Secret's of the King's Chamber; Hawass' Revelation

reply to post by serbsta


Whichever is the best one.

However, I just searched the online catalogue and, alas, the NYPL doesn't seem to have it.

Thank you anyway.

Damn, 46 pages and nowhere to be found. Interesting.

Scott,

Thanks so much for the very detailed reply.

I had read your theory earlier, but had forgotten it.

Now I see and understand the importance! That area is very suspect. Parking lot, my arse!


(I've only become obsessed with all things Egypt in the last year, so I am playing catch up to you experts. There is so much to learn that I have to read some things several times before they sink in.)

Keep up the good work! I should re-vist Graham's site and reread all your work there.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


'Area 51' sounds really suss and it makes you wonder considering how oddly placed Zahi's wall in proximity to the apex area.

Question;

What's the role of G3 in terms of pinpointing this apex?

reply to post by serbsta

Hello Serbsta,

Serbsta: What's the role of G3 in terms of pinpointing this apex?

SC: As stated, there exist numerous triangle centroids - hundreds in fact. The 3 most ancient and simplest of these are INCENTRE, BARYCENTRE & CIRCUMCENTRE. The ancient Greeks discovered the 4th centroid known as the Orthocentre.

Here are the 3 centroids again - G3 utilises the circumcentre centroid (image further down page). Note: diagrams below for illustration purposes only.



The INCENTRE centroid (above) inscribes a circle within the base triangle that touches all three sides of the triangle. The incentre point is then the centre of the inscribed circle within the base triangle.



The BARYCENTRE centroid (above) bisects each line of the base triangle from each vertice. The intersection of the 3 inscribed bisectors is the barycentre point of the base triangle.




The CIRCUMCENTRE centroid (above) draws a circle around the base triangle, touching each of the 3 vertices. The centre of the circumscribed circle is the circumcentre point of the base triangle.

By using the three centre points of the 3 main Gizamids we can reconstruct the base triangle for the Giza centres. As stated earlier, ONLY this triangle can be reconstructed from the 3 Gizamid centres. You require ALL THREE centroids to define the dimensions and orientation of the base triangle.



Hope this better explains the Giza Centroid Theory.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 13/1/2010 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by serbsta


Hawass should not be allowed to speak on the subject. I found this link that theorized the the Arc of the Covenant would have fit perfectly into the empty "toomb" in the King' s Chamber.

www.gizapyramid.com...

I have heard this more than once that the Arc was a capacitor and the Pyramid was a power station with the Arc as it's power source.

reply to post by Ayrton


If you mean Monkhouse's book, I am confident the British Library in London and the BN in Paris have it. Unfortunately, I am in neither at the moment.

Also, there shouldn't be TOO much importance attached to it.
To me, it is interesting only as a possible aid to help establishing the origins - and, most especially, the credibility - of the story.

That's all.

So the rabbit hole seems to get deeper and deeper... now I know where Wilcock gets his stuff. His 'Henry Deacon' pointed to this website:
Cornell xxx.lanl.gov

Get a load of this paper(remember, this is a math/physics website):

A Model of the Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections,
and of the Role of The Quantum Zeno Effect in the Physical
Implementation of Conscious Intent.

Abstract

A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person’s classically
described perceptions and that person’s quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based
jointly upon von Neumann’s theory of measurements and the empirical findings of close connections
between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A
quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence
brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of
environmental decoherence effects is emphasized.

The basic problem of the philosophy of mind, and indeed of all philosophy, is to un-
derstand the connection of our conscious thoughts to the physically described world. No
feature, configuration, or activity of the physical world, as it is conceived of and described in
classical physics, is the experiential quality that characterizes our conscious thoughts, ideas,
and feelings. Something beyond the classically conceived physical world seems to be needed
in the full inventory of what exists.

In this model the causal effectiveness of our conscious intentions rests heavily upon the
quantum Zeno effect. This is a strictly quantum mechanical effect that has been advanced
elsewhere[5, 6, 7, 8, 9] as the dynamical feature that permits “free choices” on the part of
an observer to influence his or her bodily behavior.

The point, here, is that quantum mechanics has a built-in connection between a conscious
intent and its physical effects. This connection is tied to the process 1 probing actions, whose
dynamical effects are specified by the quantum dynamical rules. Therefore our conscious
intentions do not stand outside the dynamics as helpless, impotent witnesses, as they do in
classical physics, but have specified dynamical effects. We are now in a position to examine
what these effects are.

whoops, prematurely posted accidentally.

