Ed Krupp Debunked

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Hello ATS,

His argument has been debunked by numerous astronomers for almost two decades now and yet STILL some people (including some here on ATS ) continue to peddle the Ed Krupp argument and insist that the pyramids of Giza are the "wrong way round" for there to be a proper sky/ground correlation with the Orion Belt stars.

In my view something very crucial has been totally overlooked in this whole argument and it is a point that proves the validity of Robert Bauval's view of the correlation whilst, at the same time, entirely crushes the "north-looking" view advocated by Ed Krupp and those who subscribe to his view. So compelling is this 'New Perspective' on Orion/Giza that I feel it will settle this argument once and for all. And it is really very simple.

So what is this new perspective? Well, it all began with a discussion I was having with Byrd, a Super Moderator here on ATS (who also happens to be a moderator on the Hall of Ma'at Forum). She presented the image below (the Dendera Astronomical Ceiling) as evidence that Mintaka in Orion's Belt is the star furthest north towards the pole and, therefore, in order for G3 at Giza (of which Mintaka is the stellar counterpart) to properly reflect this position on the Dendera celing it should have been placed as the most northerly pyramid.



The Astronomical Ceiling of the Temple of Hathor at Dendera (Orion's Belt is bottom-Right of the image to the right of the falcon on the standard and next to the reclining bull.)

However, as the image below clearly shows, G3 pyramid is placed furthest south on the Giza plateau when, according to the Dendera Ceiling and those who adhere to the erroneous Krupp view, it should have been placed furthest north. And, by extensions, G1 pyramid should have been placed furthest south to agree with the Krupp view and the Dendera ceiling. So how can this seeming contradiction be explained?



Simple - it's all just a matter of perspective. As many here will know, the Ancient Egyptian world view placed north and south in reverse to our modern convention - this is to say that the AEs regarded south as "UP". Now, the AEs knew their cardinal directions very well. North is where the 'imperishable stars" were observed, south is where Orion's Belt could be observed, east is where the sun rose and west is where the sun set. All very simple and logical. However, when the AEs observed the stars in the sky they would have to raise their sight ABOVE the horizon i.e. they would have to look UP. The stars were ABOVE the Ancient Egyptians as they are ABOVE us today. In short, they would have to access the third dimension - UP/DOWN. To be clear here, UP/DOWN is not the same as north/south. Think of it as tilting your head from the horizon, 90 degrees backwards to view the zenith of the sky - UP.

So, what's the point? Well, in order to represent a group of stars that exist in three-dimensional space (i.e. that are UP in the sky, one star above another), then the ONLY way this could be done with the AEs world view that south=UP is to lay out the the Gizamids precisely in the manner they did (as shown in the diagram above). Of course, the AEs could not 'float' one pyramid above the other here on Earth siince gravity simply will not permit it. But that is precisely the perspective we must imagine in order for us to see precisely the Gizamids as the AEs envisaged them. As one star in the belt is higher in the sky (more UP) than the others then the pyramids should be imagined in this three-dimensional way and NOT FLAT on the ground. Here are some diagrams to help better envisage this (please note - the red outlined circle represents Mintaka whilst the red outlined pyramid represents G3. The X represents the viewer's position on the ground):














Simply ‘raise’ the pyramids ‘UP’ (i.e. imagine them in the air) and the correlation makes perfect sense. By the same token if we then take what Ed Krupp proposed (i.e. G1 should be furthest south and G3 furthest north), the 3-D result is a complete mismatch. See below:















The Ed Krupp view of how the pyramids should have been arranged to better reflect the Orion Belt stars would have G3 as the BASE (bottom) pyramid with G2 and G1 'floating' above. He would have G1 furthest south hence furthest UP in the sky which simply does not reflect the position of Al Nitak, G1's stellar counterpart.

And even if we imagine ourselves outside a celestial sphere upon which the stars are fixed (i.e. we are looking from behind Orion’s Belt towards the Earth) the Krupp correlation would still make no sense whilst the arrangement we actually find at Giza fits perfectly but we MUST consider the arrangement of the Gizamids in THREE dimensions, not two i.e. furthest south is FURTHEST ‘UP’ (in the sky). Thus the flat, two-dimensional ceiling at Dendera cannot adequately express the three-dimensional aspect of the stars in the night sky. Mintaka will only have the illusion of being nearer to the pole (i.e. the centre of the ceiling) but in reality it's not. The Ancient Egyptians knew where the cardinal directions were (North, South, East and West) but they also knew UP and DOWN for they lived in the same three-dimensional space that we do.This UP/DOWN 3-D aspect simply cannot be expressed on a two-dimensional plain such as the Dendera Astronomical Ceiling.

I hope this better explains my own persepctive on the O.C.T. and why I consider the actual arrangement of the structures we find at Giza today to be the best representation of the Belt stars since this arrangement reflects the AEs world view and not our modern view and expresses their world voew three-dimensionally onto a two-dimensional plain. The Ed Krupp view, in this regard, fails utterly and completely as a correlation. The Ancient Egyptians got it right.

Best Wishes,

Scott Creighton
edit on 22/11/2010 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Scott, Ed Krupp debunked r.bAUVALS theorie about Orion because r.b was using also the shafts pointing to stars and for that to happen he is totally wrong...Did r.b argue back? No he didn't! Do you know why? I do, it's because he was wrong..Ed Krupp is correct in doing so or saying so, r.b can't at a later day try and change his theorie, other wise it would be a different one. Correct?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeightN
Scott, Ed Krupp debunked r.bAUVALS theorie about Orion because r.b was using also the shafts pointing to stars and for that to happen he is totally wrong...Did r.b argue back? No he didn't! Do you know why? I do, it's because he was wrong..Ed Krupp is correct in doing so or saying so, r.b can't at a later day try and change his theorie, other wise it would be a different one. Correct?


Hi,

I am not here to argue for or against Bauval's OCT. There is much in Bauval's theory I completely disagree with. However, regardless of Bauval, the Gizamids MUST be laid out as they are to properly concord with the pattern/orientation of the Belt stars. Dr Krupp is wrong. Period.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Well then why call it Ed Krupp Debunked then? Should call it your theorie about the pyramids matching Orion belt then, because as it is, it is ragging Ed Krupp, and the guy is only speaking his mind, and he is calling it as he sees it, and rightly so...



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeightN
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Well then why call it Ed Krupp Debunked then?


SC: Because, regardless of Bauval, Ed Krupp was the first to claim (wrongly as it happens) that the orientation of the Gizamids does not match the orientation of the Belt Stars.


Should call it your theorie about the pyramids matching Orion belt then, because as it is, it is ragging Ed Krupp, and the guy is only speaking his mind...


SC: The Gizamids are the Gizamids regardless of who is looking at them. The Belt stars are the Belt stars regardless of who is looking at them. They are either oriented to each other or they are not - regardless of who is making the argument. Krupp has looked at them and claims they don't match and that Bauval is in error. What Bauval failed to see is the 3D aspect to Giza which I present. So yes - I have a different sky to ground PERSPECTIVE than Krupp and Bauval but - at the end of the day - the Gizamids are oriented correctly with the Belt stars. So Bauval is materially correct even if he did not fully grasp how or why he was correct.


....and he is calling it as he sees it,


SC: And he sees it wrongly.


...and rightly so...


SC: No one is questioning Dr Krupp's right to call things as he sees them. He has as much right as the next person to do so. But unfortunately, he most definitely called this one wrong. See here. In the Flash presentation you can observe that, by adopting the 3D perspective of the Gizamids, G1 is the LOWEST pyramid. The southerly shaft of the lowest pyramid (G1) is smply pointing up to its stellar counterpart which is (naturally) the LOWEST of the three Belt Stars i.e. Zeta Orionis. Dr Krupp's argument that directionality is determined by the shafts is completely bogus and entirely misleading when viewing the Gizamids with their proper 3D perspective.

Regards,

Scott Creighton
edit on 20/12/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Clarification.





new topics
 
6

log in

join