The Orion Connection: Can we Deny it?

reply to post by Harte


I am not following you here. Are you suggesting that since the sculpture appears to have been carried out in stages that the entire theory is wrong? The results still give a minimum estimate of 7,000 years...

I thought that the structures at Giza where most likely built according to the stars of cygnus. In order to match the lay out of the site you have to flip and then invert the stars of orions belt.

Originally posted by JayinAR
I am not following you here. Are you suggesting that since the sculpture appears to have been carried out in stages that the entire theory is wrong? The results still give a minimum estimate of 7,000 years...

No, I'm just pointing out how Schoch himself states that he arrived at his date, and it doesn't involve water erosion.

However, I'll say it. Yes, the "entire theory is wrong."

Stones from the Sphinx temple, which has an ordinary, traditional layout common for all temples of that era, can be matched so precisely with the enclosure that one can tell what part of the enclosure each stone came from.

almost all came from the front and sides which, according to Schoch, were excavated 2500 to 4500 years (or more, he says) before the 4th Dynasty.

Do you believe that temple design remained the same for that amount of time? If so, where are the other temples from 7,000 BC?

That's just one reason to discard Schoch's idea. There's a hundred more.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Where are all the other 7,000 year old temples? I dunno. Perhaps all around. I mean, the pyramidal shape remained more or less the same for a very long time, did it not?

And in any event, as you just pointed out, the pyramid shape certainly wasn't the only one they knew how to build. This contradicts your previous remarks.

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I thought that the structures at Giza where most likely built according to the stars of cygnus. In order to match the lay out of the site you have to flip and then invert the stars of orions belt.

The reason why its backwards is because the planet had a different axis at the time.

IT looks backwards now. But 10500 BC is the only date it lines up properly. Thats what they were talking about.

And oddly it pairs up with other structures around the world, Hense this theads topic of the Orion connection.

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I thought that the structures at Giza where most likely built according to the stars of cygnus. In order to match the lay out of the site you have to flip and then invert the stars of orions belt.

The reason why its backwards is because the planet had a different axis at the time.

IT looks backwards now. But 10500 BC is the only date it lines up properly. Thats what they were talking about.

And oddly it pairs up with other structures around the world, Hense this theads topic of the Orion connection.

edit on 27-4-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)

That makes no sense from an optical stand point even if the earths axis was at a diffrent angle the stars would still be in the same order. In order to view the stars the way this is discribing we would have to bros the start from the point that is opposite and equidistant and from the from the same viewing angle as we are now.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90


csep10.phys.utk.edu...

The Earth's rotation axis is not fixed in space. Like a rotating toy top, the direction of the rotation axis executes a slow precession with a period of 26,000 years (see following figure).

Pole Stars are Transient Thus, Polaris will not always be the Pole Star or North Star. The Earth's rotation axis happens to be pointing almost exactly at Polaris now, but in 13,000 years the precession of the rotation axis will mean that the bright star Vega in the constellation Lyra will be approximately at the North Celestial Pole, while in 26,000 more years Polaris will once again be the Pole Star.

Precession of the Equinoxes Since the rotation axis is precessing in space, the orientation of the Celestial Equator also precesses with the same period. This means that the position of the equinoxes is changing slowly with respect to the background stars. This precession of the equinoxes means that the right ascension and declination of objects changes very slowly over a 26,000 year period. This effect is negligibly small for casual observing, but is an important correction for precise observations.

en.wikipedia.org...

Last glacial period

The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]

^

There is a good possibility of a pole shift in the passed. That is good enough to change our view of the stars over thousands of years.

If the poles stayed in one place than maybe we wouldn't have this reversal effect. But the procession itself being tracked backwards is enough to line up the pyramids with Orion 10500 years ago.

NO NO NO. The pyramids do NOT align to Orion. This is a myth that needs to end now. They do align to a constellation, but it is not Orion. It is Cygnus. In fact, using this star map aligned over a map of the pyramids places the rest of the main stars in the constellation over other important areas. Actually I think this is how they found the "Bird Caves," or whatever they call them. So seriously the Orion myth needs to stop.

reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw


I know how about the changing of the axis of earth. Any change in the surface position as long as the position stays relative to the stars would not change the order in which the stars are. That would only change time and angle you see the stars from it would not invert them. It would have no effect the view of the stars in relation to each other. For that to happen you would have to be viewing the stars from the other side of them. Think about this if you look at the belt from your position on this planet and then move to diffrent spot do they change in layout? No the only thing that changes is the time you see them and the angle they are at above the horizon.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus








stardate.org...

Orion The three bright stars forming the belt of Orion ,the hunter, were the celestial embodiment of Osiris, god of the dead. Orion was of dual importance to Egyptians. The constellation was believed to be the final resting place of pharaohs, where they joined forever with the gods of the sky. Orion also appeared in the night sky shortly before Sirius, which in turn heralded the arrival of the life-giving summer floods. Sirius represented Isis, Osiris' sister and consort, who trailed him across the sky just as she searched the land for his body in the most famous of Egyptian myths.

