It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Breakthrough in understanding Giza pyramids

page: 4
0
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 03:33 PM
delete

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Jiri Mruzek]

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 05:48 PM

JM: Good God! 14.50008.. Check out this calibrated number. ....Try it yourself: 25,920 / 1787.57546891 = 14.50008.

SC: Please excuse my ignorance but what is this number (14.50008) calibrated to?

JM: The result created a classic special effect - a highly calibrated number. This type of calibration is TYPICAL for my solution of the Giza layout.

SC: Sorry - but I am not clear what "special effect" you are referring to here? Please explain.

Any two large random numbers are very unlikely to produce a simple ratio like 1 : 14.5. The ratio will look random. A good example of an uncalibrated number is the distance between the centers of G1 and G3 in cubits:

1787.57546891.

Calibrated numbers are rare as ratios between large random numbers Hence their consistent appearance is an unmistakable hallmark of a system, which makes it happen.Now an example of a calibrated number:

14.50008

The eight one-hundred-thousandths hardly matter. If this were money, you would have \$ 14.50. You would not worry about the 8/1000 of a cent at all. In other words if you had a distance of 25,920 cubits (7.33 nautical miles), the distance between G1 and G3 would fit into it 14.5 times exactly, because the total error would be under the radar: 0.156 cubit, or 8 centimeters.

1787.57546891 x 14.5 = 25,919.844 cubits

JM: Look, Scott, it didn't take me long, just minutes to complete a preliminary inquiry into your problem using my system, and look at the perfect result!

SC: I didn't actually realise I had a problem with the solution I propose - however. I'm still unclear about this "perfect result" so I shall hold off commenting until further explanation.

There are some problems with it, yes, more on that later. Problems happen, I just had my first, and long reply to your post devoured by some destroyer hiding in the ATS machine

JM: Perhaps, this will show you that your program won't get anywhere without my operating system. Unless you believe that what you just saw was another accident of coincidence.

SC: I wouldn't necessarily describe the Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint I present as a "program". I think what we have at Giza is simply a grand device for demonstrating the precessional max and min culminations (the pendulum swing) of the three stars of Orion's Belt - a "Precession Wheel".

In my view Giza shows much stunning accuracy, so if a precessional wheel is presented at Giza, I expect it to be highly accurate, and more elaborate. Thus Giza would not then be just " simply a grand device for demonstrating precession's max and min culminations", but much more, a whole program of sorts.

The question that really has to be considered here I don't believe is one concerning mathematics although I do believe there is an element of math involved in the design that allows us to determine more accurately the past and future dates encoded into the "Precession Wheel".
Simply though, through the placement and arrangement of the so-called "Queens Pyramids", we are presented with these culminations of Orion's Belt - we have to ask "why"? Why are the max and min culminations of Orion's Belt being presented to us so plainly at Giza? What's the significance of this? What is it the ancient designers are trying to say to us with this "schematic"?

These max and min culminations are not plainly presented, because they are not accurate enough to stand up to Giza standards. It takes a leap of faith to accept them. If you could present this relationship accurately, to within an inch on this scale, then I would say that you nailed it. I just showed a purely precessional relationship between the centers of G1 and G3 accurate to three inches over seven nautical miles. But, the center of G2 is about 20 cubits out to accurately reflect Orion.

Onwards to the next post

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Jiri Mruzek]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Jiri Mruzek]

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

SC: Sorry - but I am not clear what "special effect" you are referring to here? Please explain.

JM: Any two large random numbers are very unlikely to produce a simple ratio like 1 : 14.5. The ratio will look random. A good example of an uncalibrated number is the distance between the centers of G1 and G3 in cubits: 1787.57546891.
Now an example of a calibrated number: 14.50008

SC: Unlikely – but not impossible.

JM: Look, Scott, it didn't take me long, just minutes to complete a preliminary inquiry into your problem using my system, and look at the perfect result!

SC: I didn't actually realise I had a problem with the solution I propose - however. I'm still unclear about this "perfect result" so I shall hold off commenting until further explanation.

JM: Perhaps, this will show you that your program won't get anywhere without my operating system. Unless you believe that what you just saw was another accident of coincidence.

SC: I wouldn't necessarily describe the Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint I present as a "program". I think what we have at Giza is simply a grand device for demonstrating the precessional max and min culminations (the pendulum swing) of the three stars of Orion's Belt - a "Precession Wheel".

JM: In my view Giza shows much stunning accuracy, so if a precessional wheel is presented at Giza, I expect it to be highly accurate, and more elaborate.

SC: You’re correct the Giza Precession Wheel is highly accurate and more elaborate. But the information is presented on different levels – the simple observable level where we simply watch for the pattern of stars in the night sky at max and min culminations. Without understanding the more elaborate/accurate ‘math’ of the Precession Wheel (that allows us to calculate more accurate past/future dates), we can still know the that, by observing the belt stars arriving at their culminations (C.2,500CE) we will have arrived at an important time. The significance of this time I know not but it is my considered view that these culminations are astronomical ‘mile posts’ of some kind. What will occur at these times I do not know. Probably nothing. In saying that, however, it is remarkable that the Menkaure Queens mark the Belt stars at minimum culmination c.10,500BCE and it was at around this time the last Ice Age finally came to an end. Significant? Who knows?

JM: You just had the first taste of such accuracy. Thus Giza would not then be just " simply a grand device for demonstrating precession's max and min culminations", but much more, a whole program of sorts.

SC: Perhaps. But I never said Giza presented its precessional information using only the simple method – i.e. the physical star max/min culmination alignments. It works on two levels, employing math also to enable us to calculate more accurately the precise dates at the culminations. The Queens star alignments are there only to give us the ball-park times. However, given that these culmination alignments are present in such an alignment (rising and setting) for over a 1,000 years, a second more accurate method is needed – and is given – that allows us to calculate the dates around the culminations much more accurately. My recent research shows that the Giza Precession Wheel indicates the year c.2014CE.

JM: Perhaps, this will show you that your program won't get anywhere without my operating system. Unless you believe that what you just saw was another accident of coincidence.

SC: Giza is loaded with ‘meaningful’ numbers. Just look at the gradient of the GP 5.5 seked or 51.84*. Take this as 5184 and we find the SqRt = 72. And 360*72 = 25,920!

SC: The question that really has to be considered here I don't believe is one concerning mathematics although I do believe there is an element of math involved in the design that allows us to determine more accurately the past and future dates encoded into the "Precession Wheel".

Simply though, through the placement and arrangement of the so-called "Queens Pyramids", we are presented with these culminations of Orion's Belt - we have to ask "why"? Why are the max and min culminations of Orion's Belt being presented to us so plainly at Giza? What's the significance of this? What is it the ancient designers are trying to say to us with this "schematic"?

JM: These max and min culminations are not plainly presented, because they are not accurate enough to stand up to Giza standards.

SC: Sorry if I have to disagree with you but I think you will find – if you look at the astronomy of the rising and setting of the belt stars at max and min culminations – the facts bear out what I am saying i.e. that the 2 sets of Queens Pyramids mimic this alignment of the belt stars on the eastern and southwestern horizons at these highly significant times; the culmination points. And - as I explained earlier - this might also help explain the crious absence of Queens pyramids at Khafre's pyramid - a Pharaoh who had more Queens than the other two combined! Only the rising and setting at max and min culmination need be demonstrated - thus no Queens (i.e. precessional markers) at Khafre's pyramid.

If you could present this relationship accurately, to within an inch on this scale, then I would say that you nailed it.

SC: With respect, but look at the astronomy. The ancient Designers of Giza have provided more than enough astronomical information to allow us to easily observe the underlying design imperative – i.e. Orion’s Belt.

JM: I just showed a purely precessional relationship between the centers of G1 and G3 accurate to three inches over seven nautical miles. But, the center of G2 is about 20 cubits out to accurately reflect Orion.

SC: Actually, the G2 error from the Orion Blueprint centre is 44cubits x 14cubits. Yes, another significant number when we reduce it to 22x7 cubits!

www.grahamhancock.com...

www.grahamhancock.com...

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

JM: Somehow, I missed it, but now you seem to claim that you can reproduce the layout of the Giza Three accurately.

SC: I am saying that - using the Orion Belt asterism - I can reproduce the actual "blueprint" for Giza with a very simple geometric process I call geo-stellar fingerprinting. I think it is likely that the designers of Giza used this simple technique to draw up the plan for Giza and the dimensions of the main strcutures.

Essentially any three points (such as, for example, three stars in the night sky) can be used to produce three squares of particular dimensions / proportions - i.e. the star group's geo-stellar fingerprint. Using this simple systematic, geometric technique I can - with the Orion Belt star asterism - reproduce three squares whose dimensions proportionally match the dimensions of the 3 main Gizamids almost perfectly. I say 'almost perfectly' because - as I am sure you well know - none of the Gizamids are exactly square. Given the error to exact square in each case is so tiny, I do not consider it unreasonable to suggest that the original blueprint consisted of exact squares of particular dimensions.

Scott, it seems to me that you have three points in the sky to work with. Describe to me how this "star group's geo-stellar fingerprint" leads to any abstraction. Can you sit down and just using a CAD program, or a drawing board, and reproduce Petrie's map from a tabula rasa basing on your study of the three stars? If so, I have missed it on your site. In contrast I perform this task with ease, basing on ideas abstracted from the position.

"What I have (re)produced may represent the goal - the method by which the original plan was conceived. In executing this plan the AE would have to scale it up and, in so doing, introduced some minor errors (e.g. pyramids not exactly square, G2 slightly offset from the plan etc) but that is only to be expected in implementing such a monumental building program.

The "minor"errors are not minor. If the three pyramid centers represent the three Orion stars as points, the center of G2 is then about 20 cubits out of position, if not more. This error would be completely out of character for the Giza builders. Right off the mark at the very start presents a very big problem for your theory.

JM: Do you have such exact data about the three stars - their diameter measured in millions of cubits, for instance? I would say not ....

SC: I do not need exact data of the three stars i.e. their diameter, their brightness etc. I need only accurately record the belt star asterism i.e. the three points of light in the night sky to (re)produce the blueprint.

But the pyramids fail as an accurate record of these three star-points. And if you distort the relations between the various data for these stars, what reasons lead you to the present data? Why should the average base of G3 not be many inches more or less? Why the accurate relations between various distances expressing square-root values, etc?

The Orion Blueprint I present recreates the Gizamids from the spatial distances between the three points of light of the Orion Belt stars. It's a remarkably simple technique that explains the positioning of the main pyramids and their Queens and also the dimensions of the main pyramids. All done with just 3 points of light in the night sky:

If we had a hundred monkeys each dropping three tiny peas on the ground, the accuracy of Orion's reflection on the ground might be eclipsed more than once. Sorry, Scott, that's how I see it.
In general, however, I really like your idea that Giza hides precessional information. I think that shall be proven.

Until later, Jiri

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:40 PM
The Layout of the 3 largest of the Giza Pyramids is a carefully laid out mirror image on the ground of what exists in the heavens specificially the three key stars in the so-called Belt of Orion with the smaller third star set off by a few degrees in exactly the same proportion both in the sky and on the ground--the possibility of these being merely a chance co-incidence is practically nil.

The Nile (as it originally flowed c. 4500 BC) can be seen as the 'mirror' of the Milky Way Galaxy portion visible from the ground near the Giza Plateau...thereby showing the old axiom 'as above, so below'.

One wonders why the Belt of Orion was so important to these ancient builders---some of the oldest texts speak of this star group as 'the fathers' of the gods to where the souls (Ka and Ba) of the righteous pass after death.

Oh the things that make you go...hmmmmmmmm ! especially in Egypt !

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Chrystostomus
The Nile (as it originally flowed c. 4500 BC) can be seen as the 'mirror' of the Milky Way Galaxy portion visible from the ground near the Giza Plateau...thereby showing the old axiom 'as above, so below'.

And do the pyramids at Giza, as they are in relation to the Nile, mirror the actual belt stars of Orion as they were (at some point in time) in relation to the Milky Way?

Interesting if it does...

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

Hello Jiri,

JM: Somehow, I missed it, but now you seem to claim that you can reproduce the layout of the Giza Three accurately.

SC: I am saying that - using the Orion Belt asterism - I can reproduce the actual "blueprint" for Giza with a very simple geometric process I call geo-stellar fingerprinting. I think it is likely that the designers of Giza used this simple technique to draw up the plan for Giza and the dimensions of the main strcutures.

Essentially any three points (such as, for example, three stars in the night sky) can be used to produce three squares of particular dimensions / proportions - i.e. the star group's geo-stellar fingerprint. Using this simple systematic, geometric technique I can - with the Orion Belt star asterism - reproduce three squares whose dimensions proportionally match the dimensions of the 3 main Gizamids almost perfectly. I say 'almost perfectly' because - as I am sure you well know - none of the Gizamids are exactly square. Given the error to exact square in each case is so tiny, I do not consider it unreasonable to suggest that the original blueprint consisted of exact squares of particular dimensions.

JM: Scott, it seems to me that you have three points in the sky to work with. Describe to me how this "star group's geo-stellar fingerprint" leads to any abstraction.

SC: www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

JM: Can you sit down and just using a CAD program, or a drawing board, and reproduce Petrie's map from a tabula rasa basing on your study of the three stars? If so, I have missed it on your site. In contrast I perform this task with ease, basing on ideas abstracted from the position.

SC: I do not require any of Petrie’s data, or Cole’s or Legon’s. I start with ONLY the 3 points of Orion’s Belt placed on a blank drawing board. From those three points I can – using a simple systematic technique – reproduce 3 squares that proportionally match the three main Gizamid bases.

SC: "What I have (re)produced may represent the goal - the method by which the original plan was conceived. In executing this plan the AE would have to scale it up and, in so doing, introduced some minor errors (e.g. pyramids not exactly square, G2 slightly offset from the plan etc) but that is only to be expected in implementing such a monumental building program.

JM: The "minor"errors are not minor. If the three pyramid centers represent the three Orion stars as points, the center of G2 is then about 20 cubits out of position, if not more. This error would be completely out of character for the Giza builders. Right off the mark at the very start presents a very big problem for your theory.

SC: I mentioned in an earlier post that I suspect the variance exhibited in G2 from the Blueprint was likely intended. There is little doubt that the Designers of this knew almost precisely where the centre of Al Nilam (the centre belt star) should lie at Giza in respect to the other two stars. This diagram shows that the Designers knew where that centre was:

Note: Red dots are Orion Belt Star Centres:

As you can see, circumscribing a circle around the three most outer points of the Giza pyramid field finds the centre of that circle rests almost precisely on the centre of Al Nilam, the centre star. Khafre’s Pyramid (G2) seems to have been offset from its “true” centre by 44x14 cubits (i.e. 2Pi).

JM: Do you have such exact data about the three stars - their diameter measured in millions of cubits, for instance? I would say not ....

SC: I do not need exact data of the three stars i.e. their diameter, their brightness etc. I need only accurately record the belt star asterism i.e. the three points of light in the night sky to (re)produce the blueprint.

JM: But the pyramids fail as an accurate record of these three star-points.

SC: The pyramid layout fails to precisely conform to the Belt Star asterism. This has been known since Bauval and Gilbert first published the “Orion Mystery”. The pyramid dimensions, however, match the dimensions of the Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint. That is to say the dimensions were created in the manner I describe (using Orion as the underlying design source) and only after they had been determined, G2 was then placed at slight variance (44x14 cubits – 2 Pi) to its “true” position in the blueprint. It seems this G2 variance was intentional to “encode” 2 Pi.

