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.

 

Atlantis Reborn - Graham Hancock (fact or fiction?)

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,


Hans: So Scott your saying giving the reference is good enough? That people have to go read it?


SC: Alas, Hans not everything is on the internet. So, yes, sometimes you have to get up off your ass and get yourself down to the nearest library or bookshop. What's so wrong with that? It's an excellent book to have in your collection.


Hans: LOL who taught you how to sell your ideas? A dead wombat?


SC: Irrelevant. Ad hominems just won’t crack it, Hans. Get EVIDENCE.


Hans: Your interpretation has been challenged.


SC: Alas, Hans, I didn’t make the translation you refer to! This was all Aldred’s work. I am merely quoting from Aldred’s book on the Edfu Building Texts. So – you are actually challenging Aldred’s translation , not mine. So, Hans, on what basis are you challenging an eminent Egyptologist such as Aldred? Where precisely do you see his translation is in error? Word of advice – go read his book


Hans: Lets see the secondary [data] ….


SC: Read Aldred’s ‘The Egyptians’, 3rd Edition, p.32.


Hans: …and the primary data…


SC: Go to Edfu and take a photo of the inscriptions. I believe this particular inscription is to be found on a pillar in the Colonnade.


Hans: … or admit you just made it all up?


SC: Absurd. You are now claiming Aldred made this up? What planet are you on?


Not that that you did of course but we do have to verify don't we?


SC: And you can verify it very easily. I’ve given you the appropriate reference. That’s what REAL scholars do – they document their sources.


Hans: Right now your idea is debunked and unaccepted - I noted too that you ignored your own quotes.....are you to shamed by them to response?


SC: Nothing has been debunked here – quit with the nonsense statements. Everyone here can see how absurd and ridiculous you are being here not to mention downright childish.

So Hans – back on topic now with GH’s theory relating to Giza-Orion. This thread is questioning Graham Hancock's theories. Well part of GH's theory (in association with R. Bauval) links Giza with the stars of Orion's Belt. I have presented new evidence that supports that contention. You have told this Board that my new evidence was "taken apart" and "convincingly debunked" - an allegation I thoroughly refute. So, Hans - it's up to you here, sunshine.

Prove to this Board that you are right.

If you can't do that Hans then this Board can only assume that you are thoroughly wrong.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 14/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichaelThe alignment of the pyramids to a constellation always seemed particularly forced.


I have always wondered why it is so hard to except that the ancients aligned their monuments to the stars? Their lives and cultures were revolved around constellations and alignments of the stars.

I have several Graham Hancock books and think he asks some very good questions.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Well too bad Scott

Failure to provide verification of secondary data and primary. I mean with your earth shaking idea (your concept) you didn't check the primary data? Are you THAT naive? How do you know your secondary source is accurate?

As we said before your idea is debunked, dead, unaccepted and cast on the pile of discarded ideas. Until you provide the evidence we can only surmise you are making stuff up. There is no other reason to not provide this information.

You don't provide evidence expect to be treated like a non-scholarly c------t - not that you ARE a c-----t you just act like one.

1. If I provided links to the the many threads at the Hall of Ma'at where your ideas were discussed- you would then just insist they don't debunk your idea - I've been reading your 'style' for a long time Scott- your style is to repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over that you are right. You state it very clearly. There is NO point in going over your failed ideas yet again. This thread is a good example of why your sneered at - you think you are being so clever and not providing the sources - your not your acting like a crackpot who cannot stand for his ideas to not be accepted.

2. I will NOT rediscuss your failure in several hundred posts at the Hall of Ma'at to property present your idea-which due to a lack of evidence was DEBUNKED and not accepted.

3. If you want to discuss those again go to the Hall of Ma'at, or start a thread here and invite all those who dealt with you before to come over and go over and over and over and over and over and over the same material again. OR as you have done in this thread bring up your theory were I will be glad to point out its glaring errors.

Good bye Scott - well until you try to push your debunked and unaccepted ideas again. But of course in line with your style you will now go on and on and on and on just like a c----t would. LOL



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
The orthodoxy, by way of example, didn't accept Copernicus or Galileo's ideas either. But neither could they debunk them. So, you believe that simply by virtue of the fact that the orthodoxy did not accept their ideas means that they (Copernicus & Galieleo) were wrong?

