The Giza-Orion Blueprint

reply to post by JackTheTripper


Yep. went to school. I'm asking specific questions for specific answers pertaining to this theory because the OCT was an old hobby of mine and was looking for something new in the theory. Like the axis tilt question that was not related to the tropics.

No offense but I'm asking specific questions.

reply to post by Scott Creighton



Well obviously that didn't work!

As i understand it there was nothing of 'enlighting knowledge' found in the pyramids, so

whether they stored 'anything' that was to be 'recovered' it was either lost or looted. So

therefor surely 'inscripted messages' INSIDE of the pyramids would have been a better form

of leaving instructions or messages [INSIDE the pyramids would have been more secure

and more difficult to vandalise or errase]


You are the OP on this thread under discussion so it is really not good enough to just say

"It's detailed in my book" thats equivalent to saying if you want the information buy my book!


IF the pyramids were recovery vaults to store necessary items for recovery from ruin from an

ecological dissaster - After this dissaster on the 'outside' who would be left to recover the

contents of these pyramids? and how would they have the capability or strength left

to open them? Remember it would have had to have been some major type of ecological

dissaster to need to recover 'necessary items'

One of the biggest problems with the Giza complex is that the Egyptian authorities are really cagey about who they allow to conduct serious research and seem to have a vested interest in hampering certain lines of enquiry. The discoverers of the Bosnian pyramids (now seen to be the largest structures in Europe and I think even bigger than the ones at Giza) are being much more open, so perhaps we'll be able to draw some really genuine conclusions when the fruits of their research comes to light. The Chinese, unfortunately, are incredibly secretive about the 150 or so pyramids in their country, deliberately planting trees on some to cover them over - God only knows why....

reply to post by digitalf


I agree and maybe I read the replies wrong. I was under the impression that this code was for all descendants due to past and present catastrophes from the ancients. I apologize for misinterpreting the basic theory. Old eyes ya know.

David Lewis 'found' plenty that was enlightening in the pyramids, lol!

www.scribd.com...

Believe it or not.....

It seems incredible that there's no more in them than meets the eye, unless it really has all been looted. Can't wait to see what comes out from underneath them, there's probably a whole city under there

Originally posted by A boy in a dress

 

... I've used the stick method to find north myself, but not to that degree of precision...

Couldn't you have just asked someone?!

Life is harsh when one wakes up naked and draped across a tree limb - don't ask. Then when you ask someone for directions, they save " 'ave you no compass? Oh, I see - no pocket to carry it in, Right, then,,," So the stick method seemed a better idea at the time...

Look... I think the Pyramids may have been a tool to use in the religeous rites of
Eygptian deaths, the idea of building a big 'brick and having only a few tunnels to
use... and many of those inaccessable to humans -seems a strange way to build
something to worship RA with.

This is the question I'm waiting on an answer for. The mere fact that the pyramids may be laid out on the plan of Orion's belt doesn't strike me as all that odd - after all, Orion is a rather prominent constellation in the winter - , so I'm wondering what folks are thinking the significance of that layout must be. It seems to me THAT is the area where conventionalists and Ancient Alien proponents must part ways.

I suspect there may be as many theories as to that significance as there are theorists, and some may have more merit attached than others.

The pyramid "tunnels" too small for human access are a mystery to me. Conventionalists say they were for "ventilation" or some such - as if a dead guy who's all wrapped in linen would have a pressing need to breathe - and several of the Ancient astronaut folks claim they were to sight stars, which is equally problematic, since they have no direct line-of-sight to the outside, but are twisted and tortured instead. I've no idea what they may have been intended for. I can't quite get behind the "stress relief" theory, either. I don't see how a little 8 inch by 8 inch tunnel punched through a massive stone edifice is going to keep it from collapsing udner stress.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The pyramid "tunnels" too small for human access are a mystery to me.

What do you think about the explanation found at here ?

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Well obviously that didn't work!

SC: Oh but it did work. The Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt collapsed (as did just about every other known Bronze Age III culture at that time, including the Akkadian Empire). Uniquely, however, ancient Egypt was somehow able to revive itself after this sudden and inexplicable collapse (most academics believe it to have been caused by sudden catastrophic climate change) and was reborn (after the First Intermediate Period) into the period known as the 'Middle Kingdom'. Now, I wonder how ancient Egypt was able to revivicate itself whilst most other cultures at the time could not and simply vanished. There are big clues at Saqqara, Meidum, Dahshur and Giza.

