovered in the enclosure. Of course, these pot shards may only have gathered there since the last time the Sphinx enclosure was cleared of its sand.

What is clear is that geological data alone cannot offer a defintive date for the Sphinx. It can only be done in conjunction with archaelogical findings. However, it is difficult to determine if any pre-4th Dynasty artefacts found at the base of the enclosure were not removed in antiquity as part of a clear out / restoration project.

As far as my own theory is concerned, it does not actually matter which structure was built first because the builders were working from a pre-defined plan. They could have built the small 'cult pyramid' of Khafre first if they had so wished. The Sphinx, as far as my own work goes, could have been carved last - it does not actually matter. From a design perspective, however, the Sphinx would have been one of the first of the structures set in place into the 'codex'.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Desert Dawg

Hello Desert Dawg,

Desert Dawg: Wondering too, if some hold that the South American pyramids are an individual copy of the Giza pyramids?

SC: I remember reading a theory about this somewhere but have lost the link. Certainly there are some striking similarities between the structures.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by syrinx high priest

Hello Syrinx,

Syrinx: Scott, what do you make of the theory that the chambers inside the pyramids also point to constellations ?

SC: I think that simply by virtue of being (generally) angled towards the sky, the so-called 'Air Shafts' (star-shafts) will point to star constellations. I question, however, the stars that Trimble, Badaway and Bauval cite. In my own work I show how these shafts (if indeed they do indicate stars) were aimed at the stars Alpha Centauri and the pole star Vega c. 10,500BC. I present also a radical new idea as to the purpose of the 4 shafts in Khufu's pyramid which you can see here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Scott, i have read with interest your theories and thoughts. I was wondering whether you have read the books of Colin Wilson who i've found to be free thinking and unbiased, ( you might feel differently).

I may be behind the times in regard to this but i have read that the hieroglyphics in the great pyramid tell of a huge "room" at the feet of the sphinx where all the secrets of the pyramids are stored. I have believed that, for the last few years, the egyptian government has been in negotiations with various television companies for the rights to film the excavation of this chamber.

Can you confirm this or correct me please?

reply to post by davedat

Hello Davedat,

Many thanks for your post.

I may be behind the times in regard to this but i have read that the hieroglyphics in the great pyramid tell of a huge "room" at the feet of the sphinx where all the secrets of the pyramids are stored. I have believed that, for the last few years, the egyptian government has been in negotiations with various television companies for the rights to film the excavation of this chamber. Can you confirm this or correct me please?

SC: The researcher and writer, Rand Flem-Ath (who wrote 'The Atlantis Blueprint' with Colin Wilson) has some interesting information on this. You can read it here:

www.flem-ath.com...

As for television companies vying for film rights - I have heard rumours about such a chamber - as most have - but nothing more than that. What is interesting though is why 'Hawass's Wall' extends so far from the Giza plateau into the south-western Giza desert. What's there in this remote spot that needs to be fenced-off?



Food for thought.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Thanks for that extra information Scott. Interesting that the secret chamber location put forward in Rand Flem-Ath's work seems as though it would lie outside of Hawass' wall. I agree with you in that I can see very little other reason for Hawass' wall to cover such an extensive area - other than the need to preserve important archaeological ground. I seem to recall reading a news article about Americans racing cars in the desert area near Giza!? (can't seem to find a link. I could be mistaken).

edit: bad grammar.


[edit on 21/12/2007 by Cythraul]