It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mayan 2012 Date Corroborated by Ancient Egyptians

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Continued from previous.....

Sedna was suggested as but ONE of numerous possibilities that might be the agent/catalyst that brought about the Earth changes c.9,700BCE and which MAY do so again as its gravitational influence impacts upon the Kuiper Belt. I mentioned also as a possibility the work of Dr Pail LaViolette who has theorised that the core of our galaxy enters and explosive phase every 10-13 thousand years, bringing all manner of calamity to our solar system and to the Earth. The ancients -through their precession clock - are indicating two dates in a cycle. I am merely trying to identify what possible cycles there might be that could correspond with dates in the precession clock. Undoubtedly, as my research continues into this, I will find other possibilities to explain these two dates. I am not and likely will not, however, be pinning my hat to any of them. If my interpretation here is correct and Giza is indeed a precession clock indicating these two dates, I think – like myself – most people would be interested to understand WHY these dates have been indicated to us. And to do that we have to examine the possibilities.


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

Byrd: 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.


SC: You ARE mistaken. I have always accepted the orthodox view that the Gizamids were built by the 4th Dynasty. But therein lies the problem – orthodoxy does not accept that the AEs of this period understood precession and yet the evidence I have uncovered at Giza to demonstrate that they did indeed understand such is compelling. How can this paradox be explained by orthodoxy without them having to invoke little green men or lost, ‘super-advanced’ civilisations in an attempt to discredit the findings?


SC: 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?

Byrd: 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: Okay – give me the other possibilities? And no – I refer to the ancestors of the AEs. And I did not suggest the granite model was to be “ignored”. The model (if it did indeed exist) was the precession clock and would have conveyed the same information. All I suggested was that the Designers of the model might not actually have instructed or even expected their descendants to make manifest their 'model precession clock' in the manner they did at Giza.


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)

Byrd: ...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"? “


SC: I have never said the work of the builders was “sloppy”, “deliberately wrong” or “totally wrong”. They simply implemented the plan (model) to the best of their ability (within normal building constraints and tolerances). If we have identified the main Gizamids as Orion's Belt through the stellar-geometry (i.e. the Giza-Orion blueprint) it is not unreasonable to view the other 2 sets of three Queens pyramids at Giza as ALSO representing some other aspect of the main Gizamids we have already identified as Orion's Belt? So what other aspect of Orion’s belt might there reasonably be that the 2 sets of 3 Queens might be depicting? The 2 culminations! And this – BTW – rather neatly explains the lack of Queens pyramids at G2 – a Pharaoh who had more Queens (5 plus mom) than the other two Giza Kings and yet decided that not one of his Queens (or mom) would have a Queens Pyramid. That's because there are only 2 culminations – the star point of the precessional cycle and its end point. No need to mark the mid-point although, curiously, the Sphinx is in line with the mid-point of the precession timeline.


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: Yes, it does. A six degree shift completely disrupt ecosystems across the board.


SC: No – it does not. Dr Barbiero has merely presented a MECHANISM that involves fairly negligible energy that can, ultimately, induce a rapid re-orientation of the Earth's equator and polar axis. It is ME that is suggesting the Earth tilted some 6.5* in remote antiquity and that this may have occurred as a result of the mechanism Dr Barbiero describes. Even if you disagree with ME that a 6.5* shift of the Earth's polar axis has taken place, this is quite separate from the theoretical mechanism Dr Barbiero describes and you have to accept that this (Barbiero's theory) stands alone.


Byrd: 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: No one can predict with any certainty precisely what extinctions would occur in such a scenario. What we do know is that many species of mega flora and mega fauna went extinct at that time. We are talking about a completely different world that was more upright (by 6.5*), with massive ice sheets covering large parts of the world. After the initial cataclysm of the 6.5* pole shift,. these massive ice sheets would rapidly break down causing even more catastrophic flooding all over the world over a large period of time. Large tracks of coastline along with their human settlements would be lost to the sea. Many inland settlements would be washed away, the land scrubbed as glacial dams were breached time and time again. In the end the geological evidence that remains is either lost to the sea or scrubbed away with the glacial floods leaving behind a very confusing picture of what really happened.


