reply to post by dragonridr
D: As the fact your willing to accept multiple configurations the odds become much lower.
SC: How exactly do odds become smaller when the configurations are multiple? The permutations of the Giza three (their relative sizes, placement,
rotation etc) are endless. That is what makes it so remarkable that the very pattern which the pyramids represent—Orion’ Belt—is the very
pattern required to produce these three relative dimensions of the Gizamids via the geo-stellar fingerprint technique.
D: When i said you had to invert orion in order to match it to the pyramids you dismissed this by saying its perspective and we dont know how
the egyptians looked at it.
SC: The POINT is that there is a perfectly plausible alternative cosmographic way of looking at the Belt stars that do not make them upside-down as
you claim. As I explained to you, Dr Ed Krupp who first made this upside-down claim, adopted modern cosmographic conventions in order to make his
claim. How does Dr Krupp know that the AEs used the same cosmographic conventions as modern astronomy? He clearly doesn’t know this because he
failed to understand that the AEs actually would place south to the top of any map.
D: If we swapped Mankhaurs pyramid with the great pyramid your claim would still be the same. So just the fact you want to see this connection
lowers the odds greatly.
SC: The Gizamids as they stand correspond better to the AEs world view and not to modern cosmography. If they had swapped the positions of G1 and G3
(to correspond with modern cosmography) as you suggest, then you would argue that they contradicted the AE worldview.
D: As we already seen even you conceded the angle is wrong and doesnt match orion either so again built in error correction in your
SC: No. The three bases I produce are produced using a high-res image of Orion’s Belt from the Palomar Observatory. When we then compare the result
of these three bases with the actual bases of the three main Gizamids (not their layout), we find that their relative proportions agree. When the
builders then began to implement the design they had to move G2 slightly off-plan. The reason for this slight compromise to the design is explained
. In short, the design came first (using the Belt stars).
This set the relative proportions of the three main Gizamids. The construction came next and they found that they had to compromise the layout very
slightly but clearly it is still good enough to recognise it as Orion’s Belt as it remains very similar; so similar, in fact, that the Gizamids were
known throughout history as the ‘Three Kings’ (a reference to Orion’s Belt). And, as I have pointed out to you numerous times now, the
correspondence is corroborated with the two sets of so-called ‘Queens Pyramid’ presenting to us the two unique moments in the precessional cycle
of Orion’s Belt, their maximum and minimum culminations. You attempt to nitpick at one particular aspect of the correspondence but when you look at
all the correspondences, the evidence of the connection is simply overwhelming. If you disagree then that’s fine—we will simply have to agree to
D: Since you seem to agree if Menkaurs pyramid was relatively the same size we would have a straight diagonal line through the center of each
SC: No, we wouldn’t. The diagonals of G1 and G2 are not in a straight line.
D:...what makes your theory any more valid then Menkar not being able to make it full size.
SC: Try and deal with the evidence AS IT IS, not how you would like it to be. The simple fact is, the Geo-Stellar Fingerprint explains the extant
evidence AS IT IS.
D: And a satellite pyramid blocking it its smaller so how would that work?
SC: Smaller or not, why take the risk? Why not have a perfectly clear and unobstructed pathway to the southern sky? If you are now suggesting it was
okay to have the pathway to the skies partially blocked, why not place G3 in front of G2? There was plenty of space. And G3 is much smaller than G2 so
wouldn’t have impacted Khafre’s access to the southern skies, would it? So you argue on the one hand for unobstructed pathways to the north and
south skies but when it’s pointed out to you that G3 is partially blocked you insist the three queens are too small to have been a hindrance. If it
was so important then simply do not place the Queens on to the south or north. Clearly it wasn’t so important and so, once more, another argument of
conventional Egyptology mantra contradicts itself. Hardly convincing. Over and above which, the whole orthodox idea is pure guesswork and nothing
D: As far being incomplete you claim it was restoration work however it was far from restoration work the pyramid itself was never
SC: You have no proof of that. And THERE IS clear evidence from a number of these early, giant pyramids of staged building and restoration works.
D: So you claim they restored the other pyramids and just didnt do anything on Menkaures this defies logic and reason.
SC: Menakure’s (G3) was clearly restored too, most likely ca.2450 BCE. There is evidence on the outside and inside of this pyramid that supports
D: Now for your challenge this is set up on a false premise and a useless endeavor.
SC: And yet the very pattern that can give us these relative proportions of the Gizamids is set out for us in the layout of the pyramids themselves.
The chances of that occurring by random chance are astronomical in the extreme. And then when we add that we are also presented with the two unique
culminations of that same star asterism (via the two sets of ‘Queens’) then the odds of such an occurrence are mind-bogglingly high leaving us to
conclude that this scheme was fully intended and serves a particular function.
D: The pyramids in Giza were not randomly thrown down on the Giza plateau were they?
SC: Well they are certainly aligned to the cardinal directions and follow the ‘Lehner-Goedicke Line’ but other than that, conventional Egyptology
asserts that there was no grand, unifying, trans-generational plan, there was no geometric relationship between the structures. That is patent
nonsense as the images below clearly demonstrate:
Note the clear geometric relationship between G1 and G3 i.e. the inter-quarter lines above. And guess what happens to these inter-quarter lines when
we theoretically re-locate G2 precisely to its corresponding stellar position of Al NIlam?
As you can see above, when G2 centre is positioned precisely on the corresponding Al Nilam centre the inter-quarter lines pass perfectly through the
inter-quarter points of G2. It fits like a glove between G1 & G3. Cool huh?
edit on 12/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)