Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Orion-Giza Blueprint - Orion at Giza Beyond Reasonable Doubt

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
ere is my latest research concerning the Giza-Orion concordance. It is my view that this latest research now places the Orion-Giza concordance firmly beyond reasonable doubt and into the realm of 'probability'.

The file is about 15Mb and is in Windows Media File (WMF) format. This allows you to run it in Windows Media Player which you can pause/start at your convenience (more user control than Flash format).

Enjoy.

The Orion-Giza Blueprint (15Mb)

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Regards,

Scott Creighton




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Great stuff Scott. I love these presentations of yours. If you ever need any help presenting your work (Flash or static) let me know - I'm a multimedia designer by profession. Not that you appear to need it, the animations/videos are clear as can be.

I'm wondering, do you think there was any reason for the Ancient's choice of Orion's Belt other than its suitability as a geometrically expressive device?



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Thanks!

I'm very interested in the pyramid's but admit that I don't know a lot about them. There seems to be a lot of different opinions and theories on them so for now I'm just taking them all in, all but Zahi Hawass' that is.....Speaking of Hawass, what is your view of him?

Edit to add: Forget that question, I shouldn't have asked it.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Rumrunner]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


Hello Cythraul,

Nice to hear from you again - always a pleasure.


Cythraul: I'm wondering, do you think there was any reason for the Ancient's choice of Orion's Belt other than its suitability as a geometrically expressive device?


SC: Absolutely, unequivocally, categorically, unmistakably YES!!! If you recall the Giza Precession Wheel theory I presented in one of my earlier threads it talks of the 'Dream Stele' that stands between the paws of the Great Sphinx. This stele states the follwoing, "This is the place of the first time".

What does that statement mean? Well, Robert Bauval and other writers reckon it is perhaps a reference to the foundation of the AE civilisation in remote antiquity - the First Time or start of their civilisation. My view is that this reference literally means the location of the Sphinx is the start point of the Giza Precession Wheel - the great astronomical clock. The Sphinx is the calibrating point which every analogue clock requires in order to work out the actual time. But what time/date has the precession clock been set to? To work this out requires the ancients to have created a particular alignment with a particular star on the horizon. Since the stars shift in a retrograde motion very slowly over time (360* in around 26,000 years), by marking a particular aligment (i.e. the belt star Mintaka with the Pyramid Menkaure at 212* azimuth) we can then work out the clock's start date - i.e. its First Time. Knowing this date allows us to then work out the other dates (i.e. the cycle of cataclysm) encoded within the precession wheel.

The Orion belt stars are absolutely crucial to this functional astronomical 'early warning system'.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Or based on the Egyptian creation myth, the place of the primorial mound.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hanslune:Or based on the Egyptian creation myth, the place of the primorial mound.


SC: Perhaps but on that logic then Saqqara - where the very first pyramid was built - should be considered the place of the first time, should it not? Why then make such a statement only at Giza? And why would pyramids bear star names if they are symbolic of the primordial mound? My view is that the pyramid form is perhaps symbolic of both stars AND the primoridal mound - and I don't rule out also that the emerging solar cult of the 4th Dynasty perhaps regarded it as being symbolic of the sun's rays.

One form - many interpretations.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing that with us, I’m assuming that some Maths genius on here will try to debunk the size of the pyramids in your cool demo. But, to me maths aside it always looked like an unmistakable Orion connection when I first read of this many years ago. Have you also looked at the wider Giza area as I’m sure who said that other pyramids in the wider area also matched celestial objects and not just the 3 main pyramids. Not sure if it was Graham Handcock, Rober Bauval, A John-West who proposed this idea?



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   


SC: Perhaps but on that logic then Saqqara - where the very first pyramid was built - should be considered the place of the first time, should it not?


Hans: Ah no the Sphinx is not a pyramid, so why bring up a pyramid used as a tomb. The analogy makes no sense at all. The Sphinx may (or its earlier worked version) have been considered by the Egyptians to make the primorial mound. The Sphinx was probably there before the pyramids.




Why then make such a statement only at Giza?


Hans: See above, Scott you seem to be confusing pyramids and sphinxes!



And why would pyramids bear star names if they are symbolic of the primordial mound?


Explain further about the "star names" please? Again we are talking about the Sphinx and the dream stelae not the pyramids.

Howdy mimijyd:

Although I'm sure Scott covered it I'll point out that the three pyramids don't line up exactly with Orion. Depending on what you base the connection on one is left out of whack.

[edit on 18/5/08 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,


SC: Perhaps but on that logic then Saqqara - where the very first pyramid was built - should be considered the place of the first time, should it not?

Hans: Ah no the Sphinx is not a pyramid, so why bring up a pyramid used as a tomb.


SC: Because you invoked the AE creation myth here:


Hans: Or based on the Egyptian creation myth, the place of the primordial mound.


SC: Then why raise the issue of the creation myth – the primordial mound – when the discussion was about the Dream Stele and the Sphinx? What exactly was your point in so doing? And btw, show me where I said – or even implied - the Sphinx was a pyramid? That is just plain ridiculous but I am sure I need not tell you that.


Hans: The Sphinx was probably there before the pyramids.


SC: I entirely agree with you that the Sphinx was most likely extant before the pyramids at Giza. Indeed, there is a very logical reason WHY the Sphinx HAD to have been built prior to the pyramids – but I won’t go into that here.


SC: And why would pyramids bear star names if they are symbolic of the primordial mound?

Hans: Explain further about the "star names" please? Again we are talking about the Sphinx and the dream stelae not the pyramids.


SC: No point in citing such if you wish to remain on topic i.e. the Dream Stele and the Sphinx.


Hans: Although I'm sure Scott covered it I'll point out that the three pyramids don't line up exactly with Orion. Depending on what you base the connection on one is left out of whack.


SC: This has been well known since Bauval first published his book nearly 15 years ago. So what! One pyramid or other is ‘out of whack’! There's a fraction od an error in laying out the belt stars on the ground at Giza. Do you honestly consider that tiny error to be some kind of killer blow to Bauval’s OCT? If you really think that then I beg to differ – it simply does not. There is just too much other corroborating evidence now being discovered to support the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis was indeed wrong, it is unlikely that such corroborating evidence would have been uncovered, indeed evidence to prove the hypothesis wrong is likely to be found. If, on the other hand, the hypothesis is indeed correct then, over time, what you should expect to find is that more and more evidence will present itself. It is the latter here that is taking place.

Remarkable, don’t you think, that a circle circumscribed around the 3 most extreme pyramid corners finds the centre of the centre star (Al Nilam) of the belt stars when projected onto the ground at Giza with G1/G3 as fulcrum:



Remarkable, don’t you think that the Orion Belt geo-stellar fingerprint matches the base dimensions of all three main pyramids at Giza, and that these dimensions – in turn – dictate the position of the 2 sets of satellites:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Remarkable, don’t you think, that the 2 sets of so-called Queens Pyramids mimics the precessional minimum and maximum culmination of the belt stars.

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Quite simply, Hans – the new evidence that has been presented in past 18 months or thereabouts supporting an Orion belt influence at Giza has taken the hypothesis from being a mere ‘possibility’ into the realm of ‘probability’. The evidence is now simply too great to continue to reject the hypothesis.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Howdy Scott



The evidence is now simply too great to continue to reject the hypothesis.


Only in your opinion Scott, don't you think you are over selling? Here is a question for you, if you have such great data why are you posting on a conspiracy site? Why haven't you had this published in the mainstream journels? Why not try putting it up at the various Egyptological sites?

Oh wait, we do know why don't we.

I mentioned the first mound in conjecture with it being mentioned in the dream stalae. You seem to have gone off on the pyramid angle by yourself.



