Giza Pyramids Indicate 2012

page: 5
129
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


I think we need to bring forth the truth about carbon dating, and how it is inaccurate and therefore unreliable. So its results cannot be taken seriously in any situation. It is based on assumptions.

The dates that scientists get from carbon-14 dating are based on the carbon-14 found in todays atmosphere, but the carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies due to industrialization. And carbon-14 is estimated to fully decay in 70,000 years at most, but they still find carbon-14 in coal and diamonds that are estimated to be millions of years old. So the science is wrong.

Lets not forget about the baby mammoth found that had carbon dating done and the results came back that the front leg was 40,000 years old and the back leg was 26,000 years old.

So believing or even tossing the idea around that the pyramid can be 800,000 years old is just laughable.

www.allaboutarchaeology.org...




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 

Hello Six67seven,

Thank you for your post.


Six67seven: ...So believing or even tossing the idea around that the pyramid can be 800,000 years old is just laughable.


SC: I don't actually recall anyone in this thread claiming the Great Pyramid was 800,000 years old. Certainly, however, the geologists in the link below have claimed that the Great Sphinx could be as much as 800,000 years old.

The Geological Problem of Dating the Great Sphinx

Thanks for the link on C-14 dating - very useful information.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bigjon
 

Hello Bigjon,

Thank you for your post.


Bigjon: I dont believe the pyramids resemble orions belt because in one of graham hancocks books he showed how the outer south east corners of all three pyramids are along a line of phi. The fibonacci sequence.

What are your thoughts on that?


SC: It is my understanding that Graham Hancock fully accepts the Giza-Orion correlation. Indeed, together with Robert Bauval, they wrote Keeper of Genesis/Message of the Sphinx which expanded upon Robert Bauval's original work, The Orion Mystery.

In the same way that any 3 non-linear points will define a circle of particular dimensions, so 3 points can define a Fibonacci curve.

As stated in the opening to this thread, it is not my intention or desire to enter into yet another discussion of the Giza-Orion correlation. Suffice to say that I am of the view that the correlation has very strong supporting evidence, vis-a-vis:

The Giza-Orion Blueprint

The Precession of Orions Queens

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Hi Scott:
Your post is very interesting, indeed. The one question that was raised, and I can't find your reaction to is about a past pole shift, how could the position of the Gizamids still be in alignment with the Orion Belt?

If in c. 9700BCE Atlantis has sunk was caused by a pole shift, than what you think made the pyramids line up now with the positions of Orion on about 10500BCE?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
scott

question for you

as you draw the line up front the rear of the sphinx to the "lehner line" the date you find is 3900 BC

out of curiosity- if instead you followed the line of the sphinx causeway instead, where it intersects the "lehner line" might be roughly around 3114 BC- the start date of the Mayan Calendar

just was wondering if you took a look at where the causeway hits that line

cheers



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GeosAlien
 

Hello GeosAlien,

Thank you for your post. It has been a bit difficult for me to keep up with all the questions folks have been asking and I had a quick look back and saw that Chett had asked a similar question to yours which I will now try and answer.


GeosAlien: Your post is very interesting, indeed. The one question that was raised, and I can't find your reaction to is about a past pole shift, how could the position of the Gizamids still be in alignment with the Orion Belt?

If in c. 9700BCE Atlantis has sunk was caused by a pole shift, than what you think made the pyramids line up now with the positions of Orion on about 10500BCE?


SC: What seems clear to me is that the ancients are indicating two dates close to the 2 precessional culminations of Orion's Belt. These dates may or they may not be connected with a re-orientation of the Earth's latitudes in a previous age, a shift of the heavens that seems to be indicated by the shafts of the Great Pyramid. Indeed, whatever may have been the cause of the hypothesised re-orientation of the Earth's latitudes may have also been the very event that first introduced the Earth's precessional wobble. Effectively then we are presented with post-shift data - which makes sense since it would be of little use to anyone to pass down knowledge of an c.11,500 year cycle using star positions that no longer applied. You pass down the knowledge of the cycle using the prevailing time reference.

Imagine, for example, that the Earth's latitudes were re-oriented around the year 2012 and survivors of this cataclysmic event wished to pass down knowledge of the 11,500 year cycle for the benefit of future civilisations, there would be little point in them referencing the pre-shift heavens (i.e. our present heavens) and passing this information down because this would not make any sense to anyone in the future - they would not recognise such star alignments because they would not exist in their (post-shift) heavens and thus they (future generations) would be less able to determine the 11,500 year cycle or the two critical dates within that cycle. Better to create star alignments using the (new) heavens that future generations will recognise and hopefully understand before it is too late. And, of course, IF the same dire events occur again, then the knowledge can be passed on again allowing our descendents to prepare themselves as we perhaps should.

Hope this makes sense.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hermes8
 

Hello Hermes8,

Thank you for your question.


Hermes8: out of curiosity- if instead you followed the line of the sphinx causeway instead, where it intersects the "lehner line" might be roughly around 3114 BC- the start date of the Mayan Calendar

just was wondering if you took a look at where the causeway hits that line


SC: A very, very interesting idea. I made a very quick measure and obtained the date 3,035 BCE which is only 79 years off the start of the Mayan 5th Sun calendar!! Very interesting indeed - I shall use some other CAD tools to measure this more precisely.

Great find.

Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 6/1/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Hermes8
 

Hello Hermes8,

Whilst looking further into your idea regarding the causeway of G2 it crossed my mind that there is actually a FIFTH point in the circle that can be connected from the Sphinx point of origin. This is a very obvious point and EVERY circle has one - it's CENTRE.

When we plot the centre of the circumscribed circle we find it is a fraction from the centre of the middle pyramid. When we extend a line from the Sphinx point of origin we are aorund 150 years from the Mayan calendar start date.

Remember, however, that G2 SE corner has been moved off the Lehner Line and that this has the effect of displacing G2 centre from the circle's centre. Why, we ask, was G2 centre moved off the circle's centre?

There are a number of plausible explanations for this displacement of G2 centre but intriguingly if we plot a line from Sphinx point of origin to G2 centre we intersect the timeline with only around a 60 year error from the Mayan calendar start date of 3114 BCE.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
of course the giza pyramids indicate 2012,they also indicate numerous things also



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Hermes8
 

Hello Hermes8,

Whilst looking further into your idea regarding the causeway of G2 it crossed my mind that there is actually a FIFTH point in the circle that can be connected from the Sphinx point of origin. This is a very obvious point and EVERY circle has one - it's CENTRE.

When we plot the centre of the circumscribed circle we find it is a fraction from the centre of the middle pyramid. When we extend a line from the Sphinx point of origin we are aorund 150 years from the Mayan calendar start date.

Remember, however, that G2 SE corner has been moved off the Lehner Line and that this has the effect of displacing G2 centre from the circle's centre. Why, we ask, was G2 centre moved off the circle's centre?

There are a number of plausible explanations for this displacement of G2 centre but intriguingly if we plot a line from Sphinx point of origin to G2 centre we intersect the timeline with only around a 60 year error from the Mayan calendar start date of 3114 BCE.

Regards,

Scott Creighton


hey scott
been working on this site for over 10 years to understand its secrets- and i do think you are on the way to coming up with something big

as for the khafre pyramid.
site examination shows that it might be the OLDEST pyramid at the site-

especially when looking at the lower foundation stones (some are 30-40 tons), and some of the foundation carved right out of the bedrock- almost as if it were the symbolic primordial hill-
Add of course that the sphinx and sphinx temples are also extremely old and the sphinx temple as well shows monolithic building.

as well few know the khafre pyramid has 2 entrances in the north face- the normal one you enter when you go inside, but there is a second one further out along the plateau that links to the descending passage- which indicates that it is a very unique pyramid on the site.

that it could have been built first as the geometric circle center of the site makes great possability


[edit on 8-1-2010 by Hermes8]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
whats going to happen in 2012 is this: i'm going to get extremely ****ed up and elebrate the new years, just like every other year, because nothing is going to happen.

see you all in 2013



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
This is absolutely fascinating! You have done some great work Scott. I could almost feel the mysteries of the world unravelling as I read the thread


I hope you get to investigate that area to the sw one day. The restriction is certainly intruiguing!



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
thanks a lot for sharing this information



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by brocket99
 



What are some of his ideas?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Hello Scott,

I came across your writings just recently. I am very impressed by the work you have done and are doing. In particular, your article that reveals thesignificant dates of 10,460 BCE, 9,700 BCE, 3,890 BCE, 2012 CE and 2500 CE from the Giza timeline.

It struck me that many years ago I read some works by the Dutch spiritual teacher Jan van Rijckenborgh (1897-1968), and one thing he said is that the great pyramid is a calendar that will end in 2,658 CE. He also indicates that the calendar began at the time of the destruction of Atlantis. If we take the half-cycle to be 12,960 years, then the start date is 10,302 BCE. Then the mid-point is 3,818 BCE. He comments that every 6,480 years, "the Christ is brought out of Egypt". He clarifies that by Christ he means higher consciousness or spirit -- not the historical Jesus. He gave special importance to the 53-year period from 1948 to 2001, saying that it is the most crucial period for the "harvesting of souls", even though the "harvesting" will continue till 2658 CE. Rijckenborg was a pupil of Max Heindel, the theosophist teacher. I think one of his (R's) books is called "The Egyptian Gnosis".

Anyway, I find it intriguing that his dates 10,302 BCE, 3,818 BCE, 2001 CE and 2,658 CE are so close to your dates of 10,460 BCE, 3,890 BCE, 2012 CE and 2500 CE, and both are based on the Giza pyramid clock or calendar! No doubt that what you are discovering has been known throughout history but only in small and esoteric circles.

Edgar Cayce said that the great pyramid was built between 10,490 and 10,390 BCE. This means that what according to your calculation marks the beginning of the Giza clock (10,460 BCE) was only 30 years after the beginning of the construction of the Giza pyramids. Rickenborgh's date of 10,302 BCE is also very close.

Cayce also prophezied that the Earth's axis would be shifted by the year 2001, and a new cycle would begin. He said that the Earth's core started pole-shifting in 1936. It will take 65 years for the shift to affect the mantle and the crust. Perhaps that has been delayed by various factors, most importantly a change in human collective consciousness, and the work of esoteric schools. He says that the third and final destruction of Atlantis occurred around 10,000 BCE, and the one before that was in 28,000 BCE, which means these two events occurred one precessional cycle apart, and therefore most likely coincided with pole shifts. (www.shellac.org...). According to Cayce, as reviewed by Lehner, the Sphinx and pyramids were built ca. 10,500 B.C. and under or near the Sphinx was buried a Hall of Records that contained the records from Atlantis. [circulartimes.org...]

One last thing.

If we take Cayce's date of 1936 and add one precessional degree (72 years), we reach 2008 CE. If we go back one degree from the 2012 date, we reach 1940. I believe that the pole shift, both physical and spiritual, is occurring during the 72-year period between 1936-40 and 2008-12. If we take 72 earth years as one precessional day or 24 hours, then 1940 was dawn, 1958 was midday, 1994 was midnight, and 2012 will be dawn again. 21 June 2010 marks 5:10 am, if we take 2012 to be 6:00 am. So we have 50 precessional minutes (=2.5 earth years) before the clock is re-set.

I would be delighted if you or any of the readers could make any comments on all this!





[edit on 26-6-2010 by oracle12]

[edit on 26-6-2010 by oracle12]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by seattletruth
 

Thanks for your erudite response to those you call deniers. Their position seems to be (to make an analogy) that if the atomic bomb is so important how come there are no instructions plastered all over the place so that every school boy can build one? They don't seem to realize that the ancient Egyptians believed that great knowledge must be earned by great moral rectitude. This is not to say that it was they who built these megaliths, but whoever did, it was part of the ancients' inheritance.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by oracle12
 

Hello Oracle12,

First of all, please accept my sincere apologies for not replying to your post here sooner - totally missed it.


Oracle12: Anyway, I find it intriguing that his dates [Jan van Rijckenborgh] 10,302 BCE, 3,818 BCE, 2001 CE and 2,658 CE are so close to your dates of 10,460 BCE, 3,890 BCE, 2012 CE and 2500 CE, and both are based on the Giza pyramid clock or calendar! No doubt that what you are discovering has been known throughout history but only in small and esoteric circles.


SC: I must confess I have never heard of this before but I do find it quite remarkable to say the least. Do you have a reference for this date information from Jan van Rijckenborgh as I would dearly like to check it myself to see how he arrives at his dates.

Many thanks for this information - I look forward to your reply.

Warm wishes,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 16/8/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
from a perspective of temporal orientation time is not to be viewed linearly because of the use of a circle. on your diagram you have labeled zeptepi; it would not be foolish to ascertain a variable as to the rate of times compoundment by using the constant you have located and using the constant present relations to the movement on pi in relation to abstract values known as future constants by means of the projection of the corresponding set of pyramids adjoining a pair.

since this aforementioned is what i see; the focus on any sine is taken out of context on what it is tangenting when speculatively consuming part of pi or its expression.

this focus is no less important than the knowledge of events predating zeptepi for the purpose of future casting.


it was/is my assumption that every part of the "complex" area you have as focus in this post says the same thing, in all ways expressible from a temporal perspective of now casting.down to the last grain



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Very impressive. My meager efforts pale in comparison. Keep us updated.
S+F.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


S&F, interesting reading!

Now we just need to dig under the Sphinx paw and see if the chamber below really holds the allegedly hall of records.

I would say that due to the relation between the Sphinx position and the Lehner line it makes it a great place to keep records about prior Earth cycles. Specially due to it's position in relation to all that, it's just like the Sphinx was the guardian of this "calendar" that sits behind it.


I like this thought,



one thing I noticed from the overhead pics of the fenced in area it seems like a strategic fence for defence? from invasion attack? I dont know but why so much security for a publicly unknown area.

I was wondering about Cayce while reading this aswell what a great correlation of dates you put together oracle12 !
edit on 11/22/2010 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
129
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant