The Giza-Orion Blueprint

page: 1
89
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+69 more 
posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Dear ATS,

Here is my latest research and findings relating to the Giza-Orion Blueprint. The Flash presentation below shows how the Giza pyramids are - unequivocally - the result of a preconceived, unified plan. As such it is highly improbable that they were conceived for the purposes of tombs - but for something else altogether.

This new research presents measures from the blueprint and compares these with the actual measures/ratios we find in the pyramids at Giza. The results are impressive and should prove even to the most diehard skeptic that the dimensions of the Giza pyramids were defined from the stars of Orion's Belt (as well as also laid out to mimic the pattern of the Belt stars).


The Giza-Orion Blueprint

Enjoy!

Scott Creighton




posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



As such it is highly improbable that they were conceived for the purposes of tombs - but for something else altogether.


Why would you think that?
Surely some ancient leaders believed destiny was related to the stars and it is quite conceivable that they would build their burial spots with the stars in mind..



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Really interesting research.

And P.S: I love your presentation..You did a great job!
S&F!



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



As such it is highly improbable that they were conceived for the purposes of tombs - but for something else altogether.


Why would you think that?
Surely some ancient leaders believed destiny was related to the stars and it is quite conceivable that they would build their burial spots with the stars in mind..


Hi Backinblack,

It is highly unlikely that any Egyptian king would have designed the tomb of the next king or the king after that. Also, the so-called 'Queens Pyramids' are part and parcel of the preconceived design as can be seen below - notice how the inter-quarter line place the Queens Pyramids. So, the G3 queens clearly are part of this preconceived plan, however, it would take around 100 years (according to mainstream Egyptology) to construct G3 and its Queens. So - how did the designer when he was creating this plan know that 100 years (or so) into the future the king at that time would only require 3 Queens pyramids? How did the designer know that Rachaf (G2 pyramid) would not require any queens pyramids (and yet Rachaf actually had five known wives)?

The designer of this preconceived plan simply COULD NOT have known such (unless s/he had a time machine - and we are not going down that road). The simple logic is that the designer of this preconceived plan for Giza could NOT have been designing these structures as tombs since he simply could not have known 100 years in advance how many tombs he would be required to build.




Regards,

Scott Creighton
edit on 28/10/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Good presentation Scott. Easy to understand.

I've always thought, if I was an archeologist in Egypt, I would lay the star map over the pyramids and dig on Sirius...



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nikola014
Really interesting research.

And P.S: I love your presentation..You did a great job!
S&F!


Hi Nikola,

Many thanks for your kind words. Very much appreciated.

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Thanks Scott for a very reasonable rely..
I see what you mean about not seeing 100 years into the future..
I'll read through the rest of your thread now...



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Good presentation Scott. Easy to understand.

I've always thought, if I was an archeologist in Egypt, I would lay the star map over the pyramids and dig on Sirius...



Hi Treadupon,

Thanks for the kind words. I believe a dig on the Sirius location you mention was planned some years back by Nigel Appleby though not quite sure what came of it.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


When I first saw this thread, I thought "Who on ATS deserves their own forum!"

Now I understand.

Outstanding job. I've got respect for someone who can logically produce evidence and break it down for the most hard-headed skeptic.

I'll make sure to forward this information to as many people as I can.

This is some material that is definitely worth spreading.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Is your work related to Waybe Hershel's Hidden Records by chance?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Is your work related to Waybe Hershel's Hidden Records by chance?


Hi Drunkenparrot,

Not as far as I am aware.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
My findings on this topic...

Sirius connection in modern cairo

peace, love and light,
let u guide by higher i

Jim



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


When I first saw this thread, I thought "Who on ATS deserves their own forum!"

Now I understand.

Outstanding job. I've got respect for someone who can logically produce evidence and break it down for the most hard-headed skeptic.

I'll make sure to forward this information to as many people as I can.

This is some material that is definitely worth spreading.


Hi ThinkingCap,

Many thanks for that - I really do appreciate that others appreciate. And thanks for passing it along.

You see, the thing about what is being presented here is that it is way too difficult for the skeptics to dismiss as coincidence which, unfortunately, is what happened to Bauval's original OCT (Orion Correlation Theory). It is much easier to simply dismiss as coincidence 3 pyramids laid down in a similar pattern to three stars - not so what is being presented here.

Thanks again.

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
to my mind that's fairly conclusive!

wicked presentation, thanks!



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyteeny
to my mind that's fairly conclusive!

wicked presentation, thanks!


Hi Ladyteeny,

I am pleased that you find this research compelling. It'll be interesting to see how those of a more conventional mindset respond to this research.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
That Hawass clown, probably stopped the plans to dig at the Sirius location!



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Is there also a correlation between the light intensity of the stars and the heights of the pyramids?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Please forgive my ignorance. Was it a possibility that most if not all ancient monuments were constructed as a way to better understand the the universe and map the stars as well as winter, summer solstices as well?

If you asked me that is where the genius of the architecture originated. Man kinds persuit to understand the way the universe works.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
Is there also a correlation between the light intensity of the stars and the heights of the pyramids?


Hi Kwakakey,

This is what Robert Bauval originally proposed in his Orion Correlation Theory (OCT), stating that because the third (highest) star in the Belt, Mintaka, was less bright (apparent magnitude) than the other two Belt stars then this is why the third and smallest of the main Giza pyramids, G3, was built significantly smaller. However, a cursory glance at the Belt stars in the night sky will show that the third star is only marginally less bright to the naked eye and certainly not enough to warrant such a reduction in size of G3, its terrestrial counterpart. Also, the middle star of the Belt is actually the brightest (slightly) and, therefore, should have corresponded with the largest pyramid, G1. This is not the case as G1 (the Great Pyramid) correlates with the second brightest star.

It remains my opinion that the Giza Blueprint WAS INDEED derived from the Belt stars but only in the manner presented in the OP. I do not believe the apparent magnitude of the three Belt stars had any bearing whatsoever on the Gizamid dimensions as Bauval proposed some 20 or so years ago.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton
edit on 28/10/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix Typo.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
Please forgive my ignorance. Was it a possibility that most if not all ancient monuments were constructed as a way to better understand the the universe and map the stars as well as winter, summer solstices as well?

If you asked me that is where the genius of the architecture originated. Man kinds persuit to understand the way the universe works.


Hi thehoneycomb,

Without doubt - there are countless ancient monuments that were designed for astronomical purposes such as the numerous solar temples of Egypt, Stonehenge, etc.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton





new topics

top topics



 
89
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join