Have you ANY idea of how absurd an argument this is? Simply because one group does not accept a (sometimes radical) idea DOES NOT make the idea wrong. Do you even understand this concept?
But Hans – for the umpteenth time – non-acceptance by those hidebound to the orthodox view DOES NOT MAKE ME WRONG!!!! Think Copernicus – think Galileo. They were NOT accepted by the orthodoxy of their day. But NEITHER were they wrong. Non-acceptance DOES NOT automatically mean an idea is wrong.

So now you're on par with some of the greatest scientific minds in history?

IMO, that's the least unbelievable claim you've made here. At least, that I've read.

BTW


The orthodoxy, by way of example, didn't accept Copernicus or Galileo's ideas either.

What are you talking about here anyway?

Are you comparing the HoM to the Catholic Church "orthodoxy?"

What member of the (then) scientific community disagreed with either Copernicus or Galileo?

Harte

[edit on 9/14/2009 by Harte]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008

Originally posted by mmiichaelThe alignment of the pyramids to a constellation always seemed particularly forced.


I have always wondered why it is so hard to except that the ancients aligned their monuments to the stars? Their lives and cultures were revolved around constellations and alignments of the stars.

It's not, really.

What's wrong is, as was pointed out in the post about Hancock's "precessional dating," using such speculation to come up with stupid ideas like Hancock's claim that Giza was designed to commemorate Zep Tepi and that the Egyptians knew of the location of Orion's Belt in the 10,000 BCE nighttime sky.

That's not just "particularly forced."

Thats complete hoo-ha nonsense.


Originally posted by kidflash2008
I have several Graham Hancock books and think he asks some very good questions.

He does. They are good enough to make you go out and find the answers yourself.

If you do this, you'll find that, despite what Hancock said, they aren't really earth-shaking questions or answers.

And, once you start looking, you'll find where Hancock has lied to you many times over.

Harte



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,


Hans: Good bye Scott ….


SC: Oh no, no, no Hans. You are not going to be running away from this that easy.


Hans: Failure to provide verification of secondary data and primary.


SC: Delusional. You are merely talking here about your own actions or, rather, inaction. Have you ever looked at a bibliography? Do you even know what a bibliography is? Have a look at Mark Lehner's bibliography in his The Complete Pyramids – you'd be truly amazed at the secondary data sources he references. That's what writers and scholars do, Hans. It's a very normal practice. With your line of reasoning you would be demanding that Mark Lehner bring the Great Pyramid into that hotel room of yours before you would believe anything he said about it!! Your argument here is completely absurd and nothing more than an absurd smokescreen to deflect from your other woes here.

To wit -

Now Hans - you made the claim here on this Board that my theories demonstrating a unified plan at Giza and my theories concerning precessional knowledge at Giza had been “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked” at the HoM Forum. I, naturally, refute your allegation or that any such debunking ever took place at HoM.

As such you then have a responsibility to back up your allegations with the evidence you claim to have seen that will then allow the followers of this discussion the opportunity to evaluate for themselves this counter-argument to my theories. You had ample opportunity to present this alleged evidence. However, on every single request made to you to present your alleged evidence you failed to produce it.

Now, do not treat this Board as though we are idiots. You will NOT be making a mockery of debate on this Board. Most know here that if you had the slightest shred of any evidence to even remotely back up what you have alleged then you would indeed have presented it. That you have completely and utterly failed to do so speaks volumes and renders your argument in tatters and a total failure.

So, go away then Hans if you must, with your tail tucked firmly between your legs and your nasty little ad hominems rammed firmly down your throat and don't dare darken my door again or waste the time of ATS readers with your empty, unsubstantiated rubbish.

All you have are ad hominems and such will NEVER be a substitute for evidence. Now, if by chance you have a change of heart and decide to continue here then you can make a good start by presenting the evidence you claim to have seen that has “taken apart” and “convincingly debunked” my theories. As I have told you before, Hans – ONLY EVIDENCE will win you the argument, It must then follow that by your complete failure in presenting that evidence to this Board, you must now be considered a failure.

