Mayan 2012 Date Corroborated by Ancient Egyptians

Click here for more information.

So much blah blah blah,

with a little bit a real science thrown in, and the real science is ignored for "fairy tales"



Heres my take on the discussion with out going into mythical messages incorporated into construction projects that took hundreds of years to complete.



First the mayan didnt invent their calender, it was in use by the olmec and has its roots in much older mesoamerican cultures.
The mythical cycle of destruction and rebirth, is a metaphor for actual historic events that these people had no way to describe, like the impact of a celestial body, in north america.


got to go back to work ill finish this later.

reply to post by Scott Creighton

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

Hans: Never made one, I’m asking you to clarify your position in particualr your images, that okkie dokkie with you Scott? You must mean about my observation that your theory was not accepted and dismissed at the Hall of Ma'at? LOL

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.

Hans: Its confusing with the orientation changing from image to image, that is a FACT, LOL

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?

Hans: I’m the only one willing to waste the time to challenge you on this, plus its a recommendation to IMPROVE your presentation – unless you think switching orientation somehow helps you? Does it?

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.

Hans: Try putting all your images into a common orientation – that would be nice, I for one would thank you.

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.

Hans: No thanks I’ll leave that to you Your images switch orientation, they are confusing. It would be helpful if they had a common orientation - don't your agree?

Satisfy yourself of the veracity of my claims because it’s as clear as crystal that nothing I say here will convince you.

Hans: Odd you don’t want to make your claims clear Scott? Why is that? We are talking images, orientation, confusion not what you are talking about - images-orientation Scott stay focused please.

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.

Hans: I will continue to comment that you seemly want to confuse people with your constant switching of orientation – why not just come up with a common orientation Scott....there problem solved? I cannot understand why you won't do that?

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?

Hans: Nope your the dude trying to sell this stuff, I’ve made an observation and suggestion, if you don’t want to do it then I will continue to find your images confusing and mis-oriented, and will say so in the future

So let’s see it, Hans. You are claiming that my drawings are deliberately confusing,

Hans: Are they? Did you do it deliberately? If so they are confusing. Fix it Einstein and the problem goes away. Don't fix and the problem remains ...understand now? LOL

the clear inference being that I am attempting to mislead people.

Hans: By failing to correct the images then yes you WANT to confuse people, why not put them into a common orientation? Is there some reason why you wouldn’t?

Well, Hans - it is up to you to demonstrate how this is so.

Hans: LOL you want me to do your job? Why?

Prove my findings are deliberately confusing and hiding something I allegedly "...don't want people to really understand..." with your own findings.

Hans: Since you want people to remain confused that seems to send a message – what is that message Scott? If one is orientated north and one south - isn't that confusing?

What exactly is it that I am 'hiding', Hans, that I "...don't want people to really understand..."?

Hans: Obviously what you are trying to sell

Let's see it. Put up or shut up.

Hans: Let's see it. Put up or shut up. That is you job Scott....now to fun things. Translation of the stele you say says one thing and Byrd another, please “Put up or shut up.” As you nicely say.

Not to forget that inscription you've been looking for for 2 1/2 years...man that thing is hard to find isn't it!

So Scott we will now assume you have accepted that my pottery idea is completely superior to your long drawn out, open to failure Giza plan which offers no communication of what the whole thing is about – mine dones.

So I guess you have to go back and stare at the dots on a map again. I would recommend you look at the Giza plateaus as the AE saw it-from ground level.

By the way Scott where was the granite model of the Giza Plateau for the 7,000 years before it dropped on Imhotep in a dream? LOL

reply to post by punkinworks


Howdy Punkinworks

Well you are most correct

2012 is a non event. The Egyptian wouldn't have marked an event they didn't know about from a calendar that was yet to be invented.

I think Scott's contention is if you find a line somewhere that has points on it and 85% along that line (asmusing the line equals 1/2 of the variable precession it will come up with 2012). Yep bab bab baba. I agree with you Punkinwork.

However I'm most pleased with myself in coming up with a completely workable way to communicate to the future ideas and times that is workable versus Scott's unworkable scheme.

But of course my idea wasn't use and is completely made up.......something I easily admit but Scott cannot.

reply to post by Harte


Howdy Harte

What I was suggesting to old Scott was that he take four of his images and instead of switching from N to S orientation while viewing them he make them all one orientation. He seems to have take umbrage to this suggestion. One wonders why.....

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Harte

 

Howdy Harte

What I was suggesting to old Scott was that he take four of his images and instead of switching from N to S orientation while viewing them he make them all one orientation. He seems to have take umbrage to this suggestion. One wonders why.....

Well, I for one don't care if he does.

I'm never clicking on another link that guy posts. His stuff is too confusing for me.

I think it's the way the orientations are always changing around.

I wonder if he does that on purpose?

Harte

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Thanks for the info Scott.... S&F just for giving hans something to ponder.

I agree with the theme here.

As for questioning motivation, the Sumer tablets offer insight. There was a worldwide spiritual revival after this "wormwood" event which lasted for over 1,000 years. I read that in another thread here.

It seems people were more in tune with serving humanity after one of these events. Of course as the worlds population grew, corruption and greed once again became the order of the day.


wanted to add this link earth-history/sumer/cley-tabletsfor another perspective on those times.

Context: 5 other copies of the Antediluvian king list are known only: MS 3175, 2 in Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, one is similar to this list, containing 10 kings and 6 cities, the other is a big clay cylinder of the Sumerian king list, on which the kings before the flood form the first section, and has the same 8 kings in the same 5 cities as the present.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by win 52]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by win 52]



[edit on 16-10-2009 by win 52]

Sorry to take so long to reply. Busy week.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Why are you misinforming people with this disinformation? You are propagating the very same disinformation first propagated by one Ed Krupp.

Never heard of him. I do, however, have maps of the Giza plateau and I can see Orion out my window. The easternmost belt star is the lowest (most southerly), but the easternmost Giza pyramid is the highest (most northerly.)

That's not a match.

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.

Don't think I am. I was pointing out a weakness that you're correlating with something the Egyptians saw as part a constellation (and that Orion was actually two constellations.) It's like building a sacred monument using only three of the stars in Scorpio.

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.

Have we now gone from "accurate data" to "sorta fuzzy data"? There is some difference, and all the people who believe in various Orion theories generally acknowledge this.

And I’m not saying that the ancients were more sophisticated than us, so please desist from attributing such ideas to me.

I was talking about that "ancient untraceable civilization" that you say handed down the ideas to the Egyptians.

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

Uhm... you announced an exact correlation with 2012 in the title here. You get all excited about precessions and 3.14. Now you are suddenly saying that the construction crew moved things around and goofed up what the Ancient Unnamed Planners planned?

And the apexes? Scott, I was referring to the relative distances within the galaxy... One of those stars in the belt is closer than the others... so the heights should keep the same relative distance -- if the Ancient Unnamed Planners knew all this stuff.

Or have you changed your mind and decided these are not artifacts of a super-advanced civilization. That was your theory at one time.

How do I know they knew the true position of the centre star/G2 centre?

...but you just told me that they didn't follow the plan right (see above.)

Simple - draw a circle around the three outer points of the Giza pyramid field...

You and a lot of others keep drawing circles around the Giza pyramid area, coming up with different answers and different meanings each time. I think it detracts from the credibility of every "this is it" circle out there.

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

Perhaps simply to demonstrate this:

Okay... (checking scorecard here)
* the Giza pyramids don't really line up with Orion or match the sizes.
* it's all the fault of the people who made it who changed the blueprint
* but wait - they may have made the contractors change the blueprint (whether before, during, or late in the 100 year construction phase isn't said).
* and the deliberate mistakes are due to the Lehner Line... which isn't present in the stellar alignment (since stars are large and fuzzy and don't have nice square edges (or round ones) to align things with (and two of the belt stars actually have companion stars.
* but the mistakes are supposed to lead to other questions.
* and they didn't leave any documentation or legends to support any of this.

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.

So it's a case of "they're part of this because I say so?" Someone just told the three pharaohs to build mini-pyramids all around and the ones that fit inside the circle are "the blueprint"?

That's really hard to believe.

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)

I think you have a highly biased translation. Other versions give it as "sunk" or "sunken low." In addition, it's not an eyewitness account nor is it that ancient (the Egyptian writings are much older.)

As to Isaiah, that's a prophecy... not an eyewitness report. Something like an astronomical report from the Chinese and a confirming one from the Babylonians would be better (and older)

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:

"Polar access?" The Earth doesn't have a polar access. And as to Barberio's paper, he seems awfully uninformed about the paleontology of the Siberian area. And about glaciers. I'm not going to go into a point-by-point discussion of his paper (we could do it elsewhere) but there's a lot that he hasn't bothered to look into that severely corrupts his conclusions.

There's a lot of problems with the physics that is presumed.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Continued from Previous....

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?

Not the same thing, Scott. Impact events are very different than outflow events.

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.

Which texts? And where are the star records?

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.

Solar systems run on physics. Precession doesn't wax and wane. If you have a huge event (the formation of the moon (planetary impact theory) or Chixilub meteor strike) then yes, the precession can change... and will change to a new fixed parameter.

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.

Okay... now we're back to the star-understanding Ancients who are not the Egyptians but went around leaving building plans that are right but wrong to draw attention to things? I'm finding that quite a stretch.

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.

Yes, but doesn't say to what degree of sophistication. That was my question. I know of a lot of sun markers that are precise (and some are Egyptian) ... but they don't measure precession, 2012, or anything other than sun's rising.

Indeed, they were clearly watching Orion’s Belt.

And not Sirius, whose rising signaled the beginning of the rainy season? Really? What are you using to bolster this argument BESIDES drawing lines and circles on Giza?

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.

Dat's archaeology. I should know; I studied it. Dat ain't geology. I studied that, too. Reader's a geologist and knows as much about archaeology as I do about tensor analysis (I can pronounce it, I can set a few things up, but if your tensors need analyzing you need to talk to a mathemetician.)

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

I think Reader has changed his mind. His more recent paper on this says:

There does exist, therefore, a clear mechanism by which the pattern and nature of the degradation within the Sphinx enclosure can be interpreted in terms of an Early Dynastic date ...
source: www.ianlawton.com...

So he apparently supports the Khufu done it theory. There's some rigorously *NICE* geological commentary in the above paper; much to like about the methodology and critique no matter which side you're on.

I did, however, have to add...

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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.

So... you're saying the scribes who set up the Dream Stelae (which you use for evidence) are actually illiterate and don't know the difference between writing "this is the place of the first time" and "this is the spot of the first time?" Having read some of their work, I find this hard to believe, personally.

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.

And I said basically, "no it does not" (reference: en.wikipedia.org...) Nor are we charting the "imminent arrival".

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?

Lack of good instrumentation and lack of advanced calculus.

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?

..which will be, I note, 2074-2077 or so. Since Sedna did not suddenly pop into existence the minute we spotted it, it will have the same effect it has had for the past 5 billion years. It apparently had some problems in the first billion years or so, but it's all physics.

Excellent posts Byrd

Ed Krupp is an astronomer. He led some of the early debunking of the Orion belt. His brother Don is the bane of the Mars fringe world.

I've found the date for the precession of 25,771. It does seem to have different estimates. This would make it difficult to come up with a fixed time line if the time line itself cannot be fixed!

Sedna, 2012? Ah Scott it's not necessary to include every known fringe theory into your idea. You don't need a 'fringe idea of everything'.

Oh and one last comment on my (if I say so myself) brilliant pottery brick idea. I've decided to call it.

S Superior
C Cultural
O Organization
T Telling us about
T Threats

So in the future I'll just mention SCOTT. Many thanks to Mr. Creighton for being the inspiration for this fab idea.

One problem with my idea - no such items have been found. So it would seem that my very doable idea was not done.....that damn unknown civilization was a bunch of maroons it would seem : ]




[edit on 17/10/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Byrd


Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your constructive and well considered reply.

SC: Why are you misinforming people with this disinformation? You are propagating the very same disinformation first propagated by one Ed Krupp.

Never heard of him. I do, however, have maps of the Giza plateau and I can see Orion out my window. The easternmost belt star is the lowest (most southerly), but the easternmost Giza pyramid is the highest (most northerly.)

That's not a match.

