It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Khufu Cartouche in GP Dated - Centuries Old

page: 5
79
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


So all the egyptologists who have confidently and vocally stated otherwise who made livings and made textbooks and received funding should have to give all their money back right, because what exactly were they doing and thinking?




posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


oh wow...mr. Creighton, you are an actual expert on the great pyramid who used to believe it was not even 5,000 years old but now entertains the possibility it is 20,000 years old?

Diodorus did claim the Egyptians of his time, 1st century bc, didn't know who really built it; and, along with Herodotus, said it wasn't where Khufu is buried.

Going by popular culture alone, based on the movie "10,000 BC," just going back a little over half as far as your time frame, prehistoric primitive man had no capabilities to build something like that.

At best, there were very small individual tribes at just 10,000 BC. Gobekli Tepe, maybe; but its builders didn't even want to leave a trace they were ever there for some reason so they buried it.

But the Great Pyramid being 20,000 years old? How?

I can't even begin to imagine the horrors of building that thing 5,000 years ago; how they amassed all those workers and how even larger their army must have been to keep those people working and not uniting in revolution.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hello Dragonridr,


D: Ok Heres the deal with orions belt first the layout of the pyramids is not an exact match for orions belt never was. But i have always been willing to accept there a little off.


SC: Indeed. The centre pyramid G2 (not G3) is slightly offset from its proper position on the ground relative to Al Nilam, its stellar counterpart. But there is a reason why G2 had to be offset slightly from its true ‘stellar’ position on the plateau and you can see this here;

Why G2 is slightly offset from its true stellar position.


D: Though there is another group that thinks sygnus makes a much better map of the pyramids. And in truth cygnus was a pole star so there is a possibility there correct.


SC: I am aware of the Cygnus Correlation put forward by Andy Collins. It simply doesn’t work. The Proper Motion (not ‘stellar drift’ as you called it) of Gienah in the Cygnus constellation is simply way too high and the further back in time we go, the correlation between Cygnus and the Gizamids simply does not work. Within Orion’s Belt, Al Nitak has the highest proper motion at 0.004 arc seconds per year; thus 13,500 years it is shifted from its present day position by only 0.76 arc minutes whereas Gienah in Cygnus will have shifted 68.5 arc minutes and so on. A massive and observable error for Cygnus but naked-eye observation of Orion would not detect such small Proper Motion.

And when we compare the Geo-Stellar Fingerprints of Cygnus against Orion’s Belt, the results are fairly dramatic as you can see here:

Orion v Cygus Geo-Stellar Fingerprint

It is NOT Cygnus. Period.


D: The problem is with your theory your going back even further for no plausible reason whatsoever.


SC: I give the reasons for stating the Gizamids may be around 20,000 years old in my forthcoming book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris. But one thing I will say here is that precession is cyclical. If the shaft of the GP targeted Al Nitak ca.2,500 BCE, then it will have done so previously, one half precessional cycle (around 13,000 years) before.


D: And it seems your unaware of something called stellar drift. The stars we see today didnt make the same constellations.


SC: No, I am very aware of Proper Motion (not ‘stellar drift; as you call it) and have been for many, many years.


D: Now the reason for my astronomy lesson is just to get people up to speed when i discuss something called stellar drift.Basically the stars we see in the sky today were not always in the same configurations. Stars are not standing still they are moving and fast. So this means that constellations we see today didnt exist in the past because stars moved in to there current positions. This is part of the problem i have with people who want to use the zodiac to predict the future etc.So lets look back at the sky shall we and will use google have to give them their credit.

Notice the further we go back in time the more Mintaka has moved!On a star chart its traveling basically north east or to the top right corner.This means in 10500 bc for example the bend we see in orion would have looked almost straight. Since alnilam and alnitak are just slowly moving to the bottom. So if the stars in orions belt doesnt look like they do today why would they model giza on how the stars look now instead of when they were built?


SC: The Proper Motion of Orion’s Belt is very small compared with many other stars/constellations in the sky. This means that Orion’s Belt will hold its asterism ((its pattern) for tens of thousands of years. The images below will give you an idea of how little Proper Motion affects Orion’s Belt over 26,000 years.







Source: Stellarium 0.11.2

As you can see, the Proper Motion of Mintaka (Delta Orionis) in this period is less that 1 arc minute of Proper Motion, an error so small as to be invisible to naked eye-observation. In short, the Proper Motions of the Orion's Belt stars over long periods of time are within the arc second level, and thus far too small to have any effect on naked-eye observations.
Regards,

SC

edit on 8/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


Hi Reject,


"...just going back a little over half as far as your time frame, prehistoric primitive man had no capabilities to build something like that. ..."


SC: Around 20,000 years ago the world as we know it today simply did not exist. Sea levels were around 400 feet lower than present. The coastlines of the world would have been completely different being further out on the continental shelves and no doubt supporting human settlements there. As the ice melted the seas rose. Mostly slowly but punctuated with brief periods of fast and dramatic rises. The world that this 'prehistoric primitive man' inhabited is now gone, and is completely lost to us. And as that world was washed away, a new world had to be created. This 'prehistoric primitive man' you speak of were the survivors/descendents of that lost world that was long ago submerged by the rising seas. We have no idea what world they left behind.

Regards,

SC



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Can i point out one of the biggest problems with your theory all your measurements are based off computer model on a flat screen. You seem to forget the sky is 3 dimensional. In 10500 bc what you believe to be an exact match wasnt to someone viewing the sky from earth.Ill give you an example stars make an arc through the sky this happens because were on a spinning globe. Google removes this perspective completely to google its as if the solar system isnt there and we are sitting in space. But looking at stars in space and through an atmosphere a shift occurs. So say a star like orion was in this position this is a position from our sun, when we use google to confirm your perfect match and as you say at 10500 bc the alignment works however there is a problem is the sky forms a huge arc like a planetarium. So your matching can be off by as much as 15 to 20 degrees depending on the stars location in the sky. Looks good on a flat surface however the sky isnt a flat surface is it? So from the perspective of those ancient egyptians the match wouldnt have even been close!

Now might i suggest a simpler alignment that doesnt have prehistoric man that lived in caves trying to build the great pyramid? There are 4 shafts at around 2500 bc these four shafts actually line up with Thuban(this used to be the pole star at the time replaced by polaris, Orion's Belt, Sirius and Kochab. You date of 10500 bc is a google match but doesnt match the real sky try using 3d computer models. A;so all these alignment you want to say are exact are off slightly add the casing stones back on the pyramids and it becomes even more evident.

Look i dont blame you on trying to sell books to people who want to believe aliens built the pyramids or lost city of atlantis. But i do mind when you make claims like see i was right egyptologists are wrong. Your theory is being kind weakat best. There was no civilization at 10500 bc capable of building the pyramid they didnt have the people they were small tribes. Now if you find an organized civilization in 10500 BC then please let us know id be the first to aplaud your theory! Not to mention you would be more famoud then even Howard Carter. This is called archeology were people spend long days in the desert digging up pottery scraps.All the while your nice and comfy at home with your AC and internet to second guess them.Next you throw up threads like the one we are in now saying see i was right when according to the article the pyramid carbon dated even younger making it only centuries old. Ive also seen this supposed carbon dating in another article that said 20000 bc which even again shoots your theory. By the way people this whole carbon dating the cartouche stuff is bogus its been running around the internet its all ways two amature archeologist from germany.So i truly hope your book does well the people interested in it are not interested in the egyptian culture so i dont have a problem with it but to people that do love egyptian culture like myself please dont try to tell us that egyptologists are wrong, Unless you can show otherwise with archeological evidence happens all the time.
edit on 12/8/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

dragonridr
To continue running out of room anyway lets look at another plausible explanation for the location of the sphinx other then Mr Chrightons. He says the spinx was placed by Khufu to basically split his calendar or time line. What if its there to worship their principal deity at the time Ra or Atum or even Atum-Ra. Lets pull up a map and look shall we:



The sphinx is shown greeting the rising sun. This can also be used to line up an important date december 15th this marks the end of the flooding of the nile delta.As they say let the planting begin. You cannot ignore the importance of the Nile on egyptian life it was the end of the flooding started there new year!You could literally have a priest look out there door and check to see when the sun rose over the sphinx. Oh and no i was serious when i said orion did contribute to the lay out orion when it rose usually around september told them when they need to harvest before the flood. But as i point out the further back we go in time the less the configuration becomes valid!

Now the other reason the Sphinx is where it is as opposed to placing it on some imaginary circle the nile wasnt always were it is now! And there major form of transportation was the nile so stepping off a boat and having the sphinx greet you is pretty damn impressive! So in short seems the great pyramid and the heavens all agree at when the great pyramid was built around 2650 BCE. And im betting this was good news to Khufu i mean who wants to be 8000 years older.








edit on 12/8/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


ya know, i don't get where these huge things are all about planting and fertility, or even solstice's/calendar. they don't know?

u live 10 miles out of town, what are you gonna do? run in to see if u can harvest, for a week?

when to do the bop with the wife?

it seems like the pat answer, as to why they were built.

what is the go to? religious, calender, agriculture, geeze!

ya, if you come here, you can see the full moon!!

wtf?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 



I see you never been a farmer do you know how popular the farmers almanac is? Its only job tell farmers in each area when to plant and harvest.This is why knowing when the floods ends and when the ground was ready is kinda important or they starve . See december 15th was the 2nd month of peret this is when they could plant crops. After the nile flood has sufficiently disappeared. and there growing season started. Now technically yeah they could wait risk planting to late to get maximum yield at harvest but that means some people may go hungry. This was just there way of maximizing the amount of food they could produce and also a good time for a celebration. You know sort of like thanksgiving this whole holiday is just when farmers had to have their crops done by.

edit on 12/9/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
So, does anybody have any latest information on its pyramidion?