Haste ye back!

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 14/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Hi Scott, glad to see you on here, still knocking the lame pitches from the two dimensional thinkers and pedestrian mindsets of the orthodox diehards right out of the park. I’ve not been following GHMB for sometime, and did not know you had your own forum here on OTS. Glad to see you still pressing forward with your theories!

I see you recently quoted my lengthy GHMB post about my experiences on the Hall of Ma’at verbatim. I am flattered! And it’s heartening to see you dealing with the usual suspects with the same robust politeness and thoroughness as always.

I absolutely had enter the fray when I saw Hans’ laughable suggestion that your theories were "taken apart" and "convincingly debunked" on the Hall of Ma’at website. What a piece of nonsense. What absolute rubbish.

I was there - an active contributor - on the Hall of Ma’at in 2006/07, posting as “Alcibiades” when you were regularly posting. I have fond memories of some of your jousts with the indefatigable Don Barone, and your head on clashes with Anthony Sakovicz, but most of all I remember how the little clique of smug regulars would team up with the biased, hysterical moderators to gang up on you, sneer at you, censor you, edit you, and close down thread after thread after thread whenever you were winning the argument – all in an attempt to hound you out. At one stage they even split the ancient history section into two forums in an attempt to quarantine you into one small patch! Pathetic.

I see here you’re still dealing with the same cynical, snide, negative approach from someone whose “debating” skills were clearly honed in the Hall of Ma’at. To them, you always have to “prove it”. And yet when you present a clear argument that at least suggests proof, they ignore it, move on, and try scoring a point some other way. It’s the typical orthodox approach. All the burden of proof is on you, whereas they are free to claim anything as long as it fits into the orthodox scheme of things.

I stopped posting in the Hall of Ma’at when I realised what a corrupt and corrupting environment it was – historical debate reduced to a framework of pyschological co-dependency for a bunch of cynical, intellectually stunted academic zealots. You I believe, were banned when they realised that your theory, as you fleshed it out, increasingly had weight to it and was becoming more and more difficult to dismiss out of hand. But that’s all they are really good for on the Hall of Ma’at – dismissing new ideas out of hand. These are people who would happily curse the darkness forever, and bitterly resent anyone bold enough to light a candle.

"Taken apart" and "convincingly debunked" on the Hall of Ma’at? Like hell you were. You wiped the floor with those guys.

John



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
very cool post... just one thing Animal, you put an extra zero, it's 10500 BC not 105000

cheers



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LonelyAngel
 

Hi John,

Very good to hear from you - it has been a while. Too long.

Yes - fond memories indeed at HoM. Many thanks for the vote of confidence. It is quite uplifting to find people who were actually at HoM and witnessed what was really going on there to speak up here and to do so with such eloquent style. Kudos to you.

Much obliged and hope to hear from you again some time soon.

Warmest wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Nice post indeed. You know what's the problem with some in this board? No matter what kind of argument one can present, if the whole conversation or I'd rather say if the whole mind set is in denial, there is no point to argue about it. I too am interested in subjects like that and very intrigued by the ideas about the existence of an ancient (long lost) civilization but I've never read the opposite opinion presented here that can make one seriously think otherwise. I mean, the whole discussion is focused in 'bashing' the member who comes forward with such ideas, denying every possibility and logic, making pompous claims with a big NO, referring non stop to Wikipedia (which btw IMO is a shame because is the mos incompetent source of knowledge), going ahead continuously by saying: This has been proven (no proves ever presented), this is wrong (without the slightest prove why), this never happened (makes one think that this people have the keys of knowledge in their pockets), there is no such thing (without bothering to explain why not)... Well might be that some of the brightest minds of this board are tired of explaining themselves over and over again about the same subjects (which in a certain way is understandable) but at least few ( i would say more decent) comments are a must to make others understand what is wrong with the whole concept. And I got very well your comparison with Galileo and Copernicus. What some don't understand is that today science is as much closed minded and suppressed as is the church it self with its paradigm. We have examples of this every day, we had in the past (proven latter or being proven that were right) so there is nothing to be surprised about. I don't have an degree in the subject (even though I've been reading for years and is one the fields I'm interested in) but as a MD graduated in Human Behavior I understand perfectly the pattern and the whole in denial mindset. Every revolutionary idea ( I've would have rather used the word truth) goes through 3 stages: First, it is ridiculed , second it is violently opposed , and third, it is accepted as self-evident.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Well too bad Scott

Failure to provide verification of secondary data and primary. I mean with your earth shaking idea (your concept) you didn't check the primary data? Are you THAT naive? How do you know your secondary source is accurate?


As far as I can tell (only p. 31 of the 4th edition is available to me) he is citing something that is well known -- that at Edfu there is an inscription that says that building plans came to Imhotep in a dream.

The wall does not say in any great detail what Imhotep dreamed. He directed the building of the step pyramid of Djoser, and possibly the compound that encloses it and the tomb of Userkaf.

If his dream included detail about alignments and so forth, this is where we would expect to see them -- in the buildings that he directly supervised. As you can see from the map of the area, the alignment is not terribly consistent:
upload.wikimedia.org...

He may have had a hand in Sekhemkhet's pyramid, but that was abandoned.

Here's a more detailed drawing of what Imhotep was the architect (and supervisor) for: www.arthistory.upenn.edu... (please note that it's rotated 90 degrees, so "north" is to the "left". There's a satellite pyramid in the front of Djoser's step pyramid.

So... we know that this must have been in his dream. It appears to be aligned within a few degrees of true North, but not necessarily with anything else.

If you look at the image above, click and take a close look at the plan of the (unfinished) Sekhemkhet pyramid) you will see that it is NOT aligned with Djoser's pyramid (niether points true north) -- BUT -- that it shares the same design of a large pyramid inside an oblong enclosure.

After Sekhemket's brief reign came that of Khaba, and here again we see another step pyramid (the "Layer pyramid"). A pharaoh called Huni follows him (Imhotep is long dead), and had built for himself a large step pyramid at Meidum -- later converted to a "true pyramid" by filling in the steps.

Snefru was the first to come up with a true pyramid. Notice that the whole plan of the pyramid and complex has gone completely astray from the ones that Imhotep designed and oversaw:
www.touregypt.net...

The temple is not within an enclosed rectangular compound, and its "cult pyramid" is to the south.

In other words, there's a great number of differences in the ones built by Imhotep himself and the ones that follow. This suggests that there was not Master Plan that was followed to the letter by architects and pyramid builders who followed Imhotep though apparently the process of making buildings with large stone columns (something he supposedly started) did continue. The columns were used in many ways and in many designs.

I haven't looked at all the designs for the temple complexes and pyramids throughout Egypt, but it appears that only the ones built directly by Imhotep had the rectangular design of the walled complex and that step pyramids continued to be built for almost 200 years after his death.

If the three pharaohs at Giza had been following a design set forth by Imhotep, then their monuments should have been similar to the ones he supervised: stepped pyramids enclosed in rectangular walls that are aligned somewhat to the north with a single satellite pyramid on the east side.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 


People should pick up some of his books at the library and decide for themselves. When I mentioned this at the beginning of the thread, it seemed like I made a blasphemy. If one wants to watch a show that is critical of a person and edited to make them look foolish, that is their prerogative. However, I think they should read the book and see what the person being trashed has to say.

These are all theories being presented and should not be ridiculed or trashed. If one does not choose to pursue them, then they do not have to. I also find the theories and ideas fascinating. Does that mean I believe them 100%? No, it does not, but I do have other information to draw my own conclusions.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Byrd: If the three pharaohs at Giza had been following a design set forth by Imhotep, then their monuments should have been similar to the ones he supervised: stepped pyramids enclosed in rectangular walls that are aligned somewhat to the north with a single satellite pyramid on the east side.


SC: Your opening to this post of your answers your own question:


Byrd: As far as I can tell (only p. 31 of the 4th edition is available to me) he is citing something that is well known -- that at Edfu there is an inscription that says that building plans came to Imhotep in a dream.


SC: "...building plans..." Plural. From your own words there was, it seems, more than one plan.

