I reckon I'll have to wait for the book to come out - can't watch the movie.

Someone give me a heads-up when I can read about it somewhere.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
I would like to know if we have a way of determining or estimating the size of the stars in Orion's Belt and if there is a correlation found in the size of the pyramids at Giza? Complete noob and forgive me if this has already been addressed...

I wondered about that as well. I find Scott's theories very compelling evidence. I suggest everyone look at his other threads as well. Things like that aren't built happenstance, there's a reason for all of it.

Originally posted by JackTheTripper
I am afraid, Creighton, you are years late with your re-discovery. Go check out (link removed)

I really hope this isn't a re-hash of Herschel's goofy "work". I'll not judge it until I can actually look it over, but the very fact you can try to make that association bodes ill.

Most people have never come across the fact that the Giza pyramids do not align that well with Orion's belt.

They align better with Cygnus. There are some very fascinating points to be found if you look this up, including that a special type of radiation in the Cygnus constellation is responsible for altering our DNA. (Scientists agree that radiation does change DNA.)

Search for "giza pyramids cygnus" to get started on your quest.

I know it's common "knowledge" that the pyramids align to Orion, but that's what people believe until a better match comes along and it's revealed that they really don't as well as they do to another constellation.

I would elaborate more on this, but it's been a while since I read this myself and I've forgotten the finer points and details.

Happy exploring.

Thank you Scott for presenting this interesting material, whether it is old or not.

Somewhere I read that when Christ returns it will be through Orion. May have some significance.

scott i havent read all but if you would like some data that I have, and havent realy published yet albeit i have loged it on sites that have lagitermant dates, that then protects the data from plagerisiam and being published without first quoting the soarse, then I am happy to let you have some of it seeing your intersts lye in that direction I am far to busy to persue it , as it will show you the correct direction, being the very reason Sir Issac Newton was fasernated with the subject

Originally posted by JackTheTripper

Please, get familiar with the whole website to which I provided the link before you start toasting me.

I am.

See the link to the book in my sig?

Who do you suppose put that book together?

I'm noticing a disturbing link-dropping tendency in your posts...

That sort of thing is also addressed in my book....

Originally posted by nenothtu
See the link to the book in my sig?
Who do you suppose put that book together?
I'm noticing a disturbing link-dropping tendency in your posts...
That sort of thing is also addressed in my book....

Ahh. You wanna start a flame war, eh?
That work of yours isn't related to the pyramids at all while the links I provided are.
Check my sig. Even that is.

Originally posted by JackTheTripper

Ahh. You wanna start a flame war, eh?
That work of yours isn't related to the pyramids at all while the links I provided are.
Check my sig. Even that is.

Why would I start a flame war? to what purpose?

The book is intimately connected with Wayne Herschel's charlatanry, as are several of your links. You are the one who stated that Mr Creighton's work was a "rediscovery" of Herschel's "work", and provided a link to his website, not I.

I haven't seen Mr. Creighton's work, and so cannot comment on it. I'm waiting patiently on something written that I can read, since I can't watch the movie.

Commenting on the link YOU provided, attempting to link the two, is fair game. IF there is any sort of real connection between the works, and I find that connection, THEN I'll comment on it. It would be a bit premature to comment on it sight unseen, would it not?

So far, all I've been able to gather from the thread is that there is a belief that the Giza Pyramids are laid out on the same general pattern as Orion's Belt, which is entirely plausible. We can see Orion's belt, and there's no particular reason we couldn't replicate that pattern in the layout of an Earthly complex.

Herschel takes that to a whole new, and ridiculous, level when he "theorizes" on the WHY of that.

Mr Creighton has put this into an open forum, open for review and debate. For that act alone, he has earned more respect points that Herschel ever has or ever will. I expect he will be able to defend his premise if it needs defending, just based on his posts thus far. that, too, is something Herschel was never able to do, and so Creighton is likely to earn even MORE respect points.

Frankly, I think your attempt to link the two, and give Herschel supremacy of discovery, is nothing short of insulting.

So I commented on it.

it could be said that you are all ludites when it comes to the real techknowlagy of the pyramids which I havent yet put on here or published unless the data bank is leaking with plagerists abound , I was going to give the data to someone who was involved who had an entrest in the subject, however give it time and I will put in into air space and let you decide who knows, and pre empt any books that may see a fast buck from publishing others data dont they call that plagerisiam, or is that percular to the scientific fratnity alone, I think not

And if you think you know the secret then you can then explain Sir Isacc Newtons cunundrum, he left us with thats if you can find it