Nobody ever claimed to ever see its apex all throughout history, right?

Was the great pyramid designed to have a platform on top?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hi Dragonridr,


D: Can i point out one of the biggest problems with your theory all your measurements are based off computer model on a flat screen.

SC: Not so. I have developed a simple means to observe, measure and record the Orion Belt stars using naked eye observation. When this is done the results agree very well with the three Gizamid centres.
Here is the simple instrument I use and how it functions:

The Creighton Astracus

And this is me actually using the device at Giza to measure and record the position of the the Belt stars of Orion.



And here are the results.



As you can observe, with naked eye observation of the stars, the error between the Gizamids and the Belt stars is minimal--8.68 of 1 degree. So, contrary to your claim, I do not always use a "computer model off a flat screen". I do actually try to find ways that the ancient designers could have used.


D: You seem to forget the sky is 3 dimensional. In 10500 bc what you believe to be an exact match wasnt to someone viewing the sky from earth.Ill give you an example stars make an arc through the sky this happens because were on a spinning globe. Google removes this perspective completely to google its as if the solar system isnt there and we are sitting in space. But looking at stars in space and through an atmosphere a shift occurs. So say a star like orion was in this position this is a position from our sun, when we use google to confirm your perfect match and as you say at 10500 bc the alignment works however there is a problem is the sky forms a huge arc like a planetarium. So your matching can be off by as much as 15 to 20 degrees depending on the stars location in the sky. Looks good on a flat surface however the sky isnt a flat surface is it? So from the perspective of those ancient egyptians the match wouldnt have even been close!


SC: Whatever and however the ancient designers observed Orion's Belt through Earth's atmosphere, we will pretty much observe the asterism in the same way today and so we can compare the Belt star centres with the Gizamid centres.


D: Now might i suggest a simpler alignment that doesnt have prehistoric man that lived in caves trying to build the great pyramid? There are 4 shafts at around 2500 bc these four shafts actually line up with Thuban(this used to be the pole star at the time replaced by polaris, Orion's Belt, Sirius and Kochab. You date of 10500 bc is a google match but doesnt match the real sky try using 3d computer models.


SC: I disagree. See above.


D: Also all these alignment you want to say are exact are off slightly add the casing stones back on the pyramids and it becomes even moe evident.


SC: I have to say--this is becoming pretty desperate stuff from you. We are talking about centre-to-centre match of the Gizamids to the Belt stars. And whether the three Gizamids are measured with their casing or without, their relative proportions are largely unaffected.


D: Look i dont blame you on trying to sell books to people who want to believe aliens built the pyramids or lost city of atlantis.


SC: What? Do show where any of my books/articles state that aliens or Atlanteans built the pyramids. Present your evidence of this.


D: But i do mind when you make claims like see i was right egyptologists are wrong.


SC: Alas for you, it is not I that is saying Egyptology is wrong--it's the EVIDENCE that suggests they are wrong. You know, evidence--that material that Egytology largely ignores because it doesn't fit their royal funerary/tomb paradigm. I can understand why people such as yourself do not like it when others say Egyptology is wrong but they merely bring this accusation upon themselves by not properly dealing with ALL the available evidence and cherry-picking only those pieces of evidence that support their own conjectures. That is not proper science.


D: Your theory is being kind weakat best. There was no civilization at 10500 bc capable of building the pyramid they didnt have the people they were small tribes.


SC: You are merely now parroting orthodox mantra. I've heard it all before. You have no idea WHAT the world looked like 10 or 20 thousand years ago when global sea levels were hundreds of feet lower. You have no idea what civilisation(s) may have existed then and washed away with the rising seas.


D: Now if you find an organized civilization in 10500 BC then please let us know id be the first to aplaud your theory!


SC: Well you had better start applauding because we still do not know who constructed the highly sophisticated 12k year old 'temple' at Gobekli Tepi. It sure doesn't look like a bunch of hunter gatherers.


D: Not to mention you would be more famoud then even Howard Carter. This is called archeology were people spend long days in the desert digging up pottery scraps.


SC: Indeed. And they generally do all this digging up of pottery scraps on dry land.


