Okay - lots of discussion going on here. Thank you all for that. If you are joining this thread here then this is what is being discussed (from the
The Giza-Orion Blueprint
This is a Flash presentation. 'Hoonsince89' commented in the thread that it runs too quickly. There is, however, a 'control panel' (bottom left) of
the Flash presentation that allows you to pause it at any point, so please use that if you find it going by too quickly.
Okay - to some of the other points raised. There is a fair amount to go over so please forgive me if I have missed something.
'Redbarron69' and 'JacktheTripper' commented words to the effect that what has been presented by myself here is nothing new, that I am 20 years too
late as Bauval, Hancock and Herschel all beat me to the post. 'Bspiracy' is quite correct - Bauval, Hancock or Herschel have NEVER (let me repeat -
NEVER) presented anything remotely resembling what is being presented here. You have to understand that 20 years ago Bauval and Hancock (and latterly
Herschel) merely pointed out that the PATTERN of the three Belt stars looked like the same PATTERN that the three main Giza pyramids made. That's ALL
they said. Herschel then took the pattern matching to another level by correlating other pyramid fields in Egypt with other groups of stars.
Now, the BIG difference with what I am presenting here on ATS is demonstrating how - using the Belt stars of the Orion constellation - we can simply
and elegantly recreate the (almost) precise proportional dimensions (i.e. the actual base dimensions) of the main Giza pyramids. Egyptologists have
long puzzled over why the smallest of the main Giza pyramids, G3 (Menkaure's pyramid) is so much smaller and rectangular than G1 and G2. If we use
Orion's Belt as our template, and draw lines from point-to-point in a logical and systematic fashion, the curious shape and size of G3 is a natural
outcome of this very elementary geometry. If Bauval and Hancock could have shown this proof 20 years ago, chances are we would not have been arguing
the coincidence question over the layout today. Furthermore, if Graham Hancock had, for a single moment, thought that I was regurgitating his own work
he most certainly would not have stated the following in the Foreword to my forthcoming book (with co-author, Gary Osborn):
Creighton and Osborn show that the Orion correlation is very real. Building on Bauval’s groundbreaking work, they not only reinforce the
validity of the correlation but refine it even further, adding new dimensions to the discovery. - Graham Hancock
I hope we can now understand the mighty big difference between what those early pioneers of the Orion-Giza theory presented some 20 years ago and what
is being presented today.
'Astrithr' - you asked if the measures given used the casing stones or not. I used the measures that are commonly accepted for the dimensions of the
Giza pyramids and which are found in many mainstream Egyptology books. It is my understanding that these lengths are calculated from the 'sockets' at
the base of the pyramid (if they are accessible).
'Daynight42' - you stated that the Cygnus constellation better matches the layout of the Giza pyramids. This is to entirely miss the point and I
have, in the past, raised this issue with the author, Andrew Collins, who first proposed the 'Cygnus Correlation'. The 'Cygnus Correlation' fails on
two very important counts:
1) It cannot explain the two sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids' in a logical and consistent manner within the Cygnus Correlation Theory. I have
shown that the two sets of three so-called Queens' Pyramids actually mimic the precessional culminations of Orion's Belt stars from their minimum
culmination ca.10,500 BCE to their maximum culmination ca.2,500 CE. You can read more on this in this ATS thread:
Giza Pyramids Indicate 2012
2) If you follow the step by step process in my presentation but use the Cygnus stars, the resulting three bases do not match the shape or proportions
of the Giza pyramids.
'SFWatcher' - you asked about the pyramid heights. I rather suspect these were also created in a systematic fashion once the bases had been defined.
I propose this is how it may have been done:
Defining the Giza Pyramid Heights from their Bases
'Char-Lee - you asked about the shafts. I have long speculated upon these and you can read my conclusion here:
The Star Shafts and the Earth Tilt
'Whateve69' - you said that Giza may have been a world clock. I believe it is most certainly a clock of sorts. See the 2012 link above.
'Bulla' - if you have ideas then why not simply share them here on ATS?
That's it for now, folks.
edit on 29/10/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix Typo.