Do you honestly consider that tiny error to be some kind of killer blow to Bauval’s OCT?


Hans: yep, despite your strawmaning the concept. Three things in a kinda of a line will, strangely, kinda match up with three other things kinda in a line.

Your greatest lack of supporting data is still:

No Atlantis (or whatever you want to call your "creator" state)

No importance given by the Egyptians to this concept, one time coincidence?

The unimportance of the data you say is being transmitted.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,

Thanks for your post.


SC: The evidence is now simply too great to continue to reject the hypothesis.

Hans: Only in your opinion Scott, don't you think you are over selling?


SC: Yes, you are correct – this is my opinion. It is, however, an opinion based on hard mathematical and astronomical evidence. Do you dispute this?


Hans: Here is a question for you, if you have such great data why are you posting on a conspiracy site? Why haven't you had this published in the mainstream journals? Why not try putting it up at the various Egyptological sites? Oh wait, we do know why don't we.


SC: You seem to be asking a question when, apparently, you already know the answer.

There is no “if” about the data I present. It’s presented for all to see, for all to check – yes, including you. And why do you think this should only be presented to a mainstream journal? Indeed, what actually do you consider to be ‘mainstream’? A journal read by a couple of hundred people - if you’re lucky - or a medium where your work is presented to potentially thousands, tens of thousands or even millions? As for other Egyptological sites – I think the word to describe most (not all) of those sites is ‘hidebound’. Many simply will not entertain ‘alternative’ views, regardless of how well-researched or compelling the hypothesis may be. The authors of such – more often than not – find themselves branded as heretics who know little of AE culture and civilisation.

I am no fool here, Hans. I know how this particular ‘game’ works. This is a ‘battle’ and I am on the side of the heretics. I well understand that this particular ‘orthodox’ nut cannot be cracked from within – the pressure has to come from outside. And that means winning the battle of ‘hearts and minds’. When those ‘custodians’ of the prevailing historical paradigm finally realise that they are losing that particular battle, then they will be brought kicking and screaming into the fold of an ‘opinion’ that makes more sense to Joe Public than much of the dogma that has been propagated for the better part of 200 years. But longevity does not mean it is right. And ‘heretic’ does not mean I am right either. It’s opposing views and I am of the view that my ‘opposing opinion’ can contribute a new dimension to understanding what the AE civilisation was all about. Don’t misunderstand me here either – I am not saying everything we think we know about the AE civilisation is wrong – simply that there is another dimension to be understood.


SC: Do you honestly consider that tiny error to be some kind of killer blow to Bauval’s OCT?

Hans: yep, […] Three things in a kinda of a line will, strangely, kinda match up with three other things kinda in a line.


SC: And this, Hans, is precisely where I realise you do not understand the argument I am presenting. Perhaps the blame for that has to lie with me – perhaps I have not made it clearer what it is I am actually arguing. Let me try again:

If I dropped three pebbles onto the floor and they landed precisely in the configuration of the three main Giza pyramid centres, I would have a close (though not perfect) correlation with the Orion belt stars. If I then used this three pebble pattern to then create a geo-stellar fingerprint - are you reading this next bit carefully? - THESE THREE PEBBLES WILL NOT PRODUCE A GEO-STELLAR FINGERPRINT THAT WILL MATCH THE BASE DIMENSIONS OF THE MAIN PYRAMIDS AT GIZA.

ONLY the ACTUAL ORION BELT ASTERISM produces the correct geo-stellar fingerprint for the Giza pyramids. There is absolutely no reason that the Orion belt asterism should do this, and yet IT DOES. Put another way - someone on another board recently proposed three other stars as being the correct stellar correlation because they matched the Gizamid centres absolutely perfectly. However, when you create the geo-stellar fingerprint from those three perfectly aligned stars prposed by this individual, the resulting geo-stellar fingerprint DOES NOT AND WILL NOT match the Gizamid dimensions.

