The Giza-Orion Design Theory

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
In 1994, Robert Bauval and co-author, Adrian Gilbert, presented the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) in their best-selling book, The Orion Mystery. In the book Bauval proposes that the 3 main pyarmids at Giza were built as symbolic representation of the 3 stars of Orion's Belt.

Bauval proposed that the smaller of the 3 pyramids, Menkaure (G3), was symbolic of the less bright, 'misaligned' star of the belt, Mintaka.

However, naked eye observation of the belt stars makes Bauval's theory unconvincing as the image below aptly demonstrates:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

If there is any observable difference to the naked eye of the three belt stars it is very marginal and certainly cannot be considered as sufficient reason to construct Menkaure's pyramid (G3) at only around a third of the size of its two illustrious neighbours.

A more practical and consistent answer as to why Menkaure's pyramid is so much smaller than Khufu's and Khafre's lies in the ANGULAR OFFSET of the 'misaligned star' Mintaka. When we look at the Giza plateau the immediate context that strikes us is one of geometry and symmetry. It seems more logical and consistent to consider that the true answer to Menkaure's smaller size lies in the primary visible context we immediately observe at Giza - geometry; simple geometry around the Orion Belt stars.

The following Flash presentation demonstrates this new theory:

The Giza-Orion Design Theory

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Enjoy!

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton




posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Does this take into account the movements of G1 and G2? What positions were these stars in in reference to G3 in the model given?

I can see the theory and it is indeed plausible. Thinking along the lines of architecturally and anthropologically it is indeed logical to see how ancient humans could have used this geometry to plan out the pyramids at Giza. The angles used in your hypothesis are indeed relatively easy to reconstruct using ancient tools.

Good work Scott, I did enjoy that presentation.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Intriguing.

All this makes one think what it means if those structures are 12500+ years old! It almost certainly would rule out any basis from creationism


I wonder what good old Cayce knew? Also there is that rainfall theory considering the sphinx. First I thought that it could be caused by sand and wind combination also, but there's something in that.. unless it is an ancient conspiracy



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

Hello Whatukno,

Thanks for your post and your kind words. You as:


Whatukno: Does this take into account the movements of G1 and G2? What positions were these stars in in reference to G3 in the model given?


SC: Movements of G1 & G2 - not quite sure what you mean here? Certainly there is considerable debate as to whether G2 was repositioned or that its original size should have been larger but I am not aware of such debate for G1. Some scholars also argue that the dimensions of G3 were perhaps changed.

The belt stars have been set on the ground to within 1.56 arc mins of error, an eror so small as to be invisible to the naked eye. In this near perfect configuration the belt star asterism can produce the base dimensions of all 3 main pyramids at Giza.

Was it possible for the ancients to record the belt asterism to an accuracy of 1.56 minutes of arc? In a paper by Guilio Magli entitled, "On the Possible Discovery of Precessional Effects in Ancient Astronomy," Magli states the following:

"We have astronomical data collected by Babylonian astronomers on clay tablets which contain observations which are more precise than one minute of arc.... astronomical data which can be traced back to 2048BC,"

We have to conclude then that if the Babylonian astronomers had access to such accurate knowledge of star positions then it is certainly feasible that the contemporary AEs would also have had access to such knowledge.

Of course the real mystery remains - why does the Giza design indicate such a remote date of c.10,500BC?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I was actually referring to the stars themselves not the pyramid my mistake for about G1 and G2 I was thinking that these referred to the belt stars and not the pyramids. I often associate the pyramids with Khufu, his son Khafra and Menkaure. I apologize for the error.

Any theories as to the orientation of the pyramids? I have heard variations on the dimensions and orientation of the pyramids to be meaningful and quite deliberately done. So why was such precision so important to the ancient Egyptians?

The pyramids being astronomically dated so old leads one to conclude that;

The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom (Dynasties IV-VIII) 2575-2150 B.C. period were not the creators of the pyramids. But a much older civilization. Even predating the Predynastic About 5500-3000 B.C..

This would also conclude that the above mentioned pharaohs were entombed latter than the construction of the pyramids. Perhaps even never entombed at all and the hieroglyphics depicting these events were created latter in time from the construction of these buildings.

This could lead to the hypothesis that during the early Egyptian culture pharaohs were entombed and removed from the pyramids regularly. That there was a means to open and close the portcullises located in the pyramids for the purpose of entombing and disentering pharaohs after a set amount of time regulated by religious mandate.