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

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


SC: From your question above it is clear to me that you have perhaps given Dr Barbiero's paper only a cursory glance. It is not about hitting the Earth “so hard is knocks the Earth 6.5 degrees off tilt”. It is about a relatively small asteroid (or fragment of a larger asteroid) smashing into one of the Earth's oceans, causing a massive tidal wave to ripple over the Earth thereby forming a new 'equatorial bulge' around which the Earth will naturally shift its polar axis. As for an asteroid hitting the Earth c.9,700BCE (c.11,700 years ago) see the work of scientists Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith.

Continued..

[edit on 19/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Continued from previous....


SC: 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.

Byrd: 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: We simply cannot know how individual parts of the globe were affected. It was a different world to that which we live in today. Oceans were much lower but would gradually increase as the ice caps receded.


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.

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


SC: I know when Edfu was built. The Dream Stelae was supposedly written 1,000 years after some of the events it describes but Egyptologists are not slow to hold this up as evidence of Khafre's hand in constructing the Sphinx. Yes, embellishment goes on but there is always a grain of truth there, is there not?


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?

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


SC: Actually if you look back at what I said you will find that I said both. The rate of precession IS increasing and it WAS slower in the past. That it waxes and wanes over time is said due to my belief in the binary model of precession as opposed to the accepted lunisolar model. But that's a whole different debate. So, I stand by my original statement that the precessional year is likely to be nearer to 12,960 years.


SC: 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: 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: It's called a paradox. The evidence is compelling and orthodoxy has to explain it.


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.

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


SC: That's just like saying the Great Pyramid doesn't really exist because they would have needed plans to build it. And since no plans for the Great Pyramid have ever been found it can't exist. We know plans must have existed – we just haven't found them yet.


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

Byrd:I can do that with houses in my neighborhood.


SC: Really? Well thank you for proving my point. I doubt very much that you would find this in your neighbourhood had your neighbourhood not been carefully PLANNED. You are much less likely to find this occurring in randomly placed structures. That we find this in so FEW pyramid structures at Giza is, therefore, evidence of careful planning right from the get-go. Giza was is a unfied plan – like I have always been advocating. Thanks for proving that for me.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 




SC: Really? Well thank you for proving my point. I doubt very much that you would find this in your neighbourhood had your neighbourhood not been carefully PLANNED. You are much less likely to find this occurring in randomly placed structures. That we find this in so FEW pyramid structures at Giza is, therefore, evidence of careful planning right from the get-go. Giza was is a unfied plan – like I have always been advocating. Thanks for proving that for me


Isn't this the same debate as creation?

Random vrs. planned

Life has taught me that where people are involved, nothing is random.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Quick point (sorry... it's teaching day so other comments will have to wait for another day)


Originally posted by Scott Creighton


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

Byrd:I can do that with houses in my neighborhood.


SC: Really? Well thank you for proving my point. I doubt very much that you would find this in your neighbourhood had your neighbourhood not been carefully PLANNED.


Actually, you could find it in nature. Just select the right number of points.



You are much less likely to find this occurring in randomly placed structures. That we find this in so FEW pyramid structures at Giza is, therefore, evidence of careful planning right from the get-go. Giza was is a unfied plan – like I have always been advocating. Thanks for proving that for me.


I'm afraid you missed my point, there.

It wasn't that I believe Giza was unplanned. What I don't believe is that it shows it's any sort of stellar precessional measuring device or stellar and solar calendar... any more than the houses in my neighborhood are (although I can draw lines and circles enough to make them predict 2012 or Tungaska, etc.)

In fact, I think the first pyramid complex with its temples and walls (and how much you could see of it where) determined the placement of the second and third pyramid complexes. And I believe that part of the placement was certainly due to the pharaoh's ego.

But NOT to some "plan" involving pi and lines and geometry that Imhotep dreamed (and then didn't implement) that got handed down for generations and suddenly got put into Giza and then nowhere else (even Ramses didn't include it in his temples and burial place.)