Essentially what all this means is that to find the geo-stellar fingerprint that produces the actual base dimensions of the three main Gizamids would require us to test potentially millions and even billions of combinations because there is no mathematical reason to immediately assume that the Orion's belt asterism should work BECAUSE they don't match the Gizamid centres as they actually are.

That the correct triad of stars was found (i.e. Orion's belt) with the first attempt is - statistically speaking - improbable in the extreme. Of course, because of Bauval's earlier work there was a particular stellar context being implicated that I could work with - and therein lies the reason how something so statistically improbable was made probable. I used the context of a long-standing hypothesis.

I hope this has now clarified this for you.

(Continued).........



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


(Continued from previous)........


Hans:Your greatest lack of supporting data is still:

No Atlantis (or whatever you want to call your "creator" state)


SC: I have NEVER cited a ‘progenitor civilisation’. I HAVE argued that we have to conclude that either:

We attribute to the AE civilisation a level of mathematical/astronomical understanding that presently (so orthodox views tell us), not attributed to them.

Or -

We have to conclude that a civilisation prior to the dynastic period had this knowledge, it was lost to the wider civilisation as a result of some unknown event but was passed down to the AE of the dynastic period.

Are you suggesting that knowledge is not learned and lost over the ages? If our history tells us anything it tells us precisely that such happens regularly over the ages. So exactly what mathematical/astronomical knowledge DID the peoples of the prehistoric era know? And how much of their knowledge may have been lost?


Hans: No importance given by the Egyptians to this concept, one time coincidence?


SC: Are you suggesting, Hans, that the AE had no interest in the heavens, the stars?


Hans: The unimportance of the data you say is being transmitted.


SC: The Giza stellar design (‘Queens Pyramids’) presents to us in plain sight the Orion belt stars as they are aligned at maximum and minimum culminations – important points in the precessional ‘pendulum swing' of the belt stars. How do you know this has not been presented to us as a matter of some importance? If anything, the fact that the Menkaure Queens correspond to the time when major climatic changes occurred on the Earth should perhaps give us a hint as to why the Queens of Khufu are also presented to us at the other end of the precessional pendulum swing. There may be nothing of importance in the data being transmitted – but how can you be so certain that there isn’t anything of importance being indicated in this design?

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Howdy Scott

Yes, you are correct – this is my opinion. It is, however, an opinion based on hard mathematical and astronomical evidence. Do you dispute this?

Hans: Yes and we’ve been here before. Under what pretext do you not accept all the other “hard mathematical and astronomical evidence” that can be found in thread after thread in places like the hall of ma’at. Why is yours better than all those others?

SC: You seem to be asking a question when, apparently, you already know the answer.

Hans: My answer is that you know the data is weak and cannot face professional & expert opinions so you “hide” here and ‘sell’ to the uninformed. Oh wait your opinion is different on that I see below. It would appear, apparently that you are incorrect.

I am no fool here, Hans. I know how this particular ‘game’ works. This is a ‘battle’ and I am on the side of the heretics. I well understand that this particular ‘orthodox’ nut cannot be cracked from within – the pressure has to come from outside.

Hans: Oh really? Care to point to a scientific point in Egyptology that was changed by outside pressure? You don’t published because your work will be rubbished.

SC: And this, Hans, is precisely where I realise you do not understand the argument I am presenting. Perhaps the blame for that has to lie with me – perhaps I have not made it clearer what it is I am actually arguing. Let me try again:

Hans: I understand your argument well enough to know that the above line of reasoning is one used by religious people, intense believers. The three stars of Orion are used because they somewhat match the Giza pyramids. Now could the AE have been following this pattern? Yep they could except we both know that they don’t match – which is why you have to date the arrangement back to 10000 BC or whatever. Of course there was no AE civilization then so you have to figure a way around that …….which you cleverly did by coming up with the unknown civilization passing info on to the AE.

SC: I have NEVER cited a ‘progenitor civilisation’. I HAVE argued that we have to conclude that either:

We attribute to the AE civilisation a level of mathematical/astronomical understanding that presently (so orthodox views tell us), not attributed to them.

Or -

We have to conclude that a civilisation prior to the dynastic period had this knowledge, it was lost to the wider civilisation as a result of some unknown event but was passed down to the AE of the dynastic period.

Hans: (laughing) so that second paragraph isn’t an Atlantis style civilization huh? I’m sorry Scott but that is just silly. Your claim is obvious as is the obvious lack of supporting evidence.

You have to find that civilization Scot or your whole argument collapses. That was pointed out to you several times at the Hall of Ma'at. That obstacle you will have to overcome - not ignore.

Hans: No importance given by the Egyptians to this concept, one time coincidence?

SC: Are you suggesting, Hans, that the AE had no interest in the heavens, the stars?

Hans: Can you point to other uses of this “three star” pointer in other aspects of Egyptian life and culture? It must have been very important so it must be repeated.....

Hans: The unimportance of the data you say is being transmitted.

SC: The Giza stellar design (‘Queens Pyramids’) presents to us in plain sight the Orion belt stars as they are aligned at maximum and minimum culminations – important points in the precessional ‘pendulum swing' of the belt stars. How do you know this has not been presented to us as a matter of some importance?

Hans: Because it shows nothing of importance – as you prove by your vague searching answer/question.

SC: If anything, the fact that the Menkaure Queens correspond to the time when major climatic changes occurred on the Earth should perhaps give us a hint as to why the Queens of Khufu are also presented to us at the other end of the precessional pendulum swing.

Hans: Again why is this important for a civilization to portray?

There may be nothing of importance in the data being transmitted – but how can you be so certain that there isn’t anything of importance being indicated in this design?

Hans: Hey its your idea, So what is it again that this ancient civilization was trying to tell us?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune


Hans: My answer is that you know the data is weak and cannot face professional & expert opinions so you “hide” here and ‘sell’ to the uninformed.


your work will be rubbished.


I’m sorry Scott but that is just silly.


your whole argument collapses





Read the lines I quoted by you.

Then get a good dictionary and look up the word "condescending".

Its how people behave when they run out of arguments.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,

Thanks again for your post. I think some of what you have written taking this thread off-topic – I will answer your points this time but please, in future, do not expect me to do so unless, of course, they are on-topic. Thanks.

Okay -


Hans: […] Under what pretext do you not accept all the other “hard mathematical and astronomical evidence” that can be found in thread after thread in places like the hall of ma’at. Why is yours better than all those others?


SC: What I present is a design blueprint that explains how the dimensions of ALL 3 main pyramids were determined. The hypothesis I present further explains the relative positioning of the main Gizamids AND the Queens AND the Sphinx. Indeed, my work also offers an explanation for the conspicuous absence of Queens pyramids at Khafre’s tomb where one might have expected to find such given that this Pharaoh had 5 Queens, more than any other Pharaoh at Giza. In addition to all of this, there is a context of Osiris/Orion in the AE culture thus supporting an ‘Orion-based mathematical solution to the placement and dimensions of the pyramids at Giza. So, in answer to your question, present to me ANY other mathematical/astronomical hypothesis that explains as much as that which I present and which also is supported by AE cultural beliefs?


Hans: […] you know the data is weak and cannot face professional & expert opinions so you “hide” here and ‘sell’ to the uninformed.


SC: If my hyopthesis presented in the opening post of this thread is flawed in some way, then please show me where I have gone wrong.


Hans: […]you...cannot face professional & expert opinion so you ‘hide’ here and ‘sell’ to the ‘uninformed'.


Okay, Hans – I have a number of points to take issue with relating to your statement above. First of all I am selling nothing – you talk as though there are no ‘informed’ people here on ATS who are more than capable of debunking my work with solid Egyptological argument. I think also there are a good number who will take exception with your inference. Indeed, one such individual, Byrd, a super-moderator here on ATS was also recently appointed as a moderator on Ma’at, a serious Egyptological forum where I have also posted. Indeed you well know this since we have both debated my work there. I also post on Hancock’s site and a number of others. In short, I will post and debate my work wherever I feel is appropriate to do so, on orthodox and alternative sites alike. So where are you getting this notion that I am not facing orthodox opinion/critics?

Secondly, my opinion on a particular issue – as stated before – is ‘unorthodox’ and unacceptable to conventional Egyptological thought. Does that make my opinion wrong? No, it does not. It simply means that what I present is not palatable to those who think we pretty much have all the answers to the big questions in Egyptology. And that is precisely why people come to ATS – to hear and consider alternative opinion. The so-called ‘uninformed’ you mention are quite probably a lot more informed than you give them credit for and for many of them the answers given by conventional wisdom simply leaves too much still to be explained. ATS does exactly what it says on the tin – it offers alternative views on our ancient history (amongst many other things). My hypothesis is considered outwith the conventional scope hence why I present it here on ATS – it is largely unwelcome on conventional sites.

Thirdly, presenting my work for Peer Review is a non-starter because – and I am so glad you stated it yourself – it will be RUBBISHED. You think I don’t know this? You think I am so naive? But ask yourself why it will be rubbished by a Peer Review panel? Because simply it is too unorthodox, too controversial. Who on a Peer Review panel is going to stick their professional expert neck on the line offering support to something that will surely see them passed over for their next research grant?

The simple truth is, Hans, original thought is without peer and that is precisely why the Pope burned the astronomer.


SC: I am no fool here, Hans. I know how this particular ‘game’ works. This is a ‘battle’ and I am on the side of the heretics. I well understand that this particular ‘orthodox’ nut cannot be cracked from within – the pressure has to come from outside.

Hans: Oh really? Care to point to a scientific point in Egyptology that was changed by outside pressure? You don’t published because your work will be rubbished.


SC: You have answered your own question! It’s a closed club! Prior to the internet to attempt such would have been an impossible task. The internet, however, is the peer review panel for those who wish to consider such arguments out in the open and not in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors. Let us see how the orthodoxy deals with that in the next 5 to 10 years. There is more than one way to skin a cat. But if you are talking about publishing as a means towards recognition then you sorely mistake me for someone who actually gives a damn about such accolades. Accolades, reputations, baubles and letters only gives the holders of such the right to disagree with others who hold the same. And where precisely does that leave the rest of us? Precisely none the wiser.

(Continues..........)



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

(Continued from previous………)


Hans: […] The three stars of Orion are used because they somewhat match the Giza pyramids. Now could the AE have been following this pattern? Yep they could except we both know that they don’t match – which is why you have to date the arrangement back to 10000 BC or whatever.


SC: The meridian alignment matches c.10,500BCE. And the horizon azimuth alignment also matches the c.10,500BCE date. Two very different alignment mechanisms giving us the exact same remote date. So, the date 10,500BCE is cited because that is in fact the date the pyramids align astronomically with the belt stars and that this also happens to be when the belt stars are at the highly significant moment of minimum culmination. But the Giza structures (Khufu’s Queens) ALSO indicate the date 2,500CE – a FUTURE date which just so happens to be when the belt stars reach the equally significant moment of maximum culmination.These are the astronomical facts of the arrangement of the structures at Giza, Hans. I think a more constructive approach from you and others like you i


Hans: You have to find that civilization Scot or your whole argument collapses. That was pointed out to you several times at the Hall of Ma'at. That obstacle you will have to overcome - not ignore.


SC: No Hans. I see my main task as simply to present anomalous evidence - mathematical and astronomical knowledge that has been built into the arrangement of the structures at Giza. (After that is speculation). I find the anomalous evidence I present very compelling, indicating – for whatever reason – a definite connection between the Gizamids (including the satellites) and the Orion Belt stars. Where this knowledge came from or how the AE of the 4th Dynasty received it is another entirely separate issue. However, the mathematical / astronomical knowledge – the Orion connection – is beyond reasonable doubt and must be considered probable. Did the ancient Sumerians possess this knowledge and pass it to the AE? I don’t know. Did the Shemsu Hor (Folowers of Horus) possess this knowledge? Again, I don’t know. But that this knowledge, this Orion association is there is indisputable. We can look at who put it there once the more important task of figuring out why it’s there has been determined.


Hans: No importance given by the Egyptians to this concept, one time coincidence?

SC: Are you suggesting, Hans, that the AE had no interest in the heavens, the stars?

Hans: Can you point to other uses of this “three star” pointer in other aspects of Egyptian life and culture? It must have been very important so it must be repeated....


SC: I look to the skies. I see only one Orion’s Belt. I then represent this asterism on the ground. I complete it. Why repeat it? There’s only ONE Orion’s Belt.


Hans: The unimportance of the data you say is being transmitted.

SC: The Giza stellar design (‘Queens Pyramids’) presents to us in plain sight the Orion belt stars as they are aligned at maximum and minimum culminations – important points in the precessional ‘pendulum swing' of the belt stars. How do you know this has not been presented to us as a matter of some importance?

Hans: Because it shows nothing of importance – as you prove by your vague searching answer/question.


SC: You have absolutely no idea WHY this precessional ‘pendulum swing’ of the belt stars is being presented in the arrangement of these structures so you cannot possibly even begin to know its importance or otherwise.


SC: If anything, the fact that the Menkaure Queens correspond to the time when major climatic changes occurred on the Earth should perhaps give us a hint as to why the Queens of Khufu are also presented to us at the other end of the precessional pendulum swing.

Hans: Again why is this important for a civilization to portray?


SC: The belt stars are portrayed (via the Queens) at Max and Min precessional culmination. These are significant moments in the precessional cycle of the belt stars – important moments. Perhaps these significant moments were importance enough to depict the stars. However, I do have a view that there are other more practical reasons but we have already discussed that in previous threads.

Regards,

Scott Creighton.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


This bit of my reply seemed to have gone astray.........

SC:These are the astronomical facts of the arrangement of the structures at Giza, Hans. I think a more constructive approach from you and others like you is to give some more consideration to this hypothesis than simply rubbishing it because it does not fit with the dogma you think to be the whole truth.

As for not matching the belt stars – the design matches perfectly: Circumscribe a circle around the three most extreme pyramid corners, set the fulcrum of the belt stars onto G1 and G3 centres and you will find that the centre of your circumscribed circle falls slap-bang in the centre of the centre star of the belt stars. The builders (not the designers) misplaced the positioning of G2 from the blueprint. And we know there is some evidence to support the academic view that the original location of G2 was changed. My work supports that view.


Hans: Of course there was no AE civilization then so you have to figure a way around that …….which you cleverly did by coming up with the unknown civilization passing info on to the AE


SC: Actually no – I present only what the AE themselves tell us:

"They (the temples) were built according to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep." - Aldred 'The Egyptians', P32”



SC: I have NEVER cited a ‘progenitor civilisation’

Hans: (laughing) so that second paragraph isn’t an Atlantis style civilization huh? I’m sorry Scott but that is just silly. Your claim is obvious as is the obvious lack of supporting evidence.


SC: The evidence is there, Hans. Deal with the evidence instead of simply rubbishing. If your best attempt at debunking is simply to laugh and rubbish then I have to ask why are you even bothering?


Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Howdy Scott



to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep


So what is the source of that Scott? The original Egyptian source?

"Supposed to have been revealed". Doesn't sound to definite does it?



The builders (not the designers) misplaced the positioning of G2 from the blueprint.


Ah how to you know that, or is that part of your unquestionable dogma?

So basically to avoid saying you need an ancient civilization to provide the basis for your belief you state that you haven't said that........

So were did your alleged architectural plan come from and where did the message that you say is encoded come from?

Where exactly?

Will your idea work WITHOUT an unknown ancient civilization providing the basis?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,

Once more, thank you for your post.


SC: they [the temples] were designed according to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep.

Hans: So what is the source of that Scott? The original Egyptian source?


This text is to be found in the colonnade of the Temple of Horus at Edfu. Alas, the AE do not tell us any more than that - at least nothing that my research has yet uncovered. But I am working on it.


Hans: "Supposed to have been revealed". Doesn't sound too definite does it?


SC: The word “supposed” was used by Cyril Aldred in his book, not by the AE themselves. It would seem that Aldred had a predisposition not to accept such seemingly wild ideas on face value. But then Aldred wrote his books long before the Orion correlation theory was first proposed by Robert Bauval. So why shouldn’t the stars in the heavens have formed the basis of an architectural plan, a geo-stellar blueprint not unlike that which I have presented at the top of this thread? It’s not a great leap you know. In fact, this particular inscription has formed a large part of my present research and will do so again when I return to Egypt (Edfu) in November.


SC: The builders (not the designers) misplaced the positioning of G2 from the blueprint.

Hans: Ah how do you know that, or is that part of your unquestionable dogma?


SC: Dogma tends to be the settled or ‘established opinion’ accepted by a particular group. My views are far from being that so they can hardly be described as ‘dogma’. If you review my post at the top of this thread you will see how I (re)construct the Giza geo-stellar blueprint. It’s quite apparent when an actual plan of the Giza monuments (in this case the Giza Plateau Mapping Project hi-res ground plan) is overlaid onto the Orion geo-stellar blueprint how G2 has been ‘misplaced’ from the plan. And, as I have already stated, there is an academic view that G2 was indeed intended to have been originally placed further north and further east from where it is presently positioned.

In consideration of the 2 entrances to Khafre's pyramid, Sir I.E.S. Edwards makes the following comments:

"...If, however, it be supposed that, when the chamber and corridor were constructed, it was planned to build the pyramid some 200 feet further north, both the chamber and the entrance would have occupied their customary positions." – The Pyramids of EgyptIES Edwards p.113

Verner is totally convinced that G2 was originally planned to have been located further north:

”…Khafre's pyramid was originally intended to be larger and to stand farther north. However, that plan was quickly abandoned, as the two entrances into the interior of the pyramid show.” – The Pyramids, M. Verner p.226

Maragioglio and Rinaldi also agree that Khafre was reduced in size after having been started and write at length about the evidence for this. (Maragioglio & Rinaldi Vol. V p.116-117)

The evidence I present with the Orion geo-stellar blueprint supports this academic view.


Hans: So basically to avoid saying you need an ancient civilization to provide the basis for your belief you state that you haven't said that........So were did your alleged architectural plan come from and where did the message that you say is encoded come from?


SC: I truly wish I knew.


Hans: Will your idea work WITHOUT an unknown ancient civilization providing the basis?


SC: Well let’s see. We do not need to find the body to know a murder has been committed. Likewise, we do not necessarily require to find a body in any pyramid to surmise that they were probably constructed for the funerary rights of the King. We do not need to find the ancient astronomers who encoded their 'advanced' knowledge of the cosmos into the Antikythera Device to know that such knowledge is indeed present and that it is knowledge that is clearly out of context, out of time and place. So yes, on this basis of simply presenting anomalous knowledge that is clearly out of time and place, I do think my ideas will work without necessarily finding the perpetrators of such.

And btw – the civilization that did this may indeed BE KNOWN to us – we just haven’t yet attributed to them this level of mathematical / astronomical knowledge.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
perhaps youd give us the detyail of what was in the codex? you have xchecked it havent you?






top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join