Also what I was getting at before is you have said that the two stars in the belt representing Khufu, & his son Khafra's pyramids have changed little in the time period that has evolved. What can this mean? I know that all stars in the galaxy are traveling at different rates of speed dependent on the location in their spiral arm of the galaxy but to insist that these stars have a geostationary pattern to our own Sol is hard to comprehend. Surely from the 10,000+ time line until now these stars must have shifted their positions altering the equation somewhat. A spreading apart or narrowing together or a brightness differential something to account for the movement of these stars within our galaxy.

I don't know what do you think?



[edit on 2/27/2008 by whatukno]



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I have no doubt in my mind that the design of the Pyramids where influenced by stars at the time and their position in the sky.

But what I wonder is why all the knowledge that this people may had during this time of construction has become so hard to decipher with time.

It is because we as human have become so influenced by different believes around us that we have become blind?.

Still I find everything very interesting Mr. Creighton and love to read your posts.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Hi Scott,

I have been reading your posts over at GH and was sorry to see you go as I found your work to be very interesting - luckily someone posted a link to this place..

I just wondered if you have considered that the AE might not have tried to draw any special attention to BC 10500 – other than to give us (or themselves, their Gods, etc) a starting point for the timeframe in witch they/the Giza Complex/the Giza Clock operated..

And also – is it not more logical to credit the AE for calculating all of this (even if we have no proof that they were able to do it) rather than credit some far away people of witch we know nothing?

Regards – Morten



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
[...]

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Rigel]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Morten Andreassen
 


Hello Morten,

Thanks for your post and I am happy to see that you found me here on ATS. You raise some important and interesting questions:


MA: I have been reading your posts over at GH and was sorry to see you go as I found your work to be very interesting - luckily someone posted a link to this place..


SC: Glad you find my work interesting.


MA: I just wondered if you have considered that the AE might not have tried to draw any special attention to BC 10500 – other than to give us (or themselves, their Gods, etc) a starting point for the timeframe in which they/the Giza Complex/the Giza Clock operated..


SC: What I see here is essentially a paradox. It goes something like this:

The AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Gizamids - of that I am almost completely convinced. The C-14 dating evidence of the GP mortar seems unequivocal albeit the dates may be out by a few hundred years or thereabouts.

On that basis how then is it possible that the AEs of the 4th Dyn did the following:

1) Placed the satellite pyramids in an arrangement of 3-1-4 (Pi)? The AEs of the 4th Dyn. used a decimal system but they did not use decimal fractions and would not have expressed the first 3 digits of Pi in this manner. Coincidence? I don't think so because when you interpret this 'beacon' as meaning 'circle' we find that a circle circumscribed around the 3 most extreme corners of the Gizamids (whereby all the Gizamids are precisely within the circumscribed circle), we find that the centre of the circle is in error from the centre of the middle pyramid (G2) by the tiniest fraction. We aslo find that the Sphinx ends up sitting right on the very edge of the circumscribed circle. I find it implausible that such an arrangement could happen as the result of simple happenchance. As such I have to conclude that the 'Pi Beacon' was indeed intentional, to hint at the circle.

2) The 'Designers' have gone out of their way to indicate the remote 10,500BC date within the arrangment of the structures. We find the main Gizamids arranged as the belt stars would have appeared at the meridian c. 10,500BC. We find the Menkaure Queen arranged horizontally on the SW horizon thereby mimicking the belt stars about to set on the SW horizon c. 10,500BC. And we find the Khafre/Menkaure alignment at 212* thereby aligned to its celestial counterpart, Mintaka, c.10,500BC. We find the centre belt star, Al Nilam setting before the other 2 on the SW horizon c.10,500BC thus mimicking the concavities of Khufu/Menkaure (Al Nitak/Mintaka).

In short, there are simply too many indicators within the arrangement of the structures (and I haven't even mentioned the Bauval/Hancock ideas concerning the Sphinx) indicating the remote 10,500BC date. I think we have to accept that, whoever created this design, went to extraordinary lengths to indicate this date and they did so in a number of ways that corroborate each other. That all these different elements can come perfectly together in the one design - all pointing to the same date - is simply beyond chance. This was intentionally done.

3) Placed Khufu's Queens as precessional markers of the belt stars at maximum culmination which will occur c.2,500 AD. How did the ancients know this critical moment in the precessional cycle of the Belt stars and how were they able to calculate and project the star positions across some 12,500 years?

And that's the paradox - if the AEs of the 4th Dyn. did not understand Pi as a decimal fraction (3.14) and did not have precessional knowledge that would have enabled them to calculate star positons backwards and/or forwards some 8,000 years (from c.2,500BC) then how is it possible that they could have done this? How could the 4th Dyn. AEs - within their own ability - have planted such obvious astronomical and mathematical knowledge into the arrangement of the structures?


MA: And also – is it not more logical to credit the AE for calculating all of this (even if we have no proof that they were able to do it) rather than credit some far away people of witch we know nothing?