And if you are a people that can quarry millions of 2.5 ton limestone blocks out of a quarry and place them into a pyramid, why do you imagine it would be any more difficult for them to do the reverse?

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by undo

i'm not a light warrior of the herschel variety. i just think the guy is a specialist, in much the same was as the op is a specialist. people approach ancient subjects from their own perspective, and if they are into researching the related topics, it often ends in a preferred theoretcial area that may or may not, resemble your own personal views..

That's the thing - it appears to me that Mr. Creighton is a specialist. He has a narrowly focused and tailored theory which stays on point and on target. Herschel, in contrast, may have started out in that manner, but he bit off more than he could chew and expanded the investigation into the realms of the absurd. It got to the point where he now sees "star maps" which he alleges support his theories everywhere he looks. The absolute last straw for me was his allegation involving a "Cherokee Star Map".. Even in his own writing he doesn't refer to it as a "Cherokee" star map anywhere other than in the attention-grabbing headline. In the body of his exposition on the subject, he attributes the document to the "Muskingum" tribe, of which there is no such.

His real folly, however, was in picking a document for which we have a historical record, produced by a historical person, and explained by that individual as to what it is in reality. He might have gotten away with it had he chosen a document ancient enough to be labeled "author unknown", but that was not the case. The individual Indian who produced the document explained it himself, speaking from his own lips, saying that it was a record of his war honors in the Pontiac War.

It had nothing at all to do with "star maps", no matter how hard Hershel tries to force that. When he was caught out in that fabrication, it brought ALL of his work into question. How many other of his infamous "star maps" are nothing of the sort?

Mr Creighton, from what I've been able to gather, is quite a lot more specific and plausible than that, taking a specific, single, complex and relating it's layout to a single, specific, asterism. There really isn't any comparison possible between the two beyond the mere coincidence that both deal with Orion and the Gaza Pyramids at some point, and Mr Creighton STAYS on point.

Herschel is all over the map, casting about to make new "discoveries", and announcing publicly "discoveries" which simply do not exist.

reply to post by nenothtu


You seem to have great personal agenda defending Scott and blacklisting Herschel. Why?
I mean - there are two sides of the coin. Truth is just well argumented belief. Totally subjectional.
Herschel postulates things - anyone can bunk or verify him. When the verification/bunking is well argumented and widely accepted, it becomes the truth.

You know, postulate means something assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning...

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by A boy in a dress
reply to post by undo

 

I agree -Undo, he may want to discover possible-forgotten secrets and may have
a keen interest in Eygptian structures, but the way he attempts to attach it to
dubious claims of alien signals and the like.... leaves a lot to be desired.

well if he's on your "Goofy" list, i'm sure to be right up there with him cause i don't only think aliens are involved, i believe star gates are involved. so reasoning with me on the subject may seem rather pointless. lol

It's not that he thinks that - I can't discount the possibility of ancient aliens - it's more in the way he tries to force round pegs into square holes to "prove" his hypothesis. I have no quarrel with the hypothesis itself. it's a possibility. That said, when you go to offer evidence for your viewpoint, make sure that it IS evidence, and not fabrication. Fabrication only serves to discredit the entire field, and that isn't something any of us should be behind.

Originally posted by NibiruWarrior
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yeah I believe I already covered that above. When you have had major works published and several major book deals, you will probably have people just like you used to be, saying the same things about your work out of nothing but envy.

Do not mistake in-depth investigation for "envy". that only makes your self sound envious.

I only feel I can say this because if you have done the research you certainly weren't that good at it.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but any opinion is a valid viewpoint. Now, if you truly want to solidify your contention, show me where my research went wrong. Point out the wrong points in it. If you can show me wrong in any point, I will concede that point. the catch is, to show it wrong, you have to bring evidence to refute it.

So far, no one has been able to, including Herschel himself, and God knows he's tried.

I have the books, and my research involved comparing the real constellations and angles/distances with the ones in his book and against archaeological diagrams and pictures found online, and all but one starmap completely correlates, and that one might just be because I'm not as smart or as good as Herschel atgetting them to the right scale. I used an a2 thermal inkjet printer, transparencies and a custom lightbox that I made myself to overlay the maps and get the scaling right. I DID come to the same conclusion as Herschel and Lederer.

That's all well and good, but in order to convince me, you'll have to present that evidence, rather than merely staking claim to it and keeping it safely hidden away. Out of curiosity, which of his starmaps were you unable to corroborate with your methodology?

