It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breakthrough in understanding Giza pyramids

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Some notes on Punkinworks interesting review of the film.

The Nile as we know has been around a lot longer than 10,000 BC. The film may be referring to the White Nile system in Bahr El Arab and White Nile Rifts remained a closed lake until the connection of the Victoria Nile some 12,500 years B.P.

However before that the Nile had been flooding for at least 120,000 years as the build up of the Nile delta shows.

Egyptians based their calendar on the heliacal rising of Sirius, namely the day it becomes visible just before sunrise after moving far enough away from the glare of the sun. This occurred just before the annual flooding of the Nile and the summer solstice, after a 70 day absence from the skies. The hieroglyph for Sothis features a star and a triangle. Sothis was identified with the great goddess Isis who formed a part of a trinity with her husband Osiris and their son Horus, while the 70 day period symbolised the passing of Isis and Osiris through the duat (Egyptian underworld).

From the wiki




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Egyptologists have renounced the type of theory like mine once and for all, a priori.

None have stood up to being in context with known Egyptian culture.

One can find all kinds or relationship between objects if you look long enough.


Hans, it is hard talking to you. You've just pulled your mantra out. One sentence like the one above about relationships everywhere is enough to undo a book. It is a black&white only sentence, sentencing any shades and colors in between to death. Please, read my first post again, did I not address this issue there? I did , but it left no impression on you, made you no wiser to this issue.
About that context: It is obvious that a pioneering work like mine will not stand up to be in context with Egyptological beliefs, for it goes against them strictly on its own merits.


So, you feel Egyptologist would reject it so you're going to show it instead to non-Egyptologists and non specialists....for what purpose?

Jiri that is not how you change things in science.


No, they (E..s, and H..s) have already rejected it a priori, just like you have - based on the same one sentence mantra.
And so I show it to the general public here. Egyptologists are part of the public, this is their chance as well. There is no rush, my solution is not going to go away. The race is over.. The goal has been reached, and my theory is the obvious winner. I am sure this will give it some notoriety, and eventually some people will see the light and jump on its band-wagon. Whether or not I will be still around to enjoy the fruits of victory is not a real issue to me.
What I'd like to see is reactions of Lohn Legon, and Robin Cook whose ideas are integrated in my theory. That does not mean that they will approve of my enhancements, especially since these take it to a new level. You see, Legon and Cook were lucky, because their results show the Egyptians to have had a scientific level, which Egyptology can stomach. Hence they were not accused of what I will be accused of, because my work shows the pyramid builders on a level categorically unacceptable to them.
Wonderful! People love reading Daniken, so they will love reading about this, right? Wrong! See the other post saying that my study is kind of geometric and mathish. Reading it is just like having to work. - Yes, those are deeply true words, and they apply to all my research on prehistoric mathematics. Net result is that all of my contributions to science are stuck between two inert bodies, as of right now.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Jiri that is not how you change things in science.


Hans, how unfair you are. Of course, it is. Discovery, and theory development comes first, beating my head against the establishment wall comes distant second. Since my entire research is stuck between two inert bodies, I am happy to just carry it on, slow, but steady. I've been on the track of prehistoric civilisation since 1985, accumulating all kinds of scientific revelations, all of them earthshaking. Yet, the earth holds its ground, and refuses to tremble, including those two aforementioned inert bodies. One of those, the skeptical bloc is obvious and understandable in its reactions. I am more worried about the other bloc, you know, the people who are in search of advanced ancient civilisations, etc. So, they are, of course, but here is the catch. These two inert bodies I mentioned, have some pretty intelligent heads, and attentive all seeing eyes. My works come up in the top-ten of a lot of internet searches for keywords like Abydos Helicopter, Nazca Monkey, Prehistoric Mathematics, Baalbek, Baalbek Trilithon, Giza Pyramid Layout, Giza Pyramid Golden Section, and so on, hence it is obvious that those that should be in the know are aware. But, instead of reacting to what should be their dreams come true, there is just nightmarish silence from the aficionados of advanced ancient civilisations, astronauts, etc.
I do have to mention Don Barone honorably, because he alone, upon reading one of my studies ( www.vejprty.com... ), wrote about it on Bauval's discussion board in his enthusiastic manner, telling everybody about this discovery, although to no avail.
Yes, I find it hard to talk to either camp. For instance, yesterday you sent me off to talk to Scott Creighton. I did go and re-read some of his stuff, first. The ensuing problem? I don't feel the urge to go to his thread bearing bad news. I've got problems with his presentation. First of all, he is a great writer unlike myself, once an English beginner at the age of twenty-one, a tad too late to become a new Shakespeare, or Hemingway. But, it is not writing style that is the issue.
Scott has this Precessional Circle centered upon the G2. It is derived from four points, all on that circle. The center of the circle falls at least ten meters away from the pyramid's center. Not a good result by any measure, except for one - percentages. And so, Scott couches his justification in that the discrepancy is only 0.02 percent. That's still two cubits out of two- thousand, but if you check Scott's presentation on the Wheel of Precession, it looks more like ten meters. That does not stop Scott from switching to the pyramid center for all subsequent operations. Can you comment on this, Hans?
Meanwhile, I encounter nothing but absolute accuracy on the part of Giza's builders, wherever I turn.
Sorry for the long post