What is very clear is that I can demonstrate how the main Giza pyramid structures, the 2 sets of Queens and the Sphinx conform to a unified plan, the underlying template of which is the stars of Orion's Belt. I can factually demonstrate this HERE and HERE.

What has to be decided is whether or not this should be rendered as the reuslt of a whole series of quite remarkable coincidences.

My personal view is that such a self-evident, unified design CANNOT - by any stretch of the imagination - be considered the result of simple happenstance. What we are witnessing here is an intentional, unified design of the Giza main pyramids and Queens pyramids.

And BTW - just to reiterate - the above two pieces of work were NEVER debunked at the Hall of Ma'at Board. Hans may have delusions of such an occurrence having taken place but, when pressed, he was well short of evidence in substantiating his scurrilous allegations.

Giza is clearly the culmination of a pre-planned, unified design whose unerlying design influence were the belt stars of the Orion constellation.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 16/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Byrd: If the three pharaohs at Giza had been following a design set forth by Imhotep, then their monuments should have been similar to the ones he supervised: stepped pyramids enclosed in rectangular walls that are aligned somewhat to the north with a single satellite pyramid on the east side.


SC: Your opening to this post of your answers your own question:


Byrd: As far as I can tell (only p. 31 of the 4th edition is available to me) he is citing something that is well known -- that at Edfu there is an inscription that says that building plans came to Imhotep in a dream.


SC: "...building plans..." Plural. From your own words there was, it seems, more than one plan.


Actually, I don't know. I have not read the text for myself, I don't know what words are used that mean "plan" (or plans) and whether it was singular or plural. If it was a single plan for an enclosed pyramid and chapels or whether he designed chapels.

If you have a link to the hieroglyphs, I'll struggle through them with good heart.


What is very clear is that I can demonstrate how the main Giza pyramid structures, the 2 sets of Queens and the Sphinx conform to a unified plan, the underlying template of which is the stars of Orion's Belt.


Except this doesn't match any of Imhotep's known and supervised building projects. Nor do the two known projects reflect Orion in any way.

Nor do the pyramid-mortuary temple-complexes from pharaohs from the time of Imhotep to Giza reflect this kind of build.

I can see him coming up with a temple design using columns that let sunlight hit the cult statue on a certain day (I don't know that he did that, but that would seem plausible.) There are apparently some fairly consistent temple designs.

But I think that in order to prove "instructions from Imhotep" you have to find elements on Giza that exactly match the designs of the pyramid complexes that he supervised and built.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your well thought out response. Appreciated.


Byrd: Actually, I don't know. I have not read the text for myself, I don't know what words are used that mean "plan" (or plans) and whether it was singular or plural. If it was a single plan for an enclosed pyramid and chapels or whether he designed chapels.

If you have a link to the hieroglyphs, I'll struggle through them with good heart.


SC: No link yet, I’m afraid. I am still wading through the Edfu Project PDF files which is painfully slow since most are in German or French. If I come across them, I shall let you know.


SC: What is very clear is that I can demonstrate how the main Giza pyramid structures, the 2 sets of Queens and the Sphinx conform to a unified plan, the underlying template of which is the stars of Orion's Belt.

Byrd: Except this doesn't match any of Imhotep's known and supervised building projects. Nor do the two known projects reflect Orion in any way.


SC: I am not saying that they should. By referring to this particular translation I am merely pointing to the fact that it appears that architectural plans of some description were extant long before Giza was constructed and Aldred’s 3rd edition translation does not tie these directly to Imhotep as being the inspiration. Aldred says only that the plan came from the heavens (think stellar correlations) in the days of Imhotep. Who created the architectural plan(s) if not Imhotep?

There may have been a single plan, there may have been several. If there were many such ‘architectural plans from the heavens’ then it would seem to lend some support to Wayne Herschel’s idea that the Lower Egypt pyramid fields correlate with a number of star constellations as seen here

If only a single plan existed, say for argument’s sake Giza, then the implementation of this plan would be a lengthy process, taking many, many generations. You would first of all have to learn how to build a pyramid form that was stable and did not collapse and then move on to the more complex smooth-sided pyramid form, and then one with concave slopes. It can be viewed that Imhotep merely took the first step along this very long learning curve before the AEs had finally mastered the art of pyramid building and felt confident enough to implement the ‘plan from the heavens’. And it took them until the 4th Dynasty to finally achieve the necessary skills, infrastructure as well as the political and financial wherewithal to do it.

