Mayan 2012 Date Corroborated by Ancient Egyptians

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

Hans: so you have fallen for my clever trap have you, muhahaha, so Scot you agree then. What it is measured in is immaterial. Therefore the length of the line is also immaterial...correct? ....we'll come back to that.

SC: Well you did not come back to it, Hans, so allow me to do so. Regardless of your rather pathetic attempt here to redeem yourself from a rather obvious faux pas by inferring you had set some “clever trap”, I doubt it will wash with many reading this. Let me reiterate once again – so that we are absolutely clear – the UNIT OF MEASURE (of the 'Lehner Line) is immaterial. The line, however, represents half of one precessional cycle (min to max culmination) which is around 12,960 years. THIS is what is important. It does not matter if we look at a small scale plan of the line where the line is only 264mm long or a much larger plan where the line is 2217 Royal Cubits long because e.g. halfway along either line represents the SAME DATE as does ANY fractional position along either line.

By way of example, imagine you have an analog clock with no numbers on the display – the clock hands just go round and round. Pretty meaningless. However, suddenly you realise that you want to set the clock's alarm to waken you at 7am the next day. Suddenly everything changes. Is this a 12 hour or 24 hour clock? Is it a decimal clock? Think about it, Hans. Think. And once you have done that then come back and tell me that “the length of the line is immaterial”. Got it yet? Sheesh!

SC: The Earth's polar axis will change to another location. It has occurred in the past and there is little reason why such cannot occur again.

Hans: So if that doesn't happen on 2012 does that mean your idea is falsified ...

SC: Quit the mixing of messages here. I am saying the Gizamids can (in a logical and systematic fashion) be shown to indicate the date 2012 CE, a date that the Mayan calendar also indicates as the end of the Fifth Sun. I am saying NOTHING more than this. Yes, I am saying that my OTHER research leads me to conclude that the shafts of the Great Pyramid indicate that the Earth's polar axis shifted by some 6.5*. Is this related to my current research; are these connected? I honestly have no idea. It is YOU that is jumping to conclusions here and making connections, not I. I have said – time and again now - “make of it what you will”. There's little point in shooting the messenger.

Hans: Predicting something that will happen at some point in the future is terrible predictive? Kinda of a waste of time.

SC: Perhaps. Perhaps not. No one is forcing you to accept my findings or to draw any conclusions from them, are they?

Hans: So lets say the guys-who-aren't-Atlanteans want to send (for whatever reason) a message to the future. What would work better. Sent a single "hard copy" plan that requires massive building thousands of years after the hard copy is produced - in a society that doesn't even exist yet - you just hope it will develop that capacity to built.

You also hope they will built it, not screw it up and that in thousands of years until somebody smart enough comes along who can see its AND hope that nature or man doesn't take out some critical part of it? Would you say that was the plan?

SC: Regardless of your skepticism here, Hans, the one thing I can clearly demonstrate to you is that the structures at Giza conform to a unified design based upon Orion's belt and its 2 culminations. As such then it is not unreasonable to take the view that there is a much larger purpose involved.

Hans: Why not use pottery, and make zillions of them and spread them across the entire planet, place them on top of inaccessible mountains, place them with radioactives so they will be detected, put them everywhere. Have on it a representation of the start and stop date and the line with an indication of what will happen. Take a look Scot at the type of detail you can be put into pottery. A lot easier than your idea don't you think? Virtually impossible to destroy all of them and the point of the exercise is shown in full color.

SC: Not quite zillions (whatever that is) but the GP alone contains somewhere in the region of 2,300,000 blocks, all combining to construct a monumental precessional clock that no one on Earth could ever remove. One earthquake and your zillions (whatever that is) of pots are smashed asunder. If I remember correctly, the Great Pyramids survived at least one major quake and probably many, many more. That's the kinda 'pottery' you REALLY need.

Hans: Ah I see Madam Byrd posted at the same time, so I'm deleting some of the same materials

SC: I guess someone has to come in and try and save your ass.

SC: There is no doubt in my mind about this.

Hans: Yet again we remind you that is of no importance. Except for publicly stating, once again, that your mind is closed to any evidence against your idea.

SC: “Closed to any evidence against [my] idea.” Care to cite such? Are we talking about the Hall of Ma'at again. Hans? If so then once again, let me offer you some advice, Hans – don't get yourself into something you haven't a snowball's chance in hell of ever finishing.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 12/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


So we agree the lenght of the line is immaterial - since the units can be of any size - therefore you don't need massive construction taking many years to build. So no need for your massive construction, no need at all. Right Scott?

Yep caught you Scott. So all the information you say is there in that massive construction can be put into a piece of pottery 20 centimeters in lenght.

A square plate will not smash asunder Scott and if you have zillions of them who cares if a few are smashed? A far superior plan to yours which has mulitiple points of failure. Plus few earth quakes cover the entire planet. Well at least in my world.

The pyramids don't show the date of 2012 Scott. What you have is an invented line that doesn't actually exist which you think you found. What you believe is an indicator along 5/6th part of the line means '2012' - that is all. As point out that indicator is meaningless unless you can show the 3114 BC date too - but you cannot.

So again

Hans: So if that doesn't happen on 2012 does that mean your idea is falsified

Is this correct or not - I mean if you don't believe in your own research let us know. Saying you beleive in something completely then saying you don't kinda sents mixed messages eh?

SC: ..... I can clearly demonstrate to you is that the structures at Giza conform to a unified design based upon Orion's belt and its 2 culminations.

Hans: In your self admitted non-scientific mind, yes, all things are possible

One earthquake and your zillions (whatever that is) of pots are smashed asunder.

Hans: Not if they spread world wide Scott something your plan doesn't account for Zillions is a fun word I made up for millions, see I can make up stuff too!

SC: I guess someone has to come in and try and save your ass.

LOL, but Scott you're the one that has admitted that the actual lenght of your line is unimportant. Thereby causing a problem - why go thru all this construction? The information you say needs to be transmitted could be done on 20 centimeter pieces of pottery, or 25 or 15 cm. So why all the nonsense about the pyramids?

SC: “Closed to any evidence against [my] idea.” Care to cite such? Are we talking about the Hall of Ma'at again. Hans? If so then once again, let me offer you some advice, Hans – don't get yourself into something you haven't a snowball's chance in hell of ever finishing.

Hans: You just said you

SC: There is no doubt in my mind about this

Hans: So would you accept information against it?

Hans: Perhaps we should reverse it and throw it back at you. Why don't you, in all those threads over at the HoM point to the individual post where you proved your theory? What is good for the goose is good for the gander eh? But we are discussing the failure of your idea here. So what is more logical zillions of 20 cm pottery plates or one massive construction?? Be honest now.

I rather like the pottery idea - unless of course your non-Atlantean guys didn't have any pottery - which would explain no sherds....

HANS: Why not use pottery, and make zillions of them and spread them across the entire planet, place them on top of inaccessible mountains, place them with radioactives so they will be detected, put them everywhere. Have on it a representation of the start and stop date and the line with an indication of what will happen. Take a look Scot at the type of detail you can be put into pottery. A lot easier than your idea don't you think? Virtually impossible to destroy all of them and the point of the exercise is shown in full color.

This is quite frankly one of the dumber comments I've yet read in this forum. Does anyone honestly think the Pharaohs, or any ancient rulers, would have sought to preserve their mighty legacy in the cast-off shards of pottery - as opposed to the erection of imposing monuments? They could never have conceived of a long-off future where a profession such as archeology would be able to reconstruct time lines and attempt to piece together the puzzle of history from such detritus. They were building for their own generation, as well. Can you imagine Pharaoh impressing his followers (or for that matter, Hittites, Nubians, Sumerians, Akkadians) with his "fields of pottery shards"? I especially liked the "radioactive" pottery shards, that ought to keep away those pesky pottery-shard robbers.

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).

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.

Scott is making a case that the Giza plateau is a timeline of celestial events in particular to those pertaining to the precessional cycle of the earth. In fact Scott, would I be incorrect in thinking your theory is analogous to the way an orrery (a mechanical model of the solar system) "predicts" the movement of the planets about the sun? Or the way Stonehenge "predicts" solstices? Why then, Byrd, would you invoke the idea that any astronomical timeline encoded into the arrangement of the Giza plateau would be focused on predicting future events of mankind's making? That is the domain of astrology, of seers, and psychics and all that fluff. 2012 is a noteworthy event from a purely astronomical aspect, the alignment of the solstice with the galactic equator, and an event that would likely be deemed worthy of noting.

If true, it would seem the AE (or their forebears) were demonstrating their ability to grasp complex mathematical concepts and their understanding of the celestial sphere.

Why then, Byrd, would you invoke the idea that any astronomical timeline encoded into the arrangement of the Giza plateau would be focused on predicting future events of mankind's making?

Because, as it seems to me, he is trying to discredit Scott's theory by purposely not "grasping" the point Scott is trying to make.

Byrd starts talking about future predictions of mankind disasters aka "prophecy blabla" to make Scott's theory sound ridiculous because of a lack of arguments against it, while in fact the whole thing is not at all about it.
It's a kind of calendar, simple.

Hans throws in pottery and here we go ...

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

HANS: Why not use pottery, and make zillions of them and spread them across the entire planet, place them on top of inaccessible mountains, place them with radioactives so they will be detected, put them everywhere. Have on it a representation of the start and stop date and the line with an indication of what will happen. Take a look Scot at the type of detail you can be put into pottery. A lot easier than your idea don't you think? Virtually impossible to destroy all of them and the point of the exercise is shown in full color.

This is quite frankly one of the dumber comments I've yet read in this forum. Does anyone honestly think the Pharaohs, or any ancient rulers, would have sought to preserve their mighty legacy in the cast-off shards of pottery - as opposed to the erection of imposing monuments?

We actually have piles of "ostrika"; fragments of limestone and pottery and so forth where they did their calculations. While you are correct that stone monuments are more durable, civilizations put important ideas and concepts into pottery as well (think of the lovely Greek pottery... I don't know how familiar you are with American pottery (Olmec, Aztec, etc,) so I won't refer to them.)

So it was a common practice in the ancient world. His question "why didn't the ancients do this" is reasonable, don't you think?

They could never have conceived of a long-off future where a profession such as archeology would be able to reconstruct time lines and attempt to piece together the puzzle of history from such detritus. They were building for their own generation, as well. Can you imagine Pharaoh impressing his followers (or for that matter, Hittites, Nubians, Sumerians, Akkadians) with his "fields of pottery shards"? I especially liked the "radioactive" pottery shards, that ought to keep away those pesky pottery-shard robbers.

I think we all agree on that -- the question being asked of Scott was: "if the idea is true, then why didn't they make a lot of cultural references to it (there are lots of references to mystery religions and other "secrets") and if it was from a Highly Advanced Civilization (one of Scott's theories -- although the details change frequently), then why didn't they place important ideas (such as the Ankytheria mechanism) around so that they are clearly and distinctly visible?"

Scott is making a case that the Giza plateau is a timeline of celestial events in particular to those pertaining to the precessional cycle of the earth.

But it's not terribly accurate. The Mayans and Greeks and others who encoded this (literate civilizations) also left us their instruments and writings and calculations. The idea of spending 100 or more years (and incalculable wealth) in building something to reflect a precession of stars that weren't a major part of the religion and culture seems very off-kilter.

If that is what they meant and if it had been important to them, it would have been part of the Book of the Underworld, shown in paintings and texts on the walls of tombs, and on coffins. Instead we have very little mention of Orion/Sah (and it was seen as two constellations, no tone) in the occasional pyramid text... and their maps of the heavens were ... well... "inaccurate".

Why then, Byrd, would you invoke the idea that any astronomical timeline encoded into the arranrgement of the Giza plateau would be focused on predicting future events of mankind's making?

Because in his post he used the Giza evidence to also say that Sedna was going to come near the Earth in 2012. Scott's Giza Idea is unfortunately mutable and changes frequently in response to criticism or new concepts (some of which are not well checked out.) In the one I was responding to he apparently read some Planet X stuff that someone had linked to Sedna and was trying to incorporate that into his ideas without checking further.

2012 is a noteworthy event from a purely astronomical aspect, the alignment of the solstice with the galactic equator, and an event that would likely be deemed worthy of noting.

I don't think you'd find many astronomers (pro or amateur) who would agree with that.

The rising sun is always aligned with the galactic equator, though the date of the alignment advances slowly. If you do the math, you'll see that it's been aligned with the winter solstice for about the past 20 years (divide the precession of the equinoxes (26,000 years) by our 365 day year.) You will see that the sun and galactic center are aligned on each particular day for about 60+ years.

