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.
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: 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: 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: 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.
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; 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: 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: 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.
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: 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: 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: 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
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.
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.
Originally posted by win 52
Isn't this the same debate as creation?
Random vrs. planned
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.
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: 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.
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.)
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.
Byrd: And I believe that part of the placement was certainly due to the pharaoh's ego.
Byrd: But NOT to some "plan" involving pi and lines and geometry that Imhotep dreamed …
Byrd: (and then didn't implement) that got handed down for generations and suddenly got put into Giza and then nowhere else ….
Byrd: Scott... they didn't chart the motion of Sirius..
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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: The thing is, Scott, I could probably find other places that demonstrated the same things.
Byrd: What you still can't demonstrate is that this was deliberate;
Byrd: that there's supporting evidence from the AE's themselves showing this design and concept was something they'd done before,
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.
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...
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: 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?
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...
Byrd: In short, no evidence.
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?
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.
JW: I respect your research and your opinions on this subject.