All this aside, however, what can now be plainly demonstrated is that the Giza pyramid field does conform to a very simple stellar plan, the underlying template of which are the Orion belt stars. Is this the plan the AEs talk about in the Edfu Building Texts? I have no idea. But it’s at least an intriguing prospect and what cannot now be denied is that Giza can be shown to conform to a unified design.

And it is the fact that Giza can be shown – fairly convincingly I have to say – to conform to a unified scheme that then raises a much bigger question. If this is indeed a unified scheme planned right from the get-go, then it stands to reason that there was a much bigger and more significant purpose/motive from the start.

What was that purpose?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 17/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Ive read through this thread and the debate and, as an 'interested layman' to these topics, I must say that it's quite fascinating stuff.

I hope someone is able to find out the reasons behind this grand design of pyramid placement. Was this design based in a healthy interest of the stars, a testament to the wonder of the 'heavens'? Or was it more, a message to future civilisations telling us secrets of human origins?

I am not in the position to have a knowledgable opinion on the whole idea, but I hope that there's some secrets out there waiting to be found...

unsane.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
 




There may have been a single plan, there may have been several. If there were many such ‘architectural plans from the heavens’ then it would seem to lend some support to Wayne Herschel’s idea that the Lower Egypt pyramid fields correlate with a number of star constellations as seen here

...And it is the fact that Giza can be shown – fairly convincingly I have to say – to conform to a unified scheme that then raises a much bigger question. If this is indeed a unified scheme planned right from the get-go, then it stands to reason that there was a much bigger and more significant purpose/motive from the start.

What was that purpose?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton


Exact question I have! There is a much bigger story here to be discovered and I believe you are on the right track!

I've been reading your research over at Graham's site and find it extremely thorough!

Keep up the good work Scott!



[edit on 18-9-2009 by Julie Washington]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
By referring to this particular translation I am merely pointing to the fact that it appears that architectural plans of some description were extant long before Giza was constructed and Aldred’s 3rd edition translation does not tie these directly to Imhotep as being the inspiration.


I don't think anyone would argue that there are NOT architectural plans... in fact, there's a very traditional Egyptian temple design (depending on how large or small the temple was (number of rooms.)) A case might be made for a design involving columns in temples which was introduced by Imhotep.


If there were many such ‘architectural plans from the heavens’ then it would seem to lend some support to Wayne Herschel’s idea that the Lower Egypt pyramid fields correlate with a number of star constellations as seen here


I really think he's stretching it, don't you? There are over 100 pyramids in Egypt and he's suggesting that the Egyptians (who didn't measure distances between cities except in days of travel) came up with both distance and direction for things far beyond the limits of visiblity.


If only a single plan existed, say for argument’s sake Giza, then the implementation of this plan would be a lengthy process, taking many, many generations.


I don't think that argument holds up. We see them building fairly complex structures like the temples without going through five generations of failed temple structures. If a smooth-sided pyramid was what was originally intended, then the smaller cult pyramids would have been smooth sided. Menkaure's queens pyramids very clearly show that they are step designs, not smooth sided pyramids.


It can be viewed that Imhotep merely took the first step along this very long learning curve before the AEs had finally mastered the art of pyramid building and felt confident enough to implement the ‘plan from the heavens’.


If this were the case, you would see earlier smooth-sided pyramids that were much smaller (such as over the tombs of the royal family members) and you wouldn't see the modifications made by the Nubian pharaohs to a more steep sided pyramid.


And it took them until the 4th Dynasty to finally achieve the necessary skills, infrastructure as well as the political and financial wherewithal to do it.


I can't comment on the finances, but I can certainly comment on the skills. If you look at the temples of the first dynasties, you'll see that they could indeed shape the stones well. The Palermo Stone records at least one other building (Men-netjeret -- apparently not finished, predating the pyramids) built from stone. And, to be honest, there's not a lot of skill needed to carve out a lot of blocks of stone.


