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]