Originally posted by Byrd
But it's not terribly accurate. The Mayans and Greeks and others who encoded this (literate civilizations) also left us their instruments and writings and calculations. The idea of spending 100 or more years (and incalculable wealth) in building something to reflect a precession of stars that weren't a major part of the religion and culture seems very off-kilter.

If that is what they meant and if it had been important to them, it would have been part of the Book of the Underworld, shown in paintings and texts on the walls of tombs, and on coffins. Instead we have very little mention of Orion/Sah (and it was seen as two constellations, no tone) in the occasional pyramid text... and their maps of the heavens were ... well... "inaccurate".

Not if they didn't build it in the first place and IMHO I think they did not.

This is quite frankly one of the dumber comments I've yet read in this forum. Does anyone honestly think the Pharaohs, or any ancient rulers, would have sought to preserve their mighty legacy in the cast-off shards of pottery

In your rush to be a critic you missed the main point. Its in regards to the guys-who-are-not-Atlanteans, the folks Scott believes set all this stuff up and the Egyptians implemented. It not an idea the Egyptian kings would have done as they cared little for nations outside their own.

The pottery would be a completely superior idea to convey an idea to the future while the pyramid one is fraught with dangers and just not being completed.

The pottery would be a completely superior idea to convey an idea to the future while the pyramid one is fraught with dangers and just not being completed.

I'm afraid the ones rushing to be critics of Mr. Creightons theory are you Hans, and Byrd. You both appear to be using rather illogical arguments to pick away at his ideas. For instance, Hans, If you wanted to ridicule the idea of using monuments to convey a message then why would the Egyptians have bothered carving massive obelisks? Surely, by your argument, strewing pottery shards about would have been far more effective? Would have prevented alterations by succeeding Pharaohs as well. But they didn't, they wasted their time quarrying, sculpting, and moving massive stone blocks.

Stonehenge is another example of "why build big"? when surely a much smaller layout could just as easily have worked. Yet, they didn't...

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

SC: This is completely meaningless. How exactly do you present 3-dimensional objects in space on a 2-dimensional plane? Float pyramids in the air? Is that what you are suggesting? The designers of this scheme have done a pretty darn good job of transposing 3-D space to the 2-D plane of Giza.

Byrd: They got it backwards, and they didn't put in the other stars.

SC: Complete nonsense and misinformation to boot. Why are you misinforming people with this disinformation? You are propagating the very same disinformation first propagated by one Ed Krupp. Are you aware that Krupp’s own wife when asked to draw the belt stars on a piece of paper she placed Mintaka to the top of the paper when her own husband was arguing that Mintaka should be placed at the bottom of the page!? Looking at the belt stars and drawing them on paper (as we observe them at the meridian i.e. due south) we naturally place Mintaka to the top of our page, vis-à-vis:



As for the other stars – you are perhaps confusing my work with that of Robert Bauval’s. I have NEVER claimed anywhere that any other stars of the Orion constellation are involved. ONLY the belt stars for only these are needed for us to be able to identify the belt triad.

Byrd: And you have to manipulate the photo a bit to get the stars in the right spot... and it's only for current conditions. We can do a better job with modern star maps -- so if you're postulating this is an "ancient designer" and that they were far more sophisticated than us, you have to show that their design is better.

SC: Current conditions? The Belt stars of the Orion constellation exhibit very little in the way of proper motion. They look pretty much the same to us today as they would have looked to the ancients c.10,500 BCE. And I’m not saying that the ancients were more sophisticated than us, so please desist from attributing such ideas to me. If you look back in my posts over the years you will find that I have said that the ancients understood the motions of the stars, could navigate the seas and understood maths and geodesy. I do NOT claim anywhere that they had atomic weapons, iPods, 4x4s, Antikythera devices or anything we might otherwise attribute to an advanced technological civilisation. Hope we are now clear on that.

Byrd: For instance, that the apexes of the pyramids also show the relative positions in 3-D space (they don't.)

SC: The three apexes of the Gizamids do not match the Belt Stars perfectly because the apex of the centre pyramid was moved from the original plan i.e. from the Giza-Orion Blueprint. But what is absolutely clear is that the ancients knew precisely (relative to the other two belt stars) where the middle star/pyramid apex (Al Nilam/G2 centre) SHOULD be placed on the plateau. How do I know they knew the true position of the centre star/G2 centre?

Simple - draw a circle around the three outer points of the Giza pyramid field (the very same circle which magically finds the Sphinx’s rear end sitting precisely on its perimeter) and find the centre of this circle, Now, what do you think the centre of this circle represents? Yes, you got it – the centre of the middle star, Al Nilam, vis-à-vis:




So why then, you ask, did the Designers of this scheme decide to move G2 from the Giza-Orion Blueprint?

Perhaps simply to demonstrate this:





It may ALSO be that by forcing us to ask WHY this offset of G2 from the ‘Lehner Line’ was made, the Designers of this blueprint are in fact drawing our attention to the ‘Lehner Line’ itself , forcing us to ask questions about it – leading us forward.

The underlying design imperative of the Gizamids is, undoubtedly, Orion’s Belt. Period.

SC: The belt stars are presented at minimum culmination via the 3 horizontal Queens Pyramids of Menkaure

Byrd: ...but they don't match up to the alignment of the stars.

SC: Their base dimensions match as has been shown numerous times to you now – here again. And, there are perfectly reasonable reasons to explain the G2 offset from the ‘Lehner Line’ – see above.

SC: If we consider the three lines in the diagrams above as horizon indicators then this scheme tells us that the three queens of Menkare are symbolic of the three stars as the stars set on the horizon.

Byrd: They actually don't appear to be part of his pyramid complex.

SC: But are, indeed, part of the original Giza-Orion Blueprint. How Menkaure decided to utilise them or otherwise is entirely his concern.

SC: I don't recall Tungaska 'moving the heavens' (i.e. tilting the Earth). It remains my view that the shafts of the Great Pyramid demonstrate a 6.5* shift of the Earth's polar axis. Such an event would surely have imprinted itself upon the minds of generations.

Byrd: Do you have any evidence to support this other than "it remains my view"?

SC: I can cite only the eye-witness accounts from some of our most ancient texts that tell us in quite clear terms that the Earth’s axis shifted:

”And in those days, Noah saw the Earth had tilted and that its destruction was near.” - (Book of Noah 65.1)

Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. - (Book of Isaiah 24:1, 24:20)

Byrd: Are we talking sudden shift? Gradual shift? It sounds like you're talking a "sudden shift"... but I'm not sure that you have correctly calculated the physics of such a shift.