All this aside, however, what can now be plainly demonstrated is that the Giza pyramid field does conform to a very simple stellar plan, the underlying template of which are the Orion belt stars.


Except that it's backwards, and it only works if you ignore other significant features on the Giza plateau. Furthermore, if it was to reflect Orion's belt, why isn't that combination of stars mentioned as prominently (and drawn as prominently on the few astronomical ceilings) as the "undying stars". As you may reacall (but others may not know), the stars that the North Pole pointed to back then were called the "undying stars". They were culturally important and were depicted in a number of places. The constellations of the "undying stars" were seen as Taurwet measuring the heavens.

So we have some pretty old examples of them using stars and references to stars.

The belt was seen as the crown of Sah (often read as Osiris). Now... here's an important god, with 11 stars in the constellation named after him. Orion was not one, but two constellations to them. None of the Pyramid Texts or the Books of the Underworld (ect) make reference to the crown alone. The coffins on which Sah is painted and engraved don't include just the 3 stars of the crown.
www.innovations-report.de...

Furthermore, in places like Deir el-Medina where the notable people had very small pyramids and paid VERY careful attention to the layouts of their mausoleums and graveyards, we don't see this "3 stars" or any other stellar configuration repeated.

We should also see it in the complex around the pyramid of Pepi II at Saqqara... there's enough pyramids there to do a "crown of Sah" if that had been a master plan... but we don't see that:
www.touregypt.net...

And the same can be said for other clusters of pyramids. The common elements are the wall, the temple, and the frequently seen cult pyramids -- similar to Imhotep's design for Djoser.
www.touregypt.net...

And two of the pyramids on the Giza plateau seem to follow that same plan with the wall and the temple to the east (if there's a wall around Khufu's pyramid (I can't tell) then that would make all 3 of them follow this design that is seen elsewhere) :
en.wikipedia.org...:Giza_pyramid_complex_(map).svg

...and in all those, there's no paintings of Sah's constellation or mention of it.

A counter for my argument, of course, would be if it could be shown that the burial areas of the other pharaohs followed this same design of "Sah's crown" and that the same was true of the nobles of the court who were often buried in a smaller version of the pharaoh's tomb.

I don't know of any groups that follow the "Sah crown-top" design although I know of a lot of them that follow the "wall-pyramid-temple" design. However, I'm not familiar with all of them.

Can you show me other ones that reflect the "Giza plateau" design?

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your detailed reply. Much appreciated.



SC: If there were many such ‘architectural plans from the heavens’ then it would seem to lend some support to Wayne Herschel’s idea that the Lower Egypt pyramid fields correlate with a number of star constellations as seen here

Byrd: I really think he's stretching it, don't you? There are over 100 pyramids in Egypt and he's suggesting that the Egyptians (who didn't measure distances between cities except in days of travel) came up with both distance and direction for things far beyond the limits of visiblity.


SC: I don’t know if it’s a stretch or not since I have not actually read Herschel’s work, so am unaware of how he argues his case or the evidence he presents. But my mind is not closed to what he presents. However, if you have a stellar axis i.e. the down/up of the Milky Way correlating to the down/up (North/south) of the Nile, then it is not too difficult to place 'constellations' along the terrestrial axis (the Nile) in the same sequence as they appear in the heavenly axis (the Milky Way). I don’t think Herschel is claiming an inch-perfect stellar/terrestrial correlation only that the various constellations are created and presented in the correct sequence along the axis of the Nile. Upper (stellar) Egypt united with Lower (terrestrial) Egypt.


SC: If only a single plan existed, say for argument’s sake Giza, then the implementation of this plan would be a lengthy process, taking many, many generations.

Byrd: I don't think that argument holds up. We see them building fairly complex structures like the temples without going through five generations of failed temple structures.


SC: It has always been the orthodox view that the pyramid form evolved from mastaba to step-pyramid to true-pyramid to smooth-sided with pyramid concave slopes. You seem to be suggesting that this is not so? Are you suggesting that the AEs could have constructed smooth-sided pyramids with concave faces right from the get-go?


