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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Coninued from previous.....

SC: Accepted. However –


"Although it appears that in later times, the meaning of the word S3h (or the plural S3hu) was extended to refer to the constellation of Orion as a whole, yet the Egyptians never lost sight of the fact that only one star in this constellation embodied the spirit of Osiris. This is proven by the so-called 'decan lists' which were represented in the 'astronomical ceilings' of some tombs of the New Kingdom. Here, as shown by the classification of R.A. Parker and O. Neugebauer in their primary work, Egyptian Astronomical Texts [Vol III (London, 1969), 112-5], the ruling dieties of the various stars of Orion were identified. In the tombs of Senmut, Pedamenope and Montemhet, for example, we find that Osiris is associated with the star known as hr rmn s3hu, meaning the star 'under the arm of Orion', while other stars of Orion were known as Children-of Horus and Eye-of-Horus. In some other decan-lists, a star with the presiding deity of Osiris was still identified as the Toe-Star S3h specifically.

Upon reflection, the fact that only one star of Orion was thought to receive the soul or spirit of the great god Osiris is only to be expected, since the ancient Egyptians believed that the stars of the sky represented the bas of individual souls, and the essential being of a god could not very well be divided up between a number of stars. It therefore seems likely that in the Pyramid Texts, the frequent interplay between Isis-Spdt and Osiris-S3h took place in a balanced relationship between two stars - namely Sirius and Rigel, two of the brightest stars in the sky - and not between a star and a constellation.


(Emphasis mine)

Source.

SC; It remains my view that the main structures at Giza (representing the Belt stars) are used to “point” to the star “under the arm of Orion” - Rho Orionis: Thus:




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.


SC: But why should we? There is only ONE constellation of Orion (Sahu) in the heavens. If the pyramids were regarded by the AEs as uniting Upper (stellar) Egypt with Lower (terrestrial Egypt) then we should expect to see but ONE expression of Sah on the ground i.e. Giza. The same goes for other constellations that may have been identified by Herschel.


Byrd: 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...


SC: See above.


Byrd: 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...


SC: See above.


Byrd: 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


SC: That the AEs constructed walls around pyramids in no way undermines the fact that it can be shown that the key structures conform to a unified scheme based upon Orion’s belt. The walls you refer to can perhaps be seen as a development (or embellishment) of AE religious ideas upon the original blueprint, analogous to the shen ring (Royal cartouche) that we see around the King’s name from the time of Sneferu.


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


SC: There’s no mention of ANYTHING in the Gizamids. But there’s a very simple and obvious reason for this.


Byrd: 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.


SC: If there is only ONE Sah in the heavens, why should we expect to have more than one on the Earth?


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


SC: Again – why should there be? There’s only ONE Orion (Sah).

Regards,


Scott Creighton

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




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Graham Hancock - Underworld: Lost Civilizations








posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Flooded Kingdoms Of The Last Ice Age








posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 

I have read several Hancock books and Bauval. I found them an interesting read. But the heavens mirror theory stretches it a bit for me. There are so may stars in the sky in this age alone that I'm sure we could find coincidental "matches" with monuments like the pyramids. But then if you have software to check back up to 10500BC, then there's bound to be correlations?? It doesnt have to be orion. It annoyed me when they mapped out the larger area surrounding the giza plateau bauval and hancock matched up the belt plus 2 others matching pyramids below but totally ignored that there were other stars in that constellation that did NOT match

I like what Hancock ,Bauval and others are saying about the entrenched view of history could be wrong. As they say, the winners of wars make the history of what happened, not the losers. But although they do some interesting research, it seems to be from a sensationalist point of view and even though they both get ridiculed by scientific communities, they dont help themselves the way they dont use proper scientific testing and peer reviewing



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by drew23
 


Drew23: I have read several Hancock books and Bauval. I found them an interesting read. But the heavens mirror theory stretches it a bit for me.


SC: I haven’t read ‘Heaven’s Mirror’ so can’t really comment on it, Drew.


Drew: There are so may stars in the sky in this age alone that I'm sure we could find coincidental "matches" with monuments like the pyramids. But then if you have software to check back up to 10500BC, then there's bound to be correlations?? It doesnt have to be orion.


SC: Certainly there are many stars in the night sky that can be seen at Giza. The Orion constellation with its three Belt stars is arguably the most striking and easily observed of all constellations in the night sky. The correlation between Orion’s Belt and Giza is a highly compelling one and there is much to support it.


Drew: It annoyed me when they mapped out the larger area surrounding the giza plateau bauval and hancock matched up the belt plus 2 others matching pyramids below but totally ignored that there were other stars in that constellation that did NOT match.


SC: I agree with you here – I do not think there was any intent on the part of the designers to include those other pyramids Bauval originally included in his correlation.


Drew: I like what Hancock ,Bauval and others are saying about the entrenched view of history could be wrong. As they say, the winners of wars make the history of what happened, not the losers. But although they do some interesting research, it seems to be from a sensationalist point of view and even though they both get ridiculed by scientific communities, they dont help themselves the way they dont use proper scientific testing and peer reviewing.


SC: By its very nature, original thought has no peer. The ideas of Hancock and Bauval are about challenging certain aspects of the prevailing historical paradigm, a historical consensus that takes the view that Hancock and Bauval are simply wrong in their views. I suspect, however, that their ideas will nevertheless prevail and will, in the end, be judged in the court of public opinion.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join