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.
Hans: So Scott your saying giving the reference is good enough? That people have to go read it?
Hans: LOL who taught you how to sell your ideas? A dead wombat?
Hans: Your interpretation has been challenged.
Hans: Lets see the secondary [data] ….
Hans: …and the primary data…
Hans: … or admit you just made it all up?
Not that that you did of course but we do have to verify don't we?
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?
Originally posted by mmiichaelThe alignment of the pyramids to a constellation always seemed particularly forced.
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.
The orthodoxy, by way of example, didn't accept Copernicus or Galileo's ideas either.
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.
Originally posted by kidflash2008
I have several Graham Hancock books and think he asks some very good questions.
Hans: Good bye Scott ….
Hans: Failure to provide verification of secondary data and primary.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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: 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: 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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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: 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: 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: 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.
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".
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.
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...