SC: From the ancient texts, it seems that the tilt was fairly rapid. As for the physics, read the paper of Dr Barbiero. A relatively small asteroid can induce a tilt of the Earth’s polar access: On the Possibility of Instantaneous Shifts of the Poles

Byrd: And I don't think you understand the scale of "stellar body." Stars aren't points of light -- they're sun-sized objects,...

SC: When I gaze at the night sky I don't see sun-sized objects – I see points of light. That's most likely also what the ancients saw.

Byrd: In that section you were talking about "stellar bodies" (i.e., stars) near or in the solar system …

SC: Okay – my bad for omitting to say “inter-stellar” bodies, i.e. bodies from outwith our neighbourhood. Hope that’s clearer for you.

Continued....



[edit on 13/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Byrd


Continued from Previous....

Byrd: ….the largest of which are hundreds of times larger than our own sun. One of them heading for us would be hard to miss (unless you were blind) -- in fact, by now it would be as bright as our own sun. The only way it could "sneak up on us" for 2012 is for it to be equipped with warp drive.

SC: Who said anything about an object “as bright as our own sun” that would “...sneak up on us...”? You seem to have the impression that only a massive object can cause the Earth to alter its polar axis. Not so. A relatively small asteroid can do it.

Byrd: You were referring to "stellar bodies" in that section of the discussion, Scott.

SC: See above – hope it’s now clearer.

Byrd: Any "stellar body" (sun) is a bright shining object. And the impact of an object on a moving object is to change the direction of the object. While massive earthquakes can affect the tilt of the Earth very slightly, anything that moves it a full six degrees is going to leave a lot of geological evidence.

SC: Yes – and arguments about the geological evidence rage on even today. Geologists used to assume that the features of the Channeled Scablands of the American Northwest took tens of thousands of years to create, if not, hundreds of thousands. They were in fact created in a single day by the collapse of the Glacial Lake Missoula ice dam. What other natural geological features around the world might also have been misinterpreted in this way?

SC: We're not talking about “cumulations” in space. We're talking about “culminations” on the horizon as observed from 30*N latitude of the Earth.

Byrd: How did they know it was a culmination of anything? That implies a long period of observation.

SC: The AEs tell us in their own texts that their civilisation is tens of thousands of years older than conventional Egyptology attributes to it. Long periods of observation would have been possible.

SC: And if we want to register/record time greater than 1 year? We have to create an arbitrary “line in the sand” e.g. the birth of some deity or other and keep counting the years. Precession gives us a longer-term natural calendar for the measurement/recording of long periods of time – 12,960 Earth suns.

Byrd: Actually, it's 25,765 years. (full (and probably boring) details here: 2012wiki.com...)

SC: Based ONLY on the present rate of precession. Precession waxes and wanes over the years. Thousands of years ago it was slower (gradually increasing over time) thus the 25,765 would be greater. Indeed, our present star-mapping programmes are reasonably accurate and predict that the culmination of the Belt Stars takes place c.2,500 CE. If we use this as a more accurately calculated (modern) projected date for the max culmination and work BACKWARDS to the intersection point on the ‘Lehner Line’ (Orion precession axis), we STILL cross over the timeline at c.2,012CE. So, it seems the ancients understood forward precession pretty well.

Byrd: Could you show me where the ancestors of the AE's had accurate observatories?

SC: I think Stonehenge, Newgrange, Nabta Playa all predate the pyramids. Who knows – there may have been many more such megalithic 'observatories' around the Earth that have long since fallen into ruin. All that's needed are two poles in the ground to register an alignment with a star on the horizon. It's not complicated.

Byrd: That would be "no (and not by Egyptians)", "yes but not by Egyptians", and "yes, but you can't determine precession from it." They're not accurate observatories by Egyptian ancestors.

SC: What this clearly demonstrates is that the ancients were watching the heavens. Indeed, they were clearly watching Orion’s Belt. You don’t need a sophisticated observatory – you just make alignments with two poles to a particular star as it sets or rises, record these and do the same again over a long period of time. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy!

SC: The Sphinx was evidently (according to archaeologist, Colin Reader) in place BEFORE the Gizamids.

Byrd: He's a geologist. Not an archaeologist. en.wikipedia.org...

SC: I stand corrected.

Byrd: I'd trust him to know how to find out the composition of sediments and geologic layers…

SC: Well that’s good because he also said this:

” Under the conventional sequence of development, "Khafre's" causeway (and the Sphinx), were undeveloped at the time of Khufu's quarrying. If this sequence is correct, why should the extent of the quarrying have been limited by a feature (the causeway) that was not developed until sometime after Khufu's reign? The conventional sequence of development requires us to accept that Khufu's workmen went to the trouble of opening up a second quarry to the south of the causeway, rather than remove a linear body of rock which, at the time, served no apparent purpose. […] When considered in terms of the hydrology of the site, the distribution of degradation within the Sphinx enclosure indicates that the excavation of the Sphinx and the original construction of the Sphinx temple, pre-date Khufu's early Fourth Dynasty development at Giza. The spatial relationships between "Khafre's" causeway, the Sphinx and Khufu's quarries provides additional evidence that the causeway and the Sphinx were constructed some time before Khufu's quarrying began. “

Khufu Knew the Sphinx

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 13/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by frankensence

You both appear to be using rather illogical arguments to pick away at his ideas. For instance, Hans, If you wanted to ridicule the idea of using monuments to convey a message then why would the Egyptians have bothered carving massive obelisks?

Hans: I'm afraid you don't understand. The Egyptians were 'publishing' for their own folks, their own people and their own time. Scotts idea is that some unknown and unevidenced civilization had decided to send forward some sort of message to the 'future'. He also feels that having other people built large monuments with no clear message would be the best way. I hold if such a civilization existed my idea is completely superior.

Stonehenge is another example of "why build big"? when surely a much smaller layout could just as easily have worked. Yet, they didn't...

Hans: Again AFAWK they had no intention to leaving a 'message' to the future.

Had the guys in the prior unknown civilization made the pottery messages the messages would have survived as at least a few would have survived and also shown that they in fact, existed - any maybe even communicated what they heck they wanted to leave a message about. Something missing from Scotts idea.

To recap the pottery idea has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Egyptians.



[edit on 13/10/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Byrd


Hello Byrd,

SC: Now, as stated, the Sphinx (the so-called 'Place of the First Time' - from the Dream Stellae)

Byrd: Minor correction, here... the Dream Stele does not say that the Sphynx is the "place of the first time" but does indicate that the Giza plateau is.

SC: That's a matter of interpretation. I take the view that the very location of the Dream Stellae i.e. between the paws of the Sphinx is doing what precisely it says its doing – marking the place of the First Time.

Byrd: Scott, it's not interpretation. If you can read the stelae, it very CLEARLY says that the Giza plateau is the "place of the first time." Not the sphynx.

SC: I stand by my interpretation. The Stellae/Sphinx mark a unique point on the circle - the anchor or callibrating point from which the other two points beyond the timeline (Lehner Line) are connected.

SC: The name “Kepher-Ra” but not in a cartouche. Just curious - why would the writers of this stellae – some thousand years after the reign of its alleged builder, Khafre – not place the name of the King within a cartouche which was clearly in use by the reign of Khafre?

Kepher-ra is a god, not a pharaoh. Pharaoh's names were put in cartouches during the time of Sneferu and replaced the earlier serekh (god house.) The names of gods are followed by a determinative sign that means 'god' (and often preceeded by a sign indicating a standard or flag.) If you look at a picture of the stelae, the king's name is in the cartouche.

en.wikipedia.org...:ReproductionOfDreamSteleOfThutmoseIV-CloseUp_RosicrucianEgyptianMuseum.png

(reading right to left we have the Golden Horus name (that I can't make out), "nesu-bity" (king of upper and lower Egypt) followed by the year of his reign and Menkepherure (his throne name) Thutmose (nomen), both in cartouches)

The god's name is on the second line, preceeded by the designator for "male deity"... very badly worn but can be seen here if you know what you're looking at:
heartofthebear.com...&CC.JPG

SC: Thanks for the clarification.

SC: The AEs of the 4th Dynasty implemented a plan. They scaled-up a plan using a center line or grid method. It's really not that difficult and you do not require line of sight for the entire plateau. It has been shown that such simple methods could have worked to create the Nazca lines. No big shakes here.

Byrd: Except that a) you have to be able to make accurate maps and b) the Nazca lines are all line of sight (very flat area.)

SC: You only need the poles in a grid to be line of sight – not the entire plateau. This is very do-able – as, in fact, the structures that delineate the ‘Lehner Line’ actually proves.

SC: 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.

Byrd: When did Sedna leave its orbital path and why aren't amateur astronomers everywhere excited about this?
(snip)

SC: Offered only as an example to show how little we know of 'what's out there'. Sedna was discovered only 7 years ago! What else might we have missed?


Uhmmm... no. You didn't offer it as that. You stated that Sedna is coming to our section of the solar system in 2012 and indicated it was related to your diagrams.

SC: No – THIS is what I said: “…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.

This does not say “…our section of the solar system in 2,012…” You were claiming that the AEs had little or no interest in the heavens or of charting the motions of heavenly bodies. I was demonstrating to you that this is something WE do (and used Sedna as an example) so why wouldn't our forebears?

Now, do you know the effects this planetoid (Sedna) will have on the asteroids within the Kuiper belt as it passes by at (or close to) its perihelion?

SC: I think it is also obvious to everyone reading this that the two dates presented (c.9,700BCE & c.2,012CE) are 'notable' dates. Is it all just one big coinicidence?

I sincerely hope so.

Byrd: It is. Sedna isn't coming towards Earth.

SC: It DOESN’T HAVE TO. The gravitational effect of Sedna on the Kuiper belt when it reaches perihelion (or close to perihelion) could potentially turn our neighbourhood into a shooting gallery. This is but one possibility. The work of Dr Paul LaViolette argues that the core of our galaxy enters an explosive phase every 10-13k years. The cosmic blast from this will have asteroids from the Oort Cloud as well as the Kuiper belt acting like a billiard table. And one might just have Earth's name on it. And, as I have shown you already, it only takes a relatively small asteroid to shift the Earth to a new polar axis.

The ‘Lehner Line’ is clearly NO COINCIDENCE. The Great Giza Circle with the Sphinx sitting right on the perimeter is clearly NO COINCIDENCE. The Giza-Orion Blueprint is clearly NO COINCIDENCE. The 2 sets of Queens demonstrating the 2 Culminations of the belt stars is NO COINCIDENCE. And yet when we put these various pieces together to try and make sense of them it is all just one big coincidence to you? Well, you can bury your head in the sand if you wish but I’m sure you won’t mind too much if I don't join you.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 13/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


I've noted that your images switch perspective making it difficult to understand. In particular
Scott Sacharczyt's diagram goes one way, with Menkaure at the SW

The next diagram rotates the pyramids so Menkaure is at the NE

This makes it difficult to see what you are talking about. I would suggest you put the two into one. So we can see how your off set claim works. As near as I can tell is that the 'correction' is in the wrong direction but I'm sure you can correct that with a properly built diagram.

I can cite only the eye-witness accounts from some of our most ancient texts that tell us in quite clear terms that the Earth’s axis shifted

Then why isn't this confirmed in the magnetic orientation of of lava flows? Or are you claiming the earth 'tipped' and the magnetic pole stayed the same? To people on earth the world wouldn't look 'tilted'. Did the Chinese or any one else note this?

Byrd: Scott, it's not interpretation. If you can read the stelae, it very CLEARLY says that the Giza plateau is the "place of the first time." Not the sphynx.

SC: I stand by my interpretation. The Stellae/Sphinx mark a unique point on the circle - the anchor or callibrating point from which the other two points beyond the timeline (Lehner Line) are connected.

So Scott why don't you show us the translation of the stelae and show us how Byrd is wrong? Also those lines of yours can easily come from the top of the great pyramid or pretty much anywhere you want as long as they touch the line where you want them to touch? Why does it have to come from the stelae?

Gee Scott could you show us something on the Giza plateau that IS a coincidence - since you feel nothing there can possible be one. or is it a coincidence free zone? LOL

Scott could you list the assumptions you need to make to arrive at...well whatever it is you think the circle says or the line. How many assumptions for someone to get to the message - which you yourself cannot determine.

Possibility doesn't mean plausibility Scott.