I know which one I completely and utterly refuted, and that refutation is ensconced right here at ATS in a post made last year, for public review.

The knowledge, conclusions and general ideas about our true history as a species on this planet you can draw from this work are astounding. I kid you not.

This isn't really the thread for it, so I won't go in depth on that notion here, other than to say "bunk". There is no "knowledge" to be drawn from his work that I've uncovered so far, and every fabrication I find only drives the entire body of his work in an entirely different direction.

Seriously, if you want to discuss Herschel, the book thread in my signature is probably a more proper venue. Once you've read the book (so that you know what it is you are refuting), and armed yourself with the fruits of your own research (as evidence to refute mine), I'll be more than happy to discuss the issue there.

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR

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..

Because there ZERO evidence of such

Uh, hello? The subject of this thread? Pyramids laid out on the plan of Orion?

If that's not enough, how about the preference throughout history to align graves east-west?

NO evidence for burial places aligned with stars?

Seriously?

Great stuff,people.
But I don't understand the ignorance of the relation to the Giza Pyramids to the Teotihuacan Pyramids.
The complexity of that site,Teotihuacan.
The amazing stone work.
Let's compare.



I flipped this map upside down.


There are differences.Like the orientation of the pyramids
Also the distances between them.
What else do you see?

Originally posted by JackTheTripper
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You seem to have great personal agenda defending Scott and blacklisting Herschel. Why?
I mean - there are two sides of the coin. Truth is just well argumented belief. Totally subjectional.
Herschel postulates things - anyone can bunk or verify him. When the verification/bunking is well argumented and widely accepted, it becomes the truth.

Because I'm "Agenda driven", I suppose. At least you were original enough not to go with the hackneyed charge of "paid disinfo agent".

Seriously, it's because I have found no flaw in Creighton's work so far, and nothing BUT flaws in Herschel's. If that gives me an "agenda", then go ahead and write it up for me. Where I come from, that just means I think for myself, I evaluate what is presented, rather than just accept any old thing because it's said to be so.

we could get into the metaphysics of "truth" vs. belief, but I don't think this is the place for it. How about I don't "believe" Truth is subjective - but that it is absolute? Belief is by it's nature unproven - that's why it is "belief". Truth has a bit firmer foundation - else it's mere belief.

Nothing "becomes" truth, truth just IS, and is discovered, not manufactured.

You know, postulate means something assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning...

That's true, and when utterly disproven, by a preponderance of evidence against it, the postulate is no longer a valid one. It then is shown to be an erroneous assumption.

Originally posted by kdog1982


There are differences.Like the orientation of the pyramids
Also the distances between them.
What else do you see?

It looks like the temple of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan only appears to be the largest, because of the large courtyard. The temple itself seems to be considerably smaller, and so that would be yet another difference between Teotihuacan and Giza.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by JackTheTripper

You know, postulate means something assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning...

That's true, and when utterly disproven, by a preponderance of evidence against it, the postulate is no longer a valid one. It then is shown to be an erroneous assumption.

Indeed - but how Mr Herschels postulate has been utterly disproven? I didn't find anything against him about those star maps and mystery star from your book? Actually, I have seen only one plausible alternative explanation
(the link to the distortedsouls).. Maybe he just wanted his 5 minutes of fame and came up with bs marketing story, that doesn't prove still anything about his "findings"?

Originally posted by bulla
reply to post by bulla

 

and dare I say it is important that it be aligned presisly magnetic North South, your proving your alignment is important in the view that it dates the system on an astrol plain, dose it not

The magnetic poles shift location randomly on a micro time scale of years and decades, so why would a "clock" postulated on a macro time scale of thousands of years employ a magnetic orientation?

Originally posted by A boy in a dress
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

... US release 28th December 2011. Elsewhere 1st February 2012...

I don't mean to scoff Sir, but if 2012 is the year of the end or a catastrophe that
effects the way he currently are -then sales will be poor!

It could be a bumper-crop of sales leading up to the end - you know how people like their doom fresh! The timing seems to me to be a sound business decision - absent that pesky "end of the world" thing, which could cut into ones enjoyment of the proceeds somewhat...

reply to post by Scott Creighton

YouTube Link: Modern Marvels Egyptian Pyramids
Regardless about how they were built, the pyramids were created to help the King and Queens of Egypt into the afterlife. Every detail was about reaching to the heavens and underworld.