JM:

And if you distort the relations between the various data for these stars, what reasons lead you to the present data?

SC: I am not distorting the Belt Star asterism to produce the three pyramid base dimensions. I use the belt Star asterism as it is to produce the 3 bases. Did you look at the presentation? It clearly shows this.

JM: Why should the average base of G3 not be many inches more or less? Why the accurate relations between various distances expressing square-root values, etc?

SC: I suspect there could be any number of reasons for this. Perhaps the Orion Belt stars were carefully chosen simply because the geo-stellar fingerprint they produce (i.e. the 3 bases) exhibits most (if not all) of the geometrical qualities the Designers wished to express. There is also the issue of scaling. When implementing this plan, the builders would have to decide on a scale and possibly even a measuring system. In so doing they could have decided on a scale and measuring system that introduced many of the “calibrated numbers” you are now finding. And let us also not forget that there may well exist these “calibrated numbers”. But there are also will be found in such a design numbers that appear as “calibrated numbers” but which are actually only the result of simple happenchance. The difficulty is knowing which are intentional “calibrated numbers” and which are simple coincidence.

SC: The Orion Blueprint I present recreates the Gizamids from the spatial distances between the three points of light of the Orion Belt stars. It's a remarkably simple technique that explains the positioning of the main pyramids and their Queens and also the dimensions of the main pyramids. All done with just 3 points of light in the night sky:

Continued................

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:48 AM
reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

JM:If we had a hundred monkeys each dropping three tiny peas on the ground, the accuracy of Orion's reflection on the ground might be eclipsed more than once. Sorry, Scott, that's how I see it.
In general, however, I really like your idea that Giza hides precessional information. I think that shall be proven.

SC: And this is the function of the so-called ‘Queens Pyramids”. Mintaka being symbolic of G3 (Menkaure) sets at 212*az on the SW Horizon c.10,500BCE when the Belt Stars are at minimum culmination. This just happens also to be the azimuth alignment of G2/G3 i.e. 212*. At minimum culmination the Belt stars appear horizontal on the SW horizon, mimicked by Menkaure’s three Queens.

At maximum culmination, the Belt Stars will appear on the Eastern horizon exactly perpendicular to those at minimum culmination i.e. rotated 90*. This arrangement of the stars is mimicked by the Queens pyramids of Khufu. With this information we simply cannot fail to identify the correct triad of stars since NO OTHER triad of stars exhibits this precessional motion. The ancient Designers likely understood this problem in identifying the correct triad hence the reason they incorporated this additional corroborative information into the Blueprint. With the Queens showing us the precessional max and min culminations, we can ONLY identify the triad of stars that form Orion’s Belt.

The Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint:

Regards,

Scott Creighton

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:31 PM
I've some sensational goings-on right now in the reconstruction. Very heavy in implications, because I can now show a direct connection between Nazca-Peru, and Giza-Egypt. The geometric culmination of the Nazca monkey-glyph is its special construction of a 5-pointed star. It is the fastest such construction, which takes just thirteen steps from start to finish. This is called 'simplicity' in math.
vejprty.com...
Well, the Giza grand-plan starts out using this very same construction. By the way, this method is so rare that I could not find it anywhere on the web. So, where did I learn it?
Believe it or not, Ii learned it not in school, but from the Nazca Monkey!
Nazca is also directly connected to a 14,000 years old Stone-Age site in the south of France, the rock-shelter of La Marche, near Lussac-les-Chateaux.
vejprty.com...
This development should keep me busy for a couple of days,

Until later

Jiri Mruzek

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:25 AM
Hi all ...

Sorry I am late.

I have actually found a pretty neat way of drawing the Giza plateau and it involves "rolling" along using simply the diameters and circumferences of the 3 pyramids.

I will simply post the diagrams for now and if anyone needs to I will offer an in-depth description although one picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

cheers
Don Barone

Sorry if the links are not quite right

edit on 14-3-2011 by Ahatmose because: (no reason given)

top topics

0