So Scott explain to me why the guys-who-weren't-Atlanteans would use your highly complex method, full of possible natural or man made fail points instead of the simple pottery route. Why would anyone?




[edit on 13/10/09 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Hanslune
So Scott explain to me why the guys-who-weren't-Atlanteans would use your highly complex method, full of possible natural or man made fail points instead of the simple pottery route. Why would anyone?

Hans,
I've already gone you one better:

Why would they leave such a record at all? A record of ... what?

A record that they knew the approximate date when we could all look forward to dying a horrible death as the Earth rolls over?

Why? To mock us?

Please, the entire basis is complete and total baloney. Even if the 2012 date had any significance (and it doesn't,) what's the point of leaving this message (although there really isn't one)?

Harte

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

I've noted that your images switch perspective making it difficult to understand. In particular Scott Sacharczyt's diagram goes one way, with Menkaure at the SW

The next diagram rotates the pyramids so Menkaure is at the NE

This makes it difficult to see what you are talking about. I would suggest you put the two into one. So we can see how your off set claim works. As near as I can tell is that the 'correction' is in the wrong direction but I'm sure you can correct that with a properly built diagram.

SC: I do try – when I remember – to place a North indicator in my drawings. I can't, however speak for others. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is the most northerly of the three main Gizamids so if you keep this in mind it will help you keep orientation. Hope this helps.

SC: I can cite only the eye-witness accounts from some of our most ancient texts that tell us in quite clear terms that the Earth’s axis shifted

Hans: Then why isn't this confirmed in the magnetic orientation of of lava flows?

SC: Is it not? Can you present the paper that CONCLUSIVELY demonstrates this - I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Byrd: Scott, it's not interpretation. If you can read the stelae, it very CLEARLY says that the Giza plateau is the "place of the first time." Not the sphynx.

SC: I stand by my interpretation. The Stellae/Sphinx mark a unique point on the circle - the anchor or callibrating point from which the other two points beyond the timeline (Lehner Line) are connected.

Hans: So Scott why don't you show us the translation of the stelae and show us how Byrd is wrong?

SC: Byrd has a good memory but, so far as I can see, not a particularly logical mind. Follow the logic, Hans. The Lehner Line (i.e. the precession axis timeline) is intended. No question. The 4-point Great Giza Circle is, without doubt, ALSO intended. The 2 culminations of Orion's belt (the start and end of the half-precession cycle) as depicted by the 2 sets of Queens is fully intended. It stands to reason - and simple logic - that there HAS to be a calibration point, an anchor point, a point of origin for the purposes of determining the times indicated along the precessional axis, the timeline. What's the most striking feature/monument on the Giza plateau that is not like any other feature, that is unique, that stands out? Why, of course, the Sphinx. The Stellae that stands between the paws of the Sphinx tells us that “this is the place of the First Time' - i.e. the START TIME, the point of origin. I could be wrong here – my instinct, however, tells me I'm on the right track.

Hans: Also those lines of yours can easily come from the top of the great pyramid or pretty much anywhere you want as long as they touch the line where you want them to touch? Why does it have to come from the stelae?

SC: Not the Stellae – the Sphinx! The Stellae merely corroborates the Sphinx as the point of origin, the callibration point from whence to 'mark time'. The Sphinx stands as the single most unique point in the Giza Pyramid field. It is the most obvious point to anchor the 'time pendulum'.

Hans: Gee Scott could you show us something on the Giza plateau that IS a coincidence -

SC: Why should I? That's YOUR job, is it not?

Hans: Scott could you list the assumptions you need to make to arrive at...well whatever it is you think the circle says or the line. How many assumptions for someone to get to the message - which you yourself cannot determine.

SC: Assumptions? Well – let's look at those. Am I assuming there is a (theoretical) near 45* line delineated at Giza by the placement of a number of structures there? No – it's FACT. Am I assuming that there is a theoretical circle that touches 4 significant points (thereby HAS to be intentional)? No, - it's a FACT? Am I assuming that the belt stars of the Orion constellation can define the base dimensions and placement of the Gizamids? No – it's a FACT. Am I assuming that the 2 sets of Queens depict the 2 culminations of the Belt Stars? No – it's a FACT. Am I assuming that the designers knew where the centre (apparently misaligned) 'star' (Al Nilam) should have been placed on the ground at Giza? No – it's FACT.

For someone who is presenting a lot of FACTS I find it somewhat surprising that you claim I am assuming anything!

Hans: Possibility doesn't mean plausibility Scott.

SC: We're not, however, dealing with possibilities here – we're dealing with FACTS.

Hans: So Scott explain to me why the guys-who-weren't-Atlanteans would use your highly complex method, full of possible natural or man made fail points instead of the simple pottery route. Why would anyone?

SC; Hans – seriously – you must be completely potty (no pun intended) if you think this idea is even remotely viable. Where oh where to begin?

Okay – point one. You suggested making zillions of pots (I presume with some depiction of the Belt Stars/Giza-Orion Blueprint??) and distributing these all over the ancient world , tops of mountains and so forth, bla, bla, bla - yes?

Wrong. The message is of an astronomical/mathematical nature and will ONLY make sense at 30*N latitude. Furthermore, this 'calendar' requires physical structures to be aligned to a particular star on a particular date i.e. to have physical structures embeded in the ground permanently aligned to 212* azimuth, 30*N latitude. Somehow I don't think the last surviving wee pot (after all them earthquakes, wars, invasions, vandalism bla, bla) on Zahi's bedside cabinet depicting the belt stars will quite have the desired effect or indeed even remotely impart what we need to be told. Especially if it is not even orientated to 212* azimuth! And what if he lives in Alexandira. This is too much! I feel a fever coming on!

Oh but wait - on second thoughts I suppose the builders could actually have constructed 3 giant POTS at Giza rather than 3 giant PYRAMIDS? That might work! Is this perhaps what you are suggesting? And I'm sure that if there were only three of your giant pots standing at Giza as opposed to zillions of baby pots then people would kinda get the idea that these pots were kinda important and meant something. Afterall, zillions of baby pots lying all over the place will just kinda look like some passing fad that has gone out of fashion at Toys 'R' Us.

PS – When I refer to 'baby pots' I mean 'small pots' and not those pots what babies do their poo in. Hope that's cleared things up.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune
So Scott explain to me why the guys-who-weren't-Atlanteans would use your highly complex method, full of possible natural or man made fail points instead of the simple pottery route. Why would anyone?

