Giza-Orion - Further Evidence of the Correlation

It has long been shown that within the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) - first proposed by Bauval/Gilbert in their controversial book, The Orion Mystery - that the correlation between the three belt stars and the three main Gizamids is not precise. It has also been argued (principally by Robert Bauval) that the pyramid of Menkaure was placed in error on the Giza plateau with respect to its stellar counterpart, the belt star Mintaka.

The diagram below, however, demonstrates that it is more likely that it is in fact Khafre's Pyramid (G2) that was placed in error from its stellar counterpart, the belt star Al Nilam. (Note: the 3 red dots in the diagram indicate the belt stars).



By circumscribing the 3 most extreme outer corners of the Giza pyramids we find that the belt star Al Nilam falls almost precisely on the centre of this circumscribed circle. (And remember - this is the very same circle where we find that the Sphinx also has been placed on the circle):



We also find that the southeast corners of all 3 pyramids now lie on a 47* SW/NE diagonal line. Furthermore, a diagonal can now be drawn through the centres of G1/G2 which then meets the NW corner of G3.

Furthermore, notice how - with G2 repositioned onto Al Nilam (with G1/G3 as fulcrum) the quarter lines bisect the 3 Queens of Menkaure!!!!!!



All of this conforms to the design technique shown here with the exception that it is G2 that is moved from its original position and NOT G3:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...


Regards,

Scott Creighton

Have you forwarded your discoveries to Robert Bauval?

If so, what are his comments?

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Hello Skyfloating,

I am in the process of doing just that. I also have further evidence of this particular idea but won't be posting until I have cheked out some things first with Robert.

This diagram - to my mind - is truly astonishing. Who would have thought that circumscribing the 3 most outer pyramid corners with a circle would find the centre of that circle smack bang on Al Nilam's position with G1/G3 as fulcrum. And also on this circle sits the Sphinx!

Quite incredible. To put this in perspective - throuw 5 pebbles randomly to the ground and try circumscribing a circle through 4 pebbles whilst the fifth pebble lies in the circle's centre. Quite simply this design is beyond chance. And when we add to this that the 'geo-stellar' fingerprint produced by the belt stars actually defines the base dimensions of the 3 main Gizamids places the correspondence beyond question. And when we add to this that the 2 sets of so-called 'Queens pyramids' serve as precessional maximum and minimum culmination markers, we have to ask ourselves - how much more evidence is required for this theory to be accepted by mainstream Egyptology?

There is now absolutely no doubt in my mind that there exists an unequivocal Orion belt influence in the design of the pyramids at Giza and orthodox Egyptology must now take cognisance of this new compelling evidence.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Star for sure.

If these maps and everything else are all correct (scale, etc) which for some reason I trust they are, Scott, I truly hope your work it taken for legit.

Ive read almost all your stuff and to me, nobody mind you, this is all brilliantly worked out and easy to follow if you take the time. Though, my drafting career might help with seeing all the diagrams and being able to visualizes it all.


I wish you good luck again, and hope to read more about your work in the future.

wehat evidence? that you can draw circles etc all over giza? lotsa people can do that-ghhq is full of them. a new giza solution every week!

reply to post by Simon Peter

---

Hello SP,

Nice to see you here at ATS again.



SC: Perhaps not every week but I do understand what you are perhaps alluding to. I would even add the "Hall of Ma'at" board to your list.

However, in defense to what I have presented I do not think there exists a comparable 'blueprint' that explains not only the layout of the main Gizamids (including the G2 offset) and the so-called 'Queens Satellites' but also the very dimensions of not one, not two but of ALL THREE main Gizamids. Many solutions have attempted to find a single, unifying solution to what I present - what I present is the first to achieve it. What I think was perhaps lacking in other attempts to achieve this was a complete lack of belief that the underlying design imperative was itself an astronomical one i.e. based upon the 'geo-stellar fingerprint' produced by the belt stars of the Orion constellation.

You don't accept the geo-stellar solution I present - that's fine. You're perfectly entitled to that view. But neither can you deny the quite remarkable synergy / concordance / correlation / elegance of the geo-stellar blueprint I present. To deny the 'beauty' of this solution such is simply to be churlish and disingenuous - IMO, of course. The math / astronomy speaks for itself.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

youv got no justification fdior any of it. nothinfg from ae about geostellar footprints etc. you dont no what was in the codex-so you invent model of gizamids. plenty of preople get explanations for all soirts of bots of giza-cant all be right

reply to post by Simon Peter

---

Hello SP,



SC: My justification are the math and the astronomy. Or are you inferring my math and astronomy are wrong? If so, show me?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

eveytbody else with a solution claims the mathgs and geometry-rjubbish, youve gotta have an ae cultural context. you havent got onre

reply to post by Simon Peter

---

Hellp SP,

Thank you for your post.



SC: The primary context I see when I observe the structures at Giza is one of mathematics and geometry. Are you suiggesting the AE did not understand math/geometry? Are you suggesting the AE were not capable of drawing a straight line or creating a 90* angle? Are you suggesting that the AE had no interest in math/geometry as part of their culture?

Are you further suggesting that the AE could not have observed the motions of the heavens? Are you also suggesting that the the AE did not have a stellar aspect to their religion/culture?

In short, are you suggesting that the AE did not consider math/astronomy as being part of their culture? Or is it just you who considers these fields to be totally alien to the ancients? Far from being "rubbish" (your description), the evidence for math/astronomy as part and parcel of the ancient's cultural tradition is everywhere you look.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

your tellin us th\at they buiolt it to a plan that fell from te skies. you sayt youv got mythical origon so you ylou can twel;l us all exactly what the plsan contained. dcont kjeep us in suspense

reply to post by Simon Peter

---

Hello SP,



SC: Excuse me - but if we can go a step back here. You were suggesting that a 'cultural context' for math/astronomy did not exist in AE. Do you now accept that such were indeed facets to AE culture/religion?

Regards,

SCott

werew talking about your arguments

www.grahamhancock.com...