Byrd: If a smooth-sided pyramid was what was originally intended, then the smaller cult pyramids would have been smooth sided. Menkaure's queens pyramids very clearly show that they are step designs, not smooth sided pyramids.


SC: Not necessarily so. G3a was clearly a true pyramid. True pyramids would naturally take more time and care in construction than the step-pyramid, and even more so with cladding.. Perhaps Menkaure’s untimely death resulted in hasty completion of the blueprint, his own pyramid and the Menkuare Queens. Perhaps financial or political problems arose. Perhaps these structures were actually designed in this fashion in the blueprint (i.e. a small granite model of the Giza plan) to depict some other aspect of the Belt stars. There could be any number of reasons why G3b and G3c were constructed as the step pyramid type and not true pyramids. All of this, however, is merely a distraction from the more important point that we have clearly a unified design presented to us in the primary and subsidiary structures at Giza, a unified plan that also includes the positioning of the Sphinx.


SC: It can be viewed that Imhotep merely took the first step along this very long learning curve before the AEs had finally mastered the art of pyramid building and felt confident enough to implement the ‘plan from the heavens’.

Byrd: If this were the case, you would see earlier smooth-sided pyramids that were much smaller (such as over the tombs of the royal family members) and you wouldn't see the modifications made by the Nubian pharaohs to a more steep sided pyramid.


SC: Again, not necessarily so. Smooth-sided pyramids would appear ONLY when the AEs had developed the skills to make it so. Surely there HAS to have been a learning curve or are you suggesting otherwise?



SC: And it took them until the 4th Dynasty to finally achieve the necessary skills, infrastructure as well as the political and financial wherewithal to do it.

Byrd: I can't comment on the finances, but I can certainly comment on the skills. If you look at the temples of the first dynasties, you'll see that they could indeed shape the stones well. The Palermo Stone records at least one other building (Men-netjeret -- apparently not finished, predating the pyramids) built from stone. And, to be honest, there's not a lot of skill needed to carve out a lot of blocks of stone.


SC: No one is denying this but I would suggest that raising stones (some as heavy as 70 ton) several hundred feet is of an entirely different magnitude to the construction of a temple that will barely rise more than 60 feet. But this is not actually relevant to the question of there being a unified plan at Giza. The actual plan used by the 4th Dynasty AEs (perhaps a granite model) may have had all of the Giza structures planned as Step Pyramids and the AEs of the 4th Dynasty sought to make them perfectly smooth for their own cultural reasons.

But again - “smooth” or “step” does not in any way detract from the fact that the bases of these structures can be shown to conform to a simple unified scheme underpinned by the belt stars of the Orion constellation.


SC: All this aside, however, what can now be plainly demonstrated is that the Giza pyramid field does conform to a very simple stellar plan, the underlying template of which are the Orion belt stars.

[Byrd: Except that it's backwards, and it only works if you ignore other significant features on the Giza plateau.


SC: Please can you explain this more fully.


Byrd: Furthermore, if it was to reflect Orion's belt, why isn't that combination of stars mentioned as prominently (and drawn as prominently on the few astronomical ceilings) as the "undying stars".


SC: I do not for a second claim to have all the answers. What I can say, however, is that the primary and subsidiary structures at Giza CAN be shown to conform to a unified scheme, the underlying template of which is the belt stars of the Orion constellation.


Byrd: As you may reacall (but others may not know), the stars that the North Pole pointed to back then were called the "undying stars". They were culturally important and were depicted in a number of places. The constellations of the "undying stars" were seen as Taurwet measuring the heavens.

So we have some pretty old examples of them using stars and references to stars.


SC: Agreed. And a number of pyramids even have stellar names.


Byrd: The belt was seen as the crown of Sah (often read as Osiris). Now... here's an important god, with 11 stars in the constellation named after him. Orion was not one, but two constellations to them. None of the Pyramid Texts or the Books of the Underworld (ect) make reference to the crown alone. The coffins on which Sah is painted and engraved don't include just the 3 stars of the crown.
www.innovations-report.de...



Continued......

[edit on 19/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join