SC: How can you possibly observe Orion’s Belt on the meridian by looking north? You MUST look SOUTH. You cannot observe the belt stars at otherwise. So, LOOKING DUE SOUTH across the Giza plateau (in line with the centre star of Orion and the Centre Pyramid of Khafre), the Great Pyramid is to your left and corresponds with its stellar equivalent, Al Nitak which is to the left of the centre stars and Menkaure’s Pyramid is to your right, corresponding to Mintaka which is to the right of the centre star, vis-à-vis this illustration:



Remember also, the AEs viewed South as ‘Up’. You simply CANNOT view this any other way – looking due north you will NEVER see the belt stars.

SC: 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: Don't think I am. I was pointing out a weakness that you're correlating with something the Egyptians saw as part a constellation (and that Orion was actually two constellations.) It's like building a sacred monument using only three of the stars in Scorpio.

SC: They used of the constellation what they needed to use – why construct 7 massive pyramids to represent the 7 main stars when simply using the belts stars (the ‘Crown’) is enough to allow us to recognise the stars they are using, especially so when they also provide the fail-safe information of demonstrating the 2 culminations of their 3 ‘chosen stars’ via the placement of the 2 sets of so-called ‘Queens Pyramids’. It would be near impossible to demonstrate the culminations of the entire constellation whereas the belt stars form at neat horizontal and vertical alignment at their culminations. Why give yourself more work than you need to?

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.

Byrd: Have we now gone from "accurate data" to "sorta fuzzy data"? There is some difference, and all the people who believe in various Orion theories generally acknowledge this.

SC: I cannot speak for what other Orion theorists are saying – I can only speak for the FACTS. Look at the two examples below and tell me if you see any appreciable difference in the spatial distances or angles between the three stars? Notice also that there is some significant proper motion of other stars around the belt stars but the spatial distances and angles between the belt stars is virtually identical i.e. there is very little appreciable difference and certainly zero difference to naked-eye observation.

SC: And I’m not saying that the ancients were more sophisticated than us, so please desist from attributing such ideas to me.

Byrd: I was talking about that "ancient untraceable civilization" that you say handed down the ideas to the Egyptians.

SC: If we cannot attribute such knowledge to the AEs of the Dynastic Period then, it stands to reason, that the precessional knowledge exhibited at Giza came from their descendents. “Untraceable” perhaps because Egyptology barely considers this civilisation beyond the Archaic Period.

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

Uhm... you announced an exact correlation with 2012 in the title here. You get all excited about precessions and 3.14. Now you are suddenly saying that the construction crew moved things around and goofed up what the Ancient Unnamed Planners planned?

SC: And is it also your opinion that they “goofed up” in aligning the GP to the cardinal directions by a minuscule amount? Or is the intention of what they were trying to do patently obvious? And I am categorically NOT saying the builders of Giza “goofed up”. They followed the Designers plan to the best of their ability. If G2 is offset from its correct position then that is because the DESIGNERS of this plan made it so. And the Designers of the plan offset G2 from it true position for 2 very good reasons:

1) To align G2/G3 to Mintaka as it set close to the SW horizon at 212° azimuth at minimum culmination. Were G2 to have been placed at its true (Al Nilam) centre on the plateau it could not then align with G3 centre to the star Mintaka at 212* azimuth (min culmination).

2) To demonstrate this:








And by demonstrating G2’s offset from this line (i.e. the Lehner Line) actually serves to draw our attention to that line and to ask – “Why?”

Byrd: And the apexes? Scott, I was referring to the relative distances within the galaxy... One of those stars in the belt is closer than the others... so the heights should keep the same relative distance -- if the Ancient Unnamed Planners knew all this stuff.

SC: What nonsense! Are you suggesting the Designers were inter-galactic space aliens or something? Incredible! How would the Designers of this scheme (i.e. the ancestors of the AEs) even remotely know what you are suggesting here. The could see points of light in the sky and they watched how those points of light moved across the sky and they did so over time. Your suggestion here is quite absurd.

Byrd: Or have you changed your mind and decided these are not artifacts of a super-advanced civilization. That was your theory at one time.

SC: Excuse me – my position here is quite clear. I have always argued that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Gizamids. I have argued also that the layout of the structures at Giza unequivocally exhibits precessional knowledge of the Orion Belt stars. So, there are two possibilities:

1) The ancestors of the Dynastic AEs could calculate and project precession, or –
2) The ancestors of the Dynastic AEs observed and recorded the motions of the stars over very long periods of time.

Where is the “super-advanced civilisation” you refer to?

SC: How do I know they knew the true position of the centre star/G2 centre?


Byrd: ...but you just told me that they didn't follow the plan right (see above.)

SC: The Designers are showing us (through the careful placement of the structures) that they knew the precise terrestrial location of Al Nilam centre relative to the other two centres of G1 & G3 (see diagram below, North to the top of the diagram):




Continued....

reply to post by Byrd

Continued from previous....
However, the DESINERS (NOT the Builders) decided to purposely offset G2 in their plan (the plan perhaps being a granite model) from its true (Al Nilam) centre. The Designers of the plan may have made this offset of G2 for the reasons I offered above. The Builders (i.e. the AEs of the 4th Dynasty) most likely got it right! They followed the plan as given to them and implemented it faithfully.

SC: Simple - draw a circle around the three outer points of the Giza pyramid field...


Byrd: You and a lot of others keep drawing circles around the Giza pyramid area, coming up with different answers and different meanings each time. I think it detracts from the credibility of every "this is it" circle out there.

SC: I’m not interested in circles others may have used – they have zero bearing on my hypothesis. I am interested ONLY in the IMPLIED circle at Giza. The circle I use makes use of three points that have a common factor – i.e. each point represents one of the three most outer points of the Giza pyramid field. When connecting these 3 ‘common’ with circle, thereby precisely encircling the Giza pyramid field within the circle, we magically find that the rear of the Sphinx sits right on the circle’s perimeter and that the centre of the circle (slightly offset from the centre of the middle pyramid, G2) finds the point on the ground where the centre star of Orion’s Belt would be placed (relative to the other two centres of G1 & G3). This implied circle is clearly intentional. If it is intentional then it stands to reason that it must serve some purpose that involves the pyramids and the Sphinx.

Byrd: Okay... (checking scorecard here)

the Giza pyramids don't really line up with Orion or match the sizes.

SC: They do. See above. And when you have done that, tell me that the Giza-Orion Blueprint is all just one big coincidence.

Byrd: * it's all the fault of the people who made it who changed the blueprint

SC: No one changed the blueprint – least of all the AE builders of the 4th Dynasty (see my comments above). The Designers of the plan (AT THE PLANNING STAGE) offset G2 from its true (Al Nilam) position – perhaps for the reasons I outlined above. However, what seems clear is that the Designers undoubtedly KNEW the true position as the diagrams above demonstrate).