Hans,
I've already gone you one better:

Why would they leave such a record at all? A record of ... what?

A record that they knew the approximate date when we could all look forward to dying a horrible death as the Earth rolls over?

Why? To mock us?

Please, the entire basis is complete and total baloney. Even if the 2012 date had any significance (and it doesn't,) what's the point of leaving this message (although there really isn't one)?

Harte

You are exactly right Harte

In my mind its all nonsense.

My exercise with Scott and Pottery is to show Scott - closed mind and all.

That if this made up civilization existed there would have been an easier and better way to send a message to the future ...and one that would actually work, LOL

SC: I do try – when I remember – to place a North indicator in my drawings. I can't, however speak for others. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is the most northerly of the three main Gizamids so if you keep this in mind it will help you keep orientation. Hope this helps.

Hans: It would appear Scott that you are deliberately using different orientation of the maps to confuse people. You might want to relook that map. It’s like you don’t want people to really understand-just believe what you tell them. I suggest again you put your idea into a readily understandable format because as near as I can tell with your poorly presented maps what you say happens doesn’t. Show me please that I’m wrong.

SC: Is it not? Can you present the paper that CONCLUSIVELY demonstrates this - I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Hans: Ah I see I’ve caught you again making stuff up – so Scott how many people would write papers saying – yep all the recent lava flows show no events of polar shift, you must be joking, oh wait you’ve already claimed you don’t use the scientific method, so you are serious- Lets see your peer reviewed publication that supports your idea of a pole shift in last say the 3,000 years? 10,000? Got any? Anything conclusively (however I wouldn’t use that word-that show desperation)


Hans: So Scott why don't you show us the translation of the stelae and show us how Byrd is wrong?

SC: Byrd has a good memory but, so far as I can see, not a particularly logical mind. Follow the logic,

Hans: You were asked to produce a transcript of what the stele says, not more of your verbiage, we really want to see what the the stele has to say? Understand? Produce what the stele says Scott.

SC: Not the Stellae – the Sphinx! The Stellae merely corroborates the Sphinx as the point of origin, the callibration point from whence to 'mark time'.

Hans: So why can’t it come from the great pyramid – I mean you’re drawing lines on a map with no regards to what is on the ground plus you haven’t shown that point to be evidenced yet – now have you? You doing the magical fringe thing of thinking: ‘I want it to be’, ‘maybe’, ‘I think so’, ‘is so’, ‘fact’

The Sphinx stands as the single most unique point in the Giza Pyramid field. It is the most obvious point to anchor the 'time pendulum'.

Hans: No it isn’t that just your un-evidenced opinion – right Scott?
Hans: Gee Scott could you show us something on the Giza plateau that IS a coincidence -

SC: Why should I? That's YOUR job, is it not?

Hans: All that you mentioned –next, isn’t it odd that there are no coincidences on such a large area – oh wait you claim everything is for a purpose – show us a coincidence Scott? Are there any?

SC: Assumptions? Well – let's look at those. Am I assuming there is a (theoretical) near 45* line delineated at Giza by the placement of a number of structures there? No – it's FACT.

Hans: No such line exists except in your mind Scott there is nothing physical on the ground (the line) just points on a map which run thru and next to constructions, and they don’t line up exactly do they now?

Am I assuming that there is a theoretical circle that touches 4 significant points (thereby HAS to be intentional)? No, - it's a FACT?

Hans: Only you seem to think they are important while in fact they are not – if it was important why isn’t there a stone circle? Any one can draw a circle around dots on a map - it doesn't mean it has any importance.

Am I assuming that the belt stars of the Orion constellation can define the base dimensions and placement of the Gizamids? No – it's a FACT.

Hans: Nope they are slightly off-how’d they do on magnitude?

Am I assuming that the 2 sets of Queens depict the 2 culminations of the Belt Stars? No – it's a FACT.

Hans: Just an un-evidenced assumption on your part. You might want to look at the structure of the Mokattam Plateau – can you see any reason why they’d put the queens there?


Hans: Assumptions: There was some civilization we don’t know about NO FACTS, They were advanced enough to know special things NO FACTS, They decided to send us a message NO FACTS. They created a message and sent it down thru thousands of years to the Egyptians NO FACTS. Shall I continue Scott?

Possibility doesn't mean plausibility Scott.

SC: We're not, however, dealing with possibilities here – we're dealing with FACTS.

Hans: Ah I see you don’t understand the difference between possibility and facts, that is really sad Scott. Only in your mind Scott – in some cases there are set ups that do exist but you then assign them meaning for which their is no evidence they mean that. Those aren’t facts Scott. Think about it for awhile. A line is line – it isn’t a linear calendar without more evidence

Okay – point one. You suggested making zillions of pots

Hans WRONG LOL, who said pots Scott? I know your good at making up stuff but gee you just have to read what I said. I said P O T T E R Y, look up in a dictionary for the difference. I imagine a brick about 20 by 20 by 6 cm thick. A good size for building (where they would survive)

(I presume with some depiction of the Belt Stars/Giza-Orion Blueprint??) and distributing these all over the ancient world , tops of mountains and so forth, bla, bla, bla - yes?

Hans: It would show the world, their location, a time line and different versions of the message could be made so that in every 5* latitude the effect can be noted corrected- again pointing to the planet. However I find the Orion thing to be very clunky – I’ll look for something more scientific which we can use to date the message ...besides the pottery itself which would show its baking time-if the future people had that dating technology of course. But our guys in the past we’re making up were really smart.

You see Scot I came up with this idea last night while you’ve been staring at dots on maps for what five years? My idea is better in all aspects.

The time line would then move from that with the time points you want with a depiction of what you are warning about. Except no 2012, I mean these guys are made up but gee the guys I made up aren’t nuts like the guys you made up.

Wrong. The message is of an astronomical/mathematical nature and will ONLY make sense at 30*N latitude.

Hans: Wrong again Scott see above, you really need to learn how to think outside the box. Are you saying the imaginary civilization couldn't adjust for other areas? They were morons?

Furthermore, this 'calendar' requires physical structures to be aligned to a particular star on a particular date i.e.

Hans: Wrong again Scott, you need to open your mind to an easier and more manageable method to send a message from the past – one that would actually work. Remember even you admit that the system you’ve made up leaves no actual message. A fatal error.

to have physical structures embeded in the ground permanently aligned to 212* azimuth, 30*N latitude.

