reply to post by Byrd
SC: Here is my latest research into the structures at Giza. The presentation below (in Powerpoint format) is self-explanatory.
It seems the Mayan calendar end-date of 2,012 CE is a date also being indicated by the Ancient Egyptians in the structures at Giza:
Byrd: I don't think your evidence supports this, Scott. It would be astonishing that the Ancient Egyptians fail to predict all the major events that
shook their civilizations, failed to predict major Earth events... but somehow get "2012"?
SC: I agree - the ancestors of the AEs that possibly created this design would most likely not have been able to predict the actions of men or the
effects of such actions upon the future of their descendants. But this precession clock is not about predicting the actions of MEN, rather it is more
likely about predicting the actions of cosmic bodies. If they can demonstrate to us at Giza via the placement of the 2 sets of so-called 'Queens
Pyramids', the culminations of the belt stars over some 12,960 years then predicting the return of some other (as yet unknown) stellar body should be
within their capabilities.
Byrd: They had no way of writing "2012" (before they finally fell under Muslim rule, they numbered years by the name of the ruler and the
year of their reign.)
SC: Of course not. That is not what I am saying here. I am saying that if we take the Lehner Line as the half-precession axis of 12,960 years then
year 1 corresponds with the minimum culmination of the belt stars of Orion c.10,460BCE (as depicted by the Menkaure Queens). Now some 760 years after
this stellar culmination event of the belt stars, some major event occurred on the Earth. We can say then that c.760 AOC (After Orion Culmination)
this event took place. Similarly, in the year c.12,472 AOC another event may take place. It so happens that these two dates c.760 AOC & c.12,472 AOC
correspond with c.9,700BCE & c.2,012 CE respectively of the Christian calendar. However, the one true calendar is the apparent precessional motion of
Byrd: They didn't note the beginning of the "Long Count" or any other Mayan concepts. They didn't even measure the cycles of Venus or the
precession of the equinoxes (which the Mayans did).
SC: They don't have to measure such. They just need to understand precession which, from the evidence I have uncovered, leads me to conclude that
they did understand such. And when I say 'they' I mean the ancestors of the AEs of the Dynastic Period.
Byrd: I think you could draw lines through any groups of points on the plateau (there are so many) ….
SC: Indeed you could draw such lines. But what is evident to me is that the Great Giza Circle i.e. the theoretical circle that precisely encloses all
the Gizamids within said circle by connecting the three most outer pyramid points of the Giza pyramid field should be taken seriously. Unless, of
course, you happen to consider that the Sphinx somehow magically happens to find itself sitting precisely on the very edge of that (theoretical)
circle is simple happenstance. And to add to all of this, we find the Sphinx is ALSO aligned precisely midway between the 'Lehner Line' (the
precession axis). Coincidence? Not on your life! This is evidence of intentional design.
Now, as stated, the Sphinx (the so-called 'Place of the First Time' - from the Dream Stellae), is quite different from the Pyramids but is somehow
'connected' to them – this is to repeat the fact the Sphinx is aligned precisely midway along the 'Lehner Line'. Also, the Sphinx is carved
from the physical bedrock of the plateau and, therefore, is not easily removed. This is important because as a 'point of origin' for the
intersections across the precession axis (Lehner Line) you want this point to be seen as 'anchored' – the 'anchor point'. Now, if we look at
this intentional (albeit theoretical) circle, we see that there are only TWO POINTS that are beyond the timeline (precession axis) i.e. when we draw a
line to these points from the anchor point (the Sphinx) they will intersect the precession axis at a specific point along the timeline.
So, by using the theoretical circle and the theoretical precession axis in conjunction with an anchor point (the Sphinx), we find that there are not
really a lot of options – only the two points beyond the precession timeline. There may, of course, be others but I contend that these points on
the circle are the most obvious and what was intended.
That the intersection points correspond with a significant past date and (perhaps) a significant future date I find quite remarkable. All the more so
given that the second intersection point of the timeline corresponds with the Mayan date for the end of their Fifth Sun – a date that converts to
the Christian calendar date of c.2,012CE.
Byrd: There's no reason for the ancient Egyptians to be concerned about 2012, when a far greater concern to them was the final conquest of
Egypt by Alexander the Great, the conquest of Egypt by Rome following the death of Cleopatra VII, the invasion of the Sea People, the breakdown of
Egypt during the First Intermediate period (200 + years after the building of the main structures of Giza), the Hyksos invasion (capturing Egypt)
about a thousand years after Giza, the fracturing of the Kingdom and the rise of the Nubian kings, the Assyrian invasion... and so forth.
Those are things they would have wanted their people warned about (and droughts and some of the plagues that swept through the area).
SC: Regardless of what you say, I am merely pointing out here that the Gizamids can be shown to present two significant dates. Is there anything more
to this – I don't know. But the dates ARE there so – as I have said elsewhere in this thread - make of it what you will.
Byrd: The idea that the designers of Giza would ignore important events relating to the land (or global ones like world wars) to encode a
prediction involving a calendar that wouldn't be created for almost 3,000 years (by a civilization that failed to predict its own collapse) -- a flag
that would promote a concept created within the past 40 years doesn't seem to make much sense.
SC: I hope I have explained enough above for you to realise that the AEs (at least their ancestors) did not need the Mayan calendar to come to the
same moment in space and time – a time that is equivalent in the Christian calendat of c.2,012CE. As for predicting future events – our culture
is obsessed with charting and predicting the arrival of infrequent celestial visitors (Halley's Comet and so forth). Our civilisation is presently
charting the imminent arrival of the small red planet, Sedna, to our neighbourhood which, interestingly, has an orbit that corresponds very well with
the duration between the two dates in the precessional axis – some 11,712 years. If our civilisation is interested in such activity, why wouldn't
the ancients have been, especially so when the heavens would have been much more of a mystery to them?