I could certainly believe that the design Imhotep dreamed was the one that became popular after he created the first one for Djoser -- pyramid-temple-wall complex.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by win 52
Isn't this the same debate as creation?

Random vrs. planned


Nope. It's that Scott didn't understand the point I was making (see above.)



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
One more correction...


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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.


Scott... they didn't chart the motion of Sirius. They noted what day they saw it rising and predicted the floods would follow soon after. They actually had only a general idea when it would rise.
www.touregypt.net...

They had to do that because their solar calendar was notoriously inaccurate... until Julius Caesar forced them to adopt the Roman calendar.

It can be argued that they timed events by the position of the rising sun (see the Temple of Ramses and the sun indicator that hits his statue on his birthday.) But they couldn't accurately predict to the date and hour these events. They waited for the sun (or Sirius) to tell them when these things would occur.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



My guess is 1006

Nice work, thanks for the information.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


SC: 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

Byrd:I can do that with houses in my neighborhood.

SC: Really? Well thank you for proving my point. I doubt very much that you would find this in your neighbourhood had your neighbourhood not been carefully PLANNED.

Byrd: Actually, you could find it in nature. Just select the right number of points.


SC: I’m sure you can but we are discussing here those manmade structures at Giza and whether or not they were constructed from a preconceived unified plan or whether the placement of the various structures occurred in an ad-hoc manner (which I think is what you are advocating).


SC: You are much less likely to find this occurring in randomly placed structures. That we find this in so FEW pyramid structures at Giza is, therefore, evidence of careful planning right from the get-go. Giza is a unified plan – like I have always been advocating. Thanks for proving that for me.

Byrd: I'm afraid you missed my point, there. It wasn't that I believe Giza was unplanned.


SC: Well that's good to hear and I see some progress being made - at last! Now, I think it is fairly obvious that Giza wasn’t ‘unplanned’. The real question, however, is whether the structures at Giza were laid down to a preconceived plan or whether the obvious planning that we see at Giza (and that you agree with) was carried out in a progressive, ad-hoc fashion.

Giza – undoubtedly – exhibits clear evidence that it conforms to a pre-defined blueprint i.e. a plan where the relative positions and dimensions of all the key structures were decided BEFORE any actual building commenced.


Byrd: What I don't believe is that it shows it's any sort of stellar precessional measuring device or stellar and solar calendar... any more than the houses in my neighborhood are (although I can draw lines and circles enough to make them predict 2012 or Tungaska, etc.)


SC: What you ‘believe’ and what I can easily demonstrate are clearly then at odds.


Byrd: In fact, I think the first pyramid complex with its temples and walls (and how much you could see of it where) determined the placement of the second and third pyramid complexes.


SC: Well that much is obvious. You can hardly place two structures on the same piece of ground (unless, of course, you plan to tear the original structure down) – they will obviously have to be spaced in some way. But that is not the planning we are discussing here.


Byrd: And I believe that part of the placement was certainly due to the pharaoh's ego.


SC: Undoubtedly, and I may come back to this later.


Byrd: But NOT to some "plan" involving pi and lines and geometry that Imhotep dreamed …


SC: Alas, the Gizamids are very much geometrical structures, so whether you like it or not, accept it or not, you will have to get used to the fact that the AEs used lines and geometry and circles in the design of their structures. And, in so doing, they allow us to 'reverse engineer' their design to discover the underlying design imperative.


Byrd: (and then didn't implement) that got handed down for generations and suddenly got put into Giza and then nowhere else ….


SC: You have to learn to walk before you can run. And there’s only ONE Orion’s Belt in the heavens so why would you expect to see it anywhere else?


Byrd: Scott... they didn't chart the motion of Sirius..


SC: Okay, I see how this is confusing – allow me to clarify. I’m not saying the AEs charted the ’motion’ of Sirius – I’m referring to the Sothic Cycle whereby, after 1,461 years, the heliacal rising of Sirius would coincide with the commencement of the AEs New Year. There is some evidence that the AEs identified and recorded this unique moment of the 1,461 year Sothic Cycle a number of times.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 20/10/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott CreightonSC: Well that's good to hear and I see some progress being made - at last! Now, I think it is fairly obvious that Giza wasn’t ‘unplanned’. The real question, however, is whether the structures at Giza were laid down to a preconceived plan or whether the obvious planning that we see at Giza (and that you agree with) was carried out in a progressive, ad-hoc fashion.


