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.

 

Giza Unified Design Theory Suggests Non-Tomb Function for the Giza Pyramids

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Greetings ATS,

The following presentation (link below) - Flash format) offers compelling circumstantial evidence that the pyramids at Giza were planned and laid out in accordance with a unified plan.

Now, many here at ATS will already know of the controversial and much debated theory proposed by Robert Bauval in 1994 in which he advocated that the 3 giant pyramids at Giza were LAID OUT on the Giza plateau to reflect the pattern of the Orion Belt stars. Whilst the correlation between the Belt Stars and the Gizamids is not 'picture-perfect', considering all the other contextual evidence (principally from the Pyramid Texts) which Bauval presented in support of the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT), it seems reasonable to look further into the proposal.

If Bauval is correct, might not there then be some other attributes of the Belt Stars that the designers of Giza might have incorporated into the design of the structures, something more than simply the LAYOUT?

It seems that there is. I call this the 'Giza Unified Design Theory'.

By using the ACTUAL configuration of the Bel Stars of Orion we find that we can design the proportional base dimensions of all three Gizamids in a simple and systematic fashion. Having determined the proportional base dimensions, we can then use these to determine the proportional heights of the three Gizamids again in a simple and systematic fashion. In short, these new findings provide further corroboratory evidence in support of the OCT.

You may ask - "So, what's the significance of this unified plan? How does it change anything?"

Well, what the reader should keep in mind here is that mainstream Egyptology has long resisted the entire notion that the Gizamids were the result of some unified, homogenous plan and they have done so for a very important reason - for to accept such an idea would essentially undermine the entire tomb theory (with particular regard to the Giza pyramids).

The simple fact is that the designer of this plan would have known it would have taken many generations to have such a monumental plan fully implemented on the ground and yet on day one the designer somehow seemed to know how many Queens' pyramids to build for a king who would live 80 years in the future, Menkaure! The fact is, barring time-travel, the designer of this unified scheme for Giza simply could not have known such information ergo he could NOT have been designing the so-called Queens' pyramids as tombs and, by extension, the main pyramids for he simply could not have known 80 years in advance how many queen's pyramids to build for each future king. And yet we can see that all the pyramids at Giza conform to a unified scheme based upon the Belt Stars of Orion. These findings point to a purpose for these structures that is far removed from the burial of dead Egyptian kings.

The first presentation (below) shows how it is possible to easily obtain the relative dimensions of the three Gizamids - i.e. their bases and heights - as part of a homogenous, unified plan using the Orion Belts stars.

The Giza Unified Design

The second presentation (below) shows how the so-called 'Queen's Pyramids' demonstrate the precessional half-cycle - the two culminations - of Orion's Belt.

Precession of the Queens

Further information regarding the above can be found on ATS here.

I hope you will all find this of some interest.

Regards,

Scott Creighton




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Was reading in another thread recently about the alignment with the Cyngnus constellation. The more I look at the OCT, the more far-fetched it seems to me. I haven't yet gotten into too deep into studying the Cyngnus constellation, but it does appear to be a better match.

(I also like the blue supergiant star in said constellation - and possible connections to the Hopi Kachina...but that's another story
)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kalunom
 


Hi Kalunom,

I have read Andrew Collins' Cygnus Theory. Whilst I think it has many strengths, it simply cannot reproduce the proportional dimensions of the three Gizamids nor can it explain the placement of the two sets of so-called Queens' Pyramids or, indeed, the 'missing' Queens' pyramids of G2. The (Greater) OCT answers all of these.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton


edit on 17/5/2011 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 17/5/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Clarify response.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Perhaps the author would like to contribute to one of his earlier threads?

Previous threads discussing, and promoting, the same subject matter are available at these links:

The Great Pyramid and the Axis of the Earth - Part 1]

Orion-Giza Blueprint - The Evidence Keeps on Coming

Giza - Was There An Overall Plan?