D: All the while your nice and comfy at home with your AC and internet to second guess them.


SC: Sure.




D: Next you throw up threads like the one we are in now saying see i was right when according to the article the pyramid carbon dated even younger making it only centuries old.


SC: Which, if corroborated, only serves to prove Howard-Vyse faked these inscriptions as many have long suspected. Only by doing proper science can these issues be settled. But Egyptology simply does not want to do real, hard science. They like the fluffy soft-science that is Egyptology. Why don't they want to do the hard, empirical science?


D: Ive also seen this supposed carbon dating in another article that said 20000 bc which even again shoots your theory.


SC: "Shoots my theory"? How exactly? Remember, my new book proposes that the 3rd/4th dynasty pyramids may be around 20k years old. This HELPS my theory.


D: By the way people this whole carbon dating the cartouche stuff is bogus its been running around the internet its all ways two amature archeologist from germany.


SC: And your point is?


D: So i truly hope your book does well...


SC: Thank you.


D: the people interested in it are not interested in the egyptian culture so i dont have a problem with it...


SC: I rather think the people who purchase my books are seekers of the truth--the WHOLE truth, including those difficult questions Egyptology prefers to ignore. If you wish to ignore them also then that is entirely your prerogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to do likewise.


D: ...but to people that do love egyptian culture like myself please dont try to tell us that egyptologists are wrong...


SC: As I said to you previously--it is not I that says Egyptology is wrong, it's the evidence that says this.


D: Unless you can show otherwise with archeological evidence ...


SC: Suggest you back through this entire thread.

Regards,

SC



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Ok you made my day started laughing so hard had trouble breathing. So on your abacus you determined the difference between google observations and actual observation from giza. Something observatories take days to do right? I dont think your understanding how star observation works exactly. then we have to throw in the complication of going back 10500 years also. Then there is the fact the closer to the poles the more the distortion.Please explain how you determined this because most astronomers use a computer with 3d rendering? You know what never mind forget it. Ok you win your theory shows all egyptologists are wrong there was some magical group who built the pyramids in between all that hunting and gathering with their stone tools.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Hum, can someone explain to me what is connecting so called 'Creighton Astracus ' with Egyptian, or at least to one painting of it in Hieroglyphs?

I know I have read that they never found any painting showing Egyptian use abacus abd that there are some discs that were believed to be used for counting purpose, but this Astracus is something I first time see. My friend Wiki has no idea what it is...



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

SuperFrog
Hum, can someone explain to me what is connecting so called 'Creighton Astracus ' with Egyptian, or at least to one painting of it in Hieroglyphs?

I know I have read that they never found any painting showing Egyptian use abacus abd that there are some discs that were believed to be used for counting purpose, but this Astracus is something I first time see. My friend Wiki has no idea what it is...



It doesnt have anything to do with egypt. He uses his abacus to determine atmospheric refraction in fact its works so well he can use it to see what it looked like in 10500 BC. Im sure there are astronomers throughout the world cant wait to buy one. See normally involves multiple observations and 3d rendering before that had to use spacial star chart.Then it took years little did they know they could use an abacus.


edit on 12/9/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hi Dragonridr,


D: Ok you made my day ….


SC: Excellent.


D:… started laughing so hard had trouble breathing.


SC: Alas, laughing won’t prove anything.



D: So on your abacus …


SC: ‘Astracus’.


D:… you determined the difference between google observations and actual observation from giza.


SC: No. I used naked-eye observation of the Belt stars and recorded the asterism (using the ‘Astracus’). I was then able to measure the Astracus result and compare it against the measurements of the three Gizamid centres (that’s what the measurement diagram in my previous post shows). The result, as you can see, is really quite remarkable for a naked-eye observation—I was only 8.68/60ths of 1 degree in error between the two. An error so small it is barely noticeable. Google didn’t even come into it—and doesn’t have to. A wooden frame, string and some beads does the job rather well as is proven by the actual results.


D: Something observatories take days to do right? I dont think your understanding how star observation works exactly.


SC: Actually, I do. And I can tell you that the ancients would not have used a computer or anything resembling a modern observatory—or Google.


D: …then we have to throw in the complication of going back 10500 years also.


SC: I think we have already established that over 26,000 years there is barely any Proper Motion of the Belt stars. The naked-eye observation of them 20,000 years ago would yield virtually identical results to those we can obtain today using naked-eye observation.


D: Then there is the fact the closer to the poles the more the distortion.


SC: Last time I look, Giza was around 60 degrees from the pole. Are you suggesting it was closer to the pole in ancient times?


D: Please explain how you determined this because most astronomers use a computer with 3d rendering?