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   


No, they (E..s, and H..s) have already rejected it a priori, just like you have - based on the same one sentence mantra.


Hans: Nope no rejection from me just a statement of what I see as the situation, I don’t have expertise in this area. You may mark me down as neutral.



And so I show it to the general public here. Egyptologists are part of the public, this is their chance as well. There is no rush, my solution is not going to go away. The race is over.. The goal has been reached, and my theory is the obvious winner.


Hans: Monumental ego aside, how do you know that?



I am sure this will give it some notoriety, and eventually some people will see the light and jump on its band-wagon. Whether or not I will be still around to enjoy the fruits of victory is not a real issue to me.


Hans: probably not ,as only specialist would be interested in this and you won't find them here. Oh and I would disagree with your sentiments it seems to be your driving motivation. Have you gone to discuss this with other who have done the same type of work - the guys I suggested? If not why not?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune




And so I show it to the general public here. Egyptologists are part of the public, this is their chance as well. There is no rush, my solution is not going to go away. The race is over.. The goal has been reached, and my theory is the obvious winner.


Hans: Monumental ego aside, how do you know that?


Sorry, it is not ego. I am just stating facts. Somewhere you missed the fact that you can now reconstruct the three pyramids at Giza exactly, while doing it from scratch. There is only one condition: You have to use my method. Of course, you are free to use your own method, or Don's, but how close will your results be? Don wrote today that he found it easy to reconstruct Giza, and maybe he did. But, how close did he come? I s he down to microscopic values like my reconstruction? Or, is he saying thi ngs about being close, within half a cubit, and so on?
.

Have you gone to discuss this with other who have done the same type of work - the guys I suggested? If not why not?



Did I not pick exactly this topic for my previous post? I did, Hans, and I am still eager to hear your comments.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I wish I had paid better attention to the documentary Hans,l I believe that during the last Ice ages that the african monsoon stopped or diminished or something.
What ever the situation was, before this time the lower nile didnt flood like it does now. They had pretty solid geologic evidence for this change in the flood patterns.
So then if you take that date and then start adding in the sirian procesional cycle after several cycles it coincides with a known important date in egyptian history.
So essentialy their idea is that the sirian processiional cycle governed the whole of egyptian history.
If you look at the periods of major building in egypt they coincide with the sirian cycle.
And when you look at the changes in government, when the capitol moved, to the south it coincides with the cycle.

Then the kicker was that back in the day at a certain spot , if you viewed the sunrise on the summer solstice, you would see the sun reflect off of the pryamids and another temple or two and they would mimic a particular constelation as viewed on that day of the "first time"



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
One of the fatal flaws of these concepts is that the designers behave as though there is only one pyramid (the Great Pyramid), or three pyramids (there are eight visible at Giza and the remains of a ninth plus funerary temples and an avenue of sphynxes (which everyone seems to ignore although the sphynx was an important symbol in some Egyptian art)... and a hundred other pyramids around Egypt. No explaination is given why other pyramid complexes don't have the same alignment and everyone ignores the relationship of the other pyramids on Giza plus the temples.

You can use mathematics to derive the position of anything... such as the cars parked on my street.

While you can form such relationships, what is lacking is any evidence from the Egyptians themselves that they used any of these mathematical methods for designing other complexes, temples, or other important structures.

We find the "Golden Mean" a pleasing concept and in our civilization there's plenty of references to it as well as many objects designed deliberately along these lines.

If you want to prove a point, you really have to move beyond Giza and show that the idea exists in other areas and that in things like the wall inscriptions on tombs have layout lines which show this approach. (And yes, there are inscriptions where layout lines have been found which guided the scribes where to place text and figures.)



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I would suggest to anyone with a real interest in "alignments" that they gather one of the very nice satellite photos available on the web and start drawing lines. As it turns out, the precision is not as good as some people with agendas would have you believe with their simplified illustrations. Yeah, the various constructions are kind of aligned, and admittedly pretty good for a lot of guys working with big blocks and little tools. But they're not perfectly aligned, by any means.

I think a lot of folks like to play fast and loose with the tolerances to make a point. Like the guys making lines on the Mars Cydonia features. A big thick line on an image can be off by many meters, and where you make the lines can shift angles by as much as 10 degrees. Hardly precise.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
One of the fatal flaws of these concepts is that the designers behave as though there is only one pyramid (the Great Pyramid), or three pyramids (there are eight visible at Giza and the remains of a ninth plus funerary temples and an avenue of sphynxes (which everyone seems to ignore although the sphynx was an important symbol in some Egyptian art)... and a hundred other pyramids around Egypt.


There is number of principles, on which a researcher can choose to study a given pyramid, or several pyramids, or all the pyramids. The three great pyramids form a category of their own. So true, it's elementary. These three are the essence of Giza, they are eternal, the rest is not. They are a self-contained unit. They do not, cannot, and should not depend on any other structures at Giza, with the exception of the Sphinx, possibly the first monument at Giza. Conversely, everything else at Giza, if part of a unified plan, and one which can be unraveled from beginning to end, will depend on the core of three great pyramids. The temples in front of each great pyramid, the labyrinthi of Golden Section pathways are gone. Yet, this does not affect the basic plan of the big three. It may detract from the greater whole, however.
There is a reason for me not to study the other Giza artifacts, lack of quality data. If there is data, it is not freely available, as far as I know. Get me this data, and I will be happy to have it in my plan.



No explaination is given why other pyramid complexes don't have the same alignment and everyone ignores the relationship of the other pyramids on Giza plus the temples.


In my experience, the best ancient designers were never repetitious. You know how they say that Phi is pleasing to the eye. When it comes to rectangles, everyone presumes that the Golden Rectangle is the most pleasing. Yet, I've seen ancient Egyptians, and Peruvians using containing rectangles, which are combinations of golden rectangles. Another type of rectangle bounds the Golden Triangle, and also the famous Nazca monkey!
www.vejprty.com...
Hesire, aImhotep's colleague has an engraving, whose containing rectangle can be seen as a square sandwiched between two horizontal golden rectangles, or two stacked golden rectangles, one vertical, one horizontal. This is analyzed right after the pyramid layout article.
Here, an alarm goes off. My Giza plan starts out with the very same combination, but in horizontal orientation! It's what I call the Horizontal Column.



You can use mathematics to derive the position of anything... such as the cars parked on my street.


That is just what Petrie had done with the three pyramids. He used numbers to describe the position. But, if you want to develop the Giza layout elegantly and easily from pure geometric ideas, and be as close as my recreation, you are facing a monumental task. This was the objective for a good century. Go ahead, and check my recreation step for step in your own CAD. It is as I write. I know one should not say it too soon, but, this is what I report - Objective accomplished! The objective was to duplicate and explain Petrie's plan as close as possible. In the end, there is just one small discrepancy of 1.2 inches in the length of G3 sides. Everything else is exact, completely under the radar scanning for faults in accuracy. At any rate, this work is an order of magnitude more accurate than all previous recreations.



If you want to prove a point, you really have to move beyond Giza and show that the idea exists in other areas and that in things like the wall inscriptions on tombs have layout lines which show this approach. (And yes, there are inscriptions where layout lines have been found which guided the scribes where to place text and figures.)


Check:
www.vejprty.com...
www.vejprty.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
I would suggest to anyone with a real interest in "alignments" that they gather one of the very nice satellite photos available on the web and start drawing lines. As it turns out, the precision is not as good as some people with agendas would have you believe with their simplified illustrations. Yeah, the various constructions are kind of aligned, and admittedly pretty good for a lot of guys working with big blocks and little tools. But they're not perfectly aligned, by any means.


You can't be serious. You can't get serious measurement like Petrie's or Cole's off satellite photos. You have no idea of the scale. The hot air shimmers and creates optical distortions. The mantles are missing on two of the pyramids.
If you do try, please, don't call it accurate, by any means.


I think a lot of folks like to play fast and loose with the tolerances to make a point. Like the guys making lines on the Mars Cydonia features. A big thick line on an image can be off by many meters, and where you make the lines can shift angles by as much as 10 degrees. Hardly precise.


Since I started this thread, it would seem that you also level the above critique at my article. That would be quite false.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   


the best ancient designers were never repetitious


Within the same era and for the same religious purpse they were, they tended to repeat the same designs for traditional and relgious reasons.

Note the use of Mastabas then a switch to pyramids - which followed the same general plan for a long period of time.

So you are basically saying that only the Giza plateau was laid out to your plan. So what is the falsifiability of your theory? What would prove you wrong?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I think this would be very interesting if those involved could discuss the theroy put forward, rather than how right one person is over another. Clearlly a lot of work has gone into this, the sort of work that ATS likes it's members to produce to create debate leading to a better understanding by all. It all ways seems to debase into ruffling each others feathers about who knows the most or what is wrong with something rather than a collective effort to find a more conclusive solution. I personally thank the OP for taking the time to share this with us.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Quackmaster
 



Excellent comment Quackmaster

I would suggest that Jiri take this material to people who can properly evaluate it. AFAWK, no one here can. Plus he should discuss it with like minded people.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune



the best ancient designers were never repetitious


So you are basically saying that only the Giza plateau was laid out to your plan. So what is the falsifiability of your theory? What would prove you wrong?


Giza is unique. There is very little to discuss on that point.

Falsifiability of my theory: It is falsifiable, just look at all the falsifications out there. Don Barone has one, Scott Creighton has one, and so do others, probably some in Russia and China I have never heard of. Like I said this was a popular pastime for a century, trying to derive the Giza layout from scratch.
What would prove me wrong? Sliding the pyramids secretly overnight to a random location a foot or so away would do it, too. That being impractical, a good way of proving me wrong would require first proving Petrie wrong. Then his plan would have no value, and consequently neither would my theory.
A signed statement from Imhotep and Hesire that they had no idea about Golden Section, and were just playing with wooden blocks when planning Giza would also help.
But, the best way to prove me wrong would be to beat me at my game. Use a distinctly different method, by which you achieve the same (perfect) results. Again, don't forget that many have tried, and failed already, thus proving your main objection utterly worthless (that you can find rational design in any random geometrical position, as you please).
An endless repetition of " You are wrong, because you are wrong, and we are right" by any scholar involved in judging my theory would also do it, and seems to be doing it.
Last, but not least, if you could prove that the primary school I attended was not licensed then all my knowledge would be illegal from the get-go, and not admissible.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
The Pyramids of Giza were one of those icons that made me want to become an archaeologist. When I finish University, and get my doctorate, they are the first things I would like to analyse from an archaeologist's perspective.

Damn it all, I'd have to fund it though.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quackmaster
.. I personally thank the OP for taking the time to share this with us.


It must be my Czech-English, but who is OP? (Old Pyramid?)



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FullMechaPilot!
The Pyramids of Giza were one of those icons that made me want to become an archaeologist. When I finish University, and get my doctorate, they are the first things I would like to analyse from an archaeologist's perspective.

Damn it all, I'd have to fund it though.


You can also become an armchair-archaeologist like myself. All you need is a hat, since you already have internet



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Quackmaster
 



Excellent comment Quackmaster

I would suggest that Jiri take this material to people who can properly evaluate it. AFAWK, no one here can. Plus he should discuss it with like minded people.


Hans, that's not what Quackmaster said. He was glad that I posted here, whereas you keep on sending me away to see some mysterious people, who could evaluate my theory. Who are those people? It's not archaeologists, nor Egyptologists. Zahi Hawass would immediately start hitting me with his hat, and I would have to hurt him, though he is so young. Others have also a priori declared my theory worthless long before I even began working on it.
They would also ask me for my credentials, the number of peer-reviewed publications, I published in previiously, etc. Since I lack such credentials, I lack proof that I have a functioning brain. Therefore anything coming from me is just uneducated garbage.
Everybody ( in Science) knows with absolute certainty that there was no advanced ancient civilisation, and that Egyptians were primitive, knew Zilch about mathematics and that Pythagoras spent all those decades in Egyptian learning institutions studying pottery making.
I am beaten, before the bell sounds. Nowhere to go, but to the unwashed masses.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jiri Mruzek
 


Sounds good to me - less sand in your shoes...



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FullMechaPilot!
 


Howdy fullmechapilot!

What area of study are you planning to get into? Yeah funding is always a problem. It was that that led me away from a career in Archaeology. You just need to find something new and exciting - then the money poors in.

Oh if you have the interest I'd suggest martime/nautical archaeology



[edit on 11/7/08 by Hanslune]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join