Giza / Orion - Further Proof

Giza Precession Wheel - Update



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,

Nice of you to drop by.

Alas, none of the links you provide to my previous threads demonstrate the Giza Unified Design Theory whereby BOTH the bases AND the heights of the Gizamids can easily be shown to conform to a unified scheme. The links you reference show ONLY how the bases can be determined using Orion's Belt. This new material in this thread shows how the HEIGHTS of the Gizamids can be shown to conform to a simple, unified scheme and has not (yet) been presented on my ATS Forum. I thought - given the substantial interest in all matters ancient in this Forum - that this would be a good place to present the new material. I am sure you can understand that? That older material has also been presented with the new material has been done so because:

a) It drectly links into the new material and -
b) To inform those ATS readers who may be completely unfamiliar with my work.

I hope this is not a problem for you?

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
yo scotty...i had just finished a whole chapter on this issue....this is what mr Ibrahim, thinks.

1)khufu had no idea on a larger ground plan, just built an improvemnt of his fathers.

2) the original djedfre has no link to any moneuments on the plateau.

3) khafre and the helipolis cult, knew they were not just building a "solar' acension pyramid...but a celestial pyramid incorporating the sun.

then it gets interesting....

4) helipolis and the preists of the plateau became linked heavily, the change in the egyptian state began to be apparent....memphis cult began to fall...helipolis cult evolved....they took over the larger giza complex in the fifth dynasty.
due to the upper egyptian labour that could not be replecated by the lower egyptians...ie no access to granite and the larger state workforce etc......

due to gizas greatness in the fifth dynasty they claimed that these were not just ladders of shu...but shu himself, they claimed khafres was a shrine to the great nut...ie sky.....and went about extending menkaures pyramid to represent geb...ie menkaure didnt even finish it the first time...his son and cult completed it...

in essence, memphis/upper egyptians work became hijacked by the lower egyptians

5)lower egypt turned these structures into idols of gods as they needed to show theyr divine right to rule the state...building a divine court, represented by the highest gods......upper egyptians classed this as blasphemy....
helipolis introduced a new ennead to ideologically compete with the thinnites in memphis with ptah.

atum as re...born on the mound..WHICH IS AN OBELISK....the ben ben was the solidified seed of atum, the obelisk is his phallice rising out of nun....so the smooth sided pyramids were seen as the SEEDS OF ATUM....NOT THE MOUND!!....

khufus pyramid became assosiated with shu...due to its greatness became shu later
shu/tenut twin pillars
khafres pyramid became assosiated with the sky... nut the great mother
menkaures became assosiated with geb.


with the gods in their back garden helipolis became strong...they challanged soverignty...
but the upper egyptian came back with Amun...and kicked ass......then armana divided the country...then the kuchites (new name for upper egyptiaan) kicked ass again with ay and horemheb etc etc (interesting point, he notes that akhenaten is either a woman...or as man depicted as a woman - i google a picture...the chicks got breats dude!)


hes a bloody good writer...i swear i could picture everything...
i might of explained it wrong but thats what im getting from his pdf

he lines up the pyramids in order of creation....khafres is a feminine pyramid.....shows how shu gives the sun personification in the akhet, he even explains the satellite pyramids, note that they are at the same compasss points like the boat pits...east and south....oh yea, also goes into orion and relevance to rebirth sheesh.....ps im not actually meant to share this as im proof reading for a freinds firm...though interesting innit
edit on 17-5-2011 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I agree with Kandisky

Why are you posting this as a separate thread?

Ya know Scot you have your own FORUM specifically for this wonderous subject. Posting corrections to your idea would have been best at the end of those previous threads - linking back to your own forum on this subject in ATS.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hanslune,

Nice of you to drop by too. It has been a while.


Hanslune: I agree with Kandisky. Why are you posting this as a separate thread?


