The Giza-Orion Blueprint

reply to post by NibiruWarrior


I am dubious of Mr. Herschel's writings... it may be that his heart is not
fully in place for discovery of arcane secrets and more into 'making a buck'!

Originally posted by JackTheTripper

sexagesimal = base 60

Either math or typing isn't my strong suit,and I'll let you decide which.

did you know, that pyramids are aligned on true north? This was done with stick. First first, a long stick is stuck on a ground and a circle with a perimeter slight less than the stick is drawn around the stick (whih operates as origo. the longer stick, the better accurancy). Then at the morning, when the sun rises and the shadow of the stick crosses th circle, you mark the spot. Do the same when sun sets and bisect the angle formed. There's your north. Essential for timekeeping.

I knew they were aligned on geographical north to within fractions. I've used the stick method to find north myself, but not to that degree of precision - I'm an impatient cuss.

reply to post by nenothtu

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

Couldn't you have just asked someone?!

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.

Originally posted by NibiruWarrior

I've read Wayne Herschel's Hidden Records, and that's what immediately came to mind when reading your OP.

Please take a look at it. The Giza Plateau is where he started his Star Map investigation, and it took him all over the world to the most important and most ancient sites around the world, spanning many civilisations.

I think anyone interested in this theory really has to read that book. The information in this post really is only the tip of the iceberg.

I can't say how this theory correlates with Herschel's, if at all, but I can say with all confidence that Herschel's theories, below the "iceberg tip", are sheer fantasy and fabrication. I've done fairly extensive research on Herschel's theories, and could never find any real science in them because all the fabrications of "star maps" out of nothing of the sort kept getting in the way.

He may or may not have started out with something, but if he did, he got sidetracked by the pursuit if chimaeras where none existed.

reply to post by A boy in a dress



[img]http://api.ning.com/files/j-Ov*qYzC2vf2xbO*IZwOqGNAJJhZZENbIxD0SbvtCjjiId241Yt0Ybe-5GVKjGIJ8R18ICqeCuUvvlu7-*NTPhZhIBrOdHt/PyramidSkull1.jpg[/img ]

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

 

[img]http://api.ning.com/files/j-Ov*qYzC2vf2xbO*IZwOqGNAJJhZZENbIxD0SbvtCjjiId241Yt0Ybe-5GVKjGIJ8R18ICqeCuUvvlu7-*NTPhZhIBrOdHt/PyramidSkull1.jpg[/img ]

edit on 29-10-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)

Er... I'm not that au-fait with the above.

Edit: is it something to do with a Crystal Skull?
I stand corrected.
Jack 's image:

reply to post by A boy in a dress


flaw on the board. cannot do anything about it
It's head/pyramid overlayed, showing the positions of kings and queens chamber related to pineal and pituitary glands. My link to distortedsouls on the 3th page of this thread shows nicely the function ofthe shafts...

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

 

flaw on the board. cannot do anything about it

No probs -bro... I linked it.

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 the Gods')
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 Earth.

reply to post by digitalf


I never realised this... thank you.
Of course, the skies alter as we move through time
and space, we tend to be selfish and back-there-and-then
we believed we were the centre of the universe.

Thank you again.

Originally posted by digitalf
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.

There is a plausible postulate for the alignment in Herschels site
Besides, use stellarium, it'll show the orion hasn't changed in time (even using better ephemerids won't change that fact.

reply to post by JackTheTripper
Yes seen his work before, thanks for the link, Herschel built upon the theory but I guess the OP has taken the next step and linked the geometry of it all - would still like clarification from the OP as to the timeline of comparison.

p.s any chance of a signed copy of the book when it comes out :p

reply to post by A boy in a dress

No problems, this may also be of interest to you - the alignment of the pyramids, if indeed an accurate model of orion's belt in ancient times, pre-dates by many thousand years the mainstream dating of their construction by the Egyptians.

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

 

No problems, this may also be of interest to you - the alignment of the pyramids, if indeed an accurate model of orion's belt in ancient times, pre-dates by many thousand years the mainstream dating of their construction by the Egyptians.

Gulp! oh fine... that's it, muddy the waters even more!

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 the Gods')
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 Earth.

edit on 29-10-2011 by digitalf because: (no reason given)

Hi Digitalf,

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

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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

I had the impresion Krupp meant misalignment of the belt stars compared to the sky- which makes the misalignment deliberate (as Herschl postulates) compared with the other stars and pyramids..? In that sense Krupp is right, but if he claimed there is no connection to th belt stars, you have debubked him totally. Anyway, is there a possibility to a courtesy copy of your book with autograph?

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Cheers for the reply Scott, makes perfect sense and clears some of my confusion on the topic, especially the details of the belt positioning. Apologies if I my source for the OCT was incorrect - I do remember also reading 'The Orion Mystery' many years ago.

I look forward to your publication and wish you well with presenting your theories.

Just one final question if I may, do you elude to any timeframe for the construction of the pyramids in your work or are you solely focused on the mathematical correlations ?

reply to post by Whateva69


WOW..!! what a documentry !!! I watched the entire series and definately interesting..

thx you

Originally posted by JackTheTripper

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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

I had the impresion Krupp meant misalignment of the belt stars compared to the sky- which makes the misalignment deliberate (as Herschl postulates) compared with the other stars and pyramids..? In that sense Krupp is right, but if he claimed there is no connection to th belt stars, you have debubked him totally. Anyway, is there a possibility to a courtesy copy of your book with autograph?

Hello JackTheTripper,

It has always been known that the Belt layout to pyramid layout is not exact - even Bauval conceded this point in his book, believing that G3 (Menkaure's pyramid) to have been placed slightly off its planned position. It is my contention, however, that it is G2 that is off its planned position and there is some considerable evidence to support this. It might seem like I am splitting hairs here with Bauval but you'll just have to trust me on this, it makes a quite fundamental difference to our respective theories. So Krupp never really concerned himself with this particular aspect, only the non issue of the orientation.

As for a courtesy copy of my forthcoming book. I would dearly love to give everyone here on ATS (including the skeptics) a courtesy copy. Alas, the publisher (Bear & Co) does not give out courtesy copies. Sorry. :-(

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by digitalf
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Cheers for the reply Scott, makes perfect sense and clears some of my confusion on the topic, especially the details of the belt positioning. Apologies if I my source for the OCT was incorrect - I do remember also reading 'The Orion Mystery' many years ago.

I look forward to your publication and wish you well with presenting your theories.

Just one final question if I may, do you elude to any timeframe for the construction of the pyramids in your work or are you solely focused on the mathematical correlations ?

Hi Digitalf,

Please understand that the CoC and T&C of ATS does not permit me to discuss a forthcoming book as it is deemed as advertising/promoting and I am always wary of treading the line. Suffice to say that my new book asks some very awkward questions relating to the chronology of Ancient Egypt and, in particular, the Old Kingdom pyramids posited by mainstream Egyptologists.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton