The Giza Doomsday Clock

Dear ATS,

Here is my latest research article which presents an update to my theory relating to the Giza Precession Wheel, with new evidence demonstrating how the structures at Giza function as an astronomical clock that indicates two dates - one date c.10,500BCE and a second date in the coming Age of Aquarius.

You can read the article here:

The Giza Doomsday Clock - Graham Hancock Forum Page

Or you can download the PDF version (3 mb) here:

The Giza Doomsday Clock - PDF Download

I look forward to constructive feedback and to discuss any such points as may be raised.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 25/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Nice work, I just skimmed thru it at first, but I will read it more closely..



It realy looks like the ancient civilizations were very aware of starts and endings, do you think there is something too it other than a 'hobby' to pass the time ??


They also make it clear the theyr desendants should be aware of this, and we dont even take notice of it and even think it is rubbish.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by ChemBreather]

i don't get what inches has to do with this. did the AEs use inches? also i'm not real clear about the relationship between the radius and the circumference and how both relate to time.

if i took a circle with a circumference of 1 and equated this number to signify my target (an ounce of gold for example) what can the diameter be used for when i want to use it to signify something else.

i'm not sure that it's possible to signify anything else using the radius/diameter unless my second object to be signified is is exact proportion to Pr2. in other words i would have to describe another value of measuring gold that is in exact proportion to the original ounce. unless of course i rumuge through thousands of other things until i find something with an exact proportion that also suits my intent.

the only other way to accomplish this would be to use multiple math calculations until i gain significance. now, i'm not saying your estimations are wrong but you took 2 extra steps to confirm the radius/diameter is in fact related to the circumference with time being the relating factor.

you converted to inches and then you divided by 12. i won't count the rounding off because apparently it doesn't matter unless the AEs have it pinned down to a specific day and hour. besides, doing the calculation without rounding down still led to pretty much teh same thing.

7543 x 20.618 = 155521.574 / 12 = 12960.1311

now this does seem a little bit of a stretch. if you can show that the AE's used inches it would help but not a lot. it's not like you're comparing days to weeks. you're comparing a 12/24 hour cycle with a 13/26 thousand year cycle. this seems way off ratio when multiplying by 3.14. i'm not saying it's wrong, but it does seem a little much.

a few other things:

why have teh sphinx as a marker (with instructions) but yet there are no markers (monuments) to declare the dates that actually have significance. why use the 6 queens pyramids to do this?

the 3rd large pyramid seems to have no function in teh clock, is this going to be explained later as you continue to work on the theory?

the middle pyramid being off center, i got the feeling you had a theory about that but didn't include it. any ideas there?

also, aesthetically speaking, why are the instructions on the sphinx so vague? surely if they were more profound then maybe people would've known better than to destroy the pyramids in the first place. it seems to me there should be some more warnings around the site somewhere.

i like the idea. the only discrepancy i have is, everytime i've seen someone try and correlate giza with orion, it really doesnt appear to add up. giza seems to be off by a bit. atleast to me. so much so that if it was supposed to resemble orion, it is too wrong.

reply to post by Moodle

---

Hello Moodle,

First of all many thanks for taking the time to read over my latest article and also for raising some interesting and intelligent questions. Very much appreciated and I shall endeavour to do my best to reply.



SC: Okay – this does require some explanation. It is my contention that the linear measures of the inch and the cubit are directly and inextricably related to time. I have written a detailed article about how these units of measure are related which you can read here:

The Gravity Cubit

I hope this helps you better understand the relationship between the cubit, the inch and Earth time.

Now, this is not to say that the AEs of the Dynastic Period actually used the inch themselves or were even aware of it but it does seem that the Designers of this blueprint or ‘codex’ understood the inch (and the cubit). The knowledge of the inch may have become lost or forgotten to the later AE of the Dynastic Period although knowledge of the cubit survived (but not its true scientific origins).



SC: The radius = 1200 cubits, the diameter 2400 cubits. We immediately recognise a half solar day (12 hours) and a full solar day (24 hours) i.e. we recognise TIME. The circumference of 7,543 cubits (a linear measure derived from TIME) converted to inches (another unit of measure derived from TIME) = 155520 inches (rounded). The value 155520 / 12 = 12,960 which again is related to precessional TIME (the value of 12,960 reminds us of the duration of half of 1 Platonic Year). Everything here is intrinsically and specifically related to Earth time including the very units of measure themselves i.e. the inch and the cubit.



SC: I agree it’s a leap to connect 1200 radius & 2400 diameter with TIME but is it such a great leap when it can be shown how the units of measure (i.e. the cubit & inch) can themselves be derived FROM Earth time?



SC: AS I have said above – I doubt the AE of the Dynastic Period used the inch – there is little doubt they used the cubit. It seems, however, that the Designers of this Blueprint knew both measures.



SC: This is not about ratios. What I am saying is that in presenting the values of 1200 and 2400 cubits we are being given a HINT; we are being told to think in terms of TIME; that this great circle circumscribed around the three outer-most points of the Giza pyramid field is somehow connected with TIME. The next value of 155520 (circumference in inches rounded) is perhaps HINTING at a particular aspect of TIME we are to consider i.e. precessional time.

In short, these values may have been presented in order to ‘guide’ us into considering the structures in a particular mode of thought i.e. in terms of TIME but more specifically, PRECESSION TIME.



SC: This is an excellent question and it shows that you are really giving this precession clock some deep thought. Again - much appreciated. Okay – let me try and explain.

Why do we use the term ‘afternoon’? Think about it. What does that actually mean in physical terms? What it means is that the sun in the morning is climbing into the sky, reaches its highest point – noon - and then it begins to descend i.e. afternoon. High noon is the culmination point of the sun in its daily cycle across the sky. So, when we say twelve minutes after noon we are in fact saying that the sun has moved (descended) twelve minutes across the sky from its high noon (culmination) position.


Continued......

[edit on 26/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Moodle

---

Continued from previous…..

We could equally say 72 minutes after 11am. This is exactly the same time as 12 minutes after noon i.e. the sun will be in the same position in the sky. But it makes sense to have a timing convention, a unique calibration point i.e. when the sun reaches its highest point in the sky - the pivotal moment between rising and falling.

So, when the sun is physically at its highest point in the sky, our synchronised 'artificial time keeper' (mechanical clock) marks this astrophysical event by ensuring the clock hand is 'synchronised' to point at the 12 o'clock position – the clock's natural 'calibration point'. The point to note here is that even if the clock had stopped and the hands were fixed on the 12 o'clock position, the clock will still show the correct time twice per day – noon and midnight. This is essentially what we have with the Giza astronomical clock.

The placement of the 2 sets of Queens pyramids at Giza is not arbitrary – they have been carefully placed to mark the 2 very pivotal moments in the cycle of the belt stars i.e. the pivotal moments when the belt stars stop their relentless precessional drift around the horizon. As such, the placement of the 2 sets of Queens Pyramids do precisely the same job as the sun at noon and midnight. These structures mark the pivotal astrophysical moments of max and min culminations of the belt stars.

In short, the astrophysical event of culminations of the belt stars can be likened to the astrophysical event of the sun at noon or midnight with the Sphinx being likened to the clock's hand pointing to the allegorical twelve o'clock position – the start or calibration position.



SC: Without the Great Pyramid it would be impossible for us to identify the arrangement of the Gizamids with Orion’s Belt. It is absolutely essential in order that we can identify the Orion constellation. The Great Pyramid may also have been used to inform us what happened some 12,500 years ago around the minimum culmination of the belt stars (and may occur again at their max culmination) – the Earth’s polar axis tilted some 6.5 degrees:

The Great Pyramid Shafts Tell of Pole Shift

So, it seems that the Great Pyramid may tell us what occurs whilst the arrangement of the other structures gives us the timetable.



SC: It’s my view that the builders (i.e. the AEs of the 4th Dynasty), set G2 off the so-called “Lehner Line” (from whence the base of all 3 structures was set) to mimic the arrangement of the belt stars, thus:







SC: I guess this is entirely subjective and is also reliant upon us having the precise interpretation of this particular text. In the context of the calibration point for an astronomical clock, I think the phrase “the place of the First Time” makes perfect sense.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

talking about the mapping of Orion and the Giza Mids...maybe so for a doomsday warning, but maybe it is a map aswell...ever looked at the Hidden Records Scott?
thehiddenrecords.com...
I know its been mentioned in other discussions, and might be a bit off topic, but basically it comes down to star maps and a collaration of many similar maps pointing to the same thing across the world, and on Mars. might be interesting to have a look if some of you havent read op on it yet...makes for interesting speculation
Anyways...nice alternative theory this SC!

reply to post by GerhardSA

---

Hello Gerhard,



SC: Yes, I am fairly familiar with Wayne’s general theory although have not looked at it in any great depth. My understanding is that he considers this pyramid star-map ultimately via the Belt Stars as pointing to the Pleiades constellation.

Certainly I have little doubt that the pyramids are symbolic stars, vis-à-vis:









It also seems clear to me that the most prominent of those stars/pyramids are those at Giza i.e. those stars of Orion’s Belt.



SC: My own research tells me that the Belt Stars may be used as a “pointing device” to point to a particular star within the Orion Constellation. We find this via my Centroid Alignment Theory (CAT) as a possible explanation for the concavities of Khufu's Pyramid (G1) and Menkaure's Pyramid (G3) at Giza.

Fig 1.




Fig. 2.




The Centroid Alignment Theory proposes that the Gizamids are possibly aligned using the 3 most ancient geometrical centroids: incentre, barycentre and circumcentre.

Fig 3. - The 3 Most Ancient Centroids Construct the Great Giza Triangle:



Fig 3a



I have hypothesised that something of import may be found under the sands at this X-Spot (Fig 3a.) in the desert SW of Giza and in March last year I made an attempt to reach this location - you can read of this here:

Egypt's Area 51

Having recently read Richard Hoagland's Dark Mission and the apparent obsession NASA seems to have with the Orion constellation, I thought I would project the Centroid Triangle onto the actual Belt Stars of Orion itself to see if anything of interest would arise. This is what I found:

Fig 4.




Fig. 5.




Could it be that the Centroid Alignment Theory not only indicates a "special" point in the desert SW of Giza where something of import may perhaps be buried beneath its ancient sands but - when projected onto the actual Belt Stars - may indicate ALSO a particular star in the Orion constellation - RHO ORIONIS?



As Above, so below......

Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton

What if you flip the earth, would that make any difrence on research ?

one never one !

Good thread, man.

A quick check shows that Rho Orionis is a spectroscopic binary. Orange primary and blue companion. Beautiful.

Lots of stuff to digest.