SC: It has always been my position - and it remains my position - that what I have identified within the arrangement of the structures at Giza is very real and intentional. We either must credit the AE of at least the 4th Dyn. with this mathematical/astronomical knowledge or we have to look elsewhere.

Presently the academic consensus is that the AE did not possess this level of mathemical / astronomical understanding. I refuse to accept that what I have identified is the result of a 'fertile imagination' as some have accused. It's there for anyone to see. So, if we cannot attribute it to the AE of the early Dynastic period then, logically, we are compelled to look elsewhere.

What I have identifeid is knowledge that is out of time and place. It must, however, have come from somewhere and I don't mean my imagination.

Best wishes,


Scott Creighton



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

Hello Whatukno,

Thanks again or your post. You ask some interesting questions:


Whatukno: Any theories as to the orientation of the pyramids? I have heard variations on the dimensions and orientation of the pyramids to be meaningful and quite deliberately done. So why was such precision so important to the ancient Egyptians?


SC: An idea I am developing presently concerns the star within Orion's Belt, Rho Orionis. I think it is possible that the arrangement of the structures and some of the design features of the structures may have been placed in order to create a 'pointing device'. The configuration 'points to' the star Rho Orionis See my response to Cythraul further down this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Whatukno: The pyramids being astronomically dated so old leads one to conclude that; The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom (Dynasties IV-VIII) 2575-2150 B.C. period were not the creators of the pyramids. But a much older civilization. Even predating the Predynastic About 5500-3000 B.C..


SC: C-14 dating of the mortar used in the Great Pyramid dates the structure to the time of the 4th Dynasty. We have to accept that the structures are contemporary with the 4th Dyn. kings. In saying this, however, I have concluded that the DESIGN (i.e. the arrangment of the structures) at Giza presents to us knowledge that our present understanding of AE culture prevents us from attributing to them - it came from somewhere else. Intriguingly, the AE themselves tell us that the design of their temples came to them in a architectural plans that were contained in a codex that fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep.


Whatukno:This could lead to the hypothesis that during the early Egyptian culture pharaohs were entombed and removed from the pyramids regularly.


SC: The current accademic consunsus is that the pyramids were raided in antiquity and everything removed. It's hard enough trying to prove that the pyramids were the everlasting tomb for their respective Pharaoh (i.e. one Pharaoh) let alone a whole series of them. Certainly we know of intrusive burials (i.e. reburials) but only really for lesser pyramid structures.


Whatukno: Also what I was getting at before is you have said that the two stars in the belt representing Khufu, & his son Khafra's pyramids have changed little in the time period that has evolved. What can this mean? I know that all stars in the galaxy are traveling at different rates of speed dependent on the location in their spiral arm of the galaxy but to insist that these stars have a geostationary pattern to our own Sol is hard to comprehend. Surely from the 10,000+ time line until now these stars must have shifted their positions altering the equation somewhat. A spreading apart or narrowing together or a brightness differential something to account for the movement of these stars within our galaxy.


SC: Star motion is a complex subject. Stars have independent motions in their own right and also motions perceived by us due to the various motions of the Earth as it travels through space. 'Proper Motion' concerns the actual motion of the stars themselves. Some stars move faster than others i.e. they exhibit higher proper motion. This causes their pattern (i.e. constellation asterism) to alter over long periods of time. The stars of Orion's belt, however, exhibit very little proper motion thus maintaining the same spatial appearance over long periods of time.

Precessional motion is caused due to the slow 'nodding' motion of the Earth over a period approximately 26,000 years. This moding motion of the Earth causes the stars to appear to shift 1 degree west to east around every 72 years. This is what gives us the Precession of the Equinoxes. Using astronomical star-mapping software it is possible to map - with reasonable degree of accuracy, the positons of stars across this 26,000 year cycle. This is assuming, of course, that we have correctly understood the processes that cause precession. The currently accpted lunisolar model is presently being challenged by the bisolar model developed by Walter Cruttenden.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Hi Scott,

Thanks for your reply.

SC: That all these different elements can come perfectly together in the one design - all pointing to the same date - is simply beyond chance. This was intentionally done.

I agree with you. But are the two dates (BC 10500 and AD 2500) highlighted because the dates themselves are significant or is it the timeframe that is important..

SC: Presently the academic consensus is that the AE did not possess this level of mathemical / astronomical understanding.

Well, it is as you say “there for anyone to see”, so the consensus might have got it wrong?

Regards - Morten



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Howdy all

A discussion involving the great Giza Triangle apex is located at Ma'at

www.hallofmaat.com...,479478





new topics
 
2

log in

join