SC: Because the Ancient Civilisation thread is entirely appropriate for the new material I present. I have presented other aspects of my work in other ATS threads where I consider them appropriate. Is that a problem for you?


Hanslune: Ya know Scot ...


SC: 'Scott' - two t's.


Hanslune: ....you have your own FORUM specifically for this wonderous subject.


SC: Indeed - the study of ancient Egypt is truly a wonderous subject. I could not agree with you more. And I am truly grateful to ATS in affording me this platform to express my unconventional and challenging perspectives on AE history.


Hanslune: Posting corrections to your idea would have been best at the end of those previous threads - linking back to your own forum on this subject in ATS.


SC: Corrections? What corrections? Do explain?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton
edit on 19/5/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


keep doing what your doing scott....i lap it up every time...as for the derailers...i appreciate scott sharing his thoughts on egypt....hopefully this generation can offer closure to this ever widening topic.....peace

ps...what do you think about my post above


edit on 19-5-2011 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Well, what the reader should keep in mind here is that mainstream Egyptology has long resisted the entire notion that the Gizamids were the result of some unified, homogenous plan and they have done so for a very important reason - for to accept such an idea would essentially undermine the entire tomb theory (with particular regard to the Giza pyramids).


Derailers/ debunkers despise this simple observation.


*** *** *** ***


As to Scott's personal forum platform, his choice of posting locations etc - it's a free country/ world/ website, so what gives?

Thanks Scott - I find this new development interesting - I will try to watch the presentation later.


*** *** *** ***


One day the discovery of the millennium will be announced - that all of these self-relative correlations, mathematical/ astronomical alignments etc, are but a sideshow when compared to the main attraction; the shiny gilt that plates the lettering, drawing our attention to what is written in stone beneath.

The true purpose of the Giza complex is something entirely 'up in the face of' mainstream Egyptology, and ancient history in general. In particular the revealing of that purpose will rip to shreds the utterly preposterous notion, the golden calf that constitutes the cornerstone of their 'understanding': That the pyramids of Giza were built by multiple Pharaohs for the purpose of self-glorification in death, and as storage crates for their decomposing material bodies.

Absolute Nonsense with a capital 'N'.

Burial tombs.


'Pyramidiots' is a descriptor more appropriate to the mainstream molly-coddlers in their narrow, cramped and ego-filled little box. Zahi Hawass and his cronies/ sympathisers were born for that box, and we the seekers were born to stamp on it.

edit on 20-5-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Hi thePharaoh,

Thanks for your post and kind words. I read your earlier post on Shu, Geb, the Baboon etc here on ATS. I thought it was very thought-provoking and not something that is easily dismissed. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


Flyintheointment: ...That the pyramids of Giza were built by multiple Pharaohs for the purpose of self-glorification in death, and as storage crates for their decomposing material bodies.

Absolute Nonsense with a capital 'N'.


SC: With regard to the pre-5th dynasty pyramids i.e. the giant pyramids, I think you are spot on. I think, however, it is possible that, as the AE religion evolved, later dynasties may indeed have utilised the pyramid form as a funerary edifice or perhaps appropriated them as such. This was not, however, the function of the pre-5th dynasty structures. Well said and thank you for the kind words.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 

has anyone considered the possibility that the pyramids are surveyors markers to measure the earths expansion
the earth is and has been expanding since day one.
there are many pyramids not just in africa.
a modern surveyor places markers in the ground and measures them over a given time to judge how stable the ground is.
these measurements could tell a surveyor the rate of expansion and possibly predict earth quakes .



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


the baboon thing he had, gets deeper....ibrahim calls them "amenti"...which you know means "amduat" and means the "woman of the west' ie the original isis. which is why they are dedicated to women.....he says that they represent the hours of the amduat, (6 pyramids x 4 sides)....especailly the sixth hour when the sun is reborn in the akhet...and the 7th hour when the sun is said to travel over helipolis.

peace




top topics



 
5

log in

join