If anyone would like to read the paper, you can find it here

I suggest that the pyramids were perhaps multipurpose, but one of the main purposes was definately some sort of advanced initiation technology - in which they knew exactly what this paper is describing. I will probably start a new thread in the science forum about this, and other papers I have recently come across.

I also suggest to anyone that might want to delve into some 'fringe' science(paid by our taxdollars, of course) to visit here: lanl.gov



[edit on 20-1-2010 by beebs]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


According to this, the triangle formed should have its own significance, no? I mean, they went through all that trouble to erect 3 pyramids just to mark this triangle, for what? Is there anything "special" on the "points" of this triangle?

Originally posted by Maegnas
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Maegnas: According to this, the triangle formed should have its own significance, no?

SC: Precisely!!

Maegnas: I mean, they went through all that trouble to erect 3 pyramids just to mark this triangle...

SC: Not to "mark this triangle" but to IMPLY it to those that have the eyes and the "math to see". This triangle seems to be implied via the concavities of Khufu (G1) & Menkaure (G3) pyramids acting as indicators to latent triangle centroids. When we employ the 3 most ancient centroids to the 3 Giza pyramid centres this is the ONLY triangle we can reconstruct (with the barycentre through G1/G2 centre).

Maegnas: ...for what? Is there anything "special" on the "points" of this triangle?

SC: There is perhaps something of importance to be found under the sands at the apex point of this triangle hence why I have included the co-ordinates of the triangle apex point and also why I attempted to reach that location last year. See my responses to Julie Washington and Serbsta here.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
.... This triangle seems to be implied via the concavities of Khufu (G1) & Menkaure (G3) pyramids acting as indicators to latent triangle centroids. When we employ the 3 most ancient centroids to the 3 Giza pyramid centres this is the ONLY triangle we can reconstruct (with the barycentre through G1/G2 centre).

Hi Scott,

I've always been intrigued by your centroid theory, but quite honestly have struggled with the idea that this was deliberate on the part of the AE's when they designed the Giza Pyramids... deliberate in the sense that their intention was to incorporate concavities in just G1 and G3 for the purpose of implying a latent triangle, that when the geometry of which is worked out correctly, seemingly points to a spot in the desert for some reason...

When the pyramids were completely encased these concavities would not have been seen (am I correct?), which leads me to believe that the concavities were never meant to be seen. And too, that the only way to see these features is from high altitudes or satellite images...

When I try to work this out in my mind the AE's would have had to have known that at some point in the future the outer casing of G1 and G3 would be stripped completely to reveal their concavities which would only be available for viewing by those who would be able to notice it from high above and not by the ones who stripped the casing in the first place. Then once that happened the discoverers of these concavities would have to realize that they needed to form a latent triangle using these features (but why would they think to do this in the first place?). They then would have to suspect that this triangle if drawn correctly is pointing to a spot where a treasure of some kind is buried.

I guess you can sense my confusion and perhaps I'm completely missing the point.

Maybe you can shed some more light on it...

(PS I thought you started a thread a while back about this topic but couldn't find it, or else I wouldve posted my question in there?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Hi PhotonEffect,

PE: When the pyramids were completely encased these concavities would not have been seen (am I correct?), which leads me to believe that the concavities were never meant to be seen. And too, that the only way to see these features is from high altitudes or satellite images...

SC: These are good questions. First of all let me reiterate that the PRIMARY FUNCTION of the Gizamids is to serve as an astronomical clock/calendar that indicates 2 dates close to the 2 culminations of the Orion Belt stars.

The three Gizamids centres natutrally create a latent 3-centroid triangle whether this was desired or not (as do ANY 3 points). The triangle exists as a natural consequence of the centroid geometry. Now, if the designer's of Giza were aware of this - i.e. that the 3 centres of their clock/calendar possessed an inherent geometrical centroid triangle, the apex of which "points" to a location to the SW of G3 - then they could have utilised this natural geometry as a SECONDARY FUNCTION to "point" to this location and they may indeed be subtlely indicating this function to us by the inclusion of these very unique features in G1 & G3. This is to say that the Gizamids as an astronomical clock/calendar is not mutually exclusive with its secondary function of "pointing" to a specific location in the desert to the SW of G3.

As for the casing stones. Well, I have found there is some debate recently as to whether the Gizamids were entirely covered with casing stones. I believe the researcher Clive Ross has presented an argument which argues that the Gizamids were only partially encased.

Even if they were encased entirely, however, it would still have been possible to include the concavites of G1 & G3 into the casing blocks - we simply do not know if this was done since they are largely missing. And the concavities are not only noticeable from the air - in the right light it is entirely possible to observe them from ground level. I have managed to do this myself at Giza.