Byrd: * but wait - they may have made the contractors change the blueprint (whether before, during, or late in the 100 year construction phase isn't said).

SC: No one changed the Blueprint. The Designers offset G2 – not the Builders.

Byrd: * and the deliberate mistakes are due to the Lehner Line... which isn't present in the stellar alignment (since stars are large and fuzzy and don't have nice square edges (or round ones) to align things with (and two of the belt stars actually have companion stars.

SC: There are no mistakes (other than those acceptable building tolerances). The ‘Lehner Line’ is a theoretical line observed by the good Dr Lehner. The Giza-Orion Blueprint shows us the underlying basis for the (theoretical) Lehner Line.

Byrd: * but the mistakes are supposed to lead to other questions.

SC: Again – the G2 offset (made by the Designers, NOT the builders) was perhaps done for the 2 reasons I suggest above. What is clear – as stated numerous times now – is that the Designers DID know G2’s true (Al Nilam) centre relative to the other two centres of G1 & G3. We know the Desiners knew the true (Al Nilam) centre for G2 so WHY did they decide to offset it? Conclusion – perhaps to draw our attention to the (theoretical) Lehner Line’, to make us ask the very questions we indeed are asking now.

Byrd: * and they didn't leave any documentation or legends to support any of this.

SC: The language being spoken is the language of math and astronomy. Were all of this written in some archaic language, we might never have understood it. The Designers most likely suspected that would happen. If I wrote the “diagonal of a square” in Scots Gaelic, it would take you some time to discern what was being said. If I drew the diagonal of a square, you would know immediately what was being conveyed even if Scots Gaelic was totally lost to us.

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: Which does nothing to change that fact that they are clearly part of the Giza-Orion Blueprint.

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

Byrd: So it's a case of "they're part of this because I say so?" Someone just told the three pharaohs to build mini-pyramids all around and the ones that fit inside the circle are "the blueprint"?

That's really hard to believe.

SC: The small pyramids convey the 2 culminations of the Belt stars. Without these we have no ‘precession clock’ and neither do we have a fail-safe means of determining the triad of stars the three main Gizamids represent. By demonstrating the precessional motion of their chosen triad of stars (i.e. Orion’s Belt) we simply cannot fail to identify the main Gizamids as Orion’s Belt since no other triad of stars culminates in the manner depicted by the so-called ‘Queen’s Pyramids’.

The Precession of Orion’s Queens.

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)

Byrd: I think you have a highly biased translation. Other versions give it as "sunk" or "sunken low." In addition, it's not an eyewitness account nor is it that ancient (the Egyptian writings are much older.)

SC: Which does not actually say that the translation I cited is wrong.

Byrd: As to Isaiah, that's a prophecy... not an eyewitness report.

SC: You have no way of knowing as FACT that this is a prophecy. And it is conceivable also that this might not be so much a prophecy as actually a predictable event to occur some time in the future.

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:

Byrd: "Polar access?" The Earth doesn't have a polar access.

SC: Freudian slip. Polar Axis.

Continued....

[edit on 17/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Byrd

Continued from previous....

Byrd: And as to Barberio's paper, he seems awfully uninformed about the paleontology of the Siberian area. And about glaciers. I'm not going to go into a point-by-point discussion of his paper (we could do it elsewhere) but there's a lot that he hasn't bothered to look into that severely corrupts his conclusions.

SC: Barbiero’s paper demonstrates how – with a very small asteroid – a dramatic and instantaneous shift of the Earth’s poles can occur. He demonstrates that it is not necessary for planetary collisions to bring about such dramatic, instantaneous pole shifts. The paleontological data is another question and in no way detracts from Dr Barbiero’s theoretical proposition.

Byrd: There's a lot of problems with the physics that is presumed.

SC: Specifically?

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?

Byrd: Not the same thing, Scott. Impact events are very different than outflow events.

SC; There IS a lot of geological evidence all over the world. My point via the Channelled Scablands reference was to demonstrate how geologists make serious errors in interpreting that evidence, assuming that a particular feature took tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years to form when, in fact, it was formed very rapidly (24 hrs). Now, an Earth tilt of around 6.5* triggered by an asteroid impact in one of the Earth’s oceans (as per Barbiero’s theory) would see a massive “outflow event” as the Earth’s ocean’s sloshed around in their basins.

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.

Byrd: Which texts? And where are the star records?

SC: The Edfu Building Texts tell us about the AE time of the Gods, the Demi-Gods, the Sages, the Shemsu-Hor and finally the mortal Kings. I’ve no idea where the star-records are – after c.30,000 years they are probably well lost.

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.

Byrd: Solar systems run on physics.

SC: Indeed.

Byrd: Precession doesn't wax and wane. If you have a huge event (the formation of the moon (planetary impact theory) or Chixilub meteor strike) then yes, the precession can change... and will change to a new fixed parameter.

SC: So can you tell us then why the rate of precession is presently INCREASING? And, if it is presently increasing this means (obviously) that in the past the rate was slower. Agreed?

SC: 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: Okay... now we're back to the star-understanding Ancients who are not the Egyptians but went around leaving building plans that are right but wrong to draw attention to things? I'm finding that quite a stretch.

SC: They are not the Egyptians of the 4th Dynasty – they are, however, most likely the ancestors of the AEs of the 4th Dynasty. And whether you find what is being presented “a stretch” it is nevertheless being presented in good faith. There may very well be NOTHING to this and I am the first to admit this. What I cannot ignore, however, is that we have an intentional circle, an intentional precession line, intentional placement of structures to depict the max and min culminations of the belt stars, an anchor point (the Sphinx) intentionally placed on the circle. All of these INTENDED features and we are to make NOTHING of it. Now THAT is what I call “a stretch”.

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.

Byrd: Yes, but doesn't say to what degree of sophistication. That was my question. I know of a lot of sun markers that are precise (and some are Egyptian) ... but they don't measure precession, 2012, or anything other than sun's rising.

SC: Hey – don’t shoot the messenger. The Giza structures clearly demonstrate the precessional unique moments of culminations (max & min) of Orion’s Belt. HOW the ancients managed this is an entirely different issue.

SC: Indeed, they were clearly watching Orion’s Belt.

