reply to post by Morten Andreassen
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
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
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.