At the end of the day, the Giza Centroid Alignment is simply a hypothesis to offer an explanation for the very unique concavity features of G1 & G3. I readily accept that it may be completely off the mark. But I do not consider that it would be harmful to anyone for us to have a peek under the sands at the triangle's apex. Or would it?

Hope this helps answer your question.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

At the end of the day, the Giza Centroid Alignment is simply a hypothesis to offer an explanation for the very unique concavity features of G1 & G3. I readily accept that it may be completely off the mark. But I do not consider that it would be harmful to anyone for us to have a peek under the sands at the triangle's apex. Or would it?

Thank you for the clarification Scott. It makes a bit more sense to me now, and you're right in your assertion that the concavities could still have been seen even with the casing stones.

Either way, I'm with you in believing that there's no harm in doing a little digging out there to see if anything profound may exist beneath.... I'd imagine one wouldn't even have to dig that deep either before finding something... the fact that entire area is off limits for no real apparent reason certainly adds to the intrigue

I guess we're in a wait and see situation...

[edit on 26-1-2010 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by serbsta


This is a very interesting Thread , and could benefit from a broader view of the Possibilities that the great Pyrimid was used as a Power Generator by the so called " Gods " of the ancient egyptians . Here is a link to a site that explains in detail how it could of been used ......

sentinelkennels.com...

reply to post by serbsta


hello Serbsta,
I saw Zahi Hawass on a tv special ( I think the Osiris tomb one,there was an American female with him) towards the end of the program he says to this female presenter.....Of all the wonders of Egypt 70%is still buried under the sand.....

Well, that says to me that they, Egyptology has only 30% of the full picture of the AE story. Not much is it, particularly when they claim to be such authorities on the subject from start to finnish.

To hear this from the Egyptologists lord and master.....uuuhhhmmm...

"Put a Battery in the Sarcophagus" ...........

Thats what we need to do... Thats why it is there.



In doing so we will open up a big can of " Confirmation "......

Consider this , If the Pyramids are machines ... They need " Power" Because they are obviously not " Turned on " Right now.. , However they are still " Wired "..

This Sarcophagus is the key..

This would mean that we need to give them power.. Consider anything electronic nowadays or with circuits.. Like a walkman or mp3 player.. or many things for that example .... They need batterys... Something that we can charge or , that is allready charged to turn the thing on.

I had a dream where an entinty came and told me thses words and these words only..

" Put a battery in the Sarcophagus"...

Consider it and be wise my friends.










[edit on 13-2-2010 by gLuEBoY]

[edit on 13-2-2010 by gLuEBoY]

...Back to the interior of the room... no writings or anything.. perhaps this room was built first and later decieded to change up the placement of the room? simple and explains in a good way.

Originally posted by summerbreeze.ddp
reply to post by serbsta

 

Hawass should not be allowed to speak on the subject. I found this link that theorized the the Arc of the Covenant would have fit perfectly into the empty "toomb" in the King' s Chamber.

www.gizapyramid.com...

I have heard this more than once that the Arc was a capacitor and the Pyramid was a power station with the Arc as it's power source.

Thats exactly what the Arc was .. A capacitor... or " Battery "..

The High Priests of Ancient Egypt knew this Technology .. however , they kept this too themselves. Moses was royalty in Ancient Egypt.. He would have been privy to this knowledge.

He knew how to build this " Battery " ..

Just too let you know.. There is a differance between a Battery and a Capacitor..

Both do store energy, however the main difference is that a Capacitor stores it Electrostatically and a battery stores it chemically. Due to this difference, batteries are capable of storing far more energy than capacitors per volume or weight, on the order of a factor of roughly about 1000.

Moses would have needed exactly this to go through the " Wilderness"






[edit on 14-2-2010 by gLuEBoY]

So, tomorrow press conference regarding Tutankhamun's DNA.

www.drhawass.com...

reply to post by serbsta


Hawass has always been and continues to be a barrier to any kind of proper research regarding ancient Egyptian relics and their recovery.

He was sponsored by SRI (Stanford Research) through training at university and placed into his present position. What's a young Egyptian (then) being sponsored and groomed by an American research organisation back in the day?

As you say, since then he has been the 'authority' regarding antiquities and has the final say on any works or digs that go on. (or not)

If he doesn't decide to grant you a license to research, you don't do any.
The buck stops with him and only him. Why is America controlling who digs and what they dig in Egypt, and why would they wish to?