Byrd: And not Sirius, whose rising signaled the beginning of the rainy season? Really? What are you using to bolster this argument BESIDES drawing lines and circles on Giza?

SC: Yes, Sirius too. Sirius allowed the AEs to predict the arrival of the Nile Flood. The AE used the stars to; predict’ the arrival of important events, floods being one of them. As for the lines and circles – I draw your attention to the (theoretical) ‘Lehner Line’ because it is clearly INTENTIONAL. If you do not accept this then try throwing 50 coins to ground and see how long it takes you to get 10 of those coins to align in a perfectly straight line at 45* from North. If you do not believe the circle I use is intentional then try throwing 5 coins to the ground and see if you can draw a circle precisely around 4 edges of the coins with the 5th coin lying bang on the centre of the circle. Trust me – you will be there a very, very long time trying to achieve this. That we find this occurs at Giza with so few structures is all the more remarkable.

Continued.....

reply to post by Byrd

Continued from previous....

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

“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.”

Byrd: I think Reader has changed his mind. His more recent paper on this says:

“There does exist, therefore, a clear mechanism by which the pattern and nature of the degradation within the Sphinx enclosure can be interpreted in terms of an Early Dynastic date ...
source: www.ianlawton.com... “

SC: I do not see how this shows that Reader has changed his mind that the Sphinx is older than its ascribed date by Egyptologists? An “Early Dynastic Date” could still mean a Pre-Khufu date (ergo a pre-Khafre date).

Byrd: So he apparently supports the Khufu done it theory.

SC: That’s not how I read the article.

Byrd: There's some rigorously *NICE* geological commentary in the above paper; much to like about the methodology and critique no matter which side you're on.

SC: Agreed.

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.

Byrd: So... you're saying the scribes who set up the Dream Stelae (which you use for evidence) are actually illiterate and don't know the difference between writing "this is the place of the first time" and "this is the spot of the first time?" Having read some of their work, I find this hard to believe, personally.

SC: You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion on the meaning of this text. The circle is clearly related to precessional time. It requires an anchor or calibration point – a point zero. This would naturally require to be a unique point (you cannot use a pyramid apex since there are simply too many at Giza to choose from thereby you can never know if you have chosen the correct anchor point), a point that does not have us guessing and a point that is marked with the word “TIME”.

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.

Byrd: And I said basically, "no it does not" (reference: en.wikipedia.org...) Nor are we charting the "imminent arrival".

SC: From you link:

“…its perihelion at about 76.16 AU….” In terms of our galaxy (let alone universe) 76.16AU is our ‘neighbourhood’.

“…Sedna's precise orbital period is not yet known, but it is calculated at between 10.5 and 12.0 thousand years….”

This is within the 11,712 years of the two precession time markers indicated along the ‘Lehner Line’ in my diagram.

If our civilisation was NOT charting Sedna’s arrival, you or I would not know any of the above.

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?

Lack of good instrumentation and lack of advanced calculus.

SC: And yet we both agree they charted the motion of Sirius over very long periods of time. If they did such with Sirius, I see no reason not to suppose that they (or their ancestors) could do likewise with other stars.

SC: 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?

Byrd: ..which will be, I note, 2074-2077 or so.

SC: Well that will depend on the length of Sedna’s true orbit which has not yet been accurately determined.

Byrd: … Since Sedna did not suddenly pop into existence the minute we spotted it, it will have the same effect it has had for the past 5 billion years. It apparently had some problems in the first billion years or so, but it's all physics.

SC: And the effect of its gravity on the Kuiper belt will also be the same. Sometimes it may cause an asteroid to head our way, sometimes not. The cycle, however, remains the same. The potential for an unwelcome visitor to Earth remains the same. As I said, however, no one can know precisely why these two dates are presented in this precession clock, if, indeed, they are dates. They may not be. The implied circle and line, however, are intentional and must serve some purpose.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Sedna
? what??????


How could sedna, the planet, not the inuit goddess of the sea,

fit into this discussion.

There is no way the ancient egyptians could have possibly infered the exsistance of the object and work out its orbit.
Not only did they not have the telescopes or mathematics for it. They were also missing the newtonian physics framework with which to apply the mathematics to the motions of the objects that they couldnt see, that would be required to infer the exsistence of any other objects they couldnt see.



I'll have to admit that in the process of writing this I have learned that the AE had at some point developed computational techniques that allowed them to calculate the volume of a truncated pryamid.
This derivation shows an understanding of integral calculas.
I am personally stunned by this.

I must study this further


Im still not buying the whole 2012 thing built into the giza complex

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: How can you possibly observe Orion’s Belt on the meridian by looking north? You MUST look SOUTH. You cannot observe the belt stars at otherwise.

Uhm... Scott.... I wasn't talking about the direction you look to see Orion. I was talking about how the stars appear when I look outside my window and see Orion. "North" refers to the "star that appears to be closer to Betelgeuse in relative position" or "the highest star."

I used N-S-E-W directions to make the point clearer.

So, LOOKING DUE SOUTH across the Giza plateau (in line with the centre star of Orion and the Centre Pyramid of Khafre), the Great Pyramid is to your left and corresponds with its stellar equivalent, Al Nitak which is to the left of the centre stars and Menkaure’s Pyramid is to your right, corresponding to Mintaka which is to the right of the centre star, vis-à-vis this illustration:

It doesn't. You've had to flip Orion graphically to do that.

SC: They used of the constellation what they needed to use – why construct 7 massive pyramids to represent the 7 main stars when simply using the belts stars (the ‘Crown’) is enough to allow us to recognise the stars they are using, especially so when they also provide the fail-safe information of demonstrating the 2 culminations of their 3 ‘chosen stars’ via the placement of the 2 sets of so-called ‘Queens Pyramids’. It would be near impossible to demonstrate the culminations of the entire constellation whereas the belt stars form at neat horizontal and vertical alignment at their culminations. Why give yourself more work than you need to?

Why not? They spent over 100 years building the main objects (pyramids) and graveyards, boat pits, tombs and so forth continued to be built for longer than that on the Giza pyramid site. Why stop at 3? They had the ability to build a full seven.

Secondly, you said at some point that they'd flubbed the plan and some of their measurements were off. What better way to show what they intended than to give the full constellation layout. Otherwise, people might mistake the 3 star layout for the tail of the Dipper (undying stars, which were important culturally to them) or the head of Hydra (which IS in the correct configuration)... and so on and so forth. So having those other stars would confirm which ones it was rather than being any old 3-set of stars in a rough line.

And why are there no temples or monuments showing the three stars?

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.

Just a point of curiosity... what's the source for your really cool graphic on stellar positions? I like to check on things and pretty pictures aren't terribly convincing to me. Math, however, is. But I think it'd be fun to have software that showed accurately stars of an earlier era, including when some of them showed up in the skies.

SC: If we cannot attribute such knowledge to the AEs of the Dynastic Period then, it stands to reason, that the precessional knowledge exhibited at Giza came from their descendents. “Untraceable” perhaps because Egyptology barely considers this civilisation beyond the Archaic Period.

You don't seem familiar with the digs of the pre-Dynastic sites, but they are there. What is NOT there is any sign that the AE's knew about precession (otherwise they'd have been very concerned about the Undying Stars and Tawret Who Measures The Heavens.)

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

Uhm... that wasn't my point. It doesn't matter where you move it, it's that the relative positions aren't right, either. You are looking at things in a 2 dimensional way. I was looking at it with x,y,z (3-dimensional) coordinates. So (east to west in the constellation Orion) Alnitak is 800 light years away, Alnilam is 1300 light years away, and Mintaka is 900 light years away. If the "lost civilization that knew so much about stars" meant Orion, why wasn't the pyramid of Khafre (center, represented by Alinilam) either the largest (meaning "farthest away") or smallest pyramid out there.

SC: And is it also your opinion that they “goofed up” in aligning the GP to the cardinal directions by a minuscule amount?

Nope. I'd say that they built them exactly where (and how) they wished them to be built (because if they hadn't, Heads Would Roll.)

And I am categorically NOT saying the builders of Giza “goofed up”. They followed the Designers plan to the best of their ability. If G2 is offset from its correct position then that is because the DESIGNERS of this plan made it so. And the Designers of the plan offset G2 from it true position for 2 very good reasons:

Okay... for those of us who look at the diagrams and go "meh... pictures are pretty but they don't explain", could you explain in plain English (NO diagrams) what you mean by "minimum cumulation."

And why would they pick 212 degrees other than "it makes your diagrams work out"?

And by demonstrating G2’s offset from this line (i.e. the Lehner Line) actually serves to draw our attention to that line and to ask – “Why?”

Actually, it inspires me to ask "what would you have seen in all directions when all the walls were intact AND the casing was on?" But that's just me. In other words, if you were standing in Khafre's pyramid complex with its walls, what would you have seen of the others?

SC: What nonsense! Are you suggesting the Designers were inter-galactic space aliens or something?

Well YOU did at one time. You also suggested that they knew something about Sedna and about 2012.

SC: Excuse me – my position here is quite clear. I have always argued that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Gizamids.

I could have sworn that your position when you first came here was that the pre-AE's constructed them and that you were a fan of the "much older" theory. Of course, I could be mistaken.

I have argued also that the layout of the structures at Giza unequivocally exhibits precessional knowledge of the Orion Belt stars. So, there are two possibilities:

1) The ancestors of the Dynastic AEs could calculate and project precession, or –
2) The ancestors of the Dynastic AEs observed and recorded the motions of the stars over very long periods of time.
Where is the “super-advanced civilisation” you refer to?

There's more possibilities than that. And you were the one referring to an advanced civilization that passed down a master plan (and apprently instructions to ignore it or not even attempt it for a very long time).

SC: The Designers are showing us (through the careful placement of the structures) that they knew the precise terrestrial location of Al Nilam centre relative to the other two centres of G1 & G3 (see diagram below, North to the top of the diagram)

...and didn't repeat it with the satellite pyramids that show the precession? So the work goes from "sloppy" or "deliberately wrong" to "totally wrong"?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd

 

Continued from previous....

SC: Barbiero’s paper demonstrates how – with a very small asteroid – a dramatic and instantaneous shift of the Earth’s poles can occur. He demonstrates that it is not necessary for planetary collisions to bring about such dramatic, instantaneous pole shifts. The paleontological data is another question and in no way detracts from Dr Barbiero’s theoretical proposition.

Yes, it does. A six degree shift completely disrupt ecosystems across the board. You'd have a large die-off of plants within a year or two, massive increase in CO2 and decrease in O2 plus earthquakes, volcanos, and tsunamis. You wouldn't have destruction of large omnivores (short-faced bear) while leaving others (grizzlies, brown bear, black bear) of the same size, range, and dietary features alive.

SC; There IS a lot of geological evidence all over the world.

I'll bite. What's the evidence for a meteor strike that hit so hard it knocks the Earth 6.5 degrees off tilt?

Now, an Earth tilt of around 6.5* triggered by an asteroid impact in one of the Earth’s oceans (as per Barbiero’s theory) would see a massive “outflow event” as the Earth’s ocean’s sloshed around in their basins.

So all the lands (like the Quaternerary Alluvial deposits of Texas) would be scrubbed away and Florida would have been stripped of all soil (and artifacts and other things). There would be no ancient horse teeth in Florida with the land gone... and yet there is (etc, etc, etc in long boring detail.)

SC: The Edfu Building Texts tell us about the AE time of the Gods, the Demi-Gods, the Sages, the Shemsu-Hor and finally the mortal Kings.

Scott... the temple at Edfu was built about 50 BC, after 3000 years of religious and information modification. The texts changed over time.

Byrd: Precession doesn't wax and wane. If you have a huge event (the formation of the moon (planetary impact theory) or Chixilub meteor strike) then yes, the precession can change... and will change to a new fixed parameter.

SC: So can you tell us then why the rate of precession is presently INCREASING? And, if it is presently increasing this means (obviously) that in the past the rate was slower. Agreed?

Erm... you said "waxing and waning". Not "increasing."

There may very well be NOTHING to this and I am the first to admit this. What I cannot ignore, however, is that we have an intentional circle, an intentional precession line, intentional placement of structures to depict the max and min culminations of the belt stars, an anchor point (the Sphinx) intentionally placed on the circle. All of these INTENDED features and we are to make NOTHING of it. Now THAT is what I call “a stretch”.

You have created a unique interpretation based on a set of features that are not repeated anywhere else and knowledge that is not shown by the culture. That's a 'stretch' to me.