Hans: Wrong yet again Scott, you need to open your eyes to other answers instead of staying with your old stale and failed ideas. If they use a pottery message they don't need those old fashion orthodox building, all the information is right before them - with pictures - you got pictures?

Somehow I don't think the last surviving wee pot (after all them earthquakes, wars, invasions, vandalism bla, bla) on Zahi's bedside cabinet depicting the belt stars will quite have the desired effect or indeed even remotely impart what we need to be told.

Hans: Man Scott you got it wrong again, LOL you really cannot think for yourself can you? Try Scott to imagine something outside of your ego....

Especially if it is not even orientated to 212* azimuth! And what if he lives in Alexandira. This is too much! I feel a fever coming on!

Hans: Need I say it again, wrong, LOL What about all the pottery bricks all over the world? What about those Scott?

Oh but wait - on second thoughts I suppose the builders could actually have constructed 3 giant POTS at Giza rather than 3 giant PYRAMIDS?

Hans: Still showing how you don’t understand a new idea, LOL
So Scott millions of pottery bricks would survive – we’d know where the civilization was, we had definite dates, we’d have a time line and representation of what they were warning us about. You got what exactly?

So this time Scot try and reference what I really wrote instead of what you made up and explain to me why your system, which provides no actual answers and is incredibly complex is in any way superior to zillions of pottery bricks which are not only datable but show what is going to happen. My bricks don’t require fits of imagination and shows what they are trying to warn us about and hey, since we’re making stuff let make them out of ceramic with a hint of radioactivity.

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

I will keep this brief.

SC: I do try – when I remember – to place a North indicator in my drawings. I can't, however speak for others. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is the most northerly of the three main Gizamids so if you keep this in mind it will help you keep orientation. Hope this helps.

Hans: It would appear Scott that you are deliberately using different orientation of the maps to confuse people.

SC: Careful now, Hans. You don’t want to be going down the road of making unfounded allegations again, now do you?

Hans: You might want to relook that map. It’s like you don’t want people to really understand-just believe what you tell them. I suggest again you put your idea into a readily understandable format because as near as I can tell with your poorly presented maps what you say happens doesn’t. Show me please that I’m wrong.

SC: You want ME to show you that you’re wrong? I really don’t have to – you do a pretty good job of that all on your own. Look through this thread, Hans. Why do you think it is that there are other people posting in this thread who totally understand the orientations of the various drawings presented? Why is it only YOU that is having a problem with this?

Now - since you are doubting the veracity of my work and hinting at scurrilous motives on my part then it has now become abundantly clear that there is little I will be able to say or do here to convince you of the authenticity of my findings. So, on that basis, the only acceptable way forward I can see is that you obtain a copy of the hi-resolution Giza Plateau Mapping Project map of Giza yourself and see if you can (or cannot) replicate my findings. Satisfy yourself of the veracity of my claims because it’s as clear as crystal that nothing I say here will convince you.

Now, if you find that I have misled anyone with any of my drawings/presentations then by all means come back and show us this with your own findings. Then I will stand corrected and will review my theories with a view to removing them completely. I can’t say fairer than that now, can I? So let’s see it, Hans. You are claiming that my drawings are deliberately confusing, the clear inference being that I am attempting to mislead people. Well, Hans - it is up to you to demonstrate how this is so. Prove my findings are deliberately confusing and hiding something I allegedly "...don't want people to really understand..." with your own findings. What exactly is it that I am 'hiding', Hans, that I "...don't want people to really understand..."? Let's see it. Put up or shut up.

[snip] (Irrelevant twaddle. We’re not discussing what YOU would have done. We’re discussing what the AEs DID).

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 14/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Hans: You might want to relook that map. It’s like you don’t want people to really understand-just believe what you tell them. I suggest again you put your idea into a readily understandable format because as near as I can tell with your poorly presented maps what you say happens doesn’t. Show me please that I’m wrong.

SC: You want ME to show you that you’re wrong? I really don’t have to – you do a pretty good job of that all on your own. Look through this thread, Hans. Why do you think it is that there are other people posting in this thread who totally understand the orientations of the various drawings presented? Why is it only YOU that is having a problem with this?

What a joke.

Scott, why is it that you believe that "only" Hans has a "problem" with your convoluted, nonsensical scheme of an ancient advanced civilization that sent us a "message" that says nothing to "warn" us of something that is not going to happen which, if it did, a warning would serve no purpose other than to validate that the ancient civilization knew something was coming?

Please. You cite the "others" that seem to "totally understand" your Rube Goldberg warning device. Do you account for people, such as myself, that simply dismiss what you "think" (if that's the proper word for it) without comment?

The posters here that seem to "totally understand" your claptrap are the same ones that "totally understand" how the establishment has "supressed" knowledge of the Dropa Stones, humans living with dinosaurs, alien intervention creating human beings, fossils of hominid giants, Egyptian temples in the Grand Canyon, the Reptilian takeover of humanity, the face on Mars and the reality of Faeries and Gnomes!

Is this really how you want to have your "work" validated?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Now - since you are doubting the veracity of my work and hinting at scurrilous motives on my part then it has now become abundantly clear that there is little I will be able to say or do here to convince you of the authenticity of my findings. So, on that basis, the only acceptable way forward I can see is that you obtain a copy of the hi-resolution Giza Plateau Mapping Project map of Giza yourself and see if you can (or cannot) replicate my findings.

In other words, draw a line that connects a handful of points that Hans can choose from a multitude of available points and then see if a circle can be made that incorporates a handful of other points that Hans can also choose from a multitude of available points?

It would be astonishing if such a method did not result in a number of different "predictions" left for us to divine from the ancient unknown advanced civilization which left no evidence of itself other than "alignments" of structures build by subsequent "non-advanced" normal people.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Hello Harte,

SC: Now - since you are doubting the veracity of my work and hinting at scurrilous motives on my part then it has now become abundantly clear that there is little I will be able to say or do here to convince you of the authenticity of my findings. So, on that basis, the only acceptable way forward I can see is that you obtain a copy of the hi-resolution Giza Plateau Mapping Project map of Giza yourself and see if you can (or cannot) replicate my findings.

Harte: In other words, draw a line that connects a handful of points that Hans can choose from a multitude of available points and then see if a circle can be made that incorporates a handful of other points that Hans can also choose from a multitude of available points?

SC: No. That is NOT what I am asking of Hans. Read my post again.

Regards,

Scott Creighton