Osiris Osiris Known as the Lord of Everything, Osiris symbolized the birth, growth, death, and rebirth of the natural world. In Egyptian mythology, Osiris was murdered and dismembered by his jealous brother, Seth, then briefly brought back to life by his sister and consort Isis to father the god Horus. Egyptians saw Osiris in the Moon, whose phases caused the all-important Nile to rise and fall each month, and in the constellation Orion, whose appearance was connected with the annual flood. As god of the dead, Osiris welcomed the recently deceased to their new world. King Khufu, eager to join Osiris as quickly as possible after his death, had a shaft constructed in his burial chamber pointing directly to Orion, which was considered to be the final resting place of the pharaohs.

Sygnus has to do with those caves right? i think you may be thinking of something unlrelated.


reply to post by BriGuyTM90



i am aware of this, But i pointed out that in the last ice age. May have been a pole shift. Meaning where the procession lies on the ground. Say north pole is the north pole. Those areas were not the north and south pole at one point and the earth would of wobble south and north from different locations on the earth.

Taking this into account with the procession actively wobbling the planet. The location where the stars are may have been inverted Given the south and north pole are in different locations well the earth wobbles.

This is why tracing what happened in the passed is so difficult. Because scientists look at these anomolies and have to work around them.

I just wanted to add to the coincidence of the maps here.

This might lend to the theory that the poles have moved. Perhaps the antartic was an *atlantic* ocean at one point.

reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw


Yes cygnus contains a neutron star and its jet is pointed at earth and people would go down in caves and watch the cosmic rays flash from hitting their photoreceptors. But I'm stating that for some one to view them inverted you would have to look at them from the other side of them. Nothing you provided refuted that scientificly.

reply to post by BriGuyTM90


Just check out what i added. Im trying to explain the possiblities of what could of happened to cause this effect.

Orion Correlation Theory

The great pyramids of Giza do not line up with Orion's belt unless you flip them.

10,000 years prior to the date of main stream saying they are built (so that makes it around 12,600 BC), means that you now have to take the Earth's wobble into account and, while the amount they move will not appear much due to the distance of the 3 stars of the belt, the fact is: stars move.

They move slowly, but they are moving (as well as we are moving). This motion is much more apparent when it comes to stars that are close to us (Sirius for example is only 8.6 light years away, and we can see the motion more). Stars that are further away will not appear to move as much.

But they do move, and while 12,600 years is a drop in the bucket on a cosmic scale of time, it's still enough so that the 3 stars in Orion's belt, would have the WRONG angle to align with the 3 pyramids, even if you flip them.

So I'm seeing a contradiction here: you all are saying that they line up with Orion's belt.

Only if you flip them.

Next some of you are insisting that they MUST ALSO have been built 10,000 years prior to 2,600 BC.....but then, if that were true, they would not have lined up with how Orion's belt looked then.

IF they had been built that long ago, and IF they were suppose to align to Orion's belt back then........then they would no longer line up with how the belt looks today.

However........Orion's belt back in 2600 BC.....is very close to what it looks like today

So you all need to make up your minds. If they were built to align with Orion's belt.....they they could NOT have been built as long ago as you all are claiming (and that goes for Cygnius too......you all seem to forget that the stars move, and the longer the amount of time, the more that movement will be visible and the stars will not be in the same place that they are today).

reply to post by eriktheawful


From what i understand sir, Egypt is the center of the world. Even if the polar axis were to change it would still be line up with Orion reguardless.

It is the centerpoint of all landmasses on earth. So say the north pole was on on the pacific coast. It would still be the center of the world because of its position

But if that happened our view of north and south would change. Which would.. spin Orion around from our point of view right? Making it reversed?

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

From what i understand sir, Egypt is the center of the world. Even if the polar axis were to change it would still be line up with Orion reguardless.

It is the centerpoint of all landmasses on earth. So say the north pole was on on the pacific coast. It would still be the center of the world because of its position

But if that happened our view of north and south would change. Which would.. spin Orion around from our point of view right? Making it reversed?

You're not understanding one of the points I'm making:

The stars themselves move.

Go back far enough and the Big Dipper does not look like a Big Dipper at all. Go forward in time far enough and the Big Dipper again will no longer look like the Big Dipper (it'll look more like a Big Scooper).

Everything is in motion, the Earth, our Sun, the other stars in our galaxy, and the galaxies themselves are moving too.

Two things affect what we see in the sky when it comes to this: how close the stars are to us, and how much time we are talking about.

The closer the star, the more motion we will see in it, where as the further the star, the less motion we see in the same given amount of time.

The more time difference we look at (IE 4,000 years vs. 14,000 years) the more that motion of those stars will be apparent in our viewing of them.

14,600 years ago (that 12,500 BC as for some saying when the Great Pyramids were actually built, vs 2,600 BC) the stars that make up Orion's Belt were not in the positions that we see today. The angle in which they line up was different.

So, if people want to say, provide evidence/proof that they were built a lot further back in time than what main stream archeology says they were built, I'm not going to argue that as I'm no expert in that field.

However, saying that they were built that long ago AND that they were made to line up with Orion's Belt is just plain wrong as the stars for the Belt that far back were NOT in the positions that they are in today. That IS something I can comment on as a expert in.

Stars move: Barnard's Star is a very good example to look at because it's velocity is so extreme, it affords us the ability to actually see a star's motion within a single person's life time.

At the same time, if someone want's to say that the Great Pyramids were built when archeologist say there were (2,600 BC), and that they were built to represent Orion's Belt, I can't argue with that, because Orion's Belt is very close to what it looks like today back then (IE they have moved, but your eyes won't see the difference because it's not enough time). All I can point out is that in order to truly look like Orion's Belt and the other ruins suppose to represent the other stars in the constellation, the only problem I see is that they got the belt backwards.

So no mater what you think of Procession, it doesn't really mater because the stars themselves are moving too. Go back far enough and those constellations will not look the same and will be visibly different to people's eyes. And 14,000 years is actually enough to see a difference.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Interesting but if it was so important why did they only do it once? Secondarily why are the satellite pyramids and other constructions not counted?

So how many pyramids in AE are in this formation vs how many are not? What percentage?

It's always the largest pyramids in the group.

The reason for the sattelites are yet to be discovered. Though I have seen maps of Egypt where other sites seem to correspond to the other stars in Orion. And there are other stars and constellations other than Orion that have matching arrangements in Egyptian sites.

So much focus has been spent on Egypt for the past hundreds of years, and these other Orion connected sites have been more recently discussed as far as an Orion connection. Maybe in the next few years we will see more research and more clues leading to the Orion connection in these other sites.

Before I forget... I was thinking of how some people say that the Egyptian pyramids match more closely to Cygnus than Orion's belt... Is it possible that the perspective has changed over the past 5,000 years enough to alter the original alignment? I know the sky we see at night is different than what the ancients saw...but, how far back do you have to go for Orions belt to have moved away from a hypothetical exact alignment to the pyramids??

Also, Cygnus does not.have the other corresponding sites that match up with other stars in the Orion constellation.

I think I still have the pics of the other sites aligning with other stars so if anyone wants to see them just pm me and.ill send the pics.or a link to the site where I found them.

I have not independently verified that these alignments are correct, but it seemed pretty proffessionally done. Not just some ms paint job ya know... However, in order to be completely honest with myself and all of you, I have to admit there is the possibility they may have been "faked". Which is why I offer to show the proof if anyone is curious and.hasn't heard of such a thing.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte

 

Where are all the other 7,000 year old temples? I dunno. Perhaps all around. I mean, the pyramidal shape remained more or less the same for a very long time, did it not?

And in any event, as you just pointed out, the pyramid shape certainly wasn't the only one they knew how to build. This contradicts your previous remarks.

Itr's the only stand-alone structure they knew how to build that wasn't held up by row after row of columns.

That certainly bears on the question I was answering concerning why so many cultures erected pyramids and pyramid-shaped mounds.

Harte

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw
If the poles stayed in one place than maybe we wouldn't have this reversal effect. But the procession itself being tracked backwards is enough to line up the pyramids with Orion 10500 years ago.

In fact, the above is untrue.

I already linked to a website that explains why.

Not to mention, precession doesn't turn the Earth upside down, and any physical pole shift would relase enough energy to melt most of the Earth's crust.

Harte

reply to post by 3n19m470


Since you asked, here is what Cygnus looks like today, 2600 BC and 12500 BC:



Stars circled in red are the most notable from the constellation (however you can see other's have moved too).

As for Sirius, again as I said, the closer the star, the greater the movement one will see in a short period. Take a look at how much it's moved in 14,000 years:



Here is a look at Taurus, as an open cluster that is near us, it's stars are also moving quite a bit:



The stars of Orion's Belt don't looked to have changed much in the Sirius picture, however, if you zoom in you will see that they have moved, but not by a whole lot. This is because of their distances (ranging from 770 light years to almost 1,000 light years).

However, if you go back and look at the map that was posted that's suppose to show all the different stars aligning with the map (Sirius with Orion's belt, the stars in Taurus, etc) there's a problem: if truly built as long ago as some are claiming, they don't line up like the maps shows.

reply to post by Harte


Obviously procession dosn't turn the world upside down. But there was said to be a pole shift last ice age.
That pole shift could of moved the poles to where they currently are. Egpyt has been linked with stone monuments of importance around the world through calculated meridians.

Its interesting because people say its like a puzzle all tieing to the center. Egypt. Which is in one of the most less volitile continents as far as volcanos go. It is also the channel of many important trade routes.
Erics mention about the procession and the stars moving as well is accurate. But with a pole shift. It could of easily changed our view of the stars by tilting the planet with the north and south pole moved to different locations the procession also adjusts with it. Acounting for the time. Its quite amazing there is even an alighment now for Orion at all.

But its all within egyptian mythology about Orion and Osiris. This is in the history books.