I have always known/believed/agreed with the notion that each pharaoh set up his monuments and his pyramids with an overall design of his OWN site in mind. Just like today, architects may or may not have been concerned with nearby structures in making the design -- but the design is not related to the stars or anything astronomical.



Byrd: What I don't believe is that it shows it's any sort of stellar precessional measuring device or stellar and solar calendar... any more than the houses in my neighborhood are (although I can draw lines and circles enough to make them predict 2012 or Tungaska, etc.)


SC: What you ‘believe’ and what I can easily demonstrate are clearly then at odds.


The thing is, Scott, I could probably find other places that demonstrated the same things. What you still can't demonstrate is that this was deliberate; that there's supporting evidence from the AE's themselves showing this design and concept was something they'd done before, was transmitted (as was one of your claims), was done only once (if it was that important it would have been repeated), and then was dropped.

A piece of information came up on another board the other day... that the pyramids (beginning with Djoser) were aligned north-south towards the "undying stars." The source is reputable and the alignment makes perfect sense (since the pharaoh's soul went to merge with the undying stars, according to their beliefs). There's a good discussion of the elements that Imhotep introduced that were followed in other monuments and temples and pyramid complexes:
encyclopedia.jrank.org...


Byrd: But NOT to some "plan" involving pi and lines and geometry that Imhotep dreamed …



SC: Alas, the Gizamids are very much geometrical structures, so whether you like it or not, accept it or not, you will have to get used to the fact that the AEs used lines and geometry and circles in the design of their structures. And, in so doing, they allow us to 'reverse engineer' their design to discover the underlying design imperative.


Again, you misunderstood me. When you have architects, you use geometry to design places... that's terribly obvious. However, there's no evidence that they used circles in any aspect of creating a pyramid or designing height and width. In the Rhind papyrus (written a thousand years later), the math problem for the pyramid clearly shows they were using rise/run in pyramid calculations. There's nothing at all about circles although there are problems involving volumes (not of pyramids) using circles.



Byrd: (and then didn't implement) that got handed down for generations and suddenly got put into Giza and then nowhere else ….


SC: You have to learn to walk before you can run. And there’s only ONE Orion’s Belt in the heavens so why would you expect to see it anywhere else?


Because if it's a concept of cultural importance (like Wadjet or the eye of Horus or the sun disk of Ra) it shows up everywhere; in the jewelry of the royals, inscribed in temples, carved into statues, painted and sculpted onto clay... etc, etc. When you look further (as I did) into the matter of the representation of "Sah" (the collection of stars including Orion's belt), it appears from the ancient Egyptians did not accurately record their locations and (in the two examples shown) drew them straight up and down and not at a slant as we view them today:
www.yomiuri.co.jp...



Byrd: Scott... they didn't chart the motion of Sirius..


SC: Okay, I see how this is confusing – allow me to clarify. I’m not saying the AEs charted the ’motion’ of Sirius – I’m referring to the Sothic Cycle whereby, after 1,461 years, the heliacal rising of Sirius would coincide with the commencement of the AEs New Year.


There's no evidence that they knew about Sothic cycles. They did mention Sirius rising some six times in their writing, according to this article: en.wikipedia.org...

But at least one of those observations dates to 140 AD, some 3,000 years after Giza. The Tablet of Djer has a lot of issues (described above), the Senwoseret II inscription is a heliacal rising and not a Sothic one and dates to well over a thousand years after Giza.

Had they been using Sothic cycles, there should have been inscriptions, festivals, and dedications in 1321 BC and in 2781 BC. That would indicate that one of the Second Dynasty pharaohs should be making the big noise about the Sothic cycle beginning again.

The second date occurs shortly after the reign of Tutankhamen either during the rule of Kheperkheperure Ay or Tutankahmen's general, Horemheb. Horemheb was a real piece of work, erasing the memory of the Armana period and setting up everything to honor himself. He would have hardly missed a chance for a grand festival and using it to proclaim the gods' favor.

en.wikipedia.org...

In short, no evidence.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


SC: Well that's good to hear and I see some progress being made - at last! Now, I think it is fairly obvious that Giza wasn’t ‘unplanned’. The real question, however, is whether the structures at Giza were laid down to a preconceived plan or whether the obvious planning that we see at Giza (and that you agree with) was carried out in a progressive, ad-hoc fashion.

Byrd: I have always known/believed/agreed with the notion that each pharaoh set up his monuments and his pyramids with an overall design of his OWN site in mind.


SC: Well that is a given, is it not? But what is actually being debated here is whether or not Giza is the result of a pre-conceived blueprint of which each king's structure represents just one part. The evidence demonstrated to you in this thread – and some of which you clearly recognised from observing your own neighbourhood – shows that Giza is clearly the outcome of a pre-defined, cohesive, blueprint.


Byrd: Just like today, architects may or may not have been concerned with nearby structures in making the design -- but the design is not related to the stars or anything astronomical.


SC: What today's architects - with their ethnocentric views – may think has absolutely zero relevance to the mindset and the rationale that drove the AEs to build Giza as part of a pre-conceived plan


Byrd: What I don't believe is that it shows it's any sort of stellar precessional measuring device or stellar and solar calendar... any more than the houses in my neighborhood are (although I can draw lines and circles enough to make them predict 2012 or Tungaska, etc.)


SC: Again what you “believe” and what I can easily demonstrate are clearly then at odds. All you are doing is ignoring the evidence I am presenting here. You may very well be able to demonstrate the houses in your neighbourhood are a precession clock but I'd like to see you try doing so by selecting just nine houses in your neighbourhood at random. I'd also like to see you demonstrate how the dimensions of the three largest of your nine houses can be simply and easily extrapolated from the same stars in your precession clock. I'd like to see how they demonstrate their 2 unique and pivotal culminations. I'd like to see how 2 of your largest houses also align with this moment of culmination. Furthermore, of your nine randomly chosen houses, I'd like to see you circumscribe a circle around the three most extreme corners of your nine houses and find that the most important statue in your neighbourhood ends up sitting right bang on the perimeter of your circle and that the centre star of your chosen stellar alignment is slap bang in the centre of your circle. And, of course, we must have at least 5 of your nine houses aligned along a 45^ diagonal. Now, if you really think you can achieve all of this through the random choice of nine houses in your neighbourhood then I – for one – would most definitely be impressed. I would also like to see evidence of a contextual nature that demonstrates a clear interest in the heavens by the architect of your neighbourhood and, in particular, texts, articles or whatever that identifies an interest in the particular stellar asterism (or whatever) you choose as the design for your neighbourhood precession clock. I realise this is a mighty big ask but you seem to think you can demonstrate all of this by selecting nine random houses in your neighbourhood. The TRULY amazing thing, however, is that everything being asked of you above is clearly observable in the structures at Giza and all of which have ONE common denominator, ONE underlying design imperative. ONE context – the stars of Orion's Belt. Yes – I would be MOST impressed to see you replicate this with nine randomly chosen houses in your neighbourhood. So, let's see it.


SC: What you ‘believe’ and what I can easily demonstrate are clearly then at odds.

Byrd: The thing is, Scott, I could probably find other places that demonstrated the same things.


SC: I'm sure I could too if I looked hard enough. But that is not what is being discussed here. We are discussing what IS being presented in plain view in the relatively few structures at Giza, not what MAY be being presented anywhere else.


Byrd: What you still can't demonstrate is that this was deliberate;


SC: The blueprint I demonstrate here is BEYOND any possible coincidence. Indeed, you even unwittingly accepted yourself (with your “neighbourhood” reference) that Giza in its entirety must have been planned. How else could you possibly find ten points along a 45* diagonal line (that you claim had no line of sight) if they had not been intended i.e. been part of a plan (just like such a line in your planned neighbourhood)?


Byrd: that there's supporting evidence from the AE's themselves showing this design and concept was something they'd done before,


SC: The AEs were very much watchers of the heavens. This design is the Belt Stars of Orion – there's only ONE Orion's Belt in the heavens. And as I have said to you before, if Wayne Herschel's view of Saqqara and other pyramid fields representing other star asterisms is correct, then this is very much something the AES had indeed done before, bringing other star group to the Earth, uniting Upper (stellar) Egypt with Lower (terrestrial) Egypt.


Byrd: was transmitted (as was one of your claims), was done only once (if it was that important it would have been repeated), and then was dropped.


SC: The AEs tell us this in their own texts at Edfu. I have no idea how many times it was done but it seems the AEs Edfu texts talk in plural about architectural 'plans'. Dropped? How so? Giza exists, doesn't it! Clearly at least one of these plans existed for the builders to implement Giza. Were there others? It's possible but that we now have Giza the point is moot. We still haven't found a single plan for ANY of the pyramids but surely at least one plan must have existed?? Not finding any of the plans clearly bears little relation to them actually having existed.


Byrd: A piece of information came up on another board the other day... that the pyramids (beginning with Djoser) were aligned north-south towards the "undying stars." The source is reputable and the alignment makes perfect sense (since the pharaoh's soul went to merge with the undying stars, according to their beliefs). There's a good discussion of the elements that Imhotep introduced that were followed in other monuments and temples and pyramid complexes:
encyclopedia.jrank.org...


SC: Ah, so now you accept that the 10 points along the 'Lehner Line' which you have argued as meaningless coincidence simply because they support my hypothesis are now no longer meaningless coincidence by virtue of the fact that you have now found an orthodox hypothesis more in keeping with your own views that might explain them? So basically you are only prepared to believe the clear geometric evidence I present as being intentional design only if it supports your own view of things and not mine. I doubt very much you will see or even accept the clear hypocrisy you demonstrate here.


Byrd: But NOT to some "plan" involving pi and lines and geometry that Imhotep dreamed …


SC: Show where I said Imhotep dreamed anything?

Continued.......



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Continued from previous....


SC: Alas, the Gizamids are very much geometrical structures, so whether you like it or not, accept it or not, you will have to get used to the fact that the AEs used lines and geometry and circles in the design of their structures. And, in so doing, they allow us to 'reverse engineer' their design to discover the underlying design imperative.

Byrd: Again, you misunderstood me. When you have architects, you use geometry to design places... that's terribly obvious. However, there's no evidence that they used circles in any aspect of creating a pyramid or designing height and width. In the Rhind papyrus (written a thousand years later), the math problem for the pyramid clearly shows they were using rise/run in pyramid calculations. There's nothing at all about circles although there are problems involving volumes (not of pyramids) using circles.


SC: You do NOT need to understand the concept or value of Pi or Phi to unwittingly build such concepts into your structure. However, we are not talking about the AEs of the 4th Dynasty having understood such concepts but I am quite certain the Designers of the blueprint understood such and – as I have demonstrated to you long ago - this knowledge is again placed in plain view at Giza.


Byrd: (and then didn't implement) that got handed down for generations and suddenly got put into Giza and then nowhere else ….


SC: One Orion's Belt in the heavens = one Giza.


SC: You have to learn to walk before you can run. And there’s only ONE Orion’s Belt in the heavens so why would you expect to see it anywhere else?

Byrd: Because if it's a concept of cultural importance (like Wadjet or the eye of Horus or the sun disk of Ra) it shows up everywhere; in the jewelry of the royals, inscribed in temples, carved into statues, painted and sculpted onto clay... etc, etc. When you look further (as I did) into the matter of the representation of "Sah" (the collection of stars including Orion's belt), it appears from the ancient Egyptians did not accurately record their locations and (in the two examples shown) drew them straight up and down and not at a slant as we view them today:
www.yomiuri.co.jp...


SC: Interesting, when the Belt Stars are “straight up and down” this is how the belt stars will appear on the horizon as they approach their maximum culmination – just like what we see at Giza. Thanks for that.

So, I take it from the images I presented, you are now happy that I did not - as you stated – flip the Orion's Belt graphic and that the Belt stars are not - as you stated - “backwards”. Do you now accept this?


Byrd: In short, no evidence.


SC: The evidence is plenty. The real problem here it is that you are only prepared to accept the evidence I present if someone else can offer you an orthodox context in which to place it. Prior to realising this orthodox context (which I don't accept BTW) you simply dismissed the evidence I was presenting in a similar manner to what you have just said above. Peculiar how my evidence is meaningless and does not exist when presented within my hypothesis but suddenly the same evidence makes perfect sense if it can be shown to fit into an orthodox context. Evidence is evidence and should not be made the victim of blind dogma and blatant hypocrisy in the manner you have clearly demonstrated here.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


SC: So, I take it from the images I presented, you are now happy that I did not - as you stated – flip the Orion's Belt graphic and that the Belt stars are not - as you stated - “backwards”. Do you now accept this?


Sorry to have to harp on about this but it is quite fundamental to my argument and by blithely asserting that I had flipped the belt stars (which I assure you I had not) you have called into question my integrity as an honest researcher. I think the least you can do is to respond to my simple question (above).

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Scott,

Have you read about Andrew Collin's theory on the pyramids lining up with the Cygnus constellation? He thinks that it lines up better than Orion. I find it interesting that it is also know as the Northern Cross.

I respect your research and your opinions on this subject.

Thanks.

www.andrewcollins.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 

Hello Julie,


JW: Have you read about Andrew Collin's theory on the pyramids lining up with the Cygnus constellation? He thinks that it lines up better than Orion.


SC: Yes - I've read Andrew's theory and in many ways there is a lot of merit in what he says. Unfortunately though, the Gizamids as symbolic representations of the Cygnus constellation is not one that I can support. I do not say this lightly or uncharitably - I say it based solely on the extant evidence.

It has always been a bone of contention for those who criticise the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) that the 3 centres of the main Gizamids do not precisely match the arrangement of the 3 Orion Belt stars. That the Cygnus proposal offers a slightly improved match with the layout of the Gizamids does not shield it from the same criticism. The simple fact of the matter is that if we look long enough we will sooner or later find three stars that will present a PERFECT match to the Gizamid layout. Does this then mean that those three stars are the correct triad, that this was the intended correlation? And what if a second triad of stars ALSO present a second perfect match? Obviously they can't both be right?

So how can we be absolutely certain that we have correctly identified the triad of stars used by the ancient designers of the Giza blueprint?

Well, this is why I think we are presented also with the 2 sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids'. This is our fail-safe mechanism that allows us to categorically and unambiguously correctly identify the three star group used by the ancient designers of the Giza blueprint. With these 2 sets of three pyramids depicting the 2 culminations of the Orion's belt stars (Cygnus stars do not in any way match the layout of the Queens Pyramids) then we have corroborative evidence of a connection with the Orion constellation. In short, by demonstrating the 2 culminations of Orion's belt with the 2 sets of Queens pyramids we can feel confident that we have correctly identified the triad of stars used by the ancient designers since no other triad of stars culminates in the manner depicted by the 2 sets of Queens pyramids. Only Orion's belt matches this. You can see what I mean here:

The Precession of Orions Queens

Further evidence for the Orion premise (as opposed to Cygnus) comes from the Geo-Stellar Fingerprint of the belt stars. This is a simple geometric technique whereby three proportionaly related squares can be extrapolated from any three-star asterism. The three square geo-stellar fingerprint produced by the Orion belt triad of stars produces three squares that relatively and proportionaly match the bases of the three main Gizamids. The proportions of the three square geo-stellar fingerprint produced by the three-star Cygnus asterism does not match the Gizamids.

Here is the Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint.

And there is also the plethora of Orion (Sah) references in the AE Pyramid Texts. I do not think that there can be any doubt that the Gizamids are symbolic of a triad of stars and that those stars are the three belt stars of the Orion constellation.


JW: I respect your research and your opinions on this subject.


SC: And likewise - I respect your thoughtful and considerate input and also your willingness to keep an open mind.

Hope all this helps.

Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 14/11/2009 by Scott Creighton]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join