reply to post by spacevisitor
Many thanks for your post. You write:
Spacevisitor: Am I right that if I am reading your post correctly, that you support Robert Bauvals proposal with the similarity of the stars
in Orion’s belt with the laying of the Giza pyramids?
SC: Yes - I do believe Robert Bauval has made a valid correlation between the pyramids of Giza and the belt stars of the Orion constellation.
Spacevisitor: Am I also right, that you confirm in your presentation, that the position of those Giza pyramids in relation with the three stars
in Orion’s belt exactly fits the timeframe of 10.500 BC as Robert Bauvals also claims?
SC: Bauval has - in his lastest book The Egypt Code
- moved the correlation date further back in time to c.11,500BC to concord now with the
Sothic cycle (a 1461 AE year cycle which was very important to the AE, connected to the heliacal rising of Sirius and how this moment 'drifted' over
time). I believe this is a 'red herring' - Giza is symbolic of the ORION constellation (i.e. the belt stars) NOT Sirius.
This is not to say that Sirius was not important to the AE - clearly it was. However, the Giza/Orion PLAN was created - in my view - not by the AE of
the 4th Dynasty but by a much earlier civilisation, the precusors of Dynastic Egypt. This Orion PLAN would have had cultural and religious importance
to the AE of the 4th Dynasty, much in the same way the 'Ark of the Covenant' was important to the Jewish people. Indeed, so important was this
'Codex' to the AE that - although they may have over thousands of years lost its true meaning and significance - they 'remembered' that it was in
some way connected with their remote past, with the 'First Time' of Osiris and so they laid it down on a truly monumental scale at Giza.
Spacevisitor: Then you say that the Designers of the 'Giza Codex' were much more knowledgeable of the belt star asterism and the error in
Menkaure's positioning that we observe today and that possible “the design could be crafted into a 3-D model, possible in granite, and passed on
through generations until the Ancient Egyptians in the 4th Dynasty could build them in the way they are laying now.
SC: The Designers HAD to have known the layout of the belt stars to a high degree of accuracy for only with such highly accurate knowledge can the
belt stars define the base dimensions of all three main pyramids at Giza in the manner I have demonstrated. I have shown in another thread how such
accuracy can be obtained using a 'primitive' astronomical measuring tool.
Robert Bauval's proposal that the much smaller size of Menkaure (G3) is so in order to symbolise the marginally less bright star Mintaka is, in my
opinion, simply wrong. How does a star that is fractionally less bright to the naked eye produce a pyramid that is about a third the size of it 2
illustrious neighbours. It makes no sense and Bauval has to accept that he is wrong with this proposal and that the geometrical proposal I present
makes much more contextual sense. When we look at Giza we immediately see geometry. The smaller size of Mekaure's pyramid is as a result of the
ANGULAR offset of Mintaka from the other 2 belt stars. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the brightness of the stars.
Spacevisitor: Have you any idea who those Designers good be?
SC; I have no idea who these 'enlightened' people were. I suggest, however, that they were the precursor to the Dynastic AE civilisation.
Spacevisitor: And do you think it is possible that it weren’t the Ancient Egyptians who built them in the 4th Dynasty, but those original
Designers of the 'Giza Codex'?
SC: The AE themselves tell us they had a codex containing architectural plans that came to them in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in
the days of Imhotep (found on an inscription in the collonade of the Temple of Horus at Edfu). Imhotep is credited with constructing the first 'Step
Pyramid' at Saqqara for the Pharaoh Djoser. Mortar from a number of pyramids - including the Great pyramid - have been C-14 dated and were found to
be contemporary with the various pharaohs attested to them. We have to accept the C-14 dates.
The arrangement of the structures at Giza, however, contain mathematical and astronomical knowledge that the current academic view tells us was
apparently beyond the AE of the 4th Dynasty. Thus then we have a paradox - how did such knowledge come to be 'encoded' into the arrangement of
these structures if the people who built them had no such knowledge? If we cannot attribute such knowledge to the AE who actually built the
structures, then we have to conclude that the 4th Dyn. AE were following a plan or Codex of some kind that came from some other time/place.