Mayan 2012 Date Corroborated by Ancient Egyptians

Hello ATS,

Here is my latest research into the structures at Giza. The presentation below (in Powerpoint format) is self-explanatory.

It seems the Mayan calander end-date of 2,012 CE is a date also being indicated by the Ancient Egyptians in the structures at Giza:

Giza 2012 Alignment

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Awesome i'll checl this out when i get back from the Gym,
so S&F
looks interesting

Gee Scott... this looks interesting but there are no notations on the ppt so it's impossible for us to undertsand the case being made as we page through it. Was this an oversight? There are numeric notations of various geometric relationships but no explanation or definition.

Call me stupid but it isn't really self-explanatory.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by jtma508]

Wow, now that is some cool stuff!

2012 rabbit hole just keeps growing. The more I look into it, the more weird and wonderful 'coincidences' like this keep springing up.

Nice work Scott, SF.

The Giza wheel that Scott has presented was one of the first things I ran across when starting to research the phenomena associated with 2012. I was immediately captivated by Scott's work.

Although I don't believe that Scott had previously made this hypothesis about 2012 and the wheel. I expected this to be the case, when reviewing it many months ago.

I could be worng, and it could have been already connected.

Anyways, I think it is evidently true.

Scott,

I really admire your work...but it was also a little above what I could understand.

More description in layman's terms would be helpful.

Thanks.

I heard David Wilcock mention this on C2C last night. Thank you for providing more information.

What, exactly, is being "corroborated" here?

Harte

Without notes on exactly what you're saying here I can only assume that the dates 10,460 BCE, 9,700 BCE, and 3,980 BCE were dates that these structures were presumed built and if we take your theory of the correlating line as a linier time line then we can space between the 9,700 BCE date and the ending date of 2,500 CE as being point #2, I can then see how your coming with the intersecting point between #3 and #1 as 2,012 CE. While this is festinating and I have to admit very creative if not perceptive analysis, the fact that the purposed dates for your structures, at the very crucial points, are in question by many historians and archeologists. Does this mean you're wrong, not at all...it's refreshing to hear ideas about this whole 2012 event. My personal opinion is that something will happen, not the end of the world, not Nibiru... remember everyone we were supposed to see it in the skies at this point and nothing has been seen. Thank you for posting this flags and stars for your hard work.

Im curious, what do you think about the corraboration of Stichin regarding the two civiliations linked?

I think I also was able to read a good free ebook called Earth's Forbidden Secrets that went into detail over this that I'd highly recommend.




[edit on 7-10-2009 by n1zzzn]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


sorry man but WHAAAAAT?


please explain how you come to this conclusion


one question scott,

what, in your opinion is "the first time" as referenced by the AE?

Originally posted by Harte
What, exactly, is being "corroborated" here?

Harte

Well yeah!

Interesting Scott but some questions

1. Why doesn't the Lehner line touch the circle? Why does it stop short?
2. Why does the Lehner line touch a different queen's pyramid that the one your circle is based on?
3. Why has the date 10,500 now become 10,460?
4. What length of precession are you calculating for?
5. Why is the date 3114 BC not involved? That would be a key date if your idea is correct. As would be the start of the Mayan cycle before it.
6. Why do black lines go from the Sphinx Stelae to 'your' Queen pyramid's?
7. What, in meters, is the radius of your circle and the length of Lehners line?

The Fall of the Maya: 'They Did it to Themselves'

For 1200 years, the Maya dominated Central America. At their peak around 900 A.D., Maya cities teemed with more than 2,000 people per square mile -- comparable to modern Los Angeles County. Even in rural areas the Maya numbered 200 to 400 people per square mile. But suddenly, all was quiet. And the profound silence testified to one of the greatest demographic disasters in human prehistory -- the demise of the once vibrant Maya society.

www.physorg.com...

reply to post by Aquarius1


Exactly, it was also a very uneven disaster, some classic cities were abandon, some outlying ones ran on for centuries while others slowly died. A very uneven collapse, more of an uneven demise punctuated by survivals.

reply to post by Julie Washington

Hi Julie,

JW: More description in layman's terms would be helpful.

I've put together another presentation in an attempt to illustrate what I am getting at here. I hope this makes more sense to you. At the end of the presentation (link below)there is also a small challenge if you - or anyone else here on ATS - would like to take up. 100 kudos points from me to the first person who manages to come within 100 years of the date presented (i.e. within 100 years of the answer I have).

Go on - have a go!! (Good luck).

Timeline - in Laymens Terms

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 8/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Thanks for this, Scott. For those of us that haven't done the level of research you clearly have we just aren't familiar with the significance of cetain dates/objects.

Oh, your date looks like 7220BCE


[edit on 8-10-2009 by jtma508]

Originally posted by jtma508
Thanks for this, Scott. For those of us that haven't done the level of research you clearly have we just aren't familiar with the significance of cetain dates/objects.

Oh, your date looks like 7220BCE


[edit on 8-10-2009 by jtma508]

I'll play 8230 BCE

I remember seeing a different take on this 15 years ago (aprox) it had to do with the shafts and cubits=inches and Christ's birthday correlating with the split in the downward shaft.
www.catchpenny.org...
I've tried to find this presentation to no avail.
Edit ; I'll guess without seeing the presentation 10600 bc

[edit on 8-10-2009 by genius/idoit]

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by jtma508
Thanks for this, Scott. For those of us that haven't done the level of research you clearly have we just aren't familiar with the significance of cetain dates/objects.

Oh, your date looks like 7220BCE


[edit on 8-10-2009 by jtma508]

I'll play 8230 BCE

I'll go 8229 BCE. Don't hate me.

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

A few questions here - I shall do my best to answer them:

Hans: 1. Why doesn't the Lehner line touch the circle? Why does it stop short?

SC: The 'Lehner Line' concerns itself ONLY with the physical structures. As can be seen from the presentation, this line has numerous structures connected to this line. It is unlikely that this is the result of simple happenstance and that this line represents something significant.

Hans: 2. Why does the Lehner line touch a different queen's pyramid that the one your circle is based on?

SC; Interestingly, the 'Lehner Line' actually connects the same star, rotated 90*, i.e. at min and max culminations. The circle, although closely connected with the Lehner Line, (timeline) has a different function to the timeline. The function of the circle is to present two intersection points beyond the timeline (points 1 and 4).

Hans: 3. Why has the date 10,500 now become 10,460?

SC: I have always written CIRCA 10,500BCE. If max culmination of the belt stars occurs c.2,500CE then 12,960 years back (i.e. half precession cycle) takes us to 10,460BCE. We now have a more accurate rate of precession which shows that the belt stars will culminate c.2,500 CE. We can work out the intersection date back the way from the more accurate 2,500 CE date. We also (as one would expect) get 2012 date.

4. What length of precession are you calculating for?

SC: The rate of precession is not - as I am sure you know - a precise science. The rate varies over time. A total of 12,960 years for the half-cycle is not an unreasonable average and is supported by a number of star-mapping programmes.

Hans: 5. Why is the date 3114 BC not involved? That would be a key date if your idea is correct. As would be the start of the Mayan cycle before it.

SC: I have merely demonstrated the fact that the Sphinx lines up with the midpoint of the 'Lehner Line' and show the date of this midpoint. (This could perhaps be indicating the true date of construction for the Sphinx, hence why the Sphinx is aligned to this midpoint). This midpoint in line with the Sphinx also helps confirm that the length of the timeline is delimited to the extent of the physical structures (as stated above) and not to the circle edge (albeit one of the structures - point 2 - on the 'Lehner Line' is ALSO on the circle's edge).

Hans: 6. Why do black lines go from the Sphinx Stelae to 'your' Queen pyramid's?

SC: There are only 2 points on the circle BEYOND the timeline - points 1 & 4. The Sphinx is the most natural and obvious 'calibration point' - the 'point of origin'. And there is also a clear connection between the Sphinx and the timeline. So why not the Sphinx and the other two points (1 & 4) on the circle? We need an 'anchor' point - the Sphinx is the most obvious candidate at the site.

Hans: 7. What, in meters, is the radius of your circle and the length of Lehners line?

SC: Haven't yet checked the 'Lehner Line' length but quite amazingly the radius of the circle is 1200 cubits (diameter=2400) cubits. The circumference of the circle is almost exactly 155520 inches which - if we divide 155520 by 12 = 12,960. Now before you claim the AE did not know the inch it might be worth reading this: The Gravity Cubit

Hope this helps answer some of your well thought out questions.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 8/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]