SC: Hey – don’t shoot the messenger. The Giza structures clearly demonstrate the precessional unique moments of culminations (max & min) of Orion’s Belt. HOW the ancients managed this is an entirely different issue.

In order to demonstrate the first, you have to demonstrate the second.

SC: Yes, Sirius too. Sirius allowed the AEs to predict the arrival of the Nile Flood. The AE used the stars to; predict’ the arrival of important events, floods being one of them. As for the lines and circles – I draw your attention to the (theoretical) ‘Lehner Line’ because it is clearly INTENTIONAL. If you do not accept this then try throwing 50 coins to ground and see how long it takes you to get 10 of those coins to align in a perfectly straight line at 45* from North

I can do that with houses in my neighborhood.

The fact that they built sophisticated temple complexes means they could align things to fit "Ma'at" (as they saw it) or create complex groups of structures. But that doesn't indicate that city planners were creating messages for the future or indicating sophisticated precessions OR following the plans of someone who knew about precessions.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your reply.

SC: How can you possibly observe Orion’s Belt on the meridian by looking north? You MUST look SOUTH. You cannot observe the belt stars at otherwise.

Byrd: Uhm... Scott.... I wasn't talking about the direction you look to see Orion. I was talking about how the stars appear when I look outside my window and see Orion. "North" refers to the "star that appears to be closer to Betelgeuse in relative position" or "the highest star."

SC: And if you look out your window you will see Al Nitak (G1) is to the LEFT of the centre star and lower in the sky. The star Mintaka (G3) is to the RIGHT of the centre star and is higher up in the sky. Juts like the diagram I posted. And even if you view 'higher up' (in the sky) as somehow equating to north (as you seem to think), the AEs themselves regarded 'UP' as south. The AEs viewed the North of their country as LOWER Egypt and the South of their country as UPPER Egypt. It is only our modern convention that places north to the top of a map which is simply not concordant with the AEs world view. Have another look at the diagram – I have correctly labelled the three stars:

SC: So, LOOKING DUE SOUTH across the Giza plateau (in line with the centre star of Orion and the Centre Pyramid of Khafre), the Great Pyramid is to your left and corresponds with its stellar equivalent, Al Nitak which is to the left of the centre stars and Menkaure’s Pyramid is to your right, corresponding to Mintaka which is to the right of the centre star, vis-à-vis this illustration:

Byrd: It doesn't.

SC: IT DOES! Look again.

Byrd: You've had to flip Orion graphically to do that.

SC: I have done NOTHING OF THE SORT! Orion has categorically NOT been flipped in my diagram. If you do not believe me then I can only suggest that you obtain for yourself a star-mapping program or download a few images of Orion's Belt (with star names labelled) and check it yourself. There's little else I can do to help you in this regard.

SC: They used of the constellation what they needed to use – why construct 7 massive pyramids to represent the 7 main stars when simply using the belts stars (the ‘Crown’) is enough to allow us to recognise the stars they are using, especially so when they also provide the fail-safe information of demonstrating the 2 culminations of their 3 ‘chosen stars’ via the placement of the 2 sets of so-called ‘Queens Pyramids’. It would be near impossible to demonstrate the culminations of the entire constellation whereas the belt stars form at neat horizontal and vertical alignment at their culminations. Why give yourself more work than you need to?

Byrd: Why not? They spent over 100 years building the main objects (pyramids) and graveyards, boat pits, tombs and so forth continued to be built for longer than that on the Giza pyramid site. Why stop at 3? They had the ability to build a full seven.

SC: No one is doubting their ability but for the purposes of a precession clock it is entirely unnecessary.

Byrd: Secondly, you said at some point that they'd flubbed the plan and some of their measurements were off.

SC: Without you stating precisely what I said and the context it was said, I can't comment further other than to say that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty implemented the plan to the very best of their ability and subject to normal building constraints and tolerances.

Byrd: What better way to show what they intended than to give the full constellation layout. Otherwise, people might mistake the 3 star layout for the tail of the Dipper (undying stars, which were important culturally to them) or the head of Hydra (which IS in the correct configuration)... and so on and so forth. So having those other stars would confirm which ones it was rather than being any old 3-set of stars in a rough line.

SC: By depicting the precessional motion of their 'chosen triad of stars' they give us all the information that is needed in order to identify Orion’s belt as the correct triad of stars. Only Orion's belt culminates in the manner depicted by the 2 sets of Queens. Furthermore, by presenting the start and end points of the precessional cycle of the belt stars (via the 2 sets of Queens), we are also given the half-duration of the clock (i.e. c.12,960 years). It's a very economical design. So, the 2 sets of 'queens' serve as corroborating 'devices' as well as culmination markers to give us the duration of the half-cycle along the precessional axis (i.e. the ‘Lehner Line’).

Byrd: And why are there no temples or monuments showing the three stars?

SC: Many temples and monuments depict stars – many stars. Furthermore, the 5th Dynasty Pyramid Texts mention Sah (the stellar manifestation of Osiris) numerous times. And let us not forget the eminent Egyptologists who accept that it is entirely likely that the roots of the Osiris (Sah/Orion) cult was extant long before the 4th Dynasty, some even taking the view that this Osiris cult could have been extant as far back as the Archaic Period or longer.

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.

Byrd: Just a point of curiosity... what's the source for your really cool graphic on stellar positions? I like to check on things and pretty pictures aren't terribly convincing to me. Math, however, is. But I think it'd be fun to have software that showed accurately stars of an earlier era, including when some of them showed up in the skies.

SC: I use Starry Night Pro and Stellarium. Stellarium is Open Source and free to download. The 2 images depicted in my previous post demonstrating the complete lack of any appreciable 'proper motion' of the Belt Stars are screen-shots taken from Stellarium. I take it you are now satisfied on this particular question concerning the 'proper motion' of the Belt Stars?

SC: If we cannot attribute such knowledge to the AEs of the Dynastic Period then, it stands to reason, that the precessional knowledge exhibited at Giza came from their descendents. “Untraceable” perhaps because Egyptology barely considers this civilisation beyond the Archaic Period.

Byrd: You don't seem familiar with the digs of the pre-Dynastic sites, but they are there.

SC: I am actually – but as I said, compared with the Dynastic Period, there is “barely” any consideration to the very early Egyptian civilisation.

Byrd: What is NOT there is any sign that the AE's knew about precession (otherwise they'd have been very concerned about the Undying Stars and Tawret Who Measures The Heavens.)

