 |
reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 03:33 PM by Jiri Mruzek
|
delete
[edit on 29-7-2008 by Jiri Mruzek]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 05:48 PM by Jiri Mruzek
|
 JM: Good God! 14.50008.. Check out this calibrated number. ....Try it yourself: 25,920 / 1787.57546891 = 14.50008.  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.
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!
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.
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]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 07:36 PM by Scott Creighton
|
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...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 07:36 PM by Jiri Mruzek
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 07:40 PM by Chrystostomus
|
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 !
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 09:05 PM by PhotonEffect
|
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...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-7-2008 @ 04:46 AM by Scott Creighton
|
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:
external image
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................ |
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-7-2008 @ 04:48 AM by Scott Creighton
|
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.
external image
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.
external image
The Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint:
external image
Regards,
Scott Creighton
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-7-2008 @ 08:31 PM by Jiri Mruzek
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 3 4 >>
|
|
Top Topics Right Now:
Active Topics Right Now:
ATS MIX Podcasts:
Newest Topics:
|
