posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:00 AM
Originally posted by digitalf
It is an interesting theory and one that I first saw presented in Graham Hancock's book 'Keeper of Genesis' (or it could have been 'Fingerprints of
I can't put my hand to those books at the moment (in storage) but if memory serves me correctly the modern day positioning of orion's belt do not
match the pyramid positions and it was only their position in ancient history where it potentially did.
I don't think your presentation explains that well enough. i.e what is the source time of the constellation you are comparing. From Earths
perspective the constellation of orion will change over vast periods of time because the stars in Orion are not all the same distance from
edit on 29-10-2011 by digitalf because: (no reason given)
SC: The Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) was presented worldwide in the book,'The Orion Mystery' (1994)
by Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert. The
cornerstone of that theory (which I do not entirely subscribe to) is that the Giza pyramids were laid down in a pattern that was (almost) identical to
the pattern of the Belt stars (this bit I DO agree with). Bauval's theory has been hotly debated ever since its publication. Mainstream
Egyptologists, academics and skeptics in general have dismissed the correlation between star pattern and pyramid pattern as a coincidence. This is the
area of the theory that most concerns my own work and of which I think Egyptology needs to revisit. This is where the new evidence I present in
The Giza-Orion Blueprint
will help us to look upon the Giza-Orion connection in a more
favorable light; that the connection (not Bauval's OCT per se) is now more in the realm of fact than of theory.
The positions and spatial distances of the Belt stars are pretty much the same now as they have been for at least tens of thousands of years. This is
because Orion's Belt (as viewed from Earth and unlike other star asterisms) exhibits very little in the way of 'proper motion'. This is an
astronomical term and it basically means that with a low 'proper motion', Orion's Belt will remain pretty much the same for thousands of years as
viewed from our vantage point here on Earth. As such if we were to create our drawing of the three pyramid bases from the three stars (as shown in the
presentation) we will find that our three bases proportionally match the three bases of the pyramids. Indeed, in a roundabout way, this actually
proves that there was little difference between the star asterism now and thousands of years ago when the Gizamids were actually designed from the
Belt stars. If the Belt stars were different now than say, 4,500 years ago or even 10,000 years ago, then we would find that the bases extrapolated
from the Belt stars today (i.e. in the presentation) would be quite different (proportionally) to the actual pyramid bases. Since they are
proportionally almost identical then we have to assume that the Belt stars are almost identical now as to what they were thousands of years ago.
I am not sure if you were meaning this in your post but I sensed you were touching upon the Upside-Down (non) issue raised by the archaeastronomer, Dr
Ed Krupp, who argued that the pyramids were laid down in the wrong orientation to the Belt stars. This is a complete nonsense argument from Krupp as
can be seen in this short Flash presentation (you simply have to view the Gizamids in 3-dimensions which Dr Krupp failed to do):
Ed Krupp Debunked
edit on 29/10/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo. Clarify text.