SC: And yet, if Wayne Herschel's hypothesis is correct, the AEs were mapping the heavens (the stars) on the ground in ancient Egypt, thereby uniting Upper (stellar) Egypt with Lower (terrestrial) Egypt. The AEs were obsessed with the stars and we find that they even imagined the pyramids to be 'stars' e.g. the pyramid at Zawyat al Aryan pyramid was known as, 'The Pyramid of Nebka is a star" and the Abu Ruwash pyramid was called, "The Pyramid of Djedefre is a Sehed Star". Furthermore, the 'soul' (Ba) in ancient Egypt was equated to a 'star', and several pyramids bear 'soul names', such as "The Pyramid of Neferirkare has become a Ba (Soul)" and "The Ba (Soul) of Sahure Gleams". This is just a select few stellar references with pyramids – there are many more.

Continued.....

reply to post by Byrd

Continued from previous....

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

Byrd: Uhm... that wasn't my point. It doesn't matter where you move it, it's that the relative positions aren't right, either. You are looking at things in a 2 dimensional way. I was looking at it with x,y,z (3-dimensional) coordinates. So (east to west in the constellation Orion) Alnitak is 800 light years away, Alnilam is 1300 light years away, and Mintaka is 900 light years away.

SC: Then I suggest you are looking at this way too deep. I tend to keep it fairly simple - 3 points of light on a 'black canvass' that the ancestors of the AEs observed in the southern sky; the very same (unchanged) 3 points of light we observe today with our own eyes.

Byrd: If the "lost civilization that knew so much about stars" meant Orion, why wasn't the pyramid of Khafre (center, represented by Al Nilam) either the largest (meaning "farthest away") or smallest pyramid out there.

SC: I very much doubt the ancestors of the AEs possessed the equivalent to the Hubble telescope. I have, however, shown you many times now how G1 came to be the size it is and G2 and G3 and it is done by simply observing 3 points of light as though they existed on a flat canvass and applying very basic geometry. I call this the Giza-Orion Blueprint.

SC: And I am categorically NOT saying the builders of Giza “goofed up”. They followed the Designers plan to the best of their ability. If G2 is offset from its correct position then that is because the DESIGNERS of this plan made it so. And the Designers of the plan offset G2 from it true position for 2 very good reasons:

Byrd: Okay... for those of us who look at the diagrams and go "meh... pictures are pretty but they don't explain", could you explain in plain English (NO diagrams) what you mean by "minimum cumulation."

SC: Okay – let me try. We all can see that the stars in the night sky rise up, traverse in an arc from east to west and then set on the horizon. If there was no precessesion, the stars would rise and set at the same points on the horizon for ever. (And neither would the months of the seasons drift over time). However, as a result of the observable motion we know as precession, the stars DO change their rising and setting positions on the horizon over time. If, for example, you observed and marked (with two poles in alignment to the star) the setting of the Belt star, Mintaka, you would find that in approximately 72 years its setting point on the horizon will have 'drifted' from the alignment by one degree. In approximately 720 years its setting point will have 'drifted' around the horizon by 10 degrees (10 x 72 =720). It will no longer be aligned with your two poles although if you made your poles big enough and tough enough (e.g. two pyramids), the markers may survive long enough to demonstrate to future generations the date when the stars WERE in alignment with your two ‘poles’.

And so it continues. Over the next 12,960 years Mintaka’s setting will continue to drift from the western horizon towards the South western horizon. And then, after around 12,960 years of its setting point drifting around the horizon, something really 'odd' happens. When Mintaka has reached what we know as 212* around the horizon (i.e. 212* from North) it STOPS! This is a far as it will go in this direction. This is Mintaka's MINIMUM CULMINATION. What then happens is that Mintaka CHANGES DIRECTION, and starts to precess back towards the western horizon again. This will continue for around another 12,960 years at which point it will STOP at its MAXIMUM CULMINATION and change direction again (for another 12,960 years) towards the SW horizon. When viewed at the souther meridian (i.e. due south) the belt stars will rise vertically up and down the meridian. Minimum culmination as viewed at the meridian will see the belt stars reach their lowest point in the sky on the meridian and at maximum culmination they will be at their highest point in the sky at the meridian.

Byrd: And why would they pick 212 degrees other than "it makes your diagrams work out"?

SC: I hope my explanation above now helps you understand the significance of the 212 degree reference. The Ancients chose the unique moment when the stars seemed to 'stand still' at min and max culminations for the start and end points of their precession clock. A line from G2 centre through G3 centre (i.e. an alignment of '2 poles') is 212* and would, therefore, have aligned with G3's stellar equivalent, Mintaka, as that starset close to the SW horizon during the time of its minimum culmination.

And – it has to be said also – during this very unique moment in the precessional motion of the belt stars, all THREE BELT STARS would have been aligned horizontally on the SW horizon as symbolised by the placement of the 3 horizontal Menkaure Queens..

Hope that helps you understand this a little better – without all the diagrams.

SC: And by demonstrating G2’s offset from this line (i.e. the Lehner Line) actually serves to draw our attention to that line and to ask – “Why?”

Byrds: Actually, it inspires me to ask "what would you have seen in all directions when all the walls were intact AND the casing was on?" But that's just me. In other words, if you were standing in Khafre's pyramid complex with its walls, what would you have seen of the others?

SC: No idea. One thing is certain though, the unified plan for the site was created long before anything was built.

SC: What nonsense! Are you suggesting the Designers were inter-galactic space aliens or something?

Byrd: Well YOU did at one time.

SC: Really? Show me where.

Byrd: You also suggested that they knew something about Sedna and about 2012.

SC: No – I did not suggest that at all. I merely suggested that the Ancient Designers of this precessional clock are presenting 2 dates. Since precession is a continuous cycle it stands to reason that the dates within their precession clock are also part of a cycle. The first date of c.9,700BCE corresponds with atime of major changes on the Earth, a time that scientists are now discovering more and more evidence of a cataclysmic event triggered by a meteor or asteroid impact in North America. The second date I have identified in the precession clock is c.2,012 CE. Whilst it is true that this date represents the completion date of the Mayan 'Fifth Sun', no where do I say that the Designers of this precession clock of the later AE were ever aware of the Maya or their calendar system. Both civilisation may have independently identified a cycle of some kind that is presently unknown to our civilisation.

Continued....