Some twenty or so years ago, Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert published the controversial book, 'The Orion Mustery' which postulated that the pyramids of Giza presented a unified layout based upon the asterism of the Orion constellation. With a few notable exceptions, most Egyptologists of the time instantly rejected such a notion, insisting that their view of the Giza pyramids as three discreet, royal funerary complexers was the correct view - and that there was no unified plan based around the Orion conste;llation. Of course, it is perfectly understandable why mainstream Egyptologists would dismiss such a notion since it essentially challenged the 'singularity' tomb theory.
Bauval showed that the three main pyramids at Giza were laid out on the plateau in a similar fashion to how the Belt stars of the Orion constellation appeared in the night sky. The pyramid pattern to the belt star pattern was very similar, although not a precise match. Whilst Bauval presented additional evidence in support of his theory from the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, he could not convince hidebound Egyptologists of the veracity of his theory. For their part, mainstream Egyptologists simply dismissed Bauval's Gizamid/Belt star correlation as nothing more than mere coincidence, insisting that there is a multitude of triads of stars that could better match the layout of the Giza pyramids. And so the argument raged from that time until now.
Hpwever, if Bauval had discovered 20 or so years ago the new information you are about to see (below), I rather doubt the Giza-Otion correlation he had made 20 or so years ago would today be considered as 'coincidence'. This new information effectively proves Bauval was correct all along and that the main Giza pyramids (AND the so-called Queens Pyramids) are indeed the result of a preconceived plan based around the stars of the Orion constellation.
But you be the judege. Analyse this....
The Giza-Orion Blueprint 2011
Edited by Scott Creighton, 04 November 2011 - 01:15 AM.