SC: Already explained. I used naked-eye observation and recorded the results using my Astracus. The ancients could have done precisely the same without any difficulty and would have achieved precisely the same results.


D: You know what never mind forget it. Ok you win your theory shows all egyptologists are wrong ….


SC: The EVIDENCE shows that Egyptology, with specific regard to the early, giant pyramids, is quite wrong. Much of what they know comes from later dynasties and is back-projected onto the earlier dynasties of which much less is actually known (with the exception of the FIP of which even less is known). I am happy to accept that Egyptology is quite probably correct about much of what it understands of later dynasties and later pyramid-building—but the evidence unequivocally shows they are quite wrong about the first pyramids. Little point in shooting the messenger.


D:… there was some magical group who built the pyramids in between all that hunting and gathering with their stone tools.


SC: No, not a “magical group” –the ancient Egyptians. Remember this is a people who tell us in their own texts that their civilization is tens of thousands of years older than conventional Egyptology accepts. Ehyptologists ignore what the people of this ancient culture said themselves about their own history. Personally I’m with the ancient Egyptians.

Regards,

SC


edit on 9/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

SuperFrog
Hum, can someone explain to me what is connecting so called 'Creighton Astracus ' with Egyptian, or at least to one painting of it in Hieroglyphs?

I know I have read that they never found any painting showing Egyptian use abacus abd that there are some discs that were believed to be used for counting purpose, but this Astracus is something I first time see. My friend Wiki has no idea what it is...


Hi Superfrog,

The 'Astracus' is not any ancient Egyptian artifact. It is a device I made myself in order to make and record naked-eye observations of star constellations. It also enables the user to accurately determine true north/south very easily. The device is made of a simple wooden frame, some string and beads, all of which were available to the ancient Egyptians. With this simple tool I was able to observe, record and measure the Orion Belt stars and when comparing that observation with the actual pyramid centres, there is a near perfect match. Indeed, the error is so small as to be negligible.

The 'Astracus' isn't about proving how the AEs measured the Belt stars, merely to demonstrate how it COULD have been done with a very simple device.

Regards,

SC



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

dragonridr
It doesnt have anything to do with egypt. He uses his abacus to determine atmospheric refraction in fact its works so well he can use it to see what it looked like in 10500 BC. Im sure there are astronomers throughout the world cant wait to buy one. See normally involves multiple observations and 3d rendering before that had to use spacial star chart.Then it took years little did they know they could use an abacus.


Isn't computer software easier, something like StarWalk that can show you what sky looks like today, tomorrow or many years ago?



I never tried to move it to BC time, might try tonight to see if it works.


There is a lot of computer software that will do the same and you can create/play with models. I used couple of them on Linux such as Stellarium and Calestia. Both of them are available for other OS types such as windows. You can run different simulations with this software.

Wonder, why is that 10500 BC so important, I remember seeing it before... I was under impression that any connection between Orion belt and pyramids have been long time ago debunked and showed being wrong...

Sorry, my bad...
Thank you for your explanation.




Scott Creighton
Hi Superfrog,

The 'Astracus' is not any ancient Egyptian artifact. It is a device I made myself in order to make and record naked-eye observations of star constellations. It also enables the user to accurately determine true north/south very easily. The device is made of a simple wooden frame, some string and beads, all of which were available to the ancient Egyptians. With this simple tool I was able to observe, record and measure the Orion Belt stars and when comparing that observation with the actual pyramid centres, there is a near perfect match. Indeed, the error is so small as to be negligible.

The 'Astracus' isn't about proving how the AEs measured the Belt stars, merely to demonstrate how it COULD have been done with a very simple device.

Regards,

SC

I have been always under impression that old egyptian should have discovered how to build and use power tools, idea is simple. They might have done that, but we have no single picture showing any of them... (*just the same as no Abacus picture), that still does not mean that they did not have wonders of their time.

I always find interesting how some people were far ahead of their time. For example, Eratosthenes, who figured out not just that earth is round, but how big it was as well, how far away Sun was?! Let's hear another genius explain how he got this figured out...



Now, that is genius at work...
And we know about it.

ps. not saying that you are not Genius, but nothing connect anything like that to Egypt or the way Pyramids were built.
edit on 9-12-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


So every other pyramids are correct and you agree with egyptologists about their purpose and dating but then say their wrong here? Yet you show no proof do you have any quarries or for that matter even a civilization you can date it to? Well the answer is no you dont why because there has never been a culture advances enough in the area at 10500 BC. This is why they must be magical as i mentioned because apparently they lived there without leaving any trace of their existence this is a huge magic trick. Now location of egypt has nothing to do with it. What the physical observation does have to do with is degrees latitude and how close to the horizon a star is. So what you believe to be an accurate match isnt.

Lets explain this way if you watch a sunset the moment the bottom of the sun touches the horizon in actual terms the sun has already set. You still see the sun because of something called refraction if the atmosphere were to disappear at that exact moment there would be no sun. This is caused by light bending when it hits the atmosphere the closer a star is to the pole or horizon the greater the refraction. In your diagrams i looked you checked out google dialed it back to 10500 and said see its a match. Well its not because where you believe the belt of orion to be and where it is observed will be different.

Now astronomers resolve this problem through modeling google does not. See even ancient sea farriers noticed there was distortion at the horizon and i bet they didnt know they could solve the problem with string and beads. Now ill get back to another point you dismissed in a quaint manor. Your giza calendar if the casing stones were on the pyramid you would notice the line you dres on your maps between the pyramid edges would match even less. Like when you show your lines at the edge of g3 for example. Speaking of that reminds me wasnt there a body found of a queen in one of the satellite pyramids you use to claim its actually a calendar? I remember on one of my visits she was discovered in her sarcophagus ill look that up later.

And finally did you tell everyone you have to invert your map to get orion into the correct configuration of the pyramids in the first place? See your attributing them some amazing feats of math then they get something that major wrong? Im sure it was necessary so that they knew 12000 years later you could figure out there message. I will apologize to you i let your attitude piss me off. As i said hey man whatever no need to play in reality when you can create a fantasy. So im done arguing the merits of the orion theory as i said you cant change some ones mind especially if there finances are involved.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hello Dragnridr,


D: So every other pyramids are correct and you agree with egyptologists about their purpose and dating but then say their wrong here?


SC: No. Once again, the EVIDENCE says they are wrong.


D: Yet you show no proof ….


SC: Strongly advise that you go through this entire thread again. The Neb-Ankh within G2, discovered by Belzoni in 1818 to contain only earth and stones, demonstrates the true purpose of these stone containers. They were NOT sarcophagi. Given the contents found by Belzoni it is quite clear that their purpose was chthonic in nature; a chthonic ritual and this is proven by later dynasties making similar, smaller honorific versions of these Neb-ankh during the Festival of Khoiak. What Belzoni found in the Neb-Ankh within G2 had a long history and it is perfectly clear that the later AEs understood precisely what the stone containers in these early pyramids contained—chthonic vessels—because they replicated them.

The vast quantities of various seed types discovered in S1 with secondary evidence of same discovered in G1 strongly supports the ancient texts that have come down to us stating these early pyramids were constructed as ‘recovery vaults’ to hold “all that was of esteem” within the kingdom. Seeds would be vitally important, as well as tools, distribution vessels, etc, etc. Tens of thousands of storage/distribution vessels were found in the galleries below S1.

The Egyptologists insist there was no grand plan for any of the pyramids; that each Egyptian king decided upon the placement and design of his pyramid with no regard to what had gone before or would come thereafter. This is patently wrong as a cursory examination of the geometric relationships at Giza show. There are clear and obvious geometric relationships at Giza; relationships that are beyond the realm of simple happenstance. This relationship (below) is beyond coincidence:







The relationship below is ALSO beyond the realms of a chance occurrence:



And that we can, using a simple, systematic technique, recreate the relative proportions of the main Gizamids using the Belt stars of Orion, is simply beyond the most impossible of impossibilities. The odds against being able to achieve this are in the trillions to 1 against. And yet, there it stands, in all its glory at Giza.

You were also presented with the Precession of the Queens which showed, once more, the significance of Orion to the plan. How remarkable it is that the ancient designers of Giza just managed not only to demonstrate that the relative proportions of the three main Gizamids can be determined form the Belt stars but that they ALSO show the TWO KEY AND UNIQUE MOMENTS in the precessional cycle of the Belt Stars—their precessional maximum and minimum culminations—on display for us right there at Giza in the placement of the two sets of so-called ‘Queens Pyramids’.

Are the pyramids older than ca.2,500 BCE? Well the Ostrich eggshell (images below) is dated to ca.4,400 BCE. That’s about 6,500 years old (at least). But look—what’s that there on the top left of the egg-shell? Could that possibly be the three pyramids of Giza being depicted to the northwest of the Fayoum? Sure looks like it to me.








SC: You say much about there being no evidence to support my contention (of which I have presented plenty in this thread and elsewhere on my ATS Forum) but at the same time you completely ignore everything that has been presented to you. You simply try to rubbish the evidence with ridiculous and baseless claims, some of which I shall address momentarily.

And in attempting to dismiss everything that has been presented to you, you fail quite spectacularly in presenting any concrete, empirical evidence of your own from conventional Egyptology that can prove that these first pyramids of the 3rd/4th dynasties were conceived and built as royal tombs. Where IS your evidence? You happily dismiss the evidence that supports my views while totally failing to provide any hard, empirical evidence whatsoever to back up your own claims, those of conventional Egyptology with regards to these pyramids. You really must do better.


D: …do you have any quarries or for that matter even a civilization you can date it to?


SC: The ancient Egyptians built these structures—obviously. The latest evidence I have uncovered suggests to me that the first pyramids may be as old as 20k years. That is roughly midway through the ancient Egyptian civilization of about 38k years. That is what the AEs themselves tell us but it is ignored by the conventional Egyptologists.


D: Well the answer is no you dont why because there has never been a culture advances enough in the area at 10500 BC.


SC: See above.


D: This is why they must be magical as i mentioned because apparently they lived there without leaving any trace of their existence this is a huge magic trick.


SC: The AEs DID leave traces of their existence—we find it everywhere in Egypt. As I have said elsewhere, the King Lists that have come down to us are wholly incomplete. We know, for instance, that there are around 123 missing names of mortal kings from the first four dynasties alone. That is potentially thousands of years of lost history and that is just the 123 kings’ names we KNOW are missing. There could (and I suspect there are), many, many other missing mortal kings from these lists. What Egyptology has effectively done is produce a timeline from these wholly incomplete lists that only goes back to ca.3,000 BCE. Were Egyptologists to include the missing kings then they would have to push everything before the fifth dynasty much further back in absolute time. Imagine a rope. Cut a large section from the middle of the rope and cast it aside. Now join together the two remaining ends. You have a much shorter rope and a much shorter timeline. THAT is what conventional Egyptology has done. In joining together the two ends of the rope they will effectively pull the pyramid-building age forward in absolute time.

Continued....


edit on 9/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Continued from previous.......


D: Now location of egypt has nothing to do with it. What the physical observation does have to do with is degrees latitude and how close to the horizon a star is. So what you believe to be an accurate match isnt.

Lets explain this way if you watch a sunset the moment the bottom of the sun touches the horizon in actual terms the sun has already set. You still see the sun because of something called refraction if the atmosphere were to disappear at that exact moment there would be no sun. This is caused by light bending when it hits the atmosphere the closer a star is to the pole or horizon the greater the refraction. In your diagrams i looked you checked out google dialed it back to 10500 and said see its a match. Well its not because where you believe the belt of orion to be and where it is observed will be different.

Now astronomers resolve this problem through modeling google does not. See even ancient sea farriers noticed there was distortion at the horizon …


SC: I know what atmospheric refraction is. But it is completely irrelevant here. The ancient designers observing the Belt stars would observe those Belt stars through atmospheric refraction. In the last 26,000 years the Proper Motion of the Belt stars is so small as to maintain the Orion Belt asterism pretty much as it was for the past 26,000 years. That means that when I observe the Belt stars using naked-eye observation (just as the ancients would have done), then I am seeing those stars with the same refraction error as the ancients would have observed. So when the ancients observed Orion’s Belt (with refraction) it is no different to my modern naked-eye observation of the Belt stars (with refraction). Both observations (including refraction) would be pretty much the same. We would get the same result. So today when I compare my naked-eye observation (including refraction) of Orion’s Belt, it is little surprise that I find the error between my naked-eye observation and the three Gizamid centres to be less than 9/60ths of 1 degree (i.e. 8.68 arc minutes). With this observation I am quite able to produce the Geo-Stellar Fingerprint of Orion’s Belt—and it matches the Gizamids to a very high degree of accuracy.


D: …and i bet they didnt know they could solve the problem with string and beads.


SC: Not too easy a task on a ship I would have thought.


D: Now ill get back to another point you dismissed in a quaint manor. Your giza calendar if the casing stones were on the pyramid you would notice the line you dres on your maps between the pyramid edges would match even less. Like when you show your lines at the edge of g3 for example.


SC: We know what the original base measures (with casing stones) of the Gizamids were. The casing stones represent only about 0.003% of the entire base length of the pyramid. It is negligible.


D: Speaking of that reminds me wasnt there a body found of a queen in one of the satellite pyramids you use to claim its actually a calendar? I remember on one of my visits she was discovered in her sarcophagus ill look that up later.


SC: Given that the remains discovered in G3 were proven to be from a clear intrusive burial, there is little reason not to believe that the fragments of bone found in G3b were not also those of an intrusive burial.


D: And finally did you tell everyone you have to invert your map to get orion into the correct configuration of the pyramids in the first place?


SC: Groan. Not the ‘Krupp-side down’ argument again? This argument has been debunked a zillion times.


D: See your attributing them some amazing feats of math then they get something that major wrong? Im sure it was necessary so that they knew 12000 years later you could figure out there message.


SC: The first person to present this argument was Dr Ed Krupp of the Griffiths Observatory in Los Angeles and he did so in response to the work of Robert Bauval. I had a long discussion with Dr Krupp about this very issue and, in particular, about my particular take on it. It’s all about perspective—3-dimensional perspective. All you simply have to do is adopt a different cosmography from our modern conventions. That was the mistake Dr Krupp made, imo. He assumed the ancient Egyptians would have adopted the same cosmography as we have in the 21st century. Well, why would they? And over and above which there is sufficient evidence to show that the AEs regarded south (not north) as being UP i.e. they would place south to the top of any map.

Alas, I am not at liberty to disclose the precise nature of our conversation (Dr Krupp asked that I keep his actual comments private) but suffice to say that by the end of our discussion on the matter, I departed the discussion feeling just as confident that my 3-D Giza-Orion premise answered Dr Krupp’s original key objections to Bauval’s premise.

Here are some diagrams to get you thinking in how an ancient people would imagine pulling three stars down from the heavens (like three balloons) onto the Giza plateau. Think 3-D—that’s the key. Have a think about these:







Above, the Giza Pyramids in 3D perspective – as laid out at Giza – with Menkaure/Mintaka to right and highest (furthest south). Concordance agrees.



Above, the Giza Pyramids in 3D perspective – laid out as per Dr Ed Krupp’s proposal – with Menkaure/Mintaka to right and lowest (furthest north). Concordance disagrees.

I will leave you to figure out for yourself what is ‘wrong’ with the image below:




D: I will apologize to you i let your attitude piss me off.


SC: I rather suspect it is not my “attitude” that pisses you off but rather my evidence.


D: As i said hey man whatever no need to play in reality when you can create a fantasy.


SC: “Reality” is finding and accepting the earth and stones in the stone container of G2 and attempting to explain this evidence within the culture--that is what I have done. “Fantasy” is ignoring that evidence and insisting there must have been a body in the stone container which was removed and the container filled with earth and stones instead--THAT is what Egyptologists have done. And, I have to say, that really is some “fantasy”. Deal with the evidence as it IS—not how you would like it to be.


D: So im done arguing the merits of the orion theory…


SC: Shame. I was just getting started.


D:… as i said you cant change some ones mind especially if there finances are involved.


SC: Indeed. Those research grants aren’t to be sniffed at and they are only ever awarded to those who ‘play by the rules’. Here’s a little quote you might like:


”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair


Regards,

SC

edit on 9/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Ok i have a coupe of curiosity questions in your theory why wasnt the pyramid of Menkaure finished? If it was a national building project why did they stop? How would you explain Menkaures inscription on the entrance to the pyramid giving the date he died as well. And about Khufu you say he built the pyramid just not when egyptology states is that correct? I cant help it im curious how you see all the discoveries fitting together.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hello Dragonridr,


D:…why wasnt the pyramid of Menkaure finished? If it was a national building project why did they stop? How would you explain Menkaures inscription on the entrance to the pyramid giving the date he died as well.


SC: G3 most likely was finished. In its original finished state it would have been coated completely in white Turah limestone just as the other two pyramids were (see image below).



“One day the Nile will rise and cover all Egypt with water, and drown the whole country; then, as in the beginning, there will be nothing to be seen except water."

Artist Impression by Gary Osborn

What we see today is merely Menkaure’s attempt to repair a pyramid that, after thousands of years, had fallen into dereliction. There is clear, unambiguous evidence from other 3rd/4th dynasty pyramid sites that show clear evidence of a much more ancient pyramid structure having been repaired/modified by a much later Egyptian culture.


D: And about Khufu you say he built the pyramid just not when egyptology states is that correct? I cant help it im curious how you see all the discoveries fitting together.


SC: According to Greek historian, Herodotus, it was Suphis I that built the Great Pyramid and Suphis II who built G2. Etymologists and linguists have transliterated Suphis I to ‘Khufu’ and bizarrely they somehow also manage to take the same name (Suphis II) and transliterate that to Rachaf (Khafre). What we notice with the Khufu name is its clear separation from those of his supposed immediate successors i.e. the kings of ‘Ra’ or ‘Re’ (Ra-djedef, Ra-chaf, Menkau-Re). Khufu, imo, was of another much more ancient time. If we consider the King List at Abydos it shows the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty as ‘Ra-ufu’ and not ‘Khufu’. It is my opinion that Egyptology has conflated these two different individuals from two different ancient periods into the one personage in the one time.

You might find this thread (below) of some interest:

Who was Khufu?

Regards,

SC




top topics



 
79
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join